HomeMy WebLinkAbout111088 Min Packet + dl
PORT TOW S D, WASHINGTON
4 -
�1
1p
Port .Towns."'end Plannmg .Comm.ission
CITY C3F•PO IST TOWNSEND
t 1 t\ +
X. J' w F
• F '
.19 88
MINUTES OF, NOVEMBER 101)' Z
r J
# r
L opening Business and Roll Call;
Chairman Cannan" called the meeting'
1r/ rorder at T_.37 . i.
i
Members present were o Kosec, Bob Grimm, Karen Erickson, Don
Hoglund, and Jing Tav r a is. Chairman Carman declared a quorum. Also
present were City Planner Michael Hildt and Asst. Planner Kevin. O'Neill
Mr. Kosec moved to approve the r inut s of October 27, 1988 as distributed.
Ms. Ericksonr seconded and the motion ion p sled 5-0.9
ll. communications `
There were none. r
HL Old Bu5iness
a. Application No. 8809-03 Te rie Remington &;;_Yvonne .Pepin
Mr, Hildt .gave a- brief history of the home occupation ordinance. 'As
approved by the City Council, retail sales on prernies were. not to be
considered a hone occupation. .The chief concerns of those testifying 'at the
previous public hearings on the- matter were traffic, parking, depressed
property values.' and competition o ri •the downtown shopping district.
The present request is 'to delete the retail excl usior in -the• definition of a
home. occupation. The effect mould.-be.tto allow retail sales on premises.
Mr. Hildt presented various policy alter atives a ailable to the commission.
Mr. Grimm asked if any individual had' the right to request a hearing on a
zoning amendment.,
..
Mr. Hildt responded that anyone could propose an 1.arn ndment to the
zoning code;
Mr. Grimm asked why conditional use had been di'scar ed as an
alternative to the hone occupation ordinance. r�
11/10/88 a
4
# t � 4 • a
F•41
r
Chairman Carman thought that enforcement had been the issue, and
conditional use had not been seen as a viable alternative.
Mr. Hildt said that if the use did not meet the criteria for a home
occupation, conditional use would be an option if the use were conditional
in the zone. This i5 not true in the case of a gallery in an R-H zone.
The public testimony portion of the hearing was opened.
Yvonne Pepin, applicant, said that when she bought the property., her
realtor had been assured by lir. Strlckli ,, Public Works Director, that the
zoning would not be a problem for this type of operation. They inquired
about a parlance and were told that a showcase studio was acceptable.
She said traffic or parking would not be a problern as most of their
business is foot traffic. They do own another lot and could provide parking
if necessary. They prefer to have a "low key" operation. They feel their
presence has increased not decreased property ales. They do not
compete with the downtown galleries. They do not ih to set a precedent,
but only want their specific business approved in the R- H district. Retail
sales from the gallery is a small part of their income.
Barbara Bogart, adjacent property owner, said she felt the.gallery
increased her property value. She did not think that parking had been a
problem. She favored allowing retailing as part of a hone occupation
either on arterial streets, or when what was sold was made at the
residence. As a real estate agent, she did not feel that cottage industry
detracted from the downtown businesses, as it appeals to a► different
market. She thought home occupation should be encouraged as a means of
making a lin ing here and preventing Port Townsend frorn becoming a
retirement community. F
Peter Allem spoke In f avor of allowing retail sales as an option in a home
occupation. He felt home occupations were important to the torn, and did
not think traffic would be a problem.
An unidentified man thought the fire department caused more of a
parking problem than a home occupation.
The public testimony portion of the hearing was closed.
Committee Report; ibis Erickson wondered whether the lack of apparent
public interest in the proposed amendment was because the ad had not
mentioned that the amendment involved the definition of a horne
occupation.
Chairman carman read the published notice, which did mention home
occupation and the effect if the request were to be adopted.
Mr. Hildt passed out a list of home occupation permits issued to date.
2 11110/$$ ak
1
Mr. Tavernakis said that the list of five businesses was not representative
of the horse occupation issue. He said it was difficult to know where to
draw the line in permitting retail- sales. Businesses needed to be dealt with
on a case by case basis. He asked the applicants if they sold anything they
did not reale thernselve . They responded that they do not. He asked
what proportion of their total inorne carne frorn retail sales. They replied
#'minuscule' . e asked if there had ever been any complaints about their
business. They said that there have been none.
Mr. Grirnrn thought the Uptown Gallery was an addition to Port Townsend
that should be encouraged. His difficulty with the request was that it
addressed not only the Uptown Gallery,, but the entire city via a zoning
amendment. He thought incidental retail sales had been considered
acceptable when the home occupation ordinance wa3 adopted. He granted
conditional use to be ars option in R -I, -Ii, or -III. He didn't want retail
sales in home occupations throughout the entire city on any basis.
Ms Erickson wondered homer incidental retail sales could be enforced. She
also objected to opening up retail sales in horne occupations city-wide.
Mr. Tavernakis thought that incidental retail sales had been accepted as
part of a home occupation. He asked if the Uptown Gallery could be
thought of as having incidental retail sales.
Mr. Kosec pointed out that there was no definition of incidental retail sales.
Mr. Grimm asked if there was any feeling on the part of the City council
that the entire issue of home occupation ought to be looped at again. He
did not errant to revise the ordinance in order to handle an individual
situation, though he thought there ought to be a mechanism to approve of
the gallery as it is operated.
Mr. Hildt said that unless the proposed change was adopted, the gallery
would have to change their way of, doing business. He had recommended a
zoning amendment in order to deal with the problem as opposed to a
rezone of the neighborhood.
Mr. Taverna is wanted to ask the staff to define incidental retail sales.
Mr. Hildt said this would involve amending the zoning code to allow
incidental sales as part of a home occupation. In spite of commission
members feeling that this had already been dome, it was not in writing.
Patti Sullivan suggested differentiating between retail and wholesale by
-whether or not sales tax was collected.
Mr. Hildt said the accepted definition of a retail sale was a sale to the
ultimate consumer.
The commission reviewed the policy options presented by staff.
3 11/to/as
i
Chairman Carman suggested staff be instructed to prepare an ordinance
including a conditional use mechani5m for recommending approval of home
occupations involving limited retail sales.
Ms. Pepin said she would prefer to have the ordinance amended. She
ue tioned the permanence of a conditional use permit.
Mr. Hildt said that such permits stayed with the property in perpetuity.
The City Council can require a yearly review. The permit could not be
rescinded without a public hearing. He clarified that ghat the commission
granted was an amendment which would give those home occupations
involving incidental retail sales the option of applying for a conditional use
pewit,, the granting of which could ultimately be up to the City Council.
Those not involving retail sales would remain an administrative decision.
Mr. Grimm moved ed to ask the staff to prepare an ordinance as suggested
by Chairman Carman. Ms. Erickson seconded and the motion passed 5-0.
b. Application No. 10-01 Keith Jackson
Conditional Use
Application No. 8811-01
Variance
Mr. O'Neill presented the staff report (attached). The applicant proposes to
establish light manufacturing on the second floor of the Janes and
Hastings Building at 938 Water Street. In addition, the applicant is
requesting a variance from the parking requirement of four spaces. The
applicant had received a conditional use permit for the third floor of the
Mr. Baker Block. However,er, there were problems bringing the building up
to code, and she has had to make other arrangements.
ts.
Mr. Tavernakis clarified that the stipulation in condition #1 regarding
"additional lessees" parking outside of the downtown parking district had
been in the original application. The original application was granted for
the entire floor of the MoUnt Baker Block.
The public hearing portion of the meeting , as opened.
Hirai Henley said she had- no objection to condition #1 requiring the
employees to park outside of the downtown parking district.
Mr. Tavernakis clarified that Keith Jackson is the new owner of the
property in question.
The public hearing portion of the meeting was closed.
Committee Report: Ms. Erickson asked if the parking variance applied to
the entire second flog or gust to the light manufacturing use.
11/10/88 a
Mr. O'Neill said the conditional use is for the entire second floor. If a lessee
were to change the use, the parking needs would need to be reexamined.
The parking requirement to which the variance applies is based on a light
manufacturing acturing use of the second floor.
Mr. Taverna is said he had concerns about safety and proper building
maintenance. He also understood the desire to preserve old buildings. He
considered the f act that a conditional use had been granted for a very
similar application, at a very similar location, to be a special circumstance
in f aor of granting the application.
Chairman Carman pointed out that condition #5 addressed the concerns of
the fire chief.
Mr.. Taverna is moved to recommend approval of Application No. 8810-01
for a conditional use and No. 8811-01 for a variance, along with adoption of
the findings of fact, conclusions, and conditions of approval as presented by
staff, with the amendment of condition #1 to state, after the word "lessee",
11 of similar or established use". IIs. Erickson seconded and the motion
passed -o.
i
C. Application No. 8810-03 Sonya Miller
Street Vacation
Mr. O'Neill presented the staff report (attached). The request is to vacate
that portion of platted alley located in Block 4, James Hussey's Addition.
He passed out draft B recommending denial of the request, written after
the department dead check list had been received indicating opposition to
the request on the grounds that the right-of-moray might be needed for
future traffic circulation. The City council Street Committee met
November ember , 1988 to address the issue of the entire alley.
Mr. Hildt explained that the city Council is reviewing the situation because
neighbors have objected to the 25 foot right-of-way.ay. The northern half o
the T--shaped tura around was granted to the City without cost by Sonya
Miller. Access through to Hendricks is one possibility being considered. The
City Council is unlikely to agree to vacate the requested portion of the alley
until they have established satisfactory access to the properties in the
area, and established that public safety and utility needs will be met.
Mr. Kosec asked how the fire feet on either side of the original 15 foot alley
had been acquired by the City.
Mr. Hildt said that a five foot easement had been retained at the time of
the sale of the properties and subsequently conveyed to the City.
The public hearing portion of the meeting was opened.
Sona Miller, applicant, said she thought that giving the City land f or the
turnaround would sole the access problem. She has requested the
vacation because she is selling the house, and the bank has indicated that
the alley should be vacated. She thinks the fact that the house is on the
National Historic Register ought to be considered. Talks are ongoing with
the City to effect a trade and have the alley exit elsewhere.
Walt Cook, property owner on Hendricks street, was opposed to the
alternative of continuing the access through to Hendricks. He said that
Hendricks, although platted as a large street, is narrow and undeveloped at
present. He asked that the request be put on hold until the City Council
has made its decision concerning the alley.
Daniel Fountain, owner of property adjacent to the alley, applied to have
the alley vacated tiro-three years ago and was denied. For reasons of
safety, he is opposed to its being used as a primary access. He had been
told that the alley would never be developed. He does not oppose the
requested vacation,
Gary Wiles, owner of Los 13 & 14, said that when he purchased his
property he was assured that the alley was legal access. His building
Permit is on hold until the matter is settled. He favored the alley
continuing through to the north, perhaps with a jog. However, he does
not object to the hammer head turn around. The City would have to
purchase property in order to take the access out to Hendricks. He also
asked that the request be put on hold until the City Council had made its
decision.
Matti Sullivan asked what the concern of the fire chief had been.
Mr. Hildt said that the concern had been for the future needs.
Chairman Carman clarifled that the street had been made from quit claim
deeds for easements on either side.
Nancy Lohse, property owner on Hendricks Street, testified in opposition to
the access involving Hendricks.
Erin Sage said that the alley where it was platted through Sondra Miller's
lot was still only 15 feet wide, and therefore not a viable option for a
street.
Barbara Bogart asked what the procedure was ' o obtain access for
landlocked lots.
Chairman Carman said that the alley was a platted right-of-way and was
considered legal access. If the alley were to be vacated, vacation of the lot
lines could prevent the creation of land locked lots. This ought to have
been done gears ago.
11/10/88 ak
Sonya MIller said she had contactedthe Historical Society in Olympia about
the legality of maintaining the property in one piece.
Ms. Sae clarified that if the re nest were granted, the lot lines between
the six lots owned by Ms. Miller would be vacated, and it would become
one piece of property.
Henry Lohse asked who would be responsible for the maintenance of the
road which would be created to access onto Hendricks.
Chairman Carman said he would have no way of determining that.
Mr. Lohse said he had been told the adjacent property owners would be
responsible. He , as not in favor of this.
r
Ann Cook asked if the request were to be granted, whether this would
preclude the alternative involving the Jog.
Chairman carman said it would remove that option.
Ms. cook asked that all options be kept open.
Mr. Miles asked if the lot limes were vacated, whether the property could
be subdivided at a later date.
R
Chairman Carman said the property would have to be platted in
accordance with the short subdivision process.
Ms. Cook said she would prefer that the access go out to Sheridan rather
than Hendricks. This would be a less costly alternative.
The public testimony portion of the hearing was closed.
Committee Report: Mr. Kosec recommended the matter be continued. Mr.
Hoglund moved to continue the hearing to the next regular meeting,
December 8, 1988. Mr. Koseo seconded and the motion passed 5-0 with Mr.
Taverna is abstaining.
IV. New Business
a. Application 11o. 8811-02 Vardon Tremain
Variance
The hearing was scheduled for December 2 , 1988. The committee will be
Ms. Sherwood and Mr. Kose .
b. Application No. 8811-03 Jim and Cappy Mathias
Variance .
11/10/88 a
O�q< The hearing was scheduled for December 2 , 1988. Thecommittee will be
Ms. Sherwood ood and Mr. Ta erns is.
V. Announcements
The next meeting will be December 8, 1988. The commission ission r, ll hear the
continuation of the hearing on Application No. 8810-03 by Sonya biller for
a street vacation, and Application No. 8810-02 by William and Marcel
Miller for a conditional use. The commission will also make a
determination as to whether or not the proposed change3 to the Townsend
Meadows Planned Unit Development require a public hearing, and hold a
workshop on parking for uses in buildings constructed prior to 1971 and
allowable able uses in the R-IA zoning district.
1. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 10:45 .M.
Alice Kiri
8 11/10/88 a
t
Planning comm i s ; on
From : Michael Hildt
Executive Assistant and Planner
Date : November 4 , 1988
Subject : Zoning Amendment ReqUest No . 8809-03 , Request of
Ter•rie Remington and Yvonne Pepin-, dba Uptown
Gallery, for an amendment to Home Occupation
provisions of Title 1 zoning of the Port
Townsend Municipal Code .
I . Background
A . Crren` --pr _ls_ion� . In April. of 1936 , after many
meetings , hearings and revisi
w
je
retail sales on the premises of home occupations .
The Uptown Gallery is currently operated contrary to the
zoning code because retail sales are not permitted in the -
I zone in which the property is located . A Home Occupat-Lun
Permit Application was denied because the definition _L numtj
Occupation expressly excludes retail sales on premises .
Although the art works are created at the house and many are
sold through area galleries , the artists also sell their
works on premises , advertise the Gallery and participate in
Gallery Walks .
III . Policv _A..Jlernalives .
A . Allow retail sales in all home occupations by deleting
the retail exclusion from the definition of Home
Occupation . (Remington-Pepin request. )
. Advantages
a . Assist small and part-time home businesses ;
support local artists .
2 . Disadvantages
a . Potential adverse impacts on residential
neighborhoods (traffic , parking, etc. ) .
b. Potential dispersion of retail activity away
from established retail centers ; reduced
demand for space in commercial areas .
E. Allow retail sales in home occupation' under certain
circumstances .
1 . Allow retail sales in home occupations which are
located on arteria streets designated in the
Comprehensive Plan .
IThe following are shown as arterials in the Comprehensive
Plan : 20/Sims/Water, Disc . Road to San Juan, Kearney to Plaine
to 19th to San Juan to 49th, Hastings to Discovery Road, Lawrence
from Kearney to Monroe , and Monroe from Lawrence to dater .
Another alternative would be to include collector streets in
addition to arteria. .
Planning Commission Page 2
Ad n t cage s
Assist some small and part-time home
businesses ; support some local artists .
(2 ) Less potential adverse impacts than
Alternative A.
. Disadvantages
1 Fewer home occupations would be
assisted .
Potential adverse impacts on residential
neighborhoods on arterial. streets .
3 Some , though less , potential retail
dispersion , etc .
2 . Allow retail sales in home occupations if sales
are restricted to works created in the home by
residents of the home .
a . Advantages
1 Some assistance to small , home
businesses ; support local artists .
2 Less potential, for adverse neighborhood
impacts than Alternative A.
Similar to traditional, oo stage 'Industry
level of activity.
b. Disadvantages
1 Fewer home occupations assisted.
More potential for neighborhood impacts
than Alternative -1 .
( 3) Some Potential retail dispersion .
(4) Difficult to enforce .
3 . Allow retail sales in home occupations which are
located on arterial streets if sales are
` restricted to works created in the home b
Planning Commission Page 3
residents of the home .
a . Advantages
1 Assist some small businesses and
arti, t .
2 Much less potential for adverese
neighborhood impacts or retail
dispersion .
( 3) Very similar to traditional cottage
industry level of activity .
b. Disadvantages
( 1 ) Assist fewer small bLI finesses .
2 Some potential adverse neighborhood
impacts .
3 Same enforcement diffiCLIlty as
Alternative B-2 .
C . Other Alternatives
These might include allow-ing in -II and -III zones ,
but not R-1 ; expanding to include collector streets in
addition to arterials ; allowing only "incidetal retail
sales" ; etc .
D. Deny request for amendment
1 . Advantages
a . No potential for increased adverse impacts o'n
neighborhoods .
b. No potential increase in retail dispersion .
C . Potential adverse neighborhood impacts from
Uptown Gallery retail activity would be
e1.iinated .
2 . Disadvantages
a . Small businesses and local artists would not
be further assisted by allowing retail sales
in home occupations .
Planning commission Page
r
i
1 �
. Uptown Gallery would have to either
discontinue retail sales on premises or mare
within a commercially-zoned area .
I . Proposed Process
A . Nearing on request .
B. Planning Commission poli y decision directs staff
preparation of ordinance . (See proposed decision
agenda , attached . )
C . Advertised hearing on draft ordinance ..
D. Planning Commission's recommendation to City Council .
E . Advertised hearing before City Council .
F . City Council decision .
G. ordinance publication , if passed by City Council .
H. Amendment effective fire days after publication.
0
Planning Commission decides to recommend rejecting
request, staff simply reports that recommendation to City
Council , which may concur or direct staff to prepare ordinance
and advertise Council hearing.
Planning Commissio age 5
PORT TOW 18 N . WA19HINGTON 993368 ID
400,t
PortTownsend Plani. Commvioxon
CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LANN I N COMMI S I
8
Ties : 'f a r i an to A p, � • '���- � . PERA11 Jackson
i Yql
37EKSIPIKANNA C m z ii d it t i o M 10
■i i..r..L 4 r"��r 7�+� it• art i r +,/*... MZ I&V#+I L 0# 02. 10%v a i.r i.+ a a c
i • I'� ' _ I � ~ t
1 1 #+f 1 { }�c itf t 1 f i + �++F�� .�\`� i�#.y •`{Y-'1� �I A {}�� 1 4 y t Y�I i• 'T Y ;it�f�� •rt rt rt A
i4 #�+� S/y���Y 3� Y+�`�#i ��i1 i i i�*� �•i�� 4./a�� � +✓� 1 1��F
• f
Y 1.,.'1#u " �r....1 '•,r..i t Y//Y�� 'w I, }`A'#, _ t r ,,rY + : t -
+
+
The app!
+ s i a rit pq ,7 s e z t � -' mst a�w l`�} �'.ra a 1,
�g hV t a fn� f a cyrii a g
k�+ �t�tr s . 1' -3
{� : +wY� ��� •� 7 SEW
*�,� �,.nt r'wl ��� ��r 11�-�.� � ' � � L+
�./i �:s r v as v C;1�;..r 3 7� ,:� �r a ria 1 S E�v it .1 r 1 d..t� �� rte. �.1 j&IS 73 U i .�1-411 L a �=t+ ( �V
� .may building
� � +�+e•�_ r
t H L:r * The
t 3 *f i ++ w ,r 1 �� � •i rt #ri +. .� �1)
• t fi .on L�an
�r+r� Street .#/� •��r�r rt.#r ��.r+.r��'+..�. 1:1 -..+�..r� +..�� :.�1�+fir L..�/!�� ' #�� i�w.+r... ��r�J�4■� ��t� �.r
� �y�� / � f����i ��f� *a��w''r �F i�i � �+til.�#.i .�i;{t� 1- +*� • f� � 1� ��1 Y `�r ti� Mie
4, 000 ..r' wj� 4 ,.d k/ : �R,F i4 o s 4�F+..+�,rrN�R -r/ L�. MY wr V i Y'n 1 * . 2 ISI r V � "�
' a�a`r f.r�Y.l "D G L4 a�.1.Y. This r .err+y f..�l t s "� -a P*4��r�i•�� r+fir q�.r�r�r +,r r n e#��I - f f i-% e
IS�"l �k�,�.►� . �� + ��`Y' �u'�� �r�r+.ri�tl 3�+rt *#� ill
fi � L + Mike
l+'A 1 w ;r� y�,�9
�. �. �_. ht' 1 01� A R .... i� r i h i � ,MikeDowntown T H:r :01
i c t# i1 1 es five ��
"IL!i y.A;ri sa r h; =41
INK11ced to .5 erc+mo, t f
4.n e( i�em t . f-:ter a i?e
total of flDur zpaces ( 17 - 28 - 100 ,
P s t Townsend municipal Code) . The applicant iii requesting
--rariance from hi z par!-:ing i emen c. .
r +h� Ya■aa s and Hastings
Building, c o mortwc d in 1889 , ia
three s `:� building located
on the northeast corner of Tyler and
Water Streets in the C-Iii zon'ing ' ist c t. The first floor of
Was
huilding
is
used
;E retail
3l riF TL a i f
our aPartiment units
a-,. 10C S t8 d 0I1 1115 1: 1.4!37 i Ito 0 rr The buiidiI g i.s is 2:17 rQ.:r 11deti 0)r'l
all sides by commercial , to : : . Also, an f- tr e t a.%... in
area own�d by i yrson County is located tcjY the north i the
building.
with a sportswear manufacturing businesz . The
M i na l Eix tl 1.' 'j.:laws , c om :.i o n ni r Use per--jiit in
March, 1988 , to locate on the third f loo, ' cf the aker 1ock-
One condition placedon that permit was that t all :-= l !�: iz f the
rG U I I b a r a'.. t r„r d 1:01 pars '.I tA ns !m e ':�f :t1I Downtown,
Parking
ark# ng4IL1 14 1#1
te1;10i} r11 CI l a 2j121,
p rt i•z a t states
tt s t it a
*rt i r ti.r r.r zad a 1s�n l�gaS T1 1 • rt WHEN!
E + ir rr
Planning Commission Page 2
The applicant maintains that the proposed light
manufacturing use is not expected to generate much traffic or
parking demand. The applicant estimates that, other than traffic
generated b employees ,, oil . one vehicular trip per day would be
generated by the proposed use, that being ifor pick-up and
delivery
Conclusions
1 . The proposed variance would not amount toa
rezonenod
constitute change in the district b�*undaries 5hown on the
official zoning map.
1 . The proposed manufacturing use is expected to generate very
little parking and traffic impact o the downtown business
district, particularly if the use is conditioned so that
employees will be required to park outside of the Downtown
Parking District . Therefore, special conditions e:•_fist which are
pe u l ar to the j ect property and are not applicable to other
lands in the district.
The variance requested would not confer a special privilege
to the subject property that is denied to other lands in the same
district. 4
. In that the proposed use is not expected to produce
significant traffic or parking impact, the granting of the
variance would not be detrimental to the public welfare or
injurious to the property or improves en is in the vicinity an i
zone in which the property is located.
5 . The reasons set forth in the above-referenced application
justify the granting of the variance and the variance is the
minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use o
the land.
6. Because the granting of the variance would be In harmony
with the general purpose and intent of Title 1 zoning the
Fort Townsend Munlcipad. Code, the Planning ommls i n recommends
that the above-referenced variance be GRANTED.
Respectfully submitted on behalf of the Port Townsend Planning
dorm sson,
James Tavernakis , chr. , Review Committee
r
■
rte+
c`
PORT TOWNSEND. WASMINOTON 919368 -
Pont Tow send Plann g Co osion•
CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND
J'TKbj4d§ c CONCLUSIONS THE PLANNING --GOMM,
-, U
Re : Condi tonal .z �� .L . - ` _L , Keith Jackson
i
f L e. r c t'l u cons ice. a ion of �he ab � _vef er nced _
caJ0toi n -1.31.1 0 .�:3��i �+�"].� �tion ';��, the prop --y n
} LIm 1 {; �i �` ar?P'-�# /-1? i`" i' rire� z ?7
yr 11 x 7T # �1/�y! * t •'♦1 i+. }fr��yy�f i 1 } + / �r; k*�i !+mak # rL"w � i+�` �.
i# ## r i/ r.4A+r # + .. V 1.+# tir tir.r yr' ti.+ti # M i i i ry .l •...rr V r r+
r err i ll* r 1.+#•6. 4•tir i a r� . v■ ..r '
i
wa ted' S tree t. T hbum dJn g -i S I n the C- a� zoning
d1 s tr.1.c t. Ord,i n nc No, o 2, pas sed y t 1 t n�. I �.
March, 1988 , amended Sectio_ 17 . 18 . 010 Of the Port Townsend
Munici i Code to allow li t anu actur�nas a. cond.!.tional use
in historic but i gs in .0h ���� di zst i t, Sau ct to
rest i t-ionz �.q1 t m i ,� L-.uriia n ,_L wa l condom to* -nal
use in i3; ui�dLn s , including the., �Ja 3es and Hastings
Building.
2. The James and HaS.)-tAngs Building contains t #ee s tori es and
was built in 1.889. The first floor of the building is used as
retail space, and four apartment units are located on the third
floor. On the second floor are an oiffice, a s a.11 studio, and a
large vacant area proposed for the light manufacturing use. The
building is classified aS a primary historical structure In the
design ta.on of the Port To� nsend Hi; toric is tr-ict.
3. The applicant propo-stto initiallyini-IC.-ially occupy pp i rely
2, 000 square feet of the second floor with s oras •e x
manui ct ring bum-i. ,�s . i t i z n t ,.c_L pct t ed, h o w e v e r, t h at .1 jg= 1t
Manu.L a L'P.ur_Lng us6E, m%=.y be expanded d t occupy al]. of the
a di;io l spac-- on 16.-he second floor~, whi-zh is a pp roxid mate1
4 , 000 square feet In gross floor re%=-*A. The p l,-_�po e` business,
Scr amin' I i -i n ter —ise , ]received a c ondl Cionai use Permit'- in
March, 1988 , to ii-Dte on the th.-*L Lrd floor of the Mt . Bake,. Block.
4
. he proposed b _1 e wo l d e p io s�.:p �opi e '� i: g in two
s if t . h � proposed hr.3u s f op r tion would be f roi 7 : 00 AM t k
10 : 'I. Jnt i wails would b removed cn the second floor to
nits i.1 iF F+�.� riot a
d a t h E5 13 u is i 11
to IF n The R n ova 1. on
rt ii no
t t e
a? ; ' 'L the architecturally or WiStOrRAGA& Siggrnificant a es
r
�' U 1 }+� square
�• •+• jylr;ctzs floor n c 1 h
appappl.j.cant is request i ng that the ent i re 44 , 000 square f oo t area
the second floor be permi t ted for light manufacturing use , this
results i n a r. ring r e ui em;1 t of five spaces . Since the
proposed use is within the Downtown tParking i tric , he five
required spaces are reduced to 75 percent of the requirement, for
required total f four spaces ( 17 . 28 . 100 , Port Townsend
..unicipal CDde) . The applicant is requesting a variance from
this parking requirement.
Conclusion3
The
as �+V L 1 ,�r t i ti/4 i ti..r�. # no--., r ,..�{.� a+ �.�r r ti./��� u b i .� health +4 3..r���/// , *4+..+.
will nuisance be created .
G . The proposed use will be required tt ince t all of the
conditions and ecif is ions set forth in the -III sone in
rich the property is located.
'' The proposed use will not be injuriouz or detrimental to the
adjoining or abutting property.
. Because the proposed use will provide a viable economic use
Within an historic building without altering the architecturally
or historically significant features of the building, the
location and character of the uze willin harmony with she
area in which it '.s located anin general conformity with the
Comprehensive Plan.
. The proposed use will not occupy street le;gel space which is
better suited for retail sales or services .
. The second floor location of the proposed use rakes the
location impractical for the uses permitted in she C-III zoning
di3trict, as evidenced y its current t v oanstatus .
In consideration of the aforementioned fin in s and conclusions,
the Piannirig Con s s i on recommends that the applicatlon b
GRANTED AS CONDITIONED
houlci the City Council grant the applicant' s
application for a patlking variance, each employee or
le-Fsee shall e required by the applicant to park
outzi e of the Downtown Pa kin is tric during working
hours .
}
s
ii
PlanningMMISS1o.1 Page
2 . Should the City Council deny the applicant' s
0.
application dor a parking variance,e, the applicant will
be required to provide four off-street parking spaces
or the proposed use. Parking facilities for uses
within the J7:11•!7fi==g District may be located
W1301141141 Vi "n i z'-1 rruin d i a t e ly adjacent the o wn t*wn
Parking District ( 17 - 28 - 020 , t TDwnsencd Municipal
Code) .
. Noise leve!s shall comply with all applicable local
state and federal laws and regulations .
. Operations shall not ccmmence earlier than AM or
continue later than 10 : ' M.
It is understood that 'nie Ur�if cirm Building code and
Uniform Fire Code apply and imust be metrfor t
6 . Light S .3 lal l Ufa t expand to areas
other than the second f l.-Dor without e.xpress approval b
•
amendment o the conditional use perzmi t by the Board
Adjustment .
7 . if a building permit and/or occupancy permit is not
obtained for subject property within one year from the
date of the board' s decision, the conditional use
permit scall be cancelled and automatically become null
and void ( 17 . 64 . 070 , Port Townsend nicl ai Code) .
Respectfully submitted on behalf of the Port Townsend Planning
James Tavern a is , Chr. , Review Committee
(7:14
Do you wish to
NAME (please print) ADDRESS present testimony?
YES NO
Of E]
,401�
IL
FDtk&--r.�( ti7
P TG 2 N /�--�—Et�l 1=�r.»s -P T (81 O
,QAR/3<7/t'A ��ARr 7i6 J7. ,�> R ❑
--��")V, �.�,��� � � O
' O D
Io 111�
-A- azz -.4e,, �
CV/0O
qI�[/J ^ �- ❑ O
`✓4r'�zf->OAJ 1110 WILL- OI-J ( �
UicTvz� �t � rte - o h� Asa, — O
i D
NAME 1please printl ADDRESS Do you wish topresent testimony?
YES NO
MINI IIL,NI-W� I,J�LScN �f' ❑
El 0
0 El
r I El
El El
❑ El
a o
0 0
0 0
a ❑
❑ o
a o
❑ a