HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007.08.06 - John Watts Email to Kathy RobertsPage 1 of 2
Judy Surber
From: John Watts
Sent: Monday, August 06, 2007 5:56 PM
To: Kathy Roberts (supercub75p @hotmail.com); Michelle Sandoval
Cc: Judy Surber
Subject. Roberts - Port Townsend
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Completed
Kathy Roberts - This is a follow up to our conversation August 3rd.
1. The City has not received any application for a critical areas permit. You said you have prepared one, but
apparently it has not been submitted, perhaps because discussions were occurring between Judy Surber
and Loggy and Michelle concerning the critical areas ordinance and reasonable use issues.
2. Any application would have to comply with the submittal requirements.
3. Submittal requirements are set forth at PTMC 19.05.040 (E) -- Application Requirement and Delineation.
The City code is available on line at www,cityofpt.cs.) The application and submittals are prepared by the
applicanttowner or applicant's consultant.
4. Because wetlands are clearly present on the site, a wetland special report is required (prepared by the
applicant or applicant's consultant). PTMC 19.05.110(1) Wetlands Delineation Report and Certified
Boundary Survey, Wetlands Special Report, Assessment of the Compensatory Mitigation Site. These
reports are often combined into one document. Planning Dept. recommends that your wetlands consultant
continue to periodically check in with staff as he/she progresses on the drafting of the reports.
5. The application for development would have to show how the proposed development meets the
requirements for development under the Critical Area Ordinance (CAO), for example, how the development
meets the Performance Standards of PTMC 19.05.060 and 19.05.11 OD.
6. This can include use of buffer modification and averaging as set forth in section 19.05.110 (E)
7. If application of the CAO standards prevents development on the site, then per section .050(D), the
applicant applies for a modification of the standards based on reasonable use. The reasonable use
application requirements are set forth in .050(D). Again, it is the applicant's or applicant consultant's
responsibility to provide the required information in connection with a proposed reasonable use.
8. There is no special form for applying for reasonable use modification under section .050(D).
9. As we discussed last Friday, and set forth in my July 23 letter, I see the first question as being was lot 10
legally separated from lots 1 -9. If so, then any wetland application or application for reasonable use would
apply to lots 1 -9 only (and separately, lot 10 could apply for their own project including reasonable use
exception).
10. 1 have heard nothing from Mr. Horton. I will advise you if and when I do.
11. My letter states it appears lot 10 was not legally separated from lots 1 -9, based on the documents I have
reviewed, and asks if there are other documents I am not aware of or analysis you can provide.
12. If lot 10 was not legally separated from lots 1 -9, then the problem becomes more complicated. The
question becomes, is there under the CAO standards only one developable site on lots 1 -10 (considered
8/15/2007
Page 2 of 2
as a single parcel), or are there two or more developable sites under the CAO standards. Your consultant
would need to submit materials under the CAO standards for the development you are applying for (one
site or more).
13. What is "reasonable use" turns on a number of factors and involves application of takings and due process
principles. A use may be "reasonable" to the extent it avoids a taking or due process violation.
14. Without a wetland application and submittals from you, the City can't say if there would be development
allowed on your property that complies with the CAO standards.
15. If no development is allowed that complies with the CAO standards and therefore you are asking for a
reasonable use modification, then preliminarily it appears to City staff: that reasonable use may be one
single family residence on the site consisting of lots 1 -10.
16. If lot 10 was legally separated from lots 1 -9, then reasonable use for lot 10 would appear to be one single
family residence, and reasonable use for lots 1 -9 would also appear to be one single family residence
17. This position is preliminary only, and we would of course review any information you provide that shows
reasonable use to be other than stated above. Until the wetland analysis is done for lots 1 -10, and
application for permits made, the City cannot say if there is only one site or more than one site for lots 1-
10.
18. If you submit an application for lots 1 -9 before you or Mr. Horton provide any information on whether lot 10
was legally separated, then the City will have to determine if lot 10 was legally separated, or not, based on
the information we have, and then review any application accordingly.
19. Finally, we discussed a possible City purchase. The issue for a City purchase becomes valuation, and that
turns on development rights, and whether lot 10 is a stand alone lot or not. If lot 10 is a stand alone lot,
with development potential of one single family site, and lots 1 -9 also have development potential of one
single family site, then there would be greater value in the property. If lot 10 is a stand alone site, the City
may still be interested in purchasing lots 1 -9 as one transaction.
20. You asked about next steps. As stated in my July 23 letter, do you have any documents or analysis that
shows lot 10 was legally separated from lots 1 -9 before the 1992 CAO?
I appreciate this is very complicated. Again, as set forth in my letter, the City is trying to sort this out and follow its
codes. Let me or Judy Surber of the Planning Dept. know if you have any questions.
John Watts
City Attorney - City of Port Townsend
250 Madison Street, Suite 2
Port Townsend, WA 98368
Telephone: 3601379 -5048 Fax: 3601385 -4290
8/15/2007