HomeMy WebLinkAbout083090 Min Ag
"'''£ity of Port Townse'
Planning Commission
540 Water St., Port Townsend, WA 98368 206/385.3000
e
.
Meeting of AUgust 30, 1990
I. Roll Call
Mr. Kosec called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m. Other members
present were Karen Erickson, sally McDole and Alan Carman. Also
present was Planning and Building Director Michael Hildt.
II. Reading and Approval of Minutes
Ms. Erickson moved to approve the minutes of August 16, 1990 as
distributed. Ms. McDole seconded and all were in favor.
III. Communications
Mr. Hildt asked the commission if they had received notification of
an upcoming planning and zoning seminar. The commission did not
receive the notice. A copy will be forwarded in the next
information packets.
4IÞ IV. Old Business:
A. Conditional Use Permit, 8912-07, Douglass and Nancy Lamy
1. Staff Review
The commission received a revised application and plan from the
applicants and a memo from Mr. Hildt dated August 24, 1990. Mr.
Hildt explained to the commission that the proposed project would
not be allowed under the existing interim controls ordinance and
that the application currently has not been reviewed by the
Historic Preservation commission.
Lois Sherwood joined the Commission at this time.
Mr. Hildt recommended that the project be denied without prejudice,
making no judgement on the application but allowing the city
Council to review the project under the future regulations. A
second suggestion would be to continue the hearing until the
interim controls are lifted.
The complete project as revised would result in 12 residential
hotel units. Mr. Hildt recommended the applicant work with the
historic preservation commission and participate in the waterfront
plan.
~e Ms. McDole asked about the Historic Preservation commission
·..'
.
e
-
..
e
e
Planning Commission-August 30, 1990
Page 2 of 8
determination. Mr. Hildt stated the project had not yet been
reviewed by the Commission.
Mr. Carman stated that the council could just deny the project if
the Planning commission were to pass the application along without
recommendations.
2. Public Testimony
Mr. Lamy stated that he would appreciate a conditional approval of
his proposal. Mr. Lamy stated that the draft as presented was a
good one.
Public testimony was closed
3. Committee Report
Ms. Erickson left the room due to a possible conflict in interest.
Ms. McDole asked Mr. Hildt for clarification on the letter from the
applicant dated August 15, 1990. Mr. Lamy stated that the letter
was intended to amend the application to include the change in the
previous conditional use permit. Some discussion followed over the
proposed amendment to the application.
The commission reviewed the required parking spaces for the
completed project.
Ms. Sherwood asked the applicant to what extent the waterfront plan
regulations may have on his project. Mr. Lamy stated that he did
not feel his project would be denied by the Council. Ms. Sherwood
stated that acting on the application now may create a problem for
the applicant later with the possible change in the waterfront
regulations.
Mr. Lamy asked the Commission if they would approve the application
if the interim controls were not in place. Mr. Hildt explained
that the waterfront was currently subject to interim control
regulations and that the commission must base its decisions under
the current regulations. The current interim ordinance expires
October 3, 1990. The city Council may extend the expiration date.
Mr. Carman stated that the application has been under modification
since December and that the Commission has been indecisive. He
stated the applicant had first asked for 13 units and now is
proposing 12.
Ms. McDole stated that she felt it was not the commission's fault
that the process has been delayed. She stated that the proposal
has had so many changes it has been impossible to act.
·
e
e
Planning commission-August 30, 1990
4IÞ Page 3 of 8
Ms. Sherwood stated that the applicant has been aware of the
interim ordinance since its inception, and the Commission is not
responsible for the delay.
Ms. McDole stated that this is the first time the Commission has
seen a complete project.
Mr. Carman moved to approve application 8912-07, Conditional Use
Permit, Douglass and Nancy Lamy, adopting the Findings of Fact and
Conclusions with amendments. The permit would receive conditional
approval but must meet any future requirements as regulated by the
results of the waterfront plan and that building B be presented to
the Historic preservation Commission to reduce the parking
requirements. Ms. Sherwood seconded for discussion.
Ms. Sherwood asked the commission if the intention was to approve
the Findings and Conclusions for the city council's consideration
after the moratorium ends.
e
e
Mr. Hildt stated the City Council will not be able to act on an
application that is illegal. Their decision would have to await the
concl~sion of the waterfront planning process. Mr. Hildt stated
this project is not vested. A complete building permit must be
submitted to cause the project to be vested. Therefore the project
is subject to the interim controls and the future waterfront
regulations.
Mr. Carman stated he would like to amend the motion to approve the
application but hold action on the conditional use permit in
abeyance until the conclusion of waterfront plan.
Mr. Hildt stated that it is possible that the Council may set a
hearing after the waterfront plan and find the commission has not
made a recommendation under the revised waterfront regulation.
They may then remand the application to the Planning Commission.
Thus it may be faster for the Commission to continue the
application to a future meeting rather than send it on to the
council.
Ms. Sherwood stated that the Commission should act on an
application with current criteria.
A vote was taken on the motion on the floor. The motion failed 1-
3. wi th commissioners Sherwood, McDole and Kosec against the
motion.
MS. McDole moved to deny without prejudice Conditional Use Permit,
8912-07, Douglass and Nancy Lamy.
Ms. Sherwood asked for a clarification. If the prevoius motion
would not allow the Council to act would this motion? Some
,
e
e
Planning commission-August 30, 1990
4IÞ Page 4 of 8
discussion followed.
e
e
Ms. Sherwood seconded the motion.
Discussion.
Mr. Carman stated that this motion puts the applicant in the same
jeopardy.
A vote was taken on the motion. 2-2 with Lois and Alan opposed.
Mr. Carman moved to continue Conditional Use permit, 8912-07,
Douglass and Nancy Lamy to the first regular meeting following the
interim controls, October 24, 1990. Ms. Sherwood seconded and'all
were in favor.
B. Preliminary Sub-Division, Vantage Homes Inc.
1. Commission Discussion
Mr. Hildt stated that applicants for subdivision under the sub-
division ordinance may come to the commission informally to discuss
a proposed project. This is not an application.
Lee Wilburn president of vantage Homes told the commission of a
proposal to divide a 30 acre parcel into 76 local housing units.
The proposal includes underground utilities, open areas and
restrictive covenants. He asked for Commission input into the
proposed project prior to the formal application submittal. Layout
of the proposed plat is intended to use the natural contours of the
land and will need minimum excavation. The north and west of the
properties have large trees which the proponent hopes to preserve.
Mr. Wilburn asked the Commission if they had any questions.
Ms. McDole asked the applicant what the properties would sale for.
The applicant stated that his research indicated the range of $85-
115,000.
Mr. Carman asked where the playground area would be. Mr. wilburn
stated that Area C would provide space for the playground and the
area behind lots 40-43 is a meadow to which access will be
provided. The ravine will be left in its natural state. The
applicant stated that a plan for surface water management program
would be prepared.
Ms. McDole asked about access to the plat. Mr. wilburn stated that
Ivy would likely be only for emergency access. Access will be off
of Discovery Road and 13th street.
Ms. Erickson asked how many building sites.
responded 75 with one access.
The applicant
'e
e
Planning Commission-August 30, 1990
4IÞ Page 5 of 8
Some discussion followed over the street standards ordinance.
Mr. Hildt stated that the subdivision ordinance already deals with
standards. The proposed new standards would not effect
subdivisions. The applicant stated that it would be necessary to
meet the requirements.
Mr. wilburn stated that he would like to develop something better
and unique to what the City of Port Townsend has seen.
c. Variance 9007-01, Keith and Flora Lee Malone
1. staff Review
e
Mr. Hildt reviewed the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of the
Planning commission. The applicants propose to construct a
residence located on Jackman street, between 9th and 10th street.
Mr. Hildt suggested that a condition number 4 be added, stating the
height of the building shall not exceed 24 feet as defined in the
uniform building code.
2. Public Testimony
Keith Malone, applicant, told the Commission that he requested the
variance to build his home to avoid building over the bank. The
bank required the access to the garage would not be from Jackman
street. Some discussion followed over the square footage of the
proposed building.
A member of the audience asked how much lower the residence would
be than if it were built under the existing ordinances. Mr. Malone
responded that it would be the same as the maximum height of the
Younce house.
Richard Short stated his concerns regarding the height of the
proposed structure. He stated this will not benefit the
neighborhood and will devalue neighboring properties. Ms. McDole
asked Mr. Short the location of his property. Mr. Short responded
that his property is directly across Jackman from the subject site
and that he built with the understanding that other property owners
would build with the proper setbacks. Mr. Short asked how the
applicant will access his garage. Some discussion followed. Mr.
Hildt stated that the State will not grant access to Sims way.
Mr. Malone stated that the Maestro Burger may grant an easement
through their property.
Dean Nelson, neighboring property owner, stated he was against the
variance. He stated he did not have enough information to make a
good decision on the variance. He stated that more information was
needed to analyze the impact of the variance on the views.
e
.
.
e
Planning Commission-August 30, 1990
4IÞ page 6 of 8
He submitted two letters from Marilyn Sogo, a neighborinq property
owner, stating her feelings on the variance.
Lucinda Thayer a neighboring property owner asked where the top of
the bank was in relation to the house. How much of the property is
at the top of the bank?
Mr. Kosec read the letters from Ms. Sogo into the record.
Public testimony was closed.
3. Committee Report
Mr. Carman stated that a topographic survey had not been done on
the property. He stated a severe limitation on the buildable size
of the lot existed and that this variance is essentially the same
as the Younce variance approved by the commission.
e
Mr. Carman moved to recommend to the City council the approval of
variance Application, 9007-01, Keith and Flora Lee Malone including
the Findings and Conclusions as drafted with the added conditions:
4. ) using the southwest corner of the subject property as a
reference point for measurement, the maximum height of any
structures, additions, appendages or vegetation shall not exceed
24-feet in height. 5.) A restrictive covenant describing the
above mentioned height restriction shall be recorded with the
Jefferson County Courthouse.
Mr. Carman stated that it appeared that with the above mentioned
conditions the variance height would be more restrictive than a 30-
foot height without the variance.
Ms. Erickson asked when access to proposed structures is reviewed
by the city. Mr. Hildt responded that it is reviewed prior to the
building permit.
Mr. Carman moved to approve the variance as conditioned above
adding conditions 4 and 5 to the draft Findings and Conclusions.
Ms. McDole seconded.
Discussion.
Ms. Sherwood stated that she applauds the applicants desire to
protect the bluff. She asked the applicant what the buildable
space on the top of the bluff was. Mr. Hildt stated it was
approximately 4,500 square feet of buildable land.
e
Ms. McDole stated she was uncomfortable because of the request by
testimony for more information. Mr. Dean stated that he still does
not know what the impact on his property will be. Some discussion
,
e
e
e
"
.0
.
Planning commission-August 30, 1990
page 7 of 8
followed.
Mr. Carman asked Mr. Hildt if the information supplied for the
application proves to be false if the application can be revoked.
Mr. Hildt stated this was a part of the application. Some
discussion followed. Mr. Carman stated that the proposed structure
will not exceed the maximum height requirements of a house
following the zoning requirements on the property.
Ms. Sherwood asked the commission if the criteria for ml.nl.mum
variance allowable for reasonable use of the land had been met, and
asked if this could be determined without knowing the square
footage of the above bluff area.
Mr. Carman stated that in the past applications have been taken
without a survey. Mr. Carman stated that being a surveyor he is
uncomfortable requiring someone to get a survey. He stated that
many people are capable of establishing the measurements submitted.
Ms. Erickson suggested that the applicant bring more accurate maps
to the city Council for review at the time of the hearing.
Ms. Erickson asked Mr. Carman to review the suggested requirement
for a height with less impact than the height of structure without
a variance. Some discussion followed.
A vote was taken and all were in favor.
V. New Business
Short Plat application submitted by Barbara williams will be
schedUled for September 27, 1990 at the next meeting.
VI. Announcements
Ms. McDole told the Commission that she will be late for the
meeting of September 13, 1990, and will not be present at the
meetings of September 27, and November 8.
Mr. Kosec asked the secretary to update the Leader on upcoming
meetings. Some information has been inaccurate in past issues.
Mr. Hildt reviewed the revised project schedule for the waterfront
plan.
Mr. Kosec brought to the attention of the Commission that
attendance by SOme members had been less than desirable. Mr. Hildt
stated that the mayor would contact the members concerning their
attendance.
A.
Next Scheduled Meetings
"
.
e
Planning commission-August 30, 1990
4IÞ Page 8 of 8
September 13. 1990
street vacation, 8911-04, Arne willenhag (Sherwood/Tavernakis)
Rezone, 9007-02, Quimper Credit Uniont (Grimm/Sherwood)
City of Port Townsend, 9008-02, City of Port Townsend
(EricksonjMcDole)
e
e
September 20, 1990
sign Code Workshop
September 27. 1990
Short Plat, 9002-05, Jeff Porter (TaVernakis/Erickson)
Variance, 9008-01, Garth and Patty Hatfield (Tavernakis/Carman)
October 4, 1990
Sign Code Hearing
October 25. 1990
Conditional Use
(McDole/carman)
and
Nancy Lamy,
Permit,
8912-07,
Doug
November 1, 1990
Joint Public Hearing-City Council and planning commission: Draft
Waterfront Plan Ordinances
November 15. 1990
Planning commission Recommendation on Draft Waterfront Plan
Ordinances.
VII. Adjourn
The meeting was adjourned at 10:15 p.m.
Darlene Bloomfield
Planning commission secretary
e
e
e
.
City of Port Townse' ·
Planning Commission
540 Water St., Port Townsend, WA 98368 206/385-3000
AGENDA
(Proposed)
Regular Meeting
August 30, 1990
I. ROLLCALL-------------------------------------------7:30P.M.
II. READING AND APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM PREVIOUS MEETING
III. COMMUNICATIONS:
A. current mail
IV. OLD BUSINESS:
A.
Conditional Use Permit,
8912-07, Douglass and Nancy Lamy ~5
..-\v OG{
ÛØ''Jr,
1.
2.
3.
4.
staff Review
Public Testimony
Committee Review-(McDole/Carman)
Findings and Conclusions
B. Preliminary SUb-Division, vantage Homes, Inc.
1. commission Discussion (15 Minutes)
C. Variance Appl., 9007-01, Keith and Flora Lee Malone
1. Staff Review
2. Public Testimony
3. Committee Review-(Carman/Grimm)
4. Findings and Conclusions
~. - or5>
&-\~ ð''>(\.
u:.>\~ '5-0
V. NEW BUSINESS: None
VI. ANNOUNCEMENTS:
A. Next Scheduled Meetings:
1. September 13, 1990
a. Street Vacation Appl., 8911-04, Arne Willenhag
(Continued from meeting of April 12, 1990)
(SherwQod/Tavernakis)
b.
Rezone Appl., 9007-02, Quimper Credit Union
(Grimm/Sherwood)
.
.
e
e
VII.
ADJOURN
September 20. 1990
S·
l.gn Code Workshop
September 27, 1990
Short Plat A
(TaVernakis/~P~" 9002-05 Jeff
rl.ckson) , Porter
Variance A
Hatfield (gPl., 9008-01 G
avernakis/C ' arth and
arman)
c.
2.
a.
3.
a.
b.
e
e
Variance A
(EriCksonJP~l., 9008-02 City Of
cDole) , Port Townsend
Patty
October 4, 1999
a. s'
19n Code Hea .
rl.ng
~?
uJMe-<~~ 'Y\""^- ..- ~lS
W-. Z~ ¿kV'-Ai Ccn.J...
f00Y. \ C ,c. / p(þV\M
PCPMÞO- ßCO/Vl
4.
µov.
~\~G.
f> ).ßl--l C ~l¡()Q, G:IS
01-' W~~ ~
IS
·".1
··e
"e"
e
. e
¡/C01l1/1/l ßJC/Zë7S S/Z3/iù
_::/lJdÞvtl-r. ~ ~J~
-,'~ .çJ. /tvg- !(¿,uqo .
- .....J¡..L:2~..tlkO ~ ~~ -SuIo D\V
- ~. Ç-"'~ G
~~QM ..~ - tE-: ~ ~
,.;..
,...~., ,.
" ~r···
"
e
e
e
e
e
Revised 8-29-90
REVISED PROJECT SCHEDULE
URBAN WATERFRONT PLAN
Aug 9-10 DESIGN EVENT
o Policies reviewed
o Alternatives identified/prioritized
Aug 13-24 Develop Alternatives/Preliminary Draft Plan
Aug 24 Review preliminary draft plan with Joint Waterfront Planning Committee
Sept 6 Preliminary Draft Plan delivered to EIS Team
Ordinànce preparation begins
Sept 7-
Sept 24
Sept 25
Oct 10
Sept 26-
Oct 25
Oct 25
Prepare Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS)
Prepare Draft Plan and Presentation
Print Draft Plan
DRAFf PLAN AND DEIS ISSUED
o 30 Day DEIS comment period begins
o Draft ordinances available
PUBLIC OPEN HOUSE AND HEARING: DRAFf URBAN
WATERFRONT PLAN &: DEIS
JOINT WATERFRONT PLANNING COMMITIEE
CITY COUNCIL
Revise plan and EIS as comments are received
DE IS COMMENT PERIOD ENDS (unless extended by City Council)
·...~ \.
.
..
e
e
e
e
e
Re~i~CedUle
~ JOINT PUBLIC HEARING: DRAFf ORDINANCES
CITY COUNCIL
PLANNING COMMISSION
Page 2
Nov 2 Joint Waterfront Planning Committee Review
Nov 5 FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT ISSUED
RECOMMENDED WATERFRONT PLAN ISSUED
REVISED DRAFr ORDINANCES ISSUED
e PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION ISSUED
Nov 20 CITY COUNCIL ADOPTION OF PLAN AND PASSAGE OF
ORDINANCES
Nov 28 Ordinances published
Dee 3 Ordinances become effective
Guest List
Do you wish to If yes, indicate
ADDRESS present tesllmony? topic.
YES NO
0 0
12 0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
tJ 0
0 0
0 0
·0 0