Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07291993 Ag Min . . .- City of Port Townsend Planning Commission 540 \Vater St., Port Townsend, \VA 98368 206/385·3000 PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA Regular Meeting I. ROLL CALL II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: July 14, 1993 and July 15, 1993 III. COMMUNICATIONS: Current mail IV. OLD BUSINESS A. Madge Wallin, Variance Application 9306-09 1. Starr report (Bloomfield) 2. Public testimony 3. Committee report (Enarson/Erickson) 4. Commission discussion and conclusions B. William Schwilke/Robert Murray, Rezone Application 9305-03 1. Staff report (Bloomfield) 2. Public testimony 3. Committee report (Baird/Rickard) 4. Commission discussion and conclusions C. City of Port Townsend, Conditional Use Permit 9306-01 1. Starf report (Bloomfield) 2. Public testimony 3. Committee report (Erickson/Welch) 4. Commission discussion and conclusions V. NEW BUSINESS VI. ANNOUNCEMENTS: Next Scheduled Meetings July 29, 1993 August 12, 1993 Joint Planning Commission, City Council Workshop and Transportation Planning Advisory Committee (TP AC) * Draft Arterial Street Plan August 26. 1993 James p, Ramey, Conditional Use Permit 9306-14 Committee: Rickard/Enarson ~wV\¡J\ ~l~ h3 Guest List -.--------..--.,'--- .~.__...,' ....-,..,',. .. ~. -"-. --'_'''--._'-''-'-_.''~_'' ''''''''--~ -..._.- -"'., .~-'.,._-"._- ,._-,-..~,,..-_.--_....., .",-.- ,. ,-_-...". _._-.'-"-'-..-~-_.".- ,.'"...,-'.-. NAME (pJe8se print) ^ DOFiESS Do you wish to pleseemt testimony? YES -.,.....--,.-----..---....-.-.--..... '-.-"""""---"--'- UI».J ~ +-&~J~--- ('1 ð tât:RfWlLLl f\f 'bÌ', ~/ \=<-. 0 S}______________________}!ò~I~~_~_?_~ _____ NO o o o _._--,._---_...__.__._-~_. ._------_..~_.~----------,-,._..__._~ o 0 ---------.. -.,.---,-.-. ---.-.....-,---------.- -_.~- .-.-.- ---.- . -.----'-.""- -_.__.~--~-_._---_._-_.._--_.._-- o 0 -~----~----_._._--- ---~._-----_.- o 0 o 0 o 0 o 0 o 0 o 0 o 0 o 0 o 0 · · · City of Port Townsend Planning Commission 540 Water St., Port Townsend, WA 98368 206/385-3000 MINUTES Regular Meeting July 29, 1993 I, ROLL CALL Chair Lois Sherwood called the meeting to order at 7:02 p,m, Present were commissioners Enarson, Welch, Rickard, Erickson, and Baird. II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: July 14, 1993 and July 15, 1993 Erickson moved, Welch seconded that minutes be approved as written. III. COMMUNICATIONS: Current mail Letter from Vantage Homes requesting an extension of the approval date for the Port Townsend Business Park. Welch moved that Preliminary plat approval be extended to May 30, 1995. Enarson seconded. All were in favor. Rickard abstained from the vote due to a conflict of interest. IV. OLD BUSINESS A. Madge Wallin, Variance Application 9306-09 1. Staff report (Bloomfield) Bloomfield read Draft A of the staff report recommending denial for the commission, noting minor edits. She noted that at one point the applicant requested to know the names of the property owners who had complained, that it is not the policy of the Planning Department to divulge the names unless those who complain don 't mind. A new findings of fact and conclusions #10 was added, a memo to the Planning Commission from staff, subject: fire department site visit, 7/29/93. Bloomfield noted that the edits and addition of findings of fact and #10 were the same in Draft B, which recommends approval. Sherwood asked for a definition of the difference between a fence and a retaining wall. Bloomfield clarified for the commission that a retaining wall holds earth, while a fence does not, according to the building inspector. · · · Planning Commission Minutes Meeting of July 29, 1993 Page 2 Welch noted for the commission that when he visited the site, he had had a brief ex parte discussion with the project engineer. The applicant was questioned, and Mrs. Wallin had no conflict with the matters that they discussed. Discussion followed regarding retaining walls. 2. Public testimony Don Taylor, of Fristoe Taylor and Schultz, Mrs. Wallin's lawyer, presented three exhibits to the commission, submitted exhibit one, the site plan, and exhibit two, a photo of Mrs. Wallin's home, and exhibit three, a picture of a fence built prior to the construction of the existing fence. It is not a retaining wall because it is not holding anything back. Fence is built entirely within the lot line. Concern is with a gas/propane line at the back of her neighbor's property. He is concerned that the propane line presents a hazard, and asks that variance be granted, Baird asked a question at this point. Why did the top two feet offer significantly more fire protection more than the 6 feet allowed? Mr. Taylor responded that it offers an extra measure of security. Madge Wallin addressed the commission, She has a letter from the office of economic development and historic preservation that they're concerned as well. It's not a retaining wall except in the front where it's holding a little bit of dirt. She feels that variance should be administrative, because area is less than 1 %. Bloomfield gave the definition from the Municipal Code of a minor variance; it is a project which would extend no more than 10% from the bulk and dimensional requirements, 10% of 6 feet- the fence is more than that. Mrs. Wallin called into question denial for the reason that no special circumstances exist. She feels that a building built 5 feet from the property line of a national historic property is a special condition. She didn't apply for a variance because it's such a small variance. She stated she was surprised at the violation letter, and that she was not in the habit of getting violations in her lifetime, She distributed a letter from Department of Community Development. The garage in question is a noncontributing element in the Port Townsend historic district. Letter marked as exhibit 4. Exhibit 5, flyer from Inn Deering, describing facility. Exhibit 6, minutes from an Historic Preservation Commission meeting. Sherwood stated that the commission should focus on applicant's property rather than on neighbor's. .. · · · Planning Commission Minutes Meeting of July 29, 1993 Page 3 Mrs. Wallin stated that everything she's trying to do is improve the community and preserve a community asset. She wants to get along with her life, what's left of it, and be a good neighbor, Erickson asked Mrs. Wallin if she called the Fire Department about the gas line. Mrs. Wallin said that she called the state fire marshal, David Ross spoke in opposition, as the owner of the Chanticleer Inn, which abuts the property. He would like to point out that its a wall, rather than a fence. He presented a concrete block, said that it's approximately the same sort of block that's used in the wall. The wall is 16 blocks high, not a mere 8, and is actually 10'8" high from his side of the property. His concern is that he cannot maintain his property; he is unable to paint the wall with 3" of clearance. The next concern is that the craftsmanship isn't very good, He doesn't question the worksmanship. With his background as a structural engineer, he questions the structural integrity of wall. There are no horizontal supports in the wall. The Uniform Building Code requires that every wall above four feet be reinforced. This wall is not. Mr. Taylor responded that the fence is built entirely on the property of Mrs. Wallin. Mr. Ross's predecessor chose to build a building that is 3" from the property line. If he is trying to say that he has a right to trespass on anyone else's property to maintain his own, he does not. No one should build a building 3" from the property line if they intend to maintain it. The fence retains nothing but thin air. She has chosen to build the fence so that it does not extend out into Fillmore Street. Not trying to degrade his property in any way. He asked again the granting of the variance. Wallin says that she appreciates Ross's comments; the person who built the fence painted a building on Ross's property. 3, Committee report (Enarson/Erickson) Erickson commended Mrs, Wallin for taking such good care of her home, but since she cannot see that the wall or the height will do anything as a fire wall because the building and trees extend above the wall, she cannot see any justification of a variance for two feet. Enarson said that she feels that there is a preexisting condition that justifies a taller wall, the non-conforming use of the building on the property line. She feels that the wall is an addition to Port Townsend. She feels that Draft B recommending granting of the variance should be recommended to Council with the addition of the fact that it cannot be termed a retaining wall. She feels it would be unnecessary to make Mrs. Wallin to take down the wall. ~ . . . Planning Commission Minutes Meeting of July 29, 1993 Page 4 Erickson asked Enarson if her purpose was that because it's already there, she's willing to allow it? Enarson moved that Draft B be approved, as amended with the new findings of fact and conclusions #10, eliminating #2 in the conditions, and adding condition #3 "if the nonconforming neighboring structure is ever removed, then the extra two feet of the wall will also be removed." The motion died for lack of a second. Rickard made a few observations. Mrs. Wallin had drawn the commission's attention to Conclusion #2 Draft A; it is regrettable that there is a building that close to the property line, but if one were to look at the building history of Port Townsend, it is not unusual. Secondly, in terms of interest in maintaining historic integrity, the choice of materials is one that has no relationship to historic integrity, Sherwood noted that cement blocks came into common use in the 1940's. Rickard said that the situation is unfortunate. It's too bad that a cooperative effort could not have been arrived at with the neighbors. He agrees with Enarson that the difficulty of maintaining the building must be lived with, He is not conducive to granting the variance. Sherwood said that she had a couple of concerns. She looked at the property with someone who had worked with explosives and he felt that the wall could present a hazard to Mrs. Wallin if there was a propane explosion. The wall presents more of a hazard than protection. She felt the wall was out of place with historic character of neighborhood. She asked for comment from the Fire Department on whether or not there was a fire hazard. She personally saw no justification for a fire wall, and was not comfortable with calling it a fire wall, and giving it a variance for afence. Sherwood said that a structure of that immensity would be a hazard for both properties in case of an earthquake. Baird said that he does not see that the two feet above the six foot limit offers any significant additional protection. His understanding of what propane does derives from boats, and he wouldn't want to be on the other side of the wall if tank were to explode. He stated that it was Mrs Wallin I s choice to build the wall over height without consulting either the city or her neighbor. Enarson said that the commission needs to be careful to concern themselves only with the excess height of the wall. Because of the mural, she thought that most people would think the wall is neat. · · · Planning Commission Minutes Meeting of July 29, 1993 Page 5 excess height of the wall. Because of the mural, she thought that most people would think the wall is neat. 4. Commission discussion and conclusions Erickson moved that Draft A be recommended to Council with staff changes. Rickard seconded, suggesting amendments, In Findings of Fact and Conclusions #5, "residence" to the west not "resident." He suggested also a change to Page 2, Conclusion 4, All were in favor, except for Enarson, who was opposed. Don Taylor asked for copy of Draft B, and the minutes of the hearing. B. William Schwilke/Robert Murray, Rezone Application 9305-03 1. Staff report (Bloomfield) Sherwood clarified that although she is farther than 200 feet from the property, she can see the property from her house. The applicant had no problem with her voting on his application, Bloomfield mentioned that she was still waiting for an answer from Dennis McLerran, the City Attorney, to a question about the rear lot line. Bloomfield read through Draft A. She said that staff recommends adding an extra finding, a 25-foot setback from rear lot lines and 10 feet from side property lines, unless a variance is granted by the Planning Commission and City Council. Sherwood said that the screening of the parking lots is not necessary until there is development to the south, Rickard said that since this is a contract rezone, he's not concerned with what's being built on the property. He thinks that everything that's a reference to the building being built should be removed. Staff responded that the intent was if this building was allowed, there may be other buildings which will have the same impacts. In those situations, screening will be necessary. Rickard said that any project that goes through, by being subject to SEP A will be subject to those merits. Staff said that the applicant has made an application for a variance at this point. The variance will be dealt with separately. 2. Public testimony Bill Schwilke stated that if the commission is only going to consider a rezone, then he doesn't have anything to say, ... · · · Planning Commission Minutes Meeting of July 29, 1993 Page 6 Erickson asked if the SEP A and conditions were on the building or on the rezone. Rickard responded that it's appropriate that SEP A is for the entire project. 3. Committee report (Baird/Rickard) Baird says that it's particularly important that things are done in order. It seems perfectly important to rezone lots, and it won't conflict with any future use that he can see. Rickard said that he feels the same. Schwilke showed a map showing the power line easement to the commission. Discussion ensued about SEP A review. Staff was questioned about SEP A requirements. 4. Commission discussion and conclusions Rickard moved that Draft A be recommended to City Council with the following changes: findings of fact number four, first two sentences be combined. Findings of fact number eight, something that says "this is not a contract rezone, it is recognized that the applicant... " A new findings of fact nine should be added, Finding of fact which was originally 14, now 15, "access to site by way of Cliff" extended to say "to Third Street." "Line" changed to "lane." All existing conditions be deleted, following be inserted: "All future development on the site should be pursuant to the MDNS issued July 7, 1993 by the City Council, number 9305-03S. " Baird seconded. All were in favor. Staff requested to discuss scheduling at this time so that the applicant didn't have to wait. Applicant is interested in getting an expedited hearing. Ramey as well is interested in an expedited hearing. Staff requests a special hearing, on the third Thursday in August, August 19. Ramey conditional use permit moved from Thursday the 26th to Thursday the 19th, Rickard asked if the Leader could be notified that the hearing on the 26th was canceled. C. City of Port Townsend, Conditional Use Permit 9306-01 1. Staff report (Bloomfield) Commission decided that reading aloud of the staff report was unnecessary because there was no one left in the audience. · · · . Planning Commission Minutes Meeting of July 29, 1993 Page 7 2. Public testimony The City's representative was not present; there was no public testimony. 3. Committee report (Erickson/Welch) Welch stated that it was a good thing the staff report stipulated temporary showers rather than permanent ones. 4, Commission discussion and conclusions Erickson moved that the temporary shower and meeting facility be recommended to Council with the condition that the showers be low-pressure, to conserve water, Baird seconded. V. NEW BUSINESS VI. ANNOUNCEMENTS: Next Scheduled Meetings September 15. 1993 Joint Planning Commission, City Council Workshop and Transportation Planning Advisory Committee (TP AC) * Draft Arterial Street Plan August 19. 1993 James P. Ramey, Conditional Use Permit 9306-14 Committee: Rickard/Enarson VII. ADJOURNMENT Erickson moved to adjourn, and Rickard seconded. Meeting was adjourned at 9: 15 p,m. Minutes respectfully submitted by: ~ Pia Boyer, August 6, 1993