HomeMy WebLinkAbout02131992 Ag Min
.
.
e
,
City of Port Townsend
Planning and Building Department
540 Water St., Port Townsend, WA 98368 206/385-3000
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
(Revised)
Business Meeting
I. ROLL CALL
II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: January 30, 1992
III. COMMUNICATIONS: Current mail
IV. OLD BUSINESS
1.
February 13, 1992
Island View Partnership, Planned Unit Development; proposed 28 single-family-
unit condominium development called "Forest Park," (continued from 1/9/92)
A. Staff update (Sepler)
B. Committee report (Welch/Rickard)
C. Commission discussion and conclusions
2. Rezone Application 9110-03, Larry Allen/Derek Reijnen
(Committee: Sherwood/Rickard) (Staff: Sepler)
A. Staff report (Sepler)
B. Public testimony
C. Committee report (Sherwood/Rickard)
D. Commission discussion and conclusions
3. Review of Home Occupation Permit 9108-03, Joan Best
(Committee: Welch/Erickson) (Staff: Bloomfield)
A. Staff report (Bloomfield)
B. Public testimony
C. Commission discussion and conclusions
, '>
e
e
e
"
V. NEW BUSINESS
VI. ANNOUNCEMENTS: Next Scheduled Meetings
February 20, 1992
Environmentally Sensitive Areas Ordinance workshop, continued from 2/6/92
(Staff: Robison)
February 27. 1992
Environmentally Sensitive Areas Ordinance workshop, continued from 2-20-92
(Staff: Robison)
March 12. 1992
Conditional Use Permit 9112-03, City of Port Townsend, Wastewater Treatment Plant
Staging Area (continued from 1/30/92) (Committee: Thayer/Sherwood)
(Staff: Bloomfield)
March 26. 1992
Environmentally Sensitive Areas Ordinance Public Hearing (Staff: Robison)
VII. ADJOURN
" · rí1;i#Alill/G F,£8 Ii' tI /f I? . /3/ /9 C; ÖI.-/
NAME (please print) Do you wish to If yes, indicate
ADDRESS present testimony? topic.
YES NO
.
~50 HuJsO/1 7/¡:¡Ce. .kr 0
//3 5 ~ 3 t^-¿ 51- )f~~
0 JðÎ
0 ~
0 0
D 0
~tJ
143S" ~f2-ST "$I p{ 0
0 0
:;..
( ( ...... ~ ¿ ....~... 0 ®
[Ã 0
ß
0 ß
/kJ 0 ') vd if 6 KV::;O
0 ~
~ 0
Qt 0 0,
rt- ~ 0 (
~()() µ~~ 1 ~ 0
. P¿I1IV/VIIVG
¡ Guest List
D(}/,/! /Vf/:55/Cl/1/
NAME (please print I
Gabr'.erf S fewG ý'
.~~~
Q'Vrt'\.a..... Fo-\ bo t>
ADDRESS
bOO f-( lÄJ So r(. Pk.
//r6rdJf 57.
Î':¿O~ 7004;
ðQÁ. f.
¡ ( ~~ LA 0 V
? Co-\.. t 1'L/~
·Ihe~.~
/
r / ¿;¡r
3~
22-
5 \ \J >vb \:.cL
t¡ I . ø,Jq ßlt/!
/t.f{)~ ~b à/.
/7/¿;~ 3;r/ ø¡L
1.35ð ¡#"
,
L\ L\ ~còuJ ~~
.~~319~
Do you wish to
present testimony?
YE~ NO
.0 0
o
~
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
æ(
o 0
o ~
llÝo
~ 0
o
~
tJ 0
o
0,
o 0
.fž5l
o
If yes, indicate
topic.
. ~<:g ~.1te;
f? r;?ZtylIe-
~.......~
II, ..-.",
/:J¿I1Il/IV/ III d
Guest List
C 0/11/1'1/5510/11
&//3 ~~
--.
NAME (please print I
ADDRESS
Do you wish to If yes, indicate
present testimony? topic.
YE~ NO
.
.0 0
1 g/ 0 ~
(ft 0 0
'('D /~ 0 0
~( 0 0
"S ¡}'n., '5 0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
tJ 0
0 o.
0 0
·0 0
. 4
. .
. ~
. City of Port Townsend
Planning and Building Department
540 Water Street, Port Townsend, W A 98368 2061385-3000
Minutes of February 13, 1992
I. ROLL CALL
Lois Sherwood, Acting Chair, called the meeting to order at 7:10 PM. Other members present
were Ernie Baird, Karen Erickson, Cindy Thayer, Mark Welch and Bob Rickard. Staff
members present were Darlene Bloomfield, Rick Sepler and Sheila Spears.
II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Minutes of January 30, 1992.
Motion was made by Ms. Erickson to approve the minutes as written. Seconded by Ms. Thayer.
All were in favor; the motion carried.
III. COMMUNICATIONS: Current Mail
Just received another letter and read for the record. Secretary read list of communications
received since packets went out.
. IV. OLD BUSINESS
1. Island View Partnership, Planned Unit Development; proposed 28 single-family-unit
condominium development called "Forest Park," (continued from 1/9/92).
Ms. Thayer disqualified herself because of correspondence received since 1-9-92 relating to the
issue of fairness.
Mr. Sepler gave an explanation of ex parte communication because information was hand
delivered to Planning Commission members by a citizen opposed to this PUD.. He said that
material has been entered into the record and now is a part of the record and asked that members
express if they could remain impartial. Each member stated that he/she is able to be impartial
and evaluate. Mr. Sepler asked that in the future parties refrain from discussion on current
issues and bring to record.
A. Staff update (Sepler)
Mr. Sepler gave an update on the process to date. The project has been considered twice before
and had extensive public testimony. City Council will have another public meeting.
B. Committee report (Welch/Rickard)
,
Mr. Rickard expressed his feelings about Ms. Thayer excusing herself from this project. He
said that he would hate to see the fact that Ms. Thayer is a realtor be used as an excuse to be
removed from projects. He doesn't see a conflict.
L ~ ____~_______
~
.
.
.
,
.
. .
Planning Commission Minutes
February 13, 1992
Page Two
Mr. Rickard said that it isn't the Planning Commission's place to suggest that some different
project be proposed or approved, and that they are dealing only with this particular proposal.
He asked for clarification as to whether he was looking at the· correct draft since this has been
going on so long, and made a motion recommending "Draft B" to City Council with some noted
corrections which would state that they are not comfortable with the project as proposed and that
the above referenced application be denied. Seconded by Mr. Baird.
Discussion included concerns about density, quality of the project, setbacks from the ravine, and
public opposition. Affordable housing is needed and some kind of development can go there but
this isn't the best one. All were in favor of denying the proposal. The motion carried.
2. Review of Home Occupation Permit 9108-03, Joan Best
A. Staff report (Bloomfield)
Ms. Bloomfield read memo into the record and then briefly reviewed the Home Occupation
Permit process. Home occupations are administrative and don't come before the Planning
Commission unless some question comes up by a neighbor after the permit has been issued.
B. Public testimony
Joan Best, Applicant, said that the garage actually has space for three cars even though there are
only two garage doors. She previously ran her law practice from a third floor apartment. . She
approached the City to see what all the rules and regulations were; found her request was in
compliance, so signed a lease. She explained tha.t because she is just starting out, having ads
in the phone book gets her name before the public and that gives her a sufficient number of calls
for picking and choosing clients. There is a limit to how much she wants to do. She said there
is a misconception as to how many people will be coming and going. Usually a client will come
once and may come back to bring papers. In general she communicates with clients by
telephone. When it is time to resolve things it is done in the courthouse. She averaged about
one a day of actual visits. That included coming back to sign. She said the highest number of
people she ever had on one day was four. She explained that her lifestyle does not include lots
of people coming to her home and said that she talked to the neighbors about the nature of her
business. The owner of the home she leases is involved in a law suit and Ms. Best believes that
all but one of the neighbors that signed the letters are involved in that lawsuit and she feels
pulled into this and does not wish to have any arguments with neighbors. She said that she and
her 19-year-old son are a quiet family and asked that she be permitted to continue her business.
She offered to answer questions. Ms. Best stated that she is practicing law 70%, counseling
10% and selling legal software to attorneys allover Washington (by mail, nobody comes to
house to pick it up) 20% of the time. She anticipates no more than 14 client visits to her house
per week. At the time of application she was planning to do desktop publishing. That did not
work out. She has not had any group therapy groups; the closest to that is a couple. She put
on her application anything she might do to make money, but has no interest in doing group
therapy now. The latest anybody has ever come to the house is 7:00 PM.
·1
.
.
'.
Planning Commission Minutes
February 13, 1992
Page Three
Harry Hurlburt spoke against the permit. He asked if the owner of the property is responsible
for what happens on the property. On 12-9-92 he received a new telephone book with 6-8
listings for Joan Best, and said that everybody that has a problem is going to go twice past his
place because she advertises to serve all kinds of problems. He said the Home Occupation
Permit shouldn't have been issued to start with. There is a lot of parking space. This is a
luxury house (5,000 square feet). He said that Ordinance 2059 defines home occupation and
that numbers 2 and 16 of the ordinance are being violated. He questions that the application
wasn't check out before issuing the permit two days after application and stated covenants and
restrictions restrict this kind of use. He asked the Planning Commission recommend to City
Council that this permit be rescinded.
Irwin Jones, Ms. Best's attorney, disputed Hurlburt's objections saying that Hurlburt's complaint
seems to be the size of the house, not Ms. Best's use of the house, and referred mainly to the
written report he had submitted. He said the covenants have some blanks at the beginning of
each section and questioned whether they cover part or all of the lots. He said that he would
be happy to attempt to answer questions.
Judith Johnson spoke against the permit. She explained the process she went through to
establish covenants and restrictions for the lots. The Johnson Survey and Covenants and
Restrictions were approved for the needed permits on the overall project. Lots were sold on the
terms of honoring the covenants and restrictions. This permit would cause wearing out of the
private road and the cost to repair will be borne by the lot owners.
Elaine Johnson spoke against the permit. She resides at 630 Hudson Place and expressed
opposition to having businesses in the private community. Privately maintained roads are being
used by Ms. Best's clients. She urged the Planning Commission to recommend to council to
rescind her permit.
Robert Masenga spoke against the permit saying that this is a quiet, restricted neighborhood.
The street is barely 20' wide. He doesn't want home occupation in this neighborhood, and
asked what is to restrain Ms. Best from doing additional businesses at this house. Neighbors
should have been contacted before the permit was granted.
Barbara Bogart spoke against the permit. She expressed concerns about how Covenants,
Conditions and Restrictions (CC&R's) come into play in view of home occupations laws. They
shouldn't affect others in the neighborhood. This is a dead-end cul-de-sac and it is an awkward
situation when turning around in there, and she doesn't see the sense in the additional traffic.
Gabrial Stewart, Ms. Best's son, said there is not a lot of traffic on the street and asked what
is the difference between him going back and forth or people coming to see his mom. He said
there are only two or three cars that come to the house per day. There are only three houses
on the road that are occupied.
.
.
.
Planning Commission Minutes
February 13, 1992
Page Four
David Wren said that he visits Ms. Best often, as a friend, and has never seen other cars there.
He said the road is not posted private.
Norma Forbes spoke against the permit saying that her front room is directly adjacent to the
private community. Initially there was a definite increase in traffic when Ms. Best first moved
in. In the last month there hasn't been an increase in traffic. She said it takes quite a while to
build up a clientele. Ms. Forbes is a mental health professional and believes that the interests
of Ms. Best will mean a significant increase in the traffic in the future. The number in group
therapy is not established by the therapist (what if you have a six-member family?) She wants
the Planning Commission to reconsider the permit and place appropriate restrictions upon it.
B. Committee Report
The Planning Commission doesn't believe they have a standing to get involved in the covenants.
Parking is adequately dealt with in the existing permit. Suggested limiting the number of cars
per day. There may be room for additional share for maintenance of the private roads.
Home Occupation Permit does not require notice to neighbors.
Home Occupation Permit is not the only issue, but type of HOP that generates traffic is the
objection. Questioned whether some level of traffic is inappropriate in the circumstances in this
home at this site, and at what point is the resident's reasonable right to use the property in
conflict with the neighbors. Concern of neighbors might be that this would cause others to do
same.
Decision cannot be made on this until the Planning Commission gets clarification from the City
Attorney on the issues of the Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions; private roads; and the fire
code. There may be a condition in the permit that the Planning Commission is not able to
enforce.
Motion was made by Ms. Thayer to continue this HOP to March 12, until the Planning
Commission gets counsel from the City Attorney. Seconded by Ms. Erickson. All were in
favor. The motion carried.
3. Allen/Reijnen Rezone 9110-02
Ms. Thayer disqualified herself from the Allen/Reijnen Rezone because of objection to her
serving by some people in the audience.
A. Staff update (Sepler)
Mr. Sepler stated that Ms. Thayer was not required to excuse herself. It was a courtesy on her
part. She had nothing to gain by this project going forward.
Mr. Sepler went over "Draft A," and recommended it be denied.
.
.
.
"þ.
Planning Commission Minutes
February 13, 19992
Page Five
Contract rezone is an option that council has exercised in the past. At present there are no
guidelines.
Findings of fact remain the same in "Draft B." No.1 should be 1991.
B. Public testimony
Derek Reijnen, Applicant, spoke in favor of the rezone, saying that the impact on traffic would
be insignificant because it is on the edge of town. Perimeter parking would be limited.
Compatibility with this kind of use - there is quite a bit of commercial there. On one side only
is a single family residence. The rest is streets, a bank and one family residence. This is a
small project. Tried to mitigate the bulk of the building. The issue of height - this is a 2 story
structure which is the same as a single family residence. Parking is behind the building so
vision is protected from the front. There is only one entrance to parking. Alternative on this
property is to have two single family residences, both of them separate driveways with 20 ft
setback at front. There is not a lot of off street parking available. They are offering a better
use of the property. One of the few mechanisms that council has available to provide affordable
housing is to do small contract rezones. This way can make the project really fit the
neighborhood. It is better to spread it out. You have some controls with contract rezones.
Community can tell them what they need to mitigate this process.
Barbara Bogart, Realtor, spoke in favor of contract rezone. She is a strong supporter of contract
rezones. Access to this is carefully thought out. She would be against R-l to R-III unless it
were a contract rezone. Contract rezone protects the area because there are conditions that have
to be met.
Mr. Sepler gave a description of difference between rezone and contract rezone.
Helen Rosselet asked what provisions are made about traffic in that area. Sometimes right now
it is impossible to get out onto Sims Way.
Mr. Sepler said the Gateway plan would signalize the intersection and that Grant Street most
likely will be put in this year whether this project goes through or not.
Herb Heinle, who lives on Third Street, said that spot zoning is for private gain, not for the
community as a whole, and cannot understand why they have to come back every two or three
years to voice their objections to spot zoning in their neighborhood.
Murray Yates lives diagonally across the street from this project. He read a letter for the record
urging denial of this rezone. Project is nice one but is not compatible with the neighborhood.
Carl Schreiber spoke against the rezone, saying this is not affordable housing.
.
.
.
Planning Commission Minutes
February 13, 1992
Page Six
Janelle Weyhmiller spoke against the rezone saying that multiple and affordable housing has
been thrown together. This is not the way to deal with affordable housing (R-II and R-III
zoning). Apartment housing is hard to have Port Townsend character in it. She gave ideas for
creating affordable housing by allowing people to rent out parts of their homes and put limits
on it. She passed out a map showing some undeveloped R-III lots in the area, and said that this
will set a precedence to do the same to some of those empty lots.
Mr. Sepler said that mother-in-law cottages are being looked at for affordable housing.
Louise Schedule spoke against the rezone saying the traffic is bottlenecked already and this
would create even more traffic.
C. Committee report (Rickard/Sherwood)
The design turns its back on the residential area that it would be a part of, so then the property
is basically taken out of the residential area. Then it looks like a buffer. Don't want this to
become a trend. For this project traffic is not an issue because Third Street would be opened
up and there would be a light on Sims Way in the future Gateway.
It fits the definition of spot zone. Our ordinances tell us not to spot zone.
It is a good project but not for this site.
Motion was made by Mr. Rickard to recommend to City Council that the application be denied.
Seconded by Mr. Baird. All were in favor of the denial.
V. NEW BUSINESS: None
VI. ADJOURN: The meeting adjourned at 10:35 PM
Signed,
~L~~Le/
Sheila Spears
Planning & Building Assistant