Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12141995 Min Ag . . . ., . City of Port Townsend PlQlnning 'Commission S40 Water Street, Port TowuseDd. W A. 98368 360/385-3000 FAX 360/385-4290 PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA Business Meeting December 14, 1995 I. ROLL CALL ll. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: November 30, 1995 ill. COMMUNICATIONS: Current mail IV. OLD BUSINESS A. City of Port Townsend, Public Works Dept. 35th Street Park, Rezone Application #9505-16 1. 2. 3. 4. Staff Report Public Testimony Committee Report (Erickson/Enarson) Commission'Discussion and Conclusions B. Vantage Construction Services, Variance Application #9510-07 1. Staff Report (Surber) . 2. Public Testimony 3. Committee Report (Welch/Enarson) 4. Commission Discussion and Conclusions V. NEW BUSINESS VI. ANNOUNCEMENTS: Next Scheduled Meetings December 28. 1995 City of Port Townsend (Charles Pink House), Conditional Use Application #9511-08 City of Port Townsend (Charles Pink House), Parking Variance Application #9507-04 (Welch/Enarson) vu. ADJOURN .' . . . ~ City of Po~ Towusend PI · C·· 9nn1ng ommlqJon S40 Water Street. Port TowuseDd. W A. 98368 360/385-3000 FAX 360/385-4290 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES December 14, 1995 I. ROLL CALL The meeting was called to order at 7:00 PM by Chair Pro TemKaren Erickson. Other members present were Cindy Thayer, Ian Keith, Mark Welch, and Lisa Enarson. Lois Sherwood was excused. Staff members present were Judy Surber, Dave Robison, and Pam Kolacy. II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Thayer moved to approve the minutes of the November 30, 1995 meeting as written. Keith seconded. The motion was carried unanimously. III. COMMUNICATIONS A letter from Mark and Betty Mysak was received objecting to Variance Application #9510- 07 proposed by Vantage Homes. IV. OLD BUSINESS A. City of Port Townsend, Public Works Dept. 35th Street Park, Rezone Application #9505-16' 1. Staff Report Judy Surber outlined applicant's proposal to rezone a six acre parcel from residential RIA to public P-l for' use as a day-use only park. Currently the site is a vacant wooded property adjacent to 35th Street between Thomas and Rosecrans Streets. The applicant proposes to construct two playing fields, a basketball court, children's play and picnic area, restroom facility, and a 20 car parking lot on the site. Most improvemepts will be done by volunteer labor. The ownership of the property has been transferred from Jefferson County to the City of Port Townsend with a Memorandum of Understanding stipulating the types of recreational Planning Commission Meeting December 14, 1995 Page 1 Copied to PCOMM . Fa /;}.,/:;;.//15 . · · · facilities appropriate for the land as well as the City's responsibility to maintain the completed facility. Thayer questioned the legal description of the property, noting that as written it describes a 20-acre rather than a 6-acre parcel. She requested a corrected description. Keith asked how far 35th street would be improved. Paula Mackrow, consultant for Port Townsend Public Works Department, noted that the recommendation is to open 35th Street to Logan, with a hammerhead turn at the end. The street would be improved to minimum street standards. Some discrepancies were noted among the SEPA checklist, the MDNS, and the Findings of Fact and Conclusions. These included whether or not any irrigation would be done, whether the City or County would be responsible for the logging operation, and whether the parking lot would accommodate 16 or 20 vehicles. It was noted by Mackrow and Dave Robison, that some of the language had changed from document to document because of the extensive public process and active participation by area neighbors. Irrigation had not been planned because it was thought the playing fields would be established in time for the winter rains. Mackrow stated the fields are designed as practice fields only, and won't be large enough for Little League games. The anticipated uses are soccer, t-ball, and baseball and softball practice fields, thus eliminating some need for parking. It is probable that 16 parking spaces will be provided initially, with the total ~ reaching 20 at project completion. The County has already logged the land. Enarson asked for clarification of the role of the Planning Commission, particularly whether issues such as access and siting could be considered as part of the rezoning recommendation. Robison noted in this case the Commission is approving a development plan within the criteria for rezoning. He said any recommendations should be tied to the rezoning criteria. Enarson asked about park maintenance. Robison stated the City had budgeted funds for maintenance of the park. 2. Public Testimony No one appeared to speak for or against the project. 3. Committee Report (Erickson/Enarson) Erickson stated she believed all her questions had been discussed and she agreed that the rezone was appropriate. Enarson agreed the rezone is appropriate, but stated there are other issues she would like to address although she perceives that it is late in the process. Her concerns include access, adequate street standards, trails in a wetland, and the provision for Planning Commission Meeting December 14, 1995 Page 2 · · · L approved hours of work geared to the volunteer effort. She proposed changing Condition 6 to say ". . . marking the boundaries during the clearing . . . . . " She also noted she wished the City would hold itself to the same standards as private developers, in this case, in regard to required street standards and approved hours of work. Erickson noted that with volunteers doing the work, an 8-5 schedule is impossible and the clearing and raking would be unlikely to disturb the neighborhood. 4. Commission Discussion and Conclusions Thayer stated that she also has concerns about the minimum street standard required. She stated there will be a considerable increase in traffic. Randy Brackett, City Engineer, stated that there is no intent at this time to fully develop the street since the neighbors want only minimum improvements. Thayer again noted that a private developer would probably be required to improve the street to a higher street standard. Enarson stated that although she supports the project, she is also concerned that appropriate provisions have been made for maintenance. Welch noted he felt the Commission should try to respect the neighborhood's expressed wishes. Thayer suggested adding the proposed upgrading of Umatilla to Rosecrans to Condition 10 as expressed in the street development permit. She reminded applicants again that an accurate legal description would be necessary. Enarson suggested language changes to Conclusion #2 so the last sentence reads "The rezone, as proposed, would be compatible with surrounding land uses and would provide adequate access and minimal parking to serve the facility." Thayer moved to recommend approval of Rezone Application 9505-16 to the City Council. Keith seconded and the motion was approved unanimously. B. Vantage Construction Services, Variance Application #9510-16 Thayer excused herself from the proceedings. I. Staff Report Surber outlined applicant's request for a setback variance for a covered porch and entry stairs to be built within 13 feet of the front property line in the R-l zoning district. A minimum 20-foot front setback is required for all buildings or new improvements over 30 inches above ground level within the R-l zoning district (Section 17.20.01OPTMC). . . . ... . She stated that based on a recent site visit, Finding of Fact #4 should be amended to read "approximately 40 feet from the paved edge of Holcomb" rather than 50 feet. She also noted that Finding of Fact #8 should be amended to show that one letter was received. That letter, from the Mysaks, was handed to Commissioners before the beginning of the meeting. Based on strict interpretation of the code, staff recommends denial of the variance, but has also prepared a recommendation for approval. 2. Public Testimony Lee Wilburn, owner of Vantage Construction Company spoke in favor of the application. He believes there would not be enough room to build an entrance on the south side of the house. He explained that the subcontractor had set out and poured the foundation incorrectly. He noted that at the time, although survey markers were existent, there were no visual references to show where the setback should be since other homes and fences in the neighborhood have nonconforming setbacks. Wilburn stated that he would agree to eliminate the porch roof from the house and leave only a two foot overhang to cover the front door, and construct only the minimum railing required by the Uniform Building Code. Betty Mysak spoke against the variance, noting that the encroachment into the setback would cut into her view, thereby decreasing her property value. She showed photographs of the view from her property affected by the new construction which were entered into the record as Exhibit 5. Mark Mysak stated that Mr. Wilburn had been extremely cooperative and made every effort to make the best of the situation. He stated that he had no objection to the project continuing as Mr. Wilburn had described it, but was still concerned that if the variance were granted, the next owner of the home would be able to add a covered porch or other structure that would block the view. 3. Committee Report (Welch/Enarson) Welch stated that an appropriate compromise has been proposed. He noted that the aesthetics of the house call for some sort of porch or deck on the front. He favored allowing the existing deck and overhang, but prohibiting any extension beyond that. Enarson agreed, and also noted that there are an unusual number of non-conforming neighboring properties. She would like to approve Draft B which would reflect the solution proposed which will satisfy both affected parties. Surber suggested deleting all references to "covered" porch and expanding on the description in Finding of Fact 3 to reflect which proposed improvements have been removed. She also consulted the Municipal Code to confirm that any other construction than that which was fr . . . \- . approved by the present application would require an additional variance, and that variance would include public notification of neighbors. It was agreed that only Exhibits 1 and 5 should be forwarded to City Council, with the addition of a plot plan. Welch moved that Draft B Findings and Conclusions recommending approval of the variance with discussed amendments added be forwarded to City Council as Planning Commission I s recommendation. Enarson seconded. The motion passed with one abstention. V. NEW BUSINESS Surber asked whether all Commissioners would be present at the meeting scheduled for December 28. Keith was doubtful, and it was thought that Sherwood would not be present. Other Commissioners plan to be present, and Thayer will be contacted to see if she will be available. Surber noted that back issues of the new Planning Commissioners Journal are available at the Building and Community Development Department if Commissioners are interested in looking at them. VI. ANNOUNCEMENTS: Next Scheduled Meetings December 28. 1995 City of Port Townsend (Charles Pink House), Conditional Use Application #9511-08 City of Port Townsend (Charles Pink House), Parking Variance Application #9507-04 (Welch/Enarson) VII. ADJOURN Motion to adjourn the meeting was made by Enarson and seconded by Keith. The motion was carried unanimously and the meeting was adjourned at 8:50 PM. 9~ -1J~ ~--------------------------~---- --------- --------- Pamela Kolacy Administrative Assistant