Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10121995 Min , ... ~.. , , , '1- PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES October 12, 1995 Business Meeting 7:00 PM I. ROLL CALL The meeting was called to order at 7: 15 p.m. by Chair Lois Sherwood. Other members in attendance were Lisa Enarson, Cindy Thayer, and Ian Keith. Karen Erickson and Mark Welch were excused. Staff members present were Judy Surber and Pam Kolacy. II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion to approve the minutes of the September 18, 1995 meeting was made by Thayer and seconded by Keith. The motion carried unanimously. III. COMMUNICATIONS A letter from Nancy Ward in opposition to Conditional Use Permit Application #9508-04 and Variance Application #9508-05 (DeBoehr/Masci) was distributed to Commissioners by Judy Surber (Exhibit 8). IV. OLD BUSINESS A. Cher DeBoehr & Geoffrey Masci, Conditional Use Permit Application #9508- 04; Variance (Parking) Application #9508-05 Enarson noted she had once been of patient of Dr. Masci's but that this would not affect her ability to judge the application fairly. She offered to excuse herself from the proceedings. Keith stated he has also been of patient of Dr. Masci. Thayer stated that she has a client relationship with applicant's representative Rick Sepler in an entirely different manner. No objections were forthcoming and all three Commissioners remained seated for the hearing. 1. Staff Report (Judy Surber) Surber summarized the applicants I proposal to expand an existing home medical office within the R-II zone by an additional 1,000 square feet. The expansion would result in a total of 2,340 square feet of medical office space (46% of the total use). The square footage and number of outside employees exceed the criteria for a home occupation and therefore a Conditional Use Permit would be required under Section 17.16~01O PTMC. In addition, applicants request a variance to provide less than the required number of off-street parking spaces (Chapter 17.30.100 PTMC). Currently, two of thirteen required off-street parking spaces exist. Because office space within the R - II Zone is required to be within the "principal building" or residence, applicants propose a breezeway to connect the new building Planning Commission Meeting Page 1 October 12, 1995 , , , '\ '¡, to the existing house. Surber noted that Exhibit 2 should be amended to show two parking spaces rather than four because the spaces indicated are not long enough to provide tandem parking. An additional parking study done by City staff to supplement the parking study conducted by Madrona Development (Exhibit 3) was distributed and Surber noted the results were very similar, but the City study included a wider area, looking down the block toward the bed and breakfast inns on Adams Street (Exhibit 6). Surber distributed photographs submitted by Madrona Planning & Development Services as examples of home occupied businesses (Exhibit 5). Surber stated that two draft Findings and Conclusions have been included in the Commission packets. One is staff's recommendation for denial, based on the strict interpretation of the applicable Codes. Draft B has also been provided as a starting point for conditions if the Commission considers approving the application. She then showed the site plan and went through the Conclusions in Drafts A and B and the suggested Conditions of Approval in Draft B. Keith asked whether the existing outbuilding garage/storage would be demolished. Surber stated the building will remain, but will be used as storage rather than as a garage. 2. Public Testimony Geoffrey Masci, D.C., applicant, spoke in favor of the project. Dr. Masci stated he has lived on the property and worked at that site for over 20 years. He stated that his portion of the business is at the maximum level he can accommodate. He explained that the project transpired after his marriage to Ms. DeBoehr; their practices are similar and they would like to combine their (chiropractic and physical therapy) offices on the site of their residence. He stated he has spoken to surrounding neighbors and he believes those most affected would be the Millers and the Lundes, contiguous property owners; letters in support of the project from these neighbors were distributed to the Commissioners as Exhibit 8. He also noted the practice would be open four days a week rather than five, with Thursday a day off for both practitioners. He noted that the other conditional uses in the neighborhood are mostly bed and breakfast inns. Masci stated that many of his patients live in Marine Plaza or in the Uptown district and walk to their appointments. He believes the clinic is an integral part of the uptown community and makes health care more affordable and easier to maintain. He noted that the only part of the new proposed building visible from the street would be the gable end. The new building will be designed to be similar in appearance to the existing Planning Commission Meeting Page 2 October 12, 1995 , , , , , buildings. Applicants have been before the Historic Preservation Commission for a pre- application and received no adverse comments regarding the design concept. Masci stated a willingness to make accommodations on the parking issue but hopes to preserve the greenbelt. Cher DeBoehr also spoke in favor of the project, emphasizing the "homey" nature of the practice and the fact that many patients are picked up and delivered. Dr. Masci stated that the breezeway connecting the buildings is a shared waiting room and will result in the need for fewer staff members. He said the front entrance to the practice will remain on Lawrence Street, where a wheelchair ramp is located. Rick Sepler, Madrona Planning, applicants' representative, stated that the neighborhood of the proposed project is a transitional one and that the applicants are proposing a use that is relatively quiet and will be operating only during daytime hours. Sepler also stated that the site plan and parking plan could be altered in accordance with the recommendation of the Commission. He noted that under the Parking code a garage may be counted as an off-street parking space even if it is used for storage rather than parking. He also noted that some shrubbery, trees, and fences could be removed to provide alternative parking. He said that Lawrence Street is a major arterial and that in his experience there is usually parking available there. Sepler suggested a modification to Condition 5 in Draft B so that the first sentence include " . . . . . . .agreeing to join in, and not to oppose or protest, a petition or resolution to establish a parking and business improvement area serving the uptown area pursuant to Chapter 35.87 A RCW . . . . . . . . . " Whitney Miller, a neighbor, spoke in favor of the application. She stated that her few concerns had already been addressed directly to the applicants. These concerns include the number and type of windows that would face her property and whether the business would be active evenings or weekends. There was no other public testimony. 3. Committee Report (Keith/Thayer) Keith asked for verification of some facts by the applicants. He asked about the additional patiept load (15-20 clients per day in addition to the present 20-25) and whether the expanded facility would accommodate any more clinical care providers. Masci verified the change in patient load and stated there would be no more clinical practitioners. Keith noted that if the Planning Commission Meeting Page 3 October 12, 1995 · · · additional four treatment rooms were created and sufficient parking provided, the property could be used by another party as a medical clinic with multiple practitioners, thus creating a greater impact on the neighborhood. De Boehr noted she would like to add at least four treatment rooms and a bigger gym. 'Keith questioned whether the conditional use permit would attach to the property or would be limited only to present applicants. Surber stated that a CUP could be issued and conditioned to the present applicants only. Keith again noted his concerns about setting limits on future increases either in number of treatment rooms or clinical practitioners employed at the site. Thayer and Keith both noted that the uptown commercial area is traditionally nonconforming in use. Thayer said that in her neighborhood, the situation would be very uncomfortable, but she feels this particular neighborhood is different. She stated she is not opposed to the proposed project, but she would not like to see a conditional use permit granted that would travel with the property. Surber noted that the Commission may set a dangerous precedent for allowing medical office use in a residential area, particularly one which has such a significant lack of parking compliance. She suggested that a rezone may be a better solution if approval is recommended. 4. Commission Discussion and Conclusions Enarson stated that the presentation of photos of other known home business uses must be considered in light of the fact that there isn't any information about which of these uses have been permitted by the City. Surber noted that most uses pictured are home occupations, and therefore limited to home occupation requirements which are considerably more stringent than conditional use permits in regard to allowed square footage, number of outside employees, etc. Sherwood stated that although land use changes are currently being discussed and new zoning will be implemented in the future, the Commissioners must deal with the City Code as it currently exists when recommending approval or denial of current applications. She also noted that the need for a variance is created by the applicant's wish to expand the office in a residential zone. Keith stated that although he believes the granting of the variance to accommodate the practice as it is proposed would be reasonable, he also agreed that the Commission has to work with the existing Code. Planning Commission Meeting Page 4 October 12, 1995 . . . , , , Enarson noted there is a sign at the property stating certain spaces are for "patient parking only" but those spaces exist in the public right of way. She asked if property owners have the legal right to reserve parking in the public right of way. Surber stated that they do not. Enarson noted that, in effect, applicants are using the public right of way for private parking already. She went on to note that the current hearing does not revolve around whether the Commission approves of the applicant and the applicant's business at all; rather the decision must be based on considerations of what the impact on the neighborhood area will be. She pointed out that even counting the current garage space, which is actually used for storage rather than parking, the applicants are significantly short of the legal requirement for on-site parking spaces and that other businesses on the commercial portion of Lawrence Street have had to comply with parking requirements. Thayer stated that some of those businesses had different circumstances. Enarson suggested that the approval would set a precedent for the area. She noted there are good reasons why home occupations are limited in size and that many battles have been fought before the Commission about much smaller issues involving home occupations. She noted that of the neighbors who had gone on record, one of the three was opposed to the increased use. She said that such a use would be opposed in her neighborhood as well, but did agree there are some differing circumstances in this particular location which is at the edge of a commercial area. Keith stated he would like to see the application return after the revision of the zoning code. Sepler suggested the Commission consider the Conditional Use application and parking variance separately, implying that the Commission could approve the conditional use and let applicants work out parking as a separate issue. Surber stated that the Commission has the alternative to deny the application without prejudice, in which case the applicant could return with a revised application at any time. Enarson asked if a compromise position should be discussed at this time. Sherwood questioned whether some type of joint use agreement with neighboring property owners might be worked out, as suggested by applicants earlier. Thayer noted everyone in the uptown area will be impacted and it is hard to determine where such an agreement would come from. Thayer stated that there are rarely any cars in the parking lot at the Carlson chiropractic clinic. Surber stated that the applicant was required to have signage directing people to the parking lot since it doesn't look like a commercial lot, but that hasn't been done yet. Planning Commission Meeting Page 5 October 12, 1995 · · · Enarson noted that it is often impossible to find a parking place on Lawrence Street in that block and that is probably because the lot is not being used. Keith stated he wouldn't like to approve the conditional use, then have the applicant come back and say the only way to fulfill the parking requirement is to cut down trees. Thayer suggested requiring fewer off street parking spaces. Sepler then requested a continuation of the meeting, while applicants work on a parking plan which would accommodate as many reasonably placed parking spaces as possible. Thayer suggested that Planning Commission recommend a certain number of parking spaces as a condition of approval and forward the application to City Council. Surber noted staff would prefer that the application come back to the Planning Commission as there are several other issues that will need to be dealt with on a completely revised application. Sherwood asked if Commissioners had any recommendations. Enarson noted she would like to leave the plan to the applicant rather than making specific suggestions; she would recommend the Commission should not try to "micro-manage" an application. Keith moved to continue the hearing on Conditional Use Permit Application #9508-04 and Variance (Parking) Application #9508-05 to the October 26 meeting. Thayer seconded. There was no further discussion and the motion carried unanimously. V. NEW BUSINESS Surber distributed a notice regarding an A WC educational workshop on consolidating the permit process for information. Any Commissioner who would like to attend should let her or Dave Robison know. VI. ANNOUNCEMENTS: Next Scheduled Meetings October 26. 1995 Continued Hearing: Cher DeBoehr & Geoffrey Masci, Conditional Use Permit Application #9508-04, Variance (Parking) Application #9508-05 (Keith/Thayer) November 9~ 1995 City Council has a budget hearing scheduled in chambers on this date VII. ADJOURN Enarson moved to adjourn. Seconded by Thayer. The meeting was adjourned at 8:28 p.m. 9~ cf{ ria. ~ Pam Kolacy, Administrative Afs'sistant Planning Commission Meeting Page 6 October 12, 1995 P LfttJ IJ II.! b f/mm,ssQuest Lìst / () ~ / 2 - 95 Name (Please Print) Address Do you wish to If yes, indicate testify?(Mark box) topic Yes No , /' -t~ Al~'-'Ì Irfln '1-- A ,., >' 4,.,51.." ~t I v "" ...' ~ "'" . rr-~ \fV\¡IÁ ~ l «j I L,,.~ e:t M1 \l.w (oYo levA IGif /< ,:~ (YYV'\evt , " I '" .