Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05111995 Min Ag I . . 'City of Port Townsend Planning Commission 540 Water St., Port Townsend, WA 98368 206/385-3000 PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA Revised Business Meeting I. ROLL CALL II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: April 27, 1995 III. COMMUNICATIONS: Current mail IV. OLD BUSINESS A. Virginia Hollender, Variance #9503-16 1. 2. 3. 4. Staff Report (Surber) Public Testimony Committee Report (Thayer/Erickson) Commission Discussion and Conclusions B. Parkview Associates, Zoning Code Text Amendment #9504-04 1. Staff Report (Robison) 2. Public Testimony 3. Commission Discussion and Conclusions C. Comprehensive Plan 1. Glen Cove Alternatives (Robison) V. NEW BUSINESS VI. ANNOUNCEMENTS: Next Scheduled Meetings May 25. 1995 June 8. 1995 Zoning Code Text Amendment (Signs) VII. ADJOURN May 11, 1995 . ., 'City of Port Townsend Planning Commission 540 Water St., Port Townsend, WA 98368 206/385·3000 PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA Business Meeting I. ROLL CALL II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: April 27, 1995 III. COMMUNICATIONS: Current mail IV. OLD BUSINESS A. Virginia Hollender, Variance #9503-16 1. 2. 3. 4. Staff Report (Surber) Public Testimony Committee Report (Thayer/Erickson) Commission Discussion and Conclusions B. Parkview Associates, Zoning Code Text Amendment #9504-04 1. Staff Report (Toews) 2. Public Testimony 3. Commission Discussion and Conclusions C. Comprehensive Plan 1. Glen Cove Alternatives (Robison) V. NEW BUSINESS VI. ANNOUNCEMENTS: Next Scheduled Meetings May 25. 1995 . June 8. 1995 VII. ADJOURN May 11, 1995 '~ 'City of Port Townsend Planning Commission 540 Water St., Port Townsend, WA 98368 206/385·3000 · PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES May 11, 1995 I. ROLL CALL The meeting was called to order at 7:02 p.m. by Chair Pro Tem Karen Erickson. Other members in attendance were Ernie Baird, Lisa Enarson, Cindy Thayer, Ian Keith, and Mark Welch. Staff members present were Judy Surber, Dave Robison, Pam Kolacy, and Hal Hart. II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion to approve minutes of the April 27, 1995 meeting was made by Thayer and seconded by Enarson. The minutes were approved as written. II. COMMUNICATIONS · None. IV. OLD BUSINESS A. Virginia Hollender, Variance #9503-16 1. Staff Report (Surber) Judy Surber described applicant's proposal to construct a six and one-half foot high fence directly abutting the McKinley Street right-of-way. The Port Townsend Municipal Code regulates the height and placement of fences, limiting height to six feet and requiring a 20- foot setback from street rights-of-way. She presented an overhead showing the fence in relation to the proposed site and· noted that measurements are approximate, as there were no survey stakes on the property. Applicant's reason for requesting the fence is to keep the deer out of her yard where they have been destroying her landscaping. Two draft Findings and Conclusions were provided to the Commission. The first was based on staff's recommendation for denial of the variance, and the second for use if the variance were approved, with staff s recommendation that additional findings be added to support this conclusion. · Sherwood entered the meeting at 7:10. Planning Commission Minutes May 11, 1995 Page 1 · · · 2. Public Testimony. Applicant Virginia Hollender explained that the deer in the neighborhood continually eat her plants, and therefore she is unable to maintain a nicely landscaped yard which she feels is an asset to the community. She stated that she would like to build an attractive fence which would tie into the architecture of her home. She showed several photographs of other encroachments on the rights of way in town, noting she believes that these establish a precedent for use of the right of way. The group of photos were added to the file and marked as Exhibit 4. John Grycel spoke in opposition to the project, noting that although the deer are definitely a problem in the neighborhood, he believes another solution should be sought for that problem. He said that the setback variance would not affect him, but the height variance would block his already limited view. He showed photos of his view and how it would be impacted by the proposed fence. The photos were added to the file as Exhibit 5. 3. Committee Report (Thayer, Erickson) Thayer noted that she understands the desire to keep the deer out and is sympathetic to the applicant's problem; however, her feeling is that the Commission cannot grant a variance without the demonstration of special circumstances required by the ordinance. She stated she fears that approving a variance request without clearly demonstrating special circumstances will open the door for other property owners who have deer problems to request similar variances. The existence of other nonconforming uses of the right of way does not affect the fact that the Commission must use the existing Code to evaluate applications. Erickson stated she couldn't agree that the applicant had shown that the best use of the property could only be dealt with through this variance. She too said granting the variance will open the door for a flood of similar variance requests and believes that it would be more realistic to change the code than to hear variance requests from all landowners who have a similar situation. 4. Commission Discussion and Conclusions Enarson stated that she fully supports the variance request, provided it allows for consideration of the neighbor's view. She noted the Code relating to fences and hedges is very brief, and the definition of "site obstruction" is not clear. She strongly feels the variance is worth granting and hopes to approach the City Council as a citizen and ask them to direct staff to change the code. She believes variances are meant to reflect the desires of the public. She noted that there have been many intrusions into the right of way, and that applicant could probably have built the proposed fence without any repercussions. In her opinion, landscapers are artists and deserve to have the right to protect their yards from deer. She stated applicant should be commended for applying for the variance rather than Planning Commission Minutes May 11, 1995 Page 2 · · · proceeding with the project without a permit. She noted she also opposed the condition requiring a survey of the property if the variance is approved, saying that it would be an undue burden on the applicant to pay for the variance and then have to pay for the survey as well since the exact boundaries need not be determined unless the variance is challenged. Welch noted a primary reason for regulation of fences and hedges is driver visibility, and at applicant's site, the fence would not impinge on this visibility. He would not recommend a fence that would inhibit the neighbor's view, however. Thayer noted that the part of the fence that would block the neighbor's view can be built with or without the variance, within six inches. Erickson agreed that the fence would hardly be noticeable in the proposed location since the landscaping is taller than the fence. She said again that her reason for recommending denial of the variance is that the applicant has been unable to show compliance with the conditions required under the city ordinance for variance approval. She also noted that the Commission often does not have the discretion to protect views although this will become more significant as population density increases. She agreed that the city-wide codes should be changed rather than having the Commission consider multiple variances. Keith noted the point is really a legislative one. There are clearly no special circumstances that apply in this case. He agreed that if the variance were granted, the Commission would probably see a flood of other applications. He said if the Commission really believes a legislative change is in order, then that should be pursued, but noted also that the stated purpose of the code providing for the maintenance of clear views and light should not be disregarded. Thayer moved that the variance application be denied, Erickson seconded, Enarson stated before the vote that denying the one person who is asking for a variance is not logical, while others who have not requested variances are constructing similar fences. She again stated her strong support for a mitigated variance in conjunction with the neighbors' wishes. Sherwood stated that perhaps the problem could be solved without requiring a variance and noted that there are other ways to deal with the deer problem. The motion was put to vote, with five in favor of denying the variance, and Enarson and Welch opposed to denying variance. Sherwood explained to the applicant that the Commission's recommendation will be forwarded to City Council and that she will have another chance to present her case at that time. Robison noted that it is within the discretion of the Planning Commission to recommend that City Council direct staff to draft an amendment to the section of the zoning code regulating Planning Commission Minutes May 11, 1995 Page 3 . . . fences and hedges. Enarson suggested that this proposal be discussed under new business. A. Parkview Associates, Zoning Code Text Amendment #9504-04. 1. Staff Report (Robison) Robison discussed the April 27, 1995 memo to the Planning Commission from Eric Toews, Planner, regarding a proposed amendment to the Subdivision Code (PTMC 18.20.1100). He noted that the amendment was requested by Lee Wilburn for the purpose of extending the preliminary plat approval for Parkview Associates. The amendment would allow the City to extend tentative plat approvals for a total of five years rather than the currently allowed three years. He noted that there are two text amendments for consideration, one proposed by the Mr. Wilburn, and one by staff. Baird asked for clarification on whether the Commission is considering the text amendment itself, and/or the specific extension of the Parkview Plat application. Robison stated that the amendment would apply to any applicant in the future, and that it could also extend to the Parkview Plat if approved by City Council. He explained that staff's proposal gives specific criteria to be used to evaluate an extension request based on whether or not it is in the community's best interest. He pointed out Paragraph B in staff's proposed amendment which lists five specific criteria and noted that the amendment was based on research' of several other city and county ordinances. He also noted that the text amendment is exempt from SEP A because it is entirely procedural. Staff's recommendation is that its proposed amendment be adopted in lieu of applicant's proposed amendment. Erickson questioned the phrase "unforeseen circumstances" in criterion 2, and wondered whether further definition should be provided. Robison noted the applicant would have the burden of showing those circumstances. Prom staff's perspective, it means the applicant has to make a convincing case for each criteria, with the result that the Commission would have a factual basis upon which to base its decision. Keith asked why there would be different criteria for the first and second applications for extension. Robison explained that the first year extension is defined by state law, but that the law doesn't prevent any city or county from developing other conditions or procedures for additional extensions. Robison noted that applicants would need to show good faith in continuing projects. He cited examples of good faith procedures including additional studies, infrastructure, drainage plans, and final design work. He also noted the importance of having a mechanism in place which would prevent speculation that could occur if applicants were able to vest under current rules and keep an application alive with automatic extensions. Erickson asked whether the Commission could then count on staff to analyze the application Planning Commission Minutes May 11, 1995 Page 4 · · · for extension ànd advise the Commission on what action has been taken and how it serves to meet the criteria. Thayer noted again that the burden would be on the applicant. Robison confirmed that the applicant would be making a written request showing how the conditions were met, and that staff will make a recommendation to the. Commission based on the information in the application. Baird noted that the developer will have a good deal of money tied up in such a project and therefore have considerable incentive to present a persuasive argument with plenty of information for the Commission to base its decision upon. Keith asked how this situation has come up often enough to present a problem in cases besides the present one. Robison stated that this is the first he is aware of for a preliminary plat; however he anticipates there may be others in the future and believes it is reasonable to set up the procedure for review. 2. Public Testimony Lee Wilburn, President of Vantage Construction Services, the managing general partner of Parkview Associates spoke in favor of staff s proposed amendment. He noted the differences between the preliminary plat and PUD processes and stated that at the time of his application, the City recommended the plat be done rather than a PUD. Had he pursued the project as a PUD, the lots would have been legally created when the contract with the City was recorded. He stated that most requirements for the preliminary plat have been fulfilled, with the exception of the posting of a $50,000 bond to ensure preservation of the existing wetland and open space areas during the construction phases of the project. He noted that his bonding capacity is currently being drained by another project (the Port Townsend Business Park). He believes he has met all other criteria in the staff's proposed amendment, having spent approximately $35,000 in various engineering studies and has had numerous meetings with City staff to discuss various changes in technology and infrastructure requirements. He acknowledged the importance of preventing developers from vesting before the Comprehensive Plan to avoid the speculative nature of future projects. Wilburn suggested an amendment similar to the Pierce County ordinance which would toll the applicable time period from the date of filing the application for extension until the date of the final decision by the City. He added he would be happy to come before the Commission with a factual presentation and sworn affidavit on behalf of the partnership showing that criteria had been met. He the told Commissioners that the time extension for his application is up at the end of May and he would like the Commission to make a determination about his application at this meeting or recommend the additional tolling time which would apply to his application. 3. Commission Discussion and Conclusions Planning Commission Minutes May 11, 1995 Page 5 · · · Baird noted that process would be more orderly if the staff amendment were approved with the addition of the tolling time. Robison agreed that allowing the tolling would give staff sufficient time to prepare a written report analyzing how applicants met the criteria. Sherwood noted she preferred staff's proposal because the criteria were lined out. Motion· by Baird to recommend adoption of the preliminary plat limitation language proposed by staff, amended with the language on page 16-10 in exhibit "D" procedure and amendment on clear language and B-1 written request filed (insert FIRST) one-year extension. Second by Enarson. All in favor. C. Comprehensive Plan 1. Glen Cove Alternatives (Robison) Robison presented an informal overview of the alternatives for the Glen Cove area identified by the Joint City-County staff meetings with input from the Economic Development Council. He stated that the relationship of the City to the Glen Cove area ultimately affects our relationship with the County in terms of a regional economic strategy and needs to be closely coordinated with the City's Comprehensive Plan. He noted that five alternatives have been developed, three of which are being explored. They range from "no change" to establishment of county-wide retail and manufacturing areas. Primary issues involved are aesthetics, character, transportation, and provision of utilities. Robison noted that the primary frustration in the process to date has been the lack of involvement by property owners, City or county (Quimper area) residents. He stated that a public meeting with the Joint Growth Management Committee will take place on May 24, at 7 p.m. at the Pope Marine Building and urged interested commissioners to attend. V. New Business 1. Fence and Hedge Regulation Enarson noted that the timing is not particularly good for making changes to the municipal code in view of the timing for the draft comprehensive plan and compliance with the growth management act; however, she also noted she sees much cynicism about government in town lately b~use of the increasing number of citizens who violate the regulations without consequence, and the apparent penalization of people who come forward for variances which are not granted. She asked how staff felt about recommending a change at this time. Robison stated that staff feels that the ordinances concerning fences and hedges and setbacks should be a priority at this time. He noted that in addition to the variance reqùests that come before the Commission, there are a large number of administrative variances which take up considerable staff time. He agreed that it is difficult to convince people to pay an application fee and go through· the process when so many illegal and nonconforming uses exist. Planning Commission Minutes May 11, 1995 Page 6 . . - Erickson stated that it is the usual practice in city government to change the code if it has been determined that an unusual number of variances are being requested in regard to a particular regulation. Surber noted she attempted to dissuade applicant from submitting the variance application, and urged her to go to City Council with an appeal to change the fence and hedge ordinance. Enarson proposed that the Planning Commission recommend revisitation of the code by staff. Surber agreed to prepare a letter for the chairperson's signature to forward to the City Council. VI. ANNOUNCEMENTS: Next Scheduled Meetings May 25. 1995 CANCELLED June 8. 1995 Zoning Code Text Amendment (Signs) VII. ADJOURN The meeting was adjourned at 9:30 p.m. ~9{~ Administrative Assistant Planning Commission Minutes May 11, 1995 Page 7