Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01121995 Min Ag -, . .c . _J City of Port Townsend Planning Commission 540 \-Vater St., Port Townsend, \-VA 98368 206/385·3000 PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA Business Meeting I. ROLL CALL II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: December 8, 1995 III. COMMUNICATIONS: Current mail IV. OLD BUSINESS A. _ Dallett/Mathieson, Summary Short Plat #9403-08 1. Staff Report (Surber) 2. Public Testimony 3. Committee Report (Enarson/Welch) 4. Commission Discussion and Conclusions_ January 12, 1995 B. Janel Carlson, Summary Short Plat #9408-05/ Subdivision Variance #9409-07 1. Staff Report (Surber) 2. Public Testimony 3. Committee Report (Erickson/Enarson) 4. Commission Discussion and Conclusions V. NEW BUSINESS VI. ANNOUNCEMENTS: _ Next Scheduled Meetings January 19 Accessory Dwelling Units January 26 VII. ADJOURN r . . . 'I PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES January 12, 1995 I. ROLL CALL The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chair Lois Sherwood. Other members in attendance were Lisa Enarson, Karen Erickson, Cindy Thayer, 'Mark Welch, Ian Keith and Ernie Baird. Staff members present were Judy Surber, Dave Robison and Judy Erlandson II. APPROV AL OF MINUTES The minutes of the December 8, 1994 meeting were approved with corrections. III. CURRENT COMMUNICATIONS Memo from Judy Surber providing copies of Restrictive Covenant and Easement documents for Dallet/Mathieson property, as requested by Ian Keith. Distributed to Commissioners just prior to start of meeting. IV. OLD BUSINESS A. Dallett/Mathieson, Summary Short Plat #9403-07 1. Staff Report (Surber) Confirmed the application number for this project is 9403-07, and not 9403-08 as was noted on the agenda. Surber described the applicant's proposed short subdivsion of 1.24 acres into two lots, which would result in a configuration where the existing primary residence would be located on the west lot and an accessory structure would be located on the east lot. Subsequent to short plat approval, the accessory structure would be upgraded to a single family residence with the minor addition of kitchen facilities. Normally a summary short plat would be decided administratively by the Director of Building & Community Development. However, there is a history with this project and public hearings have been requested. The project was originally noticed as a short plat, then the project was interpreted as a boundary line adjustment instead, and noticed again. Finally, it was determined that a short plat was indeed required, and the latest notice was on October 17, 1994. Public comments from the adjacent property owner to the north of the subject 'property were received in response to all three notices of application, and a request for a hearing was received on November 3, 1994. · · · /. Planning Commission Minutes January 12, 1995 Page 2 of 4 Surber noted that staff recommended approval with conditions, listed in the Findings and Conclusions. The Commission had several questions about the Restrictive Covenant and Easement, and Surber went over both documents. 2. Public Testimony Janet Dallet, co-applicant with David Mathieson, spoke for the project. They provided copies of their statement and a map to the commissioners. The map was made Exhibit #10, and the statement Exhibit #11. Janet Dallet read the statement, which provided their interpretation of the events leading up to this hearing, and addressing the proposal and concerns of their neighbor to the north, Tavernakis.. The statement also reiterated the applicant's reasons for requesting the subdivision. The property owner to the north, Tavernakis, spoke against the project, stating his desire that the existing access easement be re-drawn as a private road to better serve all parties, and stating several points of contention between himself and the applicants regarding the current state and usage of the access easement, which he claims is currently maintained in a hazardous state for traffic and pedestrians. He also described existing and proposed problems with the utilities running to his property across the property of the applicants. He provided a contour map, exhibit #12, which he used to site concerns about a steep slope, which he feels. prohibits access to his property from 30th· street. . Tim Wollet, a planner who assisted in preparing this application, wanted to clarify a few things. The original purpose of the access easement was to provide access for two lots, so this proposal makes no change there. The east parcel access is from 29th street. Port Townsend Municipal Code states that a private road is not required for short plat approval. Chair Sherwood stated that the focus should remain on the short subdivision proposal and agreement, and that disagreements between neighbors are a private matter. 3. Committee Report (Enarson/Welch) Welch stated he understands the neighbor's concerns, but there is no compelling reason for the city to require any alterations to the easement. Welch recommended approval of the short plat. Enarson also spoke in favor of the short plat. 4. Commission Discussion and Conclusions Sherwood asked for clarification about the affect of the short subdivision on the existing access easement. The easement and restrictive covenant would notbe affected. She also stated that the city has an obligation to look out for the rights of the property owners, but not to arbitrate how a private easement is used. · · · --Í ! Planning Commission Minutes January 12, 1995 Page 3 of 4 Welch moved that Short Subdivision Application 9403-07 be recommended to Council for approval as conditioned, with a modification made to Finding of Fact item #6, to clarify sequence of determination and notification dates. Erickson seconded the motion, all in favor. B. Janel Carlson, Summary Short Plat #9408-05/Subdivision Variance #9409-07 1. Staff Report (Surber) Surber described the applicant's proposal to resubdivide two lots to reorient the two 50xloo foot lots changing the frontage from Van Buren to Lawrence Street. Two of the existing buildings on the site would not meet the setback requirements and therefore a subdivision variance is also required. This application is continued from the last planning commission meeting. Rick Sepler of Madrona Planning and Development Services, representative for the applicant, has submitted an updated proposal to join the two buildings by enclosing the existing exterior staircase, which would eliminate the need for a building separation. Each building would own one-half of the stairway and would be responsible for maintenance of this common area. Surber explained the new proposal and referred to a new drawing of the site. Surber noted that some revisions have been made to the two draft Findings & Conclusions to update the non-conforming setbacks and add the covered staircase. 2. Public Testimony Janel Carlson is in support of Draft B of the Findings and Conclusions, and she would prefer not to be required to make any improvements to the parking lot. She believes that the existing landscaping conforms to the majority of current requirements, but if the commission does have further requirements, she would like a discussion about it. Rick Sepler, the applicant's representative, thanked Surber for her memo about her conversation with the city attorney regarding the maintenance agreement in this project. Surber stated that the maintenance agreement was reviewed with Tim McMahan, city attorney, but it would need to be enhanced if the project was approved, and an easement is needed for shared access of the stairwell. >, , -.. . · Planning Commission Minutes January 12, 1995 Page 4 of 4 3. Committee Report (Enarson/Erickson) Enarson stated that improvements to the parking area should be a condition of the variance. The area should have a gravel surface to reduce dust, and eliminate potholes. Her opinion is that since this is a non-conforming building, and because of this application, this is an opportunity to have the parking lot upgraded. She does not agree that there is no nexus between the proposed project and the condition of upgrading the parking lot. Her suggested improvements include, landscape buffering, marked parking spaces, a disabled accessible space, and signage indicating the location of the lot. With the requirements being fairly minimal, there should not be an undue burden on the applicant. Enarson moved to recommend approval to the City Council of Draft B of Findings of Fact, Conclusions, and Decision for the Summary Short Plat and Subdivision Variance applications, as amended with Condition #6 stating the parking lot improvements, as read by Surber. Erickson seconded the motion. · Welch, Erickson, Enarson, Baird and Sherwood in favor. Keith opposed. Thayer abstaining. The meeting was adjourned at 9:00 p.m. ~ Community Development Assistant ·