Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12081994 Min Ag , ,. . -. , City of Port Townsend Planning Commission 540 \Vater St., Port Townsend, WA 98368 206/385-3000 PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA Business Meeting December 8, 1994 I. ROLL CALL II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: November 10, 1994 III. COMMUNICATIONS: Current mail IV. OLD BUSINESS A. All City Autobody & Towing/Carl Selset, Variance Application #9410-07 . 1. Staff Report (Surber) _ .2. Public Testimony 3. Committee Report (Baird/Thayer) 4. Commission Discussion and Conclusions _ 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 A. Port Townsend Business Park PUDA Agreement 1. Staff Report (Hildt) 2. Commission Discussion and Recommendation VI. ANNOUNCEMENTS: Next Scheduled Meetings December 29 January 12 DallettlMathieson, Summary Short Plat #9403-07 (Enarson/Welch) VII. ADJOURN i . - .~ " PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES December 8, 1994 I. ROLL CALL The meeting was called to order at 7:02 p.m. by Chair Lois Sherwood. Other members in attendance were Lisa Enarson, Karen Erickson, Mark Welch, and Ian Keith. Cindy Thayer was excused. Staff members present were Judy Surber, Michael Hildt, and Pam Kolacy. II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The minutes of the meeting of November 10 were approved. At this time, Chair Sherwood welcomed Ian Keith, the new member of the Commission. III.- CURRENT COMMUNICATIONS Memo from Judy Surber to Michael Hildt regarding Admiral Marine Variance Application No. 9401-13 clarifying recommendation of a maximum 50-ft. height including any appurtenances (air conditioners, etc.) located on roof. IV. OLD BUSINESS A. All City Autobody & Towing/Carl Selset, Variance Application #9410-07 Erickson excused herself because of conflict of interest. Enarson noted she had her car repaired recently by applicant and offered to excuse herself if anyone objected. There were no objections. Erickson left the meeting at 7:06. Ernie Baird entered the meeting at 7:07. , 1. Staff Report (Surber) Surber described the applicant's proposal to constrUët an eight-føcJthigh fence to enclose a 30 foot by 65 foot vehicle storage area on the All City Auto Body lot located at Logan Street and Sims Way. Section 17.20.010 of the Port Townsend Municipal Code (PTMC) limits fence height to a maximum of six feet; therefore, a variance is required to allow the eight~ foot fence. Surber read conclusions in two draft reports prepared by staff, one for ¡¡Pproval and one for denial. ' ~ . . Surber also referred to a memo she wrote to the Planning Commission explaining that the Washington Administrative Code (WAC) requires an eight-foot fence for state impound lots, provided however, that the fencing requirement may be waived by the department where, due to the topography or zoning a fence would be impracticable and the storage area is secure without a fence. At the time the memo was written, the applicant had not requested a waiver as provided for in the WACs. Surber noted that after the memo was written, applicant did in fact request a waiver and it was denied. The Planning Commission therefore has two options (approval or denial) rather than the four listed in the memo. Surber noted that staff recommended approval with conditions listed in the Findings and Conclusions. The Commission also requested that she go over recommendation for denial so they would have all the facts. 2. Public Testimony Carl Selset, applicant spoke for the project. He noted that the pJ;"oposed fenced impound lot would be located at the rear of the property, abutting Bishop Park. He stated that he is required by the state to have a secured area for state patrol impound. He also said he doesn't consider the proposed fence to be an eyesore to any neighbors. 3. Committee Report (Baird/Thayer) Baird stated he does not see any reason to deny the variance since the fence is well away from any view of neighbors, and is consistent with existing uses even though prohibited by zoning. Enarson asked for clarification of location of Sixth Street and whether it would ever be opened. Surber stated that the street is now part of Bishop Park and will not be developed. Enarson noted that with the park on north and east, it would be possible to have vegetation grow over the proposed fence which would lessen the visual impact. Baird moved that Variance Application 9410-07 be recommended to Council for approval as conditioned. Welch seconded. All were in favor. B. Janel Carlson, Summary Short Plat #9408-05/Subdivision Variance #9409-07. 1. Staff Report (Surber) Surber described applicant's proposal to resubdivide Lots 2 and 4, Block "Z" of the Kuhns Ranch Addition pursuant to Chapter 18.38 of the Port Townsend Municipal Code (PTMC). The proposal is to reorient the two 50 x 100 foot lots, which currently front on Van Buren Street, into proposed Lots A and B which would front on Lawrence Street. Surber explained findings and conclusions and presented two drafts for the Commission, one for approval and one for denial. She noted that Building A is an existing non-conforming building, and that approval of the project relies on an existing parking lot in an R-1 zone. ,. . . Planning Commission Minutes December 8, 1994 Page 3 Enarson asked for clarification of conclusion #1 and whether there are grandfather rights that apply. Surber replied that existing non-conformance is grand fathered but that in any new configuration, all elements must comply with the Code. 2. Public Testimony Applicant Janel Carlson gave a brief history of the property, noting that at the time the variance was received for the chiropractic building with top floor apartments, there was no minimum distance between buildings required. In 1990 the City Attorney advised that a variance would be needed if the property were to be sold, but there were no plans to sell at the time. She contends that now circumstances unforeseen in 1977 and 1990 exist that make the variance necessary. Applicant believes that certain special circumstances exist now that would cause hardship if the request were denied. For example,she has agreed to purchase the building and will not have the right to retain that ownership if the variance is not granted. As a business owner, she feels it is prudent to own the building your business is in and that the location has value to the practice because it has been established there for so long. This would also be a factor if the practice were sold. She noted the guarantee of off-street parking was also important and that the decision of who will occupy the apartments upstairs should be made by the owner. Lack of approval would result in loss of stability because lack of a variance provides an unstable situation for business. She does not feel the changes requested would affect the City to the extent they would affect the owners of the building. Rick Sepler of Madrona Planning and Development Services, representative for the applicant, spoke next. He said that he would like to request the Commission postpone the hearing on this application so the variance can be amended to include a cover for the stairway. He contends that this would eliminate the Fire Code requirement for a 10- foot setback between buildings as it would in effect bind the buildings together. Erickson noted that if a stairway linked buildings and they were considered one, then each owner could own up the middle of the stairway. Baird asked if the situation might court problems of maintenance' and relationship between two owners. Sepler said that many garages straddle property lines and each owner maintains up to a center line. He said a restrictive covenant could be crafted regarding maintenance. In answer to a question by Baird, the applicant noted the stairs are necessary because they are the only access to the front apartment. She also said any access built on the north face of the · · · Planning Commission Minutes December 8, 1994 Page 4 building would be costly. A stairway built from Lawrence would significantly affect the setback of the building. Erickson noted that a better vicinity map showing the parking lot and street would be helpful. Keith noted that it was the applicant who originally built Builq.ing B which created the conditions that are now causing ·problems. He said the lot lines were erased and the building could have been done on Lot 4. He questioned the request for relief from City for a situation created by the applicant's own actions. 3. Committee Report (Erickson/Enarson) Erickson noted the need to make sure that if the variance is justified, there would be good reasons that would apply for other applicants. There is some definite language that would be needed to justify granting this variance. She noted that changing the lot line doesn't change the use of the land but may be necessary at some time to sell one piece or the other, so it does limit the use of the property which would not have been predicted several years ago. Enarson recommended that a condition clearly be made that Lot 6 is tied to Parcel B and also needs to fit current parking regulations. Sepler then asked if it would be worth the time and energy to resubmit application with changes, and asked for the Commission's guidance on whether or not they might be willing to consider the amended variance favorably. Baird said he would be willing to consider it, particularly if other examples could be found. Surber suggested copies of the apartment floor plans be provided for consideration if the matter were continued; this would make the question of access to the apartments more clear. Enarson noted that she would like to be sure the applicant is considering all alternatives. Erickson moved to continue the matter to January 12. Enarson seconded. All in favor. V. NEW BUSINESS A. PORT TOWNSEND BUSINESS PARK PUDA AGREEMENT Erickson excused herself due to conflict of interest. · · · . . Planning Commission Minutes December 8, 1994 Page 5 I. Staff Report (Hildt) Hildt referred to a memo to the Commission from Jan Zimmer outlining a proposed amendment to the Port Townsend Business Park P.U.D.A. In the current agreement, no residential uses are allowed, although the Business Park Covenants, Conditions and Restriction do allow one residential unit for security use. A mini-storage is presently under construction and it is proposed that a residence be built in association with it. Hildt noted that the Planning Commission has three possible decisions: 1) Whether they cQnsider the change a substantial one to the PUDA agreement. (If the change is substantial, the Commission must set a date for hearing and public notice.) 2) If the change is not substantial, Commission must make a recommendation to City Council for approval or denial. 4) If change is substantial, Commission must re-examine the SEPA determination to see if it should be revisited. Staff recommends that the change is not substantial and does not rise to the level of going back to the SEP A threshold agreement. Hildt noted that it would be counter to the policy represented to the City if large portions of the Business Park should go to non job-producing space. Residential use is not within the stated purpose of the park, and if there were general residential use, then it would conflict with the purpose. This is a specialized residence only for security purposes and would be restricted to persons who are owning and managing the mini-storage business, and the lot would not be saleable by restrictive covenant. Sherwood noted the language of the Business Park CC&R says the residence would provide securìty for the whole project. Hildt noted that regardless of the Commission's decision on the single residence, the Park owners could not request any other residences. Hildt noted that the PUDA is the superior document. If the Park is restricted to one residence, it would be up to the owner to determine specific use of that residence. He also noted that there has been no public notice regarding this matter and the present discussion is not a public meeting, so no public testimony can. be taken. Sherwood asked whether other potential tenants will give up their right to have security for the whole park rather than just the mini-storage if this particular residential use is allowed. '. þ · . . Planning Commission Minutes December 8, 1994 Page 6 ' Hildt said if the Commission's concern is that there are owners or tenants who have read the Business Park CC & Rs but not the PUDA, then their quarrel· would be with Mr. Wilburn, not with the City. Baird noted that it seems that one tenant will have a unique security arrangement, but it is apparently an arrangement between the developer and other tenants. In light of this concern, he suggested that the language state that security is allowed rather than provided. Enarson moved that the first amendment to the. Port Townsend Business Park Property l!se and Development Agreement be recommended to the City Council for approval as amended to read: "All uses which are consistent with the standards imposed by this Agreement and which are permitted either conditionally or unconditionally in PTMC zoning districts C-II, C-III, or M-I are permitted on the subject property. Residential uses are not allowed excepting that one residential structure may be permitted within the Property for security purposes as allowed by the As~iation of Owners of the Port Townsend Business Park. " Keith seconded. All were in favor. · Erickson returned to the meeting at this time. VI. ANNOUNCEMENTS: Next Scheduled Meetings · Hildt noted that there is no business scheduled for the December 29 meeting so none will be scheduled. He announced that the Accessory Dwelling Units ordinance is about to clear SEPA and will probably be ready in January. The Commission felt another general meeting was not needed and can go directly to hearing. Erickson moved to adjourn.. Baird seconded. All in favor. . . . Guest List Name (please print) Address T A~ti IIV' VF~ ~ I~¿/ )E/ÇEd- 5 If? ~L)~~/.. ,- V ~. v ~ ..- / - c-- . . - ----- - --- -.--