Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04251996 Min Ag . . ...- í. City of Port Townsend Planning ·Commlqion S40 Waœr Street. Port Towusend. WA. 98368 360/38~-3000 FAX 360/385-4290 PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA (Revised) Business Meeting April 25, 1996 I. ROLL CALL II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: 3/14/96 and 4/11/96 III. COMMUNICATIONS: Current mail IV. OLD BUSINESS A. Scott & Kathy Walker, Variance Application #9602-05 1. Staff Report, (Robison) 2. Public Testimony 3. Committee Report, (Thayer/Welch) 4. Commission Discussion and Conclusions B. Brad & Judy & Irene Hoover - Port Townsend Inn, Conditional Use Permit Application #9603-01 1. Staff Report, (Robison) 2. Public Testimony 3. Committee Report, (Enarson, Boles) 4. Commission Discussion and Conclusions C. ESHB 1724, Regulatory Reform Act 1. Staff Report, (Dave Robison and Timothy McMahan) 2. Public Testimony 3. Commission Discussion and Conclusions V. NEW BUSINESS VI. ANNOUNCEMENTS: Next Scheduled Meetings Saturday. May 4. 9:00 AM - 3:00 :PM Comprehensive Plan Special Meeting * Deliberate upon public testimony * Formulate findings, conclusions & recommendations for the advice of City Council * Public testimony will not be accepted _..-._~~._.,-.,..... -;.""'-,,~ ~~~ · · · Planning Commission Agenda April 25, 1996 Page Two 5/8/96 and 5/15/96 and 5/16/96 and 5/22/96 and 5/1.3/96 and 5/29/96 Comprehensive Plan Special Meeting * Deliberate upon public testimony * Formulate fmdings, conclusions & recommendations for the advice of City Council * Public testimony will not be accepted Ma.y9 Kevin & Ruth Bowen, Conditional Use Permit Application (WelchlEnarson) May 30 St. Paul's Episcopal Church, Variance Application (Erickson/Thayer) VII. ADJOURN -- ._--=---- .... · · · ~ City of Port Townsend Planning ·Commiqion S40 War.cr Su=t. Port Towusend. W A. 98368 360138~-3000 FAX 360/385-4290 PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA Business Meeting I. ROLL CALL II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: 3/14/96 and 4/11/96 - ill. COMMUNICATIONS: Current mail IV. OLD BUSINESS A. Scott & Kathy Walker, Variance Application #9602-05 1. Staff Report, (Surber) 2. Public Testimony 3. Committee. Report, (Thayer/Welch) 4. Commission Discussion and Conclusions B. Brad & Judy & Irene Hoover - Port Townsend Inn, Conditional Use Permit Application #9603-01 1. Staff Report, (Surber 2. Public Testimony 3. Committee Report, (Enarson, Boles) 4. Commission Discussion and Conclusions C. ESHB 1724, Regulatory Reform Act 1. Staff Report, (Dave Robison and Timothy McMahan) 2. Public Testimony 3. Commission Discussion and Conclusions V. NEW BUSINESS VI. ANNOUNCEMENTS: Next Scheduled Meetings May 2 Comprehensive Plan Special Meeting * Discussion of testimony * Proposed revisions to the Draft Comprehensive Plan April 25, 1996 · · · . Planning Commission Agenda April 25, 1996 Page Two May 9 Kevin & Ruth Bowen, Conditional Use Permit Application (Welch/Enarson) Comprehensive Plan - Preparation of Findings, Conclusions & Recommendation for the advice of Council May 30 St. Paul's Episcopal Church, Variance Application (Boles/Erickson) VII. ADJOURN .. . . . City of Port Townsend Planning ·Commi~sion S40 War.cr Street. Port Towusend. W A. 98368 360138~-3000 FAX 360/385-4290 :planning Commission Minutes Business Meeting April 25, 1996 I. ROLL CALL The meeting was called to order at 7:05 PM by Chair Lois Sherwood. Other members in attendance were Lisa Enarson, Karen Erickson, Cindy Thayer, John Boles and Mark Welch. Linda Clifton was excu~. Staff members present were Dave Robison, Timothy McMahan and Sheila Spears. Councilmember Jean Camfield was also present. II. APPROVAL OF'MINUTES Motion to approve the minutes of 3/14/96 and 4/11/96, as corrected, was made by Thayer and seconded by Erickson. All were in favor. ID. COMMUNICATIONS: Current mail Robison distributed the most recent issue of the Plannine CommissiQn Joµmal and added that he would be copying articles from back issues on development regulations to be distributed to Planning Commission members. IV. OLD BUSINESS A. Scott & Kathy Walker, Variance Application #9602-05 Lisa Enarson excused herself from the proceedings. 1. Staff Report, (Robison) Robison described the applicant's proposal to construct a 13' x 16' addition to his home at 712 "H" Street which would encroach upon the 20' setback requirements of the R-IA zoning district. The proposed addition would be within approximately nine feet of the front property line. Staff prepared two drafts for the Planning Commission to consider. Draft" A" recommends that the application be denied based upon a strict interpretation of the zoning code. Draft "B" recommends that the application be approved. The conclusions are different in draft liB" and are a starting point if the Commission chooses to go forward with recommending ápproval of the application. Planning Commission pointed out the discrepancies between the draft staff report, Copied to PCOMM . - ~')-I-'(, \ . . . Planning Commission Minutes April 24, 1996 Page 2 016 application, and the site plan as pertains to the size of the proposed addition. Boles asked for clarification on the relation of the platted Right-of-Way to the house setback. Applicant Scott Walker explained that the street is entirely on his side of the ROW. 2. Public Testimony Scott Walker explained the history of the modular house that he has owned for more than 10 years. His wife has a home occupation business (preschool) which requires the use of the backyard. He is requesting that he be allowed to add to the front of the house so that the backyard can be preserved for the preschool activity. He said the size of the proposed addition is not absolute but 14' x 18' would best suit their needs. The stairway would be included in that measurement. The house will not support a second floor, so that is not an option. Walker added that his proposal reflects the current neighborhood makeup as most of the neighbors_ are out of compliance with setback requirements. He said the 1971 zoning code is out of date and doesn't meet the needs of the community. It doesn't allow owners to maximize the use of their yards. He submitted photos (3) which were added as Exhibit 4. 3. Committee Report (Thayer/Welch) Thayer stated there is no doubt there are lots of nonconforming setbacks in the neighborhood and she was careful to look at all the houses. She said she feels comfortable in recommending approval of the variance if it doesn't extend beyond the footprint of the current deck (12'). Welch said that a 14' extension doesn't disturb him because of the character of the neighborhood. Walker indicated that 12' is not enough room for the couch and piano that they want to place in the room. A small house does not have a lot of choices for furniture placement. 4. Commission Discussion and Conclusions Motion to continue the hearing until 5/9/96 and that the applicant resubmit a thorough plot plan which includes locations of buildings on adjoining lots to support the rationale for granting the variance was made by Thayer and seconded by Boles. All were in favor of continuing the hearing until May 9. Enarson returned for the remainder of the meeting. B. Brad & Judy & Irene Hoover - Port Townsend Inn Conditional Use Permit Application #9603-01 . . . Planning Commission Minutes April 24, 1996 . Page 3016 Erickson excused herself from the proceedings. 1. Staff Report, (Robison) Robison described the applicant's proposal to add eight lodging rooms to the second floor of the existing Port Townsend Inn at 2020 Washington Street. The additional rooms would result in infilling of open areas between existing rooms, bringing the total number of rooms to 33. Pursuant to the conditions of a 1991 rezone from RII/RIU to C-II, a SEPA Mitigated Determination of Non-Significance was made by the Building & Community DevelQPment Director on 3/22/96. Enarson asked why the SEP A referenced lodging rooms and a spa, but the Conditional Use Permit is only for the additional rooms. Robison responded that SEPA was required for expansion of the building and the spa, but a Conditional Use Permit is not required for the spa. Enarson asked why the well-maintained. gravel walkway needs to be upgraded to concrete. Because it is used by a lot of pedestrians and is located at an arterial and collector street, explained Robison. 2. Public Testimony Applicant Brad Hoover stated that the staff report covers the proposal. He said they are adding two handicapped accessible rooms for the convenience of their customers and are looking forward to the completion of the building for aesthetic reasons. Sherwood asked about the history of the rezone. Robison reported that he had researched the file and the contract rezone was drawn as tight· as it was because the rezone was appealed to Council. The neighbors had been concerned that there would be three floors of rooms. Council felt strongly at the time that a 22 ft. heightwas OK but wouldn't give approval carte blanche for additional rooms at that time. The applicant, at that time, didn't have the resources to go forward with the process for the additional rooms. Robison said the concerns of the neighbors with the current proposal were addressed through the SEP A process. 3. Committee Report (Enarson/Boles) - Enerson expressed no reservations about the proposal and stated that her questions had already been adequately addressed by staff. Boles concurred. 4. Commission Discussion and Conclusions Motion to recommend for approval by City Council of Conditional Use Permit Application #9603-01, with corrections in numbering on page 3 of the staff report, was made by Enarson and seconded by Boles. All were in favor. . . . Planning Commission Minutes April 24, 1996 Page 40/6 Erickson returned (with cookies, coffee and rootbeer) for the remainder of the meeting. C. ESHB 1724, Regulatory Reform Act 1. Staff Report (Dave Robison and Timothy McMahan) Robison gave a very brief overview of the staff report since nobody was in the audience to testify. He distributed an improved flow chart. McMahan walked through the changes in the proposed ordinance and handed out additional pages dealing with procedures for clarity (pages 26, 39, 40, 41, 42 and 43): He added that the language in the purpose section (20.01.010) is right out of the act. The role of the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) has been significantly revised. All HPC recommendations must be based upon adopted council policies as the basis for· each recommendation. The direction HPC is headed is providing design assistance on large projects. The HPC ordinance is going before Council on May 6. A companion ordinance is to bring their duties into compliance with regulatory reform. We are trying to streamline the process for the applicant and for HPC. HPC is recommending that uptown be included in mandatory review and compliance. Presently, compliance with HPC recommendations is voluntary for uptown applicants. 2. PUBLIC TESTIMONY: None 3. Commission Discussion and Conclusions Thayer recommended that HPC members be required to live inside the city limits. Staff pointed out that sometimes it is very difficult to get the expertise needed if non-residents are excluded, as design professionals have to decline a lot of work because of the small pool. Welch stated that he wouldn't want to exclude a good HPC representative just because s/he doesn't live in the City. Staff added that the PT Shorelines Commission has three non- resident members out of a total of seven. Boles expressed concern about the lack of a provision for anybody to appeal a decision to one of the ruling bodies. He said he thinks the process is too closed given the kinds of changes that are being imposed. Going to court is not the kind of thing he would like to see. Boles wants anybody to be able to appeal even if they haven't submitted written comments or attended a hearing. Boles said he prefers that we error on the side of recognizing human nature in the process. McMahan responded that one of the fundamentals of the act is that only one open record hearing shall be held and to do otherwise would violate the mandate of the act. . . . Planning Commission Minutes April 24,1996 Page 5 016 Erickson agreed that the process is defmitely changed from what we are used to; this will stop those who don't pay attention or attend hearings. Thayer said we always run the risk that somebody doesn't hear about a proposal. Regulatory Reform provides for more notification than before and there is ample time for those who are concerned to find out about a proposal. She asked if anyone else agrees with the changes Boles is recommending. Nobody responded. Robison expressed that in light of the consolidated hearings process and notice of application procedure, people are going to start coming out more for the Planning Commission hearings because that is where the action is. The notice provisions contained in the ordinance should provide ample warning to most people. Enarson asked why there isn't a segment reading "binding arbitration" in the appeals section and why isn't the City presenting that as an option. McMahan responded that the appeals procedure is standardized in the act. He explained the opportunities when you get to court. The court will only review what is contained in the open records hearing. Most courts fast-track use appeals and this is required under the new land use petition act. We are doing what we are mandated to do. Enarson expressed concern that staff could obstruct the process (by requesting additional information and stopping the clock) for a hostile applicant, and asked for reassurance that this could not happen. McMahan explained that this was thoroughly discussed in the Regulatory Reform work groups. If the legislature sees communities abusing this, the legislature will not be kind to us in the next amendment. It does need to be used judiciously by staff. Enarson urged that the language be strengthened as much as possible so that it is clear what is required for a completed application. Applicants have the right to good information up front without havi,ng to come back with additional information and more stopping of the clock. Robison pointed out that if someone wants to get a project in and does not want to comply with development regulations, it is up to the Planning Commission to deny. This is a balance. Usually it is in the applicant's best interest to stop the clock so that staff can move forward to make an appropriate decision. Robison explained that the City does not have public works design standards. This is a large issue. We hope to have design standards to follow by the end of the year, maybe even by summer. That is the biggest challenge for the City--standards that work and are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. . . . Planning Commission Minutes April 24, 1996 Page 6016 McMahan explained that it will take a while to clean up the code so that all the ordinances are integrated. Robison said several ordinances are required to be implemented in order to bring the code into compliance with regulatory reform. Motion was made by Thayer to recommend for approval of the Regulatory Reform Ordinance to City Council with additional recommendations to be added by staff as pertains to HPC. Seconded by Enarson. All were in favor of the motion. v. NEW BUSINESS: None VI. ANNOUNCEMENTS Boles announced that he will out of the area from May 10 to June 6 and wished to be excused from any meetings held during that time period. VII. ADJOURN Motion to adjourn was made by Enarson and seconded byErickson. All were in favor. The meeting was adjourned at 9:25 PM. ~:/! -.1 (/ ~_J/~ ð J ¡l \ _/'~ /i .. A 0,i(~~..:>~r1--<2./ . Sheila Spears Community Development Specialist