Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06121997 Min Ag '. . . CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA Pope Marine Park Building, 7:00 PM Business Meeting I. ROLL CALL II. APPROV AL OF MINUTES: May 8, 1997 III. COMMUNICATIONS: Current mail IV. OLD BUSINESS A. S1. Paul's Episcopal Church, Variance Application No. 9603-09 1. Staff Report, (Tim Woolett) 2. Public Testimony 3. Committee Report (Erickson/Sherwood) 4. Commission Discussion and Conclusions B. Zoning Code Clarification 1. Staff Report, (Bruce Freeland) 2. Commission Discussion and Conclusions V. NEW BUSINESS VI. ANNOUNCEMENTS: Next Scheduled Meetings June 26, 1997 July 10, 1997 July 31, 1997 VII. ADJOURN June 12, 1997 r · · · PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Business Meeting June 12, 1997 1. ROLL CALL The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chair Cindy Thayer. Other members in attendance were Karen Erickson, Lois Sherwood, John Boles, and Craig Johnson. Lisa Enarson was excused. Staff members present were Bruce Freeland and Tim Woolett. Chair Thayer welcomed new Planning Commissioner Craig Johnson. II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion to approve the minutes of May 8, 1997, as written was made by Erickson and seconded by Boles. All were in favor. Ill. COMMUNICATIONS: Current Mail There was none. It was noted Johnson will be given updated copies of current documents. IV. OLD BUSINESS A. Saint Paul's Episcopal Church, Variance Application (Parking) No. 9603-09 1. Staff Report (Tim Woolett) Woolett discussed the Findings of Fact and disclosed changes to be made in Findings of Fact #2 to read, ". . . Lots 1 and 3 and the south half oflots 2 and 4; . . ." He noted the net increase of771 square feet with the new Parish Hall and the requirement for four additional off- street parking spaces. He reported there is new information to be presented at this meeting by the applicant. V'/oolett stated Staff is presenting two drafts, Draft A and Draft B, with identical findings, but pointed out the drafts differ in their conclusions. He indicated Staff recommends Draft A. Council Questions: Boles asked if there was any requirement for the Historical Preservation Committee to review this; Woolett replied negatively. Boles noted calculations in Findings of Fact #8 and · · · Planning Commission June 12, 1997 Page 2 asked if any calculations were made of Findings of Fact #9, and if so how they relate. Freeland replied they are reflected in "floor area exclusions from parking requirements" in Findings of Facts #5 and #7. Erickson pointed out in Findings of Fact #9 it is unclear that those spaces were actually eliminated, and she suggested that sentence possibly needs to be rewritten. Boles concurred that clarification may be necessary. Freeland reiterated that the application is presented in two drafts, stating that each draft contains the required conclusions that must be made of a variance. He pointed out that with Drafts A and B, different people may make different conclusions. He noted the Commission has a large area of facts, that the Planning Staff may have interpreted them differently, but indicated there is a considerable area for judgment. He advised the Commission to find the correct interpretation for each conclusion. Erickson asked and was affirmed that the figures in Findings of Fact #7 should be changed to be the same as Exhibit 2: Parish Hall Education area, 144 square feet~ Floor area, 914 square feet. Johnson inquired about a boundary line designation. Erickson replied that probably since they are only looking at parking and not a building, a site plan was not included. 2. Public Testimony Chair Thayer asked those intending to testify to sign the guest list. Thayer then asked if those who testify swear and affirm the truth of their testimony, which they affirmed. Those speaking in favor: Applicant, Tracy Mork, Chairperson of the Building Committee This project has been underway since Spring of 1994. Mork noted the buildings have been on the site since 1882, that these considerations are all very new, since nothing new has built there since 1882. The sanctuary accommodates 95 people and the Parish Hall approximately 60. Worship space is not proposed for increase, rather to match educational and fellowship space with worship space, and that it be handicapped accessible. She stated renovation was dismissed due to substantial improvements that would be needed. Two historic structures will be maintained, incorporating a Victorian home into the building space attached to the proposed new building. Ms. Mork explained a 2-year lag in the parking plans indicating former BCD Director Robison encouraged them to wait until after the parking codes were rewritten, but since their property is zoned R-II rather than Historic District C-III, the change in parking codes did not fit. · · · Planning Commission June 12, 1997 Page 3 She pointed out that it is not viable to modify the size of the structure nor to impact the integrity ofthe historic buildings. She drew attention to the numerous supporters of the project who were also in attendance. Mr. Rick Sepler, Madrona Planning Sepler distributed a letter from Tracy Mork entered as Exhibit 7~ final survey of parking entered as Exhibit 8; Appendix A entered as Exhibit 9~ and a map entered as Exhibit 10. Sepler noted the letter is correctly requesting a variance from 5 on-street parking spaces. Off-street parking to be provided will be 5 regular spaces and 1 barrier-free for a total of 6 off- street parking spaces. Sepler spoke of options: shared facilities -- but there is nothing in close proximity~ the "fee in lieu" provision in the down town district -- but there is nothing available uptown. He said there was consideration of a text amendment to the parking code for churches, but they determined it best to proceed with the variance. He asserted that parking is the central issue, and said altering the building would be self defeating; the building is a very modest building. Draft B as conditioned is reported to be the church's choice. They support Conclusion #1, that the variance would not amount to a rezone. Sepler said in relation to special privilege, the circumstances are so unique, there is nothing comparable to it. He pointed out it is not detrimental to public welfare, stating no neighbor has provided comment nor complained about the on-street parking. Commission Questions: Sherwood asked if there were possibility that at any time the sanctuary might be in use with a separate group simultaneously using the fellowship hall. Ms. Mork replied they do not think so, that it is not their history nor their intention. Sherwood then asked if with the history of on-street parking, would there be a possibility of a larger group using the new Parish Hall. Mork replied the new Parish Hall was designed to accommodate the same occupancy as the sanctuary. Sepler noted that the church conducts two Sunday morning services, with a combined total of approximately 95; even at the peak, parking has been accommodated. Boles asked regarding the three assembly areas. Mork explained the uses: ~ Sanctuary -- Sunday a.m., 95 (maximum). Not a large group at anyone time, except for larger celebrations, e.g. Christmas, etc~ ~ Parish Hall -- after services and for weddings and funerals~ ~ Fenn House -- small group meetings in rooms at alternate times. It was noted that parking abutted the boundary, and it was asked if there would be a buffer. Mork commented that there was existing landscaping they intend to preserve. Johnson asked regarding a set back. Sepler answered that it is not subject to a set back. · · · Planning Commission June 12, 1997 Page 4 Other testimony: Dale Judy, neighbor since 1954 Mr. Judy remarked that very seldom are the lights on in the Parish Hall at night, With two services on Sunday morning there are not more than 20 to 25 cars~ parking has never been a problem for anyone in that area. He stated that an entrance off Tyler Street would be quite a change and voiced that it would be his pleasure to not require a parking variance. He asked if any Planning Commissioners had been to the site? Planning Commissioner Boles replied for the record, he had lived across the street. Judy Owens, neighbor since 1948 She was upset that it was said no other neighbors were interested. There was no opposing testimony. 3. Committee Report (Erickson/Sherwood) Sherwood declared she would like to see the project go ahead. She indicated she understands the need to revitalize the old Parish Hall and appreciates their sensitivity to the F enn House and integrating it into their plan. Erickson, agreed, expressing her appreciation for the historical tradition of the buildings and said that four or five parking spaces are not worth the loss of it, its location and the stability it has had around this City for many years. She indicated she would like help to change the wording on some of the conclusions. 4. Commission Discussion and Conclusions Johnson indicated that in looking at the site, he noted it is a difficult site to maintain the architectural value and parking. Boles stated he was in sympathy with the project. He said he had originally thought there might have been some difficulty with parking, but as he analyzed the situation, he came to the conclusion it was a special circumstance that did not set a precedence. He asked if others thought there is no redundant use of the separate buildings and that it eliminates the need for any vanance. Sherwood said she sees the need for accessible parking for people with special needs. Boles agreed. Erickson agreep there is need for at least four or five cars very near by. Tyler Street might not be ideal to come on and off, but with six off-street parking spaces, it is nQt too much traffic. She referenced the last sentence of Conclusion #4 that says, "There are already uses in · · · Planning Commission June 12, 1997 Page 5 the neighborhood that do not provide the minimum required off-street parking." She remarked she is not comfortable using that as a reason in granting a variance but would rather include something regarding the historic location. Consensus to amend Draft B: Finding of Fact #2 - Change to read, ". . . Lots 1 and 3 and the south half of lots 2 and 4~ . . ." Finding of Fact #7 -- Square footage of the Parish Hall in the Education area changed from 175 to 144~ Floor area from 885 to 914. Less off-street parking proposed changed to (6)~ Outstanding Balance (5) Finding of Fact #8 -- Change "7 off-street spaces", to read "6 off-street spaces"; change "eliminate the need for the four (4) parking space difference" to read "eliminate the need for the five (5) parking space difference" Finding of Fact #9 - Change the second sentence to read, "Therefore at the request of the applicants, kitchen and bathroom spaces were eliminated from the gross floor space calculations for this proposal." Finding of Fact #10- Change ". . .the proposed seven (7) off-street parking spaces. . ." to read ". . .the proposed six (6) off-street parking spaces. . ." Finding of Fact #11- Change to read, "Although the site is located in the vicinity of the uptown National Historic District to the north. . ." Conclusion #2 - Add as a special condition, "There will not be simultaneous use of facilities. " Conclusion #3 - Change last line to read, "Furthermore, options for additional on-site parking are highly constrained." Conclusion #4 - Delete the last sentence. MOTION Sherwood Recommend approval of Draft B of Variance Application (Parking) No. 9603-09, Saint Paul's Episcopal Church with findings of facts, conclusions and conditions, as amended. SECOND VOTE Erickson Unanimous, 5 in favor by roll call B. Zoning Code Clarification Freeland noted there have been several issues come to light and indicated there will be several items to come back for consideration. He distributed his memorandum to the Planning Commission dated June 4, 1997, outlining two such discrepancies needing "editorial cleanups" as inadvertent editorial mistakes. He said, however, if the Commission considers those · · · Planning Commission June 12, 1997 Page 6 discrepancies to be deliberate "substantive changes," they will need to go back for deliberation. ~ Governmental Offices in Commercial Zones Freeland said this came to light with the possibility of the City moving offices into the Waterman-Katz building. He indicated a status quo revision from the old code would have been "permitted," and, therefore, could be considered a drafting error. Erickson indicated she remembered the designation deliberately had been conditioned on Staff recommendation, so that it did not use commercial buildings. Regarding the issue of Public Facility Uses, Sherwood declared there was no definition for public facility uses. Boles suggested Public Facilities might be different from Public Offices. He indicated the thinking was to prevent erosion in that category with the limited amount of space available, you would exclude public offices. Freeland referred to the tables on Pages 77 and 80 of the Zoning Code. Erickson indicated her memory of the history was as it related to the Port, specifically. She said government offices were banned from everything, that the Port requested to be allowed to have the Port office on Port property, and that was granted. She said staff recommendation was that government offices be zoned PI and save commercial districts from being eaten up by thè government. Freeland explained that with buildings like the Waterman-Katz building, the upper floors are not conducive to retail, and that you have to have viable uses for the upper floors. Boles and Erickson both indicated they disagreed that it was a drafting error. Freeland reiterated there is still a drafting error, even if it is considered a purposely intended conditional use. Commission should report to Council that is what they intended to do, and the error is in the listing under Public Facility Uses where it has permitted uses. He said the same use is listed in two different categories, that there is no difference in the use and should only be listed once. CONSENSUS: Remove Government Offices from Public Facility Uses Freeland stated that would leave it as a conditional use. He indicated it would be a drafting error. There may still be a need to go back if Council should disagree with that conclusion, that it would require a hearing and be subject to change. ~ Colleges Left Out of COIIlmAfcial Dimict::¡ Boles believed the omission to be intentional, that commercial schools related to commercial uses, but that other schools had other options. Freeland said if it is intentional, it should not be handled as an editorial change. He said they may need to come back and go through anothèr hearing process. · · · . Planning Commission June 12, 1997 Page 7 V. NEW BUSINESS Commissioners discussed not having changes to Title 17. Freeland stated he would replace the Commissioners' old copies of Title 17 with whole new copies. Planning Commissioner Johnson was asked to share some historical background. The Commissioners likewise shared some of their background with Johnson. VI. ANNOUNCEMENTS: Next Scheduled Meetings June 26. 1997 July 10. 1997 July 31. 1997 VII. ADJOURN Motion to adjourn the meeting was made by Sherwood and seconded by Erickson. All were in favor. The meeting adjourned 9:46 p.m. &~ Sheila Avis, Minute Taker . . . Guest List Meeting of: ¡qANiV/ /Va CûUftt/55/0A/ Purpose: Date: 0 //-2/ q 7 Name (please print) Address T p-~timonv? VF~ NO -ry-vt~ ~ 'Pb~ /83 ~'YV\ V ~ M ^Df2.c NA fW(;· 12..!L-K S5P~ 12.'6," LÆtNfleA'C£. ST.. P·f v'