Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03271997 Min Ag . . . CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA Council Chambers, 7:00 PM Business Meeting March 27, 1997 I. ROLL CALL II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES III. COMMUNICATIONS: Current mail IV. OLD BUSINESS A. Gerald and Barbara Rainwater, Variance Application #LUP97-00002 1. Staff Report, (Judy Surber) 2. Public Testimony 3. Committee Report (Sherwood/Boles) 4. Commission Discussion and Conclusions V. NEW BUSINESS VI. ANNOUNCEMENTS: Next Scheduled Meetings April 10, 1997 April 24, 1997 VII. ADJOURN . . . ^i PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Business Meeting March 27, 1997 I. 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 and John Boles. Lisa Enarson, and Linda Clifton were excused. Staff member present was Judy Surber. Chair Thayer announced that Commissioner Clifton is very ill and will not be able to participate with the Planning Commission for an extended period of time. II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Approval of the minutes of the March 20 meeting and Continuation meeting of March 25 will be considered April 10th. Chair Thayer noted she signed unread drafts of the minutes of March 20 and 25 so they could be forwarded to City Council for deliberation at the Council's public hearing and workshops next week. III. COMMUNICATIONS: Current Mail A memorandum received from the Mayor will be considered during New Business. IV. OLD BUSINESS A. Gerald and Barbara Rainwater, Variance Application #LUP97-00002 1. Staff Report (Judy Surber, Staff Planner) Surber stated that in order to allow construction of a 600 square-foot home on a 3,420 square-foot lot located at 1272 Center Street in the R-I single-family residential district, the applicants are requesting the following variances: ~ Minimum side yard setback. The site is developed with a workshop/storage building already existing on the property. The building was probably constructed before the zoning ordinançe of 1971 and is considered a legal non-conforming structure as to setbacks. Although the proposed building footprint meets the minimum side yard setback .requirements, the second story is cantilevered approximately 2 feet into the west side yard setback area and a fireplace extends approximately 2 feet into the east side yard setback area. . . . Planning Commission March 27 and April 10, 1997 Page 2 The applicants request a variance from the five-foot and ten-foot minimum side yard setback to three feet and eight feet. ~ Minimum lot size. Property size is 30 feet wide and 114 feet long, for a total area of3,420 square feet, a variance from the 5,000 square feet with a minimum required 50-foot street frontage. The property has been under single ownership since before adoption of the PTMC and is considered legally non-conforming as to lot size. ~ Maximum site coverage. A variance is also requested from the 35% lot coverage. The existing workshop is approximately 22%, and with the proposed 600 square-foot single family residence would increase to 39.6%. If the existing non-conforming workshop were to be demolished or reduced by 160 square feet, a variance from the maximum lot coverage would not be required. Surber pointed out differences between the 49.6% impervious services and 39.6% lot coverage. She explained that lot coverage is based on footprint and roof coverage and impervious surfaces also take into account driveways, sidewalks, parking areas, anything where drainage runs off rather than down into the ground. The Public Works Department will not support approval of the variance unless the approval is conditioned upon submittal of a drainage plan which documents that the stormwater from all of the impervious surfaces on Lot 22 can be controlled on site. Exhibit 2 was cited which shows Center Street as a platted right-of-way, and Spruce Street, which is platted in the subdivision to the north but does not come down onto Center Street. Surber said that although Spruce Street is being used and is graveled, it is not a platted right-of-way. Public Works recommends that if the variance is approved it be conditioned that a survey be required prior to issuance of a building permit. Surber summarized Draft A and Draft B and stated the findings are the same in both, but the conclusions and conditions are different. Chair Thayer asked the Planning Commission if there were questions of Staff Discussion ensued as to variance from the 35% lot coverage, and if the calculation of 39.6% required is accurate. Surber left the room to seek additional information. Memorandum from the Mayor: During the fact-finding interlude, Commission members discussed the Mayor's memorandum and the issue of out-of-city personnel participation on City committees and commissions. Although generally there was agreement to limit committee and commission membership to City residents, the Historic Preservation Committee was considered a possible exception. . . . Planning Commission March 27 and April 10, 1997 Page 3 MOTION Sherwood Recommend residency be a requirement for membership on the Historic Preservation Committee. SECOND VOTE Erickson 3 in favor, Boles opposed Surber returned and said she made a telephone call to ascertain what had been used to attain the calculations. She stated the person consulted indicated that without having the supporting documents at hand it would be very difficult to say how the calculations were made. Since the calculations are still unclear, it was determined to continue with public testimony to accommodate those who have come from out of town. It was also noted calculations will be reevaluated to determine accuracy. 2. Public Testimony Chair Thayer asked all who were wishing to testify to sign the roster, and she then asked all testifying if they swear and affirm that the testimony they are about to give is true. All who testified affirmed the truth of their testimony. Mr. Gerald Rainwater, Applicant Flood considerations - Mr. Rainwater noted the SAB soil as indìcated by City soil books, perks at 6.3" to 20" per hour. He said that in all the recent heavy rains and snow there has not been a puddle on it. Lot coverage -- He said he was told he had to have two parking spaces, so he put two in. To correct the problem, he will park a car in the garage and one on the approach to eliminate another 171 feet of lot coverage. A revised lot plan was submitted as Exhibit (4), and marked to show the planned parking -- one parking space moved into the garage, one parking space on the approach. Surber noted the parking solution would address impervious surfaces but not lot coverage. Mr. Rainwater said 6" to 20" per hour can take care of a lot of water. He said the lot cannot drain off onto the street because it is lower than the street, and he does not see how his little lot could flood the rest of the neighborhood. A picture of the proposed house was submitted as Exhibit (5). Mr. Harold Andersen, Licensed civil engineer and owner of the firm Quadrant Engineering in Sequim; neighbor and friend to Gerald and Barbara Rainwater Mr. Andersen asked the City to approve the proposal submitted for the entire house and for the existing accessory building without having to reduce the size of the accessory building. · · · Planning Commission· March 27 and April 10, 1997 Page 4 He said it seems unnecessary to have to take 160 square feet off a perfectly good structure that has utility and a need on that small piece of property. He again asked that the City approve the house as designed and let the existing utility structure stay as it is. Mr. Anderson said he thinks the Rainwaters are amenable to providing a new draining plan, and he is certain they can show there will be no impact to the neighborhood from increased run off, and is also fairly confident he can show there will be no negative impact on the property from adjacent run off. He noted the soil is very permeable; there is some organic top soil that is not permeable. If you get below the organic top soil, it is cobbly gravel. That is why that closed approach isn't a lake. He said he has not been able to research it and is not certain what documented drainage problem the Public Works staff has. He has looked at the property twice and could identify no problems; there was no evidence of silt carried in by the water around the house that he could see. He said there are no wetlands, and there is no standing water except in street chuck holes. He is confident they can design a little catch basin and an infiltration trench that will take all the water from the roofs, plus any that comes off the streets onto the property, get rid of it and not have a problem. Mr. Andersen spoke about the confusion on percentages. He said as he understands, it is 32% for the building footprints, the foundations. If you include the roofs there is 44% coverage. If you include all impermeable areas, the roofs plus the two parking spaces shown on the original site plan it is 49.6%. He said that is not a problem, that he is currently working on a little business park in downtown Sequim on similar soils where they have 92% impervious area - - roads, buildings and paved parking; and they are able to deal with that drainage just fine. Mr. Andersen said he believes the Rainwaters are also amenable to obtaining a boundary survey, so the varied setbacks are proper, that the building is on the lot as it's supposed to be. Ms. Lana K. Wiles, Friend of the Rainwaters She and her husband Gary have been very close friends of the Rainwaters since 1981; both families lived aboard the boats they each built for themselves. She said together they have restored two antique Danish fishing vessels into things of beauty. She remarked that the Rainwaters are honest to a fault and would be an excellent addition to Port Townsend as citizens. She said from the exhibits you can see they are artisans and craftsmen, and the structure they put up in Port Townsend will be a thing of beauty. Ms. Christina Strode, Daughter She said this project is a dream; her father is an artist and would never do anything detrimental to land use. He is a lover of earth and nature, and has a sense of class in all he does. · · · Planning Commission March 27 and April 10, 1997 Page 5 Mr. Gary Wiles, Friend of Rainwaters Said he hopes we don't lose them for 160 feet. Barbara Rainwater, Applicant Thanked all for speaking. There was no opposition, no other public comment. The Chair closed the hearing to the public. Boles stated he had driven past the subject property on public streets to see the configuration of the lots in the area. He noted a fence adjacent to the property and asked Mr. Rainwater if the fence belongs to the Rainwaters or to the neighbors, and if the fence is on Rainwater's property. Mr. Rainwater indicated the fence belongs to the neighbors, and as far as he knows is on the neighbor's property. Boles also asked regarding the elevation on the drawing, that it appears the front portico area comes out from the house more than the 2 feet depicted on the overhang, but is not shown on the side. Mr. Rainwater indicated it is flat but it does cantilever on the south end. Mr. Boles asked Mr. Rainwater if on the revised drawing where it was proposed to remove the parking, did he have any sense of the dimensions of the area which they would have to count as impervious surface? Mr. Rainwater replied it would be 9 feet wide for the entire length. 3. Committee Report (Sherwood/Boles) Boles said from the application it is not clear to him that the proposal exceeds maximum lot coverage, and that needs to be clarified. He said it appears to be somewhat of a difficult lot to evaluate in that it is at the intersection of Spruce and Center Streets; it does not seem to be exceeding the requirements a great deal as stated in the proposal. He said as he read the application, he was concerned about drainage as expressed by Public Works, and especially about the need for the survey. Everything is very tight in that lot with the fence, two utility poles and two streets, and it is critical if something is built, that survey of the lot be clear. He recommended approval of the variance in Draft B with conditions, if they are satisfied about maximum lot coverage, and if in fact it is below 35%, there is not an issue. Sherwood stated her initial concern was only about lot coverage. The setback variance does not seem to be a problem considering the location. She indicated that with the lot coverage in question, they may need to go back and look at their definition of structure to see what it is so they don't end up with this question again; to see if the person writing the application and the person doing the inspection have the same definition. She · · · Planning Commission March 27 and April 10, 1997 Page 6 concurred with Boles' approval of Draft B, eliminating the issue of the variance for minimum lot coverage and approving the variance for setbacks. She said considering the size of the lot, the variance for minimum lot size standard is a non-issue, because it has been in single ownership for many years prior to the 5,000 foot lot size requirement. 4. Commission Discussion and Conclusions Erickson asked Mr. Rainwater if there are any posts at all holding up the garage roof on the perimeter. Mr. Rainwater replied there were, but he could cantilever them very quickly. Surber proposed postponing a decision on Variance Application #LUP97- 00002 to April 10th, a regularly scheduled meeting which could be conducted as a continued meeting of this March 27th meeting. Thayer asked if they could approve the variance with the caveat that if the lot coverage is greater than 39.6% they come back for a continued meeting on April 10th. MOTION Sherwood Recommend approval of Variance Application HLUP97- 00002, Draft B, with the caveat that if the lot coverage is greater than indicated, to continue the meeting to April 10th; if the calculations are correct, proceed to City Council, or if less than 35%, the variance is not needed. SECOND Erickson Discussion: Boles asked regarding the Public Works' recommendation for a survey in Finding of Fact H13, and as required by Condition HI, if there was need for additional wording if the survey failed. Surber concurred with Thayer that the survey would be sufficient; however, Surber expressed concern with the motion and preferred to continue the meeting to April 1 Oth. Motion and Second withdrawn. MOTION Sherwood Continue Variance Application HLUP97-00002 to date specific April 10th to readdress the issue of lot coverage. SECOND VOTE Erickson Unanimous, 4 in favor. · · · Planning Commission March 27 and April 10, 1997 Page 7 Chair Thayer apologized to the proponents, stating they want to make sure that what they have is needed, and announced that the hearing will be continued to April 10th. She explained to the proponents that the variance in Finding of Fact #6 might not be required if the recalculations determine that, that the Public Testimony is recorded, so they do not need to come back. She said the only reason to continue the hearing is to determine if the Rainwaters need a variance for the lot coverage percentage, and to make sure it is correct. Surber said she would verify the definition of lot coverage and concurred that it was indicated to her that BCD uses the size of the foundation to make those calculations. Boles pointed out that is giving rise to the question, because when they use that figure they cannot come up with the same numbers, and that there is no reason for the Rainwaters to be under a cloud of a variance on the maximum lot coverage if it is not needed. Chair Thayer said if there is a change and a concern, the Rainwaters will be notified that they need to come back. She explained their recommendation to Council is to approve Draft B, but their concern is on the lot coverage as it was defined, and again apologized. V. NEW BUSINESS The memorandum from the Mayor was discussed during the fact-finding interim in the Staff Report. VI. ANNOUNCEMENTS: Next Scheduled Meetings April 10. 1997 (continued) April 24. 1997 VII. ADJOURNIRECESS Motion to recess the meeting and continue to April 10, 1997, 7:00 p.m., Council Chambers, at City Hall, was made by Sherwood and seconded by Erickson. All were in favor. The meeting recessed 8:14 p.m. Cindy Thayer, Chair ~¿:&¿, Sheila Avis, Minute Taker . . . - Planning Commission March 27 and April 10, 1997 Page 8 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Continuation Meeting April 10, 1997 Business Meeting continued from March 27, 1997 I. ROLL CALL The meeting was called to order in the Council Chambers of City Hall at 7:00 p.m. by Chair Cindy Thayer. Other members in attendance were Lois Sherwood, Lisa Enarson, and Karen Erickson. Linda Clifton and John Boles were excused. Staff members present were Judy Surber and Tim McHarg. II. COMMUNICATIONS: Current Mail There was none. III. OLD BUSINESS A. Gerald and Barbara Rainwater, Variance Application #LUP97-00002 (Public Hearing Continued from March 27, 1997) 1. Staff Report. Surber discussed revised Draft B noting: ~ Findings of Fact #6 -- Recalculations on lot coverage were changed to read: "A variance is requested to allow 36 percent lot coverage where a maximum of 35% of lot coverage is permitted." "Existing lot coverage is approximately 18.2 percent based on the presence of the workshop which, with the six foot overhang having supporting members, has a total lot coverage of 624 square feet." Surber explained with lot coverage, it is typical to count the foundation itself, but the Building Official has stated that if there are outside supporting members, they are a continuation of the foundation. Therefore, the 6 foot overhang on the workshop is included in the lot coverage. "The addition of the proposed six hundred (600) square-foot, single-family residence would increase the lot coverage to 36 percent." ~ Findings of Fact #7 -- Was changed to read: " . . . . if the non-conforming workshop were demolished or the proposed site plan were revised to reduce lot coverage by 27 square feet." -_._....-...~..-._~- · · · Planning Commission March 27 and April 10, 1997 Page 9 ~ Findings of Fact #10 -- Was changed to read: " . . . . determined that the proposed increase in impervious surfaces, up to approximately 54% ofthe site. . . ." · Exhibit (1) -- additions to: Surber's hand written calculations on lot coverage (36%), and impervious surfaces (54%). Surber stated she sent a copy of the revised application to the Rainwaters with a cover letter that stated they should call her immediately if they had any concerns with the recalculations done by Staff. She said she did not receive a phone call. Enarson stated for the record that she was not at the original meeting March 27, 1997. She asked, since there are only four Commission members present, if it is permissible with the applicant for her to proceed tonight given the fact she was not a last week's meeting. Surber noted the applicant is not in attendance, that the applicant's daughter is present. She asked both Enarson and the applicant's daughter if they feel comfortable with the daughter speaking for the appliçant. Enarson said she read all the material and feels she has no bias for or against the variance, that it is just that she was not at the last meeting. Enarson went on to explain that they need four members to continue the hearing and if she recuses herself there would only be three. The daughter asked what they would do if she were not in attendance. Enarson indicated she thought they would continue the hearing. The daughter asked regarding further delay. Christina Strode then stated her name for the record, and that she is the daughter of Gerald and Barbara Rainwater. She noted her mother is unavailable and indicated she had expected her father to be there. Thayer interjected that the Commission has had all the pertinent information, that most of the questioris they had at the last testimony were based on the percent of lot coverage; that has been covered and is before them today. She explained that Commission members read through the material thoroughly, and her feeling, for the daughter's consideration, is that although Lisa Enarson may not have been at the last meeting, it isn't that Enarson is not prepared to make a decision. It was noted Boles will be away for a month. Surber stated the City Attorney explicitly wants it on the record that the applicant does not object to Enarson's participation. Christina Strode stated that on the part of the Rainwater's she had no objections to Lisa Enarson's participation. Thereafter at 7:12 p.m., Gerald Rainwater arrived and was apprised of the situation that although Enarson was not present at the last meeting she had read all of the material, and that without Enarsön's participation they would not have a quorum. If they would allow Enarson to be in on the decision making process, they could proceed tonight. Gerald Rainwater, applicant, also stated he had no objections to Lisa Enarson's participation. Thayer asked regarding the calculatiQns in Finding # 1 0 for impervious surfaces. Surber said using the total roof print noted on Exhibit (1) plus the two parking spaces of 9' x 19' each, · · · Planning Commission March 27 and April 10, 1997 Page 10 impervious surfaces totaled 1,842 square feet divided by the lot size comes to 54%. Enarson asked about using the roof print and Surber noted the difference between lot coverage and roof coverage which is used in calculating impervious surface. Sherwood asked if the overhang were cantilevered so there are no support posts, would that change the impervious surface? Surber said yes, because it would not be considered a continuation of the foundation and would not be included in calculation of impervious surfaces. Sherwood also asked if they had found out what the documented stormwater problems were? It was noted that was not requested, but Surber said Draft B is the more lenient of the two drafts. Mr. Rainwater said he would like a copy of the stormwater document. 2. Committee Report (SherwoodIBoles) Sherwood said her leaning is that it is a very well designed and thought out project. She said she wouldn't want to see that much lot coverage on every lot, that the neighborhood would really start looking cramped. She noted some of the issues are almost semantic, whether or not the overhang has footings or is cantilevered. She said her tendency is to approve the variances and give the Rainwaters the opportunity to move ahead. 3. Commission Discussion and Conclusions. Erickson asked if there is a maximum of impervious surface coverage on site? Surber replied that the code does not have a maximum on impervious surface, that it is a threshold, 2,000 square feet, for when a drainage study is required. MOTION Sherwood Recommend Variance Application #LUP97-00002, revised Draft B, for approval. SECOND VOTE Erickson Unanimous, 4 in favor, by roll call. Chair Thayer recounted the Planning Commission has recommended approval of Draft B and that the variance is scheduled to be forwarded to City Council tentatively May 5. V. NEW BUSINESS There was no new business. VI. ANNOUNCEMENTS: Next Scheduled Meeting · Planning Commission March 27, 1997 & April 10, 1997 Page. 11 April 24. 1997 -- Canceled May 8. 1997 Thayer noted the City Council had passed PTMC Title 17 and Title 18 with some minor revisions to Title 18. VII. ADJOURN Motion to adjourn the meeting was made by Enarson and seconded by Erickson. All were in favor. The meeting adjourned at 7:28 p.m. ¿¿¿tlvw · Sheila Avis, Minute Taker · ~ 'I Guest List . Meeting of: /)(/i-It//V/;C; L"(A1/l115~/CA( Purpose: Date: ,3/~7/q7 Name (please print) Address . .