Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09171998 Min Ag . . . CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA Council Chambers, 7:00 PM Business Meeting September 17, 1998 I. ROLL CALL II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: III. COMMUNICATIONS: Current mail IV. OLD BUSINESS V. NEW BUSINESS A. Ron Pak (Tides Inn Motel), (Open-Record Public Hearing) Shorelines Conditional Use Permit No. LUP9211-03 1. Staff Report (Jeff Randall) 2. Public Testimony 3. Committee Report (John Boles/Lois Sherwood) 4. Commission Discussion and Conclusions B. Kimm & Lawrence Fay, (Open-Record Public Hearing) Variance Application No. LUP98-47 1. Staff Report (Bruce Freeland) 2. Public Testimony 3. Committee Report (Karen Erickson/Nik Worden) 4. Commission Discussion and Conclusions VI. ANNOUNCEMENTS: Next Scheduled Meetings September 24, 1998 October 1, 1998 October 8, 1998 October 15, 1998 October 29, 1998 Comprehensive Plan Amendments, Workshop Parks & Recreational Plan, Workshop 1998 Comprehensive Plan Amendments, Public Hearing Finalize Comp Plan Amendment Recommendations to CC Parks & Recreational Plan, Public Hearing VII. ADJOURN ~~ ":t · · · /,r-lo /' , PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Business Meeting September 17, 1998 1. ROLL CALL The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall by Chair Cindy Thayer. Other members in attendance were Karen Erickson, Lois Sherwood, John Boles, and Craig Johnson. Nik Worden was excused. Staff members present were Bruce Freeland and Jeff Randall. II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES There were no minutes for approval. III. COMMUNICATIONS: Current Mail ~ Letter of response dated September 4, 1998 from City Attorney McMahan to Mr. Denny LaVigne's letter of September 1, 1998 ~ Packet for September 24, 1998 meeting N. OLD BUSINESS There was no old business. V. NEW BUSINESS Chair Thayer noted the two public hearings to be considered and suggested approximate hearing times of 1.5 to 2 hours for the Ron Pak, Tides Inn Motel, hearing; and 1.5 hour for the Kimm & Lawrence Fay hearing. A. Ron Pak (Tides Inn Motel) -- Open-Record Public Hearing Shorelines Conditional Use Permit No. LUP9211-03 Planning Commissioner Karen Erickson recused herself and left the hearing. 1. Staff Report -- Mr. Jeff Randall, Building and Community Development Department (BCD) Mr. Randall introduced the application which proposes: ~ Construction of 21 motel units in two buildings adjacent to the existing Tides Inn Motel ~ Parking facilities for 13 additional guest vehicles for the motel and 5 public parking spaces ~ A shoreline walkway path to be open to the public adjacent to Port Townsend Bay ~ Off-site parking on the west side of Walker Street for public parking ~ Development of the Walker Street right-of-way for a street-end public park COPIED TO COUNCIL BY 55' DATE iO J/3/Q¡'l . . . Planning Commission Minutes September 17, 1998 Page 2 ~ Parking facilities in ftont of the motel ~ Street improvements along Water Street Permits required for the project include: ~ Environmental review under SEP A ~ Shoreline Substantial Development and Conditional Use Permit ~ Hydraulic Project Approval (a shoreline permit issued by the Department ofFish and Wildlife) ~ Public Works street and utility development permits ~ Building Permits Mr. Randall reviewed the history of the project going back to the time in 1992 when Mr. John Pickett was the owner. He pointed out differences in the project at that time: Previous Project included: ~ 36·unit motel complex, 3 stories in one building ~ SEPA Mitigated Determination of Non-Significance (MDNS) issued May 11, 1994 by BCD staff who determined there would be no significant probable environmental impacts subject to 15 mitigation measures that were imposed. ~ Appeals received during the process ftom the above-bluff property owners Stewart and Elinor Nelson and later assigned to James and Nelly Tretter include view impacts ftom Water Street and ftom the bluff above, "tunnel" impacts along Water Street, and light and glare impacts. ~ In response to the appeal, Staff and the developer agreed to prohibit windows along Water Street and to limit the types of lighting that could be done in the parking lot. ~ The appeal continued and concluded in June 1995 when Council upheld the original MDNS, but required significant modifications to the proposal, including limiting to 24 units, broken into two buildings to preserve view corridors, and identified the design concept entitled "preferred alternative. " Mr. Pak purchased the property in 1997 ftom Mr. Pickett. Mr. Randall pointed out the rules and regulations that govern this project were the ones in effect at the time of application in 1992. Mr, Pak continued the project submittin~ a pf(~posal in 1997 with: ~ HPC design review (condition of the 1994 MDNS) completed spring/summer 1998; ~ Additional environmental review reopened for various design changes: 1. proposed new parking on the west side of Walker Street (Indian Point is owned by Mr. Pak); · · · Planning Commission Minutes September 17, 1998 Page 3 2. modified development of the street-end park (the parking would be used completely for the public park and access to and ftom the site); 3. Officer & Gentleman suites retained (3 motel units in a one-story building) changing the foot print location ftom the "preferred alternative"; 4. windows along Water Street, and slightly different lighting proposed in the parking lot. SEPA review was completed August 19, 1998. The City issued some additional mitigation measures 1. modifying lighting conditions 2. permitting windows along Water Street but generally finding no significant adverse environmental impacts ftom the changes in the design proposed by Mr. Pak. Comments additional to those ftom the 1994 - 1995 review have been received, the most significant comments ftom the above·cliff property owners: Mrs. Cotton, Mrs. Van Wetter, Mr. and Mrs Tretter, again with concerns. Si~ficant issues now raised: ~ view impacts ~ consistency with the preferred alternative originally approved by the City Council ~ design characteristics of the new buildings, including chimneys approved by HPC and their effect upon views ~ *traffic and air impacts, etc. *(Mr. Randall said staff did not readdress many issues addressed by the original SEP A determination; e.g., no traffic impact as a result of fewer motel rooms.) ~ building heights -- Progression of determination on building heights: 1994 SEPA listed maximum building height in this area as 35' -- referenced ftom Shoreline Master Program (SMP). September 6, 1994 appeal hearing, City Council determined there were adverse environmental impacts that were not adequately mitigated by the MDNS issued by BCD and concluded the height of Mr. Pickett's current proposal should be reduced from three to two stories (24') and that the length of the building should be limited to 100'. Council concurred impacts identified at the September 6 hearing could be addressed by voluntary redesign modification of the project proposal and ordered the project remanded to the SEP A Official for revision of the proposal to address the view impacts and tunneling impacts associated with bluff properties and Water Street. June 5, 1995 appeal hearing, staff, applicant, and architect's designers proposed voluntary · · · Planning Commission Minutes September 17, 1998 Page 4 redesign to mitigate those impacts and recommended Council approve a preferred alternative, uphold the MDNS, and reject the appellant's request to reduce the height to 24' with the additional mitigation measures of reducing the motel ftom 36 to 24 units, breaking up the buildings, etc. Appellant continued to oppose the project, as revised, but at the conclusion of testimony and deliberation, Council affinned the SEP A Official's conclusion that the MDNS should be affirmed, as further mitigated by the voluntary conditions proposed by the Applicant. Mr. Rand~ll's Conclusions: ~ Required to return to the MDNS as further conditioned by the City Council Appeal of Determination for the four mitigation measures; a picture of the preferred alternative showing three stories indicating a maximum height of 35'. Mr. Dave Robison was quoted in the minutes of the June 5, 1995 hearing that height is measured from average grade to average gable height of a gabled building, which is consistent with the Uniform Building Code and how the BCD Department measured height. (References 12 to 14) ~ It does not come out and expressly say that the maximum building height for the project is 35' except in reading the documents as shown, but nowhere in the documents do they conclude that building height is less than 35', so you fall back to maximums in the codes. ~ The role tonight is to issue a recommendation to the City Council on the Shoreline Substantial Development Conditional Use Permit. Shoreline policies and goals; public access plan goals; Waterfront goals; Conditional Use Permit criteria and analysis are outlined and incorporated by reference in the Staff Report BCD recommends: ~ approval of the project and recommends that it be found that the project is consistent with the preferred alternative subject to additional comment received tonight, and · approve the development subject to consistency with the site plans provided, with the only caveat that recommended condition #2 (Page 15 of Staff Report) be modified to widen the public sidewalk on Water Street and the public walkway in front of the buildings to 5' as required by the Comprehensive Public Access Plan, and Port Townsend Streetscape Design Workbook. Mr. Randall noted shoreline improvements, also considered significant issues. Shoreline improvements include: ~ Rip rap -- letters from DOE and Fish & Wildlife ~ Modification of landscape of beach ~ Soft bank ~ Gravel pathway, as recommended by Fish & Wildlife · · · Planning Commission Minutes September 17, 1998 Page 5 Questions of Staff: Ms. Thayer If the project was vested as of 1992, why is there not an open record hearing for Council? Mr. Randall Upon purchase in 1997, Mr. Pak contacted the City regarding the status of the project. He was assured the project was valid and vested under 1992 codes; however, for ease of procedure he agreed to follow current Title 20 procedures (Exhibit 7). If they were old procedures, they would be using the Shoreline Commission which no longer exists. Ms. Sherwood Mr. Randall What is the current setback from the highway of the Seaman Sign Building? Believe there is no setback on the highway side; approximately 15 -20 feet from the water side. Mr. Boles Madrona document, Exhibit 3B, page 3, paragraph D, column 2 says, "Enhancement and extension of the proposed shoreline walkway will cause unreasonable adverse effects, . . . " Clarified it should read, ". . . . will cause no reasonable adverse effects, . . . " Staff report, page 2, paragraph 1, and elsewhere: "The applicant proposes two motel buildings approximately fifteen (15) feet ftom the ordinary high water mark. . . ." The 1989 SMP, and other documents, e.g., May 11, 1994 SEPA MDNS, page 7, states it is from the high water mark or the edge of the bank, whichever is greater. It seems the "whichever is greater" has been dropped. Would you clarify ifthe May 11, 1994, page 7, quoting of the SMP is correct, and if correct, which should be operable? It is not clear that the one chosen is the greater distance. On page 7, it is talking about, "under the 1989 Shoreline Master Program's policies and standards, it should not block views, etc. . . . . all structures and parking facilities must be set back 15 feet ftom the bank's edge or the ordinary high water mark, whichever is greater." That is what the MDNS indicates. The 1989 SMP Master Shoreline, page 29, Port Townsend Urban Waterfront Special District, Section 3, Performance Standards, "Setback for non-water dependent elements of developments within the Port Townsend Waterfront Special District," which this is, "shall be a minimum of 15 feet ftom the ordinary high water mark, except for those structures within the Water Street National Historic District where there is no standard minimum setback ftom the ordinary high water mark. The last phrase does not apply; this project is not in the Historic District. I would have to say that the MDNS is incorrect as to the reference, that it should read 15 feet from the ordinary high water mark. That is well documented and is what was determined? Mr. Randall Mr. Boles Mr. Randall Mr. Boles · · · Planning Commission Minutes September 17, 1998 Page 6 Mr. Randall Mr. Boles l\fr. Randall l\lr. Boles l\lr. Randall l\lr. Boles l\lr. Randall l\ls. Thayer Correct. (Referenced in the Staff Report as the 1989 SMP.) Staff Report, page 1, Proposal Description; Exhibit 1 (Tides Inn Motel Shoreline Detail Site Plan, 7/29/98); Exhibit 9 (Tides Inn Motel Landscape Planting Plan 2/10/98). 1) regarding the number of parking spaces, if you compare these two site plans, the parking spaces and the layout, especially in ftont of the two buildings, are not the same, as I read them. What is correct -- how many parking spaces are there in the current proposal?~ 2) Could we reconcile my understanding of the possible discrepancies between the two layouts, where the parking spaces are, particularly spaces 1 and 2, and the location of the dumpster and the landscaping plan? For the parking design, look at Shoreline Site Plan as controlling. The reason for the is, the Shoreline Site Plan was a revised site plan based on the DOE's ordinary high water mark detem1ination. The Landscaping Plan, which is dated earlier, was based on a different understanding of where the ordinary high water mark would be. When the DOE was done, it turned out that the ordinary water mark was further landward than originally estimated, causing the buildings, especially Building A on the east side, to be moved a little toward Water Street. In order to meet those setbacks, the applicant was required to modify the parking layout and eliminate the location of a parking space. It appears they have gained a parking space inunediately in front where the dumpster was; the space in front of the dumpster has been enlarged. The dun1pster has. been relocated. They lost two parking spaces; it is a redesign of that area in ftont of Building A, where there were five spots. By moving Building A closer to the street, you limit the area to drive through there; to continue to have the diagonal parking, there is not sufficient room to have cars pass back and forth, and they had to eliminate 'two parking spaces. The area reserved for the dumpster is a little bit bigger and is just a different arrangement. The Landscaping Plan should be looked as controlling for landscaping, although some other elements are no longer valid. This is a preliminary Landscaping Plan. Staff Report, Page 1-- description of parking states ". . . (11) off·street parking spaces would be provided in front of the motel and an additional û~irteen (13) spaces. .. The one dated July 29, 1998 is controlling and there are, 10 spaces in ftont of the motel, not 11. They did not count the 15 minute parking space. The loading zone between spaces 7 and 8. (Requested subsequently to be provided with better maps.) · · · Planning Commission Minutes September 17, 1998 Page 7 Mr. Boles Mr. Randall Mr. Boles Mr. Randall Mr. Boles Mr. Randall Mr. Boles Mr. Randall Mr. Boles Mr. Randall In parking then, there is a net of 11 in front, and 13 off to the side, 5 of which are designated for the public. Correct. Do I understand there was a stipulation in the site plan of July 29, 1998, that there be one way traffic ftom the east entrance to the west entrance; thus anybody entering the west entrance is forced for parking to the westernmost parking spaces, including those designated for the public. That is correct. I didn't see references to signs that will limit the parking to sometime less than 24 hours. Is there any other designation that is proposed that will help protect those spaces for the public access, as opposed to use by the patrons? Clear signages -- referenced in the Staff Report that Council, or whoever deals with parking, would have the authority to identify the length of stay for those public parking spaces, and perhaps could be done with Police Department enforcement. Is there any notion as to how the city intends to have the entrance signs, so that one might be the main entrance to the motel, as opposed to the one eastern bound people on Water Street would encounter? The applicant has not submitted sign permits yet. That is a good question, I would like to reserve that question for them. Perhaps the main sign should be encouraged to provide a west entrance. It is very likely we would require a public parking sign adjacent to the Walker Street entrance, and public beach access signs. etc. Applauded Mr. Randall - thought it was very well presented and very clear. Go back to 35 foot height. Is my understanding correct there was never a proposal directly considered by the City Councilor other bodies that related directely to the final proposal where all of the main buildings are 35 feet? This was the last depicted in Exhibit 7, and it had some heights that were 35 feet, but not all were 35 feet, and the reference of35 feet came out of 1989 SMP policies that they cannot exceed 35 feet. It started out in history as the City Council saying 24 feet, two stories, then they modified that there were design alternatives that could meet the mitigating circumstances, but Council never said that all the roof heights can or should be 35 feet. It appeared that it sort of became an invitation, that consistency with the preferred alternative would be measured by somebody, or some group, having seen a proposal with all 35 foot heights, and that wasn't the case. You are correct~ 24 feet was considered and later rejected. Reading that the Council adopted the preferred alternative, they stated that mitigations of view · · · Planning Commission Minutes September 17, 1998 Page 8 Mr. Boles Mr. Randall Mr. Boles Mr. Randall Mr. Boles Mr. Randall Mr. Boles Mr. Randall Mr. Boles Mr. Randall Mr. Boles impacts could be done through other measures, adopted the preferred alternative as another measure, and rescinded the original limitation of 24 feet totally, the reference to those previous restrictions, and instead went with four additional mitigation measures and the reference to the preferred alternative. For our reference then, Exhibit 7 was what was before them and what they looked at as the preferred alternative, though they recognized other designs may have been accurate, or may have done the job as well? Deferred to the applicant's responses, but said there was a variety of proposals submitted. Were there other hard copy proposals in front of them that were different? There were actually different proposals, and they selected the preferred alternative as the most desirable. Are we to infer that the maximum height here, of the cupula, or the ridge, is 35 feet? That is a conceptual design. The maximum height for that building would be measured at the gable of what you are calling the cupula, and could not exceed 35 feet. There are no measurements on that building, but on the building before you, the average gable height is 32' 7", as I understand it. To inteJject, there is reference to roof design in the City Council's Appeal Determination, dated June 19, 1995, page 14, lO.e., "The original proposal will be revised consistent with a revised architectural design which incorporates. . . . gable roof forms" (your first lead) ". . . . and varied building heights. . ." They didn't say, "x feet high," but they did approve a design which had a third story and said "varied building heights" and "gable roof forms." They left it a little loose; that is my interpretation. The proposal before us dated September 17, 1998, page 4, paragraph 14, "Public access would be provided. . . . " second line "a meandering concrete path through the street-end park. . . " As I understand your presentation and the Exhibit I drawing, that is, in fact a gravel walk. Is that correct? Correct. That is my mistake. I believe the connection ftom the beach access to the parking lot is also proposed for gravel. One reason, if people were unloading kayaks, they are so heavy they could be dragged through the gravel and not be scuffed too badly. It is concrete in front of the building, but a meandering gravel path consistent with the other paths that are all gravel as well? Correct. I believe the developer is considering changing the path between the two buildings to concrete. In your presentation you referred to 4 foot pathways, then to 5 foot pathways. May 11, 1994 SEP A MDNS (Exhibit 4) Proposal Description, paragraph 2 · · · Planning Commission Minutes September 17, 1998 Page 9 states, "The proposal includes the construction of a 6 foot wide public access walkway ("waterwalk") along the shoreline and. . . . " I don't know that was ever modified anywhere other than in the plans before us. Mr. Randall That was probably based on the preliminary plan originally submitted in November. 1 am not aware of any conditions anywhere in the SEP A documents that say the waterwalk path is 6 foot. What we have betore us is the revised alternative with 4 feet, and code says 5 foot minimum. That proposal that no longer exists. 2. Public Testimony At 7:50 p.m. Chair Thayer opened the publíc hearing beginning with the applicant's presentation. TESTIFYING FOR TH.E APPLICÁNT Mr. Rick SepÌer, Madrona Planning Services Swore and affirmed that the testimony he was about to give was true to the best of his knowledge. Mr. Sepler acknowledged the applicant and those who would be speaking on the applicant's behalf: Mr. Ron Pak, Applicant Mr. Craig Chaney, Merrick Lentz Architects, providing an overview of design process that went trom conceptual alternatives to the actual project Ms. Ande Grahn, Madrona Planning Services, specifically talking about shorelíne criteria Mr. Sepler said they would like to amend their application to 5 foot sidewalks to correct their oversight, and additionally they will provide material for appropriate signage. Mr. Sepler indicated they had been involved in this project somewhat continuously since 1995. He applauded Stafftòr doing a thorough job and said they belíeve Statlanalysis of the project in conformance with the codes is appropriate. He said they supported the Staff recommendations and encouraged adopting the recommendations and approving the project. He asked to be able to respond to any testimony at the conclusion of the hearing so as to provide greater insight into the basis for some of the issues. Mr. Sepler spoke of being institutional memory, that he could provide some guidance from the applicant's point of view, and noted that City Council minutes are avaiíable and provide complete text of what occurred. He said the proposal is an evolution and represents the ~ I I I -.-J · · · Planning Commission Minutes September 17, 1998 Page 10 best of jurisdictions and parties working together to find a harmonious project for a site that is very important. He outlined the project as follows: It is the first sight people see when they turn toward the historic downtown area. The design team has worked at great lengths to provide a beautiful background building, a building that is a good entry, and one that provides public use. Initially the proposal was for a 3-story, 36·unit rectilinear building, offering no visual relief and was somewhat nondescript. The proposal made in 1992 was vested and was subject to SEP A review. An appeal was submitted and sustained. At that point Madrona Planning Services became involved to see if there was a reasonable way to accommodate the community's purposes as well as achieve the applicant's desire. City Council was asked to reconsider their determination, and Madrona suggested there were a number of alternatives that could be investigated to meet the constraints of the Shorelines Master Program and the Urban Waterftont Plan. Madrona demonstrated graphically this might not be the best configuration, and Council agreed this was an appropriate venue to pursue and remanded it to Staff for consideration, as noted by Mr. Randall. Madrona came to Council with four alternatives of various configurations, noting that they were conceptual in nature and the beginnings of dialogue. Council approved basically two rectilinear boxes reducing the height of the buildings. Madrona voluntarily came forward and reduced the project to 24 units and provided a specific example that showed modulation, the use of gable forms and stepping. They discussed that it should not be limited to any specific configuration. A model was prepared as one possible solution, which was substantiated in the record. That was somewhat the basis of Council's final adoption of the preferred alternative and was to be the beginning of dialogue. It was felt that HPC, with proper guidance, could adequately determine what could be appropriate for the project. Mr. Sepler said they acknowledge the project that has evolved has a clear and distinct lineage. He suggested that a review of the record would clearly indicate that Council wanted to preserve view corridors. Mr. Sepler noted the Council and Planning Commission role, and said that Madrona agrees they reserve the right to modify SEP A on issues identified, but feels the project has been thoroughly reviewed at the SEP A level. He said it has gone through one of the most rigorous reviews in terms of esthetics, views and the impacts on those. Mr. Sepler introduced the applicant Mr. Ron Pak noting his establishment of vision from conceptual model to an actual proj ect. Mr. Robert Pak, Applicant (Tides Inn) Swore and affirmed that the testimony he was about to give was true to the best of his knowledge. Mr. Pak said before he purchased the Tides Inn Motel, he was given information ftom . . . Planning Commission Minutes September 17, 1998 Page 11 Mr. and Mrs. Pickett that they got approval ftom SEPA for 24 units. He said he was attracted to the beauty of Port Townsend; this did not match the beauty of Port Townsend, and he wanted to make this project a focal point at the entrance of the tourist attraction of Port Townsend. He said he bought it and reduced the three units; he had many requests ftom guests and local people to keep the Officer & Gentlemen unit. He said he had not wanted to deviate ftom any regulations or rules, but wanted to build a beautiful building still under the guidelines of the local government. He said he discussed this with the architect and others to create a beautiful building without destroying any customs, even though it would cost more. He said this project may contribute to the artistry of Port Townsend with use of his exhibition of art work. Mr. Pak said he had tremendous support and encouragement from the Chamber of Commerce of Port Townsend and others and thanked them for their support. He said he feels he has done what he had to do in meeting codes and regulations, but feels obliged to listening to the ladies and gentlemen of the Planning Commission about any good advice. He said he feels a part of member of company tonight. Mr. Craie Chaney, Merrick Lentz Architects Swore and affirmed that the testimony he was about to give was true to the best of his knowledge. Mr. Chaney said when the preferred alternative was done, the Officer & Gentleman suite had been removed. He said the owner was very emphatic that those were an important part of the nature of the motel and how people perceived the motel, and it has great value to him and to the facility. They tried to adhere to the preferred alternative, at the same time attempting to maintain the Officer & Gentleman suite, if they could. First they reduced the building ftom a 24 to 21-unit project and took into account the thinking behind the preferred alternative to try to maintain view corridors, reduce canyoning along Water Street, and provide public access. Although there was some preliminary discussion regarding a street-end park at Walker Street, no design, only a schematic, was ever provided, but there was always parking shown in it. Mr. Chaney said they decided early on in their planning that if they were going to provide an amenity for the city, they wanted to try to provide as much amenity as possible. Mr. Pak was willing to accommodate parking off site for the park instead of within the right-of-way itself, and Mr. Chaney said the particular view corridor the city aims to protect ,,,,ill not have cars sitting in it. It is a straight-on-through view corridor. He said when you enter downtown and look down to the right side of Tides Inn, you won't see a parking lot, you will see the park; that was their attempt to try to maximize the view corridors within the Walker Street right-of-way itself. Regarding canyoning, HPC had requirements regarding setbacks. He said they incorporated a design scheme using both horizontal and vertical setbacks to try to reduce the . . . Planning Commission Minutes September 17, 1998 Page 12 scale so it doesn't look like one massive building on the street side of the project -- the gables take shape, the roofs drop down between the gables, and the roof lines in front, are all attempts to try to reduce the scale of the project as it appears, so you don't get the canyoning effect. He pointed it out and said that in maintaining the view corridor they reduced the building to two stories in the last bay, that two units sit back in behind the other buildings and squeeze together, rather interlocked, making the buildings a lot narrower and allowing them to keep the view corridor. Doing so, they also reduced the height on the inside of two units to two stories so the roof line can come down as full scale around the opening, can decrease and then draw the eye in, actually utilizing it as a view corridor instead as more of a truncated opening. He also pointed out public access He showed that in addressing massing they attempted to reduce the scale as much as possible ftom the streetscape. He pointed out the preferred alternative and their project behind it. He showed they had shifted a little, changing the original massing ftom the middle towards the center of the new building, and he showed the Officer & Gentleman suite as a single story, where it would have been two stories in the preferred alternative, which reduced a little of the view blockage. Mr. Chaney said all of the design ideas evolved working their way through HPC over the course of a few months to make sure they were trying to satisfy HPC requirements. He said HPC looked at the preferred alternative versus what they proposed and determined it was consistent with the preferred alternative; HPC liked and approved the project, that it is going to be an asset to Port Townsend. Subsequent to HPC approval, DOE established the high water mark, which apparently previously had been drawn at the base of the rip rap wall and never accurately defined. As a result, one building, which ended up being 2 or 3 feet inside the high water mark, was moved forward and the park changed. He said Fish & Wildlife and DOE people mentioned they would like to see some soft beach instead of hard armoring of the beach, and he was delighted to be able to replace the concrete walk and create a meandering path along the shoreline. He said they are creating a little cove area and providing somewhat of a sand beach, a bit of an experiment to see if they get it to stay, as concurred with by the ecologists. They have cleared out a lot of concrete debris and left a little bit of rip rap, not as a wall but to hold the driftwood in place, leaving the few stones, backfilling behind it and planting with native grasses and supplementing with available driftwood. Mr. Chaney feels it offers a really good opportunity to soften the shoreline. He pointed to the sketch showing the contrast in the way the wall is now proposed as it enters the site, diminishing in size, a lot of natural grasses growing within the sand bank, the beach meandering a bit instead having an armored wall, becoming a place with some shoreline habitat and native vegetation. He showed the park undisturbed by parking. Mr. Chaney said they have attempted to produce a project that shows Port Townsend as a great place to be, that this project is an asset to the town. . . . Planning Commission Minutes September 17, 1998 Page 13 Ms. Ande Grahn, Madrona Planning Services Swore and affirmed that the. testimony she was about to give was true to the best of her knowledge. Ms. Grahn made the correction that they have received an Hydraulic Project Approval ftom the Department ofFish & Wildlife dated August 27, 1998, and presented a copy for the record. She said the bulk of the Hydraulic Project Approval clarifies the results of the meeting they had with both Fish & Wildlife and DOE, working with them to establish the high water mark, to create the soft bank, and do some more experimentally but gentler armoring of the site they think will make a much nicer transition into the park area. She said they, and some of the conditions in the hydrology permit, will modify that site in terms of their conceptual landscape plan, which she said Mr. Randall did not require them to redo even though they had redone the site plan. More native plants will be included, and some of the planting already shown in the original landscaping plan will be modified to include especially native grasses that DOE specifically asked for. Ms. Grahn said Mr. Pak bought the project and developed a design team to work through institutional memory and SEP A issues. Her job was to work with everyone to make sure they had permit compliance, especially in terms of the City of Port Townsend adopted Plans: the Shoreline Master Plan, working with Mr. Freeland on the 1989 SMP Plan, the matrix of SEP A Conditions from the original approval, the Waterfront Plan Comprehensive Public Access Plan, as well as the Gateway Plan. She said all three of the Plans have identified and recognized that the Walker Street corridor was to be an important public access area in terms of eventual resolve with the Kearney Street intersection, the transition into the bluff narrows districts ftom the commercial district. She noted that Mr. Pak recognized he wanted that public component, and his plans include a tower in the public area to show local art to create that transition. Ms. Grahn said the primary goal in the Shoreline Plan in establishing conditional uses, especially in an urban area, is public access; the public access requirements in the Shoreline Plan were met by the proposal. She explained that hotels and motels are allowed in the Commercial District and the Gateway Plan for the Commercial area as a preferred use. The Gateway Plan identified the area as being in the Commercial District, the Comprehensive Public Access Plan and Waterfront Plan identified it being in the bluff narrows. They agreed to call it both or either, that it meets all the criteria for both Plans. Commercial uses are allowed: the Shoreline Plan asks: ~ When you consider conditional uses, are proposed uses consistent with the uses that are already established in the area you are considering? (The area includes expansion of an existing hotel, condominiums, a restaurant, and in the area you can have a liquor store, and strip mall kind of commercial development.) They feel they meet the criteria, that the use . . . Planning Commission Minutes September 17, 1998 Page 14 proposed is consistent with the uses that have already been established. ~ Statewide interests are recognized over local interests (the State has identified that statewide interest is in continued public access). The use proposed is a use that is available to the public; it is open to the public; it enhances and continues watemont enjoyment in Port Townsend and includes continuation of a walkway that has been identified in several Port Townsend Plans as being very important. In addition, private development is paying for a public park and agreeing to maintain it in perpetuity. Ms. Grahn pointed out an important connection identified in the Plan that pulled the walkway down and provided parking to allow people a place to access the public walkway, meeting the state requirement that the public's access to the shoreline be preserved over a local interest to provide additional commercial development. She went on to say the natural character of the shoreline needs to be preserved. They do not propose to alter the character of the shoreline; they will enhance its character, the long term benefit over the short term benefit is enhanced. They have worked with Fish & Wildlife who have identified no impacts to water quality, shoreline quality, fish and wildlife habitat. The Port Townsend Marine Science Center is doing eel grass studies in the whole area, and they will continue to cooperate with that and provide them access. They believe the resource and ecology of the shoreline will continue to be protected. A criteria the State has asked in terms of conditional uses with shoreline permits is that you enhance and increase recreational opportunity. The park has been designed to do that, specifically designed to be a place where it will be comfortable for children to play __ softening the bay, increasing views of the water, pulling concrete and rip and rap back and bringing the beach back to make it more visible ftom the path, easier to see and more accessible. Additionally, soft paths will make it easier loading kayaks; it is all gentle grade, all paths are handicap accessible. They feel it will be easy for people to come in. Although they have not submitted a signage plan, it was mentioned they intend to sign all of that as public, and mark those five parking spots public, maybe in the paint on the ground as well. A requirement of the Shoreline permit for conditional uses is that there are no unreasonable adverse effects to the shoreline environment in which it is located, which Ms. Grahn said they feel is a very reasonable proposal in an urban shoreline. She said this is an "identified conditional use"; hotels and motels are discussed, things that bring people to the shoreline. She said this is a shoreline enjoyment use, as opposed to a shoreline dependent use, and triggers the conditional use permit, and that they meet the shoreline enjoyment criteria. The city has, through the SEP A review, determined there are no adverse environmental impacts, and Fish & Wildlife determined there are no impacts to fish and wildlife populations. ~ The public interest suffers no detrimental effect. She concluded public interest does not suffer but is enhanced by the proposal, in part because of the response the owner has had to the design concerns that were raised by the city, his interest in being part of the community . . . b"", Planning Commission Minutes September 17, 1998 Page 15 and establishing the character sooner as you come into town, and by the development of both the public access walkway that is identified in the previous Port Townsend Plan, and the public parkway. Number of Exhibits presented: 15 -- Preferred Alternative Model 16 -- Proposed Addition Model 17 -- Elevation, Alternative Proposal 18 -- Footprint Comparison 19 -- Shoreline Elevation 20 -- Hydraulic Project Approval (Dept. ofFish and Wildlife) Chair Thayer referred to an unnumbered exhibit, which was determined to be Page 2 of the Shoreline Site Plan·· Exhibit 1, Page 2. Questions of applicant: Mr. .Johnson What is the net height of the highest gable, highest point? Mr. Chaney About 37 feet. Mr. .Johnson Is that inclusive of the chimney? Mr. Chaney Chimneys are 2 feet higher than the highest point. Mr. Boles Page 16, paragraph 11 ofproposal-- Bike rack. I did not see it referred to in the plan or in the landscaping plan. Will it take away any parking, parking access or any of the parkway? Mr. Chaney That was inadvertently omitted. We will be able to provide that without affecting any parking issues at all. Do you have a concept of where that is going to go? Probably right off the sidewalk area, behind the parking. We have only done a conceptual landscape plan for that area, but it will probably be accommodated in the park area, not in the parking area. Finallandscaping plans are required to be reviewed by the city Planning Director to make sure they comply with all the requirements of the permit. When conditions are added subsequent to submittal, we agree to them. . . Is it correct that stepping is all in the ftont? The shore side is not stepped? The shore side is not stepped back away ftom the bulk of the building; it steps away on a horizontal basis, so it has modulation in that direction. So the elevation we have on Page 2, Exhibit 1, is only the shore side, and we didn't have any of the street side elevation, is that correct? Mr. Randall Exhibit 19 has been added and will show the elevation of the waterside. The elevations referenced in the document approved by HPC showed all four sides. Mr. Boles Mr. Chaney Ms. Grahn Mr. Sepler Mr. Boles Mr. Chaney Mr. Boles . . . Planning Commission Minutes September 17, 1998 Page 16 Mr. Boles Drainage design in the proposed bioswale: runoff ftom the buildings themselves would be a direct discharge. What provision is there from the runoff that might come ftom the parking to access the bioswale? It is done through a series of catch basins that are designed to catch the water and convey it to that point to be released at the bioswale. Where would that point be, at the northwest access? That is correct, adjacent to the entry of the off-site parking area. What is the catchment area for the bioswale? All new paved areas (does not include the easternmost existing parking area). Mr. Chaney Mr. Boles Mr. Chaney Mr. Boles Mr. Chaney Chair Thayer opened the meeting to the public, requesting those planning to testify attempt to limit their time to 5 minutes due to the length of time already consumed. PUBLIC TESTIFYING: Mr. James Tretter, 1839 Washington Street Swore and affirmed that the testimony he was about to give was true to the best of his knowledge. Mr. Tretter congratulated Mr. Pak for bringing the development project to Port Townsend and being a citizen of this lovely place. He said he thinks we are all concerned about esthetics. He reminded of the history involved and said they were glad to appeal the original project presented by Mr. Pickett because it was the ugliest thing he had ever seen -- a flat building, looking down on infinite air conditioners, and no view of the bay. He said, however, if you go back to the public records, he felt City Council was very happy to see Alternative A that was brought forward by the Madrona people. It was lovely, a complete conceptual sketch, having no dimensions. He said the records teach nothing about the dimensions of this building, except they were trying at that time to get to the situation, and Madrona was agreeing that we were trying to minimize the bulk of the building and maximize the view corridors. He declared that has been translated into a lot of things that were not founded; there is very little precedence ftom Alternative A to what is seen here. He said his major consideration of the current project is that the view corridors to the bay in front of the buildings are minimal. He continued that the public park at the end of the driveway, which is a nice addition, was mandated at the beginning of this project in the early '90's, and has always been there, although it was never defined. Mr. Tretter, said as he knows it, the view corridor is 29 feet. He suggested that as you drive down Water Street and pass the park, for the next 440 feet or so of Tides Inn you will see 29 feet of the bay. Of that 29 feet there is a parking area in its entirety. He said he thinks that is . . . Planning Commission Minutes September 17, 1998 Page 17 minimal; if there is any consideration ftom the former Council meetings, that just is not consistent. Mr. Tretter explained that they have backed away ftom their earliest concerns for the lighting situation. He said, however, if you look at the plans, there is a large number of 100 watt halogen lamps; they backed away because they understand the Planning Commission has taken on their shoulders to warrant that the glare of those lights will not be offensive. He said they hope that would be done. Mr. Tim Caldwell, representing the Chamber of Commerce Swore and affirmed that the testimony he was about to give was true to the best of his knowledge. The Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors asked Mr. Caldwell to convey the Chamber's support for the Tides Inn expansion project. He said the Chamber staff has followed the project ftom its early meetings with the HPC, and they feel that all conditional use criteria has been met, and they congratulated Mr. Pak, the design team and the staff of BCD for their steady progress to this point. Mr. Caldwell said the Chamber sees the project as a significant investment to our community, providing greater opportunity for increased commerce and subsequent tax revenues. He said they applaud the waterftont access plan, that it provides one more link to the waterwalk, which the community desires and seeks. He said the several references to launching kayaks were very interesting, that with the Sea of Kayak Symposium taking place this weekend, they ran out of room in the community on Wednesday. He said that possibly now there would be more spots for those kayaks. It would be nice to have this project available for the next Sea Kayak Symposium. Further questions of the applicant: Mr. Boles Is it your understanding of what you are presenting that it is no longer a conceptual plan? We are not talking about a concept that approximates the preferred alternative? This is your commitment of the design? That is correct. What is the highest point of the chimneys? I do not have the exact dimensions. Can you state a reason why, ifthis is a final proposal before us? Let me explain, the way the drawings come together is that they are not construction drawings, but are the final design. The drawings have been taken beyond conceptual development to the design level in which we make sure everything works and all dimensions work, working with HPC, etc. At that point permits are sought. The City requests the height at the middle of the gable, and Mr. Chaney Mr. Boles Mr. Chaney Mr. Boles Mr. Chaney . . . Planning Commission Minutes September 17, 1998 Page 18 Mr. Boles Mr. Chaney that height is provided on the plans; I do not know the exact number. The plans show what it is to the mid point of the highest gable; that is what the city requires to be provided, which is 32 feet 7 inches -- the mid point of about a 10 foot high gable, so it would be about 5 feet higher for the gable and another 2 feet to the top of that. That would put us at the 37 - 39 foot range, 37 to the top of the gable, 39 foot range with the chimneys. That range is plus or minus what? They are not going to move ftom where they are. They are going to be 2 feet above the highest point of the building, within 10 feet of that. That is what the code requires, so they are not going any higher than that. It costs us money, and it impacts other people. There is no reason to do it. That's where they have to be; that is where they are going to be. And that is 39 feet? It is around 39 feet. The building is dimensioned to the mid point of the gable for purposes of planning review; the drawings don't have the dimension on them. The dimension only is the dimension ftom the top of the peak to the chimney; that difference is 2 feet. That is the way that dimension works. Mr. Boles Mr. Chaney APPLICANT RESPONSE Mr. Rick Sepler Mr. Sepler responded and said they acknowledge the Tretters concern for the project and said they share their desire to make something that addresses some of the early issues that have been brought up. He said the purpose of SEP A is to mitigate adverse impacts, not to design a project, and that clearly they have adopted regulations and processes to do so. He said they have to rely on the Comprehensive Plan, the Urban Waterftont Plan, Comprehensive Public Access Plan, the Gateway Plan to use the design guidelines contained within them. He said the body charged for review is HPC in this case, and HPC found them in compliance. He said they feel they met the direction of Council. At 8:45 p.m. Chair Thayer closed the public hearing and turned the meeting to the Planning Commission for the committee report and deliberation. 3. Committee Report (John BoleslLois Sherwood) Mr. Boles underlined that this obviously has been very carefully reviewed; it has gone through a lengthy process. He said he thinks Mr. Pak is to be commended for his patience . . . Planning Commission Minutes September 17, 1998 Page 19 and Mr. Randall for thoroughness with which he put this together. He said there is certainly a great deal of information for them to go by, and to a great extent it does appear that it has been set by the history of the proposal and some of the determinations that preceded them; otherwise, they would probably be spending a great deal more time than they are going to. He stressed issues he said he had already belabored to some extent in the hearing: ~ Hei~t -- He reasoned that even for a conceptual project, because of concerns for height and bulk and legitimate concerns for the Planning Commission to consider those, it was never clear what those dimensions were; it was never clear what was being discussed; they had only a preferred alternative. He said if there was anything lacking in their record it was understanding how that was defined and how they got to where they are; his concern was in looking only at the limited elevation ftom the shoreline side that they had, and some mythical relation of the average gable height to 35 feet. It wasn't possible to know what might be the final project and how that related to mitigations that preceded the present proposal. He said there is no question in his mind the project has changed significantly from the original, but he wanted to be sure he understood what the proposal was before them. ~ Public component .- He said he has a bias against the shoreline interpretation, but it does not mean that he is opposed to the project. He said he hoped whatever the final traffic pattern decided upon by Public Works and the signing that occurs there, that there is every effort to preserve both the handicapped parking space, the actual parking spaces and the public parking access to that park, and that it not just become an ancillary amenity to the project. Mr. Boles said he had difficulty finding shorelines issues, or impacts that were not otherwise mitigated. He said, though he shares the concerns of the residents as they have been expressed, he thinks Mr. Pak has been responsible and responsive in the design, and with just the few amendments they have already discussed they could present this at the final hearing. Ms. Sherwood commented she is very happy with the decision to keep the Officer & Gentleman rooms after watching that video with some exchange students from Japan and pointing out all of the points of town that are still here. She said she can see value in doing that. She said she was very pleased with the way they are approaching the shorelines; she has always felt a more natural approach was far more pleasing and far more beneficial to wildlife. She said she was also very pleased to see a change in the policy on windows, that without the windows it would look rather prisonish, and she was pleased to have windows on the street side. Ms. Sherwood questioned if there would be just the two accesses, one in ftont of the newer Building A and the one at the point of the street end, and asked if they would be losing the current access for cars? . . . '" Planning Commission Minutes September 17, 1998 Page 20 Mr. Randall answered that there is a central parking lot east in ftont of the existing Tides Inn, and it has its own driveway. Ms. Sherwood expressed her pleasure with the level of concern and commitment shown by the development team. 4. Commission Discussion and Conclusions Chair Thayer added her expression of pleasure for the of level of concern and commitment. She also said she would like to make certain that any impacts with lighting are dealt with, that having been a resident above the Port Townsend heavy haul out and boat haven project she understands how offensive lighting that isn't reflective can be into your home. She stressed that is really an important aspect for the community and the neighbors up above. Ms. Thayer said overall there is a lot here, a lot has been done, and she commended the applicant for a good job. Mr. Boles continued the lighting discussion and said that his understanding ftom reading through the history and the various iterations of approval, it is incorporated by reference directly into this. Where there are concerns, e.g., lighting or landscaping, the director of BCD is responsible for signing off on those things itemized as mitigating prior to the occupancy permit being issued. Mr. Freeland concurred. Ms. Thayer indicated the important aspect is getting it done the right way, even with knowing that when it is written. Mr. Boles noted for the record Page 3 of the Proposal, paragraph 10, "The remainder of Indian Point is not proposed for development at this time." -- that relates under the Commission jurisdiction to possible cumulative effects and is subsequently referred to on Page 11, paragraph e, that the applicant has burden of proof to demonstrate in conformance with WAC 173., etc. that consideration shall be given to the cumulative impact of additional requests for similar actions in the area. He indicated that subsequently, Page 14, paragraph 7c, there is a discussion of a likelihood of cumulative effects ftom this proposal that took care his major concerns for this. Amendments: ~ Mr. Boles: Page 4, paragraph 14, line 2 - amend to read, ". . . a meandering gravel path. . ." . . . Planning Commission Minutes September 17, 1998 Page 21 ~ Mr. Boles: Top of Page 7 - amend to read, "A Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA) is required ftom and has been issued (8/27/98) by the State Department ofFish and Wildlife (Exhibit 20) . . . " ~ Ms. Sherwood and Mr. Randall: Page 15, add at conclusion of Condition 2: "The site plans shall be revised to show 5-foot wide sidewalks along Water Street, and 5-foot wide waterwalk along Port Townsend Bay." ~ Mr. Boles: Page 16, paragraph 12: Change to, "A final stormwater plan. . . . " MOTION Mr. Boles The Shoreline Management Substantial Development! Conditional Use Permit LUP 9211-03 dated September 17, 1998 regarding the Tides Inn Motel submitted by Ron Pak, as amended be approved. Ms. Sherwood UNANIMOUS -- 4 IN FAVOR BY ROLL CALL VOTE SECOND VOTE Chair Thayer announced this Conditional Use Permit would proceed to City Council for a closed record public hearing at a date to be announced. Following a 5-minute recess, Chair Thayer reconvened the meeting. and proceeded with the subsequent hearing. B. Kimm & Lawrence Fay -- Open-Record Public Hearing Variance Application No. LUP98-47 Planning Commissioner Craig Johnson recused himself and did not participate in the hearing. Mr. Johnson was excused for the remainder of the meeting. Chair Thayer commended the Fays for their patience in waiting. She then opened the Fay variance application public hearing. 1. Staff Report (Bruce Freeland) Mr. Freeland ftom the Building &Community Development Department made the staff report on the application ofKimm & Lawrence Fay for a variance on their home. He reviewed the criteria to be met by the Planning Commission in order to grant a variance. He used the overhead projector showing the subject property at 1736 Jackson Street and Lincoln Street running alongside. He stated that the ftont door of the house is on Jackson Street and explained that a corner lot owner can designate whichever side of the property they want to be the front · · · Planning Commission Minutes September 17, 1998 Page 22 yard of the property, so long as the house meets the setbacks. Mr. Freeland said in this case the property does meet the setbacks by declaring that the front of the house is on Lincoln Street, even though the address is on Jackson Street. Mr. Freeland said there is an existing 857 sq. ft. house, and the proposal for an addition to the house to replace an existing garage on the property. He pointed out on the overhead the rear property line and indicated the variance is necessary because the proposed addition comes to the same alignment the present garage comes to on their property, and that distance, which is 4 feet, is less than the required 10 foot rear yard setback between the building and the alley. The lot is 55 x 100 feet, a full sized lot. Mr. Freeland proposed that the question is whether there really are unusual circumstances. He pointed out two alternatives staff provided for consideration in looking at this: ~ Draft A -- Takes the view that this is a lot 55 x 100, that is flat, that there are no unusual features of the lot that in any way constrain it ftom use as any other normal sized lot in the RII zone could be used. From that point of view, it would be difficult to meet the findings that there is an unusual circumstance that constitutes a hardship. ~ Draft B - The other point of view. The alley is an unusual circumstance; it is a deadend alley and really only serves a few immediate properties; it is not part of the general circulation system, and it itself creates an additional setback between properties over and above the normal rear yard setbacks in the vicinity. Although they may be old, non- conforming structures have already been built closer to that alleyway, as indeed the existing garage is closer to that alleyway. If it is determined that there is an unusual circumstance in the nature of the alley, the fact both this property and others have customarily built closer to that alley, you might be able to find that there is an unusual circumstance causing a hardship that this lot would be conforming to the normal zoning standards, whereas the pattern in the neighborhood is somewhat different. Mr. Freeland submitted the two alternatives formally for the record. Ouestions of Staff: Mr. Boles The statement that indicates it is a deadend alley (there are two other properties that could use it -- it is probably too steep for development by one property, and the other one can use Lincoln Street.) It seems to deprive those properties of fair consideration. Alternative B, Conclusion 1 and the Fay application rests upon the notion that is a deadend alley, and does not serve the other two properties, which conclusion was reached in their submittal. Their application says "Parcel. . 11 has access of Lincoln Street while Parcel. . .10 may not be developable due to steep slopes." "The alley functions as a driveway for our lot and the two previously mentioned properties." My concern is, that is a conclusion that I don't think is fair to the extent that any decision is predicated on that conclusion or the fact that alley is not really used. I cannot conclude . . . Planning Commission Minutes September 17, 1998 Page 23 Mr. Freeland that ftom the drawing. Alternative B, Staff conclusion on Page 2 of 3, is referring to this alley as being a unique circumstance in that it doesn't so much provide a general circulation component in the neighborhood as it does a separator between lots. That it provides use for fIre trucks to get in; there is enough space. It serves many of the functions that would normally be served by the rear yard setback, and the fact that it is not part of general circulation is a feature that is umque. It deadends right there where is it now; it doesn't go through the rest of that property. You only have two other lots that abut it. One lot already has a non- conforming building on it abutting that alley; the other one doesn't, but it has a lot more property that is not abutting that alley than is abutting it. That is the case for this being an unusual circumstance. Ms. Thayer Mr. Freeland Ms. Erickson Mr. Freeland Mr. Boles Mention is made of the Public Works Development Review Engineer; there was no mention of fIre. Do they have any trouble of restrictions in the alleyway? We are not faced with anything like the situation we had with Rosewind, where we had the person being required to put in sprinklers because of the distance? About the alley right-of-way (21 feet), paragraph 6, "The alley prevents any two buildings from being less than 20 feet apart." Mr. Freeland There are no restrictions, and no situations exist as relates to Rosewind; it should probably say, "21 feet." Ms. Erickson How many square feet are there is this addition? Mr. Freeland The addition is 857, and the existing house if 888 sq. ft. Ms. Thayer So the bulk is less than the maximum percentage. Mr. Boles Mr. Freeland Can you reconcile that issue? I am not sure where 857 feet comes ftom. There is an existing house, and the proposal is to have an addition that would be a garage, studio, etc. to that existing house. The house is an 888 foot square house, and the additional detached 262 square foot garage and 120 foot greenhouse, which would be removed and be part of what would be replaced by the addition. The 888 feet is ftom Jefferson County Assessor records. 2. Public Testimony Mr. Larry Fay, Applicant Swore and affirmed that the testimony he was about to give was true to the best of his knowledge. . . . Planning Commission Minutes September 17, 1998 Page 24 Mr. Fay presented a drawing as Exhibit 3. He reported that 850 sq. ft. is the measurement they took of the house, themselves and calculated it out; the assessor has 888 sq. ft. for the existing house. He said they could go back and make the measurements and find out exactly what it is. The addition they propose is an additional 857 sq. ft. As pointed out, they want to bring it 4 feet from the southeast property line. Mr. Fay said that is what they are representing as the back property line, being on a corner lot and identifying Lincoln Street as the ftont of the property. The existing garage they want to replace is located 4 feet from the back line, and actually now 4.5 feet ftom the side property line. The proposed building would be 5 feet ftom the side property line and would now be in compliance; the only thing out of compliance would be the back property line. Mr. Fay said the special circumstance, and the reason they are pursuing the variance, is a 10 foot setback from the back property line. Their initial thinking was that in a normal situation where you have two properties adjoining themselves, and the intent with setbacks, you could conceivably construct two buildings 20 feet apart on two different properties and be fully in compliance with the code. They reasoned that the alley being 21 feet wide, without ever being aijIe to construct two buildings on the two adjacent properties 20 feet apart, would be less than you could do on any other property in the city. That was their basic logic and basic view of what is unique about the site -- the deadend 100 foot alley isn't something commonly found around Port Townsend, not commonly found in the neighborhood. Mr. Fay said they did not know the function of the alley as originally dedicated. He said it was deeded in the early 1900's, but there was no purpose stated other than a public alley. He said the alley comes back 110 feet, and deadends. He pointed out the neighbor's lot to the southeast and the Davidson property and said the alley has functioned all through the years basically as a driveway for Davidson's property and for the garage on the Fay's property. He said the house on the corner accesses directly off Jackson and into their garage. He pointed out there is lower level belonging to other neighbors that is undeveloped and referred to as being very steep. He said he is not sure they would ever build on it, but there is also access ftom Lincoln beach down below. No property would become landlocked, if you were to interfere with the function of the alley; their construction with the variance would not interfere with the use of the alley any more than the existing garage. Mr. Fay said when they complete construction, they would be looking at 1700 sq. ft. living area. He said they felt Mr. Freeland did a good job of Draft B, and requested the Commission to take a good, hard look at that and give it serious consideration. He said he does think they have an unusual situation with the alley; that is not something you are not going to find, at least in their neighborhood. He said he does not think it has any potential of being part of any future pathways, because of where it ends; there is no Lawrence Street, but you could conceivably continue some access on down clear to the beach. He said he didn't mean to imply that people would not have any use for it, but they don't see that their construction affects the . . . Planning Commission Minutes September 17, 1998 Page 25 current use of that alley. He pointed to a building that has been remodeled within the last 10 years or so, and up to the last year was permitted by the city as overnight guest accommodations; it is not as though it has not undergone some other kinds of reviews by the city. They do not teel what they are asking for are particularly unusual benefits than what other people in the community have had in respect to the use of their properties. At 9:30 p.m. Chair Thayer closed the public hearing and turned the meeting to the Planning Commissioners for committee report and deliberation. 3. Committee Report (Karen Erickson/Nik Worden) Ms. Erickson said she liked Mr. Freeland's language in Draft B. She said she had no problem with Draft B, that she thinks there are certain circumstances, such as the alley, that allow tor this type of interpretation, and thought Mr. Freeland had done a great job on the conclusions. She said since the alley is not going to be changed any more than it is now, it is not going to expand the non-contormance, just continue the non-conformance, she has no problem with it. 4. Commission Discussion and Conclusions Ms. Sherwood said usually the special circumstances are restrictions, but in this case they seem to be an opportunity, but it still is a special circumstance. She said she sees this as an appropriate way to go. Pr()posed Amendment Mr. Boles: Page 2, paragraph 6, change to read '"'I'he alley prevents any two buìÎdings ±rom being less than 21 teet apart." There was discussion as to the appropnateness of the change to 21 teet. MOTION Ms. Erickson Recommend approvaÎ of'Draft B of Variance Appîication No. LUP98-47, Kimm and Lawrence Ð. .Fay, Jr. SECOND VOT~ Mr. Sherwood UNANIMOUS - 4 iN J/A VOR BY ROLL CALL VOTE Chair Thayer mformed the Fays the vanance would go to City Council for a closed record hearing probably the third Monday in October. Mr. Freeland indicated to the .Fays that they would be notItÌed ofthe date. . . . .- Planning Commission Minutes September 17, 1998 Page 26 VI. ANNOUNCEMENTS: Next Scheduled Meetings September 24. 1998 October 1. 1998 October 8. 1998 October 15. 1998 October 26. 1998 October 29. 1998 Comprehensive Plan Amendments, Workshop Parks & Recreational Plan, Workshop 1998 Comprehensive Plan Amendments, Public Hearing Finalize Comp Plan Amendment Recommendations to City Council 6:30 p.m. -- Joint Meeting with the City Council to Discuss Planning Commission Recommendations for Comp Plan Amendments Parks & Recreational Plan, Public Hearing Mr. Boles noted we would be absent for the September 24th meeting and possibly October 1. VII. ADJOURN Motion to adjourn the meeting was made by Ms. Sherwood an~ seconded by Erickson All were in favor. The meeting adjourned 9:37 p.m. .~~ Sheila Avis, Minute Taker l4=-1b . Cin Thayer, Chair . . . Meeting of: Purpose: Date: Guest List ) C·" ;/.(: A/{//fI//VC(7Æ~ftI/0S/Ò/f/ c¡/; 7/1'7 Name (please print) Address T estimonv? ^ YES NO ,V·/trN1 -U:LQJ1' ",\i {8 Zal)~L~ ~#~ ~" t>< fl\., ~ t~ \..-&)\N0\;G1\ D~ 1 AI/\.! (/57(~0i . N ; ~-J' ')()6 ~Tu'" It <- ~ 'S-J ¡... Q Y ,/'-r ~ - I ) - \ ~ " . I I lu_ ·1 I