Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07261979 .. '. "; PORT TOWNSEND, WASHI.ON 98368 . CITY OF' PORT TOWNSEND Port Townsend Planning Commission AUGUST 1, 1979 HONORABLE MAYOR CITY COUNCILMEMBERS CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND AT THE REGULAR JULY 26, 1979 MEETING OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION THE FOLLOWING REQUESTS WERE HEARD AND RECOMMENDATIONS MADE: APPLICATION NO. 7901-01 FINAL PLAT RUTH SHORT 1158 VAN NESS PORT TOWNSEND MOTION BY KILHAM/DUDLEY MOVED TO ACCEPT THIS FINAL PLAT VOTE 5/YES a/NO APPLICATION NO. 7903-03 STREET VACATION SAM TAYLOR RT. 1 BOX 5 PORT TOWNSEND STREET REQUESTED FOR VACATION, BAKER STREET BETWEEN 9TH AND 10TH STREETS. MOTION BY KILHAM/WILEY MOVE TO RECOMMEND TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 7903-03 AS IT COMPLIES WITH ITEMS 2 THRU 6 OF SECTION 5.20 OF ORDINANCE NO. 1802 CONTINGENT UPON THE APPROVAL OF ED HAWLEY THE STREET AND SEWER SUPERINTENDENT AND ALSO CONTINGENT UPON THE DEDICATION OF A 30 FOOT PORTION OF THE LOT THAT ABUTS DISCOVERY ROAD FOR THE PURPOSE OF RIGHT OF WAY: VOTE 6/YES O/NO APPLICATION NO. 7905-02 PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT JEFFERSON COUNTY HOUSING DEVELOPMENT P.O. BOX 553 PORT TOWNSEND LOCATION FOR THIS PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT IS BLOCK 224, EISENBEIS ADDITION ON HANCOCK STREET. PROJECT IS TO BE CALLED THE HANCOCK STREET SENOIR'S PROJECT. PROPOSED USE: TO PROVIDE 51 DWELLING UNITS FOR THE AREA'S ELDERLY AND ALSO TO PROVIDE A NUTRITION SITE FOR RESIDENTS AND OTHER SENIOR CITIZENS. MOTION BY CAMPBELL/KILHAM WHEREAS, THE PROPOSED PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT IS IN THE BEST PUBLIC INTEREST AND WILL NOT HAVE AN ADVERSE EFFECT UPON ADJACENT ROADS, UTILITIES OR NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES, AND; . . HONORABLE MAYOR CITY COUNCILMEMBERS AUGUST 1, 1979 PAGE 2 WHEREAS, THE PROPOSED PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT IS IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND ZONING ORDINANCE PAGE 5, CHAPTER FOUR SECTION 4.05 LETTER C ITEMS 1 THRU 3, AND; WHEREAS, THE PROPOSED PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT CAN AND MAY FULFILL A NEED FOR THE CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND AND SURROUNDING AREAS. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDS TO THE CITY COUNCIL THAT APPLICATION NO. 7905-02 A REQUEST FOR A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT BE APPROiED. VOTE 4/YES 2/NO I ! MINORITY OPINION I I UNDER THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING OR~'INANCE NO. 1625 CHAPTER IV, SECTION 4.05, PARAGRAPH C "BASIS FOR APPR VAL", THE PLANNING COMMISSION IN MAKING ITS RECOMMENDATION TO THE ITY COUNCIL MUST SATISFY THEMSELVES THAT THE APPLICANTS HAVE DEMONSTR TED THAT THEY CAN COMPLY WITH SUB- PARAGRAPH 1-2-3CA,B,C,D,E,F,G,H & I) -THE MINORITY OPINION IS THAT THE APPLICANTS HAVE NOT DEMONSTRATED ITHAT THEY COMPLIED WITH THESE REQUIRE- MENTS. IT IS FELT THAT THE CITY îOUNCIL SHOULD GIVE SPECIAL ATTENTION TO THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS: I I UNDER SUBPARAGRAPH -1 STATE AND ~OMPLETION OF THE PROJECT IN A RESONABLE TIME HAS NOT BEEN SHOWN~ RATHER, IT HAS BEEN LEFT TOTALLY OPEN-ENDED BASED ON POSSIBLE ADEQUATE FINANCING THROUGH HUD, ECT. UNDER SUB-PARAGRAPH -2 IT IS FELT THAT THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT IS NOT CONSISTENT IN ALL RESEPCTS TO THE SPIRIT AND INTENT OF THIS CHAPTER. RATHER, IT IS FELT THAT THE APPLICANTS ARE ATTEMPTING TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE SPIRIT AND INTENT OF THIS CHAPTER DUE TO THE SPECIAL NATURE OF THE PUD CIE, LOW COST-ELDERLY HOUSING). ALSO, THAT THE SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT PLANS HAVE BEEN PREPARED WITH COMPETENT PROFESSIONAL ADVICE AND GUIDANCE HAS NOT BEEN CLEARLY SHOWN. TO THE CONTRARY, IT APPEARS THAT THE PLANS WERE DEVELOPED BECAUSE THIS SITE WAS "THE ONLY ONE THAT WE COULD COME UP WITH". DUE TO COSTS ECT. UNDER SUB-PRAAGRAPH -3-D THAT THE TOTAL AVERAGE DENSITY OF THE PROJECT WILL BE COMPATABLE WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN IS CLEARLY NOT SHOWN. THOUGH UNDER THIS SUB-PARAGRAPH IT IS ALLOWABLE TO IN- CREAS E THE DENS I TY . I TIS FELT THAT TH I S PROPOSAL PUSHES THE DENSITY FAR BEYOND WHAT CAN REASONABLY BE EXPECTED. PARTICULARLY WHEN YOU CONSIDER THAT THE POPULATION OF THE PROJECT WILL BE MADE UP OF ELDERLY PEOPLE WHO ARE NOT ABLE TO RESPOND QUICKLY IN AN EMERGENCY SITUATION SUCH AS FIRE, ECT., ESPECIALLY RESIDENCE OF THE THIRD FLOOR. ALSO, IT IS FELT THAT SERVICES DEMAND IN RELATION TO THE TOTAL PROJECT AND LOCAL AREA HAS NOT BEEN ADEQUATELY COMPUTED OR RESOLVED FOR A POSITIVE DETERr~INATION AT THIS TIME. JONATHAN DUDLEY FRANK SMITH JR. e e HONORABLE MAYOR CITY COUNCILMEMBERS AUGUST 1, 1979 PAGE 3 APPLICATION NO. 7906-01 STREET VACATION JEFFERSON COUNTY HOUSING DEVELOPMENT P.O. BOX 553 PORT TOWNSEND STREET REQUESTED FOR VACATION 7TH STREET BETWEEN HANCOCK AND SHERMAN STREETS. MOTION BY KILHAM/ HENDERSON MOVE TO RECOMMEND TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 7906-01 AS IT COMPLIES WITH ITEMS 2 THRU 6 OF SECTION 5.20 OF ORDINANCE NO. 1802 WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITION THAT THE EASEMENT BE SHIFTED TO THE GENTER SPACE BETWEEN THE SOUTH WALL OF THE PROPOSED BUILDING AND THE SOUTH RIGHT OF WAY LINE. VOTE 4/ YES 0/ NO 2/ABSTENTIONS APPLICATION NO. 7906-06 VARIANCE RAYMOND OLIVER 259 N.W. FIRWAY LN. BREMERTON VARIANCE REQUEST IS TO WAIVE THE REQUIREMENT TO PROVIDE OFF STREET PARKING FOR THE BUILDING PROPOSED BETWEEN 702 WATER AND 720 WATER STREET. MOTION BY CAMPBELL/KILHAM MOVE TO RECOMMEND TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 7906-03 AS IT COMPLIES WITH ITEMS 2,5,6 &7 OF SECTION 6.10 A OF ORDINANCE NO. 1625. VOTE 4/YES l/NO MINORITY OPINION BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS THIS VARIANCE SHOULD NOT BE GRANTED. THE PUBLIC INTEREST WOULD NOT BE SERVED BY FURTHER AGGRAVATION OF PRESENT PARKING PROBLEM. NO SPECIAL CONDITIONS OR CIRCUMSTANCES EXIST WHICH ARE NOT APPLICABLE TO OTHER LAND IN THE SAME AREA WHICH WOULD DEPRIVE THE PROPERTY OWNER OF THE RIGHTS ENJOYED BY OTHER SIMILAR PROPERTIES. THE GRANTING OF A VARIANCE WOULD CONFER A SPECIAL PRIVILEGE TO THIS OWNER THAT WAS DENIED OTHER NEW CONSTRUCTION IN THE AREA EG. HOMER gr~ITH AND SEA FIRST. FURTHER, THE PARKING REQUIREMENT HAD BEEN IN EXISTENCE WELL BEFORE PURCHASE OF THIS PROPERTY BY THE PRESENT OWNER. WILLIAM HENDERSON ,. . . . þ HONORABLE MAYOR CITY COUNCILMEMBERS AUGUST 1, 1979 PAGE 4 APPLICATION NO. 7907-01 VARIANCE GRANT ALLEN P.O. BOX 753 PORT TOWNSEND VARIANCE REQUEST IS FROM THE HEIGHT RESTRICTION OF 30 FEET TO BUILD A NEW VICTORIAN SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE ON THE N.W. CORNER OF TAFT AND ADAMS ST. MOTION BY DUDLEY/KILHAM MOVE TO RECOMMEND TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 7907-01 AS THE PROPOSED VARIANCE IS IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS SET FORTH IN SECTION 6.10 A 1,5,6,7 &8 OF ORDINANCE NO. 1625. SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITION: THAT MR. ALLEN SUBMIT IN WRITING THAT HE WILL FOLLOW A VICTORIAN DESIGN. VOTE 4/ YES a/NO APPLICATION NO. 7907-02 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT JACK SCOTT & THELMA SCUDI 820 WATER ST. PORT TOWNSEND REQUEST IS FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO RENT FOUR ROOMS AT 731 PIERCE STREET FOR OVERNIGHT ACCOMODATIONS. MOTION BY DUDLEY/KILHAM MOVE TO RECOMMEND TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 7907-02 A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO RENT FOUR ROOMS IN THE HOME AT 731 PIERCE STREET FOR OVERNIGHT ACCOMODATIONS IN THE NAME OF THELMA SCUDI AND JOHN M. SCOTT BE GRANTED UNDER THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SECTION 6.08 OF ZONING ORDINANCE NO. 1625 SECTION A,B,C & D AND THE FOLLOWING SPECIFIC CONDITIONS THAT THE AFOREMENTIONED THELMA SCUDI AND JOHN SCOTT COMPLY WITH AND HAVE CLEARANCE OF THE STATE FIRE MARSHALL AND THE STATE HEALTH DEPARTMENT AND THAT THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT SHALL BE RESCINDED IF THESE TWO AFOREMENTIONED PEOPLE DO NOT GET THAT CLEARANCE. VOTE 4/YES a/NO ¡ ~ ;¡ . . -t· ,~ MINUTES FROM PORT TOWNSEND PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF JULY 26, 1979 VICE CHAIRMAN CAMPBELL CALLED THE MEETING TO ORDER. MEMBERS PRESENT: KILHAM, SULLIVAN, DUDLEY, CAMPBELL, HENDERSON, WILEY AND SHITH. MINUTES FROM THE MAY 31, 1979 MEETING WERE READ AND APPROVED. OLD BUSINESS: APPLICATION NO. 7901-01 FINAL PLAT RUTH SHORT 1158 VAN NESS PORT TOWNSEND MOTION BY KILHAM/DUDLEY MOVED TO ACCEPT THIS FINAL PLAT. VOTE 5/YES a/NO APPLICATION NO. 7903-03 STREET VACATION SAM TAYLOR RT. 1 BOX 5 PORT TOWNSEND STREET REQUESTED FOR VACATION, BAKER ST. BETWEEN 9TH AND 10TH ST. MOTION BY HENDERSON/ MOVE TO TABLE THIS APPLICATION UNTIL COMMENTS ARE RECEIVED FROM THE STREET AND SEWER SUPERINTENDENT. MOTION WITHDRAWN, MOTION BY KILHAM/WILEY MOVE TO RECOMMEND TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 7903-03 AS IT COMPLIES WITH ITEMS 2 THRU 6 OF SECTION 5.20 OF ORDINANCE NO 1802 CONTINGENT UPON THE APPROVAL OF ED HAWLEY THE STREET AND SEWER SUPERINTENDENT AND ALSO CONTINGENT UPON THE DEDICATION OF A 30 FOOT PORTION OF THE LOT THAT ABUTS DISCOVERY ROAD FOR THE PURPOSE OF RIGHT OF WAY. VOTE 6/YES O/NO APPLICATION NO. 7903-04 PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT LAKESIDE INDUSTRIES VERN SCHACHT MOTION BY DUDLEY/KILHAM MOVE TO TABLE THIS APPLICATION UNTIL AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT HAS BEEN MADE. VOTE 6/YES a/NO APPLICATION NO. 7905-02 PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT JEFFERSON COUNTY HOUSING DEVELOPMENT P.O. BOX 553 PORT TOWNSEND LOCATION FOR THIS PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT IS BLOCK 224, EISENBEIS ADDITION ON HANCOCK ST. PROJECT IS TO BE CALLED THE HANCOCK STREET SENIOR'S PROJECT. PROPOSED USE: TO PROVIDE 51 DWELLING UNITS FOR THE 1" ..;. ·PLANNING COMMISSION. , JULY 26, 1979 PAGE 2 . AREA'S ELDERLY AND ALSO TO PROVIDE A NUTRITION SITE FOR RESIDENTS AND OTHER SENIOR CITIZENS. A LETTER WAS READ FROM JANET MOSHER OPPOSING THE PROJECT. GAIL STUART GAVE SOME BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON THIS PROJECT. mE TOLD THE COMMISSION THAT THEY HAVE HAD A SURVEY MADE OF 256 PEOPLE IN PORT TOWNSEND AND JEFFERSON COUNTY WHO SAID THAT THEY NEED HOUSING. HE HAS INFORMATION FROM THE INFORMATION ACTION GROUP THAT THERE IS 6 UNMET REQUESTS FOR HOUSING FROM SENIORS EACH MONTH. MR STUART READ A LETTER FROM THE OLYMPIC AREA AGENCY ON AGING, (SEE ATTACHED). MR STUART TOLD THE COMMISSION THAT THE PURPOSE OF THE SENIOR CITIZEN HOUSING PROJECT IS THERE AS DEVELOPED A NEED FROM THE SENIORS THEM- SELVES BOTH TO THE OLYMPIC AREA AGENCY ON AGING AND THE COMMUNITY ACTION COUNCIL. CHAIRMAN SMITH THEN CALLED FOR PEOPLE TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF THE APPLICATION. ALICE SALE, HADLOCK SAID SHE IS IN FAVOR OF THE PROJECT THERE IS A REAL NEED FOR IT. PATTI WHITSETT, HADLOCK SHE WORKS WITH SENOIR CITIZENS AND AGREES THERE IS A NEED FOR THIS PROJECT. BETTY ANDERSON, 5528 KUHN, SHE STATED THAT THIS PROJECT IS BADLY NEEDED AND WE SHOULD HEED THE NEED. MARIE SHIRLEY, PORT TOWNSEND IS IN FAVOR OF THE PROJECT BUT MAYBE IF THERE ARE ANY ALTERNATIVE LOCATIONS CLOSER IT MIGHT BE BETTER TO LOOK AT SOME- THING CLOSER IN. JEFFERY MASSEY 640 ADAMS, HE FEELS THIS PROJECT DESERVE~ THE GO AHEAD BECAUSE THERE IN A NEED. RENNIE BERGSTROM, THERE IS A NEED FOR THIS PROJECT. BUB O'MEARA JEFFERSON COUNTY COMMISSIONER, HE IS A MEMBER OF A COMMITTEE, FORMED BY FOUR COUNTIES, ON THE AGING AND THERE IS A DEFINITE NEED FOR THIS TYPE OF HOUSING PROJECT. HELEN RICKERTON KEARNEY ST. APARTMENTS, SHE IS IN FAVOR OF THIS PROJECT BUT MAYBE IT SHOULD BE CLOSER IN. BOB HARPER, COMMUNITY ACTION COUNCIL, HE STATED THERE IS DEFINITELY A NEED FOR THIS PROJECT. BERNIE ARTHUR PORT TOWNSEND, HE IS IN FAVOR OF THIS PROJECT BECAUSE OF THE NEED AND BECAUSE OF THE CHANGE IT WOULD OFFER THOSE SENIOR CITIZENS WHO DON'T LIKE TO LIVE DOWNTOWN. MARK KOSOLOFF HADLOCK, WE CAN'T DELAY THIS TYPE OF PROJECT ANY LONGER. BILL MCINTIRE 720 MEMORY LANE, HE IS FOR A PROJECT OF THIS TYPE BUT NOT IN THIS PARTICULAR NEIGHBORHOOD. PETER BADAME PORT TOWNSEND, HE FEELS THAT SERVICES NEED TO BE IMPROVED FOR SENIORS THROUGHOUT THE CITY. THERE WAS A TEN MINUTE QUESTION AND ANSWER PERIOD. THE QUESTIONS RAISED AND THE ANSWERS GIVEN WERE SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME AS IN THE REVIEW MATERIAL. SINCE THERE WAS NO FURTHER TESTIMONY IN FAVOR ON THE PROJECT, CHAIRMAN SMITH CALLED FOR TESTIMONY AGAINST IT. RICK DENNISON, HE IS NOT AGAINST THE PROJECT BUT IS AGAINST THE LOCATION. FREDIA IMSLAND SHE FEELS WE SHOULD HAVE SOME TYPE OF BUS SERVICE. JANET MOSHER SHE FEELS THAT WE DON'T NEED THIS PROJECT WHAT WE NEED ARE REPAIR AND CHORE SERVICES TO KEEP THE SENIORS IN THEIR HOMES. STEVE HAYDEN HE IS BOTHERED BY THE FACT OF 51 UNITS ON ONE ACRE. HE ALSO WONDERS WHY THIS PROJECT CAN'T GO OUT FOR BID INSTEAD OF ALREADY BEING SET UP WITH THE BUILDER. LARRY DENNISON FEELS IT COULD BE LOCATED IN A BETTER LOCATION. MARILYN ALBERT FEELS IS IS AN INCONVIENT LOCATION. KRIS DEWEESE WOULD LIKE TO EITHER HAVE THIS APPLICATION DENIED OR TABLED UNTIL WE GET MORE INFORMATION ON TRANSPORTATION AND THE POSSIBLE HEALTH HAZARD, LOW DENSITY, BETTER LOCATION, MORE INPUT AND BETTER PLANNING. JANEEN HAYDEN SHE WOULD LIKE TO KNOW WHAT QUESTIONS WERE ASKED THE SENIOR CITIZENS IN THE SURVEY, AND WHAT M~. STUART WOULD BE WILLING TO DO WITH ANY PEOPLE WHO ARE WILLING TO LOOK FOR A BETTER LOCATION. BOB SWEETSO 23RD & HAINES ALSO SPOKE AGAINST. SINCE THERE WAS NO FURTHER TESTIMONY FROM THE AUDIENCE THE MEETING WAS CLOSED TO THE PUBLIC. 3 . '. PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 26, 1979 PAGE 3 . MOTION BY CAMPBELL/KILHAM WHEREAS, THE PROPOSED PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT IS IN THE BEST PUBLIC INTEREST AND WILL NOT HAVE AN ADVERSE EFFECT UPON ADJACENT ROADS, UTILITIES OR NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES, AND; WHEREAS, THE PROPOSED PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT IS IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND ZONING ORDINANCE PAGE 5, CHAPTER FOUR SECTION 4.05 LETTER C ITEMS 1 THRU 3, AND; WHEREAS, THE PROPOSED PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT CAN AND MAY FULFILL A NEED FOR THE CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND AND SURROUN9ING AREAS. NOW, THEREFORE,- BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDS TO THE CITY COUNCIL THAT APPLICATION NO. 7905-02 A REQUEST FOR A .PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT BE APPROVED. VOTE 4/YES 2/NO MINORITY OPINION UNDER THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE NO. 1625 CHAPER IV, SECTION 4.05, PARAGRAPH C"BASIS FOR APPROVAL", THE PLANNING COMMISSION IN MA~ING ITS RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL MUST SATISFY THEMSELVES THAT THE APPLICANTS HAVE DEMONSTRATED THAT THEY' CAN COMPLY WITH SUB- PARAGRAPH 1-2-3CA,B,C,D,E,F,G & I) - THE MINORITY OPINION IS THAT THE APPLICANTS HAVE NOT DEMONSTRATED THAT THEY COMPLIED WITH THESE REQUIRE- MENTS. IT IS FELT THAT THE CITY COUNCIL SHOULD GIVE SPECIAL ATTENTION TO THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS: UNDER SUB-PARAGRAPH -1 STATE AND COMPLETION OF THE PROJECT IN A REASONABLE TIME HAS NOT BEEN SHOWN. RATHER, IT HAS BEEN LEFT TOTALLY OPEN-ENDED BASED ON POSSIBLE ADEQUATE FINANCING THROUGH HUD, ECT. UNDER SUB-PARAGRAPH -2 IT IS FELT THAT THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT IS NOT CONSISTENT IN ALL RESPECTS TO THE SPIRIT AND INTENT OF THIS CHAPTER. RATHER, IT IS FELT THAT THE APPLICANTS ARE ATTEMPTING TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE SPIRIT AND INTENT OF THIS CHAPTER DUE TO THE SPECIAL NATURE OF THE PUD (IE, LOW COST-ELDERLY HOUSING). ALSO, THAT THE SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT PLANS HAVE BEEN PREPARED WITH COMPETENT PROFESSIONAL ADVISE AND GUIDANCE HAS NOT BEEN CLEARLY SHOWN. TO THE CONTRARY, IT APPEARS THAT THE PLANS WERE DEVELOPED BECAUSE THIS SITE WAS "THE ONLY ONE THAT WE COULD COME UP WITH". DUE TO COSTS ECT. UNDER SUB-PARAGRAPH -3-D THAT THE TOTAL AVERAGE DENSITY OF THE PROJECT WILL BE COMPATIBLE WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN IS CLEARLY NOT SHOWN. THOUGH 'UNDER THIS SUB-PARAGRAPH IT IS ALLOWABLE TO INCREASE THE DENSITY~ IT~IS'::r5LT THAT THIS PROPOSAL PUSHES THE DENSITY FAR BEYOND WHAT CAN REASONALBY BE EXP'ECTEº-,- fA~T I CULARL Y WHEN you CQNS I DER THAT THE POPOLATION Of THE PROJECT WILL BE MADE Up Of ELDERLY PEOPLE WHO ARE NOT ABLE TO RESPOND QUICKLY' IN AN EMERGENCY SITUATION SUCH AS fIRE ECT., eSPECIALLY RESIDENCE_Of THE THIRD FLOOR. ALSO, IX IS fE~T THAT SERVICES DEMAND IN RELAWION TO THE TOTAL PROJECT AND LOCAL AREA HAS NOT BEEN ADEQUATELY COMPUTED OR RESOLVED fOR A POSITIVE DETERMINATION AT THIS TIME. JONATHAN DUDLEY FRANK SMITH JR. j . . PLANNING COMMISSION e JULY 26, 1979 PAGE 4 e APPLICATION NO. 7906-01 STREET VACATION JEFFERSON COUNTY HOUSING DEVELOPMENT P.O. BOX 553 PORT TOWNSEND STREET REQUESTED FOR VACATION 7TH STREET BETWEEN HANCOCK AND SHERMAN STREETS. MOTION BY KILHAM/HENDERSON MOVE TO RECOMMEND TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF APPLICATION 7906-01 AS IT COMPLIES WITH ITEMS 2 THRU 6 OF SECTION 5.20 OF ORDINANCE NO. 1802 WITH THE FOLLOWI~NG CONDITION THAT THE EASEMENT BE SHIFTED TO THE CENTER SPACE BETWEEN-THE SOUTH WALL Of THE PROPOSED BUILDING AND THE SOUTH RIGHT OF WAY LINE. VOTE 4/YES O/NO 2/ABSENTIONS APPLICATION NO. 7906-03 RAYMOND OLIVER VARIANCE 259 N.W. FIRWAY LN. BREMERTON VARIANCE REQUEST IS TO WAIVE THE REQUIREMENT TO PROVIDE OFF STREET PARKING FOR THE BUILDING PROPOSED BETWEEN 702 WATER AND 720 WATER ST. A LETTER WAS READ FROM ELEANOR SMITH OBJECTING TO THIS REQUEST. MOTION BY HENDERSON/ MOVE TO RECOMMEND TO THE æITY COUNCIL DENIAL OF APPLICATION NO. 7906-03 BECAUSE IN SECTION 6.10 A OF ORDINANCE NO. 1625 ITEM 2, THERE AREN'T SPECIAL CONDITIONS HERE WHICH ARE PECULIAR TO THIS WHICH HAVEN'T BEEN PECULIAR TO THIS BEFORE AND OTHER PEOPLES INTEREST IN BUILDING AND ITEM 4, THE GRANTING OF THIS VARIANCE REQUEST WOULD CONFER A SPECIAL PRIVLEGE TO THE SUBJECT PROPERTY THERE CONDITIONS EXISTED PRIOR TO HIS PURCHASING THE PROPERTY AND HE WAS OR SHOULD HAVE BEEN AWARE OF THEM AT THAT TIME. THERE BEING NO SECOND TO THE MOTION IT WAS WITHDRAWN. MOTION BY CAMPBELL/KILHAM MOVE TO RECOMMEND TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 7906-03 AS IT COMPLIES WITH ITEMS 2,5,6& 7 OF SECTION 6.10 A OF ORDINANCE NO. 1625. VOTE 4/YES I/NO A MINORITY OPINION BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS THIS VARIANCE SHOULD NOT BE GRANTED. THE PUBLIC INTEREST WOULD NOT BE SERVED BY FURTHER AGGRAVATION OF PRESENT PARKING PROBLEM. NO SPECIAL CONDITIONS OR CIRCUMSTANCES EXIST WHICH ARE NOT APPLICABLE TO OTHER LAND IN THE SAME AREA WHICH WOULD DEPRIVE THE PROPERTY OWNER OF THE RIGHTS ENJOYED BY OTHER SIMILAR PROPERTIES. THE GRANTING OF A VARIANCE WOULD CONFER A SPECIAL PRIVILEGE TO THIS OWNER THAT WAS DENIED OTHER NEW CONSTRUCTION IN THE AREA EG. HOMER SMITH AND SEA FIRST. FURTHER, THE PARKING REQUIREMENT HAD BEEN IN EXISTENCE WELL BEFORE PURCHASE OF THIS PROPERTY BY THE PRESENT OWNER. WILLIAM HENDERSON ì I _ _ ____n__.1 e PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 26, 1979 PAGE 5 e APPLICATION NÖ. 7907-01 GRANT ALLEN VARIANCE P.O. BOX 753 PORT TOWNSEND' VARIANCE REQUEST IS FROM THE HEIGHT RESTRICTION OF 30 FT TO BUILD A NEW VICTORIAN SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE ON THE N.W. CORNER OF TAFT AND ADAMS ST. MOTION BY DUDLEY/KILHAM MOVE TO RECOMMEND TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 7907-01 AS THE PROPOSED VARIANCE IS IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS SET FORTH IN SECTION 6.10 A 1,5,6,7 & 8 OF ORDINANCE NO. 1625 SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITION: THAT MR. ALLEN SUBMIT IN WRITING THAT HE WILL FOLLOW A VICTORIAN DESIGN. VOTE 4/YES O/NO APPLICATION NO. 7907-02 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT JACK SCOTT & THELMA SCUDI 820 WATER ST PORT TOWNSEND REQUEST IS FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO RENT FOUR ROOMS AT 731 PIERCE STREET FOR OVERNIGHT ACCOMODATIONS. MOTION BY DUDLEY/KILHAM MOVE TO RECOMMEND TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 7907-02 A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO RENT FOUR ROOMS IN THE HOME AT 731 PIERCE STREET FOR OVERNIGHT ACCOMODATIONS IN THE NAME OF THELMA SCUDI AND JOHN M. SCOTT BE GRANTED UNDER THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SECTION 6.08 OF ZONING ORDINANCE NO. 1625 SECTION A,B,C & D AND THE FOLLOWING SPECIFIC CONDITIONS THAT THE AFOREMENTIONED THELMA SCUDI AND JOHN SCOTT COMPLY WITH AND HAVE CLEARANCE OF THE STATE FIRE MARSHALL AND THE STATE HEALTH DEPARTMENT AND THAT THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT SHALL BE RESCINDED IF THESE TWO AFOREMENTIONED PEOPLE DO NOT GET THAT CLEARANCE. VOTE 4/YES O/NO THE MEETING WAS ADJOURNED. ~A\cti.h~ tn, Y'núéI)n~ KATHLEEN M. MACDONALD PLANNING COMMISSION SECRETARY e 03A OLYMPIC AREA AGENCY on AGING ~ A .~ e July 26, 1979 CLALLAM . JEFFERSON GRAYS HARBOR and PACIFIC COUNTIES Council of GOlJernmc>nts o o P.O. BOX 31 - MONTESANO, WA. 98563 - PHONE 249-5736 BRANCH OFFICE: FIRST NATIONAL BANK BLDG., ROOM 208 PORT ANGELES, WA. 98362 - PHONE 452-3851 Mr. Gael Stuart, Executive Director Clallam/Jefferson Community Action Council 802 Sheridan Port Townsend, WA 98368 Dear Mr. Stuart: The Olympic Area Agency on Aging has recently been informed of the proposed Senior Citizen Housing to be constructed on Hancock Street in Port Townsend. Our assessment of the needs of senior citizens conducted prior to the development of the 1979 Area Plan for Services to Older People established low-Income Housing as a very definite need and was documented in the Plan. Thus far our preliminary research for the 1980 Plan has widened, if anything, an even larger demand for low-income housing for Seniors in Jefferson County. Our agency is prepared to offer any assistance and coordination necessary to increase the availability of low cost housing for Seniors in Jefferson County. The proposed Hancock Street Housing has our support given proper resolution of two conditions that we feel seriously affect the normal lifestyle and health of Seniors. First, we feel that the location of the housing should be contingent upon the availability of access to other services necessary to enable Seniors to continue independent living. If Seniors are isolated from the center of the community and corresponding medical, nutritional, social and professional services, we have performed a disservice. Given the serious inflationary dangers that Seniors on fixed incomes face, we are concerned that any housing available to them does not ironically contribute to their premature institutionalization because they cannot reach those services necessary to remain independent. Second, being a resident of Port Townsend myself I am quite familiar with the irritation of the atmospheric emissions of the Crown Zellerbach mill. Our agency is seriously concerned about the effect of these emissions upon the health of Seniors and would question the housing of a large number of Seniors in close proximity to the source of this emission. Not being familiar with the nature of these emissions only the discomfort, we could give our support to this housing proposal only after a responsible study has been conducted which established no potential of health hazard to the Seniors involved. , ~ n '" , ' - "" e e Mr. Gael Stuart -2- July 26, 1979 In conclusion, our agency fully supports the proposed Hancock Street housing for Seniors if these two above considerations, the potential loss of independence and the potential health hazards are satisfactorily addressed. If we can be of any further assistance please feel free to call on us. Sincerely, ?~~~~[ Peter Badame, Planner Olympic Area Agency on Aging PB/ef Enclosure