Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10291992 Ag Min .. .. . e .. City of Port Townsend Planning Commission 540 Water St., Port Townsend, WA 98368 206/385.3000 PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA Business Meeting I. ROLL CALL II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: September 10, 1992 III. COMMUNICATIONS: Current mail IV. OLD BUSINESS A. Short Plat Application #9204-01, Andrew and Erica Thurston 1. 2. 3. 4. Staff report (Bloomfield) Public testimony Committee report (Thayer/Rickard) Commission discussion and conclusions B. 1993 Budget Review (Hildt) V. NEW BUSINESS VI. ANNOUNCEMENTS: Next Scheduled Meetings November 12. 1992 1993 Work Program or "So much to do - SO little time. \I (Robison) 1. Staff review 2. Commission discussion VII. ADJOURN October 29, 1992 \ . , . City of Port Townsend Copied to PCO~~~,~ //~d Planning Commission 540 Water St., Port Townsend, WA 98368 206/385-3000 Planning Commission Minutes of October 29, 1992 I. ROLL CALL Vice Chair Karen Erickson called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM and introduced the new Planning Commission member, Lisa Enarson. Other members present were Mark Welch, Bob Rickard, and Cindy Thayer. Also present were staff members Darlene Bloomfield, Michael Hildt and Sheila Spears. Commission members absent were Lois Sherwood and Ernie Baird. II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: September 10, 1992 Motion to approve minutes of 9-10-92 was made by Rickard and seconded by Thayer. All were in favor. TII. Communications: Current mail IV. Old Business A. Short Plat Application #9204-01, Andrew and Erica Thurston 1. Staff report (Bloomfield) Enarson declared a conflict of interest because she and her husband hold title to a lot adjoining the proposed short plat, and excused herself from the hearing. Mr. Thurston was not in attendance when the meeting started. He was called and a message was left on his recorder. Planning Commission members looked at the exhibits on the board until applicant arrived. Bloomfield explained that the short plat application was first introduced to the Planning Commission in July. It was originally going to be an administrative procedure but the applicant requested it be reviewed in front of the Planning Commission because of the controversial aspect. After taking public testimony on July 9, 1992, the hearing was continued to August 13, 1992, with a request that the applicant pursue alternatives to the plat. At the August 13, 1992, meeting, the hearing was continued to October 29, 1992, so that a new ordinance regarding short and long plats could be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission and City Council. Bloomfield reviewed Draft A of the Findings of Fact and Conclusions and made corrections to the report. Draft A recommends for approval. Draft B has the same findings of fact but the second conclusion is modified, saying that the proposed Lot 1 would not be in character with the area in which it is located. A new condition is added that says Lot I, as proposed, shall be deleted from the final plat. Mark Welch was gone and did not receive the original packet and asked for that material. \ . , ". Planning Commission Minutes of 10-29-92 Page Two Bloomfield gave him the originals to look at, explaining that some of the letters are also referencing the SEP A review. 2. Public testimony Erickson stated that since there have been changes since the original application, that all information would be heard by the Commission. Thurston questioned the two lots saying that it would be an unacceptable alternative. He said that he has not applied for a 2 lot subdivision so doesn't see how Planning Commission can go with Draft B at this time. Thurston read a letter he had written to his neighbors in response to previous comments and requests for certain evaluation and consideration. He said that he has chosen to leave the layout of the proposal the same. Nobody spoke in favor of the application. Malcolm Harris, representing Dennis Harris and Karen Rafnel (no relation), referenced his 8-5-92 letter and asked if everybody had received a copy. He said that enhancing the value of the Thurston property is going to be done to the detriment of the neighboring properties. He cited state law saying that it provides that the public interest has to be served and what works best for the Thurstons on their land doesn't serve the public interest. He said the major test is whether public interest will be served. He said that his clients are opposed to the design and character of the created lots. Al Beach said that he is in favor of Draft B, and that it is a good compromise but doesn't solve all the problems. He gave a history of the surrounding lots he has sold and gave his view of the increased traffic if an lots in the area are developed. He presented pictures of trees Thurston has planted claiming that view lines are being obscured. These were entered into the record as Exhibit 11. Commission questioned whether it should be taking public testimony on Draft B if the applicant is not in favor of it at all. Bloomfield gave an explanation of the two different drafts, following through with the resulting conclusions. Commission asked applicant if Draft B is an option. Thurston responded that he hadn't reviewed it and asked for continuation to study Draft B if the Commission is not going to approve Draft A, and said that he has a lot of money wrapped up into this application. Thayer asked Mr. Beech if any restrictions were ever placed on the lots that he sold. He said that he required 20 feet from the road and no tall trees in order to keep view lines. Dennis Harris emphasized that he was attracted to his property because of its openness and said that the absence of an easement doesn't mean the desire wasn't there nor the intention, and said that Thurston's ideas aren't in writing. He said there would be a new set of problems with the future possibility of subdivision. , . , , . ' '. Planning Commission Minutes of 10-29-92 Page Three David Steuer stated that further division of the property would greatly change the character of the neighborhood. He requested that Thurston's proposal be denied. He said that the Planning Commission has discretionary powers to deny even if it is legal. Karen Rafnel reviewed highlights of the previous testimony and urged disapproval of the short plat in its present form. She said new ordinances changed the nature of how lots are described for building. When she bought her property she thought that an existing easement prevented building on the lot in front of them which is part of the proposed Thurston short plat. She said that continuation of public hearings and the new ordinance prevented anyon-going dialogue in response to Thurston's letters. She expressed dissatisfaction with access and egress to the proposed subdivision. Rafnel requested that the Commission take into consideration the present character of the neighborhood. Thurston said that he has had no response from letters to the neighbors; no call-backs or letters. He said that when he originally considered buying the property he was told that view was not a criteria for subdividing. He said that it was erroneous that the neighbors' view rights were assured through that corridor and that Mr. Beech didn't have a right to sell property guaranteeing that view corridor since he didn't own it. Thurston said that unless he subdivides the property then the neighbors have no way of buying the view easement that he will sell to them if his proposal is approved. Public Testimony closed. 3. Committee Report (Thayer/Rickard) Thayer said that she couldn't find any reason why the cul-de-sac was placed where it was. It is her understanding that as the property now stands an outbuilding could be built. She presented a thought of allowing only a single story 17 foot house, and said that technically the subdivision is legal but she is not comfortable with Lot 1 as it stands. Ware Lot 4 is a very large piece of land but dividing it this way creates unacceptable size lots and Thayer said she thinks there is a better way to do it. Rickard said that he doesn't feel that the Planning Commission has been presented with anything different than before and that when Planning Commission met previously, it suggested that the applicant go back and try to work out a better approach. He said that if Planning Commission denies this application - that in no way protects the views. It does not prevent construction on that small piece of land. It also doesn't preclude the applicant from coming back with something else. Rickard said that the Planning Commission needs to approve or deny and that it shouldn't be involved in changes at this point. He said that to continue something indefinitely until something can be worked out is not the intention of the process. Mark Welch said he thinks there could be a better way of handling this. Erickson said that she sympathizes with property owners losing their views, but the views were not guaranteed. She said that the increase in traffic is something that will have to be dealt with. . Planning Commission Minutes of 10-29-92 Page Four Erickson said that she believes Thurston is willing to cooperate with the neighbors and that since there is the possibility of six building sites, believes he has a right to propose these three lots. Our ordinance allows him to do so. She said the design of the lots is what concerns her. Motion was made by Thayer recommending Short Plat Application 9204-01 be denied because it is not in character with the neighborhood. Seconded by Rickard. Thurston said that he would accept the Draft B proposal at this point rather than a denial of the short plat. Commission said that at this point it could not consider Draft B because testimony had not been taken on it as the applicant stated earlier in the hearing that he had not applied for a 2 lot subdivision. Welch abstained from voting. Rickard, Thayer and Erickson voted in favor of the motion for denial of the short plat. Motion to deny the short plat was approved. . Michael Hildt explained that the Planning Commission makes the decision on short plats. There are no additional public hearings before the City Council. He gave a brief history of the flexibility of the two drafts prepared by staff and said that the drafts are a starting point and the Planning Commission can take the staff drafts and start over. Rickard pointed out that the Planning Commission used to make its own drafts before it had good staff. Some discussion followed concerning whether or not short plats can be appealed to Council. Enarson returned to the meeting at this point. B. 1993 Budget Review (Hildt) Hildt gave an explanation of the City's expenditures and sources of revenue. He gave a report on what PT 21 is, saying that it helps leaders work with the community to figure out some direction of community. Thayer said that the perception of the community is that too much is coming from City Hall. Hildt said that the City has the authority to charge plan review fees because it has adopted the Uniform Building Code (UBC). If any changes are made to the fee schedule, out of respect to the community, it would be presented to City Council for approval and notices would go out to builders. Meeting adjourned at 9:55 p.m. ~~ , Sheila Spears Planning and Building Assistant -_..~- - -.--- ---./ ~..""',;.>"--~. . . .._~,....--.