Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04131995 Min Ag . . . City of Port Townsend Building and Community Development S40 Water Street. Port Towusead. W A 98368 360/385-3000 FAX 360/385-4290 PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA Business Meeting I. ROLL CALL ll. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: March 30, 1995 llI. COMMUNICATIONS: Current mail IV. OLD BUSINESS A. Mabel Jean Stanks, Variance Application #9502-02 1. 2. 3. 4. Staff Report (Surber) Public Testimony Committee Report (Enarson/Thayer) Commission Discussion and Conclusions B. Judith McKinney, Trenhold House Conditional Use Permit Application #9503-09 and Variance Application # 9502-06 1. Staff Report (Surber) 2. Public Testimony 3. Committee Report (Keith/Baird) 4. Commission Discussion and Conclusions v. NEW BUSINESS VI. ANNOUNCEMENTS: Next Scheduled Meetings April 27. 1995 Gary Kennedy, Short Plat Application #9410-09 (Welch/Erickson) VII. ADJOURN ') April 13, 199Y · · · " City of Port Townsend Planning Commission 540 Water St., Port Townsend, WA 98368 206/385-3000 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES April 13, 1995 Business Meeting 7:00 PM I. ROLL CALL The meeting was called to order at 7:02 PM by Chair Lois Sherwood. Other members present were Ernie Baird, Lisa Enarson, Karen Erickson, Cindy Thayer, Ian Keith, and Mark Welch. Staff members present were Judy Surber and Pam Kolacy. II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Erickson moved to approve minutes as corrected. Thayer seconded, and all were in favor. III. COMMUNICATIONS Judy Surber presented a letter of comment from neighbors and an updated memo from staff regarding Conditional Use Permit Application #9503-09 and Variance Application #9502-06. IV. OLD BUSINESS: A. Mabel Jean Stanks, Variance Application #9502-02 1. Staff Report Surber described the applicant's proposal to construct a six-foot fence directly abutting the Discovery Road right-of-way. While presenting an overhead view of the project, she noted a correction to the staff report which states that the proposed fence would run along 140 feet of right of way. The fence is proposed to run along 80 feet of the street right- of-way ànd an additional 38 feet of the rear property line. The Port Townsend Municipal Code requires that fences and hedges of six feet high or greater be set back a minimum of 20 feet from street rights-of-way. Applicant cites issues of privacy and nuisance from automobile headlights during the evening and night. Surber distributed photographs representing the location of the house and road which illustrate these issues. It was also noted that because of drainage problems on the property, efforts at providing landscaping that would block traffic have been unsuccessful. Planning Commission April 13, 1995 Page 1 · · · Surber presented staff's recommendation that the project be approved with the following conditions: that existing drainage patterns shall not be interrupted by the construction of the proposed fence, that space shall be left between the fence and ground surface, and that the applicant agree to a restrictive covenant stating that the applicant will relocate the fence if the City determines that relocation is necessary to accommodate improvements to Discovery Road. The final condition was requested by the Public Works Dept. Enarson noted that the fence would be placed 10 feet from the currently existing road edge. 2. Public Testimony Applicant, Mabel Jean Stanks, stated her concerns about privacy and about the glare of headlights from passing traffic at night which neither blinds nor curtains block out. She stated she would prefer not to comply with the condition requiring a restrictive covenant on her deed as she believes it will hurt her property value; she stated also that she believes this condition would give an unfair advantage to those who have fences which do not meet height criteria and thus do not have to agree to moving their fences if the road is widened. Others speaking in favor of the application were Paul Hensey, Jennifer Stankus, and Dorothy Hensey. The Henseys are neighbors of the applicant and supported her comments. In answer to questions about the widening of the street, Surber stated that the arterial street plan is the basis for identifying streets that may be widened in case of buildout. The arterial plan suggests that the city preserve the right of way for up to four lanes, but that would occur only if the growth rate of the City reached 3 % . Stankus, applicant's daughter, explained that the house is set within 10 feet of the property line, making the mandated 20 foot setback for a six foot fence impossible. She noted that applicant has tried to keep the proposal to the minimum needed to create a visual screen. She stated she believes the restrictive covenant would be an unfair burden, noting that it may raise questions in the minds of potential buyers regarding future plans for Discovery Road. She believes that if road improvements occur, the City should deal fairly with all property owners at that time, and cited the possibility that those who requested legal variances would be penalized. 2. Committee Report: Enarson/Thayer Enarson commended applicant for coming before the Planning Commission with the variance request. She pointed out that in the matter of the requested restrictive covenant, it is true that the City is asking for something not requested of 3-ft. fence builders (because those fences are allowed by the Code), but the City is also providing a means for the applicant to proceed with a project not generally allowed under the code. It is common to ask for a mitigation in such circumstances. She also noted that the restrictive covenant would allow the variance to continue, for example if the fence needed to be relocated, applicant would still have a legally approved six foot fence within 20 feet of the Discovery Road right-of-way.. Planning Commission April 13, 1995 Page 2 · · · Thayer noted that a 6 foot fence built without a variance would have to be removed. if the street were improved, or if any complaint were received. Also, the only way subsequent purchasers or owners of the property may know that the variance has been granted is to give constructive notice through the recording mechanism. She noted she is strongly in favor of granting the variance, with all conditions. 3. Commission Discussion and Conclusions Thayer questioned staff about followup procedure in having the covenant recorded. Surber noted that a restrictive covenant has been drafted and is ready to be sent to the County for recording. After recording, covenants are returned to the City and the City provides a copy to the applicant. Enarson stated that although the applicant may see the restrictive covenant as a negative, it would probably be an asset for the proPerty, since it proves everything has been done legally, and gives property owner the right to relocate the fence rather than having to remove it. Erickson also noted she believed it would add value to the house. Welch stated that it is probably true there are others who have built similar projects without going through the variance process; however if someone builds an illegal or nonconforming structure, they may be required to remove it at any time. With the covenant in hand, there is proof that the project is approved by the City . Baird asked whether failure to record a restrictive covenant would diminish Public Works authority to direct the fence to be removed if it became a public safety issue; whether the burden and expense would have to be borne by the City rather than the property owner. Erickson noted that three-foot fences are erected primarily for decoration and for marking property lines, and that they do not pose view blockage issues. A six-foot fence is much more expensive and wall-like than a three-foot fence; therefore requirements for removing or moving the larger fence would be more costly and difficult. Thayer t;loted that as a real estate agent she would look upon the covenant as a positive for the property owners, and as a courtesy to subsequent owners so they know the 'variance was granted. Sherwood noted that she feels it is important that the fence èan be relocated as part of the variance. If it were nonconforming, the City could require removal without a provision for relocation. In that way, the restrictive covenant provides protection for the future. Welch asked if Commission would like to discuss the issue of visual affects along Discovery Road, and whether a condition for mitigating that mass is feasible. Planning Commission April 13, 1995 Page 3 · · · Sherwood noted that a visual break could be incorporated into the design. It would probably be to the property owners advantage, but she does not recommend that the Commission create such a condition. Thayer agreed she would not like to put more restrictions on the design. Motion by Enarson to recommend approval of Variance Application #9502-02. Second by Thayer, all in favor. Sherwood noted to applicant that the Variance Application will be forwarded to City Council where she may again address the covenant terms. Before the next application, Enarson noted that she .would like to compliment Dave Robison for distributing the Appearance of Fairness Doctrine to the Planning Commission. She believes the material is a good reminder of what Commissioners may use to base decisions. B. Judith McKinney, Trenholm House, Conditional Use Permit Application #9503-09 and Variance Application #9502-06 1. Staff Report Judy Surber noted that the applicant was not present. She left the meeting to try to reach applicant by phone. Commission noted that they could base their decision on the information available, and that applicants will have the opportunity to speak at City Council is they do not come to the meeting. Since the time and place were properly noticed, Commissioners agreed to continue. Surber explained the applicant's proposal to remodel an existing historic residence and modify existing Conditional Use Permit 1285-02 for a bed and breakfast inn within the R-l zone. Proposed improvements to the structure require a variance from the required lO-foot building separation and from the front, rear and side yard setback requirements. In addition, the applicant requests a variance to provide less than the required seven off-street parking spaces required under the Port Townsend Municipal Code. Surber presented exhibits of ' the property and explained each item of the variance and CUP applications using the overhead projector. She went through the two drafts of staff findings and conclusions, one recommending approval and one recommending denial. Staff recommends Draft A "denial". Based on strict interpretation of the criteria for variance approval, staff could not support the proposed off-street parking variance. Surber noted that staff was not opposed to the CUP or setback and building separation variances.. Surber noted that applicants will return to Commission to request vacation of the alley at a later date. Since they are hoping the main house can be opened for business in May, the cottage which is in the alley right of way will not be rented until a street vacation is granted. Planning Commission April 13, 1995 Page 4 · · · She stated that the nonconforming setbacks were in part caused by requirements for fire escapes from the top floor and basement level. In regard to parking requirements, she noted that although Haines Street has a platted right of way of 80 feet, the current paved right of way is only about 17 feet. This means that currently, parking could fit in the area of about 35 feet which exists from the property line (marked by a picket fence) to the paved edge of Haines Street. Surber noted that during development review with Public Works, the issue of use of the public right of way was discussed. There was no objection to the use of the unpaved right of way as long as sufficient visibility were provided for passing motorists. Surber noted some old photographs are available to show what motorists would see. Commissioners received copies of a letter from neighbors showing support for the variance, but expressing concerns about on-street parking on 21st Street. Surber noted that during review of previous files on the property, she had found some other public comment letters in support of the bed and breakfast variance and from neighbors saying there needed to be designated off-street parking. The history of the application shows no public comment objecting to the bed and breakfast use. Surber noted that she wished the applicant were present because she had more history and material to explain why she feels variance should be granted. She said applicant feels she is trying to preserve the integrity of an historic house and would like to use the public right of way for parking. Baird asked whether the city anticipates widening Haines Street. Surber replied there was no mention of that at the public works review meeting. Enarson noted that the original 1985 CUP was for six units and the present application asked for approval of five units. She asked whether six units could be accommodated in the structure. Surber noted she had a copy of the building plans for Commissioners to examine. Thayer asked how the building process had gotten this far without a permit. Surber noted that the foundation was under 30 inches high and so could be put before the variance, also noting that applicants had been informed they would run the risk of being unable to build on the foundation if the variance were not approved. Keith asked if there were a building permit for the project. Surber replied that certain parts of the project have been permitted, such as interior remodeling and foundation. Keith stated then when he visited the site, he couldn I t find any pins and asked what basis there is to know property lines and setbacks are official. Thayer noted the burden has always been on the applicant for setbacks, and that the Commission has never required a survey. Keith stated that since the Commission is being asked to approve setbacks on three of four Planning Commission April 13, 1995 Page 5 · · · sides, it would be helpful to know exactly how much variance is being requested. Surber stated that a survey is generally not requested for a variance application. Enarson noted that overhead exhibit 5 is different from the exhibit in the packets, because it doesn't show the platted alley where the cottage is. Surber noted that she added that to the presentation exhibit because she knew that in her discussion, she would note that the cottage is in a platted alley. She said the exhibit was from a historic file, and was not submitted by the applicant. Enarson also stated there were some small buildings she observed during the site visit that were not portrayed in the exhibits. 2. Public Testimony Applicants entered the meeting at 8:27 and explained they had been waiting at the Courthouse and realized during a break in those proceedings that they needed to be at City Hall. McKinney stated that they were trying to comply with all requirements for the project, but that they had been somewhat handicapped by not knowing the history of the. property. She said they would like to open the bed and breakfast as soon as possible, and will wait to pursue the alley vacation until later . She noted they are interested in doing a good project and historic restoration, and would like action on the current proposals. Baird repeated his concern that although the use and setback variances seem reasonable, the rationale for a parking variance escapes him. He stated that there is a lot of land associated with the property, and questioned whether the owners feel that somehow the historic integrity of the property would be preserved by not parking a contemporary automobile on it. McKinney replied that they would like to restore the garden and historic orchard. She stated that the orchard makes it relatively inconvenient for guests to park on the property and carry luggage back up to the house. She also feels there is plenty of street frontage which could be used for parking. She stated that literature she has received from a professional association of innkeepers says the second most important reason people come to bed and breakfast inns is for the gardens. In regard to the survey markers, Greg Matson, co-applicant, noted there are two markers, on Haines and 27th Street, and that he used those when determining property lines and setbacks. 2. Committee Report (Baird, Keith) Baird noted again that he believes the setback variances are reasonable, and that a bed and breakfast is a good use of the property. He stated the design is attractive and he does not see any imposition of difficulty on neighbors or traffic patterns, and therefore recommends Planning Commission April 13, 1995 Page 6 · · · approval. He also stated that the Municipal Code provides straightforward guidelines about off street parking, and since there was adequate space available, these guidelines should be followed. He said there should still be room to arrange attractive gardens as well as to provide parking. He supported Findings and Conclusions, Draft A. Keith said he also fails to see that special conditions exist that would justify the parking variance. He does not perceive a difference in. applicant's situation from other similar businesses in town who have to provide parking in compliance with the Code. 3. Commission Discussion and Conclusions Thayer expressed agreement with the Committee members, and noted that it was unfortunate that the applicant had not received information on the provisions of the existing Conditional Use Permit. Enarson noted that the subject property is beautiful and said she could understand applicant 's desire to provide lovely landscaping for the project. She also stated that the Commission's task is to look toward provision of health, safety and welfare for future residents as well as current residents of the neighborhood. For example, the parking situation may not be a problem now, but may become so as the neighborhood changes. She stated that parking and attractive landscaping could both be provided on the property without undue hardship to applicant's enterprise. She explained that Commissioners need to keep in mind the preservation of the residential quality of the neighborhood. McKinney noted that their plan included provision for handicapped parking on 21 st Street. Under ADA guidelines, she understands that handicapped persons need to be provided with the same services as everyone else, and it is her belief that it would be more difficult for handicapped people to maneuver into the house from parking on the property. Enarson noted that by reorienting the ramp, on-site parking could be just as close to the entrance as off-street parking. She noted that the on-site parking requirements would not preclude applicants from developing on-street parking as well. Sherwood noted that one parking space could be in the garage. She also stated that the Commissioners need to make sure the Municipal Code is applied in a fair and credible manner. . Enarson noted that requirements for off-street parking are minimal, and really provide only one space for each room. If off-street parking were provided, the on-street parking could be used for associated uses. Applicant then clarified that although the application lists 5 bedrooms in the house, and one in the cottage, the plan is actually to have 4 bedrooms in the house and one in the cottage. Planning Commission April 13, 1995 Page 7 · · · This would reduce the parking requirement by one space. Baird questioned which Draft Findings and Conclusions would be most expeditious in terms of addressing the parking issue and returning applicant to work on the project. Surber suggested an amendment to Draft B stating the Conditional Use Permit will not become effective until an off-street parking plan is proposed and approved. She also noted that some provision would be needed to make sure the lots containing parking could not be sold separately from the lot on which the main residence is located. Discussion about this condition continued, noting that when the bed and breakfast use ceases, the Conditional Use Permit will cease since it is attached to that use only. Therefore, if the house became a private residence with reduced parking requirement, the lots would not remain tied together. Matson said he would draw up the parking plan tomorrow and deliver it to Judy Surber. Thayer moved to approve the variance application and Conditional Use Permit Draft B with conditions amended as followed: 1) the CUP authorizes rental of four bedrooms within the primary structure; 2) applicant will provide a parking plan and CUP will not become effective until the approved parking lot is developed; 3) conditions 3 & 4 (regarding on-street parking and impervious surfaces associated with on-street parking) be eliminated; 4) the CUP shall not become effective until a restrictive covenant binding the required parking spaces to the bed & breakfast inn is recorded. Baird seconded the motion, and proposed that the Committee review the revised Findings of Fact and Conclusions before they were sent to Council. All were in favor. Thayer noted that the application would be before the City Council on May 1 and requested that, duè to the number of changes, all Commissioners receive a copy of the revised FNC signed by the Committee. v. NEW BUSINESS There were no items of new business Planning Commission April 13, 1995 Page 8 VI. ANNOUNCEMENTS: Next Scheduled Meeting · April 27, 1995 Gary Kennedy, Short Plat Application #9410-09 (Welch/Erickson) · · VII. ADJOURN Erickson moved to adjourn, second by Thayer. All were in favor. The meeting was adjourned at 9: 15 PM. Q~CJ- d)~ª,?r- Pamela Kolacy Administrative Assistant Planning Commission April 13, 1995 Page 9 . . . "IT Guest List Meeting of; nA/V 1// Ala t!()/o/',4f¡55/oN Purpose: S1'fltð I J/M M<t:(' £ oJ. 11"'/(¡ -v£.q) tI.¡¡N-' YM IMeF- Date: <//;3;£ 'J Name (please print I Address T~~timonv? YF~ NO 1R>..v-1 !.-'D~~ f-kI1S~ I «.{).O '<-o.~e(4'~ S 1-,. p,. r