1633 - Resolution - Deny Wolf Rezone ApplicationRESOLUTION NO. 1533
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PORT
ORCHARD, WASHINGTON SETTING FORTH FACTS, FINDINGS AND
CONCLUSIONS RELEVANT TO AN APPLICATION FOR ZONE
RECLASSIFICATION FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 775 OLNEY
AVENUE AS SUBMITTED BY WILLIS L. AND SANDRA WOLF AND TO
THE APPEAL TO THE PLANNING COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION TO
DENY THE WOLF REZONE APPLICATION AS FILED BY WILLIAM
PALMER ON BEHALF OF APPLICANTS WILLIS AND SANDRA WOLF.
WHEREAS, Willis and Sandra Wolf submitted an application for zone
reclassification requesting property located at 775 Olney Avenue be
reclassified from Residential Low to Commercial General to operate an auto
repair business at the existing garage; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a public hearing on
January 18, 1993 to consider evidence and testimony relevant to the Wolf
Rezone Application; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission after holding a public hearing
did submit Planning Commission Resolution No. 194-93 to the City Council
recommending denial of the Wolf Rezone Application; and
WHEREAS, on January 27, 1993 an appeal of Planning Commission
recommendation to deny the Wolf Commercial General Rezone Application was
filed by William M. Palmer, Planning Consultant Sandra and Willis L. Wolf; and
WHEREAS, the City Council did hold a public hearing on February
22, 1993 which was continued to March 22, 1993 to consider the appeal to the
Planning Commission recommendation to deny the Wolf Rezone Application as
filed by William Palmer and also to consider the Application for Zone
Reclassification as submitted by Willis L. and Sandra Wolf; and
WHEREAS, the City Council did consider the facts of the appeal and
the rezone application along with testimony and other materials presented at
the hearing.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PORT ORCHARD DOES
HEREBY RESOLVE THAT:
SECTION 1: The Port Orchard City Council does deny the appeal to the Planning
Commission recommendation as filed by William M. Palmer, Planning Consultant
for Willis L. and Sandra Wolf based on the following Facts, Findings and
Conclusions:
Resolution No. 1633
Page 2 of 6
APPEAL 1: "The fact there has been a vehicle/heavy equipment repair business
operating on Mr. Wolf's site since 1970. Even though the business
is thought to be an illegal use of the property, Mr. Wolf believed
it to be legal non -conforming use for the last seven years he has
owned the site. Prior to that his father owned the property and
operated the same type of business on the site.
FACT: This property was annexed into the City of Port Orchard in
November 1991. Prior to annexation Kitsap County Building Code
Compliance Department had informed Mr. Wolf of the need to submit
an application for a Unclassified Use Permit as his usage did not
conform to zoning. No UUP application was submitted. Current
city zoning for this property is Residential Low which does not
allow auto repair facilities.
FINDING: Mr. Wolf is/should be aware that the vehicle/heavy equipment
repair business is an illegal use.
APPEAL 2: "The fact that the garage facility is in existence as a single
structure would indicate that this is not a single family
residential site, n-or is it likely to be"
FACT: The existing structure is a garage facility.
FINDING: The fact that the existing facility is a garage located in a
Residential Low Zone does not make it a legal use.
APPEAL 3: "The Planning Commission's decision as rendered on January 18th
did not address *these factors specifically (*see attached exhibit
"A" Page 2, Item 3). Had the criteria been examined
systematically, they would have found more than sufficient grounds
to recommend approval of Mr. Wolf's rezone request."
FACT (1): The proposed zone is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Land
Use Plan.
FINDING (1): The proposed City Comprehensive Land Use Plan for this
property is Commercial General. The Land Use Zone
Classification for this property is Residential Low
FACT (2): The request zoning is more suitable for the subject property than
the existing zone.
FINDING (2): The subject property is surrounded by the following:
Zone Classifications: East - Residential Low
West - Residential Low
North - Residential Low
South - Commercial General
Resolution No. 1633
Page 3 of 5
Land Uses: East - Undeveloped woods
West - Undeveloped woods, the
Olney Creek Apts. planned for this
area
North - Single Family Residential
South - Undeveloped woods
(proposed for apartments)and a
regional commercial area south of
proposed apartments
The subject property is surrounded by single family residential
and undeveloped areas which have been proposed for residential
apartment projects. Further south is the K-Mart Plaza regional
shopping center. While there is commercial use in the area the
adjacent properties are residential or proposed residential.
APPEAL 4: "The fact that the City has the ability to set conditions of
approval, such as those for landscaping and storm drainage
control, and screening (as appropriate), the City is able to
mitigate possible adverse environmental impacts."
FACT: The City Council has the ability to approve (with or without
conditions), deny or modify proposed land reclassification
applications.
FINDING: The City Council after hearing testimony and reviewing all facts
of a proposed land use action does approve (with or without
conditions), deny or modify proposed land reclassification
applications.
CONCLUSION: Based on testimony, facts and findings the City Council does
uphold the Planning Commission recommendation as set forth in Planning
Commission Resolution No. 194-93 and does hereby deny the Application for Zone
Reclassification as submitted by Willis L. and Sandra Wolf for property
located at 775 Olney Avenue.
PASSED by the City Council of the City of Port Orchard, APPROVED by the
Mayor and attest by the Clerk in authentication of s ch passage this 12th day
of April, 1993.
LESLIE J. WEATHERILL, MAYOR
ATTEST;
Patricia Hower, City Clerk
Resolution No. 1633
Page 4 of 6
WP Exhibit "A"
Planning., Design & Development
12061 876-8813/ 87-1-4401 0 P.O. Box 6 + Pori Orchard , Wa. 98366
January 25, 1993
City Council
City of Port Orchard
City Hall
Port Orchard, WA 98366
r
JAN 2 51993
CITY OF ?=OAT ORCHARD
CITY CLLERKS 'OFFICE
Subject: Appeal of Planning Commission's Decision/
Recommendation on LaVern Wolf's GB Rezone Request
Honorable Council Members:
On January 18, 1993 the City's Planning Commission held a Public Hearing
to consider the rezone request of Mr. LaVern Wolf to have his property
rezoned from Residential Low to General Business. In spite of the fact
that the requested rezone is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan,
the commission voted in a 3 to 1 decision to deny it.. Apparently the reason
that swayed the decision was the feeling that individual members of the
commission had that "they would not like to live next door to an "auto repair
facility." Their reasoning might have more validity if this were a single
family neighborhood. In fact, there are a few residences in the vicinity
including one on the adjacent property to the north, but the area on both
sides of Olney Road from Mile Hill Drive to Horstman Road is classified
Urban - Commercial on the City's Comprehensive Plan. Development of this
area as an "Urban Environment" will ultimately preclude single family
residences. In fact, the conversion of the area has begun already with
the development of the K-Mart and Albertson Store sites. Besides the
existing development there is another 24 acre property which extends from
the north side of K-Mart and the Cinema six-plex theatre to Horstman Road
which is zoned General Business. An R-20 type zoning is also found on the
west side of Olney Road. Given the provisions of the Comprehensive Plan
and the development pattern already established in the area, Mr. Wolf's
site cannot be realistically considered a "Residential --Low" neighborhood.
Other issues which the Commission failed to consider properly include:
The fact there has been a vehicle/heavy equipment repair business
operating on Mr. Wolf's site since 1970. Even though the business
is thought to be an illegal use of the property, Mr. Wolf believed
it to be a legal non -conforming use for the last seven years he has
owned the site. Prior to that his father owned the property and
operated the same type of business on the site;
Resolution No. 1633
Page 5 of 6
Exhibit "A"
City Council
January 25, 1993
Page 2
2. The fact that the garage facility.is in existence as a single structure
would indicate that this is.not a single family residential site, nor
is it likely to be;
3. The fact that the zoning request is for General Business, the Commission
did not consider the request in light of the fact that General Business
zoning allows a whole family of uses including vehicle repair. The
specific application of Mr. Wolf is for auto repair (consistent with .
the type of activity which has taken place on the site in the past),
but this does not preclude a later conversion of the facility to some
other permitted or specially permitted use found in the General Business
section of the City's Zoning Ordinance. Rezoning of a property is
meant to include the possibility that any of the family of General
Business uses may be developed on the site;
Whether or not the City rezones property should be based on the
following:
Whether the proposed zone is consistent with the City's Comprehensive
Land Use Plan;
- Whether the requested zone is more suitable for the subject property
than the existing zone;
- Why the uses permitted in the proposed zone will not be detrimental
to the surrounding uses;
- Why a reasonable return from or a reasonable use of the property
in question cannot be secured under the existing zoning
classification; and
- Whether there has been a change in conditions since the existing
zoning was established to warrant a change in zoning at this time.
The Planning Commission's decision as rendered on January 18th did
not address these factors specifically. Had the criteria been examined
systematically, they would have found more than sufficient grounds
to recommend approval of Mr. Wolf's rezone request; and
4. The fact that the City has the ability to set conditions approval,
such as those for landscaping and storm drainage control, and screening
(as appropriate), the City is able to mitigate possible adverse
environmental impacts.
For the above cited reasons, Mr. Wolf has more than sufficient grounds to
appeal the Planning Commission's decision and request that the City Council
hold a public hearing to more properly address the issues in his rezone
application.
Resolution No. 1633.
Page 6 of 6
Exhibit "All
City Council
January 25, 1993
Page 3
Thank you for -your consideration of this appeal request, and we look forviard
to the.time when -we can discuss the appeal in more detail.
William M. Palmer
Planning Consultant
WMP:jk
cc: LaVern Wolf