Loading...
10/25/1982 - Regular - MinutesPort Orchard, Washington October 25, 1982 Council of the City of Port Orchard, Washington called to regular session by Mayor Pro-tem Caldwell. Councilmen present: Childress, Wilson, Geiger, Miller, Grosso and Clark. Also present: Attorney Sells, Police Chief Trotter, Engineer Curles and Fire Chief Snow. Mayor Powers excused. Mayor Pro-tem Caldwell led the Council and audience in the Pledge of Allegiance. On motion by Councilman Geiger, seconded and carried, Council approved the minutes of the October 11, 1982 meeting as circulated. Paul Liao and S.S. Lin of Kramer, Chin and Mayo, Inc., Consulting Engineers outlined differences in latest proposal from Kitsap County Sewer District No. 5 relative to amendments in the Joint Sewer Treatment Plant Management Contract. Councilman Clark requested a study session be set to discuss this matter in detail. Mayor Pro-tem Caldwell stated this matter can beladdressed as last item of this meeting. Mayor Pro-tem Caldwell opened Public Hearing relative to Appeal of Planning Commission decision to approve application for Variance (Dale Leighton, 555 Tracy) as filed by Maynard Marty. Ron Larson, representing Maynard Marty, proponent of Appeal read statement (attached) setting forth basis of Mr. Marty's appeal. Dale Leighton, 555 Tracy, spoke on itemsaddressed in Mr. Marty's written statement: 1. At the time of moving the structure, he was not aware that a permit would be necessary. Upon notification by the Port Orchard Building Inspector a permit was required, he did make application. At that point the need for requesting a variance became apparent and a variance application was initated in April of 1982. (It should be noted at this time the structure was on a truck and considered mobile) 2. He (Mr. Leighton) obtained a list, from the Kitsap County Assessors Office, of property owners within 300 feet of his property as required by the Zoning Ordinance. A notice of Application for Variance was mailed to each party on this list. 3. He (Mr. Leighton) had discussed his plans to move the structure with the Marty's prior to commencement of any work. They did not, at that time, voice any opposition to the project. Councilman Wilson moved to table matter until next meeting. Motion died for lack of second, Councilman Grosso stated the Planning Commission did follow procedure and the Marty's didhave prior knowledge of Mr. Leightons intentions to relocate the structure on his property and dial not voice objections until after the move had been completed. The Planning Commission has held an Appeal Hearing on.this matter and Mr. Marty had his opportunity for du.e..proc.ess. Councilman Grosso moved to 'uphold Planning Commission decision to allow Mr. Leighton his variance for reasons set forth in transcript of 20 September, 1982`Planning Commission meeting (Attachment #2). Seconded and carried.,.with 5--ayes and l no. Councilman Wilson voting no. Mayor Pro-tem Caldwell.closed Public Hearing. Mayor Pro-tem Caldwell opened Public Nearing relative to proposed LID to construct sidewalk, curb and culvert along the west side of West Avenue from Tremont to:South Street Mayor Pro-tem Caldwell requested public .input -at this time. Bobbie Soran, representing KPHTA, owners of property located at 1436-1438 West Street spoke 'in.favor of LID. Engineer Curles informed Council property owners who originally signed the LID petition have withdrawn their names, therefore at the present time the LID has died for `lack of,petitioners Mayor Pro-tem Caldwell declared this Public Hearing closed.,. On motion by Councilman Grosso, seconded and carried, Council moved that property owners committed by Ordinance to construct sidewalk, curb and gutters on West Street will be allowed to delay construction until future date. Mayor Pro-tem Caldwell declared recess 'with meeting to'reconvene at 9:1 5. Dan Rogers of Puget Sound Fiberglass requested permission to move a reader board sign, presently situated on Gould Sheet Metal property, to a location between the concrete pillars of the Public Boat Launch sign. Mayor Pro-tem Caldwell referred matter to Street/Alley Committee for recommendation at -next meeting. On motion by Councilman Geiger, seconded and carried, Council.. moved to hold study session on Planning Commissions request for Council consideration to.update the Comprehensive Plan.Map. Date for, study sessi.on.to be s.et at future date. On motion by Councilman Wilson, seconded and carried, Council moved to allow purchase of a blueprint copier from Russell Lombard in the amount of $800.00. Resolution No... 1282. On motion by Councilman Miller, seconded and carried, Council authorized the Mayor to sign a contract with Kasprisin/Pettinari Design relative to the Coastal Zone ManagementGrant (Downtown Revitalization). Resolution No. 1283 On motion by Councilman Clark, seconded and carried, Council authorized a credit be granted 't`the Water/Sewer Account of Mr. Lloyd Trail, 1883 Bay Street in the amount.of;$491.63. 1883 Bay Street has been'billed for'I residential :unit and 1 commercial unit. Mr. Trail had not notified the City when he closed his commercial"business. March 1,'19.80 and;.has been paying commercial rate's 'on this property Engineer Curles reported Pac West has been :chosen as`the Bypass Land Acquisition firm. Engineer'to negiotate 'contract for Council approval. On motion by Councilman. Wilson, seconded and carried, Council approved Resolution No. 1281 establishing''fees for services preformed by the Port Orchard..Police Department. Clerk informed. Council the City has been served with a summons in the case of Elizabeth Vaux vs.'the'City of Port'.Orchard relative to property located at 617 Melcher Street. Councilman Geiger moved to refer matter to insurance carried'. Seconded and carried. Clerk informed Council of Claim for Damages submitted by Cecil Herman in the amount of $75,000. Councilman Clark moved to reject claim and refer the matter to insurance. carrier. Seconded and carried. Councilman` Geiger presented a proposed resolution relative to overturning the Boldt Decision. Mayor Pro-tem Caldwell referred matter to Parks Committee for. recommendation, On motion by Councilman Geiger, seconded and carried, Council approved payment of the bills (Warrant No. 997-1029) in the amount of $85,.190.74. At this time regular business of the City was terminated and Council took up matter of Joint Sewer Treatment Plant and proposals submitted by Kitsap County Sewer District #5 relative to operation and revenue bonding.of Secondary Treatment Plant. Meeting adjourned at 12:30 P.M. 'C1 erk .Xv" Mayor �- 711�� I am here tonight to ask this council to revoke the variance which the T'lanning Com,-:,ssion granted for Dale Teighton to construct a truck garage in his front yard at 555 'racy Avenue Norm., which is adjacent to our property at 537 Tracy Avenue North. i believe this variance was illegally obtained for the following reasons: jInder the heading, Variances, Chanter VI, rage 39 of the -ort Orchard �'"'onin- Ordinance adopted April- 20, 1981, items 1 and 2 under section D, Procedures, state: 1. Application. Application for a variance shall be made to the Planning Commission in writing on a. form provided by the office of the wilding and i'lanning Departments and shall set forth in detail the reasons for the requested variance, indicating how the requirements set forth above are satisfied, and shall provide such other information as may be prescribed by the Commission to assist in determining the validity of the request................AiN DICOMYLZ'T ] OIL INACCURA`T`Z A?'FLICA`T`IO.1d MAY 3T DrE11,1sD GRO1,3DS FOR DEWIAL................ 2. Property Owners List. A list of property owners and their ad.dres2es within three hundred (300) feet of the perimeter of subject parcel shall be furnished by the applicant. Although the Leightons were frequent visitors in our home and are well aware that w {- t .l- THEY 7� ls. it S"( M I-' Tyr. D' Er' S we own .!�e ,.•ro,7er�y adjacent �o theirs, 1. �,: ;i��,C`rT,��GT� TO ��ir3_�IT O� t1A? L Ai�;� AD�3P.���.a to the -I'l.anning Commission as required. We believe this omission and subsequent actions by the ?eightons were deliberately intended to confuse and deceive the limning Conmission. There are only three houses on Tracy Avenue North between Lawrence Street and Chester :street: Leighton's ; 555, our home ,'537 and a rental, 1'/529, owned. by Naomi King, which is serrated from our property by a vacant lot. Our property is the ".I.y one adversely affected by the proposed garage. Early in the spring, Leightons visited our home and informed us they planned to move the 2-vehicle carport from its location at the rear of their property to their front yard. We believed that since no previous owner had been granted such a variance, the Leightons wouldn't obtain one. One Previous owner had questioned Ices Hobbs, the former City Engineer, and had been told that a variance to build a garage on that site would ;probably not be granted because it was too close to the street and to the serer. A fear days after the conversation about moving the carport, we discovered -that ;•r. Tei,-hton had secured the carport to the top of his truck and, in the middle of the night, drove it to its present location ,.ithout a permit, We immediately notified City Engineer, harry Curles, who denied all knowledge of the move. He said he irould- investigate and inform us as to what action was being taken, which he neglected to do. or S.-Ire days later, we observc-_'a permit fastened to a Po st on ",no carport. It was then �.Pighton informed us he was building a garage. One neighbor is willing to testify that the carport was moved prior to receiving notice of a hearing on a variance from the Planning Commission. :-,�e believe moving the carport was in direct opposition to paragraphs 1 and 2, page 44, Cha-;ter VII under lion Conformance. - 1. No such use shall be enlarged, expanded nor extended to occupy a greater area than it does at the time of the enactnent of this ordinance, 2. NJO SlUICH UST' SiIAT,i BE ;`0'TED IN INHOLE OR IN TIART TO A,TY OTR ;: C R I01d 0 TH�, LOT OR PARCEL OCCUPIED BY 19TS USE,. Chanter VI, ;)age 39, paragraph 3 of the port Orchaxd Zoning Ordinance under General Requirements for a variance states: TEr: C A1IT11 C OF TH11 VARIAI;CE TILL NOT BE M TRIIENTAt TO TiE public health, safety or welfare Oft INJURIOUS TO PROPERTY AND IMP:ROV`,,'1z1 M IIi THE SAME VICINITY iV0 Z012, R, 11HICH S11"VECT Mor-171�TY IS SITUr'jT,,,D. We maintain the above ordinance has been violated for the following reasons; 1. T-/555 Tracy Avenue 11orth has had four different owners in less than nine years with long periods of vacancy in between. As;`529 has also been vacant much of that time, we have established a mutual neighborhood watch between us and Lloyd Trail of 1883 Day Street, the only other permanent resident in sight of our property. The location of the proposed garage will prevent us from continuing this watch. 2. We have gone to considerable expense and more than nine years of hard work to landscape our property which is now hidden from view by the carport. 3. T.eighton installed a fence across the City right of way, which crosses directly 'in the center of the manhole of District 5, Annapolis sewer line. It is located in such manner that our access to our newspaper and mail boxes has been rendered useless. y!e had built a concrete slab walkway across the City .right of way and kept the grass mowed. Now we are forced -to go into the road to reach said boxes. ':<hen we m:,oved hea'e, rr 555 `racy Avenue was one of two beautiful homes in the area -- the other belongs to the Gordon Walters family on Arnold. Street. The rest of the neighborhood had .been badly neglected. Through the years, as we worked to upgrade our property, we noticed other owners were improving their places. It was becoming a nice area to live in. Jrban blight does not happen over night nor can it be corrected. overnight. .I wish to call your attention to the photo taken in 1976 to T iilustrate my point, COMMA it to the photos taken in 1982 lows are made to protect the rights and privileges of all citizens, We are not asking- for any special concessions; we are merely asking that the existing laws as set Forth in the Port Orchard Zoning Ordinance be enforced, OCT 2 5 1982 l;Z'1�1I1i6ILI 1 3� PLANNING ('OMMTSSTON 20 SEPTE,MBER 1982 SUBJECT: COMPLAINT BY MAYNARD Mr` RTY CONCERING VARIANCE OF SET -BACK REQUIREMENTS AT 55STRZCY AVENUE NORTH. HOKANSON : The subject is a variance for 505 Tracy Avenue. In April, Mr. Leighton requested a variance in order to construct a garage. The Planning Commission held a public hearing April 19, 1982 and granted this variance based on the information provided by the applicant.. Routine procedures were followed in this action. Mr. Leighton provided the navies of the property owners within 300 feet and the action was odv:ertised in the newspaper. Two discrepancies h: ve become apparent as a. result of a complaint by Mr. A Mrs. Nart in Marty of 537 Tracy Avenue . 1 ) The Marty' s were not: not Died of this action. This was because the tax assessor had their property listed to Cedar Lund of Tacoma and not the Marty' s . 2) Mr. Leighton states in his application that the structure will not obstruct: anyone's view of the bay. The Mar ty's view is obstructed, although a partial view remains. In light of the twn discrepancies presented to the Com- mission, each at;tri.buLabla to Mr. Leighton, it is recommended that the l~ arty' s have an opportunity to address the Co,mmissi on . HOKAN UN : This complaint (.i sz W) is for the garage not, the gazebo? I guess I would have you state your complaint then. M11'. MATITY : First 1 would like a correction on my name. IL is not Martin but Maynard M A Y N A H D Marty. We object; to the garage being in that lwcat:ion for the following reasons: It reduces the value of o"r property.. As can be at.Uri.but:ed by strangers, A ma" h<ackF d into our driveway and sat there just shaking his head SundaV morning. We were assured by ;he real for Venders:>t.aa.y when we bought the property- in 1973, that -no building would be located in that area. 1 i There was a parking mat, it's a concrete parking mat. The carpot was located on the lower level on Lawrence Street, with easy access to the road. Would you like to be passing these along so that you can see the --- (Mr. Marty held up some photographs) HOKANSON: We will take a look at them in a minute. MR. MARTY: O.K. The house was built in the thirties and the carport was placed on the lower level. And as I say it has never been changed. There was a parking mat but no building. And -a - we would wonder how Mr. Leighton arrived at his decision as to where the property lime was located when he moved the fence. Did he have it surveyed? May my wife sepak? HOKANSON : Yes' MRS. MARTY-. My name is Ada Marty, I am co-owner of the house at 537 Tracy. And the Leightons came over to consult us one day and said that they wanted to move the carport. And we weren't over- joyed about i. t , but thought our living room was no place to carry on any kind of an oltercation since we have duly elected officials who are suppose to protect, peoples property. we have taken soma before and after pictures to show you what we have to look at: when we look through our picture window. He also said that: they wanted to know if we had any objection to their putting up a chain link fence and we natu- rally assumed they were hAving a commercial type fence which would not be unsightly, But at, no time did we give them permission; to tear out tho existing fence, it was there when we bought the house:. My husband put in new posts but the fence is where it; had always been. Mr. 1 :e i. ghton took the fencer out one day when we were away from home and then put up his own fence later and moved it. abouk 2 f-et over into our property line. 2 And I would Like to know isn't there any law"at all j about how close they can build this carport to our property line? MR. MARTY: It is about 15 yards in front of our l.ivingroom windows. MRS. MARTY: And when we bought the place we had no idea that there was ever going to be constructed there. We were given - We questioned that when we bought the place, it was supposed from a buiider, and he said that it was not allowed to be built - to have a building there. And it isn't putting a hardship on the Leightons they have a lot, which is 100 feet by 100 feet. MR. MARTY: As I say the carport; was located on Lawrence Street.. MRS. MARTY: Which at that particular place was right level with the road, with Lawrence Street-.:` So it didn't require driving up a hill or anything like that where it was. And it was bothering nobody. We are the only people in the whole area who are of Cected by it.. Doctor Minor has a vacant lot across the road and two properties are commercial. These is H rental propart:y on Lawrence Street next to the LeighLons. But, I think that. if you :look at; the pictures you can see that they speak more about it. It really is an eyesore. (Mrs Marty passed the pintures to the Planning Commission and explained when and where they were taken). MRS. MARTY: 1_ woriLd like toadd something else if I might. Be Fore I came out here -- moved nuk here - 10 years _ago I was a tax assessor from they town I came from and so I know a little about property values. I have my certificate with nee in case you don't believe that _ HOKAINSON-, Are ,:here questions by the Commission members? Are we finished looping yak the pictures? Our staff report indicates that you were not noti f=iad bec.:aus.e the tax assessor has your property listed to Cedar Lund of Tacoma and not you. Arid you purchased :i t: in 1973? MRS. MARTY: I think it is very :strange though _ they manage to get the tax notice to us every year. HOKANSON: So I can't agree with the staff report that it is the applicants fault that the notice did not end up in your mail box, but went to Tacoma instead. So in following what the Ordinance calls out here, in getting this document or this address from the county and sending a letter to it. Now this carport. Why does it appear level in some of these pictures and has a different shape in the roof in others? Is there a false ceiling in it? MR. MARTY: `there are two different angles taken at two different times. It was level originally sitting on top of a truck. HOKANSON: Are there other questions from other members? WONG: What is the height of your carport on the Maryy_'s side. MR. LE.IGHTON : Presently or what i 1, is to be? WONG. When you are done_ Both sides their side and the water side. Mi{. 11EIt H]"ON: My structure plans are for 8 foot at their end and 10 foot at the. water side. I am now at the finished height. I didn't put, the roof on U"p of the beam, I put it face to facie plate to plate. It is 9 Coot 9 inches right; now, that is 3 inches lower than my plan called for. HOKANSON: You made a comment, that you were assured by the builder, or the seller of your property that no building would be :located on someone e.lses property. Flow is this possible? MR. MARRY: He seemed to think that there was an Ordinance to that efEect. MRS. MARTY: To obstruct the view of the bank M l . Mn.RT'r : To obstruct, the view. M.I:NOR: John! this probably comes about because when Phil Drewen owned the property, he used to park his bakery truck there. He parked it close to the road and the Ordinance says you shalt l `have a .yet -back. So where ho was normally working or so forth, why you wouldnot be, able to build on that property.without having 1 a variance or a change in the law. So the law would have read that he could not have built on that particular property. But, he could have come in and ask to build a carport for a regular set --back from the road, or whatever and he could still have built the same carport only just be farther from the end of his lot. Arty I wrong there? He wouldn't have even had to come to this board. He was legally permitted to build the majority of that carport on his property without asking us. An the only thing he ask from us was a variance so that he could build that much closer to the raod to make it a double carport. MRS. MARTY: That still obstructs the view. MINOR: Yes, but I don't think on the view basis, I don't think that any of us have a guarantee on the view. if they did, Westboxy wouldn't be down there today. Because it obstructed my view twice. MR. MARTY: How did he arrive at the property Line? MINOR: Well now the propert.y..line, as far as you are talking about: your fence, is a civil muter between you and your neighbor. HOKANSON : Yes this board care take no action on the property line location, lu will have to be surveyed, or find some stakes or something between the two of you. Or you and a surveyor because we can say nothing as to where the property lines are. The plan carve in with a plotted piece of property and that is all we can go by. We stay inside the boundaries of that. MR. LE IGH ;"ON : May 3 Speak HOKANSON : Wil 1 you please speak at; the microphones. MR. LEIGI" TON : I am Dale Leighton of 555 Tracy Avenue llort h . And as far as the fence goes r,nd the garage also, I moved both of them or removed the fern e at a prior talking to the party. As far as moving i t. , I put it right on top o f the same line. And as far as an aerial photo, Cory rand I looked at cur property and measured it by aerial photo as far as a scale model and I was behind nay regular line on 120 feet north, 5 south lines. My property width is 100 feet. It is made up of two platted pieces c.3f property in one. That is what my property description is. As far as a Cerice I am at least if riot more than the distarice required on my permit of 5 feet by S feet. original., where I applied for the five foot set- back to Tracy. My north -south bd'arder set -back and I am on compliance with that;. i_ have got my fence in line with theirs to be in accepted in a civil. thing. As far,as looks I can't see a chain link fence being even an object, because it is a chain link fence, whether it has another $1,000.00 for a top line bar on it. or not. That isn't I don't think we are here for, fence problems right now. As far as my garage is 5 feet from the fence I have now, it is plenty and if t.he. fence has to be surveyed or not - That like you said latter if someone wants to file someth.i.ng. I put it right; on top of the original. 3_ talked to the Marty's prior t.o put.t i_ng my fence. up- 'The thing is if I put it up over where miy fence really is I ' d be doing two wrongs, as far as me be i nq ca nevj ocinc: r . I ' d be moving a property i i ne to where it tint suCVC-'Y "d - correct.? Arid I'd be putting their fence on my property by t.}-ic, aerial view proper. I talked to therri ( t'lar L.y ' S) prior. I don't know wha'l the change is now. I put i�: directly .right on top of the same ho1.E,s. And their fence was no where near a new fence. T wasn't destroyi_rig sumething. i give therm back every peice that I took down. 1 told t hern .I was going to do it-, a:rnd I never got any back talk then, As far as the gara.,�s particulars'. I brought the gtirage yip 1 ri a mobile status - prior- or e xcu .e me, it. was a fixture built. prior down can the tc,,rer Lawrence and when I located it sttzerE I die, and started the permit process, the garage or the carport roc: was fl it,. Also before I did that, I talked to Mart.y ' s Tel .Ling them wh�, t 1 w�is going to do. flow high I was e 00 `r was going to put. it. ti A flat roof has to have a pitch to it. Originally it was flat .and to a builder, with a flat; roof a" pitch is more realistic and prope.rt for rain runoff. So speaking to them and to the building code, i was.putt:ing a pitch to it of 10 feet to the water :side and 8 foot, to their property line. Property set -backs were put into accordance to what Kit and I looked at the aerial photos. As far as the bui.ldjng being on this cement mat before, I believe there was but to prove it there would have to be photos from sometime before the Marty's moved there and I moved there. When I was excavating there was a bulkhead that was underneath the bank that I am digging into. For the property line and garage line I am excavating. There is a pre-existing rooting with. studs all rotted out. Whether, there was a garage there or not doesn't seem to be my standpoint, of proving and as far"as moving the garage to start with 1 moved it to get a better walking to the house on the same level to be at pose. I am not an older person that I carat walk. But 1 do have kids and you do have traffic of family sU atus and a g6rajo on a different street level is totally out of the question. As far as starting this whole thing construction wise, I talked to the Marty's Lo start with , told them what I was going to commence with and plat up stakes for sort of a visual survey. Their property visual so that they would see wiaaU they would be seeing before I even moved the carport. And I put: up the 10 foot post as a starting point, because of the pitch. And in fact: I went into their property at their invite as kind of friends nds and neighbors to talk it over with t_heri starting vise and looked out the window. At that point 1 was so to speak kind of given the ok in what, I was going to see nr they were going to see otA the window. That it was not a problem to :gee the beonh or the street. At 10 foot it obstucts the Tropical Fish across on the beach side, obstructs the view of the mini -storage, and obstructs the view of the beach if 7 1�� HOKANSON MINOR: HOKANSON LEIGHTON HOKANSON L,EIGH`I'ON : HOKAIJSON : you were looking down the street. Where is about a 20 foot gap where you can see traffic. If.I had a van parked in front of my house as Doctor Manor was speaking about you would not be able to see all that at anytime. Now without a garage you can't see the beach period except for the street ending at; Beach Road and Tracy Avenue. The garage as it sets now if it was lowered two feet would not gain any view of the beach, would not gain a view of the street, you would still have the mini storage blocking it. As as far as your photos they show a carport on mobile status only. I put in for a building permit stating that I would not stay at that; height.. Are Were any questions from the Planning Commission. This is just one of those things that you regrete happens and you wish you had they ability to be Solomon, but that is not the authority that is given to us. You just wish that everybody would have unobstructed views and everything could be tucked out of the way. Most people dont have that kind of property and it; is one of those regretable things that. happens. I have the feeling and in listening to both sides probably under the existing laws and past variances than were granted that this would have still been granted. I'm trhough. This photo thA ;Looks like it is level you say it is stored on a truck at t.hdh time. I haven't seen the photos so I have no idea.. Maybe you bests took at those. I have a question to ask about the bar on Caere anyway. Core up and look. Is that while it is still on your truck. That is right An there is - looks like a 2 X 4 nailed across there at a height. is that yo"r planned height for the root? 8 V LEIGHTON HOKAN50N: LEIGHTON: MR. MARTY: LEIGHTON That 2 X 4 that goes passed the beam is - No that beam , there is my gate post that has a swing or rope strap, whatever, that allows my garage, or my carport gate to swing. It is just a post holding the gate. It has nothing to do with the. garage. About the horizontal? b. That is where the ten foot bar is and as you can see in the view it has no more height than the tropical fish building. there is no view of the bay to obstruct. It has some obstruction` of beach street where the stop sign is. Will this be your final location or do you plan to raise. it higher? That is the height it is in the front. Remember I said the 10 toot height is 3 inches under right now. 'The front of the garage made it like this. Kit was worried I was going to put the roof above the beam and that would have gone 10 inches over, my permit and out- of reach. But as far as the rear view of it, I've got it still at the point of movement on the mobile truck. That is less ihari a foot. It is at an extreme view now, And another thing I am doing right; now is over the 10 foot mark but only temporarily until I move the rear up the front drops down. And the 'beams are 2X10 and have to be shaved Gaff on a diagonal and them the upper diaconal that is left Clopped over to the bottom so it is a pitch going down riot up. It is like a storefront or false front. HOKAN50N: You keep using the word garage you have requested a carport MINOR: Is there any difference between a carport and a garge in taking out a permi'- other than cost? HOKANGON; (aft.-er looking under definitions in the zoning ordinances Neither carport. or gar -age is defined in the zoning ordinance. LEIGHTON: I initially a.sk tine Marty's if they had objections. I g�ae;:5s about the only thing [ can say as far as the Planning Commission not getting the proper paperwork to the Mart's personally is that I found myse-If sPei}king to them verbally in every move I made. I was not stopped at any point and T initially asked nem because they were i.-.he one being subject to the change 9 As far as•I knew the Only people who ever`comp.lained were 3 uneffect:ed by the change and on a different property. Seems like it is a complaint that is kinder long overdue. That is going this Leavy and why at the point of the first hearing why they didn't show up then? I told them T was going through it them? It ;s a long time to go without crying wolf over the whole thing for the garage and adding the fence problem is irreverent. We looked on maps and that it is well behind the fence and nay property line is well beyond that from aerial views. If I would drop the garage two feet I wouldn't change any view of the beach, because of existing buildings. HOKANSON: Tracy is you front lLne? I see it says on your application that the front: of the car•pdit; is going to be 9 foot high in front. and 8 feet high in back. MR. MAR Y: The knack of the gara.te is GZ inches from the fence that Mr. Leighton installed. i OKANSON: It could be 42 inc:he , from the fence. On this sketch it is within its proper sekb ick.. The property line is a point you two will have Lo f.iguwe out. Where the point: of the, property is. MR. MARTY: I mean c:(an you buitd a building on the property line? HOKA-NSON: If it has a variance yes. He had a variance for the front yard setback buthad to 4'.:ay 5 foot from the side. property line. (discussion of sketch and which conski tuted the front and corner side yard area) MRS. MAR`I'Y: I just want; to say that: a lot; han been made about the view of the bay and that is juz t slightly i.ns:i dental . We can't even see: out to Tracy Avenuf from our front windows. we have . to get: up and walk over to s-e if the flog on the m"il box is up or down, HOKANSON : Is one 01: these views from the window? MRS . MAR'TY : Yes some are from khE w:i ncdow. HOKAN-SOFA: From the i.npide ol Y-ur, house? e? 10 MRS. MARTY: You might be intere�-,ted to drive by and see how you would ti like the junk brick there. At no time was it ever mentioned that there was ever going to be anything but acarport there. Now what your laws are here is something else again. Had we known about. the hearing we would have been at the first hearing, but we 'were not notified at all. Mr. Leighton states he carrre over and discussed it in our livingroom. He did not discuse it with us. lie told us what he wanted to do and we thought our livi.ngroom was not the place to settle something like that as long as we had duly appointed officials to take care of things like that. HOKANSON: Be it known that the City of Port Orchard does not have a Ordinance covering v.iet,f property. MRS. MARTY: Well it is about time you had some Ordinance about garbage:. and cieaning up the yard, unneeded or otherwise. Vacant lots are weed patches or wh,:itever. We have spent 91 years trying to cJecinup that p.lac:e. You couldn't,everi walk around it. Mr. Leighton talks about the hardships to' him. He might try doing some manual l..abor . HOKANSON: has nothing t.-o do with this case. MRS _ MAR 'Y : of course not. fyi,iy I have my pictures hack please. HOKANSON: `Iwc) of t-herc were to shf�w (-,,ompliance fic,+wever, they don't show the firi i stied stages. MRS. MARi'l' : No t}rev don't. keep getting worse and worse. . WONG : Did you say the irmouzit --- the obstruction of the view was insi.dcntal? MISS MARTY: I said of Ilie bay. I said it would be nice to look out in your yard and see a street- and people going by. WONG: L didn't under�.,and. You meant it wasn't that big of dFea1 to you Ur it-,. was"' MRS. MARTY: Natural I • e:e bouc,ist the property `because oI the view partially. This picture thr:rt was taken befor hand eras taken from our side of our house. LIOKANSON: Ire there early r?ror"(luesl ions from Planning Commission membe. r s . WONG: l t:o Mrs Marty) Your view i.srr' t this good now? 11 MR. MARTY: HOKANSON: MR. MARTY: HOKANSON: MRS. MARTY HOKANSON: MRS, MARTY WONG: MR. MARTY: WONG: MRS. MARTY `I'AYLOR : MR. MARTY: TAYLOR: We don't have that view at all now. I assume that this yetlow building is your building. It is white actually. Well O.K., this ia your building and you are talking about a picture from this window side of the building looking down. That is right: O.K. that is the top of the Fish store. Yeah! that's Trails I Topical Fish I believe, I can see the top of the roof from these other pictures. I don't see that it is that different now than it was before. Those pictures were all taken singe he put this stuff up there. There wasn't anything there before. I mean you can still py.p the top to Trails Tropical. Fish store over the top of the roof. You can't now. May i ask a question' I am curious where he gets the 42 inches from the fence. Did you measure from the eaves or from the wa 1 i I measured f rom the eaves to the fence is 42 inches. Is there any and i.nance , can you build right on the property lines? The wall of the building has to Abe 5 Boot away from the property line. The hangover on the house is insidental. The only thing I can see in this, under the non-compliance, would be I'll read part 3 of they Ordinance. The City Council may after notice and public: hearing revoke any variances granted for noncompliance with any of the conditions set forth in granting of said variance. The granting of toe variance wilt not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or injurious to property and improvments in tho same vicinity and zone in which subject, property is situated. You stated in your, application that neither structure will obstruct, anyones view of the bay. 12 .. f' ' HOKA1V:-' ON Did we give c3 Vt.]1 1 a! 1C'.E} of zero feet? 'I HOMP 3ON : t We granted what was requested in the apol :i.cat i on and "I believe it was requested to be set on the property line on Tracy, MH . l i;:.1GI ON : i tie .:se k.bdck tip:._, t uthi ng t;o do with the view. HOKE1IJ hive nu Ordin,_nee covering view. We allowed him to set it right can the pt opurty l i ne'' HACKER: 1 use to see the bay from racy property anti t the court house crime alcniq now nil l I can see1.s the ' a L l . MINOR: When I bought`: the property where my office set:. I didn't know anyone was going t.o fill in the damn bay I thought I was horse free. HACKER: To legislate: t.agai nsk blocking a view is a kind of a tough propossi ti on . You can't do it. MINOR: The only way to pass"re your view is to bray the property. ` HOMPSON,: In or,dc.�r rEevol�o !he variance that we have granted. it must hi, proved t.:ho ( Mr . !"jghton did not comply with one, of the ccgid i 4 cna; svt f rl h in q ran Li ng the variance. I do not see any evidence o f this, Mt, . Pihit , Mr. . he i gtat-car? nas re, ere d that i t: i s a hardship an hi_ni novF . How E'ou id w o prot:a: nt the" we were noi. notified? MRS . M Ali i , . t^.+.tut: you are isayi nq to us As the Le i ghtons can build any, kind of crap he wants Lo on his properLy and there is r "Lhing you can do about i t . Chr fact that you were there First. and have been paying t"xew f"r nine years doesn't mca a thing. HOKAN` ON : 1 Say' ag a I" i tlat t,hn only thing in this conversation t:on i qht . or this haar ng tonigl '.; is that he ra aV be one f"ot; tllE. h-r than he said he was going i :7 be. MHS. MARTY: Thai awcom l iJst]en nuth.3"q if yo" want &) make Port. `,krchaa into :a slum you have , g ,od sk ark: _ 1 want: you :« drive by ani-i take <a i ook . MR. MAR •, : Yeas 1 t. might be o g"ad i;hi nq . Thank you gentlemen.