Loading...
RES 85-01 SSDP MILLER & CAMPBELLWDT: j t 2/26/85 RESOLUTION NO. 85-01 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WINSLOW, WASHINGTON, APPROVING THE SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT SOUGHT BY MILLER & CAMPBELL, A GENERAL PARTNERSHIP. WHEREAS, Miller & Campbell, a general partnership, has made application to the City for a shoreline management substantial development permit, and WHEREAS, the Planning Agency has reviewed this applica- ~ion, together with a companion application for a planned unit development on October 11, 25 and November 8, 1984, and WHEREAS, the Hearing Examiner has held a consolidated hearing on December 12, 1984, to consider this application and at the conclusion of said hearing the Hearing Examiner submitted findings of fact, conclusions of law and recommendations regard- ing the substantial development permit, and WHEREAS, the Council has reviewed the recommendations of the Planning Agency and Hearing Examiner and has determined to approve the application~ subject to conditions, and WHEREAS, the Council finds that the application meets the criteria set forth in Chapter 16.12 of the Winslow Municipal Code relating to substantial development permits, now, therefore, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WINSLOW, HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The application for a substantial development permit for the Miller & Campbell Condominiums, City File No. X-8-84 is hereby approved subject to the limitations and conditions set forth in the application, plans and the recommendations of the Planning Agency and Hearing Examiner. Section 2. The City Council hereby adopts the findings of fact, conclusions of law and recommendations of the Hearing Examiner with respect to the substantial development permit. Section 3. Pursuant to Section 16.12,860(N) of the Winslow Municipal Code, the City Clerk shall transmit copies of the original application, affidavit of public notice, site plan, vicinity map, permit and this resolution to the Department Of Ecology and Attorney General within eight days of the Council's final action. RESOLVED this 7th day of MARCH , 1985. APPROVED: MAYOR, ALICE B. TAWRE~~/ ' ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: ~I'TY CLER~NNA JEAN BUXTON FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: FEBRUARY 27, 1985 PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: MARCH. 7, 1985 RESOLUTION NO. 85-01 - 2 - BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF WINSLOW In the Matter of the Shoreline Management ) Substantial Development Permit sought by ) ) MILLER and CAMPBELL, a general partnership,) ) Applicant ) ) FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF L~q, AND RECOMMENDATION This matter came before the Hearing Examiner at a consolidated quasi-judicial hearing in City Hall on December 12, 1984. The hearing also involved the request by Applicant for approval of a Planned Unit Development; a separate Findings, under File No. X-8A-84, is devoted to that aspect of the hearing. Five persons were present. Kent Miller represented Applicant. A1 Grajeda, land use administrator, represented the City. City Clerk Donna J. Buxton monitored the recording of the proceedings. No written comments, for or against the application, were sub- mitted prior to the hearing. Witnesses were sworn and testified. From testimony heard and the record examined, the Hearing Examiner makes these FINDINGS OF FACT I The instant property is identified as 175 Parfitt Way S. W. in the City. The legal description is found on Pages 30, 31, 32, 33, 34 and 35 of the loose-leaf brochure submitted by Applicant and which is a part of this record. The instant property is part of the Winslow Wharf complex whose development began in 1973. It now includes a large marina, a renovated warehouse building containing amenities for the marina, a renovated two-story brick building housing a coffee house, a rebuilt former tavern now used as a seafood restaurant, a developed mall leading to the waterfront, and two parking areas. The complex earlier obtained Shoreline Management Substantial Development Permits Nos. 3425 (for the present status of the marina) and 3481 (for a planned expansion of the marina). In March, 1984, Applicant was awarded Shoreline Management Substantial Development Permit No. 3674 for the construction of a nine-unit condominium. The instant property's northern boundary of 117.5 feet fronts on the south side of Parfitt Way S.W.; its western boundary runs for 334 feet to the shore of Eagle Harbor, which forms the southern boundary; its eastern boundary is contiguous with an access road and parking lot associated with the marina. The instant property, mostly a cleared, grassy knoll, has a small, one-story wooden building being used as an office. II The instant property, as well as the balance of the Winslow Wharf complex, is zoned Commercial. The only permitted residential use in a Commercial Zone is through a Planned Unit Development Winslow Ordinance 79-15, Section 1.9 Permitted Uses (k)). III Desiring to make substantial design changes and improvements in the condominium layout that was approved in Shoreline Management Substantial Development Permit No. 3674, Applicant filed with the City for a new Shoreline Management Substantial Development Permit on October 4, 1984. Details of the new proposal, including an Envi- ronmental Checkl~t, were cc~tained in a 35-page loose-leaf brochure. Concurrently, -2- Applicant also filed with the City for approval of a Planned Unit Development. The Winslow Planning Agency considered both applications at its meetings of October 11, 25 and November 8, 1984. On November 6, 1984, Land Use Administrator A1 Grajeda filed a written statement with the Winslow Planning Agency, stating that his final declaration of environmental non-significance, filed in February, 1984, for Appli- cant's original proposals, still stands. Under date of November 19, 1984, the Winslow Planning Agency filed with the Hearing Examiner unanimous approval of recommendations to approve both the Shoreline Management Substantial Development Permit and Planned Unit Development. The City Clerk caused legal notices of this hearing to be posted and published. IV The only major difference between the instant application for a Shoreline Management Substantial Development Permit and the permit that was granted by the City in March, 1984, is an improved design for the nine condominiums (for more details on this, please see Findings for File No. X-8A-84). The instant proposal's only relation to the City's shoreline management regulations is to improve the proposal's esthetic quality. V By designation of the City's Shoreline Management Master Program, the instant property, as well as the rest of the Winslow.Wharf complex, is in an Urban Environment. In this connection, the instant proposal (a) adds to the multiplicity of intense human uses already activated within the complex; (b) provides, through its planned bulkheaded shore- line walkways, for public access; -3- (c) would be accomplished through a Planned Unit Development; (d) would control shoreline erosion; (e) would cause minimal shoreline view blockage; (f) would bury its utility lines. VI No protests or objections to the instant proposal, either written or oral, were received prior to or at the hearing. VII Any Conclusion of Law that is deemed to be a Finding of Fact herewith is adopted as same. From these Findings, the Hearing Examiner comes to these CONCLUSIONS OF LAW I The governing municipal regulation in this matter is the City's Shoreline Management Master Program of 1981. Applicant, having met the pre-hearing requirements of the Master Program (Finding of Fact III), properly is before the Hearing Examiner. II In winning approval last March of Shoreline Management Subs- tantial Development Permit No. 3674, Applicant was declared to have met the purpose and use policies of an Urban Environment, and the policies and general regulations of Residential Development as defined in the Master Program. In the instant matter, Applicant is only improving the design esthetic of the proposal (Finding -4- of Fact IV). In other words, Applicant willingly has gone through all the l~egal hoops once again simply to improve the project's design. III The instant proposal meets all six of the stated goals of the City's Shoreline Management Master Program, particularly those rela- tive to Economic Development, Publicl Access and Recreation. The instant proposal is permitted by the General Regulations set forth for the proposed use.. The instant p~oposal's use is permitte~ in the Urban Environment. The instant proposal would not cause a use incon- sistent with the goals, policies and regulations of the City's Shore- line Management Master Program. Applicant, having demonstrated com- pliance with the criteria of the Master P~0g~am, should be granted the requested Substantial Development Permit. IV Any Finding of Fact that is deemed to be a Conclusion of Law herewith is adopted as same. Therefore, the Hearing Examiner issues this RECOMMENDATION Applicant's requested Shoreline Management Substantial Development Permit should be granted. DONE at Winslow, Washington, this fourteenth day of December, 1984. Walt Woodward, ~ner -5-