Loading...
RES 87-24 CUP ROGER EVENS FINDINGS OF FACTRevised September 17, 1987 RESOLUTION NO. 87-24 A RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE ROGER JAMES EVANS APPLICATION FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, RECOMMENDATIONS AND DETERMINATION, AND DECISION ON CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Winslow, Washington, had determined it to be in the public interest to adopt the enclosed Roger James Evans Findings, Conclusions & Determination, as amended, in Hearing Examiner File #11-7-86-1, shown as Exhibit "A" hereto, and herein, and WHEREAS, the City Council wishes to conclude the Roger James Evans applications so as to provide for such changes, as indicated and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Winslow incorporates as amended herein Exhibit "A" attached for the adoption of all such changes, NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved by the Council of the City of Winslow, Washington, as follows: That the Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, Recommendations and Determination and Decision, in Hearing Examiner File #11-7-86-1, as set forth in Exhibit "A" hereto and incorporated herein by reference, as amended below, are herewith adopted and placed in effect as the final decision of city council except as they are inconsistent with the following amendments herewith made by city council: I. Add to page 2 of Exhibit "A" as the concluding paragraph in the introduction: The City Council considered this application at its September 3, 1987 meeting; which was continued to September 8th. Limited input from the proponent and his attorney was allowed as was limited input from various members of the West Winslow Neighborhood Association. II. Add to the Findings of Fact, paragraph XVII, on page 6, the following: Numerous cards, letters and petitions have been received by the City from both opponents and proponents of the project. A very significant percentage (well over 50%) of the residents in the area have indicated opposition to the project. The City Council held that since there is such a volume of opposition to the project that careful consideration of opponents concerns was important. Thus, the City Council considered all of the additional conditions submitted by the West Winslow Neighbor- hood Association in its letter received by the City on August 27, 1987. III. Amend the Recommendations and Decisions on pages 13 and 14 so as to delete same and adopt the following: Order The shoreline substantial development permit and conditional use permits are hereby approved with the following conditions: 1) Trail easement for public use a) An easement for a trail for public use along the Waterfront of the subject property for eventual tie in to the City Waterfront trail, shall be granted to the City prior to the opening of the pub. b) The trail shall be not less than 5' wide and shall traverse the entire width of the property. c) This trail shall be developed and maintained by the property owner. 2) Fire Access a) Clear delineation of fire access through the 3) 4) adjacent Bar Harbor Marina parking lot and enforcement of a fire access zone so that emergency vehicles shall not be impeded in reaching the pub location. A covenant binding such use on the Bar ttarbor Marina property and successors in interest, to run with the land, shall be filed with the County Auditor. b) Strict compliance with all fire safety requirements specified in the building code and specified by the City Fire Marshall. Parking. a) Complete plans for the parking lot and truck turn around shall be submitted for site plan review by the planning agency prior to issuance of a building permit. b) Such plans shall include improvement of the parking area to comply with Winslow Municipal Code 18.56.070- 18.56.160 including surfacing and maintenance to eliminate dust, proper landscaping, lighting and provision of facilities for collection and separation for surface water run-off. c) The number of parking stalls shall be determined by Winslow Municipal Code 18.56.080.E. All seats to be occupied by customers, including those on a deck, or anywhere else on the premises, shall be included in the seat count. d) An area for truck turn around and garbage collection shall be designated on the plans. This area shall be designed for turn around by trucks up to 30' e) Access to the parking lot and truck turn around area shall be from Parfitt Way only. f) All supply deliveries shall be made from Parfitt Way. g) Signs shall be posted in the Bar Harbor Marina parking lot prohibiting parking for the pub. h) If parking is expanded to accommodate additional seating, it shall be confined to the area covered by this shoreline substantial development permit application (see Findings of Fact). Any such expansion of parking shall be reviewed by the Planning Agency in a site plan review process. Such review shall treat the additional parking as an integral part of the total site. i) Screening of the parking lot on the east side shall be in accordance with Washington Municipal Code 18.56.130. At the discretion of the Planning Agency, screening plantings shall be allowed in lieu of a fence if they are sufficient height and glare blocking quality. j) Screening along Parfitt Way shall be designed to: - minimize headlight glare onto Parfitt Way and into neighbors years across the street - maximize visibility of Parfitt Way from the driveway entrance and visibility of the driveway entrance from Parfitt Way, so that vehicles leaving the pub parking area will be able to see pedestrians and vehicles along Parfitt Way and vice versa. Pedestrian Amenities a) An improved pedestrian walkway from Parfitt Way to the pub, separate from the parking lot and the driveway, shall be required. b) The property owner shall be required to install at his cost or contribute the cost for installation a (2) 5) 6) this sidewalk along the Parfitt Way edge of lot 127. Further, the property owner shall not protest the formation of a future LID including sidewalks along the south side of Parfitt Way. Site Plan Review a) A detailed site plan and landscaping plan including a plan for the deck shall be reviewed by the Planning Agency prior to application for a building permit under Winslow Municipal Code 16.72,010.E. b) Notice of this site plan review and details of the site plan shall be given to the West Winslow Neighborhood Association through Richard Bowen or their attorney, John McCullough at least one week prior to the review. Use of Building a) No music or live entertainment shall be allowed on the deck. b) The type of food and beverage service allowed shall be determined by the liquor license approved for the site. c) Any uses of the building other than those proposed by this application shall require an additional shoreline substantial development permit or conditional use permit or a revision to the permit issued herein. d) No public access allowed on the west side of the building. SSED BY THE COUNCIL of the City of Winslow, Washington, /~ da of September, 1987. / Y ALICE B. ATTEST: ~DO N~A~.~ UXTON, Cl~r~k Treasurer APPROVED AS TO FORM: ROBERT O. CONOLEY, City ~t~ BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF WINSLOW RECEIVED JUL 2 8 1987 BY CITY OF / In the matter of the Application for a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit and Conditional Use Permits, Roger James Evans, Applicant File ~11-7-86-1 Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, Recommendations on, Shoreline Substantial Development Permit and Decision on Conditional Use Permits On June 29, 1987, at 7:00 P.M., Winslow Hearing Examiner RObin Hunt conducted a public hearing to consider Roger James Evans' application for a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit and Conditional Use Permit for a non-water related commercial development at 321 Parfitt Way S.W. in Winslow. Applicant wishes to convert an old house into an English style "pub" to be located on the Eagle Harbor waterfront. Thirty-five persons artended the hearing in addition to the Hearing Examiner~ City Land Use Administrator Mike Regis, and Renee Hauge, who monitored the recording of the hearing. Mr. Evans was the primary spokesperson for his application. His attorney, Tom O'Hare, also spoke on his behalf. Six other persons spoke in favor of the application. The file also contains several letters from persons in favor of the project. -1- Attorney John McCullough was the primary spokesperson for the West Winslow Neighborhood Association, a group of neighbors opposed to the application. Richard Bowen also spoke on behalf of the west Winslow Neighborhood Association. Twelve other persons spoke in opposition. The file contains n,umerous letters from persons in opposition to the proposal, including some one-hundred and fifty three pre-stamped, pro-addressed post cards distributed by one of the members of the.West Winslow Neighborhood Association. Persons in favor of the project generally welcome a quiet, smoke-free gathering place for adults to socialize in a scenic waterfront environment; they also favor the rare public access to the Eagle Harbor shoreline. Those in opposition are concerned with potential traffic, noise, rcwdiness, drunken driving, and the impact of an alcoholic beverage establishment on a primarily residential neighborhood. Based upon the testimony at the public hearing, the exhibits in the file, and an inspection of the property, the Hearing Examiner now makes and enters the following: FINDINGS OF FACT The property is owned by Bar Harbor Management Corporation, of which Roger James Evans and Judith Evans, are both part owners. It is located at 321 Parfitt Way S.W. in Winslow on Bainbridge Island, and affects tax lots 272502-4-127-2004, 272502-4-081-2008, and 8057. See Exhibit J-4. The property is long and narrow: 62 feet wide along Parfitt Way, 340 feet deep on the east side, 416 feet deep on the west side, with a diagonal 96 feet of waterfront along Eagle Harbor. See enlarged site plan, Exhibit A-4b. II Applicant seeks to remodel a small house currently used as an office/library for the adjacent Bar Harbor Marina to the west. He wishes to convert the 100 year old house to a English style pub, which would serve Pacific Northwest micro- beers, ales, wines and light food. The rest of the property is covered by tall grasses, a garden, and some deciduous trees. A foot path is worn across the property from Parfitt Way to the buildings. -2- Applicant does not plan to add significant landscaping. Mike Regis testified that the Planning Agency felt that the site already has enough vegetation and that with little or no asphalt planned, additional landscaping would not be required. IV The project is estimated to cost $25,000. Exhibit A-1. V The property is in a Commercial zone with a master shoreline designation of "urban." VI To the west along the waterfront is the Bar Harbor Marina, also owned by the Applicant, with 45 moorage slips, and the Williamson Landing six-unit condcminimum complex with 24 moorage slips. Due west is a gravel marina parking lot, and another parcel of land which is the subject of a rezone petition to change from Commercial to High Density Multifamily Residential. Further west across Wood Avenue is a Single Family Residential zone. Up Wood Avenue to the northwest is a primarily single family residential area in a Medium Density Multifamily Residential zone. A 39 unit senior citizen apartment complex, Winslow Manor, has been approved but not yet constructed. Across Parfitt Way to the north is a Medium Density Multifamily Residential zone, containing single family residences as well as the Captain House Bed and Breakfast establishment directly across the street and a 60 unit senior citizen apartment complex, Winslow Arms. To the northeast is the parking lot for the Winslow Wharf Marina businesses, a single family residence, and Finch Place, a new 29 unit senior citizen apartment complex, further north. To the east the zone is Commercial, with the two adjacent lots used for single family residences. Further to the east is the Winslow Wharf complex, which includes a large marina, the Saltwater Cafe, serving food and alcoholic beverages, the Pegasus Coffee Shop, a marine supply store, with an architect's office above, and a small boat repair and construction shop. Offshore to the south are marina docks and buoys for pleasure boats and live-aboards. See Exhibit Q-7, the February 9, 1987, letter from the Neighborhood Committee to the Planning Agency. -3- The Saltwater Cafe was previously a liquor and food establishment known as Mac's Tavern. The multifamily residential complexes in the area were built after the area was zoned commercial. VII Applicant would neither enlarge the footprint of the building nor change the roof line. He would remodel the interior and add viewing windows on the harbor side. There would be seating inside for forty-nine persons. Applicant plans to add a deck to the existing building. The deck would be 28 feet wide and 29 1/2 feet deep on the west side, "stepping" diagonally to the 10 feet deep east side. See the October 30, 1986, site plan, Exhibit A-4. The deck would accomodate 25 to 30 customers. The actual number of customers allowed at any one time will be determined by the Liquor Control Board. No smoking, loud music, or pool tables would be allowed. Rather there would be music of a character and volume to encourage conversation, as well as reading, chess games and other quiet activities. Applicant, intends to continue living next door, to run the pub and to insure as best he can a mature, peaceful, rather than a rowdy, environment. He said that he would control persons from becoming intoxicated the same way he would control dinner guests in his home. VIII The pub would be linked by a foot path to the parking lot. It would not be readily visable from Parfitt Way due to the distance and downward slope of the site. IX Applicant proposes to link his pub with the Winslow waterfront trail system and would encourage public access on his property. The existing foot trail across his property is currently open to public. X Applicant anticipates that many patrons will walk to the pub from their boats, nearby homes, and even from the ferry, once the City's waterfront trail system is completed. He anticipates generating 25 vehicles trips daily. Applicant plans parking stalls for 13 vehicles in the gravel parking lot. He plans for garbage pick-up and delivery to be made through the Parfitt Way driveway and -4- parking lot rather than through the adjacent Wood Avenue marina parking lot; deliveries would be made by a footpath from the parking lot rather than by vehicles driving up to the building. Concern was raised at the public hearing about the lack of turn around space in the parking lot for large delivery vehicles and garbage trucks. See enlarged site plan, Exhibit A-4b. Mr. Evans promised to revise the plan to provide ample turn around space. XI The driveway from Parfitt Way through the parking lot would be angled and screened so as to minimize glare from headlights into neighbors' yards across Parfitt Way. Concern was raised at the hearing about the safety of pedestrians if the driveway entrance were so well screened that pedestrians might not see vehicles emerging from the pub parking lot onto Parfitt Way. XII There are no sidewalks on Wood Avenue or Parfitt Way, though the City has plans for sidewalks along at least one side of Wood Avenue. Currently, pedestrians walk in the roads. XIII Applicant intends that fire truck access be through the marina parking lot to the west where existing fire hydrants are available. This parking lot is neither paved nor lined; sometimes vehicles are parked closely in an haphazard way. In order for emergency equipment to be assured a clear passage way through the parking lot, a fire lane would need to be kept clear. XIV The pub building is much lower than the adjacent multi- story ccndominimums to the west. The building is a miminal intrusion on the shoreline when viewed from the water or the land. The remodel would not further obscure anyone's view of Eagle Harbor. -5- XV The small house character of the building is compatible with the other existing small older single family houses in the area. It is not in character with the modern high rise condominim~m complex to the west or the senior citizen complex to the northeast. XVI The proposed pub use for the building is consistent in character with the property's commercial urban designation and with such nearby uses as the Saltwater Cafe, which serves alcohol, and the Pegasus coffee house to the east. It is compatible with the two nearby marinas. The proposed pub use is not consistent with the surrounding residential use of the area, much of which is on land zoned commercial. This inconsistency does not arise from the "pub" nature of the use but rather from the non- residential, commercial nature of this use in a commercial zone just as any other commercial venture would be inconsistent. Future commercial development is likely in the commercially zoned area, with which Applicant's proposed use would be consistent. XVII On February 22, 1979, attorneys for Williamson Properties, Inc., the City of Winslow, and Applicant Evans signed a Stipulation and Order of Dismissal of a lawsuit, whereby Williamson and Evans agreed that neither would oppose the other's development of his property so long as it was in compliance with applicable building regulations. Notice of this stipulation was mailed to Dick Bowen, then prospective purchaser of Williamson Properties and later developer of Williamson Landing Condominmums to the west. See Exhibit P-2. XVIII On November 26, 1987, City Land Use Administrator Mike Regis issued a Determination of Non-significance to the environment. On June 8, 1987, Mr. Regis issued an updated Determination of Non-significance. See Exhibits D-1 and L-l, respectively. The West Winslow Neighborhood Association has appealed this determination, which appeal is currently pending before the winslow City Council. There has been no evidence presented thus far that the pub would have an adverse impact on the shoreline environment. ~6- XIX On April 9, 1987, the Winslow Planning Agency recommended approval of the Shoreline Substantial Development Permit and Conditional Use Permit. The Planning Agency noted that though the proposal is not particularly water dependent, it would provide a public facility allowing waterfront viewing and access to the shoreline. The Planning Agency suggested no conditions for granting the permits. See Exhibit J-4. XX Notice of the public hearing was visibly posted on the property and published in the Bainbridge Review on June 10, 1987, and June 17, 1987. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Legal notice of the public hearing was given. II WMC 16.12.860 requires the Hearing Examiner to transmit to the City Council her recommendation on the shoreline permit application within thirty days after completion of the public hearing. Although the City's Determination of Non- significance is still on appeal and therefore subject to change, the June 29, 1987, hearing was completed that evening. Thus the Hearing Examiner renders these conclusions based on information available at this time, subject to amendment following resolution of the appeal. Until and unless the City Council rules to the contrary, the Hearing Examiner will honor the presumption established by WMC 16.04.260 E, that the Land Use Administrator's Determination of Non-significance was made according to legal requirements and is not clearly erroneous. -7- III A substantial development permit is required by the Shoreline Management Master Program because the cost of the project will exceed $1000 in cost. WMC 16.12.400. IV The property is in a Commercial Zone and designated as an "urban" enviroraent by the City Shoreline Management Master Program. A pub is a permitted use in a commercial zone. WMC 18.44.020 A. and C. It also serves the general purpose of a commercial zone as set forth by WMC 18.44.010: The purpose of the commercial zone is to provide retail and personal services to the residents of the City and visiting public. It also fulfills the policies and regulations for recreation in the shoreline area as set forth in WMC 16.12.730, part B of which provides: Priority shall be given to developments ... which provide recreational uses and other improvements facilitating public access to shorelines. WMC 16.12.570 sets forth the purposes and uses of a shoreline "urban environment" as follows: A. "Urban environment" is an area of intense modification of the natural systems caused by human activity with residential, commercial, and industrial uses. The purpose of placing an area in an urban environment is to ensure the utilization of the area to be a multiplicity of intense human uses. The use policies are as follows: 1. Any shoreline use, subject to specific use regulations concerning them should be permitted. 2. Public access should be encouraged. Where practical, various access points ought to be linked to nonmotorized transportation routes, such as bicycle and hiking paths. 3. PUDs should be encouraged within the shoreline area. 4. Floating homes shall be permitted in this environment. VI WMC 16.12.670 C. provides "General Regulations" for commercial developments ,in part, as follows: 2. Ccmmerciai facilities should provide public access to shoreline areas when feasible, taking into consideration public safety, public health and security. 3. Uses which are not shoreline dependent or related but which provide an opportunity for the community to have access to the shoreline shall be encouraged. These uses require a conditional use permit. 5. Uses other than water dependent and water related to be located less than fifty feet from the ordinary high water mark shall require a conditional use permit. VII The proposed English style pub is not a "shoreline use" in that it is neither water dependent nor water related. However, public access to the shoreline is invited. The pub would ultimately be linked to a non-motorized transportation route, the Winslow trail system. There is no evidence concerning whether or not people would arrive by boat; however moorage is available at nearby marinas. Also, the pub would be linked to the parking lot by a long walkway. From the pub and surrounding grounds the public could enjoy a view of Eagle Harbor and access to the shoreline. The pub would be located less than fifty feet from the ordinary high water mark. However, Applicant is not proposing to build a new building but rather to remodel the existing building, which is already located less than fifty feet from the water's edge. A deck to be added on the water side of the building would be even closer to the shoreline but would have nc significant impact on the shoreline environment. It would provide the public a closer, outdoor space to enjoy the waterfront in nice weather. VIII WMC 16.12.670 B. provides policies for commercial development along the shoreline as follows: 1. Commercial development should be compatible in design and scale to the area in which it is located. 2. Parking facilities should be placed inland away from the immediate water's edge and recreational beaches. -9- Commercial development should bedesigned and maintained in such a way as to minimize disruption of scenic views. IX The development proposed is basically compatible in design and scale to the area in which it is located. It is smaller in scale than the condominimums to the west and the senior citizen apartment complexes north of Parfitt Way. However, such large side developments do not epitomize the City's housing character goal, which is "to retain the present character of a primarily single family residential community .... " WMC 16.08.120. The character of the pub building would be consistent with this goal. Parking facilities would be placed inland, away from the immediate water's edge. The development would be designed and maintained so as to cause no additional disruption of scenic views. X WMC 16.12.930 B. outlines what applicants must demonstrate in an application for conditional use permits: !. That the proposed use will be consistent with the policies of the Master Program; 2. That the proposed use will not interfere with the normal public use of public shorelines; That the proposed use of the site and design of the project will be compatible with other permitted uses within the area; 4. That the proposed use will cause no unreasonably adverse effects to the shoreline environment designation in which it is to be located; 5. That the public interest suffers no substantial detrimental effect. The above criteria are also required by the State in WAC 173-14-140 (1), which stresses that all five must be met in order for conditional use permits to be granted. xI The proposed use would be consistent with WMC 16.12.670 B. and WMC 16.12.570 B. policies of the master program, especially in the encouragement of public access to the shoreline. There are very few places along the Winslow shoreline for the public to view or enjoy the harbor environment. One of the other few remaining undeveloped commercial shoreline properties has been proposed as the site -10- of a non-public commercial office space complex. The pub, in contrast, would provide a scenic, quiet place for the public to enjoy Eagle Harbor. The proposed use would not interfere with the normal public use of public shorelines. The proposed use and design would be compatible with other permitted commercial uses in the area, primarily to the east. Although many of the residential neighbors feel strongly that a pub is not compatible with a residential area, the design and proposed use do not appear to be anymore incompatible with neighboring residential use than any other commercial establishments would be incompatible. Rather, its small scale and low visibility may prove to be more compatible with the residential area than other types of permitted commercial activity. See Finding of Fact XVI. The proposed use would have no unreasonably adverse effect or the general public interest would suffer no substantial detrimental effect, but rather would benefit from the additional public access to the shoreline. XII WMC 16.20.930 D. requires: In the granting of all conditional use permits, consideration will be given to the cumulative impact of additional requests for like actions in the area .... WAC 173-14-140 (4) also provides that consideration be given to the cumulative impact of additional requests for like actions in the area. XIII The cumulative impact of additional like actions in the area would have both positive and negative effects. Additional like requests would provide a benefit to the public by increasing commercial waterfront activity which invites the public to enjoy the waterfront. There would be a detrimental effect in further reduction in available commercial waterfront for water dependent or water related activities. However, remodeling a small house into a pub now does not foreclose yielding to future water related or dependent commercial development when and if the demand materializes; such future transformation would not seem so likely if Applicant were proposing a large new complex. In other words, the small scale of the proposed development preserves the option of a water dependent or water related activity in the future. -lt- XIV WMC 16.12.750 B. 2. requires minimum alteration of natural conditions in parking areas accessory to shoreline uses. Applicant's minimal landscaping plan fits this policy. WMC 18.56.110 requires the parking area and driveway to be paved or surfaced in such a way as to elimiate dust and mud. WMC 16.12.750 D. 2. requires that parking facilities provide "safe and convenient pedestrian circulation, within the parking area, and to the shoreline." Pedestrian safety requires pedestrian access to the pub from Parfitt Way along a path separate from the driveway and parking area. XV The recent United States Supreme Court case of Nollan v California Coastal Commission, 55 LW 5145 (June 26, 1987), need not be considered in conjunction with this shoreline application. When raised by the Hearing Examiner at the public hearing, Applicant stated that he would not protest the City's requiring public access as a condition of the shoreline management permit. Rather he welcomes the public. -12- RECOMMENDATIONS AND DECISIONS For the foregoing reasons, the Hearing Examiner recommends approval of the Shoreline Substantial Development Permit and grants Conditional Use Permits for a non-water related use which promotes public access, in a building located less than fifty feet from the ordinary high water mark, cn the following conditions: 1. Public access to the waterfront and eventual tie in with the City's waterfront trail system, including grant of a public easement along the waterfront; 2. Clear delineation of fire access through the adjacent Harbor Marina parking lot and enforcement of a fire access zone so that emergency vehicles shall not be impeded in reaching the pub location; 3. Compliance with all fire safety requirements as specified by the Fire Inspector, including, but not limited to, addition of fire hydrants and relocation of fire access lanes if deemed necessary; 4. Parking area and driveway surfacing or paving so as to eliminate dus~ and mud, in compliance with WMC 18.56.110; 5. Provision of an adequate turn around for delivery and garbage trucks in the parking area off Parfitt Way; 6. All supply deliveries and garbage pick ups to be made through the Parfitt Way entrance; 7. Screening along Parfitt Way designed a) to minimize headlight glare onto Parfitt Way and into neighbors' yards across the street, and b) to maximize visibilty of Parfitt Way from the driveway entrance and visibility of the driveway entrance from Parfitt Way, so that vehicles entering and leaving the pub parking lot will be able to see pedestrians and vehicles along Parfitt Way and visa-versa; 8. Provision of a pedestrian walkway from Parfitt Way to the pub walkway, separate from the driveway and parking lot; 9. Installation of a sidewalk along the Parfitt Way edge of the property when the City completes plans for improvement of Parfitt Way; !0. Provision of additional parking spaces in the pub parking lot off Parfitt way if the 13 spaces planned prove to be inadequate. The parking spaces allotted shall be deemed inadequate if the Liquor Control Board allows more than 49 customers at a time or if on three occasions or more the pub parking lot is full and additional vehicles are parked nearby along Parfitt Way or Wood Avenue with customers cutting through the marina. in addition to reporting to City police, neighbors may bring such overflow parking problem to the attention of the City by filing a written statement with the City Land Use Department, specifying the dates, times, and locations of the additional vehicles. The City Land Use Department will then investigate and require Applicant to add the appropriate number of additional parking spaces on site; -13- 11. Screening of the parking lot on the east side in accordance with WMC 18.56.130. At the discretion of the Winslow Planning Agency, screening shrubbery shall be allowed in lieu of a fence if it is of equivalent height and glare- blocking density; 12. Preparation of detailed site and landscaping plans to be presented at the site plan review stage; and 13. Notice of the site plan review to be given to the West Winslow Neighborhood Association through Richard Bowen or their attorney, John McCullough, at least four calendar days in advance. At the discretion of the Hearing Examiner or the City Council, the Hearing Examiner may amend these Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, Recommendations, Decisions and Conditions after the City Council's review of the West Winslow Neighborhood Association's appeal of the Determination of Non-significance. Dated this 28th day of July, 1987 J. Robin Hunt Hearing Examiner -14- To: From: The City of Winslow Planning Agency R. J. & J. A. Evans 425 Wood Ave. S.W. Bainbridge Island, WA 98!!0 SubJect: 'AU¢ 'Z'4. 98'r Proposed Rezone of Wood Ave./Parfitt Way Waterfront We are part owners of property in this area and strongly object to any fezone. We urge the Planning Agency to promptly recommend against rezone. Rights of property owners have legal basis and property cannot be rezoned without strong Justification; no such Justification exists in this case. Please consider the following facts. 1.) The existing shoreline designation (urban) as well as the existing shoreline use (commercial moorage) is entirely consistent with existing zoning. 2.) We are currently applying for a shoreline permit for the development of an English-style pub on our property. The fezone petition was filed after our permit application and appears to be a reaction against that application. 3-) Williamson Landing Condominiums which are also in the area of proposed rezone were built after the present zoning was established using permits from prior zoning. 4.) Most of the property addressed by this petition is defined as shoreline property and, as such, requires a shoreline permit for development. This process contains stringent procedures to protect the public interest in any subsequent development.