Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 02/13/1991 . . -e, AGENDA PORT ANGELES. PLANNING COMMISSION 321 East Fifth Street Port Angeles, W A 98362 February 13, 1991 7:00 P.M. I. CALL TO ORDER ll. ROLL CALL ID. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Special Meeting of January 23, 1991 IV. PUBUC HEARING: 1. SHORELINE MANAGEMENT PERMIT - SMA 91(02)113 - ITI' RA YONIER6 North Ennis Street: Proposal to demolish two existing structures including fill to grade at the site of the demolished structures, including modification of an existing chip transport system. 2. REQUEST TO CIRCULATE AN ANNU.A nON PETITION - ANX 91(02)01 - HEERSCHAP. Lindbeli/Golf Course Road area: Request to annex approximately 13.97 acres. 3. CONDlTIONAL USE PERMIT - CUP 9H02l04 - CH11~nERS. Northeast comer of Eunice and GeoIiiana Streets: Proposal to develop a day care center for up to 70 children per day in a RS-7, Residential Single-Family District. V. COMMUNlCA nONS FROM THE PUBLIC VI. STAFF REPORTS VII. REPORTS OF COMMISSION l\fEMBERS VIII. ADJOURN1\fENT All correspondence pertaining to a hearing item received by the Planning Depanment at least one day prior to the scheduled hearing wiu be provided to Commission members before the hearing. Plarm.ing Commiaion: Lany Leonard, Chair; Ray Gruver, Vice-Chllir. Bill Anabel: Roger Cans; Cindy SoudcB: 1im Hulell; Bob Philpott. P1srming Staff: Brad Collins. PIaDnini Director. Sue Roberds. PIIDlling Office Specialia., JohIl1imeE*)D, Aaociltc Planner. Planning Commission Agenda Page 2 . .. PUBLIC HEARING PROCEDURE: Spokesmen for the proponents and opponents will be given an opportunity to speak to the request. Information submitted should be factual, relevant and not merely duplication of a previous presentation. A reasonable time (10 minutes) shall be allowed the spokesman; others shall be limited to short supporting remarks (5 minutes). Other interested parties will be allowed to comment briefly (5 minutes each) or make inquiries. The Chairman may allow additional public testimony if the issue warrants it. Brief rebuttal (5 minutes) for proponents and opponents '. heard separately and consecutively with presentation limited to their spokesman. Rebuttal shall be limited to factual statements pertaining to previous testimony. Comments should be directed to the Planing Commission, not the City Staff representatives present, unless directed to do so by the Chairman. . . . PLANNING COMMISSION Port Angeles, Washington February 13, 1991 I CALL TO ORDER Chairman Leonard called the meeting to order at 7:05 P.M. II ROLL CALL Members Present: Roger Catts, Jim Hulett, Larry Leonard, Bob Philpott, Cindy Souders, Bill Anabel. Members Absent: Ray Gruver. Staff Present: Brad collins, John Jimerson, Ken Ridout, Bruce Becker. Chairman Leonard introduced John Jimerson, the newly hired Associate Flanner to those present, and welcomed him to the staff. III APPROVAL OF MINUTES Mr. Philpott moved to approve the minutes of the January 23, 1991, meeting, with kudos to Sue Roberds for doing a fine job in preparing them. Mr. Hulett seconded the motion which passed 6 - o. IV PUBLIC HEARINGS SHORELINE MANAGEMENT PERMIT SMA-91(02)113 ITT RAYONIER, North Ennis Street: Proposal to demolish two existing structures, including fill to grade at the site of the demolished structures, including modification of an existinq chip transport system. Mr. Jimerson reviewed the Department Report. Mr. Philpott asked for a clarification on the Shoreline Management Program policy pertaining to open piling construction for a bulkhead. Mr. Collins explained that policy was for new bulkheads, and then described the difference between open piling and sheet piling. Further, Mr. Collins explained to the Commission that because the SEPA review period has not yet passed, the city Council will not be taking action on this request at its next meeting, but will have to continue the matter to the March 5th meeting before the Council may take action. He explained this will not affect the Planning Commission, and they may take action at this meeting. Mr. Hulett asked if there were any EPA or OSHA requirements to control particulate matter into the air during the demolition period. Mr. Collins responded there were no PLANNING COMMISSION February 13, 1991 Page 2 . special requirements of which he was aware, but if the Planning Commission deemed it necessary, they could impose conditions to control the dust and particulate matter. Chairman Leonard asked if in the event the bulkhead does need to be rebuilt or bulked up, will it need an additional Shoreline Permit. Mr. Collins responded that since the rebuilding of the bulkhead is a condition of the approval for this Shoreline Permit, it would not need an additional permit. Chairman Leonard opened the public hearing at 7:25 P.M. Brian Jones, the applicant noted that the materials from the demolition will either be salvaged or put into the chippers, and any other materials will be put in ITT's own landfill. He noted they will not be using the City Landfill, nor will they be burning any materials on-site. Mr. Jones explained that 70% of the chip conveyor system is currently exposed. The demolition of the buildings will result in the remaining 30% being exposed to the outside. He added that this additional 30% will not result in a significant increase in noise. . Mr. Catts asked if there would be any hazardous materials encountered in the demolition, such as asbestos. Mr. Jones responded no, there are not, and if there were, ITT has the personnel and staff to appropriately dispose of any hazardous materials. Scott Bird, 1330 Airport Road, expressed concern pertaining to the environmental review conducted for the project. Specifically, he cited concerns over potential erosion on- site, impacts on wildlife, and noise during the construction period. Mr. Collins responded by explaining the environmental review process, adding that the determination of non- significance is appealable. Bill Kopp, 1 Whitney Way, expressed concern regarding the normal operation of the conveyor system. He was concerned there will be an increase in the noise level with the additional conveyor belt being exposed and he asked if that noise level can be quantified before the work occurs so if there is a solution, it can be addressed at this time, rather than after the fact. Mr. Collins stated it would require a technical study to quantify the increase of noise and he cited the applicant's testimony that the conveyor belt will not significantly increase the noise. . Sue Trump, 1838 Harborcrest, stated she had not received all the information pertaining to the project as she had requested, and she asked the Planning commission not to make a decision tonight to allow her opportunity to review the information. She also stated the checklist submitted for the environmental review contains inconsistencies and the Determination of Non-significance should not be based on that PLANNING COMMISSION February 13, 1991 Page 3 . checklist because of the inconsistencies. She also stated she was concerned with the potential increase in noise. Ernest Lato, 1802 Harborcrest, asked what type of conveyor would be installed. Chairman Leonard explained there would not be a new conveyor installed; that the existing conveyor would continue operation. Mr. Jones made the following statements in response to questions by the commission: The operation of the chip handling facilities, including the conveyor, will not change. The chip storage system will not change. The truck dumping which occurs outdoors right now will continue to occur outdoors. He noted that the conveyor IS noise will be suppressed by hoods to cover the system. The building height is 100 feet, which is approximately the height of a four-story building; that the conveyor belts are located at ground level and rise to approximately half the height of the building. He noted that there are larger structures on the Mill to the south, located between the building to be destroyed and the residential areas. . There possibly could be a chip processing facility placed on the site where the building is being demolished, but that is some time in the future, and he understands that any change of use of this site will require additional permit review. The building does not act as a sound barrier between a noise- generating operation and the homes. The only facility to the north is the dock, which does not generate significant amounts of noise. Keith Lawler, project manager for ITT Rayonier, explained the demolition process; that they would most likely begin with the top of the building and work down. This is necessary to protect the conveyor system. He stated the demolition process will last two and one-half to three months and that hours of demolition will be normal daytime hours, between 9 AM and 4 PM, Monday through Friday. He then corrected the starting time to 7:30 A.M. Mr. Lawler explained there is an existing roadway and rock bulkhead between the beach and the area where the fill is going to occur. This roadway and bulkhead will prevent any erosion from occurring. . Chris Thomas, 1836 Harborcrest, stated that the information she had received on the project had led her to believe there would be new construction occurring as a result of this permit. Mr. Collins explained that there were additional communications between the Planning Department and the applicant which clarified exactly what the project contained, . . . PLANNING COMMISSION February 13, 1991 Page 4 and that Ms. Thomas apparently had not received those communications. Ms. Thomas noted there were inconsistencies contained on the environmental checklist and asked how the determination of non-significance could be made, based on that checklist. Mr. Collins responded that the Planning Department had contacted the applicant after the checklist was submitted to clarify exactly what the project was, and that the determination of non-significance was made, based on not only the checklist, but also on subsequent communications with the applicant. Chairman Leonard closed the public hearing at 8:05 P.M. Mr. Hulett asked staff for background information pertaining to the present situation on noise monitoring of the chip operation. Mr. Collins responded that a lengthy noise study had been conducted and a new fence was proposed as a mitigation to that noise. He added that to his knowledge, cooperation between the parties for building the noise barrier has since fallen apart and he understands the neighbors are proceeding with a lawsuit. Mr. Hulett asked the applicant if the conveyor system currently within the building will, once exposed, be covered by some sort of structure. Mr. Jones responded that initially it probably will not, but at some time in the future, it very well may be covered to protect it from the weather. He explained that the cover would be a fiberglass hood. He noted the longest exposed area of conveyor would be approximately 70 feet. Mr. Hulett asked if there are any operations in the Mill which are louder than the conveyor belts. Mr. Jones explained there are several operations which are considerably louder than the conveyor belt. Mr. Catts stated that well-maintained conveyor belts do not pose a high noise level. Mr. Philpott moved to recommend the City Council approve this Shoreline Substantial Development Permit, subject to the following findings, and citing the fOllowing findings and conclusions: CONDITIONS: A. Demolition of the existing buildings will require a demolition permit. B. A hydraulic permit must be obtained from the Fisheries Marine Division for any repairs to the bulkhead/retaining wall and fill drainage. PLANNING COMMISSION February 13, 1991 Page 5 . C. Upon completion of demolition, submit to the Public Works Department a grading plan which clearly shows the loca- tion and amount of fill to be placed on-site." Additional retaining walls may be required, based on the City I S review of the grading plan. D. Submit to the Public Works Department a sketch and cross section of the bUlkhead/retaining wall and a letter from a licensed engineer stating the bUlkhead/retaining wall will support the additional load created by the fill. FINDINGS: 1. The proposal does not involve a new use or improvement to the property. 2. The proposal does not involve any discharges of waste materials to surface or ground water. 3. The precise amounts and location of fill required will not be known until demolition has occurred. CONCLUSIONS: A. The proposed work is a relatively minor modification to the existing industrial use. . B. The proposal is consistent with the policies and regula- tions of the Port Angeles Shoreline Master Program, the Port Angeles comprehensive Plan, and the Port Angeles Zoning Code. C. Submittal of a grading plan to the city prior to con- ducting the fill operations will ensure the existing bulkhead/retaining wall, with any additional support, is adequate to support the loads created by the fill. D. The grading plan can also be used to determine if addi- tional retaining walls are necessary, to be consistent with policy F.12.e of Article 17 of the Shoreline Master Program, which requires the perimeters of fill areas to be provided with retaining walls. Mr. Hulett seconded the motion, which passed 6 - O. REQUEST TO CIRCULATE AN ANNEXATION PETITION - ANX- 91(02) 01 - HEERSCHAP, Lindberg/Golf Course Road Area: Reauest to annex approximatelY 13.97 acres. . Mr. Collins reviewed the Department Report. Mr. Collins answered questions from the Commissioners concerning the proposal and staff recommendations for assumption of the city's indebtedess and RS-9 Zoning designation. PLANNING COMMISSION February 13, 1991 Page 6 . Mr. Ridout, Deputy Director of Public Works, answered questions from the Commissioners concerning the provision of services to the area proposed to be annexed. Chairman Leonard opened the public hearing at 8:30 P.M. Jim Green, 10703 134th Street NW, Gig Harbor, representing the applicant, stated he is interested in determining what the costs of annexation would be and also, they are interested in moving forward with the annexation. He noted he has been in contact with the property owner for the 6 acres to the south, which is known as the Freeman property, but does not know what his intentions are regarding any annexation proposals. He expressed the desire to have the property zoned RMF and RS-9 prior to annexation. Chairman Leonard closed the public hearing at 9:00 P.M. Following discussion, Mr. Hulett moved to approve the request to circulate a petition to annex the property, with the assumption of the full bonded indebtedness and adoption of RS- 9 Zoning regulations. This motion was seconded by Mr. Philpott. The motion carried unanimously. . CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CUP-91(02)04 CHILDERS, Northeast corner of Eunice and Georgiana Streets: Proposal to develop a day care center for up to 70 children per day in an RS-7, Residential Single-Family District. Mr. Jimerson reviewed the Department Report and answered questions from the Commission. Chairman Leonard opened the public hearing at 9:20 P.M. Jane Childers, 3235 Durrwachter Road, explained her intention to construct a day-care center. She explained there is a need for day-care facilities in residential areas. She addressed the traffic concerns, stating that a school bus stop is located at the corner of the property and many of the after- school children will be getting off the bus and going to the day-care center. She also noted that many clients have two children who will be under the care of the day-care center, thereby reducing the number of trips generated. Ms. Childers explained to the Planning Commission the State's requirements for providing interior floor area and exterior play areas for the children, and noted that once the facility is constructed, the State will inspect it to ensure that it meets Code requirements. . Dan Hayward, 636 Georgiana Street, expressed concern with the proposed day care center, citing concerns with traffic, noise, and preservation of the residential character of the neighborhood. He noted he has circulated a peti tion in opposition to the day-care to people within the neighborhood PLANNING COMMISSION February 13, 1991 Page 7 . and had presented it to the Planning staff. He feels the residents have been working hard to improve the neighborhood and introduction of the day-care facility would be contrary to the improvements they have been striving for. He stated the intent of the zoning in allowing day-care usess in residential zones should be limited to those types of centers that might have only a few children, and where the day-care provider lives on the premises. Glen Wiggins, 702 Caroline Street, stated he had moved to the neighborhood because of the quiet character of the street and the view of the water it provides. He stated a concern that the residential character would be lost with the construction of the day-care center, citing traffic and noise concerns. He asked the Planning Commission to deny the request for a Conditional Use Permit. Glenndia witherow, 318 North Eunice Street, owner and operator of the GlenMar Bed and Breakfast located half a block north of the property, said her clients come to the GlenMar in large part because of the quiet solitude the area provides. She is concerned that noise from the day-care center will adversely impact her business. She also noted that her business has very little impact on the neighborhood itself: that for the most part, the neighbors do not realize she is serving guests. . James Clark, 218 East Front street, stated his concern over the increas in traffic the proposal would generate in the neighborhood. He added he was concerned with the fact there is a cliff located a half block north of the site. He was concerned that children, once they leave the site and are unsupervised, may be subject to danger with this cliff in the neighborhood. Ed VanWald, 708 Caroline Street, stated his concern that the intersection of Eunice and Georgiana streets poses a hazard, as there are no stop signs at that intersection and the school bus drops the children at that point after school. He added that he thought the water pressure in the area was inadequate to support a new facility. He was also concerned with the impact the additional noise of the children playing in the yard would create. Jim McPherson, County resident, stated that the property has been vacant for a significant period of time and believes that development would benefit the area. He stated he did not believe noise impacts would be significant. . April Ginn, 710 Georgiana Street, stated she is concerned with the potential traffic hazard of having the day-care center in the vicinity, especially with the fact there is a school bus stop at the same intersection. Anthony Galgano, 715 Caroline street, asked the Planning Commission to consider the need to preserve the residential . . . PLANNING COMMISSION February 13, 1991 Page 8 character of the area, noting it is one of the oldest residential neighborhoods left in the community. Kenneth Berg, 704 Georgiana Street, stated he is opposed to the project, citing the noise impact. Jane Childers responded to the safety hazards that had been raised. She noted the Department of Social and Health Services closely monitors the activities on-site to ensure that the safety of the children is protected at all times. She noted that all children cannot be outside at one time and they are under close supervision. She pointed out that her staff members assist children off the school buses and lead them into the day-care center, and that she also coordinates the bus stops with the School District. Dan Hayward stated that he recognizes the need for day-care facilities in the community and that the applicant provides a good service. However, he feels this is not the appropriate location, and there are better locations wi thin the City. Once again, he stated concerns with traffic hazards, particularly with children getting off the bus. Glen Wiggins, 702 Caroline Street, asked the Planning Commission members if they would want to live in a neighborhood with this day-care center. He stated if they answered yes, then they should vote for the proposal. There being no further discussion or comment from the audience, Chairman Leonard closed the public hearing at 10:25 PM. Mr. Collins stated staff had noted in the Department Report that the increase in traffic which will occur as a result of the development will be significant, but noted it would not result in significant adverse impacts, per the environmental review. He stated the SEPA determination is appealable. Mr. Hulett questioned Condition NO.8, which allows for review of the day-care operation after one year, at which time this Conditional Use Permit may be revoked. He was concerned with the fact that the proposal requires a new building to be constructed. What would happen with that building after a year if the Conditional Use Permit was revoked? Mr. Hulett moved to continue the item to the February 27, 1991, meeting of the Planning commission. Mr. Philpott seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. V COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE FUBLIC None. PLANNING COMMISSION February 13, 1991 Page 9 4It VI STAFF REPORTS The Planning Commission reviewed Bill wilbert's request for clarification on the location of Lot 3 recreational facilities for the proposed DelHur Planned Residential Development, and determined that individual planning Commissioners, if desired, could speak to the alternative at the Council's public hearing on February 28th. The Planning Commission modifications would go forward to the Council as approved at the January 23, 1991, meeting of the Planning Commission. VII REPORTS OF COMMISSION MEMBERS None. VIII ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the Planning meeting was adjourned at 11:15 P.M. ~ in , Secretary Ch .' . JJ:LM PLAN.430 . . PLEASE SIGN IN CITY OF PORT ANGELES Attendance Roster . Type of Meeting Planning Commission Date ~/r~/ql Location C ,\~ ~ l ~5 .