Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 08/28/1991 .~ . ~. AGENDA PORT ANGELES PLANNING COMMISSION City Council Chambers 321 East Fifth Street Port Angeles, W A 98362 August 28, 1991 7:00 P.M. I. CALL TO ORDER ll. ROLL CALL m. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Meeting of August 14, 1991, and correction to Minutes of June 26, 1991. IV. PUBUC HEARING: 1. PROPOSED ZONING CODE AMENDMENT - ZCA 91(08)6 - CITY OF PORT ANGELFS. City-wide: Day care and residential care regulations. VI. COMMUNICA nONS FROM THE PUBLIC VII. STAFF REPORTS 1. DmftCI~andGnWngOr~u VID. REPORTS OF COMMISSION l\1EMBERS IX. ADJOURNMENT All correspondence pertaining to a hearing item received by the Planning Department at least one day prior to the scheduled hearing will be provided to Commission members before the hearing. Planning Commi68ion: Ray Gruver, Chair; Cindy Souders, Vicc-Chair; Jim Hulett; Roger Catta; !.any Leonard; Bob FhiIpou; Bill Anlbel. Planning Staff: Brad Collill!, Planning Director; Sue Roberds, Planning Office Specialist; John Jintel'llOIl, Msociate Planner; David Sawyer. Senior Planner. . . . 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 Planning Commission~ not the City Staff representatives present, unless directed to do so by the Chairman. . . '. PLANNING COMMISSION Port Angeles, Washington August 28, 1991 I CALL TO ORDER Chairman Gruver called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M. II ROLL CALL Members Present: Bill Anabel, Cindy Souders, Ray Gruver, Roger Catts, Larry Leonard. Members Excused: Jim Hulett, Bob Philpott. Staff Present: Brad Collins, Becker. John Jimerson, Bruce III APPROVAL OF MINUTES Mr. Leonard moved to approve the minutes of the August 14, 1991, meeting, noting one change to page 4, Condition A, to read: liThe parking lot shall be graded to flow into catch basins prior to discharge to grassy swales, or as approved by the Department of Fisheries. II The motion was seconded by Mr. Anabel and passed 4 - 0, with Ms. Souders abstaining. Mr. Catts moved to amend the minutes of the Planning Commis- sion for June 26, 1991, by adding the following to page 9: Mr. Hulett moved to re-open the hearinq and continue it to the July 10th meetinq. Mr. Anabel seconded the motion. which passed unanimouslY. The motion was seconded by Mr. Anabel and passed 4 - 0, with Mr. Leonard abstaining. IV PUBLIC HEARING PROPOSED ZONING CODE AMENDMENT - ZCA-91(08)6 - CITY OF PORT ANGELES, City-wide: Day care and residential care regulations. Mr. Jimerson reviewed the Department Report. Mr. Leonard asked how life safety inspections would occur if the City did not have a permitting process. Fire Marshal Becker responded that the Fire Department is notified by DSHS when day cares apply for licenses and the Fire Department does inspect all day care facilities. DSHS would not issue a license until the Code is met and inspections have been made. Mr. Leonard asked why day care should be treated differently than other types of home occupations, such as a beauty shop. Staff responded that residential day care, by definition, is accessory to residen- tial use and beauty shops are commercial in nature and do not require residential locations to exist. The Comprehensive Plan does not limit its scope of concern to land use impacts, PLANNING COMMISSION August 28, 1991 Page 2 . but also considers social objectives and the need for adequate community facilities. Mr. Collins pointed out the staff's recommendation does not follow to the letter the model ordinance recommendation. For example, the model ordinance recommends that Residential Care Facilities be permitted by right in all zoning districts. staff I s recommendation is that a conditional use permit be required in residential districts. Chairman Gruver opened the public hearing at 7:10 P.M. . Nancy Martin, 2340 Samara Place, the director of Parent Line, reviewed the history of the Governor's Task Force which was created to eliminate barriers to provision of day care, resulting in a Bill which was passed requiring local govern- ments to study the need for day care. She was concerned that Conditional Use Permit requirements would reduce the avail- ability of day care facilities. The number of children included in a family day care center must include the pro- vider's own children. She stated the Department of Social and Health Services provides rigorous reviews, and the City's reviews would be an unnecessary duplication. DSHS evaluates day care facilities with respect to fire and health concerns. Family day care centers maintain a residential appearance. There are no exterior signs; there are no significant numbers of parked cars; they do not appear as a business from the outside. She noted that Parent Line, which acts as a referral source between parents searching for day care and licensed day care providers, is unable to provide referrals for approxi- mately 25% of the people who call in, and it is especially difficult to find day care for those who have infants two years and younger. The slow economy in the region has resulted in increasing numbers of two employed persons in the households - the mothers are forced to go to work to support the household. There is ambiguity in the current codes with regard to child care. Child care is not defined. It is a question whether it should be interpreted as a home occupation or as a pre-school or something else. The Conditional Use Permit process is time-consuming; it is costly; and it dupli- cates the State I s processes. The SEPA review process is burdensome and serves no practical purpose. There are 200 communities in ~ashington which already exempt day care facilities; 85 communities have responded to the model ordinance prepared by the State. Mr. Catts asked what percent of care centers in Port Angeles are operating without a license. Ms. Martin responded it is hard to estimate because parents who use the "underground" day cares are very secretive about letting anyone know who is providing those services. . Jessica Schreiber, 3261 Greentree Lane, stated there is a need for day care to be provided in Port Angeles. The City should not only be removing barriers to day care, but encouraging it also. There are sound policy reasons to support exempting family day care facilities from home occupations. She cited PLANNING COMMISSION August 28, 1991 Page 3 . a traffic study which was conducted on the impact of day cares in residential zones, which found that traffic increased only slightly and that the distribution of automobile traffic was spread out evenlyithroughout the day. There was no signifi- cant back-up of cars at anyone time. Further, residential day cares should not be treated the same as a business, as there is not enough money to be made by the providers. Many of the providers are working for poverty level wages. She noted there is a turnover rate in providers of approximately 40%. Family day care centers provide an opportunity for care of children within a home setting and not in a commercial setting. There are conflicting state and local regulations, which create confusion for the provider, resulting in many day care providers avoiding the licensing procedures and working "underground". In response to questions from the commission, Ms. Schreiber stated many day care providers charge $1.50 per hour per child. conflicts between State and local regulations could include the number of children allowed, the amount of play area required, fire safety and building code differences. . Lois Blank, 824 Georgiana, stated DSHS puts the providers through a rigorous review which involves personal and criminal checks. Providers are required to obtain first aid training and CPR training. Day care homes are inspected annually by the Fire Department. They are required to maintain smoke detectors and the houses be child-proofed to protect the children from any poisons, wood stoves, etc., which could present a hazard. Health issues are also considered, noting, for example, the children's coats have to be located so they do not touch each other; the dirty diapers are to be placed in plastic bags and the parents take them home to dispose of. There is a heavy demand for child care in Port Angeles which needs to be filled. . Larry Hayden, 1831 West Seventh street, stated he is employed by the Department of Social and Health Services and is responsible for licensing family day care homes. He pointed out he is neither a proponent nor an opponent for the proposed ordinance amendment; rather, he was making himself available for questions on State regulations and licensing procedures. The State licensing procedure is rigorous, taking 90 to 120 days to complete. Of those who apply for approval, approxi- mately one-third actually make it through the process. The other two-thirds drop out because either the process is too extensive or complex, or often because the applicant is found to have a criminal record. It is his job to look at three aspects of the family day care home when evaluating an application. He looks at the person; their character, back- ground, education, etc. He looks at the physical facility: are the bathrooms adequate? Is there adequate interior space? Is there adequate exterior space? Are Child-proof fences provided/ He pointed out that DSHS cannot issue a license until the Fire Department has certified that the home meets the Code. The third criterion for evaluation is the program to be provided. He referenced that the State has a set of PLANNING COMMISSION August 28, 1991 Page 4 . developmentally appropriate practices. The licensing process can typically result in cost to the applicant that ranges from $1,000 to $5,000. Day care providers are required to be insured and the Department of Social and Health Services also monitors the food programs. Food programs are run by a private non-profit organization, which makes food available to all licensed day care facilities at a discount. The State tries to inspect each day care once a month if possible. Inspections are unscheduled and drop-in visits are made at random. In response to questions from the Commission, Mr. Hayden stated that the City of Port Angeles could absorb twice the number of existing family day care homes, noting there is a special need for day care homes which provide service to infants two years of age and younger. The licensing applica- tion fee for DSHS itself is $24. Most of the cost of licens- ing comes from the need to upgrade the facilities to meet the State standards. Required fencing is typically the most expensive item. The state is trying to encourage day care facilities, noting that Parent Line was created as a means to match up parents in need of day care with licensed day care providers. He has not had any problems with conflicts between state and local regulations. Those are the type of things that, may affect the providers themselves, but not him as an employee of the state. The state has the power to revoke licenses; however, they probably would not revoke a license if neighbors were to complain about excessive noise. Rather, they would work with the provider to arrange for activities and operations that would not generate as much noise. Mr. Hayden noted that he is responsible for licensing all of Clallam County and a portion of Port Townsend. There are 52 licensed centers in Clallam County and approximately 30 in Port Angeles. The time-consuming aspect of obtaining state licensing is not a result of bureaucratic processes. Rather, it is mostly attributed to the time it takes to comply with the requirements of the state. Contractors need to be arranged for and the work needs to be carried out. Re- inspections need to be made after work is completed. It is very difficult to complete the process in 90 days - 120 days is more realistic. The high turn-over rate can, in part, be attributed to the lack of income generated by a family day care home. Many providers will move and not re-open a day care after they move. Many day care providers get tired of the constant review by the state. The City's application costs become a burden when they are added to all the other expenses necessary to comply with the State's requirements to open up, especially when the day care provider is just start- ing and does not have any income yet. He estimated approxi- mately one-third of the day care providers would have quit had they been required to follow up with the City's permitting process. Mr. Hayden stated that much of his job is to act as an investigator; that he has a significant amount of authority in investigating the backgrounds of potential day care providers. . . PLANNING COMMISSION August 28, 1991 Page 5 . Jodie Applegate, 117 East 13th street, stated she has l8 years experience as a family home day care provider and has only been licensed for the past four years. There has been significant difference between the years that she operated unlicensed and the years she has operated licensed. She stated she has almost quit three times since she has been licensed because of the bureaucracy and constant inspections. She found it was much easier to operate as an unlicensed day care center. She was not as concerned with the fee as much as with the bureaucracy and the duplicity of regulations. Vickie Lund, 2811 South Peabody, is a home day care operator. She stated children with special needs are better cared for in a family day care center, as opposed to a commercial day care center. Retarded children, children with alcoholic syndrome, children of single parents, would not do as well in the commercial day care center. Family day care centers provide much more of a family atmosphere. . Kathy Corriel, 1914 South pine street, stated she is a parent with children in day care. It is important for her to have a day care with someone she can trust to leave her children with. She found that although it was difficult to give up her child to day care, the family day care was the only acceptable alternative. She is concerned with the lack of supply of family day care centers in the community and encouraged the decrease of bureaucratic processes. Layton Lund, 2811 South Peabody street, stated it is important to protect the single-family residential character, but did not think a family day care home would have any different impacts than a large family would. Cindy Rassmusson, 107 East 13th Street, stated she is a next door neighbor of a family day care home. She has experienced no parking problems with the day care. She experiences more parking problems with the church in her neighborhood. She stated there is always activity on the block and the day care blends in quite nicely. The day care homes are, in general, kept very neat and tidy; they are maintained, contain nice fences, maintain landscaping, etc. She stated the interior of her neighbor's home is always clean and it is nice to have a neighbor with first aid and CPR training in case she ever needs that type of service. The Planning Commission took a break at 8:50 P.M. and recon- vened at 9:00 P.M. . Melody Dougherty, 116 ElCamino Drive, Sequim, stated that the City of Sequim requires no conditional use permits for day cares. She explained some of the requirements in partici- pating in the food program, including the need to record the menus and the number of children served daily. There are strict requirements on what they may serve to the children. There is a real need for infant care in the community. She . PLANNING COMMISSION August 28, 1991 Page 6 explained some of the costs involved in providing the day care, including the insurance and the cost of the food which is not paid for by the food program. She stated she makes about $600 per month providing day care and she is willing to do it because she wants to stay home with her own children. Karen Unger, 512 Ahlvers Road, the mother of three, stated there is a need for affordable and safe day care on which she can rely. The need to provide day care should be carefully balanced with the needs of the City to control day care centers. The Fire Department knows where day care centers are located without the permitting process, as they are notified by DSHS. If more than one day care happens to locate on a block, it is because they are fulfilling a need. If day cares do create problems in neighborhoods, those problems can be addressed through the City's nuisance ordinance. There is an increased number of working mothers, which increases the demand for day care. The City should not be concerned about an over-supply of day care centers. Day care centers would not become a problem to the City if they are unregulated. . Chairman Gruver asked staff if noise and traffic problems could be addressed in the nuisance ordinance. Mr. Collins responded that noise could be addressed by the nuisance ordinance, but doubted that a day care center would generate enough noise to constitute a nuisance. He did not believe the nuisance ordinance could be invoked to handle any problems with the number of vehicle trips generated by a day care home. Tami Brodhun, 214 Dogwood Place, stated she makes as little as $300 per month in day care. She has thought of going un- licensed to avoid the bureaucratic red tape. She read a letter from the Peninsula Childrens' Center in support of exempting day cares to the Planning Commission. Natalie Bryant, 925 East Orcas, stated when she first opened her day care center two years ago, she checked with the City and was told that there was no conditional use permit required and she was licensed by the State. She was surprised when she was informed that she did need to apply for a Conditional Use Permit. Her monthly gross income ranges between $500 and $1,100. It cost her $2,000 to get a conditional use permit in Kirkland, and it has cost her $5,000 to meet the State's requirements to open up a day care in Port Angeles. The Kirkland cost for the conditional use permit was generated mainly from the requirement to provide landscaping to create a noise buffer zone. In response to a question from the Planning Commission, Ms. Bryant stated that of the $5,000 she spent upgrading her home for a day care, very little of that upgrade would have been made had she not opened a day care. . Kathy Mitrovitch, 2110 West Fourth Street, stated it is diffi- cult to find infant care. She noted day care providers not only have to put up with the stress that goes with the state licensing procedures, but they also have to constantly deal PLANNING COMMISSION August 28, 1991 Page 7 . with the concerns and questions of parents. viders are always under extreme scrutiny. Day care pro- Cindy Crumb, 427 East Park, stated she has a child with leukemia who is not allowed to be cared for in a day care center but she hopes in the next year or two he may be allowed to be cared for a~ a family home day care center. She noted that family day care centers provide an important service in that there are many unwed teen-aged mothers who need day care so they may be freed up to seek employment and provide for their family. Sue Packman, 207 Alderwood Circle, stated she is an employer of two young women and if there is quality day care in the community, her employees are more likely to keep their minds on their jobs, rather than worrying about their children. Laura Coldbeck, 813 West 15th street, stated in her neigh- borhood she has more problems with the City trucks from the Corporation Yard than she would with a day care. She read a letter from Mark Gray to the Planning commission in support of the proposed ordinance. . Pat Filion, 1110 West Fourth street, read a letter of support to the Planning Commission from an unidentified individual. She noted when she received a letter from the City stating that a Conditional Use Permit is required, it was almost the last straw, resulting in her quitting the business. Carrie Wanner, 616 East 11th Street, stated that she is a mother and she has had a difficult time finding a licensed day care center. She read into the record a letter from Linda Putnam to the Planning Commission in support of exempting day care centers from Conditional Use Permits. Doris Ehlke, 4508 Old Mill Road, stated she is a licensed provider and explained there are many expenses involved in operating a day care center in providing food and replacing toys and equipment and maintaining the home. She read into the record a letter from Jay McDougal to the Planning Commis- sion in support of exemption of day cares from Conditional Use Permits. There being no further public testimony, Chairman Gruver closed the public, hearing at 9:50 P.M. . In response to direct questions from the Planning commission, Nancy Martin stated that every provider present at this meeting is licensed by the State; that it would be difficult to identify unlicensed providers because of the secrecy and guardedness of those operations. By eliminating the require- ment for a Conditional Use Permit, it will be easier to recruit day care providers. Parent Line and the State will be embarking on a recruiting venture in the near future. They are also working to eliminate unnecessary barriers created by the Department of Social and Health Services. The change of . . . PLANNING COMMISSION August 28, 1991 Page 8 the ordinance would probably not encourage existing unlicensed providers to become licensed. Many of those providers are not operating within the requirements of the State already; they do not meet standards; they may have excessive numbers of children; and also they would not be aware of the city IS regulations. Mr. Leonard moved to forward a favorable recommendation to the City Council, citing the following findings and conclusions: FINDINGS: 1. The Zoning Ordinance does not permit by right day care facilities in any zoning district within the City. 2. The Zoning Ordinance does not make a specific distinction between size and type of day care facilities. 3. The Zoning Ordinance requires that all day care facili- ties obtain a Conditional Use Permit, regardless of type, size, and location. 4. The Zoning Ordinance does not permit by right residential care facilities in any zoning district within the City. 5. The Zoning Ordinance does not make a distinction between size and type of residential care facilities. 6. The Zoning Ordinance requires that all residential care facilities obtain a Conditional Use Permit, regardless of size, type, and location. 7. The State I s model ordinances for day care and residential care facilities have been considered for this proposal. 8. The Comprehensive Plan has been considered with respect to the Zoning Code Amendments. 9. Recent census studies indicate Changing composition of family groups and higher incidence of employment of both parents outside the home. CONCLUSIONS: A. The Zoning Code Amendments are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and specifically with Residential Policies Nos. 2 and 18, Commercial Policy No.1, Social Policy No.4, Social Objectives Nos. 2 and 3, Land Use Objectives Nos. 1 and 2, and the following Goals: A community where development and use of the land are done in a manner that is compatible with the environment, the characteristics of the use and the users. PLANNING COMMISSION August 28, 1991 Page 9 . The prov1s10n of community facilities which meet the needs of the people of all areas of the city and enhance the character and quality of all areas of the city. A community of viable neighborhoods and variety of opportunities for personal interaction, fulfillment and enjoyment, attractive to people of all ages, charac- teristics and interests. B. The amendments would contribute to provision of afford- able, quality day care which is critical to the well- being of parents and children in the community and is a needed community service. C. The amendments would contribute to prov1s~on of housing facilities for special needs populations and therefore fulfills a needed community service. D. Changes in circumstances of family relationships have occurred since the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan were adopted. E. The proposed amendment is in the publ ic use and interest. . The motion was seconded by Ms. Souders. Mr. Leonard stated the day care providers should start working on the State to have the State remove many of the unnecessary barriers they are putting forth. In response to questions from the Planning Commission, Mr. Collins explained the three levels of residential care facilities classification as contained in the state's model ordinance. The city does not have experience with the level of detail provided in the State's definitions. The group home classification was retained, because it is not as specific as the residential care facilities definitions. It does provide the broadest term possible and may include uses which go beyond residential care facilities definitions. Mr. Collins explained that residential care facilities are recommended as a Conditional Use Permit, along with group homes, in the Office Commercial District because the OC District is a less intensive district than other commercial districts, such as ACD and CBD. On call for the question, the motion passed unanimously. Chairman Gruver commented that the day care providers' presentation was very well organized. . The Planning commission took a break at 10:15 and reconvened at 10:20. . . . PLANNING COMMISSION August 28, 1991 Page 10 V COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC None. VI STAFF REPORTS 1. Draft Clearinq and Gradinq Ordinance Mr. Collins presented the draft clearing and grading ordinance and suggested the Planning commission should set a public hearing for the second regular meeting in September. Also at that meeting the Planning commission will be reviewing the critical areas ordinances, and it would be appropriate all of these two ordinances be considered at the same time. The Planning Commission and staff discussed various ways to notify interested parties of actions and projects which were being considered by the Planning commission, such as the proposed clearing and grading ordinance. Mr. Collins presented the revised long-range meeting schedule for the next six months and discussed scheduling concerns with respect to Growth Management deadlines. VII REPORTS OF COMMISSION MEMBERS Mr. Leonard noted there is a seminar sponsored by the Board of Realtors which provides an excellent overview of the planning process, and encouraged the Commissioners to attend, if possible. Mr. Collins added there is an opportunity at this time for those Planning Commissioners who wish to join the American P~anning Association. Mr. Gruver noted that one of the Mr. Anabel noted that the soffit lights City Hall are still burned out. to broken. VIII ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting at 10:50 P.M. The Catts and carried unanimously. ary JJ: LM PLAN. 498 . PLEASE SIGN IN CITY OF PORT ANGELES Attendance Roster Type OfM~ p~~co~n Date . 99 / Location 21 - ~th Street -. ~I Name Address . f). , <- j /\/J,c it! {J I :J (1JuJj~ ~ UP-bI1 ~ (;J~ it:/&.hL J ~ ~3YO Dd t: 2 /3 xf I f3nJ,rH-A/*1 0 u-: ~S-tJ7 tf.LeI~~ 1&, Ie/Ie, c'-/(fj ?'02Y ~~_ /3~~ ~ .- ~~ "331/ M,c-- cJ '-/;<7 E f)~ ~1-~UM O..:f 0 'JL ~ - ...~ . PLEASE SIGN IN CITY OF PORT ANGELES Attendance Roster Type of Meeting Planning Commission Date Location 321 E. 5th Street - City Hall Name Address . .