Gig Harbor Peninsula Advisory Commission (PAC) July 27, 2016 Meeting Minutes

Transcription

1 Gig Harbor Peninsula Advisory Commission (PAC) July 27, 2016 Meeting Minutes Minutes of the Gig Harbor Peninsula Advisory Commission (PAC) are not verbatim. Recorded copies are available upon request. MEMBERS PRESENT: Gordon Ballantyne, Chair Troy Johnson Michael Murphy MEMBER ABSENT: Adrienne Barlow (excused) Joe Norberg Lucinda Wingard Rainer Frank (excused) Comprehensive Plan Amendment Discussion Jeff Mann, Senior Planner, explained to the Commission that the proposed Shoreline Master Program (SMP) is still under review by the State Department of Ecology. Currently, the Gig Harbor Peninsula Community Plan prohibits docks in the Conservancy and Natural Environments. However, the proposed SMP prohibits docks in only the Natural Environment. Council will submit a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to the Community Plan prohibiting docks in both Environments. This Commission, Planning Commission, and the County Council will have an opportunity to review the proposal. Staff presented the case at 6:40 p.m. Conditional Use Permit / Administrative Design Review / Site Plan Review: Christian Faith Center Applications , , , Applicant: Request: Christian Faith Center Applicant proposing to construct a new 9,794-square foot church building with associated parking and landscaping on two parcels totaling 1.5 acres. The request will also include an Administrative Design Review (ADR) and a Site Plan Review (SPR) to deviate from some of the community plan standards. The proposed site is located at th Street Court NW, Gig Harbor, in Council District #7. Sam Yekalam, Project Manager, summarized the Initial Project Review, and gave a PowerPoint presentation to the Commission. Responding to Commission question, Mr. Yekalam stated that the site is devoid of all but four significant trees. The applicants propose about 25% impervious surface cover with a pervious parking lot. There will be no on-street parking allowed. Mr. Yekalam concluded that the applicants must provide pedestrian connectivity to the adjacent commercial areas. Responding to Commission question, Mr. Yekalam stated: Main access to the church and parcels to the rear is a private, 24-foot road. There is no outlet access. Proposed buffers are east-30 feet, north-25 ft., south-8 ft. and west (SR 302) about 40 ft. Applicants propose retention of four significant trees. The project site is comprised of two, 1.5-acre parcels, a 60,000-gallon water tank, drainfield, and an existing well. The church property and the utility lots are not contiguous. Project site is located within an aquifer recharge area. Proposed drainfield is on the 3.7-acre parcel and reviewed by the Health Department. PAC Meeting Minutes July 27, 2016 Page 1 of 5

2 APPLICANT TESTIMONY Casey Treat, Senior Pastor Christian Faith Center, gave a brief history of their church and their hopes for this site. He felt the church would be able to help support the community by holding training sessions for fire department, domestic violence programs, etc. The Church s goal is to create a place for people to raise a family. They average about 200 people attending services. AGENT TESTIMONY Greg Zetterberg, designer, stated the church will be a single level building with a rural barn look and modern features. Mr. Zetterberg reviewed the design standard deviations, explaining: They propose a 4-ft. rockery or raised stem wall on the north, and 1 ft. in the parking lot to meet grade change. They will remove all but four significant trees and a large fir. They plan to vacate the access easement for existing homes. Vegetative buffers will meet Code requirements. Proposed buffers are L2 on the north and east, and a 20-ft. L3, which includes the 5 trees. They cannot meet the required L4 requirements due to site size and parking requirements. The SR 302 buffer will remain natural. The site and proposed building size prohibit a 50-ft. perimeter round the building. Proposed building orientation could allow future expansion to the north. Illumination and parking lot landscaping will meet Code requirements. The garbage area and HVAC units will be on the east side and screened. The building façade will be natural cedar and stone with horizontal, not vertical, windows. Ken Braaten, 8802 Randall Dr. NW, stated that there are no sewer or water lines. They are working with Washington Water to enhance the area wells. They plan to drill a well and place a drainfield outside the Purdy Creek buffer area. They will include a water storage area for sprinkling. Responding to Commission question, Mr. Braaten stated that all area homes are on wells, and that they propose pervious concrete for the parking lot. Tim Holderman, Sound Engineering, 5007-Pacific Hwy E, Suite 7, Fife, stated that they will use pervious asphalt or concrete for the parking and sidewalk. The roof will drain to an infiltration system. The site soils are conducive for this type of proposal. Responding to Commission question, Mr. Zetterberg stated that an L2 buffer with an additional 30-ft. grass/ground cover area should lessen the impact to the neighbors on the east. The new HVAC systems are pretty quiet and do not always run. They will screen and perhaps plant arbor vitae to lessen the impacts. They submitted a traffic design plan to the County, and no additional turn lanes or lights are required. The building will have Hardie Plank siding. They request a deviation for length. They do not propose modulations on the east side at this time. PUBLIC TESTIMONY Dave Burk, neighbor across SR 302, said he is looking forward to seeing a building that meets the standards. A number of neighborhood buildings do not. PAC DISCUSSION Case reviewer-ballantyne. Visited the site and expressed concern about the HVAC units and garbage site next to the neighbor, especially with the buffer reduction from 50 to 30 ft.; garbage truck noise and smells; L2 buffer is inadequate to provide a buffer for vehicle head lights parking on the east and cars driving north. He is not as concerned about the building itself. He would light to ensure that parking lot island lighting does not intrude on the neighbors. It will be an attractive addition to the neighborhood. PAC Meeting Minutes July 27, 2016 Page 2 of 5

3 Commission comments included: The building may be too large for the site. Large, flat surface facing the neighbor may magnify sound, especially with HVAC on that side. Deviations from the design standards are similar to the variance process. The Administrative Design Review process is not part of the public process. The ADR process shows the preponderance and demonstrates the intent to meet the design standards. The buffer to the east does not belong to the church. Concerned about the lack of buffering to the north. Need to mitigate. The road is part of the parcel to the north, which is inadequate for access. The site needs more trees. Concerned about reflective surfaces, HVAC, garbage, and reduced buffer to the east. Length of time for an L2 buffer to mature. Motion made (Ballantyne/Norberg) to recommend approval of the Initial Project Review as written. Request conditions of approval to include: 1) Move the HVAC and garbage so they do not face the residence to the east. 2) Increase the L2 buffer on the north and east. 3) Require building modulation on the east façade of building. 4) Use only down lighting, not broadcast. VOTE: Gordon Ballantyne Yes Joe Norberg Yes Troy Johnson Yes Lucinda Wingard No Michael Murphy Yes Wingard-Plan is too large for the site. The building should be modified and downsized. Should not grant a variance for reduced buffers. Motion passed as presented (4-1) The case concluded at 7:50 p.m. Staff presented the case at 7:55 p.m. Conditional Use Permit: Williams Tree and Stump Removal Application Applicant: Request: Michael Williams Operate a home based tree service business (also called Cottage Industry 2). The business consists of: Parking for three trucks on the site near the existing second detached 1,728-square foot garage/shop. Parking of three cars on the site (primarily in the evening). A bay inside the existing 1,728-square foot detached garage/shop used for truck maintenance. A 400-square foot office for the business in the existing 1,404-square foot singlefamily home. Ray Hoffmann, Associate Planner, summarized the Initial Project Review, and gave a PowerPoint presentation to the Commission. Responding to Commission question, Mr. Hoffmann commented: The County is flexible with cottage industry standards if a site is over five acres. The use must meet both the minimums of the cottage industry section and the conditional use permit requirements. The code establishes maximums, not the minimum. Most of the operation is done off site. There is one maintenance bay and exterior vehicle storage. This will not be a retail site use. PAC Meeting Minutes July 27, 2016 Page 3 of 5

4 (page 6) Perimeter L3 buffer and fencing is required. Unique, separated parcel. A condominium line is the same as a parcel, but has separate tax statements. Maintenance is done inside the existing garage and the office is in the house. AGENT TESTIMONY Carl Halsan, representing the applicant, stated that this level of business requires a conditional use permit. The Hearing Examiner reviews the Required Findings shown on page 10 of the Report. Conditions of approval include an L3 buffer and F1 fencing around the perimeter. There is only one land use parcel with two tax parcels. The perimeter fencing will only surround Mr. Williams land use parcel. They will try to add as many native plants as possible with a landscape plan approved by the County. Responding to Commission question, Mr. Halsan stated that the applicants only use a portion of the existing building for the business, and there is no office in the home. APPLICANT TESTIMONY Michael Williams, applicant, stated that he has made changes to his business after discussions with neighbors. He no longer runs chippers, spreaders, etc. except to replace parts. Staff works varied hours some working as early as 7:15 and leaving at 7:00 p.m. There is no longer truck warming or idling allowed. The trucks and equipment are now hand washed; pressure washers are no longer used. The shop occupies one bay and an enclosed workspace for time reporting, etc. There is very little work done on site other than changing chipper knives. They park all vehicles, employee and business, outside. There is no bulk fuel or oil storage on site. They do not grind, chip, or split fire production for sale, only for personal use. They only bring in stump waste for personal or neighbor use. Mr. Williams concluded that he purchased the property in 2014, and cleaned up the site PUBLIC TESTIMONY Sherry Grogan, th St. Ct. NW (back of her lot abuts the Williams fence), commented that the Williams property was clear-cut. She used to see all the trucks on their property. He reconfigured and began parking near the existing building. He put a wooden fence partially along her property. She expressed concern that there is not much noise abatement, property values, and small trees planted. Ms. Grogan concluded that business practices have recently changed. David Langer, rd St. NW (immediately north), is here to support the proposal. They have had a positive experience with the Williams. The Williams have done a lot to improve the look of the property; they are quality neighbors who have been helpful with neighborhood issues. There is no more noise in the evenings than any other area property owner. Joyce Raust, th St. Ct. NW, stated that her courtyard backs up to the shop. She stated that the business began in 2014 with a lot of noise. She expressed concern about trucks running six days a week; diesel trucks idling; chippers, pressure washers, and chain saws making a lot of noise. Overall, the business produces a lot of noise. Responding to Commission question, Ms. Raust stated that she has not hired an acoustic engineer to conduct a noise study. Pam Jackson, th St. Ct. NW (along the south side), stated that the bays open to the back of the Williams property. She expressed concern about truck repairs, dust, and noise levels. This business should be in an industrial, not residential, area. Bill Stults, rd St. NW (two lots north of Williams), stated that the original trees along the north are gone. Referencing noise concerns expressed by others, the first year was objectionable, but it has dramatically decreased. He would like to make sure that the chipper is not operated on the site. The L3 buffer may solve the noise issue. He does not want to have a view of the operations and the lack of trees are an issue. PAC Meeting Minutes July 27, 2016 Page 4 of 5

5 PAC DISCUSSION Case reviewer-wingard. Wants to ensure that the Planner review buffer requirements for this property and short plat. The 2014 aerial photo presented by staff does not give an accurate depiction of the site; she would suggest using the more current Google maps. She further suggests use of a more professional site plan at the public hearing. The bay faces south with a fence and some new trees planted in response to neighbor complaints. The site is very tidy and not out of character with other buildings on site. The drive in on 14th, which is not that dusty, and 140th is heavily wooded so vehicle lights should not be a problem. Chipping could be a problem if done on site. She would recommend a buffer along the south side. Commission comments included: Noise is a potential issue on this site with trucks. Some type of buffer to attenuate the noise should be required. Cottage industry requirements are usually for inside, not outside, operations. An L3 landscape berm seems to be a significant buffer with the addition of a fence. Primary industry is off-site. This is only used for employee and business parking. There is no manufacturing or equipment maintenance done on site. Motion made (Wingard/Norberg) to recommend approval of the conditional use application for a cottage industry as proposed by the planner, adding the following conditions: No storage of bulk fuel or oil on site No grinding or storing of ground waste on site No retail firewood production on site The Commission also encourages staff to find an appropriate noise level mitigation for this use and this location other than the strict noise standards of the Code while the buffer takes hold. VOTE: Gordon Ballantyne Yes Joe Norberg Yes Troy Johnson Yes Lucinda Wingard Yes Michael Murphy Yes Commission chair Ballantyne would recommend eliminating the noise abatement acoustic requirement. Motion unanimously passed (5-0) The case concluded at 8:50 p.m. OTHER BUSINESS Minutes June 22, 2016 minutes review tabled until August 10, 2016 Motion made (Wingard/Murphy) to approve the July 13, 2016 minutes as presented. The meeting adjourned 8:55 p.m. /cla/ta PAC Meeting Minutes July 27, 2016 Page 5 of 5