Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutFinal DNS - PLN General - 12/9/1981 c I Z MASON COUNTY FINAL DECLARATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE Description of proposal Convert existing structure to restaurant with 60+ seating capacity. Proponent Maxie L. McCowan Location of Proposal SR 300, approximately .2 miles northeast of Lynch Cove Subdivision and directly adjacent to Gladwin Beach Road. Lead Agency Mason Regional Planning Council This proposal has been determined to not have a significant adverse impact upon the environment. An EIS is not required under RCW 43.21C.030 (2)(c) . This decision was made after review by the lead agency of a completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead agency. Responsible Official Ken Stevens Position/Title Director, Mason Regional Planning Council Date December 9, 1981 Signature 4 Department of Ecology Date August 18, 1981 Dept. of Social & Health Services Mason County Health Department Mason County Sheriff �o= State Liquor Control Board Department of Transportation Re: Proposed Declaration of Non-Significance For: Maxie L. McCowan Star Route 2, Box 46 Belfair, Washington 98528 Project: Convert existing structure to .restaurant with 60+ seating capacity. Mason County, upon reviewing an environmental checklist and other data within its files, is issuing a Proposed Declaration of Non-Significance for the above referenced project (copy enclosed) . Attached is an environmental checklist and description of the project. If there are no objections within 15 days to the proposed declaration, a final declaration of non-significance will be made on September 2, 1981 Sincerely, JWA Ken Stevens Mason Regional Planning Director Enclosures. U� �� � c.. ��� ;. / .. "� /f/�/1.fi � j ���'. _ �u'���, �, �� "' �.�✓' G ;� J,� �n�� � ��G'� ��� ,, o - � � ��� ��-v ���� %�% E.R. No._A--20 Introduction: The State Environmental Policy Act of 1971, Chapter 43.21C, RCS , requires all state and local governmental agencies to consider environmental values both for their own actions and when licensing private proposals. The Act also requires that an EIS be prepared for all major actions significantly affecting the quality of the environment. The purpose of this checklist is to help the agencies involved determine whether or not a proposal is such a major action. Please answer the following questions as completely as you can with the information presently available to you. Where explana- tions of your answers are required, or where you believe an ex- planation would be helpful to government decision makers, include your explanation in the space provided, or use additional pages if necessary. You should include references to any reports or studies of which you are aware and which are relevant to the answers you provide. Complete answers to these questions will help all agencies involved with your proposal to undertake the required environmental review without unnecessary delay. The following questions apply to your total proposal, not just to the license for which you are currently applying or the proposal for which approval is sought. Your answers should include the impacts which will be caused by your proposal when it is complet- ed, even though completion may not occur until sometime in the future. This will allow all of the agencies which will be involved to complete their environmental review now, without duplicating paper�,7ork in the future. NOTE: This is a standard form being used by all state and local agencies in the State of t-,Tashington for various types of propos- als. Tiany of the questions may not apply to your proposal. If a question does not apply, just answer it "no" and continue on the the next question. ENVIROT,PAENTAL CHECKLIST FORM I BACKGROUND 1. Name of Proponent (flax. L � � L'o�a.,✓ 2. Address and phone number of proponent: S TgU- )Q T- a2 Lox y4 112 7s- v"y 1(4 3. Date Checklist Submitted 4. agency Requiring Checklist S. '?ame of Proposal,s if applicable: 5 a i ' r b. Nature and Brief Description of the Proposal (including; but not limited to its size, general design elements, and other factors that will give an accurate understanding of its scope and nature) : �- wo c 7. Location of Proposal (describe the physical setting of the proposal, as well as the extent of the land area affected by any environmental impacts, including any other information needed to give an accurate understand- ing of the environmental setting of the proposal) : cyav F ti oAL. T- Estimated. Date for Completion of the Proposal: 9. List of all Permits, Licenses or Government Approvals Required for the Proposal (federal, state and local--including rezones) : Y 10. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain: 11. Do you know of any plans by others which may affect the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain: a 12. Attach any other application form that has been completed regarding the proposal; if none has been completed, but is expected to be filed at some future date, describe the nature of such application form: I, the undersigned, state that to the best of my knowledge the above information is true and complete. It is understood that the lead agency may withdraw any declaration of non-significance that it might issue in reliance upon this checklist should there be any willful misrepresentation or willful lack of full disclosure on my part. Proponent C6 NOTE: To cover the Environmental Review, a check for $30, made payable to the Mason the Checklist at time of submittal. ; 'should accompan STAFF ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM Proponents Name: Maxie L. McCowan E. P. No. 81-27 - - - -- II ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Yes No (1) EaEth. Would the proposal result in: (a) Unstable earth conditions or in X changes in geologic substructures? (b) Disruptions, displacements, com- _ g paction or overcovering of the soil? (c) Change in topography or ground X surface relief features? (d) The destruction, covering or X modification of any unique geologic or physical features? (e) Any increase in wind or water X erosion of soils, either on or off the site? (f) Changes in deposition or erosion X of beach sands, or changes in silta- tion) deposition or erosion which may modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet or lake? (2) Air: Would the proposal result in: (a) Air emissions or deterioration X of ambient air quality? Once the restaurant is finished, auto traffic to and from the site will significantly increase. -1- Yes No (b) The creation of objectionable odors? X (c) Alteration of air movement, moisture X or temperature, or any change in climate, either locally or regionally? (3) Water. Would the proposal result in: (a) Changes in currents, or the course X or direction of water movements, in either marine or fresh waters? (b) Chantes in absorption rates, X drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface water runoff? (c) Alterations to the course or X flow of flood waters? (d) Change in the amount of surface X water in any water body? (e) Discharge into surface waters, X or in any alteration of surface water quality, including but not limited to temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? (f) Alteration of the direction X or rate of flow of ground waters? -` -2- (g) Change in the quantity of Yes No X ground waters, X either through "` "� direction additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer_ by cuts or excavations? (h) Deterioration in ground water X quality, either through direct in- jection, or through the seepage of leachate, phosphates, detergents, waterborne virus or bacteria, or other substances into the ground waters? (i) Reduction in the amount of X water otherwise available for public water supplies? (4) Flora. Would the proposal result in: (a) Change in the diversity of species, X or numbers of any species of flora (in- cluding trees, shrubs, grass, crops, microflora and aquatic plants)? (b) Reduction of the numbers of any X unique, rare or endangered species of flora? (c) Introduction of new species of X fauna into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of fauna? -3- (d) Reduction in acreage of any Yes No X agricultural crop? (5) Fauna. Would the proposal result in: (a) Changes in the diversity of X species, or numbers of any species of fauna (birds, land animals, in- cluding reptiles, fish and shellfish, benthic organisms, insects or micro- fauna)? (b) Reduction of the numbers of X any unique, rare or endangered species of fauna? (c) Introduction of new species of X fauna into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of fauna? (d) Deterioration to existing fish X or wildlife habitat? -`-- (6) Noise. Would the proposal increase X existing noise levels? -- Increased auto traffic will increase the ambient noise level. (7) Light and Glare: Would the proposal X produce new light or glare? "" More evening traffic and parking lights would emit more light. -4- Ye s No (8) Land Use. Would the proposal X result in the alteration of the present or planned land use of an area? The site is presently used for a gift shop and storage. (9) Natural Resources. Would the pro- posal result in: (a) Increase in the rate of use X of any natural resources? (b) Depletion ,of any nonrenewable X natural resource? ---- (10) Risk of Upset. Does the proposal X involve a risk of an explosion or release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation) in the event of an accident or upset conditions? (11) Eopula_tion. Would the proposal alter X the location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the human population of an area? (12) Houw s g. Would the proposal affect X existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing? -5- (13) Transportation/Circulation. Would Yes No the proposal result in: (a) Generation of additional X vehicular movement? Currently there is a small amount of traffic to the site. It is anticipated there will be two dinner seatings a night of sixty or more people. (b) Effects on existing parking X facilities, or demand for new parking? The owner would provide parking on site. (c) Impact upon existing transportation X systems? (d) Alterations to waterborne, rail X circulation or movement of people and/or goods? (e) Alterations to waterborne, rail X or air traffic? --- (f) Increase in traffic hazards to X motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedest- rians? Some increase of traffic hazards would occur with increased use of site. (14) Pub-lic Services. Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered governmental services in any of the following areas: (a) Fire protection? X -6- (b) Police protection? Yes NoX (c) Schools? X (d) Parks or other recreational X facilities? ---- (e) Maintenance of public facili- X ties, including roads? �`- (f) Other governmental services? X (15) Energy. Would the proposal result in: (a) Use of substantial amount of X fuel or energy? (b) Demand upon existing sources X of energy, or require the develop- ment of new sources of energy? The demand for electrical energy would significantly rise from present usage. (16) Utilities. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems, or alterations to the following utilities: (a) Power or natural gas? X -7- (b) Communications systems? Yes No X (c) Water? X (d) Sewer pr septic tanks? X The owner is currently working with the Mason County Health Department on the necessary facilities. (e) Storm water drainage? X (f) Solid waste and disposal? X (17) Human Health. Would the proposal X result in the creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding mental health)? Assuming that the restaurant was managed properly no health hazard would exist. (18) Aesthetics. Would the proposal X result in the obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public, or will the proposal re- sult in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? (19) Recreation. Would the proposal X result in an impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? -8- (20) Archeological/Historical. Would Yes No the proposal result in an alter- ation of a significant archeological or historical site, structure, object or building? Discussion: The location of the site is alongSR 300 approximately .2 of a mile northeast of Lynch Cove subdivision. The driveway to the site is adjacent to G1 adwin Beach Road . The "Little Red Barn" currently houses a gift shop and storage. Most of the building is unused. The applicant anticipates seating capacity of sixty or more (depending on Building and Health Department requirements ) and having two Beatings per evening. He also anticipates a cocktail lounge and retail liquor sales. To the west of the site are two lots with residences . Approximately 1/4 mile on Gladwin Beach Road is the site of the proposed 24 unit Scenic Shores Development. Two residences exist to the east. The applicant owns the nearest residence and intends to remove it from the area. The site is 2-3 acres in size, the majority of which will remain as open space. The applicant intends to provide parking behind the present building and to the northeast. A well exists at the site. The applicant is obtaining a well site approval from the Mason County Health Department. It is anticipated that this project would not have a signifi- cant environmental impact. A proposed declaration of non-signifi- cance is being circulated. /N,o Sta f Planner s Signature -9- SJAT�O� C 9 JOHN SPELLMAN — �P Governor �y oy" DONALD W %10O5 Dire(tor STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY Mail Stop PV-11 • Olympia, Washington 98504 • (206)753-2800 D August 28, 1981 S EP Q 1 1981 REGICN.�\ PLANNING Mr. Ken Stevens Mason Regional Planning Director P.O. Box 186 Shelton, Washington 98584 Dear Mr. Stevens: Thank you for the opportunity to review the proposed declaration of nonsignificance for conversion of an existing structure to the Red Barn Restaurant as proposed by Maxie McCowan. Our main concern relates to sewage disposal. Information is needed on the soils and water table in this area to determine the suitability of sewage disposal by septic tank/drainfield. If you have any questions, please call Mr. Jim Krull of our Southwest Regional Office at 753-1045. Sincerely, Barbara J. Rrtchie Environmental Review Section BJR:llc cc: Mr. Jim Krull � 3 JOHN SPELLMAN Y: Governor t��.tir O>,.� ��` �i�:_��,, , d S I ATE OF�VASHINGTC)N DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Office of District Administrator • 5720 Capitol Blvd.k 7--1 1, Tur;4vaier. Washington • P.O. Box 9327, Olympia, Washington 9850-4 September 3, 198 M E U E 0 D Mr. Ken Stevens, Director S E P U 9 1981 Mason Regional Planning Council P.O. Box 186 Shelton, WA 98584 • -A' PLANNING C.S. 2333 SR 300 MP 1.07 Vic. Proposed Restaurant: Maxie L. McCowan Proposed Declaration of Non-Significance E.C. File No. ME-1-48 Dear Mr. Stevens: We have reviewed the proposal as it relates to the Department's existing or proposed transportation facilities and have the following comments: In the interest of safety and operational consideration to the general traveling public, the Department is limiting access to the State High- way System wherever possible. Therefore, we will require that all access to SR 300 for the proposed restaurant be via the easement which intersects the highway at the northwesterly corner of Tract 1. The existing road approach which is located adjacent to the Gladwin Beach Road intersection is not to be used for access to the restaurant because of conflicting traffic movements that would be created by the restaurant traffic. An application for the permit which will be required in order for the easement road approach to serve the restaurant may be obtained from the State Highway Superintendent located at 4590 State Highway No. 3 S.W. , Port Orchard, WA 98366, telephone 478-4664. The Super- intendent will determine what must be done to upgrade the easement road approach so it can provide safe access to the highway for the restaurant. One of the conditions of the road approach permit will be that the existing approach which is adjacent to the Gladwin Beach Road be removed. Advertising signs for the restaurant, which are visible from the State highway, must comply with the State Scenic Vistas Act of 1971. Contact Don Hicks at 753-7226 if there are questions con- cerning the signing regulations. Thank you for the opportunity to review the proposal. If there are any questions regarding our comments, please contact me at 753-7260. Very truly yours, ARM:bs A.R. MORRELL, P.E. RAM/RLA District Admi 's rator cc: D. Taylor J. Timmis Public Trans. & Plan. B A. MATTILA, P.E. KF-01 _. Asst. District Location Engineer i )()I 1N SPI LI MAN -R Governor ',' U('ANf (3(k(tilsON �4'(relor` STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Office of District Administrator • 5720 Capitol Blvd.k T-1 1, Tumwater, Washington • P.O.Box 9327, Olympia, Washington 985(4 September 3, 198 M E @ E 0W E D Mr. Ken Stevens, Director $EP U 9 1981 Mason Regional Planning Council P.O. Box 186 Shelton, WA 98584 RCC�C)NAL PLANNING C.S. 2333 SR 300 MP 1.07 Vic. Proposed Restaurant: Maxie L. MCCowan Proposed Declaration of Non-Significance E.C. File No. ME-1-48 Dear Mr. Stevens: We have reviewed the proposal as it relates to the Department's existing or proposed transportation facilities and have the following comments: In the interest of safety and operational consideration to the general traveling public) the Department is limiting access to the State High- way System wherever possible. Therefore, we will require that all access to SR 300 for the proposed restaurant be via the easement which intersects the highway at the northwesterly corner of Tract 1. The existing road approach which is located adjacent to the Gladwin Beach Road intersection is not to be used for access to the restaurant because of conflicting traffic movements that would be created by the restaurant traffic. An application for the permit which will be required in order for the easement road approach to serve the restaurant may be obtained from the State Highway Superintendent located at 4590 State Highway No. 3 S.W. , Port Orchard, WA 98366, telephone 478-4664. The Super- intendent will determine what must be done to upgrade the easement road approach so it can provide safe access to the highway for the restaurant. One of the conditions of the road approach permit will be that the existing approach which is adjacent to the Gladwin Beach Road be removed. Advertising signs for the restaurant, which are visible from the State highway, must comply with the State Scenic Vistas Act of 1971. Contact Don Hicks at 753-7226 if there are questions con- cerning the signing regulations. Thank you for the opportunity to review the proposal. If there are any questions regarding our comments, please contact me at 753-7260. Very truly yours, ARM:bs A.R. MORRELL, P.E. RAM/RLA District Admi 's rator cc: D. Taylor J. Timmis Public Trans. & Plan. B I.A. MATTILA, P.E. KF-01 Asst. District Location Engineer 9T• )OHN STILLMAN ' Governor DUANE Secretary STATE C►E WASHiN(;TON [DEPARTMENT OF TRAM-SPORTATION Office of District Administrator • 5720 Capitol Blvd KT-1 t, Turnwater, Washington • P.O.Box 9327, Olympia, Washl"Wton 1)l35(N September 119 1981 l�J U L5 D Maxie L. McGowan Star Route 2 Box 46 S t P 14 'H81 Belfair, Washington 98528 SR 300 C.S. 2333 � G G��.'�L PLANNING Belfair St. Park to Belfair Mi i c Post 1 nQ Road Approach Request Dear Mr. McCowan: We have reviewed your application to enlarge the existing approach to the Red Barn Gift Shop to accomodate traffic generated by a restau- rant and other businesses. Because of the proximity to Gladwin Beach Road and the anticipated traffic volume to your revised business, we do not believe that this is a proper location for the enlarged business. Therefore, we do not concur in the request and have advised Mason County Planning Department of the need to relocate the driveway easterly to the center of the 60 foot easement and the removal of the driveway. Upon our receipt of a new application, fora enclosed, we will issue a Type D commercial approach to your new business at Mile Post 1.12 which will require removal of the existing approach within 30 days Of completion of the new. We realize that this causes a revision to your plan, but it will provide the best access and minimum traffic conflicts on State Route 300. Please call ine at 753-7215 after September 21, 1981 if you have any questions on this approach. Very truly yours, A. R. MORRELL District Administrator ?By-:- JOHN B. TIMMIS trict Utilities Engineer ARM/clv JBT Attachments cc: D. Taylor Mason County Planning Council ..-y-�" Mr. Ken Stevens, Director Dick Anderson P.O, Box 186 Shelton, WA 98584 � a � s Jr - cL tn 05 � o T � u P 0 0 ' i O � I ' lz -- U 00 sr�,N Z red e- V Ila 0 s r - ' 0 3SO Noo - BEiKG N- \ w Q� E � MENT- L IN r,� s vs)e o. 1 NIA R Z_ C.VANS-E S a / o a r ys .I0 Q i _SNORT PLAT � o;= G 0v. Lor Z 3,5 tom-O TIOV% oc THE SJ NI �G,• MANGE i WEST W• M .