HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-25-2012 Planning Commission Minutes- - 1
REGULAR MEETING January 25, 2012
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
CALL TO ORDER:
The meeting was called to order at 7:00pm by Chairman Cruz.
POSITION MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT
No. 1 Michael Levin
No. 2 James Hay
No. 3 Andy Anderson
No. 4 Alecia Greenaway
No. 5 Joe Cruz
No. 6 Kurt Lukins
No. 7 Zahra Kahn
No. 8 Jana Kempf
No. 9 Vacant
APPEARANCE OF FAIRNESS:
Chairman Cruz read a statement about the appearance of fairness for hearings on land use
matters. Chairman Cruz asked if any Commission member had anything to declare.
Commissioner Anderson and Commissioner Hay both declared that they needed to be
removed from the Public Hearing regarding the Shriners Circus (MF# SP2011-016) due to
both being a part of the Shriners. Due to a lack of quorum if both commissioners were
removed, Community & Economic Development Director, Rick White, recommended that
only Commissioner Anderson remove himself from the Public Hearing since Commissioner
Anderson was on the Board of Directors for the Shriners, as long as Commissioner Hay
could remain objective. Commissioner Hay indicated that he could remain object regarding
the Shriners Circus.
Chairman Cruz then asked the audience if there were any objections based on a conflict of
interest or appearance of fairness questions regarding the items to be discussed this
evening. There were no objections.
ADMINISTERING THE OATH:
Chairman Cruz explained that state law requires testimony in quasi-judicial hearings such
as held by the Planning Commission be given under oath or affirmation. Chairman Cruz
swore in all those desiring to speak.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Chairman Cruz motioned to approve the minutes dated December 15, 2011. Commissioner
Anderson moved, seconded by Commissioner Hay, that the minutes dated December 15,
2011 be approved as mailed. The Motion passed unanimously.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
A. Special Permit
Shriners Circus (MF# SP2011-016)
- - 2
Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff.
Shane O’Neill (Planner I), reviewed details of the report for the benefit of the Planning
Commission. El Katif Shriners applied for a special permit to operate a temporary circus on
a portion of the GESA stadium parking lot located at 6200 Burden Boulevard. The parking
lot is zoned both C-1 (Retail Business) and RT (Residential Transition). The proposed site is
part of the 68 acre Stadium/soccer complex that has direct access from Burden Boulevard
and Homerun Road and can be accessed without traversing other properties. The
Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation for the site is Government/Public, which is in
line with the proposed use.
For the last two years, the Shriners Circus has been located on the TRAC property directly
to the west of the subject site. To Staff’s knowledge it has operated without generating any
complaints. The Shriners are seeking special permit approval to operate the circus located
on the GESA Stadium parking lot on an annual basis for up to three consecutive years as
conditioned in the staff report. The GESA Stadium is part of the TRAC/Sports Complex.
The site contains a parking lot with 1100 parking stalls and 16 soccer fields. The site is
buffered from the adjacent residential neighborhood by an 8’ block wall and 600 feet of
soccer field. The applicant proposes to have the circus once per year for up to four days
from 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. Power generators will be housed in sound deadening
containers.
Floyd Johnson, 315 Canyon Lakes Drive, spoke in support of the Shriners Circus. He
stated that the circus has been in Pasco for a number of years and all of the proceeds go to
support Shriners Hospitals who treat children throughout the Northwest with orthopedic
problems. He had no concerns about the proposed special permit or its conditions.
Commissioner Levin moved, seconded by Commissioner Kempf to close the hearing on the
proposed temporary circus and initiate deliberations. The motion passed unanimously.
Commissioner Levin moved, seconded by Commissioner Kempf to adopt the Findings of Fact
and Conclusions therefrom as contained in the January 19, 2012 staff report. The motion
passed unanimously.
Commissioner Levin moved, seconded by Commissioner Kempf based on the Findings of
Fact and Conclusions therefrom, the Planning Commission recommend the City Council
grant a special permit to El Katif Shriners for the location of a temporary circus with
conditions as contained in the January 19, 2012 staff report. The motion passed
unanimously.
Staff explained this item will go to the next Regular City Council Meeting on February 6,
2012.
B. Code Amendment Zoning Code Revisions (Title 25) Hens &
Rabbits in “R” Zones (MF# 2012-001)
Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff.
Community & Economic Development Director, Rick White, stated that recently the
Planning Commission made a recommendation to City Council to allow hens and rabbits in
limited numbers in residential districts. During the Council review process the Council
asked the Planning Commission to reconsider the 10 foot rear yard setback requirement for
chicken coops where rear property lines abut an alley. The suggestion was made for a 5
- - 3
foot minimum setback with no openings in the hutch or coop if the rear property abuts a
public alley.
Mr. White explained from Staff’s perspective, this is a fairly minor amendment and would
request that the Planning Commission both consider the amendment and provide a
recommendation to City Council that would go to the next City Council Meeting, February
6, 2012.
The public hearing was closed after the Chairman called three times for public comments.
No comments were received.
Commissioner Anderson moved, seconded by Commissioner Kempf to adopt the Findings of
Fact as contained in the January 19, 2012 staff memo on Code Amendments for PMC
Section 25. The motion passed 5 to 1 with Commissioner Hay dissenting.
Commissioner Anderson moved, seconded by Commissioner Kempf to recommend the City
Council adopt the proposed Code Amendments modifying PMC Chapters 25.20, 25.22,
25.24, 25.26, 25.28, 25.30, 25.32, 25.34, 25.36, and 25.38 as indicated on the attached
Ordinance to allow hutches, coops and runs to be located within five (5) feet of property
lines along alleys in residential (“R”) zoning Districts. The motion passed 5 to 1 with
Commissioner Hay dissenting.
C. Comprehensive Plan
2011 Comprehensive Plan Update (MF# CPA
2011-001)
Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff.
Rick White explained that the Planning Commission has seen this item several times. The
Comprehensive Plan was last amended in 2008 and since then there have been a number of
changes that warrant the consideration of an update. One of those changes is the adoption
of the Broadmoor Concept Plan and the Boat Basin Concept Plan which were both
considered by the Planning Commission in 2009 and 2010. There have been considerable
City street and utility improvements on Capital Avenue and at SR-12 adjacent the Lewis
Street Kahlotus Highway Interchange. Those suggest minor amendments to the urban
growth boundary and this area will be requested to add into the urban growth boundary.
There are also a couple of changes occurring for a similar reason in regards to the Tidewater
Barge Terminal.
Since the update occurred last in 2007 the City has developed more than 1,700 single-
family lots creating a need to update the base map in the Comprehensive Plan with the new
subdivisions and developed streets.
The Capital Facilities Plan is proposed for updating to specifically include a number of
utility and infrastructure improvements that have occurred from a City basis and also to
include the Pasco School District’s Capital Facility Plan as a base for establishing an impact
fee ordinance.
The District’s Capital Plan identifies existing and future enrollment needs that the School
District will encounter for the next six years and matches those needs with space and
facility needs. It also identifies the service standards that the District uses to establish
classroom size and educational parameters and takes that inventory of existing facilities,
the future enrollment, service standards, and develops a list of needed capital facilities. It
also discusses a funding mechanism for those capital facilities. A portion of that funding
mechanism includes an impact fee.
- - 4
The impact fee calculation provides for a number of factors that are used in order to get to
an impact. A number of those factors take the fee from the very high amount to a figure
much more manageable after those factors are applied. The Capital Plan itself does not
contain a fee, it provides the calculation and in the calculation there is a “TBD” acronym,
meaning the impact fee will be determined after the impact fee ordinance has gone through
the political process and a decision is made.
The Pasco School District is at its physical and funding capacity for new school facilities.
The City, County, School District and Development Industry are in a situation of having no
capacity for additional school children and an inventory of approximately 1,800 single-
family lots in some form of approval that are being developed at a rate of about 400-500 per
year, which impacts the School District to a great extent but there has been no mitigation
from the new development. At the same time, we can’t provide new capacity for developers
of new subdivisions or multi-family projects unless they enter into an agreement with the
School District to specifically mitigate on a case by case basis impacts to the School
District. This creates a great deal of uncertainty and inequity.
Mr. White further went on in detail about the impact fee calculation, moving sixth graders
back to elementary school which postpones the need for another middle school which would
be significantly more expensive than an elementary school. The District has also factored in
the use of portables as a portion of the permanent capacity for students which did not occur
in the first Capital Plan. In the end, the District’s proposed fees are: $4,683.34 for single-
family and $4,525.86 for multi-family. Mitigation fees would most likely be much higher
than the proposed impact fee because of the factors that reduce the impact fee probably
aren’t going to be applied in a case by case negotiation.
Staff recommends the Planning Commission make motion to recommend the City Council
adopt a school impact fee. The actual amount of the fee will be set at a later date.
John Morgan, 425 Road 37, with the Assistant Superintendent of the Pasco School District
explained that the Pasco School Board initially adopted the Capital Facilities Plan in
December of 2010. This was sent to both the City and Franklin County and they have met
with the City on numerous occasions. They have also met with the Home Builder’s’s
Association, realtors and School District stakeholders to discuss impact fees and the need
for them within the School District as well as the impact it has on the community. In
October 2011 the School Board adopted the recommendations of the multi-track year round
task force, another alternative to look at how the District can work on alleviating the great
amount of growth there is in the School District. Reconfiguration of the elementary schools
was done to place sixth graders back into the elementary schools. It is a common concept
that many people have already done before that saves money and delayed the need for
building a new middle school but increased the need for elementary schools. Portables
becoming permanent also caused a need for the revision in the Capital Facilities Plan.
Marnie Allen, 2500 NE 65th Ave, Vancouver, WA, employed with the Educational Service
District, provides legal services and calculations for school impact fees and capital facility
plans. She explained that State law states that you can’t approve new development unless
there are adequate provisions for schools. Since there has been so much growth in the
Pasco School District consistently for 10 years, there is no longer any room in the schools to
continue to serve kids that come from new houses. New development can’t go forward
unless one of two things happen: 1) That developer has to mitigate the impacts they directly
cause on the schools, meaning they build classrooms to serve the students coming out of
new development or they enter into an agreement and make voluntary payments to the
School District equal to what it would cost to build those classrooms, 2) School impact fees.
- - 5
Option 1 is not dependable and the amount could change depending on where the
development is and what the capacity of the school is at that particular time. The builders
she has spoken to prefer the impact fees over mitigation fees. It is a more equitable way to
share the costs across all housing, it’s reliable, and produces a lower amount and defined
amount.
Ms. Allen showed the Planning Commission, Staff, and citizens a brief school impact fee
calculation and demonstration, with the formula as:
SIF= (CS X SF) - SM - TC – A
SIF= School Impact Fee
CS= Cost per Student (cost to build schools for students coming from new houses)
SF= Student Factor (student demand that new houses place on the schools)
SM= State Match Credit (money awarded by the State)
TC= Tax Credit (money back from property taxes)
A= Reduction Set by City Council (ensures developers don’t pay more than their fair
share)
This is a standard formula used by cities and counties around the state. The impact fee
has three deductions, which is something mitigation fees do not do. Deduction “A” is a
reduction percentage set by City Council at what they feel is fair. Some jurisdictions set it
at 0% and some 50%. The Pasco School District is recommending 25%.
Chairman Cruz asked Ms. Allen to clarify the definition of a multi-family impact fee. He
wanted to know if you have a multi-family duplex or apartment building, if developers paid
an impact fee was for the whole building or for just one unit. Ms. Allen answered that it
was for just one unit, so impact fees would have to be paid for each unit.
Commissioner Levin asked a question in regards to the tax credit and as to how the
developers receive it. Ms. Allen answered that it is built into the formula as a “tax
reduction”, not actual money coming back like a rebate.
Commissioner Levin asked Ms. Allen what the comments and opinions have been from
developers in other districts where impact fees have been adopted. Ms. Allen responded
that the comments have varied. When starting out implementing the impact fees there is a
huge push from both the Realtor’s Association and the Developers saying it is an aggressive
tax, it’s going to cause the cost of housing to increase, it will slow development and stop
growth but then when they have to deal with SEPA mitigations they realize the impact fees
are much more fair and equitable.
Commissioner Anderson asked Ms. Allen if she could give a number of school districts
throughout the State that are imposing an impact fee. Ms. Allen responded that she did not
have an exact answer but she thinks there are about 80-86 school districts receiving impact
fees, which is probably less than a majority. A number of school districts are also receiving
SEPA mitigations.
Chairman Cruz asked Ms. Allen to discuss the timing of impact fees or when they are to be
collected. Ms. Allen and the School District recommend the fees are collected when the
building permits are issued to give the School District time to prepare. If money isn’t
collected until the time of occupancy then the District doesn’t have the funds to even buy a
portable on time for the kids that are coming from the house.
- - 6
Rick White added to Ms. Allen’s response that when the City and School District met with
the Home Builder’s Association this past month, there was discussion about moving the
point of collection from the building permits stage to the portion of the transaction where
the fee would be paid through escrow, essentially when the sale occurred. Nothing was
decided since that is a separate process.
Marnie Allen responded to Mr. White’s response. The primary reason for the School District
tying the payment with the time of impact fees through escrow is then the entire fee gets
passed on to the buyer of the home, who then when they are asked to vote on a
maintenance and operation levy that’s not even tied to school facility construction feel
they’ve already paid it. It can be confusing and misleading to the home buyer when the cost
is wrapped into closing costs.
Jamie Southworth, 4821 Laredo Drive, stated she had three kids in the district ages 6, 9,
and 11. Her family moved to Pasco 12 years ago and when they bought a house they were
surprised at the low price of homes. All of her children are crammed into the schools. The
elementary school her children attend was built for 500 students and there are currently
almost 900. To have an assembly they have to have two sessions. Her kindergartener is in
a portable so when it rains it takes a lot of time to bundle them all up to get them out the
door, time that could be used for education.
Miranda Bollman, 4811 Lucena Drive, moved to Pasco four years ago from Clark County.
She is in support of the impact fee because she argues it does not stop homebuyers from
purchasing a home. It becomes part of buying a home.
Renee Dahlgren, 1201 W. 14th Avenue, Kennewick, WA spoke on behalf of the Home
Builder’s Association. They are a member based trade association similar to a chamber of
commerce with over 800 members representing over 10,000 employees and citizens of the
Tri-Cities. They are fundamentally opposed to the impact fee. Ms. Dahlgren gave the
following reasons for their opposition: 1) They artificially increase the price of a home, 2)
They reduce the amount of growth, and 3) They price people out of the market. She has
received calls from citizens since the impact fee came up. While builders do initially pay the
fees it is passed along to the consumer. Consumers usually finance those fees so they are
paying sales tax and excise tax so the $4,700 fee in the end is much greater. She discussed
a letter from an appraiser stating how difficult it is for the appraisal market to absorb the
costs. If a home one day is $130,000 and the next day it is $134,000 increased costs does
not necessarily mean increased value.
As for the costs of paying for the schools, Ms. Dahlgren said that the funds should come
from the whole community, not just one subset of the community. If the Planning
Commission does approve the impact fee, they ask that the fees be collected at the time of
closing instead of the time of building permit. When the building permit is issued, there is
no impact on the schools therefore the impact fee should not be paid until the impact is
made. They would also ask for a further reduction of the fee so that it doesn’t go from $0 to
nearly $4,700 overnight. She feels the only “courtesy” deduction was the 25% (or ‘A’ in the
impact fee equation). The other deductions were just taxes that were already going to be
paid. She asked for at least a 50% discount if imposed.
Commissioner Anderson asked Ms. Dahlgren if the homebuilders would prefer the SEPA fee
or the School Impact Fee. She answered that the majority of the builders would prefer to
see the impact fee but she feels that there are other things that can be done by the School
District, such as working with State Legislators because the School District has a lot of
mandates to meet. Commissioner Anderson addressed the mandates and working with
- - 7
Legislature stating that we would be in a long line to be addressed since the priority is not
very high.
Paul Roy, 2097 Hanson Loop, Burbank, WA represented the Association of Realtors.
Fundamentally they are opposed to impact fees because he feels many people will be
unfairly taxed since only a small portion of the community will have to pay the fee when the
schools are important to the whole community. Mr. Roy does realize that the situation the
Pasco School District is in really doesn’t have any other options. He also addressed the fact
that not all new home owners will be impacting the School District; some will be retiree’s
and some who’ve had kids already grown. In the future he wants to find other ways to fund
the School District so that the small minority doesn’t have to unfairly pay. He would like to
see the City find ways to widen the tax base by bringing in new enterprise that is industrial
or commercial.
Chairman Cruz asked Mr. Roy about the time of collection of the impact fee. He stated that
if the fee is collected late at the time the house is purchased rather than when the building
permits are acquired, the School District will have to get money elsewhere in the meantime.
The School District needs the time to build and prepare for the impact of new students—at
least 6 months or longer to get something started.
Mr. Roy answered that if it is an impact fee then he feels that it should be paid when the
impact itself occurs.
Chairman Cruz responded again that it is not realistic to collect the fees when the impact
occurs because the School District has to provide the facilities by the time the students are
ready, and they can’t become ready the day those homes become occupied.
Mr. Roy responded that they are just trying to minimize the actual cost of the fee on the
home buyer. For example, if it’s a $4,700 impact fee, then it’s $4,700 at the time of closing
but if the builder’s pay in the beginning, it will be a greater fee passed on to the consumer
for no services recognized due to interest. The earlier the fee is paid, the higher the fee will
be to the consumer.
Chairman Cruz did understand what Mr. Roy was stating in regards to a higher fee due to
interest if the fees are paid at the time of the permits. It could take years from the time
something is platted until the home is sold which is an extended period of interest however
the schools still need advance time for their construction.
Heidi Redfield, 4007 Meadowview Drive, stated that she has three children in the Pasco
School District all elementary age. The school her children attend was built for 500 and
now there are almost 900. Portable after portable has been added. There are so many
students that the children have to do art/physical education activities during transitioning
from classes just to ensure they get the learning they are supposed to have. The PTO is
working on raising money to build a new playground since there are so many kids in such a
small area to play. She wants the community to think of the impact new construction has
on the children, not the money for the sake of their education. Ms. Redfield would like to
see more business come to the area. Without good schools she feels that businesses won’t
want to come.
Matthew Polk, 811 W. Margaret, he is an employee at Pasco High School and wanted to
address the idea of “fairness” of new homes having to pay an impact fee. Currently, all of
the schools are overcrowded and there isn’t room for adequate learning to happen. If
concerned about growth in the community there won’t be growth without adequate schools
- - 8
as well. The lack of school facilities proposes a greater risk than a modest impact fee. Also,
the fee needs to be collected as soon as possible for the schools to plan ahead.
Lane Donaldson, 4008 Desert Plateau Drive, stated that with an impact fee, it is only
applied to new homes. Every other family that moves into that home after the impact fee
has been paid will not have to pay the fee. He also doesn’t feel that it is fair that people who
don’t have children and will not impact the schools have to pay the fee. Pasco has the most
developable land in the Tri-Cities which is why it has had consistent growth. Pasco didn’t
have the housing flop that happened all over the country because housing prices stayed
low. He wishes that SEPA mitigations would have started 10 years ago so that we wouldn’t
be in the current situation. He also doesn’t feel that the impact fee can be added in at the
time of escrow because then families do feel the fee. Mr. Donaldson feels that perhaps 50%
of the fee could be paid by the builders at the time of the permits and 50% when the home
is sold. He believes the main problem in Pasco is the lack of businesses in comparison to
residencies.
Preston Ramsey, 311 S. Shoreline Drive, Liberty Lake, WA spoke on behalf of FBA Land
Holdings. He had submitted comments for the packets sent to the Planning Commission.
He requested that the public hearing be kept open until the February 16, 2012 Planning
Commission meeting due to the complicated matter. Mr. Ramsey is not sure where the
numbers in the School Impact Fee calculation came from. He would also like to look at
alternative forms of revenue. Most of his clients own multi-family land and feels that there
is an unfair difference between a single-family fee and a multi-family fee. The multi-family
fee is 97% of the single-family fee. Mr. Ramsey said that given the cost of construction for a
multi-family unit the make-up of a multi-family occupant is often transient, less likely to
have kids and they are less likely to be permanent residents. He believes that it is possible
to have an impact fee for single-family residences and not for multi-family residences or by
a lesser amount.
Chairman Cruz asked Mr. Ramsey if he knew the historical average rate is for mortgage
interest since it’s been recorded. Chairman Cruz said that it is 9%, so you push a lot of
young families into multi-family housing. Multi-family housing is very common entry-level
housing for many families starting out until they can move into single-family homes.
Multi-family housing is not just for transient citizens or families without children.
Dennis Lukehart, 425 W. Quincy Street, Kennewick, WA addressed multi-family housing.
He is a managing broker with Windermere Group and they are looking to do a major
development in Pasco. They have already submitted their preliminary plat. He is concerned
about the time the fee is to be collected. With the 47 four-plexes they are planning to build,
at the time of permit they would have to come up with $846,000. The cost of carrying that
amount in interest is very high. To be able to carry the burden while getting them sold will
hurt the process. They would only be able to do four buildings at a time and there is a need
for multi-family housing. He argued they won’t be able to afford to build no matter how
cheap they acquire the land.
Chairman Cruz asked Mr. Lukehart what the total cost of construction for the 47 four-
plexes would be. Mr. Lukehart answered that it would be roughly $13 million. Chairman
Cruz stated then that the impact fee would be adding 1/13 of the cost of the construction
loan.
Chairman Cruz also asked what adding the $846,000 would do to the cost of renting each
unit. Mr. Lukehart answered that it doesn’t matter because the rent will be set at what the
market can hold. And with the costs being added on to the buyer they can still only price
them where they can sell.
- - 9
Ana Ruiz-Peralta, 4304 Laredo Drive, stated that her family moved to Pasco from
Vancouver, WA and they love the City of Pasco. She wishes the Planning Commission to
make the decision that would make Pasco attractive, including helping the School District.
She feels the Pasco School District does a great job with what they have but it needs to
remain good education to keep families coming to Pasco.
John Morgan addressed the Planning Commission again to ask not to delay this issue any
longer. The Capital Facilities Plan came out over a year ago and only minor adjustments
have been made. It has been open to the public to look at and the costs have only been
lowered. A resolution needs to be made for the builders, realtors, community and School
District.
Chairman Cruz asked Mr. Morgan to go further into the multi-family calculation and the
School District’s position. He answered that the School District just made a
recommendation. They will not decide the final cost. The final cost is left to the Planning
Commission and City Council to set.
Commissioner Levin asked Mr. Morgan in regards to the status of year-round schools and if
it could work in alleviating some of the overcrowding issues. Mr. Morgan answered that the
Multi-track Task Force is not total year-round school, just multi-track. Only one group of
students will be off during a period of time in order to have more students in the school.
The community has told the School District to do multi-track as the last of all other possible
options. They are currently in the planning stages however they will not do multi-track in
the next year. After the levy, the Board will consider if they are going to run a bond as well.
The public comments were closed, and the Planning Commission began a quick discussion.
Commissioner Kahn asked staff if the impact fee in the School District’s Capital Facilities
Plan will be implemented once the City of Pasco’s Comprehensive Plan Updates are
recommended by the Planning Commission to the City Council and approved by City
Council.
Rick White answered that the Planning Commission has two policy decisions: to incorporate
the School District’s Capital Plan into the City’s Comprehensive Plan and provide a policy
recommendation to City Council to adopt an impact fee but not to calculate the fee at this
meeting. The Capital Facilities Plan has been out for almost a year and the only changes
have been to include portables as permanent capacity and the elimination of a middle
school as a needed facility within the next six years, which has driven the costs down. The
impact fee calculation is going to occur through a process which could even end up different
than what is in the Capital Plan however it could also be the same.
Commissioner Kahn asked the Planning Commission if they wanted to consider Preston
Ramsey’s request to extend the public hearing until the February 16, 2012 meeting. The
Commission decided that since the Capital Facilities Plan has been out for so long it is best
to move forward.
Commissioner Anderson moved, seconded by Commissioner Kempf to adopt the Findings of
Fact as contained in the January 19, 2012 staff memo dealing with Comprehensive Plan
Updates. The motion passed unanimously.
Commissioner Kahn moved, seconded by Commissioner Anderson to recommend the City
Council amen the Comprehensive Plan by updating the base maps, modifying the Urban
Growth Area, adopting by reference the Broadmoor Concept Plan and the Marine
- - 10
Terminal/Boat Basin Plan and including the Pasco School District Capital Facilities Plan in
the City’s Capital Facilities. The motion passed unanimously.
Commissioner Kempf asked to clarify the third motion to make sure that they are just
agreeing to propose the impact fee, not set the actual fee amount. Rick White answered
that the Planning Commission is just setting a policy recommendation to City Council
including an impact fee as a portion of the funding necessary for the School District’s
Capital Facilities Plan but no fee is being set by the Commission by doing so.
Commissioner Levin is opposed to the impact fee and sympathizes with the home builders.
He feels that it can be tweaked but for now will vote “no” on the impact fee.
Commissioner Anderson discussed that numerous times impact fees have been discussed
for the School District. He feels that this issue should have been addressed years ago. He
doesn’t like it but understands the need for an impact fee and will support it. The hallways
have been overcrowded in the schools for years and if the community wants to grow, Pasco
must have good schools. Also, he recommended to Mr. Lukehart who was planning to build
47 four-plexes to build them four at a time if that is what is necessary. Mr. Anderson stated
that he works in public housing and realizes the need for multi-family housing in the
community but he cannot support what the home builder’s state.
Commissioner Hay stated that this should have been addressed sooner and now that we’re
out of options we need an impact fee.
Commisioner Kahn and Commissioner Kempf support the impact fee.
Chairman Cruz supported Commissioner Hay and Commissioner Anderson. This has been
a topic that has been remissed over the years. He believes the future of Pasco is deeply
rooted in commercial development but a community needs good schools. He doesn’t like
the way that the City of Pasco got to this situation with the either/or choice of SEPA versus
impact fees since it feels like pressure from the School District and the home builders and
home owners will feel some impact, especially going into a tough bond and levy climate,
however he is in support of the school impact fees due to there being no way around it.
Rick White noted that the Capital Plan is revised every two years so the School District will
again go through the Plan and the need for facilities and the growth rate used in their
projections, essentially acting as a safety net to evaluate the need for fees. In regards to the
assessed values in the City of Pasco, Franklin County itself has a very low value per capita
in comparison to Kennewick and Richland. There are also many children in multi-family
housing structures. In fact, there are more kids in multi-family structures than in
comparable single-family homes.
Commissioner Kahn moved, seconded by Commissioner Kempf to recommend the City
Council adopt a school impact fee. The motion passed five to one with Commissioner Levin
dissenting.
WORKSHOP:
A. Code Amendment
Revisions to P.M.C. Title 25 (Zoning) (MF#
CA2011-006)
Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff.
- - 11
Dave McDonald, City Planner, briefly discussed the revisions to the PM Title 25 Zoning
changes that staff is working on and would like input from the Planning Commission.
One revision is the addition of a definition for a “dancehall”. A dancehall means an
enclosed space where public dances are held and where alcohol and/or food may be sold.
Chairman Cruz asked the Commission if they wanted to differentiate between an adult
dancehall and an under-eighteen dancehall to facilitate youth gathering places in the future
even if in the central business overlay district.
Commissioner Kahn agreed with Chairman Cruz in wanting to differentiate ages.
Commissioner Kempf did not wish to differentiate ages because adults and underage
children can be disruptive whether they are drinking or not.
Commissioner Anderson wondered why alcohol had to be a prerequisite for it to be a
dancehall. Mr. McDonald said that it didn’t have to be a prerequisite because with or
without alcohol it can still be a dancehall.
Commissioner Kahn wanted clarification if dancehalls served alcohol then they should be
21 and up and if they didn’t serve alcohol then they should differentiate.
Commissioner Anderson stated that if there is going to be alcohol served that it needs to be
in a tavern or a lounge, not a dancehall.
Mr. McDonald moved on to the next item of “Residential Garages”, which means a structure
on the same lot with an accessory to a principally permitted use, used for storage only. The
following sentence was added: “Residential garages shall not contain bathrooms, showers,
or other furnishings or living space appurtenances set up for habitation purposes.” There
are pros and cons for this added sentence. In the past building permits had been issued for
a hand basin and toilet in the garage and then two years later there’s a kitchen, a bedroom
and living room. Then there are two dwelling units on a lot that was set up for one house.
On the other hand, there are people with bigger yards that like to add these features to their
shop.
Commissioner Kempf stated that perhaps it should read that residential garages shall not
be set up as a permanent living space. Many people like having a bathroom in the garage
so that they don’t have to come all the way into the house.
Chairman Cruz agreed with Commissioner Kempf. Once the lot is over .5 acres it is no
longer practical to enforce not having a bathroom and does not make sense. He would soon
see stricter penalties for people doing the wrong thing than legislate good people.
Commissioner Kahn asked if heating and air is allowed in the garages because in the winter
with a bathroom and family area heat and air would be needed.
Mr. McDonald answered that some do as well as a bathroom with a bar area, much like a
family room in the back of the garage. The problem in the past in some areas is that when
the bathroom is allowed, then a year or so later you not only have the bathroom but a whole
house in the garage.
Mr. McDonald addressed the new definition “nightclub” added to the PMC. Chairman Cruz
asked why cover charges were included in the definition since not all nightclubs have cover
charges.
- - 12
Shane O’Neill answered that in other states many dancehalls were skirting the rules and
calling themselves membership clubs and the door fee was the “membership fee”. The cover
charge was to overt the rules.
Chairman Cruz thought that perhaps the nightclub definition could use a little more fine
tuning dealing with the cover charge as well as “…the sale of said beverages comprises less
than 25 percent of the gross receipts.”
Mr. McDonald discussed the addition of the definition of a “shop”. It means a residential
garage as defined under 25.12.200.
Mr. McDonald discussed refining the language to match the intent of storage buildings to
cumulatively not exceed 260 square feet of gross floor area and fifteen feet in height in
backyards to prevent having multiple sheds in a backyard.
Chairman Cruz asked if this definition was different than a shop. Mr. McDonald said that
is different and that they can allow the 260 square foot storage building onto the shop but
then they can’t have another storage building in their backyard.
Mr. McDonald addressed more changes in regards to commercial car washes, dance halls
and nightclubs special permits. If someone wants a dance hall or nightclub in a C-1 Zone
they would require a special permit since C-1 Zones are relatively close to residential
neighborhoods.
Chairman Cruz asked if there needed to be clarification in regards to the distance of dance
halls and nightclubs getting special permits to establish consistency and felt that 500 feet
minimum would be appropriate.
Rick White let the Planning Commission know that they could require special permit for all
dance halls or nightclubs.
Chairman Cruz did not want to do that because he feels it is more fair for people buying
their property that they know what can be allowed in their neighborhood and know what
they’re getting.
Mr. McDonald noted that there might have to be a special permit process no matter what
because most C-1 Zones are large enough to have 500 feet for a minimum.
Mr. McDonald addressed the additional criteria to clarify the intent of a caretaker’s
residence for security for remote and unpopulated areas of the City due to troubles with
burglaries. The line added was, “The caretaker’s residence is not within a substantially
developed residential or commercial neighborhood.”
Chairman Cruz asked what the definition of substantially in the line that was added and
wanted clarification or guidance from the property owners if less than 50 percent
development to give a benchmark and the applicants know where they are headed.
Commissioner Anderson commented that you should be able to tell what is substantially
developed and the wording should be left alone.
Mr. McDonald discussed a Permitted Land Use Table that is being proposed to be
eliminated since it is seldom used and hard to find. The problem with these tables is that
periodically when the codes are updated often time the table gets overlooked or forgotten
- - 13
and is not interpreted properly. The same goes for the Site Design Requirements and
Standards table.
Mr. McDonald addressed Natural Resource Uses as to the added language which provides
clarification on permitted areas designated by the Comprehensive Plan as resource lands
only upon approval of a special permit.
Chairman Cruz stated that he was looking at the difference between an asphalt processing
operation and mineral resource operation as those are two different things. Gravel can’t be
mined anywhere, where asphalt can be made anywhere. He is worried that a natural
resource use can be located near residential areas.
Mr. McDonald discussed the shared use of parking lots. Staff added a sentence that
requires a notarized and recorded parking agreement between two or more separate tax
parcels under separate ownership. The reasoning behind this came from a tavern on Lewis
Street that at one time had permission from the School District to use their Booth Building
parking lot for their overflow parking. Over the years the tavern changed ownership and the
new owners no longer have the permission from the School District to use the parking lot
and the City had no record of this and there were problems associated with the parking that
could have been avoided if the City had a signed agreement.
Mr. McDonald addressed an addition regarding batch plants which states that asphalt
batch plants and ready-mix concrete plants may be located in areas designated by the
Comprehensive Plan as mineral resource lands or in the I-2 Industrial District only upon
approval of a special permit.
Chairman Cruz responded that he feels that asphalt batch plants and ready-mix concrete
batch plants are two separate things and should be treated as such. There is a lot more
that goes along with asphalt such as potentially hazardous emissions, especially if it
involves the recycling of asphalt, where concrete plants just have dust. He does not want it
allowed even with special permit due to the possibilities. There are industrial districts set
up for the kind of operations for asphalt and they are in their location for a reason. The
resource and the processing do not need to be located next to each other.
Commissioner Levin asked for the definition of I-2 Zoning and if the asphalt and concrete
batch plants could be in the same zoning. Mr. McDonald stated that I-2 Zoning is Light
Industrial and in Light Industrial asphalt is only permitted by process of special permit and
in the current code there are provisions that would allow them to be in a mineral resource
area by special permit.
Commissioner Kempf asked if City Staff could make asphalt batch plants separate from
ready-mix concrete batch plant definitions and have two definitions. Mr. McDonald said
that yes, they could split them into two definitions and the ready-mix concrete would be
permitted by special permit in resource area or an I-2 Zone and the asphalt batch plant
would only be permitted in I-2 Zone.
B. Code Amendment
Variable Rear Setback for Accessory Structures
in Suburban Zones (MF# CA2011-007)
Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff.
Shane O’Neill, Planner I, explained that the code amendment proposes a different rear
setback than currently allowed. The proposed code amendment stemmed from a complaint
- - 14
regarding impacts the height of detached shops and garages can have on neighboring
property. Accessory structures in suburban zones, regardless of height, have minimum
rear setback of five feet.
There are six alternate code amendments to choose from that all have a little different idea
behind them. Mr. O’Neill explained all of the alternates. Alternate 6 takes no action is
taken and the code stays the same. Height is used as a breaking point to apply the variable
rear setback. The height is based on the allowed height of a shed. Once over the height of a
shed, the variable rear setback will begin to apply.
David McDonald elaborated on the complaint regarding the effect of the height allowance for
detached shops and garages. The complaint stemmed for 1,200 square foot garage that was
18 feet tall (almost as tall as the house) and was only 5 feet from the neighbor’s backyard.
Because 5 feet was legal according to code the garage was allowed but because of the
massive size of the garage, it overpowered the neighbor’s yard and the neighbor felt there
was a need for a larger setback due to the size of the garage.
Commissioner Anderson asked if the City of Pasco’s objectives are to be similar to Franklin
County’s objectives. Mr. McDonald answered that yes, both objectives should be somewhat
in line with each other. Commissioner Anderson felt that the sliding-scale alternate was
confusing for the home owner’s looking at what they can build and locate and he feels the
City should be in uniform with Franklin County in case of annexation in the future.
Chairman Cruz agreed with Commissioner Anderson and felt that the sliding-scale alternate
was confusing. He liked Alternate 2, with an additional category for larger accessory
structures added.
Commissioner Kempf also liked Alternate 2 with adding an additional category for larger
accessory structures.
Mr. O’Neill explained that 18 feet is the maximum height and cannot go higher, however
Chairman Cruz thought maybe breaking down the scale since 12 feet is already pretty tall.
Rick White advised the Planning Commission that on that on February 1, 2012 at 7:00 p.m.
at Chiawana High School, the City will be conducting a neighborhood meeting for the Linda
Vista/Road 84 Area in regards to the deterioration of the fencing that was put in when
those properties were platted. The City appointed a task force to address this problem.
With little further discussion or business, the Planning Commission was adjourned at 9:50
p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
______________________________
David McDonald, Secretary