HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-17-2008 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes REGULAR MEETING April 17, 2008
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
CALL TO ORDER:
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman Todd Samuel.
POSITION MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT
No. 1 Todd Samuel, Chairman
No. 2 James Hay
No. 3 Andy Anderson
No. 4 David Little
No. 5 Joe Cruz
No. 6 Ray Rose
No. 7 Tony Schouviller
No. 8 Vacant
No. 9 Vacant
APPEARANCE OF FAIRNESS:
Chairman Samuel read a statement about the appearance of fairness for
hearings on land use matters. Chairman Samuel asked if any Commission
member had anything to declare. No declarations were made.
Chairman Samuel 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.
Chairman Samuel asked the audience if there was an objection to either
commissioner hearing the mater. There were no objections from the audience.
ADMINISTERING THE OATH:
Chairman Samuel explained that state law requires testimony in quasi-judicial
hearings such as held by the Planning Commission be given under oath or
affirmation. Chairman Samuel swore in all those desiring to speak.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
-1-
Commissioner Little moved, seconded by Commissioner Rose, that the minutes
dated March 20, 2008 be approved with the corrections on attendance. The
Motion carried unanimously.
OLD BUSINESS:
A. REZONE R-S-1 (SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL) TO R-1 (LOW
DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) (ALL PRO
CONTRACTING) (3300 BLOCK OF W WERNETT)
)MF #Z08-001)
Chairman Samuel introduced the item and explained that it had been presented
at the last meeting and public comment had been received at that time. No
further public comments will be taken during the deliberations.
Chairman Samuel asked if there were any comments from staff.
Staff explained the concomitant agreement restricting the proposed rezone to
8,000 square foot lots.
Commissioner Little asked if there would be a sound wall along the freeway.
Staff explained that would be a recommended condition for approval of a final
plat.
Commissioner Hay moved seconded by Commissioner Anderson that the
Planning Commission adopt the findings of fact as contained in the April 17,
2008 staff report. The motion was unanimously approved.
Commissioner Hay moved based on the findings of fact as adopted seconded by
Commissioner Anderson that the Planning Commission recommends the City
Council rezone the site from R-S-1 to R-1 with a condition requiring a minimum
lot size of 8,000 square feet. The motion was approved unanimously.
Staff noted the recommendation would go to the City Council for action on May
5, 2008. If an appeal is filed, there will be a closed record hearing by the City
Council before any action is taken.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
A. Special Permit Farming in an R-S-1 Zone (Department of
Natural Resources) (7500 Block of Argent
)MF#SP08-001)
Chairman Samuel read the master file number and asked staff for a report.
-2-
Staff stated that a notice of the hearing was published in the newspaper and
mailed to surrounding property owners.
Staff provided an overview of the proposed project and its location in the 7500
block of W. Argent. The Department of Natural Resources owns the site and has
made application to develop a farm to preserve the water rights. The application
is similar to the Pasco School District application a couple of years ago for
property located west of the site which resulted in the approval of a special
permit for a farm.
The application for a farm near the Road 100 interchanged was also discussed
briefly.
Chairman Samuel asked about the amount of commercial zoning designated in
the comprehensive plan for the Road 100 area.
Staff explained that about 100 acres were designated in the Comprehensive Plan
for commercial development near Road 100. The propose site is zoned and
classified as a low density residential.
Chairman Samuel questioned the proper amount of property for growth.
Staff stated one of the differences between the current site and the Road 100 site
is the existence of a major gas line that runs diagonally through the property
making it more difficult to develop.
Commissioner Rose questioned the type of agriculture that would be developed
on this property.
Commissioner Cruz questioned the length of time involved in perfecting water
rights.
Staff stated about two years. The property has to be put to a beneficial use, such
as growing and harvesting a crop.
Chairman Samuel asked if any complaints had been received from neighbors of
current farms (nearby) concerning sand, noise or dust control.
Staff replied they were not aware of any complaints.
Chairman Samuel referenced the Linda Loviisa farm.
Staffs explained due to the wind patterns there have been complaints about
blowing dust from the farm located where Linda Loviisa is being built.
Chairman Samuel opened the public hearing.
-3-
Linda Clatterbuck, 3001 Road 72, stated she was in favor of agriculture use
with a constant covered crop. She was however concerned about the storage of
farm equipment. The appearance of farm machinery at the fruit stand on Court
Street is not very appealing.
Staff explained that the fruit stand on Court Street is located in the County and
did not receive permission from the City to store machinery in plain view. The
fruit stand farm is a different type of farm than the proposed farm and as a
result no machinery will be stored on site.
Chairman Samuel addressed Ms. Clatterbuck's concern regarding the proposed
crop for this property by explaining the School District's farm was restricted to
certain crops.
Bruce Clatterbuck, 3001 Road 72, stated he had a genuine concern regarding
groundwater contamination and would prefer a perennial grass or alfalfa crop.
He wanted to see a low pressure irrigation system be installed.
Chairman Samuel questioned Mr. Clatterbuck as to whether there were any
proof regarding high levels of nitrates being caused by the farms already in the
area.
Mr. Clatterbuck stated no, but there was a lengthy study that the Conservation
District did a few years ago about nitrates in West Pasco. Clatterbuck stated he
was a former employee of the USDA and is pro-farming.
Tom Kidwell, 4320 Riverhaven, explained he was the farmer on the Pasco School
district property to the west and on the DNR land to the north of the FCID canal.
The School District farm was planted with alfalfa and oats for dust control
purposes.
Commissioner Little asked how long Mr. Kidwell intended to farm the site and
what crop would be used
Mr. Kidwell stated there would be a 5-year timeframe. His intention was to plant
alfalfa.
Commissioner Little questioned the timeframe expected to recover costs and
protect the water rights.
Mr. Kidwell stated 3-5 years, if 3 years was granted he would request an
extension.
Linda Clatterbuck, 3001 Road 72, further recommended the pivot area not be
used for storage.
-4-
Staff requested some direction from the Planning Commission for
recommendations regarding conditions on timeframes, farm management plans,
and equipment storage.
Commissioner Cruz stated he would like to recommend that no equipment be
stored longer than 30 days.
Following three calls for further testimony Chairman Samuel closed the hearing.
Commissioner Anderson recommended the timeframe be a minimum of 3 years
with an extension to 5 years with an annual review each year after that. In
reference to the equipment storage, he mentioned the equipment used for the
farm on the Pasco School District property was only at the property to cut and
bale the hay. The hay was stored on the property in an area with easy access for
trucks.
Commissioner Little questioned if there would be a fee for each additional
review.
Staff stated the fee was $480.
Commissioner Anderson suggested that if no problems existed or if there were
no development plans that the time limit could be extend to 5 years.
Commissioner Rose suggested that the approved agriculture use contain a year-
round stabilization of the soil.
Commissioner Cruz questioned the prohibition of livestock uses with the main
concern being the accelerated levels of nitrates.
Commissioner Rose did not object to use of the land for a pasture.
Commissioner Anderson moved, seconded by Commissioner Hay, to close the
hearing on the proposed special permit and initiate deliberations and schedule
adoption of findings of fact, inclusions and a recommendation to the City
Council for the May 15, 2008 meeting. The motion carried unanimously.
B. Code Amendment Driveway Standards (City of Pasco(
(MF#CAOS-001(
Chairman Samuel read the master file number and asked staff for a report.
Staff explained this item was discussed in a workshop last month. The current
driveway and sidewalk code was developed in 1969 and has not been revised
significantly since. While driving habits, size of motor vehicles, school buses and
-5-
service vehicles for commercial use have increased in size, no changes have been
in the municipal code.
Staff explained there were several reasons why the city should be concerned
with managing driveways. First, streets are designed to contain a certain
amount of storm water runoff. The current storm drainage system is not
designed for increased storm water from large driveways. Second, municipal
codes are enacted in part to help reduce conflicts within the community.
Unrestricted driveway sizes in residential neighborhoods limit on-street parking.
This can lead to neighborhood conflicts when visitors and guests to one house
constantly park in front of another house because there is no street frontage for
parking as the result of wide driveways. Third, commercial driveways are a
concern, because the location and size of commercial driveways can impact
traffic safety on major streets.
Staff pointed out the first two pages of the proposed ordinance was not
discussed last month and needed to be considered. These pages dealt with
definitions, permitting, construction staking and other matters. Staff stated
developers are required to provide their own surveying and staking for
construction rather than the City Engineer or Building Inspector as provided for
in the current code.
Staff explained Section 9 of the proposed ordinance dealing with sidewalks
modifies the existing code by providing specific circumstances under which the
Public works Director may alter the requirement for a standard 7-foot sidewalk
in a commercial area.
Staff explained Section 11 of the proposed ordinance dealing with standards for
driveways. These standards included driveway widths, location of driveways in
relation to utilities, the number of permitted driveways and standards for
circular driveways. The proposed code provides specific criteria for the Public
Works Director to review when considering the width for commercial driveways.
Commissioner Samuel questioned if there is a non-conforming house being
remodeled, would the driveway have to meet this new code.
Staff explained that if the remodel exceeds 33% of the value of the house, the
house would have to comply with the updated regulations. The 33% standard is
found throughout the code. It is found, for example, in the landscaping
regulations.
Chairman Samuel asked if this would be something that would actually be
enforced by the construction inspectors.
Staff explained that it would be tied to a building permit and enforced during
that process.
-6-
Commissioner Little asked about the converting of garages into living areas.
Staff explained that is no longer permitted as per the residential design
standards that were adopted in 2005.
Staff explained that under the rules adopted in 2005; the primary driveway
must terminate into a garage or carport. Thus, in order to convert a garage into
a recreation room there would have to be sufficient area on the lot to build a new
garage or carport for the primary driveway to terminate into.
Commissioner Anderson stated the revised proposal did not contain the section
regarding the 33% rule but the ordinance mailed with the packet did.
Staff's recommendation was for the 33% rule to be included in the ordinance
and should be so considered when the Planning Commission makes a
recommendation to the City Council.
Chairman Samuel asked for further clarification on the impact of the 33% rule
on the conversion of garages to a living area and the driveway did not terminate
in a garage or carport.
Staff explained the proposed 33% rule does not impact the current application of
the code. When the code was amended in 2005 to address state requirements on
manufactured homes the residential design standards required driveways to
terminate into a garage or carport. Remodeling the garage into a living space
causes the driveway to be in violation of the code.
Commissioner Little asked if a garage was remodeled would the home owner be
required to eliminate the driveway.
Staff explained that at least a portion of the driveway would have to be removed
and an alternate garage would have to be provided.
Following a brief discussion on commercial driveways Chairman Samuel stated
he was of the opinion that larger driveways should be encouraged for
commercial driveways along major streets. And he thought that the proposal
encourages the restriction of commercial driveways to 35ft.
Staff noted the suggestion and stated that by providing a set of review criteria
the Public Works Director would be granted the flexibility of approving
commercial driveways with larger widths as conditions warrant.
Commissioner Anderson agreed that provision #2 provides Public Works with
the needed flexibility to approved wider driveways when needed.
Commissioner Cruz asked about replacement of abandoned driveways. If there
is a required timeframe the replacements occur as required in section 12.
-7-
Staff explained that this provision is typically applied when property owners are
notified that repairs are needed in the sidewalks or when permits are issued for
alteration or repairs or new construction.
Chairman Samuel asked if there were additional other comments.
Chairman Samuel opened the public hearing.
Following three calls for public comment the hearing was closed.
Commissioner Anderson moved seconded by Commissioner Hay that the
Planning Commission recommends the City Council amend the driveway
standards of Title 12 as presented by Staff including the 33 % rule.
The motion was unanimously approved.
Planning Commission Minutes
4/17/08
WORKSHOP:
A. Code/Policy Amendment Subdivision Fence Standards (City of
Pasco) (MF#CA08-0021
Chairman Samuel read the Master file Number and asked staff for comments.
Staff explained the City's practice of requiring Estates fences for subdivisions
backing on arterial streets by discussing the various types (wood vinyl, block etc)
of fences that have been used. The practice began in 1995 in response to the
unsightliness of mixing different types of fencing along the length of a
subdivision. Reference was made to the mixture of fencing on Burden Boulevard
west of Rd 44.
Staff stated with several years of maintenance experience with different types of
fencing a decision needs to be made about the preferred fencing to be used in
subdivision development.
Staff then reviewed a number of photos to highlight the different types of fencing
in use and the maintenance problems associated with each.
Chairman Samuel asked what type of fencing material was being used in the
new Linda Loviisa development on Burden Boulevard.
Staff explained the vinyl posts are the same as the posts used in other
developments, but the material between the posts was a product called
-8-
cambium. The cambium product has interior ribbing for additional strength
and will not break like the other products.
Commissioner Cruz stated fencing issues are discussed a lot at the Code
enforcement meetings.
Staff explained the fencing material for the First Place subdivision off Rd 44 was
being developed with a block wall at a cost of only a few dollars ($ 4.00) more per
foot than the vinyl fence being placed in the Linda Loviisa development.
Staff explained that out of the discussion they were looking for a fencing
standard that could be used for all new subdivisions. Staff was of the opinion
that block would be the best product
Chairman Samuel stated some of the fences around new neighborhood are in
poor condition and he thought block was the preferred material.
Commissioner Anderson expressed concern about the impacts of graffiti on block
walls.
Commissioner Cruz explained he would be able to support the use of high
density polyethylene. He has experience installing miles of piping made with this
material and it is almost indestructible. He also stated that there needs to be a
concrete runner under the fence and around the posts for weed control.
Commission Anderson stated block looks good, but he was concerned about
graffiti. The high density polyethylene is a viable alternative to block.
Commission Cruz stated if the block product was selected it needed to be split
faced or architectural block and not the standard smooth faced cinder block.
In summary the chairman stated it appeared the Commission believed the HDPE
board would be acceptable and the architectural block would be acceptable. His
preference was the block. The general consensus was that block would be the
number one choice followed by HDPE.
Commissioner Cruz felt precast walls should also be acceptable. There was no
disagreement on the precast walls.
Chairman Samuel stated they were all in agreement that something needed to be
done to set a standard for the subdivision fences.
Commissioner Hay moved, seconded by Commissioner Anderson, that the
meeting be adjourned. The motion passed unanimously.
With no further business the Planning Commission was adjourned at 9:00 pm.
-9-
Respectfully submitted,
David McDonald, Secretary
la