Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-16-2010 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes REGULAR MEETING September 16, 2010 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Vice-Chairwoman Kempf. POSITION MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT No. 1 Vacant No. 2 James Hay No. 3 Andy Anderson No. 4 Vacant No. 5 Joe Cruz No. 6 Kurt Lukins No. 7 Jan Neuenschwander No. 8 Jana Kempf No. 9 Vacant APPEARANCE OF FAIRNESS: Vice-Chairwoman Kempf read a statement about the appearance of fairness for hearings on land use matters. Vice-Chairwoman Kempf asked if any Commission member had anything to declare. Commissioner Anderson stated his place of employment neighbors the proposed special permit number 10-021. No other declarations were made. Vice-Chairwoman Kempf then asked the audience if there were any objections based on conflict of interest or appearance of fairness questions regarding the items to be discussed this evening. There were no objections. Vice-Chairwoman Kempf asked the audience if there were objections to any Commissioner hearing any matter. There were no objections. ADMINISTERING THE OATH: Vice-Chairwoman Kempf explained that State law requires testimony in quasi- judicial hearings such as held by the Planning Commission be given under oath or affirmation. Commissioner Cruz swore in all those desiring to speak. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Anderson moved, seconded by Commissioner Hay, that the minutes dated August 19, 2010 approved as mailed. The motion carried unanimously. -1 - OLD BUSINESS: A. PRELIMINARY PLAT Preliminary Plat approval for a 14-lot subdivision located on Sahara Drive between Road 44 and Horizon Drive (Larry Seaman) (MF# PP 10-002) Vice-Chairwoman Kempf read the master file number and asked staff for comments. Staff had no further comments. Commissioner Hay moved, seconded by Commissioner Anderson, to adopt the findings of fact and conclusions as contained in the September 16, 2010 staff report. The motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Hay further moved, seconded by Commissioner Anderson, based on the findings of fact and conclusions, as adopted, that the Planning Commission recommend City Council approve a preliminary plat for Sahara Estates with the conditions as listed in the September 16, 2010 staff report. The motion passed unanimously. B. SPECIAL PERMIT Location of a dwelling unit on the second floor of a building within a C-1 Zone (Benjamin Lee) (1303 E. Lewis Street) (MF# SP 10-012) (WITHDRAWN) Vice-Chairwoman Kempf read the master file number and stated this application has been withdrawn. PUBLIC HEARINGS: A. SPECIAL PERMIT Location of an auto sales lot in a C-1 (Retail Business) Zone (Julian Parra) (801 S. 10th Avenue) (MF# SP 10-021) Vice-Chairwoman Kempf read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Dave McDonald, City Planner, stated the application is for an auto sales lot to be located on the corner of 10th Avenue and "A" Street which has had no development to his knowledge. Staff was hesitant to accept this application due to the size and location of the proposed lot which makes it difficult for traffic to visit the site. The alley is used as an access street for the properties located on 10th Avenue north of the carwash. The lot contains approximately 1,200 square feet and is small for an auto sales lot; however, there are other lots of this size located in Pasco. Staff is recommending that the applicant widen the approach into the alley and do not allow any driveway access off of 10th Avenue or "A" Street. Directly behind this lot are two duplexes and if an entrance was allowed a -2 - fence in the alley to provide privacy or position the building to provide a buffer for the neighboring residents would be appropriate. The applicant did not submit a site plan; however has met with staff earlier during the day and discussed options. It is proposed that there are 12 parking spaces for cars displayed and a building with a strip of landscaping along 10th Avenue and "A" Street exist on this lot. Staff has requested to continue the public hearing to address the issues not yet resolved. Commissioner Neuenschwander questioned if the 12 spaces proposed include customer parking. Mr. McDonald stated yes; staff created a site plan with 12 parking/spaces to display cars for sale. There is enough room along 10th Avenue and "A" Street for backup parking between the cars for display and the cars parked by the building for additional cars. Commissioner Neuenschwander questioned if the applicant mentioned any delivery for cars. Mr. McDonald stated no. Commissioner Neuenschwander stated she did drive by the proposed lot and the alley access would be an option if appropriate. Mr. McDonald stated the alley is a public right-of-way and is used by the public like a city street. Regarding the delivery of cars, there would not be any area nearby to park a commercial car carrier and a special condition or restriction could address that issue. Commissioner Neuenschwander mentioned a restriction of any vehicles parked in the alley. Julian Parra presented pictures of the lot. Commissioner Anderson mentioned the handicapped parking section and the closeness to the gate. Commissioner Neuenschwander questioned the delivery of vehicles. Mr. Parra stated the cars would be driven in one by one. Commissioner Anderson questioned lighting and hours of operation. Mr. Parra stated the hours of operation would be from 9:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday. He mentioned posting two lights on the property. Commissioner Anderson stated the lighting would need to be shielded away from the neighbors. -3 - Commissioner Neuenschwander mentioned signage or lighting would need to be addressed with staff. Fred Lundberg, 822 S. 9th Avenue, stated he uses the alley and mentioned it is dangerous and difficult to exit. Parking in the alley blocks the alley and he stated it is going to be dangerous with more traffic. He stated the applicant has towed in cars and later removed them from the site. He also mentioned he would like the site to be fenced to prevent crime. Commissioner Neuenschwander questioned staff on the direction of traffic leaving the alley. Mr. McDonald stated there is a turn pocket on "A" Street for people turning left going south on 10th Avenue which means traffic cannot turn left from the alley. He recommended this item be continued to allow for preparation of a motion if appropriate. Commissioner Anderson agreed with Mr. McDonald; however, with the traffic problems is reluctant to move forward. Commissioner Lukins questioned if any development has ever occurred on this lot. Mr. McDonald stated not to his knowledge. Commissioner Anderson moved, seconded by Commissioner Hay, to continue the public hearing on this item to the Planning Commission meeting on October 21, 2010. The motion passed unanimously. B. SPECIAL PERMIT Location of a cellular tower in an R-1 (Low- Density Residential) Zone (Clearwire US, LLC) (1320 W. Henry Street) (MF# SP 10-022) Vice-Chairwoman Kempf read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Rick White, Community 8v Economic Development Director, stated this item is for the co-location of cellular equipment of an existing cellular tower. The site is directly west of St. Patrick's School and to the east is the Edgar Brown Stadium and the parcel to the south has been improved with a parking lot for use during events at the stadium. The applicant is requesting a special permit for co- locating antennae's on the existing towers and to add an additional storage shed. Commissioner Neuenschwander questioned if the site is leased and who would be responsible for the tower. Mr. White stated the tower is home to many companies equipment and particular problems would be addressed with the party affected. -4 - Vice-Chairwoman Kempf opened the public hearing and after three calls and no response, the hearing was closed. Commissioner Lukins moved, seconded by Commissioner Anderson, to close the hearing on the proposed cellular equipment co-location and initiate deliberations and schedule adoption of findings of fact, conclusions and a recommendation to the City Council for the October 21, 2010 meeting. The motion passed unanimously. C. SPECIAL PERMIT Renovations for the Pasco High School Recreation (Pasco School District #1) (1108 N. loth Avenue) (MF# SP 10-023) Vice-Chairwoman Kempf read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Mr. McDonald stated the special permit application was for recreation renovations at Pasco High School. The ball field and tennis courts are planned to be remodeled. The footprint of the exiting baseball field will essentially remain the same but the structures including the fencing will be rebuilt. New night lighting will be added to the tennis courts and ball field. The lighting standards are located throughout the field. The ball field lighting should not have more than .5 foot-candles of illumination at the property line compared to the standard street light which is 5.5 foot-candles. The proposed lights are very efficient in stopping light encroachment onto surrounding properties and into the night sky. The tall sycamore trees along 14th also provide somewhat of a buffer for the new light poles. The tennis court lighting will be 22 feet tall and has little exposure to the street. The new ball field bleachers will provide seating for up to 200 people. Traffic and use of the field is not expected to increase with the renovation. Kim Marsh, 1215 W. Lewis Street, stated the proposed renovations are to upgrade current facilities such as the ball fields and tennis courts. Herb Ayers, 1106 W. Henry Street, stated he lives across the street from the school and read a letter (Exhibit 1) which stated his concerns for the baseball lighting and increased traffic in the evening due to night time games. He further presented a petition (Exhibit 2) with 8 signatures from neighbors opposed to the special permit. Leonard Dietrich, 4615 Hilltop Drive, stated he is in favor of the proposal. He also stated the Pasco School District is a great neighbor and the proposal will provide a safe place for children to be. John Morgan, 1215 W. Lewis, Executive Director Pasco School District, stated financing for the improvements for Pasco High School came from a 2006 bond. Several community workshops occurred in preparation for the bond and one of the main concerns was that when the new high school was built that upgrades -5 - and renovations at Pasco High School should occur. The proposed ball field and tennis court remodel was the final phase of the 2006 bond. Vice-Chairwoman Kempf asked if the baseball night lighting would be on during baseball games only or every night. Mr. Morgan stated during the tennis season night lighting would be on for a few evening hours every night. Commissioner Anderson asked how many night games would occur during the school year. Mr. Morgan stated that would be a question for the Coach Burns. Coach Burns, 1215 W. Lewis stated the season was 20 games long. If they make it to the playoffs then a few more games would be added. Half of the games are away games and home games are double headers which only leaves 5 home games. Commissioner Anderson further asked if any summer games would occur. Coach Burns stated the American Legion or Babe Ruth organizations use the fields. She was not aware of their schedule, however, estimated that one or two games would be played weekly. Mr. Morgan stated he attended games at Chiawana High School and games were over by 9:00 p.m. Vice-Chairwoman Kempf called for any further public comment, after three calls and no response the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Anderson moved, seconded by Commissioner Lukins, to close the public hearing and schedule deliberations, the adoption of findings of fact, and develop a recommendation to the City Council for the October 21, 2010 meeting. The motion passed unanimously. D. MASTER PLAN Boat Basin/Marine Terminal Master Plan (MF# INFO 09-1001(1315 S. 4th Avenue) Vice-Chairwoman Kempf read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Mr. White stated this item has been in the works for some time and in 2008 a development agreement was recommended for approval by the Planning Commission between the Port of Pasco and the City for an area known as the Big Pasco Industrial Center. That agreement vested regulations for the Port to feel secure in moving forward with the Riverfront Business Park site plan. The City Council and the Port entered into an agreement in 2009 for a Master Planning effort located on the west side which includes the Boat Basin and Tank Farm -6 - area referred to as the Marine Terminal site. The Marine Terminal site does not have improvements on it and is undergoing mediation. This planning effort was preceded by an outreach effort for the public; Commissioners Kempf and Hay were part of the Planning Commission team that was a liaison for that effort which began in January with open house style neighborhood meetings at the Port of Pasco and a second meeting was held in March. The Planning Commission conducted a public workshop in June and the entire planning effort itself was preceded by interviews with key stakeholders in the process which included the Port of Pasco, the Army Corps of Engineers, the Marina operator and City staff. One of the features of the site is the limited number of ownership aside from the residential neighborhood above the Boat Basin. The Port of Pasco owns the majority of property; the Corp of Engineer, the City and scattered private sites are located in the industrial area on the west side of the train bridge. Existing zoning consists of industrial and a mixture of medium residential in the Boat Basin neighborhood and limited commercial is along 10th Avenue. There are approximately 45 residential properties in that neighborhood and only 10-11 are rental properties which means 75% of the neighborhood is owner occupied. The preferred land use alternative consists of a business park for the property located along Ainsworth Avenue which offers a significant view and assumed to be valuable property for business park development due to the view where you will be able to see over the levy. There is a significant amount of open space available as well as mixed commercial designations. The removal of hydrocarbons is a long process and may not be complete as estimated in 2016; and it may not be available for certain land uses. Commercial land uses which do not require the level of cleanup that other land uses may require such as industrial. It will be monitored as the process moves forward. The plan contains a number of key recommendations; identifies the significant constraints such as the barriers associated with the site which is the railroad, the Ainsworth overpass and 10th Avenue, and being close to the river a challenge is to overcome the height of the levy and most of the property is below the levy height and you will need to be on a second story to take advantage of the river views, the Cable Bridge as well as properties in Kennewick. Vice-Chairwoman Kempf opened the public hearing. Leonard Dietrich, 4615 Hilltop Drive, stated there are two different properties that are being dealt with; the east side and the west side. His family moved to this area in 1941 and they own 1210 S. Gray Avenue which is zoned industrial and does not think the zoning is appropriate. The industrial portion on the west side will continue to be cleaned up for years to come. The Boat Basin area has not been left alone for its entirety and when the Ainsworth overpass was built it blocked off their neighborhood even more. The neighborhood consists of moderate income residents. He stated his concern for the entrance on Gray Avenue. He is willing to coordinate efforts to make this happen for the east portion of this area. -7 - Dave Freepons, 1207 S. 10th Avenue, stated his concern for the west side of the tracks. He questioned the current property owners in place and was concerned if the zoning would be changed. Mr. White stated that zoning is not addressed at this time. The preferred land use alternatives are presented and yes they would stay the same. Sean Murrillo 1228 S. 5th, stated he has a business at this location and what is being planned for the businesses currently in place. He further asked when the work would be started. Mr. White stated the starting date would begin after the Plan is adopted and the finishing date is very far from now due to the Plan which signifies the long-term commitment for a future vision which will happen in small baby steps. Over time a business park area will take place in the areas indicated on the Plan. Any existing business will be allowed to continue use under the legal non-conforming use which allows the business to operate as long as they wish. Leonard Dietrich further stated this is a vision which could be 20, 30 or 40 years from now and is the direction planned for the future. Mr. White stated yes; things don't happen such as capital investments until they are formalized in a plan unless it is planned for and essentially this is the first step in a very long process and will someday consist of capital investments. Mr. Dietrich stated if someone came in to request a change of zoning which would be different than what they are adopting that would strike up a commotion. Mr. White stated if the Plan is adopted it would be necessary to be incorporated into the Comprehensive Plan which contains land use designations. Once that occurs over time there might be efforts to instill zoning on this site in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan and Master Plan designations. Randy Hayden, 904 E. Ainsworth, Port of Pasco Director of Planning 8v Engineering, stated they have enjoyed the process with the City and the Commission has spent quite a bit of time reviewing the Plan. The Commission had some changes that were made concerning the residential zoning and the cleanup area. This proposal will be a great fit with the Osprey Point development to the east of the Boat Basin area. The Port was concerned with specific zoning for specific property and did not have enough knowledge of the market, how things were going to be developed to be comfortable putting zoning in. Having some land uses to target and to start to create a vision is a valuable tool at this time. The cleanup is targeted to be complete in two years however that may be extended. Juan Murillo, 1228 S. 5th Avenue, American Wheel Specialist owner, stated his building is old and was built around the 1940's and his question is if this Plan -8 - would affect their ability to renovate the building. He stated he is ready to improve his building to make it look better. Mr. White stated the Plan will not affect his ability to renovate; if at some time in the future it becomes a non-conforming use than it may have some impact for expansion plans. He questioned where the business is located. Mr. Murillo stated 1228 S. 5th Avenue which is between the overpass and on the west side of the railroad tracks. Mr. White stated the Plan would not impact his ability to renovate. Janice Hampton Case, 1231 S. 2nd Avenue, stated she resides on the east side of the railroad tracks and the residents have referred this area to the "sleeping" area of town. She is in favor of the vision and her concern is that it will be at the property owners cost monetarily and otherwise. She also mentioned the sidewalks, road widening and trails as part of the improvement. Commissioner Neuenschwander questioned if an LID has been considered for this development. Mr. White stated no; the residential portion does not have a lot of capital investments. On Washington Street on both sides of the train tracks improvements to residential streets is not a high priority. Washington Street has a very limited roadway section on page 37 which contains a 35-foot roadway and a 9-foot swale which may involve plantings to catch storm water and a multi- purpose path would slope down to the marina. Funding has not been discussed at this time. Ruth Green, 1303 S. Gray Street, questioned when will this Plan begin so she can save up money. She further questioned the backside of the marina where the dykes are in disrepair. Mr. White stated that condition is acknowledged and is controlled by the Corps of Engineers therefore he cannot comment on the repairs and timing. Ms. Green stated the marina and dykes will be gone if nothing is done. She mentioned the dykes were built 50-60 years ago and the cement blocks are there and the water is moving the dirt away from the blocks. She questioned if the Corp of Engineers were present and if they were going to have a meeting about that issue. Mr. White stated there was no representative present. Ms. Green stated her concern since this was the last meeting for public comment and will the Corps of Engineers would have a meeting to address this issue. Mr. White stated he could not speak on their behalf. -9 - Ms. Green stated a public beach is proposed but they might as well forget it if the dykes are not there. She questioned if the Corps of Engineers were invited to attend. Mr. White were contacted early in the process and she is welcome to contact the Corps of Engineer to address her concerns. Ms. Green questioned if the boat dock and marina building are included in the plans. Mr. White stated that property is leased to the City and leased by the Corps of Engineers. He further mentioned the Plan makes recommendations for this property such as swimming activities further away from the existing boat launch and the boat launch would need to be replaced. Ms. Green stated her main concern is the dykes. Vice-Chairwoman Kempf closed the hearing and called for a motion. Commissioner Anderson moved, seconded by Commissioner Hay, to close the public hearing and schedule adoption of findings of fact and recommendation to the City Council for the October 21, 2010 meeting. The motion passed unanimously. WORKSHOP: Lighting Ordinance - Mr. White stated this item was discussed at the Planning Commission in April and the Commission has been provided with a draft Ordinance and Memo which contains housekeeping items and would replace Section 12.32 of the PMC which was adopted many years ago along with an almost identical section as the City's of Kennewick and Richland Sections for the reservatory located at Rattlesnake Mountain. That existing Section needs updating even if the standards contained in the draft don't go forward. He acknowledged this is very similar to Richland's Ordinance and Kennewick's is identical to Richland's according to current research. The Planning Commission needs to weigh in on the policy implications which are significant such as: Is a revised Ordinance implementing new standards is necessary; do you feel the draft provides it? The proposed Chapter 25.76 draft consists of definitions such as emergency lighting would need to be changed due to the fact it does not talk enough things that identify emergency lighting. The Section on General Requirements is where the Planning Commission's policy direction would make the most sense. Provision #I involves uplight shielding which was taken from the existing lighting code which prevents glare and aide in the operation of the former observatory. Number two directed a Good Neighbor Shielding which is basically the heart of the Ordinance and the existing Ordinance does not contain a provision to prevent light trespass and essentially Good Neighbor Shielding does. It talks about the direct line of sight to a lamp fixture which means the shield has to be below the lamps fixture such as if you are standing on your _10 - property looking into the neighbor's yard you will not be able to see the element of the light that produces the light; it will be obscured by a shield and you will not get light trespass. A Section on light pole height was borrowed from Kennewick's Code and basically stated that light poles may not be higher than street lights. Commissioner Neuenschwander questioned who would need a higher light standard other than the Sports Complex; is there anyone else in the future who would have discussion on this. Mr. White stated probably; eventually you will get what you allow. Commissioner Neuenschwander stated nothing comes to mind for an immediate objection that the City's Kennewick or Richland may have experienced. Mr. White stated not to his knowledge. He further mentioned the parking area lighting. The draft says parking areas must be illuminated; such as school parking, industrial parking, etc. One of the most significant areas for policy direction is the topic of amortization. A, B, and C are indicated in the draft and states if you change a luminaire you would need to install one that is in conformance; shielded or limits the direct line of sight for a fixtures lamp. If you replace a bulb or ballista in existing fixture that doesn't trigger change in amortization however a change in land use would. If you are operating a retail store and decide to sell to a party who wished to operate an office, according to the draft you would be required to bring the fixtures up to standards identified in the requirements and is that appropriate. Commissioner Neuenschwander questioned if someone came in for a special permit would a variance be appropriate. Mr. White mentioned the car lot application heard earlier this evening as a good example regarding the lighting requirements which address concerns for lighting as if the standards are in place preventing light trespass. Section D references property improvements greater than 33% of existing value of building and property which already exists in the Building Code and is that the appropriate threshold for someone to be required to provide lighting in accordance to this draft. The Commission would be asked to look at the exclusions in particular is the right set of circumstances that would be excluded in any lighting draft. A lumen is a foot-candle and a 60-watt bulb is about 850 lumens; 1,800 lumens essentially is about 2 incandescent bulbs. Residential lighting of less than 1,800 lumens is proposed to be excluded and should this be higher or lower. Commissioner Anderson stated the discussion is regarding outdoor residential lighting and he is Joe Citizen and he is building his house with a squash court in the backyard; who will be the light police? Will the system rely on Code Enforcement? -11 - Mr. White stated for items that are being permitted it is easy; however, for all other issues it would be based on a complaint driven nature. Such as the PUD installs yard lights if you pay a fee; a complaint was received last year from a PUD yard light and the PUD does not obtain building permits to install outdoor lights. The issue has been resolved and they will obtain permits and shields will be installed where appropriate to prevent light trespass. A squash court would be addressed with a permit; a flood light would be hard to address. Commissioner Anderson mentioned the cul-de-sac he used to reside on and he built a garage; if a light was not installed cars would be driving into his garage so he installed a vapor light on the front of the garage and questioned if that was acceptable. Mr. White mentioned it would need to be shielded. Commissioner Anderson agrees with this proposal however does not see any sense on passing Ordinances that would be difficult to enforce. Is this something that wont accomplish anything. Mr. White brought up the significant amount of construction that occurred over the past decade and referenced the Road 68 area; if you look at commercial areas at night such as gas stations with canopies, parking lot lighting and imagine what it would look like if you were unable to see the actual filament in the bulb or if it were shielded to focus the light in a better fashion. Granted under residential circumstances the bang for the buck may not be there; however for other land uses it might be. Commissioner Neuenschwander mentioned having neighbors in the past who were not limited in what they could and could not do she feels part of their job is to look toward the future and what aspects do we need to develop now which may take 10-15 years to bring in to the lives of the citizens of Pasco; what do we really need to do here. This will give our Code Enforcement and staff guidance with less objection and may take a few years because people are used to doing things their way and it may not be the best way for all of the citizens and based on past experiences with other cities who have gone through this there are some specific areas which may not meet other cities needs and we do need to look at this and establish guidelines and let staff have a way of letting people know what there is and is not available. She stated it would be beneficial to go forward with this item. Commissioner Lukins stated he agrees with Commissioner Neuenschwander and sees value in this item. He also sees the difficulty in enforcement however gets us to where we want to be at. He questioned the parking areas section referring to commercial and industrial sites. Mr. White stated yes the intent in most commercial parking areas are lit anyways. The Kennewick and Richland codes have that in there due to a concern from the Police Departments were not being lit and they did require that there be -12 - a standard for that provision. It was further mentioned that this is food for thought at the moment. If requested a variety of other Washington cities lighting codes and there are model codes and technical information available. Examples of shielded and non-shielded lighting could also be presented. Commissioner Anderson would like to see Ordinances on lighting codes from other cities and mentioned that due to the difficulty in enforcing such issues it would be appropriate to be practical in the establishment of Ordinances. He is very concerned with lighting in parks and public areas; he further mentioned a case from the past in regards to a woman being beaten in a park with no lights and the woman was not found until dawn. He would like an Ordinance in place to provide lighting in parks during all dark hours. Mr. White mentioned the Ordinance does not speak to prohibiting lighting except for search lights and it mainly speaks to shielding the lighting. Commissioner Anderson stated his concern to have specific direction such as parks; however if it is covered with the shielding and amount of wattage than that is fine. Commissioner Hay mentioned the lighting in the parks was instigated by the Planning Commission years ago. Mr. McDonald stated when special permits are reviewed for parks it is required. Vice-Chairwoman Kempf questioned if the Ordinance can be sectioned as commercial, residential and industrial. Mr. White stated yes. Vice-Chairwoman Kempf stated as a resident she wants to understand what is allowable. OTHER BUSINESS: Mr. McDonald stated the Planning Commission reviewed special permits for the Charter College which is located in the Broadmoor Outlet Mall and the last review added 10,000 square feet of new classroom space and part of that review process was noted that there would be a possible future expansion of 3,000 square feet which is approximately 15%-20% total and was not clear at the time if this was included in the proposal and they have grown again and need to add additional classroom space. It was questioned if this item would need to come before the Planning Commission or could it be permitted under the original plan that was reviewed and does it meet the intent that was sent to City Council. If it does then review would be done without a special permit application. Vice-Chairwoman Kempf stated it was noted on the original application. -13 - Commissioner Neuenschwander questioned if the addition would cause a traffic impact on the neighborhood. Mr. McDonald stated this is a commercial neighborhood and homes are quite a distance away and will not impact the homes. Commissioner Hay agrees with Commissioner Kempf. Mr. White mentioned the Planning Short Course will be held by the Washington Planning Association in Kennewick and a second event sponsored by the City of Richland is being presented regarding on how to run meetings etc. With no further business, the Planning Commission was adjourned at 9:03 p.m. David McDonald, Secretary -14 -