Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-18-2010 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes REGULAR MEETING March 18, 2010 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 Vacant No. 7 Vacant No. 8 Jana Kempf No. 9 Carlos Perez 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 were objections to any Commissioner hearing any matter. There were no objections. 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: Commissioner Little moved, seconded by Commissioner Anderson, that the minutes dated February 18, 2010 be approved as mailed. The motion carried unanimously. OLD BUSINESS: -1 - A. SPECIAL PERMIT Renewal/Expansion of Gravel Mining operation in a R-T Zone (Rocky Hills Management, LP) (3921 Dent Road) (MF# SP 10-001) Chairman Samuel read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Staff had no additional comments. Commissioner Hay moved, seconded by Commissioner Anderson, to adopt the findings of fact and conclusions therefrom as contained in the March 18, 2010 staff report. Commissioner Hay further moved, seconded by Commissioner Anderson, based on the findings of fact and conclusions as adopted the Planning Commission recommend the City Council grant a special permit to Rocky Hills Management for the location and operation on Farm Unit #84 with conditions as listed in the March 18, 2010 staff report. The motion passed unanimously. B. SPECIAL PERMIT Location of an Elementary School in a R-1 Zone (Pasco School District) (Sandifur Parkway & Road 6O) (MF# SP 10-002) Chairman Samuel read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Staff had no further comments. Chairman Samuel questioned staff if there would be lighting in the parking lot. Staff stated all schools in the district have lit parking lots. During the plan review process they would submit information that lights have the cutoff feature where the illumination would be directed down towards the parking lots. Chairman Samuel clarified that it is not a special condition however, staff would address during the permit review process. Chairman Samuel questioned if there were any special conditions regarding fences. Staff stated the school district puts up a secondary fence parallel to the abutting property owners. Chairman Samuel questioned if there were any complaints from residents regarding balls flying over the fence, etc. -2 - Staff stated no they had not been notified of any complaints. Staff mentioned the special case with Maya Angelou where the parking lot abutted to a row of homes and that section was required to have a solid masonry type fence. Commissioner Anderson moved, seconded by Commissioner Little, to adopt findings of fact and conclusions therefrom as contained in the March 18, 2010 staff report. Commissioner Anderson further moved, seconded by Commissioner Little, based on the findings of fact and conclusions as adopted the Planning Commission recommend the City Council grant a special permit to the Pasco School District for the location of an elementary school at the northwest corner of Sandifur Parkway and Road 60 (parcels #'s 116-240-072 8v 116-240-067) with conditions as listed in the March 18, 2010 staff report. The motion passed unanimously. C. SPECIAL PERMIT Location of a Sikh Temple in an R-S-20 Zone (Gurdwara Guru Nanak Par. WA) (7505 W. Court Street) (MF# SP 10-005) Chairman Samuel read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Rick White, Community 8v Economic Development Director stated there was nothing to add other than the conditions 4, 7, 8, and 9 address the Commissioners discussion and public testimony received at the public hearing. Commissioner Cruz clarified the approval condition #4 should state 35 inches instead of the listed 35 feet. Mr. White stated that is correct it should state 35 inches. Commissioner Little questioned if the applicant was aware of the conditions. Mr. White stated he has not personally discussed the conditions however he is aware of the sewer and water connections were present in the staff report. Commissioner Little questioned if the applicant was aware they were not to occupy the building until the modifications were made. Mr. White stated yes they were aware. Chairman Samuel questioned if the condition #4 regarding the pole height and whether it may be lit. Mr. White stated it is not unique and is unaware of any symbols that are lit. Mr. McDonald, City Planner mentioned the cross at Faith Assembly is lit. Chairman Samuel questioned staff on the restriction for lighting the pole. -3 - Mr. White stated the condition was designed to maintain the residential character of the neighborhood. Chairman Samuel questioned condition #8 referencing the City approved barricade to be installed for the east entrance and wanted to know if it would be an eyesore. Mr. White stated it could be a cable with reflective symbols and does not need to be a permanent barricade. Commissioner Cruz moved, seconded by Commissioner Anderson, to adopt the findings of fact and conclusions therefrom as contained in the March 18, 2010 staff report. Commissioner Cruz further moved, seconded by Commissioner Anderson, based on the findings of fact and conclusions therefrom, the Planning Commission recommend the City Council approve a special permit for the location of a Church (Sikh Temple) and parsonage with a pole-mounted religious symbol at 7505 W. Court Street, with the conditions as listed in the March 18, 2010 staff report. The motion passed unanimously. D. SPECIAL PERMIT Location of a Caretaker's Residence in a I-1 zone (Ty Gemmell) (505 S. 26th Avenue) (MF# SP 10-006) Chairman Samuel read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Staff stated the findings of fact and conclusions have been modified to reflect the items of concern addressed during the public hearing, such as the mention of police reports and fencing. Chairman Samuel questioned staff if they had investigated any police reports for the neighborhood. Staff stated they did not investigate since the tenants of the referenced "little red house", who were the source of police calls, were being evicted; therefore staff felt the issue had been addressed. Commissioner Cruz moved, seconded by Commissioner Anderson, to adopt findings of fact and conclusions therefrom as contained in the February 15, 2010 staff report. Commissioner Cruz further moved, seconded by Commissioner Anderson, based on the findings of fact and conclusions therefrom the Planning Commission recommend the City Council deny a special permit to Ty Gemmell for the location of a caretaker residence at 505 S. 26th Avenue. The motion passed unanimously. -4 - PUBLIC HEARINGS: A. REZONE Rezone C-2 to C-1 (Ziobro) (117 S. Sth Avenue) (MF# Z 10-001) Chairman Samuel read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director, stated the property is located on the northeast corner of Columbia and 5th Avenue. The site is approximately 6/10's of an acre and the building on the site is approximately 18,000 sq. feet in size. The history and purpose of the C-2 zone is explained in detail in the staff report. The zone was developed in the late 1980's to combat a "bad public image" in the downtown Pasco area. The zone focuses on uses which resulted in large amount of pedestrian movement, short duration parking and uses that were ranged to be complimentary to other uses located in the zone, similar to other downtown districts. The C-2 zone does not have a parking requirement and is a major factor in the analysis of this zone change request. The uses allowed in the C-1 zone cause the need for significant parking depending on the building size. It is estimated that a building this size (18,000 sq. feet) would generate the need for 180 parking stalls. PMC 25.88 mentions the conditions in the vicinity are changed in order to warrant this zoning. Staff cannot determine that there were change conditions in the neighborhood that would warrant this particular zone change request. Criteria #2 establishes the facts to justify the change on the basis of advancing the public health, safety and general welfare. The discussion and history of the C-2 zone in this particular part of the downtown area led staff to the conclusion that there are no facts to justify a change in zone based on advancing the public welfare. Criteria #3 establishes the effect the zone change will have on the nature and value of adjoining property on the Comprehensive Plan. Relying on the significant work that was done in establishing the C-2 zoning district in the late 1980's, staff is of the conclusion that the regulations demonstrate that certain land uses are in fact an inhibiting factor to business growth in the area which is in turn the reason for the C-2 zone. Criteria #4 is the effect on the property owners if the request is not granted; the conclusion is that the property owners would still be able to enjoy the uses that are currently available in the C-2 zoning district which was the zoning at the time of purchase. Criteria #5 speaks to the Comprehensive Plan designation for the property which is an overriding designation of commercial. John Ziobro, 1333 Columbia Park Trail, Suite 110, Richland, WA 99352, represents the applicant and introduced Ms. Hernandez. Dalia Hernandez, 407 E. 4th Avenue, Kennewick, WA stated she is requesting to change the zone, but does not want to include the whole building. She only wants to change the back part of the building. She has a license for a reception hall and in the front of the business she owns a check cashing store. She mentioned a restaurant supply store existed in the space before she purchased -5 - the building. She stated there was little traffic coming to downtown until she moved into this location which her business generated more traffic. She is a single mother of a 2 children (24 and 22 years old) and they want to go dancing, but she stated there is not a good place for good people to go. She would like to offer snow cones in this new facility. She owns multiple businesses in the downtown area and does not serve alcohol. She has owned this building for 5 years and was making her payments without making money and she would come to the city and they would change her rules. She stated the city made her install fire sprinklers and spent more than $100,000.00 to do so. She stated Mitch Nickolds told her that if she had more than 50 people in the hall she would need to install fire sprinklers. So she took out a loan and separated the building and installed the fire sprinklers as Mitch requested. A month ago she came to the City and Mitch Nickolds told her if she had a place that could hold less than 300 people then she would not need to install fire sprinklers. She was very mad because she didn't understand why she had to spend that much money. She could divide the building in two and save more than $150,000.00. She stated she left crying because the City told her she could do this to hold her parties and then they changed their mind. She continued to work even with the frustration she has experienced with the City. She got signatures from neighboring businesses to support her request to change the zoning so she can open a dance hall for youth to attend. She has 4 security officers to monitor her business. She has not had any problems with the police. She stated she is an example for the neighborhood. Chairman Samuel questioned Ms. Hernandez on the number of people that would attend dances and where would they park. Ms. Hernandez stated there is a lot of street parking available and she owns the building directly across the street and she has parking available there. She also has permission from the neighboring business at the corner of Columbia and Lewis Street. Chairman Samuel questioned if she felt they had sufficient parking. Ms. Hernandez stated yes. Chairman Samuel questioned on how often she would hold dances. Ms. Hernandez stated once a week. Chairman Samuel questioned which day of the week the dances would be held. Ms. Hernandez stated Saturdays. Chairman Samuel questioned the time frame for the dances. Ms. Hernandez stated 8:00 pm until 1 am. -6 - Chairman Samuel stated the staff report stated there are similar facilities in the surrounding area that have a lot of police calls and questioned Ms. Hernandez on what would make her facility different. Ms. Hernandez stated she will not be serving alcohol like the place on 1St Avenue which is designated for youth and they serve alcohol next door, so people can go drink and then come back and see always sees problems at that place. Chairman Samuel questioned if she felt alcohol was the primary reason why there is so much trouble at other places. Ms. Hernandez stated yes. Commissioner Little questioned if they approved the special permit with a condition to not serve alcohol would she be ok with that. Ms. Hernandez stated no problem. Commissioner Little asked Ms. Hernandez to speak on security and how would they would deal with people who had too much alcohol or other substances. Ms. Hernandez stated at her reception hall she has 4 security officers and she also monitors the business. If she notices people who have been drinking she asks them to leave. She is willing to follow any rules set by the City. Chairman Samuel questioned on how many parking spaces they have now. Ms. Hernandez stated more than 80 are available. John Ziobro stated Ms. Hernandez embodies the spirit of the small business owner and entrepreneur. He stated by the time she came to him for services she had already made numerous, impressive and expensive changes to make this property work. He applicant has spent $200,000 making improvements to the building which includes the installation of the fire wall, the reinstallation of the water line, electrical work and has made a large investment as a first step to have a reception hall business which has been approved. They have not had any police calls related to her business. He stated there is a fine line of C-1 and C-2 and they are bordering on the line which they would like to be a C-1. He mentioned the Golden Nugget and their parking area; as well as the Out-N- About nightclub. The difference between the exercise of the zoning authority and site plan approval where you are going to address issues such as parking, lighting and security. He believes some deference can be given to staff if they make it past the first step and they get to the point where they are talking about submitting an application and getting it approved. The Comprehensive Plan policies he focused on the policy where they are striving to stimulate business development. The applicant has a large building and is trying to stimulate business. The proposed site is 8,000 square feet for the dance hall. The parking calculation was based on 18,000 square feet. The staff report lists 180 for 18,000 and now they have cut that down by more than half. The applicant owns -7 - a neighboring building with a lot available for parking as well as many neighboring businesses with parking. He suggested a development agreement with a condition stating no alcohol being served. The applicants' reception hall has customers who hold receptions and obtain liquor licenses for their individual event. The applicant is committed to having a non-alcohol dance club; therefore, general public disorder would be eliminated. He stated he does not feel it would be a fair comparison to say an under 21 dance club or an alcohol free dance club presents the same evils as a night club. He feels that is an unfair comparison. He mentioned the evidence that is in the record; calls for police service related to the Golden Nugget and due to their experience the applicant is going to present the same perils. He pointed out a FTSID (Fail to stop and ID) which is an accident, not a night club related incident. A MALMISCH (Malicious mischief or destruction of property) which was related to an auto incident and some are just field contacts. He stated in looking at the staff report and the Planning Commission might deny the application due to the list staff has created with the calls for services which just have codes and don't tell you what happened and if the Planning Commission is going to be held against the applicant the police record should be entered into the record for the Planning Commission to review. He requested to remand this item to staff to present the police reports for everyone's benefit of full disclosure and understanding if the night club was the problem. And then make an analogy that the problem is applicable to the applicants' situation. He also mentioned the Comprehensive Plan's Policies and changes in circumstances or the community and then goes back to the staff report which states they are relying on zoning input from the 1980's. 2:15 He described it as a finding against the applicant and would like the benefit of having recent solid data prior to determining the applicant's request. He stated the applicant has approximately 40 on-site parking spaces and 15 more across the street. He also stated they would be able to get permission from neighboring businesses to use their parking spaces. He suggested this report is refined to state the minimum parking for 8,000 square feet and allow the applicant to identify parking. The reception hall has not created any problems with noise, parking, alcohol or disturbances and references this applicant as a responsible business owner. Chairman Samuel questioned Mr. Ziobro to restate his argument on the zoning. He called for clarification if the applicant is granted the zoning change and later on decides to sell the property what prevents other uses of the facility to not create problems. Mr. Ziobro suggested a development agreement would address the issue. He stated they are valid for a certain period of time and are also renewable. Which would be an agreement between the applicant and the City which states the conditions under a dance hall can be operated in exchange for the benefit of a favorable zoning designation that allows some uses that may otherwise not be desirable. The applicant intends to stay in business however there is no way to calculate if she will be the owner in 5, 10 or 20 years. He mentioned having the development agreement recorded which in the event the property changes -8 - ownership there would be a recorded agreement on file which would carry with the land. Chairman Samuel questioned the applicants plan on managing public safety, such as fights or public nuisances. Mr. Ziobro stated they do not have that level of detail and could be a condition of her business license or permitting. There have been no problems to date. He mentioned the focus is to provide a non-alcohol club where teens can go and feel safe. There applicant has security. The applicant also has a restaurant across the street which is a non-alcoholic restaurant. Chairman Samuel questioned staff on the issues brought up with the applicant. Mr. White stated the comment on the site specific conditions of approval which may apply if the property had a C-1 zoning designation right now. The request is to change the zoning not site approval. The history of the C-2 zone suggests that the City has been down this road before. There was no mention of concern from the applicant on the effect of setting a precedent. A zone change won't necessarily help assuming you want to change the zone in the first place which might create a domino effect as you go up Sth Avenue. Mr. Ziobro does not disagree with Mr. White's comments however his suggestion is more A-typical. The City of Richland has granted zoning changes along with development agreements due to the exact same concerns of the City. Chairman Samuel opened the public hearing. Josie Lopez, 2114 Van Giesen, Richland, WA stated she is in favor of the applicant providing a place where youth can get together. She lived in Seattle and has been a resident in the area for the past 8 years and stated there are not many places for children to go in the Tri-Cities. She takes her children to Spokane and Seattle to do things. Mr. White stated the hearing may be continued for staff to explore additional evidence and meet with the applicant. Chairman Samuel closed the public hearing. Commissioner Anderson is torn on this proposal due to his experience with the Police Department in the past. He mentioned there are teen aged clubs with no alcohol being served and the Police were still called to break up fights and disagreements. He understands the applicants desire to provide a safe place however this is not the right location due to the proximity to alcohol serving businesses in the neighborhood. Commissioner Cruz stated they have an obligation to look into this. He is not in favor of the close of business at lam. He would like to remand this to staff to -9 - address the issues. He stated the staff report did not represent the applicants intended plans were. He felt it was referenced as the Golden Nugget part II. Commissioner Little stated he would like to remand this to work it out with the applicant. Commissioner Hay mentioned the history of the location and would like to remand this to staff. Commissioner Anderson further stated once the door is open it is hard to close it and costs a lot of money and time which puts them back where they started. Chairman Samuel stated he has been a Tri-City resident since 1982 and Pasco is a very different place than it was back then. He mentioned the hard work and rezoning which was created to encourage the type of development that would create a downtown which we can be proud of and safe and to discourage the kind of development that led to a lot of the problems in the downtown area back in the 1980's. He is very hesitant to make a change in zoning. Commissioner Little moved, seconded by Commissioner Hay, to continue the hearing on the proposed rezone and initiate deliberations and schedule adoption of findings of fact, conclusions and a recommendation to the City Council for the April 15, 2010 meeting. The motion passed with one opposing vote from Commissioner Anderson. B. SPECIAL PERMIT Location of an Auto Body Shop in a C-3 Zone (Action Auto Services) (1900 block of N. 4th Avenue) (MF# SP 10-007) Chairman Samuel read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Dave McDonald, City Planner stated the applicant has applied for a special permit to locate an auto body shop on their property on North 4th Avenue. A number of years ago, Action Towing had applied for the same request and the request was granted with a list of conditions. At the time, the owners complied but did not fulfill the request for an operational spray booth in the building. They currently are in the process to enhance the property with a new building, destruction of an old office building and replacing it with a new building to the rear of the old office building. Within the new building they propose to have an auto body shop and paint booth. Condition #2 references the landscaping along 4th Avenue. They currently have a building permit to build the building but do not have a permit to build the spray booth or auto body part of the shop. Conditions were placed on the building permit related to the landscaping along 4th Avenue which is reflected in Condition #2. Condition #3 references the sound wall which was previously built by the applicant on the west side of the property along 5th Avenue. There is a water meter located in line of the sound wall and therefore the applicant did not continue the wall past that water meter. The -10 - Engineering Department is requesting the water meter is relocated to the west of the wall into the right of way area behind the curb which will allow the wall to continue as requested. The wall will provide protection from the house located on the site. Chairman Samuel questioned Mr. McDonald if they have received any complaints on this location. Mr. McDonald stated not to his knowledge. He mentioned the previous business on this property was a heavy construction company which serviced big equipment such as trucks, earth moving equipment, etc and the site has always been used for automotive, heavy equipment type of activity. Chairman Samuel questioned if the landscaping requirement is consistent with the Corridor Beautification Plans for 4th Avenue. Mr. McDonald stated no; if the City does not get that Plan done by the end of the year this condition and permit condition would require the applicant to put in the landscaping in no later than next April. The rock would need to be removed and replaced with some trees which would be reviewed and approved with the Parks Department to make sure and comply with the Plan for that area, whereas the applicant has agreed to. Chairman Samuel questioned Condition #4, requirement of the sound block wall and questioned the height of the wall. Mr. McDonald stated it would be 6 feet high and would continue around 80 feet on to the other site to cover the house. Ken Flone, 1948 N. 4th Avenue, Pasco, WA presented and read the letter from Tri-City Battery. He stated they are very excited to expand and increase the tax base with the addition of more employees. Chairman Samuel questioned Mr. Flone if he has reviewed the tentative conditions and was agreeable to the conditions. Mr. Flone stated yes. Chairman Samuel opened the public hearing. Ramona Castro, 5120 Robert Wayne Drive, Pasco, WA stated she is a proud Pasco resident and knows the family. She is excited to see the development even though the nation is experiencing economy issues. She mentioned another lady in the audience, present for another item, was in her pre-natal classes and she encourages her clients to succeed and grow and she is very proud to see her clients' success. Commissioner Little moved, seconded by Commissioner Hay, to close the hearing on the proposed special permit and initiate deliberations and schedule -11 - adoption of findings of fact, conclusions and a recommendation to the City Council for the April 15, 2010 meeting. The motion passed unanimously. C. SPECIAL PERMIT Location of a Community Health Clinic in a C-1 Zone (La Clinica Rural Health) (715 W. Court Street) (MF# SP 10-009) Chairman Samuel read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Mr. McDonald stated the applicant has applied for a new community health center. The PMC states community health clinics are defined as a community service facility level one which require review by the Planning Commission through the special permit process prior to receiving a building permit and locating anywhere in the community. This is the 3rd community health clinic application in the past few years that has been presented. The applicant proposes to build a new 3-story, 30,000 square foot building on a vacant lot on Court Street to the west of the Garibaldi's Restaurant. Several years ago the applicant built a parking lot for overflow parking at their facility across Stn Avenue. The facility was built in the 1980's with Block Grant funds and has been renovated since. They currently offer dental services, WIC and First Steps/Start Program, as well as mental health services. The Dental Clinic, WIC and First Steps/Start Program and mental health services would relocate to the new building. The existing building would hold Administration and health care services. The current parking spaces allow for more than enough as required. Parking was a concern of the past and pictures were presented displaying the parking lots activity which showed there were plenty of empty parking spaces. The site plan displayed a proposed driveway on the eastside of the new building in between the new building and Garibaldi's Restaurant which would only be used for in-only deliveries. In discussions with the Engineering Staff it was mentioned that no driveway should be allowed due to the adjacent driveway at Garibaldi's which would cause conflict in traffic movement in both driveways. The main entrance is on the north side and traffic will come in from 5th Avenue. The applicants concern was for delivery trucks to back up to the loading dock which is immediately west of Garibaldi's Restaurant. The proposed building is an attractive 3-story building with a basement and landscaping along Court Street which overall will be a tremendous enhancement to that corner. Aaron Maxey, 7803 W. Deschutes Avenue, Kennewick, WA stated they are committed to enhancing the community in a positive way. They propose to expand their clinical services. The parking lot across 5th Avenue was developed with a future building in mind back in 2003. A federal grant is funding this project. The dental services, WIC/First Steps and behavioral health services will be housed in the new facility which will eliminate foot traffic from crossing the street. The current building is leased and they intend to relocate services to save money on the leased facility. -12 - Commissioner Hay questioned Mr. Maxey on the typical size of delivery trucks that frequent their facility. Mr. Maxey stated the maximum would be similar to the FedEx box shaped trucks. The proposed driveway is intended to be a one-way driveway for delivery trucks instead of trucks coming in from 5th Avenue and backing into the loading docks. In order to eliminate any danger for pedestrians, it would be safer for clients and employees to come in off of 5th Avenue and delivery trucks to come in through the one-way driveway. Commissioner Little questioned what type of deliveries would occur. Mr. Maxey stated they anticipate two deliveries for office supplies would come to the new facility and the remaining deliveries will go to the main facility where medical services are housed. Chairman Samuel questioned if they intention was to place signage stating "Delivery Entrance Only" and general customers would not use the driveway. Mr. Maxey stated yes signs would be posted. Mr. McDonald mentioned there was a letter submitted and is listed as Exhibit #1 which is a letter from the neighboring owners of the mobile home park. Chairman Samuel opened the public hearing. Maurice Devers, 1531 N. 4th Avenue, Pasco, WA stated he owns the Mobile Home Park and has been there for the past 20 years. He stated he has witnessed foot traffic and jaywalking across 5th Avenue and has never seen 55 vacant parking spaces. He mentioned Garibaldi's Restaurant has semi-trucks that come in for deliveries which pull into La Clinica's driveway and back into their parking lot and block traffic. He also mentioned semi-trucks that park in the middle of the street to make their deliveries as well. Emergency vehicles come and go and block Ruby Street. Chairman Samuel questioned Mr. Devers on the nuisance and blockage from delivery and emergency trucks. Mr. Devers stated it is a nuisance. Chairman Samuel questioned Mr. Devers if he had any suggestions on how to avoid or mitigate the nuisance. Mr. Devers stated the jaywalking could be prevented if the employees use the crosswalk on Court Street. He also mentioned the "hot-rodders" that run through the neighborhood and is not only a nuisance but a safety factor as well. Chairman Samuel questioned Mr. Devers on his observation of the parking situation. -13 - Mr. Devers stated they do not have adequate parking. Chairman Samuel questioned Mr. Devers when the parking spaces are full where they would park. Mr. Devers stated it is not that bad right now, but in the past there were cars parked on both sides of 5th Avenue from Ruby Street to Agate Street. They would also park in their residents' parking spaces and if they would leave to go to the store their parking spaces would be taken from a La Clinica client. Charlotte Devers, 1531 N. 4th Avenue read the letter they submitted (Exhibit #1). She further described the parking situations. Mr. Devers stated he is in favor of La Clinica but is concerned with the parking. Mrs. Devers agreed. Ramona Castro, 5120 Robert Wayne Drive, Pasco, WA stated she has worked with La Clinica for 28 years and is very excited for La Clinica's success. She publically apologized for the anguish expressed by the Dever's on the jaywalking and parking. She stated they are mandated by their supervisors not to park on 5th Avenue. Their parking lot is supervised. Mr. Maxey stated they share the concerns of jaywalking and parking want to make this a community venture. 1:11 In 2003 the parking lot did not exist and they did have employees parking on 5th Avenue. The parking lot was built to eliminate parking off of 5th Avenue and a company policy was developed to address employee parking. If a violation occurred, a photo would be taken and sent to their immediate supervisor and would be addressed accordingly. Two- thirds of their patients will go to the new building and eliminate the jaywalking. Commissioner Little questioned the number of employees at their facility. Mr. Maxey stated approximately 200 employees within the main facility and 3 off-site clinics; one clinic is located in Kennewick, as well as a Detoxification Center and a Behavioral Health Clinic off site in Pasco. Commissioner Little questioned how many providers are on staff daily. Mr. Maxey stated 5-6 providers. Commissioner Little questioned if they generated 20-25 patients a day or more. Mr. Maxey stated yes. Commissioner Little questioned Mr. Maxey if he was going to make sure Ms. Castro a nice raise. -14 - Mr. Maxey stated he is not her immediate supervisor but would certainly recommend a raise. Chairman Samuel mentioned the emergency vehicles blocking the road and asked Mr. Maxey for comments. Mr. Maxey stated they do have designated parking established and a route for deliveries. Mr. Devers questioned the number of parking spaces their employee parking lot contains. Mr. McDonald stated there are 132 parking spaces. He submitted aerial photos of the parking lot at different intervals (Exhibit #2) for the record. He mentioned it is not uncommon for emergency vehicles to stop on streets all over town. Chairman Samuel questioned what was the Engineering Department's opinion on the proposed one-way driveway. Mr. McDonald stated it is a concern since it is within 100 feet of 51h Avenue and Court Street as well as the conflict with the Garibaldi driveway. He suggested having a joint driveway; but that would eliminate the angled parking in the Garibaldi parking lot. The other issue with the driveway is the proposed width of 24 feet. Chairman Samuel questioned if the Engineering Department understood the applicants position on only a few deliveries a day which would use the proposed driveway. Mr. McDonald stated it is his understanding there would only be a few deliveries daily however was not sure if that was the Engineering Department's understanding. He also mentioned even though they propose to label the driveway with "deliveries only" signs there wouldn't be a way to police that. Chairman Samuel clarified staff was looking for direction from staff on this item. Mr. McDonald stated yes. Commissioner Cruz is reluctant on the driveway on Court Street. Chairman Samuel mentioned the public hearing is not closed at this time and asked the applicant if the driveway was not approved would that stop production. Mr. Maxey stated they do have an alternate plan. He further stated they only have a few deliveries a week not daily. Renata Presby, 209 Broadmoor, Richland, WA stated she is the architect for this project and the one-way entrance was discussed and an alternate route for _15 - deliveries would hinder the pedestrian traffic. She displayed an actual route with the delivery truck coming in to the parking lot and having to back up to the loading dock. She stated it would be a life safety hazard for pedestrians versus vehicles on Court Street. Commissioner Anderson questioned Ms. Presby on how they propose to stop traffic from driving through the delivery driveway and commented the safety for the public on the street outweighs the twice a week deliveries. Ms. Presby stated signage would be in place and adding a curb in the middle lane would prevent traffic from coming in from another direction. Commissioner Anderson stated he was not concerned of traffic turning left into the driveway; he is concerned with the traffic turning right off of Court Street from westbound. He stated the driveway would only be used a few times a week and people will use the driveway with or without the signage. Ms. Presby stated the signage would prevent that. Commissioner Anderson stated it is private property and there is nothing they can do to stop them from driving through the driveway. Ms. Presby stated the majority of their patients are used to driving up Stn Avenue to access La Clinica and does not think they would change their direction. Commissioner Anderson questioned if an alternative requiring a spotter for a delivery truck would be appropriate. Ms. Presby stated that would need to be addressed by La Clinica but would be a safer way for deliveries. Mr. Maxey they would be agreeable to the recommendation to requiring a spotter and would go with the alternative option and add landscaping in the proposed driveway area. Chairman Samuel called for comments from Commissioners on the driveway. All Commissioners stated they would not be in favor of a driveway from Court Street. Commissioner Cruz moved, seconded by Commissioner Little, to close the hearing on the proposed special permit for the La Clinica site and initiate deliberations and schedule adoption of findings of fact, conclusions and a recommendation to the City Council for the April 15, 2010 meeting. The motion passed unanimously. D. PRELIMINARY PLAT Preliminary Plat for West Pasco Terrace (Farm 2005, LLC) (Road 60 & Power Line Road) (MF# PP 10-001) -16 - Chairman Samuel read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Mr. McDonald stated a few months ago the applicant was before the Planning Commission with a request to rezone this site to R-1 and a rezone was granted with a concomitant agreement restricting the minimum lot size to be 8,500 square feet. The proposal contains a plat with 139 single family lots with lot sizes between 8,500 square feet and 17,000 square feet with an average of 9,000 square feet which is consistent with the approved zoning and consistent with the subdivision being developed directly to the west, as well as the subdivisions to the south (Sunny Meadows and the Village at Pasco Heights). A list of 30 recommended conditions were developed together with the Engineering Department. Chairman Samuel questioned where the nearest park is proposed to be located. Mr. McDonald stated it would be directly north of the proposed elementary school which will not be built until the Three Rivers Development is built with homes and may be built simultaneously with the elementary school. The developer is required to pay a park fee of $644 per lot; that money is deposited into the park fee pool which is available to improve parks in the neighborhood. Chairman Samuel questioned where estate type fencing or wall is required. Mr. McDonald stated it is located all the way up Road 60 on the west side and all along the north side. Chairman Samuel questioned that 2 sides of the 4 sides would contain a block wall. Mr. McDonald stated yes. Chairman Samuel questioned if this development would contain an entrance Mr. McDonald stated the City does not maintain those type of improvements and are often located on a private lot where the responsibility falls with the developer and/or the homeowners association. In this particular case the developer does not propose to install an entry way sign with this project. Chairman Samuel stated they have been approached in the past when developers are finished with building they abandon the entry way and it develops into a nuisance. John Fetterhoff, HDJ Design Group, 6115 Burden Boulevard, Pasco, WA stated he represents Farm 2005, LLC; as well as R. C. Olin Homes. The project directly to the south of this site has been very successful. The applicant agrees with the majority of the conditions presented. In reference to the question of a monument sign, they do not have plans to put a monument sign on this site. On page 9 of the staff report, Item #14 states Road 60 be constructed from Sandifur Parkway -17 - to Powerline Road during the first phase of development. He would agree to a half width street from Sandifur to Three Rivers in the southwest corner of the property. However, once they get up to the property they would ask to modify the conditions to read similar to item #15 for Powerline Road which states it would be completed with each abutting said street. Item #18 references a 12 inch irrigation mainline should be extended from Sandifur Parkway to Powerline Road. With the history of the projects developed in this area, in December 2008, the Three Rivers Crossing to the west was required to install a 10 inch irrigation mainline on Road 60 (Exhibit #1 - Resolution 3124). He would like clarification from the Engineering Department on what size that line is supposed to be. He would also propose that item be a shared cost between the two developers for a fair and equitable situation. Chairman Samuel called for clarification on his request. Mr. Fetterhoff stated he is agreeable to the requirement to install irrigation to provide service to the project from Sandifur to Three Rivers. He suggests north of Three Rivers should be a shared cost for the installation of the irrigation main or if the cost for the southern piece of this project then the northern piece should be burdened on the Three Rivers project to even out the cost. Chairman Samuel questioned what the timeframe for this project is. Mr. Fetterhoff stated yesterday. His intent is to pave the project and have lots available by the end of the year. Chairman Samuel questioned how many lots are proposed for phase one. Mr. Fetterhoff stated 30 or 40 lots. Chairman Samuel opened the public hearing. Mr. McDonald stated he would meet with the Engineering department in reference to condition #18. The School District has a condition to install a 12 inch mainline to the School Districts north property line. If they were all built together, they could split the cost three ways, but development doesn't happen that way. Condition #14 would also be addressed. The phasing questions would be addressed with the applicant and the Engineering department. Chairman Samuel questioned if staff provides developers flexibility with their phasing or do they come back to the Planning Commission. Mr. McDonald stated in the past they have had draft phasing schedules which was not finalized with the Resolution City Council approves. That allows the developer flexibility to create phases larger when the market was swinging up and when it slowed down they would create a smaller phase. Commissioner Anderson moved, seconded by Commissioner Hay, to close the hearing on the proposed preliminary plat and initiate deliberations and schedule -18 - adoption of findings of fact, conclusions and a recommendation to the City Council for the April 15, 2010 meeting. E. SPECIAL PERMIT Location of a Temporary Structure for sandblasting and painting in a I-1 Zone (Hancock Sandblasting and Painting) (900 N. Avery Avenue) (MF# SP 10-010) Chairman Samuel read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Shane O'Neill, Planner I, stated the applicant has requested a special permit to locate a temporary membrane structure at 900 N. Avery Avenue for the purposes of sandblasting. The site consists of approximately 2 acres and has access off a non-dedicated road called North Avery Avenue and access of East Lewis Street. The site does not have City sewer access. The special permit is a request to allow a previously constructed temporary membrane structure, which is approximately 3,000 square feet in size. The PMC does have provisions for special permit review for temporary uses provided they are clearly of a temporary nature and do not involve the erection of a permanent structure. Sandblasting is an allowable use in the I-1 zone and is commonly done in other areas of the city in I-1 zones. The applicant is requesting a special permit for two years to provide time to generate sufficient revenue to allow for construction of a permanent structure for the same use. This special permit application is in result of a Code Enforcement recommendation by the Inspection Services Manager to legalize the structure through this process. Rick White, Community 8v Economic Development Director, stated the Planning Commission was handed a revised approval sheet for your consideration. Chairman Samuel questioned if there had been complaints received on the operation at this facility. Mr. O'Neill stated no. Don Gammell, 32923 W. Spearman Road, Hermiston, OR stated they are an industrial paint contractor based in Boardman, Oregon and decided to move to this location due to their employees and work are based in this area. They do sandblasting and coat work for the VIT project and dams in the area. The temporary structure is for sandblasting as well as paint. They did not get a permit prior to operations and recognized they had made a mistake and therefore have applied for the special permit. The building is classified as an automotive spray booth and is completely different and it is hard to calculate since an automotive spray booth is a very small area and fits an automobile. The larger the area, the smaller chance of a fire. Many of these structures are built along the dams and in the Hanford area as well as across the United States and have not had any issues with fire or flame. They are a very environmentally conscious business and the different locations they work in, they are very _19 - knowledgeable about their structures and how they are to be maintained. They spend a lot of time and money pertaining to that issue. They do not own the property and they have made a 3-year agreement and if they owner does not go through with his project they would like to purchase the property. Chairman Samuel questioned what the current structure looks like. Mr. Gammell stated it is a tan building that they purchased from back east Farm Tech which is a quant style building. Has 3 inch pipe set on ecology blocks for wind. Chairman Samuel questioned the reason on the 2-year special permit request. Mr. Gammell stated it would allow for time for the property owner to determine if they would sell the land to him. The shop painting and sandblasting is a small portion of the business; the majority of their work is done in the field. They have a great demand locally. Chairman Samuel questioned how much of an employment impact he is talking about. Mr. Gammell stated they have 4 men locally in Pasco that work at the site in Pasco. Chairman Samuel questioned Mr. Gammell if he was aware of the requirement to have a special permit to operate the business. Mr. Gammell stated yes. They had numerous requests from contractors in this area instead of locating in the Boardman area. Commissioner Cruz questioned if they were going to be painting. Mr. Gammell stated yes they intend to paint. Commissioner Cruz stated they need feedback from City staff because the report is all about sandblasting. Chairman Samuel clarified they applicant is applying for sandblasting and painting in this facility. Mr. Gammell stated yes. Mr. O'Neill stated the conditions were recently modified by the Inspection Services Manager to restrict painting from this facility primarily for the purposes of fire safety. The applicant indicated a 12,000 cubic foot per minute ventilation system currently exists on the site but staff is unable to determine if the site is nonvolatile. -20 - Mr. White stated there is another factor to keep in mind. The building can't be sprinkled. Chairman Samuel questioned if typically sprinklers exist on facilities like this. Mr. White stated yes. Mr. Gammell stated that is where the confusion comes in because it is not an automotive spray booth; it has to do with the dilution and air changes per hour when you have a spray gun you can figure that the volume of quantity from the spray gun and how much voltage you put in there. The 12,000 CFM dust collector will exchange that air that meet federal requirements. These types of facilities do not contain fire sprinkler systems. Commissioner Cruz stated he understands that the City is giving him a different standard than what he is typically being asked to comply to. He is sympathetic to the applicants' situation however; he must be accountable for the intended use due to safety issues. The challenge goes to staff if this is really an automotive spray booth or for other things. He mentioned Matheson Painting did not have an automotive spray booth and they painted items for him. He stated the applicant has a valid point where this is not a production line auto body shop but a different type of deal and does not know how to permit or code this. He mentioned the air changes per hour, state permits, etc still need to be addressed. Chairman Samuel stated the biggest concern is the proposal from the applicant is to do sandblasting and painting and the staff report talks about sandblasting. This item should be remanded back to staff to get on the same page with the applicant. Commissioner Cruz stated the appropriate application of code should be addressed. Mr. Gammell stated that is where the temporary structure is in question due to the fact it is not an automotive spray booth; however a large sandblasting and paint shop is more appropriate. Commissioner Anderson questioned if they remanded this back to staff to reformulate would the applicant be willing to work with staff to develop appropriate findings. Mr. Gammell stated yes. Chairman Samuel opened the public hearing. Robert Hancock, 309 N.E. Marshall Loop, Boardman, OR 97818 stated he is a partner with Hancock and is in charge of safety. This facility is just a small part of the business. They use this facility as a distribution center. They have 4-20 -21 - employees that work from this facility as well as a full time bookkeeper. Their intent is to locate here in Pasco due to the neighboring union and hall. Chairman Samuel questioned staff if they had adequate input to develop findings appropriate to the applicants request. Mr. White stated they would clarify the applicants request, staff understood it would be for sandblasting, as well as clarify the conditions that apply for sandblasting and painting for the Planning Commission's review. Chairman Samuel stated a motion to continue the hearing to next month to present findings of fact. Commissioner Anderson moved, seconded by Commissioner Hay, to continue the hearing on the proposed temporary sandblasting structure to the April 15, 2010 Planning Commission meeting. The motion passed unanimously. F. SPECIAL PERMIT Location of a Church in a R-1 Zone (Iglesia Bautista el Calvario) (1341 W. Sylvester Street) (MF# SP 10-008) Chairman Samuel read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Staff stated Joe Franco has applied on behalf of Iglesia Bautista el Calvario for a special permit to locate a church at the northeast corner of 14th Avenue and Sylvester Street. The site currently contains a church and the site only has access from the alley. There is a gravel parking lot currently which would accommodate less than 20 vehicles. Staff is recommending the parking lot be resurfaced with a hard surface and install landscaping along Sylvester Street. The first 10 feet of the parking lot must be irrigated and landscaped as well as meeting the commercial landscaping standards. Commissioner Little questioned if there was enough room to accommodate the request for landscaping along Sylvester Street. Staff stated there is an area available for landscaping however staff needs to determine the parking lot requirements for this site. Chairman Samuel questioned Mr. Dave McDonald if there had been any problems reported with the previous church using the next door apartment parking lot. He stated the building has been renovated however his concern is the parking spaces available. Mr. McDonald stated there is a small parking lot on the proposed site with neighboring 8-plexes. He is unaware of any issues with parking from any surrounding property owners. -22 - Joe Franco, 3909 W. 47th Avenue, Kennewick, WA 99337 stated the building is in good condition and the parking lot consists of compacted gravel. In reference to the recommendation for landscaping on Sylvester Street, he stated the neighboring apartment building has 6 ft of sidewalk...They currently have 20 members who attend their Church. 18 months ago he had applied for the location of a Church at a different site and the requirements were more than he could bear. This site is a stepping stone for his Church. He requested the parking lot requirement be extended for 2 years to allow for him to find the resources to comply. Commissioner Little called for clarification on the applicants request to extend the paving of the parking lot. Mr. Franco stated yes, the recommendation in the report states June 20, 2011 and he would prefer to extend that by one year. Commissioner Little questioned if they would occupy the building and then comply with the parking requirement. Mr. Franco stated yes. Chairman Samuel questioned if they currently occupy the building. Mr. Franco stated yes. Chairman Samuel questioned if he has reviewed the special conditions and if he agreed with the proposed conditions. Mr. Franco stated yes. Chairman Samuel opened the public hearing, after three calls there was no response. Chairman Samuel questioned staff if they would accommodate the applicants request for the parking lot requirement to extend one year. Mr. McDonald stated he would be agreeable to the one year extension for the parking lot. Commissioner Cruz questioned staff on the landscaping requirement. Mr. McDonald stated typically when churches exist in residential areas the church must match the residential setback which in this case is 20 feet, but in this case due to the limited parking they proposed to landscape a small portion to improve the streetscape and allow for more parking. Chairman Samuel stated he drove by the facility and noticed the only access to the church is through the alley, as well as the neighboring 8-plexes. -23 - Mr. McDonald stated that is correct and the alley consists of a hard surface. Chairman Samuel questioned if there have been any complaints. Mr. McDonald stated no. At the time when the 8-plexes were built the apartment owners were required to access through the alley instead of driveways on Sylvester Street. Chairman Samuel questioned the Commissioners if they had any other special conditions to add. Commissioner Cruz was in favor of extending the parking lot requirement to be extended the extra year. Commissioner Little moved, seconded by Commissioner Cruz, to close the hearing on the proposed Church and initiate deliberations and schedule adoption of findings of fact, conclusions and a recommendation to the City Council for the April 15, 2010 meeting. The motion passed unanimously. OTHER BUSINESS: Chairman Samuel questioned if City Council was in process of appointing new Planning Commissioners. Mr. White stated the City Council will interview on April 12 at their workshop. With no further business, the Planning Commission was adjourned at 10:15 pm. David McDonald, Secretary -24 -