Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-28-2013 Planning Commission Minutes- - 1 REGULAR MEETING February 28, 2013 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at 7:00pm by Chairwoman Kempf. POSITION MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT No. 1 Michael Levin No. 2 Vacant No. 3 Andy Anderson No. 4 Alecia Greenaway No. 5 Joe Cruz No. 6 Vacant No. 7 Zahra Khan No. 8 Jana Kempf No. 9 Paul Hilliard APPEARANCE OF FAIRNESS: Chairwoman Kempf read a statement about the appearance of fairness for hearings on land use matters. Chairwoman Kempf asked if any Commission member had anything to declare. There were no declarations. Chairwoman Kempf then asked the audience if there were any objections based on a conflict of interest or appearance of fairness question regarding the items to be discussed this evening. There were no objections. ADMINISTERING THE OATH: 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. Chairwoman Kempf swore in all those desiring to speak. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Anderson moved, seconded by Commissioner Greenaway, that the minutes dated January 17, 2013 be approved as mailed. The motion passed unanimously. OLD BUSINESS: A. Special Permit Location of a Childcare Facility in a C-1 District (Elodia Gutierrez) (MF# SP 2012-028) Chairwoman Kempf read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. David McDonald, City Planner, stated there were no additional comments since the previous meeting. -2- Commissioner Hilliard moved, seconded by Commissioner Khan, to adopt the findings of fact and conclusions therefrom as contained in the February 28, 2013 staff report. The motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Hilliard moved, seconded by Commissioner Anderson, based on the findings of fact and conclusions therefrom the Planning Commission recommend the City Council grant a special permit for the location of a preschool operation at 1803 West Bonneville Street, with conditions as listed in the February 28, 2013 staff report. The motion passed unanimously. Mr. McDonald explained that this will go to City Council at their next regular meeting unless an appeal is filed. B. Rezone Rezone from C-1 (Retail Business) to R-3 (Medium Density Residential) (Michael & Mindy Newton) (MF# Z2012-005) Chairwoman Kempf read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director, stated there were no additional comments since the previous meeting. Commissioner Anderson moved, seconded by Commissioner Greenaway, to adopt the findings of fact and conclusions therefrom as contained in the February 28, 2013 staff report. The motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Anderson moved, seconded by Commissioner Greenaway, based on the findings of fact and conclusions therefrom, the Planning Commission recommend the City Council approve the rezone from C-1 (Retail Business) to R-3 (Medium Density Residential). The motion passed unanimously. Mr. White explained that this will go to City Council at their next regular meeting unless an appeal is filed. C. Code Amendment Title 25 Code Revisions (MF# CA2011-006) Chairwoman Kempf read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director, discussed the proposed Pasco Municipal Code (PMC) Title 25 revisions and asked for input from the Planning Commission on sections of the code identified by Council for modification with directives: PMC 25.22.030(1) RS-20 (detached garage size) Council would like to allow one or more options for incremental increases in floor area for detached residential shops and garages based on land area, PMC 25.24.030(1) RS-12 (detached garage size) Council would like to allow one or more options for incremental increases in floor area for detached residential shops and garages based on land area, PMC 25.66 Home Occupations Council would like the Planning Commission to review the proposed maximum number of students allowed to be tutored and PMC 25.70.050 Caretaker’s Residencies Council would like the Planning Commission to insert objective and measureable criteria related to the proposed terminology “substantially undeveloped residential or commercial neighborhood”. -3- The first option for accessory structures in the RS-20 Zone is taking the existing wording, of 1,200 maximum that a detached garage or shop could be and for each additional 20,000 square feet it could be increased by 400 square feet. The second option increases the maximum detached garage size to 1,600 square feet and for each additional 20,000 square feet it could be increased by 400 square feet. The same options have been applied to the RS-12 Zone except the maximum of 1,200 square feet for the detached shop or garage was kept and allowed the size to be larger based on the additional lot area of 12,000 square feet. Commissioner Hilliard asked how the 400 additional square feet was determine d based on the lot size increase. Mr. White responded that it was based on a premise of an area with very large lots with a need for more storage or garage space. For every 20,000 square feet in addition there might be a need for more storage space. Commissioner Hilliard stated that the proposed options seem reasonable but preferred the second option that allowed for 1,600 square feet as the maximum size with an additional 400 square feet for each additional 20,000 square feet of lot size. Commissioner Anderson agreed with Commissioner Hilliard that option 2 was the best option. Commissioner Greenaway, Chairwoman Kempf and Commissioner Khan all agreed with option 2. The Commissioners also agreed that option 2 was best for the RS-12 Zone. Mr. White then asked what the Commissioners felt was an appropriate number of students at one time allowed to be tutored in home occupations. City staff checked with neighboring cities and Kennewick allows 4 students in a 24 hour period, Richland allows 4 students, Yakima allows 5 students and Walla Walla says “whatever is customary in their neighborhood”. Commissioner Hilliard stated that he believes 4 students in a 24 hour period is reasonable and would not cause any serious traffic impacts to a neighborhood. Commissioner Greenaway and Chairwoman Kempf agreed with Commissioner Hilliard . Commissioner Khan stated that it depends on the neighborhood but 4 students in a 24 hour period did not seem unreasonable. There was a consensus with 4 students in a 24 hour period. Mr. White asked the Commissioners for input on the term “substantially undeveloped residential or commercial neighborhoods” in regards to caretaker’s residencies. The proposed wording in the PMC is, “The caretaker’s residence is within a commercial or industrial area with less than thirty percent (30%) of parcels within the surrounding vicinity, defined as a 300 ft. radius from the site, being developed. The term -4- “developed” shall mean a parcel containing at least one permitted structure or land use with a current City of Pasco Business License”. Commissioner Anderson asked where the 30% came from. Mr. White answered that it is an arbitrary number. Commissioner Anderson gave an example of the caretaker’s residence on South 25th Avenue that would not be eligible yet someone who has a business on East B Circle would be eligible. Mr. White answered yes. Commissioner Anderson stated that in areas of the city that are built up he doesn’t see the need for a caretaker’s residence however out in areas with less development then there might be a need. Commissioner Khan asked if the objective of the revision to the code to make it more difficult for someone to have a caretaker’s residence. Mr. White answered that the revision is to establish a measurement into the ordinance on caretaker’s residencies for the word “substantially developed”. Commissioner Anderson responded that he would defer to staff on the amount since it is arbitrary. Chairwoman Kempf responded that 30% developed seemed like a reasonable amount. Commissioner Hilliard stated that he would have to defer to staff as well. He doesn’t know what would be defined as substantially developed. Commissioner Khan stated that she was disconcerted with the arbitrary 30% as “substantially developed” because the language might automatically not allow for a caretaker’s residency is certain areas. She asked if a special permit could still be used to allow for a caretaker’s residence if there was a special need for the applicant even though the area might be developed over 30%. Mr. White stated that the Planning Commission would need to have findings that would justify making contrary recommendations to what is in the code. It would not preclude the ability to approve or deny for a special permit but it would be difficult given the criteria. The Commissioners were all in agreement with 30% being a reasonable number for “substantially developed” areas. Mr. White stated that staff will present the recommendations to City Council as agreed upon. -5- PUBLIC HEARINGS: A. Special Permit Location of a private bus terminal (Griselda Melendez) (MF# SP2013-002) Chairwoman Kempf read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director, discussed the special permit application for the location of a private bus terminal. This applicant was issued a special permit in 2012 for the location of a private bus terminal; however one of the conditions in that special permit was that the passenger bus would be limited to 25 passengers. After the permit was approved and operations were underway, City Code Enforcement discovered that a 30 passenger bus was being used and recommended that the applicants amend the special permit, which they have made applications to do. All other operations assigned to this special permit are the same as they were in the 2012. The size of the bus will not change; it will simply allow for the re-installation of seating that was taken out in order to comply with the 2012 list of conditions. Commissioner Hilliard asked the applicant if they were in agreement with the conditions. The applicant answered that they were. Jose Torres, 205 S. 4th Avenue, spoke on behalf of his application and for the owner, Griselda Melendez. He stated that there was a misunderstanding in the conditions of the original special permit. They thought they were only allowed 25 people on the bus at a time and didn’t realize that the bus couldn’t have seating for over 25 people. Once Code Enforcement discovered this, they removed the additional seating to currently operate in compliance. With no further comments the public hearing closed. Commissioner Khan moved, seconded by Commissioner Hilliard, to close the public hearing and schedule deliberations, the adoption of findings of fact, and development of a recommendation for City Council for the March 21, 2013 meeting. The motion passed unanimously. OTHER BUSINESS: B. Other Motion to move April Planning Commission Meeting to April 25, 2013 Chairwoman Kempf read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Commissioner Khan moved, seconded by Commissioner Greenaway, to reschedule the April 18, 2013 Planning Commission Meeting to April 25, 2013. The motion passed unanimously. -6- WORKSHOP: A. Plan Shoreline Master Program Orientation (MF# PLAN2013-001) Chairwoman Kempf read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director, discussed the Shoreline Master Program Orientation and invited staff from the Department of Ecology to give their presentation. Jaime Short and Jeremy Sikes introduced themselves as the point of contacts for the Department of Ecology Shoreline Master Program. They showed a brief slideshow containing a summary of, the shoreline master program. They referenced the Shoreline Management Act of 1971 (RCW 90.58) which was designed as a cooperative state/local partnership to recognize and protect private property rights consistent with the public interest (RCW 90358.020). Some of the key standards in shoreline guidelines that were addre ssed were: shoreline modifications (piers, docks, bulkheads, riprap, fill), vegetation management, buffers/setbacks, critical area protections and public access. Cumulative impacts were discussed as “Reasonably foreseeable” impacts to ecological functions from new development which should be evaluated and avoided where possible and unavoidable impacts must be minimized and mitigated to satisfy the “no net loss” standard. The restoration plan was discussed as an assessment of potential restoration projects that may be possible on the shorelines, including restoration and enhancements that are being done by other entities, such as the federal government or private entities. The restoration plan is to act as a tool against which the no net loss can be measured. Commissioner Anderson asked what they meant by “restoration”. Could it impact a property owner to where they would have to remove structures and return the shoreline to a “natural state”. Mr. Sikes answered that a shoreline owner who wants to deve lop their shoreline that has an impact on that shoreline could offer to move structures away from the shoreline and restore another area to balance the scales. Commissioner Anderson gave an example to clarify his question that if someone has a structure from part of their lot, such as a boat house, could they be required to remove the structure at some time and was concerned about property rights. Ms. Short answered that the restoration plan would not make anyone move a structure that has already been permitted and built. The restoration plan is more a way to allocate money in the most effective way. Commissioner Hilliard asked for a more clear definition on the restoration plan and if it means restoring the shoreline to its natural state or to a park. -7- Mr. Sikes explained that the program is to create a functional lift in the area. Taking a natural area and turning it into a park is not going to be covered under a restoration plan since it’s about improving the ecological impact at the site. Ms. Short added that many areas will not be able to be transformed back to their natural state but it is to provide the lift and improve the ecology. Commissioner Hilliard asked if 2014 is the deadline is for the City to turn in the proposed program. Ms. Short answered that 2014 would be the goal and the deadline is in the RCW. There would also be a one-year extension. However, the way that the grant would be written with the Department of Ecology is for a three-year period. The City of Pasco should anticipate funding July 1, 2013 and allows for three years. The agency has not caused any trouble for those jurisdictions making progress under the grant agreement. Commissioner Hilliard asked if the Franklin County, City of Kennewick and City of Richland on the same timeframe. Ms. Short answered that Franklin County is on the same timeline but Kennewick has finished. David McDonald, City Planner, asked if there is a penalty attached to the Shoreline Master Program if the City is not meeting its deadline, such as money withheld for other City programs and projects. Ms. Short replied that they cannot punish the City in that way. Throughout the grant process the Department of Ecology will constantly be monitoring the progress commensurate to costs. If anything starts to go off track and there are problems with product and deliverables, the City Staff will know. The worst case scenario is that the State is on the hook and the State will then go through the rule making and create a Shoreline Master Program on behalf of the jurisdiction. With no further questions or comments the workshop concluded. COMMENTS: Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director, gave a brief update about the Auto Repair Advisory Committee. Commissioner Khan attending the first meeting that took place just prior to the Planning Commission Meeting along with himself and one representative of an auto repair business, Mr. Desjarlais. Together they formulated some next steps to come up with a proposal for Planning Commissio n consideration at some point in the future. With no further discussion or business, the Planning Commission was adjourned at 7:59 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ______________________________ Dave McDonald, City Planner