HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-21-2013 Planning Commission Minutes- - 1
REGULAR MEETING March 21, 2013
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
CALL TO ORDER:
The meeting was called to order at 7:00pm by Chairman Cruz.
POSITION MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT
No. 1 Michael Levin
No. 2 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:
Chairman Cruz read a statement about the appearance of fairness for hearings on
land use matters. Chairman Cruz asked if any Commission member had anything to
declare. There were no declarations.
Chairman Cruz 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:
Chairman Cruz explained that state law requires testimony in quasi-judicial hearings
such as held by the Planning Commission be given under oath or affirmation.
Chairman Cruz swore in all those desiring to speak.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Commissioner Anderson moved, seconded by Commissioner Greenaway, that the
minutes dated February 28, 2013 be approved as mailed. The motion passed
unanimously.
OLD BUSINESS:
A. Special Permit
Location of a private bus terminal (Griselda
Melendez) (MF# SP 2013-002)
Chairman Cruz 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.
-2-
Commissioner Anderson moved, seconded by Commissioner Greenaway, to adopt the
findings of fact and conclusions therefrom as contained in the March 21, 2013 staff
report. The motion passed unanimously.
Commissioner Anderson moved, seconded by Commissioner Greenaway, based on the
findings of fact and conclusions as adopted the Planning Commission recommend the
City Council grant a special permit to Fronteras Travel for the location of a private van
transportation business at 205 S. 4th Avenue with conditions as listed in the March 21,
2013 staff report. The motion passed unanimously.
Mr. White explained that this will go to City Council at their next regular meeting
unless an appeal is filed.
B. Code Amendment
Title 25 Code Revisions (Caretaker’s
Residencies) (MF# CA 2011-006)
Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff.
Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director, discussed the code
amendment for Title 25 for the Pasco Municipal Code (PMC) related to caretaker’s
residencies. At the previous meeting the Planning Commission had and settled on a
30 percent ratio in terms of development around an area to apply to the applications
for a caretaker’s residence.
Mr. white explained that previous discussion fostered a permanent structure in an
area where only a caretaker’s structure might be appropriate. Staff took a look at the
proposed code language and wanted the Planning Commission to consider the use a
recreational vehicle for a caretaker’s residence rather than a site-set mobile home,
which tends to become a permanent piece of property as opposed to something that
could be started up and wheeled off. Staff presented two options to the Planning
Commission, both including a recreational vehicle rather than a site-set mobile home.
The difference between the two options would be the amount of development in the
area of the caretaker’s residency, either 30% developed or 40% developed.
Commissioner Hilliard agreed with the direction staff was heading and preferre d option
2, with 40% of development as the reasonable amount of development in an area for a
caretaker’s residency. He supported the concept of using a recreational vehicle to keep
from having a permanent structure on site.
Commissioner Anderson stated that he would prefer option 1, with 30% being the
reasonable amount of development for the caretaker’s residence. He did like the
addition of the recreational vehicle.
Commissioner Greenaway stated that she preferred option 2, with 40% development.
Commissioner Kempf stated that she preferred option 1, with 30% development. She
asked staff about a timeframe for the recreational vehicle to remain on site.
Mr. White responded that a timeline would be based on the functionality of the
recreational vehicle. If it connected to utilities it can be classified by the state as a
-3-
primary residence which would involve the timeframe in which a person lived in the
recreational vehicle during the calendar year.
Chairman Cruz responded that with the addition of the recreational vehicle provision
he would lean towards development up to 40% because it is an issue that comes up a
lot and being more generous in the amount of development would preclude people
from wanting to push for establishing secondary residencies in the back of their
businesses. It could perhaps be revisited in a couple of years if it doesn’t work out.
Mr. White added that there is a review built into the proposed language for every two
years.
The Planning Commission members were in agreement that 40% development would
be reasonable.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
A. Special Permit
Location of a church in an R-1 District (Samuel
Nuñez) (MF# SP 2013-003)
Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff.
Shane O’Neill, Planner I, discussed the special permit application for the location of a
church in an R-1 Zoning District. Churches require review through the special
permit process prior to locating within the community. The code requires one parking
stall for every 10 lineal feet of bench seating. The church in question has 18 pews
that are roughly 10 feet. There is sufficient area on site for the required parking. The
primary condition is to pave the parking area and driveway approaches.
The applicant was not at the public hearing but Mr. O’Neill stated that he met with the
applicant onsite.
Chairman Cruz asked if the applicant is aware of the proposed approval conditions.
Mr. O’Neill answered that a packet with the staff report had been mailed to the
applicant. He had discussed many of the conditions with the applicant.
Commissioner Anderson asked if the applicant was aware that he would have to do
some paving as one of the conditions.
Mr. O’Neill answered that the applicant does know about the paving. With the costs
being high the recommendation gives the church close to a year to make those
improvements.
Commissioner Hilliard asked if the goal is to get the whole parking lot paved.
Mr. O’Neill replied not necessarily. The requirement in the approval conditions is for
18 parking stalls.
Chairman Cruz opened this item up for public hearing.
-4-
Mary Howard, 304 N. Elm Avenue, spoke on behalf of this item. Ms. Howard voiced
concern about the noise levels coming from the church from their events. On several
occasions she has heard music from their events at night inside her home. Ms.
Howard stated that she does not have a problem with them operating as a church as
long as the noise level decreases and she hopes to see landscaping improvements.
Chairman Cruz asked staff for clarification on rules for special events the church
might hold.
Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director, responded that churches
and schools are still bound by the same regulations as everyone else, including the
level of noise and how much noise they can make at a particular time. Should there
be a noise complaint, at night especially; the best thing to do is to contact the 911
dispatch to send an officer to the location.
Mr. Howard stated that she has contacted the Police Department in the past by
contacting dispatch directly.
Chairman Cruz stated that in these circumstances the Planning Commission can ask
staff to remind the applicant about what the noise ordinance rules are. Noise levels
can be factored in with their special permit renewal if they are troublesome and noisy.
Since this is new ownership taking over the church a little more leeway may be given
at first.
Ms. Howard stated that she is unaware when the applicant took over the church but
noise levels have increased as of last summer.
Mr. White responded that staff would pass the concern on during the course of the
permitting process and perhaps establish a condition that reiterates the noise
conditions to make sure it’s on paper.
Chairman Cruz added that he would be good with adding a condition to address the
noise. He asked staff how long the special permit was valid.
Mr. White answered that a special permit once issued is specific to the property,
meaning it is indefinite.
Chairman Cruz asked the Planning Commission members if they would have an issue
forcing a renewal on this particular special permit.
The Planning Commissioners were all in agreement that a renewal should be a
condition of this special permit.
Ms. Howard asked a question about the alley by the church that frequently has cars
driving up and down along with garbage cans the neighbors keep. She wanted to
know if that is something the Planning Commission could look into.
-5-
Chairman Cruz answered that as the applicant works with the building department to
get their permit staff will look into street access appropriate to the lot not to rely on
the alley for access.
David McDonald, City Planner, replied that staff will further research the issue of the
alley.
With no further comments the public hearing closed.
Commissioner Anderson had concern about moving forward with the special permit
without the applicant being present at the public hearing. He would like to hear the
applicant acknowledge the conditions and would like the public hearing to be
continued.
Commissioner Greenaway agreed with Commissioner Anderson in that the applicant
needs to be present to comfortably move forward.
Chairman Cruz stated he did not have a problem with continuing the public hearing.
Commissioner Anderson moved, seconded by Commissioner Greenaway, to continue
the public hearing until the April 25, 2013 Planning Commission Meeting. The motion
carried with a 4 to 1 vote with Chairman Cruz dissenting.
B. Special Permit
Location of a temporary cellular antenna tower
in a C-1 (Retail Business) Zone (AT&T Wireless
c/o Vinculums) (MF# SP 2013-004)
Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff.
Shane O’Neill, Planner I, discussed the special permit for a temporary cellular antenna
tower in a C-1 (Retail Business) Zone. The applicant is proposing to contain the
antenna inside of an existing cell phone tower equipment enclosure on the TRAC
property. The antenna is called a cell on wheels (COW). The “COW” would be towed in
and stored behind a fence. This request allows AT&T to reserve licenses for 4G wave-
length frequencies which would otherwise expire. They plan to erect a permanent 100’
cell tower in the near future in which they will need to apply for a special permit. The
temporary tower will be removed when the permanent tower is constructed.
Commissioner Hilliard asked if the applicant is leasing the site for their temporary
antenna.
Mr. O’Neill answered that he would need to ask the applicant.
The public hearing opened and the applicants spoke on behalf of their special permit.
Ken Lyons of Busch Law Firm, 22525 SE 64th Place, Suite #288
Issaquah, WA 98027, spoke on behalf of this special permit application as legal
counsel for AT&T. He briefly clarified the reason for AT&T needing a temporary
-6-
cellular antenna tower. AT&T is currently upgrading all of their sites in the Tri-Cities
Area to the latest 4G technology called, LTE (Long -term Evolution). It provides 10
times the speed of 3G, essential for broadband data. They have to have the broadband
service up and running by June 2013. This would then be removed within a year for
the permanent facility to take its place. He answered Commissioner Hilliard that they
are paying lease space from Franklin County for the site.
Cynthia Sapp, 3301 Burke Ave N, Ste 1, Seattle, WA 98103 spoke on behalf of the
special permit application.
Commissioner Kempf asked how the temporary antenna, which is pictured on wheels,
would be tied down to handle high winds in the area.
Mr. Lyons answered that it would be tied down and they have very strict guidelines.
With no further comments the public hearing closed.
Chairman Cruz and the other Commissioners were in agreement that as long as the
temporary cellular antenna came down when the permanent tower is constructed this
would not be an issue.
Commissioner Anderson moved, seconded by Commissioner Kempf, to close the
hearing on the proposed temporary cellular tower and initiate deliberations and
schedule adoption of findings of fact, conclusions and a recommendation to City
Council for the April 25, 2013 meeting. The motion passed unanimously.
WORKSHOP:
A. Code Amendment
Airport Zoning Update (MF# CA 2013-001)
Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff.
David McDonald, City Planner, discussed the Airport Zoning Update. He explained
that roughly every 10 years the Port of Pasco updates their master plan, which was
just completed this past year. Within that plan expansion of the terminal and taxi-
ways are discussed along with the need for expansion of one of the runways. When
that expansion was identified staff from the City and County met with the Port of
Pasco to begin the exercise of going through current zoning regulations to see how
they would provide protection for the runway expansion. Current regulations in the
zoning code were established in 1972 and have not been touched since that time and
need to be reviewed. Mr. McDonald then introduced members of the Port of Pasco and
they followed with a brief presentation.
Randy Hayden, 3601 N. 20th Avenue, spoke on behalf of the Port of Pasco. He
explained that the passenger numbers at the Tri-Cities Airport continues to increase
there has been an increase in new airlines and an increase in the size of the planes.
With the increased numbers and aircraft, larger terminals and runways are required
as well as protection for the surrounding area. An update to the zoning code is
necessary to allow proper growth and expansion to the airport and to ensure safety.
-7-
The Port of Pasco has updated their Comprehensive Plan with the FAA and three
things led to needing to change the zoning code: (1) Physical growth to the airport,
such as runway extensions, (2) The FAA has updated their requirements for protection
of the airspace and (3) WSDOT has updated their land use requiremets to protect
against encroachment.
Chuck Larsen, 3601 N. 20th Avenue, stated that the most significant item to look at is
airspace protection and compatible land use. He discussed the disclosure statement
in the ordinance that will be needed to remind owners that they are living under an
airport and they may be subjected to noise, fumes and vibrations. WSDOT developed
the “Airport and Compatible Land Use Guidebook” to assist local governments with
this responsibility. The Planning Commission was asked to pay close attention to
Section 25.82.090 of the Airport and Compatible Land Use Guidebook which
establishes six zones tied to airport functions for the protection of the approach and
departure zones for aircraft, turning movement areas near the ends of the runways
and for general traffic patterns around the airport. The six zones contain a list of
prohibited land uses. Current regulations do not contain specific airport safety zones.
The Port of Pasco has communication with the City of Pasco to allow for solutions in
non-compatible land use areas and will try to keep an awareness so that the airport
can be protected and remain in Pasco since it is an important facility in the Tri-Cities.
Commissioner Hilliard asked what was the largest plane that can land at the airport.
Mr. Larsen answered that the airport is setup for nearly any plane except for the 747
or 777. The runways are a little short for a very heavy 757 which is one of the reasons
an extension is needed.
Chairman Cruz stated in 20-50 years the Tri-Cities may be very different and the City
will not want growth to surround the airport.
Mr. Larsen stated the Port has looked out 50 years to see if they will need more
runways and they have concluded they will not.
Chairman Cruz asked how much change is anticipated in the zones due to new GPS
technology.
Mr. Larsen stated that has been factored into the plan. With new GPS technology
more approaches will be possible due to increased precision.
Mr. Larsen added that the Port is very comfortable with what has been occurring in
the area.
Commissioner Hilliard asked about the height of water towers.
David McDonald, City Planner, responded that they are 158’-160’ in height.
Commissioner Hilliard asked if any water towers could be constructed in the airspace .
Mr. Larsen answered that they could be constructed in the airspace as long as the
Port is aware of the construction and location so that they can manage and take
proper safety measures.
-8-
Chairman Cruz stated that he was in support of expansion of the airport and getting
bigger planes.
Commissioner Hilliard added that he would also like to see the facilities grow at the
airport.
Mr. Hayden stated that the Port has spoken with the School District and Columbia
Basin College and both were in agreement that their plan is protecting the schools as
well.
Commissioner Anderson stated he supported what the Port was doing. It is needed for
economic development efforts in the Tri-Cities.
Mr. McDonald pointed out that the Planning Commission needed to be aware of
25.82.090, the section in the plan where there had been most discussion about the
land use protection areas.
Commissioner Kempf asked about one of the designated zoning land use, Zoning 2,
regarding cell towers and remote controls and if those interfere with that zoning.
Mr. McDonald replied that there were some towers in that area but they were alright
as far as height was concerned.
Jim Toomey, 3601 N. 20th Avenue, added that the towers and remotes don’t interfere
with the electronics of the planes as long as the airport is informed about their
location in which is the importance of development to be communicated with the Port.
Chairman Cruz stated that he did not have any problems with the plan. The
Commissioners were in agreement.
Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director, explained that staff will
prepare a formal staff report and ordinance to bring to a public hearing at the meeting
in April.
B. Code Amendment Park Fees (MF# CA 2013-002)
Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff.
David McDonald, City Planner, discussed the proposed park fees update. The city has
had a park fee in place for many years. The original fee of $200 was modified in 1997
to $450 per dwelling which increased annually at 3.25%. The fee is currently $709.
Mr. McDonald explained the process used in the recent past to obtain a combination
of park land and fees to acquire and develop neighborhood parks. The park sites are
typically identified on the preliminary plat and dedicated to the city as plats are
recorded. Developers build the entire infrastructure around the park including the
sidewalks and sewer and water stubs to each park site and then dedicated the park
with the filing of a final plat. A reduced park fee is then collected at the time permits
are issued.
While the city has successfully ensured park are provided with new development, the
Administrative & Community Services Department has indicated the annual fee
increase has not kept up with the costs of finished park improvements.
-9-
Rick Terway, Administrative & Community Services Director, briefly discussed the
park fees update. He explained that construction and land costs which increased
roughly 55-65% in the same time that the park fees have increased 30-35%. The Park
Commission feels that a new base fee needs to be set to match the rising construction
costs.
Mr. Terway made a comparison of the park fees stating that the City of Richland’s
current fees are $1,187 per household, the City of Kennewick’s current fees range
from $400-$1,000 per household and the City of West Richland’s current fees are at
$860 per household. He stated that the Park & Recreation Board discussed the fees
at length and made a motion to increase the base fee from $450 to $800. The board
also cited the increased demand for more amenities at new park facilities.
Commissioner Hilliard asked if these fees are only for new housing permits or for new
developments.
Mr. Terway answered that the fees are paid with each building permit that is issued.
Commissioner Hilliard replied that his concern is that recently there have been several
fee increases for building permits and in return less permits have been issued. The
numbers for building permits this year have and if fees continue to increase he is
concerned as to what it will do for new development. He believes that the City might
need to look into alternative ways to generate money to pay for the development and
upkeep of parks as the city might not always be able to rely on the development of new
homes.
Commissioner Greenaway was in agreement with Commissioner Hilliard. Since the
School Impact Fee development has slowed down. She asked if there is a way to
combine park money when new schools are built to create larger shared playgrounds
with the schools and the neighborhoods.
Mr. Terway responded that the city currently does share property and facilities with
the School District however this cannot always happen as facilities need to be
developed throughout the community. Kurtzman Park was used as an example that is
shared with the School District and responsibilities are shared.
Commissioner Kempf believed that the park fee was reasonable and still seems low
compared to other cities in the area.
Commissioner Anderson requested clarification for the amount of the base fee increase
to $800.
Mr. Terway stated that staff would like to request a base price of $1,500. The $800
would be sufficient if it didn’t include streets and sidewalks.
Commissioner Anderson stated that either way he is supportive of the park fee
increase. Community and neighborhood parks are critical to the fabric of a
neighborhood and are needed for quality life in Pasco.
Chairman Cruz was in agreement with Commissioner Anderson. The parks are a big
amenity, where the per capita income lags behind Kennewick and Richland
substantially. In neighborhoods in Pasco there are many basketball hoops out in the
-10-
streets and he would rather see the parks have higher standards and amenities to get
kids out of the streets. He also agreed with the idea of starting the fee high and
allowing the developers to reduce the fee by doing much of the work themselves.
Having lived in the Sunny Meadows area he said that the park was nice but a little
sparse and would like to see equipment and things to do such ask basketball hoops,
soccer fields, a skate park, etc. With higher fees those are amenities that Pasco
residents would like to see and could keep kids out of trouble.
Commissioner Hilliard agreed with Chairman Cruz and mentioned the DNR property
that the Planning Commission has discussed in previous meetings as a good time for
the city to plan for parks in the community.
Mr. Terway responded that a park is part of the preliminary site plan for that area
adjacent to school.
Chairman Cruz summed up that the Commissioners want to set park expectations
high and with funding those expectations.
Commissioner Hilliard asked a question about road development and why the
developer isn’t putting in the road infrastructure.
Mr. White answered that at times the park might be at the edge of a subdivision as the
park site might be possible to put in the middle of the subdivision. With the location
on the edge of a subdivision the developer may not feel any responsibility to improve
one or both sides of the road the city may have to finish that infrastructure.
Mr. Terway added that if a street might have a land owner on each side of the street
and each land owner has to develop their half of the street. If the park is on one half
of the street then the city has to develop that half which is where the infrastructure
cost comes from.
With no further comments the workshop ended.
OTHER BUSINESS:
Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director, stated that City Council
will be appointing new Planning Commissioner’s to fill vacant seats on April 1, 2013.
Mr. White also reminded the Planning Commissioner’s that the April Meeting is
scheduled for April 25, 2013 since April 18, 2013 is the Volunteer Banquet.
COMMENTS:
With no further discussion or business, the Planning Commission was adjourned at
8:30 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
______________________________
Dave McDonald, City Planner