HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-15-2014 Planning Commission Minutes-1-
REGULAR MEETING May 15, 2014
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 VACANT
No. 2 Tony Bachart
No. 3 Andy Anderson
No. 4 Alecia Greenaway
No. 5 Joe Cruz
No. 6 Loren Polk
No. 7 Zahra Khan
No. 8 Jana Kempf
No. 9 Gabriel Portugal
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.
Commissioner Polk recused herself from the workshop item, MF# PLAN2013-003.
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 Greenaway moved, seconded by Commissioner Portugal, that the minutes
dated April 17, 2014 be approved as mailed. The motion passed unanimously.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
A. Special Permit Location of a Church in a C-3 (General Business)
Zone (Templo de Alabanza) (MF# SP 2014-004)
Chairman Cruz 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 church in a C-3 (General Business) Zone. The site is
located at 1202 West Lewis Street. The Planning Commission has seen special permit
applications for this site before, most recently in 2011 for a facility to operate an after
-2-
school program for youth called, Power Zone. Churches are an unclassified use, requiring
a special permit application in all zoning districts. Staff has come up with findings of facts
and conclusions that are required through the Pasco Municipal Code and a list of six
development conditions which are typically applied to churches, such as, adequate
parking and that the applicant needing to apply to applicable building codes for an
assembly structure.
There were no comments for the public hearing.
Commissioner Polk moved, seconded by Commissioner Khan, to close the public hearing
and schedule deliberations, the adoption of findings of fact and development of a
recommendation for City Council for the June 19, 2014 Planning Commission meeting.
The motion passed unanimously.
B. Special Permit Location of a Wireless Communications Facility
(AT&T) (MF# SP 2014-005)
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
wireless communications facility in a C-1 (Retail Business) Zone. The applicant proposes
to locate the cellular tower adjacent to the mini-storage facility at the southwest corner of
Court and Road 68. The cellular tower is proposed to be camouflaged as a faux pine tree
including bark, foliage and branches. The base of the tower will contain equipment and
an equipment enclosure approximately 600 square feet in area. A chain link fence was
originally proposed but, staff is recommending a condition requiring a block wall.
The applicant has analyzed the surrounding vicinity in an attempt to locate publicly
owned facilities or a structure 35 feet or higher as required by code to analyze the
possibility of co-location. The analysis concluded that there are no such sites that would
allow for the coverage gap to be met. This particular tower would accommodate two
additional providers, reducing the number of cellular towers needed in the area. Located
to the northeast of the proposed site is an AM station tower. Staff provided the Planning
Commission with the analysis completed by the applicant for the possibility of locating the
needed antennae’s on the AM tower. The conclusion is that the AM tower has insufficient
structural capacity to accommodate the addition antennae’s.
Chairman Cruz asked for clarification on the analysis given included in the meeting
packet given to the Planning Commissioner’s.
Mr. O’Neill responded that the analysis was of the existing three towers on the property
located north of the proposed tower site.
Dennis and Marilyn Thorne, 6701 Court Street, addressed the Commission. Ms. Thorne
explained that they own the property with the AM towers and although the equipment
AT&T is proposing is too heavy to mount to their tower, they would welcome the new tower
on their property. There would be some interference with the AM tower frequency. The
proposed tower will not become a part of their skyline and they would prefer to see it
amongst the other towers where there is already obstruction to the skyline.
-3-
Mr. Thorne stated that he has spoken to surrounding residents and there is concern as to
the aesthetics of the new tower.
Bill Glenn, 1324 Cedar, Richland, WA spoke on behalf of Mr. & Mrs. Thorne’s as their
technical consultant and representing Ink Stand Broadcasting who are the operators of
KALE on the AM towers. He stated that the new tower will in fact cause interference with
the current AM Station Tower. The new tower would act as a reflector and push the signal
to the north. Since the radio station has been in place first, the Federal Communications
Commission (FCC) demands that anything that changes the radio station has to be taken
care of by the person making the change. There are still some issues that need to be
explored prior to final consideration of the installation. Mr. Glenn stated that AT&T is
doing their research because they did extensive studies to determine that the existing
towers themselves are not appropriate for what they are trying to install.
Chairman Cruz asked Mr. Glenn what would happen if the tower was located with the
existing three towers to the radio station.
Mr. Glenn answered that there are two approaches; one of which is to detune the
structure so that as far as the radio station’s towers it wouldn’t exist and the other
method is to adjust the radio station’s systems to accommodate the fact that the reflector
is there. Either approach would achieve a specified pattern from the signal of the radio
station or both methods are very expensive, however, are both achievable.
Commissioner Greenaway asked how far away the proposed tower would have to be in
order to avoid interference.
Mr. Glenn responded approximately 1/3 to 1/2 mile. As currently specified it is about
600-700 feet. The center tower is the reference to that whole installation and everything
would be measured from that.
Mr. Thorne added that there needs to be cooperation between the radio station and the
proposed tower.
George Pierce, 10259 35th Avenue SW, Seattle, WA spoke on behalf of the applicant. He
explained that the design of the pole is to integrate with the surrounding environment.
AT&T and their new 4G technology requires some larger antennae’s and more space
between the antennae’s so using a canister type design is possible but minimizing the
design is best through camouflage. AM interference is quite common and towers are
mounted and installed on AM stations which create interference as well. Those are
mitigated through an AM study. He stated that he spoke to a firm in Seattle who stated
that any structure under 100 feet tall per the FCC does not require an AM study at this
time, however Mr. Pierce said he would check for confirmation. If the study is necessary,
AT&T will perform that and any mitigation necessary on the tower. As for locating the
tower on the nursery property, an extensive amount of time was spent studying the AM
towers there and the issue is disturbing the ground ring, necessary for the signal of the
AM station, which extends across Road 68 and through most of the parcel, so anywhere
on that area they would want to put a tower they would have an issue.
Commissioner Greenaway asked if it would be cost prohibitive to detune the tower.
-4-
Mr. Pierce responded that he would need to see the study first. He has yet to see one
happen in his career and they have walked away from sites in the past because of it.
Chairman Cruz asked if there are other locations that are comparable to performance to
AT&T that don’t create an issue for the existing radio towers.
Mr. Pierce answered through a search, in which he is the fourth firm to work on this
project for AT&T. The original consultant was a tower company hoping to locate a new
tower but when they came across the AM station tower and their structural integrity they
handed the project back over to AT&T. AT&T found the US Cellular stealth pole but it was
too far north.
Chairman Cruz asked if cell phone towers have been located on zones other than C-1.
David McDonald, City Planner, responded yes, but typically they are matched with a
structure that is already in place, such as a water tower.
Chairman Cruz stated then that if the Planning Commission should not choose to move
forward with the cell tower at the proposed site due to the AM station then they would
perhaps consider another site through the special permit process.
Mr. Pierce stated that he understood but asked how that decision could be made.
Chairman Cruz answered that it would be in the form of a recommendation and would
possibly involve more questions.
Mr. Pierce added that the applicant would accept a condition of approval that would
require the passing of an interference study.
Chris Smith, 1706 Road 68, spoke on this special permit application. He stated that the
proposed property is by his home. He asked if they put the tower across the street on
Court Street, if they would take down one of the three AM towers so that the eye sore
would remain the same.
Mr. Glenn answered that all three AM towers are in use and will not be removed.
Mr. Smith asked if there were any potential health problems due to its proximity to local
residences.
Mr. Pierce answered that the facility will meet or be below the FCC minimum requirements
for health and hazard.
Mr. Glenn added that the radio station has also passed the exposure limits.
Melinda Puckett, 6520 W. Court Street, spoke on behalf of the special permit application.
She stated that she was the property owner of the proposed site and did not foresee any
problems with the proposed cell tower being located on her property.
-5-
With no further comments the public hearing closed.
Commissioner Greenaway asked to check if an AM study needs to be done as a proposed
special permit condition.
Chairman Cruz the Planning Commissioner’s if they had any objections to the proposed
location.
Commissioner Khan, Commissioner Greenaway and Commissioner Polk stated that they
would prefer to see an AM study to ensure there is no interference.
Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director, stated that staff would check
with the City Attorney to see the ability of AT&T locating their tower and about the AM
study.
Chairman Cruz stated that the Planning Commission is willing to work with the applicant.
Commissioner Greenaway moved, seconded by Commissioner Khan, to close the public
hearing on the proposed wireless communications facility and initiate deliberations and
schedule adoption of findings of fact, conclusions and a recommendation to the City
Council for the June 19, 2014 meeting. The motion passed unanimously.
C. Preliminary Plat Preliminary Plat Madison Park Planned Density
Development (EE Resources) (MF# PP2014-003)
Continued from April 17 2014 Meeting
Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff.
Mr. McDonald reminded the Commission that a public hearing was held in the previous
month but was continued to allow for outside agencies to have more time to review and
submit comments, particularly the Port of Pasco. The Port recently updated their master
plan and had concerns with the proposed development related to airspace penetrations
and the elevation of the development. Mr. McDonald briefly reviewed additional conditions
that resulted from discussion and comments from the Port. Those conditions related to
statements on the final plats, aviation easements and the need to lower the elevation of a
number of lots before houses could be built.
Ron Foraker, 6720 W. Park Street, spoke on behalf of the Port of Pasco as the Airport
Manager. He stated that the airport has worked extensively with City Staff.
Spencer Montgomery, 2810 W. Clearwater Avenue, spoke on behalf of JUB Engineers for
this project. He stated that this is the first development since the overlay zone was
established and will probably be the most challenging one due to its proximity to the
airport and due to the topography. This is why grading will be necessary to bring the
homes to a lower elevation due to safety issues.
With no further comments the public hearing closed.
Commissioner Khan asked for clarification on the condition requiring the note on the plat
-6-
and if future property owners will be aware of the noise and safety.
Mr. McDonald answered that the reason for the note on the plat is for the public to be
aware of the airport activity. Title Companies will be able to see the note as well as the
public as it will be recorded at the Court House.
Commissioner Khan asked how the topography will change and where the excess soil or
dirt will go.
Mr. McDonald responded that in this particular case the dirt will be pushed to another
area on the property where the land is lower in elevation.
Commissioner Khan moved, seconded by Commissioner Greenaway, to adopt the findings
of fact and conclusions therefrom as contained in the May 15, 2014 staff report. The
motion passed unanimously.
Commissioner Khan moved, seconded by Commissioner Greenaway, based on the findings
of fact and conclusions as adopted, the Planning Commission recommend the City Council
approve the Preliminary Plat for Madison Park with conditions as listed in the May 15,
2014 staff report. The motion passed unanimously.
D. Rezone Rezone from C-3 (General Business) to R-3 (Medium
Density Residential) (Chester & Jaqueline Fortune)
(MF# Z 2014-002)
Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff.
Shane O’Neill, Planner I, discussed the rezone application from C-3 (General Business) to
R-3 (Medium Density Residential). The site is located at the northeast corner of the
intersection of Spokane Street and Utah Avenue and contains two parcels separated by
some dedicated right-of-way. The land area is currently 1.9 acres but upon future
development, the applicant may wish to perform a variety of vacations and be required to
do dedications altering the lot size so the exact number of units allowed on this site in
accordance with the rezone is only estimated at 30-40 units. The site is currently zoned
for heavy equipment, sales, service and a variety of heavy commercial uses. Most of the
surrounding vicinity is vacant. The site to the south contains an apartment complex
which is well maintained and fits nicely in the neighborhood. The area to the east is all
single-family zoning. The Comprehensive Plan designates the site for mix-residential uses
which would allow for a range of residential uses from suburban to R-3.
There were no comments and the public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Khan moved, seconded by Commissioner Greenaway, to close the public
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 June 19,
2014 meeting. The motion passed unanimously.
E. Rezone Zoning of Department of Natural Resources, Section
16 (MF# Z 2014-001)
-7-
Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff.
David McDonald, City Planner, discussed the rezone application of the Department of
Natural Resources property. Staff published this public hearing in the newspaper, on the
City website as well as mailed a notice to property owners within 300 feet of the proposed
site. The City received a number of letters of correspondence and emails from individuals
requesting comments to be placed into the record. Planning Commissioners were given a
packet on the bench with the comments Staff had received and Mr. McDonald read the
names of those individuals who had submitted comments into the record. Many of the
comments received were via email without residential addresses of those individuals;
however Staff can determine that there are two of these individuals in city-limits and the
others reside in the “donut-hole” to the south.
The rezone request comes from the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) who is the
owner of the property located between the north line of the FCID Irrigation Canal and the
south line of Highway 182 and west of Road 68. This property has been under control of
the DNR ever since the State of Washington existed and was annexed into the City of
Pasco in 1982 when the I-182 Corridor was annexed into the community. Back in 1982
this land was vacant sagebrush and zoned RT (Residential Transition) which was assigned
to properties that were typically undeveloped or vacant, sometimes farmland, and is a
holding zone to these vacant properties until circumstances in the community change and
then the property would be transitioned.
Since 1982, much of the I-182 Corridor has been developed and this is one of the last
properties that have not been developed. The DNR has realized that it is in the middle of
the urban area and is hard to farm due to surrounding development and with a farm
comes dust, noise, chemical applications and operations at various hours of the day. The
DNR has been working with City for a couple of years to transition this property from rural
farming activity to urban development. In 2012, staff with the help of DNR, presented a
land use map for this area to refine the Comprehensive Plan designations for the property.
Once that was completed the State Legislature adopted Senate Bill 5035 in 2013 that
instructed the DNR to coordinate with the City to rezone this property consistent with the
land use map.
The DNR submitted a letter requesting that the property be rezoned Commercial, R-1
(Low-Density Residential), R-S-1 (Suburban) and either R-3 or R-4 (Medium or High
Density Residential). Part of the property in the southwest corner, consisting of two
parcels, is owned by the Pasco School District. The School District submitted a letter to
the City requesting that their property also be included in this rezone process.
Rezoning the property would implement policies of the Comprehensive Plan, enable
development to occur, which would allow for the extension of utilities to the site and would
allow for the extension of Chapel Hill Boulevard to connect Road 100 to Road 68. That
road would provide alternate routes for emergency vehicles located at the fire station at
Road 68.
Mr. McDonald briefly discussed the various zoning and the location of such zoning that is
being proposed and surrounding land uses. The breakdown of proposed zoning is; 76%
for Single-Family, 1% for Office, 15% for Commercial and 8% for Multi-Family. After a
completed survey it was determined that there should be a buffer along the highway and
Chapel Hill Boulevard with R-3 zoning.
-8-
Commissioner Polk asked if the City Council or if the citizens of Pasco have any goals of
developing the area.
Mr. McDonald responded that the City Council and community through the
Comprehensive Plan established goals, policies and direction for development within the
community and this rezone will implement those goals.
Commissioner Khan questioned the email responses from citizens that were given to the
Planning Commissioner’s prior to the meeting, in particular from Roger Lenk, who
commented that the DNR was not the applicant.
Mr. McDonald answered that the DNR is the applicant and many of the responses stated
incorrect information. The rezone application came directly from the Department of
Natural Resources in response to State Legislature directing the DNR to work with the City
in the form of a letter. When the letter from DNR was received, Staff spoke with the
School District about their adjoining property and in turn they wrote a letter requesting a
rezone.
Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director, stated that the packet on the
bench given to the Planning Commission from citizens was received by the City email
system either late the prior evening or the day of the meeting and they comments have not
been vetted due to time. However, several inaccuracies were noted.
Chairman Cruz added that while the emails and comments must be part of the public
record it does not necessarily make the comments true but all evidence must be looked at
critically. Chairman Cruz also added that sending comments on the day of the meeting,
especially several, does not give the Planning Commissioner’s or Staff proper time to read
the comments.
Commissioner Khan asked staff what is the responsibility of the City to have mixed
residential available, such as; RS-20, RS-12, R-S-1, R-1, R-2, R-3 and R-4. The comments
received refer to crime being associated with high density residential but the City may
need various housing for people of various income levels.
Mr. McDonald responded that the Comprehensive Plan encourages a wide-range and type
of residential development for all strata’s of income and needs of people in the community.
This proposal meets the Comprehensive Plan. An example of this type of development is
across the highway, north of I-182 behind Wal-Mart.
Chairman Cruz added that the Planning Commission needs to be mindful of transitioning
between zoning moving from lower density to higher density to commercial. He also stated
that high-density residential or apartments are not always related to crime. He could not
think of a single instance that the increase in density increases crime per capita.
Commissioner Khan agreed with Chairman Cruz in regards to higher density housing and
crime.
Commissioner Greenaway stated that she would like to see more Commercial and slightly
less R-3 zoning. She felt that the area could use more Commercial along the highway.
-9-
Commissioner Polk agreed with Commissioner Greenaway in that she would like to see
more Commercial.
Commissioner Greenaway asked if there has been an additional traffic study for the
impact this will have on the south part of Road 68.
Mr. McDonald responded that there have been several traffic studies done over the years
and in the most recent study in 2012 a full build-out scenario was done. The studies
suggested a list of projects that should be done as the community grows. The study
suggests completing Chapel Hill Boulevard would take traffic off of Road 68.
Chairman Cruz added to the completion of Chapel Hill Boulevard and how it would relieve
traffic on Road 68.
Mr. McDonald added in response to the need for Commercial development, studies by
consultants have determined that the areas in the Comprehensive Plan for Commercial
will hold up for more than 50 years. This area in the proposed rezone is also not the only
area for potential Commercial development. Everything to the east on Chapel Hill
Boulevard is zoned for Commercial and there is land near Lowe’s, up the Road 68 Corridor
as well as Road 100. Placing Commercial development along the highway might make it
marginal commercial development because of the distance from Road 68 and Road 100.
Chairman Cruz stated that there needs to be enough density to support the Commercial.
The urban growth boundary is also set so that development happens in the right places to
prevent sprawl.
Commissioner Portugal thanked staff for making sure the Commissioners were given all
comments received by the public on this proposal.
Rich Scrivner, Planning Manager for Washington State Department of Natural Resources,
1111 Washington Street SE, Olympia, spoke on behalf of this application. He stated that
staff summed up the proposal accurately and would be available for questions. He added
that the DNR has been working with the City for several years for a strategy on this
property.
Matt Ringle, 3913 Galway Lane, spoke in support of the R-1 zoning proposed in part of
this rezone. He was fearful that it was all going to be apartments and did not want to see
the increased traffic that comes from apartments. He asked is residents would be notified
if the proposed zoning changes from what was being presented..
Mr. White stated that this is the only public hearing and the proposed zoning and the only
notification was for this hearing. In July, Planning Commission will deliberate and make a
recommendation to City Council.
Chairman Cruz added that public comments are welcomed but there will always be some
houses that will abut higher density zoning.
Mr. Ringle asked if there could be another public hearing.
-10-
Chairman Cruz responded that the Planning Commission could choose to continue the
public hearing but it is no required.
Christal Ringle, 3913 Galway Lane, voiced concern about overpopulating the schools in
the area.
Chairman Cruz answered that all of the residential lots will be subject to the School
Impact Fee, which is $4,700 for single-family dwelling units. This impact fee goes to the
School District to assist with new schools for the increased population.
Mr. Ringle replied that he’s heard that Chiawanna High School and the two elementary
schools in the area are at capacity as is which is why they are concerned.
Mr. White answered that the School District does own property in the area and he believes
it is in their plans to work with the City, Department of Natural Resources and any
purchaser of the property so that they get a school site in their preferred site which would
be an elementary school with a park.
Mark MacFarlan, 6208 W. Argent Road, stated that he is a newly annexed resident of
Pasco. He stated that he has seen a map that showed where roads were going to be
roughly 6-8 months ago. He stated that the area to the south of this proposed property
currently has mostly large lots and asked if there was advantage to adding diversity it
zoning to what is already there. He stated that the perception of Pasco is a nice area,
smaller homes and crowded and schools are an issue. Mr. MacFarlan felt that there was
an overaggressive desire to build in Pasco and wanted to maintain property value. He
expressed that the proposed zoning is too dense and used Road 68 traffic as an example.
Instead of the proposed zoning he requested R-S-1 zoning. Mr. MacFarlan also requested
having a second public hearing. He asked if DNR has sold this property yet.
Mr. White responded that they have not.
Mr. MacFarlan asked why the property would be rezoned when it has not been sold.
Mr. White answered that when the Planning Commission considered this back in 2012 for
information purposes, a concept plan was done for the purpose of the City understanding
what might in fact look like if developed with the Comprehensive Plan land use
designations.
Mr. MacFarlan stated that if this land is rezoned, nothing smaller than R-S-1 zoning
should be applied.
Bruce Clatterbuck, 3001 Road 72, stated that he appreciated receiving the public
notification in the mail. Him and his wife are opposed to high density housing in the area.
He appreciated the concept but agreed with Mr. MacFarlan. Mr. Clatterbuck spoke on
concerns about theft with high density development, traffic congestion, infrastructure,
aesthetics, sound walls and aggressive development in the area.
Jan Tomlinson, 2116 Road 60, asked for zoning clarifications.
-11-
Mr. McDonald answered that “O” is Office, R-1 (Low-Density Residential) with 7,200
square foot minimum lot sizes. R-3 and R-4 are higher density residential, such as multi-
family.
Ms. Tomlinson asked about a map that she saw on KEPR news.
Mr. White answered that he was not aware of what map she was referring to or the KEPR
news story.
Mr. McDonald stated that there was a different map at one time that had the proposed
school in a different location.
Ms. Tomlinson asked about the location of a park.
Mr. McDonald responded that the park would be adjoining to the school but all of the
maps and sketches have not been final.
Mr. White clarified that these are just sketches to show the public what the developed land
might look like and was developed by an architect hired by the City. There have since
been changes and it is simply a floating concept sketch, not a zoning map or a plat.
Ms. Tomlinson stated that the land was going to be auctioned by DNR and whoever
purchases the property will not have any say in what the zoning would be. She asked if it
would be better if the purchaser was able to request the zoning.
Chairman Cruz responded that it would not because they should buy it knowing what the
expectations and intended land use is to match the Comprehensive Plan rather than them
buying the land and later being denied. This allows the purchaser to know what they can
or can’t do with the property. It is more beneficial to developers to know what the zoning
is on the property before they purchase. Chairman Cruz also referenced the urban growth
boundary used to drive growth and development inward. The density of Pasco will
continue to increase due to the urban growth boundary and the Planning Commission and
City want it to happen thoughtfully. This is why there are transitions into different zoning
districts.
Ms. Tomlinson mentioned decreased traffic on Argent due to this proposed development
and zoning. She did not see how there would be decreased traffic flow on Road 68 with all
of the additional housing and commercial development.
Chairman Cruz answered that Chapel Hill Boulevard, once completed, will provide an
addition east to west route to relieve traffic from Argent Road. Currently Argent Road
bears the brunt of the entire east to west traffic.
Ms. Tomlinson asked if a traffic study could be completed.
Chairman Cruz stated that with large developments traffic studies are completed.
Mr. McDonald added that the 2012 study for Road 68 considered the full build-out of this
property in that study and included this development.
-12-
Ms. Tomlinson requested a second public hearing and post-pone a decision.
Rich Scrivner, Department of Natural Resources, submitted his presentation for the
record.
Doug Redfield, 6909 Valley View Place, spoke on some of the changes in Pasco over the
years. He asked what the lane width will be when Chapel Hill Boulevard is extended.
Mr. White responded that it would be five lanes.
Mr. Redfield asked how many people per home would be living in R-1 zoning.
Mr. White answered roughly three per home.
Mr. Redfield asked why the schools are so crowded if there are only three people per home.
Mr. White stated that there aren’t enough schools. The School District is independent
from the City. They have an operating levy that they use to pay salaries, produce
programs, run their yearly curriculum and they have to go to the voters for a bond for
capital facilities, new schools for example, and renovation of existing schools. A number
of bonds have failed which has resulted in the School District falling behind with the
provision of elementary schools and in roughly 5-7 years behind in a middle school. They
will need to run another bond issue to provide the capital funds needed to construct more
schools.
Chairman Cruz added that there is a tie between how much debt the School District can
carry to the assessed value.
Mr. White explained that they are able to borrow on a bond is fixed by a ratio to its
assessed value. The School District was near that recently and should be going down in
the near future at which time they will try to receive approval from voters on another bond
issue for two more elementary schools and a middle school.
Mr. Redfield asked what the implementation time of this proposal.
Mr. White stated that the Department of Natural Resources estimates that it will take
slightly less than a year to bring to public auction. The development community would
tell you that if a parcel is purchased it may take another year to go through approvals and
studies to bring a product up and then another year after that to build. Roughly three
years for the most sought after land within this section and much won’t develop right
away and could take a decade or more to develop.
Mr. Redfield asked if it would be more practical to let the schools catch up. He also
mentioned other projects that need to be brought up to date, such as infrastructure
improvements.
Chairman Cruz discussed some of the new projects, such as beautification of the fencing
and School Impact Fees to help the School District get caught up but there is a lag in the
-13-
system. Some of the infrastructure improvements will occur when the property is platted
and gets developed.
Mr. Redfield questioned what the grade level would be behind Valley View Place.
Mr. White responded that there a consideration for the grade adjacent to Valley View
Place. DNR has put forth a possibility that the C-1 (Retail Business) would like to be
extended west along the Chapel Hill extension with the office space remaining as a buffer
to those properties. The grade may in fact be a real problem to the development and
might be a problem that is unsolved and may be undeveloped property, but perhaps not.
It will definitely be difficult and most likely the last piece to develop in the whole area.
Mr. Redfield asked if the residents nearby would be required to cement their wells.
Mr. White answered no. All of the development in the area will be on city water, sewer,
storm drainage. There will not be any impact on a well.
Mr. Redfield mentioned a veterinary clinic on Road 88 that was required to cement their
well.
Mr. White was unaware of the reason behind that. The City doesn’t make the call on
wells, rather the Department of Health. He added that there is most likely more to the
story because wells do not have to be closed up due to city water and sewer becoming
available.
Chairman Cruz agreed with Mr. White in that it would be a Department of Health issue.
They may have had a sanitation concern of the existing wells.
Mr. Redfield asked when sidewalks would be brought down Road 68.
Mr. White answered that the community doesn’t put in fully built roads, sidewalks and
street lights because they can’t afford it. It is almost always done in partnership with the
development and when this property develops those will be required as a condition of the
development.
Mr. Redfield spoke on the crime in apartment areas.
Chairman Cruz explained that there is a difference between crime rate per capita and
crime calls. With more people there will be more crimes statistically but that doesn’t mean
that there is more crime per number of people. So while there may be an increase in
crime it won’t be an increase in density of crime. Also, there is a big misconception that
because there is an apartment complex that there is a “big drug haven” and the evidence
doesn’t support that conclusion.
Mr. Redfield asked if there would be a buffer wall around Valley View Place.
Mr. McDonald responded that on the north side where the office area will be located there
will have to be a landscape buffer built into the code. It would have to be a landscape
strip with trees and shrubs with a solid fence.
-14-
Mr. Redfield asked what the lighting restrictions would be.
Mr. McDonald answered that office areas aren’t typically lit up like many commercial
areas. There are dark sky regulations when abutting housing. Those would all be an
issue when and if a development comes in and it will be looked at during that time.
Chairman Cruz reiterated staff on the infrastructure and lighting issues and reminded the
public what the Planning Commission is looking for at this time.
Mr. Redfield asked if there could be another meeting when there are facts of the
development rather than just a review of what it might look like.
Chairman Cruz answered that the public will be notified during the platting process, not
at this time.
Christal Ringle, 3913 Galloway Lane, asked if this is the final zoning.
Chairman Cruz responded yes. If the zoning changes it would have to come back as a
rezone and the public would be notified.
Mr. MacFarlan reiterated that he would like to see R-S-1 zoning be the minimum zoning
for the residential proposed in this rezone. He asked Mr. McDonald if this follows the
Comprehensive Plan the way it is proposed.
Mr. McDonald responded that the Comprehensive Plan had a mix of single-family, multi-
family and commercial.
Mr. McFarlan asked why more of the R-1 couldn’t be turned into R-S-1.
Mr. McDonald answered that they are making some of the lots R-S-1.
With no further comments the public hearing closed.
Commissioner Greenaway stated that she would like to make some of the R-3 (Medium
Density Residential) C-1 (Retail Business) to see more commercial business in the area
and would like to see it along the highway which would help with a sound barrier and take
away the need for fencing.
Chairman Cruz stated that there is only so much commercial that the city can support
and studies have shown that putting it along the highway wouldn’t be beneficial.
Mr. White added that the consultant made the point that commercial would not be
beneficial along the highway due to access.
Commissioner Polk asked if a commercial building came into the area if they would get
business from the Louvisa Farms neighborhood.
Mr. White stated yes there will be neighboring traffic that would see this commercial but
-15-
there are natural advantages of having the commercial come in from Road 68.
Chairman Cruz stated that the proposed zoning reflects the demand in the area.
Commissioner Polk reiterated that she would like to see more commercial zoning since
there is already a feeling of a lot of residential development in Pasco.
Mr. McDonald responded that there are currently 38 acres zoned C-1 in this proposal. On
the north side there is nearly 45 acres of commercial.
Chairman Cruz stated he would like to see a lot more C-1, however, there has to be a
certain amount of residential to fill the need of the C-1.
There was further discussion between Commissioner Polk and Mr. White regarding the
proposed C-1 zoning and land use.
Commissioner Portugal moved, seconded by Commissioner Khan, to close the public
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 June 19,
2014 meeting. The motion passed three to two, with Commissioner Greenaway and
Commissioner Polk dissenting.
OTHER BUSINESS:
A. Memorandum Minimum Lot Size in Multi-Family Zones
Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff.
Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director, discussed the staff
memorandum regarding minimum lot sizes in multi-family zones. He explained that the
R-2, R-3 and R-4 zones in Pasco are primarily intended for multi-family dwellings;
however, each of these zones has a minimum lot size for single-family dwellings of 5,000
square feet. The City also has a development tool title “Planned Density Development”
where developers can use some creativity as long as the overall density of the zone isn’t
exceeded in determining the lot size of a particular development. The use of the “Planned
Density Development process is not mandatory. It was noted in discussions with
potential developers that the provisions in the R-2, R-3 and R-4 zones for 5,000 square
foot minimum lot sizes could be abused in that subdivisions could be developed meeting
the code but possibly done in a manner that would not be of best interest to the
community as a whole. This could create “cookie-cutter” subdivisions where every lot is
exactly the same size with absolutely no forethought for integration into the community
but instead designed to maximize developer profit.
The question Mr. White presented before the Planning Commission was: Does the
Planning Commission wish to recommend to City Council that the regulations for
minimum lot sizes in the R-2, R-3 and R-4 zones be reviewed and addressed to minimize
the potential for abuse? If the Commission felt that the minimum lot size regulations need
to be reviewed, staff would bring that recommendation to City Council and would also
recommend that a moratorium on platting within the R-2, R-3 and R-4 Districts be
established to provide certainty that future development does not “vest” under the existing
-16-
rules for minimum lot sizes.
All of the Commissioners voiced support for recommending to City Council the review of
the minimum single-family dwelling lot sizes in the R-2, R-3 and R-4 Zoning Districts as
explained by staff.
WORKSHOP:
A. Plan Sylvester’s Addition Neighborhood Revitalization
Plan (MF# PLAN 2013-003)
Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff.
Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director, discussed the Sylvester’s
Addition Neighborhood Revitalization Plan. Staff has been working since 2012 on a plan
for neighborhood revitalization for their infrastructure. The location is around Nixon Park
and Margaret Street between 5th Avenue and 10th Avenue. The proposal, after working
with the neighborhood for the past year, is that the plan was to prioritize the improvement
of Park Street between 5th and 7th with essentially taking problematic trees out, repairing
the sidewalks and installing a dry irrigation system so properties could connect to a
sprinkler system. The workshop was intended to inform the Planning Commission and
could come back as a workshop in the next month or a public hearing could be scheduled.
Commissioner Portugal asked if the properties had irrigation water.
Mr. White responded that they don’t. They would have to pay to hook up.
The Planning Commission was in agreement to have the public hearing in June.
COMMENTS:
Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director, notified the Planning
Commission that there would be a Shoreline Master Plan open house beginning at 5:30
p.m. and the Commission is welcome to attend. It will be used to develop more planning
as the Shoreline Program goes along.
Mr. White also proposed having a second meeting in June to hold public hearings for 2015
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Funds, HOME and NSP funds. The
Planning Commission was in agreement to hold a second meeting.
With no further discussion or business, the Planning Commission was adjourned at
9:47 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
David McDonald, City Planner