Loading...
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