Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-24-2014 Planning Commission Minutes (2)-1- REGULAR MEETING July 24, 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. 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 Greenaway moved, seconded by Commissioner Kempf that the minutes dated June 19, 2014 and June 24, 2014 be approved as mailed. The motion passed unanimously. OLD BUSINESS: A. Special Permit Location of a Church in a C-1 Zone (Casa de Avivamiento) (MF# SP 2014-005) Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director, stated that there was no further evidence or testimony to add. -2- There were no further questions or comments. Commissioner Bachart moved, seconded by Commissioner Greenaway, to adopt findings of fact and conclusions therefrom as contained in the July 17, 2014 staff report. The motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Bachart moved, seconded by Commissioner Greenaway, based on the findings of fact and conclusions therefrom the Planning Commission recommend the City Council grant a special permit for the location of a church at 1734 North 5th Avenue (Lots 4 to 7, Block 1, Holt’s Addition; Parcel #113-391-027), with conditions as listed in the July 17, 2014 staff report. The motion passed unanimously. B. Rezone Rezone from C-3 (General Business) to R-3 (Medium Density Residential) (Solano Enterprises) (MF# Z 2014-003) Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director, stated that there was no further evidence or testimony to add. Commissioner Bachart asked if this application would be affected by the minimum lot size moratorium. Mr. White responded that the applicant had previously stated that their intent was for multi-family dwelling units which would not require subdividing the property. There were no further questions or comments. Commissioner Kempf moved, seconded by Commissioner Khan, to adopt findings of fact and conclusions therefrom as contained in the July 17, 2014 staff report. The motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Kempf move, seconded by Commissioner Khan, based on the findings of fact and conclusions as adopted the Planning Commission recommend the City Council approve the rezone from C-3 to R-3 for 909 N. 3rd Avenue. The motion passed unanimously. C. Plan Sylvester Neighborhood Plan (MF# PLAN 2013-003) Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director, briefly discussed a provision added to the plan based on public comment allowing the property owners within the areas to opt-out of having a tree placed in their frontage or to work with staff to retain any trees that are not problematic. Commissioner Polk asked if there would be a requirement on the area if they don’t have a tree. -3- Mr. White responded that the homeowner will still have to maintain the grass or ground cover to code. There were no further questions or comments. Commissioner Khan moved, seconded by Commissioner Bachart, to recommend the City Council approve the Sylvester’s Addition Neighborhood Plan. The motion passed unanimously. PUBLIC HEARINGS: A. Block Grant 2015 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director, summarized the 2015 CDBG allocation recommendations by staff. There was brief commission discussion on the projects approved in June through the amendment to the 2014 CDBG allocations. Chairman Cruz called for public comment. There were no applicants present. Commission Greenaway moved, seconded by Commissioner Khan, to close the public hearing and recommend the City Council approve the use of funds for the 2015 Community Development Block Grant Program as recommended by staff. The motion passed unanimously. B. Code Amendment Historic Preservation Title 27 Code Amendment (MF# CA 2014-001) Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director, discussed the Historic Preservation Title 27 code amendment. The City of Pasco has a Historic Preservation Ordinance allowing for special valuation if there is a valuable property important to Pasco’s history. The amendments allow the City of Pasco to create a historical register and to allow that property to receive special valuation at the County level but also State and Federal register for tax benefits. The wording in the proposed code amendment is verbatim from the State and Federal regulations that pertain to this same program. There were no further questions or comments. Chairman Cruz called for public comment. There were no comments and the public hearing closed. Commissioner Kempf moved, seconded by Commissioner Polk, to close the public hearing on the proposed code amendment and initiate deliberations, schedule adoption of findings of fact, conclusions and a recommendation to the City Council for the August 21, 2014 meeting. The motion passed unanimously. -4- WORKSHOP: A. Code Amendment Minimum Lot Size in Multi-Family Zones (MF# CA 2014-003) Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. David McDonald, City Planner, discussed the code amendment for minimum lot size in multi-family zones. Mr. McDonald explained the City Council recently approved a resolution establishing a moratorium on the acceptance of any plats for single-family development within multi-family zoning districts (R-2, R-3 and R-4). The concern that caused the moratorium to be established was the fear that perhaps a developer could take a plat and rezone it R-2 or R-3 for the purpose of building single-family dwelling units on 5,000 square foot lots. As a result of the moratorium, the Planning Commission has been tasked with the job of reviewing the code to provide input as to whether or not the code needs to be changed or to determine whether the concern is more perceived than real. Mr. McDonald explained the background for minimum lot sizes within the community and stated the original zoning ordinance established 4,500 square feet as the minimum size for single-family development. The 5,000 square foot standard was established in 1965. Discussion then centered on lots sizes in the central core of the community where they range from 4,000 to 7,500 square feet. Smaller lots in the new subdivisions in the I- 182 area were also discussed. It was pointed out there are roughly 57 acres of land available with multi-family zoning, and roughly 26 lots in the older parts of the community that are vacant that are also zoned R-2. Most of these lots are in the 5,000-6,000 foot range. The Comprehensive Plan identifies several hundred acres that could in theory be zoned for multi-family residential. The largest such area is located along the Columbia River west of Road 100 and the gravel pit. The thought was that area is well suited for condos and townhouses to take advantage river views similar to the development on Columbia Point in Richland. Mr. McDonald briefly discussed the minimum lot size in other local jurisdictions. He also discussed non-conforming issues that may create some confusion. Mr. McDonald briefly discussed the following options available to the the Planning Commission; (1) Increase the minimum lot size in the R-2, R-3 and R-4 zones to 6,000 square feet or increase the minimum in the R-2 zone to 6,000 square feet, the R-3 zone to 5,000 square feet and leave the R-4 zone at 5,000 square feet; (2) Some other variation of Option 1; (3) Allow lot dimensions to control lot size; (4) Permit lot size averaging based on the existing lots within a given block; (5) Reduce the minimum site development area for Planned Density Development projects to make the process available to more properties; (6) Maintain the current standard. Questions for the Planning Commission to ask were; (1) Will increasing the minimum lot size for multi-family zones discourage developers from requesting R-2 or R-3 zoning to develop single-family lots? -5- (2) Will market forces and current minimum lot dimensions be enough to address the concern? (3) Does the current Planned Density Development process provide enough flexibility for the development community to create a wide range of lots for single-family development? (4) Why do neighboring cities have smaller minimum lot sizes in multi-family zoning districts? (5) Have the smaller lot sizes in the neighboring cities encouraged rezones for single-family development in multi-family zones? After considering the issue, staff asked the Planning Commission to provide direction as to whether or not a code amendment is necessary. Commissioner Greenaway asked how this would affect the former “donut-hole” area. Mr. McDonald answered that it would have minimal to no impact. A developer could possibly request an R-2 or R-3 rezone but it would have to be in the corridor along Road 68 or Court Street where the mixed-residential designations are. Another problem in that area is the lack of sewer so lots would have to be a little over a half acre per. Commissioner Bachart asked what the row homes by Walmart are zoned. Mr. McDonald answered R-4 and the lots are roughly 2,400 square feet. Commissioner Bachart asked if the lot size minimum was increased if it would limit the ability to build those types of homes. Mr. McDonald responded he didn’t believe so since they are treated as a multi-family complex which is why the R-4 zoning was used. Chairman Cruz discussed that Kennewick and Richland both permit individual lots at 4,000 square feet. He asked if they had anything to fit a planned development to allow for the row type of homes. Mr. McDonald answered that when he talked to the Planner in Richland, he stated that their developers use the PUD process, such as Sun Willows, to get a mix of smaller and larger lots. Kennewick uses the same process. Chairman Cruz asked the Planning Commission if they had any issues with continuing to use the Planned Unit Development process. He added that using the PUD would prevent having an area of high-density of single-family homes on small lots, rather a mix of small lots and larger lots. Chairman Cruz wanted to look at Options 1, 2 and 6. Increasing the minimum lot size to 6,000 square feet doesn’t seem consistent across the Tri-Cities. Chairman Cruz discussed variability in lot sizes adding character to a neighborhood and he would not have an issue with that. He asked what would be the advantage to increasing the minimum lot size relative to the other jurisdictions in the area. And in clarifying Option 1, it is for minimum lot sizes for single-family dwellings in the mixed- residential areas. Commissioner Bachart was in agreement with Chairman Cruz. -6- Commissioner Kempf stated that she wouldn’t mind maintaining the current standard and didn’t understand the need to change. Chairman Cruz responded that he didn’t know how attractive it is to developers to allow for a large block of 5,000 square foot lots for single-family homes. He stated that at 6,000 square feet it would be a skinny lot and would not want any smaller. Commissioner Khan agreed with Commissioner Kempf and didn’t feel that there really needed to be an amendment and would like to maintain the current standard. Commissioner Khan asked if there is a special permit process for a developer to build a single-family in the R-2 zone. Mr. McDonald answered that single-family dwelling units are listed as permitted uses in R-2, R-3 and R-4 zoning districts. Commissioner Khan tried to clarify some of the concerns if the lots were too small. Mr. McDonald added that in all cases a 5,000 square foot lot wouldn’t allow for anything other than a single-family home. A duplex requires 10,000 square feet in the R-2 zone and 6,000 square feet in the R-3 zone. Commissioner Khan responded that she could go along with Option 1. Commissioner Bachart asked if there was an R-3 zone with a minimum lot size of 6,000 square feet, then a duplex could be built. Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director, answered that a duplex could be built but this code amendment is mainly to focus on the single-family lots. Commissioner Barchart responded that if the minimum lot size is moved up to 6,000 square feet and there are single-family homes in the neighborhood, your neighbor could still put a duplex next to your house and could create problems for the neighbors. Mr. White stated that the real question is, what is the smallest lot size the community wants for single-family dwellings in the multi-family zoning districts? Commissioner Polk asked if this code amendment will come back as a public hearing for the community to voice their opinion. Mr. White stated that the intent is to have a public hearing next month. Staff is trying to complete the review process by the end of September. Don Paddock, 2574 Magnolia Court, Richland, was present representing Habitat for Humanity. Mr. Paddock suggested that the Planning Commission recommend Option 6, maintaining the current standard. Chairman Cruz asked Mr. Paddock why he wished to recommend Option 6. Mr. Paddock replied that they would like to get down to the 5,000 square foot lots. Most of their homes would be built using 6,000-7,000 square foot lots but some lots would need to drop down to 5,500 square feet for what they currently have planned to be developed in -7- order to make the neighborhood look presentable. Len Harms, 1705 Road 64, spoke on behalf of Habitat for Humanity. Mr. Harms agreed with Mr. Paddock in recommending Option 6 and perhaps adding Option 3 to it if needed. He stated that the 5,000 square foot lot size has been a relatively useful tool and stated that there must have been a significant event to cause an emergency moratorium on subdividing but, he is unaware of what situation must have happened to bring this about so abruptly. Mr. Harms discussed the need for people to have smaller lots. People will choose to buy what they can afford and developers are sensitive to that. Mr. Harms stated that ultimately he would like to see the code stay the way it is. Habitat for Humanity has projects in process waiting to advance and the lot sizes for their proposed plat are between 5,000-6,000 square feet and would like to see the rescinding of the moratorium. Chairman Cruz stated that some of their concerns are having entire subdivision of 5,000 square foot lots and whether that would be attractive for the community Chairman Cruz felt that 6,000 square foot lot size is pretty generous in R-2, 5,500 square feet in R-3 and 5,000 square feet in R-4. He asked Mr. Harms why they shouldn’t pursue the change to protect the City from a situation with 30 acres of 5,000 square foot single-family homes. Mr. Harms responded that was reasonable rationale. The Planned Unit Development process works well for higher-end communities. The challenge with a PUD is that is has to be unique is some way to qualify as a PUD. Sometimes that is not easy to accomplish so perhaps there could be a way that is addressed. Chairman Cruz asked staff what the plans are for PUD’s. Mr. McDonald answered that in order to qualify to use the process you have to have at least 20 acres. Some developers, such as Habitat for Humanity, do not have 20 acres, they have 2-3 acres and that would be off the table for them. Commissioner Khan asked if the developer did have the 20 acres then the developer could still have the 5,000 square foot lots. Mr. McDonald stated that in a PUD you aren’t going to get 100% of the lots at 5,000 square feet. There is an overall density assigned to the 20 acres and it cannot be exceeded. To get the smaller lots, there will still have to be some larger lots in the development. Chairman Cruz stated that he just didn’t like the idea of a wash of 5,000 square foot lot sizes in one area. In the R-2, R-3 and R-4 he asked if there were any other ideas to protect against that super high-density of single-family homes. Mr. Harms suggested averaging lot sizes, where you have a minimum lot as 5,000 square feet but the average of all of the lots would have to meet a certain square footage. That would perhaps provide some relief from having a “cookie-cutter” grid. Chairman Cruz stated that would make him more comfortable but there will need to be more discussion and thought from staff. He stated that he just really opposes 5,000 square foot lot sizes as the mass. Chairman Cruz asked what is the regular minimum lot size in residential. Mr. McDonald responded that 7,200 square feet is the minimum lot size in an R-1 zone. -8- Chairman Cruz stated that he felt something needed to be done rather than leaving the code alone. Mr. McDonald made a clarification that with the idea of averaging the lot sizes is already somewhat in place with the Planned Density Development. Commissioner Bachart stated that he didn’t have a problem with 5,000 square foot lot sizes here and there because some people want a smaller house or smaller yard. The only concern is to have a 20 acre parcel and having it all developed as 5,000 square foot lots. Chairman Cruz added that they don’t want to get in the way of developments such as Habitat for Humanity who do a good job and is a win for all, but they simply want to prevent large acres of becoming filled up with 5,000 square foot lots. Chairman Cruz brought the discussion back to Option 1 and stated there is difference between 5,000 and 7,200 square foot lot sizes. Commissioner Polk asked if there could be exceptions built into the code for cases like Habitat for Humanity. Chairman Cruz asked if for those cases a rezone could be done instead. Mr. McDonald answered that they could if the Comprehensive Plan had the site designated for mixed residential but only a few areas would permit R-4, allowing the 5,000 square foot minimum. Commissioner Polk asked if they needed to pick an option before coming back to a public hearing. Chairman Cruz stated that he would recommend that they choose Option 1, increasing the minimum lot size in the R-2 zone to 6,000 square feet, the R-3 zone to 5,500 square feet and leave the R-4 zone at 5,000 square feet. The Planning Commissioners were in agreement. COMMENTS: Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director, let the Planning Commission know that there is a Short Course in Planning in Pasco on September 16, 2014. With no further discussion or business, the Planning Commission was adjourned at 8:27 p.m. Respectfully submitted, David McDonald, City Planner