Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout8-21-2014 Planning Commission Minutes-1-   REGULAR MEETING August 21, 2014 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at 7:00pm by Acting Chairwoman Khan. POSITION MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT No. 1 VACANT No. 2 Tony Bachart No. 3 VACANT 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: Acting Chairwoman Khan read a statement about the appearance of fairness for hearings on land use matters. Acting Chairwoman Khan asked if any Commission member had anything to declare. There were no declarations. Acting Chairwoman Khan 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: Acting Chairwoman Khan explained that state law requires testimony in quasi-judicial hearings such as held by the Planning Commission be given under oath or affirmation. Acting Chairwoman Khan swore in all those desiring to speak. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Greenaway moved, seconded by Commissioner Polk that the minutes dated July 24, 2014 be approved as mailed. The motion passed unanimously. OLD BUSINESS: A. Code Amendment Historic Preservation Title 27 Code Amendment (MF# CA 2014-001) Acting Chairwoman Khan read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director, discussed the code amendment for the Historic Preservation, Title 27. There was a revised set of bylaws distributed to the Commission prior to the meeting. Mr. White pointed out corrections to the bylaws. Other than the corrections there were no further comments. -2-   Commissioner Greenaway asked if the proposed code amendment would have any effect on currently listed historical properties. Mr. White stated that it would not. Commissioner Bachart moved, seconded by Commissioner Polk, the Planning Commission adopt the findings of fact as contained in the August 21, 2014 staff memo on Historic Preservation, Title 27. The motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Bachart moved, seconded by Commissioner Polk, the Planning Commission recommend the City Council adopt the proposed code amendments as shown in the attached “Exhibit A”. The motion passed unanimously. PUBLIC HEARINGS: A. Special Permit Farming in an RT Zone (Tom Kidwell) (MF# SP 2014-007) Acting Chairwoman Khan read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. David McDonald, City Planner, discussed the special permit for farming in an RT (Residential Transition) Zone. The proposed farm will occupy 150 acres in the northeast corner of a 568 acre parcel that is located west of Broadmoor Boulevard and south of Burns Road. The City operates an irrigation system and provides irrigation water to many of the homes in the I-182 Corridor area. Over the years as that area is developed and transitioned from farm land to urban development, the City’s has acquired water rights with those developments. Some of the water rights need to be perfected. The applicant recently entered into an agreement with the City to use some of the City’s irrigation water on other farms to perfect water rights. The city is endeavoring to do the same thing with the proposed farm. Mr. McDonald briefly reviewed the written report for the benefit of the Planning Commission. The proposal is very similar to other farms the Commission has reviewed in the past that have been approved to preserve water rights. Commissioner Portugal asked if the plan was to rotate crops grown on the property. Mr. McDonald answered that the applicant has indicated that they would grow mainly alfalfa. Commissioner Portugal asked if the applicant could grow other types of crop. Mr. McDonald responded that it depends on how strict the special permit conditions are written. Commissioner Portugal stated that some crops may require more pesticides and could cause concern with nearby homes. Mr. McDonald replied that could be a concern. With alfalfa, pesticides are almost non- -3-   existent; fertilizer is sometimes used. This general part of the community does have a number of farms surrounding it. Commissioner Bachart asked about site preparations to flatten out the land in order to farm. Mr. McDonald stated they will keep the leveling to a minimum, only doing enough for the wheel line to go around, so it won’t be perfectly flat. With no public comments the public hearing closed. Mr. McDonald asked the Planning Commission to give Staff direction regarding the conditions of the special permit. The applicant has indicated that they wish to use the field for alfalfa. Mr. McDonald asked the Planning Commission if they thought there should be a condition to limit the crop on this site. Commissioner Polk asked if the amount of work done on the field significantly less with alfalfa opposed to other crops, minimizing noise impact. Mr. McDonald answered that there wouldn’t be as much tilling with alfalfa because the crop regenerates itself but there is still noise from the bailers and other equipment, roughly 4-5 times per year. Acting Chairwoman Khan asked if Staff sees any conflict in how farming may effect business from wanting to locate in the I-182 Corridor. Mr. McDonald responded that the whole I-182 Corridor was one big farm at one time and as the community grew, the circles were reduced. There hasn’t been a conflict as far as development is concerned with the circles that have been around in the past. Acting Chairwoman Khan asked the Commissioners for their thoughts on adding a condition to the special permit limiting the crop on this site. Acting Chairwoman Khan stated that she was for adding the condition. Commissioner Polk agreed and was for adding the condition. Commissioner Greenaway stated that the applicant should be able to farm whatever they choose, however, she was not against placing a condition to only grow alfalfa. Acting Chairwoman Khan asked how long the special permit lasts. Mr. McDonald stated that Staff is recommending 5 years. Acting Chairwoman Khan responded that the Commission would like to add the condition to limit the crop to alfalfa. Commissioner Polk asked if there are crops with similar conditions. Mr. McDonald answered that he was not aware. -4-   Acting Chairwoman Khan re-opened the public hearing to allow for a member of the audience to speak on behalf of this item. Jason Maddox, 6115 Burden Boulevard, of HDJ Design Group spoke on this item for clarification to the Planning Commission. He stated that he was not affiliated with this project but felt he could explain the process of transferring water rights from previously farmed parcels to the City of Pasco. One of the things to note about transferring water rights, is that if the land is conditioned for only farming alfalfa, alfalfa carries a certain volume of water that can be placed on that crop every year. On an unperfected water right, once it is perfected, the State will go over a five year period to examine what crops had been farmed. If crops are farmed that do not have a certain volume of water placed on them, alfalfa for instance only has so much water placed on it per year, where other crops could have more or less. If they don’t use the water rights that they are trying to transfer to the property they could lose the water rights. So by specifically conditions this parcel to alfalfa, that limits the amount of water on the property every year. If the applicant decides they need to use more water to keep the water rights in place they will have to show that the water is being used as a beneficial use or else they could lose the water right. With no further comments the public hearing closed. Acting Chairwoman Khan asked Mr. McDonald how long the process takes for the City to perfect water rights. Mr. McDonald answered at least 2-3 years. In response to Mr. Maddox, there is a condition in the staff report stating that the crop should be primarily alfalfa. Removing the word “primarily” would restrict the use to only alfalfa. Acting Chairwoman Khan asked the Commissioners how they felt about the word “primarily” in the conditions. Commissioner Bachart stated that he wasn’t sure. Commissioner Polk responded that since the applicant was not present and could not answer what types of crops would impact the land, she felt that the word “primarily” should be removed from the condition and limit the crop to alfalfa. Commissioner Greenaway and Commissioner Portugal agreed and wished to take the work “primarily” out. Acting Chairwoman Khan was also in agreement in removing the word “primarily” and restricting the crop to alfalfa. Commissioner Portugal moved, seconded by Commissioner Bachart, to close the hearing on the proposed special permit and initiate deliberations and schedule adoption of findings of fact, conclusions and a recommendation to the City Council for the September 18, 2014 meeting. The motion passed unanimously. -5-   B. Special Permit Accessory Structure Height (James Pickens) (MF# SP 2014-008) Acting Chairwoman Khan read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director, discussed the application for an accessory structure height that is taller than what is permitted in the zoning code. The applicant applied for a permit to build a 2,000 square foot detached garage that would have a height at the midpoint of 19 feet, however, detached garages on this site cannot exceed 18 feet and cannot be larger than 1,200 square feet in size. The Planning Commission worked on a code amendment over the past year regarding accessory structure height and size and arrived at a “stair-step” approach to allow increases in size based upon the square footage of a lot. In this case, the lot is over 33,000 square feet and would permit almost a 1,500 square foot shop but not a 2,000 square foot shop. There is also a provision in the zoning code that further limits the size of the detached garage or shed to no larger than the size of the house. In this case, the house is 1,200 square feet. The applicant is requesting a special permit to allow an increase in the height of the garage. The Planning Commission must consider whether or not the proposed building will match the house in design and exterior treatments, such as roofing, siding and color. In this case the garage is a metal frame building with metal siding and would be out of character for the neighborhood. Mr. White reviewed the written report with findings and tentative conditions for the benefit of the Planning Commission. Staff was seeking direction from the Planning Commission on the best ways to make adjustments to make the current design of the garage work to minimize the impact on the neighborhood. Acting Chairwoman Khan asked a question if the site plan included in the staff report exhibits was created by the city or the applicant. Mr. White answered by the applicant. Commissioner Portugal asked for clarification on a “pre-engineered steel building” that was discussed in the staff report. Mr. White answered that the structural components are already measured and tested for strength and durability and assemble on-site. Commissioner Bachart asked about a structure with what appears to be a metal roof in one of the exhibit photos. He asked if those were existing metal structures and if they are located on the applicant’s property. David McDonald, City Planner, responded that one is a garage and isn’t as close to the applicant’s property as the picture indicates. Mr. McDonald gave further clarification on other surrounding structures. Commissioner Bachart asked if the siding on the white building behind the applicant’s property is metal siding. Mr. McDonald replied that he was unsure if the house had metal siding or not but the roof did. -6-   Commissioner Portugal asked if the applicant already purchased the 2,000 square foot garage. Mr. White answered that Staff understood that the applicant has purchased the garage. Commissioner Polk asked how the garage could be permitted even if the height is approved since the structure is 2,000 square feet and larger than the home which is not permitted. Mr. White addressed the staff report where the applicant has proposed building an L- Shaped garage with an open carport so that he can be in conformance of the limitation of size. Commissioner Bachart asked if that would require re-engineering of the building. Mr. White replied that he could not answer. James Pickens, 2907 W. Ella Street, spoke on behalf of his application. Mr. Pickens stated that as it stands, even if the height of the structure is permitted, with the additional cost of re-engineering the structure and adding the eaves and overhangs which are required per the staff report, it would be outside the budget and he would be unable to construct. He stated if the Planning Commission approves the special permit with all of the conditions he will have to withdraw his application for a permit. Commissioner Greenaway asked if there was a smaller size of garage he could work with. Mr. Pickens stated that he already invested money in the proposed structure. He would have to try to sell it. He stated the auxiliary sheds on the property will be removed prior to construction of the proposed garage. With no further comments the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Bachart voiced sympathy for the applicant in regards to the additional costs and land use but with it being a residential neighborhood, there should still be restrictions placed on the structure. Commissioner Greenaway agreed with Commissioner Bachart and also voiced understanding but added that City Code should be looked into prior to moving forward. Commissioner Bachart stated that it appears there are other metal structures in the area and didn’t feel that a metal structure would be completely out of character for the neighborhood. Commissioner Portugal stated that he thought it was a certain type of metal, such as an industrial look, that drew concern. Mr. White responded that the metal structure itself isn’t the issue, it is what is done with it, such as painting or dressing it up with eaves or overhangs to make it look less industrial. Commissioner Portugal asked if the City notifies citizens on the codes and issues so that they don’t purchase things, such as this. Commissioner Portugal voiced concern that not -7-   all citizens may know the code and permit expectations. Mr. White stated that there is a requirement on the homeowner to due diligence to see what is necessary before beginning a project or work to see what is allowed. Citizens are not notified randomly. Commissioner Portugal responded that it probably just isn’t possible. Commissioner Greenaway asked if that information was already on the City website. Mr. White responded that it is on the City website and there are handouts available at the City. Commissioner Bachart would like an approval condition added, although already mentioned by the applicant, to remove the existing accessory structures on the property prior to constructing the new one. Mr. White responded that condition will need to be added prior to be moving forward. Mr. White asked if the Commission had a consensus on the type of aesthetic treatments applicable based on the choices in the staff report. Commissioner Bachart asked what defined a landscape barrier. Mr. White answered that it would hide or soften the appearance of the structure. Commissioner Polk stated that she would be in favor of a landscape barrier. Acting Chairwoman Khan stated that painting the garage would be a reasonable request as well as windows. Commissioner Bachart moved, seconded by Commissioner Polk, to close the public hearing and schedule deliberations, the adoption of findings of fact, and development of a recommendation for City Council for the September 18, 2014 Planning Commission meeting. The motion passed unanimously. C. Rezone Rezone from RT (Residential Transition) to R-1 (Low-Density Residential) and C-1 (Retail Business) (P&R Construction) (MF# Z 2014-004) Acting Chairwoman Khan read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Shane O’Neill, Planner I, discussed the rezone application from RT (Residential Transition) to R-1 (Low-Density Residential) and C-1 (Retail Business). The site is located on two parcels located north of Sandifur Parkway, surrounded by mostly vacant land. The staff report includes a land use request map to illustrate the zoning configuration being proposed. Mr. O’Neill briefly discussed the proposed zoning configuration. The R-1 zoning being requested permits single-family residential development with minimum lot sizes of 7,200 square feet. The development of the surrounding single-family neighborhoods were the subject of concomitant agreements when they were rezoned. Those concomitant agreements required that the minimum lot sizes be slightly larger than the 7,200 square foot minimum lot size required by the R-1 zone. Also in the staff report were more -8-   conditions the concomitant agreements required for the surrounding single-family developments. The proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Acting Chairwoman Khan asked if there is a requirement for minimum lot size. Mr. O’Neill answered that the proposal is for R-1 zoning on one parcel which would allow for 7,200 square foot lot sizes. With approximately 4 homes per acre and there are roughly 3 acres of proposed residential zoning. Jason Maddox, 6115 Burden Boulevard, of HDJ Design Group spoke on behalf of the applicant, P & R Construction. Mr. Maddox noted that P & R Construction is not the underlying owner of the two properties, they are simply requesting the rezone of the two properties. He reiterated that the rezone request does follow the Comprehensive Plan and would be for low-density residential housing on one parcel and retail business on the other parcel. In terms of the concomitant agreement discussed, the applicant does not wish to condition this property to be any more stringent that what the R-1 would allow, which would be 7,200 square feet. The intentions of the applicant are to develop the property into single-family housing and would seek to fill in the property in terms of connectivity of roads. Acting Chairwoman Khan asked Mr. Maddox if he knew what the applicant planned to do with the proposed C-1 parcel. Mr. Maddox responded that their intentions were to develop the residential part of the property and the C-1 portion just trailed along. They still feel that they can make their plans work but don’t have any immediate intentions with the C-1 portion at this time. Bruce Pritchard, 2025 W. 27th Avenue, Kennewick, spoke on this item. Mr. Pritchard stated that he owns a piece of land adjacent to the proposed site. He feels the area is becoming awkward for commercial use in terms of lack of access and roads. Mr. Pritchard explained that when he purchased the property it was his understanding that Road 92 would become a straight-through street. Road 90 does have straight-through access but as Road 90 goes further north it is more and more residential. He asked what the plans for the area are because he doesn’t understand the commercial rating of the property anymore. Acting Chairwoman Khan asked for clarification about the zoning of the surrounding area. Mr. O’Neill answered that the proposed sites are currently RT zoning but is almost gone in this vicinity and rezoned as other land uses. Mr. Pritchard asked for clarification on the difference between RT and R-1 zoning. Mr. O’Neill responded that RT zoning is a “holding” zone. A site typically cannot be developed as RT. The R-1 zoning allows for single-family homes on 7,200 square foot minimum lots. Mr. O’Neill pointed out that the Comprehensive Plan for this site is actually for mixed-residential which would allow R-2 or R-3 (medium density residential) zoning but the applicant is only requesting R-1, which is substantially less dense. Commissioner Bachart stated that Road 92 does somewhat dead-end. He asked if there were plans to tie that into Kent. -9-   Mr. O’Neill responded that at some point it will connect. Acting Chairwoman Khan clarified that it just hasn’t happened yet. David McDonald, City Planner, added that this area was platted in the 1960’s before it was part of the City. As the properties to the north were developed or purchased, the lot sizes didn’t quite fit with a standard subdivision and part of Road 92 was vacated so that a subdivision could fit in and the thought was as the area develops to the south, the rest of Road 92 would be vacated to make a connection to Kent Lane. Acting Chairwoman Khan stated the City was protecting the interest of the property owners by keeping the lower parcel as C-1 in the same zoning as his property. With no further comments the public hearing closed. Commissioner Greenaway moved, seconded by Commissioner Polk, to close the 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 September 18, 2014 meeting. The motion passed unanimously. D. Code Amendment Minimum Lot Size in Multi-Family Zones (MF# CA 2014-003) Acting Chairwoman Khan 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. Staff provided the Commission with a memo including facts, background and history on lot sizes within the community. At the last workshop there was considerable discussion on this topic and essentially there was a concern in the community relative to developers using multi-family zoning districts to develop subdivisions with smaller lot sizes without thought to design standards. As a result of that a moratorium was established to allow that City time to study the issue and perhaps amend the code if needed. As a result of the previous month’s discussion, where the Commission was provided a number of options to consider, the prevalent option was to increase the minimum lot size for single-family homes in the R-2 Zone to 6,000 square feet and 5,500 in the R-3 Zone. There was one correction since the previous meeting related to the R-3 Zone and one suggestion. Mr. McDonald provided clarification on the correction and suggestion. Rick Jansen, 313 Wellsian Way, spoke on behalf of Habitat for Humanity. He stated that the proposed 5,500 square foot minimum lot size for single-family dwelling units in the R- 3 Zone would be fine. They are more concerned about getting the process moving since they are ready to start building on land that this code amendment would apply to. Len Harms, 1705 Road 64, spoke on behalf of this item. He was in agreement with Mr. Jansen and stated they would like to get the project going and the 5,500 square foot lot minimum would work. With no further discussion the public hearing closed. Commissioner Portugal moved, seconded by Commissioner Greenaway, the Planning -10-   Commission adopt the findings of fact as contained in the August 21, 2014 staff memo on minimum lot size in multi-family zoning districts. The motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Portugal moved, seconded by Commissioner Greenaway, the Planning Commission recommend the City Council adopt the proposed code amendments for minimum lot size requirements in multi-family zoning districts as discussed and as attached to the August 21, 2014 staff memo to the Planning Commission. The motion passed unanimously. 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. Mr. White also informed the Commission that Commissioner Anderson resigned and that there are currently two vacant positions on the Planning Commission. With no further discussion or business, the Planning Commission was adjourned at 8:26 p.m. Respectfully submitted, David McDonald, City Planner