HomeMy WebLinkAbout9-18-2014 Planning Commission Minutes-1-
REGULAR MEETING September 18, 2014
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
CALL TO ORDER:
The meeting was called to order at 7:00pm by Chairwoman Kempf.
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:
Chairwoman Kempf read a statement about the appearance of fairness for hearings on
land use matters. Chairwoman Kempf asked if any Commission member had anything to
declare. There were no declarations.
Chairwoman Kempf 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:
Chairwoman Kempf explained that state law requires testimony in quasi-judicial hearings
such as held by the Planning Commission be given under oath or affirmation.
Chairwoman Kempf swore in all those desiring to speak.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Commissioner Greenaway moved, seconded by Commissioner Portugal that the minutes
dated August 21, 2014 be approved as mailed. The motion passed unanimously.
OLD BUSINESS:
A. Special Permit Farming in an RT Zone (Tom Kidwell) (MF# SP
2014-007)
Chairwoman Kempf read the master file number and asked for comments from staff.
David McDonald, City Planner, Explained a revised motion was handed out to the
Commissioners prior to the meeting.
During the previous meeting there was considerable discussion on what types of crops
-2-
would be utilized with this proposed farm as well as discussion about water rights. Staff
is requested the Planning Commission modify what was discussed in the previous meeting
to include “primarily” alfalfa in the approval condition pertaining to the crop grown. This
would allow room for one year of corn production. Corn requires a lot of water and would
help retain water rights.
Commissioner Polk asked if corn would be roughly the same in terms of labor and timing.
Mr. McDonald responded that alfalfa can be harvested 4-5 times per year. With corn, it is
planted and harvested once.
Commissioner Polk asked if they should consider prohibiting other types of crops that
would require more equipment and noise.
Mr. McDonald answered that could be done. In discussions with the applicant, his
primary focus is to grow alfalfa and do one year corn.
Commissioner Portugal asked if the Commission needed to add anything to the motion
regarding corn.
Mr. McDonald responded that someone just needed to read the modified motion handed
out before the meeting.
Commissioner Khan moved, seconded by Commissioner Greenaway, to adopt the findings
of fact and conclusions therefrom as contained in the September 18, 2014 staff report.
The motion passed unanimously.
Commissioner Khan 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 farm at the southwest corner of Burns Road
and Broadmoor Boulevard on Parcel #115-210-022 with conditions as listed in the
September 18, 2014 staff report. The motion passed unanimously.
B. Special Permit Structure Height (James Pickens) (MF# SP 2014-
008)
Chairwoman Kempf read the master file number and asked for comments from staff.
Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director, discussed the special permit
application for structure height of a detache d g a r a g e i n a n R S - 1 2 Z o n e . M r . W h i t e
explained that the only changes to the report since the previous meeting were to condition
#6 and #8, which included the south elevation requirement for at least two windows and
that the landscape berm condition be a little flushed out and placed on the east and west
sides of the proposed garage.
Commissioner Polk stated that at the last meeting the applicant discussed re-engineering
the building to comply with the size limitation. She asked if the berms would change at all
depending on how the building is restructured.
-3-
Mr. White answered that the requirement would still be applicable regardless of how the
structure will end up.
Commissioner Bachart moved, seconded by Commissioner Portugal, to adopt the findings
of fact and conclusions therefrom as contained in the September 18, 2014 staff report.
The motion passed unanimously.
Commissioner Bachart moved, seconded by Commissioner Portugal, based on the findings
of fact and conclusions therefrom the Planning Commission recommend the City Council
grant a special permit to allow a detached garage at 2907 W. Ella Street (tax parcel #119-
251-104), with conditions as listed in the September 18, 2014 staff report. 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)
Chairwoman Kempf 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). Shane O’Neill, Planner I,
discussed the special permit to sell motorcycles and other vehicles in a C-1 (Retail
Business) Zone. There have been no additional changes to the staff report since the
previous meeting.
Commissioner Khan moved, seconded by Commissioner Polk, to adopt the findings of fact
and conclusions therefrom as contained in the September 18, 2014 staff report. The
motion passed unanimously.
Commissioner Khan moved, seconded by Commissioner Polk, based on the findings of fact
and conclusions as adopted the Planning Commission recommend the City Council
approve the rezone from RT to R-1 and C-1 for Lots 11 and 19, Coles Estates. The motion
passed unanimously.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
A. Special Permit Special Permit to Sell Motorcycles and Other
Vehicles in a C-1 (Retail Business) Zone (MF# SP
2014-009)
Chairwoman Kempf read the master file number and asked for comments from staff.
Shane O’Neill, Planner I, discussed the special permit to sell motorcycles and other
vehicles in a C-1 Zone. In the C-1 Zone, automobile sales are listed as a permitted
conditional use, meaning auto sales may be approved under certain conditions and
circumstances. Mr. O’Neill explained the special permit review criteria. He also highlight
surrounding businesses in the vicinity which include; pesticide and fertilizer specialists,
sign fabrication, industrial plumbing supply yard, automotive repair, farm service supply
and a motel. The parking lot where the applicant wishes to display the vehicles is located
on the west side of the site, fronting 10th Avenue. Parking is relatively small and would
-4-
not allow for much expansion. Mr. O’Neill briefly discussed the approval conditions,
including maintaining the existing landscaping. The applicant owns and operates the
warehouse directly to the east of this site and would serve as the mechanic repair facility
so auto repair wouldn’t occur on the proposed site.
Commissioner Khan asked if there would be a showroom on this property.
Mr. O’Neill responded that he believes the main part of the building will be dedicated to a
showroom but, the applicant would have a better response.
Joel Micka, 1225 S. 10th Avenue, spoke on behalf of his special permit application. He
stated that they are trying to support needs in the agricultural community. They wish to
display new equipment for sales, such as small ATV’s and motorcycles for recreational
use. Their property to the east is where the repair facility is and will be in use. They do
wish to have a showroom on the proposed site.
Commissioner Bachart asked if they currently do repair work.
Mr. Micka replied they do in the building they own to the east of the proposed site.
With no further questions or comments the public hearing closed.
Commissioner Bachart moved, seconded by Commissioner Khan, move to close the public
hearing and schedule deliberations, the adoption of findings of fact and development of a
recommendation for City Council for the October 16, 2014 Planning Commission Meeting.
The motion passed unanimously.
B. Rezone Rezone from I-1 (Light Industrial) to I-2 (Medium
Industrial) (Columbia East LLC) (MF# Z 2014-005)
Chairwoman Kempf read the master file number and asked for comments from staff.
David McDonald, City Planner discussed the rezone from I-1 (Light Industrial) to I-2
(Medium Industrial). The applicant had requested the hearing to be continued for one
month because they were unable to attend the September meeting and may wish to alter
the boundary lines of the proposed rezone. The hearing needed to be opened briefly to
offer an explanation for continuation into the record.
With no comments, the public hearing closed.
Commissioner Portugal moved, seconded by Commissioner Greenaway, to continue the
hearing for the rezone under Master File # Z 2014-005 to the October 16, 2014 Planning
Commission Meeting. The motion passed unanimously.
C. Preliminary Plat Replat a Portion of the Whitehouse Addition (Tri-
County Partners) (MF# PP 2014-004)
Chairwoman Kempf read the master file number and asked for comments from staff.
-5-
David McDonald, City Planner, discussed the replat for a portion of the Whitehouse
Addition. The applicant plans to build 24 single-family lots in the proposed subdivision.
The property is a block and a half and has undeveloped and unused rights-of-way. All of
the rights-of-way will have to be vacated to accommodate the proposal. The applicant has
already submitted a petition to City Council to vacate the rights-of-way. The proposed lots
will range in size from 5,500 square feet-9,675 square feet. Mr. McDonald discussed the
approval conditions. This plat borders a public park on the north side of the project. Staff
is recommending that on that north boundary line a common fence be built to avoid an
eyesore from various fence materials. Due to the anticipated activity on the west side of
the property staff is recommending a common masonry block wall. Mr. McDonald briefly
discussed some corrections that were handed out to the Planning Commissioner’s prior to
the meeting.
Commissioner Bachart asked for clarification about the current structure on the site.
Mr. McDonald responded that the structure is an old auto repair shop and will be removed
as a part of this project.
Commissioner Khan asked if this is the land that was brought before the Planning
Commission by Catholic Family Services.
Mr. McDonald answered that Catholic Family Services tried to build an apartment
complex on the property.
Rick Jansons, 303 Wellsian Way, spoke on behalf of Tri-County Partners of Habitat for
Humanity, on this special permit application. He had comments to make on the tentative
plat approval conditions.
First, plat approval condition #1 states that all abutting roads are to be installed to city-
standards, specifically California Avenue. Mr. Jansons requested to change this approval
condition to exclude California Avenue because it is not improved at all in this area. If this
request is not possible, he would like the approval condition on this item to expire on
October 3, 2018 or before since they are using specific funds set aside under grant
conditions that require all 24 of these homes to be built prior to October 3, 2018.
Plat approval condition #4 states that the applicant must comply with PMC 26.04.115(b)
which is an assignment of water rights. Mr. Jansons stated the PMC states that the fee
may be waived with the implementation of a soil additive program approved by the
Director of Public Works that would provide for 30% or more of the applied irrigation
water. Habitat has found two commercially available additives that would exceed the 30%
requirement, as stated in the code, and they wish to retain the ability to perform a cost
benefit analysis, to determine which method, payment or additive, would be most
affordable for the families. Plat approval condition #18 requires the developer to install a
common fence, 6 feet in height, along the north boundary line. Plat approval condition
#19 requires the developer to install a common estate type masonry wall or fence, 6 feet in
height along the west line of the site and that the property owners adjoining said fence
shall be responsible for payment of all costs associated with maintenance and upkeep.
Mr. Jansons requested for those plat approval conditions to be removed, especially the
masonry wall, because Habitat for Humanity builds affordable homes, not for profit. He
added that most families build their own 6’ tall wooden fences.
Commissioner Portugal asked the applicant for clarification regarding the fencing.
-6-
Mr. Jansons reiterated that he didn’t believe the City code or resolution requires a fence,
however, their homeowners typically build 6’ cedar fences on their own.
Commissioner Bachart asked if staff could explain condition #1 regarding California
Avenue.
Mr. McDonald responded that he spoke with the Engineering Plan Reviewer and City
Engineer and the last sentence can be removed, not locking the Engineering Department
in to requiring those improvements. What the Engineering Department would rather do is
sign a waiver or deferral.
Commissioner Bachart asked if there could be a stipulation added that for the condition to
expire.
Mr. McDonald answered that language could be added to the agreement to provide
guidance for people down the road. Typically deferrals state that within 10 years the road
will have to be built so staff will have to look at the language to work around it.
Mr. McDonald responded to condition #4, and that regulations do allow a developer to
provide a soil additive to help retain water. If the applicant is able to do so that would
satisfy the water rights requirements.
Commissioner Bachhart asked for clarification on the water rights.
Mr. McDonald answered that it means when a property owner subdivides land within the
city and there are water rights available on that land, those water rights need to be
dedicated to the City to offset the water needs for the new homes. If there are no water
rights the developer is required to provide a fee so the City can backend those water rights
by purchasing them. If a soil additive is added to the ground then a developer may not
have to pay the fees.
Mr. McDonald discussed conditions #18 and #19 regarding fencing. The property backs
up to a city park and the concern is unsightly fencing along the park. As for the block
wall, there was concern over a parking lot where there will be more traffic and Commercial
zoning across the street could be noisy and impact the neighborhood. A block wall would
provide a better buffer.
Commissioner Polk asked when California Avenue is supposed to be finished.
Mr. McDonald responded that it is undetermined. Streets are typically built when the
adjoining property owners develop the property.
Commissioner Polk asked if they Planning Commission would review when properties are
being developed.
Mr. McDonald answered that the Planning Commission would only review if there was a
special permit. All other permits are reviewed by City staff.
Chairwoman Kempf asked if the masonry wall could be built using Community
Development Block Grant funds since the development is for low-moderate income
homeowners.
-7-
Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director, responded that he wasn’t for
sure if those funds could be used for the block wall. He added that staff is asking for the
public hearing to be continued so staff can bring that information back to the Planning
Commission next month.
Mr. McDonald reminded the Planning Commission that the conditions are proposed by
staff but they need to make the recommendation to City Council and can decide to modify
or leave the approval conditions.
Commissioner Khan asked if they Commission could suggest a fence that is more
affordable than masonry.
Mr. McDonald responded that it is their prerogative.
Commissioner Bachart asked about land use and proximity of commercial activity to the
residential.
Mr. McDonald stated that the commercial property adjacent to the proposed site is zoned
C-3 so they are allowed to build and operate what is permitted in C-3. They would have to
adhere to code in terms of site development, including parking lots and landscaping but
they would not be required to do any additional site screening or landscaping since there
is a street between them. This is why staff proposed a durable block wall for the people
living in the subdivision.
Commissioner Bachart asked if there are specific rules on the mow strip.
Mr. McDonald answered that it needs to be 12” wide of concrete and 4” thick.
Chairwoman Kempf asked the applicant about condition #20 regarding the mow strip.
Mr. Jansons stated that he mentioned #20 but should have mentioned #21 as well and is
not wanting to do a mow strip since it would not be necessary if there isn’t a fence
requirement. However, as a compromise, homeowners generally build their own fences
with some help with Habitat. Having a fence that they could build would be beneficial and
they could work with a “uniform” fence. As for noise, Mr. Jasons felt that the area is quiet
and peaceful, which could change if the C-3 property is developed but it is a quiet area.
Chairwoman Kempf asked if given the opportunity if they would be willing to apply for
Community Development Block Grant funds to build the block wall in the future.
Mr. Jasons responded that they would be willing to do so with grant money because they
don’t have the funds to build it without it.
Commissioner Bachart stated that requiring a Cedar fence would be fine. As for noise
when or if the C-3 property is developed, that could be mitigated with landscaping to block
noise.
Commissioner Greenaway agreed with Commissioner Bachart and with the C-3 property
across the street, most of the work would be completed during daytime hours. She added
that a requirement could be added to require a mow strip and could give 5-6 months to
put up a cedar fence within moving in.
-8-
Chairwoman Khan asked staff if that provided enough direction.
Mr. McDonald summed up that the consensus is for a quality cedar fence, same color of
stain or straight cedar with a small mow strip on the outside.
Len Harms, 1705 Road 64, stated that he’s been working with Habitat for Humanity on
this project. He briefly discussed the waiver in regards to California Street.
With no further comments the public hearing closed.
Commissioner Polk moved, seconded by Commissioner Greenaway, to continue the
hearing on the proposed preliminary plat to the October 16, 2014 Planning Commission
Meeting. The motion passed unanimously.
WORKSHOP:
A. Plan Shoreline Management Act – SMP Regulatory
Components and Draft Shoreline Master Program
Chairwoman Kempf read the master file number and asked for comments from staff.
Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director, discussed the Draft Shoreline
Master Program. Essentially staff is looking for the basics of the plan at this time, such
as; shoreline jurisdiction, the environmental designations and regulations that go with
that jurisdiction, public access components and how to integrate the current critical area
ordinance which protects many of the same properties in the Shoreline Master Program.
Ben Floyd, Anchor QEA, explained he was the consultant on this project. He stated that
he has been working on this for several months and has developed a Shoreline Inventory
Analysis & Characterization Report, which is the technical foundation for the Shoreline
Master Program Update. In June a workshop was held at the City, which Commissioner
Portugal attended as well as several members of the public.
Mr. Floyd briefly highlighted some of the things heard at the public. Several of the
comments related to the public access, some complained about vegetation growth
blocking access the shoreline. There was a comment about upgrading the jetties that
protect the Pasco Boat Basin. There was discussion about a trail underneath the railroad
bridge that used to be there but is no longer. There was also a request for more access at
Wade Park and the north part of Chiawanna Park. Someone also stated that it would be
nice to have a beach at Chiawanna Park.
As far as economic development, Mr. Floyd stated that the feeling was that largely
unconstrained development should occur on the land located where the levees break up
ecological function. Existing developed areas where redevelopment or additions might
occur should be unconstrained as long as they stay within disturbed areas. The best
areas for economic development are the Port of Pasco Marine Terminal and other Port
properties.
Protection and restoration opportunities include a wetland area upstream of I-182 Bridge
owned by the Army Corps of Engineers and already designated as an ecological protection
area along with the islands, upgrading the jetties.
-9-
Commissioner Greenaway pointed out that there was one private island. She asked what
would happen if someone wanted to develop a house on the island.
Mr. Floyd responded that he would need to look into that property but believes it is in
Benton County.
Commissioner Khan asked to define a jetty.
Mr. Floyd stated that it is a like a levee out in the water to protect an area behind it. They
can help prevent wind and wave damage or erosion.
Commissioner Greenaway added that sagebrush was not a native plant in this area.
Mr. Floyd responded that unfortunately it is now considered a native plant. Now many
species have adapted to the sagebrush so it will need to be considered. He added that
what the area is as of today is the ecological baseline.
Mr. White added that the “baseline” takes a picture as to where we are at today. In
moving forward with developing regulations and land use designations, the guidance from
the State say that we can’t reduce that snapshot from below what the current
environmental functions of the river shore are. If reduced in one area but that will have to
be offset in another area.
Mr. Floyd responded that what Mr. White was referring to was “no net loss”.
Commissioner Bachart asked what would happen if development was allowed up to the
levees but in the future the levees were lowered, how would that effect everything.
Mr. Floyd answered that everything would need to be revisited. If already developed and
the levee is just being changed for any reason, the function and elevation will have to
remain for flood protection.
Mr. Floyd then discussed the memo given to the Planning Commission. The memo
focused on key issues that the Planning Commission needed to be aware of and what to
deliberate and some different options. He recommended using the minimum jurisdiction
for the Pasco Shoreline.
Commissioner Polk asked if what other jurisdictions have chosen other options and if so,
what are the benefits.
Mr. Floyd responded that other jurisdictions have selected other options and the benefits
have been covering flood plains and wetlands but is used mainly when there is a river that
is moving a lot and has a wider area to protect.
Commissioner Portugal asked if Benton County has a plan like the one proposed and what
option did they chose.
Mr. Floyd answered that they do and they went with the minimum jurisdiction.
Mr. Floyd discussed environmental designations, which are synonymous with land use
designations. It’s how to determine what uses are in place and what development to have
-10-
and where to provide access. The State has an example classification system and each
environmental designation will have a classification system. Mr. Floyd suggested taking
the classification systems that the State has come up with and tailor them specifically for
the City.
Commissioner Greenaway asked for clarification regarding to “shoreline residential” and
an additional purpose to provide appropriate access and public recreational use. She
wanted to know if it would prevent a landowner from constructing a dock.
Mr. Floyd stated that the issue of docks has been mostly settled with the Army Corps of
Engineers. The Shoreline Plan will include the same regulations that the Corps has since
their jurisdiction is higher than that of the City. There are only a certain number of docks
that will be allowed.
Mr. White added that Anchor QEA has taken a conservative approach through the entire
Shoreline Master Plan update. The Columbia and Snake rivers are very regulated and
constrained and they are very predictable. The Planning Commission should look at the
enhancements needed to the plan to reflect what is happening now.
Lastly, Mr. Floyd pointed out the critical areas for the Planning Commissioners to review.
There was no further discussion on this item.
COMMENTS:
With no further discussion or business, the Planning Commission was adjourned at
8:36 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
David McDonald, City Planner