Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-16-2014 Planning Commission Minutes-1-   REGULAR MEETING October 16, 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 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: 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 Portugal made not of some typos in the minutes. Staff made note and stated they would make the proper corrections. Commissioner Greenaway moved, seconded by Commissioner Polk that the minutes dated September 18, 2014 be approved as amended. The motion passed with only Chairman Cruz abstaining. OLD BUSINESS: A. Special Permit Special Permit to Sell Motorcycles and Other Vehicles in a C-1 (Retail Business) Zone (JMC Motor Sports LLC) (MF# SP 2014-009) Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. -2-   Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director, discussed the special permit to locate motorcycle and other vehicle sales in a C-1 (Retail Business) Zone. There were no additional comments since the previous meeting. Commissioner Bachart moved, seconded by Commissioner Kempf, to adopt the findings of fact and conclusions therefrom as contained in the October 16, 2014 staff report. The motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Bachart moved, seconded by Commissioner Kempf, based on the findings of fact and conclusions as adopted the Planning Commission recommend the City Council grant a special permit to allow vehicle sales on tax parcel # 112-311-104 with conditions as contained in the October 16, 2014 staff report. The motion passed unanimously. PUBLIC HEARINGS: A. Preliminary Plat Replat a Portion of the Whitehouse Addition (Tri- County Partners) (MF# PP 2014-004) Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Dave McDonald, City Planner, discussed the preliminary replat for the Whitehouse Addition. This item was held over as a public hearing from the previous meeting. Mr. McDonald explained that much of the discussion last month centered on the need for a boundary fence around the proposed subdivision. The property abuts a public park which has considerable activity during certain times of the year. The property is also directly across the street from a C-3 Zoning District that can develop with heavy commercial uses. A block wall would provide a buffer for the families that would ultimately live in the subdivision. The block wall requirement isn’t any different than requirements in other subdivisions, for example, the Linda Loviisa Subdivision backs up to the soccer complex and was required to have a 8’ block wall for the entire length of the subdivision. There is no code provision that requires fencing at the proposed site but because of where it is, staff feels it should be included. However, if a boundary fence is included as a plat approval condition the fence must be constructed of masonry block or poured concrete. Possible funding for the fence through the HOME was also discussed. Mr. McDonald also discussed water rights issues, storm water management and the need to improve California Avenue. That option is in the code and carries a caveat that it has to be approved by the Public Works Director. The Engineering Department suggested a deferral agreement or a cash deposit of $20,00 to $25,000 would be way way of addressing the short segment of California Avenue. Commissioner Bachart asked if Resolution 3078, regarding fencing, was new or came to be within the last few years since he’s noticed several subdivisions with inconsistent fencing. Mr. McDonald replied yes, that it was in response to some of the problems experienced with the wooden and Sherwood fences. From the date of that resolution forward the fencing along arterial streets have all been block walls. -3-   Commissioner Greenaway asked how the developer feels about the block wall now. Mr. McDonald answered that the applicant is present. He believed that the applicant would agree that the block wall would make for a nicer development and provide some protection for the residents but, they are concerned about the costs. Commissioner Portugal asked if the height of the wall is 6’ or 8’. Mr. McDonald answered 6’ is the requirement for the block wall. Chairman Cruz stated that a few years ago the Planning Commission went through a long process looking into the maintenance of fencing. The architectural block wall was decided to be the best option because other fencing was becoming a maintenance problem and eye sore. Rick Jansons, 313 Wellsian Way, Richland, WA spoke on behalf of Habitat for Humanity. He wanted approval condition 1 to have the following sentences added, “The installation of abutting roads and utilities for or along California Avenue are expressly and specifically excluded from the plat avenue conditions. Further, neither the homeowner’s nor Tri- County Partners Habitat for Humanity will be required to fund any portion of installation of abutting roads or utilities for or along California Avenue during the 20 years following completion of the last of the 24 homes in the subdivision.” Mr. Jansons briefly gave reasons for adding those sentences to the approval conditions; (1) California Avenue is not developed at all in this area, (2) There has been discussion in abandoning California Avenue in this area which would mean no road is necessary, (3) This development is for Habitat for Humanity for low-income families and would be an added expense and (4) There would be no benefit to the families in the subdivision to leave a condition on their property to build a road sometime in the future. He stated that Habitat for Humanity is asking for a deferment for up to 20 years. Regarding the fencing, Mr. Jansons agreed that the block wall would be aesthetically pleasing but felt that along the park, the fencing wouldn’t be much help since there is an incline in elevation at the park. The block wall, however, would be roughly a $50,000 added expense. He stated that he acquired about the HOME funds but received a written response stating that no funds were available. There may be funds next year but it is a competitive process. If they were awarded the money, they would put the block wall up. Per code, the block wall is not required. Mr. Jansons requested the condition 18, 19 and 21 be removed. As an alternative, he stated the following sentence could be added to condition 19, “Only if HOME funds are available and awarded in an amount sufficient to fully cover the costs …and if said HOME funds are not awarded, no fencing is required for the project.” Mr. Jansons also discussed the soil additives in plat approval condition 4, stating that they must comply with PMC 26.04.115(b). As stated in previous testimony, Habitat for Humanity has found two commercially available additives that would exceed the 30% requirement and they wish to retain the capability to perform a cost benefit analysis to determine which method, payment or soil additive, would be most economical. He would like the following sentence added to approval condition 4 stating, “Tri-County Partners Habitat for Humanity may use soil treatment in lieu of fees per PMC 26.04.115(b).” In regards to the storm water maintenance fee and would like to have, “The developer would -4-   be responsible for operating and maintaining the storm drain system for one year in accordance with the storm water maintenance agreement,” added to the approval condition. Commissioner Portugal asked the applicant if there isn’t a block wall fence, what would be idea for a fence. Mr. Jansons responded that in reading of the resolution, that if a fence is required it has to be a concrete masonry fence. However, if a fence is not required, almost all of their families build cedar fences of their own. Churches come out and assist in building the fences and the families pay for the cost of materials. Christine Batayola, 2931 W. 43rd Court, Kennewick, with Harms Engineering, spoke on behalf of this application. Ms. Batayola stated that she has been working with the applicant and has been out to the site. She added that there are no other block walls in this area. All other fencing in the area are 4’ tall, chain link fencing and no other fencing around the park and it would seem out of character with that particular neighborhood. Lastly, she agreed with the other comments made by Mr. Jansons. Mr. McDonald then responded to the applicant’s comments. Starting with California Avenue, the City doesn’t have money to build local streets. The streets are built by the abutting property owners, in this case, the developer. If the applicant doesn’t build the street it doesn’t get built. In the future the community will have to pay for it. The options are doing the waiver or providing a cash bond $20,000-$25,000 that would go toward the street. There has been talk of vacating the street but that hasn’t gone very far. There is an argument that it should be maintained to provide circulation around the park and another exit for all of the park traffic. For the fence, there are no other subdivisions in the neighborhood that abut a park. The park is elevated slightly and the people who will live in this subdivision shouldn’t be treated any different than those who live in Linda Loviisa; they were benefited by a block wall next to the park. To address the soil additive, Staff recommends keeping the condition in the Staff Report. Lastly, the storm water agreement, City Engineers are recommending it be handled like any other subdivision with the standard agreement signed rather than deferring it out to the Department of Ecology or adding any additional conditions or sentences. All of the conditions being asked are typically placed on all developers and is part of the development process. Chairman Cruz asked if there was a block wall requirement for a previous charitable development, like Bishop Topel Haven. Mr. McDonald replied no, it was a multi-family development that already had a fence separating the development from the school but they were required to build two streets, with curb, gutter, storm drain and street lights. Chairman Cruz mentioned that in previous discussions about block walls there was talk of the size of subdivisions and asked what the d e f i n i t i o n o r s i z e i s r e q u i r e d t o b e a subdivision. Mr. McDonald answered that any development that has more than 9 lots would be the defined as a subdivision. -5-   Chairman Cruz stated that he is not inclined to waive any recommendations that Staff is proposing since other non-profit developers and for-profit developers have all been treated the same. Commissioner Portugal asked for clarification as to whether there were other concrete fences in the area. Ms. Batayola stated that there were none. Mr. McDonald added that the only concrete wall in East Pasco is near Sunrise Estates, on the corner of “A” Street and Heritage Boulevard. Commissioner Portugal noted that it may not appear fair to require this development to have a concrete wall when there aren’t other concrete walls in the area. Commissioner Bachart asked if there was a lot and the City wished to develop a road behind it, even though they would have no access or need for it, they would have to develop it. Mr. McDonald said if that was the case it would most likely be a road that the City would build. Those roads are typically done by an LID or by the developer the City builds very few roads. Commissioner Bachart asked how it would pertain to California Avenue. Mr. McDonald responded that the street is already there and is a dedicated, platted street of record. The only way that it will be developed is by the property owner or LID. Commissioner Bachart asked if somebody wants to develop the commercial property and they want the road, would the residents have to put in the road. Mr. McDonald stated the person who develops the commercial property would be required to put in their side of the road to the centerline, plus two to four feet and curb, gutter and sidewalks. Commissioner Bachart was concerned for the two lots that abut California Avenue and the potential costs to finish the road. Mr. McDonald stated that if the developer does it the cost is folded into all 24-lots as opposed to just the two properties, which is what almost all developers do. Chairman Cruz added that historically, the developers are treated the same way in terms of infrastructure. Commissioner Bachart asked what the municipal code states exactly regarding fencing. Mr. McDonald replied that the municipal code states that a fence is only required if it’s on an arterial street and if a fence is required it must be poured concrete or architectural -6-   block. In this case, California Avenue is not an arterial street and neither is the park, so there is no code requirement for it, but during the hearing process the Commission is allowed to look at additional conditions to ensure neighborhood is protected. Chairman Cruz added that the City is strongly recommending that there should be a block wall fence but is not necessarily a requirement. Commissioner Greenaway asked if there was a way to have the applicant put the money in a bond or holding pattern for California Avenue and if the road is required to go through the money is there but if it doesn’t go through it could be refunded. Mr. McDonald answered that there might be a way but is unsure as to how. There is an account for deposits for subdivision bonds and after a number of years that money can be reimbursed. Commissioner Polk asked if there is potential to develop a parking lot in the area in between the park and California Avenue. Mr. McDonald responded yes, the Parks Department is looking at that location for extra parking. Commissioner Polk asked if the Parks Department would then have to finish the road, curb and sidewalk or any other conditions. Mr. McDonald responded that if it is developed then the Parks Department would have to put in their part of the curb, gutter, sidewalks, landscaping and any other requirements at the time of development. Chairman Cruz asked the applicant if he had any additional questions or comments. Mr. Jansons reiterated that the fence is not required by code. While the fence would be nice for the neighborhood, however, the costs would be passed on to the low-income families that will be living on the lots. He would like the sentence added to the conditions that if HOME funds are awarded, then a fence would be installed. Mr. Jansons also stated that they will be working with the Engineering Department for a deferment for California Avenue. With no further comments the public hearing closed. C h a i r m a n C r u z a s k e d t h e P l a n n i n g C o m m i s s i o n i f t h e y w e r e i n f a v o r o f t h e f e n c e requirement. Commissioner Greenway, Commissioner Polk, Commissioner Bachart and Commissioner Portugal were not in favor of the fence requirement. Commissioner Kempf was in agreement for the fence requirement. Chairman Cruz stated that they Planning Commission would like to remove the fence -7-   requirement but leave all other conditions as recommended by City staff. Mr. McDonald clarified that he understood conditions 18, 19 and 21 will be removed from the recommendation to City Council. Commissioner Portugal moved, seconded by Commissioner Bachart, to adopt findings of fact and conclusions therefrom contained in the October 16, 2014 staff report. The motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Portugal moved, seconded by Commissioner Bachart, based on the findings of fact and conclusions, as adopted, the Planning Commission recommend the City Council approve the Preliminary Plat for the Replat of the Whitehouse Addition with conditions as listed in the October 16, 2014 staff report as amended by the Planning Commission.. The motion passed unanimously. B. Rezone Rezone from I-1 (Light Industrial) to I-2 (Medium Industrial) (Bob Tippett) (MF# Z 2014-005) Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Dave McDonald, City Planner, discussed the application to rezone roughly 350 acres from I-1 (Light Industrial) to I-2 (Medium Industrial). The rezone site is located south of “A” Street and east of Cedar Street. This general area of the community has been identified in the Comprehensive Plan for over 30 years as an area for future industrial development. Mr. McDonald explained the planning history for the site and discussed a Sacajawea Industrial Park plan for the area. That plan was initiated about 12 years ago and eventually lead to the area being called the “Heritage Industrial Park”. The City, through expenditures and work with the property owners, has tried to posture the property for industrial development. Over the years, the City has installed water lines near the property, there’s a 21” sewer line along the bottom edge of the property, there’s a major sewer trunk line and there is a major water line that runs through the northern third of the property. A major rail spur was recently installed through the length of the site from the west end to Road 40. A number of years ago along the southern portion of the property, Burlington Northern built a rail yard with 7 miles of track along with some high intensity lighting that allows the railroad to work 24 hours a day. One of challenges or changes in the community occurring now is that most of the I-2 (Medium Industrial) property within the community has been developed. Mr. McDonald also explained that although there was a need for additional I-2 ground in the city a number of uses permitted in the I-2 Zoning District and other uses permitted through special permit process may not be appropriate for the area. These uses were then highlight and it was suggested that a concomitant agreement would be needed to remove the undesirable uses from the list of possible uses for the site. Charles Laird, P.O. Box 3027, Pasco, WA spoke on behalf of Columbia East LLC who owns the majority of the rezone site. Columbia East LLC has been largely responsible for developing the Commercial Avenue Corridor. The primary reason for the rezone application is to increase the potential industrial users who may choose to locate in the Tri-Cities. I-2 zoning puts the Heritage Industrial Center in a better position to compete with industrial centers and will allow for full advantage of the recently installed rail spur. -8-   The rail spur construction was a joint effort between the State of Washington, City of Pasco, Port of Pasco and the property owners. Columbia East LLC recognizes that there are some uses permitted under I-2 Zoning that may not be viewed favorably by nearby neighbor. The applicant is willing to sign a concomitant agreement with the City to restrict the following uses: junkyard, slaughterhouse, livestock yard, automobile wrecking yard, scrap iron, distillation of bones, fat rendering, garbage or dead animal reduction or dumping. With the exception of scrap paper, rag storage, sorting or bailing, the remaining permitted uses under I-2 Zoning will be subject to further public scrutiny during the conditional special permit process. In addition to the concomitant agreement, Columbia East LLC intends to record restrictive covenants that will establish an upfront expectation that Heritage Industrial Center will be a clean, orderly and well thought out development. Gary Ballew, 1100 Osprey Pointe, spoke on behalf of the Port of Pasco for this application. The Port Commissioner’s reviewed this zoning request at their September 25th meeting. At that meeting they passed a motion to support the request. Leanne Smith, 506 Manzanita Lane, stated she supports the growth for business in Pasco but was concerned with the type of businesses that could locate with I-2 Zoning. Ms. Smith wanted to make sure that any changes made to the zoning won’t have a negative impact on the residential neighborhood nearby. She was concerned with her property value and quality of life. Chairman Cruz asked Ms. Smith if she would be supportive of the rezone with the concomitant agreement. Ms. Smith answered the concomitant agreement was a great effort to ensure their community is protect. She was concerned about the description of the I-2 Zone, such as noise levels, lighting, odors and smoke. Those are the things that will affect her and her home. Chairman Cruz responded that the Planning Commission has had experience in the past with development of industrial near residential and they review the conditions and agreements to ensure minimal impact on the residential neighborhoods. He asked if there were specific things in the I-2 Zone that should be prevented, such as animal rendering. Ms. Smith stated that anything that would make noise, odor or any other disturbance. She stated that the only people that got notified by mail on this rezone were people within 300 feet of the proposed site. Her neighborhood is beyond 300 feet yet she feels she is still close enough to be affected by this rezone. She happened to find out about the hearing through other people. Chairman Cruz stated that concern has come up a few times and asked staff if 300 feet is statutory. Mr. McDonald answered that it is a municipal code requirement. Ryan Brault, 617 Esperanza Court, stated he was a resident in the nearby neighborhood he appreciates the concomitant agreement idea. Ted Osborn, 3808 E. “A” Street, stated he owns the salvage operation at the corner of Road 40 and “A” Street. He spoke in favor of the proposed zone change. -9-   Mr. Laird reiterated that the intention is to record restrictive covenants along with a concomitant agreement and in those covenants offensive uses will be addressed. Chairman Cruz responded that there is general support for the rezone to I-2, however, there needs to be more clarity as to which uses will be restricted.. Chairman Cruz asked staff how many restrictions should be put in the covenants. Mr. McDonald answered that the covenants Mr. Laird referred to are different than the concomitant agreement. The concomitant agreement is controlled by the City and the City will make sure that it is recorded. Mr. McDonald went through a list of uses that the Planning Commission stated they wished to have placed in the concomitant agreement as prohibited uses, such as: slaughter houses, plaster manufacturing, distillation of bones, manufacturing and storage of explosives, fat rendering, glue manufacturing, fertilizer, garbage, dead animal reduction or rendering, race tracks, asphalt and concrete batch plants and commercial composting companies. Chairman Cruz stated that some items listed are in the middle in it would depend on the company and their plans. Chaiman Cruz stated that there were a few activities that should be completely restricted without the option of a special permit. Mr. Laird responded that finding language that isn’t too restrictive will be the challenging. There may be uses that can be done in a tasteful and clean manner and certain language in the agreement could prevent such uses. Mr. Brault added that he would like some consideration to extending the buffer. He asked for clarification on the buffer. Mr. McDonald answered that the site is 350 to 600 feet from “A” Street. He stated that the issue of buffers came up when Tierra Vida was approved. The properties on the north side of “A” Street where zoned to provide an additional buffer from the I-1 zone. The applicants wish to further enhance that buffer by staying back to 350-600 feet. Linda Patrick, 3914 Milagro Dr., stated concern that residents in Tierra Vida didn’t receive written notification in the mail. Ms. Patrick also added that the buffer didn’t provide much protection to the residents as there is still a lot of noise, odor and other problems. With no more comments the public hearing closed. Commissioner Greenaway moved, seconded by Commissioner Polk, to close the public hearing and schedule deliberations and development of a recommendation for City Council at the November 20, 2014 meeting. The motion passed unanimously. C. Rezone Rezone from “O” (Office) to R-1 (Low Density Residential) (Charles Steltenpohl) (MF# Z 2014-006) Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director, discussed the rezone -10-   application from “O” (Office) to R-1 (Low Density Residential). The proposed rezone would allow the existing structure on the site to be used as a single-family residence. Originally it was constructed in the late 1950’s as a duplex and later converted to a medical office. The Comprehensive Plan designates the site for low-density residential uses and there is R-1 Zoning to the west and northwest and Office Zoning directly across the street and behind the property, however Office Zoning and Residential Zoning are often harmonious. Charles Steltenpohl, 3005 Road 56, the applicant, stated one of the main issues with the property has been parking causing it to be unattractive for businesses uses. Converting to residential will make the property more attractive. With no further questions or comments the public hearing closed. Commissioner Polk asked if it currently being used as a single-family residence or office. Mr. Steltenpohl stated that it is used as a single-family residence. Commissioner Greenaway moved, seconded by Commissioner Polk, to close the public hearing on the proposed rezone and initiate deliberations and schedule the adoption of findings of fact and conclusions and a recommendation for City Council for the November 20, 2014 meeting. The motion passed unanimously. D. Rezone Rezone from C-1 (Retail Business) to CR (Regional Commercial) (City of Pasco) (MF# Z 2014-007) Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Dave McDonald, City Planner, discussed the rezone application from C-1 (Retail Business) to CR (Regional Commercial). The property is on Sandifur Parkway, west of Bedford. The site is 14 acres and is owned by the City of Pasco. The CR Zoning District would allow for commercial uses included; RV sales, car sales and related type of businesses. Mr. McDonald briefly referenced the findings of fact in the written report and the recommendation for rezoning this property. Chairman Cruz stated that the report notes motorcycles sales. Mr. McDonald added the motorcycles sales are located directly to the south of I-182 in the new building being built on St. Thomas Drive. The rezone provides a little more flexibility for signage and perhaps size of the sales lots and numbers of vehicles. Commissioner Bachart stated that he is a little concerned with the other types of commercial properties already in this vicinity and how this rezone could affect those businesses. The special permit would require new cars only. He asked if it would really be preferable to rezone or use the special permit process. Mr. McDonald said yes and no. In this particular case, it would be more than just a used car lot. The special permit process and some of the limitations, particularly for signage, doesn’t quite work. A rezone is preferable in this particular case. Commissioner Bachart asked if all 14 acres of this property are going to be developed into a single car lot. -11-   Mr. McDonald answered only 7 acres, with the possibility of the other 7 acres for a different dealership. Commissioner Greenaway stated that she was also concerned since the majority of the area consists of medical offices and banks. Mr. McDonald replied that most of those businesses are on the north side of the boulevard. Also, in the I-182 Corridor, there will be landscaping requirements along with building enhancement not found in other parts of the community. Chairman Cruz added that there is a nice gradient from less intense to more intense. Preston Ramsey, 415 S. Alpine, Liberty Lake, WA, stated that he represents the original developer and owner of the site. The site is encumbered with restrictive covenants that will have to be reviewed by the architectural committee. Mr. McDonald stated that he is aware of the covenants and he has been in communication with Mr. Ramsey. With no further comments the public hearing closed. Commissioner Kempf moved, seconded by Commissioner Greenaway, to adopt findings of fact and conclusions therefrom as contained in the October 16, 2014 staff report. The motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Kempf moved, seconded by Commissioner Greenaway, based on the findings of fact and conclusions as adopted the Planning Commission recommend the City Council approve the rezone for the property at the southeast corner of Bedford Street and Sandifur Parkway from C-1 to CR. The motion passed unanimously. E. Zoning Determination Develop Zoning Recommendation for Rogers Annexation Area (MF# ZD 2014-001) Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Dave McDonald, City Planner, discussed the need to develop a zoning recommendation for the Rogers Annexation Area. The owners of the property signed a notice of intent to annex the property in August. Subsequent to that the owners signed a 60% annexation petition which has now been certified by the County Assessor. A zoning determination needs to be made so when the public hearing is held in December a zoning recommendation will be ready for City Council to consider. In looking at the general area and surrounding properties, staff is suggesting that the property be zoned R-S-1 to match the DNR property directly to the west which is also zoned R-S-1. Following additional discussion the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Greenaway moved, seconded by Commissioner Bachart, the Planning Commission adopt the findings of fact as contained in the October 16, 2014 staff report. The motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Greenaway moved, seconded by Commissioner Bachart, based on the findings of fact adopted, the Planning Commission recommend the City Council zone the -12-   Rogers Annexation Area R-S-1 Suburban Residential upon annexation. The motion passed unanimously. F. Comprehensive Plan Comprehensive Plan Amendment to Modify the Urban Growth Boundary (Farm 2005, LLC) (MF# CPA 2014-002) Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Dave McDonald, City Planner, discussed the Comprehensive Plan Amendment to modify the Urban Growth Boundary. He stated the applicant is seeking to have the urban Growth Boundary expanded to include 160 acres north of Northwest Commons. Mr. McDonald explained the staff memo for contained pertinent sections of the Growth Management Act relating to urban growth boundaries. The property is next to the city limits and there is a new school and a new subdivision located to the south. There is a provision within the law that the cities and counties can consider a local market supply factor to provide a buffer and an opportunity to prohibit the boundary from being so restrictive it would drive the price of property up. Mr. McDonald also shared concerns with the local supply factor as well as concerns with the airport. Mr. McDonald briefly discussed some possible uses on this property. Tom Kidwell, 4320 Riverhaven Street, stated that including his property in the urban growth boundary would be a natural progression of the city. With the new school, he built a water main and new street down to his property. He stated that this would be a good site for homes. Ron Foraker of the Port of Pasco and Spencer Montgomery of J.U.B. Engineers spoke on the application. Mr. Foraker stated over the past two years the Port of Pasco has worked with the City of Pasco and Franklin County to safeguard future service capabilities of the Airport. Ideally they would prefer there be no development on a runway approach to the airport. There will be low-flying aircraft arriving and departing above the proposed site. In planning of the airport overlay zone, it was agreed that no residential development would be allowed in Zone 2 but the compromised reached was that Zone 4 would allow for large lots due to some existing conditions on other runway approaches. Of the 160 acre parcel that is being considered for the urban growth boundary, nearly half will be protected in the approach zones. Because restrictions were not in place previously, the Port of Pasco is forced to purchase 34 acres southeast of the subject property to retain protection for growth of the airport. There will also be height restrictions on the entire parcel. Chairman Cruz asked for clarification as to what land uses would conform to the airport overlay zoning. Mr. Foraker responded mostly farming. Mr. Montgomery added that the overlay district would prohibit residential in parts of this property and public assemblies or anything that would have a large amount of people gather. Chairman Cruz responded that this puts the Planning Commission in a tough spot since part of the property can’t be developed and other parts probably shouldn’t or should be at a lower density. He asked the applicant how these restrictions will affect his plan. -13-   Mr. Kidwell answered half the property on the south side of the runway will be available but he needs city water and in order to have city water they have to be in the urban growth boundary. Mr. Kidwell added that even decreasing the size of the property to include into the urban growth boundary would still facilitate his needs. Chairman Cruz stated that it will become awkward for the land owner because this land won’t be large enough to be farmable and the rest would be limited on the amount of homes. Mr. Kidwell stated he still wished to move forward on this application. With no more questions or comments the public hearing closed. Commissioner Greenway stated that she would have difficulty approving this application due to safety of the airport. Commissioner Bachart moved, seconded by Commissioner Portugal, to close the hearing on the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment and initiate deliberations and schedule adoption of findings of fact, conclusions and a recommendation to City Council for the November 20, 2014 meeting. The motion passed five to one with Commissioner Greenaway dissenting. G. Comprehensive Plan Comprehensive Plan Amendment to Change the Land Use Designation from Low-Density Residential to Mixed Residential (Roger & Kay Walker) (MF# CPA 2014-003) Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Dave McDonald, City Planner, discussed the Comprehensive Plan Amendment to modify the urban growth boundary. The property is located at the north end of Crescent Drive where it meets Chapel Hill Boulevard. The 3-4 acre site is currently zoned RS-12 and was zoned that way when annexed in the 1980’s. The applicants wish to develop the property at a little higher density than RS-12. The property to the north is designated as mixed- residential which would allow for apartments and the property to the east is zoned C-1 and the properties to the south are zoned RS-12. One of the issues to consider is that this site is difficult to develop, particularly for single-family homes due to the elevation for the on Crescent Dr. It would be cost prohibitive to develop single-family homes due to the amount of fill needed for Crescent Dr. This is one of the reasons why they would like to change the plan. Changing the designation would provide a transition or buffer between the R-4 zoning to the north and RS-12 to the south. Chairman Cruz added to building up the property for road access and stated that it would be expensive. Harvey Prickett, P.O. Box 34341, Pasco, WA with Wave Architects spoke on behalf of the application. Initially this property was an orchard with the plans to develop it as a single- family home for themselves. When discussions with the Engineering Department revealed issues with the road, grade and utilities, it was no longer economically feasible for them to do so and they are now trying to adjust their plans. They would like to see a townhome style of residence for this property. -14-   Shawn Defferding, 4500 Crescent Road, stated that she was also speaking for other neighbors near this property. They do not wish to see a buffer zone but would like to see a single-family residence. She stated that it will change their quality of life and the character of the neighborhood. Traffic increase was a main concern and they feel that they will get more traffic from this development. She stated that when Mediterranean Villas first opened it was mostly seniors or adults and now they are renting and leasing to all ages and there is concern the same will happen in this case. She noted that the applicants will have to finish the infrastructure in front of their home but asked who would have to finish the rest. Chairman Cruz responded that the mixed residential nearby could easily be apartments. Chairman Cruz stated that some of the concerns are a little late due to the zoning of the surrounding properties and that the nearby farm will not always be a farm. Ms. Defferding responded that the surrounding neighbors had not understood that. They thought that it would be more commercial zoning. Chairman Cruz responded to the street closures and stated that he can’t recall ever asking for street closures and didn’t know if that could even be done. Mr. McDonald stated that the difficulty in this case is Crescent Drive and Road 108 are identified in the Major Street Plan to connect to Chapel Hill Boulevard and in the future there will be that connection. This area is within the urban growth boundary so this area will develop and as it develops the street will have to go through. Chairman Cruz asked for clarification as to how the street will get developed. He asked if the road will be completed as needed. Mr. McDonald answered that is correct and briefly explained the process. Ms. Defferding asked how the land is going to be leveled for development. Chairman Cruz answered that in order to get the street to City standards they will have to fill it in. Once it is filled in there will need to be a wall or have it graded to that there is a flat spot to build on. Roughly 70% of that lot would be available to build on so there won’t be room for several units on this property, just enough to make the development costs worthwhile. Zana Griffith, 4205 Road 111, asked if Crescent Road would open up and feed into Chapel Hill Boulevard. Mr. McDonald responded the applicants will be responsible for building their portion of the road. Ms. Griffith asked for clarification on keeping a barrier to keep people from coming down to Crescent Drive. Mr. McDonald stated that it wouldn’t be advisable and would eventually be removed. Chairman Cruz discussed the option of an LID to help with street, road, sewer and -15-   irrigation improvements and there may be a street plan. There was discussion between Chairman Cruz and Ms. Griffith on the different options and what could potentially be developed. Mr. McDonald reminded the Planning Commission that at this time they should only be considering the Comprehensive Plan Amendment. Commissioner Polk addressed the problem of speeding from church traffic and suggested that anyone with issues should contact the church to let them know. Mr. McDonald stated that currently the church congregation shouldn’t be able to use the road because it is blocked off. Mr. Pritchett stated that he agreed with many of the comments made and they too would like to see the lowest speed. They plan to be responsible developers. With no further questions or comments the public hearing closed. Commissioner Bachart moved, seconded by Commissioner Kempf, to close the public hearing and initiate deliberations and schedule adoption of findings of facts, conclusions and a recommendation to the City Council for the November 20, 2014 meeting. The motion passed unanimously. H. Code Amendment Revisions to PMC Title 17 (Signs) dealing with Highway Follow-Through Signs (MF# CA 2011-011) Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director, discussed the code amendment for revisions to PMC Title 17 (Signs) dealing with highway follow-through signs. The Commission has seen this item several times. After meeting with the Department of Transportation, the Engineering Department and working out code language, a proposed ordinance that uses existing language in the sign code, will allow for highway follow-through signs with the same parameters that the Commission has given approval at previous workshops on this issue. It captures all of the permitting requirements necessary for the State Code. With no further comments the public hearing closed. I. Block Grant Preliminary Draft of the 2015-2019 Tri-Cities Consolidated Plan (MF# BGAP 2014-007) Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director, discussed the preliminary draft of the 2015-2019 Tri-Cities Consolidated Plan. The Consolidated Plan is established to provide a framework on how to utilize Block Grant and HOME fund money. Mr. White referred to the draft plan which was sent to the Planning Commissioners and is available on the City website as well as the Pasco Branch Libraries. The major change in this plan from previous years is the format due to a change in federal reporting requirements. Instead of seven goals there are only three goals; (1) Affordable housing creation, preservation, access and choice, (2) Community, neighborhood and economic development -16-   and (3) Homeless intervention and prevention and supportive services. Each goal has a priority system for recommending what should or should not be considered for funding. With no questions or comments the public hearing closed. OTHER BUSINESS: A. Plan Shoreline Master Plan Update – Environmental Designations This item was postponed and will be on the upcoming meeting. COMMENTS: With no further discussion or business, the Planning Commission was adjourned at 10:06 p.m. Respectfully submitted, David McDonald, City Planner