Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-19-2015 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes-1-   REGULAR MEETING February 19, 2015 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 Kempf moved, seconded by Commissioner Greenaway that the minutes dated January 15, 2015 be approved as amended. The motion passed unanimously. OLD BUSINESS: A. Special Permit Special Permit for Pasco Police Station (City of Pasco) (MF# SP 2014-011) Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Jeff Adams, Associate Planner, discussed the special permit application for the construction of a Police Station. He stated that no comments have been received since the previous meeting. -2-   Dave McDonald, City Planner, added that the Planning Commissioners were given a revised site plan prior to the meeting containing minor revisions to the roundabout by the front door. Also, the entry into the secured parking area has been relocated. There were no further changes. Commissioner Bachart moved, seconded by Commissioner Portugal, to adopt findings of fact and conclusions therefrom as contained in the February 19, 2015 staff report. The motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Bachart moved, seconded by Commissioner Portugal, based on the findings of fact and conclusions as adopted, the Planning Commission recommend the City Council grant a special permit to allow the construction of a City of Pasco Police Community Services Building at 525 N 3rd Avenue with conditions as contained in the February 19, 2015 staff report. The motion passed unanimously. B. Rezone Rezone from C-1 (Retail Business) to CR (Regional Commercial) (West Pasco LLC) (MF# Z 2014-010) Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Shane O’Neill, Planner I, discussed the rezone application from C-1 (Retail Business) to CR (Regional Commercial). He stated that there is no concomitant agreement proposed and that there were no changes since the previous meeting. Commissioner Khan moved, seconded by Commissioner Greenaway, to adopt the findings of fact and conclusions therefrom as contained in the February 19, 2015 staff report. The motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Khan moved, seconded by Commissioner Greenaway, based on the findings of fact and conclusions as adopted, the Planning Commission recommend the City Council approve the rezone of the Dietrich (West Pasco LLC) property in the 9500 block of Sandifur Parkway from C-1 to CR. The motion passed unanimously. C. Rezone Rezone from C-1 (Retail Business) to R-1 (Low Density Residential) (Big Creek Land Co.) (MF# Z 2014-011) 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 R-1 (Low Density Residential). He stated that there have been no changes since the previous meeting. Commissioner Polk asked for clarification between the consistency of what the Comprehensive Plan has designated for this site and what it was already zoned for – that it was zoned Commercial but the applicant wishes to make it Residential. She asked if City Code allows for mixed-use or mixed-zoning options. Mr. McDonald answered that the City does have a provision within the Comprehensive Plan that includes a Mixed-Residential Commercial designation and if properties are -3-   designated under that category then they can either develop for commercial or residential uses. This property was designated for Mixed-Residential, allowing for RS-20 through R-3 Zoning and the developer requested R- zoning, which is within the parameters. Commissioner Polk asked if there were zoning allowances to allow for buildings to contain both residential and commercial. Mr. McDonald responded that within the C-1 Zone residential units are permitted on upper floors as long as the first floor contains a permitted use, such as a restaurant, office or store but it does require a special permit. The property would have to be zoned commercially and then the applicant would need to request a special permit for the other floors to be residential. Commissioner Khan asked if the developer had any interest in commercial zoning or if that was why they wanted to rezone residential. Mr. McDonald stated that the applicant is leaving seven lots for commercial development and they are working on a project that may come forward in the future but, the main interest for the property is residential as they have developed several surrounding subdivisions. There were no further questions or comments. Commissioner Bachart moved, seconded by Commissioner Greenaway, to adopt the findings of fact and conclusions therefrom as contained in the February 19, 2015 staff report. The motion passed 6 to 1, with Commissioner Khan dissenting. Commissioner Bachart 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 of the Broadmoor Terrace site on the south side of Sandifur Parkway from C-1 to R-1. The motion passed 5 to 2, with Commissioner Khan and Commissioner Polk dissenting. Commissioner Khan and Commissioner Polk both explained that they dissented because they wished to keep more of the property zoned commercial rather than more residential. Although the motion was made, Commissioner Khan clarified for the record that her dissenting vote was because she would like the City to retain as much commercial property as possible in Pasco because she feels it would benefit the community more than residential property. Commissioner Polk agreed with Commissioner Khan that she would like to see more commercial. Commissioner Portugal reminded the Planning Commission that discussion is closed as the motion was already made. Mr. McDonald added the Planning Commission recently recommended the City Council rezone 145 acres of land for commercial development near Road 100. That rezone -4-   increased the inventory of commercial land in the City. The Commission was also reminded that in order to attract commercial development, there must be a large enough population base to support additional commercial activity. D. Preliminary Plat Preliminary Plat – Broadmoor Terrace (Big Creek Land Co.) (MF# PP 2014-006) Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Dave McDonald, City Planner, discussed the preliminary plat application for Broadmoor Terrace. He stated that this application goes along with the previous rezone that was just recommended to City Council. Staff had no additional comments. Commissioner Khan shared concern that she had from the rezone of this property, stating that she is concerned about the impact on the School District and the need for schools, the lack of income that comes from residential properties that could come from commercial properties. Although there are school impact fees and there is commercial property near Road 100, she still believes this area should be zoned commercially. Commissioner Polk agreed but now that the motion has already been made to rezone the property commercial, it only makes sense to move forward with the preliminary plat and see the land used most efficiently. She also discussed in the future seeing more mixed- use zoning. Commissioner Portugal stated it is important to find balance between commercial and residential. Chairman Cruz discussed how commercial development happens as the population grows, which is why there is still a need for residential growth. Residential will have to sometimes proceed the commercial. Having elevated residential (residential on upper floors of commercial buildings) units, such as Portland and other communities is great, but it isn’t practical in a non-urban environment such as Pasco. Land is still vacant and relatively inexpensive so developers don’t need to develop up but out. Commissioner Greenaway appreciates that the developer chose to plat larger lots and left seven lots for commercial, which is much better than apartments, which is what they could have developed. Chairman Cruz added that it also created a nice transition and buffer. Commissioner Portugal moved, seconded by Commissioner Bachart, to adopt the findings of fact and conclusions therefrom as contained in the February 19, 2015 staff report. The motion passed 6 to 1, with Commissioner Khan dissenting. 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 Broadmoor Terrace with conditions as listed in the February 19, 2015 staff report. The motion passed 6 to 1, with Commissioner Khan dissenting. -5-   PUBLIC HEARINGS: A. Special Permit Special Permit to Locate Mini-Storage Facility in C- 1 (Retail Business) Zone (Calin Tebay) (MF# SP 2015-001) Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Dave McDonald, City Planner, discussed the special permit application for the location of a mini-storage facility in a C-1 (Retail Business) zone. The proposed site is located on the northwest corner of Road 44 and Argent Road, just north of the I-182 freeway and just south of the FCID Irrigation Canal. This has always been an odd piece of property and slightly difficult to develop, particularly for residential. For many years it has been indicated on the Comprehensive Plan for Commercial development, taking advantage of the two major streets and has been zoned C-1 for three decades. The C-1 zoning designation would allow for a variety of commercial uses, such as restaurants, offices, a variety of stores, convenient stores and gas stations, all of which wouldn’t have to go through the special permit process. Mini-storages, however, require extraordinary review through the special permit process. Mr. McDonald explained that if an office complex equal in size to the proposed mini- storage buildings was located at this site it could generate 560 vehicle trips per day. A commercial retail development of equal size would generate over 2,000 vehicle trips per day. A convenient store could generate 2,220 vehicle trips per day. With those trips comes noise, traffic and commotion. The proposed mini-storage on the other hand, according to the Institute of Traffic and Engineers, would only generate about 13 vehicle trips per day. Staff provided findings of fact, approval conditions and a recommendation for City Council. Due to time constraints staff is recommending the hearing and the Council recommendation be expedited on this application. Commissioner Portugal asked for clarification on the process. Chairman Cruz responded that they would hold a public hearing and make a recommendation to Council in one night. Mr. McDonald stated that he needed to point out that there will be a full-time office/caretaker’s facility for security. The mini-storage facility has also been setback from the corner to leave the more visible portion of the property open for permitted uses. Chairman Cruz replied that it could be left open for a convenient store or like activity. Commissioner Khan asked what would be placed between the canal and border of this site. Mr. McDonald answered that there is a canal road and the canal. The homes are elevated about 30 feet above the site itself so they will see over the proposed property and there is a masonry block wall which blocks a good portion of the view so as far as aesthetics from the homes above, they won’t see the units at all. -6-   Commissioner Bachart asked if the applicant will have to finish the sidewalk down to the corner of the property. Mr. McDonald explained that the applicant will be required to install curb, gutter and sidewalk along the distance of their development and the Engineering Department may work with the applicant on a deferral for the southern portion. The rest down to the intersection will finish it out when the corner is developed. Commissioner Bachart stated that there is a gap by the canal. Mr. McDonald explained eventually the City will have to get with the Irrigation District to widen the bridge. The long term goal of the Irrigation District is to pipe the whole irrigation ditch but will likely be quite a ways down the road. Commissioner Bachart asked for clarification on the number of cars estimated to visit the storage facility per day. Mr. McDonald answered that it was a day average according to the ITE Transportation Manual. Commissioner Bachart stated that he was concerned since there is a hump in the road to the north. Mr. McDonald responded that it was also a concern of the City as well. The applicant’s first plan included and office and entrance at the north end of the property. Staff asked to have it moved to the south to get it away from the hump in the road to a flatter section. Commissioner Khan asked if the entrance would be located close to the office building. Mr. McDonald replied that it would. Commissioner Khan said that there is a bit of a blind spot by this property and asked if there were any plans for a traffic light to prevent traffic that is traveling very fast. Mr. McDonald stated yes, the Engineering Department is looking at both Road 44 and Road 36 for signalization but was unsure when it will take place. Chairman Cruz added that part of the recommendation pushes the entry farther away from the intersection so concerns should be mitigated. Commissioner Bachart asked about an on/off ramp from the freeway and when or if that will happen. Mr. McDonald answered that the Engineering Department has been working on it. One of the thoughts was to bring a ramp off at Road 44. This was supposed to be included in a study by the Federal Highway Department which also included an off ramp on Road 52. It is now understood that the two ramps have been separated and the study will move -7-   forward on the Road 52 ramp. The Road 44 ramp has been put to the side for now. Mr. McDonald explained these studies take several years and once they are completed there are a number of years of design work and then more time to get funding. Calin Tebay, 7320 Sandy Ridge Road, spoke on behalf of his application. He stated that the reason for needing to expedite this application is because there is a tax free deferral and he has to have the facility built within nine months. He discussed the details of the structure and office. His goal is to have a nice, upscale storage facility that is safe. The site plan reflects possible future buildings but at this time that area will not be developed. Mr. Tebay stated that he has also worked with the Engineering Department on this project. With no further comments the public hearing closed. Mr. McDonald pointed out many storage facilities leave gravel throughout their property which creates dust but in this case, and the applicant has agreed, to pave all of the aisle ways between the units and the entryway to be hard surfaced. This is similar to the other recent facilities. Chairman Cruz used the storage facility on Road 100 as a reference. Commissioner Khan moved, seconded by Commissioner Polk, to adopt the findings of fact and conclusions therefrom as contained in the February 19, 2015 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 grant a special permit for the location of a mini-storage facility on tax parcel # 117-250-030 with conditions as contained in the February 19, 2015 staff report. The motion passed unanimously. B. Rezone Rezone from RS-12 (Suburban) to R-3 (Medium Density Residential) (Harvey Prickett) (MF# Z 2015- 001) Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Shane O’Neill, Planner I, discussed the rezone application from RS-12 (Suburban) to R-3 (Medium Density Residential). The site is located at the intersection of Crescent Road and Chapel Hill Boulevard and is roughly 4 acres in size. The proposed R-3 zoning would permit up to 57 dwelling units; however, building setback requirements, landscaping, parking and other improvements will limit the number of dwelling units that will be built. There is no site plan at this time but there is a need for a landscape buffer. Mr. O’Neill discussed the need for a landscaped along the southwest boundary line. Twenty-five feet was recommended. Because required improvements (involving significant fill) to Crescent Drive it would be very expensive and difficult to develop the site for a few single family homes. The plan is for Crescent Road to connect to Chapel Hill Boulevard serving as a useful bypass alleviating traffic from the neighborhoods to the south. General information in the written staff report was reviewed for the benefit of the Planning Commission. -8-   Chairman Cruz reminded the Planning Commission about previous discussions on this property and why the additional buffer and grading is necessary. Commissioner Bachart asked for clarification on the proposed 25 foot landscaping buffer and the road improvements will only have to be done to the end of their property. Mr. O’Neill responded that staff is recommending the 25 foot landscaping buffer. And this property borders Crescent Road and Chapel Hill Boulevard and the property frontages will require right-of-way improvements. Dave McDonald, City Planner, clarified that where Chapel Hill Boulevard ends at Crescent Road is essentially where the public road right-of-way stops. The property owner will need to complete Crescent Road and connect it to Chapel Hill Boulevard but to do that there is possibly up to 20 feet of fill that will need to be placed in front of the site to make the grade match properly. Chairman Cruz reminded the Planning Commission of the previous discussion on this property. The goal is to preserve the residential zoning to the southwest as much as possible but ultimately the C-1 zoning to the north (east) will take precedence when the neighboring farm is sold. Commissioner Bachart responded that part of his concern is that he wants to protect the property owners to the southwest but at the same time, the C-1 zoning could allow for a store, such as Costco, directly across the street without a special permit, and so he stated that the 25 foot buffer is a little much in his opinion. He suggested 10-15 feet and perhaps some trees. Chairman Cruz added that when the applicant explains the grading the 25 foot buffer will seem to make more sense. Harvey Prickett of Wave Architects, 99304 E. Clover Road, Kennewick, WA spoke on behalf of this application. The intent is townhome style buildings. The low point of the property will have a park and will double as the storm water retention pond. They would also like to propose a fence, as long as it doesn’t conflict with easements on the property line, with the material as either concrete or CMU Piers at 8-12’ intervals and an attractive composite fencing in between. They wish to hydro seed the rest of the area for a greenspace and plant large growth trees, such as Red Oak, at 30’ intervals along the property. He stated that he was in agreement with Staff’s recommendation for the 25 foot landscaping buffer. Chairman Cruz responded that the plans are more specific than the Planning Commission typically sees during a rezone application. Mr. Prickett answered that he wanted to have it all planned out in case there was discussion from the audience, as in the previous meeting. Chairman Cruz asked if a block wall is required or if other types of fencing would be permitted. Mr. McDonald replied that this isn’t a subdivision so the block wall provisions don’t apply. -9-   Mr. Prickett referred fence will be attractive. As far as the greenspace with sod or hydro seeding and oak trees every 30 feet would be fine. It is good to put in the concomitant agreement so there is no dispute between the applicant and staff on what is expected. Chairman Cruz responded that he felt confident in staff and the applicant working out the details for the concomitant agreement and Planning Commission would look at it prior to making a recommendation to City Council. With no further questions or comments the public hearing closed. Commissioner Kempf moved, seconded by Commissioner Greenaway, 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 March 19, 2015 meeting. The motion passed unanimously. WORKSHOP: A. Plan Shoreline Master Program – Draft Shoreline Master Plan Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Jeff Adams, Associate Planner discussed the Shoreline Master Program. For the past year staff has worked with the consultant, Ben Floyd of Anchor QEA, and so far they have put together a public participation plan, draft developmental goals and policies and the environmental designations. Much of what goes into the plan is mandated by the State. Ben Floyd was introduced. Ben Floyd, Anchor QEA, spoke on behalf of this item. He introduced Angela San Filippo, Washington State Department of Ecology, as she will be reviewing the program that is developed. Chairman Cruz suggested going over the areas in the plan that aren’t mandated by the State. Mr. Floyd briefly discussed the relationship between the Growth Management Act and Shoreline Management Act, the profile and inventory analysis, goals and policies, regulations, shoreline modifications and environmental designations. He emphasized the Shoreline Use and Modification Matrix and Shoreline Development Standards Matrix tables in the plan. He also pointed out critical areas for the Planning Commission to discuss. There are some tables included in the draft plan relating to wetland protection that need to be updated. There was a draft guidance document that was issued by the State last summer for protecting wetlands in Eastern Washington and the numbers have slightly changed by their scoring and ranking of how functions are designated. Chairman Cruz asked if he was referring the mitigation ratios. Mr. Floyd clarified that the mitigation ratios were fine but the Wetland Buffer Width Requirements table has changed. After critical areas in the plan it moves on to existing structures and lots – how to deal with existing development that was legally permitted and -10-   how do they move forward. There was a brief discussion on the goals and policies of the program and the City of Pasco’s Shoreline Linkages Plan was included in the Shoreline Master Program. Mr. Floyd highlighted economic development, supporting the industrial sites as well as the boating and recreation opportunities. Public access is an important part of this plan. There was some discussion regarding building height limits and the various methods that could be used for various zones. The Shoreline Master Program will be on the agenda again in March for further discussion. COMMENTS: Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director, passed out photos of a recently constructed building, built by GESA. It is a records storage facility that was constructed on Sylvester Street and was permitted by the City and followed the current codes. The building itself is a plain white pole building that does not look aesthetically pleasing, however, under current codes it is permitted. He asked the Planning Commission if they would like to see staff bring to them a code amendment to prevent this from happening in the future. The Planning Commission was in agreement to have a proposed code amendment brought to them. With no further discussion or business, the Planning Commission was adjourned at 8:51 p.m. Respectfully submitted, David McDonald, City Planner