Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-16-2015 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes-1-   REGULAR MEETING April 16, 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 Tanya Bowers No. 2 Tony Bachart No. 3 Paul Mendez 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 Khan moved, seconded by Commissioner Polk that the minutes dated February 19, 2015 be approved as amended. The motion passed with six votes and Commissioner Bowers and Commissioner Mendez abstaining. OLD BUSINESS: A. 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 to R-3. He stated that there had been no changes to the staff report since the previous meeting. -2-   Commissioner Bachart moved, seconded by Commissioner Khan, to adopt the findings of fact and conclusions therefrom as contained in the March 19, 2015 staff report. The motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Bachart moved, seconded by Commissioner Khan, based on the findings of fact and conclusions as adopted the Planning Commission recommend the City Council approve the rezone of the Walker property in the 4600 Block of Crescent Road from RS-12 to R-3. The motion passed unanimously. PUBLIC HEARINGS: A. Special Permit Special Permit to Locate Mini-Storage Facility in C- 1 (Retail Business) Zone (Calin Tebay) (MF# SP 2015-003) Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Dave McDonald, City Planner, explained that the applicant had withdrawn his special permit application and asked for it to be removed from the agenda. No public hearing was held. B. Special Permit Special Permit to locate a modular office adjacent to Fire Station 81 (City of Pasco) (MF# SP 2015- 004) Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Dave McDonald, City Planner, discussed the special permit application to locate a modular office adjacent to Fire Station 81. In 1999 the City relocated the main downtown fire station to Oregon Avenue and built a 7,000 square foot fire station facility with offices and other ancillary uses. In 1999 the City was approaching a population of 27,000 and currently the population is nearing 68,000. With that growth there is a need for additional facilities in the Fire Department. Recently the Planning Commission recommended a special permit for an addition to the Police Station and part of that project required the removal and relocation of a modular office that had been used by the Police Department and Records Storage. That modular office is what is being proposed to be relocated to the north side of the fire station parking lot to be utilized for an office. Attached to the staff report was a letter received by staff from a neighboring property owner, Mr. David Meheen, who was opposed to locating the modular office at this site. Mr. McDonald read the letter into the record. The letter indicated concern for the appearance of a modular building, the potential of it becoming a permanent structure and the effect it could have on the neighboring property values. Mr. McDonald stated that one of the purposes for special permit review is for the Planning Commission to determine if there are any mitigating circumstances that can be applied to a particular application and use to allow it to fit in a given location. In this particular -3-   case, any private business on Oregon Avenue could locate a modular office, not requiring a special permit. The only reason the special permit is required in this case is because it is a governmental facility and governmental/quasi-governmental activities require special permits. To help address some of the concerns Mr. Meheen had, staff suggested the modular office be pit set which would make it look more like a permanent structure and to have it painted to complement the fire station and some landscaping could also be added. The building itself will be located about 150 feet from Oregon Avenue. Staff recommend the special permit be granted with the special conditions as contained in the staff report. Chairman Cruz asked if there is a landscape screen proposed. Mr. McDonald responded that there is currently a row of arborvitaes that will be removed and the modular office will be located on that lawn. The Planning Commission could consider replanting the hedges. Also, where the hedges end there are some opportunities to plant shrubbery to provide an additional screen for the structure itself. The structure will also be partially hidden by a booster station from Oregon Avenue. Commissioner Bachart asked for clarification where the modular would be placed. Mr. McDonald pointed to a location on the PowerPoint slide. Commissioner Bowers asked what the cost would be to require additional shrubbery. Mr. McDonald answered that it would just be the cost of the shrubs but he doesn’t have the amount. There could also be a cost to have a contractor plant them or the Parks Department personnel could plant them, which would probably be the case since the budget is pretty low. Chairman Cruz guessed it would cost a couple thousand dollars but no more. Commissioner Polk asked if the original arborvitaes were planted by choice or were they planted as a part of an agreement – how long have the plants been there. Mr. McDonald replied that the arborvitaes have been in place since 1999 or 2000 when the project was completed. Chairman Cruz asked how long the modular building would be located on this site. Mr. McDonald answered it would be there as long as it is needed – it is not a temporary structure. Commissioner Portugal asked staff what their response would be in terms of Mr. Meheen’s concern of negative impacts to the neighborhood. Mr. McDonald responded that it would not negatively impact the neighborhood as any one of the surroundings property on Oregon Avenue could place a modular office on their property today without a special permit and there would be no conditions attached to require setting, painting or landscaping. There are modular offices around town – some are pit set and some are not. -4-   Commissioner Khan asked for an explanation of “pit set”. Mr. McDonald explained that a regular modular office when set on the ground, the floor is 2 ½-3 feet off of the surface of the ground so a set of stairs is needed and it doesn’t look like a site built facility. A pit set is when a pit or foundation hole is excavated in the ground, concrete runners are placed down and the unit is set in that hole and it is backfilled to five a more permanent look and there will not be any steps to walk up. Mary Mahoney, 5017 W. Pearl, started to make public comment for another item on the agenda. Chairman Cruz explained to Ms. Mahoney that public comment for that item would need to take place during that public hearing. With no further comments the public hearing closed. Mr. McDonald suggested adding a condition to require shrubbery to be planted on the east side of the building to address Mr. Meheen’s concerns. Chairman Cruz put it to a vote and the majority was in favor, with Commissioner Polk, Commissioner Greenaway, Commissioner Bachart, Commissioner Portugal and Commissioner Mendez were in favor of adding that condition. Commissioner Khan and Chairman Cruz did not feel that condition was necessary and Commissioner Bowers was undecided. Chairman Cruz stated that the City has made reasonable accommodations to make sure it will look more like a permanent structure and less like a modular building. Commissioner Khan moved, seconded by Commissioner Portugal, to adopt the amended findings of fact and conclusions therefrom as contained in the amended April 16, 2015 staff report. The motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Khan moved, seconded by Commissioner Portugal, based on the amended findings of fact and conclusions as adopted the Planning Commission recommend the City Council grant a special permit for the location of a modular office for Fire Station 81 on tax parcel # 112-104-035 with conditions as contained in the April 16, 2015 staff report. The motion passed unanimously. C. Preliminary Plat Preliminary Plat for Majestia Place (Peter Strizhak) (MF# PP 2015-001) Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Shane O’Neill, Planner I, discussed the preliminary plat application for Majestia Place. The applicant prroposes to subdivide 10 ½ acres into single-family lots. The site is zoned R-1 (Low Density Residential) which permits homes on lots with minimum lot sizes of 7,200 square feet. The lots on this plat range from 7,500sqft-13,000sqft. The subdivision will function as a continuation of the surrounding Broadmoor Estates Subdivision. The staff report contains standard conditions that would be found in most preliminary plats in -5-   terms of utilities and storm water. Staff has included a condition to require a 6 foot tall block estate wall along the southern border of the property to match the wall that Mediterranean Villas has on their property. Commissioner Bowers asked if the school impact fee is a set fee of $4,700 per home or if it varies. Mr. O’Neill replied that it is a set fee that some of the Planning Commissioners were involved in setting a few years back. There were no public comments and the public hearing closed. Commissioner Kempf moved, seconded by Commissioner Bachart, to close the public hearing on the proposed preliminary plat and initiate deliberations and schedule adoption of findings of fact, conclusions and a recommendation to the City Council for the May 21, 2015 meeting. The motion passed unanimously. D. Zoning Determination Zoning Determination for Road 80 Area (City of Pasco) (MF# ZD 2015-001) Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director, discussed the zoning determination for the Road 80 Annexation Area. The area is a little less than 700 acres and has nearly 440 dwelling units and an estimated population of 1,250. City Council indicated a possible interest in annexing this area in January and in doing so, approved the formation of an Annexation Facts Committee which was a process used in 2012 to annex a the middle portion of the County Unincorporated Island. The Annexation Facts Committee took a side by side look at County regulations and formed a matrix to show differences that might be applicable for people living in the City versus living in the County. The committee just concluded their work and their final document was distributed on April 10th. Currently while in the County, most of the zoning is RS-20 (Residential Suburban) with 20,000 square foot lot minimums. Roughly 97% of the proposed annexation area has an RS-20 zone and a very small percentage has a RT (Residential Transition) Zone. For the most part the zoning districts in the City and the County match exclusively, however, the RT zone is one that does not. The RT zone in the County does permit commercial, stables, riding academies, veterinary clinics, nurseries and greenhouses. The only place this applies in the Road 80 Annexation Area is the veterinary clinic on the corner of Road 92. The other RT zone is already developed with single-family homes on existing lots so there would be little impact to those properties themselves. The existing development pattern in the area is a lack of through streets, little sewer extensions and the areas that sewer does touch are identified in the staff report. It is not attractive for redevelopment due to its existing development pattern and the way the parcels have been created through a variety of plats or short plats over the years. Staff is recommending RS-20 zoning, which is the same zoning that occurs in the County for this area, to be established through the zoning determination process. This zoning determination process is slightly different from those done in the past. -6-   Several residents or property owners within the proposed annexation area have indicated that they would feel more comfortable with the annexation, should they be annexed, if the zoning was determined in advance of the annexation hearing. Normally the Planning Commission will make a recommendation and it won’t be forwarded to City Council until the annexation hearing. After consultation with the City Attorney, a process using state law and municipal code regulations was developed to provide certainty. The first Planning Commission hearing on the zoning determination will be repeated by City Council on April 20th and again on June 1st due to state law criteria in which there is a mandatory 30 window between the first and second hearings. The hearing will most likely conclude on June 1st and as soon as it moves forward, City Council will entertain a proposal and make a decision on annexation possibly in July. Mr. White stated that he distributed information to the Planning Commission; the work of the Annexation Facts Committee, a City response to a proposal to establish zoning with conditions by one or several members of the committee, a document that was distributed to City Council, the Annexation Facts Statement and Matrix that was developed by the committee and a memo prepared transmitting all of the information to City Council. Chairman Cruz reiterated that the proposed zoning is comparable to what they have today. Mr. White agreed and added that they will be referring to the 2015 Annexation Facts document during the hearing as well as other documents handed out. Commissioner Polk stated that 3% of the zoning is currently RT (Residential Transition) and the City doesn’t typically keep RT zoning. She asked what the zoning would become. Mr. White answered that the staff recommendation is for RS-20 zoning effective for a 5 year period. Commissioner Polk asked if the veterinary clinic would be zoned RS-20. Mr. White responded that it would. Staff had discussions on non-conforming uses because that zoning would make the veterinary clinic a non-conforming use. The City has a rather liberally written non-conforming use clause and interpretation of that clause. There is a non-conforming use and a non-conforming structure. The use itself can continue as long as it doesn’t become abandoned for a year or more. The structures themselves can be rebuilt in case of catastrophic causes, contingent on meeting setbacks which are identical in the City and County and building code which is also identical. Chairman Cruz summarized that current uses will be allowed even after annexation. Mr. White also added that the property could be sold to a new property owner who wishes to continue the same land use. Commissioner Bachart referred to the staff report and noted that there was also a paving company, a welder and excavator and if they are still in business and how the zoning determination would affect them. Mr. White stated that assuming they are conforming they are legal uses and they will not -7-   be affected. Chairman Cruz added that he is familiar with the welding operation. It is in a residential home with a small office building and low rise shop on the south side of Argent Road and is pretty innocuous. Commissioner Bowers asked what it would take for the area to get sanitary sewer service. Mr. White responded that it would take a Capital Improvement Project, done in phases and is not a likely priority given the development pattern and that there aren’t many through streets. It would have to be a systematic, multi-year phased approach to providing sewer in the area. He added that his impression is that most of the property owners aren’t interested in connecting. That could change over time which is why these types of things are done in multi-year phases. Commissioner Bachart stated that he and Commissioner Portugal went through the most recent annexation and the City isn’t interested in connecting to sewer. If the property owner wishes to do so then they need to do it and pay for it with other property owners in the form of an LID. Chairman Cruz stated that another way would be for a developer to purchase a large piece of land, put in a new subdivision and they would be required to put in sewer. In general, people are not going to be forced to give up their septic tanks to connect to sewer. Michael Waldron, 8901 E. Calden Avenue, Spokane Valley, WA spoke on behalf of this item. He stated that he owns some acreage on Road 80 and wanted to know if he could continue leasing his property to Washington State University to farm on that land. Mr. White responded that it would still be allowed. Chairman Cruz reiterated that the goal is to continue existing uses. Steven Schlegel, 9304 W. Richardson Road, spoke on behalf of this item. He stated that he was a member of the Annexation Facts Committee and that they came up with a list of concerns and code adjustments they would like to see happen to which the City responded; there would be a city within a city, cost to taxpayers, against state law and unnecessary. A few members felt their stipulations were necessary, to form a concomitant agreement or overlay, to address some of the codes to protect their current lifestyles. The area is rural and they like it rural. They want to see zoning locked in for 20 years so that the zoning doesn’t get changed over time through public hearings. Mr. Schlegel also suggested making some changes to the code in other areas and if the City did so, much of the animosity would go away. Chairman Cruz discussed the urban growth boundary and driving increasing density inside the boundary. State law dictates moving development to more urban densities to prevent sprawl. He added that RS-20 will provide for the most flexibility in maintaining current lifestyle and character of the neighborhood that is allowed under state law and that locking in the zoning for 20 years is unrealistic and isn’t in the best interest for the City. -8-   Mr. Schlegel responded that their area in 95% developed and there aren’t many pieces of property left to be developed. Chairman Cruz stated that in that case if someone really wanted to develop urban density they would have to round up several property owners willing to sell and purchase all of that property to develop. That scenario is highly unlikely in the foreseeable future. Some possible changes will be code enforcement because the City actually does code enforcement. There is a balance of the future needs of the City and preserving property rights. Mr. Schlegel stated that it is not uncommon to see slightly different codes in rural and semi-rural areas – he has seen it elsewhere where he has lived. Commissioner Bachart stated that he has been through an annexation himself and recommended continued involvement on boards and committees to work with the City. Jane Beyer, 11300 W. Court Street, spoke on behalf of this item. She stated that she feels the zoning should be RS-12 based on the property owners needs and that the property owners should follow the directives of the state requirements for urban growth. Mark Mansell, 2715 Road 96, spoke on behalf of this item. He stated that 5 years is too short to lock in the RS-20 zoning and would like to see 20 years. The area is fairly rural with many streets only wide enough to drive one vehicle. There are no plans for the City to connect sewer lines. He said that residents have problems with skunks, raccoons and coyotes that can harm their livestock. Currently, he said that we has the right to protect his livestock but in the City he cannot, which he said was noted in a handout given to City Council. Chairman Cruz asked Mr. Mansell to clarify what he meant by “rights to protect livestock”. Mr. Mansell responded that in the County residents have the right to use deadly force with a firearm if necessary to protect livestock from predators or animals that carry disease. Many citizens are asking to keep that right as many have horses, sheep and cattle and need to protect them. Dr. Bill Venema, 8517 W. Court Street, spoke on behalf of this item. He said that he has been a resident in this area since 1991 and in that time only 17 homes have been developed. He sold some of his land and subdivided it for some more homes. He stated that Pasco is changing and there may be a need for development in this area in the future and locking zoning in for 20 years would be too long. Not everyone will need ½ acre lots in the city limits of Pasco. Finally, he addressed “predators” and stated that he hasn’t seen them as a problem. Chairman Cruz added that after 5 years, a rezone application would have to be presented to the Planning Commission in order to rezone the property to anything other than RS-20, at which time the Planning Commission would look at the character of the neighborhood before making a recommendation to rezone. With no further comments the public hearing closed. -9-   Commissioner Polk discussed the right to protect livestock from raccoons and skunks and asked what the City’s response is to taking care of animals that might pose a threat. Mr. White responded that it is unlawful to discharge a firearm in the city limits. It is also unlawful to discharge a firearm and air operated gun in the Riverview Area from an ordinance the County developed in 1971, however, there is a clause in that ordinance (7- 71) that states in the event of an imminent threat to livestock. Commissioner Polk asked what would be the City’s approach to resolving those problems. Mr. White answered that there is no approach to resolving that problem. It will not be declared lawful to discharge a firearm in that portion of Riverview. Chairman Cruz added that the definition of a firearm is rather broad. He asked staff what the thought is behind not being allowed to discharge a firearm in the city limits. Mr. White responded that this area contains 688 acres and in that area there is no way a firearm could safely be discharged without endangering a home, school or person. There are two schools in the middle of this area. Commissioner Polk stated that in her neighborhood there have been issues with dogs killing chickens and asked if traps from Animal Control would be the way to handle animal nuisances. Mr. White answered that he wouldn’t recommend using traps for raccoons or skunks, however it can be done that way. Commissioner Bachart moved, seconded by Commissioner Kempf, the Planning Commission adopt the findings of fact as contained in the April 16, 2015 staff report. The motion passed unanimously. E. Zoning Determination Zoning Determination for Sharma Annexation (City of Pasco) (MF# ZD 2015-002) Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Dave McDonald, City Planner, discussed the zoning determination for the Sharma Annexation. Staff has worked with the property owners for some time in an effort to have the property annexed. The site consists of three separate parcels with a total of 144 acres. The site is within the urban growth boundary and designated for low-density residential development in the Comprehensive Plan. Under low-density residential the property could either be zoned RS-20, RS-12, R-S-1, R-1 or R-1-A. Staff recommended zoning the area RS-1 (Low-Density Residential). Chairman Cruz asked why RS-12 zoning isn’t proposed. The site is has a lot of agriculture around it, there is a surplus of R-1 and RT zoning. He suggested splitting the zoning to have some RS-1 and some RS-12. Mr. McDonald responded that eventually the property to the south will be developed and -10-   the property owner seeking zoning similar to what is on the east side of the road. The School District recently bought a site to the east which will likely be a middle school. Property to the west in the County is starting to be converted to single-family residential. Another thing to consider is the expense of extending utilities larger the lots make the extensions more expensive. Chairman Cruz stated that if the goal is to drive population to the center of the city then the zoning on this property should be lower and have the higher density neighborhoods closer to the city center. This site is on the edge of town and RS-1 zoning might be a little too dense. He added that he would feel more comfortable splitting the zoning and having R-1 zoning on the south end of the property and RS-12 or RS-20 on the north end of the property. Commissioner Khan asked what the average lot sizes are of the homes to the west. Mr. McDonald answered RS-20 due to the fact that there’s no sewer. Commissioner Khan asked what the other surrounding parcels are zoned. Mr. McDonald explained the surrounding zoning. Commissioner Khan asked if there are plans to the north. Mr. McDonald answered that currently that land is outside of the urban growth boundary so it will remain that way until the urban growth boundary is modified. Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director, added that the City’s urban boundary is surrounded by production agriculture and owned by many of the same individuals. At this time they are not interested in selling property for urban development. Price of agricultural commodity is very high and everyone is doing well. Water rights are also getting more difficult to purchase. There might be a time in the near future when the City will have to take a look at the urban boundary in this area and possibly make some difficult decisions on holding the line on density and utilities. The School District paid a great deal of money for their property but they had to do it. Commissioner Khan stated that she is in agreement with Commissioner Cruz in transitioning to RS-12 due to the land to the west being larger lot sizes. Chairman Cruz responded that the reason he suggested the RS-12 zoning is to concentrate density and commercial property around nodes. Commissioner Bowers was also in agreement with Chairman Cruz. She asked if his proposed zoning could encourage growth off of Road 100. Chairman Cruz answered that it could allow for a better balance and transition from more intense to less intense zoning districts. Commissioner Bowers asked staff how they felt about the Chairman Cruz’s proposal. Mr. McDonald replied that it has merit and staff likes to see a higher density closer to -11-   major intersections for dispersing the traffic and it could work well with the bottom half of the site being RS-1 and the top half being RS-12. Keeping part of it R-S-1 would help spread the cost of the utilities making it more affordable to purchase those lots and homes. Chairman Cruz noted that it is important to have a variety of zoning and homes. Commissioner Bachart added that he would like to see RS-20 zoning in the top and R-S-1 in the bottom. Commissioner Greenaway stated that she would like to see some RS-12 zoning in along the I-182 Corridor on the northern half since there isn’t much of that zoning offered there. Commissioner Bowers asked where she could find the land use definitions for the different zones. Mr. McDonald responded that they are found in the zoning regulations and he briefly defined them. Chairman Cruz stated developers tend to maximize their property and build as many homes allowed to maximize their return. Mr. White stated you will get what you allow. Commissioner Khan asked for clarification on the RT zone to the south. Mr. McDonald responded that it is a holding zone until the time it is ready to be rezoned and developed. The Comprehensive Plan has the northern part of that property as low density residential and a band of high density residential on the southern portion followed by commercial. Joseph Flerchinger, 7215 Byers Road, owns a small vineyard and the thought of development moving towards his property is concerning but having RS-12 or RS-20, preferably RS-20, zoning would make him feel more comfortable. Chairman Cruz stated that in the future when subdivision plats come forward to the Planning Commission they can look at conditions requiring walls, barriers and buffers. Commissioner Polk asked if there would be a specific timeline. Chairman Cruz answered that there isn’t a timeline. It is all dependent on when a developer is ready to develop the property. Commissioner Bowers asked what the zoning is for the vineyard on Burden Boulevard near Road 60. Mr. McDonald answered that it is zoned C-1. They had to get a special permit. -12-   Commissioner Bowers asked Mr. Flerchinger if that zoning would be appropriate near his property for his vineyard. Mr. Flerchinger responded that close to his property he would like to see closer to one acre lots but then wouldn’t mind a gradient to smaller lot sizes. Commissioner Bachart stated that when the site is developed there cannot be complaints on the vineyard since it is already existing. Rick Aldrich, 7216 Byers Road, stated that he is a resident north of the proposed site and has lived there since 1978. It has been a very rural area and appreciates the idea of zoning larger lots to keep the character of the neighborhood. He would like to see RS-20 zoning, roughly one acre, lots. Mr. McDonald clarified that RS-20 zoning is half acre lots. Mr. Aldrich stated that he would prefer to see acre lot sizes. One of his concerns is the effect new development might have on his ability to raise cattle as well as pesticides sprayed on crops. Ashok Sharma, 1201 Brentwood Avenue, Richland, WA spoke on behalf of his application. He stated that he is the property owner of one of the southern parcels in the proposed zoning determination and would like to develop the property. His property has water, electric and sewer is roughly 2 blocks away from his site. He would like to have this developed as soon as possible. Chairman Cruz responded that most of his concern is the northern part of the proposed site and that there needs to be a gradient. There also needs to be careful planning used so that there aren’t split plats. Commissioner Portugal asked for clarification as to where there is R-1 zoning in the County. Mr. White answered that there are minimum of 5 acre lots currently in the County. Commissioner Bowers had concerns about splitting the zoning into three separate zones but instead respect some of the current lot sizes and zone it as an “L” shape. Chairman Cruz responded that he isn’t too picky as long as the integrity is maintained for the character of the area and that staff should work it out it bring it back to the Commission. With no further comments the public hearing closed. The Planning Commission recommended to deliberate and make a decision at the next meeting. WORKSHOP: -13-   A. Code Amendment Emergency Aircraft Landing Code Amendment (MF# CA 2015-001) Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Shane O’Neill, Planner I, discussed the code amendment regarding emergency aircraft landing. The code amendment is to PMC, Title 9 – Health, Safety and Morals. The code amendment would make it lawful for aircraft to land within the city limits in emergency situations. Comments have been received by the Fire Chief to include a subsection to the code allowing training operations to be conducted within the city limits. In future meetings the staff report will contain revised code language including the Fire Chief’s recommendation along with any comments from the FAA. Commissioner Bachart asked for clarification on “training purposes” and if that included when the Army lands helicopters at the schools. Mr. O’Neill stated that he would have to look at the Fire Chief’s notations. Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director, stated it did not include the Army, however it could. Commissioner Bachart stated that he has just seen it happen and didn’t know if it should be addressed. Mr. White discussed air traffic during boat race weekend flying over residential neighborhoods which was prohibited without special permits. Chairman Cruz said the federal government didn’t need to get a special permit for anything. Commissioner Bowers suggested that in the case of a catastrophe that would supersede any restrictions that the City has. Mr. White stated that is the point of the revision to the code. Chairman Cruz added that if it is a genuine emergency there isn’t much that can be done. Commissioner Portugal asked if this would apply to Franklin County, such as the “donut holes”. Chairman Cruz responded that the County would have to address any emergency landings in their jurisdiction. Commissioner Polk asked what the definition is of an emergency landing. Mr. White answered that he will check to see if there is a definition or they would use a dictionary definition. -14-   Commissioner Polk asked if the emergency was due to negligence on the part of the pilot and the City has to pay for costs incurred, would the pilot be held responsible. She stated that she is concerned with the impact on Pasco residents. Mr. White was unsure. Chairman Cruz stated that the he didn’t want to belabor the point as an emergency is an emergency. B. Plan Shoreline Management Act – Draft Shoreline Master Program Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director, discussed the Draft Shoreline Master Program. The consultant from Anchor QEA, Ben Floyd, incorporated comments and feedback he received from the Planning Commission from previous meetings. The table in the memo to the Planning Commission is addresses concerns from staff and simplifies and provides certainty for when it goes to the Department of Ecology in terms of conditional uses, which the Department of Ecology tends to frown upon. The revision allows more flexibility to the City. The Planning Commission will see a draft with Department of Ecology comments with an additional public hearing and it will be placed in the PMC. Commissioner Polk asked if the draft could be provided electronically rather than a paper copy. Mr. White responded that the draft can always be viewed on the City’s website. There were no further comments or discussion. COMMENTS: With no further discussion or business, the Planning Commission was adjourned at 9:11 p.m. Respectfully submitted, David McDonald, City Planner