HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-21-2015 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes-1-
REGULAR MEETING May 21, 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 Greenaway moved, seconded by Commissioner Portugal that the minutes
dated April 16, 2015 be approved as amended. The motion passed unanimously.
OLD BUSINESS:
A. 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.
Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director, stated that there were no
additional comments or changes to the staff report since the previous meeting.
Commissioner Portugal moved, seconded by Commissioner Greenaway, to adopt findings
-2-
of fact and conclusions therefrom as contained in the May 21, 2015 staff report. The
motion carried unanimously.
Commissioner Portugal moved, seconded by Commissioner Greenaway based on the
findings of fact and conclusions, as adopted, the Planning Commission recommend the
City Council approve the Preliminary Plat for Majestia Place with conditions as listed in
the May 21, 2015 staff report. The motion passed unanimously.
B. Zoning Determination Zoning Determination for Sharma Annexation Area
(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 application for the
Sharma Annexation Area. He reminded the Planning Commission that there was
considerable discussion on this item at the previous meeting. The proposal has been
modified to reflect the Commissions discussion about graduated zoning being applied to
the property. RS-20 was proposed for the north end of the site zoning, followed by RS-12,
and RS-1 with R-1 at the southeast corner where Mr. Sharma’s property is located. A
concomitant agreement was recommended for the R-1 zoning to ensure minimum lot sizes
would be consistent with the 8,500 square foot lots in the subdivisions to the south east.
The Planning Commissioners were in agreement and liked the zoning that was proposed
for the annexation area.
Commissioner Portugal moved, seconded by Commissioner Greenaway, to adopt the
findings of fact as contained in the May 21, 2015 staff report. The motion passed
unanimously.
Commissioner Portugal moved, seconded by Commissioner Greenaway, based on the
findings of fact, as adopted, the Planning Commission recommend the City Council zone
the Sharma Annexation Area to R-1 through RS-20, as indicated on the zoning map
identified as Exhibit #1 attached to the May 21, 2015 staff report. The motion passed
unanimously.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
A. Special Permit Location of a mini-storage facility (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 would like for the public
hearing to be continued.
Commissioner Bowers moved, seconded by Commissioner Greenaway, to continue the
public hearing to the June 18, 2015 meeting. The motion passed unanimously.
WORKSHOP:
-3-
A. Code Amendment Arterial Corridor Commercial Design Standards
(MF# CA 2015-003)
Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff.
Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director, discussed the code
amendment for arterial corridor commercial design standards. During the April meeting
the Planning Commission discussed possible design standards outside of the I-182
Corridor. The City has design standards for the north and west sections of Pasco,
however, nowhere in other commercial corridors in the City. Design standards would be a
positive advantage for development within the City and Staff would like direction as to
whether the I-182 Corridor standards should be extended or if new standards should be
developed.
Commissioner Bowers asked what Staff recommends.
Mr. White responded that they don’t particularly have a recommendation but would prefer
to develop unique design standards for other parts of town, different from the I-182
Corridor standards.
Chairman Cruz responded that he is in favor of seeing specific standards and perhaps
pick targeted areas to start with. It would be difficult to use the I-182 Corridor standards
everywhere else.
Commissioner Bowers asked why there haven’t been design standards set before.
Mr. White answered that it was easier and more feasible to apply the standards as the
community developed from the ground up, as opposed to going back on additions and
remodels in established areas of town.
Commissioner Bowers asked how much it would cost to make the new design standards.
Mr. White responded that it is just staff time. As for cost to the recipients of the new
regulations, until he knows what the standards are he could not answer.
Commissioner Mendez asked if this would apply to the downtown area that has different
design standards.
Mr. White answered that those questions will be brought back to the Commission at a
future meeting, such as if it applies to a building should a remodel occur or an addition.
Chairman Cruz added that typically when there is a remodel to 50% or more of the
structure then the new design standards would have to apply but the Planning
Commission could make specific conditions for spe cific areas in the City as long as there
is consistency.
Commissioner Portugal asked what option staff is recommending.
Mr. White responded that option three is what staff recommends.
-4-
Commissioner Portugal asked for clarification on the costs.
Mr. White responded that it will not be costly for staff time.
Commissioner Bowers suggested a map be supplied to make it easier to see the areas
proposed for code amendments.
Mr. White responded that there are many options depending on the areas that the
Planning Commission would like to review. Visuals will be brought to the Planning
Commission at a later meeting.
Chairman Cruz added that when it comes back to the Commission there will likely be
options with arterial and non-arterial streets and existing versus new development but as
of now there are only design standards for the I-182 Corridor.
There were no further comments.
B. Plan Shoreline Master Program – Reports (MF# PLAN
2013-001)
Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff.
Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director, discussed the Shoreline
Master Program Report. He introduced Anchor QEA consultant, Ben Floyd who was
present to provide an update to the ongoing work on the Shoreline mater Program.
Ben Floyd, Anchor QEA, briefly discussed the Shoreline Master Program. He pointed out
items that were given to the Planning Commission, such as, the Memorandum, Draft
Cumulative Impacts Analysis Report and the Restoration Plan. The first phase develo ped
an inventory analysis identifying natural areas, parks and levies etc. The second phase
described the future vision for those designated areas. Workshops were held where
members of the public provided comments. Goals and policies were developed and from
that came regulations and environment designations. The documents provided to the
Planning Commission are a draft of the program. The key criteria of the process is “no
net-loss” of ecological function. Mr. Floyd gave examples of “no net -loss” and pointed out
some key tables in the Cumulative Impacts Analysis Report.
Chairman Cruz asked Mr. Floyd if there was anything in particular in the reports that he
wanted Planning Commission input.
Mr. Floyd asked the Planning Commission to look for any lan d use issues that they might
have.
Chairman Cruz briefly discussed dock permits and that there are only a couple of dock
permits left per the CORPS management plan.
Commissioner Bowers stated that she would like to see the maps referring to the reach
locations.
-5-
Mr. White responded that those maps can be accessed via the City of Pasco website but
staff would make sure they receive those maps.
Mr. Floyd offered to meet with the new Planning Commissioner’s to catch them up on the
Shoreline Master Program.
Chairman Cruz added a little clarification about the process, reaches and maps for the
new Commissioners.
Mr. Floyd went on to discuss the Restoration Plan, which is another State requirement. It
is to protect wildlife and to identify how it is possi ble to make ecological functions better.
He referred to tables in the plan with 7 different action areas.
Commissioner Portugal asked for clarification on what is being “made better”.
Mr. Floyd responded that it is for the environment and habitat restoration. He briefly
explained the designated areas and some of the options for those areas. He stated that
the restoration is in addition to mitigation (no net-loss).
Commissioner Bowers asked if invasive vegetation is taken into account.
Mr. Floyd answered yes. But it also doesn’t try to return the area to pre -development
conditions. Some of the tables include vegetation management including non -native or
invasive species that can be removed for more natural species more typical for this area.
Mr. White responded to Commissioner Bowers that once she receives her map and original
Shoreline Management Draft, all of these items will become familiar.
Commissioner Portugal pointed out differences in the memorandum and tables concerning
restoration and protection.
Mr. Floyd clarified that both needed to be included and covered.
Commissioner Mendez asked if there are heritage areas that need to be protected.
Mr. Floyd answered that they haven’t been pointed out specifically, however, both historic
and cultural resources were evaluated, identified and generally described.
Chairman Cruz asked if Mr. Floyd had any questions for them.
Mr. Floyd responded that the process will be ending in the near future and they have yet
to receive any comments from the State on the two documents other than that they look
good. The State will do a more detailed review once the final plan is submitted. Soon the
SEPA Review will be done, a hearing will be scheduled. Once a recommendation is ma de
to City Council and assuming they follow Planning Commission’s recommendation, the
whole package will be submitted to the State.
-6-
Commissioner Portugal asked if the City has ever been in any legal trouble for
environmental issues in the past.
Mr. White responded that the City has not. Most of the shoreline is publicly owned by the
Army Corp of Engineers or owned by private property owners and they have not had any
controversies.
There were no further questions or comments.
COMMENTS:
With no further discussion or business, the Planning Commission was adjourned at
7:50 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
David McDonald, City Planner