Loading...
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