Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-16-2015 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes-1- REGULAR MEETING July 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 VACANT 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 Greenaway that the minutes dated June 18, 2015 be approved as amended. The motion passed unanimously. OLD BUSINESS: A. Special Permit Location of a Community Solar System in a C-1 Zone (Franklin PUD) (MF# SP 2015-006) Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Dave McDonald, City Planner, discussed the special permit for the location of a community solar system in a C-1 zone. There were no additional comments since the previous meeting. -2- Commissioner Khan moved, seconded by Commissioner Polk, to adopt the findings of fact and conclusions therefrom as contained in the July 16, 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 a community solar system on tax parcel # 112 -271-409 with conditions as contained in the July 16, 2015 staff report. The motion passed unanimously. PUBLIC HEARINGS: A. Special Permit Redevelopment of Stevens Middle School (Pasco School District) (MF# SP 2015-002) Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Dave McDonald, City Planner, discussed the special permit for the redevelopment of Stevens Middle School located on 22nd Avenue. Mr. McDonald reviewed past history about special permits and improvements related to the school . The current application is for the rearrangement of the overall site which would include the closure of a portion of 24th Avenue between Marie Street and Octave Street. This would allow the School District to join the playfield with the main campus. The objective is to eliminate the need for 960 students from crossing 24th Avenue for PE classes. When the street closure was first proposed, City Staff asked the School District to hire a traffic consultant to do a traffic study. The report from the study indicated t there would be minimal impact on the traffic throughout the neighborhood. The report also indicates that there would be less than one additional vehicle trip per minute during most hours of the day on the new travel routes. Randy Nunamaker, 1215 W. Lewis Street, spoke on behalf of the Pasco School District. Redesign of the Stevens Middle School site was part of the 2013 School District Bond that was approved by voters and as part of the redesign the School District is requesting the abandonment of 24th Avenue between Marie Street and Octave Street. The purpose of this road closure is for the safety of students and staff who cross this street for PE classes as well as after hours for athletics. The School District is also making this request to provide room for a track and baseball fields. The community around the school will also benefit because they will get to use those facilities after hours. Commissioner Khan asked what the projected cost is of this redevelopment. Mr. Nunamaker responded around $3 million, from funds passed in the 2013 bond. Commissioner Khan asked if there were other options resolving safety issues. Mr. Nunamaker stated the District worked with an architectural and engineering firm but the only way to get the kids across safely was to close the road. Richard Chastain, 2318 W. Court Street, Nine to Nine Auto Parts, spoke in opposition of the road closure and stated that the traffic was not an issue as there isn’t much traffic. Mr. Chastain proposed moving the track to allow room for the road. -3- Chairman Cruz stated with the available space it would be difficult to move the track. Richard Chastain responded that it is approximately 100 feet from where the track is now to the end of the site. He is concerned with the costs of redeveloping this site. Commissioner Bachart asked Mr. Chastain if his main concern was the money being spent on the redevelopment or the road closure. Mr. Chastain responded that both are of equal concern. He stated that if there was a legitimate safety issue he wouldn’t have a problem with the closure. Mr. Nunamaker stated that the $3 million is merely a budget item, not the actual cost. . Once the road abandonment goes through, if approved, then an architectural/engineering firm would lay out the field to maximize the space. Ochoa and McLaughlin Middle Schools have four fields to play on. In the current design they only have two fields proposed but if they can get more, they would like to build more. They will not have the flexibility to do so if Road 24 is not closed. Once the design is completed a value engineering study will be to potentially be cut down on the cost. Commissioner Polk discussed the alley located near Building 100 appe ars to be turned into a road for buses in the plan and she asked if that is a priority or just a circumstance that would be a benefit of closing Road 24. Mr. Nunamaker answered that it was part of the strategy because where the buses pick up/drop off currently is on Road 22 and is a difficult place to pick up/drop off. Chairman Cruz responded that there are initially two safety issues; crossing the road to get to the fields and pick up/drop off. He asked if the architect looked into whether or not the track could fit without the street closure. Mr. Nunamaker stated that he would have to check with the Capital Projects Department. With no further comments the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Khan asked where within the School District funds this comes from. In light of dissatisfaction of teachers pay and where the teacher support might be for an improvement like this. Chairman Cruz responded that while it is an interesting question, it isn’t in the interest of the Planning Commission. How the applicant pays for the work isn’t the concern of Planning Commission. Commissioner Khan wanted to register discontent on behalf of the teachers. Commissioner Greenaway stated that she would like to see if they did have any other ideas or plans without closing the road since the Planning Commission was only supplied with one option. -4- Chairman Cruz responded that it would be possible if the hearing was continued a month to give the School District the opportunity to provide the information. Chairman Cruz reopened the public hearing to ask the applicant if that is something he would be interested in doing. Mr. Nunamaker stated that the architectural/engineering firm that they have worked with has looked at other options but he didn’t have those with him so if needed, he would have to come back with those options. Kim Marsh, 1215 W. Lewis Street, Director of Capital Projects for the District responded they did look at other options but they could not fit the circular track on the site. To maximize the space the road closure is what architects came up with. Chairman Cruz clarified that the comparative track that the other middle schools have will not fit without the street closure. Commissioner Greenaway asked the applicant if closing the street comes down to the track, rather than the safety of the children. Mr. Nunamaker responded that the School District looked at safety first and the safest way for the kids to cross the street was to close the street. With 20-30 students crossing the road in mass at any one time it is dangerous. Chairman Cruz stated that there are three things the School District was looking to improve; the crossing, the track and the bus loading. With all three of those considered, closing the road is a good alternative. Commissioner Bachart added that his kids go to Mcloughlin Middle School and there are nearly three times the students that go to Stevens Middle School and the parent pick up/drop off is horrible and he’d like to see that improved. With no further questions or comments the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Bachart moved, seconded by Commissioner Polk, to close the public hearing on the proposed site redevelopment for the Stevens Middle School site and initia te deliberations and schedule adoption of findings of fact, conclusions and a recommendation to the City Council for the August 20, 2015 meeting. The motion passed with Commissioner Khan and Commissioner Polk dissenting. B. Special Permit Location of a Wireless Cellular Communications Tower in an RS-1 (Suburban) Zone (Verizon Wireless) (MF# SP 2015-008) Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director, discussed the special permit for a wireless cellular communications tower in an RS-1 Zone at the northeast corner of -5- Desert Plateau and Horizon Drive. It is a City reservoir site roughly 11 acres in size. Directly north of the site is McGhee Elementary School and to the west, east and south are single-family residences. The applicant, Verizon Wireless, is requesting the special permit to place a 49’ high monopole on the property just east of the reservoir site . The applicant has indicated that this monopole is an effort to fill a coverage gap between Road 36 and Road 44 and would increase Verizon’s capability to support additional wireless users in the area. The Pasco Municipal Code requires that wireless facilities receive special permit approval under certain circumstances such as location in a zoning district other than C-3, Industrial Zone or closer than 500 feet from a residential district. The Pasco Municipal Code also identifies criteria that the Planning Commissio n is to consider for locating wireless facilities, which are contained in the staff report. Additional information was handed out on the Planning Commission bench for the evening . Chairman Cruz asked Mr. White about the federal regulations regarding con sideration of electromagnetic radio waves in the permitting process. Mr. White responded that there is some misunderstanding about the role of the FCC in establishing criteria for radio waves. Establishing the criteria is not for debate, meaning municipalities and agencies cannot argue the establishment of the criteria. It is permissible to require the applicant to identify how they meet the FCC criteria. Chairman Cruz clarified that if the applicant met the FCC regulations then the City does not have a basis to deny the permit. Ed Fournier of Land Services Northwest, PO Box 302, Bend, OR, spoke as an agent for Verizon Wireless. The purpose of the new facility is to reach coverage and capacity needs. Every cell tower has a capacity and once that is reached additional cellular sites are necessary. The proposed pole would be built as short as possible, at 49’ and has been approved by the FAA. There will not be any blinking lights or striping of the pole. As was mentioned, there is a hierarchy for siting preferences, the first one being buildings or other tall structures – there are none in the immediate area. This will be a “stealth” facility in the fact that there will not be any visible antennas. A standard monopole is what it will look like, a good example of which is at the Columbia Pointe Golf Course. The area around the equipment will be completely screened b y landscaping. There will also be additional fencing around the area. The only area that will not be landscaped is the gate for the equipment access. Mr. Fournier addressed two points of public comment received by City Planner, Dave McDonald; (1) Health concerns which was addressed by staff and a 1996 Act that addresses the FCC and (2) Perception of impact on real estate values which was discussed in the staff report and other references handed to the Planning Commission on the bench. All documents provided to the Planning Commission were done by independent appraisal firms stating no adverse impacts determined based on properties. Mr. Fournier commented on a couple of the conditions in the staff report. The color for the pole structure has the color listed as matte grey, which would be the best color to blend in, however, it is up to the City to determine the color. For the condition regarding the landscaping plan and landscaping the land further to the east, the applicant would like clarification prior to agreeing to the condition. Lastly he discussed the backup generator that will have a fully enclosed sound shroud and landscaping – they will comply with the City’s noise ordinance but would like something other than an absolute wall to be -6- placed. Chairman Cruz asked for clarification on the noise levels for nighttime. Mr. White responded that for residential properties it is 45 DBA, which is extremely quiet. Chairman Cruz responded that 45 DBA is a tough standard so he was accepting of language to state meeting the noise levels for the Pasco Municipal Code. He asked staff what the purpose of the additional landscaping. Mr. White answered that the intent was to get some landscaping on that site while there was construction activities underway. It would be through mutually agreed upon plan and once that plan was agreed upon and Verizon installed it, the intent was for City to take over the maintenance. Chairman Cruz asked Mr. Fournier if that was something he could agree to. Mr. Fournier responded that without knowing the exact plan he would have to say no at this time. Commissioner Bachart asked Mr. Fournier if they looked into constructing a camouflaged tower, such as towers designed like pine trees or flag poles. Mr. Fournier responded that with the type of structure they are proposing, the antennas couldn’t be disguised. Also, this design will have the least impact since it is smaller and shorter. Commissioner Bachart asked if there are any lights called for on this tower. Mr. Fournier answered that there is not a requirement for a lighting. Jeanette Smith, 4304 Sedona Drive, handed a letter of opposition to the clerk signed by the residents in the neighborhood. The residents do not want the tower to be placed near their homes. She stated that the Pasco Municipal Code calls for a 500’ distance from residential and this special permit would only be 100’ across the street from many homes. She expressed concern over the effects the structure would have on property values and she found supporting documents online. Whether or not radiation emissions from cell towers are harmful is irrelevant. The perceived threat alone would lower property values. The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Guidelines categorize cell towers as hazards and nuisances. HUD requires certified appraisers to take the presence of nearby cell towers into consideration when determining the value of single-family residential properties. From information she found online, studies have shown that the proximity to a cell phone tower can lower the property values as much as 20%. Other countries have banned cell phone towers within 1,500 feet of residents, schools or parks. Rebecca Cooper, 3807 Santa Anna Loop, stated that she was amazed that they would place a cell phone tower so close to residents, literally in their backyards. She would like to see a picture of the proposed tower and stated that the use of the term “stealth” doesn’t hide the fact that it would be there. Anyone looking to buy a house is going to see it. In -7- terms of health concerns, all it has to be is a perception to reduce property values and the fact remains that at this time we don’t know if it isn’t unhealthy. The overwhelming research online shows that people are unwilling to say for sure because there are not scientific studies. There may come a day when more needs to be added to this tower to increase coverage for more customers. Ms. Cooper also asked if the City of Pasco will be getting money for this project and would like to know if other options or locations were looked at so that this tower isn’t in the middle of a neighborhood near a school. It is at the top of the hill, which gives them great reception, Desert Plateau has a beautiful view of sunsets and this tower will obstruct the view. She added that if people feel strongly enough against this project that she will have a sign-up sheet, form a human chain and call the media to make Verizon Wireless uncomfortable if needed to stop this. Bob Smith, 4304 Sedona Drive, stated that his is most concerned with declining property values, health and mostly, how this process came about. The applicant knew much more about this project than the residents do. He said that the residents were notified about this project last Monday but the land was being prepped six months ago. He felt that the residents should have had more time to dispute the applicant’s arguments and that there was some dishonesty from the City. Many of the residents are well within 100 feet of the proposed tower. He asked if the property values decrease 20% if the City of Pasco would reimburse the residents and if property taxes would go down. But he responded that won’t happen. Mr. Smith said he is a former firefighter and the International Association of Firefighters have voted against these towers being placed on their buildings . Mr. Smith reiterated that his main complaint was that the residents didn’t have as much time to read the applicants material. Doug Garven, 4215 Sedona Drive, stated documents say the tower will be 49.5’, practically 50’. All the vegetation and shrubs around the tower still won’t hide a 50’ tower. It is nearly 4 stories, which is a huge structure. Nobody would want to look at that outside their home. Patricia Garven, 4215 Sedona Drive, questioned the future plans of the tower and if it could be guaranteed that it won’t be expanded. Chairman Cruz responded that the special permit will state how tall and big the tower can be and in order to make any changes, a new special permit application would have to be submitted and go through the public hearing process again. Chairman Cruz had staff bring up a photo of the site to clarify the height. A member of the audience asked what the diameter of the pole would be. Chairman Cruz responded that the diameter would be 3’. Judy Donaldson, 4008 Desert Plateau Drive, stated that her home is at the crest of the hill and her view is green with the water tower a little to the right. She stated that the City made a preemptive lead and put the residents on the offensive. If the cell tower would be disguised, such as a pine tree, it wouldn’t be as noticeable. She stated that she doesn’t believe it won’t be added to in the future. At Columbia Basin College there is a tower t hat has been added to. The tower will be ugly in the neighborhood and shouldn’t be there. -8- Margaret McCulloch, 4216 Sedona Drive, said that her property line is by the school and she is concerned about the school. Research she found on the computer indic ated that cell phone towers are not safe for children. She expressed her fear of her grandchildren coming to visit and would not want them playing outside. The residents feel they don’t have much choice since the government said that they can move forward with this regardless of people’s health concerns. Chairman Cruz clarified that the Planning Commission is not allowed to consider health effects if it meets the FCC standards, which is a rule that is given to them, not that they developed. He also addressed the idea that several residents discussed about this project being “ram-rodded”. The process taken with this special permit is typical of other applications that the Planning Commission receives. In certain situations, the Planning Commission will continue a public hearing to allow for more time and information. The Planning Commission will make that determination after this hearing. Carolyn Pope, 4208 Sedona Drive, stated that her entire backyard would be looking at the proposed tower. She is opposed to the tower for that reason as well as all of the other reasons mentioned during the hearing. Keith Maki, 4104 Santa Anna Loop, said 3’ in diameter is like a big chimney. He asked the audience who was against the special permit. The majority of the audience members raised their hands. Mr. Maki said this is in their backyard, they don’t want this here and please don’t approve it. Molly Harker, 4204 Sedona Drive, said that currently in her backyard she can see the sunset but this will obstruct he r view. She addressed the feeling that people had discussed in the evening of being “ram-rodded”. It is likely because several months ago the land was cleared but the residents weren’t aware of what was going on. She felt that the City cleared it knowing what was coming. It is in her backyard and she is not in favor of it. She asked if there are any pictures of what the tower would look like. Chairman Cruz referred to a drawing in the staff report and on the screen. Ms. Harker said that was a drawing but she wants to see a picture. Chairman Cruz said he could ask the applicant to bring a picture but it can also be looked up on the internet under “stealth installation”. Ms. Harker responded that she has and saw other towers but didn’t see an example of the tower proposed for this special permit. She asked if there are any of these types of towers in any other existing neighborhoods, because this is a neighborhood. Chairman Cruz answered that the Planning Commission has approved some, one off of Court Street. He asked staff if they can remember others approved in residential neighborhoods. Dave McDonald, City Planner, answered that there was one approved on Road 68 south of Court Street and one recently approved just south of Mediterranean Villas that is 100’ tall. -9- Ms. Harker said she would like to see an example or photo of those and would like to speak with someone who has one in their backyard. She wanted to know how this site was determined. Also, since January this site has been a weed patch. She asked everyone if they would want this in their backyard. Evelyn Walkley, 4004 Desert Plateau Drive, stated that she recently purchased her home in this neighborhood and is still in the process of moving in. One of the many considerations as to where she was going to purchase a home was the fact that the utilities were underground. It is an aesthetic value. Mike Montz, 4212 Sedona Drive, stated that this tower would be approximately 125-150’ from his home. There are roughly 30 people in attendance that oppose this application with home values ranging from $275,000-$450,000. He stated that on January 6th- January 8th the City was out clearing the lot. He recognized some of the individuals because he used to work for him as a private contractor, and said that some of those employees made claims that City Staff had solicited Verizon Wireless with the intent on getting money for the rent. He asked Mr. White how much he was going to receive monthly for this agreement and that it was public information. Mr. White responded that it is not public information because those claims are untrue and a deal was not done. Chairman Cruz added that the claims were accusatory and he wanted to make sure the meeting remained civil and move forward. He asked City Staff why the land was cleared in January. Mr. White answered that he was unsure at this time but that answer can be provided for the Planning Commission after he asks the Water Department. Mr. Montz asked why the residents weren’t notified when the property was being cleared. Chairman Cruz responded that the City doesn’t have to notify the public when they clear up land. Mr. Montz stated that on January 8th he was on his cellphone with the speakerphone on for other neighbors, Margaret and Molly to hear, and he called Ahmad Qayoumi’s office. Mr. Qayoumi wouldn’t talk to him but he said the lady that answered the phone confirmed that Verizon was going to take out a permit to put the tower up. Chairman Cruz replied that he’s not arguing if that is true or not but there are people who come into the City asking for permit requirements prior to purchasing or seeking an agreement. Mr. Montz closed with saying that the neighborhood doesn’t want this special permit. Terri Hendrix, 8401 Tucker Drive, said that she feels for the residents in this neighborhood. The City shouldn’t be able to do anything without notifying the citizens why they are doing it. Ms. Hendrix said at the time they purchased her home she was told it would always be residential, no road on Powerline Road, that everything would be -10- underground and if the road was put it everything would have to be buried first. She stated that did not happen and it is now ugly. She asked who at the City citizens go to for these problems. Chairman Cruz answered that it depends on the issue. The Planning Commission takes information and public testimony on specific actions, whether it’s zoning, special permit, etc. In terms of service issues, those are best directed towards the appropriate City Staff. If it is a policy issue on a specific action the City Council will rule on, the Council meetings are the best place to address those issues. Ms. Hendrix discussed an issue she had with the City when they put in a road near her. Richard Grudt, 4310 Hilltop Drive, was disappointed that the applicant for Verizon wasn’t more specific as to the need for the tower. The applicant said it was to increase the coverage and Mr. Grudt said he is aware that there are more and more instruments that utilize towers but wanted to know if the service will deteriorate if the tower is not approved or will the tower really increase the coverage. Currently the cell phone service or coverage is not what it used to be so he would like to see more information on that. Chairman Cruz held up a map for the audience that showed the current service level and what Verizon would like to provide. Chairman Cruz asked for the audience to raise their hands if they were Verizon Wireless customers and roughly 1/5 raised their h ands. He asked the applicant if there would be other cell phone providers using this tower or if it was strictly for Verizon. Mr. Fournier answered that potentially other providers would use the tower. Members of the audience from their seats stated that they don’t have problems with their service currently. Chairman Cruz clarified that there would only be a marginal 15 decibel signal strength improvement. Terri Hendrix, 8401 Tucker Drive, asked for clarification on the process, communication problems, and who paid for the work that was being done to the property as it was being cleared. Chairman Cruz responded that they would have to research the answers. Molly Harker, 4204 Sedona Drive, asked if in the future with the growth of the airport if a light could be put on top of this tower at a later time due to FAA requirements. Chairman Cruz said he would have to look at that more closely. Bob Smith, 4304 Sedona Drive, discussed the appearance of the proposed tower and referenced the similar tower at Columbia Pointe Golf Course. When he first saw it he thought it was the craziest thing he has seen and said it does not look good. He said he wrote a letter to the editor to the Tri-City Herald and will be giving literature out at McGee Elementary to inform them of the health effects. -11- Keith Maki, 4104 Santa Anna Loop, said they do not want this tower that it’s ugly and looks like a huge smokestack. Jeanette Smith, 4304 Sedona Drive, said the neighborhood will have to pay the price so Verizon can have more customers and more money. Doug Garven, 4215 Sedona Drive, asked if the tower currently meets FCC guidelines, how often are those guidelines changed, how often will it be checked and who verifies that it is continually meeting their current guidelines to ensure it isn’t a health concern. Chairman Cruz responded that the FCC is a regulatory body associated with these things. Robert Delarm, 4308 Sedona Drive, said that he purchased his house recently and had he known this would happen, he wouldn’t take the house if it were given to him. He is completely against having the tower in his backyard. Patricia Garven, 4215 Sedona Drive, asked if there is a plan or any compensation from the City if property values do decline from the tower. Chairman Cruz said that there isn’t any plan or process if that happens. It is very difficult to find a specific action harming a specific property. Ms. Garven asked if the City could provide feedback with what has happened in other neighborhoods where cell phone towers have been located and how they have impacted the property values because that is a big fear. Chairman Cruz replied that it was a good question and that the Pl anning Commission will come up with a list of questions and determine how they want to proceed with the hearing. Rebecca Cooper, 3807 Santa Anna Loop, asked if the people are happy now that have these towers located near them. She stated that she just got the notice in the mail from the appraiser on how much her home is worth and she would not buy a home where there is a cell phone tower. Ms. Cooper said she did Google “stealth monopoles” and there are many different images, they are awful and they vary. None of them are attractive. She addressed the 1996 FCC code that the applicant, Mr. Fournier, referenced in terms of FCC standards and stated that was too outdated. She said at some point in time we will know what damage they are doing to our health. Chairman Cruz clarified that what Mr. Fournier was referencing was a ruling from 1996 from the FCC, not a code. The ruling or Act from 1996 states that the Planning Commission or other local government bodies don’t get to consider the emissions or health if the FCC approves the standards. The FCC may still change the standards in response to new health information or studies. Ms. Cooper noticed that all of the priorities have nothing to do with residential concerns, they were all industrial concerns. She added that all the people in the audience who currently have Verizon and aren’t happy might leave them since there are many other options that don’t require putting a cell tower in their backyard. -12- Chairman Cruz proposed continuing the public hearing to the next Planning Commission meeting to allow for time to get many of the questions answered for the residents. Commissioner Greenanway suggested the applicant meeting with the residents. Chairman Cruz replied that was up to Verizon if they wanted to do so. Commissioner Khan asked whether or not lighting could be added to the pole in the future based on airport expansion. Chairman Cruz replied that it is important to note light pollution standards for industrial installations, even for schools near neighborhoods, to prevent light leakage from the property. Commissioner Khan stated that she was in favor of the continuation of the hearing but wanted to ask about the 500’ distance in a residential zone and if it applies. Mr. White clarified that it is a requirement for the special permit process. Chairman Cruz added that since the property is within 500’ it has to go through the special permit process. Commissioner Bachart asked if there are any other cell phone towers in the Desert Plateau area. Mr. White answered that he couldn’t remember offhand but in the staff report there is a map that Verizon submitted showing existing towers in the larger area. Chairman Cruz said that there is a tower at the TRAC, on Dent Road, and there are somewhere around ½ dozen in Pasco. And to clarify, the term “stealth” simply refers to the fact that the antenna rays are collapsed into the pole. Mike Montz, 4212 Sedona Drive, said that he works on FAA projects every day for a local firm and the FAA can change anything they want at any time, whether it is runway lighting, striping, the width of a runway, so yes there could be a light put on the pole if that is what they are supposed to do. With no further questions or comments, the Planning Commission was ready to make a motion. Commissioner Khan moved, seconded by Commissioner Greenaway, to continue the public hearing on Master File No. SP 2015-008 until the following month. The motion passed unanimously. C. Rezone Rezone from R-1 (Low Density Residential) to R-3 (Medium Density Residential) (Envision Homes) (MF# Z 2015-002) -13- Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Shane O’Neill, Planner I, discussed the rezone application from R-1 (Low Density Residential) to R-3 (Medium Density Residential) explaining surrounding zoning and development for the Commission. The Comprehensive Plan designates the site for mixed- residential uses, which allows R-3. Envision Homes’ stated intent was to build single- family attached dwelling units, which would appear as duplexes from a street view. This rezone is the first step for development of this site, however, if approved Envision Homes would have to plat the land which would trigger another hearing where Envision Homes would have to provide more specific development plans. The ITE traffic manual indicates that multi-family developments generate fewer vehicle trips per day per unit than do single-family homes. Concern is often expressed on the impacts to lower density property values when nearby properties are considered for higher density residential. Research into tax records does not support this concern, even so, neighbors are often concerned of impact on the surrounding character of the neighborhood. To address those concerns, the Planning Commission should consider an concomitant agreement setting a minimum lot size, permitting only 1 dwelling unit per lot and perhaps also requiring architectural features to give each dwelling a distinct identity. Chairman Cruz clarified that the rezone would just increase the density by 7 more units. Mr. O’Neill responded that was generally correct. Chairman Cruz also clarified that a concomitant agreement would limit what the developer can and can’t do in order to preserve the character of the neighborhood. Mr. O’Neill responded yes. Austin Roupe, 2200 6th Avenue, Seattle, spoke on behalf of Envision Homes. He stated Envision has owned the land for 8 years and adding the additional lots allows them to economically complete the project. Envision built the existing homes in the neighborhood, wrote the covenants. The exteriors will be stucco or hardy plank similar to the existing homes. Other benefits include completion of Chapel Blvd. This may motivated to developer to the north to finish his development. Commissioner Bachart asked if the attached units were going to look like. Mr. Roupe responded that they will look very similar Columbia Villas with two -car garages with decent size side yards and backyards. There will be basements and small decks. Chairman Cruz asked if there are any expectations on building height. Mr. Roupe said they will basically be as tall as the current homes in the neighborhood. Chairman Cruz clarified that they would be two-story or less. Mr. Roupe added they would be two-story with a basement. -14- Jason McConville, 5506 Pimlico, stated their home was built by Envision Homes and it is his dream home but Envision abandoned the neighborhood leaving empty lots, much of which were sold off to other de velopers. He is concerned about how this project will turn out. He is also concerned about the safety of their neighborhood changing the property to R-3 to allow duplexes. Ben Zelen, 5802 Belmont Drive, said he hasn’t heard a compelling reason to rezo ne the property other than the developer said they would economically benefit from it. Envision didn’t seem to have issues selling the other lots as R-1. There is already R-3 zoning near them, the Villages at Chapel Hill, and the Crossings at Chapel Hill. He would like to see more single-family. His biggest concern is that these properties will turn into rentals and what that could do to home values. Mr. Zelen turned in a study that he found on the impact rental properties have on owner occupied homes. He asked about conditions that could be placed on this rezone. Chairman Cruz stated the applicant is requesting R-3 “light”, meaning there would be duplex homes but there wouldn’t be the ability to build apartments. Mr. Zelen responded duplexes could still be rentals. Chairman Cruz said that the Planning Commission looks at conditions that can protect the character of the neighborhood. Mr. Zelen added that it is currently zoned R-1 and the only argument he’s heard for the rezone is for the developer to make more money. Mr. Zelen stated the rezone is necessary and would like it to remain R-1. Tina Blakly, 5712 Belmont Drive, said that the homeowners would love to see the property developed to get rid of the dirt. She loves her Envisions Home but is concerned with the perception of duplexes. The perception is that a single -family home is more valuable. It will likely be lower income families because if they could afford a single, stand -alone home they would get one. It will hurt their property values and they all built their homes believing it would be more single -family homes behind them, otherwise she might not have purchased her home there. Erin Manukure, 5801 Belmont Drive, said that the proposed site is in her backyard. She would love to see the site developed to get rid of the dirt but is concerned and doesn’t want to see R-3 zoning. When looking for a home, Envision Homes painted a beautiful picture of what the neighborhood would look like and that is what they bought into. Currently they are a tightknit neighborhood where they all know each other and having renters will change the closeness they have. The fact that Envision Homes hasn’t finished the current single-family development causes concern. She asked if the same restrictions and conditions put on their homes could be place on the proposed homes to ensure they won’t look like the row homes. She and her husband are against this rezone . Jim Lear, 2403 S. Scenic Boulevard, Spokane, spoke on behalf of Liberty Bankers Life Insurance owners of the property to the north. He is in favor of this rezone because it would make their lot more desirable to develop. His lot is already zoned multi -family and their intent is to develop the property with apartments. For Envision Homes to build -15- duplexes will create a nice buffer and transition between the properties. Alfonso Sanchez, 5715 Belmont Drive, replied that it’s easy for Mr. Lear to say he supports the rezone when he lives in Spokane and doesn’t live in the neighborhood. When he bought his home there were supposed to be single-family homes behind them. His biggest concern is that Envision Homes hasn’t finished Belmont Drive yet they want to start another project. The second lot on Belmont is still vacant with a lot of weeds. He wanted to see them finish the current neighborhood before starting a new one. H e was opposed to the rezone. Melody Witherspoon, 5814 Belmont Drive, spoke as a representative for her daughter who lives on Belmont. When her daughter purchased her property she was told there would be a park and all the lots will have homes with stucco and it hasn’t come to pass. She feels hesitant in trusting Envision Homes again to live up to their promises since they didn’t deliver before. Jairo Martin, 5809 Belmont Drive, stated that he opposes the rezone. The residents feel abandoned by Envisions Homes. He also thought the City had code s to prevent the eyesore that Envision Homes has left with the vacant lots . He is also concerned with the two-story duplexes with possible renters. He is also concerned that the neighborhood still doesn’t have a park like they were told was going to be developed and wanted to know if that was ever going to happen. Erin Manukure, 5801 Belmont Drive, asked what happens after this public hearing and what say do the residents have. Chairman Cruz answered that the Planning Commission reads the staff report from the City, listens to public comments during the hearing and look s at any other information that comes up. Then the public hearing is closed and the following month the Planning Commission debates one way or another on how they will decide on this application and make a recommendation to City Council. The Council can take the recommendation, reject it, kick it back to the Planning Commission or do whatever they decide. Ms. Manukure asked if the public can weigh on what conditions they would like to see added. Chairman Cruz answered that the public hearing is where the Planning Commission takes the comments into consideration for placement in the concomitant agreement. Ms. Manukure asked if they would be sent another notice when it gets plotted. Chairman Cruz responded that there will be a notification when the preliminary plat application is received. Ms. Manukure asked if they can change their plans when they come back with the preliminary plat. Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director, replied that zoning sets the density and with the concomitant agreement there can be conditions that might say things -16- that would require one house for every so many feet, height re quirements, and architectural features. Ms. Manukure asked if there could be a condition placed that only so many could be rental units. Chairman Cruz answered no that would not be possible. Many people have voiced concern about density, character of the neighborhood and those are things the Planning Commission can take into consideration. Ms. Manukure responded that she is against the rezone but if it were to go through, she would like to see those lots have to have the same rules and conditions that their homes had. She would also like the City to monitor Envision Homes since they do not do a good job at keeping the dust down. Chairman Cruz stated that Code Enforcement is who she should call if there are issues of dust and weeds. Ms. Manukure said she does call Code Enforcement but it is still an issue. Tyson Chapman, 5507 Pimlico Drive, stated that he is excited about it being duplexes at first but not in 10 years. It will look nice at first but duplexes over time always look bad. He understands that it will be nice to have it developed but doesn’t want the neighborhood to change the way it does when duplexes come in. Ryan Cutsforth, 5617 Belmont Drive, asked if they can impose a condition to require the developer to place a barrier or landscaping. Chairman Cruz responded that they could but they don’t usually. Mr. O’Neill added that it’s uncommon but it was done recently for the Walker Rezone on Crescent Drive but it was a unique situation. Waylon Walchesky, 5711 Belmont Drive, said he is concerned with two-story duplexes being built looking into his home and is concerned with the safety of his children. The neighborhood is quiet and nice and they know their neighbors. With rentals they will not always know their neighbors. And the developer from Spokane doesn’t care about the people who live here bringing in low income apartments. Tina Blakley, 5712 Belmont, asked if once it is zoned R-3 if their concerns will mostly be over if they get the conditions in now. Chairman Cruz responded that there are actually more conditions placed during the platting stages. Commissioner Bachart stated that it might behoove the applicant to bring some pictures of what these duplexes will look like since there is fear and animosity from the current residents. -17- Chairman Cruz reminded that the Planning Commission cannot make the applicant to do so. They did submit some examples of the duplexes, although not exact plans. Jason McConville, 5506 Pimlico Drive, responded to a comment made earlier about people not wanting an apartment next to a strip of dirt but why should the current homeowners care. The homeowners have been dealing with the dirt and they have much larger investments. They knew that there were going to be apartments developed across from this proposed lot but at the time he purchased his home, this site was zoned R -1 and that is what they expected to see developed. He added that perhaps Envision Homes should sell the lots to Monogram or Olin Homes because they have been doing a great job in the neighborhood with the lots the Envision Homes didn’t want to finish. Charles Madison, 5703 Belmont Drive, said his biggest concern is the impact on the schools and opposes the rezone. He said there needs to be more schools before anything is built. Chairman Cruz responded that a few years ago the School Impact Fee was approved to ensure they were provided for. Each new unit that is developed has an impact fee associated with it that goes to the Pasco School District for their building fund. Erin Manukure, 5801 Belmont Drive, stated that she wants to make sure the duplexes are stucco because in the example they are not stucco. Austin Roupe, Envision Homes, responded that the photos in the staff report and shown during the meeting are not stucco but they were just an example. When developed they will be stucco or hardy plank. He addressed the feeling the residents had of being abandoned. He stated that Envision Homes couldn’t operate only selling 1-2 homes per year which is why they sold lots to Monogram and Olin. The last 2 lots are still undeveloped because they have tried to sell them and Envision has contacted all developers and nobody wants them. Envision Homes hopes to develop those final lots with single-family homes once they get the financing. Commissioner Polk briefly summed up some of the concerns received during the public hearing, such as; decline in home values, vegetation barriers, rental properties, conce rn of R-3 zoning and possible higher density than duplexes and style of the duplexes. Chairman Cruz clarified that the applicant will keep the same aesthetics as the homes in the neighborhood. He asked Mr. Roupe what the price point will be for these units. Mr. Roupe responded that is still be determined. Chairman Cruz asked for a rough estimate of the cost per duplex because that can make a big difference on the property values in the neighborhood. He did like the idea of duplexes because the adjacent property is zoned for apartments and this would provide a gradient and transition of zones. He is sympathetic to the fact of having duplexes behind the homes but it really depends on the price point and quality of those duplexes. Mr. Roupe could not give a firm number since they haven’t built them in the Tri-Cities. -18- Chairman Cruz asked what the approximate square footage for each unit would be. Mr. Roupe responded that they would be 1,550-2,200 square feet. He addressed that people were concerned about the renters but the units will be 3-4 bedrooms with basements are meant to be family homes. Chairman Cruz said that even with duplexes, with that size they would at least be within the $180,000 range. Commissioner Bachart asked if the basements were going to be completed. Mr. Roupe answered that they may or may not finish the basements. Commissioner Bachart asked if every lot in this site will be a duplex or if there will be single-family homes mixed in or if it would be a row of these duplexes. Mr. Roupe answered that they will all be different elevations so they won’t all be next to each other. Their intent is to have all duplexes with a possibility with a few odd shaped lots being built as single-family homes. Erin Manukure, 5801 Belmont Drive, asked if it will be like the homeowners where they picked their lot and developed it at different stages or if the duplexes will all be built at one time. Mr. Roupe said it will be built in stages based on demand. Ms. Manukure asked if it is possible that there is not demand and several lots remain vacant. Chairman Cruz answered that it is possible for lots to be vacant for some time. Commissioner Khan answered that based on what she knows about the rental market in the Tri-Cities there is a 90% saturation so she highly doubts that it will sit undeveloped. Ms. Manukure said there again she is concerned because they would be rentals rather than homeowners. Chairman Cruz added that at this price point they will likely move relatively quickly. With no further questions or comments the public hearing closed. Commissioner Polk asked if once the road was developed what would the likelihood of the park being developed. Mr. White answered that once the neighborhood has more homes the chance of a park coming in is closer to reality. Staff can look at the 6 year Capital Improvement Plan and bring that to the Commission to see if it is included. -19- Chairman Cruz said he would definitely want to know the answer to that at the next meeting before they make a decision. Commissioner Khan moved, seconded by Commissioner Greenaway, to close the public 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 August 20, 2015 meeting. The motion passed unanimously. COMMENTS: With no further discussion or business, the Planning Commission was adjourned at 9:41 p.m. Respectfully submitted, David McDonald, City Planner