Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-19-2015 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes-1- REGULAR MEETING November 19, 2015 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at 7:00pm by Chairwoman Polk. POSITION MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT No. 1 Tanya Bowers No. 2 VACANT 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: Chairwoman Polk read a statement about the appearance of fairness for hearings on land use matters. Chairwoman Polk asked if any Commission member had anything to declare. Commissioner Mendez stated that he would need to abstain from MF# PP 2015- 003, Preliminary Plat for Ellie Estates. Chairwoman Polk 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: Chairwoman Polk explained that state law requires testimony in quasi-judicial hearings such as held by the Planning Commission be given under oath or affirmation. Chairwoman Polk swore in all those desiring to speak. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Greenaway moved, seconded by Commissioner Bowers that the minutes dated October 15, 2015 be approved. The motion passed unanimously. PUBLIC HEARINGS: A. Preliminary Plat Preliminary Plat for Ellie Estates (Llya Parkhotyuk) (MF# PP 2015-003) - Continued Chairwoman Polk read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Dave McDonald, City Planner, discussed the preliminary plat application for Ellie Estates. This item has been before the Planning Commission for the past three months as a continuing hearing. Last month direction was provided by the Commissioners to connect -2- Maple Drive through to the proposed cul-de-sac running north to south from Sterling Road. The applicant was asked to modify his plat and talk to the property owners to see if they were willing to allow Maple Drive to connect, which would provide better circulation through the neighborhood and provide redundancy for utilities. The developer discussed this matter with the property owners and they weren’t interested in having Maple Drive connect. The plat has been redrawn to include a temporary cul-de-sac with a right-of-way connecting from that cul-de-sac to Maple Drive. The thought being that the cul -de-sac and the north and south street could be developed and the bit of connecting right-of-way (connection to Maple) could be provided but not developed at this time. With the right-of- way in place, someday in the future the road could be extended. The right-of-way would also allow the water line to be extended. The proposal isn’t exactly what the Planning Commissioner’s had hoped for but it mostly fulfills what was trying to be accomplished. Commissioner Portugal asked how long in the future Maple Drive could be connected once the right-of-way is dedicated. Mr. McDonald answered that it could be 1 or more years, however, with the dedication of the right-of-way the option is preserved for the road to be extended in the future. Commissioner Portugal asked if the City or developer would move the shop in the future in order to connect the road. Mr. McDonald responded that in the future the developer or property owner would have to move the shop unless there was an arrangement made between the City and property owner to have it removed. Commissioner Greenaway asked for clarification that the City would not be forcing the current property owner to move the shop. Mr. McDonald stated that they would not be required to remove the shop, however, with this proposal they would require dedication of right-of-way. Commissioner Bowers asked if the owner of Lot 1 had no interest in moving the shop at this time. Mr. McDonald answered that is correct. Commissioner Bowers asked if the property owners of Lots 1, 2 and 3 amenable to this plat. Mr. McDonald stated that he was unsure but perhaps the applicant could respond. Ilya Parkhotyuk, 785 Gaines Street, Richland, WA spoke on behalf of this application. He reiterated that the property owners are not interested at this time in connecting Maple Drive. The proposed plat is the best case scenario that was negotiated. Mr. Parkhotyuk stated that he offered to build a block wall to assist with any noise for the property owners but they weren’t interested and did not want the road to go through at this point. This design is the only option left. -3- Commissioner Bowers asked for clarification as to where they didn’t want the road to go through. Mr. Parkhotyuk answered that they didn’t want Maple Drive connecting to the cul-de-sac. With no further questions or comments the public hearing closed. Commissioner Bowers moved, seconded by Commissioner Greenaway, 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 December 17, 2015 meeting. The motion passed unanimously. B. Special Permit Special Permit for the modification of parking facilities at Mark Twain Elementary School (Pasco School District) (MF# SP 2015-012) Chairwoman Polk read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Dave McDonald, City Planner, discussed the special permit application for the modification of parking facilities at Mark Twain Elementary School. The School District wants to reconfigure and enlarge the current parking that runs along the west side of the school by adding a number of additional drop-off points for parents to drop-off and pick up their children, as well as adding a number of parking stalls. In addition, the District wants to reconfigure the bus drop-off and pick-up which is currently a very small area north of the school. Plan is to add an area to the east that could accommodate 10 or more buses. The current smaller drop-off area would be used for special needs students. In between the new bus area additional staff and teacher parking would be added. The new parking should lessen some of the congestion on Road 40 and Pearl Street. The school has been at this location since 1956 and is an established part of the ne ighborhood. These improvements should benefit the surrounding properties. Chairwoman Polk asked where the existing drop-off area is located. Mr. McDonald stated that he believed it is right along the sidewalk on Road 40. There is not much room inside the parking lot to drop children off. Commissioner Portugal asked if the public was informed about the proposed modifications and if the City has received any feedback. Mr. McDonald responded that with every public hearing a notice is posted twice in th e newspaper at least 10 days before the hearing and that same notice is mailed directly to all property owners within 300 feet of the school site. The Planning Office received a visit from one couple that lived on the east side of the school site and perh aps one phone call but that is the only feedback received from the public. Randy Nunamaker, 1215 E. Lewis Street, spoke on behalf of the application. Mark Twain Elementary School was built in 1956 and has had significant renovations in 1988 and was to house approximately 500 students. With the growth in Pasco since then, the School District has added a number of portables and has increased the enrollment of the school. -4- The traffic along Road 40 and Pearl Street is congested at times, backed up to Road 40 with parent pick-up and drop-off. In 2013, Pasco voters approved a bond and this project was part of the bond. In the interim, the School District has worked with the Pasco Engineering Department and they have provided crosswalks and stop signs to try to alleviate some of the challenges with traffic. The Pasco Police Department and Fire Department have assisted as well. Commissioner Portugal asked how many buses pick-up and drop-off children. Mr. Nunamaker answered that it varies. Currently there are 3 special needs buses and roughly 4-5 general needs buses. Commissioner Greenaway asked what is located in the open space between the parking and the school. Mr. Nunamaker said that it is a playground. Chairwoman Polk asked if the majority of drop-offs are occurring on Road 40 and Pearl. Mr. Nunamaker responded that the parent drop-off is on Road 40. Currently they have to pull into the parking lot to load and unload and it blocks traffic so nobody can pull in or out. The bus parking is currently on Pearl Street and some of the buses can fit into the pull-out but some have to park on Pearl Street. Commissioner Bowers asked if this new plan has been shared with the parents at this school. Mr. Nunamaker said it has been given to the principal to share and the School District has received input. The School District went through a process a few years ago with the parents when this project was first looked at and they came up with short term and long term fixes. The principal was provided with four options and this is what was chosen as the proposed plan. Commissioner Mendez asked if the School District views this as a way to relieve congestion and enhance safety for the children. Mr. Nunamker responded yes. Pamela Morehouse, 3611 Mesquite Drive, stated that she has control over her parents’ property, 1812 Road 36, that is adjacent to where to proposed bus drop-off is located. She asked how the proposed plan was going to alleviate congestion on Road 40 and Pearl by increasing traffic on Road 40 and Pearl since both of these streets will be used to acc ess these drop-off points. The property to the south is not being used and would be a better location. She also believes that these modifications will affect the value of her parents’ property negatively. Commissioner Portugal asked if Ms. Morehouse or her parents were offered the opportunity to participate in discussions at the school. -5- Ms. Morehouse answered that this was this first chance she has been able to speak on this proposal. Rob Morehouse, 3708 Road 103, stated that his parents’ property is adjacent to the proposed modifications and the property on the south side of the school is all weeds and the improvements would be better suited there. He requested clarification on where they were expanding the parking lot. Chairwoman Polk responded that they are proposing to remove any existing bus drop off but they are adding an additional bus drop-off and expanding the parent drop-off to keep cars off of the street. Mr. Morehouse asked where Road 38 is located. Mr. McDonald answered that Road 38 is to the north of the proposed bus parking. Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director, clarified that the map that was displayed during the meeting had north to the left of the sketch. Mr. Morehouse said that since this school was built in 1956, they owned the property adjacent to the school and this is the first notice that they have received. He didn’t believe that this plan was going to relieve traffic at all. Commissioner Portugal asked Mr. Morehouse how his property would be negatively affected as he had mentioned. Mr. Morehouse said that with the bus loading moved next to his property the value will be hurt. If someone wants to develop the property with homes they will not want the bus drop-off in the backyard. Commissioner Portugal asked what other concerns he has about this proposal. Mr. Morehouse responded that his other concern is that the City of Pasco is wanting another 10’ to widen the road down Pearl Street, which is what they did a couple of years ago on his parents property and was told they were going to widen the road. Chairwoman Polk responded that she is unaware of the issue widening the road but it does not pertain to this application and those plans are not a part of the School District’s modifications. Donnabelle Labonte, 1804 Road 40, stated that she was concerned about the safety of the students and traffic on Road 40. The parents that pick-up and drop-off double park at times. It is difficult to safely drive down this road even going the speed limit o f 25 mph. She has spoken with staff at the school as well as the Police Department. She also thought the empty lot to the south of the school would be a better location for the parking and drop-off. Commissioner Portugal asked Ms. Labonte if she has contacted anyone at the school or spoken to the principal. -6- Ms. Labonte answered that she has been over to the school frequently over the years working with the administration and this past year she has seen an improvement. Marilyn Hansen, 3905 W. Pearl Street, stated that her driveway is continually blocked and her mailbox has been destroyed by parents picking up and dropping off their children. She stated that she cannot come home for lunch or around 3:00 p.m. because it is too hard to pull into her home. She believes something definitely needs to be done to the current parking and asked where the proposed parking will be located. Chairwoman Polk responded that the school is planning to have 23 drop -off spots inside the school property where cars can turn in and park parallel to the school instead of on the street and some parallel parking. The existing bus drop off will remain but designated for special needs buses only. The bulk of the buses will be located farther away. Ms. Hansen felt that the proposed bus drop-off was a long ways for the kids to walk. Chairwoman Polk stated that the children would be walking through the school grounds, not on the sidewalk. Ms. Hansen asked if the buses could pull in on Pearl but then exit around on the other side of the school. Mr. Nunamaker shook his head no. Ms. Hansen asked if the School District owned the property south of the school. Mr. Nunamaker responded no. Rebecca Cooper, 3807 Santa Ana Loop, stated that the buses aren’t so much of an issue as the parent who pick-up and drop-off their children as she sees in her neighborhood near McGee. She would like to see something done to keep parents off the street, such as “No Parking” signs or painting the curbs yellow. Chairwoman Polk asked Mr. Nunamaker to come back and address some of the concerns discussed by the public, such as; modifying the lot south of the school, how many parking spots will be added and if any studies have been done regarding parking on the street versus using the drop-off. Mr. Nunamaker stated that one of the challenges they have is parents can pull up in the street wherever they want. The Pasco Police Department has been very responsive when contacted for traffic control, however, they cannot be out every day. The challen ge with parents is that they want to get as close as possible to where the children are being let out and want to pick up as quickly as possible. The further away you place the parking, the more likely they are to violate that and move closer to the building on either side of the street. The idea behind their proposed design is to get the parents off of Road 40 which is where they are parking right now. The proposal gives parents a place to park and even an area to drive through so they don’t have to get out of the car. As for the lot to the south, Mr. Nunamaker referred to Kim Marsh from the School District, who stated that the -7- School District does not own the property to the south. Chairwoman asked for clarification on the parking and drop-off area. Mr. Nunamaker responded that it will all be reconfigured. Currently there is a small semi - oval pull-out for parents to pull in however it is significantly smaller. The challenge is that they have had to use the parking lot as part of the parent pick-up/drop-off area. Commissioner Portugal asked how many students attend the school and if there are more students than intended. Mr. Nunamaker answered that they are not over capacity with the core building and portables. Commissioner Bowers asked for clarification of the drop-off area for parents, pull through for the buses, where the kids go to find their parents and where the children will be released from school. Mr. Nunamaker referred to the map on the overhead to point out where the proposed parent pick-up and drop-off would be and children released. Commissioner Portugal stated in addition to reminding parents but neighboring property owners who may not have children going to the school and asked if they are notified. Mr. Nunamaker stated that the property owners in the area typically get notified through the School District’s Building Administration, so the principal contacts people in the area. Commissioner Bowers asked Mr. Nunamaker to address the claim from the Morehouse’s regarding this negatively affecting their property value. Mr. Nunamaker responded that he would not be the correct person to address that issue. Donnabelle Labonte, 1804 Road 40, suggested the Planning Commissioner’s drive through the area between 2:30pm-3:40pm to see how congested it gets. In terms of getting notified by the school, she stated that she no longer has children going to the school, however she works with the School District and that is the only way she finds anything out. She did receive a notice in the mail from the City regarding the public hearing but nothing from the School District. Pamela Morehouse, 3611 Mesquite Drive, addressed employees parking around their homes. She asked if there are plans to expand staff parking and if there will be enough to handle the staff load. Chairwoman Polk answered that it appears the bus loading is moving to the east and there will be an optional 40-stall staff parking area in the middle of the bus loading area while the buses loop around them. Ms. Morehouse was concerned about the design for the safety of the children. -8- Chairwoman Polk addressed the safety concerns. With no further comments the public hearing closed. Commissioner Portugal asked staff about a concern Mr. Morehouse had about the City needing 10’ of property to widen the road by this School. Mr. McDonald responded that is a separate issue and has nothing to do with the special permit application. Commissioner Greenaway moved, seconded by Commissioner Mendez, to close the hearing on the proposed parking lot and initiate deliberations and schedule adoption of findings of fact, conclusions and a recommendation to the City Council for the December 17, 2015 meeting. The motion passed unanimously. C. Special Permit Special Permit to locate wireless cellular facilities at an existing church in an RS-12 (Suburban) Zone (AT&T) (MF# SP 2015-013) Chairwoman Polk read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director, discussed the special permit application to locate wireless cellular facilities at an existing church in an RS -12 Zone. The site is located at 9915 West Argent Road and is 1.65 acres. The Planning Commission saw this application in April 2014 and the applicant was granted a special permit, however, they let the special permit expire. This application is a renewal as som e of the applicant’s internal issues have been resolved. The antennae will be housed within a structure that looks like a bell tower. It will be disguised within the addition on the top of the existing roof of the church located on this property. The el evation of the church is greater than 35’ in height and with the antennae it will be roughly 55’ above the ground level. The Pasco Municipal Code does have a priority or hierarchy for cell service and cellular antennae’s and in this case, the structure ex ceeds 35’ in height so it meets one of the priority locational criteria. Since the Commission has seen this item before, Staff is requesting the Planning Commission close the public hearing and make a recommendation for Council at this meeting. Angela Raymond, 5501 NE 109th Court, Vancouver, WA spoke on behalf of AT&T for this application. She stated that this proposal is exactly the same as it was presented and approved in 2014. She presented a photo into the record as to what the “bell tower” will look like on the church, which is where the antennae’s will be housed. The ground facilities will be located on the left of the structure as an enclosed structure surrounded by a solid 8’ brick wall. Chairwoman Polk asked if there would be any ornamentation on the bell tower. Ms. Raymond responded that there would be at the top. Commissioner Mendez asked if there were any safety concerns with the antennae inside -9- the bell tower. Ms. Raymond answered that it meets the FCC safety regulations and does not propose a risk. It will be structurally engineered by a certified engineer in Washington State during the building permit process. Commissioner Mendez stated he was more concerned with the frequencies. Ms. Raymond responded that AT&T is licensed under the FCC so they are in compliance with all of the federal regulations with radio frequency waves. Commissioner Bowers asked why the tower is proposed for this site. Ms. Raymond answered that there is a process as to how a location is selected. AT&T comes forth to consultants with their needs for service areas to better serve their customers and increase quality and then the consultants go through zoning requirements for each municipality and look for existing communication towers and buildings to first c o- locate on to attach their antennae’s for the least impact. In this case they were fortunate to find a building in the needed location that is suitable for the antennae’s and already has a significant height. It is a better solution than a new monopole. Commissioner Bowers asked if the church would be compensated. Ms. Raymond responded yes that there is a separate process between AT&T and the property owner goes through. Rebecca Cooper, 3807 Santa Ana Loop, discussed her concerns for this application. She stated that her family has property located near this proposed site, including two homes and a vineyard. She is speaking on their behalf. In 2014 and this year her fam ily has not received any notice on these public hearings other than the legal notice in the newspaper. She asked Staff if 300 feet was the required notification for public hearings. Staff shook their heads yes. Ms. Cooper responded that anyone who has property just over 300 feet, such as 310 feet, could find excavating and other work being done on property near them without receiving any notification. This is the first time she has had a chance to speak on this special permit application, however her second time in one year speaking on the location of a cell tower. She shared her concerns about the health safety of the towers especially located so closely to children, the effects on property value and the appearance. She stated that in 2014, Realtor Magazine published an article that 94% of homebuyers and renters say they are less interested and would pay less for a property located near a cell phone tower. And 79% said they would never purchase a property within a few blocks of a cell tower or antennae. The article stated that homebuyers that do buy, pay 20% less for a property located near a tower or antennae. Ms. Cooper briefly discussed the Desert Plateau hearing in July regarding another cellular tower and how the citizens were told the Plannin g Commission could not reject a special permit application based on health concerns because it meets the FCC standards, however, the International Commission for Electromagnetic Safety has studied the effects of health and went over those concerns. -10- Commissioner Portugal asked how far her family’s property is from the proposed cell tower. Mr. White responded that it is well over 300 feet from the church site. Ms. Cooper said the vineyard is another issue and because they would like to someday sell it and this will affect their real estate. Commissioner Portugal responded that the reason he asked is because the City is bound to notify within 300 feet and anything outside of that 300 feet the City is within the law. Ms. Cooper agreed but stated that the law should be expanded so more people have an idea as to what is going on. Commissioner Portugal answered that the City doesn’t have much control over that. Ms. Cooper stated that the City could change those policies and could have policies to not locate cell towers near schools, churches or parks. Chairwoman Polk responded that the towers have to be located where there is a need. Ms. Cooper said nobody wants these towers in their backyard. Peoples concerns are real and this is near her family’s property and they would like to sell their property someday. Nobody wants to live near cell towers and they shouldn’t be near schools. There is going to be a school at this location. She asked that the Planning Commission consider that health research exists, that the Commission extend notification if they can and to use precautions of health. Jeff Smith, 8920 W. Dradie Street, stated that his family owns property across the street from the proposed site. He agreed that 300 feet is a little short for the notices and believes that there should at least be ½ mile radius. Mr. Smith said that his concern is that there seems to be double standards for building characteristics to match the neighborhood. He tried to add on to his shop and the County informed him that the zoning had changed and he couldn’t because it didn’t fit the theme of the neighborhood. Later the City annexed his property, which he didn’t mind, but he tried again to add on to his shop. Th e City said no because it was already too big the way it was and didn’t fit the theme of the neighborhood. But throughout the neighborhood there are shops everywhere and he didn’t see how a cell tower fit the theme of the neighborhood. Rob Morehouse, 3708 Road 103, wanted to state that he also felt the 300 foot radius notification wasn’t a fair distance. David Hurley, 4311 W. Murray Court, stated that he was on the leadership team of the church and he felt they were good neighbors and found it alarming to hear they were not. The church body has agreed to move forward with this application, however, to his understanding it hasn’t been completely solidified with AT&T and could fall through. The fact that it will be enclosed in a bell tower and hidden from site, adding service to the neighborhood, they all thought it was a win-win for everybody. -11- Angela Raymond, 5501 NE 109th Court, spoke again on her application. She addressed the concerns discussed during the hearing. All requirements have been met per Pasco Municipal Code and as far as property values, she has read other statistics to the opposite affect that an average of 1 in 4 homes have a cell phone that they solely rely on for emergency purposes, personal use and business. The communication tower will provide emergency services for e-911 requirements. As for the health concerns, she stated that there have been no proven health effects associated with wireless communication facilities and all radio frequency waves will be met with the FCC and are in compliance. There was mention of wireless devices, this application is for a wireless communication facility and not associated with the wireless devices used. The facility is proposed to be located where service is needed. The site is in a suburban district which is allowed through the Pasco Municipal Code and AT&T has met all requirements. They are stealthing the facility at maximum capacity. Commissioner Greenaway asked the applicant if she has heard any research of the towers or antennae’s lowering property values. Ms. Raymond answered no. Rebecca Cooper, 3807 Santa Ana Loop, spoke again to Ms. Raymond’s comments. She discussed the article in Realtor Magazine again concerning property values. Commissioner Portugal asked the City about the health concerns discussed by Ms. Cooper and if there is any way to compare. Mr. White responded that with the health and property data mentioned during the hearing that there are pro and con for both. He has done the research and so you wil l find some information stating that it does effect health and property values and no it doesn’t. The City, County and anyone else in the United States is prohibited from using potential health impacts as a way to deny a permit since it is federally compliant. Commissioner Greenaway asked if the school was notified since they own property nearby and what happened to the notification to the vineyard. Dave McDonald, City Planner, responded that there is a database used to pull addresses or parcels within 300 feet and the Planning Department mails out the notices to those addresses. Commissioner Portugal asked if the 300 foot notification was the same in Pasco as it is in other municipalities. Mr. White added that the 300 foot radius notification comes from Washington State Law. Commissioner Bowers said it would be helpful to know where other cell towers are located in the area. Chairwoman Polk assisted Commissioner Bowers with that information. The Commissioners were in agreement to close the public hearing but hold off on making -12- a recommendation to City Council until the December meeting. Commissioner Mendez moved, seconded by Commissioner Greenway, to close the public hearing and schedule deliberations and adoption of findings of fact and conclusions for the December 17, 2015 meeting. The motion passed 4 to 1 with Commissioner Portugal dissenting. D. Special Permit Special Permit to locate a wireless communications tower on a vacant parcel in a C-1 (Retail Business) Zone (Tower Co.) (MF# SP 2015-014) Chairwoman Polk read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Dave McDonald, City Planner, discussed the special permit application for the location of a wireless communication tower on a vacant C-1 parcel near the intersection of Road 68 and Court Street. It was explained the AT&T had previously received approval for a cell tower on this site and that a permit had been issued for construction. After recei ving a building permit the project was put on hold and the special permit expired. Mr. McDonald reviewed the site information for the Planning Commission and explained the background and need for a cell tower at this location. The proposal was generally t he same as the one reviewed last year. The proposal involves the construction of a tower that would then be concealed by a false “pine tree”. It is the same design that was reviewed by the Planning Commission and Council over a year ago. The same findings of facts have been provided as well as conditions. In regards to comments concerning property values and cell towers, Staff checked with the County Assessor to find out if there was any impact in the community. The Assessor stated, he has not seen a reduction in property values within the community as a result of cell towers locating near houses. Mr. McDonald also stated cell towers can be found near schools and fire stations. Commissioner Portugal asked if the structure would be safe with the high winds in this area. Mr. McDonald responded that it will be engineered to meet the safety standards. Arvid Morfin, 2916 South Huntington Court, Kennewick, spoke on behalf of this item. He stated that he was speaking on behalf of his brother, Byorn Morfin, who was unable to attend. Commissioner Mendez asked why the project didn’t follow through the last time and allowed the special permit to expire. Mr. McDonald stated that there was an internal situation with AT&T that affected sites all over the country, not just in Pasco, dealing with availability of funding. The funding has been restored and now they are completing the unfinished projects. Commissioner Bowers asked why the applicant, a representative of AT&T, who spoke on the previous cell tower special permit wasn’t speaking on behalf of this permit. -13- Mr. McDonald explained that it is a different branch or company. In this case, the applicant will own the tower and AT&T will rent from them. Kristopher Butcher, 1048 S. Hi Lo Drive, Othello, s poke on behalf of this special permit. He stated that he just acquired property to the northeast of the proposed site and on his property they have existing towers. He asked how the applicant chose this particular site and if they had looked into possibly locating their equipment on the existing towers on his property. Currently on his site there is already a Verizon tower. He asked if there would be interference with the existing towers and would like to see a condition that if this special permit is approved that their tower won’t interfere with his existing towers. Chairwoman Polk responded that she remembers at the last hearing for the cell tower at this location that a representative from the radio station regarding interference. Mr. McDonald added that there was a representative from the radio station along with an additional report that addressed those concerns to the effect that it would not impact the radio station. Chairwoman Polk asked if there would be any benefit in making that a condition. Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director, explained that it was and still is a condition already through the federal permitting process. Rebecca Cooper, 3807 Santa Ana Loop, spoke on this item. She asked if the Road 100 tower (the cell tower proposal from the hearing before this tower) would be heard next month at the Planning Commission Meeting. Chairwoman Polk explained that for that special permit applicant, the public hearing has been closed. At the December meeting, the Planning Commission will deliberate and make a recommendation for City Council. Ms. Cooper asked for clarification if it would be brought back up at the December 17th meeting. Chairwoman Polk explained that it wouldn’t be open for public comment at that meeting but it would be discussed and deliberated. Ms. Cooper asked if someone from the City could notify her of the Planning Commission decision from that meeting. Staff stated they would send her notification of the Planning Commission’s recommendation for the December 17th meeting. Ms. Cooper added that there is a pattern of cell towers everywhere and believes there will be effects on the public health. She would like to see the City widen the scope of mailing notifications and find other ways to deal with these towers without the towers for the residents to see. -14- With no further comments the public hearing closed. Commissioner Bowers asked if there would be adverse effects of colocation of towers in the FCC rules. Mr. White answered that he doesn’t believe there are but that information was given to the Commission last year at the original special permit hearing from a radio frequency engineer. Commissioner Bowers noticed residential properties to the west are over 300 feet away. Mr. McDonald stated that it was the Ivy Glades Subdivision and it is over 300 feet away. Commissioner Greenaway moved, seconded by Commissioner Portugal, to close the hearing and adopt findings of fact and conclusions therefrom as contained in the November 19, 2015 staff report. The motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Greenaway moved, seconded by Commissioner Portugal, based on the findings of fact and conclusions as adopted the Planning Commission recommend the City Council grant a special permit to allow wireless communication facilities on tax parcel # 119-701-412 with conditions as contained in the November 19, 2015 staff report. The motion passed unanimously. WORKSHOP: A. Code Amendment Code Amendment for Home Businesses Chairwoman Polk read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director, discussed the proposed code amendment for home businesses. The City has a home occupation provision in the zoning code that allows certain home occupations to be practiced in the home, which is very common in most cities. Pasco, however, prohibits home occupations that requires clients to be present at the home. For example, a photography studio, hair salon, etc. If the Commission recalls, 2-3 years ago the zoning code was amended and inserted language to allow for private tutoring occupations as long as there are 4 or less students per day. It has been proposed that the provisions relating to home occupations be updated as many of the neighboring cities have to allow limited instance where the client could be present at the home. The first question for the Commission to consider is if they are inclined to go down that path and if so, would it be advantageous to use a special permit process to allow it to occur, which would allow more individual tailoring of each permit or would it be advantageous to simply identify the parameters in the code and allow that to occur outright. The second option would be easier to administer but would be lengthier in terms of a code amendment. If the special permit process is used, it would increase the Planning Commission and Council work load and would be hard to approve one and deny others. With the more complex code amendment option would lessen work load but would make rules that are set in the code so if the business does not meet the code they would be out -15- of luck. Staff requested input on this issue and options that should be explored. Chairwoman Polk asked the Commissioners if they should allow for home occupations with in-home customers. Chairwoman Polk added that the purpose for the current code is so those living in residential zones aren’t impacted by the traffic of commercial activity. Commissioner Bowers asked for clarification on the uses that could be brought into the home that were pointed out in the staff memo. Mr. White responded the report provided examples and the Planning Commission could decide which types of business activities could be allowed. Commissioner Bowers stated that many people are going to do these activities anyway and likely already are doing them. If they expand the current code, would it encourage to get licensed or discourage them? Chairwoman Polk responded that both special permit option and code amendment op tion would establish the boundaries or rules for people to abide by. Commissioner Bowers clarified that she is wondering if the code amendment will cause neighbors to be watching and calling on their neighbors. Commissioner Greenaway added neighbors can already call on their neighbors now on activity that is being conducted. Chairwoman Polk asked again if the Commissioners would be interested in the code amendment. Commissioner Greenway answered yes. Commissioner Portugal stated that he was still confused. Commissioner Mendez asked what is driving the code amendment. Mr. White responded that a suggestion was received from a member of the public. The citizen who requested this code amendment moved to Pasco from Kennewick where her home occupation was allowed and it was allowed in Richland and couldn’t see why it is not allowed in Pasco. The business was a hair salon. Commissioner Portugal asked how Kennewick deals with the increased traffic. Mr. White answered there is a limit on the number of customer visits to a home per day. Chairwoman Polk added details and restrictions would be the next step in the process. -16- Right now the Commission is just asked if they would like to amend the code . Commissioner Bowers asked if there has been much more demand for this amendment other than the one person who brought this forward. Mr. White stated that he can tell the Commissioner’s that these types of businesses activities are occurring now unpermitted. Chairwoman Polk stated that there probably are many people performing these businesses but violating code. She would like it to be more procedural rather than case by case basis, such as special permit process. Commissioner Bowers said she would be open to the code amendment and would seem permissible to do what the neighboring cities are doing. Following considerable discussion Chairwoman Polk asked if Staff could also look into the costs of special permit applications, such as Staff time, notifications, etc. and the cost to the applicants. Mr. White said they could provide that information. COMMENTS: With no further discussion or business, the Planning Commission was adjourned at 9:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, David McDonald, City Planner