Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-21-2016 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes-1- REGULAR MEETING January 21, 2016 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 Bowers addressed the Commission with concerns for MF# Z 2015- 007, but the Board felt that she didn’t need to abstain. 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 Portugal that the minutes dated December 17, 2015 be approved. The motion passed unanimously. OLD BUSINESS: A. Rezone Rezone from C-1 (Retail Business) to R-1 (Low Density Residential) (Bardown Consulting LLC) (MF# Z 2015-004) Chairwoman Polk read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Dave McDonald, City Planner, discussed the rezone application from C-1 (Retail Business) to R-1 (Low Density Residential). There were no additional comments. -2- Commissioner Bowers asked if senior housing was being developed on the R-3 site located next to the proposed property. Mr. McDonald responded that is correct. Commissioner Bowers asked for clarification as to where Majestia Place is located. Mr. McDonald indicated the location on the site map. Commissioner Greenaway moved, seconded by Commissioner Portugal, to adopt findings of fact and conclusions therefrom as contained in the January 21, 2016 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 approve the rezone of Lot 6, Coles Estates Road from C-1 to R-1. The motion passed unanimously. B. Preliminary Plat Preliminary Plat for Coles Estates, Lot 6 (Bardown Consulting LLC) (MF# PP 2015-005) Chairwoman Polk read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Dave McDonald, City Planner, discussed the preliminary plat for Coles Estates, Lot 6. There were no additional comments. Commissioner Bowers moved, seconded by Commissioner Greenaway, to adopt findings of fact and conclusions therefrom as contained in the January 21, 2016 staff report. The motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Bowers 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 Coles Estates with conditions as listed in the January 21, 2016 staff report. The motion passed unanimously. C. Rezone Rezone from “O” (Office) to R-3 (Medium Density Residential) (Ruben Escalera) (MF# Z 2015-005) Chairwoman Polk read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Dave McDonald, City Planner, discussed the rezone from “O” (Office) to R-3 (Medium Density Residential). There were no additional comments. Commissioner Portugal moved, seconded by Commissioner Greenaway, to adopt findings of fact and conclusions therefrom as contained in the January 21, 2016 staff report. The motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Portugal moved, seconded by Commissioner Greenaway, based on the -3- findings of fact and conclusions as adopted the Planning Commission recommend the City Council approve a rezone for the properties at 1804 & 1808 N. 20 th Avenue (parcels 119- 321-127 and 119-321-118) from “O” to R-3. The motion passed unanimously. D. Special Permit Modification of a Special Permit issued under adaptive reuse of Historic Places Provisions (Brad & Debra Peck) (MF# SP 2015-015) Chairwoman Polk read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Dave McDonald, City Planner, discussed the modification of a special permit issued under adaptive reuse for Historic Places Provisions. There were no additional comments. Commissioner Bowers asked when the carriage house was built. Mr. McDonald stated that he was unsure of the exact date it was constructed but somewhere around 1914. Commissioner Bowers asked how many events per year are held at the mansion. Mr. McDonald was not sure how many events were held per year but they are mostly held in the spring and summer. Commissioner Bowers asked where the carriage house was located on this property. Mr. McDonald displayed on the site map where it is located. Commissioner Greenaway moved, seconded by Commissioner Portugal, to adopt findings of fact and conclusions therefrom as contained in the January 21, 2016 staff report. The motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Greenaway moved, seconded by Commissioner Portugal, based on the findings of fact and conclusions therefrom the Planning Commission recommend the City Council grant a special permit to Brad & Debra Peck for the modification of a special permit issued under the City of Pasco Municipal Code Adaptive Reuse of Historic Places Provisions at 200 Road 34, Paso, WA 99301 (Parcels 119-430-241, 119-430-205 and 119- 430-278) with the conditions as contained in the January 21, 2016 staff report. The motion passed unanimously. E. Special Permit Special Permit for the location of a vineyard frost protection wind machine in an RS-12 (Residential Suburban) Zone (Jerry Czebotar) (MF# SP 2015-016) - WITHDRAWN Chairwoman Polk read the master file number and explained that this application had been withdrawn. F. Special Permit Special Permit for the location of sports field -4- lighting in an R-1 (Low Density Residential) Zone (City of Pasco) (MF# SP 2015-017) Chairwoman Polk read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Dave McDonald, City Planner, discussed the special permit for the location of sports field lighting in an R-1 (Low-Density Residential) Zone. There were no additional comments. Commissioner Bowers asked about a map that could better illustrate where in the City this site was located. Mr. McDonald explained where the site was located. Commissioner Bowers moved, seconded by Commissioner Greenaway, t o adopt findings of fact and conclusions therefrom as contained in the January 21, 2016 staff report. The motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Bowers moved, seconded by Commissioner Greenaway, to close the public hearing and schedule deliberations, the adoption of findings of fact and development of a recommendation for City Council for the January 21, 2016 meeting. G. Special Permit Special Permit to locate a farm and related buildings (WSU Extension Office) (MF# SP 2015-018) Chairwoman Polk read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Dave McDonald, City Planner, discussed the special permit to locate a farm and related buildings for the WSU Extension Office. There were no additional comments. Commissioner Mendez moved, seconded by Commissioner Greenaway, to adopt findings of fact and conclusions therefrom as contained in the January 21, 2016 staff report. The motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Mendez moved, seconded by Commissioner Greenaway, based on the findings of fact and conclusions therefrom the Planning Commission recommend the City Council grant a special permit to Washington State University Extension Service for the location of a farm on parcel # 118-180-180 with the conditions as contained in the January 21, 2016 staff report. The motion passed unanimously. PUBLIC HEARINGS: A. Rezone Rezone from R-1 (Low Density Residential) to R-3 (Medium Density Residential) (Scott Lybbert) (MF# Z 2015-006) Chairwoman Polk read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Dave McDonald, City Planner, discussed the rezone application from R-1 (Low Density -5- Residential) to R-3 (Medium Density Residential). The site is located just north of the fire station on Road 68, south of Aintree Drive. In 2013 this property was the subject of a rezone and preliminary plat application for a 15 lot subdivision. The Council approved the development but because of the elevation of the property the developer, Hayden Homes, was unable to make it work and moved on to other locations to develop. The current applicant feels that if density is increased, he would be able to carry the cost of the infrastructure which would include installing sewer under the irrigation canal and connecting to a manhole on Road 68. The need for increased density is the reason for the rezone to R-3. This site has been included in the Comprehensive Plan for over 36 years as an area for mixed residential development which includes; single-family homes, patio homes, townhouses, apartments and condominiums. The eligible zoning for mixed residential includes; R-1, RS-12, RS-20. R-2 and R-3. The Chapel Development also includes commercial zoning to the north of Chapel Hill and on Road 68, which is where the Maverick Gas Station and strip center are located. When considering rezones the Planning Commission must review changed conditions within the community that would warrant other or additional zoning. Some of the conditions include the number of single-family plats that have been approved in the last 2 ½ years. There is an abundance of single -family preliminary plats approved with roughly over 2,000 single-family lots that are now available within inventory. In addition, Franklin County has also approved a number of single -family plats, adding 242 single-family lots to the inventory. In 2014, the Department of Natural Resources who owns several hundred acres to the west of Road 68, south of Highway 182, requested a rezone which created another 180 acres for single-family development. Last year the City tried to expand the urban growth boundary to include more land to allow opportunities for development but that was denied by the County which will focus more development within the UGA boundaries. Lastly, Hayden Homes did a complete study of this property in 2013 in an effort to develop it for single-family homes but were unable to do so because of the cost of infrastructure. The 15 lots could not cover the costs. The Commission must consider the effect on the nature and value of adjoining properties. According to the Franklin County Assessor’s records relating to taxes, when higher density development is placed next to lower density there really is not impact on value s. In fact, the property values adjacent to the Columbia Villas Subdivision on Sandifur Parkway where the townhomes were built, have increased in value. Mr. McDonald briefly went over a few studies regarding tax assessments and impacts of higher density next to lower density in which single-family home values were not impacted negatively as a result of multi-family construction next door. He also discussed traffic studies that indicate multi- family units generate less traffic than single-family homes. Typically an apartment unit generates 6.72 vehicle trips per day and single-family home generates about 10 vehicle trips per day. On the weekends, the Institute of Traffic Engineers indicates that multi- family development has even fewer traffic generation numbers. Commissioner Bowers asked what would happen to the single -family residence and small barn currently on site. Mr. McDonald responded the barn would be removed and the house would remain. Chairwoman Polk asked if R-4 zoning districts are required to construct parameter walls. Mr. McDonald answered that the request is for R-3 but there are no requirements in the -6- zoning regulations for a wall. That doesn’t mean that through the course of the hearing process one couldn’t be required. Staff is recommending that a concomitant agreement be established an enhanced landscape buffer along the eastern edge of the property. Chairwoman Polk asked if the concomitant agreement would come with the next public hearing. Mr. McDonald responded that the applicant, Mr. Lybbert, is requesting that this application is acted on this evening to meet a deadline of getting the sewer underground before the water is put back in the canal. Commissioner Portugal asked for clarification on who owns the land to connect Valley View Road to Road 68 to allow for access. Mr. McDonald stated the land is owned by the Thorne partnership. They have entered into an agreement to sell the property to the applicant. Scott Lybbert, 4307 S. Olson Street, Kennewick, WA spoke on behalf of his application. He stated he approached this property for single-family homes originally but concluded that the extensive costs of putting in the sewer system and the number of homes per road, the economic value wouldn’t work. Mr. Lybbert stated they are sensitive to the concerns in the neighborhood. He has shared various concepts for plans but has not come to a decision on what the product will look like. They intend to build an attractive product to enhance the neighborhood. They also need to build homes at a price point the market demands, which would suggest keeping the prices in the sub $200,000 range, which would be townhomes. While in negotiations with the adjacent property, Mr. Lybbert stated he has not acquired the property yet but the preference is to match Valley View Drive with an entrance off Road 68 with modification to Road 68, such as a turn lane and acceleration lane. If they cannot access Road 68, they would come off of Aintree Drive and would have fewer townhomes. Traffic will not pass other single-family homes. Chairwoman Polk asked for clarification about the adjacent property. Mr. Lybbert stated the neighboring property owners had agreed to annexation as it would be in their best interest. Kalyn Karlberg, 6614 Aintree Drive, gave a brief presentation. She represented herself and several neighbors. They feel the zoning change will alter the character of the neighborhood. Nothing in the area matches the description of three story dwellings except for the townhomes behind Wal-Mart. She questioned why the developer cannot rezone the property to R-2 rather than R-3. They are concerned over traffic and overcrowding in the schools. There is already R-3 land available for development in the Chapel Hill area so the proposed site shouldn’t be rezoned to R-3 until the current R-3 has been completed. She discussed perceived impacts on property values. In terms of other multi-family developments in Pasco near single-family, they are duplexes with driveways so they fit the characteristics of the neighboring single-family homes. Another problem with 3-story townhomes is that they will block views. With single or even two-story duplexes, they would still have a view. They would like the project to be like Columbia Villas, where there is a mix of 1-2 story duplexes similar to single-family homes. Lastly, they would like to see regular parking and not tucked under parking or parking garages. In terms of traffic, -7- they would like to see a traffic light installed to help with access onto Road 68 and do not want access to Aintree Drive. They would also like the single -family home to remain R-1 on Aintree Drive. If possible, a land swap to have the park developed on this site and multi-family where the park is scheduled to go would be welcomed. Chairwoman Polk asked for clarification on the view and the drop in elevation on the property. Ms. Karlberg responded that they took the elevation into account. Dave Richards, Clarkston, WA, spoke as a property owner in the Chapel Hill area. He stated Aintree Drive is the primary entrance into Chapel Hill, Division 2. One of his concerns is that the tall townhomes will have an impact on the homes. He also felt it would be more appropriate to develop vacant R-3 sites first. He discussed the traffic studies Mr. McDonald had referenced regarding multi-family units generating less traffic. He asked Mr. McDonald whether property values were retail or assessed values. Mr. McDonald responded assessed values from Franklin County. Mr. Richards stated almost everyone had an increase in assessed values this year in West Pasco. He asked if the assessed values were equal to the assessed values not located near newly constructed multi-family units. Mr. McDonald stated he couldn’t answer at the moment because he only checked the properties bordering the higher densities. Sally Wright, 6412 Pimlico Drive, was concerned about traffic and overcrowded schools. Nicole Prasch, 6312 Turf Paradise Drive, stated she paid extra for her view. As for access, there are already many cars that park on the curve and the street isn’t very wide. Commissioner Portugal asked Ms. Prasch to could clarify what she means by paying extra for a view. Ms. Prasch responded they paid a lot premium for their home because it had a view. Jeff Dahlman, 6619 Aintree Drive, stated his backyard borders the apartments on Chapel Hill. To put more apartments on the other side of him would make them feel surrounded. John Burns, 4320 Road 111, spoke for the Franklin County Irrigation District. The Irrigation District is neither in favor or opposed to the application. At some point in time they hope to have the whole canal piped and placed underground. Chairwoman Polk asked about sewer and piping the canal and if this would create any issues in the future. Mr. Burns answered it would not because they would have to include the piping designs. -8- Sarui Camacho, 6709 Aintree Drive, discussed traffic concerns on Aintree Drive. She stated that her family lives on the corner and has seen several near misses. David Roskelley, 2907 N. 65th Place, stated he has lived in West Pasco for the past 15 years. He used to live on the north side of the highway but moved to the south side due to traffic and development on the north and now it is moving south. He is frustrated with all the construction, then it takes 10 years to fix the traffic. Maria Prieto, 3208 Ladbroke Lane, stated her concerned about privacy and traffic. She stated her neighborhood doesn’t consist of entry-level homes. Josue Morfin, 6302 Pimlico Drive, said his biggest concern was traffic. He discussed the purpose of various zoning districts and stated R-2 zoning would be more appropriate. Karen Weis, 6920 Valley View Place, explained her concerns with traffic. She stated she works at Chiawanna High School and to get home she goes down Argent and up Road 68 and the people behind her have to wait for her to make a left-hand turn because there is no left signal. Bryan Cole, 7601 W. Clearwater Avenue, Kennewick, WA spoke on behalf of the applicant as the project engineer. The project will bring the property into conformance with the Comprehensive Plan. They want to design a project that is in tune with the surrounding community. Road 68 is an important component to access to the property. If that access is granted it will relieve a lot of traffic off Aintree Drive. They are required to do a traffic study and road improvements. Preliminary studies show they will need a turn pocket on Road 68 to allow for left-hand turns and acceleration and deceleration lanes so traffic isn’t impeded on Road 68. They will also provide sidewalks along the frontage. The current site design is very preliminary. They will try to “stair step” the development to prevent blocking views. With more density they will be providing more money for school and road impact fees. Commissioner Portugal asked if the applicant had any cost comparative estimates for single-family versus multi-family. Scott Lybbert, 4307 S. Olson Street, Kennewick, WA stated he originally did a single- family analysis -a year ago- and the cost estimate did not work. They still have to acquire the property, which the seller would like to get value out of his property. By the time they acquire the property and apply development costs, it is near or greater than the market and would leave no margin. When moving to a multi-family development there was a large enough margin to work with and also pay for the property. They believe this project will add to the neighborhood. He is sensitive to the concerns and nobody likes to see change. Commissioner Bowers asked if R-2 zoning is something he has considered. Mr. Lybbert replied that they hadn’t. In order to get the economics to work they would need the density of the R-3 zoning. Commissioner Mendez asked if the plans were still to construct three-story, tucked-in -9- parking townhomes. Mr. Lybbert stated plans are not locked in. They will build a product to attract buyers. Commissioner Mendez asked if he was building for first-time homebuyers or upper-scale. Mr. Lybbert responded it could be first-time buyers. There should be an even mix of homes and prices among the community. He was open to selling the property to anyone that wants it for greenspace. Karyn Karlberg, 6614 Aintree Drive, stated she understood the price was $389,000. Mr. Lybbert responded his offer to sell is at $250,000. Scott Lybbert, 4307 S. Olson Street, Kennewick, addressed irrigation pump noise. There are already two irrigation pumps on the canal. Their residents won’t want a loud noise either, so they will protect the pump and noise will not be a concern. Karyn Karlberg, 6614 Aintree Drive, handed a signed 60-resident petition to the clerk. Dave Richards, Clarkston, WA stated he worked with the developer and builders that built the neighborhood. Homes were required to meet higher standards which is why people paid more. There are restrictive covenants in the neighborhood to protect the character. He would encourage the new development to have congruent exteriors. Ms. Prasch asked if it was the owner requesting the rezone or the developer. Mr. McDonald responded that the developer was the applicant, however, the owner was required to sign the application so together they are applying for the rezone. With no further questions or comments the public hearing closed. Chairwoman Polk asked staff to clarify that there are two motions for the evening; one to close the hearing and one for a recommendation to Council. Mr. McDonald responded that was correct but the Planning Commission does have t he option, since there was a lot of information and testimony provided, to close the hearing and deliberate at the February meeting, which would allow time for staff to incorporate many of the concerns into a concomitant agreement for the Planning Commission’s review. Commissioner Greenaway asked if Mr. McDonald could clarify the land swap that was discussed as an option during public testimony. Mr. McDonald stated that he wasn’t quite sure what they were talking about but it might involve the city park property on Chapel Hill Boulevard. Swapping the two sites will not be likely as the site would be too difficult to develop for a neighborhood park due to the topography and access. -10- Chairwoman Polk asked what the minimum square footage is for R-2 and R-3 zoning. Mr. McDonald stated that for R-2 it is 5,000 square feet per unit and for R-3 it is 3,000 per unit. Commissioner Polk asked for clarification on how many units the applicant will have in an R-3 zoning. Mr. McDonald said if the applicant drops the number of units to 40 he would have more square footage. Commissioner Polk asked if he could feasibly work with an R-2 zoning. Mr. McDonald responded that he didn’t believe so. Chairman Polk asked the Commissioners how they felt about a concomitant agreement and if they would like to postpone making a recommendation or if they are comfortable to make a recommendation. Commissioner Bowers stated that she was in support of closing the public hearing and seeing a concomitant agreement at the next meeting. The Commissioners were in agreement, except for Commissioner Greenaway who was comfortable making a recommendation. Commissioner Greenaway asked if the applicant could get a head start by working on the sewer to meet their deadline prior to their approval or recommendation. Mr. McDonald replied that isn’t possible since this application could get denied either by the Planning Commission or Council and it wouldn’t make financial sense for the developer to begin. Commissioner Mendez stated that a concomitant agreement would be a good way to mitigate many of the issues they heard from the public during the hearing. Commissioner Portugal agreed and added that he was still interested in seeing a cost comparison of single-family and multi-family. Chairwoman Polk asked if there are any engineered estimates. Mr. McDonald answered the City does not have that available. Chairwoman Polk stated that she would also be in favor of a concomitant agreement. Commissioner Bowers moved, seconded by Commissioner Portugal, to close the public hearing and schedule deliberations, the adoption of findings of fact, and development of a recommendation for City Council for the January 21, 2016 meeting. -11- B. Zoning Determination Zoning Determination for Unincorporated Property (MF# ZD 2016-001) Chairwoman Polk read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director, discussed the zoning determination for the Thorne Annexation Area. The site contains over an acre , is zoned RS-20 with a single-family home. The property is in the County but prior to annexation the Planning Commission must determine the zoning. The property owners have submitted an intent to annex that has been accepted by City Council. The Comprehensive Plan indicates the site is within a transitional are between low-density and mixed- residential land uses. The parcel to the northeast is zoned R-4 and the parcel to the east is vacant and zoned R-1, however the Planning Commission is considering other zoning for the property. The property has frontage on Road 68 and is located between the commercial area to the north and the fire station to the south. Staff provided findings about the property; basically the property is undergoing an annexation and is located on a major high traffic volume street between two commercial properties. Staff recommended the Planning Commission consider R-3 zoning for the property based the findings and criteria discussed in the staff report. Staff suggested the Planning commission make a recommendation to the Council at this meeting so the annexation process can be completed by the end of February. Scott Lybbert, 2839 W. Kennewick Avenue, spoke on behalf of this application. There would be benefits for his overall project on the neighboring parcel if this property was annexed and zoned R-3. This gives frontage to Road 68 with improvements that could limit the risks for those turning left onto Valley View Lane. Commissioner Bowers asked about ownership. Mr. White responded that this property was owned by Mr. & Mrs. Thorne. Phillip William Schmidt, 3417 Road 68, spoke on behalf of Mr. Thorne as his son -in-law. He currently lives at the residence and has been cleaning up the property with the idea of selling it. The house was built in 1969 is on a 253’ well and has its own septic system. Both systems are faltering so annexation would allow a tie into City sewer and water. With no further comments the public hearing closed. Chairwoman Polk asked what the current zoning of the property would be considered. Mr. White responded RS-20 since it is a large house on 1 acre. Chairwoman Polk asked what would happen if it were zoned RT (Residential Transition). Mr. White answered that RT zoning is typically reserved for properties or locations that are awaiting the availability of City services, which doesn’t fit this lot. Chairwoman Polk expressed concern over rezoning this property to R -3 when the -12- neighboring property has a rezone that is still being deliberated. Mr. White responded that this parcel itself can be justified for R-3 zoning because of its location on a major street and its adjacency to the commercial to the north and south. And while the fire station isn’t a commercial use it is a use that most would not want to locate a single-family home due to the amount of sirens and fire trucks responding to emergencies. The annexation and zoning hold more promise for working issues out with the property to the east more than they do as they currently exist. Commissioner Bowers asked if it is preliminary to grant this rezone before the concomitant agreement is worked out for the adjacent property. Mr. White answered that he didn’t think so since they are two separate parcels and anything in terms of a concomitant agreement are going to extend and certainly be sensitive to the adjacent neighborhood and parcels to the east. Commissioner Bowers asked if they should push this decision off until February. Chairwoman Polk responded that since this is a different applicant and regardless of the outcome of the adjacent property, this applicant will still wish to annex and have the zoning determined to be R-3, she would be in favor of moving forward at this meeting. Dave McDonald, City Planner, stated that it is a separate piece of property and if annexed in the future, a recommendation would still be R-3. It is not an appropriate place to develop R-1. In fact, in the future Road 68 will need to be improved and the RS -20 zoning will not be able to foot the bill for curb, gutter and sidewalk. If the adjacent property never moves forward, at least this property could still be improved and developed. Chairwoman Polk asked if it would be cost prohibitive in the future if this site wants to develop as commercial and it would need to get rezoned again. Mr. White responded that he didn’t know if it would be cost prohibitive but they would have that opportunity. It might not be favorable to extend commercial zoning down the Road 68 Corridor, which presents traffic problems. Commissioner Bowers moved, seconded by Commissioner Greenaway, the Planning Commission adopt the findings of fact as contained in the January 21, 2016 staff report. The motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Bowers moved, seconded by Commissioner Greenaway, base d on the findings of fact as adopted the Planning Commission recommend the City Council zone the Thorne Annexation Area to R-3, as indicated on the zoning map identified as Exhibit #1 attached to the January 21, 2016 staff report. The motion passed unanimously. C. Preliminary Plat Preliminary Plat for Columbia Villas, Phase 3 (Big Creek Land Co.) (MF# PP 2015-006) Chairwoman Polk read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. -13- Dave McDonald, City Planner, discussed the preliminary plat for Columbia Villas, Ph 3. The plat is a natural extension of Columbia Villas, Phases 1 and 2 located directly south of Three Rivers Drive. Provided in the staff report are all of the necessary reviews that the state and municipal code require related to lot layout, right-of-way, utilities, prevention of overcrowding of properties and parks and schools. Also in the report are a list of findings of fact and a recommendation with conditions applicable to this development. Cliff Mort, 6812 E. Maplewood, Post Falls, ID spoke on behalf of his application. This project will be a transition from Columbia Villas to the south, apartments to the north, Columbia Place to the west and commercial on the sou theast. One of the reasons for rezoning a commercial piece is because the property owner had originally thought these would be higher density apartments, however, he thought the duplex or townhomes would be a better fit but the commercial piece would provide a buffer on Road 68. The homes have been filling up as they are being built and they have a waiting list. With no questions or comments the public hearing closed. Commissioner Greenaway moved, seconded by Commissioner Mendez, to close the hearing on the proposed subdivision and initiate deliberations and schedule adoption of findings of fact, conclusions and a recommendation to the City Council for the February 18, 2016 meeting. The motion passed unanimously. D. Rezone Rezone from R-4 (High Density Residential) to C-1 (Retail Business) (FBA Land Holdings) (MF# Z 2015- 008) Chairwoman Polk read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Dave McDonald, City Planner, discussed the rezone application from R -4 (High Density Residential) to C-1 (Retail Business). The site is located at the corner of Road 68 and Three Rivers Drive. There is a 15 acre commercial site to the south and this rezone would be a natural extension of that zoning. The Comprehensive Plan designates an area of commercial zoning directly across Road 68 reaching up to this property creating a commercial node at the corner of Road 68 and Sandifur Parkway. Because this pro perty is on Road 68 there is concern over driveways . It would be advisable to include driveway restrictions in a concomitant agreement. Preston Ramsey, 415 S. Alpine Drive, Liberty Lake, WA spoke on behalf of th e application. He explained that FBA Land Holdings is doing the rezone in coordination with the Big Creek Land Company preliminary plat approval. With no further questions or comments the public hearing closed. Commissioner Greenaway moved, seconded by Commissioner Bowers, to close the 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 February 18, 2016 meeting. The motion passed unanimously. E. Rezone Rezone from C-1 (Retail Business) to R-1 (Low -14- Density Residential) (MF# Z 2016-001) Chairwoman Polk read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director, discussed the rezone from C-1 (Retail Business) to R-1 (Low Density Residential). This is a situation the Planning Commission has seen before where existing C-1 property is being used for housing and has been forever. The Comprehensive Plan for the property indicates a low density designation. This section of Court Street was zoned for retail business over 35 years ago but it has remained developed with housing. Prior to the early 80’s it was common practice to include single-family housing as a permitted use in commercial zones. That has changed since the 80’s and the banking industry itself has changed. They are reluctant to refinance or sell if the property is a non-conforming use. Staff has provided the required review of the criteria in the report for the benefit of the Planning Commission. Chairwoman Polk asked if the property on the corner of 10th and Court Street was a multi- family dwelling and if it will still be rezoned as R-1 and compliant with R-1 zoning. Mr. White answered that it won’t technically be compliant but it will be more in conformance than it is now. Bob Dahmen, 5001 N. Bristol Street, Tacoma, spoke on behalf of his mother’s estate in this proposed rezone. When the zoning was set as C-1 years ago, nobody cared because it also allowed for single-family but now it does not, making the property a non-conforming use. He his family is trying to sell the home but they have had a sale fall through because the purchaser could not get insurance due to the non-conformance. They have another offer currently pending on the home and hope to close within a couple of weeks. Mr. Dahmen requested the rezone be expedited and moved to Council in order to meet the timeliness of the pending offer. Matthew Polk, 811 W. Margaret Street, stated he lives down the street. He voiced concern for the lack of commercial zoning and doesn’t feel the City is being wise by eliminating the commercial zoning that exists. All of the surrounding properties to the north are commercial and that needs to be looked at for commercial use. He stated he is sympathetic to what the property owners go through but we need to be responsible in how we maintain the neighborhood and develop those commercial pieces of land so the people living nearby reap those benefits and have a quality of life that has availability of mixed - use zoning. The reason he chose to live in this part of Pasco rather than West Pasco is because there aren’t miles and miles of residential. The older style of mixed -use land is more in keeping with the kind of city we should be leaning towards. He encourage the Planning Commission keep these properties zoned commercial and perhaps do things that would make it easier to sell the properties to be utilized for the intended use. Bob Dahmen, 5001 N. Bristol Street, Tacoma, addressed Mr. Polk stating that while he understands his concerns but if he is interested in maintaining commercial uses, would be willing to purchase his mother’s estate to use it for commercial use. There are 6 houses on the block and not one of them has change to a commercial use in 35 years . They have all been owned and maintained as owner-occupied residential. The only commercial use that could really go into any of properties is a marijuana paraphernalia shop or other small type of shop unless someone comes along and purchases all of the properties but he hasn’t been approached by any buyers for that use. -15- Mary Lynn Heinemann, 9413 W. Richardson Road, stated she is a broker for Advance Realty. Pasco has a shortage of homes at this price and with the home next door that was updated, there is pride of ownership on this block. With the interest that the Dahmen family has had in this home, it shows that there is interest for homes in this price point. With no further questions or comments the public hearing closed. Commissioner Bowers asked staff if this is rezoned to R-1 if they could open a café. Staff responded no. Chairwoman Polk added that there are strict limits on in-home businesses. Mr. White said there are two things to keep in mind: (1) This section of block is designated by the Comprehensive Plan as low density residential so the zoning currently isn’t in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan and (2) The property owner made the point that the residential setup of the properties with the minimum frontage and little depth doesn’t lend itself to commercial zoning. Unless someone owns the entire block, one parcel cannot be used as commercial because you can’t get any kind of parking. Commissioner Polk asked if in the future if someone wanted to purchase all of those lots and apply for a rezone if they could. Mr. White said yes but he wouldn’t anticipate that happening. Dave McDonald addressed Mr. Dahmen’s request to expedite this application and staff doesn’t see any reason why it can’t. Commissioner Portugal moved, seconded by Commissioner Bowers, to adopt the findings of fact and conclusions therefore as contained in the January 21, 2016 staff report. The motion passed 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 approved the rezone of Lots 17-32 Block 10, Sylvester’s 2nd Addition from C-1 to R-1. F. Rezone Rezone from C-1 (Retail Business) to C-3 (General Business) (GESA) (MF# Z 2015-007) Chairwoman Polk read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director, discussed the rezone which involves property near the corner of 20th Avenue and Sylvester Street. The Comprehensive Plan designates the property for commercial use, which means a variety of commercial districts would be applicable, such as: O, C-1, C-2, C-3, CR and BP. The GESA Administrative Service building was recently built and operates as a data center providing computer servers not only for GESA but other financial institutions. It is not frequented -16- by the public and is not frequented by employees unless there for maintenance. The reason for the zone change is for the use itself, as it is more alon g the lines of a heavier commercial use and because GESA has installed security fencing along the parameter of the site. The fencing is not really visible from the front due to a block wall but it is visible on the sides. It is a three-strand barbed wire security system that is important for GESA and for their contract server clients. Barbed wire is not allowed in a C-1, at least not in the configuration in which it has been installed. The solution as proposed by staff would be to establish C-3 zoning where the barbed wire parameter fencing is allowed and pursue a concomitant agreement that would rule out every other use in the C -3 zone except for the data center. Staff recommend the Planning Commission approve a rezone to C-3 based upon delivery of a concomitant agreement. Chairwoman Polk asked for clarification on the location of the fencing. Mr. White responded that the fencing surrounds the entire building, however, the barbed wire is really only apparent if driving down Sylvester Street and glanci ng at it in certain spots. Commissioner Mendez asked if it is a stand-alone building. Mr. White said yes. Commissioner Bowers asked if this was one of the buildings that has upset the Planning Commission in the past. Mr. White replied that this building was the impetus of the design standards in the C-1. Commissioner Bowers asked if the barbed wire fencing and gates were put up. Mr. White stated that the fencing, gates and wall are already in place. Chairwoman Polk asked if GESA was aware that they were not compliant with the zoning. Mr. White responded he didn’t believe the contractor was aware of the restriction. Rick Thompson, 1616 Young Court, Kennewick, WA spoke on behalf of GESA Credit Union as the Vice President of Facilities. He stated it is a unique facility and was originally proposed as a high security fence. As for the details of the fencing they used the best practices that they knew of. The parameter fencing is a requirement for high security. Without the barbed wire it isn’t a secured fence. There is a solid fence around two sides of the facility side by side; a wood fence on the property line near residential and a 6’ chain link fence with slats. Chairwoman Polk asked if there were any other security measures othe r than the fencing. Mr. Thompson responded they have cameras, floodlights and berms so even if someone drives through the fence they can’t get in. It is high security by federal standards. They tried to hide the entire facility while doing so and fit into the community. -17- Chairwoman Polk asked if they had considered installing landscape buffers to obscure the views of the barbed wire fence. Mr. Thompson replied that they have a buffer along the back on the other side and grass between the two buildings. They did construct the 8’ block wall on Sylvester. Matt Polk, 811 W. Margaret Street, spoke out against the GESA building and rezone. He stated that he lives just a few blocks from this property and adamantly is against the rezone of this property. The building is comple tely out of character with the neighborhood and should never have been allowed in city limits outside of the Port of Pasco. This facility is virtually a gargantuan shed, it’s an eyesore for those who have to look at it and anyone can agree that the design and construction of this building is a prime example of corporate irresponsibility. He stated that it is a testament to the fact that the leaders at GESA Credit Union have contempt for the working class people that live nearby that will have to live with GESA’s bad decision for years to come. If anything, this industrial barn should be dismantled and not expanded. He added that he would like to go on record as an official complainant of this property. The request for this rezone needs to be denied. There is no justification to zone it General Business. Mr. Thompson addressed the concerns voiced. He stated that the property was a vacant lot before and didn’t have any value to anybody. They spoke to the neighbors next door and received no negative responses from them or the apartments that overlook it. He feels that they are good corporate neighbors. Mr. Polk replied that people value vacant land but what this is about is making a bad decision worse. He requests that the Planning Commission make the responsible choice to deny GESA more opportunities to encroach on the neighborhood to show them what corporate responsibility looks like. With no further questions or comments the public hearing closed. Commissioner Mendez asked since the building is al ready constructed what would happen to GESA if this application was denied. Mr. White responded that they would be non-compliant and would either have to remove the barbed wire, limit it to one strand which is allowed in C-1 zones or apply for a variance which is a doubtful path to go down. Chairwoman Polk asked why one strand of barbed wire not considered security fencing. Mr. White stated that he can’t answer that. Dave McDonald, City Planner, stated that many years ago there was a concern about having barbed wire in neighborhood commercial zones because of the perception. The City proposed to eliminate it but some property owners wanted to keep it. The compromise was one strand. The three strands were limited to C-3 zones. Chairwoman Polk asked if one strand would put them into compliance. -18- Mr. McDonald responded their definitions and federal guidelines require more. Chairwoman Polk asked if there were other security methods other and barbed wire. Mr. White replied he didn’t know in terms of being federal compliant. Commissioner Portugal asked if other banks have such fences. Mr. White answered that he can’t think of one but this building isn’t a bank. Commissioner Portugal asked if there is anywhere else in the community where there is a security fence such as the once GESA constructed. Mr. White stated that the site on the corner of 20th Avenue and Sylvester Street that used to be Enterprise was surrounded by a triple strand of barbed wire but he couldn’t think of any others off hand. Commissioner Mendez stated that when looking at the zoning map there are other C -3 zones on 20th Avenue and they could potentially put up three strands of barbed wire. Chairwoman Polk asked how that complies with the revisions to keep arterials up to standards. Mr. White responded that the revisions are silent on fencing. Chairwoman Polk asked if they correspond with C-3 zones as well. Mr. White answered that they are limited to C-1 zones only. Commissioner Bowers moved, seconded by Commissioner Greenaway, to close the 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 February 18, 2016 meeting. The motion passed 3 to 2 with Commissioner Mendez and Commissioner Portugal dissenting. COMMENTS: With no further discussion or business, the Planning Commission was adjourned at 10:09 p.m. Respectfully submitted, David McDonald, City Planner