HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-21-2016 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes-1-
REGULAR MEETING April 21, 2016
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
CALL TO ORDER:
The meeting was called to order at 7:00pm by Chairwoman Khan.
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 Khan read a statement about the appearance of fairness for hearings on land
use matters. There were no declarations.
Chairwoman Khan 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 Khan explained that state law requires testimony in quasi-judicial hearings
such as held by the Planning Commission be given under oath or affirmation.
Chairwoman Khan swore in all those desiring to speak.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Commissioner Greenaway moved, seconded by Commissioner Polk that the minutes
dated March 17, 2016 be approved. The motion passed unanimously.
OLD BUSINESS:
A. Special Permit Special Permit to locate a daycare center (Rosa
Cantu) (MF# SP 2016-005)
Chairwoman Khan read the master file number and asked for comments from staff.
Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director, discussed the special permit
application to locate a daycare center. There were no further comments but he noted that
the packet contained revised elevations, floor plan and site layout from what was sent out
the previous month.
-2-
Commissioner Bowers asked where this site is located and if it is east of Highway 395.
Mr. White responded yes, and briefly described the area.
Chairwoman Khan asked if the setbacks are the same for commercial zoning as they are
for residential.
Mr. White answered that they are not the same.
Chairwoman Khan asked what the setbacks would be for this site.
Mr. White responded that it would depend on landscaping required, if it’s an existing
building or not and there are opportunities to place parking or common accessory uses.
Commissioner Bowers asked if the applicant already operated a daycare and if so where.
Mr. White responded that he didn’t believe they do.
Commissioner Polk moved, seconded by Commissioner Greenaway, to adopt findings of
fact and conclusions therefrom as contained in the April 21, 2016 staff report. The motion
passed 4 to 1 with Commissioner Mendez dissenting.
Commissioner Polk 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 for the location of a daycare center at 220 N Oregon Avenue, with
conditions as listed in the April 21, 2016 staff report. The motion passed 4 to 1 with
Commissioner Mendez dissenting.
B. Rezone Rezone from RT (Residential Transition) to R-1
(Low Density Residential) (Promade Construction)
(MF# Z 2016-002)
Chairwoman Khan read the master file number and asked for comments from staff.
Dave McDonald, City Planner, discussed the rezone application from RT (Residential
Transition) to R-1 (Low Density Residential). There were no additional comments.
Commissioner Greenaway moved, seconded by Commissioner Mendez, to adopt findings of
fact and conclusions therefrom as contained in the April 21, 2016 staff report. The motion
passed unanimously.
Commissioner Greenaway moved, seconded by Commissioner Mendez, based on the
findings of fact and conclusions as adopted, the Planning Commission recommend the
City Council rezone Lot 20, Coles Estates from RT to R-1. The motion passed
unanimously.
-3-
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
A. Zoning Determination Zoning Determination for the Mullen Annexation
Area (MF# ZD 2016-002)
Chairwoman Khan read the master file number and asked for comments from staff.
Dave McDonald, City Planner, discussed the zoning application for the Mullen Annexation
Area. The City received an annexation petition for a 160 acre site located directly north of
Powerline Road and east of Broadmoor Boulevard over to Road 84. The petition has been
certified by the County Assessor as being sufficient under the “petition method” to allow
the annexation to proceed. The City Council will be considering th e matter in a public
hearing on May 2, 2016. The property has been designated in the Comprehensive Plan for
low-density residential development identical to the properties to the south. Mr. McDonald
reviewed surrounding zoning and recommended the property be zoned to match the R-1
(Low Density Residential) to the south.
Chairwoman Khan asked if the current owner of the property is the City of Pasco.
Mr. McDonald stated that the School District owns the middle piece and the other two
pieces are owned by a group of farmers. The farmers petitioned for annexation.
Commissioner Polk asked what the vacant land to the south is zoned.
Mr. McDonald answered the northern portion is currently being developed for single-
family homes as Majestia Estates. The other portion to the west is the lot that was
considered for a rezone to R-1. To the east is a 5 acre site that was rezoned a few years ago
to R-3 and the developer will be building a senior housing project on the property.
Commissioner Polk stated that it appears as if Powerline Road stops just after Balmoral
Court.
Mr. McDonald responded the right-of-way stops but the road continues on in an
easement. When the land develops to the north the developer will dedicate the right-of-
way.
Commissioner Bowers asked about the school that was listed on the zoning map.
Mr. McDonald answered it was Delta High School.
Chairman Khan asked if there were any other questions.
Mr. McDonald stated staff received an email from a couple that lives at the end of
Balmoral Court, which is directly south of the school site. They identified some concerns
about future development in the area as far as traffic, schools and parks. The email is a
part of the record.
Commissioner Greenaway stated that the more that is built in this area there is potential
for the same problem as Road 68. She asked if we should already widen the road with the
-4-
construction of more homes and another school.
Mr. McDonald stated the plan calls for widening Broadmoor Boulevard but that typically
doesn’t happen until the development occurs. The developer is responsible for providing
the additional right-of-way, travel lanes and curb and gutter. The area that says vacant
on the zoning map is an area that the City is working in conjunction with the developer in
the Broadmoor Development Plan which will include commercial and residential.
Commissioner Greenaway stated she was concerned we could overbuild with single-family
homes.
Mr. McDonald stated that R-1 will allow for lots that you typically see now to the south of
the site. The developers have the option of doing a planned density development, which
most of them have done, to include some smaller lots and offset with larger lots.
Commissioner Greenaway added that another concern is that schools are not being built
fast enough. Homes are being built faster than the schools so the schools get overcrowded
and portables are required.
Mr. McDonald responded that is why the School District has purchased the 40 acres for a
new middle school and they are also looking in this general area for additional property.
Commissioner Polk asked what would happen if this property was annexed and zoning
was determined, if the School District decided to liquidate and sell could it become
additional housing.
Mr. McDonald responded yes.
Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director, addressed Commissioner
Greenaway’s concerns over traffic. Traffic control isn’t just limited to how many homes
are in an area but related also to other land uses and how the road system is laid out.
There are many drive ways on Road 68 between Burden Boulevard and Wrigley and that is
one of the key issues with the frustration that can be felt at the peak hours Road 68. The
master plan that Mr. McDonald mentioned will promote controlled access to Broadmoor
Boulevard. Access management, land use, signalization and the physical layout of the
roadway all contribute to the proper ways of traffic control that we will wa nt to see. It will
still get busier, that is a given since it is undeveloped now.
Commissioner Mendez discussed the concerns voiced in the email received by staff, such
as lack of parks. If the school develops on the 40 acre parcel they could potentia lly have
grounds there but wondered if there were any plans from the City to have a park
developed in that area.
Mr. McDonald replied that the current neighborhood park is located to the south of Maya
Angelou Elementary School which is about a mile walking distance from the home of the
couple that wrote the email. As the property develops to the north there will be
consideration given to parks. Developer will provide $1,348 per house to the park fund
that would allow the City to purchase land for a future park. The Parks Department is
actively looking for a parcel for a community park in the western part of the community
right now.
-5-
Chairwoman Khan added the school site could be used by the surrounding neighborhood.
With no further comments the public hearing closed.
Commissioner Polk discussed commercial and office land uses. She stated she would love
to see commercial incorporated at least on the main roads.
Mr. McDonald stated the Comprehensive Plan o designates this area for residential which
is the only option right now. To rezone it office or commercial, the Comprehensive Plan
would have to be amended. Access control issues would be another problem with small
parcels along Broadmoor. Access points would be controlled better with block walls and
landscaping associated with residential development. There are 145 acres of commercial
zoning to the south which permits offices and other commercial uses.
Chairwoman Khan asked if R zoning could be used.
Mr. McDonald answered RT is a transition zone for areas that don’t have a chance for
utilities for many years.
Mr. White stated the Comprehensive Plan contains policy statements directly contrary to
what was mentioned. The City is prohibited from stringing commercial out on arterial
streets by land use and transportation policies in the Comprehensive plan just because of
the kinds of access issues it creates. Instead they are concentrated at nodes (two -
intersections) and as Mr. McDonald mentioned, there are 150 acres, which will likely end
up being closer to 200 or more acres immediately to the southwest in the Broadmoor Area
for commercial.
Commissioner Polk asked about a rezone a couple of months ago where a residential
property rezoned a portion of the property to C-1.
Mr. White explained that it was already zoned commercial and they rezoned a portion of it
to residential but left 6 commercial lots.
Chairwoman Khan stated that she understands the Comprehensive Plan for the proposed
site only allows for R-1 but they would like to see some buffering with commercial in those
neighborhoods so it is not a sea of homes. She asked if they need to wait until the
Comprehensive Plan expires and suggest at that time new goals.
Mr. White responded that is exactly the process. The Comprehensive Plan is set for low -
density residential. In 2018 there will be more options when the Comprehensive Plan is
reviewed.
Commissioner Polk asked what the Commission can do in the short term before revising
the Comprehensive Plan to incentivize or support commercial development.
Mr. White answered that they will get a chance this year to review in particular the
Broadmoor Area Master Plan as well as an Environmental Impact Statement at the same
time.
-6-
Commissioner Greenaway stated that the options for this application are to either approve
the zoning or not. It currently is not in city limits. If the Commission approves the
application, it can be annexed and zoned low-density residential.
Chairwoman Khan asked if there are any impacts on the School District if it is not
annexed into the City.
Mr. White stated yes, it could develop with half acre lots in the County and there will still
be kids in schools. He added that the School District also has 25 acres on the Department
of Natural Resources property just south of the interstate east of Road 84. The City is
working with them on a school park site. The City met with the School District recently to
talk about the possibility of school sites in the Broadmoor Area. They will be seeking out
properties for schools in this area.
Commissioner Polk asked if the County has a school impact fee.
Mr. White responded that they do not.
Commissioner Polk clarified that if the property is developed as County, the School
District will not receive any impact fees.
Mr. White stated that is correct.
Commissioner Polk asked if they would have to rezone it to be used for low-density
residential.
Commissioner Greenaway clarified that if it isn’t annexed, it would have to be rezoned by
the County.
Mr. White added that the half acre lot development pattern is occurring north west of this
site. There are several brand new homes on half acre lots and it is a problematic zoning
arrangement occurring in the County. The planned density development tool is a way to
have some mix and match size of lots which in the end will still yield the same density but
you can have places for starter homes or places for larger families.
Commissioner Bowers moved, seconded by Commissioner Polk, to adopt the findings of
fact as contained in the April 21, 2016 staff report. The motion passed 4 to 1 with
Commissioner Greenaway dissenting.
Commissioner Bowers moved, seconded by Commissioner Polk, based on the findings of
fact as adopted, the Planning Commission recommend the City Council zone the Mullen
Annexation Area to R-1, as indicated on the zoning map identified as Exhibit #1 attached
to the April 21, 2016 staff report. The motion passed 4 to 1 with Commissioner
Greenaway dissenting.
B. Code Amendment Temporary Businesses in the I-182 Overlay Zone
(MF# CA 2016-001)
-7-
Chairwoman Khan read the master file number and asked for comments from staff.
Dave McDonald, City Planner, discussed the code amendment for temporary businesses in
the I-182 Overlay Zone. About 5-6 years ago the zoning regulations were amended to
include standards for temporary businesses that wanted to locate in the I-182 Corridor. At
that time staff was receiving requests from multiple temporary businesses to locate on
Road 68 and the manor of which many of them operated detracted from the look of the
area. The concern was that these temporary businesses were coming in and operating in
parking lots and detracting from the overall character of the neighborhood. Since the
adoption of the code there haven’t been many temporary businesses locate in that area.
There is a food truck near Robert Wayne Drive and Burden Boulevard that has operated
for a number of years and recently there was a hot dog stand in the TRAC parking lot. For
the last couple of years there has been a small attractive trailer on Burden selling shaved
ice, called We Ice. When looking at the We Ice application last year and checking the code
it appeared staff was interpreting the code incorrectly and We Ice should not have been
approved at the location where they were operating. The code has a couple of separation
standards for temporary businesses. One requires temporary businesses to be located
300 feet from residential areas and the other requires a 500 foot separation from other
temporary businesses. This is what caused the confusion on the We Ice application. We
Ice was operating just a little over 300 feet of the other food truck, however, because they
had already spent money and hooked up electrical facilities, staff allowed them to continue
their operation last year but were informed that this year they would need to eit her have
the code amended or find a new location. They made a written request to have the code
amended.
Mr. McDonald discussed the 250 foot spacing requirement for temporary vendor spacing
in the central core of the community and pointed out that the most common spacing
requirement in the zoning code was 300 feet. A number of examples were provided. I Staff
recommended the code be changed to allow spacing 300 feet for temporary businesses in
the I-182 area. With other standards in place regulating temporary businesses Staff was
confident the 300 foot space suggestion would work.
Commissioner Greenaway asked if the code is amended to 300 feet if We Ice would have to
move since they hooked up to electricity already.
Mr. McDonald stated that they wouldn’t have to move since they are 380 feet from the
other food truck.
Commissioner Polk stated that the Planning Commissioner’s received a page of Facebook
comments regarding We Ice handed to them on the bench. She asked where these
comments were found.
Mr. McDonald stated that they were pulled from the City of Pasco’s Facebook page and
those comments are part of the record.
Commissioner Bowers asked about the location of the other food truck located near We
Ice.
Mr. McDonald responded the food truck is on the lot next to Vierra’s Bakery.
-8-
Commissioner Bowers asked if either temporary business had complained about the
distance between each other.
Mr. McDonald answered they had not.
Commissioner Bowers asked how much a permit costs for a temporary vendor.
Mr. McDonald responded they have an initial application fee and then they have a
monthly fee they pay unlike a permanent business that only pays a one-time fee for the
year. This is because temporary businesses require more monitoring by Code
Enforcement than a regular business.
Commissioner Bowers asked how the vendors at Food Truck Friday operate as they are
next to each other.
Mr. McDonald stated that Food Truck Friday doesn’t apply because it is under the
Downtown Pasco Development Association and the Farmer’s Market.
Crystal Worcott, 54 Applegate Lane, Burbank, WA spoke on behalf of We Ice. She stated
that she is one of the four owners of We Ice and they really enjoy doing business in the
City of Pasco and have been successful. She appreciates the help from the city staff and it
was explained to them that they couldn’t return to that location due to the 500 feet
requirement from the other vendor. They looked for other locations to operate, including a
location in Richland as well as Kennewick and were ready to move forward but the
residents of Pasco asked them to stay. The temporary business near them is a taco truck
so they are not competing or taking business from each other. They are asking for this
code amendment so that they can stay in Pasco for their customers.
Ryan Johnson, 6114 Dorchester Court, spoke in support of the code amendment. He
stated that he loves to ride his bike to this location and it is a good thing to have in this
part of Pasco.
Lynn Hendrix, 733 S. Hawaii Street, Kennewick, WA spoke in support of the code
amendment and We Ice. He stated that he enjoys taking his grandkids to We Ice. The
service and quality of the product are great and the atmosphere is great. It is a place to
visit and be a part of the community.
With no further comments the public hearing closed.
Commissioner Greenaway moved, seconded by Commissioner Bowers, to adopt findings of
fact as contained in the April 21, 2016 staff memo on Temporary Business Standards.
The motion passed unanimously.
Commissioner Greenaway moved, seconded by Commissioner Bowers, the Planning
Commission recommend the City Council adopt the proposed amendments to the
Temporary Business Standards as attached to the April 21, 2016 staff memo to the
Planning Commission. The motion passed unanimously.
-9-
C. Code Amendment Home Occupations/Client Present (MF# CA 2015-
007)
Chairwoman Khan read the master file number and asked for comments from staff.
Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director, discussed the code
amendment application for home occupations with clients present. This item has been
discussed by the Planning Commission at previous meetings as a workshop item. The
code amendment would allow under certain circumstances the ability for people who have
a home use or small business in their home to be able to have a few clients come to the
home which is currently prohibited in Pasco. Based on the last workshop, the ordinance
has been prepared and does a couple of things related such as added dog bo arding and
kenneling to the list of prohibited home occupations based on comments and it allows
clients access to home occupations provided standards are met. There are conditions in
the staff report in which the home occupations will have to meet. The first one limits
client access to two hours between 8:00 AM – 8:00 PM. It limits automobile traffic to two
vehicles on the property at any given time and prohibits the boarding of kenneling of
animals. There are other conditions also listed in the ordinance that will continue to be in
effect and provide a necessary amount of conditioning that would be appropriate to make
a small adjustment to the ordinance that governs home occupations. The staff
recommendation is that the Commission consider the ordinance revising home
occupations and that comes back to the Planning Commission in May for deliberations
and a recommendation to City Council.
Commissioner Bowers asked if there was a limit on the number of clients per day.
Mr. White responded that there is a limit that is listed in the ordinance.
Chairwoman Khan stated that no more than 8 customer vehicles may visit the dwelling
unit in any given day. She asked if that would be a concern with occupancy of clients at
one time.
Mr. White answered no it would not be a concern.
Commissioner Bowers asked if there is not policy for in home occupations currently.
Mr. White replied that at this time there are regulations for in home occupations but along
with their staff report is a proposed ordinance with the revisions crossed out and changes
added. For example, currently the ordinance states that aside from private tutoring
clients cannot be at the premise but it has been replaced with wording that it clients are
limited at two hours per day, between 8:00 AM – 8:00 PM and that no more than two
vehicles on site at any given time and that there can be no more than eight vehicles in any
given day.
Commissioner Bowers asked what would happen if this code amendment is approved but
a neighbor feels that the eight vehicles per day is untenable for them, if they would have to
write to the City to have the code amendment revised after going through the Planning
Commission and City Council again.
Mr. White answered yes, if policy is based on one complaint.
-10-
Dave McDonald, City Planner, added that typically the things that staff will see are one
chair beauty salons in homes and there would likely just be one person going to the home
and there wouldn’t be all that many people coming to the home so it wouldn’t be a big
issue.
Commissioner Bowers responded that for certain cultures they may need more than two
hours to get their hair done. She asked where the two hour limit came from.
Mr. White replied that there is line of what is fair for people who have home occupations
and what is fair for the neighborhood that doesn’t expect a certain amount of commercial
traffic in a neighborhood and this is trying to strike that balance. The same thing co uld
be said for some people who do taxes as some clients might take longer than two hours.
Commissioner Polk added that it would take a neighbor who is very persistent in watching
their neighbors in home occupation and they would have to document each person that is
there for longer than two hours and then call code enforcement to complain. She asked if
the home occupation could get a special permit for the exception.
Mr. White responded no.
Commissioner Bowers responded that she was concerned because she didn’t want it to
appear racist because there was a limit on the hours for how long a person can stay to get
their hair done, as some textures of hair and procedures can take a long time.
Chairwoman Khan stated that she understands both sides but stated that the two hour
rule could be in place for code enforcement purposes in case there is an issue and the
home occupation is abusing the rule.
Commissioner Polk asked if there was an example to site to make the two hour rule
necessary.
Commissioner Greenaway says it’s already going on and nobody is licensed.
Commissioner Polk stated that she specifically wanted to know if there is a reason to limit
the number of hours per client visit since we aren’t allowing multiple clients or vehicles at
a time.
Commissioner Greenaway stated that a home -based business doesn’t typically deal with
multiple vehicles.
Commissioner Polk asked if the time limit was removed from the ordinance if that would
hinder code enforcement in any way.
Mr. White responded that the Planning Commission can make whatever recommendation
they would like but the practical effect though is that it could hinder effective enforcement
if it ever came down to that of home occupations that have clients coming to the home.
Chairwoman Khan asked if the conditions are similar to other local jurisdictions.
-11-
Mr. White answered yes. At one of the workshop meetings staff provided a matrix that
listed the regulations of Kennewick and Richland which are both very similar but Pasco,
for whatever reason, did not allow clients to visit home occupations except for tutoring.
The reason this code amendment came about is because it was suggested by a citizen who
had just moved to Pasco from one of the other local jurisdictions.
Chairwoman Khan asked if any of the local jurisdictions has helped with the proposed
ordinance.
Mr. White responded no but from his experience when he worked at Kennewick and with
his experience with Pasco’s Code Enforcement, home occupations don’t typically generate
complaints unless they are visibly contrary to the regulations, such as, car repair or
landscaping companies.
With no further comments the public hearing closed.
Commissioner Greenaway moved, seconded by Commissioner Polk, to close the public
hearing and schedule deliberations, the adoption of findings of fact and development of a
recommendation for City Council for the May 19, 2016 meeting. The motion passed 3 to 2
with Commissioner Bowers and Commissioner Mendez dissenting.
COMMENTS:
Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director, discussed upcoming City
Council interviews for new Planning Commissioners for the two vacant positions on
Monday, April 25, 2016.
Cinco de Mayo is May 7, 2016 in Downtown Pasco and is a fun event to attend. The
downtown consultant will be there to answer any questions and will explain in more
detail, in particular their ideas and thoughts for Peanuts Park. The City is looking at the
revitalization of that area as a centerpiece for the downtown core.
The Department of Natural Resources, who has property south of the freeway, west of
Road 68, was going to go to public auction in June but it has been pushed out later in the
year. They’re working very hard to partner with the City in developing a wa y to put Chapel
Hill Boulevard all the way through and Road 76 to roughly halfway up the land. This will
involve a Local Improvement District (LID) to create a four lane road roughly a half mile
long with utilities, lighting, landscaping, bike lanes, etc. What the City is trying to avoid is
the cost of the LID exceeding the assessed value of the parcels which would make selling
them impossible.
The GESA rezone application for the barbed-wire fence issue is going to City Council for a
closed record hearing on May 2, 2016 based on Council’s decision. However, between the
end of February and end of March, GESA removed their barbed -wire which will be
discussed at the Council meeting.
Work is continuing on the Broadmoor property. Staff expects to be mostly wrapped up
around October 1, 2016. A professional land designer and traffic analysis/engineering
team has been helping.
-12-
State law was recently passed regarding the Open Records Act, which was emailed to each
Planning Commissioner. The law causes ind ividual commission/board/council members
to be held liable should violations of the Open Public Meeting Act occur.
With no further discussion or business, the Planning Commission was adjourned at
8:25 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
David McDonald, City Planner