Loading...
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