Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-17-2016 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes-1- REGULAR MEETING November 17, 2016 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at 7:00pm by Chairwoman Roach. POSITION MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT No. 1 Tanya Bowers No. 2 Kurt Lukins No. 3 Paul Mendez No. 4 Alecia Greenaway No. 5 Joe Cruz No. 6 Loren Polk No. 7 Zahra Roach No. 8 Pam Bykonen No. 9 Gabriel Portugal APPEARANCE OF FAIRNESS: Chairwoman Roach read a statement about the appearance of fairness for hearings on land use matters. There were no declarations. Chairwoman Roach 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. There were no objections. ADMINISTERING THE OATH: Chairwoman Roach explained that state law requires testimony in quasi-judicial hearings such as held by the Planning Commission be given under oath or affirmation. Chairwoman Roach swore in all those desiring to speak. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Portugal moved, seconded by Commissioner Greenaway that the minutes dated October 20, 2016 be approved. The motion passed unanimously. OLD BUSINESS: A. Special Permit Location of wireless antennas (Verizon Wireless) (MF# SP 2016-011) Chairwoman Roach read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director, discussed the special permit application for the location of wireless antennas. The applicant is proposing to locate the antennas on the existing Walmart building. Staff had no additional comments or changes since the previous meeting. -2- Commissioner Greenway moved, seconded by Commissioner Polk, to adopt findings of fact and conclusions therefrom as contained in the November 17, 2016 staff report. The motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Greenaway moved, seconded by Commissioner Polk, based on the findings of fact and conclusions as adopted the Planning Commission recommend the City Council grant a special permit to allow the installation of wireless communication facilities on Lot 1, Short Plat 2004-13 addressed 4820 Road 68, with conditions as contained in the November 17, 2016 staff report. The motion passed unanimously. B. Comp Plan Amendment Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan (Sharma) (MF# CPA 2016-001) Chairwoman Roach read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Dave McDonald, City Planner, explained the application involved changing the land use designation of a piece of property at the northwest corner of Burns Road and Broadmoor Boulevard, from low density residential to high density residential. Staff had no additional comments since the previous meeting. Commissioner Polk moved, seconded by Commissioner Portugal, to adopt findings of fact and conclusions therefrom as contained in the November 17, 2016 staff report. The motion passed 5 to 1 with Commissioner Greenaway dissenting. Commissioner Polk moved, seconded by Commissioner Portugal, based on the findings of fact and conclusions therefrom the Planning Commission recommend the City Council amend the Comprehensive Plan designation for the Sharma property (Parcel # 115-180- 064) from Low Density Residential to High Density Residential. The motion passed 5 to 1 with Commissioner Greenaway dissenting. C. Comp Plan Amendment Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan (Rowell) (MF# CPA 2016-003) Chairwoman Roach read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director, discussed the amendment explaining it involved changing the land use designation of approximately 15 acres from low density residential and mixed residential commercial to commercial . Staff had no additional comments since the previous meeting. Chairwoman Roach asked why the Comprehensive Plan Amendment process is being used as opposed to a special permit process. Mr. White responded that the applicant anticipates C-3 zoning on the property and without the underlying Comprehensive Plan designation allowing that use a C-3 rezone could not occur. At some point the Planning Commission may get applications for items requiring special permits. The mixed residential and commercial designation would not allow for C-3 zoning. -3- Chairwoman Roach asked if the land to the north is the Pasco Flea Market. Mr. White responded no. Chairwoman Roach asked what is south of the property on ‘A’ Street. Mr. White answered the property was zoned I-1 and I-2 below that. Chairwoman Roach asked if that would conform with C-3 zoning. Mr. White stated industrial zoning allows more uses than C-3 zoning. Chairwoman Roach asked if staff knew of any impacts to nearby neighborhoods. Mr. White responded that he didn’t foresee negative impacts. Dave McDonald, City Planner, added that the whole property abuts the wrecking yard/holding yard for wrecked vehicles. The applicant over the years has had numerous requests from people to locate businesses on his property but none of them would fit due to the current land use designation. That is what drove this request. Commissioner Greenaway moved, seconded by Commissioner Mendez, to adopt findings of fact and conclusions therefrom as contained in the November 17, 2016 staff report. The motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Greenaway moved, seconded by Commissioner Bykonen, based on the findings of fact and conclusions therefrom the Planning Commission recommend the City Council amend the Comprehensive Plan designation for Blocks 1, 7, 8, 9 and 10 of the Washington Addition to Pasco Subdivision from Low Density Residential and Mixed Residential/Commercial to Commercial. The motion passed unanimously. D. Rezone Rezone from C-1 (Retail Business) to R-3 (Medium Density Residential) (ProMade Construction LLC) (MF# Z 2016-004) Chairwoman Roach read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Dave McDonald, City Planner, stated Staff had no additional comments. Commissioner Polk moved, seconded by Commissioner Greenaway, to adopt findings of fact and conclusions therefrom as contained in the November 17, 2016 staff report. The motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Polk moved, seconded by Commissioner Greenaway, based on the findings of fact and conclusions as adopted the Planning Commission recommend the City Council rezone Lot 21, Coles Estates from C-1 to C-3. The motion passed unanimously. -4- PUBLIC HEARINGS: A. Comp Plan Amendment Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan (West) (MF# CPA 2016-002) Continued from 10/20/16 Chairwoman Roach read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Dave McDonald, City Planner, explained the application involved 160 acres at the northeast corner of Rd 52 and Burns Rd. A hearing was continued from last month at the request of the applicant. Mr. McDonald explained the Growth Management Act, allows cities to apply a “market factor” for UGA boundaries to ensure boundaries do not cause property sales to rise. That is currently happening in Pasco because there are so few properties left within the UGA. The Department of Natural Resources auction recently brought in $42,000-$45,000 an acre for the DNR land. This illustrates there is need for expanding the boundary based on the market factor. There is also justification to expand the boundary based on population projections. The Department of Financial Management estimates Pasco will need to do accommodate another 54,385 people in the next 20 years. To do that, there will need to be more land – anywhere from 900-1,400 acres. Staff also indicated the City and utility providers have been planning for additional growth through facility expansion. The PUD has added substations and the City has updated Water and Sewer Plans. At the previous hearing significant discussion centered on airport approach zones and the need to protect the airport. That information was in the Planning Commission memo. Mr. McDonald discussed various options to be considered and stated the applicant’s letter addressing airport concerns was attached to the memo. Commissioner Portugal asked for clarification if the County was a part of the process. Mr. McDonald stated yes and explained the process. Commissioner Polk asked if the area north is being considered for housing in the County. Mr. McDonald stated yes, it is the Clark Addition. Commissioner Polk asked if there were any building height restrictions in the Clark Addition. Mr. McDonald responded he believes the height restriction to be 30’ in those areas. Chairwoman Roach asked if that was a concern for building residential. Mr. McDonald answered that a typical two-story house is 24’-25’. At 30’ a two-story home could still be built. Commissioner Mendez asked if Option 1 was the most intrusive on the protective area and Option 4 being the least intrusive. -5- Mr. McDonald stated that was correct. Chairwoman Roach asked if only 75-80 acres of the 160 acres, could be built on. Mr. McDonald said that was correct. Chairwoman Roach asked about the portion of land south of the interstate auctioned off by the Department of Natural Resources, if it helped the City offset the needs for acreage. Mr. McDonald said no, that land was already in the UGA. Chairwoman Roach asked what the projected population would be of the 75-80 acres if incorporated into the urban growth boundary. Mr. McDonald said typically Pasco’s household population averages 3.3 individuals. Commissioner Bykonon asked in staff’s opinion, how the different options on the urban growth boundary affect the future potential annexations. Mr. McDonald responded the shaped would have no effect. Commissioner Bykonnen clarified that she was referring to the Clark Addition , if they wanted to be annexed to the city. Mr. McDonald stated that the Clark Addition wouldn’t be able to annex until they were within the urban growth boundary. James Carmody, 230 S. 2nd Street, Yakima, WA, spoke on behalf of the applicant as the attorney. He stated they were requesting Option 1. He stated the staff report was exceptional, detailed, accurate and consistent with the growth management requirements . He briefly discussed the market factor and need for additional ac reage as projected by the OFM. He also addressed the airport concerns stating the regulations are already in place to protect the airport and to alter the request boundary to match the airport zones would be to disregard the adopted regulations. There is no legal or policy basis to disregard the regulations. Chairwoman Roach stated that she didn’t see four options in the staff report, only four photos as exhibits. Mr. McDonald clarified Exhibits 1, 2, 3 or 4 are the options. He stated it would make the most sense to have a neat, square boundary He added that condition #28 was similar to #10 so when making the motion, it should be less condition #28. Chairwoman Roach read condition #28 outload for the audience and Commissioners. Ron Foracker, 3601 N. 20th Avenue, Manager of Tri-Cities Airport, spoke on behalf of the Port of Pasco. With him was Spencer Montgomery of JUB Engineers. He addressed the -6- comments made by the applicant’s attorney. Spencer Montgomery, 2810 W. Clearwater Avenue, stated he worked with the Port, City and County in amending the overlay zones. Prior to that process, the County ordinance and City ordinance were identical. Through the update process the ordinances were identical until the end when minor differences occurred. He briefly discussed those differences. Zone 4 has different zoning in the County. If the property were to remain in the County there would only be 8 homes. If it’s brought into the UGA and the City, there could be 80 homes. He stressed this neighborhood would be off the end of a runway He presented an option to stay out of Zone 2 and 4. He added that when this item went forward a couple of years ago, the Department of Commerce asked that this application be considered in the larger context of the Comprehensive Plan Update in 2018. Commissioner Bykonen asked if there was anything that would preclude the County from increasing the density if they went through a Comprehensive Plan Update to change to a higher density. Mr. McDonald answered that they would have to change the zoning but the limiting factor out in the County is the lack of sewer. Chairwoman Roach asked what would be the first choice option for the airport. Mr. Foracker answered they would like to keep all of that property out of the urban growth boundary. Chairwoman Roach asked how far they project the runway extending and if it would be reasonable for the airport to purchase land further out. Mr. Foreaker responded that it would come out 1,800 feet. In order to do that the approach needs to be clear so they would have to remove part of the hillside on property already owned by the airport. Chairwoman Roach asked for clarification on Zone 4 and if it is where zero homes cou ld be built. Mr. Montgomery answered that Zone 2 is where no residential homes could be built. Zone 4 is 2 residences or lots per acre. Mr. Carmody addressed the comments from Mr. Foracker. He reiterated that the City passed zoning ordinances and compatibility standards for urban level development and the Port agreed with it. They also made a distinction between the County zoning and City zoning. There is a reason for the difference under growth management you can’t provide urban services outside of a growth area. So areas of the County are going to be less dense because they can’t have the same services as the City. In order to provide those services sufficiently and economically the density must increase. Another thing the compatibility standards require an Avigation Easement; it requires people who live there to acknowledge that they are within the airport flight areas, that there will be noise and inconveniences. With no further comments the public hearing closed. -7- Chairwoman Roach asked if Zone 4 could be kept to the County guidelines if they voted to bring in the entire 160 acres. Mr. McDonald said no, Zone 4 is 2 units per acre in the City. Chairwoman Roach stated that in 2014 the Planning Commission approved this item and sent it to the City Council where it was approved and sent to the County where it was rejected. Chairwoman Greenaway stated that she would keep it out of the urban growth boundary because the airport eventually will bring the runway out . If it is brought into the City there will still be areas where they cannot develop so it would be difficult for installing utilities and the cost to bring utilities to that area would be high for land unused. Chairwoman Roach agreed that she would like to see it undeveloped for the airport but she also feels it is unjust to the land owner who would like to do something with that property and she didn’t want to see it rendered useless. Commissioner Greenaway responded that it’s not useless. The land is in the County and homes could still be developed. Commissioner Roach added that then it would not serve the City. Commissioner Greenaway responded that anything done on this property wou ld not serve the City well. Commissioner Portugal asked what the advantage is for the City for this property to be included in the urban growth boundary. Mr. McDonald replied that there are a couple of things that bringing this property into the urban growth boundary could do for the City. The City is required to have an urban growth boundary of sufficient size to meet the population projections that the OFM has provided. Right now there isn’t enough room as the City needs 900 -1,400 more acres. Also, as experienced with the sale of the DNR property, the urban growth boundary is creating an artificial restriction on land, driving the cost of land up. The attorney for the applicant mentioned the concern over affordable housing, which is one of the goals of the growth management act, to provide affordable housing for residents of the State. Bringing this in would help meet the needs for future growth and to fulfil the obligation to provide for the projected 54,000 individuals. Commissioner Polk added that if these houses would be added to the City they would pay school impact fees but not if they are in the County. Mr. McDonald stated that is correct as the County does not have a mechanism to obtain those fees. In the City they would be paying schoo l impact fees, park impact fees and a traffic impact fee. Commissioner Polk also added that it appears that the airport will be expanding but it -8- seems unfair to put limitations on properties that people currently own. Chairwoman Roach was in agreement with Commissioner Polk and stated that the City could use the additional 75-80 acres of residential development. Commissioner Greenaway stated that she didn’t want it included into the City at all. She is not willing to put people’s lives at risk. Commissioner Polk responded that the land use already has limitations to ensure safety. She also discussed other areas that were already developed in those zones and felt if they were that dangerous it could exist. Commissioner Greenaway discussed property the airport had to purchase due to safety as well as airports in other cities that have had to relocate their airport for safety reasons. Chairwoman Roach stated that she shared Commissioner Greenaway’s concern for safety but there are more car accidents than plane crashes. Commissioner Bykonen agreed that expansion of the airport is a long ways off and it may never happen. There is an overlay in place that restricts the number of homes that could be built in a certain area so it would be protected. She is not in favor of irregular boundaries and this is just the first step, including in the urban growth area. After this an annexation would still have to occur along with zoning and platting. She was in favor of Option 1. Commissioner Mendez stated that there needs to be a balance of the property owner’s rights and accommodate the needs of the expanding population and safety. He felt that Option 4 was a good compromise. Commissioner Portugal stated that he was in favor of Option 4 but would like to t ake a section out that was discussed by the Port of Pasco, so he wanted Option 5 which was the same as Option 4 with the northwest section left out. Chairwoman Roach stated that she is in favor of Option 1. Commissioner Polk stated that she was in favor Option 1. Commissioner Greenaway said that she was not in favor of any of the options and pointed out that even Option 1 would not be an even line. Commissioner Polk moved, seconded by Commissioner Bykonen, to adopt findings of fact and conclusions therefrom as contained in the November 17, 2016 staff report, exempting condition #28. The motion passed 5 to1 with Commissioner Greenaway dissenting. Commissioner Polk moved, seconded by Commissioner Bykonen, based on the findings of fact and conclusions therefrom the Planning Commission recommend the Pasco Urban Growth Boundary be amended per Exhibit # 1 attached to the staff memo of November 17, 2016. The motion failed with Commissioner Portugal, Commissioner Greenaway and Commissioner Mendez dissenting thus a tie vote. -9- Mr. McDonald stated that this item will go to City Council and they will have the option of taking a look at the split vote or move it forward and approve it themselves with one of the options and send it to the County. Chairwoman Roach added that Council could look at Option 1 or Option 4 with an amendment to the northwest corner of the property. Commissioner Portugal asked to make another motion. Commissioner Portugal moved, seconded by Commissioner Mendez, based on the findings of fact and conclusions therefrom the Planning Commission recommend the Pasco Urban Growth Boundary be amended per Exhibit #4 attached to the staff memo of November 17, 2016. The motion failed with Chairwoman Roach, Commissioner Polk and Commissioner Greenaway dissenting. Mr. McDonald explained if the Planning Commission needed additional information it could be provided at the next meeting and at that point a recommendation could be made to Council. Commissioner Polk asked if it was possible for City Council to send the recommendation back to the Planning Commission for further review and another recommendation. Mr. McDonald responded it was possible. Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director, stated there could be another Exhibit, Exhibit 5, added as an option to consider. Chairwoman Roach asked what the motion would then be changed to. Mr. White stated the motion would be to continue the deliberations to the next meeting, although not the public hearing since it has been closed. Commissioner Portugal moved, seconded by Commissioner Mendez, to continue deliberations to the December 15, 2016 meeting. The motion passed 5 to 1 with Commissioner Greenaway dissenting. B. Special Permit Location of a Cosmetology & Barber School in a C-1 Zone (Avila) (MF# SP 2016-012) Chairwoman Roach read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Dave McDonald, City Planner, discussed the special permit for the location of a cosmetology and barber school in a C-1 (Retail Business) zone. The location is an existing salon and has been operating for about 9 years and the applicant wants to add a State approved cosmetology school. There currently isn’t a cosmetology school in Pasco. For a number of years, Claire’s Beauty College was located at the corner of 4 th and Lewis in Downtown Pasco but that school is no longer in Pasco. Mr. McDonald explained the commercial history of the neighborhood and discusse d the problem with the lack of parking. It was noted that the applicant had secured an agreement with the landlord for -10- additional parking to the west. The additional parking is conveniently located close to the shop so. The staff report contains findings of fact, conclusions and some special approval conditions. Evelyn Menzel, 6809 W. Clearwater, Kennewick, WA, spoke on behalf of the applicant, Maria Avila. She stated the owners of the nearby businesses know the applicant and don’t mind her need for additional parking. This would be a bilingual school which would be unique to the area. Chairwoman Roach asked if the applicant has had a chance to look at the approval conditions in the staff report. Ms. Menzel said that she had. Arnoldo & Mariana Sita, 4825 Bermuda Dunes Drive, owners of the barbershop to the right of the proposed cosmetology school. They voiced concern over the lot that would be used for parking and stated that it is a high traffic area. Ms. Sita stated that over the years they have paid to re-do the parking lot many times because there are so many people that park in that lot because there isn’t enough total parking in the area. She also said that it has become a hostile environment and at times the police have been called. Chairwoman Roach asked if there were other businesses that shared the parking lot. Mr. & Mrs. Sita responded that there were. Chairwoman Roach asked Mr. & Mrs. Sita if they had taken up their problems with Code Enforcement. Mr. Sita stated he has. He has worked with Mr. McDonald several times and would like to place a fence to help remediate the problem. Chairwoman Roach responded that she appreciate s the input and bringing it to attention that parking is such an issue. As for solving the current parking issues, the Planning Commission is unable to resolve the problems. Mr. Sita responded that he would like the Planning Commission to deny the specia l permit for this beauty school since it would only add to the problem. Chairwoman Roach asked if Mr. Sita has approached the other business owners who are renting spaces. Mr. Sita answered that he had but they call him a racist and they have attacked his wife. Commissioner Polk asked for clarification on the location of parking. Mr. Sita explained where the parking is located and where the majority of customers park. There are roughly 9 parking spaces in the gravel lot on the side. Most cars park parallel to the building. -11- Ms. Menzel addressed the comments made by Mr. & Mrs. Sita. She had the Planning Commission look at the site photo and pointed out a sign he has posted for towing. He uses this service frequently and customers and non-customers alike have been towed. Many people choose not to park in this lot not just because of water puddles but also because they are well aware of the hostility with the parking. She explained where most of the customers park and said that many of the customers walk to the store. They have made arrangements with the owner of the building for the parking for the school and the students, clients and customers will know where to park. Commissioner Greenaway asked how many students will be attending at one time. Ms. Mendez said there would be no more than 6 students at a time and 1-2 instructors. With no further questions or comments the public hearing closed. Chairwoman Roach asked if there is any City remediation to assist with the issues between tenants. Mr. McDonald said no, these issues arise from time to time and are civil matters between the two property owners. Chairwoman Roach asked if there was any additional information about Code Enforcement or if that is who they need to work with for parking. Mr. McDonald responded that Code Enforcement might not be able to do much on parking issues as it is a civil matter that the tenants need to work out. They could use fencing or enter into a rental agreement. Commissioner Portugal asked about the call to Code Enforcement and if that was shared with the Planning Department. Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director, stated that there would have to be a violation for Code Enforcement to act on but since there is no code violation on the property at this time. Commissioner Bykonen asked if the City staff person who took the photo of this property was present at the meeting. Mr. McDonald stated that it was Associate Planner, Jeff Adams, who was not present at the meeting. He went out and took photos for all of the reports contained in the meeting packet. He didn’t purposely pick a date or time when there were no cars, it just happened to be that way. Commissioner Bykonen responded that she was curious because she drives by this property nearly every day and was curious as to when the photos were taken because the parking lot is typically full and the photo presented to the Planning Commission didn’t represent what the parking lot usually looks like. -12- Chairwoman Roach asked how it was determined to allow 6 students as a part of the approval conditions. Mr. McDonald answered that when the applicant came in the parking problems were discussed as well as the size of the building. Commissioner Portugal 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 December 15, 2016 Planning Commission Meeting. The motion passed 5 to 1 with Commissioner Mendez abstaining. C. Special Permit Location of a Mini-Storage Facility in a C-1 Zone (Kim) (MF# SP 2016-013) Chairwoman Roach read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director, discussed the special permit application for the location of a mini -storage facility in a C-1 zone. Mini-storage facilities are permitted in the C-1 zone but only by the granting of a special permit. The proposal would construct two storage buildings each slightly less than 4,500 square feet. Staff has developed findings of fact, conclusions and tentative approval conditions for the proposal that mainly speak to aesthetics. Approval condition #6 in the staff report needs to be revised striking the 10’ landscaping strip; instead it should be an architectural or block wall. Joo Kim, 3712 Road 96, spoke on behalf of his application. With no further questions or comments the public hearing closed. Chairwoman Roach stated that she was not strongly opposed to this application but given the location she didn’t feel a storage facility was in harmony with the character of the neighborhood; such as, the Albertson’s, restaurants, banks, laundromat, school and strip malls. Commissioner Polk agreed with Chairwoman Roach except for across from the nearby laundromat they are building another strip mall east of the location. It will be fairly large and closes off the openness of Albertson’s which would help to isolate the school, keeping it more removed from the extra commercial traffic. The restaurants are closer to Court Street so the commercial feel doesn’t really flow down 22nd. Chairwoman Roach asked for clarification on the entry of the mini-storage facility and if it would be off of 22nd Avenue. Staff nodded yes. Commissioner Bykonen asked if this property has always been a vacant lot. Staff nodded yes. -13- Commissioner Greenaway moved, seconded by Commissioner Bykonen, to close the public hearing and schedule deliberations, the adoption of findings of fact and development of a recommendation for City Council for the December 15, 2016 Planning Commission Meeting. The motion passed unanimously. D. Special Permit Location of an Early Learning Center in the Senior Center Building (Pasco School District) (MF# SP 2016-014) Chairwoman Roach read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Dave McDonald, City Planner, explained the School District is in the process of entering into an agreement with the City to purchase the old Senior Center building between Marie Street and Brown Street. The School District would like to turn the Senior Center into an Early Learning Center for about 280 students along with 40 staff. The proposal is to create 10-11 classrooms within the building and have some additional space for testing, administrative purposes and a nurse. As with any educational facility, the District is required to obtain a special permit before they can start renovations. The exterior of the building won’t change much except to add another driveway on the north side of the building onto Brown Street to create some pass through drop off for buses. Randy Nunamaker, 1215 W. Lewis Street, spoke on behalf of School District. The Early Learning Center will help provide learning for Pre -K students to get them on track and on time with other students entering into Kindergarten. The center will also provide intentional opportunities for special needs students to interact with typically developing peers. Commissioner Portugal asked how many buses are expected to be driving through the neighborhood. Mr. Nunamaker said probably 4-5 buses and there would still be the opportunity for parents to drop off their students. Commissioner Bykonen asked staff if the surrounding neighborhood was notified about this public hearing. Mr. McDonald responded yes. Commissioner Bykonen asked if staff received any comments. Mr. McDonald answered that they haven’t. With no further questions or comments the public hearing closed. Commissioner Portugal asked if the facility is currently vacant. Mr. McDonald stated no. Commissioner Mendez moved, seconded by Commissioner Greenaway, to close the public -14- hearing and schedule deliberations, the adoption of findings of fact and development of a recommendation for City Council for the December 15, 2016 Planning Commission Meeting. The motion passed unanimously. E. Special Permit Location of Long Term Rental Units in the Thunderbird Motel (Hwang) (MF# SP 2016-015) Chairwoman Roach read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director, discussed the special permit application for the location of long term rental units in the Thunderbird Motel. The applicant is requesting residential dwelling units on the upper floor of an existing building in a C-2 zoning district in the Central Business District at 414 Columbia. The Municipal Code allows dwelling units on second floors of commercial properties as long as a special permit is issued. The property was constructed in the mid-60’s and Lewis Street was a much different corridor than it is today. It was the main thoroughfare in and out of town. That has since changed and the property has degraded in terms of quality of the provisions for itinerant use. As mentioned in the staff re port, there is a series of violations and issues at this address that seem to be chronic in nature. There are police calls and information provided to the Planning Commission and a suggestion that one of the issues is overall management of the property, not necessarily the physical location but rather how it is managed. The long term dwelling units might not help with those overall management issues. The staff report contains potential findings of fact, conclusions and a recommendation from staff to deny this application at the next meeting. Song Hwang, 414 W. Columbia Street, spoke on behalf of his application. Jongsuk Chung, 6610 Aintree Drive, helped interpret for Mr. Hwang and represent him. Mr. Hwang stated that most of his guests are low income . He has 10 units on the second and third floor of the motel that he would like to rent for long term. Recently he passed the City inspection. Since he is staying at the motel he does all of the management. He explained that he retained the police records for this property and in the past year from January 2015 the police were called 250 times but for 116 of those records there was no caller or victim listed. Chairwoman Roach explained the Planning Commission received the police reports in their packet. Mr. Hwang went over the police reports. He clarified there are homeless people who sleep behind his building and use the Thunderbird Motel as their address which often drives up the number of police reports. Chairwoman Roach asked if there are more people interested in using the motel for long term than for the typical use as a motel. Mr. Hwang replied that his motel has 42 rooms and but only 5 -10 rooms are used for long term uses at this time. -15- Commissioner Polk asked Mr. Hwang what his remedies were for dealing with long term tenants who might be some of the cause of some of the police calls. Ms. Chung said for Mr. Hwang that the motel has a policy that gives the tenants 3 days’ notice for the first incident and if there is another incident then he makes them vacate. Commissioner Bykonen asked what the plans are for the street level floors. Mr. Hwang responded that the first floor will still be a motel. Only the second and third floors will have long term units. Chairwoman Roach mentioned code violations in addition to the police reports and asked the applicant what he has down to remediate these code violations. Mr. Hwang said the City Inspector came out and they have passed everything. Chairwoman Roach asked when that inspection took place. Russell Glatt, 5 Sunflower Court, stated he agreed with staff that the special permit should not be granted. He stated the property has been an eyesore in Pasco for at least 20 years and just recently Code Enforcement went out on this property and cited numerous violations – about 37 violations. He said he is also a landlord in Pasco and has been trained to keep his properties well-kept and when the property is kept up you will attract better tenants. When the property is not maintained, it will attract accordingly. Chairwoman Roach asked Mr. Glatt what qualified him for code violations. Mr. Glatt responded that all of the code violations are public information on the City’s website. Commissioner Portugal asked if Mr. Glatt was a member of the Code Enforcement Board. Mr. Glatt said that he was as the Chairman. Commissioner Portugal asked if there were any corrections to this property when it was presented to the Code Enforcement Board. Mr. Glatt answered that this property did come up on their agenda, however, the owner did not come to the Code Enforcement Board and they were given a continuation to bring the property into compliance . Rolando Rodriguez, 7909 W. Dradie Street, stated he owns the building at 117 S. 3rd Avenue. There was a nuisance ordinance passed by the City Council and this property fits the description of violating the ordinance. There is already a list of violations at the property and there have been several problems with the tenants that has spilled over onto the neighboring properties. He has had two people arrested on his property – one person attacked his office clerk and another person exposed themselves. He would like to see the Planning Commission take the staff’s recommendation of denying the special permit. -16- Ms. Chung translated for Mr. Hwang that the only reason he wanted to have a long term permit is to have good clients stay longer and have a relationship with management. As a motel, he doesn’t know the character of a person who rents for just 1 -2 days but for the long term tenants he could know. With no further questions or comments the public hearing closed. Chairwoman Roach addressed some concerns about the findings of fact. She would like the inspector’s report to be included in the analysis, code violations and the status of this property as to whether or not it is in compliance. Commissioner Polk would like to add the applicant’s assertion that many of the police calls and complaints were not at the motel but rather nearby. Chairwoman Roach clarified that if this special permit application was denied, the business could still operate as a motel, just not for long term tenants. Commissioner Greenaway moved, seconded by Commissioner Mendez, to continue the public hearing to the December 15, 2016 meeting. The motion passed 5 to 1 with Commissioner Portugal abstaining. F. Rezone Rezone from C-1 (Retail Business) to C-3 (General Commercial) (Mohinder) (MF# Z 2016-005) Chairwoman Roach read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director, discussed the rezone application from C-1 (Retail Business) to C-3 (General Business). C-3 zoning is the heaviest of the commercial zoning designations. Mr. White explained the location and zoning for the property. The applicant has petitioned for a rezone so a U-Haul rental center could locate on the property. There has been a decline to the property with numerous Code Enforcement issues over the past several years . The staff report suggests there is a management issue with the property. Rezoning the property would not address the management issues. The C-3 zone allows uses that would not be appropriate at this location. In the past, the Planning Commission has recommended zoning changes with concomitant agreements that would prohibit negative use. Staff would suggest that given the public’s investment in the aesthetics of Lewis Street a U-Haul distribution facility would detract from an entryway into the City. The staff’s recommendation would be to deny the rezone. Jerry Hudnall, 1800 W. Lewis Street, spoke on behalf of the application, Mr. Mohinder Sohal. The purpose of the rezone would be to add the U-Haul services that would be a much smaller in scale than the one on Court Street. They would have approximately 5 trucks and 5 trailers parked facing Lewis Street. He addressed many of the concerns addressed by staff. He has managed the property for just over a year and it has improved. He stated that he has zero tolerance for public nuisances. He lives on site and if there is an issue, even in the middle of the night, he will kick out the guest. As for aesthetics, they recently had a grand opening of their renovated building. As for adding a U-Haul, it is common to have a U-Haul with a hotel/motel. He had emailed a list to City staff to be part of the record containing several hotels/motels that contain a U-Haul. He requested -17- the email be a part of the record. Commissioner Portugal asked Mr. Hudnall if he has had any multi-housing training. Mr. Hudnall responded that he has. Mr. Mendez asked if the hotel units are short term rentals or long term rentals. Mr. Hudnall stated that they only do short term rentals but they do have kitchenette units so people do stay a little longer. Don Rickard, 7208 W. Arrowhead, Kennewick, WA spoke on this application. He said that he is the Area Field Manager for U-Haul. There are 17 locations in the Tri-Cities, including West Richland and Benton City. The 17 stores in the Tri -Cities average 1.5 trucks per trucks per location and 2.5 trailers so the locations are small and that is what the proposed location would be like, not the location on Court Street. Rolando Rodriguez, 7909 W. Dradie Street, said he drives by this facility twice a day . While he would encourage the Planning Commission deny the rezone application as staff recommends. He would like to see the nuisance issues addressed first before adding more uses to this site, potentially making it worse. With no further questions or comments the public hearing closed. Commissioner Bykonen reminded the Commission that if approved the rezone would allow for the U-Haul service to operate but it could also allow for other uses that would not fit the character of the neighborhood. Commissioner Polk stated the staff report indicated a concomitant agreement could be used to ensure the only use allowed in the C-3 zone would be the U-Haul service. 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 December 15, 2016 Planning Commission Meeting. The motion passed 5 to 1 with Commissioner Portugal abstaining. OTHER BUSINESS: A. Plan Update Parks, Recreation & Forestry Plan (City of Pasco) (MF# PLAN 2016-001) Chairwoman Roach read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director, explained that the Planning Commission looks at the Parks, Recreation & Forestry Plan every 5 years and it is roughly that time. He introduced Dan Dotta, Facilities Manager, to discuss the plan. Mr. Dotta stated that the City uses the Park Plan to facilitate budgeting. The Plan is often -18- used to qualify for grants. Currently the Parks & Recreation Division is working on a grant to rebuild Schlagel Park. Chairwoman Roach asked if the Planning Commission should be familiar with the plan cover to cover. Mr. Dotta said no, it is similar to the last plan the Commission considered. The only difference is that the Forestry Plan is now included which has been overhauled. The rest has remained mostly the same. Typically more time is given to the Planning Commission to review the plan but there is an opportunity for a grant with a 75/25 match and the deadline is coming up. Commissioner Bykonen stated that she reviewed the plan and approves of the content but noticed some technical or editorial errors. Mr. Dotta stated that it is currently in draft form. Commissioner Mendez asked if there is any information on a water park. Mr. Dotta said that was correct. There were no further questions or comments. Commissioner Greenaway moved, seconded by Commissioner Portugal, to adopt the findings of facts as contained in the staff memo for the 2016 Park & Recreational Plan dated November 17, 2016. The motion passed unanimously. With no further discussion or business, the Planning Commission was adjourned at 9:52 p.m. Respectfully submitted, David McDonald, City Planner