Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-21-2016 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes-1- REGULAR MEETING December 21, 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. Commissioner Lukins declared that he was a member of the church that would be renting to one of the applicants on the agenda (MF# SP 2016-016), however he stated that he would remain impartial as long as the other Commissioners did not have concerns with him hearing that public hearing item. The Commissioners did not have any concerns. 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 Greenaway moved, seconded by Commissioner Mendez that the minutes dated November 17, 2016 be approved. The motion passed unanimously. OLD BUSINESS: A. Comp Plan Amendment Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan (West) (MF# CPA 2016-002) (Continued from 11/17/16) Chairwoman Roach read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Dave McDonald, City Planner, discussed the proposed amendment to the Comprehensive -2- Plan. He explained that the public hearing was closed at the previous meeting but the item was continued for further discussion by the Commission. As a result of the public hearings, staff made some modifications to the staff report. A paragraph was added under the “Environmental Determination” section relating to the Port of Pasco’s request for the Planning Commission to modify the applicant’s urban growth boundary amendment to exclude Zones 2 & 4 of the Airport Safety Zones but to do that that the Commission would be disregarding the code presently in place to protect the airport . If the Planning Commission decides not to recommend bringing the property into the UGA they will need additional findings of fact to support their decision. Denying the application would shift the public burden of additional airport protections onto the two property owners making it more difficult for them to develop or use their property. After consultation with the City Attorney, there are two options the Planning Commission could consider; accept the application for the amendment as proposed by the applicant or recommend that none of the area be brought into the urban growth boundary. To do the latter, the Planning Commission would have to develop additional findings of fact to justify why it shouldn’t be brought in. Given changes in the community and the new population estimate, it would be difficult to come up with findings that would lead to a recommendation not to accept any of the 160 acres. Staff also added an Exhibit based on discussion at the previous hearing. The City Council adopted the Airport Overlay Zones at the urging of the Port of Pasco and those overlay zones were specifically designed to protect the integrity of the airport and the airspace around the airport. Adding to the overlay zones by excluding this area from the urban growth boundary doesn’t change anything – whether they are in the boundary or not the regulations still provide protection to the airport. It does, however, shift a public burden to the property owners if the area should not be included in the boundary. Staff recommended Exhibit 1, bringing the entire property into the UGA. Commissioner Lukins 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 5 to 2 with Commissioner Greenaway and Commissioner Mendez dissenting. Commissioner Lukins moved, seconded by Commissioner Polk, 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 December 15, 2016. The motion passed 5 to 2 with Commissioner Greenaway and Commissioner Mendez 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, stated there were no changes to the staff report from the last meeting. Mr. McDonald noted that at the previous meeting one of the Commissioner’s asked the owner of the neighboring barbershop for photos of the parking lot during busy hours since the photos in the staff report did not show a lot of vehicles parked. Those pictures were placed on the bench for the Commissioner’s to view. Typically once the public hearing is closed, no further evidence is accepted but since a Commissioner requested this material during the hearing it was provided. Commissioner Polk asked if it was just one individual who owned the all units in the -3- building and then rented out the units. Mr. McDonald answered, yes. He believed that there are two tenants in the building and the owner also owns a building two doors down and possibly the old gas station. Mr. McDonald added that he needed to mention that in the approval conditions, #3 was added requiring the applicant to maintain a lease with the property owner for additional parking behind the building at 923 W Court Street. If the parking lease is voided for any reason then the beauty school must vacate the premises. Commissioner Polk stated that she appreciated the addition of the parking condition to help remediate any issues with parking. Commissioner Bykonen asked what the current hours of operation were for the beauty salon and what would the hours of operation be for the proposed school. Mr. McDonald was unsure of the current hours but said that the beauty school would likely keep the same hours as the existing salon. Commissioner Greenaway said that she also appreciated the parking condition. Commissioner Bykonen stated that while she understands the concerns that were voiced during the public hearing from the neighboring barber but felt that most of the traffic and parking related problems were from the convenient store in the building rather than the beauty salon. Chairwoman Roach asked if the applicant has seen the approval conditions and accepts them. Mr. McDonald replied yes. Commissioner Greenaway moved, seconded by Commissioner Polk, to adopt the findings of fact and conclusions therefrom as contained in the December 15, 2016 staff report. The motion passed 6 to 1 with Commissioner Mendez abstaining. Commissioner Greenaway moved, seconded by Commissioner Polk, based on the findings of fact and conclusions therefrom the Planning Commission recommend the City Council grant a special permit to Lupita’s Beauty Salon for the location of a Cosmetology and Barber School at 915 West Court Street with the conditions as contained in the December 15, 2016 staff report. The motion passed 6 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, stated there were no changes or additions to the report since the previous meeting. -4- Commissioner Polk moved, seconded by Commissioner Greenaway, to close the public hearing and adopt findings of fact and conclusions therefrom as contained in the December 15, 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 grant a special permit for the location of a mini-storage facility in a C-1 zoning district at the 1200 block of North 22nd Avenue (Parcel # 119 331 048) with the conditions as listed in the December 15, 2016 staff report. The motion passed unanimously. D. Special Permit Location of an Early Learning Center in the Senior Center Building (PSD #1) (MF# SP 2016-014) Chairwoman Roach read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Dave McDonald, City Planner, stated there were no changes or additional comments to the report since the previous meeting. Commissioner Lukins moved, seconded by Commissioner Greenaway, to adopt the findings of fact and conclusions therefrom as contained in the December 15, 2016 staff report. The motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Lukins moved, seconded by Commissioner Greenaway, based on the findings of fact and conclusions therefrom the Planning Commission recommend the City Council grant a special permit to the Pasco School district for the location of an Early Learning Center at 1315 N. 7th Avenue with the conditions as contained in the December 15, 2016 staff report. The motion passed unanimously. E. Rezone Rezone from C-1 (Retail Business) to C-3 (General Business) (Mohinder) (MF# Z 2016-005) Chairwoman Roach read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director, stated there were no changes or additional comments since the previous meeting, however, the applicant provided a list of other hotels with U-Haul operations co-located that was distributed to the Planning Commission since a Planning Commissioner accepted such information to be provided at the previous meeting. Commissioner Mendez asked if the City is still recommending denial of the rezone. Mr. White answered, yes. Commissioner Mendez stated the City didn’t feel that this was a proper location for a U- Haul business. However, the applicant wished to establish this additional business as another stream of revenue but not so much because there was a demand for this activity. Chairwoman Roach asked about the business down the road, Columbia Grain & Feed and -5- an industrial equipment rental business. She asked how that business conforms to the goals of keeping the entrance into Pasco aesthetically pleasing. Mr. White responded that Columbia Grain & Feed and the industrial store have been on Lewis Street for decades but the Lewis Street improvements were made just a few years ago. Commissioner Polk stated she didn’t feel this type of activity would be bad to have on the property but she wasn’t in favor of zoning the entire site C-3. If it were zoned C-3, a concomitant agreement would need to be done to prohibit any other C-3 activity except for the use of the U-Haul rental. Ideally, hotels are C-1 uses and the majority of the property should be used as C-1. She was more in agreement with the City’s recommendation of denial of the application as the activity doesn’t align with the goals of the City. Chairwoman Roach replied that she agreed with Commissioner Polk. She added that she was sympathetic to the business owner and the hardships with their tenants and that they are looking for alternative sources of revenue. With the deep parking lot it may be alright having a U-Haul location as long as it wasn’t abutting the street but it won’t be an inviting thoroughfare for Lewis Street. Commissioner Lukins stated that he understood staff’s concerns about appearance of the property but felt denying the application was punitive due to other code violations and appearance currently going on at this property. He was in favor of allowing the rezone but only to allow this specific use with a concomitant agreement. Commissioner Portugal added that he was in favor of creating more jobs and revenue . He felt the creation of jobs would be more important than the appearance from the street. Chairwoman Roach reminded the Commission that at the public hearing the applicant said this would not be a large distribution center but rather a small operation wi th a few truck or trailers. Commissioner Bykonen stated that she had thought a lot about this application and how the additional revenue stream could possibly improve the condition of this site which is currently in poor shape. But she was familiar with one of the hotels that was provided by the applicant that has a supplemental U-Haul business, the Garden Suites in Des Moines. It is located on a busy road and it is not attractive. She does not want the entrance to Pasco to look like this highway the Garden Suites is located. She recommended denial of the rezone application. Commissioner Greenaway and Commissioner Mendez were in agreement with the City’s recommendation to deny the rezone application. Commissioner Greenaway moved, seconded by Commissioner Polk, to adopt the findings of fact and conclusions therefrom as contained in the December 15, 2016 staff report. The motion passed 6 to 1 with Commissioner Lukins dissenting. Commissioner Greenaway moved, seconded by Commission Bykonen, based on the findings of fact and conclusions as adopted the Planning Commission recommend the City Council deny the proposed rezone of Lots 2 and 3, Short Plat 2010-08 from C-1 to C-3. -6- The motion passed 6 to 1 with Commissioner Lukins dissenting. PUBLIC HEARINGS: A. Special Permit Location of Long Term Rental Units in the Thunderbird Motel (Continued from 11/17/16) Chairwoman Roach read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director, discussed the special permit application to locate long term rental units in the Thunderbird Motel. Provided in addition to the staff report were police reports from the past 5 years at this location. Commissioner Greenaway asked what the difference was between “Field Arrests” and “Field Contact” that was listed on the police reports. Mr. White answered “Field Arrests” are actual arrests made on site and “Field Contact” is where there was no arrest but an Officer was called to that address or nearby lo cation and that was the closest address. Commissioner Polk asked for clarification on the address used. Mr. White responded the field contacts were not necessarily at the building. The actual arrests were at the building. Chairwoman Roach discussed public testimony from the applicant at the prior meeting. She stated that regardless of whether the hotel owner is in compliance or non -compliance with the code, there are people who stay in this motel long term. If the special permit is not granted, people will still stay long term and they will be out of compliance with the municipal code. She understood the applicant’s need to come into compliance but it would be more problematic to have someone in a long term unit. This is not an ideal location to have long term residents and it isn’t bringing up the appearance of the downtown area or the goal of downtown development. She was in agreement with the recommendation to deny the special permit application. Commissioner Mendez stated at the public hearing the applicant had said that it was in the best interest of the City to allow long term residents so that the owner could develop a relationship between the tenants and to attract the right clientele rather than the transient population. Commissioner Greenaway agreed with Commissioner Mendez. She also didn’t think it would be fair to the families that may be staying at the hotel that they would have to get kicked out. Commissioner Polk was torn on the issue. Much of the discussions have been on the type of tenants and state of the property but she didn’t know if denying or accepting the special permit would change any of the issues and shouldn’t be what the Planning Commission is making their decision on but instead, focus on whether a C -2 Zone is appropriate for long term residential. Chairwoman Roach asked if staff recommended denial. -7- Mr. White responded that the recommendation is to deny the special permit. The concept behind the decision is that based on the findings and conclusions in the staff re port, the Police Department is being used to manage the tenants. Regardless of the permit being approved or not, Police will always be managing tenants at this particular location with the present operator. This proposal does not promote the public health, safety or welfare and could make it more suspect. Commissioner Bykonen added that she understood the need for the type of housing that this property owner is trying to provide; something in between a motel and long term – such as housing for workers who may be in town for a couple of months but not for a whole year. While she was a strong supporter of mixed-use residential with retail on the bottom but not motel use then long term residential on the same property. It sends a mixed message and there will still be problems with the Police Department acting as a way to resolve tenant issues. Mr. White answered if an occupant of a motel, hotel or long term rental unit really wants to stay put in spite of what the owner wants, they can stay there for some time. It takes due process to remove them. The law tends to be on the side of the tenant, whether it is in a motel or long term. With no further questions or comments the public hearing closed. Commissioner Mendez moved, seconded by Commissioner Polk, to adopt the findings of fact and conclusions therefrom as contained in the December 15, 2016 staff report. The motion passed 6 to 1 with Commissioner Portugal abstaining. Commissioner Mendez moved, seconded by Commissioner Polk, based on the findings of fact and conclusions therefrom the Planning Commission recommend the City Council deny a special permit for the location of dwelling units on the upper floors of a building located at 414 W. Columbia Street. The motion passed 6 to 1 with Commissioner P ortugal abstaining. B. Special Permit Location of a Church in a C-1 (Retail Business) Zone (C.L.U.E. Church) (MF# SP 2016-016) Chairwoman Roach read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Dave McDonald, City Planner, discussed the special permit application to locate a church in a C-1 (Retail Business) Zone. This application involves a church locating within the area of the Broadmoor Outlet Mall that the Bethel Church currently rents. Bethel Church rents about 17,000 square feet and was granted a special permit back in 2012 for a three year period. That special permit has since been renewed because they were still working on finding their own piece of property to locate permanently. They have now found a piece of property on Chapel Hill Boulevard and they are in the process of working on plans and building the church so it will still be a while before they can relocate. In the meantime, there is a smaller church, the C.L.U.E Church that has been invited to share the space with Bethel. They would use the space at different times on Sunday’s and they would also use the facility on Monday’s to practice for the next Sunday and for some youth activities. The public will not notice much of a change in activity at the site other than m ore activity on Sunday but on Sunday’s traffic in the general area is low and there is a large parking lot. -8- Chairwoman Roach asked what the alternating times would be for services. Mr. McDonald answered that Bethel will go from 9:00am-11:00am and the C.L.U.E. Church would go from 11:00am-2:00pm on Sunday’s. Then when Bethel moves to their new building, the C.L.U.E. Church would like to move with them over at their new building. Chairwoman Roach asked if this special permit application only applies to the location at the outlet mall or if it would move to the new location. Mr. McDonald responded that it was only for the outlet mall location. Bethel Church as a special permit to operate at their new location but C.L.U.E. Church may or may not need to get a new special permit at the new location. With the current application locating in a commercial area that is why they are needing their own special permit. Chairwoman Roach asked when this special permit would expire. Mr. McDonald replied that it doesn’t expire as the last special permit from Bethel didn’t expire since they are working towards getting their own property . Chairwoman Roach asked if staff new when Bethel was moving into their new facility. Mr. McDonald answered, no. With no further questions or comments the public hearing closed. Commissioner Bykonen moved, seconded by Commissioner Polk, to close the hearing on the proposed special permit and set January 19, 2017 as the date for deliberations and the development a recommendation for the City Council. The motion passed unanimously. C. Rezone Rezone from C-1 (Retail Business) to R-3 (Medium Density Residential) (Pro Made Homes) Chairwoman Roach read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Dave McDonald, City Planner, discussed the rezone application. The site is a small piece of property on Road 90 that was a remnant piece of the neighboring residential development to the north. Last year, Pro Made Homes received preliminary plat approval for a 36 lot subdivision and the piece that remained to the south was zoned C-1 at the time so it couldn’t be included in the plat. After the subdivision was being built, Pro Made Homes was able to purchase a piece of property to the west and short platted it to straighten out two streets. This rezone is from C-1 to R-3 and would provide a buffer between the low density residential to the north and the commercial properties to the south. Currently there is a large office building being constructed on Road 90 directly south of the site and rezoning this property to R-3 will provide that buffer. With no further questions or comments the public hearing closed. -9- Commissioner Polk moved, seconded by Commissioner Greenaway, to close the hearing on the proposed rezone and set January 19, 2017 as the date for deliberations and the development of a recommendation for the City Council. The motion passed unanimously. WORKSHOP: A. Code Amendment Mini-Pigs in Residential Zones (MF# CA 2016-005) Chairwoman Roach read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director, discussed the proposed code amendment. The City received a request for the municipal code to be amended to allow mini-pigs to be kept as pets. Currently pigs of any kind are classified as farm animals. Some research was conducted and mini-pigs while not approaching 1,000 lbs. like a commercial pig might, they do get to be roughly 50-100 lbs. They are different than a dog or cat in that they need to be spayed or neutered to be kept as pets. The neighboring jurisdictions were consulted and they both suggested using caution because most people that buy mini-pigs think they will stay little forever but they don’t. Many people that buy mini-pigs end up having a full size pig on their hands and then Animal Control will not accept surrendered mini-pigs as they do not have the proper facilities. The request was presented to City Council and they have asked the Planning Commission to consider three options: (1) Allow them outright with conditions, (2) Allow them through the special permit process or (3) Prohibit them outright as the City does now. Staff does not recommend Option 2 (Special Permit process) as that would take up the Planning Commission’s time with matters that aren’t all that important for the overall public health and welfare of the community. Staff would suggested the Commission either allow permitting them outright with conditions or prohibiting them outright, which Staff feels is the logical option. Commissioner Mendez asked if Staff had any pictures. Mr. White said no but added staff searched the database for complaints related to pigs and there have been 7 pig related complaints, not necessarily mini-pigs, but pig related complaints in general, which are not allowed depending on lot sizes. Commissioner Polk noticed that in the staff report and wondered if it was people who h ad pigs for food use or for pets. She asked if someone were to get a pig right now and it isn’t in compliance, what would happen to the pig and if Animal Control would have to come take the pig. Mr. White replied that Animal Control won’t take the animal because they’re not contracted to take pigs. The property owners would have to go through the Code Enforcement Board process. Commissioner Polk asked if the owner would be required to get rid of the pig. Mr. White answered that they would have to get rid of it or put it on a parcel that was large enough to allow farm animals and of the right zoning. Commissioner Bykonen noted that the staff report identified King County, Palouse, Prosser, Seattle and Vancouver as allowing pigs. She asked if staff had spoken to staff at -10- any of those locations. Mr. White said no, but there were copies of ordinances that allow it, however, staff was not contacted. Commissioner Bykonen was interested in knowing how it works in cities that currently allow pigs. Mr. White replied that his impression was that they don’t get a high degree of attention from municipalities because it is a fairly small portion of their overall workload. The Commissioners discussed the options. The Commissioners voted 5 to 2 of being in favor of Option 3 (Outright prohibiting mini-pigs in residential zones), with Commissioner Greenaway and Commissioner Polk in favor of Option 1 (Outright allowing mini -pigs in residential zones). There were no Commissioners in favor of Option 2 (Special Permit Process). With no further discussion or business, the Planning Commission was adjourned at 8:17 p.m. Respectfully submitted, David McDonald, City Planner