Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-18-2017 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes-1- REGULAR MEETING May 18, 2017 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at 7:00pm by Chairman Cruz. POSITION MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT No. 1 Tanya Bowers No. 2 Joseph Campos 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: Chairman Cruz read a statement about the appearance of fairness for hearings on land use matters. There were no declarations. Chairman Cruz 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: Chairman Cruz explained that state law requires testimony in quasi-judicial hearings such as held by the Planning Commission be given under oath or affirmation. Chairman Cruz swore in all those desiring to speak. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Portugal moved, seconded by Commissioner Greenaway that the minutes dated April 20, 2017 be approved. The motion passed unanimously. OLD BUSINESS: A. Special Permit Mini-Storage Facility (G2 Construction LLC) (MF# SP 2017-006) Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Darcy Bourcier, Planner I, stated staff had no additional comments. Commissioner Roach moved, seconded by Commissioner Greenaway, to close the hearing on the on the proposed special permit and set May 18, 2017 as the date for deliberations and the development of a recommendation for the City Council. The motion passed -2- unanimously. Dave McDonald, City Planner, noted that the motion was incorrect and was from the prior meeting and that an amended motion would need to be made. Commissioner Roach moved, seconded by Commissioner Greenaway, adopt the findings of facts and conclusions as contained in the May 18, 2017 staff report. The motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Roach moved, seconded by Commissioner Greenaway, based on the findings of facts and conclusions therefrom, the Planning Commission recommend the City Council grant a special permit for the location of a mini-storage facility in the 6600 block of Chapel Hill Boulevard (Parcel # 117-420-159) with conditions as listed in the May 18, 2017 staff report. The motion passed unanimously. B. Preliminary Plat Ferrara Place, 17-lots (Multi-Family) (RP Development) (MF# PP 2017-003) Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director, stated staff had no additional comments. Commissioner Bowers moved, seconded by Commissioner Polk, to adopt findings of fact and conclusions therefrom as contained in the May 18, 2017 staff report. The motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Bowers moved, seconded by Commissioner Polk, based on the findings of fact and conclusions as adopted the Planning Commission recommend the City Council approve the preliminary plat for Ferrara Place with conditions as listed in the May 18, 2017 staff report. The motion passed unanimously. C. Preliminary Plat Chiawana Place, 78-lots (Single-Family) (Derek Alexander) (MF# PP 2017-005) Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Dave McDonald, City Planner, discussed the preliminary plat application for Chiawana Place. He noted changes to the staff report and plat since the previous meeting and referenced the revised plat layout that was handed out to the Commissioners prior to the meeting. Prior issues discussed at the previous hearing regarding a smaller than allowable lot size, lot frontage and a flag lot have been resolved. The developer redesigned the plat without losing any lots and the plat meets city code. Commissioner Roach asked if the redesigned plat takes the gas line into consideration. Mr. McDonald responded that it does; the gas line easement remained in the same spot and there are no homes infringing upon it. -3- Commissioner Bowers moved, seconded by Commissioner Mendez, to adopt findings of fact and conclusions therefrom as contained in the May 8, 2017 staff report. The motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Bowers moved, seconded by Commissioner Greenaway, based on the findings of fact and conclusions as adopted the Planning Commission recommend the City Council approve the preliminary plat for Chiawana Place with conditions as listed in the May 18, 2017 staff report. The motion passed unanimously. PUBLIC HEARINGS: A. Preliminary Plat Riverhawk Estates, 199-lots (Single-Family) (RP Development) (MF# PP 2017-004) Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Dave McDonald, City Planner discussed the preliminary plat application for Riverhawk Estates. He explained that this is the third parcel in the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) property to come before the Planning Commission for approval. It is located at the southeast corner of the future Chapel Hill Road extension and Road 84. It consists of 54 ½ acres out of a larger parcel that is about 101 acres total. They will develop the north half to start with and work their way south. The plat is located directly north of Chiawana Heights, which was the first plat reviewed of the DNR property. There will be a total of 199 lots, ranging from 7,200-13,000 square feet with an average lot size of 7,800 square feet. The staff report contained the items required by state law for review as well as findings of fact, conclusions and tentative approval conditions. Commissioner Mendez asked if the proposed density is within the guidelines. Mr. McDonald responded that it was within the guidelines. In this zoning designation under the Comprehensive Plan, density can range from 2-5 units per acre. This proposal is under the 5 units per acre. Chairman Cruz asked if the proposed development is consistent with the development next to it. Mr. McDonald stated that it was consistent with the AHO development to the west. Chairman Cruz added that there is R-3 zoning directly to the north and R-1 so there will be a good blend of density. Ed McClellan, 4001 S. Kent Street, Kennewick, WA appeared at the podium and was available to answer any questions on his proposed plat. With no questions or comments the public hearing closed. Commissioner Bowers noted in the staff report it mentioned an overpass at Road 76 and asked for clarification. -4- Mr. McDonald showed on the overhead map where Road 76 would be aligned and that in the long range it would connect from Argent to Burden but whether or not it will actually happen is to be determine as an overpass would be very expensive; however, it is penciled in. It has been surveyed but this site is several hundred feet to the west and doesn’t abut against it at all. Commissioner Bowers asked if Road 76 north of the highway is the road by Walmart. Mr. McDonald answered yes. Commissioner Mendez asked if the City is collecting park fees. Mr. McDonald replied that there is a $1,343 park fee assessed with each building permit. The developer either pays that or they dedicate land for a park site and a small payment. Staff still needs to discuss with the developer as the site is large enough for a park. Over the next couple of phases, staff will be working with the developer on that. Commissioner Roach asked if the developers would be the same as the other DNR sites being develop. Mr. McDonald answered that there are three developers. The largest developer controls the 101 acres that this plat comes out of and they will also be developing a plat to the east. Commissioner Roach asked if Pasco has seen inflated home prices due to the limited number of homes available. Mr. McDonald responded that he couldn’t speak for home prices but land prices are higher. It could be due to the lack of developable land inside urban growth boundary for housing subdivisions. Commissioner Roach asked if the developers are developing at their own accord or if it’s being encouraged by the City. Mr. McDonald said that the developers are acting on their own accord as fast as they can. They have money in the land so they need to develop it to recoup their investments. Commissioner Roach moved, seconded by Commissioner Polk, to close the hearing on the proposed preliminary plat and set June 16, 2017 as the date for deliberations and the development of a recommendation for the City Council. The motion passed unanimously. WORKSHOP: A. Code Amendment Planned-Unit Development (PUD) Open Space Requirements (MF# CA 2017-003) Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. -5- Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director, discussed the workshop item for Planned-Unit Development (PUD) open space requirements. A PUD is a tool for developers to exercise flexibility in a product. In order to incentivize that flexibility, you trade design enhancement for a density increase. The current PUD provisions were developed with the Sun Willows Golf Course community in mind because that is the only time it has been used and the density increase of 20% is based on an open space provision of 35%. In taking a closer look at the ordinance, Staff has suggested a few items for Planning Commission discussion and hopefully some direction or consideration will be provided. Staff would like to reduce the 35% to 15% for the open space requirement, making it more in line with the open space requirements of the other local cities . And Staff would like to clarify how to calculate open space by excluding the public roads and by including common space used to calculate the net density. He stated that the closest example of a neighborhood that looks like a PUD is Ivy Glades; private streets, smaller streets, a lot of open space, smaller lots for the size of the homes but it is a good product. Chairman Cruz said it could enable developers to create a “my yard development” instead of an “our yard development”. He asked if the open space would be required to be for public or just accessible for the occupants of the neighborhood. Mr. White responded that Staff will need to add language to the code regarding private roadways. Private roadways are fine, however, the City is always asked in the future once they start to decay to take them over. If they weren’t built to city standards then it is too expensive to do. Staff will try to clarify the provisions of public and private rights-of-ways and probably make a baseline design determination. Private roadways might be applicable or available if they meet a certain construction standard. Commissioner Bowers asked where Sun Willows and Ivy Glades are located. Mr. White responded that Sun Willows is on the golf course, east of Columbia Basin College and Ivy Glades is on Road 76 south of Court Street. Chairman Cruz stated that he understood the benefit for the developers or residents of the private open spaces but what would the benefit be for the community. Sun Willows has a publicly accessible golf course but the rest is mainly closed off. Not that he thought it was a problem, he just wanted that to be clear. Commissioner Polk agreed that should be a point of discussion whether the open space is publicly available or solely for the residents. Mr. White added that what he anticipates happening is that the open spaces will be owned by an association, comprised of the owners in the subdivision. As an owner, they have the ability to exclude others from the property. It would be difficult to fashion public open space. Commissioner Bowers stated that this would be a tool to make a space more attractive to developers who are going to sell higher income housing. Mr. White responded that the income levels would be based on a number of things out of the City’s control but the product itself would be different. The pe rson interested in developing the Broadmoor property west of Road 100 had a project in mind that resembled -6- a development outside of Gresham, OR where the homes were on very small lots but the open space was designed so that each of the lots had access to walkways, nature trails or different amenities. Chairman Cruz used the example of a “tiny home village”. He said that often times these type of developments provide a better quality of living at the lower price points than some of the upper price points. He just wanted to be clear that open space doesn’t always mean open to the public and that it could be open space for those specific residents. Mr. White stated that he recalls that one of the parks in Ivy Glades that does state that the park space if for use of the residents of Ivy Glades. Chairman Cruz added that with the exclusivity there is an obligation to maintain so it’s not necessarily a loss for the City. And if it’s not the City’s park, the City doesn’t have to maintain it, the owners do. Commissioner Bowers just wanted to figure out if moving from 35% to 15% would end up depriving opportunities for more affordable housing. Commissioner Greenaway said no. Chairman Cruz added that it would likely be to the contrary. Commissioner Polk discussed the concepts or ideas discussed by consultant, David Hansen, at a previous meeting about the Broadmoor Area in terms of a possible Riverwalk or outdoor water. She asked if that would fall into this parameter. Mr. White responded that would be a good example where this concept could be used to do something that the community doesn’t have right now – a different type of housing product. Commissioner Portugal asked if the open space property owners could have a gated community to only allow who they want in their development. Mr. White said yes. Commissioner Polk asked if there was any type of understanding of this open space and if it would be available to the residents or if a resident would have to pay additional dues or fees to have access to the common land. Mr. White answered that it could be a possibility. It would likely be the homeowners would pay a type of fee to maintain the open space and roads if they are private roads and yes, it depends on how the homeowner’s association is structured, but they could require residents to pay extra for the amenities. Commissioner Bowers was concerned of the perception of being exclusionary with private roads and private parks. She didn’t necessarily want the City to approve something that would lead to being exclusionary. -7- Chairman Cruz responded that he didn’t know how that could be stopped. This wouldn’t just benefit the upper-tiered home owners. Commissioner Mendez added that Ivy Glades was discussed a lot and he wanted to state that it is a good example of this concept working. It is a nice neighborhood with good ownership and a strong homeowner’s association. B. Code Amendment Residential Design Standards Regarding False Dormer & Flat Roofs (MF# CA 2017-004) Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director, di scussed the workshop item for residential design standards regarding false dormers and flat roofs. Years ago, the State of Washington preempted local control regarding the placement of manufactured housing. The tradeoff was that the housing standards for site-built and manufactured homes would be able to be dictated by local jurisdictions as long as th ey both met the same standards. Back then, there was a considerable concern that the design standards that needed to be installed regarding preserving the housing value of single-family neighborhoods need to include the standards listed in the staff report. The staff report outlines the design standards, most of which are basic. One in particular spoke to false dormers because manufactured housing doesn’t typically have roof pitches greater than 3/12 or 4/12 at the most. Over the years, false dormers have gone away because the cost benefit of buying a manufactured home is no longer there in that it is not inexpensive to build or purchase a manufactured home. There are a number of builders in Pasco that do use false dormers on roof pitches and since the re hasn’t been a concern in a while, Staff would propose that the condition be changed to allow for false dormers once the roof pitch exceeds 5/12 pitch. Mr. White also discussed the provision of flat roofs which have come up about four times as of recently. They are fine looking homes, particularly where it is important to preserve views, but they have flat roofs. They have had to go to the Hearing Examiner to ask for variances, which is a very clumsy way to allow an architecturally integrated home into the neighborhood. If the Planning Commission wants to, they could allow for language that would allow that under certain circumstances along with a dormer issue or Staff could leave things as they are. Commissioner Bowers asked if there were any pictures available of the false dormers. Mr. White responded not offhand but that could be obtained. Commissioner Roach asked what the term “glazing” meant. Chairman Cruz answered that it was windows. So it would be so much square footage of windows. Commissioner Roach asked if there was already a list of materials already prepared for materials that will not deteriorate. Mr. White said that there is a list. -8- Commissioner Roach asked if the manufactured homes comply with that list. Mr. White responded that he didn’t believe they did at the time years ago and he was unsure if they do now. Commissioner Roach wondered if it would become a micro-management problem. Mr. White responded that it wouldn’t be a problem because the building code provides a very detailed discussion of the trim that is appropriate. Commissioner Roach asked about driveways ending in a garage or carport and if it would eliminate the pull through style driveways that didn’t lead into a garage. Mr. White answered that the curved driveway is still allowed but you can’t run your driveway directly perpendicular to the way the home faces the street and stop it without having a carport or garage. Likewise, you cannot enclose or turn your garage or carport into a part of your home unless you’ve made provisions to curve the driveway back to the street or terminate in a carport or garage. Commissioner Portugal asked if manufactured homes are allowed to add on extra rooms and who enforces the additions. Mr. White responded that you can make additions to a manufactured home, however, it is very difficult to change the home once it is purchase because they are not made to be added onto or have revisions made. But if you were to do so, the Department of Labor & Industries for Washington State would oversee it. Commissioner Roach asked if manufactured homes have concrete foundations. Mr. White said they do not have concrete foundations. Chairman Cruz clarified that they are not manufactured with concrete foundations but they can be placed on concrete foundations. He gave an example of a home like this in the donut-hole. He went into detail about that changes in manufactured homes over the years. Chairman Cruz discussed the flat roofs and how they are mainly located in the hilly areas of the community. He mentioned concerns about flat roofs with the potential winter weather in the area, however he was sure that a properly engineered flat roof would be ok in this area. Commissioner Roach stated that from an engineering perspective they should take into account some degree of snow load for flat roofs – it may architectural appear flat but actually be slightly angled for snow melt runoff. Commissioner Greenaway said it is called a hip roof – it is not actually a flat roof. Chairman Cruz said as of today he would be inclined to the latter options in the staff -9- report. Commissioner Roach said she would be partial to a flat roof because it is architecturally different and there is an aesthetic appeal to it and she likes to see variety in the community. Chairman Cruz took a vote and the majority of the Commissioners were interested in flat roofs and false dormers. Commissioner Roach asked what the City’s policy is on concrete foundations. Mr. White stated that they have to have them. Chairman Cruz said that is one of the reasons they are no longer cost effective to purchase over a site built home. There were no further questions or comments. C. Code Amendment Revisions to the Central Business District Zoning (MF# CA 2017-005) Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director, discussed the workshop item for revisions to the Central Business District zoning code. This item has been discussed by Staff and recently with the Downtown Pasco Development Authority (DPDA). This code revision would clarify the permitted uses regarding antique stores. There has been a misunderstanding that antique stores are not permitted downtown, however they are allowed downtown. The consignment store issues that pertained to Goodwill a few years ago, has been inserted into the proposed ordinance. They are allowed but it will now be more clearly stated. Drug stores has been inserted as a permi tted use. And Staff, with the concurrence of the DPDA also inserted electronic sales and repairs as long as a substantial portion of their stock was new equipment. Dwelling units, which were previously permitted through the special use permit process, have been added as a permitted use provided some parameters can be met, particularly parking, and that the ground level is used as commercial. The idea would be to increase the population downtown which would then increase the need for stores and services to be located downtown, making the downtown more active and lively putting people on the street which would ultimately lead to more security. There were provisions added for wineries, distilleries and tasting rooms. The prohibition for commissaries was added because there has been a problem with buildings being used for food preparation to be sold elsewhere and the potential retail space is taken up and not used as it should be and it does not contribute to the vitality of the downtown by taking their product and selling it elsewhere . Staff requested input and discussion from the Planning Commission. Commissioner Roach asked if the last item regarding commissaries would exclude the Pasco Specialty Kitchen. Mr. White said it wouldn’t and would in fact, help the Specialty Kitchen because they are an incubator use and the commissaries would now be able to use the Specialty Kitchen or -10- use an existing restaurant. Chairman Cruz asked what the difference was between all of the different adult uses that were prohibited. He asked what an adult business facility would be if it’s not an adult theater, adult bookstore, etc. Mr. White responded that it has to do with sexually-oriented merchandise. He couldn’t say offhand but the zoning code has all of these definitions, which was a throwback to a different era when there was a time when certain locations lent themselves to those kinds of uses. There were legal issues with these types of establishments years ago with all three cities and attorneys were hired to define all of the terms. Commissioner Bowers asked about the permitted use for electronic sales and repair in which 50% of the stock must be devoted to the sales of new equipment. She asked if it would preclude a vacuum repair store or a computer repair shop from existing. Mr. White responded that it would allow for those items as long as 50% of the stock is new merchandise as well as consignment stores. Commissioner Bowers asked if there was less than 50% if they could exist in the downtown, and if not, why. Mr. White responded that they could not and that is because it is not good for the downtown for a repair shop alone to exist where there should be retail activity. Downtown should be retail oriented and you will get what you allow. Chairman Cruz added that it’s no different from a commissary from that aspect in that you will not get the business culture that you desire. Commissioner Roach asked about the prohibited use for taverns and felt that it was inconsistent with the permitted uses of tasting rooms, microbreweries and distilleries – that one is allowed and not the other. She asked if a tavern was the same thing as a microbrewery. Mr. White responded that they actually make their beer at a microbrewery. There is an investment of their product fabrication and the ability to serve food. There is a tavern downtown that attracts clients that are often problems with law enforcement and the perception of downtown because they have no investment in their product despite the sales of alcoholic beverages. Chairman Cruz briefly discussed the history of taverns in Downtown Pasco. He understood where Staff was going but did feel that it could be inconsistent. Commissioner Roach said that part of the appeal of a downtown is the nightlife and this would be limiting. She stated that she understood the problematic business that currently exists but explained that Downtown Kennewick has many bars and while the y probably have their fair share of problems, it is also a center of business. Chairman Cruz said he believed that Downtown Kennewick billed theirs as an entertainment district not a business district, which may be the difference. Commissioner Campos added that he is familiar with a distillery in Richland. They have -11- very limited hours for the purpose of tastings and selling of their product but close early to not cause problems in the evenings. It would attract people to the area as well as the surrounding area. There are other great opportunities that could come with a tasting room as opposed to a tavern. Commissioner Roach responded that she is not opposed to a tasting room or distillery but felt it was a bit inhibiting to not allow bars or taverns. Chairman Cruz addressed the density of these types of establishments and that could be used as a tool to not oversaturate the downtown with taverns. He agreed with Commissioner Roach that he didn’t want to completely prohibit that kind of use. However, a tavern isn’t the same as a bar and grill and in the downtown, a bar and grill is permitted. Mr. White added that yes, bar and grills are allowed in the downtown under accessory uses. Chairman Cruz said that was a good way to mitigate it then. Commissioner Roach agreed. Chairman Cruz asked how much food had to be offered at a tavern. Mr. White answered that he wasn’t sure but it was far less than a bar and grill. Commissioner Roach said that helped and was a good distinction to make. Commissioner Polk asked Chairman Cruz if he was suggesting that a tavern be moved from prohibited to conditional. Chairman Cruz said he wouldn’t be opposed to it as long as there was a distance requirement. Commissioner Bowers asked about allowing billiards or pool h alls and said that could be a good recreational use. Dave McDonald, City Planner, said that back in the late 1980’s one of the worst place in town was Marty’s Pool Hall that served alcohol and minimal food and attracted all sorts of problems. The drug task force actually rented the top floor of the bank to look across the street to check the people going in and out of it. Every other tavern downtown had the same type of problems; drugs, prostitution, murders and gangs. All of that cleared up when the taverns were closed and prohibited. Marty’s Pool Hall had to be shut down. There was another place that had to be shut down as well. A Council meeting was held to revoke the business license because the owner was selling drugs behind the counter along with the beer. The whole zoning code was changed to address all of the problems. Chairman Cruz said an amusement/game center came into question at one time. Mr. McDonald said that there were problems there too. Chairman Cruz responded that he was aware but he would like to readdress some of these issues from the past because he would like to see more family friendly things to do in -12- Pasco. He said that he is inclined to revisit some of those items as a code amendment so that someday there could be more youth-oriented places. Commissioner Campos asked if there was anything that distinguished a pool hall or a bar with a pool table. Mr. McDonald responded that pool halls are allowed in other parts of town, just not in the Central Business District. There was one over by Andy’s Restaurant but is no longer there. They didn’t serve beer but they were strictly a pool hall. Commissioner Polk wanted to add that she liked that the dwelling allowance has been moved from conditional to permitted, as that could draw more traffic to the downtown and add more of a mixed-use space. Chairman Cruz agreed with Commissioner Polk. There were no further questions or comments. With no further discussion or business, the Planning Commission was adjourned at 8:06 p.m. Respectfully submitted, David McDonald, City Planner