Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-21-2017 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes-1- REGULAR MEETING September 21, 2017 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 Joseph Campos No. 3 Paul Mendez No. 4 Alecia Greenaway No. 5 Joe Cruz No. 6 Ruben Alvarado 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 Greenaway moved, seconded by Commissioner Bykonen that the minutes dated August 17, 2017 be approved. The motion passed unanimously. OLD BUSINESS: A. Special Permit Wireless Tower (PI Tower Development LLC with T-Mobile) (MF# SP 2017-011) Chairwoman Roach read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director, discussed the special permit for the location of a wireless tower. Since the previous meeting, staff has added -2- a condition regarding the color of the tower. The tower must be painted a neutral color and will occur during the permitting stage. There were no additional comments. Commissioner Bowers moved, seconded by Commissioner Greenaway, to adopt findings of fact and conclusions therefrom as contained in the September 21, 2017 staff report. The motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Bowers 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 PI Tower Development LLC for the location of an 80-foot monopole and its associated ground equipment at 2600 North 20th Avenue with conditions as contained in the September 21, 2017 staff report. The motion passed unanimously. B. Rezone Rezone from RS-12 (Suburban) to C-1 (Retail Business) (D&D Enterprises) (MF# Z 2017-003) Chairwoman Roach read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Dave McDonald, City Planner, discussed the rezone application from RS-12 to C-1. Staff had no additional comments to add to this item. Commissioner Bowers asked if the final determination after last month’s discussion was in favor of rezoning to multi-family residential or commercial. Mr. McDonald responded that the recommendation is to rezone from Residential Suburban (RS-12) to Retail Commercial (C-1). Commissioner Greenaway asked if this parcel was within the city limits. Mr. McDonald responded that this piece of property was in the city limits. Commissioner Mendez asked if there are any known developments that will be occurring on this site. Mr. McDonald said the applicant didn’t have a specific plan other than some type of commercial. This site would lend itself to a small strip development. Commissioner Bowers moved, seconded by Commissioner Alvarado, to adopt findings of fact and conclusions therefrom as contained in the September 2, 2017 staff report. The motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Bowers moved, seconded by Commissioner Alvarado, based on the findings of fact and conclusions as adopted, the Planning Commission recommend the City Council rezone parcel number’s 118-552-022 and 118-552-081 at the southwest corner of Argent and Road 68 from RS-12 to C-1. The motion passed unanimously. -3- C. Zoning Determination Determination of Zoning in the D&D Annexation Area (City of Pasco) (MF# ZD 2017-002) Chairwoman Roach read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Dave McDonald, City Planner, discussed the zoning determination application for the D&D Annexation Area. This item is to determine zoning on a piece of property prior to annexation so that once it is annexed, zoning will be assigned. There will still need to be an annexation hearing held by City Council. Staff had no additional comments. Chairwoman Roach asked if there was a date set for the City Council annexation hearing. Mr. McDonald responded that it would be in October but a date has not been set. Commissioner Alvarado asked what could happen if City Council decided not to annex this piece of land, would that still allow the neighboring site just recommended for rezone to develop commercial – would it have enough land still to develop commercial without this piece of land. Mr. McDonald answered that they have indicated that they would annexation. They signed a resolution shortly after the initial petition came in with conditions. The process is now in the applicant’s court to complete the second petition to move forward. Commissioner Greenaway moved, seconded by Commissioner Bykonen, to adopt findings of fact and conclusions therefrom as contained in the September 21, 2016 staff report. The motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Greenaway moved, seconded by Commission Bykonen, based on the findings of fact and conclusions as adopted, the Planning Commission recommend the City Council zone the D&D Annexation Area (parcel number’s 118 -552-031) to C-1. The motion passed unanimously. D. Code Amendment Revisions to Residential Design Standards for False Dormers & Flat Roofs (City of Pasco) (MF# CA 2017-004) Chairwoman Roach read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director, discussed the code amendment for revisions to residential design standards for false dormers and flat roofs. The Commission has seen this item several times and has had discussion. There has been one change since the previous staff report. The proposed ordinance allows false dormers on roof pitches at least 5/12, however last month it stated 6/12 pitch. -4- Chairwoman Roach asked if there would need to be 30 sqft of glazing or 32 sqft. and what side of the property. Mr. White clarified that it was only for the front side of the property. And there is an option in case someone doesn’t want that much open window area. Commissioner Mendez asked what “fenestrated false” dormers were. Mr. White responded that it meant those that have openings. Commissioner Alvarado asked if there has been much interest for more flat roofs and if that was the reason for the rezone. Mr. White replied that there has been interest but as of now there hasn’t been a tool to handle those that do want a flat roof. There is the option to apply for a variance which is difficult to get because there is nothing “special” about a lot to justify a flat roof. That is the reasoning for the code amendment. Commissioner Bykonen moved, seconded by Commissioner Greenaway, the Planning Commission adopt the findings of fact as contained in the September 21, 2017 staff memo regarding roof pitch and false dormer requirements. The motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Bykonen moved, seconded by Commissioner Greenaway, the Planning Commission recommend the City Council adopt the proposed code amendment regarding roof pitch and false dormer requirements as attached to the September 21, 2017 staff memo to the Planning Commission. The motion passed unanimously. E. Code Amendment Revisions to CBD Zoning (City of Pasco) (MF# CA 2017-005) Chairwoman Roach read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director, discussed the code amendment for revisions to the Central Business District (CBD) Zoning. There were no additional comments from staff. Chairwoman Roach asked if this would exclude the Pasco Specialty Kitchen. Mr. White said no because it didn’t qualify. Chairwoman Roach asked if consignments stores used to have to be only 300-500 feet from another and not 1,000 feet from each other and if that changed. Mr. White said no, it hadn’t changed and 1,000 feet is what was adopted years ago. -5- Commissioner Mendez asked if this ordinance would prohibit taverns and pool halls in the downtown area. Mr. White replied that this code amendment doesn’t but the one adopted in the 1990’s did and there haven’t been changes made to it since. Commissioner Bowers moved, seconded by Commissioner Portugal, the Planning Commission recommend to City Council the adoption of the proposed amendments to the Central Business District Zone as contained in the September 21, 2017 Planning Commission staff report. The motion passed unanimously. PUBLIC HEARINGS: A. Special Permit Location of a Church in a C-3 District (Pedro Bautista) (MF# SP 2017-012) Chairwoman Roach read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director, discussed the special permit for the location of a church in a C-3 zoning district. Churches require the special permit process regardless of zoning. This site may look familiar as a site for a church because it was approved by the Commission in 2011 for a church in almost the same location on the back side of the strip mall on the corner of Road 34 and Court Street. This is almost identical except it involves a different suite in the building. The church will be roughly 1,000 square feet. The special permit that was granted in 2011 cannot be used for this application because it contained a condition that stated it was personal to the church applicant at that time rather than the locations. Staff would recommend that the Commission not include that condition on this particular special permit should they decide to recommend approval. There is plenty of parking at this site and churches rarely, if ever, conflict with the typical business day commercial traffic. Commissioner Bowers asked if there was anything in the staff report about bathrooms and if staff knew how many were available. Mr. White responded that he did not know how many bathrooms were available but one of the conditions is that they meet the International Building Codes so it will be handled. Pedro Bautista, 1327 N. 24th Avenue, Apt. 3A, spoke on behalf of his application. Commissioner Alvarado translated on his behalf. He wanted to make sure his congregation had a legal place to come pray and worship. Commissioner Portugal asked the applicant in Spanish if he understood the conditions contained in the staff report. Mr. Bautista responded that he did not. -6- Chairwoman Roach stated that the Commission should go over the conditions with the applicant to ensure he understood them clearly. Mr. White responded that staff can work with the applicant as there are several employees available to translate. Commissioner Portugal explained to the applicant to arrange a time with staff to go over the conditions. Chairwoman Roach asked if the Commission should continue the public hearing to allow the applicant a chance to meet with staff and bring back any questions or comments. Mr. White replied that the Commission can continue the hearing. Commissioner Mendez asked how many people would attend the church. Mr. Bautista said only about 6 people. Chairwoman Roach asked if they plan to expand. Mr. Bautista responded that they are hoping to grow. He asked if he would have access to the building. Commissioner Portugal said once the permit is issued which could be 1-2 months since it has to come back to the Planning Commission and to Council. Mr. Bautista said that he understood. Commissioner Alvarado reiterated everything in Spanish for the applicant. Commissioner Mendez moved, seconded by Commissioner Greenaway, to continue the public hearing to the October 19, 2017 Planning Commission meeting for deliberations and the development of a recommendation for City Council . The motion passed unanimously. B. Rezone Rezone from I-1 (Light Industrial) to I-2 (Medium Industrial) (Tom Kidwell) (MF# Z 2017- 005) Chairwoman Roach read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Dave McDonald, City Planner, discussed the rezone application from I-1 to I-2. The property owner owns several parcels along the PK Highway, Ventura Road and Commercial Avenue. There was a hearing on this same site about a month ago for a special permit to locate a ready-mix plant. The applicant now wishes to rezone the -7- property to I-2. This site has been included in the Comprehensive Plan for over 35 years for industrial development. Within the Comprehensive Plan the industrial designation doesn’t specify what zoning district properties are to be zoned but that is to take place through the hearing process. The industrial designation would allow properties to be rezoned to I-1, I-2 and I-3, except I-3 is just reserved for the Port of Pasco down along the river near the Sacagawea Park. The difference between I-1 and I-2 zoning is mainly that in the I-2 zone, property owners can locate salvage yards, junk yards, automobile wrecking yards and then the list of conditional uses would require special permit are lengthy compared to the I-1 zone. I-2 zone conditional uses would include: garbage dumps, rendering plants, acid manufacturing, cement and lime manufacturing, commercial composting and asphalt batch plants. The surrounding area does have more intense industrial uses. Just up the road is the regional dump site for Basin Disposal. There are also food processors, warehouses for storing potatoes and onions and at certain times of the year those warehouses can have a very foul odor that you wouldn’t find in heavier commercial or light industrial areas. Provided in the staff report is a list of findings of fact for review. Commissioner Bowers asked about the Oxarc facility mentioned in the staff report and if it was the name of a company. Mr. McDonald responded yes, they are a welding supply facility. Commissioner Alvarado voiced concern because across the highway there is residential. He has heard complaints from residents in this area about odors so he is worried if it is zoned I-2, it would only add to the problem. Mr. McDonald replied that is why most of the foul smelling items are contained in the conditional use section. If an asphalt batch plant wanted to come along or a rendering plant, they would require an additional hearing and at the hearing stage the Planning Commission can place conditions on that use or recommend denial. This provides another step and safeguard for the community and that neighborhood with the conditional use process. Commissioner Alvarado asked if there was a process for letting those residents know about the rezone application. Mr. McDonald said that there is a notification sent to property owners within 300 feet of the proposed site and the residents in this case are well beyond 300 feet. There is a notice placed in the newspaper and posted on the City’s website. Commissioner Alvarado clarified that the residents near this proposed site yet were past the 300 foot radius notification would have to know to check the paper. Mr. McDonald replied that the City could send the residents an additional notice to these residents specifically as an option. Commissioner Alvarado said that he felt it would be important to these homeowners -8- because at this time he doubts most of them are aware. Commissioner Portugal asked about the 300 foot radius notification and how that is a State mandate. He asked for clarification on the rules. Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director, replied that this had come up in the past and it involved a cell tower application. That specific concern was taken to City Council through 2-3 workshop hearings and Council opted to maintain the required distance consistent with State law and the rest of the applications and cities in Washington State. He said he was unsure of which neighborhood nearby this site Commissioner Alvarado was referring to but he thinks the nearest neighborhood is 1,800 feet away. Commissioner Alvarado said he believed that right across from Sunrise Estates there is future development coming. Mr. White responded that he wasn’t certain on the distances but from the edge of the proposed site to Highway 12 is roughly 700-800 feet or more. One of the reasons City Council decided not to change the 300 foot radius notification because it gets extremely complicated and the likelihood of anyone within 2,100 feet worried about a project that far away is slim. Chairwoman Roach asked if there is a public notice that is posted on the property. Mr. White said no – it is posted on the webpage, in the newspaper and sent directly to property owners within 300 feet of the exterior boundaries of the site. Commissioner Bykonen clarified that the notice was sent to the property owner, not necessarily the resident. Tom Kidwell, 4320 River Haven, spoken on behalf of his application. The purpose of this public hearing is only for the rezoning of the property. He will have to come back through a public hearing for a special permit in order to locate an asphalt plant at this location. Chairwoman Roach asked if he had someone interested in this site for a particular use. Mr. Kidwell responded that it was the same gentleman that was at the previous month’s public hearing for a concrete plant. Chairwoman Roach asked if the entirety of the site would be used for concrete and asphalt. Mr. Kidwell said yes. The name of the company is JMAC from Wenatchee, Washington and from his understanding they run a very clean operation. -9- Chairwoman Roach asked if there was anything else he would like to state. Mr. Kidwell answered that he would like the Commission to move forward with the rezone so he can come back to the Planning Commission with the special permit application which will involve more detail. The special permit cannot be requested until a rezone has been approved. Randy Hayden, Executive Director for the Port of Pasco, 1110 Osprey Pointe Blvd, spoke on behalf of the rezone application. He stated that he was not in opposition of the rezone but did have some concerns. The Port has been speaking with DNR who owns the land to the northeast to purchase for a future industrial park, like the Pasco Processing Center. His concern is if an asphalt plant locates at this site, which is the interest expressed by the applicant, there could potentially be odors that would detract from a food processor. He isn’t certain that it would be a deterrent and i n today’s standards there are probably stricter controls on asphalt plants, but he is concerned it could still potentially detract from potential food processors. In terms of the residential, he did feel that the proposed site is far enough away downwind of odors that would come back to the houses so it shouldn’t be much of an issue. The existing uses surrounding the property, such as the garbage dump and onion sheds, are far enough away to the north and east that they don’t have the same character. If it were allowed, he would ask that when the special permits come in that the Commission is very careful on how they are compatible with the other types of uses. The Port is trying to attract industry in Pasco and if it becomes unattractive to those types of food processessors, he would hate to see the business lost. On the other hand, a new asphalt plant would be good in Pasco. A lot of asphalt is used at the airport and having competition in the area could be a good thing. Chairwoman Roach responded that the Commission has already approved a special permit for a concrete ready-mix plant for the southern portion of this site. Mr. Hayden replied that he was aware of the approval of the concrete ready-mix plant and didn’t see any issues with that type of activity. With no further questions or comments the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Bowers asked if asphalt production was different than concrete. Mr. McDonald answered yes. Chairwoman Roach asked if there was an unpleasant odor created by asphalt mixing plants. Mr. McDonald said there was, especially with the older plants. The newer modern plants try to control the odor. Commissioner Bykonen added that she believed there was an asphalt company in Richland on Lacey Road in case any of them were curious to check on the odors. -10- Commissioner Portugal asked Commissioner Bykonen if she smelled the odors and if she could describe it. Commissioner Bykonen said it smells like tar, such as when tarring a roof. Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director, said that in 2008 there was an asphalt plant requested on the west side of town at the American Rock site. The City required an environmental impact statement and the he arings were a big deal. Through that process of the impact statement and the hearings, staff learned quite a bit about asphalt plants and toured several, particularly the ones that heat the aggregate now instead of the oil and tar. The new technique is far different than the old technique that heated the oil, tar and aggregate at the same time. The old way used to even emit a blue smoke the fumes were so strong and today it isn’t that way. There are certainly process requirements that would have to be looked at to locate an asphalt plant anywhere in the Pasco city limits. Commissioner Mendez said he assumed that plant was not approved. Mr. White responded that it was approved with several conditions but the company was sold to American Rock and they aren’t interested in asphalt. Commissioner Mendez asked if that site is located near Rivershore Estates. He said that the City likely received a lot of comments. Mr. White said the City received several. Commissioner Alvarado asked if there was a quantified way to know the extent of the potential smell or if a study has been done. Mr. White said there are some “rule of thumbs” from what was learned in 2008 and the quantity of odor is far less than from an old style of plant. The studies done in 2008 tried to quantify the amount of dilution of the odor that takes place based on the distance away from the odor source. Past 600’-800’ from the odor source it is very difficult for any detection to occur. The prevailing winds would also work in favor at this particular location because the winds would carry to an uninhabited area to the east. Commissioner Alvarado asked about the current odors the residents receive. Mr. White said it was also a weather pattern and there is sometimes inversion where the air doesn’t go anyplace which is why there is sometimes agrictultural smells, even at City Hall. The odors typically happen when there is an inversion or fog. Chairwoman Roach reminded the commission of condition #4 and that there are additional protections in place as well as another hearing would be required for the actual special permit for the asphalt plant, this application is for a rezone. -11- Commissioner Greenaway moved, seconded by Commissioner Bowers, to close the public hearing on the proposed rezone and set October 19, 2017 as the date for deliberations and the development of a recommendation for the City Council. The motion passed unanimously. C. Preliminary Plat Preakness Ridge, 86-Lot Multi-Family (Big Sky Developers LLC) (MF# PP 2017-008) Chairwoman Roach read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Dave McDonald, City Planner, discussed the preliminary plat application for Preakness Ridge, 86-lots of multi-family. In 2003, the Chapel Hill Development received preliminary plat approval and that development was a mixed-use development containing single-family homes, three sections for multi-family development and some commercial development in between Chapel Hill Boulevard and the freeway. It is a long narrow strip of land that is a little difficult to develop. The City has received a request from a developer that has developed in Pasco in the past and would like to develop this site with zero lot line duplex type o f homes similar to what is located on Sandifur Parkway at Road 76. They built duplexes with one unit on each lot and the common wall was the property line and has been a successful development. This developer would like to replicate that at this location . There are other properties in the community similar and they have been listed in the staff report. One of those is the townhomes behind Walmart on Road 76 and Mediterranean Villas is another example. The other option the developer would have at this l ocation is to build multi-story larger buildings. In fact, last year the Building Department received a permit application for a 220 unit apartment complex at this site. They paid their plan review fee then backed out. This property is zoned for multi-family and is located across the street that is also zoned for multi-family. Commissioner Bowers asked about the area just west of this site zoned R-3. Mr. McDonald responded that it is a park site and that there will be a 5 acre park located there that was dedicated to the City a couple of years ago. The developer put in the street, sidewalk and stubbed water and sewer. Mr. McDonald added that the staff report didn’t include drawings so the drawings were passed out to the Commissioner’s. Chairwoman Roach stated that she remembers this item coming to the Planning Commission a few years ago with the previous applicant applying for a rezone of this property and the neighborhood input. Mr. McDonald clarified that it wasn’t this property but the property across the street. This property has been zoned since 2003. Chairwoman Roach asked about the substation. She said it appears from the aerial view there are arborvitaes along three sides and one side is open and asked if that side -12- didn’t have any arborvitaes due to driving access. Mr. McDonald said that is correct – it is the side the substation is accessed and in that area to the west they have a number of vaults with equipment. The developer will be putting a fence up on his side. The property lines go to the substation but there is a large easement running north and south that they won’t be able to build on becaus e access is needed to the substation. They also have an easement for the substation access along the southern portion of the plat coming off of the cul-de-sac and that portion will not be able to be built on either. Chairwoman Roach asked if the dashed line in their image was the access route for the substation. Mr. McDonald responded yes. The easement on the eastern edge is 40’ wide and there are two easements on the south, one for access and one for electrical equipment. Chairwoman Roach asked if there was any concern for this plat being so close to the substation. Mr. McDonald said no. The Columbia Place subdivision lies between Burns Road and Sandifur Parkway and directly across the street from there is a substation. There is another major substation at Road 92 near larger homes as well as one on Court Street with homes across the street. Chairwoman Roach added that it’s enforced in a way that discourages people to trespass. Mr. McDonald replied that it definitely is enforced with barbed wire fencing around it. Commissioner Alvarado asked about frontage between Chapel Hill Boulevard and “Road A”. He said he assumed that the duplexes would be facing the proposed “Road A” and that there would be a fence on Chapel Hill. Mr. McDonald responded that they will be fronting “Road A” but the developer hasn’t decided yet if he will put a fence up. The fourplexes against the freeway just west of where the park will be currently do not have any fencing or barriers. Commissioner Alvarado said the developer may need to get creative because it could look awkward to have homes on the other side and facing the back of a home without a fence or the home just has a big fence in front of it. Mr. McDonald said the fence my not be a problem, perhaps a little a wkward with the backs of the duplexes facing the homes but it doesn’t appear to be awkward or create any problems with the fourplexes and there are homes directly across the street from them. -13- Caleb Stromstad, 5804 Road 90, spoke as a representative for the applicant. He said the staff report was pretty straightforward and he had nothing to add unless the Commission had questions. Commissioner Alvarado asked what the developer was thinking of doing for the design. Mr. Stromstad replied that they are still working on the grading concept. There are some unique grading challenges at this site. As far as the backyards go, they do not have a plan to fence but there will likely need to be a wall in some places on the Chapel Hill side just to make the grades work. Overall, the developer really wants the product to look good. The zero lot line homes have a higher resale value and will make the neighborhood look attractive. He asked for clarification about the process and if this item will come back to the Planning Commission next month. Chairwoman Roach said yes. It will come back to the Planning Commission who will then make a recommendation to City Council. Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director, clarified that this was the public hearing and there will be no more hearings. The Commission will deliberate on this item in the next month, make a recommendation in October and then it will go to the first City Council meeting in November. Mr. Stromstad said that with other cities the decision would be made and forwarded to City Council in one meeting and didn’t know what the reason was behind having a second meeting which delays the process. There were no citizens in the audience to complain on the item. Mr. McDonald responded that there is a process set up that requires a public hearing, were testimony and information is submitted. Then in Pasco, the hearing in closed and the Planning Commission comes back the following month to deliberate and discuss it. That is the current process used. With no further questions or comments the public hearing closed. Commissioner Greenaway moved, seconded by Commissioner Mendez, to close the public hearing on the proposed subdivision and initiate deliberations and schedule adoption of findings of fact, conclusions and a recommendation to the City Council for the October 19, 2017 meeting. The motion passed unanimously. WORKSHOP: A. Code Amendment Ordinance Amending PMC Chapter 26.28 Allowing Administrative Approval of Final Plats (MF# CA 2017-007) Chairwoman Roach read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. -14- Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director, discussed the ordinance amending PMC Chapter 26.28, allowing administrative approval of final plats. Currently, preliminary plats come to the Planning Commission for public hearing, then come back for deliberations and are then sent on to City Council for a recommendation to approve or deny a preliminary plat with a number of conditions. The applicant will have 5 years to fulfill those conditions based on the preliminary plat approval. When it is complete, and they are often done in phases, the phases go to City Council for approval. It is a pro-forma approval because at that stage everything is complete. The improvements are constructed, conditions complied with and if the improvements aren’t constructed, a bond is posted in case the developer walks from the project the City can complete the public improvements, such as a road or park. Up until July of 2017, State Law requires that final plat process to go through City Council for approval but that has been changed to allow administrative approval of the final plat. Staff has developed an ordinance that appears to change a lot in our existing subdivision code but it actually changes very little. It clarifies some items and allows administrative approval instead of City Council approval. The process the Planning Commission is involved with won’t change at all and the City Council will still be hearing the Commission’s recommendations on preliminary plats just as they do now. But in 5 years from now when the plat is completed, City Council won’t be involved should this code amendment be processed and approved. Chairwoman Roach asked if this ordinance would take 5 years to be put into effect. Mr. White replied that if it is approved it will go into effect when it is adopted by City Council but it is an amendment to the subdivision code. The Planning Commission should weigh in on what Council should do. Chairwoman Roach said she would support the process to move more expediently as there has been such requests from the public and applicants. This may help move things along. Mr. White added that once the preliminary plat is approved by Council they may not see plat again and neither does the Planning Commission. When it does come back to Council for final approval it’s on the consent agenda, it’s not even a hearing or discussed. It would save 2-4 weeks of time at the end of the process when everything is complete and the developer just needs approval which is what the state law was getting at. Commissioner Portugal added that there needs to be a balance between expedience and the process to make sure nothing backfires. While he understands there are deadlines, he does want us to use caution to ensure the well-being of the residents. Commissioner Greenaway said she agreed with Commissioner Portugal but the problem is 5 years down the road when the project is complete that step in the process should be quick. -15- Commissioner Bykonen reminded the Commission that once the plat is ready for final approval by Council, it is put on the consent agenda and Council doesn’t even discuss it and that has been her experience regardless of the jurisdiction. Commissioner Alvarado asked if staff saw any drawbacks to the ordinance amending the PMC. Mr. White said no. Commissioner Portugal discussed the process of cell towers and how it is decided for the companies to disguise them, such as the pine tree cell tower on Road 68 and Court Street or not disguise them as some other towers in the community. He asked if it was possible to have a requirement for cell towers or to make older cell towers to look more aesthetic. Mr. White responded that as Commissioner Cruz once pointed out, that sometimes it is site specific and a tower disguised as a tree may look good in one location but out of place and worse in another location. At the same meeting where the cell tower disguised as a pine tree was approved there was also a cell tower approved disguised as a church steeple on top of a church. It is more of a location basis but the Planning Commission weighs in on the decision. Commissioner Alvarado asked if the item they were discussing the ordinance amendment was for development of plats. Mr. White replied yes and with the code amendment the Planning Commission typically looks at it first at a workshop and then staff takes direction and makes any necessary changes based on feedback and then schedule a hearing to come back to the Planning Commission with a draft ordinance for a recommendation. There were no further questions or comments. OTHER BUSINESS: With no further discussion or business, the Planning Commission was adjourned at 8:25 p.m. Respectfully submitted, David McDonald, City Planner