HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-21-2017 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes-1-
REGULAR MEETING December 21, 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 Vacant Position
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 re quires 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 Bowers moved, seconded by Commissioner Roach that the minutes
dated November 16, 2017 be approved. The motion passed unanimously.
OLD BUSINESS:
A. Rezone Rezone from R-1 to R-4 (A.K. Sharma) (MF# Z
2017-007)
Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff.
Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director, discussed the rezone
application from R-1 (Low Density Residential) to R-4 (High Density Residential). Mr.
-2-
White mentioned a correction to the staff report contained in the Environmental
Determination. There was a sentence mistakenly placed in that paragraph of the
report the will be cleared up and removed by staff. There were no further questions or
comments.
Commissioner Roach moved, seconded by Commissioner Bykonen, to adopt findings
of fact and conclusions therefrom as contained in the December 21, 2017 staff report.
The motion passed unanimously.
Commissioner Roach moved, seconded by Commissioner Bykonen, based on the
findings of fact and conclusions as adopted, the Planning Commission recommend the
City Council rezone tax parcel #115-180-064 from R-1 to R-4. The motion passed
unanimously.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
A. Special Permit Location of a Solid Waste Facility (2022
Commercial Avenue LLC) (MF# SP 2017-019) –
Continued from November 16, 2017 meeting
Chairman Cruz 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 solid waste facility. This hearing is continued
from the November 16, 2017 due to a number of issues that came up at that meeting.
Staff prepared a supplemental memorandum explaining in much greater detail the
analysis and procedural issues or questions and the special permit’s relationship to
the Franklin County Solid Waste Plan. Staff also provided a detailed analysis of the
Comprehensive Plan policies, the character of the neighborhood, the traffic impacts
and the proposed findings, conclusions and conditions that are required through the
Pasco Municipal Code regarding special permit applications. Fundamentally, this is a
land use application. The application seeks land use approval to locate a solid waste
handling facility. It does not grant a building permit. It does not grant approval from
the Health Department and it does not grant approval from the Washington State
Department of Ecology. As noted in the staff memorandum, each of those entities has
advised that inclusion or amendment of the Solid Waste Plan is necessary for them to
consider the application. Staff has concluded that this is an appropriate use of land
at this location. Staff would also encourage that if the Commission needs additional
time to consider the additional information from this meeting that they can de liberate
in the following month at the January Planning Commission Meeting.
Chairman Cruz asked the Planning Commission if there was any opposition to doing
what was suggested by Mr. White and holding the public hearing but then scheduling
the deliberations and a recommendation for the January meeting.
There was no opposition.
Darrick Deitrich, 2022 Commercial Avenue, spoke on behalf of his application. He
-3-
stated that the staff report accurately portrays the request and felt that it amply fits
within the use of the neighborhood and in the City’s Comprehensive Plan. He
understands that this is not an immediate permit to start construction. This is a long
process with many regulatory layers at the State, County, City and Health Department
level. This is simply a gateway decision to get the process moving. He has a business
decision at the moment to purchase some land and he is asking the Planning
Commission if this is an appropriate use for the property.
Alan Wallace, 601 Union Street, Seattle, WA spoke on behalf of the applicant as his
legal representation. He addressed a letter he submitted into the record for the
Commission that hits some points of interest in support of this application. There
were some allegations made by opponents of this application and their attorney
stating that this is an “illegal action” by the Planning Commission to recommend an
approval to the City Council. He stated that at his firm they represent solid waste
companies around the state and he is a land use attorney and environment attorney
and he has been involved in the permitting of solid waste transfer stations. Because
of the many layers of the permitting process this is the first step that needs to go
through in order to move forward. The proponents are arguing that it is inappropriate
to recommend to Council because of what they perceive as a conflict with an out of
date County Solid Waste Management Plan. There are errors in that argument. The
County under State law and State Supreme Court decision, counties control the waste
stream within the borders of the county and as such they are solely responsible for
approving the Solid Waste Management Plan and is subject to review by the State
Department of Health and State Department of Ecology. But the City of Pasco is
simply a consultant party and the City never passed an o rdinance incorporating the
County Solid Waste Plan into the City’s Comprehensive Plan. The City has no role or
authority of enforcing the Solid Waste Plan.
Mr. Wallace addressed the minutes from the previous meeting and pointed out that
the Chairman tried to focus on if this application fits the character of this site of light
industrial zoning. He stated that this would be a fully enclosed drive-thru transfer
station. That directly impacts the issues of litter, noise and odors. In terms of truck
traffic, the trucks are already at this site so there is already a considerable amount of
traffic and there will be efficiency having the site next to the BDI parking yard . The
State Department of Ecology regulates the Clean Air Act so any complaints can be
addressed by them. This type of use would be highly regulated on the front end in
getting approved and on the back end once it is approved. He discussed one of the
letters submitted by an opponent of the application in which they addressed a
comment from the Megan Gilmore, Department of Ecology and a letter form the
County Health Department asserting that approval of the special permit would be
illegal. Mr. Wallace spoke with Ms. Gilmore, the Environmental Planner, and she
reaffirms that her email is only making the same point that the Department of Health
is making, that simply approval of an operating permit would have to come from the
Health Department in order to establish a solid waste transfer station and would
require conformance with the Solid Waste Management Plan. She went on to say the
Ecology has no role in local government zoning decisions or land use approval
decisions for solid waste facilities. And in fact, when filling out an application with the
Health District, they must check a box confirming that they have local zoning approval
which is why it makes sense to secure the zoning approval first before undertaking the
-4-
expensive process of County and State Health Department approvals and Ecology
approvals for a transfer station. He reminded the Planning Commission that market
share and need isn’t particularly what they need to be considering and they should
not make zoning decisions based on individual businesses. The issue of need will be
resolved by the Franklin County Solid Waste Plan and Franklin County
Commissioners. The current Solid Waste Plan in 8 years old so it is out of date
demographically and in terms of State Law which requires it to be updated every 5
years.
Ken Miller, of Miller Mertens & Comfort PLLC, 1020 N. Center Pkwy. #B, Kennewick,
WA spoke on behalf of an opponent of the application. He clarified confusion from the
last meeting because there had been 2 files set up by City Staff and to avoid any
additional confusion he asked the Planning Commission if they had received all of the
documents he had submitted into the record, including letters and materials supplied
by Columbia Basin LLC as well as a letter from his office with supporting docume nts.
Chairman Cruz confirmed that they had received all of the documents submitted into
the record.
Mr. Miller provided 2 other documents to the Clerk and to the Planning
Commissioners to be submitted into the record that were of state statutes. He said
that it is important that this item requires a special permit because it is a land use
that is not outright permitted and is therefore not unusual for these type of hearings
to have controversy and for people to have opposition to what is occurring becaus e it
is outside of the established zoning itself. Staff touched on the idea that this is an
essential public facility and is defined by that in the Comprehensive Plan. In the
Comprehensive Plan it states that the Basin Disposal Solid Waste Transfer Station, is
an essential public facility. It goes on to state that an essential public facility is a
capital facility that is difficult to site due to the potential adverse effects related to size,
bulk, hazardous characteristics, noise or public health and sa fety. In other words,
they are typically uses that people don’t want near them. There is already a permitted
transfer station within eyesight of this proposal. What the Planning Commission is
being asked to do is to approve another facility within eyesight of one that is already
operating and permitted. And then the neighboring property owners will have to have
not just 1 but 2 transfer stations now. There may be some opposition to that. He
addressed the 6 findings of fact in the staff report that the Planning Commission is
supposed to consider prior to their approval. The one he wanted the Commission to
pay attention to is if this proposal is in accordance with the goals, policies, objectives,
maps and narrative text of the Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Miller referenced the statutes that he handed out, including RCW 36.70A.200
(Siting of essential public facilities – Limitation on Liability) and RCW 36.70A.210
(Countywide planning policies). They state that each comprehensive plan of any
County or City has to have a process for identifying and siting a central public facility,
such as the one being proposed. It is not the typical procedure of obtaining a special
permit but a different step in addition which is why he is objecting on a legal basis.
State law requires the City of Pasco to have a policy and procedure in place for siting
these types of facilities, which it does but it is not being followed. RCW 36.70A.200
states that, “(5) No local comprehensive plan or development regulation may preclude
-5-
the siting of essential public facilities.” That is because they don’t allow “not in my
backyard” laws. The City can’t say that they won’t allow a public facility period. But
the policy for this is that when an appropriate issue arises, the County and City within
and along with public participation shall develop a cooperative regional process to site
an essential public facility – countywide. The City of Pasco is being asked to site this
use without any input from Franklin County, City of Eltopia or Ci ty of Mesa and they
are required to because under this RCW it is a regional process. The Pasco Municipal
Code states that zoning action cannot be made that violates state law. He said that
the process is happening backwards and that the applicant should first try to change
the Franklin County Solid Waste Plan prior to asking the Pasco Planning Commission
for a land use recommendation. The reason being that you would then have regional
input as to the proper siting for that facility. He added that it makes no sense to
locate a new facility within site of the current facility. He asked how that would serve
the entire region and spread the benefits within the entire County, which is what the
policy states.
Commissioner Portugal asked Mr. Miller asked if e fficiency wasn’t a part of the
equation to make a decision.
Mr. Miller responded asked whom the efficiency would be for, such as the County.
Commissioner Portugal answered the applicant who would be building the new
transfer station.
Mr. Miller said that isn’t something for the Planning Commission to consider when
looking at a land use decision as that is an economic decision for the applicant.
Steve Wheatley, 1 Marigold Loop, spoke in opposition to the proposed application. He
said that he represents Columbia Basin LLC and submitted a packet to the Planning
Commission to be a part of the record. His packet included tonnage charts and other
information. He addressed some of the arguments brought up at the last meeting an
in the staff report, such as their facility not having landscaping but nobody else on
Deitrich Road has landscaping either. He discussed the road but it is a city road and
the owner of their business had the road rebuilt in front of their facility. He briefly
went over the 6 criteria items for the Commission to review. He said that the City only
has a Comprehensive Plan but not their own Solid Waste Management Plan because
they are participating and signed on to the County’s integrated Solid Waste
Management Plan. Their plan still states that there shall be no new transfer station
and it also states that the County should consider building a dry box facility in North
Franklin County. The proponent states that the tonnage is growing at 9.5%. Mr.
Wheatley said that is incorrect and he referenced his tonnage charts. He addressed
future traffic that he felt would increase and effect the public infrastructure and litter
may become an issue. As for the character of the neighborhood, he doesn’t know how
they can state it will be in harmony without plans in place. He discussed the
condition of the proposed activity effecting the development of permitted uses in the
general facility or their value and without the applicant submitting any kind of
conceptual drawings or information it is hard to tell if there will be any negative
effects. Despite the fact that the applicants wishes to have an enclosed facility, the
-6-
trucks will still have to drive to get there leaving litter along the way to get there.
Lastly in relation to public he alth or safety or becoming a nuisance, since they haven’t
submitted drawings/blueprints that it is unclear at this time that this would be
known. He finished by discussing the statues addressed by Mr. Miller.
Leonard Deitrich, 1721 Deitrich Road, spoke out as an opponent to this application.
He cautioned the Commission to be careful with the numbers put out there regarding
tonnage. Mr. Wheatley pointed them out but he clarified the numbers provided by Mr.
Darrick Deitrich. One of the reasons the numbers jumped up is because there was a
time that much of the garbage was going to the landfill and it is now going through his
facility. He briefly summarized out Franklin County came to their Solid Waste
Management Plan which involved too many garbage dumps in the 1960’s. At that
time every city had one and Pasco had two. The State understood that this was a
problem and they wanted to eliminate all of the burning dumps that were out there.
They developed a plan and brought it to the counties, which was the correct place to
bring it to. The counties then created regional plans which worked because then there
was one central location to go to. Any city can produce their own plan but the City of
Pasco has decided to be a part of the Franklin County plan because they were working
on a regional concept. The next task is to decide where the next one regionally needs
to be located, not because it is convenient for the applicant.
Zenaido Martinez III, 5108 Laredo Drive, spoke as an opponent to this application. He
said that he was representing Martinez Trucking which is located on 2020 Garland
Street and 2202 Garland Street. He stated that they had a few concerns for the
proposed applicant at this site. He said that they are concerned about the prope rty
value of their current location as well as litter and traffic. Although the proposal is for
a drive thru facility, he still believed there would be litter outside of their site due to
falling off of the trucks as they travelled to the site. Garland Street is already a busy
road and at times dangerous and he is worried that the increased traffic could make it
worse.
Commissioner Campos asked Mr. Martinez if he would feel more comfortable with the
proposed application if preliminary drawings for the facility and site were presented.
Mr. Martinez said possibly.
Alan Wallace, 601 Union Street, Seattle, WA spoke again as legal representation for
the applicant. He addressed the Growth Management Act RCW’s that were handed
out to the Planning Commission by Mr. Miller, legal representative for the opponent.
RCW 36.70A.200 does speak to essential public facilities and does require that every
city planning under the Growth Management Act must have a process for and may not
preclude the siting of an essential public facility, which is what Pasco has done. The
special permit process is Pasco’s process to enable an essential public facility to be
sited in this light industrial zone. Pasco’s special permit process is in compliance with
RCW 36.70A.200 (5). Then RCW 36.70A.210 only concerns the enactment of county-
wide planning policies but what it says is that there must be a policy siting public
capital facilities of county-wide or state-wide nature. He said that the transfer station
is not a public essential facility, rather just an essential facility. Pasco cannot deny an
-7-
essential public facility. Nowhere do the RCW’s state that there is some kind of a land
use process where the City of Pasco shares the approval authority with the County or
other cities in siting a transfer station. He stated that in the other cases he has
worked on he has always dealt with the local jurisdiction in obtaining land use
approval. This has been the same lawful process used in other jurisdictions. The
other agencies will be involved in approval when it is their time to do so. This is just
one step in the process.
Chairman Cruz if an example of a public capital facility would be an airport in the
RCW.
Mr. Wallace said yes, something regional. In this case, the solid waste transfer station
is not at a level of regional importance as there are other transfer stations.
Ken Miller, of Miller Mertens & Comfort PLLC, 1020 N. Center Pkwy . #B, Kennewick,
WA spoke again as legal representation on behalf of the opponent of the application.
He reminded that Planning Commission to look at how this application itself complies
with the Comprehensive Plan. This Comprehensive Plan defines the Solid Waste
Transfer Station as an essential public facility. He asked how it would address policy
#4 which is in every section of the Comprehensive Plan. If working on a regional
basis, input is required form the other jurisdictions. When the original lo cation was
sited, it was agreed upon with all of the input. And now this application wishes to site
another location within a stone’s throw of the original facility without all of the input.
Alan Wallace, 601 Union Street, Seattle, WA spoke again as legal representation for
the applicant. He addressed policy #4 from the Comprehensive Plan and stated that
there was a predicate of, “…when an issue arises.” That is a judgement made by the
Planning Department, Planning Commission and ultimately City Council. When does
a use rise to a regional level of requiring interjurisdictional review and approval? The
Planning Department has given their professional planning judgement that this use as
proposed within an enclosed building is consistent with the industrial zone and
doesn’t arise to the issue nor is it appropriate to ask other cities in the Tri-City Area or
County to give their opinion on the City of Pasco land use decision at this time.
Chairman Cruz asked if the City took into account the City Attorney’s perspective on
this issue.
Mr. White replied that Staff takes the City Attorney’s input greatly. The suggestion to
deliberate in the upcoming month is for another opportunity to review this hearings
record with the attorney to make sure the recommendation that comes to the Planning
Commission is defensible and solid.
Commissioner Mendez asked if they could get insight as to whether the RCW’s
presented apply or not.
Chairman Cruz clarified Commissioner Mendez’s request.
-8-
Mr. White said that is another reason to have deliberations in the next month to make
sure the findings are defensible and solid.
With no further question or comments the public hearing closed.
Commissioner Roach moved, seconded by Commissioner Portugal, to close the public
hearing and schedule the deliberations, adoption of findings of fact and conclusions
and recommendation for City Council for the January 18, 2018 Planning Commission
meeting. The motion passed unanimously.
B. Special Permit Location of a Used Car Lot (Adriana Robledo)
(MF# SP 2017-020)
Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff.
Darcy Bourcier, Planner I, discussed the special permit application for the location of
a used car lot. The site is located in a C-1 zone and since the site meets criteria per
the Pasco Municipal Code in that it is adjacent to an arterial street and not adjacent to
or across from a residential district it is permitted as a conditional use as long as it is
approved through the special permit process. The site contains an old retail building
that has been vacant since 2013. In 2016, the applicant was granted a special permit
to locate an identical business at 609 W. Lewis Street in a C -1 zoning district but they
are wishing to relocate their business. Based on the size of the existing retail building
the applicant is required to provide at least 7 off street customer parking spaces. It is
unlikely that the use will result in an increased need for public transportation
services. The property is located at the corner of 4th Avenue and Court Street.
Commissioner Roach asked which street would be used for the proposed 7 customer
parking spaces.
Ms. Bourcier responded that no streets would be used as the parking would need to
be off street so located on the property.
The applicant did not wish to come forward to speak for the hearing.
With no further questions or comments the public hearing closed.
Commissioner Bowers asked what would happen to the applicant’s current used car
lot.
Ms. Bourcier responded that it would just close down as they are just relocating, not
expanding their business.
Commissioner Campos moved, seconded by Commissioner Mendez, to close the
hearing on the proposed special permit and set January 18, 2018 as the date for
deliberations and the development of a recommendation for the City Council. The
motion passed unanimously.
-9-
C. Special Permit Valdivia Daycare Center Expansion (Mariana
Hernandez & Juan Valdivia) (MF# SP 2017-021)
Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff.
Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director, discussed the special
permit application for the Valdivia Daycare Center expansion. The Planning
Commission has seen this site before when the applicant had originally applied for
their special permit to locate a daycare center. The Planning Commission made a
recommendation to City Council to approve the special permit and City Council then
approved. It currently serves 30 children and they have made a number of physical
improvements to the home and property to accommodate the daycare center. They are
proposing to expand their 30 children limit to 50 children which in most
circumstances would be a rather benign land use application but in this case the
issue arises with the availability of parking. The daycare is located on the north side
of Sylvester Street but they have an agreement with the church across the street to
use some of their lot for additional parking that would be required for the additional
20 children. The current parking requirements are for 9 stalls. The State requires a
certain ratio for students to staff depending on the age of the children which affects
the number of parking stalls required so the parking requirements could go up
anywhere from 13-22 parking stalls to accommodate the additional staff. The problem
is that crossing Sylvester Street poses a number of safety issues. There would need to
be a transportation capacity analysis for safety safeguards that would require
construction of sidewalk improvements all the way on Sylvester Street to Road 37 so
that there are no mid-block crossings. The sidewalk improvements would also require
ADA accessible ramps on both sides of the street at Road 37. The staff report to the
Planning Commission addresses the issues related to traffic safety and staff suggests a
couple of options to be considered, such as; (1) The number of children can’t exceed
the maximum of onsite available parking or (2) The number of children can’t exceed
50, which is what the applicant applied for but with 50 children, they may be required
to provide the parking across the street.
Commissioner Bowers asked where staff parking is currently located.
Mr. White replied that all of the parking is currently located onsite. He believes that
the staff parks in the rear and the parents drop off in the front of the home.
Commissioner Bowers asked why they don’t use additional parking from the vacant
site located next to the daycare.
Mr. White said that they don’t own that site so perhaps the applicant can provide
additional information.
Commissioner Campos added that he felt 50 children seemed like a lot of students
given the size of the structure so it would be likely that the structure itself would need
to expand.
-10-
Juan & Mariana Valdivia, 1732 N. 18th Avenue, spoke on behalf of their application.
They are proposing to expand to the daycare, adding a room this year and another in
the future which is why they are asking for 50 students now. If they have to make
improvements to the sidewalk and safeguarding it would likely be too much money. If
they could just expand their parking lot towards the end of the yard in the back then
they could try to get more parking stalls that way since they have room to do so.
Chairman Cruz stated that would be one of the options, mainly option 1 to see what
that lot expansion would look like and then how many additional students they could
add based on the additional parking stalls. He said that it gets complicated because
the additional children will require additional staff which means more parking. He did
not personally have an issue with the option of expanding their current parking lot on
their site.
Ms. Valdivia clarified from the staff report that they will not have just infants, which
require higher staff to child ratios. They will likely have more toddlers and pre -k
children which have lower ratios.
With no further questions or comments the public hearing closed.
Commissioner Campos moved, seconded by Commissioner Bowers, to close the public
hearing and schedule deliberations, the adoption of findings of fact and development
of a recommendation for City Council for the January 18, 2018 meeting. The motion
passed unanimously.
D. Special Permit Location of a Recreation Complex in an RS-1
Zoning District (JUB Engineers, Inc.) (MF# SP
2017-022)
Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff.
Darcy Bourcier, Planner I, discussed the special permit for the location of a recreation
complex in an RS-1 zoning district. The applicant was granted a special permit for a
recreation complex earlier this year but because of substantial changes to the site
plan it is required to go through the special permit process again. When the initial
special permit was granted the site plan indicated the complex would be located at the
southwest corner of the parcel along Burns Road but in the updated site plan the
complex sits in the northwest corner of the property. It would still be located on 22
acres of the 119 acre parcel and used for soccer, lacrosse and other field sports.
There will be 8 grass and 2 synthetic turf fields. It is intended for the general public
but each field may be rented out on either an hourly or membership basis. The
applicant also stated that some fields will have lighting but that won’t extend past
10:00 p.m. Development of the complex is set to be completed in phases. Adjacent
lands to the west have been purchased by the School District and are being reserved
for a future high school. It is important to note that the City anticipates several low -
density residential neighborhoods in the vicinity sometime in the future and while
those neighborhoods may supply many of the complexes visitors, the two uses have
the potential to be conflicting. The site is located about midway between Broadmoor
-11-
Boulevard and Dent Road. A 40’ right of way dedication and collector street will be
needed at this location running north from Burns Road between the future high
school site and the proposed facility. Staff is still unclear of the details but the
applicant proposes that the collector street be developed with gravel temporarily until
a residential developer comes in and fully improves it to City standards. The applicant
states that JUB Engineers is working with a residential developer that will be
responsible for developing the surrounding neighborhood. Staff is also unclear of the
timeline or who the residential developer is. There must be a paved surface going to
the complex prior to use by the public which Staff has stated in the approval
conditions. The applicant will still have about 1,000’ of frontage along the future
collector street and 1,000’ along the north side that must be fully developed but can
be developed in phases similar to how the complex is being developed. Traffic
generated might be substantial. Vehicle trips per typical weekday may range from
375-500 per day taking into account how many practice sessions occur during the
day. Traffic may increase during weekend events but considering its location near a
high capacity arterial street, the recreation complex will be easily accessible to visitors.
Although Staff doesn’t anticipate through traffic in neighborhoods, there is always that
possibility. This area is likely to be very busy in the future with the high school and
other civic and recreational uses nearby so disruption to residential neighborhoods,
such as traffic, lighting or noise, can’t be ruled out.
Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director, added that it is important
to reiterate that the applicant has an existing approved special permit for locating the
complex on what would be the intersection of this future road and Burns Road. The
staff report has tentative conditions of approval but it is fair to say the staff has a
significant amount of concerns over placing a complex essentially buried in a
residential subdivision that is going to experience anywhere from 0-700 cars per event
utilizing the complex. They have indicated that future lighting is definitely a
possibility. One of the conditions states that if that is the case then an amendment to
the special permit be brought back to the Planning Commission for consideration but
the Commission should keep in mind that the original location in the southwest
corner seemed to be a better compatibility fit for what is essentially a residential
neighborhood in spite of the fact of the future high school site to the west.
Commissioner Roach asked if Staff felt the southwest corner would be better due to
traffic.
Mr. White said yes, due to traffic in particular. This is not going to be an easy
complex to find if their new concept pans out. Perhaps there will need to be a pile on
sign to direct traffic northward. But it is a large recreational complex that is proposed
to be in the middle if a residential neighborhood.
Chairman Cruz asked how many fields are at the soccer complex next to GESA
Stadium.
Mr. White responded there may be more than 10 fields but he wasn’t for sure.
Chairman Cruz said it is a concern and while this proposed complex will only be
-12-
roughly 1/3 of the size of the complex on Burden Boulevard but it is still large.
Commissioner Bowers asked if there has been noise or light concerns from the
residents near the existing fields new the TRAC.
Mr. White said he doesn’t believe so.
Chairman Cruz said that Tri-Cities Prep was one of the most recent applications that
came in for lighting for their fields and there are rules in place for light pollution and
noise. It is a fairly common permit condition. If there are issues then it becomes a
Code Enforcement issues. Typically 10:00 p.m. is very typical and he doesn’t see that
as being too much of an issue but the larger issue is placing these fields in the heart
of a residential neighborhood and dealing with traffic.
Commissioner Roach asked if the property to the southeast corner is the Sharma
property which was just rezoned for R-4 zoning.
Mr. White said yes.
Commissioner Roach asked what the plan is for entrances/exits to that site once it is
built out.
Mr. White responded that he hasn’t seen a site layout yet.
Chairman Cruz said that based on the size the entrance/exit will likely be on Burns
Road.
Mr. White added that it would be typical for it to occur as far away from the
intersection as possible.
Darrell Moore, JUB Engineers, Inc., 2810 W. Clearwater Avenue, Kennewick, spoke on
behalf of his application. He stated that the change in location of the soccer fields
from the southwest corner to the northwest corner was due to meeting with the
potential development of the neighboring residential area. The residential developer
would prefer to have the soccer fields in the back due to building roads and they
would like to have rate of return on their investments. Building roads and homes up
front gives them a rate of return. This is why the facility has been proposed to be
moved. The biggest approval conditions the applicant opposes are: (1) The right of way
dedication on the north side as it seems premature as it is outside of the city limits as
wells as easements and other issues so having a road on the north side may look good
on paper in the future but not good for now, (2) Putting in a road from Burns Road all
the way to improvements on Broadway to the north and to the south is roughly 4,000’
of right of way to build out just for a grass soccer field. It would be almost $1,000,000
in improvements and that doesn’t include the complex but just to get roads built.
With the residential piece, sewer isn’t even available for this area so the City is
working on a plan to get sewer out to this area but to his understanding or knowledge
it is in the works but won’t be constructed for another year or two out so putting a
-13-
road in now and then coming back in to do sewer and easements seems
counterproductive. And there are too many unknowns with how the school or
residential will be plan so putting in roads with sidewalks and lights seems premature.
A fix would be to phase the road as the residential piece develops. As far as being in a
residential area, he has seen soccer facilities all over the northwest and almost all of
them are within a residential area or behind large city parks. There are no pile on
signs to get to the fields. Soccer people will use Google Maps and they will find it and
show up. The applicant stated that they are proposing a gravel road at this time to
the fields and developing the road improvements when the residential piece comes into
play. At this time they don’t need water or sewer service. They plan on using honey
buckets for restrooms until water is available to put in and many other soccer
complexes us them. Other cities, such as Redmond, have not required the soccer
clubs to make million dollar infrastructure improvements because they see the added
benefit of bringing these clubs to their communities. Another condition the applicant
was not in agreement with was the 25’ landscape setback along the property
frontages. This is for grass fields which is already landscaped. They also were not
sure about the fencing requirements along the parameter of the property. They
intended on some type of fencing but the staff report didn’t specify type. Also, one of
the conditions requires the parking lot be paved. They wish to pave the parking lot at
some point but again, would like to do it down the road. They are willing to work with
the City but would like the chance to phase many of these projects out over time.
Chairman Cruz asked the applicant when the last time he has spoken with City Staff
was.
Mr. Moore said he spoke with Dave McDonald, City Planner, after their initial special
permit was approved and at that time the understanding was that they could phase
these improvements. Then when they decided to move the location of the facility it
seemed that Staff now wanted it all built now. He said that if the conditions in the
special permit are as they are written in the staff report then the facility will not be
able to be built. There is a lack of playing fields for soccer and there is a lot of talent
in this area that leaves because the facilities aren’t here.
Chairman Cruz said that he agreed in terms of costs that it is unl ikely for this facility
to be built due to the infrastructure costs, however, from the Planning Commission’s
perspective, they are going to expect certain improvements to be made. The placement
of this location has advantages and disadvantages and nothing is concrete. Being a
joint development with the residential developer makes their case a little stronger but
he would suggest that for this meeting have the public hearing then meet with Dave
McDonald prior to the next meeting.
Commissioner Roach asked the applicant if they were willing to move the location of
the proposed recreation complex to the original proposed location.
Mr. Moore said he would have to go back to the seller and work it out so he’s unsure
at this time.
Commissioner Mendez asked if the applicant should first work things out with staff.
-14-
Chairman Cruz said they can hold the hearing and the applicant can work things out
with staff prior to the next meeting.
Commissioner Bowers asked if they would still take public testimony.
Chairman Cruz said yes.
Dave Richards, 1415 6th Street, Clarkston, WA spoke on behalf of this application. He
stated that he was the residential developer looking to develop the residential
neighborhood along with this site. From his perspective it makes sense to place the
soccer fields in the proposed site. This will have less streets running along the fields.
He said he is also a former soccer parent because it will likely be near athletic fields of
the high school which may have a better layout for kids chasing soccer balls and
traffic where the original location would have streets for them to run out into. This
will also help the development costs.
Commissioner Bykonen asked staffed what the meeting date was for the previous
special permit application that was approved.
Mr. White said it was June or July 2017.
Commissioner Bowers asked about the sports complex on Road 36 across from the
airport and if the surrounding residential area has responded or reacted to that
activity.
Mr. White said there isn’t a lot of interaction with the residential area there. There is a
golf course and Big Cross cross-country facility buffering it.
With no further questions or comment the public hearing closed.
Commissioner Portugal moved, seconded by Commissioner Bowers, to close the
hearing on the proposed special permit and set January 18, 2018 as the date for
deliberations and the development of a recommendation for the City Council. The
motion passed unanimously.
E. Special Permit Location of a Vocational School (Construction
Industry Training Council of Washington) (MF#
SP 2017-023)
Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff.
Darcy Bourcier, Planner I, discussed the special permit application for the location of
a vocational school. CITC plans to open a construction oriented vocational school in
three suites of an existing office building located in a C-1 zone. The applicant has
indicated that the school will serve approximately 60 students or more who work in
-15-
apprenticeships as electricians and sheet metal workers and possibly plumbing, HVAC
and carpentry. They will be 8 hour classes, primarily on Fridays and Saturdays from
September through June following the typical school year timeline with class sizes of
10-20 adults with possibly some evening classes as well. Students will not be
attending daily so the use is fairly low volume. The students will be primarily already
employed as electricians and sheet metal workers and this would be supplemental
learning. It likely won’t generate more than 45 vehicle trips per day. The site contains
158 parking stalls to be shared by businesses that rent out the suites. Three business
currently rent out four of the twelve suites and the school will be renting out three
suites. The school will need 32 parking stalls.
Since the applicant wasn’t aware a special permit was required they have already been
preparing to have students so they are requesting this item be forwarded to City
Council after the public hearing closes.
Commissioner Bowers asked for clarification of the location of the existing building.
Ms. Bourcier explained that the aerial photos aren’t current but provided a site photo
with the office building on the Power Point.
Halene Sigmund, 1930 116th Ave NE #201, Bellevue, WA, President of the
Construction Industry Training Council of Washington, spoke on behalf of the special
permit application. CITC is a statewide apprenticeship training program approved by
the WA State Apprenticeship and Training Council as well as a licensed vocational
school under WA State Workforce and Training Coordinating Board. There is a great
need for trained construction workers in the State of Washington. CITC currently has
training facilities in Spokane, Vancouver, Bellevue and Marysville. To continue their
mission in addition to local employer demand for skilled workers having a training
facility in Pasco will address these training needs.
Commissioner Campos asked how their training is different from locate JATC’s (Joint
Apprenticeship Training Committee).
Ms. Sigmund replied that CITC services the open shop section of the industry. The
industry has two sides; union and open shop. Their program trains the open shop
side.
Commissioner Bowers asked if their program would be similar to the Center for Career
and Technical Education at Columbia Basin College (CBC).
Ms. Sigmund explained that it is not the same program. CITC is a state approved
apprenticeship training program. The employers who train their apprentices with
them train under the apprenticeship WAC’s and RCW’s.
Chairman Cruz added that this is more akin to businesses needing training for their
apprentices.
-16-
Ms. Sigmund replied that they service the non-union sector as well as continuing
education for union and non-union sectors.
Commissioner Bowers asked if the non-union students are trained by them if they
would be more likely to get a union job.
Ms. Sigmund answered that these are employees who have decided to work in the
non-union sector.
Commissioner Campos explained that he asked because he is a JATC trained
journeyman carpenter and noticed that there is a very union heavy area in the Tri -
Cities and this school would benefit and train those who aren’t a part of that.
Commissioner Roach asked if the three units they will be occupying are all adjacent.
Ms. Sigmund said yes.
James Wade, 8927 W. Tucannon, Kennewick, WA of the Kenmore Team, spoke in
support on behalf of the owner of the building. The owners are excited to have CITC
occupying their building with the other tenants that they already have. This will help
create more living wage jobs for citizens and tax payers of Pasco.
With no further questions or comments the public hearing closed.
Commissioner Bowers moved, seconded by Commissioner Roach, to close the hearing
on the proposed special permit and adopt findings of fact and conclusions therefrom
as contained in the December 21, 2017 staff report. The motion passed unanimously.
Commissioner Bowers moved, seconded by Commissioner Roach, based on the
findings of fact as adopted, the Planning Commission recommend the City Council
grant a special permit to Construction Industry Training Council (CITC) for the
location of a vocational school at 5804 Road 90, Suites J, K and L with conditions as
contained in the December 21, 2017 staff report. The motion passed unanimously.
F. Block Grant Section 108 Loan Program Application - CDBG
Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff.
Michael Morales, Economic Development Program Manager, discussed the Section 108
Loan Program Application for block grant funds. Mr. Morales reminded the
Commission that this item had been discussed in a workshop during the previous
Planning Commission meeting. He explained that this will be the City’s first effort in
pursuing this program as an entitlement community. It is a loan guarantee provision
of the Block Grant program and the Planning Commission is the advisory board for
that program with the city. The program is a tool that was developed as a way for
cities to leverage their CDBG funds. The City is eligible to borrow up to five times its
-17-
annual entitlement amount and at this time that number sits at approximately 3.3
million dollars.
These loan projects, Mr. Morales says, must meet all the rules, public benefit, and
national objectives as CDBG. CDBG is always the backstop as loan security for these
loans, first and foremost there are always typical real estate collateral personal
guarantees involved when one is dealing with the private sector. Where a city takes
out a public facilities project, there is still some negotiation with HUD that takes
account of what the cost benefit will be and what sort of collateral the city will be able
to provide. In this case, Pasco is fortunate that it has a number of properties around
the community, and HUD is typically flexible about being subordinate to senior loans.
Mr. Morales goes on to say that in the last decade, cities began establishing loan pools
as a way to put a marker on the amount of Section 108 dollars. Each project is
individually underwritten to take to HUD for future approval. In this particular case,
the City would be moving forward in establishing a 3.3 million dollar pool and then
pursuing a public facilities project in the downtown area as its first project. The City is
looking to make a number of improvements in the downtown core area to help it better
position itself as a place for regional events and tourism. Projects like the Lewis Street
overpass will help drive investment in downtown, so it could be timely for the City to
leverage those investments for additional grant dollars. The initial focus area is
between Clark Street and Columbia Street, north and south, and between 2nd Avenue
and 4th Avenue on the east and west. The goal is to make the downtown area more
pedestrian, tourist, and family friendly by offering different amenities. Repurposing
underutilized buildings and working with existing or new property owners gives Pasco
a little more flare. One of the first projects the City would be proposing is a market
plaza, which will build upon the repurposing and rebranding of Peanuts Park as well
as the North Promenade. Mr. Morales then discusses the design layout of the said
Market Plaza and the reimagination of Peanuts Park.
This item will be seen before the Planning Commission one last time on January 18 as
old business and then be sent to the Seattle office of HUD for underwriting and
approval of the application. The City will follow with a financing piece for the Plaza. It
is estimated that the Plaza will be budgeted in the 5 to 6 million dollar range.
Chairman Cruz asked the Commission if there were any questions.
Commissioner Portugal stated that in the past, locating electrical outlets was a
challenge and asked if that would be addressed.
Mr. Morales assured the Commission this would be addressed and also stated that
where and how they are utilized is important.
Commissioner Mendez asked where the rest of the funding is going to come from if the
project will cost 6 million dollars.
Mr. Morales responded that the City has submitted as capital budget request to the
-18-
State Legislature in the last two sessions and is also looking at additional grant
resources. The City is also considering naming rights as a possibility for the Famers
Market.
With no further questions or comments the public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Campos moved, seconded by Commissioner Bykonen, to close the
hearing on the Section 108 Loan Program Applicati on and recommend the City
Council approve the Section 108 Loan Guarantee pre-application and proposed used
of funds for the Peanuts Park Renovation/Farmers Market Redevelopment and
Infrastructure Project. The motion passed unanimously.
OTHER BUSINESS:
With no further discussion or business, the Planning Commission was adjourned at
9:40 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
David McDonald, City Planner