WEST RICHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
April 27, 2006, 7:00 pm
Meeting Minutes
1. Call to Order – Mr. Ramsdell called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m.
2. Roll Call
MEMBER / PRESENT / ABSENT / VACANTSEILER, Scott (Chairman) / X
RAMSDELL, Van (Vice Chairman) / X
LUKE, Lucinda / X
BENEGAS, Tony / X
BOSTRUM, Randy / X
DIEDIKER, Nona / X
MEEHAN, Shea / X
3. Approval of the Agenda – Upon a motion by Mr. Meehan and was seconded by Mr. Benegas, the agenda was unanimously approved.
4. Approval of the Minutes – Upon a motion by Ms. Diediker and was seconded by Mr. Meehan the April 13, 2006 meeting minutes were unanimously approved as presented.
5. Announcements, Reports, and Comments
Upon a motion by Mr. Meehan and was seconded by Ms. Diediker, to limit public comments period to three minutes with allowance for additional time if needed, the Commission unanimously approved the motion.
6. Citizen Public Comments – Mr. Ramsdell asked for public comments not on the Agenda.
John Smart, 400 South 54th Avenue, attended a meeting last night that was held for residents and indicated Roscoe Slade made a comment that he thought the hearing on the cell tower might be tabled for tonight’s meeting. Mr. Smart feels that some people may not have attended the meeting due to Mr. Slade’s comment and asked that the hearing be tabled so everyone’s comments can be heard.
The Planning Commission discussed whether or not to open the hearing. Mr. Stowell asked to help clarify by informing the Commission that the SEPA determination may be appealed. If it is appealed, the testimony would need to be sworn testimony so if citizens wanted to be heard they would have to make another comment at that time.
Richard Bloom 5900 Everett, said the proposal has been discussed various times and if it’s put it off to another meeting the Planning Commission might want to suggest a date.
Dave Shea, 4270 Tami, Richland asked if he would be able to comment on agenda item 8A. Mr. Ramsdell responded with a yes.
There were not further comments.
7. Presentations / Public Hearings / Open Record Hearing
a. An Open Record Hearing to consider a conditional use permit for construction and operation of a cellular monopole on the property south of Astoria road sharing the lot occupied by the City water tank.
Ms. Jakob requested that we open the hearing to date certain May 11, 2006. Mr. Meehan asked if the SEPA appeal would be separately advertised. Mr. Stowell responded that we can only have one open record public hearing and then the SEPA has to be combined with the public hearing on the land use action. Mr. Meehan felt we should go back and amend the agenda and remove Item 7A and have it re-advertised because if we open the public hearing we need to take public comment, and if it’s not ready to open then there is the issue that people may have not come tonight and the whole nature of the hearing may change if there is a SEPA appeal so thought it seemed premature.
Mr. Meehan moved to remove Item 7A and for the public hearing on the cell tower to be re-advertised and set at a different date. Mr. Benegas seconded the motion. Mr. Ramsdell clarified with; “since we are not going to open the hearing and not continue with the hearing there is no date but would be a new action from the beginning with a new hearing being advertised as per procedures”. A voice vote was taken, two members were opposed and three members agreed. Item 7A is removed from the Agenda.
8. New Business
a. Discussion-How to advertise proposed rezone for property west of Keene Road, along Kennedy Road (Property owned by City and McDonald). Staff recommends portion as commercial and portion as residential.
Staff report by Mr. Stowell - The Community Development Department has received an annexation and rezone request for the property located north and south of Kennedy Road, immediately west of Keene Road. The party has requested their property be zoned Commercial (C-1), upon annexation.
The City also owns property in the surrounding area, which was annexed on February 20, 2006 but still needs a City zoning designation. The property is within the urban growth area, but does not have a comprehensive plan designation. Staff is requesting the Planning Commission’s recommendation on the zoning designation for notice purposes.
Staff and the Commission discussed the properties zoning restrictions due to it’s odd shape as well as its potential and how to advertise. The Planning Commission felt they needed more clarification from Staff on conforming use. In conclusion, Planning Commission felt that it would be better to advertise at a higher use
Staff has requested that the Planning Commission determine how they wish to advertise the zoning of these properties.
Open Public Comment:
Dave Shea, 4072 Tami, Richland, said he would be abutters to the land action decided upon and asked why urban reserve or other uses are not being considered. Mr. Shea asked the Commission to consider what the conditional uses could be and urged the Commission not to zone the property C-1 Commercial as it does not fit the rural atmosphere.
Evelyn Campbell 901 Sirron, Richland – told the Commission they had just purchased a home about a year ago and was not aware the area was going to be rezoned and that she had learned of another 150 home subdivision and another school going in and is worried about the traffic flow onto Keene Road.
John Smart 400 South 54th Avenue, feels this type of action by the City is becoming epidemic and feels the City is not listening to the people. Asked that we consider the fact that what makes West Richland special is little farm lands between clusters and arterials and is low density property. Mr. Smart asked that they not go forward with the rezone.
b. Discussion-Revisit West Lattin Road Annexation (County Island). Including: Update on annexation process (old process died, new process commencing); and, request to modify proposed comprehensive plan designation and zoning.
Staff report by Mr. Stowell – Staff needs to know the desires of the Planning Commission on the following matters:
1. Should staff continue to try to convince all property owners within the County island to annex?
2. If not all property owners agree to annexation, is the Planning Commission agreeable to have staff leverage as much as possible to pull in additional properties.
3. Reaction to the change in the staff recommendation for the Comprehensive Plan land use designation. (Keep Low Density designation east of Curtis property and change properties south of Lattin road from Medium to Low Density Residential).
4. Any concerns with proposed zones, or the timing of the rezones (zoning area south of Lattin Road RL-40 at this time, and zoning the Curtis’ eastern two lots RM-12.5 upon completion of the comprehensive plan update.)
Upon conclusion of the discussion, Staff asked the Planning Commission to make a motion on how proceed with the rezone and how to advertise the proposed zoning.
Terry Korsivk, 5340 West Lattin, told the Commission she does not want to be annexed to the City.
Mr. Meehan asked to go on record that he would like to area to be zoned RM-10. The decision was made to advertise pursant to Staff recommendation.
The Commission advised Staff to take as much property in the county island as possible without creating more islands.
It was decided to hold a workshop on the land use map at the next meeting before making any recommendations to City Council.
9. Unfinished Business – There was no unfinished business.
10. Staff Reports – There were no Staff reports.
11. Adjournment – Mr. Ramsdell adjourned the meeting to workshop at 8:25 p.m.
12. Workshop
A. Comprehensive Plan
1. Capital Facilities Element
2. Review of recent public comment and questionnaire results.