Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

It

is 06:30, and I call the 03/16/2026 regular meeting of the Kennewick Planning Commission to order. Tonight's meeting will be conducted through of of Directors Directors

of the Board Board or not we have quorum. Commissioner

of of

Arneson.

Here.

Commissioner Barber.

Here.

Commissioner Hempstead.

Here.

Commissioner Gregory. Commissioner Morales. Here. Commissioner Perez.

Here.

Commissioner Rahim. Here. You have a quorum.

Thank you. Will staff in attendance please introduce yourselves?

Joseph Laris, assistant planner. Steve Arvin, planning manager.

Thank you. Will everyone please join me in the pledge? The next item is approval of the consent agenda. All matters listed within the consent agenda have been distributed for each member of the Kennewick Planning Commission for reading and study, are considered routine and will be enacted by one motion of the Planning Commission with no separate discussions. The items approval of the minutes dated February 2 and 03/02/2026, approval of the agenda and motion to enter staff reports into record.

I'll entertain a motion to approve the consent agenda. I'd like to make a motion to approve the consent agenda. Do I have a second? I second. Commissioner Barger, moved, seconded by commissioner Arneson. Can we have a roll call vote, please?

Commissioner Arneson.

Yes.

Commissioner Barger.

Yes.

Commissioner Hempstead.

Yes.

Commissioner Gregory? Yes. Commissioner Morales? Yes. Commissioner Perez?

Yes.

Commissioner Morale? Yes.

Alright. The next item is public hearings. Good evening, and welcome to the March. It is important that everyone who wishes to do so has an opportunity to speak. Each person who has either signed in or registered will have one three minute opportunity to address the planning commission. If you are attending via Zoom, please confirm your microphone has been unmuted before you begin your comments. Please state your name and the city of residence for the record. Once you begin your remarks, the countdown timer will start. At the end of your time, please mute your microphone. The order of the hearing this evening shall be as follows.

Planning staff shall provide a staff report. The commission may ask questions of the staff. The applicant or applicant's representative presents then testimony in favor of the request then testimony either neutral or against the request then then final applicant comments, final staff comments, and then we'll close the public hearing and discuss the request. I declare declare public hearing change of zone two zero two six zero zero one open. May we have a staff report?

Alright. Thank you, chairman. So what we have in front of you today is change of zone twenty twenty six zero zero zero one. Just a quick summary. The applicant the applicant is Peter Harpster of Harpster Land Development.

Current owner is Big Sky North LLC, and the proposal is to rezone 37.67 acres from residential suburban to residential low density. The current comprehensive plan has it designated as low density resident residential, and the location is at 4501 South Olympia Street. So if you look at the vicinity map right here, the, property itself that is subject to the rezone is outlined here in red. And when we look at the zoning map right here, also outlined in red is the subject property. Light yellow on the map is residential suburban, and the dark yellow that's surrounding it right here to the north, residential low density.

And, just a brief history of the property. The city annexed the site in 2007 through ordinance fifty one eighty three, and, the property was zoned, agricultural. The property was rezoned to residential suburban in, November 2018 through ordinance five seven six one. When it comes to permitted uses for the zones, RS and RL zones do both allow for single family homes, but RL size. So when it comes to approving a change of zone, there are certain findings that had to be made.

First of all, is that the proposed amendment conforms with the comprehensive plan, promotes the public necessity, convenience, and general welfare, and the proposed amendment would not impose a burden upon public facilities beyond their capacity to serve or reduce such services to lands which are deemed unacceptable by the city. And the proposed amendment is consistent with all applicable provisions of the Kenoick Municipal Code, including those adopted by reference from the comprehensive plan. And for residential properties, the property has to be adjacent and contiguous to property of the same proposed classification or higher. And with that, staff has reviewed the application and finds that it meets the change of zone findings in KMC 18 dot 51 dot zero seventy, section two that was referenced earlier, and recommends that the planning commission concur with findings and conclusions contained in staff report change of zone twenty twenty six zero zero zero one and recommend approval to city council. And I'll be happy to take any questions for now.

Thank you. Does any commissioner have questions of staff? Okay. Could staff give a summary of actually what the change of zone that we're doing, what's the role of the change of zone, what we are doing here tonight in the process? Sure.

So what we're doing right now is that as of right now, any future development would be limited to what the zoning designation currently allows. So RRS is the current zoning for the property. Essentially, if the property if the owner wants to rezone the property, like, to something more intense to allow for more opportunity for development options, they would have to go through the change of zone. But, of course, they would have to, like, meet certain requirements for that. One of them being, you know, for residential being adjacent to properties already zoned RL. As you can see in the map above where, basically, you have the property that's currently zoned RS and then to the Northeast and West RL. So that's pretty much the main way that they're able to do the change of zone essentially.

Okay. I just wanted to confirm, change of zone is more of an administrative process?

That's correct.

Versus the development defining development or anything like that today. That comes at a later time.

That is correct. Yes.

Okay. Thank you. Any other commissioner have any questions? Alright. Let's move up and continue with the public hearing. Does the applicant or the applicants represent wish to speak? Good evening. Welcome. Good evening.

Okay. It's already unmuted. I always get nervous about that. Good evening, commissioners. My name is Chris Yordan of Harvester Land Development, applicant on behalf of Big Sky North. As Joseph mentioned, we have to the applicant asked to meet city requires the five criteria to be met, and staff addressed all five in their report, and we're in agreement with those findings. Is a nonproject action. No plat has been submitted. No builder has been selected, and no product type has been determined. Comments regard regarding housing density, crime, traffic, presuppose future development decisions that that have not yet been determined.

Any existing concerns in the neighborhood, cannot be attributed to this rezone application. The property is currently surrounded by RL zoning on the Northeast and West. This rezone simply brings the subject parcel into conformity with the adjacent zonings that already exist. On lot size, it is not determined at this stage. However, I wanna be clear that RL zoning does not permit apartments or condominiums or multifamily housing.

Those are not allowed under RL, zoning. Any future development will be limited to single family and middle housing as defined by KMC. The 8,000 square foot minimum lot size under RL is consistent with the comprehensive plan with KMC title 18 and with the surrounding neighborhoods. All notified agencies, including BPA, KID, Benton PUD, and Columbia Irrigation District submitted no objections and the CEPA was issued a determination of non significance with no conditions. Should a future application be submitted, the same agencies and the public will have another opportunity to comment and the staff will have full authority to require mitigation as appropriate at that time.

I respectfully request that the Planning Commission concur with the staff's recommendation and forward, and move forward with approval of the COZ change of Zone 20260001 to city council. Council. Thank you.

Thank you. Alright. Moving along. Is there any testimony from anyone in person on the council chambers in favor of the request? This is the point in the hearing for anyone in favor of the request to comment.

I'm just giving everybody a second just in case. Is there any testimony from anyone in person in the council chambers either neutral or against the request? This is the point in the hearing for anyone either neutral or against the request to comment, and we'll take people one by one based on who turned in first.

Actually they can they know not everyone turned one in so

okay

they just want to come up in order.

I stand corrected. If you'd like to approach the podium and address the commission we'd love to hear from you.

My name is Stephanie I'm from Kennewick I'm here to oppose this subject property land change or whatever it is from my understanding from what you guys were showing residential suburban is 8,000 square feet per lot. And then they're trying to make it go down to 5,500 square feet per lot. And their argument is that the surrounding area is the same classification. But I went in and I did some research to the north of this property. The average lot size is point two four acres.

To the east and the west, our average lot size is point three five six acres. Three four three five, whatever on the east and west. So what they're saying, it's classified as low density residential, but it's nowhere near what they're proposing. And so our way of life out there, we're kind of semi I don't know if you guys even know where the plot is, but it's off like, heading out to Highway 397 off of Olympia. And it's just super quiet.

It's super peaceful. You can go outside. You don't hear any traffic. And so I understand that development is going to happen, but I do not feel that it is in the best interest of our neighborhood, and it is nowhere near what our neighborhood actually is to to have that dense of housing there. And so I'm just asking you guys to please say no to this zoning change and keep it as residential suburban that it actually is. That's all. Thank you for your time. Appreciate it.

Is there anyone else I'd like to come up and address the commission?

My name is John Bussard. We live on 49th to the East. And, I'm I'm worried about what stuff and all these people in there is gonna do at our property values. We just we just bought in the area about five years ago. I specifically got that property because of the orchard because I don't like being surrounded by thousand people all the time.

Otherwise, we'd have bought cheaper property downtown. So I'm I'm against this change of zone because I'm I'm worried about what it'll do to the traffic in the area, the property values. It it's it's gonna crush us, especially for people who just moved in. And, also, I'm I'm kinda curious. Is there gonna be an easement allowed on on the existing Orchard Road that's behind the the properties on 49th?

Is that has the planning gone that far yet? Or right right now, everybody on 49th there that borders the orchard has access to the back of their property. And if they're allowed to build right on our back fences, we won't have that no more, which will make all of our lives harder and so thank you. I'd appreciate if you'd all vote no on that.

Thank you. Is there anyone else who'd like to come up and address commission? No one? Alright. Let's go on to the next phase. Do we have anybody online?

We have, Jesse Downey. And I will ask Jesse if they would like love to talk ask them to unmute.

We have the same process for online too. If there's anybody interested, we're just confirming.

They have they have been unmuted, but they're not speaking.

Okay. We're going to continue on. Okay. At this time, we're going to continue. Does staff have any final comments relating to Board

Directors of -one is closed. I would entertain

of a motion.

I move that the Planning Commission approve change of Zone 2020 Six-one.

I have a motion. Is there a second?

I second.

Okay. Commissioner Arneson moved that the Planning Commission concur with findings and conclusion of the staff report changes on twenty twenty six thousand and one and recommend to City Council approval of the request. Commissioner Ron Arnolu seconded the motion. Is there any discussion?

Commissioner Gregory here. I have a question for staff. Under the new laws, the state laws, what can be built in the RS zones so we can educate the

So as it was stated earlier, in the RS, the RL zones, basically all of our residential zones. But we'll just specifically stick to the RS and or the RL zone. If single family residential is permitted and you have middle housing which is also an option which can consist of cottage housing, housing up to a fourplex, duplex, triplex, townhomes, townhomes which are permitted right now as it is. But those those are permitted under the state regulations that were adopted by the city per the the state requirements earlier. Well, actually last year, last summer, I believe.

And that's subject to both the RS and the RL zone.

So, I'm I'm on board with them with this nice orchard and all but yet, people want to develop that orchard. So if we said, no, we don't want it to change right now, and it stayed the RS, they still can build it out because of our new laws?

It can still be built out. That's correct. It would be subject to the 8,000 square foot minimum lot size for single family residential, dollars 1,800 for the townhomes. The biggest difference really between the two zoning districts other than that is allowing for animals, large animals, horses and cows and that type of thing. But if it was developed, it wouldn't meet, obviously, the 30,000 square foot minimum lot size in order to have those animals. But really, that's really the only difference between the zoning districts.

I have

a question. Kind of looking at the map, as we know that City Of Kennewick is needing more housing and obviously big lots like this makes sense for the city to grow due to the Growth Management Act that we need homes. I know that when we had our update with our twenty year plan, I remember that there was like a commercial area that the company that the city hired the consultant. He had recommended possible like commercial areas. I'm not sure if everybody remembers kind of a commercial mixed use areas.

And I remember looking at one of those spots. And if I remember, it was in that roundabout. And I noticed like it doesn't on this subject property, let's say, developer want to grab that corner lot. I think about roundabouts like in different parts of the city where they're able to put some commercial upfront. That wouldn't apply to this. No.

It would not in regards to commercial development, standard commercially zoned properties. Now, if this property ended up being, you know, purchased by somebody who wanted to do like a plan unit development. There are some permitted commercial uses that are allowed in the commercial neighborhood zones to provide commercial uses to the surrounding properties, laundromat, maybe a small store or something like that. That would be permitted, but your standard end or not high end, but high use, high traffic commercial type operations would not be permitted under any of the land use designation or zoning that's in this area as of right now.

Correct. Okay. Yes, I mean, understanding that we need residential homes, single family homes. I try to think about kind of visualize what areas have a roundabout and have some commercial space. Think about, I think, Road 100, there's an area with the roundabout and it's got commercial places there. And then the homes in the back is more appealing because there's a lot of homes, right? So it appears they're going to put homes here. But where is the commercial space of, let's say, a mini store that we've been having that conversation or a gas station on that side? That was my only question that

I had.

Yeah, it would require a comprehensive plan amendment to to the commercial land use designation and then go through the then a change of zone to have it zoned to one of those implementing zoning districts for the the the land use designation. Okay.

This is strictly residential. Okay. Yep. That's all. Thank you. Does any other commission commissioner have questions for staff? Hearing none or seeing none, may we have a roll call vote please?

Commissioner Arneson?

Yes.

Commissioner Berger?

Yes.

Commissioner Hempstead?

Yes.

Commissioner Gregory?

Yes.

Commissioner Morales? Yes. Commissioner Perez?

Yes.

Commissioner Rahamu? Yes.

That motion passed unanimously. Alright. We're gonna move on to the next session, which is visitors not on the agenda. Are there any visitors in person that are not on the agenda that wish to speak? There any visitors online that are not on the agenda that wish to speak? We still have one.

Yes, I'm not seeing any indication they wish to speak.

Thank you. Old business. Are there any city council action updates?

Last week, city council reviewed the UMU code amendment that you recommended approval for the vehicle sales. They've remanded it back to the Planning Commission for as a possible alternative to that amendment. So, you'll be seeing that in probably April 6. So, not yeah, the next next Planning commission meeting roughly two weeks. Trying to think if there's anything else. There's nothing else I can think of at this time.

Alright.

Question.

Questions.

Happy

think the think we'll we'll looking forward to that but I don't

have anything else I can think of.

I

Thank think you. Does the commissioners have any reports or comments or discussions?

Commissioner Gregory, I have a comment for the families that came in and was opposed to this. It's hard to I'm in rural suburban, and I don't like seeing a bunch of neighbors come in. I'm with you on all that, but we also need spots for houses, and the person owns the property, and we need to help them do what they want to do on their property. So, I hate to see the orchard go with you on it.

Any other comments?

Yes, I'd like to make a comment too along the same lines as Commissioner Barter, but along the same lines as Commissioner Gregory. Somebody I know very close with three years ago were in the exact same position and they were totally against it. But in the end it actually did work out for them and in their favor and they did get a really nice block fence out of it gate, but I mean it it. It didn't affect their lives in any way. If anything, it benefited. And so I hope that's the same for you guys.

And all I would like to say is, first, thanks for coming out. Tonight was more of a process that continued the administrative alignment with our comprehensive plan and the changes on request. I would encourage you to stay engaged through the process. There'll be other opportunities where you can have more, I think, or influence on how that piece of property evolves and develops out. Any other comments?

The meeting is concluded at 06:58.