Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Official looking list. It is 06:31. I like to call the 04/06/2026 the Board Board Directors participate of in the meeting both in person and through online meeting platforms. Should an individual planning commissioner become unexpectedly disconnected from the virtual platform, please rejoin the meeting at the first opportunity. Call for call.

To now operator begin the for quorum?

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just before we get started, I wanted to I don't know if Melinda provided this notice to you or not, but Commissioner Morales has resigned. So just giving you a heads up on that if you don't know. Alright, Commissioner Arneson. Here. Commissioner Barger. Here. Chairman Hempstead. Here. Vice Chair Gregory?

Here.

Commissioner Perez? Here. Commissioner Rahim Lu? Absent.

Chairs accepting motion. So we do have a

quorum. Sorry.

Oh, that's okay. The chair was accepting motion to approve the absence of commissioner Rahim.

I move that we excuse commissioner wrong.

Second. Who seconded? Okay. There's been a motion made and second to approve the absence of commissioner Rahim Lou. Can we have a roll call vote?

Commissioner Arneson? Yes. Commissioner Barger?

Yes.

Commissioner Perez? Yes. Vice Chair Gregory?

Yes.

And Chairman Hempstead?

Yes. That's been unanimous. Will staff in attendance please introduce yourself?

Anthony Moai, planning director. Steve

Donovan, planning manager.

Magenta Sensovec, assistant planning.

Good evening. Michael Hepner, fire chief.

John Cowling, public works director.

Thank you. Now, would everybody join me with

the pledge of allegiance, please?

The

next item is approval of the consent agenda. All matters listed within the consent agenda have been distributed to 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 discussion. Contents approval of the minutes dated 03/16/2026, the approval of the agenda, and motion to enter staff report into the record. I will open to entertain a motion.

Commissioner Gregory here, I move that we approve consent agenda.

Second. It's been moved and seconded to approve the consent agenda. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. I changed it up a little bit. That passed unanimously. Okay. Public hearings. It is important that everyone who wishes to do so has an opportunity to speak.

Each person who has either signed in, in person or registered you. Thank countdown time will start. At the end of your time, please mute your microphone. The order that we'll be going through is the planning staff shall provide staff report. The commission may ask questions to the staff.

Second, the applicant or make make sure sure we're make public hearing, and we'll be move forward to from able there. With that said, we're gonna open our first public hearing. I declare public hearing for change of Zone 20260002 open. May we have a staff report?

Thank you, Mr. Chairman Commission. So this is for the proposed change of zone. The applicant is Clover Planning and Zoning Care of Shane O'Neill. The property owner is Elijah Family Homes. They're proposing to change the zone from residential suburban to residential low density 4.76 acres. The comprehensive plan designation is low density residential, and it's located at 2918 South Jean Street. Is what you see on the screen is the vicinity map with the property in question outlined in red. This being Jean Street directly to the east. Probably quarter of a mile to the north is 27th Avenue just to kind of give you a bit of a recognition.

As you can see, 27th Avenue we've we've the the lot

in past. Property residential low. So as you can see, the property

is is adjacent adjacent to to the residential low zoning district directly across the street from it. And then roughly a block or so to the west, there's an additional neighborhood area that's has the residential low designation, just zoning district. The property was annexed by the by the city in 1999 under ordinance 3,848 and it was at that time the residential suburban zoning district was established. The biggest differences between the two zoning designations is the size of the lots. The residential suburban allows for an 8,000 square foot lot, where residential low allows for a 5,500 square foot lot.

There's also some uses. Residential low doesn't usually allow for farm animals where farm animals are still with certain lot sizes can be permitted. But there's still single family zones and middle housing is permitted in both of those zoning districts. What you see here are the findings for of zone. Starting off with number one, does it conform with the comprehensive plan?

Residential low zoning district is an implementing zone of the low density residential land use designation. It will promote public necessity general welfare welfare for allowing further development of the site under the residential low. It's not going to impose any additional burdens on the public facilities. This proposal has been looked at by our public works department in that regard and and fire and police also. The proposed amendment is consistent with the municipal code which was adopted to implement the comprehensive plan and the zone is adjacent to per subsection E here to similar zoning district, which is across the street from the site.

Has the same zoning districts designation. Staff has reviewed the application and finds that it meets the change of zone findings in KMC eighteen fifty one-seven-zero subsection two and recommends that the Planning Commission concur with the findings and conclusions contained in staff report COZ twenty twenty six-two and recommend approval to city council. If there's any questions of staff, I'd be more than happy to answer them.

Thank you for that staff report. Does commission have any questions at this time? Alright. Hearing none seen. Now we're gonna move on down. Does the applicant or the applicant's representative wish to speak? Please step forward. State your name and address for our record, and you have three We're we're Family Homes, I We're have applied to

be rezone, do the site 2918 South Jean Street from RS to RL, which is a slight increase in residential density. The proposed rezone aligns with the comp plan, land use map, and the land use designation. RL zoning assignment effectuates land use goals one, two, three, and five. My application materials, include variety of supplements and site photos so you can get a grasp on what we're asking. And, that duly satisfy the burden of proof on the applicant.

Included in that is a supplemental narrative that explains how the approval of the rezone satisfies the growth management act, the plan, and recent house bills passed by the legislature, primarily related to middle housing. Thank you for your time. And if you do have any questions, I'm also available. Seeing none, I'll go back.

Thank you. Is there any testimony from anyone in person in the council chambers in favor of request? Seeing none, we'll keep going. Is there any testimony from anyone in person in council chambers either neutral or against the request? Is there anyone in the council chamber that's either neutral or against the request that would like to approach?

Okay, continuing on. Is Anthony, is there anybody online?

Yeah, we have two attendees online. One I'm certain is for an upcoming item. The other I'm not sure. So

I'm going

to allow them to see if they can.

Is there any testimony from anyone registered online in favor of question and begin microphone. Let me know if you see anything, Anthony. We Any hands at this time?

I'm not seeing any hands right now.

Is there any testimony from anyone registered online either neutral or against the request? This is a point in the clerk will announce your name and allow you in.

Not saying any. Nothing? Not at this time.

Thank you. Does staff have any final comments?

No further comments.

The public testimony portion of public hearing changes on 02/2002 is closed. I'll entertain a motion at this time.

I move that the planning commission concur with the findings and conclusions in staff report, COZ two two zero two six zero zero zero two and recommend approval of the request to city council. Second.

Commissioner Arneson moved that the planning commission occur with the findings and conclusion. The staff report changes zone two zero two six zero zero zero two and recommend the city council approval of the request. Commissioner Barker second the motion. Is there any discussion?

Just a quick question. I looked at your applicant with Elijah Family Homes and I was heading into the office, but it seems like it's larger family homes is for transition, correct? Transition

homes

is what they're having, kind of like what the program that Elijah family homes. Okay. Yeah. Guess my question is, stay in the office is not a less restrictive housing. I'm putting out there kind of what we're seeing is more of helping out families and has nothing to do with kind of what we've seen on 7th Avenue, I guess. Just want to make sure.

That's how this particular development is being promoted a family development, helping people get back on their feet and so they can get out into the community on their own.

Yeah. And I just looked at that. Looks great work and so I just want to make sure that it's aligned with and so.

Yep. Awesome.

Yeah. I I also wanted to say, I was just looking on the website. I believe this is in reference to the Sunrise Village. Is that right? That's on the

Elijah Family Homes website. That's my understanding. I

just think it's a fantastic project. And I think especially with a lot of the changes that have been coming down from the state to middle housing, I think this is the perfect application for something like that. Using smaller lot sizes, smaller homes to create a village, which is I think the perfect use for something like that. I hope it hope it works well and hope it's blessed.

Any other comments?

Regularization of middle housing. Hope to see that.

Staff, may we have a roll roll call vote please?

Commissioner Arneson? Yes. Commissioner Barker?

Yes.

Commissioner Perez? Yes. Vice Chair Gregory?

Yes.

And Chairman Hempstead? Yes.

Motion passed unanimously. Moving along, I declare the public hearing for development code amendment two zero two five zero zero six open. May we have a staff report?

So

this proposal is somewhat familiar to you. I think we saw it a few months back in regards where the applicant, Mr. Mo Nasser and Harry Mahal, originally applied to allow for in the UMU zone to allow for vehicle sales, repair and incidental repair and service to be allowed in the UMU zone, but not be allowed in the Vista Field area. So that was the original proposal. As you remember, Planning Commission recommended approval of the proposal to city Council.

Staff recommended denial of the proposal. Staff, proposed the Planning Commission and an alternative to City Council. City Council remanded the amendment back to Planning Commission for further review for you guys to look at what staff had actually presented. I don't want to say that there wasn't a specific presentation or specific code amendment that was presented that time, we just said, hey, there may be an alternative. And that's what the City Council wanted us to bring back and work out an alternative.

So this proposal that staff has that you saw in front of you in the staff report is a new section to the nonconforming uses portions of the Code eighteen fifteen. So it's a totally new section of the Code. The amendment will regulate nonconforming uses in all zones. All of the nonconforming uses will be subject to specific criteria. And the nonconforming uses in the UMZU zone will be subject to additional criteria also to what the other zones are. So you have the three portions of it. And it may be easier if I pulled it up on my computer here, if I can find it.

Okay.

See, but I'll make it as big as I can. So 18 five is the expansion of uses that permitted for that are are being proposed for all of the zones. Specifically, subsection one deals with all of the zones in addition to the urban mixed use zone but subsection two talks about having the conditional use permit may be approved following the nonconforming use in the urban mixed use zone to expand beyond 25% using the applicable review process found in the subsection in eighteen forty two one hundred and then expansion in the mixed use zones are subject to the following criteria. So, you wouldn't this this particular criteria would not be subject to the urban mixed use zone in the Vista Field area, so couldn't do that in the Vista Field area at all. You're subject to the KMC eighteen sixty five, which is up above these three subsections I, III, and IIII under subsection A, which talks about dwelling units, off street parking, and open space, and landscaping.

But then in addition to that, the UMU zone would be subject to the proposed expansion must be contiguous to the site of the existing use. For the purpose of this section, contiguous does not include land located across an alley, street, or other right of ways. So it has to be totally contiguous, same street basically same street frontage if it was going to be three properties that are lined up along, let's say, Columbia Drive or something like that or directly behind. So, there are some specific requirements that they have to meet in order to be permitted in the UMU zone. I know that's probably a little confusing in some instances, but I'm more than happy to take any questions.

And staff does recommend, though, that the proposed code amendment be recommendation to Planning Commission for his DCA 2025 dash zero zero zero six and if there's any questions, I can take those from you now.

Does any of the commissioners have questions of of staff? Staff?

Commissioner Gregory here. So, this is going to allow existing car lots that purchase land next door to expand all the way on that land that they own next door because it's all in the same stretch. It's not across the street. It's. It has to

be contiguous under that specific citation. So, yes. Great. As long as it's a legal, non conforming use, it's bingo. You know, it's been active. Then, it can expand directly adjacent to it. Okay. Yes.

Thank you.

Any other questions?

Yeah, I guess I guess my question, Mr. Perez is, obviously, we had the two car dealerships over here. Will this allow them to continue with their business and be able to grow, I guess, kind of what they're wanting past that 25%? And obviously, I'm seeing that they're thinking they it has a alley in the street and I'm just trying to think there are some streets where those buildings are separated. They wouldn't be able to purchase more, correct? But it would allow them to continue their their business in that area.

They would have to be contiguous, not bisected by alley or street, but they could. Yes. We feel that staff is of the opinion that this would help the applicant that Mr. Nassar and Mr. Hall that you talked to earlier in the previous hearing. I can't speak to their exact business plan. They may not get everything they want, but we're thinking that they could this is workable for them. And other members within that area that have legal nonconforming uses that they're wishing to expand. Expand. So it just wouldn't be vehicle sales. It would be any of the other legal non conforming uses in that UMU zone down off Columbia. When you think

about car sales, obviously, there's other businesses that are attached to repair ing tires or mufflers or whatever type of business that's similar to that. And so just trying to make sure that allows them to kind of continue growing their business or allow that.

Yes, as long as they were legally

able

to So, we're to applicant's representative wish to speak? Do We're k. I do not see an applicant or an applicant's representative at this time. Is there any testimony from anyone in person in council chambers in favor of the request? If you're gonna speak in favor, there you go.

In favor.

In favor? Come on down.

Caleb Auldinger, Allied I just want to say I actually really like this plan probably better than what was proposed originally and I appreciate you guys working with us and working with the business owners. I own a business down in the UMU zone and so progress the very And with pleased we stop that and it's cool with because we'll still have to comply with progress the UMU zone code. We'll start to look nice and hopefully in the future when it does get developed that all of us will be happy that we did this. There's not a lot of businesses I don't think. I work down there every single day.

This doesn't apply to a ton. Think it works well with the businesses that are down there and want to stay down there. I've been down there for fifteen years so I really appreciate it and I hope this goes through.

You state your address? For the record.

Home or? Sure. Okay. 1301 South Quay Street, Kennewick, Washington. Sorry. Thank you.

Is there anyone else in the audience who would like to speak in favor?

Shane O'Neill, Clover Planning and Zoning, Pasco, Washington. I think that this proposed text amendment is an appropriate concession that respects the long established, and long standing businesses that that helped build the city's core from way back when and that it would be a mistake to attempt to, displace them to the fringes of the community. I noticed a somewhat of an attack on, gasoline passenger vehicles, in a variety of ways lately. And and I think that, automotive uses are vital service that support a mobile population. The passenger vehicles lie at the core of a free society, and it it would be it would be a mistake to decide that now that the city's grown in the way that it has, that this no longer needed.

And I I would like to see this code amendment be approved and to, allow businesses that have proven to be successful and proven to have utility to expand because that would be evidence of the success in the free market. Right? Like, they're not gonna expand if they don't if they can't. And if they're failing due to the location, they won't. And like Caleb said, I think that the effect of this code amendment is fairly limited because of the number of vacant sites that meet those criteria in the UMU zone.

Yeah, I don't see this having a detrimental impact on on anything in in your city.

Thank you. Thank you. Is there anyone else who'd like to speak in favor? Get in meeting. That able the

the the Directors to hear our thoughts and comments on this situation. Of I would like to take the city back to the year 2010 when they put together the river to river project or the bridge to bridge project. So, since 2010, there has not been a lot of activity. Represent the, major owner in that area who wants to develop the property. We have developers looking at the property to go ahead and develop it.

Obviously, a development of this magnitude is gonna require a substantial amount of capital, substantial amount of due diligence to determine what's most feasible for the location. But what I wanna do is review with you the denial that was put together by your planning department as to what their comments were. But I would like to go back to the staff analysis and just read that into the record for you. Basically, the city adopted the bridge to bridge plan in 2010, and in 2017, it was adopted by reference in the comprehensive plan. In 2017, the city established the UmU zoning district and development regulations.

So this has been in effect for basically about fifteen years almost at this point. The plans describe the visible the plans describe the vision of what the UMU district should look like and what types of commercial and residential activity should take place in it. It is the staff's opinion that the above UMU zone purpose statement comp plan and bridge to bridge plan excerpts provide a clear direction for the types of uses that should be permitted in the zone and that the proposed amendment is not in compliance with proposed statement or plans. Taking it back onto the staff recommendations at that point in time, based on the above analysis, staff recommended the planning commission forward a recommendation of denial to city council for the following motion. So I look back at this because I was heavily involved in when the U F you revised zoning was put into place.

There was a lot of public comment. There was a lot of discussion about it. One of the reasons is there's a 25% allowance to allow people to expand was for this very reason. So at this point in time, if you look at what's being proposed right now, a very small business there could go in and buy 10 acres beside them and expand on it into whatever they basically have as a current nonconforming use. I see that as a major problem.

It hasn't really been addressed very well at all at this point in time. I certainly think that that needs to be addressed. I think the other thing is that really the city needs to sit down and take a stronger look at this, make sure they understand what's going to happen or the results of this because this, my understanding is, and staff can correct me if I'm wrong, but it appears to me that this affects everything that is owned UMU in the city Of Kennewick. So you've got some very high value locations in the city that you're going to allow nonconforming uses to continue to expand and it's going to eventually preclude any development of high value properties that would generate a lot of tax revenue, a lot of sales tax revenue back to City Of Kennewick. So I would like to see you go ahead and go through another workshop, expand this, give the public time to go ahead and respond to this.

I did not learn about this whole situation until March 3 when they had a city council meeting, and we became aware of it, and I opposed it at that point in time. That's part of the reason it got remanded back to the planning commission at that point. The last last thing I would like to comment on is that let me read my notes here real quick. One of the comments that was made in this was this appeal is exempt from the plan. My suggestion would be maybe we should go back and take a look at specific areas that should be exempted from this.

In other words, we have high value properties in certain locations that could be very beneficial to the city of Kennewick, and maybe we should look at which one those locations are and exempt specific locations from what's being proposed in the amendment. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there any other testimony from any person at council chambers either neutral or against the request? K. Seeing none, we're gonna go continue. Is there any testimony from anyone registered online in favor of the request? This is point in the hearing for anyone in favor of the request to comment. Please raise your hand and the clerk will announce your name and allow you to unmute your microphone. Let me know if you see anything, Anthony.

There are

I'm I'm call. Name and allow you to unmute your microphone. Any activity?

I have no raised hands but we were under the impression that one of the attendees was going to comment from previous discussions with them earlier in the day. If they will just allow them to talk and see

what happens. You can see if they want to

Leisure did you want to comment at this time? I'm sorry we can't hear your audio for some reason. We mister Leisure, we cannot hear you.

We'll give him just a few more moments to try to fix the technical challenge. Yeah.

Anthony, can you see if the volume is the volume up?

Mister chairman.

Okay. We can we can we can hear you now, mister mister. Hey.

I I I truly apologize for my inept, activity here. I I apologize to you. I hate to taking up your time in this regard. And, for that, I apologize. My name is, can you hear me now?

We can.

Can can you hear me?

Yes, we can.

Hello? Whoops.

Sorry. I I muted. Yes, we can. We can

hear you. Oh, okay. My name is that way

have And

doing commercial realm and in involved in a number of areas there. But at the present time, I I do not own real estate. Purpose the purpose of of my coming on this evening was that I was unable to be there with you, but we have been working on a number of properties, in this area in the UMU area that would be noticed as some

of

the areas that that we're obviously talking about the Columbia Columbia area. And we've been looking in that area for quite some time. When I did learn of this, potential change that was after I saw the staff report in January, in the recommendation recommendation for for denial which which we approved based upon what we had read in in the bridge to bridges and and also the master planning that was being proposed and the UMU document that has been been there and placed in the comp plan. So my purpose definitely is not to not to be against the existing owner of that real estate as far as what what has been in the ordinance for nonconforming use. However, my purpose of coming on was to speak speak to the longer term element here and what those of us that have been continuing to look toward the the bridge to bridges project which I thought was an absolutely great plan.

Yes. Years have happened. But I had two or three things in in the area that was of concern in the drafting of this proposal, to make the change. Certainly, I'm sure there are some ways to make make it happen so that this existing applicant could move forward if that was the decision. But to make a major change in the ordinance I think needs more time to visit in reading just the proposed and this is not negative to staff.

I realized they had limited time to to deal with this solution or come up with options. But definitely, the amount of time for expansion now beyond 25% of the land area or whatever which could go at whatever number or so certainly there needs to be some dialogue or discussion relative to that number for expansion even though you said it's adjacent which I also understand and and we understand. But the expand of uses, nonconforming uses, it seems to me that there does need to be serious consideration consideration as to what that could be or might be or may not be. The other thing in the definition for some reason this field and I'm not privy to all of this, so bear with me, but I did read it in the proposal. Why was Vista Field left out versus tied to all the UMU throughout the entire city.

I'm I'm well aware of Vista Field, and I understand what's happening there, and I I'm I'm appreciative of that. But why was it left? Or was that put there so that you could put other properties in that same area that would be excluded from this provision? And by that, I mean, looking at real estate that would be much project that would be all encompassing. Is that possible?

Is that something that could be added to all of this upfront as as you look at what could happen here? So my my only appeal, I guess, to to to you folks on the commission, I'm not trying to forestall anything. My only interest is clarification as we go on down the road relative to this. I think it's very open as to nonconforming uses, and maybe that's intentional. I have no idea.

I'm not not once again I haven't been listening in the last two or three months here but I think it deserves a little more discussion with more folks involved in the rest of the UMU and and looking at the perhaps some other areas that would be excluded from this particular use and change as as you've recommended. So my only purpose of being on this area, we are certainly interested in the Tri Cities. We plan to expand in the Tri Cities. But I think in this particular case, a definition would be very helpful because of of the area as it is in attempting to define this more for the expansion area especially. And thank you very much.

I'm sorry for confusion on me operating my computer here and getting to you and thank you very much for your consideration.

Thank you. Is there anyone else online that would like to speak on this change is up.

I'm not seeing any other hands. No other hands. There's two other attendees. I can ask them if

No, that's okay. They should be showing their hands if they're there. Before we potentially close the public hearing, if we wanted to send this back potentially to staff and do a workshop. Do we need to keep the public hearing open? I'm just throwing something

You could continue it and I might need some help there. I think so. If I muted on, sorry, if I have Zoom muted here. I don't know whether or they can hear me. I'll bring it up because it was unmuted before you turn up the volume.

Okay. The reason I asked that is that I remember in the past us continuing some public hearings because we wanted more information potentially on a topic or we wanted to look at something closer before we close that hearing in case we wanted to add content. I don't know if that's the way this plays out or if we close it.

It it could go either way as a this is a legislative item. So, you can have as many hearings as you wanna have on them. We just would have to notice them. You can continue the hearing if you'd like and get more information. You need to continue it to a date and time certain and then it would have to be after the workshop. Correct.

So I have some thoughts on it. And I don't know how the rest of the commission thinks about it. I think there were some good things brought up and staff may be able to answer them for us tonight, at least for me. So we can move forward with it. Or there may be enough depth where we need to do a workshop so we fully understand what other areas that this may impact besides downtown bridge to bridge. I next

comes

thing long term? That's what anybody that sits up here at this podium thinks about. Is it correct? And I want to make sure that we're looking long term, is it the correct action versus a one time applicant. So I don't know if there's something you guys want to add to that for clarity or would you recommend us?

I'll add some clarity then

you can make a decision. Thank you. I'm going to keep the public hearing open until

So eighteen fifteen oh six five is a new section within the code. It's being it's called expansion of use. That's being proposed well, it came up mainly because of the applicant the applicant's request. But before that, we kinda had issues with the determination of expansion of use. Currently, eighteen fifteen o six o is titled expansion of nonconforming structures.

And so you're given a you're allowed to expand a structure 25% if it's nonconforming. Just by you being able to do that, you essentially are expanding what you're doing inside that structure, and so that expands the use. But that wasn't clearly addressed in the code. And so really, eighteen fifteen o six five subsection one, that's to clarify what's been done in practice in the past based on limitation, like limited limited clarity in the code. Subsection two is meant to address the issue with the applicant's original request, which was to

past.

And we're we're

in

pleased of the 20 out throughout the UMU in the bridge to bridge revitalization plan. The commercial auto road zone was set up specifically for automobile dealers, and that was done through a public process working with the automobile dealers in that area and the other automotive related businesses during the bridge to bridge planning process. Planning Commission recommended approval of the applicant's request. We presented that to the city council. And at that time, realized that it's perhaps denial we with And we're

have

able to do first 20. Able to do And

20,

then

the a strong

nonconforming use already. First The second half piece of clarity that I want to add to is is in subsection two, and that's related to the probe, how the provision does not apply in Vista Field in the Vista Field master plan area. That was we carried that over from the applicant's initial request. In reality, there are no nonconforming uses in Vista field, and so statement is really not necessary because there are no nonconforming uses, nonconforming uses in Vista field can expand. So that really isn't I guess that's an unnecessary statement.

Outside of as far as other places where this might be worth looking at allowing or exempting, the only other mixed use zone area is within the Bridge To Bridge River To Rail area. There's clarification. I'll answer any question. I hope that may have been a lot. I'll answer any questions you have on that.

Okay. With that, I'm gonna close the public hearing. At this time, does commission have any other questions of staff?

Just to clarify that you have used on other areas aside from that downtown corridor there?

Is only in that downtown corridor. Yeah. It's only in the Bridge To Bridge area and Vista Field. And so as stated earlier, Vista Field has no non conforming uses there so it doesn't apply to Vista Field. So, that statement kinda doesn't matter. I don't think we realize that until tonight. During the discussion.

Thank you.

Okay, I have a question. Commissioner Gregory here. So, that was the main thing. How many other areas? This is only talking about two areas and then, are there businesses that haven't been legally established? Because you keep saying that legally established businesses. Are there some down there that haven't been?

There might be. Okay. We don't know that for certain.

I got where

you're I mean, we we're not going property to property to find out whether or not. I But there are businesses that establish certain locations within the city that do so where they're not allowed, and we don't find out about it till after the fact.

So one more thought on this. The way I see it is we make a motion either way, and we still have a discussion. Is that correct? Okay. So I'd like to wait then.

Perfect. Alright. I would entertain a motion at this time.

Commissioner Gregory here. I motion I would like to make a motion and move that the Planning Commission concur with the findings and conclusions in staff report DCA twenty twenty five dash zero zero zero six and recommend approval of the amendment to establish the KMC section eighteen point one five point zero six five.

Do I have a second? Second. Okay. Commissioner Gregory moved that the planning commission concur with the findings and conclusion staff report DCA two zero two five zero zero six, and recommend the city council approval of that request second by commissioner Barker. Is there any discussion?

So this is commissioner Gregory, and I'd like to discuss how we've already been waiting fifteen years for this bridge to bridge plan. And we have businesses that are thriving, doing well, but we hinder them from expanding because of the code. And I appreciate the extra mile that you went in helping us come up with a a way to help this business, but yet it's limiting other ones. The way I'm understanding it is I can't just go down there today and say, I'm gonna start whatever business, a body car business, and then start expanding because I wanna buy the next 10 lots next door. And if people are in fear of somebody coming up and saying, okay.

This person that's applying wants to buy the 10 acres next to him. By golly, that place has been pretty desolate for a lot of years. And if his business is doing that well that he could buy 10 acres attached to it, I'd say it would be a pretty prosperous thing for us. And so I would just really appreciate that you're gonna keep it still in the view of the bridge to bridge and allow the businesses that are there to expand. So that's my thought.

Is there any other comments from the commission?

Yeah, I'm very similar to Tina and the aspect of do appreciate the comments for it because I've been here for about fifteen years, I really haven't seen too many people come into that area aside from small businesses going in there. And so if there's plans to do something, ten years down the road, I would hope that we would see something by now. And so I feel like this is kind of a middle ground of meeting with those existing businesses that are there and allowing them to grow. So that would just be my comment.

Any other comments?

Just stating for the record that as with the last time this DCA was on the docket, I'm going to recuse myself from the vote due to an ongoing business relationship with one of the applicants.

Thank you. Any other comments? Hearing or seeing none, may we have a roll call vote, please?

Commissioner Barger? Yes. Commissioner Perez? Yes. Vice Chair Gregory?

Yes.

Chairman Hampstead?

Yes. That passes unanimous with one absent ee or absence. Abstain. You. There we go.

We have one more public hearing. I declare the public hearing for Vista Field development agreement open. May we have a staff report, please?

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Commission. Let me get my screen back up here real quick. Steve Donovan, Planning Manager. I would like to say that this presentation will not only be myself, but we also have Chief Heffner that will make a presentation on one of the slides in addition to the Public Works Director, John Cowling, that will also speak to one of the slides.

Just real quick, the city entered into the city of Kennewick and the Port of Kennewick entered into a Vista Field Development Agreement on 12/05/2017. Port of Kennewick requested to extend that agreement an additional ten years. City staff reviewed the agreement and proposed some minor amendments regarding the mitigation construction costs, street design for fire access and fire impact fees. This is the area map that this development agreement impacts. It is the Vista Field area, the proper area that's outlined here in black.

I will now kick it over to our public works director, John Cowling, and he can speak to the amendments to the transportation portion.

Thanks, Stephen. Good evening, Mr. Commissioner or Mr. Chair and Commissioners. John Cowan, Public Works Director.

Public Works reviewed the original developer agreement and really had just one minor suggested change. As part of the development agreement, the port and the Vista field development looked at traffic impacts to the intersections in the area, and it was identified as part of the agreement a proportionate share that the port would pay towards future improvements of those intersections. In reviewing this document, we took a look at some of the language and decided just a small clarification that in Exhibit F or sorry, Section 5.2 references Exhibit F, we clarify that the costs that the part pay are actual construction costs. Exhibit F shows the intersections, the percent of the proportionate share as well as estimated costs. So just a simple language clarification that it's based on actual construction costs in the future.

I'll go to the next slide. Design specifications and Chief Hefner will address these.

Good evening. Chair Hempstead, Planning Commission. To prevent previous challenges that the, city's fire truck had navigating turns within that tight density of Vista Fields. The project team is now utilizing Auto Turn which is an industry standard software used by planners and engineers to run simulations of intersections parking lots etcetera. Those simulations are based on the fire department's largest vehicle, our aerial ladder truck.

That's our vehicle that has a 100 foot telescoping ladder on top of it. As the Vista field project builds out, these design standards will help ensure adequate fire access, updating how the turning radii are measured and the amount of space needed for right of ways. We work collaboratively to add a section to improve clarity regarding the international fire code regarding structures over 30 feet and the need to expand the road width to 26 feet. This section helps inform developers early in the design process of this requirement with the goal preventing undesirable redesigns or delays. That addition prompted changes in the subsection numbering and formatting.

So you saw some of those changes there. There was also a need for additional language regarding no parking signage. We discussed this very collaboratively with Board of Kennewick team. It was agreed upon that signage will help enable enforcement of no parking restrictions within those non city alleys and city right of ways. And lastly, there's some clarification language added that the fire impact fees are only applicable to the development in the Southridge area but the port and their successors would agree to pay any fire impact fees if and only if such a zone were ever established by council in Vista Fields. Thank you.

Real quickly here pursuant to the KMC the city may enter into adult development agreement. The city can authorize extensions of up to one to ten years for the development agreements and KMC eighteen forty eight zero five zero requires a planning commission to hold a public hearing and make a recommendation to the city council on the proposed development agreement extensions. And that's why this particular agreement is in front of you today is for that specifically. And staff has reviewed the development agreement that was part of your staff report also. And pursuant to KMC eighteen forty eight zero two zero recommends that the Planning Commission occur with the findings and conclusions contained in staff report and recommend approval of the city of the city of Kennewick and Port Of Kennewick Vista Field Development Agreement to city council.

If there's any questions of any of the staff up here, we'd be more than happy to answer them for you.

Thank you. Does any of the ers have questions for staff?

Commission Gregory, I have one question to the chief. So, I I've been trying to figure out this impact fee with Southridge only and I didn't catch 100% what you said. There will be an impact fee over here for developers. How did you word that?

Thank you for for let me clarify that. The fire impact fee only applies to Southridge. It does not apply to Vista Fields. However, if the city council chose to adopt a fire impact fee for a zone that may be covered specifically Vista Fields, if and only if that occurred, then the get the business side

So,

to

we're

they're updating the language to reflect actual construction costs. What does that language speak to right now rather than actual construction

it's mute on actual costs. It's there's an Exhibit F within the document that has the intersection, the improvement, the percent the port would pay and then an estimated dollar amount. So Larry, with the port to date, we've they've been good working with us and paying actual construction costs. But seeing as this is a ten year agreement, some of us may not still be here and know that, that's kind of the mutual agreement we've had. And so we just wanted to memorialize that so that when Larry retires, it's still clear to everybody what the intent was. The intent was construction cost. It just wasn't clarified. Any

other questions? Right, hearing none, we're going to continue on. Does the applicant or the applicant's representative wish to speak? Please, your name and address, please.

Yes, mister chairman and commissioners, for the record, my name is Larry Peterson. I'm the development and or excuse me, director of planning and development for the port of Kennewick. And I'll work my way backwards. First off, the port of Kennewick wholly supports the staff recommendation that this development agreement as presented to you tonight be recommended to the city council for their approval. Is the big part.

The Vista Field, you able to put up that presentation? A lot of details, a lot of text in through here. There was a development agreement established in late twenty seventeen between the port and the city that gave assurances to both the port, the city, the public, and those to look to invest in the area what Vista Field would look like and the processes, how we do

that. Able do

we're be amenity is crowding. Density with amenity that. Is community. And we're trying to bring community into this 103 acre site that was the former airport, the Vista Field Airport site. So we had a lot of study done. There was an EIS done on the site. You want to read all 2,000 pages? We can provide you the link. There was three sixty pages of transportation impact system evaluation done that then resulted in a detailed 22 intersections. The Port Of Kennewick will pay a certain percentage of those intersection costs to make various improvements.

And Director Cowling is correct. It had a percentage linked. The port is responsible for 25% or 50% of those intersection improvements. But it was a $20.16 dollars We all know that we've updated we as the port and the staff know that that love to pay those $20.16 prices, but those are long gone. The port as the developer master developer of the site is agreeing to pay percentages of those, whatever those bid day numbers are in 2028 or 2032, the life of the agreement.

So we've tested before the city even approved the first agreement in 2017. We had to look at transportation, utilities, there was a lot of citizen input saying we want something different at Vista Field. That opportunity for something different could be only realized if the city was willing to enter an agreement with us because there's had to be a bunch of new codes written. The urban mixed use zoning districts written for this. The street standards were changed to allow I use the phrase skinny streets.

Everybody wants to be skinny. Narrow sounds a scary word, but skinny streets. So there's a bunch of different standards that are applied and that development agreement locked those standards in or made it clear to all parties that's what would apply to Vista Field. We have an update. It's coming due. There's two years left on the agreement, but as marketing and time takes to get through the development process, people want some certainty. What are they buying into? And now we've had a couple of businesses open, and there's additional waiting to start construction, and more want to move forward. They want to know that there's more time, that the rules won't be changed in near term. So we approach city staff.

We work with your planning staff, fire department, public works, and we wholly support the various tweaks and changes involved. If I can take just a few minutes, that's the that's the detail. I've used the phrase to them, the sizzle sells the stakes. I want to at least give you some pictures or concepts of what Vista Field could be and a little bit of the why behind it. Next slide please.

You're quite familiar with your community, but looking at this as we're talking to various developers, try to find a site in Eastern Washington that's 100 acres. There are no environmental restrictions. It's completely encircled with utilities and a transportation network. There aren't concerning land uses around it, but in fact, a 6,000 seat Colosseum and expanding convention center, the hotel motel between two freeway interchanges. We start telling people about this as they call and inquire about this field.

They think we're making it up. Many sites will have three or four of these qualities, but its access is a challenge. Or utilities only need to be extended three miles to the site. This is a unique opportunity and so when the port working with the public and the city through the master planning process, we heard loud and clear this needs to be something different and we have a unique site here. So the idea of being urban density, mixed use cars throughout the entire site.

However, the focus is on people, not so much the automobile. Next slide please. Sorry, you had text before, here's a bunch of text, but this is the what's different and we had the zoning was completely written for this, the street design stands were written for this, and even the vehicle apparatus circulation for the fire department was reviewed and the minimums necessary were applied to Vista Field. The equipment can still circulate and that's why some of the lessons learned were giving a little more the agreement gives a little more elbow room makes the corners a little larger so the equipment although could circulate today can make it around the corners a little easier and every minute every second matters in the case of emergency and so in the name of life health safety the port supports all the requests made by the fire department to slightly open up turning radiuses and help the apparatus move through the site. Next slide, please.

Here's the on one screen, what's the difference? The standard development, the neighborhood I live in is the typical suburban streets down below. 38 foot wide street, garage driveways twenty, twenty five feet, house set back, garage doors around the front. And the example on top is the Vista Field with the alleys and access off the alleys and pedestrian ways. Cars can still drive down, but they really belong in the alley. And onto the right hand very, development of

to

very,

we're

do

And is a great marketing slide, we say. Be This is 30 people getting coffee. Vista Field is the example on top. And I won't say the name of the Seattle based coffee company, but it's almost any coffee company we have through the community. And we saw this.

We need plenty of the options down below where people need to grab their cup of coffee and stay in their car and keep going. But we're looking for that. We're looking to provide that opportunity for the vision you see on top and the zoning that was crafted ten years ago and the street design standards that were changed that were included in that first development agreement, if approved, would remain consistent in this development agreement. And we'd have an opportunity to bring something like that to our community. Next Again, the idea about people, the previous airport hangars for storage out in the industrial area and those the conversion should have updated this, so I actually have real photos as that's done and completed.

The idea being this is about people rather than just vehicles, or in this case airplanes. Next slide, please. The next

please.

Slide, please. Please. Garage roll

up doors opening up to the stream, apartments,

slide, and condominiums on that 5th Floor, something that don't have throughout the community. We have condos, but they're either on the golf course. Now we have the idea of you have all these great draws of convention center, hotel, hockey game. Imagine going to a hockey game a couple hours early and grabbing a meal at the restaurant here and going to the game, or someone coming in from out of town and staying at the hotel that's being constructed but discovering the public open space and park that's in Vista Field. Well, that development agreement we're talking about allows these type of things to occur.

Next slide, and possibly the last slide. Here's a photo from one of the examples of a project in the Miami Beach area is the great idea of pedestrians. And I'll go to the last slide, I'll be done. But the takeaway is the port believes the development agreement that gave a lot of certainty to both the port as the master developer, the city, knowing that we wouldn't change the game, we also have to follow the master plan that was laid out public open spaces that are funded by the port and maintained by the neighborhood association. So there are public open spaces that aren't going to be dedicated to the city, although open, not maintained, not hitting the city's coffers.

So it's a win, we believe, for the city with the public spaces there without the financial responsibility. So that agreement that was in place from 2017, we would like to see that extended. We believe the tune ups that have been asked and worked with city staff to work through what are the implications. It's been more of an approach of what lessons learned and what can we apply in here to give that clarity. When we're not here at the risk of making the fire chief set. There's no essence. It's just Vista Field. We only have one. Yes. We have two of them.

We believe we work wonderfully with staff and said, what is it you need? And what we found is the first agreement was pretty close and there's just a few lessons learned. The Port of Kennewick is here to say, we hope that you would recommend this favorably to the City Council for their adoption of the development agreement as I

to to we're none and seeing none, we'll continue. Is there any testimony from any person in the council chambers either neutral or against the request?

Please step forward. Forward.

Hearing none, seeing none, we'll continue. Do we still have people online? Are participants online?

There's two still two participants online. Alright.

Is there any testimony from any registered online in favor of the request? This is a point in the hearing for anyone in favor of request to comment. Please raise your virtual hand, and the clerk will announce your name and allow you to unmute your microphone.

Seeing no hands.

Okay. Seeing no hands, we'll move on. Is there any testimony from anyone registered online, either neutral or against the request? This is the point in the hearing for anyone either neutral against request to comment. Please raise your virtual hand and clerk will announce your name and allow you to unmute your microphone.

Still seeing no hands.

Alright. Seeing no one, does staff have any final comments?

None from planning?

The public testimony portion of public hearing for Vista field development agreement is closed. Are there any comments from the commission?

Commissioner Gregory, I just have to say something. I'm kind of excited to go have coffee at a shop that's not a drive thru. It I love all the work that you guys are doing. I appreciate it. Thank you.

Commissioner I with Commissioner Gregory. I noticed in the slides, is there going to be some kind of creek going through there with bridge over it or is that just for display purposes?

Larry Peterson, Board of Kennewick. I would encourage you to take a drive through Vista Field tonight. The creek was installed when the infrastructure was put in place. The water feature is up and running. It's lit beautifully.

It's eight fifty feet long. There are two pedestrian bridges along with a vehicular bridge that then crosses underneath the city's roadways of Vistafield Boulevard and Crosswind Boulevard and reemerges in what will be the future public open space of Daybreak Commons. And then there is a large 20,000 or so square foot ponding area where there's a large spray head. So there are two fountains, 32 by 32 square fountain with the seating wall in it and an octagonal fountain about eight or 10 foot in any dimension with water up and spraying up in the air right now runs 20 fourseven when the freezing weather is not in place, so April through October. So if that's anywhere on your way home tonight, the the light through the trees looks looks pretty nice.

If not, this evening or weekend and I know this is a public record but I can attest. I have seen people swim in the octagonal fountain because I took my niece and nephew out there and no one was looking. So water is chlorinated, about half the gallons that an Olympic swimming pool has. It's on a pump and we're constantly recirculating it. So we're not wasting the public's water. Streams, that's a real world picture that is not our artist rendering.

Thank you. Thank you.

I, as a American season ticket holder, I actually drive with my kids through the back roads, so I've been able to see the development and growth of it. And so really looking forward to it. Hopefully one day you guys can take my money, you can buy something there. So thank you. Thank you for the work.

And just jump on what everyone else is saying, just such a cool use of that space, a very unique space to be able to do this urban mixed use, but only have one developer. So it's cohesive and very excited to see how it turns out and just glad it's not a bunch more storage units.

I would entertain a motion.

Commissioner Barger, I move that the Planning Commission concur with the findings and conclusions in the staff report and recommend to City Council approval of the request to amend and extend the City Of Kennewick and the Port Of Kennewick Vista Field development agreement.

Second.

I have a motion and a second. Commissioner Barger moved that the Planning Commission occur with the findings and the conclusion staff report, the Vista field development agreement, and recommend to city council for approval to request a second by Arneson. Is there any other discussions? Alright. 'm going to share with you a little story.

I think it was back in 2004, the port and the city do not have a relationship or the vision that they do today. They actually opposed each other, closing the airport down and finding a higher value for that property for the community moving forward. And it was pretty heated and went on for at least a half a decade. To see where it is today, twenty years later roughly, where you guys are united, working together for the betterment of the community, you've been going down that path for well over a decade now. It's great to see.

But what you see today started with the seat and actually elected officials opposing each other pretty adamantly at one time. And it was a big political issue back then too, going into public papers and all over the place. Very confrontational issue. Today, you wouldn't think that it was so, but there's a history behind every opportunity for innovation and creation for the future. You just have to have that vision and willing to stand behind it.

And I love to see the staff and commissioners even may not have been here back in those days or in following it, but to see where you're at today and then see what it potentially can be in the future is fantastic. So any other comments? May we have a roll call vote, please?

Commissioner Arneson? Yes. Commissioner Barger?

Yes.

Boy, I just got lost. Sorry, let me read real quick. Commissioner Perez? Yes. Vice Chair Gregory?

Yes.

Chairman Yes.

That motion passed unanimously. Okay, next section on the agenda is visitors. Is there any visitors that would like to approach the commission? Are there any visitors online that would like to discuss with the commissioners? Raise your hand.

Still one attendee online but no hands.

Nothing okay. How about old business? Is there any city council action updates or anything staff has for the commission?

I

guess no action updates. Don't well, I don't remember. I can't remember if we've been here since, know, a lot subdivisions. But, you know, a lot subdivision was approved by council. Mhmm. And then the last rezone that was heard at our last regular meeting will be heard by a council tomorrow.

Okay. Is there any new business?

We have anybody sitting next to us soon.

I don't know the process or the timeline of that at this time.

It's the in works.

Alright. With that said, I'll adjourn the meeting at 07:57.