Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

We go. Thank you. Tonight's meeting will be conducted through a hybrid platform, which allows commissioners and the public to participate in the meeting both in person and through an online meeting platform. Should an individual Planning Commissioner become unexpectedly disconnected from the virtual platform, please rejoin the meeting at your first opportunity. The record will reflect your attendance. The meeting will proceed so long as a quorum of planning commissions are present. Everyone please mute their phones. Will the clerk call roll and announce whether or not we have a quorum?

Commissioner Arneson.

Here.

Chair Hempstead.

Here.

Vice Chair Gregory? Here. Commissioner Morales? Here. Commissioner Perez?

Here.

Commissioner Rahim Lu? Here. And Commissioner Barger is absent. You have a quorum.

Do I need a motion to excuse him? I will entertain a motion to excuse Commissioner Barger.

I move that we do a motion to excuse Commissioner Barger.

Do I have a second? I second.

Is that honestly? Correct. Okay, we have a motion to excuse Commissioner Barger and a second. Can we have a roll call vote?

Commissioner Arneson?

Yes.

Chair Hempstead?

Yes.

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

Yes.

Commissioner Rahimlo? Yes.

That passed unanimously. Will staff please introduce themselves?

Chair Hempstead, we skipped over the Pledge of Allegiance.

I apologize. Will you please rise and join me in the Pledge of Allegiance. Could staff just introduce themselves?

Steve Donovan, Planning.

Joseph Laris, also with Planning.

Thank you. Okay. Approval of the consent agenda is the next item. 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. Items are approval of minutes dated November 17 and 12/15/2025, approval of the agenda and motion to enter staff reports into record. I entertain a motion for approval of the consent agenda.

I move that we approve the consent agenda.

Do I have a second?

I second.

It has been moved by Commissioner Gregory and seconded by Commissioner Arneson to approve the consent agenda as presented. Can we have a roll call vote?

Commissioner Arneson?

Yes.

Chair Hempstead?

Yes.

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

Yes.

Commissioner Rahimlu? Yes. That's passed.

The motion passed unanimously. Got to bear with me. The next item on the agenda is public hearings. Hopefully, we have some great participation this evening. Good evening, and welcome to the 01/05/2026 Kennewick Planning Commission meeting.

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 via Zoom 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 shall be as follows: Planning staff shall provide a staff report The commission may ask questions of staff. The applicant or applicant's representative presents in testimony in favor of the request, testimony either neutral or against the request, final applicant comments, final staff comments, and we'll close the public hearing and discussion discuss the request. I declare a public hearing for change of zone two zero two five zero zero zero five open. Staff, may we have a staff report?

Thank you, Chairman. So what we have in front of us today is change of zone twenty twenty five five. The applicant for this project is Jessica Bruce of AHL Engineering. The property owner is Elario Zaragoza. And the proposal is to rezone 4.61 acres of one property from residential suburban to residential low density.

And currently, the property has a comp plan designation of low density residential, So both RS and RL fall under those designations. And the location of this project is at 3805 South Vancouver Street. And this is a vicinity map of the property in question. The property that is to be rezoned is outlined in red right here. And we have our zoning map right here, which as as well as also outlined in red is currently the only property zoned residential suburban with all surrounding properties zoned RL.

And just a brief history of the property at the city the site in May 1979 through ordinance two two nine six and zoned the property a for agricultural, and the property was rezoned to residential low density in 2006 and via ordinance five one two four. When it comes to permitted uses, RS and RL zones both do allow for single family and middle housing development, but RL does allow for smaller lots. So currently, RS would allow for an 8,000 square foot minimum lot size, while RL has a 5,500 square foot minimum lot size minimum. Both of those do allow for townhome lots with a 1,800 square foot minimum lot size. And when it comes to approving a change of zone, there are certain findings that have to be approved by city council.

And the first one is that the proposed amendment conforms with a comprehensive plan, promotes the public necessity, convenience, general welfare, does not impose a burden upon public facilities beyond the city to serve or reduce such services to lands which are deemed unacceptable by the city. The proposed amendment is consistent with all applicable provisions of the Kennewick Municipal Code, including those adopted by reference from the comprehensive plan. And specifically for residential properties being rezoned, the property has to be adjacent and contiguous to property of the same proposed zoning classification or higher zoning classification. And so our recommendation is that staff has reviewed the application finds that it meets the change of zone findings in KMC eighteen fifty one zero seventy section two and recommends that the planning commission concur with the findings and conclusions contained in staff report change of zone twenty twenty five zero zero zero five and recommend approval to city council. And I am open to take any questions now.

Does the commission have any questions to staff?

I just wanted to clarify a couple of slides back because from what I understand, we were the it's proposed to rezone from residential suburban density to residential low density. In the history of the property, property history Slide five right there. It said that the property was rezoned to residential low density in 2006.

My apologies. Sorry about that. That was a yeah. Was residential I

just wanted

to make

sure I was looking it wasn't flip flopped on here. Right.

Sorry. That was a mistake. Yeah. It was rezoned to residential suburban in 2006, not residential low density.

Any

other questions by commission? Could staff refresh my memory and really kind of define what the comp plan does and how we approach that prior to the changes on kind of what the role of the comp plan is.

So basically, the comp plan is the basis. So at the time, the Council Planning Commission determined what type of land use designation a property should have. In this particular case, council decided that the property and the properties around the site that's in question should be designated low density residential. And then the development regulations are what implement that plan and the implementing zoning districts for the low density residential. In this case, we have two options.

It's either residential suburban or residential low. So the plan is kind of more the generalized plan, so to speak, of what should happen within the city. And then the development regulations, the zoning is what implements that plan.

Okay. So the council sees it, and does it go to the state for approval or anything like that?

Doing comprehensive plan amendments, it's not it's a big it's a big process. Obviously, it's in front of the planning commission. It's in front of the council. And then when it's adopted, then eventually it will be sent to the state just for their final review and approval. But, yes, when we whenever we do a comprehensive plan amendment or development regulation amendment, we are we send it to the state for initial review.

And then when it has been adopted by the city, then it goes back for their final review, they archive it. Or I'm not exactly sure what they do with it once they have it in their possession, but they are made aware of what our our plans are then designated or classified as being in compliance with the Growth Management Act. So once we have an adopted plan, it's deemed to be in compliance with the state regulations.

Thank you. I just want a little bit of background. Appreciate it. Does the applicant or the applicant's representative wish to speak? Is anyone online? No. K. No one's online at this point. Is there any testimony from anyone in person in the council chambers in the hearing for anyone in favor of the request to comment.

Just checking.

Alright. 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. Do we have a list?

They're not listed in order, but we do have sheets that are signed, filled out.

Would you like to call them back through the list or just have them come up?

Yeah, I can do it that way. Would It be might be helpful. Ms. Debbie Clark.

You have three minutes. Address your comments to the commission. Thank you.

Off?

Thank you. My name is Debbie Clark. I live at 1907 West 37th Avenue. My property is directly north of the proposed site. I'm not in favor of changes zone as mentioned and the preliminary plat application Vancouver Heights.

And I bring up the plat application because that's combined into the SEPA statement for the change of zone. I'm not in favor for two reasons. First, the increase in density is not compatible with the surrounding neighborhoods. Second, the infrastructure for Vancouver is not adequate to accommodate more traffic and safety of students walking to Horse Heaven Hills Middle School. This proposal, the preliminary plat, which could happen with the change of zone, is create would create 17 new housing units on approximately 3.5 acres.

This may not sound like a lot to you. However, the increase in density and with a significant impact on Vancouver Street for vehicles and pedestrians, it's quite an increase. I understand the west side of the proposed preliminary plat along Vancouver will meet City Of Kennewick development standards. However, the northwest corner of the project from Vancouver, 36th Avenue, is an open ditch without side without sidewalks for school children or pedestrians walking to transit stop. I don't know if you've driven past that area, but it's not safe to walk along Vancouver Street.

I've tried, and their traffic goes. The ditch is there. When I asked about the capital improvement plan for Vancouver Street, 36 To 40 Sev excuse me. 36 To 45th Avenues, This is the response I received from the traffic engineer. Vancouver is a long street.

The need for a CIP project will be determined as needed and will be isolated to areas determined in the project. Paving projects are typically determined one to two years out by the engineering and design group. Also, there is a Vancouver Street pedestrian pathway, 37th Avenue to 45th, listed in our six year transportation plan, TIP 39, scheduled for a tentative construction year of 2028. To me, this response does not provide a reassurance of safety for pedestrians and children walking to school. Lastly, I would like to request that if and when this change of zone and preliminary plat are approved, that as a condition of approval, all structures built on the north and west boundary lines be restricted to single story construction only, whereby maintaining compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood.

I thank you for your time. Do you have any questions of me?

Commission, do you have any questions, Ms. Clark?

You're addressing on 37th Avenue for not having two story. I think is there two story homes on that block?

No. Okay.

That's the last question. I'm looking at

the map right now. Single.

Any other questions I might answer?

Anybody else have any questions? No, thank you for participation.

Okay, thank you.

Ms. Donna Brockman?

I decided not to speak. I'm sorry,

If you're giving any testimony would you please come to the podium?

State your name and

I'm not really as prepared as Deborah to speak, oppose this completely. I concur with everything that Deborah said. This is not the place for this development. It's a nice setting out there and I've seen what's happened along like Olympia 10th where they've put in more houses and it's just not sustainable out in that area. I just don't believe that's the place.

Thank you.

Miss Laura Staley?

Hi. My name is Laura Staley. I live at 3805 South Vancouver Street, right across. Actually, this is now the fourth time I've been to meetings over the years to express my concern about safety issues on our little section of Vancouver Street, and nothing has been done to address these issues. Here are my concerns.

Number one, South Vancouver Street in this part of Kennewick is already dangerous for pedestrians and bicyclists. We have well, I said no sidewalks. There is one little piece of sidewalk. There is one street light, that entire length of street. We have minimal paved shoulders for students that walk to and from Horse Evans Hills Middle School.

Adding 17 more houses on this piece of land is only going to make this part of Kennewick more dangerous. Depending on the weather and time of day, pedestrians and cyclists are already being forced into the traffic lanes to get where they need to go. How long are you going to ignore the changes that need to be done on this section of street? Will it take the death of a child in a lawsuit before it is addressed? K.

I hear 2028 now, but I've lived there for thirty eight years. The only thing that they have done was they went in and they made the trenches deeper and lined them with rocks. A year ago, my husband almost got killed by a car because he was walking at night, slipped on the ice, fell on the ground. He managed to roll himself into the ditch, or he would be dead. Anyways, this proposed change does not match any of the surrounding neighborhoods.

Actually, I was thinking about your zoning comments. Actually with the residential low density now being at 5,500 square feet and all of our properties are over 8,000, should we not be zoned residential suburban? Something to consider. Okay. Anyways, it doesn't match the surrounding neighborhoods.

It is almost twice as dense as the recent development to the properties in the South, and even more dense than the rest of the surrounding parcels. My fear is that it will look like the development on the former Orchard at 1929 West 10th, tiny monochromatic two story buildings little to no landscaping. I'm also concerned about access for emergency vehicles into and out of the proposed roadway. And let's see what else. Let's see.

The other thing is is that we have so many other building projects going on around Kennewick, that would better fit what they want to do there. I don't see why we're doing this on this site. And honestly, because the existing property on that parcel sits on a third of the work quarter smaller. So I don't know. I was looking through the comprehensive plan.

You state that a pedestrian friendly environment is a priority in your urban development goals. I don't see that here. Okay. I don't see how this project, how this zoning change fits, helps, addresses any of that.

Ms. Daley, that's three minutes.

What's that?

That's three minutes.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you mr. Larry singleton

talking in public, anyway, you know, like Deb really laid it out in detail, so did Laura, a lot more articulate than I can. But, also, the street, you know, goes out onto Vancouver. It's got one way in and one way out. If you've got 17 homes, that's, you know, probably 34 cars possibly going in and out of there. And these lots, like like everybody was saying, we have third acre lots on 37th Street.

Everywhere around us is like that. And I've lived here all my life, sixty seven years. I I grew up on Hood Street in the seventies. This isn't a new thing from the West Side. They started building apartments in a county area where we lived, and it totally changed the area. People that lived there for a long time, my parents, people moved out. You know, the neighborhood starts looking like a inner city neighborhood. If you go down Hood Street now, that's what it looks like. It wasn't like that when I was a kid. So your property values get devalued.

If you're looking at, a community where people wanna live, do they really wanna live in these small lots like this, like you'd have in Seattle or somewhere like that? We should have say so on this side of the state. We, the people, we should have some say so with our our city government. And if you have these many people opposing this, there's a reason for that. We live in that area.

We're not on a planning commission. We don't sit behind a desk somewhere. We're there in that community. And I would like to see it just, if it's possible, to not have that many homes, put homes that are comparable and, like I think it was Deb was saying or or Laura. I can't remember, but, you know, you don't want two story homes right behind, a ranch style home.

You know? And it sounds like there may even be townhouses. You know, we weren't told that. So is that is that what is going to go in here? There doesn't seem to be any kind of guarantee on what's gonna be built in here, what type home. So anyway, that's all I have to say. But anyway, appreciate the time.

Does commission have any questions? No questions. Thank you.

Mr. Patrick Blair.

Yes. Good evening. Patrick Blair. I live at 2003 West 37th right next to Debbie. And so we're fairly new to the area. We moved from Colorado. We've been here for about a year and a half. So I'm getting familiar with the area. I guess my first question is, is when I look at this, is was a traffic engineer brought into this. And if the answer is no, guess the question is is at what point does the city decide to bring traffic engineer in.

I'm not a traffic engineer. I'm a retired engineer. But just I have similar concerns to the other neighbors. The ditches are I tell you, those ditches are bad. You know, it's it's concerning.

I'm retired. I'm not there's a school right down the street, you know, and I see kids walking up there, and cars go fast on that road. Another thing I've noticed is, so a couple of comments, when you look at this overall plan, there's 17 houses, and if you look at most of these streets, they have access on both sides. So this lot, you're going have 17 houses and the big one and you're going to have access on one side. And the question is to a traffic engineer relative to what's the impact there?

The impact on Vancouver with all those cars. If there was an access on the other side, that would be a whole different deal. Second question is, one thing I noticed is we walk quite frequently down to the park. And down by the school, there's a median in the middle, which helps. So you got cars that are coming in and out, and they can always help on the median.

But I noticed in front of the site, proposed site, there's no the road narrows, so there's no median at all. So if you got cars that are trying to make left turns and traffic that's coming back and forth, seems like it could be a mess. And then you've got the ditch. But there's going to be we have the site. We've looked at the site and there's going to be sidewalks there. So that's probably not as much of a problem. But the question is traffic engineer was he looked in it and maybe that's not the policy or the planning here. But at what point is there a concern where you may want to get a traffic engineer to look at it. That's about it. Thank you very much.

Thank you.

That's all I have.

Is there anyone else that would like to step forward and present? State your name.

Now I pretty much sent a letter. I don't know if anybody read this letter. It pretty much addressed my concerned neighbors, but I have some points to add on to it. My ditch that starts right where the the sidewalks in, the next across the Intersection of 37th. My ditch is six foot wide. It goes about four foot deep. I watched the children when they got out of school. My office is at my home. I watched kids push each other and everything else, and there's only two feet of space in between the ditch and the roadway. And adding these houses, it it is gonna really affect the safety.

I've seen children almost getting hit by cars. It's just when, and if we don't address that issue. And what I like to bring up that hasn't been brought up tonight is if you look at Olympia Street, they have sidewalks going all the way up 45th. They have all these safety concerns addressed. I've been coming up here. My grandmother bought that house back in the eighties. When I was a teenager, used to drive up there drive up there. I moved here in 2002. Vancouver Street used to be the nicest street in Kennewick. It was really nice.

And in the past ten years, all this construction, side houses being built, not as not as much as this here, and apartment complex and everything else. Right now, Kennewick Street is the worst street in Kennewick. It is a bouncy road of patchwork. I watched them do the construction where they cut across the street. I see the stress cracks.

And I thought construction, they're supposed to put money in for improvements, but I never see any improvements. I just see more traffic and worse conditions. But what I address the other thing I address is the impact on our property pricing. And what I've seen in past developments, I've seen house housing drop. And all I know is I pay more taxes every year.

So

that's why I wanna throw on the plate here. I think we're it's when a child's gonna get hit by a vehicle. I watch it. Thank you.

Any commissioner have any questions? Is there a go ahead.

I have a question. Do we have a final count of how many more lots are we talking like? What will be the exact final number? I

believe it was 18 in total. And I believe that includes the large house that they plan on keeping for the development.

So with the change, the change in zoning will allow them to do 18 more? 17 more.

Basically, because a number of the lot sizes are 5,500 square feet, they would only be able to do that if they got the zoning change from RS to RL because RS only allows a minimum lot sizes of 8,000 square feet.

And if rejected, will this set present for other areas in similar situations?

That don't would probably be situation by situation. Honestly, I can't really give I mean, personally, I couldn't really give a definitive answer on that specifically. But

You have to take every site specific rezone on it. So everyone is going to be subject to the same findings that this particular one is. We're not setting any precedent say in that. I did some quick just numbers real rough. We're looking at 4.61 acres for the site.

If they were to develop it at 8,500 square feet per lot, Leave the zoning as is now and go to the new minimum lot size, which has changed from 10,500 to 8,500. Worst case or best case scenario, looking at how it goes, and these are rough numbers, you're looking at 23 lots if you don't change the zone. That's just the way it is. Now whether they would actually get those numbers or not, I don't know because they have to put in a road. I mean, there's a lot variables in there.

That's just cramming them in there for lack of a better word, I guess. But obviously, it's a change. There's no doubt about it.

But that's pretty much my question. I want to find out and make sure that we're not making mistakes when we're assessing what's worst case scenario.

Okay. I guess one thing to think about is we need to separate. We have a change of zone is what you're looking at now. Then down the road, there is going to be a preliminary plat that will be submitted that you will not be looking at at all. That's the hearing examiner's authority on that.

So what you're looking at tonight is whether or not this particular proposal meets the findings that were presented to you, and that's what we're dealing with tonight is that. You have comments in your staff report from the traffic division and from the public works division just in regards to some of the the comments that were brought in tonight. I can't speak to all of the the comments in regards to all of the traffic, all of the public work standards and that. I'm not on the public work side, but the the public works departments and the traffic division did provide you some some comments and responses to some of the the comments and questions that we received prior to the hearing. But that's what you need to to remember tonight is we're not looking at the preliminary plat.

We have a preliminary plat that's been submitted. It has not been approved. We're dealing tonight, you're only dealing with the change of zone.

But probably rephrasing my question because I'm just trying to understand, and and thank you for your input because that helps me clearing out what we're analyzing at this point. But I want to be clear as to like as is versus if rezone, how many more? Like what's the difference?

I ran some numbers, like I said. So we're looking at I'm looking at roughly 23 to 24 lots if there's no change at

all. And

it's possible there could be 35 lots if it was changed to RL.

So worst case scenario for the community as

Yeah, there could be

more. Whether

they could hit those numbers on either of them, I don't know. That's

But worst case scenario, the difference would be roughly 10.

Probably going to be right around there.

Okay, just a second. We're going get back on track here in just a moment. So right now, what I'm looking for is there any additional comments of people that have not testified that are wanting to come up and address the commission? Okay. One at a time, please. And state your name. Thank you. Awesome.

Hello. My name is Dan Lemley, and I own property directly across the street, a little bit south of this property in question.

Excuse me ma'am, excuse me ma'am, right here. Could you please repeat your name and your address yes. Thank you.

My name is Deanne Lemley. And I live directly across the street from this property in question that is opting for a new rezoning. And I have two comments that I don't know if they have been addressed. But one of them is, as I live across the street, it's a two lane just a two lane road. There are no sidewalks on either side of the street that I live on.

And when we back out, my daughters live with me, and when we back out, we are directly into all of this potential problem because there is no way in and out except for these people to come onto Vancouver Street. There is and where are the garages going to be? If you consider it's going to be, what, one car per house, that is going to increase the volume of activity and traffic. And the other thing that I don't know if it's been addressed, it historically true that when you pack so many people in a small area that are confined with no way of expression, no way to get in and out. I'm just thinking about the garbage truck getting in and out.

That's a problem. And not to mention fire trucks or anything else, but when you pack that many people in a small area, tensions mount and there is always going to be problems within neighbors, within neighborhoods. This area that is plotted now is a suburb. It's not in the city. It wasn't designed to be. And I'm not in favor of turning it into a city plot. And so I side with my neighbors here and having consideration to keep the zoning at least what it was to the south. Thank you so much.

Thank you. Does any commissioner have questions? No? All right. Is there anyone else I'd like to come up? Please come up, state your name and address, please.

Hi. My name is Heather Blair. I live at 2003 West 37th Avenue. So I am directly north of the property. My property, backs my back property backs to that, to that site.

I first have a question, and maybe you can answer. I look at that, and I see the big house being about a third of that property. So you're telling me that when that third of that property is designated for the big house, The rest of it is 4.61 acres. So about on that plot that we saw, which?

All I was saying is that if that was a raw piece of land, then it would be 4.6 acres. I wasn't taking into account whatever amount would be left over for the existing home. So I'm assuming they're not going to tear down the existing home. There's probably going to be maybe a third of an acre or something. I don't know what what their plan is in regards to how much they're gonna retain with the parent lot that goes with the house. But if that was a raw piece of land, just vacant. So Okay. That's all my numbers were based on.

Okay. Because it currently takes the, would be the east third of the property and it goes all the way across. So so we're looking at then putting according to the plot that we had to look at 17 houses in two thirds of the four. Six one acres, assuming they don't tear down the house. Okay.

So that's my question. Just wanted to clarify that. I would like to second what Debbie Clark said at the beginning. I read in your comprehensive plan that you're very much into graduating spaces so that it's not, you know, third acre lot next to apartment buildings or whatever. And so I would just encourage the the council to keep it in RS Zone because the bigger lots are more in line with the comprehensive plan in that sense of graduating neighborhoods and graduating spaces from third of an acre lot to 5,500 square feet is a really not graduated progression in my opinion.

I would like to acknowledge that development happens. I would hope that the city council would take seriously the job of preserving the spirit and the feelings of neighborhoods when you're making this decision because it's a very beautiful place to live, and the neighborhoods feel open and fresh and free. And I just can't imagine having all of that crammed in into that very small space in comparison. I am also concerned about the safety of the children and anybody else walking along Vancouver, which is also a priority listed in your comprehensive plan. And so I guess my first request would be that, yes, development will happen, but can you please limit the number of houses that can be there?

Number two, please share with us the plan for how the city of Kennewick is Sorry. Going to make sure that's

You're three minutes. That passed. Thank you.

Thank you. Does the Commission have any questions? Is there anyone else that would like to come up and address the Commission that has not presented? Okay. Seeing none in the audience. Is there anyone online at this time?

No, we have no attendees online at this time.

Okay. Does staff have any final comments?

No, I do not.

I do not either, unless you have any further questions.

We'll get to the questions once we figure out to the motion piece of it. Well, let's ask questions now before we get into that. I'm going close the public hearing, and we can have questions post that, correct, the commission?

Actually, when you close it, that's when you will ask for your motion.

Okay. We'll ask some questions first.

Okay.

Thank you. All right. Does the Planning Commission have any questions of staff? And before we get started, I want to just clarify the role today is about change of zone, not so much the implementation or the development as far as design standards and things of that nature. Is that kind of a correct explanation?

That's correct. We're dealing with a nonproject action tonight. We're not looking you do not have the authority to look at the subdivision that's

strictly is this change of zone fit the criteria that we've Yes. Outlined in the comprehensive

You have the findings of fact that were presented to you and ensuring that the proposed change is in compliance with the comprehensive plan.

And my last question before I open it up to the General Commission. If there's a desire to not move forward or recommend it, do we have to find alternative findings?

You will need alternative findings that will then be presented to the City Council for their final decision. And they will take into account your recommendation and then they will make the final decision.

All right. Thank you. Does the Commission have any questions of staff at this time?

Yes, have a question of staff.

It was

commented earlier that most of the surrounding lots, though they're zoned low density, have lot sizes of 8,000 square feet or more. Don't know if that can be confirmed or not. But has the lot size regulation changed for low density since these homes were put in in recent years? Or is it the same low density that we're talking about when this neighborhood was developed as we're talking about today?

The surrounding properties were not subject to the current minimum lot size, which was changed within the last year or so. I don't remember the exact date. But it's been fairly recent. I believe a lot of this development that was around it was developed when it was still in the county and was developed to their regulations, which I'm assuming was probably at the minimum lot size of 8,500 to 10,500 square foot lot. I don't remember what exactly their development regulations are, ballpark.

So most likely, that's when the majority of the development that you see out there occurred, was when it was still in the county and or recently just brought into the city. I think some of the properties on the South Side, and I don't know this one for instance, but some of the properties on the South Side of town, they came into the city in roughly 2007. I know some majority of those were kind of towards the East, but we're probably looking at a similar 2006, 2007, 2005, somewhere around then when a lot of these properties were annexed into the city. Okay. Thank you.

Any other questions?

I guess my question is, and I don't think we decided that or anything, but I live off of 34th And 36, so I have a child that walks to school every day to that. So I understand everybody's concerns. My question to staff is looking down on 39th, I see that there's a development that has 8,000 square foot lots. And I know it's a development put in sidewalks and obviously they put them up on South Vancouver where it goes up to. I'm going to guess by doing this development, it would actually improve and putting in those sidewalks correct, which is everybody's concern. Is that something that would be answered?

That's correct. The applicant will be or the the future development of the property, they will be required to put in the street improvements along their property. So for the boundary of their site, they will put that in curb gutter, sidewalk, and then whatever internal streets they're going to have on that too with the proper.

Okay. Awesome. Yeah. Because I mean, have kids. My son walks all of 36. And I look, I listen to these concerns of the ditches. And so you think, well, these older homes, they're bigger lots, but they're also more hazardous for kids walking. As we know, it's a big lot there. That would be my question to if that would be brought up in the development. As we progression in development of a city and kind of growing pains. But through that growing pains, we're able to see those improvements. So that would be my question. Thank you.

Any other questions?

I have a question on the ditches. I drive there a lot. Is it like for runoff or is it for canals?

It's my understanding, and I'd have to defer, I guess, probably to actually our traffic division. But it's I am making an assumption here that it is for storm it's retention for the street. It's not irrigation ditches. It's just how the county at the time developed a lot of the major roadways. But I don't believe KID has any irrigation that's running through those ditches.

And then I'm not sure about this portion of it. I got a lot of comments, and I got a lot of comments of sympathy empathy, all of it. That's why I joined the Planning Commission. Yet I know what our legislators have done to our state. And so maybe that should be more after a motion. Or it's not a question. It's more of a discussion. So I wonder if the chair wants to direct me.

We as the commission can have further discussion after we make the motion prior to the vote. Does any other commissioner have questions of staff?

I've got another one. I just want to clarify because a lot of the concerns I'm hearing tonight have to do with public works, so or public services, garbage, fire, also having to do with like parking space for parking and things of that nature. Just want to clarify that the comments have already been made by the public services in regards to the change of zone. But would they have an opportunity to review the final plans for the site before the project would move forward separate of this change of zone?

Yes, the public works department, other utilities that type, they all have an opportunity and will comment on the plat. I believe it's possible, Joseph, they have commented. Yes, they did

provide some preliminary comments on the plat. And yes, so they will have an opportunity to comment and actually review the

So if they do find then that they have to limit certain amount of lots because of parking or they have to have a certain amount of ingress, egress for fire trucks or things of that nature, the plans as proposed now still are under review, which we don't have plans by the way.

Correct. Will be reviewed for to ensure that they meet applicable development regulations design standards.

Got you. Okay. Thank you.

Any other commissioner questions of staff before I close public hearing? K. Seeing none. The public testimony portion of the public hearing for a change of zone 20250005 is closed. I would entertain a motion.

I move the Planning Commission concur with the findings and conclusions in staff report COZ two zero two five thousand and five and recommend approval of the request to City Council.

I have a motion. Do we have a second?

I second.

Okay. We have a motion by Commissioner Arneson and a second by Perez. I move that the Planning Commission concur with the findings and conclusions and staff reports changes on 02/5005 and recommend approval of the request to City Council. Prior to the vote, does anyone have any discussions for the commission?

Commissioner Gregory here. And this is kind of like the discussion to where I can give you my sympathy on what our state has done to nice residential areas. And there is legislation that has passed that it don't matter what the zoning is. I can put in an apartment complex on my nice rural suburban. You've got to look at what our legislators have passed.

So as a committee up here, our hands are tied as commissioners on what's going to happen in the future with your nice lots. Because your neighbor could go ahead and subdivide per our legislation that has been passed. And so I really suggest that I love how you came in and gave your testimonies of your concerns, but we really need to start going to our legislators because that's what's killing our small communities that you really want to keep. Because they passed all these things that we have been working on trying to figure out all the laws, and we've been educated on it. And so now we, as commissioners, have to go forth with these new laws.

In that sense, our hands are tied with that. And when Mr. Donovan explained that by passing this, it's actually kind of helping because of the lot size and stuff like that. It doesn't make sense, but it does help. And what I suggest is that you go to the city council meetings, because even though it's squeaky wheel and it really doesn't go anywhere right now because of all the laws that were passed that we have to start following, maybe it will help with changing laws back.

And so I just really suggest that your voices are powerful, and that's what we need to do is stand up and voice it. But for what was put in front of us, we as commissioners have been trained and have to abide by the laws. And the traffic concerns are very huge to me. And I know that during the process of planning, when they go ahead and they submit their plan, that'll be taken into consideration. And it doesn't do any good in this little section.

I kind of hear the laughing of it, and I understand it because it's only a sidewalk for that little section. And so I beg you to come to the council meetings and keep hounding on them to get that street safer because that'll allocate the money to go to

safer.

You I'm know I'm in in rural suburban I don't want to see a bunch of apartments next door to me either, but that's what our legislators passed. So I just wanted you to hear that.

Any other discussion?

Expanding a little bit on that end, Commissioner Rahim Lou here. I think we all have heard, but I do believe that the legislation was necessary because we have a housing crisis that we have to face somehow. Now being familiar with the neighborhood, I think that's why it's great to have these open forums and discussions where we can give our input. And bottom line, we're just giving our suggestions to counsel. But it's important for us, I believe, to put that voice out and to try to balance things out.

I think the legislation is needed, but it doesn't necessarily mean that it can be applied everywhere. And I think for this particular neighborhood, that will probably be the case. So thank you to everybody that show up, and let's see what's going to happen.

Thank you. Any other comments?

Yes, just want to add that the City Council is in the middle of a comprehensive plan update and a lot of what these zones are based off of is the comprehensive plan. So that would be a good thing to get involved with because they're doing their periodic update right now. So if there are changes you want to see and inputs you want to make on an institutional level, that would be a great place to start.

Any other discussion or comments from commission? I would just like to say thank you guys for coming and sharing your thoughts with us. Not everybody does that within our community. We do my my role is to make sure the process moves as smoothly as possible, and we stay within the regulatory confines and, move, hopefully, to the best what's best for Kennewick long term, related to safety and health. I live in your general area for the last thirty years, so I I can understand the frustration or some of the emotional feelings you have at this time.

You can always reach out to us, reach out to the council members, and get more active. That's the best way to do it. So thank you, guys. Now we have a motion on the table. A vote four is for change of zone. Okay? A vote against us to keep it the way it is. Correct? Okay. Can I have a roll call vote, please?

Commissioner Arneson? Yes. Chair Hempstead?

Yes.

Vice Chair Gregory?

Yes.

Commissioner Morales? Yes. Commissioner Perez? Yes. Commissioner Rahim Loom? No.

That

has passed. Five to one.

The vote passed five to one. The next item on our agenda is visitors that are not on the agenda. Are there anyone, visitors in person, that are not on the agenda that wish to speak to the commission? Okay. Seeing none, not on that topic.

The council is gonna vote on this after us, so you can come back to them. It's not they're gonna vote on it. They

get to read all the notes and all your comments and then our decision also. Thank you. Alright. Seeing no other speakers. Old business. Are there any city council action updates?

Let me take a quick look. I'm filling in for Anthony here, let me make sure I've got it here. No. There is no old business that we've got other than you're aware of some of the what co living. I don't know if we've gotten an update since that, but that was approved by the council. It's probably the only update that I can think of that we've got.

Do you have anything on the item that's under new business?

Yes, was going to make a couple presentations for that. So when we get to that, we can

jump Let's right go to new business and staff go ahead and give you a report.

Okay. So

Okay.

So this is an application that came in that you'll see. We're planning on having it before you on the first first planning commission meeting in February because we will not be having a second planning commission meeting that month. If we don't get it to you February, then we'll get it to you in March. This particular application was submitted by two private property owners in the city of Kennewick, and they're wanting to amend the table of nonresidential uses in eighteen twelve point zero one zero b one to allow vehicle sales to be permitted in the UMU zone. The UMU zone encapsulates or encompasses quite a bit of the downtown area down along Columbia Drive, and it also encompasses the area that's by Vista Field.

The applicant, though, has proposed that the vehicle car sales would not be proposed in the Vista Field area. It would only be allowed in basically the bridge to bridge area, from the Blue Bridge to the Cable Bridge on this side of town. As you know or maybe you don't don't know, but the UMU zone was implemented back in 2017. It was kind of based on the bridge to bridge river to river revitalization plan that was started in 2010. You know, at that particular time, there was a lot of stakeholders that were involved.

They looked at what they kind of had the plan that they had in mind for what they wanted to see take place down in the UMU zone. And as you'll see in the in the materials that the applicant has submitted, they've got their ideas as far as, you know, kinda how that plan has progressed or maybe not progressed and what they're seeing down there and why they will be you know, why they proposed this particular amendment. I will say that car sales, vehicle sales, we get a number of calls every year, you know, maybe six, you know, one every couple months or something like that. People asking about wanting to do vehicle sales in the UMU zone down on this side of town. Usually not on, I would say, majority of them are new, but maybe on a site that was at one time a used car lot, that type of thing.

They're looking interested maybe in, you know, that type of interest or possibly even expanding an additional or an existing sales lot that somebody has. And that's the the particular applicants that submitted this proposal are is a current one of them is a current has a current car lot downtown right now, and he is looking he wants to expand. That's what he's wanting to do. Just to kinda give you a little bit more. So this proposal has been sent to the state.

They've been looking at it too. Like I said, we're hoping to have this in front of you in March, possibly or February, possibly have it in front of in front of council on in in March, maybe April, depending on how the comprehensive plan materials go. But the bottom line is the applicants have proposed to make it just an outright permitted use to have vehicle sales. There's no differentiation that they're proposing between new or used in that regard. It's just in the UMU zone.

And to kind of give you a little bit more background, basically, Fruitland Street is the dividing line between CAR, the commercial auto row zone, and the UMU zone. So if you see, like, overturf or some of those other car lots that are up, they are in the commercial auto row zone. And once you get East Of Fruitland, that's when you start to get into the UMU. And you see there's probably, I don't know, maybe five current dealers, four to five current dealers, I would say, that are in the UMU zone right now that are active. It changes.

Sometimes the dealership will go out, somebody else will move in. And that is something that if since they are a legal nonconforming use in the UMU zone now, they do have the certain amount of time that if they're either actively trying to sell or lease the property as a car dealership, or if somebody moves in right afterwards, they're allowed to continue that particular use, even though it is a legal nonconforming use. So remaining active and falling in within that six month time period, if one happens to go out of business, they're still a valid business at that point in time. If there's any questions of staff, I'd be more than happy to answer them for you. Yes.

I think there's obviously people on both sides of the fence when it comes to the UMU zone. We've had it now since 2017. And I'm not going to you know, obviously, the development hasn't happened as fast as probably a lot of people that worked on the revitalization plan would want. But there is stuff happening down there. I guess that's the $64,000 question that comes up is, what does the planning commission, what do you think should take place, what kind of recommendation would you make?

Staff is of the opinion. At least initially, it's like, well, we know the plan is slow, but that was what people at the time wanted to have. They wanted to have more of the mixed use type development down there, pedestrian friendly, that type of thing. Obviously, it hasn't materialized quite as quickly. But, you know, that's the tough decision that needs to be made in that regard.

I think those are some of the discussions I think the Planning Commission would like to have ongoing throughout the year talking about that character of the community and what it looks like and feels like in different areas.

I mean, that's really what this decision, your recommendation will come down to is what do you want to see down there? You know? Because there's there's viable, there's legitimate concerns on both sides, I think, as far as, you know, having businesses thrive. Or are we going to change the identity of it down there and go a different route? What do we want to see? That's the decision that needs to be made, is what do you want to see in that area? So that's what will be in front of you February.

I like to have more discussions about that so we can create that visual and have a unified vision and clarity at this level before it hits us usually. But this one's gonna hit us before we have that.

Yeah. And and this why we wanted to have this kind of just give you a heads up because this is something to, you know, for you to think about is, what do you want to see down there? What do you think's what's the path? Where are we headed?

Fantastic. Do you have anything else for the commission?

Not in regards to this particular one. I do have one more.

Okay.

So let me get into a difference.

Does the commission have any further questions? Okay. Thank you.

Got enough for tonight.

No. Alright. So this one is another this is a a staff amendment that's basically again, this is for a unit lot subdivision. This is part of the legislative changes that have come on board that we have to implement. We 27, but we're trying to get we wanna want get everything kinda done with our comprehensive plan.

That's what we're trying to get done so we can get this material out there for the people to review. We have the the what was it? The user guide when we went through a lot of the the middle housing. This was a component in that regard to the user guide that will be presented to the to the general public so they can look at and see what their options are to develop their property in for the future. Again, this is required by senate bill.

This is just a definition of what a unit lot subdivision is. I won't go through it real quickly. I'll let you look at it. I do have some pictures on here that kinda give you an idea as far as what you can do. So basically, this is going allow you to subdivide a lot, a legal lot that you already have.

And there'll be some common space in there that will have to be maintained by a homeowners association. But this is what gives you similar to like a middle housing component, this is what's going to get this is another tool you can use to get to that type of a product on the individual lots. So there really isn't any size minimums in that regard. I mean, you have an opportunity now to subdivide, you know, to put a do a middle housing component on your property now. This would give to subdivide that middle housing component that you if you were to develop it on the site.

So a lot of the middle housing that you saw before was on one lot per se, with the other four units were up to six units. This could give you an opportunity to actually subdivide that property, or those units under their own lots of record that could be sold and, you know, increase private property ownership.

So I got buyer's remorse. I wish I would have voted no. And, you know, why do we even change the code? Because they can go do this anyway where we just were. And that's why I voted yes is because I my hands are tied. But then I let our citizens down because I've I'm in their boat. I feel like them. I don't like our city getting taken away like Seattle. And so this right here just goes to show to them, but yet I should be standing here saying no on everything with them. And so it really puts me in that mad at myself.

Darn you. You I should've. You know? But how can we we can't do anything about it. We have to abide by it?

At this point in time, I mean, this isn't a this is a senate bill. It's done.

Yeah. I know. I mean,

the only other

ticks me off.

Yeah. The only other thing at that point is is going back to your legislator.

But personally, I think, and that's what I that's my question of does it set like a precedent for future areas? Because I do feel that we need it. And I'm growing the biggest cup, but we have particular neighborhoods like this one where it clearly is not gonna work even if even if approved. I don't think it's gonna meet what the people in the area wants in in a way. Like, the development is at a level where change is going to be too hard. Like you're talking about 10 percentage of the neighborhood.

Yes. There's no doubt about it. I mean, live in a neighborhood not too far from where what we looked at tonight. It's a standard. Roughly. It was in it was zoned RL, so it was probably at about an 8,500 square foot minimum lot size when it was done. Yeah. My next door neighbor could put four, you know, units in his backyard. There's nothing I can do about it.

Mean Without a zone change.

Without anything. That can happen right now.

Why do we even do the zone change?

That's what I'm saying.

Know, it's one of those things that, know, whether it's gonna happen or not, who knows? Everybody's gonna make the decision what works best for them in that regard. This particular code amendment that's going to be in front of you in the next month or so is just, Okay, how's the property going to be subdivided? Right. And you know, what you see on the screen are some possible options that may be there. Right, wrong, or indifferent, you know, it is what it is right now until the legislation changes, if it does. Who knows? I don't know.

So I don't wanna just keep beating the horse, the dead horse, but you would have we would have had to come up with a different plan. We've done this to you before where we voted against you. And it's not us because you work for the city. You would have to help us. There's just no outs on it, but it really just made me to where I wanna vote no from now on to where just to send something, it's not gonna do any good unless we all vote no every time. But, anyway, I just had to get my 2¢ in there. And when is this going to the city council? Because I will be there.

This will probably be in at council either March or April.

Okay. Thank you.

And is this for all residential zones or for specific zones?

No. This is residential zones.

All residential. Okay. So I mean, it kinda it honestly makes the hearing we heard tonight a bit trivial.

The biggest difference I mean I guess the thing is and this is just me speaking, guess, a sense is that what changed tonight or what may change for the developer or the landowner that has that is just the lot size. I mean, that's it.

But in this, you can have

the minimum lots size, right? The type of development well, your parent lot will be bigger in the RS zone than it would in the RL zone. So you'll be different you know, you'll be dealing with a bigger lot, but the product could still be the same. You may or may not even notice a difference because who's gonna really notice a difference between an 8,000 square foot lot and a 5,000 square foot lot, I guess. Or 10,000 and an 8,000, depending how it is. But really, bottom line is tonight what was in front of you is just mainly changing the lot size. That's pretty much it.

Any other comments? Yeah, guess just one

more comment. I'm not sure if it's over tonight. But I guess for counsel, I guess for us here, I guess just an experience or a comment that I remember, one of city council members, Brad Bichon, he's a developer. One of the things that he had always brought up is he always looks at their twenty year plan of Citi, right. And so I think this kind of shows us like wherever you live, wherever you want to move to, it's like it's so important to look at where the Citi's direction is growing.

You're under the Growth Management Act because when you get to this level or you get to this part where we're at now, you're not really going to slow it down, right? And and the reason why is, obviously, I live two blocks away from there. And so if that development wasn't put in place, I wouldn't have anywhere to live in Kennewick, right? So there's people that are coming behind us in those neighborhoods that are going to be Kennewick citizens. And so just want to thank staff.

I will say that that's why you're been designed like in whole is so important because it's not just the law, but it's how it's going to what the community wants, what is established already how do you integrate?

Correct, and there's guidelines because they're not putting multifamily into this neighborhood. We have a property on 19th Avenue, they put 13 homes in front and all the neighbors were exactly the same in this meeting, really mad. And we still live there, some of them moved away. But those new homes went up high in value, they're beautiful homes, actually made the neighborhood better. And so, and I thought there was going to be a lot of traffic, there really hasn't been. That's my personal experience on it. So kind of see what's ahead of us because it seems like it's going to get a little bit more dense, right?

Yes, it is. And you need to realize that, yes, it isn't glamorous to go to city council or planning commission when we're talking about the twenty year plan. But that's where the rubber meets the road. Because when you get to the hearing examiner, if you don't like that kind of development and they meet the code, the game's over in that regard. You know, you really have to have some technical information that somebody overlooked or didn't realize that there was an issue with traffic or a critical area or something like that.

Because if they meet the code, it's, you know, for anybody. Anybody in this in the city has that opportunity to develop their land. They have that right. So that's where it really becomes important. You have to get into the weeds on the stuff that isn't glamorous, that isn't fun, and it's really boring to a lot of people.

Well, something that, even for us, parts of the process are like a question mark. And it seems like for a majority of the citizens as well, they did not understand that we actually are not the ones who are going to make a final decision. Is there a way where they could be? And I know that we talked about this before, but more education or more like a visual of this is the process for everything so that people understand at what step they're in when they come to us. So it's clear for them.

Yeah. I mean, I know that whenever we talk to anybody that submits an application or comments on things like that, we tell them that the planning commission makes the recommendation. We try to get that word out to them that the final word is going to be with the city council. They're your elected officials, they're the ones who make the decision. It seems odd to them to have the public hearing with the Planning Commission and not with the council.

That is kind of different, but that's how our process is, and that's the way we do it. But we try to inform people as much as we can in that regard. I know that you state that we're going to be making a recommendation to the council, that's just not what people hear a lot of the times.

Okay. Is there anybody else any comments? I just have a few. First of all, always feel comfortable voting your conscience so we don't have a buyer's remorse. Been there I've been there many times, and it frustrates you after the fact. Just make sure when you do cast your vote, it fills it meets the regulatory requirements. Okay? And if we have to reconfigure and readjust our justification or backing whichever way that vote goes, that's okay. We've done that before too. We call a recess or but we did it on council.

We started getting to really critical decisions. Staff would bring two to the forefront. Here's justification for denial and here's justification for approval. Okay? So if there's I don't want to burden staff with having that work.

But if there's something that continues or we get some really where we're going to get some controversial, it's a lot easier to have them in front of us to go either way versus calling a break, drafting something up in ten minutes and coming back and standing on that. So there's always different opportunities and way to go. So don't feel like you're always boxed in to just following and voting yes. Vote your conscious what you think is best for the community moving forward as long as it stays within the statutory and regulatory

And the process will be to create, like, a comments or staff create those comments to present to counsel.

Like, we had conditions of approval. K? You can also build conditions of denial ahead of time. So if we decide as a as a body to go the other way, we already have that

drafted versus

taking a break, drafting it on the fly, and then coming back. That's been my history. So I don't know how you guys have dealt with that with staff over the last decade or so.

Yeah. There's I mean, obviously, you can do the findings of fact for and against, and we can kind of have an idea of what it looks like. We haven't done anything for counsel in regards to having something that was both for a while, but it happens. You never know, you know, exactly where you're headed in some of these applications. So But yes, that's something that we either, like the chairman said, it's either we draft it on the fly or possibly we have a proposal for you to take a look at and decide if you want to go along with a denial too, if needed.

I think we extended it before.

We've done that also. Yeah,

when we didn't want to do it, and then you came back.

Yep. You can do that.

I just wanted to take that moment and have that discussion. I thank staff for tonight. Thank all of you guys for voicing and communicating and engaging with the people that we hear from our community tonight. That was fantastic. And I adjourn the meeting.

Sorry, I hate to make everyone say a little bit later. I just wanted to comment on a totally separate topic on the sidewalk issue that a lot of them had brought up, which is completely separate from the change of zone. But I still feel like it's relevant, although we have no power as far as I understand to change that. Is that something that would be part of the comp plan? Is that something that would be fall within purview of Planning Commission to make recommendations on? Because it seems to me to be a good idea to maybe within X amount of hundreds of yards of a school zone to have sidewalks on every street. And that does seem like a legitimate concern. But where would that be addressed?

It would most likely be in the capital facilities end of it. There's a couple options. It's something that either, one, the city funds in its entirety, through whatever plans and funding avenue the public works department is able to generate. Another option is to do, like, a local improvement district, where the surrounding property owners are assessed. Basically, the developer the city builds let's just say, for a lack of a better term, the city builds the the improvements on this curb gutter sidewalk, but the property owners are assessed a certain amount every year with the property taxes until that improvement is paid off.

So that's something that either, let's say, the property owners go to council and say, we really want sidewalks here. We really need to figure something out. Those are probably the two avenues that would be taken either a local improvement district or the city would just figure out a way to fund it and make the improvements on its own. Lack redevelopment of some sort coming in. Obviously, it's going to be pretty difficult to, as the way that the properties are now, to have another big lot and say, Okay, here's another section.

Hypothetically, the way it should, it should just go as you go on down. But it's difficult when you go through these types of properties that were developed when they were in the county, which just is curb only. They don't have any sidewalk. They don't have any gutters. You know?

So it's it's difficult in that regard to come back in and try to redevelop that and get it get it going. It's possible that, you know, some of the property owners that there decide they wanna redevelop their property in some way. You know, they could, you know, onesie twosies type of a thing on the existing lots, but that's probably unlikely. Mhmm. But if there is any type of development that the traffic division determines is subject to requiring curb gutter sidewalk going in at the time of that lots development, then they will be subject to that. That makes sense. Thank you.

I'm done.

Okay, just checking. All right, everybody. Thank you. Planning Commission meeting is adjourned.