Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-21-2009 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes REGULAR MEETING May 21, 2009 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman Todd Samuel. POSITION MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT No. 1 Todd Samuel, Chairman No. 2 James Hay No. 3 Andy Anderson No. 4 David Little No. 5 Joe Cruz No. 6 Ray Rose No. 7 Tony Schouviller No. 8 Jana Kempf No. 9 Vacant APPEARANCE OF FAIRNESS: Chairman Samuel read a statement about the appearance of fairness for hearings on land use matters. Chairman Samuel asked if any Commission member had anything to declare. Commissioner Little recused himself from the Special Permit Application for the location of a Salvation Army Corps Community Center. Commissioner Schouviller recused himself from the Rezone Application of 921 N. 241h Avenue. Chairman Samuel then asked the audience if there were any objections based on a conflict of interest or appearance of fairness questions regarding the items to be discussed this evening. There were no objections. Chairman Samuel asked the audience if there were objections to any commissioner hearing any matter. There were no objections from the audience. ADMINISTERING THE OATH: Chairman Samuel explained that state law requires testimony in quasi-judicial hearings such as held by the Planning Commission be given under oath or affirmation. Chairman Samuel swore in all those desiring to speak. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Little moved, seconded by Commissioner Schouviller, that the minutes dated April 16, 2009 be approved as mailed. The Motion carried unanimously. -1- OLD BUSINESS: A. Special Permit Remand Hearing on Location of an Asphalt Batch Plant (CPM Development Corp.) (11919 Harris Road) (MF# SP06-010) Chairman Samuel read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Community 8s Economic Development Director Rick White stated the staff report has been developed over the course of several months. It began with the March 19, 2009 open record hearing, based on information and testimony received at that hearing and from a significant amount of direction received from the Planning Commission received at the deliberation meeting on March 26, 2009. Staff has developed the Findings of Fact, Conclusions, the special use criteria and the conditions for mitigation associated with the special land use permit. The heart of the mitigation measures and approval recommendation is something called the air and odor program. There are 21 mitigations and #21 is the air and odor program. It takes a shared view of the responsibility for conformance and enforcement of conditions of the mitigation, which not only rely on the Department of Ecology, which is based in Spokane, and the City of Pasco. There are a number of components of the air and odor program where you will see the Dept. of Ecology and the City of Pasco in the same sentence under the same umbrella for conformance or enforcement of conditions of mitigation. It is fairly complicated and is based on information provided by CPM for a similar plant, the Perry Plant in the Spokane Valley. Commissioner Cruz questioned the permit fees and how the City would recoup those costs for an independent inspector which would cover potential additional oversight. Mr. White stated yes, that is listed as a special condition if a special inspection is required due to a response of an odor complaint and its resolution then the conditions do provide for CPM to pay for that special investigation. Commissioner Cruz further clarified the City would charge the permit fee to cover costs for City staffs oversight of this facility and noted there are intense permit conditions. He further stated he would suggest an annual fee and in the event of an inspection, CPM would pay additional fees. Commissioner Hay stated the air and odor program is well documented and with the inspections required is very complete. Commissioner Anderson stated he is opposed to it, but does not see any way of preventing it. He feels it is an overreach of the initial intention of the special use -2- permit for gravel. With the advice of the City Attorneys and staff he feels it is being shoved down their throats and leaves them no choice. Commissioner Schouviller had no comment. Commissioner Kempf had no comment. Chairman Samuel stated he wants the City Council to have the full benefit of their recommendation and read the following statement. In 2006-2007 the Planning Commission listened to evidence presented by CPM on the impacts associated with moving the Richland Asphalt manufacturing equipment to Pasco. Most of us on the board had personally smelled the Richland plant on a regular basis over the years especially when we had occasion to drive by the plant or sometimes shopping at Winco or golfing at Columbia Point. This first hand negative experience with the Richland plant the belief that the smells and odors would be similar or worse for residents in proximity to that plant if the existing plant was moved to Pasco. Together with what many perceived to be an inadequate sensitivity to concerns of the citizens of Pasco who would be living around the plant led the Planning Commission to unanimously recommend to the City Council that the special permit be denied in 2007. City Council adopted our recommendations and voted unanimously in 2007 to deny the special permit. CPM took the City Council decision to Franklin County Superior Court where upon looking at the evidence the Court sent back the matter to the City of Pasco for further proceedings on the request for the special permit. The decision being sent back to the City was based primarily on the Court's findings that (1) the final environmental impact statement that was prepared under the direction of the City of Pasco concluded that the asphalt plant operations would result in no significant impacts. (2) The City of Pasco has permitted several other industrial activities to be performed in this general area including the concrete batch plant and the roof truss fabrication facility and (3) that the area proposed for the asphalt batch plant has been specifically designated in the City of Pasco's Comprehensive Plan as a mineral resource area and finally the applicant is permitted by the City of Pasco to operate the proposed location as a gravel pit for the next 17 years. CPM has made a number of changes to the special permit request. Primarily they are no longer proposing to move the Richland asphalt plant to Pasco, they now are proposing to set and operate a new state-of-the-art asphalt batch plant with a growing track record for a no complaint operation throughout the State of Washington. During the past few months the Planning Commission has received a significant amount of testimony from a wide range of sources stating repeatedly that the new state-of-the-art asphalt plant now being proposed to be constructed and operated in Pasco will have a negligible impact to residents. In my mind the testimony we received focused on three primary areas of change from the original proposal (1) that CPM willingness to accept and comply with the 21 specific special mitigation conditions placed in the special permit, many of these special conditions were a direct response to citizen's concerns. A special noteworthiness is the detailed air and odor program and a public hearing within five years to review the operation of the plant. In -3- addition, several examples of the same or very similar plant design being operated in the State of Washington in fairly close proximity to residential neighborhoods successfully and without complaint from neighbors was provided and finally was testimony from Mr. White who personally visited a plant in Auburn, WA and reported that during his visit he did not witness any objectionable issues and he even interviewed neighbors in close proximity to the plant and learned that they had no complaints and did not even know an asphalt plant was being operated. These three areas along with the vast majority of testimony received during these hearings from the experts backs the finding in the official environmental impact statement for the plant that finds that the asphalt plant operations would result in no significant impacts. We heard from a number of Pasco citizens who are concerned about the potential impact of this plant will have on the quality of their life. He appreciates their testimony and their input did not go unheard in fact several of the special mitigating conditions were developed to address resident's concerns. You may not have received everything that you wanted, but your voices were heard and you did make a difference. In conclusion, he agrees with the testimony from several people who voiced that by recommending denial of the first permit application of CPM to move the old Richland asphalt plant to Pasco, we have significantly reduced the potential risk to residents of Pasco. We have gained CPM's agreement to construct a state-of-the-art asphalt plant with the latest dust and odor mitigation technology and we have gained their willingness to implement over 21 mitigation conditions that significantly reduce the potential impacts and improve the look and feel of the area of the plant which is specifically addressed by this landscaped berm that they have agreed to put in. This berm should significantly improve the look of Harris Road and further we have gained CPM's agreement to contribute $250,000 to reconfigure Harris Road in the future. All of this information compels me to reverse my position on the asphalt plant from three years ago and recommend the City Council approve this new and improved request for a special permit. Commissioner Little stated from the beginning up until now, the recent approach is a whole lot different than what was onset in the beginning. A lot of the issues have been mitigated or resolved and still has a little concern with the traffic patterns have changed considerably in the past two years and will have considerably more trips once the new high school opens. He stated this is a better situation than before. Commissioner Cruz reiterated this situation could have been preventable; CPM's decision to relocate the existing "stinky" plant was an unnecessary step they took early on. The second thing is after reading the judge's decision and listening to the testimony it does not give the Planning Commission or the City much recourse. He does not agree with the judge's interpretation, but he is not a judge. The third point is they have put in a lot of time and effort and commends City staff for their work on the mitigation measures for the plant and specifically for the continuous odor response program. These things should really help to do an adequate job of addressing most of the concerns as previously stated. Finally, -4- he suggests a time frame for this special permit. If they grant the special permit for five years that gives the Planning Commission the opportunity to revisit the issue and if they are not happy with the results after five years they are not under any obligation to grant an additional permit. That gives CPM the opportunity to prove that they can be a good neighbor. Commissioner Kempf moved, seconded by Commissioner Anderson that the Planning Commission adopt the findings of fact, conclusions and mitigation measures as contained in the May 21, 2009 staff report. Commissioner Kempf further moved, seconded by Commissioner Anderson that based on the findings of facts as adopted the Planning Commission recommend the City Council grant Central Pre-Mix a special permit for the location of a hot mix asphalt plant at 11919 Harris Road with conditions as contained in the May 21, 2009 staff report. Mr. White stated this item would continue down the ordinary path for special permits, which would go to City Council on June 15, 2009. Council would hold a closed record hearing and act on the Planning Commission's recommendation or they could deem it necessary to hold a closed record appeal and discuss the matter further or perhaps even remand the matter back to the Planning Commission. Another option is if this is appealed by a party, the City Council would then hold a closed record appeal based on the evidence and the testimony received, however the timeframe is uncertain and could be up to several months from today's date. B. Rezone R-2 (Medium Density Residential) to R-3 (Medium Density Residential) (Chad Bagley) (921 24th Avenue) (MF# Z 09-002( Chairman Samuel read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Staff had no comments. Commissioner Little moved, seconded by Commissioner Cruz to adopt the findings of fact and the conclusions as contained in the staff report of April 16, 2009. The motion was unanimously approved. Commissioner Little further moved, seconded by Commissioner Cruz based on the findings of fact and conclusions there from the Planning Commission recommend the City Council approve the rezone. The motion was unanimously approved. PUBLIC HEARINGS: -5- A. CDBG American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) of 2009 CDBG Formula Allocation (City Wide) (MF# CDBG 09-002) Chairman Samuel read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Staff explained to the Planning Commission at the meeting of April 16, 2009 the purpose of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) of 2009. The City of Pasco received an entitlement of $163,082 for block grant activities. These funds may be used to carry out a wide range of community development activities directed at revitalizing neighborhoods, economic development and providing improved community facilities and services. Priority must be given to projects that can award based on bids within 120 days. At the time of that meeting, it was thought that an amendment to the 2009 Annual Action Plan would be required. Since that time, HUD has issued the notice and amendment to the 2008 Annual Action Plan will be required. The reason for this has to do with timeliness; it is quicker to use the 2008 funds than 2009. The due date for submission of the plan is June 5, 2009 which accelerates our schedule. Administrative and Planning costs allowable will be 10% of the entitlement. In accordance with the City's Citizen Participation Plan, notices of two public hearings on April 16, 2009 and April 21, 2009 were published in the Tri-City Herald and La Voz Hispanic newspapers. At the April 16, 2009 meeting presentations were heard for proposed projects. In summary, there were four proposals received, two new projects were added for the Boys 8s Girls Club and $10,000 for program administration. Chairman Samuel questioned the reason behind the major change in the proposal summary, in particular, the removal of projects for the Martin Luther King Center. Mrs. Pitman stated the Martin Luther King Center was considered for funding from the Energy Efficiency Conservation Grant, another entitlement the City has received. Chairman Samuel asked if the Boys 8v Girls Club couldn't get funding somewhere else. Mrs. Pitman answered that it is easier for the City to get funding for the Martin Luther King Center than it is for the Boys 8v Girls Club to get funded. The City owns both buildings, but the Martin Luther King Center is operated by the City and the Boys & Girls Club is not. Chairman Samuel opened the hearing for public comment. Ron McHenry, Vice-President Boys and Girls Club, 801 N. 18th Avenue, Pasco represents the Boys and Girls Club of Benton-Franklin Counties made a brief presentation regarding the proposed projects. He added that due to the -6- improvements made at their facility the Boys 8v Girls Club continues to provide additional quality services to the children who attend. Chairman Samuel questioned how many kids benefit from their program. Mr. McHenry stated there are 225 members a day out of this facility. Chairman Samuel asked Mr. McHenry to describe the necessity for the lighting improvements and what would happen if they were not fixed. Mr. McHenry stated the State has required the lighting to be updated due to the type of lighting in the facility and for the safety of the children. The current bulbs contain mercury and fluorescent dust that in the event they explode would cause several small particles to rain down and would be hard to clean up. They have removed some of the lighting fixtures which have decreased the lighting. This proposal would replace the lighting fixtures. Chairman Samuel opened the public hearing, after three calls and no response the hearing was closed. Commissioner Anderson moved, seconded by Commissioner Cruz the Planning Commission recommend the City Council accept Option 2 for a workshop item on May 26, 2009 and action on June 1, 2009. The motion passed unanimously. B. Preliminary Plat Casa Del Sol Div II (Fastrack) (South of Sandifur Parkway) (MF# PP09-001) Chairman Samuel read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Staff stated the applicant applied for preliminary plat approval for the Casa Del Sol Division II subdivision. The plat contains 44.6 acres and is located south of Sandifur Parkway between Road 44 and Road 52. The proposed plat includes 124 single-family lots with an average lot size of 10,379 sq. ft. The development equates to 2.8 units per acre. The site is zoned R-S-1 (Residential Suburban District) which allows for 1 unit for every 10,000 sq. ft. The proposed subdivision was part of a larger development that was approved in 2002. Staff reviewed the surrounding land use and zoning and other items in the written report for the benefit of the Planning Commission. Chairman Samuel asked if the proposed plat required any special conditions. Staff stated one of the conditions recommended by the Engineering Department required Road 52 and Sandifur Parkway be completed to City standards in conjunction with the first phase of the development. These improvements would -7- include paving, curb, gutter, sidewalks, street lighting and any required underground utilities. Chairman Samuel asked if it was standard practice that all utilities are undergrounded in new subdivisions. Staff stated yes. Commissioner Anderson requested more insight on the road requirement that Engineering has come up that is not customary. Staff stated the Engineers may be trying to mirror or complete what they did on the north side with the Northwest Commons development where the developer was required to extend Sandifur from Road 52 to Road 44 with the first phase of that subdivision. Typically street improvements are done in phases. In this case, perhaps the Engineers felt it was important to get Sandifur Parkway completed with the first phase to match the other side. Commissioner Anderson stated he would was interested in what the developer would have to say and if they would be willing to accept the condition to complete Sandifur Parkway with Phase 1. Chairman Samuel opened the public hearing. Jason Maddox, HDJ Design Group 6115 Burden Blvd. spoke on behalf of Fastrack, Inc. He stated the original preliminary plat application had expired. Mr. Maddox briefly explained the plat and his client's background in the plat. Mr. Maddox stated the developer does not agree with Item #1 which requires Sandifur Parkway to be built out in Phase 1. Those requirements upfront with Phase 1 are not proportional to the development that is taking place. Phase 1 contains only 32 lots. Phase 1 does not directly access Sandifur Parkway; all access is through Road 52. The request is not consistent with developments in the past in which developers are not required to build all of the main roads around the exteriors of the plats with the first phase of the development. The developer has requested to build Road 52 up to Sandifur Parkway with Phase 1. Then he would build Sandifur Parkway to Porto Lane with Phase 2. Sandifur would be completed with Phase 3. Mr. Maddox requested the fencing along Road 52 be consistent with the existing fencing to avoid a patchwork of fencing along Road 52. Chairman Samuel asked staff to comment on the fencing. Staff stated the fence issue has been adjusted in the past to make neighborhoods look more consistent with the same type of fencing on the same side of the street. -8- Staff reminded the Commission that street improvements include not only the road surface, but the storm drains, fire hydrants, street lights, block walls, irrigation for the planting strip, the sod and trees for the planting strip. Staff further explained that if the idea of phasing was considered the street improvements should include the radius at street intersections Commissioner Cruz stated he would like to hear from Engineering for the basis of their original request in writing or a verbal explanation. Mr. Maddox further stated Sandifur (the current segment from Rd 52 to Rd 44) was constructed with two 12 feet lanes or a 12 foot lane and a 13 foot lane and then a 3-4 foot shoulder. In his professional opinion, with the current traffic Sandifur functions safely. Commissioner Schouviller asked why vinyl fencing was not adequate, or what was the reason for requiring the block wall. Staff stated last year the City Council discussed the issue after receiving recommendation from the Planning Commission. All new subdivisions were to use block fences because of durability concerns over vinyl or wood. Chairman Samuel commented that wood fencing is not appealing with holes it looks horrible. Bill Wahler, 4809 Laredo Drive stated he lives nearby and he was concern about lot sizes. Mr. McDonald stated the lots would be consistent with the Casa Del Sol lots. The subdivision would consist of lots that are 10,000 sq. ft. Mr. Wahler recommended the fencing be vinyl to be consistent. Mr. Wahler asked where the irrigation water in the development would come from. Staff stated there will not be new wells constructed and it would feed of the current wells in the area. Mr. Wahler further stated he is having noise issues with the current well and did not want another well installed behind his property. Mr. Wahler stated he has witnessed the area grow with a park and sidewalks and stated the sidewalks are not being maintained at this time and they look trashy with tumbleweeds, etc. He does not want to add curb, sidewalks and a wall which would make two sides of the Sandifur look trashy with debris. After three calls and no further response the public hearing was closed. -9- Staff stated they would contact the Engineering Dept. regarding the extension of Sandifur Road in the first Phase. Commissioner Anderson stated he agreed with the developers' proposal for Sandifur Parkway. He stated there was little or no traffic on Sandifur at this time and there is no need to build that road at this time. Secondly, he is in favor of keeping the fence consistent and then return to the standards of installing brick walls. Finally, he stated he did not see a need to get information from the Engineering Dept. and feels it is perfectly within their purview and their capabilities to make this decision and recommends they adopt the conditions as requested by the developer. Commissioner Cruz stated he agreed with Commissioner Anderson except on the last item and would like Engineering to provide the necessary reasons for the request of building all of Sandifur Parkway with the first phase. Commissioner Schouviller agreed with Commissioner Andersons' proposal. Chairman Samuel agreed with Commissioner Andersons' proposal and further stated they would like a memo which describes the reasons for the condition. Chairman Samuel stated the majority would prefer to see a memo from Engineering. Commissioner Anderson stated there is no compelling reason to request the developer to build Sandifur as requested. Chairman Samuel stated they would like to revise special condition #1 to state that the road be built as requested by the developer. Item #4 would also need to be revised to be consistent with the existing fence along Road 52. Commissioner Little asked if it would be typical in future development to deviate from the fence standards. Staff explained the proposed development is a continuation of an existing previously approved plat that already has vinyl fencing. Continuing up Rd 52 with that fencing will avoid a mis-matching situation. With a new subdivision they would start with a clean slate and there would be no reason to provide an exception. Three rivers Crossing on Sandifur Parkway and Convention Drive is an example of where an exception was made. Chairman Samuel asked if staff had enough information to revise these special conditions. Staff stated yes. Commissioner Anderson moved, seconded by Commissioner Hay to close the public hearing on this preliminary plat application and initiate deliberations and la schedule adoption of findings of fact, conclusions and a recommendation to the City Council for the June 18, 2009 meeting. The vote was unanimous. C. Preliminary Plat Chapel Hill Div II (Liberty Bankers) (Woodbine Drivel (MF# PPO9-002) Chairman Samuel read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Staff stated the applicant has applied for preliminary plat for the Chapel Hill Div II subdivision. The site is 26.89 acres located west of Saratoga Lane and north of the Franklin County Irrigation District canal. The applicant is proposing to develop 94 single-family lots with an average of 10,079 sq ft. which equates to 3.5 units per acre. The site is zoned R-1 (Low-Density Residential District) which allows for 1 unit for every 7,200 sq ft. This subdivision was part of a larger development that was approved in 2003. The preliminary plat has since expired. The Comprehensive Plan indicates the site is intended for mixed residential development (Single and Multi-Family development uses). Staff mailed notification to neighboring property owners within 300 ft of the property and received one response with concerns of the height of future homes. Chairman Samuel questioned if there are any special conditions in this request that are not typical for a plat. Staff commented Item #2 has language that is slightly different than previous plats dealing with fences and utilities on corner lots. Chairman Samuel opened the public hearing. John Fetterhoff, HDJ Design Group spoke on behalf of the applicant. Mr. Fetterhoff stated he has read through the conditions of approval and findings of fact and has no objections. MT-1 was the original applicant and the new applicant is developing this area to market and sell the property. In reference to the letter submitted the developer would be object restrictions on height requirements for this project. W.A. Cramer, 6012 Woodbine Drive stated he submitted the letter and would like to ask the Planning Commission to consider lowering the house heights of this development to prevent blocking the view from his home. He stated when he purchases his property; they were advertised as view lots and paid $5,000 - $7,000 extra for a view lot. Nolvia Salinas, 6306 Thistledown and 6311 Woodbine Drive states she purchased these lots for the view. They moved here from the other side of the mountains and they enjoy the city. Her concerns are regarding the development in her neighborhood. She states she used to see quail in her yard and now there are none due to the construction. She questioned if there would be a park in the 41- neighborhood. She also mentioned the lots that are not developed are not kept up; they have huge piles of dirt that blow onto their properties; the vacant lot is covered with tumbleweeds and they blow into neighboring properties. She also mentioned having issues with the building of a retaining wall. Chairman Samuel directed staff to address Ms. Salinas' questions. Staff stated land has been designated for a park. The 5 acre tract will be built when the development of the area is filled with 3/4 of the lots developed. The City would then hold a neighborhood meeting to discuss the creation of the park. The park site is located to the north of the plat adjacent to the freeway. Staff stated utilities are required to be built underground with the exception of a pedestal/utility vaults which protrudes above ground and are located periodically throughout the neighborhood. They are typically placed near common lot lines. Staff stated maintenance of the common entrance monument/art features is the responsibility of the property owners/developer. Staff stated retaining walls are addressed during the building permit stage for building homes. Home owners have the option to choose the height of their retaining walls and it is not part of the infrastructure. Chairman Samuel questioned staff on the height of homes in front of view lots. Staff stated there is no view ordinance or view corridor ordinance within the Pasco Municipal Code. The heights of homes are regulated by the zoning regulations and the maximum height for this area is 25 feet. Mr. Fetterhoff stated residents along Thistledown should be concerned with the residents along Woodbine immediately on the south side and the development inside this plat; there is an 8 foot drop from the lots on Woodbine down to the next level of lots. There is up to a 16 foot drop in some areas. The lots have been graded out for future development. Staff stated the concern with the height of the houses would be mitigated somewhat due to the fact that Woodbine is 8 feet or so below the next street. Commissioner Little stated in regard to the first row of houses that are being built, a subdivision (First Place) off Road 44 had a restriction that stated the first row of houses had setbacks. Staff stated those lots were deeper and the reason was due to the fact that part of the lots were encompassed in the slope. Stan Razey, 6112 Woodbine Drive stated he was the first person to purchase land on Woodbine Drive. He states he was led to believe there would be nothing to block their view from their lot. 42 Commissioner Schouviller questioned Mr. Razey to estimate the difference in elevation from his back lot to the lot below. Mr. Razey stated it is estimated at 20 feet from the curb top down to the next level. Jim Lehrer, 7006 N. Fleming, Spokane, WA works for Liberty Bankers stated their intent is to extend the plat that was previously approved. There is a 20 foot grade and they are trying to preserve the value of an asset. There is a 5 acre piece of land which is dedicated for a park. They do not have current ownership of that land at this time and they are working with the previous developer to have that deeded to the Park Department. Mr. Cramer further stated there is a lot of misconception on this lot height. He lives on the corner of Woodbine and there is an 8 foot drop to the property to the south. Commissioner Anderson questioned Mr. Cramer if when he purchased his lot, was he aware of plans to build below his lot. Mr. Cramer stated none whatsoever. Commissioner Anderson further commented to Mr. Cramer that this land was previously platted and there was a lack of information provided to Mr. Cramer from the developer. He further stated he is unsure the Planning Commission is in a position to do what he is asking them to do by law. He suggests that if the lot was represented as a view lot he may need to seek legal assistance on this matter. Staff stated height restriction limitations are within the zoning regulations and they have a concomitant agreement provision that would allow conditions to be placed on the development through that process. Unfortunately we are beyond that stage. The land is zoned R-1 and R-1 regulations allow for heights of 25 feet. Terry Ray, 6208 Woodbine Drive questioned if there is going to be a fence developed around the canal to protect children. Staff stated they are recommending an approval condition requiring the developer to install a 6 ft. common fence all along the canal. Andrea Ray, 6208 Woodbine Drive followed up with the concern of lots being developed around that area and there are lots of children that frequent the area. She is concerned for the safety of the children. Chairman Samuel questioned staff what is the required timeframe for a fence to be built in the sequence of development. 1a Staff stated in this particular phase the condition requires the fence is built with the construction of the infrastructure improvements. On the previous development on the east side of Saratoga there was an agreement a fence would be built with the houses and the fence would have to look similar the fencing in the neighborhood. Steve Simmons, 6109 Woodbine Drive stated he understands legal action may need to be sought regarding the view lots. He lives on the opposite side of the street as the other parties present tonight and stated there are two-story homes built on Thistledown and their balconies are almost ground level with backyards on Thistledown. He questioned where the park would be located and the size of the park. Staff stated the park was located near the highway and the site had been pre- approved for a park. All of the engineering work has been done for utilities and streets and it is virtually impossible to relocate the park. Ms. Salinas further suggested locating a 2 lot park closer to her home. Chairman Samuel questioned Ms. Salinas if her main concern is the distance from her home to the park. Ms. Salinas stated the park is really far for kids to travel to that park. She stated the multi-family developments are over crowding the area with kids and the distance is too far and it is not safe even if a fence is built because if kids kick the ball over the fence, most kids jump the fence to get their ball. Andrea Bieren, 6216 Woodbine Drive questioned if the future lots are for single- family or multi-family development and if duplexes would be built. Staff stated the property is zoned for single-family homes which does not allow apartments. Mr. Razey further stated when they looked at the plot they were only shown a small area of the land. Chairman Samuel questioned Mr. Razey if the he was under the impression this property would not be developed. Mr. Razey stated the developer stated it would be years before anything was built. Chairman Samuel questioned how many years ago that was stated. Mr. Razey stated they bought their home three years ago. After three calls for public comment and no further response, the hearing was closed. 44 Commissioner Schouviller moved, seconded by Commissioner Little to close the public hearing on this preliminary plat application and initiate deliberations and schedule adoption of findings of fact, conclusions and a recommendation to the City Council for the June 18, 2009 meeting. D. BRAC Plan Wagenaar Reserve Center Base Realignment and Closure (BRAG) Redevelopment Plan (MF# INFO 08-025) Chairman Samuel read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Staff stated the Wagenaar center has been closed by an act of Congress and they are streamlining their real estate holdings to make their program more efficient. The City has taken over the role as the local redevelopment authority after the Port of Pasco relinquished that authority due to a conflict of interest in May 2008. The process of developing a plan for redevelopment has begun and that was done by gathering information on outreach to homeless providers as part of the regulations for base realignment and closure. There have been public meetings held and scenarios for possible reuses of the facility. The center is located in the middle of an industrial zoned area which greatly influenced the planning process. There were notices of interest submitted via newspaper notification, mailings to surrounding property owners and affected agencies, it has been posted on the City calendar and there is a webpage dedicated to the Wagenaar Center. There were three responses received. One response was received from Dayspring Ministries which is a tax-exempt charitable organization which specializes in outpatient drug treatment. Another response was received from the Northwest Laborers' Training Trust Fund which train in construction craft laborers and another response from the Port of Pasco which leases land for businesses. There were no notices received from any direct homeless assistance providers and this is noteworthy due to the fact the BRAC process is that they need to make certain there is a balance between the needs of the community in terms of commercial development and the homeless community. The average score for the Dayspring Ministry was 50 on a scale of 100, Northwest Laborers Trust scored 69 and the Port of Pasco scored 85 which provided the plan that best fit the area and the needs of the community. The public hearing was opened, after three calls and no response the hearing was closed. Chairman Samuel questioned what the next step is for this to move forward. 1S Staff stated a formal vote from the Planning Commission would take place at the June 18, 2009 meeting and then it will move forward to City Council. Upon approval, it will be submitted to HUD for a balance determination and to the military for a property disposal planning process which is anticipated for the fall of 2009. E. Rezone Road 76 and Court Annexation Area (MF# Z09- 003) Chairman Samuel read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Staff stated on May 4, 2009 City Council adopted an Ordinance that annexed a small area located in the vicinity of Road 76 and Court Street to the City. The annexation area contains 41 acres and has 17 homes. The next step in the annexation process is to determine the zoning designation. In the past, the Planning Commission has considered surrounding development patterns along with the policies of the Comprehensive Plan to help establish an appropriate zoning district for annexation areas. Staff explained the area is surrounded by County properties zoned RS-20 and RS-12. Staff recommended zoning the area RS-12 which would allow some flexibility in creating future lots to cover the cost of extending water and sewer service. Commissioner Little asked if the City has made attempts to make the annexation area a more square dimension. Staff stated the boundaries follow property lines. Chairman Samuel asked what the difference was between RS-12 and RS-20. Staff stated the difference was in the minimum lot size, RS-12 (12,000) and RS- 20 (20,000). Chairman Samuel stated there were a number of citizens who were concerned with zoning at City Council and questioned staff on their recommendation. Staff stated R-S-12 would allow property owners more flexibility for dividing property in the future. Commissioner Cruz stated the focus for the zoning should be to maintain urban densities. Chairman Samuel opened the public hearing, after 3 calls and no response, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Cruz moved, seconded by Commissioner Hay to adopt the findings of fact as contained in the staff report. The motion was unanimously approved. 1Ga Commissioner Cruz further moved, seconded by Commissioner Hay based on the findings of fact as adopted, the Planning Commission recommend the City Council zone the Road 76 and Court Street Annexation Area to R-S-12. The motion was unanimously approved. OTHER BUSINESS: With no further business, the Planning Commission was adjourned at 9:36 pm. David McDonald, Secretary 1'-