Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-19-2009 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes REGULAR MEETING February 19, 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 Old Business item on the Special Permit for CBC, due to the fact he is an employee of CBC. 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 Anderson moved, seconded by Commissioner Hay, that the minutes dated January 15, 2009 be approved as mailed. The Motion carried unanimously. -1- OLD BUSINESS: A. Special Permit CBC Research Farm (Columbia Basin College) (4100 Block of Argent Pl.) (MF# SP 08-015) Chairman Samuel read the Master File number and asked for discussion and or comments from staff. Staff had no additional comments. Commissioner Anderson moved, seconded by Commissioner Hay, that the Planning Commission adopt the Findings of Fact and conclusions as contained in the February 19, 2009 staff report. The motion was unanimously approved. Commissioner Anderson further moved, seconded by Commissioner Hay, based on the Findings of Fact as adopted, the Planning Commission recommends that City Council grant CBC a special permit for the location of a research farm in the 4100 block of Argent Place with conditions as contained in the February 19, 2009 staff report. The motion was unanimously approved. Staff noted this item would go to the City Council at their next regular meeting. Staff briefly explained the appeal process. PUBLIC HEARINGS: A. Rezone R-1 (Low Density Residential) to C-1 (Retail Business) (Franklin County PUD) (1411 W. Clark) (MF# Z 09-001) Chairman Samuel read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Staff stated the PUD applied for a rezone to enable expansion of their current office facility. Staff reviewed the written report explaining the PUD has existed on the site for the past 40+ years. The Comprehensive Plan designates the site for public and quasi-public uses which is consistent with the current use. The PUD property to the east is zoned C-1. The proposed rezone from R-1 to C-1 would eliminate the non-conforming situation existing on the site and would allow the PUD to expand by simply obtaining building permits without continually applying for special permits. Terry Thornhill, 9211 Sandifur Parkway, Architect for project stated they have extensive renovations planned for the building. Mr. Thornhill reviewed the renovations for the benefit of the Planning Commission. Chairman Samuel asked if the auditorium would be expanded. -2- Mr. Thornhill stated the current auditorium would be replaced with a board room/multi-use facility which will be available for rental. Chairman Samuel asked what the cost estimates were for the renovations. Mr. Thornhill stated approximately 3 million dollars. Chairman Samuel opened the hearing to the public, after 3 calls and no response from the audience, the hearing was closed. Commissioner Schouviller asked if the rezone was required for the future expansions. Staff stated rezoning the property would eliminate the need for a special permit for each future revision. Revisions in the past have been for interior work and did not require a special permit. Commissioner Schouviller moved, seconded by Commissioner Anderson that the Planning Commission adopts the Findings of Fact as contained in the February 19, 2009 staff report. Commissioner Schouviller further moved, seconded by Commissioner Anderson based on the Findings of Fact as adopted, the Planning Commission recommend the City Council rezone the site from R-1 (Low Density Residential) to C-1 (Retail Business). The motion passed unanimously. Staff stated this item would go to the City Council at their first regular meeting in March. Staff briefly explained the appeal process. B. Special Permit Daycare/Preschool (Jigsaw Development) (6200 Block of Burden Blvd.) (MF# SP 09-002) Chairman Samuel read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Staff explained the proposal involved the location of a daycare/nursery school in a C-1 zone. The proposed daycare plans to occupy the north 1/2 of the site located in the 6200 block of Burden Boulevard. Staff discussed surrounding land uses zoning. The site proposal included 40 parking stalls, a playground area and a building large enough for up to 220 children. The Comprehensive Plan LU3-A encourages the location of daycare facilities in each residential neighborhood. Daycares are defined as community service facilities in the Pasco Municipal Code and as such are required to obtain a special permit before locating anywhere in the city. It was pointed out that the proposal would be significantly less disruptive to nearby residential properties than other uses permitted in the C-1 zone. -3- Scott Thomason, 8027 W. Entiat Place, Kennewick, WA was present to speak in favor of the proposal. Mr. Thomason explained the teaching staff will be certified with college degrees. Their emphasis will be towards teaching vs. babysitting. Classrooms will be set up with 3 teachers per classroom. The playground will contain jungle gyms and other equipment for learning activities. The facility will also have a commercial kitchen to provide healthy meals. Mr. Thomason will be partnering with the Health Dept. to create healthy menus for the children. Chairman Samuel asked what impact the project would have on neighbors residing next to the facility. Mr. Thomason stated his building would be attractive; hours of operation will be during the day vs. having a nightclub (tavern) or carwash which would have evening traffic. Chairman Samuel asked if the daycare would be open during the weekends. Mr. Thomason stated it would be open Monday thru Friday. Commissioner Little asked about traffic impacts and parking. Mr. Thomason stated the majority of students would come from families that live close by. Additional traffic would not be created since most families would drop off children on their way to work. Commissioner Rose asked for clarification of the qualification of Mrs. Thomason. Mr. Thomason stated she is a fully credentialed teacher. Commissioner Kempf asked about security measures. Mr. Thomason stated a security system would be installed and the site would be fenced. Chairman Samuel asked what the fencing requirements were. Staff stated the Department of Social and Health Services requires minimum fencing of 4 feet. Mr. Thomason stated he will be in full compliance with any requirements of the City and DSHS. Chairman Samuel asked Mr. Thomason if he would be concerned with the vacant lot in front of his property being occupied in the future by a tavern or similar use. Mr. Thomason stated he has an agreement with the property owner about this issue. -4- Chairman Samuel asked if the access to the property would be through the driveway into Times Square. Mr. Thomason stated yes. Chairman Samuel then asked if the City Engineering Department had reviewed the proposal. Staff stated the Engineering Department was primarily concerned about easements for utilities and construction of the sidewalk along Burden Blvd. Commissioner Little asked if the proposed school/daycare would have precedence over other businesses locating in this area. Staff stated there was not precedence. The School District is the only entity that that can impact liquor licensing. Chairman Samuel asked if the lighting would cause problems for the neighbors. Mr. Thomas stated the lighting would not be excessive. Commissioner Anderson asked what the hours of operation would be. Mr. Thomason stated Monday - Friday from 6:00am - 6:30pm. Chairman Samuel opened the public hearing. Rob Mason, 6308 W. Fenway Drive, spoke in favor of the business. Mr. Mason had some concerns about lighting at night, traffic, parking, and he wondered if owning a firearm would be an issue living next to this facility. Commissioner Anderson stated the restriction was for the possession of firearms on school property not private property. The facility is a commercial business and not a school. Barbara Chaney, 5903 Road 58, was not in favor of the location for this facility and states Burden Blvd is already congested with traffic. Chairman Samuel questioned staff if the driveway would be on Burden Blvd.. Staff stated there was a joint driveway on Burden Blvd. and another driveway on Robert Wayne Drive. With no further comment, the public hearing was closed. Staff stated the concerns over alcohol sales and lighting could be addressed in the special permit conditions. Chairman Samuel mentioned he would also like clarification on the fence requirements. -5- Chairman Samuel asked if there was a model daycare/facility in the area that could be referenced for the type of landscaping required. Staff stated the I-182 Corridor standards specify the types and number of bushes/trees required. Chairman Samuel asked if the utilities were sufficient for the site. Staff explained the only concern from the Engineering Department was over easements. The water meter will be out by Burden Blvd.. Commissioner Rose moved, seconded by Commissioner Kempf to close the hearing on the proposed daycare/nursery school and initiate deliberations and schedule adoption of Findings of Fact, Conclusions and a Recommendation to the City Council for the March 19, 2009 meeting. The motion passed unanimously. Staff explained this item would go to the Planning Commission for deliberations and a recommendation to the City Council will follow. C. Code Amendment Critical Areas Ordinance (City of Pasco) (MF# CA 08-003) Chairman Samuel read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Staff stated that a notice of the hearing was published in the newspaper notifying the public of the Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO) review. The CAO was reviewed by the Planning Commission in the fall of 2008 during a public hearing. Following the hearing the proposed Ordinance was sent to CTED, as required by the GMA, for State agency review. The City received comments from the Dept. of Ecology which suggested a number of changes and corrections be made to the draft ordinance. Staff explained the Critical Area Ordinance is required by the Growth Management Act (GMA) and it is not an optional situation. The City is required to adopt a Critical Area Ordinance. Staff then discussed the meaning of Critical Areas. Staff stated they had received a phone call earlier in the day from the Dept. of Ecology asking that the reference to outdoor recreational activities be changed to passive recreational activities. Chairman Samuel asked if the map presented (critical areas map) showed the areas that would be affected. Staff stated the map was a general guide that represents critical areas. The language in the ordinance requires studies to be done in areas where there might be a concern about a critical area involved in a particular development. -6- The study would then determine if the area is critical habitat for fish and wildlife protection. Chairman Samuel asked how a citizen or developer would know whether they are about to develop in a critical area. Staff stated that the ordinance suggests developers meet with City staff prior to applying for permits to discuss such issues. Staff explained that Pasco does not have many critical areas and the community has a long history of being a farm community. As a result, a good share of what is inside the urban growth boundary has been farmed for many years. Areas with wetlands were mentioned in Sacajawea Park and along the western end of the community. Chairman Samuel asked if there were areas, other than the mentioned areas that would be affected by this code change Staff stated there were some natural areas remaining on airport property and west of Road 100. The airport property should not be used to preserve habitat due to conflicts with airport operations. Much of the Road 100 area is designated for mineral extraction. Staff explained the burden of determining critical areas is on the City when a permit seeker comes in to obtain a permit. Chairman Samuel asked who the City's Hearing Examiner was. Staff stated the ordinance allows for the City Manager to select an individual for this role and at the moment Alan Gunter, an Attorney from Richland is being used as the Examiner. Chairman Samuel opened the public hearing, after three calls for public comment and no response, the hearing was closed to the public. Commissioner Anderson moved, seconded by Commissioner Hay that the Planning Commission adopt the Findings of Fact and Conclusions as contained in the February 19, 2009 staff memo on code amendments for the Critical Areas Ordinance. The motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Anderson further moved, seconded by Commissioner Hay that the Planning Commission recommends the City Council adopt the Critical Area regulations to be codified as Title 28 of the Pasco Municipal Code. Staff explained this item will go to the City Council in a workshop prior to their approval. WORKSHOP: -7- A. Block Grant Neighborhood Stabilization Plan (City of Pasco) (MF# CDBG 09-001) Chairman Samuel read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Staff stated this particular block grant fund is part of the Neighborhood Stabilization Program which was authorized by Title 3 of the Housing 8s Economic Recovery Act of 2008 otherwise known as HERA. This particular block of funds is different from the CDBG entitlement funds. This was allocated to the State of Washington as the grantee and we are a sub recipient. All the citizens' participation requirements have been met by the State of Washington and they have submitted an annual action plan and we are as a sub recipient going to submit an annual action plan to them. Pasco has been identified by CTED as an area of greatest need and we are expecting to receive $402,141 for neighborhood stabilization projects. The purpose of HERA is to quickly address the needs and neighborhoods having the greatest impact from home foreclosure and subprime mortgage loans. To be eligible to use these funds, properties have to be abandoned which is vacant for 90 days and have delinquent taxes or have been foreclosed upon. Eligible activities are defined by CDBG regulations in 24 CFR 570.201. We must use 25% of the allocation to benefit persons who are at or below 50% of the area median income and it may be used to assist people who are at 120% of AMI. Activity A is for establishing financing mechanisms for purchase and redevelopment of foreclosed on homes and residential properties and those mechanisms can be things such as loan loss reserve, soft seconds and shared equity loans for low and moderate home buyers, or down payment assistance. Foreclosure is required to be able to use funds for that and can be contributed towards 25% of the NSP funds that benefit those at or below the 50% AMI. Activity B is for purchase and rehabilitation of homes and residential properties in order to sell or rent or redevelop those homes and projects for other people to buy. Those eligible activities under 24 CFR 570.201 include acquisition, purchasing the property, disposing the property, relocation costs, if the homes are occupied, and ownership assistance which would be the down home payment assistance. That is also an activity that requires foreclosure to be eligible. Properties that are bought and rehabilitated cannot be sold for anything more than what we put into them. We cannot earn a profit on these sales. Activity C which would allow establishment of land banks by local government is not allowed under the Washington plan. Activity D demolition of blighted structures. In order for a structure to be eligible, it has to be determined to be a blighted structure by the local government and it has to be a clear danger beyond repair. -8- Activity E is to redevelop demolished or vacant properties with new construction. This is not allowable under CDBG entitlement. Under NSP funds, you would be able to redevelop on vacant properties. Foreclosure is not required. They can be redeveloped as residential owner or renter occupied or non-residential which includes parks, commercial or mixed uses and these projects must meet the national objectives that apply for that activity. If it is a commercial activity, it would need to create new jobs, if it is parks and public facilities then it needs to be an area benefit, shelter housing would need to meet limited clientele requirements. CTED also encourages recipients of the funding to address housing needs of the homeless and those at risk of homelessness and also to address the housing needs of special needs population within the City and to support the local 10- year plan to end homelessness. The City of Pasco actively participates in these types of activities by being a member of the Benton Franklin Continuum of Care group called HOMEBASE. Where we meet and proactively try to find solutions to some of these problems and we are also working together with them in preparation of the 10-year plan. In response to these requests by the State, we have put out an RFP on January 6th to 11 of the organizations that are on that listing and they also forwarded the RFP to anyone interested in their organization with the hope that we would be able to bring forward projects for consideration for this plan. We also presented this to the BFCAC meeting on January 14, 2009 and issued a letter of intent to participate to the State on January 15, 2009. By the January 23, 2009 deadline, we received 1 proposal from Property Research Specialists, LLC and received 2 other requests for other information. Property Research Specialists, LLC applied for funding $400,000 to $100,000 which breaks down to $1,000 per home that would save 100 homes that are being foreclosed upon. In reviewing the proposal for eligibility, feasibility and whether it met the national objectives as well as the priority goals and objectives of the consolidated plan. It met all the criteria with the exception for eligibility for NSP funding. This particular block of funding is not allowable for foreclosure prevention or mitigation. Another source of funds that might be possible for the NSP or foreclosure mitigation would be CDBG entitlement funds, this project would be classified as a public service which by our own policy we do not fund. This project is ineligible. It is estimated 49% of the funds or $194,000 would be used to purchase and rehab homes for rental or homeowner properties, 25% $106,000 would be targeted to those individuals that are at 50% or below AMI. We have set aside 11% $43,000 for demolition of blighted structures. If that project does not appear, the funds can be reallocated into another activity. An estimated 10%, or $40,000 for financing mechanisms in the form of a down payment assistance program, and the 5% that was allowable would be used for administrative services. -9- The next steps after approval would be to forward to the City Council for a workshop on March 16, 2009. It would then be open for public review for a 15 day period. After that 15 day period we would be able to submit to CTED as a final approved plan. Commissioner Schouviller questioned the application process for the distressed buyer. Staff stated this funding is not allowable for that, the City would like to partner with local organizations to provide that type of counseling or try to get into a comprehensive housing counseling program. Some of the requirements for purchasing a home require that the family go through 8 hours of first time homebuyers counseling which is currently provided by Consumer Credit Counseling as a HUD approved counselor. This funding is not allowed for counseling; however it is allowable for purchase of homes after they have been foreclosed upon. Commissioner Schouviller questioned who would make the decision on which properties are purchased. Staff stated after approval of the plan, a program would need to be set up to determine criteria for what houses to purchase. This program would be run by the City and the program administrator. Staff clarified this program would be similar to HOME, where homes are purchased and rehabilitated. The only difference between the 2 programs is that homes eligible for this program need to be foreclosed upon and/or vacant. Commissioner Little questioned if the houses would be privately refinanced. Staff stated the homes would be purchased at a discount, rehabilitate with a community partners such as Habitat for Humanity. Commissioner Little further questioned once they receive private money, does the money go back into the pool and re-circulate the money. Staff stated the program income goes back into the pool and go out and do it again. The money would be reallocated in the same percentages that were established earlier to make sure we maintain the minimum of 25% that goes to assist those that are 50% or below. Commissioner Little questioned the number of homes that would be effected. Staff estimated 3 units which would serve approximatlyl5+ individuals. Commissioner Rose questioned if there were any other projects to reference. Staff stated this is a new program in the State of Washington. It is similar to the HOME program; however, payment is not expected right away. la Chairman Samuel questioned how they determined the breakdown of the money. Staff stated they have a great need to purchase and rehabilitate vs. demolishing blighted structures. Money can be reallocated to best fit the needs of the community. Commissioner Schouviller moved, seconded by Commissioner Anderson that the Neighborhood Stabilization Action Plan is forwarded to the City Council for review and adoption. Karma Simmons and Tony Brown presented information on their program Property Research Specialists, LLC. OTHER BUSINESS: With no further business, the Planning Commission was adjourned at 8:52 pm. David McDonald, Secretary 11-