HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-15-2011 Planning Commission Minutes REGULAR MEETING December 15, 2011
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
CALL TO ORDER:
The meeting was called to order at 7:00pm by Chairman Cruz.
POSITION MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT
No. 1 Michael Levin
No. 2 James Hay
No. 3 Andy Anderson
No. 4 Alecia Greenaway
No. 5 Joe Cruz
No. 6 Kurt Lukins
No. 7 Zahra Kahn
No. 8 Jana Kempf
No. 9 Vacant
APPEARANCE OF FAIRNESS:
Chairman Cruz read a statement about the appearance of fairness for hearings on land use
matters. Chairman Cruz asked if any Commission member had anything to declare. No
declarations were made.
Chairman Cruz 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.
ADMINISTERING THE OATH:
Chairman Cruz explained that state law requires testimony in quasi-judicial hearings such
as held by the Planning Commission be given under oath or affirmation. Chairman Cruz
swore in all those desiring to speak.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Chairman Cruz motioned to approve the minutes dated November 17, 2011. Commissioner
Hay moved, seconded by Commissioner Anderson, that the minutes dated November 17,
2011 be approved as mailed. The Motion passed unanimously.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
A. Block Grant Administration Reallocation of 2012 Community
Development Block Grant (CDBG) Funds (MF#
BGAP 2011-008)
Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff.
Community 8s Economic Development Director, Rick White, explained that staff is
requesting reallocation of 2012 Community Development Block Grant funds. In August
2011 the Planning Commission considered an array of block grant requests for funding for
-1-
the calendar year of 2012. One of the projects the Commission recommended for approval
was an Eastside Community Park for funding roughly $231,000. That project will not go
forward due to the difficulty in locating a suitable site and obtaining state grant for the bulk
of the construction costs. Another item that was recommended for approval by the
Commission was the Kurtzman Park Neighborhood Improvement project approved for
$200,000 and ADA Ramp Retrofitting city-wide for $150,000. The Kurtzman Neighborhood
Improvement project has been a three-year process done in various stages; LID 146
completed in 2010, LID 148 nearly complete, and the third area is still in process due to
obtaining the necessary right-of-way for City Standard Improvements. Because of the
difficulty obtaining right-of-way, a portion of Sycamore Avenue and Alton Street had to be
removed from the proposal and staff attempted the LID with a new boundary, and
eventually the east side of Cedar Avenue had to be removed, making the boundary down to
Hugo Street and the west side of Cedar Avenue.
In each of the LID's block grant funds have been a contributor of 50%-60% of project costs.
Since the Eastside Community Park project will not go forward, staff asked for a
recommendation from the Planning Commission to City Council to allocate a portion of that
$230,000 to this remaining project in Kurtzman Park, Phase III. The total estimated cost
for this LID, including just Hugo and Cedar, are approximately $625,000 with the added
money that would come from the reallocation funds. Block Grant would make up about
$355,000, which is roughly 50% or higher after contingencies are taken into account.
What's left will go into the city-wide ADA Ramp Retrofitting.
Chairman Cruz asked staff if money could be skimmed from the ADA Retro-fitting to give
more money to PowerZone, a youth center, since they were requesting more money at
previous meetings since they asked for $35,000 and the Planning Commission gave them
$7,000.
Mr. White reminded the Planning Commission that the City is up against a public service-
cap, which is regulated by HUD. By HUD regulation, the City cannot give social activities
more money, however, CDBG Allocations will be addressed again in January 2012.
No members in the audience chose to speak for the Public Hearing.
Commissioner Anderson moved, seconded by Commissioner Hay that the Planning
Commission recommend that the City Council approve the use of funds for the Reallocation
of 2012 Community Development Block Grant funds as set forth in the December 15, 2011
packet. The motion passed unanimously.
Staff explained that this will go to City Council Regular Meeting, December 19, 2011.
B. Comprehensive Plan 2011 Comprehensive Plan Update IMF# 2011-
001)
Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff.
Community & Economic Development Director, Rick White, explained the status of the
Pasco School District's Capital Facilities Plan, as it pertained to the 2011 Comprehensive
Plan Update. The School District provided the Capital Facilities Plan to staff on December
14, 2011. Due to the short notice staff recommended the hearing be continued until the
January 19, 2012 meeting.
Mr. White provided a brief synopsis of the School District's Capital Facilities Plan which
outlines the District's needs for the next six years and identifies enrollment projections and
-2-
matches the projections with facility needs. The Plan outlines measures the School District
has already taken or is considering to alleviate the space needs, including multi-track
scheduling, the re-organization of elementary schools to include sixth-graders to postpone
the need to build another middle school for five or six years.
The School District also made adjustments in their plan to consider portables as a certain
percentage of permanent classroom capacity. In terms of space, Pasco School District is
over capacity. The School District has a problem with portables because they can't
continue to install them due to capacity problems with cafeterias and gym space.
The School District is now seeking mitigation for development impacts and the City is left
with a system that is essentially producing great inequities for development on new lots
versus existing lots because Pasco does not have an impact fee ordinance. Development on
new lots requires mitigation while development on existing lots can occur without necessary
mitigation. The current situation is the worst of both worlds because it does not help the
School District and confuses the development process creating uncertainty and more or less
becomes a moratorium on new development.
Rick White addressed impact fees briefly by indicating that Capital Facility Plans for School
Districts must be reviewed every two years to determine whether or not the enrollment
projections justify impact fees. It's not necessarily the case that once an impact fee is in
place that it lasts forever. Some Districts on the west side of the State have actually seen a
reduction in growth, a population loss, and they have not been able to justify continuation
of impact fees so they are no longer in effect. If the City gets to the point where the voters
determine that growth has or will pay its fair share for facilities and/or we have an
industrial tax base that lessens the burden on residential properties, Pasco might also be in
a position someday to exempt new homes from impact fees because the formula would not
call for their continuation.
Rick White explained that at the January 19, 2012 meeting, a representative of the School
District will speak to explain the Capital Facilities Plan and any questions the Commission
might have.
Commissioner Anderson moved, seconded by Commissioner Greenaway to continue the
hearing on the Comprehensive Plan updates until the January 19, 2012 Planning
Commission Meeting. The motion passed unanimously.
OTHER BUSINESS:
A. Workshop Revisions to P.M.C. Title 25 (Zoning)
Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff.
City Planner, David McDonald, explained that the P.M.C. Title 25 zoning regulations in
place today were adopted in 1999. It was explained that over time as an ordinance is
implement in the real world it becomes clear that certain sections of the code could be
improved or corrected. That is the reason for bringing the proposed revisions to the
Planning Commission. The proposed code revisions were briefly discussed. Some of the
changes were the result of changes in State laws or the, building code.
Chairman Cruz requested clarification in regards to mineral resources. There's a difference
between a mineral resource or a mining area and production of chemical processing, such
as asphalt since they are not the same thing. Gravel cannot be mined everywhere however,
-3-
asphalt can be made anywhere that it is zoned, so these are two separate things and should
be addressed as such.
Rick White added the revisions were broken down into two sections: perfunctory and
substantive. One of the largest substantive changes, while still under review by the
Council, is the keeping of hens. Another revision redefines the term "nightclub" and "dance
club" to make those terms conditional uses, where they are not now. They are permitted in
C-1 Zones but one of the substantive amendments would make them a conditional use
Chairman Cruz agreed with the definition change to the term "dance club" because he felt
eighteen and under dance clubs are unfairly grouped with "dance clubs" and thinks the
differences need to be clarified to distinguish between adult and child amusement.
Dave McDonald also highlighted a proposed change in the C-1 District that would prohibit,
car washes within 300 feet of residential areas due to noise concerns.
Chairmen Cruz asked then if a car wash would be permitted if it was attached to a fuel
filling station.
David McDonald answered that it would only be allowed if it was 300 feet away from a
residential area.
With little further discussion or business, the Planning Commission was adjourned at 7:35
p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
David McDonald, Secretary
-4-