HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-15-2012 Planning Commission Minutes REGULAR MEETING March 15, 2012
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 Vacant
No. 7 Zahra Khan
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. There were no declarations.
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:
Commissioner Hay moved, seconded by Commissioner Greenaway, that the minutes
dated February 16, 2012 be approved as mailed. The Motion passed unanimously.
OLD BUSINESS:
A. Preliminary Plat Navigator Villas, 47-Lots (Multi-family) (Stealth
Development) (MF# PP2012-0011
Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff.
David McDonald, City Planner, discussed the proposed preliminary plat. A public
hearing was held for this item at the February 16, 2012 meeting. Staff had no
-1-
additional comments. One note was provided in the Report to Planning Commission
addressing City Council action on the school impact fees because those fees were
enacted after the hearing was closed, nothing could be changed in the actual report.
With no questions from the Planning Commission, a motion was made.
Commissioner Levin moved, seconded by Commissioner Kempf, to adopt the Findings of
Fact and Conclusions therefrom as contained in the March 15, 2012 staff report. The
motion passed unanimously.
Commissioner Levin moved, seconded by Commissioner Kempf, based on the Findings
of Fact and Conclusions, as adopted, that the Planning Commission recommends City
Council approve a preliminary plat for the Navigator Villas Subdivision with the
conditions as listed in the March 15, 2012 staff report. A motion passed unanimously.
B. Special Permit Location of a Contractor's Facility in a C-3
(General Business) Zone(Culbert Construction)
(MF# SP2012-0021
Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff.
Shane O'Neill, Planner I, discussed the proposed special permit. A public hearing was
held on this item during the February 16, 2012 meeting. Since the previous meeting
staff has worked with the applicant, Steve Culbert, with regards to conditions related to
water lines and utility extensions as well as easements. Conditions 1 and 2 have been
modified. With no questions or comments from the Planning Commission, a motion
was made.
Commissioner Levin moved, seconded by Kempf, to adopt Findings of Fact and
Conclusions therefrom as contained in the March 15, 2012 staff report. The motion
passed unanimously.
Commissioner Levin moved, seconded by Hay, based on the Findings of Fact and
Conclusions therefrom the Planning Commission recommend the City Council grant a
special permit to Culbert Construction for the location of a contractor's facility with
conditions as contained in the March 15, 2012 staff report. The motion passed
unanimously.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
A. Zoning Rezone from R-1 (Low Density Residential) to R-
3 (Medium Density Residential) (Pasco Family
Housing) JMF# Z2012-001)
Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff.
David McDonald, City Planner, explained the hearing on this matter was continued
from the February 16, 2012 meeting to allow staff time to meet with the applicant to
review issues related to traffic, crime and effect of multi-family development on property
values. Staff indicated the applicant was willing to sign a concomitant agreement that
-2-
would prohibit access to the property from Charles Street which would require traffic
coming to the site to enter from the West. In regards to crime and property values,
information and research papers were attached to the Report to Planning Commission
indicating high or medium density development does not negatively affect property
values or crime rates in adjoining single-family neighborhoods.
Commissioner Khan asked about the need for a "transition or gradation" from low-,
med- and then high-density. In the case of this master file, Commissioner Khan asked
why there wouldn't be a recommendation of R-2 zoning instead of the proposed R-3
zoning.
Mr. McDonald answered that R-2 and R-3 are similar in that they both allow duplexes,
four-plexes or multi-plex buildings. The applicant requested the R-3 zoning because it
suited the needs for their development. The R-3 will provide the buffer between the C-3
and R-1 zones.
Commissioner Levin asked staff how many units per acre are in an R-3 zone.
Mr. McDonald answered that R-3 permits one unit per 3,000 square feet, or 14.52 units
per acre. The proposed site is 3.58 acres, meaning 51 units would be allowed on the
property which is what the applicant is proposing.
Keith James, 2304 South Meadowview, Green Acres, WA, the applicant, spoke on behalf
of the proposed rezone. He spoke briefly on dispelling myths about affordable high-
density housing.
After three calls for public comment the chairman closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Greenaway preferred to see the rezone as an R-2 rather than an R-3.
She thought R-3 zoning was to dense for that part of town.
Commissioner Levin asked what the difference is between R-2 and R-3 zoning.
Mr. McDonald stated R-2 requires 5,000 square feet of land area for each dwelling unit
where the R-3 requires 3,000 square feet for each dwelling unit.
Chairman Cruz stated that making the project an R-2 rather than an R-3 could
drastically cut down the size of the project when other factors take effect and could
mean the project would not be able to be done.
Commissioner Levin asked Commissioner Greenaway how she felt about the idea that
R-2 zoning could cut the project.
Commissioner Greenaway answered that due to location and surrounding zoning she
felt there shouldn't be R-3 zoning in the area.
Commissioner Khan commented about statements from citizens related to crime and
graffiti problems in the neighborhood and also discussed the "Myths and Facts of Urban
Housing" which was provided in the Packet. She expressed the belief that low-income
housing was concentrated in the area. She understood the rezone did not automatically
mean low-income housing but that is what is planned by Pasco Family Housing.
-3-
Chairman Cruz stated that the rezone does not mean low-income housing would be
built. In fact, high-end apartments could be built instead. What is built and charged
for rent is different than the zoning determination. Also, he felt the R-2 zoning would
not be effective. The applicant has a higher purpose than making money on this
project. It is to provide affordable housing to fill a need.
Commissioner Kempf felt that to be consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan, to
go from a C-3 (General Business) to an R-2 (Medium Density Residential) isn't going to
help. It should go from a C-3 to an R-3 so there is enough R-3 in the community.
Commissioner Hay moved, seconded by Commissioner Kempf, to adopt Findings of Fact
and Conclusions therefrom as contained in the March 15, 2012 staff report. The
motion passed four to two, with Commissioner Greenaway and Commissioner Khan
dissenting.
Commissioner Hay moved, seconded by Commissioner Kempf, based on the Findings
of Fact and Conclusions therefrom, the Planning Commission recommend the City
Council approve the Rezone from C-1 (Retail Business) and R-1 (Low Density
Residential) to R-3 (Medium Density Residential), with a concomitant agreement
prohibiting access to the property from Charles Street. The motion passed four to two,
with Commissioner Greenaway and Commissioner Khan dissenting.
B. Zoning Rezone from R-1 (Low Density Residential) to
R-3 (Medium Density Residential) (David
Richards) (MF# Z 2012-0021
Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff.
Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director, discussed the proposed
rezone involving change from the current RT (Residential Transition) to R-3 (Medium
Density Residential) for the five acres site in question.
The public hearing was continued from the February 16, 2012 meeting due to the lack
of details related to the proposed development. In the meantime, staff met with the
applicant to find out more about development plans for the property and as a result
have prepared recommendations and conditions for the concomitant agreement that
reflected the discussion of the meeting. Mr. White reviewed the recommended
conditions for the benefit of the Planning Commission. The recommended conditions
limit the number of units to 30 for the five acres, which is roughly 7,000 square feet per
unit. Side yard setbacks adjacent to the R-1 (Low Density Residential) zones would be a
minimum of 15 feet, no matter how the site was arranged. The conditions would also
limit building heights to 30 feet and prohibit special permits for increasing the height
beyond 30 feet.
Commissioner Kempf asked about the minimum lot size of the R-1 zone north of the
proposed site.
-4-
Mr. White answered that 7,200 square feet is the minimum lot size for R-1 zoning,
meaning the lot sizes for the proposed rezone would only be 200 square feet smaller
than in the R-1 zones.
David Richards, 1415 6th Street, Clarkston, WA, the applicant, explained he desired to
develop the land in a way that was consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan. The
finalized site plan has not been completed because he was waiting for the status of
school impact fees. The Mr. Richards did not want to "lock in" his development options
because the impact fee would affect the cost to build and develop the site. The hope is
to build senior style housing; however he would like some room to change plans if
needed.
Chairman Cruz asked the applicant if he was in agreement with the conditions as
outlined by City staff.
Mr. Richards stated that he was in agreement.
Tom Russell, 8814 Wilshire Drive, wanted to clarify that the neighbors were all under
the impression that the land was all zoned at R-1. As far as the 15 foot setback he
wanted clarification as to what that means.
Chairman Cruz answered that it meant that the buildings can be built 15 feet back
from the property line.
Mr. Russell felt 15 feet was too close to the property. The homeowner's did not imagine
having tall buildings that close to their fence when they purchased their homes. He also
wanted to know why the applicant did not have a definitive plan.
Chairman Cruz clarified that no matter what the applicant choses as the intent for his
development, whether for retirement housing or anything else, it does not change the
structure or conditions that staff has recommended.
Victor Owens, 8910 Wilshire Drive, wanted to ask why rezone the property to R-3 when
perhaps R-2 zoning would be better. With his intentions not set in stone what is to say
he doesn't build a 30 foot apartment complex that is packed.
Mr. White answered that the reason for not rezoning to R-2 is because staff has not
received an application for R-2. The applicant has applied for a rezone to R-3. The City
has advertised for a rezone to R-3 and without and consent of the developer or
additional staff report and findings, the Commission should not be considering an R-2
when the request is for R-3.
Mr. Owens stated that rezoning to an R-2 would eliminate the fear that neighbors have.
Deanna Dryer, 9114 Durham Court, asked if the applicant chose not to put in a senior
living complex, would the item have to come back for zoning again or is it still R-3.
Chairman Cruz answered that the rezone plus the conditions would make the property
R-3 regardless of what is developed at the site.
-5-
Ms. Dryer also commented on the crowded conditions the Maya Angelou Elementary
School, and the lack of parks within walking distance. She would also like to see R-2
zoning instead of R-3.
Pablo Perez, 8906 Wilshire Drive, has a problem with R-3 zoning and would prefer to
see R-2 zoning. The notion that it is a "Residential Transition"justifies the need to go to
an R-2 and not R-3. He also had questions about rear yards setbacks.
Mr. White stated the configuration of the plat will determine the location of rear or side
yards.
Mr. Perez stated that before he purchased his house he asked the developer what the
zoning would be on the property behind his home. The developer was unable to answer
the question so now R-3 zoning is an issue for him.
Chairman Cruz mentioned that developers or builders can sometimes have other
reasons for not disclosing the zoning information. He also pointed out the concomitant
agreement states that only 30 units on 4.7 acres would be allowed and is binding
whether the property changes hands or when the plat comes forward, it will still only
allow for 30 units. The concern about 3,000 feet per dwelling doesn't exist with the
concomitant agreement. There will only be 1 unit per 7,000 square feet with the
agreement. The focus should not be on the fact that the applicant is requesting an R-3
zone because with the concomitant agreement, the site would have conditions similar or
close to an R-1 zone. It would be a very restricted R-3 zone.
Mr. White stated that the minimum lot size in an R-1 zone is 7,200 square feet and the
proposed rezone, with the concomitant agreement, the minimum lot size would be
7,000 square feet.
Mr. Perez asked if in an R-1 zoning senior living could be constructed.
Mr. White answered that senior living could be constructed anywhere. The plat can be
arranged and limited to seniors regardless of the residential zoning.
John Sawyer, 4103 Segovia Drive, was concern with impacts on schools and whether a
traffic impact study has been done.
Mr. White answered no traffic impact study was done for the rezone. However the City
has done an overall traffic study for most of West Pasco and it is updated every four to
five years. Mr. White also mentioned a school impact fee ordinance is now in place in
order to help the schools and traffic impact fees are also in place.
Chairman Cruz stated that the traffic plan is available for the public if that is a concern.
Duncan Nisbett, 9013 Cheshire Court, was concerned about traffic generated by the
proposal and the continued development by New Tradition Homes.
Tim Fisher, 9113 Durham Court, asked what the zoning was for the site just south of
the proposed property.
Mr. White answered the site was zoned C-1 (Retail Business).
-6-
Mr. Fisher questioned about the proximity of living next to commercial zones.
Chairman Cruz explained commercial development can be next to residential, which is
why higher density residential is typically located closer to commercial so that there is a
gradual change from commercial to low density residential.
Ramona Castro, 5120 Robert Wayne Drive, was concerned about traffic and the amount
of children already living in the neighborhood without parks.
Chris Helms, 15908 NE 102nd Street, Vancouver, WA stated people are uncomfortable
with the uncertainty. He believes without more information it is hard to make a good
decision. If the proposal is done properly it could be great for the area but it could be
detrimental to the area.
Chairman Cruz pointed out the rezone doesn't get into the plans or details of the site.
The rezone is all the public hearing is for at the moment. Later, if the rezone passes, the
applicant will have to submit a preliminary plat with details of the project.
Mr. White commented on what is known for the rezone. Street access will come from
Road 90. Assuming the rezone is approved, there will be a limit of 30 units. There will
be a height limit of 30 feet and a prohibition of applying for a special permit to make
buildings any taller. Setbacks adjacent to the R-1 properties to the north and east will
be 15 feet rather than the minimum of 5 feet.
Chris Slotemaker, 9007 Wilshire Court, stated she believes that what the applicant has
come up with is reasonable but was concerned would make it easier to change other
areas to R-3. The neighborhood has shown up to protect their property. She felt that 30
feet was still too high. She wants the Planning Commission to turn down the rezone and
have someone come back with a different idea.
Chairman Cruz asked staff what happens to all of the other RT (Residential Transition)
zones.
Mr. White replied that it is likely a similar situation will occur.
Richard Leigh, 9007 Wellington Drive, stated that he and his neighbors have a great
neighborhood, which is why they all showed up.
Tom Russell, 8814 Wilshire Drive, questioned the difference between the back of his
house and the back of the proposed property. He thinks it would be odd to have a side
yard lined up with his back yard.
Mr. White answered that due to the possible development the project to the south could
have side yards abutting his lot. That is why a condition has been developed that if
there are side yards along the neighboring lots the setback would at least be a
minimum of 15 feet rather than 5 feet. It is more likely that backyards will be adjacent
the surrounding properties assuming the road comes in from Road 90.
Deanna Dryer, 9114 Durham Court, explained there has already been so much growth
and with the only close park being at Maya Angelou, it is not safe to walk to this park
since there are no good roadways or paths. Traffic around the school is terrible because
-7-
people feel they have to drive their child to school because it is not safe for them to walk
and they don't live within a busing radius. She also feels another major road should be
developed to alleviate some of the traffic issues.
David Richards, 1415 6th Street, Clarkston, WA, stated he believed that a well-
constructed subdivision will provide a better long term neighborhood. The reason the
full site plan has not been developed yet is due to the costs. Without knowing if the
rezone would pass or the impending school impact fees, he did not want to put a lot of
money into a plan that might not be able to happen. Mr. Richards said he was not
opposed to a park if the residents were serious and interested in paying for the property
he would meet with them to work out a solution. They would have to come up with the
money if they want the park and not expect someone else to buy them a park. He stated
his rezone was in accordance with the City's Comprehensive Plan.
Commissioner Levin asked the applicant if he would consider rezoning the site as R-2
instead of R-3.
Mr. Richards answered that with the conditions in the concomitant agreement the R-3
zone change is reasonable. He has no intent to crowd buildings along the R-1 zones.
They would like the option to build two-story units.
Commissioner Levin stated that he feels a neighborhood meeting with the residents
would be a good idea.
Commissioner Greenaway asked if the 30 units were single-family units or multi-family
units.
Mr. Richards answered that there would either be duplexes, triplexes or townhomes.
Pablo Perez, 8906 Wilshire Drive, said that he would like to see some of the things Mr.
Richards has developed in the past. He was also concerned about the park fees he paid
and there is no park in the neighborhood. (Maya Angelou Park is his neighborhood
park) He also asked if that the 30 unit complex would allow for a large centralized
community center or clubhouse.
Mr. White answered that the restriction is on the number of living units, so yes, there
could be an activity center. The money that was paid for parks when the homes were
developed goes into the applicable district and is spent within the district. There is
nowhere near enough money that comes in from the payment to cover the full cost of a
City park. Ongoing maintenance of a parks is another cost. This is why there aren't
parks adjacent to every single development in every subdivision because the community
can't afford it. This is a reason for partnering with the School District in pairing
playgrounds next to schools and parks.
Jim O'Conner, 3922 South Olsen Place, Kennewick, WA stated he was selling the
property. He said at one time there was talk of making the south side of the property
commercial. He would like to see more commercial zoning to bring more businesses into
the area and it wouldn't bring more children into the schools.
Following three calls for additional testimony the Chairman closed the public hearing.
-8-
Commissioner Greenaway felt the rezone should be postponed one more month for the
builder to meet with the neighbors.
Chairman Cruz stated said a decision should be made since the discussion between the
citizens and the builder would be best done during the platting stage, not the rezone
stage.
Commissioner Kempf stated the applicant already said that if the R-3 zoning is rejected
he will not come back with an R-2 thus losing the concomitant agreement. The next
developer may not be as willing to work with the City and the 15 feet setback is gone,
which is why this item should not be continued or thrown out.
Commissioner Levin asked if the rezone is approved to R-3 will the conditions be set in
stone.
Chairman Cruz answered that because of the agreement, if this rezone is approved the
setbacks, height of the buildings and density will be set in stone.
Mr. McDonald clarified that once approved, the concomitant agreement it would be
recorded in the Franklin County Courthouse and become a covenant and restriction
running with the land, so regardless of who ends up developing the land, they will have
to meet the conditions.
Commissioner Kempf moved, seconded by Commissioner Hay, to adopt the Findings of
Fact and Conclusions therefrom as contained in the March 15, 2012 staff report. The
motion passed unanimously.
Commissioner Kempf moved, seconded by Commissioner Hay, based on the Findings of
Fact and Conclusions therefrom, the Planning Commission recommend the City
Council approve the Rezone from RT (Residential Transition) to R-3 (Medium Density
Residential), with a concomitant agreement limiting the density to 30 units, restricting
side yard setbacks to a minimum of 15 feet and prohibiting special permits for
increases in building heights and limiting building heights to 30 feet. The motion
passed unanimously.
Staff explained the appeal process
C. Special Permit Location of a Private Bus Terminal (Frontera's
Travel) (MF# SP2012-0031
Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff.
Rick White, Community 8v Economic Development Director briefly reviewed the written
report and explained this item was considered in the Spring 2010 but the applicant had
let the special permit expire prior to receiving a business license and this is why the
item is back on the agenda. Mr. White reviewed the recommended conditions dealing
with maneuvering room for larger buses, the number of arrivals and departures per day
and the prohibition of on-street loading.
Chairman Cruz stated that the Planning Commission discussed this item in great deal
the first time it was on the agenda.
-9-
Griselda Melendez, 516 S. 61h Street, Yakima, WA, the applicant, explained that proper
attention was not applied to this item originally but is ready to act on the proposal. She
stated that there were no changes to the plans since it was previously discussed.
Commissioner Greenaway moved, seconded by Commissioner Khan, to close the public
hearing and schedule deliberations, the adoption of findings of fact, and development of
a recommendation for City Council for the April 19, 2012 meeting. The motion passed
unanimously.
D. Special Permit Pasco School District (Renewal) (MF#
SP2012-0041
Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff.
David McDonald discussed the proposed special permit for the location of an
elementary school in an R-1 (Low Density Residential) District. It was explained this
school was originally granted a special permit in 2003 and again in 2010. The School
District is seeking to keep the permit active in the event they can move forward on the
construction of the school.
Kim Marsh, 1215 W. Lewis, spoke on behalf of the Pasco School District. He stated
there were no changes in the plans.
Commissioner Kempf moved, seconded by Commissioner Khan, to close the public
hearing and schedule deliberations, the adoption of findings of fact, and development of
a recommendation for City Council for the April 19, 2012 meeting. The motion passed
unanimously.
E. Special Permit Location of a Caretaker's Facility in an I-1
(Light Industrial) Zone (Dean Shelton) (MF#
SP2012-005)
Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff.
Shane O'Neill, Planner I, explained the applicant had request approval of a caretaker's
facility in an I-1 (Light Industrial) Zone for property located at 1102 E. "A" Street. The
request was for a special permit to allow a caretaker's facility on the second level of
Sonny's auto Parts. Mr. O'Neill reviewed the written report for the benefit of the
Planning Commission.
The key criteria for the approval of a caretaker's special permit specifically relates to
whether or not a caretaker's residence is needed solely for the purpose of security. In
this case staff is of the opinion application does not meet the criteria. The location is
not an isolated area of the community, as "A" Street is an arterial street that has a
steady amount of traffic. Tentative conditions have not been prepared because staff
does not believe a caretaker's residence is warranted at this location.
Chairman Cruz asked if there is any unusual or significant amount of crime in the
neighborhood.
-10-
Mr. O'Neill answered in the past two years police records indicate there were between
12-15 burglaries or thefts reported in the general area. A 1,500 buffer was used to
generate the reports.
Commissioner Khan asked about the fire damage to the building and whether it had
been repaired to make it fit for living.
Mr. O'Neill stated the question should be directed to the applicant.
Commissioner Levin asked what type of business was on the first floor.
Mr. O'Neill stated an auto parts store.
Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director, stated the Planning
Commission needed to understand why this application is before attention. Following a
fire at the site an insurance inspection revealed there was an unpermitted living unit
above the store, resulting in the application for the caretaker's facility. The insurance
claim will not be settled until the matter of the special permit is settled, however there
is already a caretaker's facility at the site.
Commissioner Greenaway stated there were roughly seven burglaries or theft per year.
She asked at what rate was it considered "excessive".
Mr. O'Neill answered that there isn't an established criteria.
Commissioner Greenaway responded that she considered the current number of
reported incidents to be high.
Chairman Cruz stated that in the past on the same topic, staff has had to use their
judgment on whether there is a safety concern.
David McDonald, City Planner, stated that the caretaker provision was placed in the
zoning regulations to allow businesses that were located on the fringes of the
community, that didn't receive a lot of police patrols and that lacked street lighting, to
allow those facilities to have on site night security to provide property protection. It was
never the intent to allow the caretaker's facilities to be located in more developed or
established areas of the community. Typically this process is not used for an individual
who would like the convenience of living at their business to save rent or time. The
crime statistics are not just for this particular location, rather for the whole 1,500'
radius, which takes in the larger neighborhood.
Chairman Cruz asked about growth centers where residential and commercial units are
combined and someone could live and work within close proximity. He wanted to know
if there was a provision the Pasco Municipal Code that would allow for this.
Mr. McDonald answered that in the C-1 (Retail Business) District this is allowed as a
conditional use, not a permitted use
Commissioner Levin wanted clarification in that it is just the owner who wants to be
able to live upstairs of his business to watch over the property.
-11-
Mr. McDonald answered that staff is under the impression that the applicant wants the
special permit for those reasons.
Dean Shelton, 1102 E. "A" Street, the applicant, stated he spends all of his time at the
business. The same day he applied for the special permit he went to the Police
Department and reported a stolen dolly. He has had other incidents at this location.
He was unaware that he was supposed to have a caretaker's permit, otherwise he would
have obtained one as soon as he found out.
Chairman Cruz let the applicant know that he would need to report information to
illustrate the need for a caretaker's facility due to safety issues.
Mr. Shelton explained that he just bought the property a few months ago and that he
believed the previous owner had a caretaker's permit however the City does not have a
permit on record.
Chairman Cruz asked the applicant if he could remember any other incidents of crime
other than the stolen dolly.
Mr. Shelton answered that he couldn't think of any other incidents. He believes on site
secure would help but would need more time to give the Planning Commission details
and examples of the need for on-site security. He needs the Special Permit to deal with
his insurance company.
Chairman Cruz stated that the last special permit he remembers for a caretaker's
facility, the applicant of the property or the neighboring property had been a victim of
crime roughly eight times in an unreasonable span of time.
Chairman Cruz reiterated to the applicant that the Commission needs him to explain
his case to them in order to grant a special permit for a caretaker's facility.
Commissioner Levin asked the applicant if his sole purpose was to just look after his
property.
Mr. Shelton answered that he only wants to be able to protect his property.
Commissioner Levin stated he believed in property rights and being able to look after
property that is rightfully the owners. He asked if the City will not allow Mr. Shelton to
watch his property in a caretaker's facility, would he have to hire a security company or
get a concealed weapons permit.
Mr. Shelton answered that just his presence alone on the property would be sufficient
protection.
Commissioner Levin believed the applicant should be able to protect his property.
Mr. White stated that the issue is if the applicant meets the conditions for a special
permit for a caretaker's facility. In staff opinion those conditions have not been met but
perhaps at this point it would be wise to continue the public hearing and allow the
applicant gain time to provide evidence.
-12-
Chairman Cruz explained to the applicant what exactly staff and the Commission will
need to have presented at the next meeting to grant a special permit.
Ramona Castro, 5120 Robert Wayne Drive, spoke in support of the applicant to be able
to protect his property as a land and business owner.
Commissioner Khan moved, seconded by Commissioner Greenaway, to approve the
amended motion and to continue the public hearing to the April 19, 2012 meeting. The
motion passed unanimously.
F. Preliminary Plat Desert Estates III, Phase 9, 34-Lots (Barton Laser
Leveling) (MF# PP2012-001)
Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff.
David McDonald, City Planner, explained the proposed preliminary was originally part
of the Desert Estates III Subdivision which was approved about 11 years ago. Under
state law preliminary plat approvals are only applicable for seven years.
It was further explained Desert Estates III, Phase 9 was located east of Santa Fe Lane
and northerly of Burden Boulevard. The property is zoned R-S-1 requiring minimum lot
sizes of 10,000 square feet. The plat is laid out with 34 lots with an average lot size of
11,333 ft2. Utilities will be extended and looped to Santa Fe to provide redundancy in
the system. Schools and parks have been addressed, including the school impact fee
for the schools.
The developer had recently submitted their construction plans to the Engineering
Division for approval of the water/sewer and street design. The plan review process was
underway when the Planning Division became aware that an expired plat was being
reviewed. As a result of the confusion over the plan review, Staff recommended this be
reviewed in one meeting.
Jeffrey Smith, SE 8th, Pendleton, OR, 97801 spoke on behalf of Barton Laser Leveling.
With the scheduling issue, they would like to get that alleviated so they can continue
their project and loop the utilities. He said that there have been no design changes
since it was originally approved.
Dan Owen, 3811 Antigua Drive, felt there was a problem with sand and dust issues. He
feels there needs to be a retaining wall to stop the sand issues since there are steep
hills.
Mr. McDonald stated there will be slope protection easements required due to the steep
grade once the building permits are obtained. The builders will have to maintain the
proper slope or build a retaining wall.
Chairman Cruz stated that much of this is the Engineering Department that has to do
their part and deal with the slope requirements.
-13-
Walt Crayne, 4004 Segovia Drive, was concerned about traffic in the area and doesn't
feel much planning was done. He thinks the City needs to start thinking about street
access and to stop building until there is more adequate access.
Mr. McDonald explained the Comprehensive Plan laid out the backbone of major
arterial streets to connect neighborhoods and funnel the traffic out to major points to
take traffic to the highways. The bottleneck occurs because the State put in only two
connections to the freeway system. The Public Works Department is working with the
State to develop solutions but a lot depends on what the State will allow the City to do.
Mr. McDonald encouraged people to contact the Public Works Department to see what
is being planned to help address traffic issues.
John Sawyer, 4103 Segovia Drive, voiced his concern over the access to this
development, which is only through Santa Fe. There are a few other ways to get into
the development but those ways are not easily accessible.
Brett Butcher, 3911 Mariola Court, was concerned about dust blowing into neighbors
yards and onto their property. He has had issues with dust already.
Walt Crayne, 4004 Segovia Drive, spoke again about his concern for traffic at Burden
and Road 68.
Commissioner Khan responded to Mr. Crane that she understands what he is
experiencing in regards to traffic since she has to drive through the area.
Following three calls for additional testimony the Chairman closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Khan stated that she remembered at a previous hearing there was
discussion of dust control, which is one of the concerns surrounding neighbors have of
this development. Dust and debris needs to be controlled in some fashion while the
development is occurring.
Mr. McDonald responded that the construction drawings contain dust and litter control
requirements. Code Enforcement can even hire water trucks, as has been done in the
past, to water construction sites where the developer has failed to do so.
Mr. White stated one of the plat conditions states the developer must control dust. This
City has a water truck on retainer. The minimum fee for that truck is roughly $800
plus another $400 per hour and is a lien against the property if not paid which affects
any sale of the property in the future. There is a 24-hour phone number for citizens to
call in case of dust.
Commissioner Greenaway moved, seconded by Commissioner Khan, to adopt Findings
of Fact and Conclusions therefrom as contained in the March 15, 2012 staff report.
The motion passed unanimously.
Commissioner Greenaway moved, seconded by Commissioner Khan, based on the
Findings of Fact and Conclusions, as adopted, the Planning Commission recommend
the City Council approve the Preliminary Plat of Desert Estates III, Phase 9 with
conditions as listed in the March 15, 2012 staff report. The motion passed
unanimously.
-14-
OTHER BUSINESS:
A. Block Grant Contract 2011 Community Housing Development
Organization (CHDO) Set-Aside Grant (MF#
BGCA2011-001)
Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff.
Rick White, Community 8s Economic Development Director, explained the Community
Housing Development Organization (CHDO) Set-Aside Grant to the Planning
Commission. Pasco, along with Richland and Kennewick, formed a consortium that
allows each City to be eligible for federal HOME funds. Under the HOME program, 15%
of funds are earmarked for federally designated Community Housing Development
Organizations (CHDO). The three cities rotate the responsibility for distributing these
funds. Pasco is responsible for distributing the 2011 HOME CHDO funds totaling
$90,294 this year.
The City advertised for proposals and only two housing providers within the City of
Pasco, Tri-County Habitat for Humanity and Benton Franklin Community Action
Committee (CAC), turn in their proposals. Tri-County Habitat for Humanity would use
the grant money along with "sweat" equity to provide two single-family homes for
families between 30%-60% of the area median income. The CAC proposal involved a
partnership with the Housing Authority that would use all of the CHDO funds for the
acquisition of an apartment building along with a series of other grants for
rehabilitation to make up for remaining acquisition funds. The apartment complex will
be used to provide transitional housing for families coming out of homelessness as
transition housing to gain skills necessary to get them into permanent housing.
Staff has had time to think over the recommendation and due to previously focusing on
single-family home opportunities staff looks favorably on the Planning Commission
recommending the CAC project because it fills a niche that isn't currently being
addressed in a proper manner.
Theresa Richardson, 1750 Meadow Hills Drive, Richland, WA, Executive Director of
Habitat for Humanity, spoke on behalf of the proposal from Habitat for Humanity.
Habitat for Humanity does not believe that housing efforts should be accomplished
solely by the use of government funds. Habitat for Humanity believes leveraging
matching public and private funds from across the community is the best approach
because then everyone is engaged on addressing solutions to community issues.
Habitat for Humanity believes a home provides an investment, economic security, a safe
place to raise a family and stimulus to support a family's self-sufficiency and
advancement. The government investment through CHDO could create a multiplier
effect in local economies. Habitat's investment leads to greater employment in the
community where Habitat works. In the past, Habitat has used CHDO funds to
purchase lots in Pasco. Of the completed 75 homes, 40 homes have been built in Pasco
and 13 of those homes were using CHDO dollars. On top of being homeowners, they
will also become property taxpayers, which is good for the community. Habitat has
never had a single foreclosure in the Tri-Cities. A survey done by Habitat homeowner's
-15-
indicated significant increases in homeowner's self-esteem, well-being, overall family
health and neighborhood pride.
Judith Gidley, 4102 Meadowview Drive, Executive Director of Benton Franklin
Community Action Committee, spoke on behalf of the proposal for Benton Franklin
CAC. The CAC proposed to use the grant for transitional housing. They are a non-
profit in business for 46 years in Pasco and Kennewick with the majority being in
Pasco. They have been the lead agency for providing services to homeless and reducing
homelessness in both Benton and Franklin County for over 10 years. One of the
hardest things for the families that come to the CAC that are homeless or pending
homelessness because they cannot afford to live where they are that they due use rent
subsidies in order to get people back on their feet. The housing market in the area has
a low vacancy rate, rentals are up and people who are low income cannot afford the
rents. The plan for the project is to by a four-plex to turn into transitional housing.
The CAC has a five year grant with the Washington Family Fund, which is private
funding from the Bill and Linda Gates Foundation along with State Legislature. They
are in the second year with the Washington Family Fund with 10 families who meet
15% of the area median income to be eligible for the program. An array of services are
offered to give the families a hand-up with secure transitional housing while they work
on their needs. Not everyone who comes through the doors of the CAC are ready for
housing or can even afford housing, much less be eligible for low income housing.
Commissioner Kempf asked Ms. Gidley if the CAC sees a lot of families or individuals.
Ms. Gidley responded that the majority are families. They serve those up to the 50%
area median income. Some programs are set aside strictly for individuals who are
chronically homeless, coming from the streets or The Gospel Mission. The partnership
with the Pasco Housing Authority will assist both the CAC and them since they are
losing Section 8 housing and the abilities to be able to support those types of programs.
The CAC restricts the length of time the families can be in the housing. This project
would allow the clients to live in the housing longer while they are receiving education
and their families, lives and jobs together where they can actually afford to even rent or
be eligible for a house.
Commissioner Khan agreed that it would be good to give the CAC a chance since they
haven't been granted the CHDO funds before and that it could certainly be used in
Pasco however she knows that Habitat for Humanity does great work in the area.
Commissioner Levin asked if the money could be split between the two organizations.
Mr. White answered that he would not be sure how splitting the money would affect the
projects since it is a small amount of money to be granted in the first place.
Chairman Cruz feels that if the money were split Habitat for Humanity might be able to
come up with money or work to finish the project but it would make the CAC's proposal
not viable. He feels that he is willing to support the CAC's proposal due to the need for
transitional housing in Pasco.
Commissioner Kempf moved, seconded by Levin, to move the Planning Commission
recommend to City Council the 2011 Community Housing Development Organization
(CHDO) Set-Aside Grant Award to the Benton Franklin Community Action Committee.
The motion passed unanimously.
-16-
B. Sewer Master Plan Appointment To Sewer Master Plan Advisory
Committee
Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff.
Rick White, Community 8v Economic Development Director, explained what the Sewer
Master Plan Advisory Committee was and asked for two Planning Commission members
to be on the committee. They would look at the City of Pasco Sewer Comprehensive
Plan and have a longer window to look at than the Land Use Comprehensive Plan but
they set the tone for land use policies to a great extent. The schedule is for the
beginning of the process and should expect at least three meetings around two hours a
piece in the early evenings beginning around Mid-April.
Commissioner Greenaway and Commissioner Khan agreed to serve on the Advisory
Committee.
With little further discussion or business, the Planning Commission was adjourned at
10:25 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
David McDonald, City Planner
-17-