Loading...
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-