Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-20-2015 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes-1- REGULAR MEETING August 20, 2015 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at 7:00pm by Chairwoman Khan. POSITION MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT No. 1 Tanya Bowers No. 2 Tony Bachart No. 3 Paul Mendez No. 4 Alecia Greenaway No. 5 Joe Cruz No. 6 Loren Polk No. 7 Zahra Khan No. 8 VACANT No. 9 Gabriel Portugal APPEARANCE OF FAIRNESS: Chairwoman Khan read a statement about the appearance of fairness for hearings on land use matters. Chairwoman Khan asked if any Commission member had anything to declare. Commissioner Greenaway stated that she was on the board for Community Action Connections and since they are one of the applicants for 2016 Community Development Block (CDBG) Grant Allocations the board may wish to have her abstain from that hearing. The board members were in agreement that they didn’t have a problem with Commissioner Greenaway participating in the public hearing for 2016 Community Development Block Grant Allocations. Chairwoman Khan then asked the audience if there were any objections based on a conflict of interest or appearance of fairness question regarding the items to be discussed this evening. There were no objections. ADMINISTERING THE OATH: Chairwoman Khan explained that state law requires testimony in quasi-judicial hearings such as held by the Planning Commission be given under oath or affirmation. Chairwoman Khan swore in all those desiring to speak. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Polk noted that in the July 16, 2015 minutes for public hearing item MF# SP 2015-002) – Redevelopment of Stevens Middle School, that Commissioner Khan and Commissioner Greenaway dissented on the motion, however the minutes state that Commissioner Khan and Commissioner Polk dissented. Staff stated that they would make the correction reflecting Commissioner Khan and Commissioner Greenaway dissenting on the motion for MF# SP 2015-002. Commissioner Greenaway moved, seconded by Commissioner Portugal that the minutes dated July 16, 2015 and July 30, 2015 be approved as amended. The motion passed unanimously. -2- OLD BUSINESS: A. Special Permit Redevelopment of Stevens Middle School (Pasco School District) (MF# SP 2015-002) Chairwoman Khan read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Dave McDonald, City Planner discussed the special permit for the redevelopment of Stevens Middle School. He clarified comments about traffic. It was indicated in the previous meeting that if 24th Avenue were closed there would be minimal impact to the streets in the neighborhood, particularly 26th Avenue and 28th Avenue. What staff meant was that the effects on nearby streets would be minimal , not that the impact on 24th Avenue itself is minimal. Traffic on 24th Avenue is still a concern for the School District which is one of the reasons they wish to close a portion of the road. Commissioner Bowers moved, seconded by Commissioner Bachart, to adopt findings of fact and conclusions therefrom as contained in the August 20, 2015 staff report. The motion passed with Commissioner Greenaway dissenting. Commissioner Bowers moved, seconded by Commissioner Greenaway, based on the findings of fact and conclusions as adopted the Planning Commission recom mend the City Council grant a special permit to the Pasco School District for the redevelopment of the Stevens Middle School Campus with conditions as contained in the August 20, 2015 staff report. The motion passed with Commissioner Greenaway dissenting. B. Rezone Rezone from R-1 (Low Density Residential) to R-3 (Medium Density Residential) (Envision Homes) (MF# Z 2015-002) Chairwoman Khan read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Shane O’Neill, Planner I, discussed the application for a rezone from R -1 (Low Density Residential) to R-3 (Medium Density Residential). During the public hearing in the previous month substantial testimony was received. The staff report has since been modified slightly adding a paragraph relating to the testimony received. A second motion has been provided for denial of the rezone should the Planning Commission chose to do so with supporting findings of fact. Commissioner Bachart asked for clarification regarding the requirements for architectural for each unit described in the concomitant agreement and if that pertained to each unit or each building. Mr. O’Neill responded that each unit means a dwelling unit. Commissioner Bachart asked if each building would have two units. Mr. O’Neill answered that each parcel will have one unit but they will be adjoined so each building will have two units. He stated that the applicant has been reluctant to sign the agreement. -3- Commissioner Bachart responded that he doesn’t have a problem in rezoning the property to R-3, especially since there will potentially be a larger apartment building across the street and this property likely won’t get developed unless rezoned, however, the residents that gave testimony at the last meeting had concerns about property values and looking out their backyards and seeing potentially run down duplexes. He stated that he agreed with the architectural features in the concomitant agreement but would like to see requirements to the back of the properties, such as a nice fence to protect property owners behind them. Commissioner Greenaway responded that the problem with a fence is that the property is on a slope or hill. Commissioner Bachart replied that it wouldn’t even have to be a fence but perhaps a landscaping buffer; just something to protect the property owners behind this development. Commissioner Polk stated that she was unsure a giant fence would be welcomed by some of the neighbors as they could feel closed in and that the landscape buffer might help but she was unsure what the parameters are and if that is handled during the rezone or during the platting stage. Mr. O’Neill answered that conditions can be placed in either stage but it would be best to get the most into the concomitant agreement at the zoning stage. He also pointed out most of the properties to rear already have fences on the rear property line so the suggested fencing requirement would be to have a fence on a fence . Mr. McDonald added that a lot of those properties face a steep slope and most of them already have a fence which is below the grade to the lots above, as Commissioner Greenaway pointed out. Another fence wouldn’t block the view unless placed higher and then there would be a space between the two fences that somebody would have to maintain. Commissioner Bachart responded that he feels there should be a landscaping requirement in that case and should be put in by the developer to ensure it gets done because the property owners may not put in the landscaping. Commissioner Bowers asked if the public testimony received was from neighbors who lived on Belmont. Commissioner Greenway answered yes, and that their backyards face a grade up the hill to the proposed site. One of their concerns was people looking into their backyards, however even if a home is developed there it would look into their backyard. She felt it would be hard to force people to put in landscaping. They could rip it out if they don’t like it so there shouldn’t be the burden to place on the developer. Commissioner Bachart replied that you can place that requirement. He referenced a previous rezone application that was passed e arlier in the year that included landscaping buffer requirements. With the history of the developer not finishing developments, as pointed out in public testimony at the previous meeting, without requirements such as landscaping, the homeowners behind this development might not be protected. -4- Commissioner Greenaway responded that she understood but when this developer was building homes the first time in this neighborhood the recession happened and they took a hit and she didn’t feel all of it was the developers fault. Commissioner Polk asked if the burden of finishing the sidewalk and street will fa ll on the developer if they develop prior to the possible apartments across the street. Mr. O’Neill answered that the developer will have to complete the street, curb, gutter and sidewalks on the south side of Chapel Hill Boulevard prior to an issuance of building permits. The north half will be the responsibility of the developer of the possible apartment complex. Chairwoman Khan asked if it is certain that the apartment complex is going to be developed. Mr. White answered that they know for certain that the developer wants to but they don’t know if they are going to. Chairwoman Khan asked the Commissioners to each give their vote on this application. All of the Commissioners were in agreement to approve the rezone application if landscaping requirements were placed in the concomitant agreement. Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director, suggested continuing this item until the next meeting to allow staff to come back with a more detailed staff report and concomitant agreement to include landscape buffering and potentially a few more conditions regarding the appearance of the properties. Chairwoman Khan asked if the applicant is not interested in a concomitant agreement. Mr. White answered that he’s not interested in a concomitant agreement at least where lot sizes are concerned. Commissioner Portugal moved, seconded by Commissioner Greenaway, to continue the rezone application to the September 17, 2015 meeting. The motion passed unanimously. Mr. White asked the Commissioners if they had any preferences on landscape buffering requirements, such as a row of arborvitae or a mixture of plants and trees. Commissioner Bachart answered that staff should look at the existing code and use a graded approach. There doesn’t need to be a full buffer or screen but one or two trees for every lot would help with people looking down into the other properties. The other Commissioners were in agreement. Commissioner Bowers stated that she would like to see what happened in the previous rezone that was approved earlier this year on Crescent Drive that required a landscaping buffer. -5- Dave McDonald, City Planner, responded that it hasn’t been developed yet but there is a 25’ buffer strip required that would be landscaped with trees every 25’. Mr. White added that this will be a little more difficult than the previous rezone to enforce the landscaping requirements because there will be multiple owners opposed to one owner. This will be an enforcement issue. Commissioner Mendez asked if it was not something that could be placed in the covenants. Mr. White answered that the requirements can be placed in the concomitant agreement, however, it will still become an enforcement issue. Property owners will alter the landscaping on weekends when Code Enforcement isn’t out and that will have to be dealt with through the Code Board. Commissioner Bachart asked if the landscaping is something that could be done during the development, such as putting in sidewalks. Mr. White responded that they can but after the property is developed, people will cut trees down, take out bushes, won’t water, etc. Commissioner Bachart stated that is understandable and there is no control over what the homeowners do at a later time and will have to be dealt with then but it doesn’t hurt to try. Commissioner Mendez agreed with Commissioner Bachart adding that he lives in the Desert Plateau area and his neighborhood has landscaping covenants. Commissioner Polk asked if there are parameters to take the elevation of neighboring parcels into consideration. Mr. White said for elevations no but for setback they are based on the height of the original building. There were no further comments. PUBLIC HEARINGS: A. Special Permit Location of a church in a C-1 (Retail Business) Zone (Bethel Church) (MF# SP 2015-009) Chairwoman Khan read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Shane O’Neill, Planner I, discussed the special permit application for the location of a church in a C-1 (Retail Business) Zone. The application is a renewal of a special permit that was issued in 2012 for the same activity. Since that original permit ap proval, the church has issued an additional special permit to operate a daycare. The church is currently operating in Broadmoor Outlet Mall, occupying four suites. The applicant has -6- already made all of the appropriate building modifications to meet occupancy code for an assembly use. The conditions are the same as they were in the originally approved special permit, however, there will not be a condition for the special permit to expire. The outlet mall has struggled holding tenants and is dominated by institutional uses at this time, including Charter College. Chairwoman Khan asked if one of the conditions is to change their classification from Mercantile “M” to Assembly “A”. Mr. O’Neill responded that was in the previous special permit application but was left in for the renewal to maintain. The applicant has already met the requirements of an assembly. Tim Phillips, 4502 Desert drive, spoke on behalf of his special permit application. He stated that they have enjoyed being in the facility and being a part of Pasco. Commissioner Mendez asked if any of the surrounding businesses have expressed and issues or concerns. Mr. Phillips answered that he hasn’t heard any complaints and stated that the church is looking for ways to reach out and bring more attention to the area, such as something at Christmas for people to gather. Commissioner Bowers if the church had any issues with one of the conditions pertaining to the location of alcohol sales near the location since there was a winery in a nearby unit at the outlet mall. Mr. Phillips said they do not have a problem and there haven’t been any issues. They have already signed an agreement stating that they are ok with it. With no further comments the public hearing closed. Commissioner Greenaway moved, seconded by Commissioner Polk, to close the public hearing and schedule deliberations, the adoption of findings of fact, and development of a recommendation for City Council for the September 17, 2015 meeting. The motion passed unanimously. B. Block Grant 2016 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Fund Allocations (MF# BGAP 2015-003) Chairwoman Khan read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director, discussed the 2016 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Fund Allocations. Commissioner Greenaway moved, seconded by Commissioner Bachart, to close the public hearing and recommend the City Council approve the use of funds for the 2016 Community Development Block Grant Program set forth in the “2016 Fund Summary” as amended. He stated that the Planning Commission is the advisory committee. A previous -7- public hearing was held at the previous meeting and staff has provi ded recommendations for funding. There is always a slight uncertainty of the exact amount the City will receive from HUD but based on a formula used since the City has been an entitlement City, $665,000 is the amount expected for 2016. The City received $1.13 million in requests, almost twice as what is available. Mr. White briefly discussed the 2016 Fund Summary included with the staff report with staff recommendations and the reason behind the funding: Activity Non CDBG Match Agency Request Staff Recommend CDBG Program Administration $ - $120,000.00 $120,000.00 Civic Center -Youth Recreation Specialist $ 45,500.00 $37,500.00 $20,000.00 Martin Luther King Community Center Recreation Specialist $ 100,500.00 $37,500.00 $20,000.00 Senior Citizen's Center Recreation Specialist $ 200,500.00 $37,500.00 $30,000.00 YMCA Martin Luther King Community Center Recreation Program $ 20,000.00 $20,000.00 $20,000.00 Downtown Façade Improvement Program (Service Area) $ 25,000.00 $90,000.00 $40,000.00 Pasco Specialty Kitchen - Small Businesses (Job Creation) $ 50,000.00 $42,500.00 $25,000.00 Pasco Specialty Kitchen - Microenterprises (Businesses) $ 50,000.00 $42,500.00 $30,000.00 Pasco Specialty Kitchen - Facility Improvements Flooring $ - $72,000.00 $72,000.00 Pasco Specialty Kitchen - Facility Improvements & Façade $ - $55,000.00 $15,000.00 Second Chance Center (SCC) $ 143,000.00 $50,000.00 Peanuts Park Restoration $ 100,000.00 $400,000.00 $125,000.00 Code Enforcement Officer $ 200,500.00 $48,000.00 $48,000.00 Downtown Revitalization and Safety Improvements - Contingent $ 150,000.00 $250,000.00 $100,000.00 Sidewalk Construction - Contingent $ 50,000.00 $250,000.00 Proposals Received $1,135,000.00 $1,552,500.00 $665,000.00 The CDBG Program Administration application would cover all costs associated with administering the $665,000 that the City receives from HUD, including salaries, reporting, rule maintenance and supplies. Often the whole amount isn’t used and whatever is leftover at the end of the year gets rolled over to the next year’s fund. The Youth Recreations Specialist, Martin Luther King Recreation Specialist, Senior Center Specialist -8- and YMCA Martin Luther King Specialist are all recommended to be funding for staf f salaries and these area community centers. For Downtown Façade Improvement Program staff is recommending $40,000 as they likely don’t have the manpower to accommodate their request of $90,000. The amount of $40,000 could possibly fund 2-3 facades. The Pasco Specialty Kitchen requested funds for micro -enterprises and job creation. Typically they are funded each year with $50,000 for operating expenses, however this year staff is recommending an additional $5,000 since they have taken on significant projects, such as Food Truck Friday and Mobile Food Vending University. Both have been very successful and they will be able to put the money to good use. The Pasco Specialty Kitchen also applied for block grant funds to replace flooring in their facility a nd staff is recommending $72,000 to replace the flooring, as it is in bad shape and might last only one more year, but after that they could experience issues with the Health Department. They have also requested funds for façade improvements and staff is recommending $15,000 on top of $27,000 of funds that will be available from last year that are rolling over. Community Action Connections (CAC) requested funds for their Second Chance Center, however staff is not recommending funding for this project simply because there are not enough funds to allocate for every project. Also, the CAC has two other funds applicable for their homeless day center, such as funds from County recording fees (2060 Fund and 2163 Fund). Those funds were passed by the Washington State Legislature to provide money for homelessness. Staff is recommending $125,000 for the restoration of Peanuts Park, allowing the completion of the visioning effort to provide engineering designs so that when the rest of the funding is available the project will be ready to go. Staff is recommending $48,000 to fund the Code Enforcement Officer who benefits low-moderate income census tracts. The Public Works Department requested funds for signal improvements and while staff did not think the full amount requested could be justified, $100,000 could be. Staff didn’t want to get too carried away with the funding since the Lewis Street Overpass Project and Peanuts Park are still in planning stages and the signals would possibly have to be changed. Public Works also requested funds for ADA Crosswalks but staff did not recommend any funds due to possible reconstruction and the street network is in a state of flux. Commissioner Portugal asked for clarification on the Code Enforcement Officer position. Mr. White responded that there are four Code Enforcement Officers but one is devoted specifically to the low-moderate census tracts. Kathy Merrill Holly, 720 W. Court Street, spoke on behalf of Commu nity Action Connections (CAC). She stated that the Second Chance Center would provide outreach and emergency shelter during the day for families with children. In the calendar year from July 2014-June 30, 2015 the CAC served 3,624 families with children. Of that, most of the families served were from Pasco. The CAC is requesting funds from Kennewick and Pasco for this shelter. Ms. Holly briefly described the services and activities the shelter would provide. Chairwoman Khan asked if the $50,000 is just the remainder of what it needed to finish the project. Ms. Holly answered that they have asked Kennewick for the same amount since they Kennewick and Pasco have the majority of that will use the services. The CAC has provided the rest of the funds. -9- Commissioner Polk asked Ms. Holly about additional funding sources. Ms. Holly said that she is aware of the additional funding sources and stated that the CAC applied for 2060 Fund. They were awarded $40,000 from Franklin County which will be used for Phase 2. Benton County turned them down for funding. For 2163 Funding, the CAC will be applying for and is the only fund that is available for staff salaries. Commissioner Portugal asked if there were any other shelters like the Second Chance Center in the Tri-Cities. Ms. Holly responded that the Union Gospel Mission is building a new shelter. She felt that they do a great job with what they do, dealing with homeless individuals. The problem is that they do not house families with a male head of household. They don’t have the room to house them. As an example, if a male walks in with three children they cannot stay there. If a woman head of household walks in and there is space available they can stay but if the boy child is age 12 or older, he must be housed in the men’s do rm. That as a mother is a safety issue. There is no other shelter like the Second Chance Center. Commissioner Mendez asked if families have a time limit that they can receive assistance and how does the CAC make sure the children attend school. Ms. Holly answered that each family will identify what they need to become stabilized working with a case manager. From there, goals will be set and they will be looking at the goals on a regular basis, doing follow-ups and referring them to other agencies for services they don’t provide. The CAC will do everything they can on their end, including monitoring, to ensure that their success is moving forward. Commissioner Mendez asked if the $50,000 is for staff salaries. Ms. Holly replied that $40,000 is for the building and $10,000 is for salaries. Commissioner Mendez asked for clarification on the center being a day center. Ms. Holly responded that it is only a day center with showers but they will get the families stabilized and moved into housing as soon as possible. There are already roughly a dozen housing programs onsite. There will be services for job training, clothing for interviews, showers, daycare and many other services to help set them up for success. Steve Howland, 205 S. Wehe, spoke on behalf of his application for the YMCA of the Greater Tri-Cities. The YMCA has operated the Martin Luther King Center for over 30 years but a few years ago the United Way shifted funding to other programs and the YMCA approached the City for assistance. Chairwoman Khan asked if the United Way has shown any interest in re-funding their program. Mr. Howland answered that they operate under a two year funding cycle, it is now in the beginning of the second year. The YMCA will reapply for funding when the time comes -10- around but don’t know if they will be successful as their fund raising campaigns have not been as large as they used to be. With no further questions or comments the public hearing closed. Commissioner Bowers suggested funding the Second Chance Center, even at a reduced amount, even though that will mean cutting some funding from other proposed projects . Chairman Khan asked the Commissioner’s if they were in favor of funding the CAC for the Second Chance Center. The Commissioners were in agreement to look into funding the CAC. Chairwoman Khan asked staff if they had any recommendations on which activities could be trimmed in order to fund the CAC. Mr. White answered no. Commissioner Bachart stated that some money could be trimmed from the Façade Improvement Programs from the DPDA since they don’t have to manpower to carry out too many facades. He also felt that money could be cut from the Public Works Safety Improvements application since the plans are in flux. Chairwoman Khan added that money from the Peanuts Park Restoration could be trimmed since the proposed funding for now is just for consultation and planning. Commissioner Bowers said $10,000 can be taken off of that one. Commissioner Bachart responded that with Peanuts Park they need to be careful because if they are going out to a consulting firm it is a fee that is set and there isn’t much wiggle room for cutting back on the budget. Chairwoman Khan asked staff for direction. Mr. White responded that he would be very cautious of trimming any of the recommended amounts but give each project some serious thought because many of the activities are tight on funding already. The Second Chance Center does have other funding sources besides CDBG funds. Commissioner Portugal suggested that the Planning Commission continue the hearing to allow staff to play with the numbers and come back to the Planning Commission with revised suggested funding amounts. Mr. White clarified that staff has already made their recommendations. It is now the opportunity and task of the Planning Commissioner to make their recommendation. It is up to the Planning Commission to decide what amounts they wish to fund for each project. The only caution is that cutting funds from certain projects can have a significant impact. -11- Commissioner Bowers asked how this process has been handled in the past. Chairwoman Khan replied that it has been done this way in the past where staff has their recommendations but the Planning Commission can discuss, make changes and make their recommendation to Council. Commissioner Greenaway added that in the past the Planning Commission has overruled or amended what staff has recommended. She was in agreement with Commissioner Bachart on trimming $10,000 from the Façade Improvement Program. Also cutting $5,000 from the Pasco Specialty Kitchen Micro-Enterprises. Commissioner Bowers asked if Commissioner Greenaway would soon trim from the micro - enterprises more so than the flooring. Commissioner Greenaway responded that the flooring is probably set in stone. Commissioner Polk added that this isn’t the first year they have applied for funds for the flooring and that it needs to be done. Commissioner Greenaway stated that she would trim from the Public Works Safety Improvements. Chairwoman Khan summed up that suggestions have been to trim $10,000 from the Façade Improvement Program, $5,000 from the Pasco Specialty Kitchen Micro-Enterprises and $10,000 from the Public Works Safety Improvements. With this money, $25,000 would go to fund the CAC’s Second Chance Center. Commissioner Polk asked for clarification on the street network that was in flux that could affect the Peanuts Park and Street Improvements projects. Mr. White responded that at this time he doesn’t have more information. The proposed signals are for audible signals for vision impaired and safety improvements. They will only be installed on intersections not being reconfigured by the Lewis Street Overpass. Commissioner Polk asked if there would be any additional funding. Mr. White answered that it is possible. Commissioner Mendez asked if there was a specific amount to cut from the sidewalk improvements. Chairwoman Khan summed up again the revisions were to trim $10,000 from the Façade Improvement Program, $5,000 from the Pasco Specialty Kitchen Micro-Enterprises and $10,000 from the Public Works Safety Improvements. With this money, $25,000 would go to fund the CAC’s Second Chance Center. The Planning Commissioners were in agreement of the revisions. -12- Commissioner Greenaway moved, seconded by Commissioner Bachart to close the public hearing and recommend the City Council approve the use of funds for the 2016 Community Development Block Grant Program set forth in the “2016 Fund Summary” as amended. The motion passed unanimously. C. Block Grant 2016 HOME Program Allocation & Annual Work Plan (MF# BGAP 2015-004) Chairwoman Khan read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director, discussed the 2016 HOME Program Allocation & Annual Work Plan. He stated that there have been no changes since the previous meeting. The funds proposed are to be used for the Down Payment Assistance Program. With no further comments the public hearing closed. Commissioner Bachart moved, seconded by Commissioner Polk, the Planning Commission recommend the City Council approve the use of funds for the 2016 HOM Investment Partnerships entitlement as set forth in the “2016 HOME Fund Summary” as recommended by staff. The motion passed unanimously. D. Block Grant 2016 Neighborhood Stabilization Plan (NSP) Fund Allocations (MF# BGAP 2015-005) Chairwoman Khan read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director, discussed the 2016 Neighborhood Stabilization Plan (NSP) Fund Allocations. The funds are proposed to be used for down payment assistance and minor home rehabilitation as needed or necessary for those home buyers. With no further comments the public hearing closed. Commissioner Bowers moved, seconded by Commissioner Greenaway, the Planning Commission recommend the City Council approve the use of funds for the 2016 Neighborhood Stabilization Program (NSP) entitlement set forth above, as recommended by staff. The motion passed unanimously. OTHER BUSINESS: A. Code Amendment Commercial Design Standards (MF# CA 2015-003) Chairwoman Khan read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Rick White, Community & Economic Development, discussed the code amendment for Commercial Design Standards. He reminded that Commissioner that this item is returning for a third time for them to look at. He referenced a map that was in their staff -13- reports pointing out C-1 (Retail Business) zones and the “O” (Office) zones that are outside of the I-182 Overlay District that the proposed code amendment would apply to. The staff report also included a proposed ordinance that is in draft form but does three important thing: (1) Establishes the applicability for the design standards to new commercial development or remodeling/expansion when it exceeds half the cost in a five year period, (2) Addresses mandatory standards along these corridors and (3) Addresses optional standards when the parcel is adjacent to a residential zone. He briefly went over the conditions. This item will come back to the Planning Commission as a public hearing. COMMENTS: Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director, discussed an upcoming Short Course in Planning to be held in Walla Walla on October 5, 2015 if any Planning Commissioner wished to sign up for the course. With no further discussion or business, the Planning Commission was adjourned at 8:35 p.m. Respectfully submitted, David McDonald, City Planner