Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-21-2016 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes-1- REGULAR MEETING July 21, 2016 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 Tanya Bowers No. 2 Kurt Lukins No. 3 Paul Mendez No. 4 Alecia Greenaway No. 5 Joe Cruz No. 6 Loren Polk No. 7 Zahra Khan No. 8 Pam Bykonen No. 9 Gabriel Portugal APPEARANCE OF FAIRNESS: Chairman Cruz read a statement about the appearance of fairness for hearings on land use matters. Commissioner Bowers stated that she would need to recuse herself from old business item MF# Z 2016-003. There were no further declarations. Chairman Cruz 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: 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 Bowers moved, seconded by Commissioner Greenaway that the minutes dated June 16, 2016 be approved. The motion passed unanimously. OLD BUSINESS: A. Preliminary Plat Preliminary Plat for Columbia Terrace (Big Creek Land Company) (MF# PP 2016-001) Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Dave McDonald, City Planner, discussed the preliminary plat application for Columbia Terrace. He stated that there were no additional comments on this item since the previous meeting. -2- Commissioner Khan moved, seconded by Commissioner Greenaway, to adopt the findings of fact and conclusions therefrom as contained in the July 21, 2016 staff report. The motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Khan moved, seconded by Commissioner Greenaway, based on the findings of fact and conclusions as adopted the Planning Commissioner recommend the City Council approve the Preliminary Plat for Columbia Terrace, with conditions as listed in the July 2, 2016 staff report. The motion passed unanimously. B. Rezone Rezone from R-1 (Low Density Residential) to “O” (Office) (Anidas Guerera) (MF# Z 2016-003) Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director, discussed the rezone application from R-1 (Low Density Residential) to “O” (Office). He stated that there were no additional comments since the previous meeting. Commissioner Greenaway moved, seconded by Commissioner Khan, to adopt findings of fact and conclusions therefrom as contained in the July 21, 2016 staff report. The motion passed 7 to 1 with Commissioner Bowers abstaining. Commissioner Greenaway moved, seconded by Commissioner Khan, based on the findings of fact and conclusions as adopted the Planning Commission recommend the City Council rezone Lots 14-16, Block 11, Helms 2nd Addition from R-1 to “O”. The motion passed 7 to 1 with Commissioner Bowers abstaining. PUBLIC HEARINGS: A. Special Permit Special Permit to locate a student housing complex (Columbia Basin College) (MF# SP 2016-008) Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director, discussed the special permit to locate a student housing complex. The site is located at the southeast corner of Argent and 20th Avenue. It is a 10 acre site owned by the City and although the first phase of the project only involves 2 acres, Columbia Basin College has an intent to develop the east 5 acres of the site. The Comprehensive Plan for this property indicates commercial development potential on the west half of the site and mixed -residential on the east half. In keeping with the zoning code language, student housing is considered an unclassified use and is the same as any other school activities which is why it requires a special permit. The first phase of the project would involve roughly 125 beds and assuming that’s successful there are phases 2 and 3 that would result in approximately 375 beds on the site. The staff report contains information on surrounding land use, parking and the potential for retail and commercial development to occur on the west half of the site and there are preliminary findings of facts for the Planning Commissions consideration. At this stage, the site plan will likely be changed over the next 30 days so staff would recommend that the Planning Commission consider this item and take public testimony but continue the hearing to ensure the final version of the site plan is included with the -3- Planning Commission’s recommendation to City Council. Rustin Hall, 203 North Washington, Suite 400, Spokane, WA spoke on behalf of ALSC Architects, the developer for this project. He discussed some of the studies for this project. He showed the proposed site plan on the Power Point but stressed that it is not the final plan, however, it is the general plan, orientation and location of the building along with the access to parking. They want to keep the view potential on the western half of the property towards the golf course as well as creating as much exterior activity space as they can for planned activities. This is going to be a quality development with stucco masonry and 3-stories. As for the position of the building, they don’t like to have a lot of west facing glass because of the afternoon sun. Commissioner Polk asked if the housing would be for single students or for non -traditional students, such as married or family housing. Mr. Hall responded that this building will be a combination of several different types of units; 1 bed, 2 bed, 3 bed and 4 bed suites. Commissioner Mendez asked what would be the estimated completion date. Mr. Hall stated that it should be finished August 2017. Commissioner Bowers stated that the students who would be staying at this building would be very lucky to have the view of the golf course and pond. She stated that she was a little surprised that the student housing is not going to be located on the end closer to 20th Avenue. She asked why they decided on the proposed location. Mr. Hall responded that the negotiation for the purchase of the property started with the purchase of the entire 10 acres and doing a larger project, however, the west portion was highly valued for the exposure along 20th Avenue for potential commercial uses (hotel, retail, etc.) where the proposed location is the least visible and puts the students the closest to walking to campus rather than having to drive. There were no further questions or comments. Commissioner Polk moved, seconded by Commissioner Greenaway, to continue the public hearing to the August 18, 2016 meeting. The motion passed unanimously. B. Zoning Determination Zoning Determination to establish zoning for the Barker Annexation (MF# ZD 2016-003) Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Dave McDonald, City Planner, discussed the zoning determination application to establish zoning for the Barker Annexation. The City Council recently accepted a notice of intent to commence annexation proceedings for a 119 acre parcel at the northwest corner of Burns Road and Road 100. It is right behind the Sharma An nexation that was reviewed last year. In fact, the Barker Annexation was a part of the Sharma Annexation but at that time the City did not have enough signatures from property owners to cause all of the -4- property to be annexed. The Barker’s are now back and would like to annex the area indicated. As a part of the annexation process, the Planning Commission always reviews zoning prior to the completion of the final petition that goes to City Council. Then the parcel can be zoned simultaneously with the annexation so that the property isn’t annexed into the City un-zoned. This site has been included in the Comprehensive Plan for many years as a low-density residential area. The properties to the southeast in the city limits are all zoned R-1. In the County to the west because of the lack of sewer there are ½ acre lots with city water but you cannot build on those lots unless they are ½ acre because of the need for septic systems. Staff is recommending the Planning Commission zone the site R-1 (Low-Density Residential) to allow the greatest flexibility for development. Chairman Cruz asked what the minimum lot size is in the R-1 zoning district. Mr. McDonald responded 7,200 square feet is the minimum lot size in an R-1 zoning district but with the R-1 zone you could also have larger lot sizes. Many of the R-1 lots southeast of this site are 9,000 square feet. Commissioner Khan asked if this zoning effects the Broadmoor Master Plan and potential commercial or urban development. She asked if it would be better to do gradient zoning. Mr. McDonald answered Mr. Hansen, the consultant for the Broadmoor Master Plan, had higher densities concentrated elsewhere but the proposed site was indicated for low - density residential and the R-1 zoning district fits that zoning. If the developer wishes to provide a gradient in lot sizes they could do so with the R-1 zoning. If it is zoned to a lower density, such as RS-12 or RS-20, they could not go with a higher density. The R-1 allows for more options. Joe Flerchinger, 7215 Byers Road, spoke on behalf of this item. He stated that his property is located just to the north of this proposed location. He asked what provisions take into account existing properties that are adjacent to a development such as this with regard to zoning and development. Chairman Cruz answered that the Planning Commission reviews these applications and makes recommendations accordingly to protect existing properties but still encourage development. He asked Mr. Flerchinger what was the size of his lot. Mr. Flerchinger responded that his property is roughly 5 ½ acres. Chairman Cruz stated that there is probably a balance between low-density residential and Mr. Flerchinger’s property that is 5 acres. He explained that the Planning Commission has done gradients on other parcels. Mr. Flerchinger responded that he would prefer a gradient. He is not opposed to development as he knew it was only a matter of time but a gradien t would help transition to his property. With no further comments the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Khan stated that she doesn’t want the entire site to be zoned R-1 due to the -5- nearby possible development in the Broadmoor Area. The City is lacking in commercial and has plenty of residential but could use diversity in the types of housing. Commissioner Bykonen asked for clarification that the zoning the Planning Commission sets is so the property could be annexed with that assigned zone but before any development could take place the Planning Commission would still have to approve a preliminary plat application. Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director, stated that was correct and in response to Commissioner Khan, it is difficult to design a plat at this stage of the land use process. Commissioner Khan asked if it was possible to zone the property RT (Residential Transition) instead of R-1. Mr. White answered that it’s a possibility but it wouldn’t make much sense because you would have to come back to rezone it to something else prior to development or a plat. Chairman Cruz stated that he feels there is too much high density zoning at the parameter of the City and it would be best to drive that towards the center. He was in agreement with Commissioner Khan that closer or past the city limits zoning should be lower than R-1. He added that he would not be to supportive of zoning the entire site R-1. He would rather see a gradient at least on the upper 1/3 portion of the site . Commissioner Mendez asked how many homes could be built on the site if it was all rezoned R-1. Mr. McDonald responded that with R-1 zoning you could get roughly 4-4 ½ units per acre so for this entire site, over 400 houses. The next step down in zoning density, RS-12, and there could be a little over 300 homes. Then at RS-20 you would be able to get 2 homes per acre. Chairman Cruz stated that he would not want to see 5 houses per acre next to 1 house per acre which is why he is in support of a gradie nt for the site. This would still give the developers a chance to have options and make money but it won’t compromise the neighborhood for existing properties in the County. He doesn’t want to see very expensive homes next to starter homes which happened over by the airport. Commissioner Bowers asked what neighborhood Chairman Cruz was referring to. Commissioner Cruz responded that at the eastern end of Burden Boulevard on the plateau near the airport there were high dollar homes next to smaller homes that weren’t valued as much and there were a mix of lot sizes. He feels a progression would have been better than mixing the densities. Commissioner Lukins asked how difficult it would be to talk with the applicant/property owner to come up with a workable solution for the gradient. Mr. McDonald stated that they worked with the neighboring property owner, Mr. Sharma, -6- and they did a gradient in that case so it would be possib le but the public hearing should be continued to allow time to discuss with the property owner. Commissioner Khan moved, seconded by Commissioner Mendez, to continue the public hearing to the August 18, 2016 meeting. The motion passed unanimously . C. Block Grant 2017 Community Development Block Grant Fund Allocations (MF# BGAP 2016-003) Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Angela Pitman, Block Grant Administrator, discussed the 2017 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) fund allocations. The Community Development Block Grant was enacted in 1974 by the Cranston-Gonzalez Act that rolled 8 competitive grants into 1 formula. The purpose of the grant is to preserve and develop viable urban comm unities by expanding economic opportunities, providing decent housing and sustaining or creating suitable living environments. One of the program requirements is the 5-year Consolidated Plan. The current plan is from 2015-2019 and was developed with the Tri-Cities Consortium with input from the communities and cities of Kennewick, Richland and Pasco working together to develop the plan. Each year an Annual Action Plan Supplement is created that forms the basis for carrying out annual work goals and objec tives for each program year. At the end of the year and annual evaluation report is submitted to HUD evaluating our performance in carrying out the goals and objectives of the Annual Action Plan. During this process, citizen’s participation is mandatory and encouraged. A notice of this meeting was published in both local newspapers in English and in Spanish and it was also directly mailed out to recipients of grant funds from the past 5 years. In this particular 5-year Consolidated Plan the goals are to increase and preserve affordable housing choices, community, neighborhood and economic development, homeless interventions and priority public services. In order to be a recipient of the grant funds, the City had to meet specific criteria, such as, popul ation size, an aging housing stock and a low-moderate income population. The City as a recipient can carry out the projects in-house with staff or by hiring contractors or the City can do as we typically do and put it out for proposals and have sub-recipients qualify to assist us in carrying out the goals of the plan. The selection criteria for the activities is that is has to meet a national objective of primarily benefiting low-moderate income persons in Pasco. Each activity has to meet eligibility requirements that are defined in 24 CFR 570, which is the final rule for Community Development Block Grant activities. They have to meet 1 of the 3 goals for the Consolidated Plan and also meet the goals of Pasco’s Resolution No. 1969 that lists local priority needs. In order to be a sub-recipient of the funds, the applicant needs to be qualified via a non-profit, 501(c)(3) and have a demonstrated capacity to carry out a project. The projects scope and budget also needs to exhibit feasibility so there is a n underwriting process that each application goes through. Ms. Pitman showed on the Power Point presentation a summary of the City of Pasco’s goals for local priorities. Primarily the focus has been on physical improvements around housing, parks, community sponsored recreation, infrastructure, community facilities, economic development and removing substandard housing or hazardous conditions. Social services are not allowable activities. -7- It is estimated that the CDBG entitlement for 2017 would be around $670,000 based on the 2016 entitlement amount, program income and prior year activities that are not completed or completed under budget. The City received 11 proposals for a total of $902,000 so there is a deficit of approximately $232,000 which is small compared to prior years. The proposals arranged by City of Pasco project types are: Administration, Public Services (the City sponsored recreation activities at the three facilities), Economic Opportunities, Affordable Housing, Public Facility Improvements, Code Enforcement and Community Infrastructure. Parks and buildings fall under Public Facility Improvements and Community Infrastructure is curb, gutter, sidewalks and LIDS. Commissioner Khan asked about the proposal for a Code Enforcement Officer and if the non-CDBG match of $200,500 was correct. Ms. Pitman responded that number was correct. The City employs four Code Enforcement Officers but only one is assigned to work in the low-moderate census tracts. There are four census tracts in that area. Commissioner Bowers stated that she was hoping to see what was granted to last year’s sub-recipients. Ms. Pitman responded that she can provide the 2016 Annual Action Plan at the next meeting. Chairman Cruz added that many of the recommendations haven’t been too different for the past couple of years. Commissioner Lukins asked for clarification on the public services cap. Ms. Pitman responded that the public services cap is $15,000 because there is another federal grant available for Community Services Block Grant. The same goes for public housing authorities because they get their own block of funds so the CDBG program is capped since those projects have their own funds. Steve Howland, YMCA of the Greater Tri-Cities, W1234 Columbia Park Trail, Richland, WA spoke on behalf of his proposal for the Martin Luther King Jr. Recreation Program. Back in 2014 they lost funding due to United Way cuts which is why they need other funds, such as CDBG, to continue to operate and there is a need for this center in the area. The center did make some cuts in terms of hours and programs to focus on exactly what is needed. They are open after school and in the summer. The center is a combination of a game room, computer lab, homework center, full-sized gym and weight room. A few years ago Leadership Tri-Cities came through and did a remodel. They also have a year-round youth soccer program as it was one of the most requested programs. The fees for the YMCA is $10 per year. If they don’t pay that it is $1 per day but most of them do the math and pay $10. That fee isn’t just for children but for the whole family. Chairman Cruz asked how many citizens they serve on an annual basis. -8- Mr. Howland answered that it varies but on an annual basis it is about 850. They don’t keep track of status’ rather they just mark in when they pay. The average membership is about 700 of regular users. They try to market and advertise within a 1 mile radius of the center but it is open to anybody. There are even families that come from Kennewick and Richland. The soccer program draws families even from Connell and Prosser. Commissioner Bowers asked if the number of clients served is just for the Kurtzman Area and not for the larger Tri-Cities. Mr. Howland responded that the larger Tri-Cities averages about 7,000-8,000 throughout the community. Commissioner Bowers asked for clarification on racial demographic. In the proposal it stated that out of 2,000 residents served over 1,600 were minority and the rest were white, non-Hispanic. Mr. Howland answered that they survey from time to time but mostly they look at see who’s coming which varies depending on the time of year. Otherwise they try not to keep a lot of demographic information and it isn’t something that their programs are based on – they just want to make sure it’s open for everybody which is why they always have materials in English and Spanish. Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director, stated that this is the first of two public hearings. The purpose of this first public hearing is to listen to the proposals. The second public hearing is when the Planning Commission will form a recommendation to City Council. He stated that he could answer questions on any of the City’s proposals. Eric Denekamp, 1107 Budd Avenue, Prosser, WA and Crystal Carter, PO Box 221, Richland, WA spoke on behalf of her proposal for Rebuilding Mid-Columbia. Mr. Denekamp explained that they are a grassroots organization that believes through the power of community they can affect the quality of life for the venerable population by addressing their critical home repair needs. Ms. Carter stated that what their organization does is help under resourced families wi th critical home repairs to their existing home. They do this by utilizing volunteers and leveraging the donations given to the organization. They have a special emphasis on helping the elderly, ensuring they can age in their own place and that the disabled have the handicap modifications to ensure a higher quality of life. They also have a goal to serve veterans and single-family homes to raise their children. Their non-profit consists of two programs; (1) Rebuilding Days – they take on 20-30 projects and send volunteer teams to where the need is, such as building a wheel chair ramp or fixing a roof. They do Demonstration Projects – the next demonstration project will be on the corner of Sylvester Street and 3rd Avenue focusing on a community revitalization, such as painting the homes and cleaning the yards. They have found that once one home is cleaned up in the neighborhood it inspires the other neighbors to clean up their yard. (2) Urgent Needs Program – this program assists those getting out of the hospital so they have a place to go that is safe in their home. She stated that they are a very new organization but she had worked for Habitat for Humanity for the last 4 years. There she implemented the Home -9- Preservation Program. In 2014, her program was ranked 19th in the country as far as families served. In 2015, the program was 5th in the country. She has also travelled across the country teaching other cities how to implement a program such as this. Locally they have helped hundreds of families with critical home repairs. Commissioner Bowers asked how a homeowner or resident in need gets ahold of their organization. Ms. Carter responded that currently it has operated by word of mouth and through a link on Facebook. They are in the process of creating their website. Over 55 families have already reached out via word of mouth without any advertising. Commissioner Lukins asked if they were to receive funding if the projects would have to stay in Pasco. Ms. Pitman responded that the funds would have to be used for Pasco projects. Chairman Cruz responded that one of the things the Planning Commission has to do is look at the viability of the applicants. He stated that Ms. Carter did a very good job showing her experience but with this being a new startup it can be difficult to receive CDBG funds. He asked how much cash the organization has on hand. Ms. Carter stated that right now they have $20,000. Chairman Cruz asked if they anticipate another $40,000 from fundraising in the next few weeks or months. Ms. Carter answered yes. Chairman Cruz asked about policies and procedures. Ms. Carter stated that their policies and procedures are currently going through the board of directors and should be approved within the next week and they have $1M liability insurance but they also expect the homeowners to have home insurance. Each homeowner is required to sign a waiver and well as the volunteers so that they cannot come back on the organization for something they had nothing to do with. There were no further applicants who wished to present. Commissioner Khan moved, seconded by Commissioner Polk, to continue the public hearing to the August 18, 2016 meeting. The motion passed unanimously. D. Block Grant 2017 HOME Fund Allocations (MF# BGAP 2016-004) Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Angela Pitman, Block Grant Administrator, discussed the 2017 HOME Fund Allocations. Richland, Kennewick and Pasco formed a consortium to receive HOME Entitlement Funds. -10- It is estimated $107,000 of funds would be available for City of Pasco projects in 2017 but does not include program income which is estimated to be around $100,000. Pasco signs a sub-recipient agreement with the Tri-Cities HOME Consortium for Down Payment Assistance only. Pasco estimates 10 activities to be funded with the entitlement fun ds, which is a conservative estimate. Based on the numbers in 2015, the City received $200,000 and 28 down payment assistance loans were completed. In 2016, although only halfway through the year, 6 loans have closed and 5 loans are in process, approved and will be closing in the next few weeks. Commissioner Bowers asked if the down payment assistance program focuses on specific census tracts. Ms. Pitman stated that there are target area census tracts, however, down payment assistance is city-wide. Any of the applicants can move wherever they want. The census tracts would only be used to filter down applicants if there were too many requests and not enough funds but that hasn’t been an issue. Commissioner Bowers asked where those census tracts were located. Ms. Pitman responded that they are south of I-182 and east of Highway 395. Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director, added that the program although applied city-wide is still limited to low-moderate income households and limited to first-time homebuyers. Chairman Cruz responded that it is a big deal as it helps people who can pay the mortgage and stop paying rent but can’t afford the $10,000 to put down towards the down payment or closing costs to get into the home. There were no further questions or comments. Commissioner Greenaway moved, seconded by Commissioner Bowers, to continue the public hearing to the August 18, 2016 meeting. The motion passed unanimously. OTHER BUSINESS: With no further discussion or business, the Planning Commission was adjourned at 8:09 p.m. Respectfully submitted, David McDonald, City Planner