Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-16-2017 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes-1- REGULAR MEETING March 16, 2017 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 Roach 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. 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 question regarding the items to be discussed. 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 Roach moved, seconded by Commissioner Greenaway that the minutes dated February 16, 2017 be approved. The motion passed unanimously. OLD BUSINESS: A. Special Permit Location of a Daycare in an “O” (Office) Zone (Kimberly Pack) (MF# SP 2017-001) Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director, discussed the special permit application for the location of a daycare in an “O” (Office) zone. There were no additional comments. Commissioner Roach moved, seconded by Commissioner Portugal to adopt findings of fact -2- and conclusions therefrom as contained in the March 16, 2017 staff report. The motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Roach moved, seconded by Commissioner Portugal, based on the findings of fact and conclusions therefrom, the Planning Commission recommend the City Council grant a special permit for the location of a daycare center at 4013 W. Court Street (Parcel # 119-154-148), with the conditions as listed in the March 16, 2017 staff report. The motion passed unanimously. PUBLIC HEARINGS: A. Rezone Rezone from C-1 to C-3 (Mohinder Sohal) (MF# Z 2016-005) (Remanded) Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director, discussed the remanded rezone application from C-1 (Retail Business) to C-3 (General Business). This application was considered by the Commission in November. The recommendation to City Council was for denial. The applicant appealed the recommendation which was forwarded to City Council. City Council held a closed record hearing and has remanded the issue back to the Planning Commission with instructions to consider the approval of the zone change through a concomitant agreement. The staff report was prepared with essentially the same staff report from November with the addition of a memorandum attached to it. The key takeaways are the conditions of the concomitant agreement. Staff has taken prepared a list of conditions which include prohibiting all uses in the C -3 zone with the exception of truck and trailer rentals and has included a maximum number of trucks and trailers at 12. Staff would like the Commission’s input on the adequacy of that condition and if anything else should be included as a condition. Chairman Cruz asked what would be the duration of the concomitant agreement. Mr. White responded that it would be done through the rezone so it may be passed onto a future property owner. Jerry Hudnall, 1800 W. Lewis Street, spoke in support of the rezone application. He stated that the concomitant agreement is reasonable. He stated that 12 vehicles would be a high average of what they would typically have on the lot at one time – there will likely only be 6 trucks and 6 trailers. He addressed a concern about the length restriction of the trucks. The staff report stated a limit of 24’ in length but the newer U-Haul trucks are 26’ in length. There are 24’ trucks available through U-Haul but they are lesser condition since U-Haul is phasing them out so 26’ trucks would look nicer on the property. He preferred not to keep 24’ trucks on the property since they are an eye sore. Otherwise, he said that he accepted the conditions of the concomitant and felt that this would give the property a chance to pull in extra income to make improvements to the property and to bring new jobs. Commissioner Bowers asked where the nearest U-Haul was located to the proposed site. Mr. Hudnall stated that the nearest U-Haul is roughly ½ mile away at a storage facility. -3- There is also a large U-Haul on Court Street, however, it was a much larger operation because it is corporate. Commissioner Bowers asked what the operating hours would be. Mr. Hudnall responded Monday-Saturday, 8:00am-7:00pm. Commissioner Mendez asked what type of signage would be used. Mr. Hudnall answered that most of the signage would be inside of the Loyalty Inn. There may be a small sign hanging from the existing Loyalty Inn sign. There will not be any banners – the trucks speak for themselves. Chairman Cruz reminded the Commission that there would have to be a permit for the sign. Commissioner Bykonen asked staff if the requirement could be changed from 24’ trucks to 26’ trucks since the 26’ trucks are in better shape and less of an eye sore. Mr. White responded that it would not be a problem and that 24’ was a typo. Commissioner Bowers moved, seconded by Commissioner Greenaway, to adopt findings of fact as contained in the March 16, 2017 staff memo. The motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Bowers moved, seconded by Commissioner Greenaway, based on the findings of fact as adopted, the Planning Commission recommend the City Council rezone the Loyalty Inn property from C-1 to C-3 with a concomitant agreement limiting uses on the property to all “O” and C-1 Districts plus the rental of domestic truck and trailers not exceeding 26 feet in length. No more than 12 rental vehicles are permitted on site per day. All other C-3 uses are prohibited. The motion passed unanimously. B. Preliminary Plat Chiawana Heights, 80 Lots (Ron Asmus) (MF# PP 2017-002) Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Dave McDonald, City Planner, discussed the preliminary plat application for Chiawana Heights. The site is about 21-22 acres and the developer is proposing to develop 80 single-family lots. The staff report addressed the items required to be reviewed. It is a straightforward single-family subdivision with connections to existing streets and connections to future streets. There is another developer in the process of developing a preliminary plat that would wrap around this plat and those streets would connect. Commissioner Roach asked for clarification on block wall fencing and the irrigation canal. Mr. McDonald responded that there is quite a distance from the irrigation canal. The School District owns 24 acres to the south prior to running into the irrigation canal. The block wall is to go along Road 84 – the code requires masonry walls on arterial streets now instead of wood. -4- Commissioner Roach asked if that was because of graffiti problems. Mr. McDonald answered that it was due to durability and maintenance. Most other products don’t last as long as concrete. Commissioner Polk asked if all of the homes would be exiting out onto Road 84 and for clarification on another developer who would be developing in the area. Mr. McDonald said that was correct. Commissioner Polk asked if there were any plans to allow additional outlets onto any other roads that would eventually connect. Mr. McDonald replied, yes and briefly explained where there will be future roads. Commissioner Polk asked if this site as well as the other sites soon to develop were sold at the same time. Mr. McDonald said that all the sites were auctioned off at the same time. Commissioner Polk asked if development of the other sites will occur soon after this proposal. Mr. McDonald responded, yes, and that the Planning Commission will be seeing it all soon. Commissioner Roach asked who owned the water rights to the property – if it was DNR or privately owned. Mr. McDonald answered that DNR (Department of Natural Resources) owns the water rights as well as the State and they have banked them somewhere. He is unsure if we can get them back. If not, the developers will be paying a fee of about $1,700/acre. Commissioner Mendez said there would be another 80 homes and asked about potential impacts, such as traffic. Mr. McDonald stated that with the first 80 homes the developer won’t have to do a whole lot but he will have to widen Road 84 – it will become a 3-lane road. The developer to the north will have to widen it up to Chapel Hill. And the new road on the east side of the site will help alleviate traffic and disperse traffic in other directions. Traffic impact fees will be collected. Ron Asmus, 802 S. Dawnes, Kennewick, spoke on his preliminary plat application. He stated that he has been working with the city and the surveyor to make sure everything is in order. Phase 2 or 3 may be done together and there may still be some small changes to the lots. There will be a nice wall as well as a nice entry to the development. He addressed the water rights. -5- Jesse Rogers, 7309 Wernett Road, asked what will be done about the streets that will have to handle all of the excess traffic. Mr. McDonald explained the future road connections and how there will be diffusion of traffic as well as future traffic lights. Chairman Cruz added that Road 84 will be widened to be 3 lanes. Mr. Rogers said a 3 lane road will not handle all of the traffic from the new homes. With no further questions or comments the public hearing closed. Commissioner Roach asked if it would even be possible to put in 4 lanes in this area. Mr. McDonald responded that there is enough right of way there but he was unsure if it would ever be needed. Sandifur Parkway is a 3 lane road and disperses traffic quite nicely and handles a heavy load of traffic. Commissioner Roach asked if there was a light already located at Argent Road and Road 84. Mr. McDonald said, yes and discussed other locations for traffic lights. Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director, added that it is important to know that as Riverview has gone from 2.5-5 acre parcels, very few through roads have been developed. There is congestion on Argent and Road 68 because the existing county roads had not been developed and expanded upon. The key to planning is dispersion of traffic. The proposed subdivision will connect with Chapel Hill Boulevard, will connect along the canal with some crossings at Road 76 and possibly another through street connecting to Road 76 for traffic to go north or south to Argent or Chapel Hill. Things don’t happen overnight but as the properties develop, impact fees are collected to help pay for the improvements and as the properties develop dispersion of traffic will occur. Sandifur Parkway, as an example, does a good job moving traffic through with only 3 lanes. Chairman Cruz added that he lives on Argent and drives up to Sandifur frequently because it moves traffic so well. Commissioner Bowers asked for clarification on where the Riverview Area is located. Chairman Cruz responded that it is the general area from Highway 396 west and south of the canal. Commissioner Roach moved, seconded by Commissioner Polk, to close the hearing on the proposed preliminary plat and set April 20, 2017 as the date for deliberations and the development of a recommendation for the City Council. The motion passed unanimously. C. Special Permit Location of a Beauty School in a C-3 Zone (Maria Segura) (MF# SP 2017-004) -6- Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director, discussed the special permit application for the location of a beauty school in a C-3 zone. The property is located on Sylvester Street between 26th Avenue and 24th Avenue. It is a straight-forward application. The proposal is for a 2 student beauty school in an existing commercial retail mall. The code requires special permits for educational facilities. The Planning Commission has seen a number of beauty schools as of recently. There is required parking available and would be a good use at this site. Claudia Becerra, 902 S. Ione Street, Kennewick spoke on her special permit application. She explained that the school will have a purpose of bringing opportunities to individuals needing to learn skills in hair, nails an d make up. Their focus would be on the youth – many who either drop out of high school or have just finished high school and need licenses and skills and they don’t know where to go. Chairman Cruz asked if they had a chance to look at the staff report p repared by staff and if they were fine with the rules. Ms. Becerra said yes. She noted that they have 45 parking spaces and the school would host 15-20 students so there would be enough parking and they have enough room for emergency situations in the back and front of the building. Commissioner Roach asked if they had spoken to any of the neighboring business owners to see if they had any issues. Ms. Becerra responded that she had not. She knew that letters would be sent out to the neighboring property owners but she had not spoken to any of the neighbors. Commissioner Bowers asked where their current barber shop was located. Ms. Becerra answered that it was located at 746 W. Court Street, Suite B. Commissioner Bowers asked what uses are next to the proposed site in the mall. Ms. Becerra replied that one is an accountant and the other has music. The accounting office does not generate much parking even during tax season so this school will not be over utilizing the parking. Commissioner Greenaway asked for clarification on the number of students because the staff report said there would only be 2 students. Ms. Becerra responded that they would have 15-20 students. It would be open from 10am-7pm, Monday-Friday and 9am-4pm, Saturday. The number of students would be determined on appointment times. It could not be 15-20 students at one time. Commissioner Greenaway replied that it would fluctuate. -7- Mr. White responded that it was staff’s understanding that there would only be 2 students at a time. He would be surprised if the space was large enough for more than 2-4 at one time. Ms. Becerra explained that at the time of the application there were only 2 registered students which is why there was confusion for the number of students. Commissioner Bykonen asked the applicant if they could submit a floor diagram of how they intend to use the space. Ms. Becerra said that she could submit that. Chairman Cruz explained to the applicant that she has to work some things out with city staff prior to the next meeting. With no further questions or comments the public hearing closed. Commissioner Roach asked what the maximum capacity was for the unit. Mr. White replied that it would be confusing because many people could fit if standing but perhaps not for the use. Chairman Cruz added that with a 940 square foot unit, with chairs installed there wouldn’t be room for probably more than 10 people. There was general discussion on how many students would likely attend. Commissioner Roach asked is the parking would need to take into consideration of the neighboring businesses that share the parking lot. Mr. White said the code doesn’t distinguish business hours for parking. Commissioner Bowers moved, seconded by Commissioner Mendez, to close the publi c hearing and schedule deliberations, the adoption of findings of fact and development of a recommendation for the City Council for the April 20, 2017 Planning Commission Meeting. The motion passed unanimously. D. Special Permit Shop Height Variance (Jacob Huston) (MF# SP 2017- 005) Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Dave McDonald, City Planner, discussed the special permit for the variance of a shop height. The applicant wishes to place a shop in the rear yard of the site. A few years ago the City Council had the Planning Commission work on a code amendment allowing an option for individuals that have shorter houses versus shop sizes to apply for special permits to increase the height. The applicant owns the property on Road 44 and the home is an older home set in a depression lower than the road which makes it difficult for -8- anyone trying to build a reasonably sized shop in the backyard. However, with the applicant’s request, he is only asking for a little under 2’ for his height extension and given the shape of the lot, distance from the street and the landscaping on his site it would be difficult to see the proposed shop from the street. The only person that would be impacted to the north has already planted a row of trees and provided the Planning Commission with a letter of support of the proposed shop because the trees she has planted will provide a buffer or screen and won’t bother her views. Commissioner Roach asked for clarification of the site shown on the overhead. Mr. McDonald responded that the grey shed on the property will be removed and the proposed shop will be in front of the pine trees, 22’ from the property line. In this zone, it could be within 10’ of the property line but he will be 12’ in excess of the minimum setback. Commissioner Bowers asked if the school was concerned or if they had any feedback. Mr. McDonald said that he hadn’t heard from them. There are shops all throughout the neighborhood of various shapes and heights. Jacob Huston, 1125 Road 44, spoke on his special permit application. He stated that he had spoken to 3 out of 5 of his neighbors and hadn’t heard any objections to his proposal. David Hurley, 4311 W. Marie Court, spoke in favor of the shop height proposal. He said that he was a neighbor and had no issues with the proposal. Commissioner Lukins moved, seconded by Commissioner Greenaway, to close the hearing on the proposed special permit application and set April 20, 2017 as the date for deliberations and the development of a recommendation for the City Council. The motion passed unanimously. E. Preliminary Plat Volterra Estates, 32 Lots (P&R Construction) (MF# PP 2017-001) (Continued) Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Dave McDonald, City Planner, discussed the preliminary plat application for Volterra Estates. At the previous hearing there were a number of questions raised about the proposed plat. One of those questions dealt with the number of lots. The applicant has worked with the Health District and the City – the final lot count is 30. The applicant lost a few lots because of the need for greater space for drain fields. The plat was redesigned to have the street connect through instead of having two cul-de-sacs. There were a number of questions raised by the neighbors at the previous meeting. One individual that spoke at the meeting indicated that Road 72 was too narrow. The road is narrow – only half of the right-of-way is in place. Much of the right-of-way on the west side of Road 72 is missing and has never been dedicated. It will be required to be dedicated as this plat develops. The developers will be responsible for improving their half of the street to City standards for the RS-20 zone. Someone at the previous meeting mentioned there were no traffic lights/signals in the area. More than likely there never will. The traffic modeling done in the past indicates where there will be needs for traffic signals on the major arterials, such as, Argent Road and Road 100. Road 72 and Wernett -9- never come up on the “radar” when the traffic modeling is done. There was a comment regarding the lack of sidewalks in the area. I n the Riverview Area there are very few sidewalks anywhere. Many years ago the City formed a Riverview Annexation Committee of Riverview residents only to receive their input about development standards after annexation. The overwhelming majority did not want sidewalks at that time so the City zoning regulations for the RS-20 and RS-12 zones don’t require sidewalks – they are an option of the developer. The City’s zoning regulatio ns are almost identical to the County’s zoning regulations and the County regulations do not require sidewalks in similar zones. Four-way stop signs are usually installed at intersections after an engineering warrant study is done and is difficult to get a warrant study to indicate that four-way stops are needed, however, when the plans are reviewed by both the City and the County Engineering Departments, they will look at the need for stop signs. Drainage was another concern and that will be handled through the review process with the City and County Engineers. The developers will be required to take care of the drainage situation on their side of the street. The developer is responsible for fixing any issues on his side of the stree t but the property owners on the north side of Wernett should take care of that problem themselves. There was a question about asphalt driveways. The developer is not responsible for building driveways or aprons for pre -existing homes. The developers will only be responsible for their side of Wernett and Road 72. The County Engineer discussed this topic with City staff and he didn’t feel it was the developer’s responsibility to provide concrete or hard surface driveways for individuals who aren’t part of the proposed plat. A comment was made at the previous hearing regarding coordinating with the County Engineering Office. An individual stated that had not been done. City staff has coordinated with the County and a memo is attached to the staff report from the County Engineer identifying their concerns. The County will be responsible for reviewing the plans for Wernett Road as that road is solely in the County and not the City. The road will be developed to County standards. A water line will be p laced in the road but will be built to City standards since the County doesn’t have standards for water lines. The west half of Road 72 will be the sole responsibility of the City’s Engineering Office in reviewing the plans and inspecting during the process. Commissioner Roach asked for clarification regarding lots mentioned in the staff memo. Mr. McDonald responded that the lot numbers reference the previous plat from the previous hearing, not the revised plat. Commissioner Bowers asked for clarification about sidewalks in the Volterra Estates plat. Mr. McDonald responded that there were not going to be sidewalks and that on the plat, what looks like a sidewalk is actually an easement line. Steven Bowman, 7114 Maxim Court, spoke on behalf of his appli cation. He stated that he has gone before the Board of Directors for the Franklin County Irrigation District and they unanimously approved the project to be added to the irrigation district. Mr. Bowman said -10- that he spoke with many of the neighbors. One of the neighbors was in favor of the project. Mrs. Woody (one of the neighbors) had concerns about her sprinkler that could get damaged during construction but Mr. Bowman stated that he would be happy to move them and then replace them so it would not be an issue for her. He explained the changes to the layout of the plat due to comments from the previous hearing and from the Health District. Commissioner Bowers asked if there would be a driveway on Wernett from Lot 1. Mr. Bowman indicated on the overhead where the driveway could be located if there were any concerns. Larry Gomez, 2105 N. Road 72, spoke on this item. He claimed that there was a bald eagle near the proposed plat and that eagles are protected under Federal law. Mr. Gomez stated that he could provide pictures. Commissioner Bowers asked Mr. Gomez where he was located in regards to the proposed plat. Mr. Gomez answered that he is next door to the woman Mr. Bowman spoke with in the middle section of Road 72 across the street. Chairman Cruz informed the audience that the Planning Commission received a letter from Jessie Rogers and Roger Lenk dated March 13, 2017. Roger Lenk, 1817 N. Road 76, spoke on this item. He discussed having a requirement for uniform fencing along the abutting properties to prevent mismatched fencing for abutting property owners. He also had concerns about traffic issues that already exist from activities the go on at the nearby church. There were also drainage issues on the property as it is 5’-6’ above the surrounding properties. Parking is an issue as people park on both sides of Road 72 due to events at the church. A fire truck would have difficulties making it through. Lastly he discussed protected birds that he has seen in the area within the 660’ that the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service defines as impacted. He mentioned that there are local agencies that still need to be notified of this project, such as the County and Department of Ecology. He asked the Planning Commission find that a Determination of Non-Significance or Mitigated Determination of Non-Significance be inappropriate in this matter given the issues of protective wildlife. Chairman Cruz clarified that the SEPA requirements for environmental protection. Paul MacDuff, 7016 W. Wernett, spoke on this item. He was concerned about additional traffic driving down Wernett because of this plat. There are many children in the area that ride their bikes and it might add more risk. He said that he also has seen eagles flying in the area. Jesse Rogers, 7309 W. Wernett, spoke on this item. He had concerns about the traffic and addition vehicles. He added that they already have a large problem with the church traffic and went into detail about church events and traffic. There are many young children in the neighborhood and he is worried about their safety with the amount of cars being used on these roads. He discussed concerns with drainage and he proposed ½ acre lots to help with drainage issues. He was worried about an oversaturation of homes in the area if -11- Hanford were to shut down and a large part of the workforce in the Tri -Cities would leave. Lastly he added to the discussion about the protected birds in the area and mentioned the Department of Fish & Wildlife. Chairman Cruz reminded the audience and Commissioner’s that the issues with the church are unrelated to the proposed plat. He also discussed protection of hawks and eagles. Commissioner Polk told Mr. Rogers she appreciated his testimony. Commissioner Roach stated that she used to live on Court Street near Road 72 and remembered the traffic problems related to the church. Mr. Bowman address some of the concerns addressed by public testimony. He gave an example of what the homes will look like. He spoke to the traffic concerns related to the church and didn’t feel that the new development will make matters worse. He discussed drainage issues and how they were handled over the winter and how they are currently being addressed. He added that he is fond of the area and lives in the area. He would never want to negatively impact or damage the area. Commissioner Portugal asked how many years it took to complete the other development. Mr. Bowman answered about two years to complete. Commissioner Bowers asked about the parking on Road 72. Mr. McDonald said that it will be a City street. Each home will have at least two parking spaces in front of their garage and there may be some parking on the street. Commissioner Bowers asked if guests or visitors would be allowed to park in front of the homes on the street. Mr. McDonald said that they would. Commissioner Bowers asked how many cars could then park on the street. Mr. McDonald responded that he didn’t know if he could answer that. It would depend on how wide the road will be once the paving is complete. The people who already live on Road 72 have guests that park on Road 72 so the paving will actually improve the situation. Sandy Gomez, 2105 N. Road 72, asked where the road would be to get to Amy Loop. Chairman Cruz responded that cars will be entering and exiting onto Road 72 – the driveways are on Road 72. Ms. Gomez said that vehicle headlights and taillights would then be shining into her home as they back out of their driveway since she lived across the street. -12- Commissioner Greenaway responded that most people back in and out of their driveways with homes across the street. Chairman Cruz added that the condition is no different than any other neighborhood. Ms. Gomez discussed the eagles in the area and stated that she had pictures and the nest was in the yard across the street from her house. Commissioner Polk said the issue of the eagles would be for a different agency to handle. Larry Gomez, 2105 N. Road 72, said that there has been a fatal accident on Road 68. He wanted to know if the City was ready to put up a traffic light on Wernett. With no further questions or comments the public hearing closed. Commissioner Polk asked what agency the public should call if they were concerned about vehicles parking on Road 72, possibly blocking the road for emergency vehicle traffic. Mr. McDonald answered that it would be the City for Road 72 and the County for Wernett. Commissioner Portugal asked what the plan is for the drainage issues. Mr. McDonald responded that when the developer submits his construction/engineering drawings, those drawings will include storm drainage design. The City Engineers will review the plans to ensure City code and the Eastern Washington Storm Water Manual are followed. Chairman Cruz noted that the Benton Franklin Health District has to permit for septic and that will have an influence on the lot sizes. Between all of those things there could be substantial changes in the design of the plat. Chairman Cruz reopened the public hearing to allow for a question from the audience. Jesse Rogers, 7309 Wernett, spoke on storm drains and ditches and that there are already drainage problems and with the addition of new homes the water tables will come up. With no further questions or comments the public hearing closed. Commissioner Lukins asked for clarification on Road 72 where there is an existing property. He asked if there would be a bump out in the road where her property exists when the road is paved/improved – would the road be widened through that existing property to be just like the rest of the road. Mr. McDonald responded that there is a problem there because the property goes to the middle of the road and the owner hasn’t dedicated it to the City. Commissioner Portugal moved, seconded by Commissioner Polk, to adopt findings of fact -13- and conclusions therefrom as contained in the March 16, 2017 staff report. The motion passed 8 to 1 with Commissioner Mendez abstaining. Commissioner Portugal moved, seconded by Commissioner Polk, based on the findings of facts and conclusions, as adopted, the Planning Commission recommend the City Cou ncil approve the preliminary plat for Volterra Estates with conditions as listed in the March 16, 2017 staff report. The motion passed unanimously. F. Block Grant 2016 Consolidated Annual Performance Review (CAPER) (MF# BGAP 2017-001) Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director, discussed the 2016 Consolidated Annual Performance Review (CAPER). The CAPER reports on the City of Pasco’s performance in meeting the goals established in the 2016 Annual Action Plan. The City gets roughly $675,000 each year towards meeting those goals. In 2016, the City was able to use almost $515,000 of those funds in the categories of: Program Administration, Housing Opportunities, Economic Development, Public Facility Improvement and Public Services. He briefly went over a chart of the funds and where they were allocated. This item was advertised as a public hearing and the report follows format of HUD guidelines. The Planning Commission is the block grant advisory board for City Council and keeps in compliance with HUD. With no questions or comments the public hearing closed. Commissioner Roach asked about the racial and ethnic compositions of families assisted as stated in the CAPER and if it was for the homeless intervention and public services or if it was for affordable housing. Chairman Cruz stated that it likely refers to the affected census tracts and the demographics for those areas but he wasn’t for sure. Mr. White responded that correct. It was for public service component. Commissioner Bykonen stated that she didn’t have an issue with the CAPER being approved but noted there were typos that nee ded to be corrected. Commissioner Roach, seconded by Commissioner Polk, the Planning Commission close the public hearing and recommend the City Manager approve the revised 2016 Consolidated Plan Evaluation Report as presented. The motion passed 8 to 1 wi th Commissioner Portugal abstaining. With no further discussion or business, the Planning Commission was adjourned at 9:06 p.m. Respectfully submitted, David McDonald, City Planner