Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-21-2017 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes-1- REGULAR MEETING August 17, 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 Joseph Campos No. 3 Paul Mendez No. 4 Alecia Greenaway No. 5 Joe Cruz No. 6 Ruben Alvarado 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 re quires 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 Alvarado that the minutes dated July 20, 2017 be approved. The motion passed unanimously. OLD BUSINESS: A. Preliminary Plat Iris Meadows, 34-Lots (Sunbelt Properties LLC) (MF# PP 2017-007) Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Dave McDonald, City Planner, explained that during the public hearing there were some questions relative to lot sizes in this plat. The concern was that the lots in the plat ought to be increased in size to conform more to the character of the neighborhood. McDonald reviewed the staff memo and explained that under the State’s “Vesting Doctrine” the Planning Commission is obligated to review the proposed plat under the RS-12 zoning and the developer has a right to develop lots conforming to the zoning. -2- Commissioner Bowers moved, seconded by Commissioner Bykonen, to adopt findings of fact and conclusions therefrom as contained in the August 17, 2017 staff report. The motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Bowers moved, seconded by Commissioner Bykonen, base d on the findings of fact and conclusions, as adopted, the Planning Commission recommend the City Council approve the preliminary plat for Iris Meadows, with conditions as listed in the August 17, 2017 staff report. The motion passed unanimously. B. Special Permit Recreation Complex (JUB Engineers, Inc) (MF# SP 2017-008) Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Darcy Bourcier, Planner I, discussed the special permit application for the location of a recreation complex. She stated that since the previous hearing, staff made contact with the applicant with regards to the infrastructure improvements, in particular, the collector street that would have to be developed abutting the west side of the property halfway between Broadway Boulevard and Dent Road. Adjoining property owners are responsible for designing and building their half of the street abutting the property as well as utilities, lighting, drainage and sidewalks. The applicant has 600’ of frontage along Burns Road and will have 1,452’ of frontage along the west side of the property in which they will have to make improvements. The infrastructure could be completed in phases with improvements being completed with each phase of the applicant’s project, much with subdivisions. In working with the applicant, staff has come up with a timeline for the completion of the collector street. Each phase of improvements was discussed. Also noted was that parking lot improvements must be completed with each phase and field lighting must be approved through an amendment to the special permit considered by the Planning Commission. There were no further comments. Commissioner Roach asked when the Planning Commission would see the special permit for the lighting. Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director, responded that it would be prior to installation. Commissioner Bowers asked if the School District had any comments on this item. Dave McDonald, City Planner, stated that he has spoken with the School District and they are aware of the street improvements and they have been cooperative in the past. Commissioner Roach moved, seconded by Commissioner Campos, to adopt findings of fact and conclusions therefrom as contained in the August 17, 2017 staff report. The motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Roach moved, seconded by Commissioner Campos, based on the findings of fact and conclusions therefrom, the Planning Commission recommend the City Council grant a special permit to the Three Rivers Soccer Club under MF# SP 2017 -008 for the location of a soccer complex on Parcel # 115-180-073 with the conditions as contained in the August 17, 2017 staff report. The motion passed unanimously. -3- C. Special Permit Pronghorn Ready-Mix Plant (MF# SP 2017-009) Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Dave McDonald, City Planner, stated that staff had no additional comments to add since the previous meeting. Commissioner Campos moved, seconded by Commissioner Roach, to adopt findings of fact and conclusions therefrom as contained in the August 17, 2017 staff report. The motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Campos moved, seconded by Commissioner Roach, based on the findings of fact and conclusions therefrom, the Planning Commission recommend t he City Council grant a special permit to Pronghorn LLC for the location of a ready -mix concrete facility on Lot 4, Binding Site Plan 2016-01 with conditions as contained in the August 17, 2017 staff report. The motion passed unanimously. D. Rezone Quail Investment Rezone (Terry Blankenship) (MF# Z 2017-001) Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Dave McDonald, City Planner, discussed the rezone application from C-1 (Retail Business) to C-3 (General Business). He stated that staff had no additional comments to add since the previous meeting. Commissioner Roach asked what the applicant intends to do with the property. Mr. McDonald responded that the applicant wants to construct some office space along with some equipment storage space for businesses such as small contractors who need a small office space along with equipment storage – there would be a storefront/office appearance in the front. The applicant owns a similar project in Kennewick. There is quite a market for this type of use. Commissioner Alvarado asked for clarification on the restrictions that would be placed on the C-3 zoning so that certain C-3 uses would be prohibited. Mr. McDonald said that is correct. Commissioner Alvarado asked about unclassified uses in the code and for an example or definition. Mr. McDonald responded that unclassified uses are defined in the “Special Permit” section of the code, and those items require review by special permit and aren’t permitted outright. Some examples are schools, daycares, churches and public facilities. Commissioner Alvarado asked if any unconsidered land use. -4- Mr. McDonald said not necessarily – just they don’t fit in any certain zone per say. Commissioner Bowers asked if there would be any negative impact on the adjacent apartments and whether there should be restrictions on hours. Mr. McDonald responded that the developer will be required to put in a landscape buffer on the east side with a set number of trees. As for hours and noise, the municipal code already addresses quiet hours after 10:00 p.m. and he didn’t believe it would be a problem. There are provisions in the code already to protect that. Chairman Cruz added that he felt this would be harmonious with the character of the neighborhood. Commissioner Bykonen moved, seconded by Commissioner Bowers, to adopt findings of fact and conclusions therefrom as contained in the August 17, 2017 staff report. The motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Bykonen moved, seconded by Commissioner Bowers, based on the findings of fact and conclusions, as adopted, the Planning Commission recommend the City Council rezone Lot 2, Short Plat 2006-06 from C-1 to C-3 with conditions prohibiting the following uses: (1) Trucking facilities and storage yards, (2) Heavy machinery sales and service, (3) Landscape gardening and storage areas, (4) Automobile sales and service, (5) Lumber sales businesses, (6) Mobile home and trailer sales and services, including RV sales, (7) Auto body shops and (8) Contractor storage yards. The motion passed unanimously. PUBLIC HEARINGS: A. Special Permit Wireless Tower (PI Tower Development LLC with T- Mobile) (MF# SP 2017-011) Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Darcy Bourcier, Planner I, discussed the special permit application for a wireless facility tower. PI Tower Development LLC and its tenant, T-Mobile, want to locate an 80’ tall monopole and its equipment and storage at the southwest corner of the Columbia Basin College. They are looking to improve coverage to the students and staff of the college and surrounding area, such as the airport and businesses. The proposed tower location is at an elevated freeway interchange and 350’ south of an existing tower which hosts Sprint equipment. At this location it will not detract from the appearance of the campus or interfere with the day to day activities of the students. The height and location has been reviewed by the FAA and will not interfere with airport operations. It will be tall enough and strong enough to support additional wireless carriers in the future if there is need for it. Commissioner Roach asked if there were any regulations in the code restricting the number of cell towers in a given area. Ms. Bourcier responded that there is nothing in the code that prohibits a certain number of towers in a given vicinity. Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director, added that there is a hierarchy in determining the location of wireless facilities. First they would be located on existing poles, -5- second they would be located on public buildings or buildings over 35’ high or at least 500’ from residential zones. A special permit is always required but the hierarchy establishes the way the locational criteria is set up. Commissioner Roach stated that there is already a very visible antennae near this proposed location and asked why this equipment isn’t being proposed to locate on the already existing antennae. Ms. Bourcier replied that the existing tower 300’ away that hosts Sprint cannot hold anymore equipment. Rod Michaelis, 904 W. Comstock, Spokane, WA spoke on behalf of the applicant. He stated that he has been involved in the wireless communication industry for over 20 years. He addressed Commissioner Roach’s question of locating on the existing tower. When that tower was built it was built to handle Sprint’s equipment. Since that time equipment has gotten bigger and the engineering standards are more stringent. The existing tower is not adequate anymore for additional providers. That is likely why AT&T went to the roof of a building on the campus rather than co-locating on the Sprint tower. He stated that he has been working with campus staff and they do not wish to have any more equipment on their buildings due to the stress and damage to the roof from the equipment. They would prefer a new tower to equipment on the roof. The tower will be built very strong and could support not only T- Mobile but other providers as well – as he has already been in contact with other providers. The college likes having the towers because it helps their services and improves the quality of service from of heavy usage during an emergency, as everyone jumps onto their cell phones. He felt the location was good and while visible, when most people are at the interchange on the highway, they should be paying attention to the road. The tower meets the code and intent of the Comprehensive Plan. Chairman Cruz pointed out that the tower meets the FCC standards, the Planning Commission cannot deny the special permit based on any of those standards. The public hearing was then closed. Commissioner Roach asked if there were any concerns that with an existing 300’ antennae nearby if it would present an eyesore and if they should consider disguising the pole as the Commission requested be done at another cell tower location on Court Street and Road 68. Chairman Cruz said he had considered that but thought having a large fake tree would look more out of place than a regular cell tower pole. Commissioner Roach said they could make it look like a flag pole. With it being a heavily visited area and our community’s one college we should try to consider the aesthetics. It would be worth considering. Commissioner Bykonen stated that she has lived near one of the wireless towers disguised at a flag pole and it was large and the flag was noisy. The flag will also tatter from the wind and who knows when or if the wireless providers will replace the flag. Commissioner Bowers asked the applicant if AT&T and Sprint were to move over to the proposed wireless tower, would they demolish their current facilities. -6- Chairman Cruz opened the public hearing back up for the applicant to respond. Mr. Michaelis replied that the tower is currently owned by SBA, a large company. They are aware of the situation and if they lose their tenant they may try to find another tenant but if they cannot get another tenant they may take it down or the college may request that they take it down. He also addressed the flag pole towers and how they are much larger than they used to be and would be a nuisance. Commissioner Campos addressed the aesthetics of the pole and blending in with the galvanized metal already there. Commissioner Roach referenced the wireless tower on Court Street and Road 68 and how she has received a lot of positive feedback about that pole which is disguised as a tree. That area of Pasco is a lot let travelled than the proposed location at Columbia Basin College so she felt that it would be nice to try and disguise the proposed pole since it is a heavily visited area. Chairman Cruz responded that in that instance it was different because there were already several trees in the area and the pole would have stood out if it was a big grey pole so disguising it as a tree made sense. In this case there isn’t that contrast, otherwise he would be in favor of that. So while it may not be the most attractive, wireless facilities are nearly necessity now as everyone has a phone. He also understood why the college didn’t want any more facilities on the roof of their buildings. Mr. Michaelis said that the cell providers are required to perform any maintenance and fix any damage to buildings on which they locate so neither parties wish to locate new equipment on an existing building. Commissioner Roach asked if there were other camouflage options other than trees and flags. Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director, said there were other options. As a part of the special permit conditions can be made to require the pole to be of neutral colors and is a standard condition that would not affect the functionality of the tower at all. Commissioner Roach made clear that she was in support of the applicant receiving a special permit for a wireless tower but wanted to explore options to make it more aesthetically pleasing. With no further questions or comments the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Campos moved, seconded by Commissioner Bykonen, to close the hearing on the proposed special permit and set September 21, 2017 as the date for deliberations and the development of a recommendation for the City Council. The motion passed unanimously. B. Rezone Rezone from RS-12 (Suburban) to C-1 (Retail Business) (D&D Enterprises) (MF# Z 2017-003) Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. -7- Dave McDonald, City Planner, discussed the rezone application from RS-12 (Suburban) to C-1 (Retail Business) stating the application and the zoning determination application (MF# ZD 2017-002) are tied together. Both properties are owned by the same owner and they are in the process of annexation the southern property. The site in the City is 4.5 acres and the other site is 3.88 acres in the county. The property was in 2008 with the intent of developing it for commercial uses. In 2009 the two homes were removed and the lot was graded. The owners have now made an application for a rezone and are halfway through the annexation process. Part of the process of annexation requires the Planning Commission to determine zoning . Both properties need to be zoned at the same time. Being located at a major intersection at two arterial streets, the Comprehensive Plan has designated that general area either for higher density residential development or retail commercial – those are the only two choices of zoning available. The owners of the property are asking for commercial zoning. Mr. McDonald stated the Comprehensive Plan encourages the clustering of commercial development at key intersections along arterial streets. The City has a longstanding policy to locate commercial development at major intersections and Argent and Road 68 is one of those intersections. Staff received an email from one of the adjoining property owners concerned about the impacts that commercial development could have on the houses to the east. McDonald explained were built-in safety provisions in the zoning regulations that would require buffer strips to protect the homes from commercial development. The municipal code also includes noise regulations limiting the level of noise late in the e vening and early in the morning. Chairman Cruz stated that C-1 uses aren’t too terribly intensive. At the same intersection there is Magill’s Restaurant, a coffee stand, etc. Mr. McDonald referred the Planning Commission to the findings of fact in the staff report and stated a paragraph requesting additional input from the Planning Commission on had been added to the report requesting direction on commercial verses multi-family zoning. Commissioner Roach stated in the past, people near this area have spoken out about not wanting high density residential in their neighborhood. This area has many suburban zoned properties nearby with acreage so he thought was that the existing neighbors would not want apartment buildings at this site. She leaned towards commercial zoning. Commissioner Bowers responded that she could see how it would make sense to lean either way. Commissioner Bowers asked if the two properties together were large enough for a grocery store. Mr. McDonald said all together it is 8 acres and typically grocery stores are 10 acres. Walmart sits on roughly 20 acres. Commissioner Bowers replied that she could see where there would be value in zoning the property for residential apartments because she didn’t think there were a lot of apartments in that area. On the other hand, given the fact the so much residential being developed, it would be nice to have more commercial and retail. -8- Commissioner Alvarado asked if the development community has been interested in a mixed - use development. Mr. McDonald explained mixed use development does not work well in Pasco. Even some areas in Seattle have issues keeping businesses on the first floors. Commissioner Roach asked what would be more beneficial from the City’s perspective – high density residential or commercial. Mr. McDonald responded that high-density would be beneficial in that it creates a built in customer base for the other commercial properties. Commercial is beneficial due to the sales tax and utility tax and those commercial uses don’t have children so there is less impact schools. Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director, added that apartments are not the only residential chose the Planning Commission has. If apartments are chosen, the Commission could address height and density to restrict how dense the site could be developed. One of the challenges is that this is the only vacant corner left on a soon to be very busy intersection and trying to adjust it with a series of land uses that have been established while the property was “out in the country”. Commissioner Bykonen agreed with Commissioner Roach in that there has been public outcry against higher density residential in this area and the increase in traffic so she leans towards commercial development. However, she also agreed with Mr. White in that it doesn’t have to be apartments but something more like condominium/duplex type of dwelling units. Chairman Cruz asked if the applicant was present. Mr. Graff stated that they would like to use this property for commercial development. They considered both, however, the problem he sees with residential is that it will increase the already congested traffic. He felt that commercial rather than residential would alleviate some of the traffic. Also, the other corners are already commercial and he felt that commercial zoning for this site would be more harmonious. Commissioner Campos asked what the vision was for this site or what type of businesses he was hoping to attract. Mr. Graff replied that first he wants to establish the property for commercial development. At this time they are unsure if it would be best to have a small strip mall o r perhaps small offices/retail area in the front with workshop/storage areas in the rear. Dana Crutchfield, 8914 Whipple Avenue, stated she owned property at 2904 Road 68. She received the notice in the mail and appeared on behalf of herself and her husband. There was concern about the southern parcel that goes along with this application. That piece of property has not yet been annexed into the City and if it were designated as commercial, once it is annexed it would be commercial and the neighbo rhood would have no recourse at that point. Just south of her property a new subdivision has started. It is a nice development on ½ acre lots. There is some commercial in this area but much of it is still residential. She had concerns with the additional commercial as well as traffic. It also felt premature to rezone to -9- commercial without any plans in place. Chairman Cruz responded there were two separate applications, the rezone and the annexation, but these items are related. The discussion on the south parcel should be tabled until the next hearing. The current hearing is regarding the rezone of the northern parcel. He agreed that the zoning did not have to be the same for both parcels. Mrs. Crutchfield said that the corner property would be fine zoned commercial as it would mimic the zoning of Magill’s and the dental office. She expressed concern about the southern parcel being zoned for commercial. The applicant stated that they didn’t have any particular plans for the site at this time but she felt the neighborhood deserves to know what is being proposed. Jim Hilgartner, 6521 W. Argent Road, stated he purchased his home 11 years ago when the area was sparsely populated. He wants the property to be kept at RS-12 with ½ acre lots. He felt this application should be tabled until the southern property is annexed. He did not want to see R-2 or R-3 zoning. If multi-family zoning is determined, he will get petitions for the neighbors. There are already apartments in the area on Chapel Hill and there is another site nearby where apartments will be going in. There is no need to place apartments at this sit e. He believed RS-12 would best fit the character of that neighborhood but if it has to be rezoned, then commercial would be the next best choice as long as it isn’t multi -family residential. However, he did not want to see a convenient store gas station due to the fumes that he and his neighbors would have to smell all the time. He claimed that apartments would ruin the value of his property. Chairman Cruz responded that when Mr. Hilgartner purchased his property it was near one of the major thoroughfares in Pasco. Mr. Hilgartner said the traffic wasn’t there when he purchased his home 11 years ago. Chairman Cruz replied the Comprehensive Plan has had this area designated for higher uses and it was just a matter of time before it develops. As for the item on the agenda that goes along with this rezone pertaining to the property still in the County, the City must determine the zoning prior to the annexation so that once the property is annexed it has a zoning assigned to it. Mr. McDonald stated that the City is following a long standing process of annexation which calls for the City to determine the zoning prior to annexation. It is highly likely that the southern piece of property will be annexed. This processed has been used for many years. As for the northern piece of property already in the City, the rezone process is the same on this site as it would be for any other site. He addressed Mrs. Crutchfield’s comment to table the zoning determination for the southern property until there is a plan but that is not how the process works. Typically rezones should not be based on plans because there is nothing that locks developers into building according to a plan. Sometimes the applicants will paint a pretty picture of what they would like to do but those plans often fall through. Commissioner Campos said that if the property were rezoned to multi-family, he didn’t see too many of the other businesses benefiting aside from the coffee shop. The dentist office wouldn’t likely see much of an impact and even Magill’s he wouldn’t see that many people going every day to grab a bite to eat there. -10- Mr. Graff addressed some of the concerns presented by those who spoke. The Washington State Law and the code as written by the City of Pasco dictates this process as it is. D&D Enterprises does not wish to annex the southern piece of property if this northern parcel is not rezoned to commercial. Similarly, they do not wish to rezone the property to the north if they cannot have commercial zoning determined on the southern parcel prior to annexation. They need both parcels to have the same zoning. The difficulty is that half of the property is in the City and half is still in the County. Chairman Cruz said that with the parcel being at roughly 8 acres it would be a modest development. He asked if a strip mall would be around 16,000 square feet. Mr. Graff said yes, about 16,000 square feet but the issue is that the City has specific requirements for the number of parking spaces, landscaping around the property and between the residential zones which limits the size of the building. For example, a grocery store couldn’t cover 70% of the property because it would fail to meet the other requirements. Mrs. Crutchfield spoke again stating she was happy that the development couldn’t happen so quickly and that the public has had a chance to speak. She was happy Mr. Graff clarified that two different letters went out which is why her map looks different. But there the same concern. The denial of this application or delay would not prohibit that development from happening in the future she felt it was premature. Mr. Hilgartner spoke again said that the site would be disproportionate to the other commercial properties on the other three corners. He would like to see it stay at RS-12. If it does go to C-1 he asked if restrictions could be made as to what type of commercial establishments go in, such as gas stations or convenient stores that sell fuel. As it is now he can smell Magill’s so he knows that he would smell the fuel. Chairman Cruz said that is something that could be done but he wasn’t sure if they would. Chairman Cruz asked the audience if they would be in support of the additional landscape requirements. There were hands from audience members raised in response. Mr. Hilgartner asked if there could be additional buffer requirements along Argent. Chairman Cruz responded that he wasn’t sure about that. With no further questions or comments the public hearing closed. Commissioner Bowers said after looking at this further, C-1 zoning would make the most sense and is the most harmonious. And if anything, the property to the south RS-12 would be the most consistent if not C-1. Commissioner Roach said she was in favor of this particular site being zoned C-1. The concern of additional buffering should be in place for the residential neighbors. -11- Commissioner Campos asked if they can dictate access and egress. Chairman Cruz that will be dictated by regulations already in place. Commissioner Alvarado replied that he was in favor of C-1 on the corner or Argent and Road 68. Commissioner Bykonen said that she counted the number of RS-12 lots, there would be roughly 15-20 lots for the whole piece (City and County properties). She felt that the single - family residences would actually create more traffic than commercial. Chairman Cruz felt that this needed to be done altogether with the same zoning on all the parcels otherwise development may not be po ssible. This is also a nice node for commercial that would not be too intensive. And while it is unfortunate to have RS-12 near a major intersection, that is how it worked out for many lots in West Pasco. He said it wasn’t about money for him but what makes sense for the City. Commissioner Roach moved, seconded by Commissioner Bowers, to close the hearing on the proposed zoning determination and set September 21, 2017 as the date for deliberations and the development of a recommendation for the City Council. The motion passed unanimously. C. Zoning Determination Determination of Zoning in the D&D Annexation Area (City of Pasco) (MF# ZD 2017-002) Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Dave McDonald, City Planner, explained the application was a companion piece to the prior rezone. The applicant is in the process of annexing this property. They have submitted the required 10% petition of annexation which has been accepted by the City Council and they passed a resolution creating the stipulations for annexation. Now the applicant has to submit a 60% petition for annexation which needs to be certified by the County. Once that is done a hearing can be held by the City Council to have an ordinance passed to annex the property. As a part of the annexation process, a companion ordinance is always adopted to establish zoning. If we didn’t do that, the property would be un -zoned and anything could happen. The applicant is requesting commercial zoning. The two parcels along Argent are too narrow to do a complete commercial development. The problem they are being faced with is access and traffic. To develop the site properly, they need to be developed together. The staff report leans towards C-1. Staff would like input as to whether C-1 or multi-family would be a better fit. Rick Graff, 3321 W. 42nd Place, Kennewick, WA spoke on behalf of his application. With regard to the annexation, they will not move forward with the annexation of the property if it is not zoned commercial and will instead keep it in the County and work on other options. Chairman Cruz asked if that was because it wouldn’t have much commercial potential without the other piece. Mr. Graff addressed some of the issues Mr. McDonald discussed in regards to traffic and access to the site. They do not want to congest traffic. -12- Mr. McDonald asked the Planning Commission for input on possibly additional restrictions , such as an additional buffe r on the south and the east. This area is not in the I-182 Overlay Zone. The I-182 Overlay Zone has higher design standards. Chairman Cruz asked if someone were to buy the Magill’s property if there was anything preventing them from bulldozing and building a gas station. Mr. McDonald said no and they have already had interest in the other corner on the east side or Road 68 prior to the Maverick Gas Station. But there are no restrictions on the other corners. Chairman Cruz responded that as much as he would like to add the provision, he didn’t see how it would provide the residents with much protection from a potential gas station from locating in the vicinity because if they can’t place it on one corner, they can place it on any of the other corners. Chairman Cruz said that he understood Mr. Hilgartner but it may not be fair to prohibit a gas station on the proposed corner yet allow it on the other corner near a house as well. Mr. Hilgartner asked if there is a gas station in the I-182 Corridor abutted to residential. Chairman Cruz responded that the Maverick Gas Station is near multi -family residential and while not ideal, there is nothing the Planning Commission can do to prevent it from happening on the other corners. Commissioner Bowers said if a smaller version of, say a Petco, at this location she would like to see more landscape buffers. Chairman Cruz said he didn’t jump on the I-182 Overlay idea because it is costly and the likeness of developing happening drops. He would prefer to see more buffers than constraints. Commissioner Campos asked what buffers could be put in place without prohibiting the developers. Chairman Cruz responded with fencing, landscaping and space and then let the City work with the developer. Mr. Graff added that buffers and plans are in place already so that developers are consistent and doesn’t present unfair advantages to other developers. If unfair buffers are placed on them, it may not work for them. Chairman Cruz replied that they have and done in the past is place different restrictions based on the circumstances so that would not be unusual but they would be fair. Mr. Hilgartner said that on the east boundary the homes sit on a bluff and have a 9 -10’ buffer. If this buffer used specific trees giving more deciduous value and more noise buffer then it wouldn’t be too cost prohibitive. And placing trees closer together isn’t that cost prohibitive. -13- The only people that would be affected are the homes to the north and to the east. Commissioner Bowers moved, seconded by Commissioner Roach, to close the hearing on the proposed zoning determination and set September 21, 2017 as the date of for deliberations and the development of a recommendation for the City Council. The motion passed unanimously. D. Block Grant 2018 Community Development Block Grant Allocations (CDBG) (MF# BGAP 2017-003) Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director, discussed the 2018 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Allocations. He pointed out the fund summary and staff recommendations that were included in the memo to the Planning Commission. This was a unique year in that there were no private application s aside from the YMCA Youth Center and the total money requested was less than our expected 2018 allocations. As done in the past, we have established a practice of placing contingencies in the allocation process so that we don’t have to recreate this process should the expected funding fall short or if one of the project falls though. He briefly discussed the amounts recommended, much of the extra funds going towards downtown improvements, such as, Peanuts Park and the Specialty Kitchen as well as other goals and improvements for the revitalization of the downtown. Commissioner Bowers asked about the proposal summary and how there is less money requested than the total amount of their project and if that is because the agencies need to contribute their own funds. Mr. White said in a way, yes. It is related to the agency match. And there can only be so much money spent towards public services and the City tries to keep it under 12%. Commissioner Bowers asked if the amount for staff administration was the same as previous years. Mr. White responded that it was more because it is based on the amount expected to be received and this year more is expected. The money is often underspent and it is placed i nto the contingencies. With no further questions or comments the public hearing closed. Commissioner Roach moved, seconded by Commissioner Campos, to close the public hearing and recommend the City Council approve the use of funds for the 2018 Community Development Block Grant Program as set forth in the “2018 Fund Summary” as recommended by Staff. The motion passed unanimously. E. Block Grant 2018 HOME Fund Allocations (MF# BGAP 2017-004) Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director, discussed the 2018 HOME Fund Allocations. The City of Pasco, City of Kennewick and City of Richland worked together and -14- formed a consortium to receive additional federal funds from HUD that individually each city wouldn’t be able to receive. In 2018 the consortium expects to receive $430,000 and those funds are earmarked for housing solutions in increasing the supply or affordability of housing. The Commission a few years backed changed the way those funds could be allocated to add rehabilitation projects. Those projects were done in the past but the onerous regulations applied then are even greater now and there is a hefty penalty if those regulations are not met and HUD may need to be paid back. Because of this, the HOME Consortium has dedicated these funds to down payment assistance. It is a popular program with a maximum of a $10,000 grant to first time homebuyers as long as they are low-moderate income households. Those are processed as fast as they come in. Staff is requesting that the program continue. Commissioner Bowers asked about the recommendation for the entitlement funds to be used for the down payment assistance and what other options there were for the funds. Mr. White answered that it could be used for housing rehabilitations. The City of Richland is in a unique circumstance that the price of homes have reached a point where home prices are too high for low-moderate income individuals so they took on a project in conjunction with a community development housing organization, likely Habitat for Humanity, to build housing. So new construction and rehabs can be done but enough funds must be available to complete the projects. Commissioner Bowers discussed if the housing market makes it difficult to allocate funds to down payment assistance then the cities can partner with their funds to help with low-income rental housing and if that was an option. Mr. White said it was an option. Commissioner Bowers asked if the cities joined to form the consortium due to the lack of a CDC. Mr. White responded that the cities formed a consortium because of the required population based needed to receive the federal funding. Commissioner Alvarado asked what the threshold was for making it cost prohibitive for people to use the down payment assistance funds. Mr. White replied that it is dependent on the housing market as well as who finances the home. Some lenders may be more inclined to allow a larger ratio of income to housing. Commissioner Campos stated that he had personal experience with that with his own loan process with lenders. Chairman Cruz added that increasing homeownership is huge and this program has been a huge success. With no further questions or comments the public hearing closed. Commissioner Campos moved, seconded by Commissioner Bykonen, F. Code Amendment Revisions to PUD Open Space Requirements (City of -15- Pasco (MF# CA 2017-003) - Continued Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director, asked the Planning Commission to ignore the recommended motion for this item and postpone this item pending revisions to the subdivision code. This item needs to be structured differently; moved from zoning to subdivision and the density tools that allow density increases need to be grouped in the subdivision code. There is another piece not addressed in this staff report. The current PUD open space code requires a 35% increase in open space but only allows a 20% increase in density so nobody would take advantage of that. In looking towards the Broadmoor Area, this is a tool that is being looked at and could be used. Commissioner Roach moved, seconded by Commissioner Campos, to postpone the hearing indefinitely. G. Code Amendment Revisions to Residential Design Standards for False Dormers & Flat Roofs (City of Pasco) (MF# CA 2017- 004) Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director, discussed the code amendment for revisions to the residential design standards for false dormers and flat roofs. The Planning Commission has seen this item before. It would allow for flat roofs prov ided they are a part of an architecturally integrated plan and clarifies that false dormers are allowed as long as the 6/12 roof pitch is reached. Staff added photographs for the Commission to illustrate what false dormers and flat roofs. Commissioner Bowers asked if tiny houses would fit within this regulation. Mr. White answered that he was unsure but as long as they met all other requirements and design standards then likely. Chairman Cruz added that these items are features not requirements so a tiny home cold take advantage of these items. Commissioner Bowers moved, seconded by Commissioner Alvarado, to close the public hearing and schedule deliberations, the adoption of findings of fact and development of a recommendation for City Council for the August 17, 2017 meeting. The motion passed unanimously. H. Code Amendment Revisions to CBD Zoning (City of Pasco) (MF# CA 2017- 005) Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director, discussed the code amendment for revisions the Central Business District (CDB) Zoning. The Planning Commission has seen this item before so Mr. White directed their attention to the proposed revised ordinance. The -16- main changes were highlighted in the memorandum. It clarifies that antique sales are permitted; it provides flexibility for wine, beer and alcohol sales as an accessory use, it allows dwelling units outright subject to several parameters; it restates the inclusio ns of consignment sales and thrift shops; it establishes “electronic sales and repairs” subject to similar parameters for consignment sales and thrift shops; and it prohibits commissaries outright. Commissioner Bowers asked if the Pasco Specialty Kitchen was a commercial kitchen. Mr. White responded that it is a commercial incubator. Commissioner Bykonen moved, seconded by Commissioner Campos, to close the public hearing on the proposed amendments to the Central Business District Zone and schedule deliberations and a recommendation to City Council for the September 21, 2017 meeting. The motion passed unanimously. OTHER BUSINESS: With no further discussion or business, the Planning Commission was adjourned at 9:26 p.m. Respectfully submitted, David McDonald, City Planner