GRANDVIEW PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING MINUTES
NOVEMBER 29, 2006
Chairman Don Olmstead, Jr., called the regular meeting to order at 6:00 p.m., in the Council Chambers at City Hall.
Planning Commissioners present were: Don Olmstead, Jr., John Hunting, Dennis Byam, Kathy Gonzalez and Brad Shreeve.
Staff present were: Senior Planner Michael Buchanan of the Yakima Valley Conference of Governments and City Clerk/Secretary Anita Palacios.
2. MINUTE APPROVAL OCTOBER 25, 2006 REGULAR MEETING
On motion by Commissioner Hunting, second by Commissioner Byam, the Commission unanimously approved the October 25, 2006 regular meeting minutes.
3. ACTIVE AGENDA
A. Public Hearing - Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element Draft Update
Received staff report and public comments
Chairman Olmstead opened the public hearing for the purpose of receiving comments on the Comprehensive Land Use Element draft update, a copy of which is attached hereto and incorporated herein as part of these minutes.
Senior Planner Buchanan presented the staff report, a copy of which is attached hereto and incorporated herein as part of these minutes.
No public comments were received by mail.
The following public comment was received during the hearing:
Richard Cassidy, County Line Road, Grandview, questioned whether or not the UGA expansion of the City was being considered as part of this public hearing.
Staff reiterated that the UGA expansion was not being considered as the City was still in negotiations with the County on the proposed UGA expansion.
The public testimony portion of the hearing was declared closed and no further comments were received.
On motion by Commissioner Byam, second by Commissioner Shreeve, the Commission unanimously adopted the following findings of fact:
The proposed changes to the Land Use Element are in keeping with the requirements of growth management and City of Grandviews policies.
The public use and interest will be served.
Environmental (SEPA) review will be conducted prior to submission of the proposed changes to the Department of Community Trade and Economic Development (CTED) for review.
and directed staff to submit the proposed future Land Use Element to CTED for a sixty (60) day review, and following that review recommended that the City Council approve the future Land Use Element amendment.
B. Comprehensive Plan Amendment - Housing Element and Future Land Use Map
Reviewed comments received from CTED
On August 21, 2006, the City submitted the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment for the Housing Element and Future Land Use Map to the Washington State Department of Community Trade and Economic Development (CTED) for their review.
On October 27, 2006, the City received a letter from CTED, a copy of which is attached hereto and incorporated herein as part of these minutes.
The letter from CTED identified that they liked the following portions of the Housing Element:
Objectives 1 5 under Goal 1, Policy 1.1 which encourages the construction of new units to increase the local housing supply and provide for a mix of housing types and intensities. The objectives also support the rehabilitation of older homes an urban infill.
Policy 1.2 supports the implementation of public housing programs in partnership with private developers that supplement the efforts of local developers in meeting the housing needs of the community.
The letter also expressed concerns with the following portions of the Housing Element and advised that the City should address these concerns before adopting the Comprehensive Plan and development regulation amendments:
The Citys Housing Element makes the case for the need to encourage higher income housing. However, CTED was concerned that Objective 6 under Policy 1.1 of Goal 1: Encourage more medium value residential construction and less low income and/or tax exempt housing may lead to a scarcity of suitable housing for the lower income groups that are so prevalent in the community, over the course of the next 20 years.
The Coordinated Housing Strategy, point (8) declares that: The City can no longer support new lower income/value residential developments. This was a concern for the following reasons: The Growth Management Acts RCW 36.70A.070(2) requires that the Housing Element ensures the vitality and character of established residential neighborhoods that (c) identifies sufficient land for housing, including, but not limited to, government-assisted housing, housing for low-income families, manufactured housing, multifamily housing, and group homes and foster care facilities; and (d) makes adequate provisions for existing and projected needs of all economic segments of the community.
Under (10)(d) in the Introduction of the Housing Element, the applicable county-wide planning policy requires that Each jurisdiction will identify specific policies and measurable implementation strategies to provide a mix of housing types and costs to achieve identified affordable housing goals. Affordable housing strategies should: (d) Facilitate the development of affordable housing (particularly for low-income families and persons) in a dispersed pattern so as not to concentrate or geographically isolate these housing types . . . .
County-wide planning policies (15): Local comprehensive plan policies and development regulations will encourage and not exclude affordable housing.
These policies and statements all point to the requirement to encourage affordable housing, and to not geographically isolate housing types. The City also has some objectives that require that all new housing developments pay for the cost of providing utilities (Objective 3 under Policy 1.3, Goal 1 and Objective 1 under Policy 2.1, Goal 2). This may possibly exclude any subsidized housing development.
Senior Planner Buchanan recommended that the following statements be added to the Housing Element to satisfy CTEDs concerns:
1. The City of Grandview believes that it has sufficient low to moderate income non-taxable housing stock.
2. The City is not seeking additional low to moderate income non-taxable housing.
3. The City will re-evaulate it in five to seven years.
Following discussion, the Commission concurred with adding the foregoing statements to the Housing Element.
C. GMA 2006 Update for Yakima County - Urban Growth Area Analysis for Grandview
Reviewed comments received from Yakima County
On October 23, 2006, City officials and Yakima County Planning staff met to discuss Yakima Countys Urban Growth Area (UGA) analysis for Grandview. At that meeting, County Planning staff recommended that the City submit a letter to the County outlining the Citys intent with expanding the UGA. Issues to be included would be transitional zoning, the growth pattern to the south, active farmers within existing city limits, market patterns, no other option other than using agriculture land adjacent to existing UGA, and the reality that development was not yet occurring in the north where infrastructure already exists.
On October 29, 2006, the City sent a letter to the Yakima County Planning Director concerning Grandviews request to expand the UGA, a copy of which is attached hereto and incorporated herein as part of these minutes.
On November 15, 2006, the City received a letter from the County Planning staff, a copy of which is attached hereto and incorporated herein as part of these minutes. The letter indicated that given the amount of vacant land currently within the Citys UGA, the removal of a portion of the current growth area to the north would make for a stronger argument to the State for the additional acreage to the south. The County proposed that the City remove the following parcels located east of the Sunnyside canal and west of Olmstead Road from the Citys UGA where infrastructure had not been extended:
SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1Property Owner Parcel No. Parcel Size
Norman Benjamin Fisher 230913-24002 19.47 acres
Armando & Celine Castillo 230913-24402 2.5
Armando & Celine Castillo 230913-24401 2.5
Armando & Celine Castillo 230913-24403 14.2
Wilbert & Hilda Horst 230913-23006 1.39
Wilbert & Hilda Horst 230913-23005 16.77
Wilbert & Hilda Horst 230913-23002 9.95
Samuel & Graciela Murillo 230913-23001 9.8
Alberto & Guadalupe Rodriguez 230914-14008 2.04
Peter & Carole Schlotfeldt 230914-14006 4.76
Peter & Carole Schlotfeldt 230914-11002 14.68
Peter & Carole Schlotfeldt 230913-22006 22.76
Ronald & Shirley Grow 230913-21002 17.58
Donald Bentley 230913-21005 16.19
Donald Bentley 230913-21004 1.93
SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1The
Commission reviewed the letter and agreed to invite the property owners of the
subject properties to the December 27, 2006 Planning Commission meeting. The
Commission agreed that the proposal did have some merit in terms of availability
of city services to the northern most properties, however, the southern
properties that County staff recommended removing were immediately adjacent to
the City Public Works shops and could access City services. These properties
were adjacent to the city limits and were most likely to annex into the City in
the next 20 years. The Commission expressed concern about the impacts of
changing zoning of the properties being considered for removal from the City's
Urban Growth Area. Property owners might be concerned about losing the ability
to subdivide if other than residential zoning was applied and the City was
concerned about having another urban node outside of its UGA if residential
zoning was retained. The Commission instructed staff to advise the County
accordingly.
4. UNFINISHED AND NEW BUSINESS - None
5. REPORTS - None
6. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 7:15 p.m.
________________________________ ________________________________
Commissioner Don Olmstead, Jr., Chair Anita Palacios, City Clerk