HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-16-2012 Planning Commission PacketPLANNING COMMISSION - AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING 7:00 P.M.February 16, 2012
CALL TO ORDER:
ROLL CALL: Declaration of Quorum
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: January 25, 2012
OLD BUSINESS:
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
Preliminary Plat Navigator Villas,47-Lots (Multi-family)(Stealth
Development) (MF# PP2012-001)
Zoning Rezone from R-1 (Low Density Residential) to R-3
(Medium Density Residential)(Pasco FamilY
Housing) (MF# Z2012-001)
Zoning
Special Permit
OTHER BUSINESS:
ADJOURNMENT:
Rezone from RT ¡Residential Transition) to R-3
(Medium Density Residential)(David Richards)
(MF# Z2012-002)
Location of a Contractor's Facility (Culbert
Construction) (MF# 5P2012-002)
REGULAR MEETING January 25, 2012
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 Michael Levin
No. 2 James Hay
No. 3 Andy Anderson
No. 4 Ale cia Greenaway
No. 5 Joe Cruz
No. 6 Kurt Lukins
No. 7 Zahra Kahn
No. 8 Jana Kempf
No. 9 Vacant
APPEARANCE OF FAIRNESS:
Chairman Cruz read a statement about the appearance of fairness for hearings on land use
matters. Chairman Cruz asked if any Commission member had anything to declare.
Commissioner Anderson and Commissioner Hay both declared that they needed to be
removed from the Public Hearing regarding the Shriners Circus (MF# SP2011-016) due to
both being a part of the Shriners. Due to a lack of quorum if both commissioners were
removed, Community 86 Economic Development Director, Rick White, recommended that
only Commissioner Anderson remove himself from the Public Hearing since Commissioner
Anderson was on the Board of Directors for the Shriners, as long as Commissioner Hay
could remain objective. Commissioner Hay indicated that he could remain object regarding
the Shriners Circus.
Chairman Cruz then asked the audience if there were any objections based on a conflict of
interest or appearance of fairness questions 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:
Chairman Cruz motioned to approve the minutes dated December 15, 2011. Commissioner
Anderson moved, seconded by Commissioner Hay, that the minutes dated December 15,
2011 be approved as mailed. The Motion passed unanimously.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
A.Special Permit Shriners Circus (MF# 5P2011-016)
Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff.
Shane O'Neill (Planner l), reviewed details of the report for the benefit of the Planning
Commission. El Katif Shriners applied for a special permit to operate a temporary circus on
a portion of the GESA stadium parking lot located at 6200 Burden Boulevard. The parking
lot is zoned both C-1 (Retail Business) and RT (Residential Transition). The proposed site is
part of the 68 acre Stadium/soccer complex that has direct access from Burden Boulevard
and Homerun Road and can be accessed without traversing other properties.The
Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation for the site is Government/Public, which is in
line with the proposed use.
For the last two years, the Shriners Circus has been located on the TRAC property directly
to the west of the subject site. To Staffs knowledge it has operated without generating any
complaints. The Shriners are seeking special permit approval to operate the circus located
on the GESA Stadium parking lot on an annual basis for up to three consecutive years as
conditioned in the staff report. The GESA Stadium is part of the TRAC/Sports Complex.
The site contains a parking lot with 1100 parking stalls and 16 soccer fields. The site is
buffered from the adjacent residential neighborhood by an 8' block wall and 600 feet of
soccer field.The applicant proposes to have the circus once per year for up to four days
from 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. Power generators will be housed in sound deadening
containers.
Floyd Johnson, 315 Canyon Lakes Drive, spoke in support of the Shriners Circus.He
stated that the circus has been in Pasco for a number of years and all of the proceeds go to
support Shriners Hospitals who treat children throughout the Northwest with orthopedic
problems. He had no concerns about the proposed special permit or its conditions.
Commissioner Levin moved, seconded by Commissioner Kempf to close the hearing on the
proposed temporary circus and initiate deliberations. The motion passed unanimously.
Commissioner Levin moved, seconded by Commissioner Kempf to adopt the Findings of Fact
and Conclusions therefrom as contained in the January 19, 2012 staff report. The motion
passed unanimously.
Commissioner Levin moved, seconded by Commissioner Kempf based on the Findings of
Fact and Conclusions therefrom, the Planning Commission recommend the City Council
grant a special permit to El Katif Shriners for the location of a temporary circus with
conditions as contained in the January 19, 2012 staff report.The motion passed
unanimously.
Staff explained this item will go to the next Regular City Council Meeting on February 6,
2012.
B.Code Amendment Zoning Code Revisions (Title 25) Hens &
Rabbits in "R" Zones (MF# 2012-001)
Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff.
Community 86 Economic Development Director, Rick White, stated that recently the
Planning Commission made a recommendation to City Council to allow hens and rabbits in
limited numbers in residential districts.During the Council review process the Council
asked the Planning Commission to reconsider the 10 foot rear yard setback requirement for
chicken coops where rear property lines abut an alley.The suggestion was made for a 5
foot minimum setback with no openings in the hutch or coop if the rear property abuts a
public alley.
Mr. White explained from Staffs perspective, this is a fairly minor amendment and would
request that the Planning Commission both consider the amendment and provide a
recommendation to City Council that would go to the next City Council Meeting, February
6, 2012.
The public hearing was closed after the Chairman called three times for public comments.
No comments were received.
Commissioner Anderson moved, seconded by Commissioner Kempf to adopt the Findings of
Fact as contained in the January 19, 2012 staff memo on Code Amendments for PMC
Section 25. The motion passed 5 to 1 with Commissioner Hay dissenting.
Commissioner Anderson moved, seconded by Commissioner Kempf to recommend the City
Council adopt the proposed Code Amendments modifying PMC Chapters 25.20, 25.22,
25.24, 25.26, 25.28, 25.30, 25.32, 25.34, 25.36, and 25.38 as indicated on the attached
Ordinance to allow hutches, coops and runs to be located within five (5) feet of property
lines along alleys in residential ("R") zoning Districts.The motion passed 5 to 1 with
Commissioner Hay dissenting.
C.Comprehensive Plan 2011 Comprehensive Plan Update illiF# CPA
2011-001
Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff.
Rick White explained that the Planning Commission has seen this item several times. The
Comprehensive Plan was last amended in 2008 and since then there have been a number of
changes that warrant the consideration of an update. One of those changes is the adoption
of the Broadmoor Concept Plan and the Boat Basin Concept Plan which were both
considered by the Planning Commission in 2009 and 2010. There have been considerable
City street and utility improvements on Capital Avenue and at SR-12 adjacent the Lewis
Street Kahlotus Highway Interchange.Those suggest minor amendments to the urban
growth boundary and this area will be requested to add into the urban growth boundary.
There are also a couple of changes occurring for a similar reason in regards to the Tidewater
Barge Terminal.
Since the update occurred last in 2007 the City has developed more than 1,700 single-
family lots creating a need to update the base map in the Comprehensive Plan with the new
subdivisions and developed streets.
The Capital Facilities Plan is proposed for updating to specifically include a number of
utility and infrastructure improvements that have occurred from a City basis and also to
include the Pasco School District's Capital Facility Plan as a base for establishing an impact
fee ordinance.
The District's Capital Plan identifies existing and future enrollment needs that the School
District will encounter for the next six years and matches those needs with space and
facility needs.It also identifies the service standards that the District uses to establish
classroom size and educational parameters and takes that inventory of existing facilities,
the future enrollment, service standards, and develops a list of needed capital facilities.It
also discusses a funding mechanism for those capital facilities. A portion of that funding
mechanism includes an impact fee.
The impact fee calculation provides for a number of factors that are used in order to get to
an impact. A number of those factors take the fee from the very high amount to a figure
much more manageable after those factors are applied.The Capital Plan itself does not
contain a fee, it provides the calculation and in the calculation there is a "TBD" acronym,
meaning the impact fee will be determined after the impact fee ordinance has gone through
the political process and a decision is made.
The Pasco School District is at its physical and funding capacity for new school facilities.
The City, County, School District and Development Industry are in a situation of having no
capacity for additional school children and an inventory of approximately 1,800 single-
family lots in some form of approval that are being developed at a rate of about 400-500 per
year, which impacts the School District to a great extent but there has been no mitigation
from the new development. At the same time, we can't provide new capacity for developers
of new subdivisions or multi-family projects unless they enter into an agreement with the
School District to specifically mitigate on a case by case basis impacts to the School
District.This creates a great deal of uncertainty and inequity.
Mr. White further went on in detail about the impact fee calculation, moving sixth graders
back to elementary school which postpones the need for another middle school which would
be significantly more expensive than an elementary school. The District has also factored in
the use of portables as a portion of the permanent capacity for students which did not occur
in the first Capital Plan. In the end, the District's proposed fees are: $4,683.34 for single-
family and $4,525.86 for multi-family.Mitigation fees would most likely be much higher
than the proposed impact fee because of the factors that reduce the impact fee probably
aren't going to be applied in a case by case negotiation.
Staff recommends the Planning Commission make motion to recommend the City Council
adopt a school impact fee. The actual amount of the fee will be set at a later date.
John Morgan, 425 Road 37, with the Assistant Superintendent of the Pasco School District
explained that the Pasco School Board initially adopted the Capital Facilities Plan in
December of 2010. This was sent to both the City and Franklin County and they have met
with the City on numerous occasions.They have also met with the Home Builder's's
Association, realtors and School District stakeholders to discuss impact fees and the need
for them within the School District as well as the impact it has on the community.In
October 2011 the School Board adopted the recommendations of the multi-track year round
task force, another alternative to look at how the District can work on alleviating the great
amount of growth there is in the School District. Reconfiguration of the elementary schools
was done to place sixth graders back into the elementary schools.It is a common concept
that many people have already done before that saves money and delayed the need for
building a new middle school but increased the need for elementary schools.Portables
becoming permanent also caused a need for the revision in the Capital Facilities Plan.
Marnie Allen, 2500 NE 65th Ave, Vancouver, WA, employed with the Educational Service
District, provides legal services and calculations for school impact fees and capital facility
plans. She explained that State law states that you can't approve new development unless
there are adequate provisions for schools.Since there has been so much growth in the
Pasco School District consistently for 10 years, there is no longer any room in the schools to
continue to serve kids that come from new houses.New development can't go forward
unless one of two things happen: 1) That developer has to mitigate the impacts they directly
cause on the schools, meaning they build classrooms to serve the students coming out of
new development or they enter into an agreement and make voluntary payments to the
School District equal to what it would cost to build those classrooms, 2) School impact fees.
Option 1 is not dependable and the amount could change depending on where the
development is and what the capacity of the school is at that particular time. The builders
she has spoken to prefer the impact fees over mitigation fees.It is a more equitable way to
share the costs across all housing, it's reliable, and produces a lower amount and defined
am ount.
Ms. Allen showed the Planning Commission, Staff, and citizens a brief school impact fee
calculation and demonstration, with the formula as:
SIF= (CS X SF) - SM - TC - A
This is a standard formula used by cities and counties around the state.The impact fee
has three deductions, which is something mitigation fees do not do.Deduction "A" is a
reduction percentage set by City Council at what they feel is fair. Some jurisdictions set it
at 0% and some 50%. The Pasco School District is recommending 25%.
Chairman Cruz asked Ms. Allen to clarify the definition of a multi-family impact fee.He
wanted to know if you have a multi-family duplex or apartment building, if developers paid
an impact fee was for the whole building or for just one unit.Ms. Allen answered that it
was for just one unit, so impact fees would have to be paid for each unit.
Commissioner Levin asked a question in regards to the tax credit and as to how the
developers receive it.Ms. Allen answered that it is built into the formula as a "tax
reduction", not actual money coming back like a rebate.
Commissioner Levin asked Ms. Allen what the comments and opinions have been from
developers in other districts where impact fees have been adopted.Ms. Allen responded
that the comments have varied. When starting out implementing the impact fees there is a
huge push from both the Realtor's Association and the Developers saying it is an aggressive
tax, it's going to cause the cost of housing to increase, it will slow development and stop
growth but then when they have to deal with SEPA mitigations they realize the impact fees
are much more fair and equitable.
Commissioner Anderson asked Ms. Allen if she could give a number of school districts
throughout the State that are imposing an impact fee. Ms. Allen responded that she did not
have an exact answer but she thinks there are about 80-86 school districts receiving impact
fees, which is probably less than a majority. A number of school districts are also receiving
SEPA mitigations.
Chairman Cruz asked Ms. Allen to discuss the timing of impact fees or when they are to be
collected.Ms. Allen and the School District recommend the fees are collected when the
building permits are issued to give the School District time to prepare.If money isn't
collected until the time of occupancy then the District doesn't have the funds to even buy a
portable on time for the kids that are coming from the house.
SIF= School Impact Fee
CS= Cost per Student (cost to build schools for students coming from new houses)
SF= Student Factor (student demand that new houses place on the schools)
SM= State Match Credit (money awarded by the State)
TC= Tax Credit (money back from property taxes)
A= Reduction Set by City Council (ensures developers don't pay more than their fair
share)
Rick White added to Ms. Allen's response that when the City and School District met with
the Home Builder's Association this past month, there was discussion about moving the
point of collection from the building permits stage to the portion of the transaction where
the fee would be paid through escrow, essentially when the sale occurred.Nothing was
decided since that is a separate process.
Marnie Allen responded to Mr. White's response. The primary reason for the School District
tying the payment with the time of impact fees through escrow is then the entire fee gets
passed on to the buyer of the home, who then when they are asked to vote on a
maintenance and operation levy that's not even tied to school facility construction feel
they've already paid it.It can be confusing and misleading to the home buyer when the cost
is wrapped into closing costs.
Jamie Southworth, 4821 Laredo Drive, stated she had three kids in the district ages 6, 9,
and 11. Her family moved to Pasco 12 years ago and when they bought a house they were
surprised at the low price of homes. All of her children are crammed into the schools. The
elementary school her children attend was built for 500 students and there are currently
almost 900. To have an assembly they have to have two sessions. Her kindergartener is in
a portable so when it rains it takes a lot of time to bundle them all up to get them out the
door, time that could be used for education.
Miranda Bollman, 4811 Lucena Drive, moved to Pasco four years ago from Clark County.
She is in support of the impact fee because she argues it does not stop homebuyers from
purchasing a home. It becomes part of buying a home.
Renee Dahlgren, 1201 W. 14th Avenue, Kennewick, WA spoke on behalf of the Home
Builder's Association. They are a member based trade association similar to a chamber of
commerce with over 800 members representing over 10,000 employees and citizens of the
Tri-Cities.They are fundamentally opposed to the impact fee.Ms. Dahlgren gave the
following reasons for their opposition: 1) They artificially increase the price of a home, 2)
They reduce the amount of growth, and 3) They price people out of the market.She has
received calls from citizens since the impact fee came up. While builders do initially pay the
fees it is passed along to the consumer. Consumers usually finance those fees so they are
paying sales tax and excise tax so the $4,700 fee in the end is much greater. She discussed
a letter from an appraiser stating how difficult it is for the appraisal market to absorb the
costs.If a home one day is $130,000 and the next day it is $134,000 increased costs does
not necessarily mean increased value.
As for the costs of paying for the schools, Ms. Dahlgren said that the funds should come
from the whole community, not just one subset of the community.If the Planning
Commission does approve the impact fee, they ask that the fees be collected at the time of
closing instead of the time of building permit. When the building permit is issued, there is
no impact on the schools therefore the impact fee should not be paid until the impact is
made. They would also ask for a further reduction of the fee so that it doesn't go from $0 to
nearly $4,700 overnight. She feels the only "courtesy" deduction was the 25% (or A' in the
impact fee equation). The other deductions were just taxes that were already going to be
paid. She asked for at least a 50% discount if imposed.
Commissioner Anderson asked Ms. Dahlgren if the homebuilders would prefer the SEPA fee
or the School Impact Fee.She answered that the majority of the builders would prefer to
see the impact fee but she feels that there are other things that can be done by the School
District, such as working with State Legislators because the School District has a lot of
mandates to meet.Commissioner Anderson addressed the mandates and working with
Legislature stating that we would be in a long line to be addressed since the priority is not
very high.
Paul Roy, 2097 Hanson Loop, Burbank, WA represented the Association of Realtors.
Fundamentally they are opposed to impact fees because he feels many people will be
unfairly taxed since only a small portion of the community will have to pay the fee when the
schools are important to the whole community. Mr. Roy does realize that the situation the
Pasco School District is in really doesn't have any other options. He also addressed the fact
that not all new home owners will be impacting the School District; some will be retiree's
and some who've had kids already grown. In the future he wants to find other ways to fund
the School District so that the small minority doesn't have to unfairly pay. He would like to
see the City find ways to widen the tax base by bringing in new enterprise that is industrial
or commercial.
Chairman Cruz asked Mr. Roy about the time of collection of the impact fee. He stated that
if the fee is collected late at the time the house is purchased rather than when the building
permits are acquired, the School District will have to get money elsewhere in the meantime.
The School District needs the time to build and prepare for the impact of new studentsat
least 6 months or longer to get something started.
Mr. Roy answered that if it is an impact fee then he feels that it should be paid when the
impact itself occurs.
Chairman Cruz responded again that it is not realistic to collect the fees when the impact
occurs because the School District has to provide the facilities by the time the students are
ready, and they can't become ready the day those homes become occupied.
Mr. Roy responded that they are just trying to minimize the actual cost of the fee on the
home buyer. For example, if it's a $4,700 impact fee, then it's $4,700 at the time of closing
but if the builder's pay in the beginning, it will be a greater fee passed on to the consumer
for no services recognized due to interest. The earlier the fee is paid, the higher the fee will
be to the consumer.
Chairman Cruz did understand what Mr. Roy was stating in regards to a higher fee due to
interest if the fees are paid at the time of the permits.It could take years from the time
something is platted until the home is sold which is an extended period of interest however
the schools still need advance time for their construction.
Heidi Redfield, 4007 Meadowview Drive, stated that she has three children in the Pasco
School District all elementary age. The school her children attend was built for 500 and
now there are almost 900.Portable after portable has been added.There are so many
students that the children have to do art/physical education activities during transitioning
from classes just to ensure they get the learning they are supposed to have. The PTO is
working on raising money to build a new playground since there are so many kids in such a
small area to play. She wants the community to think of the impact new construction has
on the children, not the money for the sake of their education. Ms. Redfield would like to
see more business come to the area. Without good schools she feels that businesses won't
want to come.
Matthew Polk, 811 W. Margaret, he is an employee at Pasco High School and wanted to
address the idea of "fairness" of new homes having to pay an impact fee.Currently, all of
the schools are overcrowded and there isn't room for adequate learning to happen.If
concerned about growth in the community there won't be growth without adequate schools
as well. The lack of school facilities proposes a greater risk than a modest impact fee. Also,
the fee needs to be collected as soon as possible for the schools to plan ahead.
Lane Donaldson, 4008 Desert Plateau Drive, stated that with an impact fee, it is only
applied to new homes. Every other family that moves into that home after the impact fee
has been paid will not have to pay the fee. He also doesn't feel that it is fair that people who
don't have children and will not impact the schools have to pay the fee. Pasco has the most
developable land in the Tri-Cities which is why it has had consistent growth. Pasco didn't
have the housing flop that happened all over the country because housing prices stayed
low. He wishes that SEPA mitigations would have started 10 years ago so that we wouldn't
be in the current situation. He also doesn't feel that the impact fee can be added in at the
time of escrow because then families do feel the fee. Mr. Donaldson feels that perhaps 50%
of the fee could be paid by the builders at the time of the permits and 50% when the home
is sold. He believes the main problem in Pasco is the lack of businesses in comparison to
residencies.
Preston Ramsey, 311 S. Shoreline Drive, Liberty Lake, WA spoke on behalf of FBA Land
Holdings. He had submitted comments for the packets sent to the Planning Commission.
He requested that the public hearing be kept open until the February 16, 2012 Planning
Commission meeting due to the complicated matter.Mr. Ramsey is not sure where the
numbers in the School Impact Fee calculation came from.He would also like to look at
alternative forms of revenue. Most of his clients own multi-family land and feels that there
is an unfair difference between a single-family fee and a multi-family fee. The multi-family
fee is 97% of the single-family fee. Mr. Ramsey said that given the cost of construction for a
multi-family unit the make-up of a multi-family occupant is often transient, less likely to
have kids and they are less likely to be permanent residents. He believes that it is possible
to have an impact fee for single-family residences and not for multi-family residences or by
a lesser amount.
Chairman Cruz asked Mr. Ramsey if he knew the historical average rate is for mortgage
interest since it's been recorded.Chairman Cruz said that it is 9%, so you push a lot of
young families into multi-family housing.Multi-family housing is very common entry-level
housing for many families starting out until they can move into single-family homes.
Multi-family housing is not just for transient citizens or families without children.
Dennis Lukehart, 425 W. Quincy Street, Kennewick, WA addressed multi-family housing.
He is a managing broker with Winderm ere Group and they are looking to do a major
development in Pasco. They have already submitted their preliminary plat. He is concerned
about the time the fee is to be collected. With the 47 four-plexes they are planning to build,
at the time of permit they would have to come up with $846,000. The cost of carrying that
amount in interest is very high. To be able to carry the burden while getting them sold will
hurt the process. They would only be able to do four buildings at a time and there is a need
for multi-family housing.He argued they won't be able to afford to build no matter how
cheap they acquire the land.
Chairman Cruz asked Mr. Lukehart what the total cost of construction for the 47 four-
plexes would be.Mr. Lukehart answered that it would be roughly $13 million. Chairman
Cruz stated then that the impact fee would be adding 1/13 of the cost of the construction
loan.
Chairman Cruz also asked what adding the $846,000 would do to the cost of renting each
unit. Mr. Lukehart answered that it doesn't matter because the rent will be set at what the
market can hold. And with the costs being added on to the buyer they can still only price
them where they can sell.
Ana Ruiz-Peralta, 4304 Laredo Drive, stated that her family moved to Pasco from
Vancouver, WA and they love the City of Pasco.She wishes the Planning Commission to
make the decision that would make Pasco attractive, including helping the School District.
She feels the Pasco School District does a great job with what they have but it needs to
remain good education to keep families coming to Pasco.
John Morgan addressed the Planning Commission again to ask not to delay this issue any
longer. The Capital Facilities Plan came out over a year ago and only minor adjustments
have been made.It has been open to the public to look at and the costs have only been
lowered. A resolution needs to be made for the builders, realtors, community and School
District.
Chairman Cruz asked Mr. Morgan to go further into the multi-family calculation and the
School District's position.He answered that the School District just made a
recommendation. They will not decide the final cost. The final cost is left to the Planning
Commission and City Council to set.
Commissioner Levin asked Mr. Morgan in regards to the status of year-round schools and if
it could work in alleviating some of the overcrowding issues. Mr. Morgan answered that the
Multi-track Task Force is not total year-round school, just multi-track. Only one group of
students will be off during a period of time in order to have more students in the school.
The community has told the School District to do multi-track as the last of all other possible
options. They are currently in the planning stages however they will not do multi-track in
the next year. After the levy, the Board will consider if they are going to run a bond as well.
The public comments were closed, and the Planning Commission began a quick discussion.
Commissioner Kahn asked staff if the impact fee in the School District's Capital Facilities
Plan will be implemented once the City of Pasco's Comprehensive Plan Updates are
recommended by the Planning Commission to the City Council and approved by City
C ouncil.
Rick White answered that the Planning Commission has two policy decisions: to incorporate
the School District's Capital Plan into the City's Comprehensive Plan and provide a policy
recommendation to City Council to adopt an impact fee but not to calculate the fee at this
meeting. The Capital Facilities Plan has been out for almost a year and the only changes
have been to include portables as permanent capacity and the elimination of a middle
school as a needed facility within the next six years, which has driven the costs down. The
impact fee calculation is going to occur through a process which could even end up different
than what is in the Capital Plan however it could also be the same.
Commissioner Kahn asked the Planning Commission if they wanted to consider Preston
Ramsey's request to extend the public hearing until the February 16, 2012 meeting. The
Commission decided that since the Capital Facilities Plan has been out for so long it is best
to move forward.
Commissioner Anderson moved, seconded by Commissioner Kempf to adopt the Findings of
Fact as contained in the January 19, 2012 staff memo dealing with Comprehensive Plan
Updates. The motion passed unanimously.
Commissioner Kahn moved, seconded by Commissioner Anderson to recommend the City
Council amen the Comprehensive Plan by updating the base maps, modifying the Urban
Growth Area, adopting by reference the Broadmoor Concept Plan and the Marine
Terminal/Boat Basin Plan and including the Pasco School District Capital Facilities Plan in
the City's Capital Facilities. The motion passed unanimously.
Commissioner Kempf asked to clarify the third motion to make sure that they are just
agreeing to propose the impact fee, not set the actual fee amount.Rick White answered
that the Planning Commission is just setting a policy recommendation to City Council
including an impact fee as a portion of the funding necessary for the School District's
Capital Facilities Plan but no fee is being set by the Commission by doing so.
Commissioner Levin is opposed to the impact fee and sympathizes with the home builders.
He feels that it can be tweaked but for now will vote "no" on the impact fee.
Commissioner Anderson discussed that numerous times impact fees have been discussed
for the School District. He feels that this issue should have been addressed years ago. He
doesn't like it but understands the need for an impact fee and will support it. The hallways
have been overcrowded in the schools for years and if the community wants to grow, Pasco
must have good schools. Also, he recommended to Mr. Lukehart who was planning to build
47 four-plexes to build them four at a time if that is what is necessary. Mr. Anderson stated
that he works in public housing and realizes the need for multi-family housing in the
community but he cannot support what the home builder's state.
Commissioner Hay stated that this should have been addressed sooner and now that we're
out of options we need an impact fee.
Commisioner Kahn and Commissioner Kempf support the impact fee.
Chairman Cruz supported Commissioner Hay and Commissioner Anderson. This has been
a topic that has been remissed over the years.He believes the future of Pasco is deeply
rooted in commercial development but a community needs good schools. He doesn't like
the way that the City of Pasco got to this situation with the either/or choice of SEPA versus
impact fees since it feels like pressure from the School District and the home builders and
home owners will feel some impact, especially going into a tough bond and levy climate,
however he is in support of the school impact fees due to there being no way around it.
Rick White noted that the Capital Plan is revised every two years so the School District will
again go through the Plan and the need for facilities and the growth rate used in their
projections, essentially acting as a safety net to evaluate the need for fees. In regards to the
assessed values in the City of Pasco, Franklin County itself has a very low value per capita
in comparison to Kennewick and Richland. There are also many children in multi-family
housing structures.In fact, there are more kids in multi-family structures than in
comparable single-family homes.
Commissioner Kahn moved, seconded by Commissioner Kempf to recommend the City
Council adopt a school impact fee. The motion passed five to one with Commissioner Levin
dissenting.
WORKSHOP:
A.Code Amendment Revisions to P.M.C. Title 25 (Zoning) (MF#
CA2011-006)
Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff.
Dave McDonald, City Planner, briefly discussed the revisions to the PM Title 25 Zoning
changes that staff is working on and would like input from the Planning Commission.
One revision is the addition of a definition for a "dancehall".A dancehall means an
enclosed space where public dances are held and where alcohol and/or food may be sold.
Chairman Cruz asked the Commission if they wanted to differentiate between an adult
dancehall and an under-eighteen dancehall to facilitate youth gathering places in the future
even if in the central business overlay district.
Commissioner Kahn agreed with Chairman Cruz in wanting to differentiate ages.
Commissioner Kempf did not wish to differentiate ages because adults and underage
children can be disruptive whether they are drinking or not.
Commissioner Anderson wondered why alcohol had to be a prerequisite for it to be a
dancehall.Mr. McDonald said that it didn't have to be a prerequisite because with or
without alcohol it can still be a dancehall.
Commissioner Kahn wanted clarification if dancehalls served alcohol then they should be
21 and up and if they didn't serve alcohol then they should differentiate.
Commissioner Anderson stated that if there is going to be alcohol served that it needs to be
in a tavern or a lounge, not a dancehall.
Mr. McDonald moved on to the next item of "Residential Garages", which means a structure
on the same lot with an accessory to a principally permitted use, used for storage only. The
following sentence was added: "Residential garages shall not contain bathrooms, showers,
or other furnishings or living space appurtenances set up for habitation purposes." There
are pros and cons for this added sentence. In the past building permits had been issued for
a hand basin and toilet in the garage and then two years later there's a kitchen, a bedroom
and living room. Then there are two dwelling units on a lot that was set up for one house.
On the other hand, there are people with bigger yards that like to add these features to their
shop.
Commissioner Kempf stated that perhaps it should read that residential garages shall not
be set up as a permanent living space. Many people like having a bathroom in the garage
so that they don't have to come all the way into the house.
Chairman Cruz agreed with Commissioner Kempf.Once the lot is over .5 acres it is no
longer practical to enforce not having a bathroom and does not make sense. He would soon
see stricter penalties for people doing the wrong thing than legislate good people.
Commissioner Kahn asked if heating and air is allowed in the garages because in the winter
with a bathroom and family area heat and air would be needed.
Mr. McDonald answered that some do as well as a bathroom with a bar area, much like a
family room in the back of the garage. The problem in the past in some areas is that when
the bathroom is allowed, then a year or so later you not only have the bathroom but a whole
house in the garage.
Mr. McDonald addressed the new definition "nightclub" added to the PMC. Chairman Cruz
asked why cover charges were included in the definition since not all nightclubs have cover
charges.
Shane O'Neill answered that in other states many dancehalls were skirting the rules and
calling themselves membership clubs and the door fee was the "membership fee". The cover
charge was to overt the rules.
Chairman Cruz thought that perhaps the nightclub definition could use a little more fine
tuning dealing with the cover charge as well as "...the sale of said beverages comprises less
than 25 percent of the gross receipts."
Mr. McDonald discussed the addition of the definition of a "shop".It means a residential
garage as defined under 25.12.200.
Mr. McDonald discussed refining the language to match the intent of storage buildings to
cumulatively not exceed 260 square feet of gross floor area and fifteen feet in height in
backyards to prevent having multiple sheds in a backyard.
Chairman Cruz asked if this definition was different than a shop. Mr. McDonald said that
is different and that they can allow the 260 square foot storage building onto the shop but
then they can't have another storage building in their backyard.
Mr. McDonald addressed more changes in regards to commercial car washes, dance halls
and nightclubs special permits.If someone wants a dance hall or nightclub in a C-1 Zone
they would require a special permit since C-1 Zones are relatively close to residential
neighborhoods.
Chairman Cruz asked if there needed to be clarification in regards to the distance of dance
halls and nightclubs getting special permits to establish consistency and felt that 500 feet
minimum would be appropriate.
Rick White let the Planning Commission know that they could require special permit for all
dance halls or nightclubs.
Chairman Cruz did not want to do that because he feels it is more fair for people buying
their property that they know what can be allowed in their neighborhood and know what
they're getting.
Mr. McDonald noted that there might have to be a special permit process no matter what
because most C-1 Zones are large enough to have 500 feet for a minimum.
Mr. McDonald addressed the additional criteria to clarify the intent of a caretaker's
residence for security for remote and unpopulated areas of the City due to troubles with
burglaries.The line added was, "The caretaker's residence is not within a substantially
developed residential or commercial neighborhood."
Chairman Cruz asked what the definition of substantially in the line that was added and
wanted clarification or guidance from the property owners if less than 50 percent
development to give a benchmark and the applicants know where they are headed.
Commissioner Anderson commented that you should be able to tell what is substantially
developed and the wording should be left alone.
Mr. McDonald discussed a Permitted Land Use Table that is being proposed to be
eliminated since it is seldom used and hard to find. The problem with these tables is that
periodically when the codes are updated often time the table gets overlooked or forgotten
and is not interpreted properly.The same goes for the Site Design Requirements and
Standards table.
Mr. McDonald addressed Natural Resource Uses as to the added language which provides
clarification on permitted areas designated by the Comprehensive Plan as resource lands
only upon approval of a special permit.
Chairman Cruz stated that he was looking at the difference between an asphalt processing
operation and mineral resource operation as those are two different things. Gravel can't be
mined anywhere, where asphalt can be made anywhere.He is worried that a natural
resource use can be located near residential areas.
Mr. McDonald discussed the shared use of parking lots.Staff added a sentence that
requires a notarized and recorded parking agreement between two or more separate tax
parcels under separate ownership. The reasoning behind this came from a tavern on Lewis
Street that at one time had permission from the School District to use their Booth Building
parking lot for their overflow parking. Over the years the tavern changed ownership and the
new owners no longer have the permission from the School District to use the parking lot
and the City had no record of this and there were problems associated with the parking that
could have been avoided if the City had a signed agreement.
Mr. McDonald addressed an addition regarding batch plants which states that asphalt
batch plants and ready-mix concrete plants may be located in areas designated by the
Comprehensive Plan as mineral resource lands or in the I-2 Industrial District only upon
approval of a special permit.
Chairman Cruz responded that he feels that asphalt batch plants and ready-mix concrete
batch plants are two separate things and should be treated as such. There is a lot more
that goes along with asphalt such as potentially hazardous emissions, especially if it
involves the recycling of asphalt, where concrete plants just have dust. He does not want it
allowed even with special permit due to the possibilities. There are industrial districts set
up for the kind of operations for asphalt and they are in their location for a reason. The
resource and the processing do not need to be located next to each other.
Commissioner Levin asked for the definition of I-2 Zoning and if the asphalt and concrete
batch plants could be in the same zoning.Mr. McDonald stated that I-2 Zoning is Light
Industrial and in Light Industrial asphalt is only permitted by process of special permit and
in the current code there are provisions that would allow them to be in a mineral resource
area by special permit.
Commissioner Kempf asked if City Staff could make asphalt batch plants separate from
ready-mix concrete batch plant definitions and have two definitions.Mr. McDonald said
that yes, they could split them into two definitions and the ready-mix concrete would be
permitted by special permit in resource area or an I-2 Zone and the asphalt batch plant
would only be permitted in I-2 Zone.
B.Code Amendment Variable Rear Setback for Accessory Structures
In Suburban Zones (MF# CA2011-007)
Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff.
Shane O'Neill, Planner I, explained that the code amendment proposes a different rear
setback than currently allowed. The proposed code amendment stemmed from a complaint
regarding impacts the height of detached shops and garages can have on neighboring
property.Accessory structures in suburban zones, regardless of height, have minimum
rear setback of five feet.
There are six alternate code amendments to choose from that all have a little different idea
behind them.Mr. O'Neill explained all of the alternates.Alternate 6 takes no action is
taken and the code stays the same. Height is used as a breaking point to apply the variable
rear setback. The height is based on the allowed height of a shed. Once over the height of a
shed, the variable rear setback will begin to apply.
David McDonald elaborated on the complaint regarding the effect of the height allowance for
detached shops and garages. The complaint stemmed for 1,200 square foot garage that was
18 feet tall (almost as tall as the house) and was only 5 feet from the neighbor's backyard.
Because 5 feet was legal according to code the garage was allowed but because of the
massive size of the garage, it overpowered the neighbor's yard and the neighbor felt there
was a need for a larger setback due to the size of the garage.
Commissioner Anderson asked if the City of Pasco's objectives are to be similar to Franklin
County's objectives. Mr. McDonald answered that yes, both objectives should be somewhat
in line with each other.Commissioner Anderson felt that the sliding-scale alternate was
confusing for the home owner's looking at what they can build and locate and he feels the
City should be in uniform with Franklin County in case of annexation in the future.
Chairman Cruz agreed with Commissioner Anderson and felt that the sliding-scale alternate
was confusing. He liked Alternate 2, with an additional category for larger accessory
structures added.
Commissioner Kempf also liked Alternate 2 with adding an additional category for larger
accessory structures.
Mr. O'Neill explained that 18 feet is the maximum height and cannot go higher, however
Chairman Cruz thought maybe breaking down the scale since 12 feet is already pretty tall.
Rick White advised the Planning Commission that on that on February 1, 2012 at 7:00 p.m.
at Chiawana High School, the City will be conducting a neighborhood meeting for the Linda
Vista/Road 84 Area in regards to the deterioration of the fencing that was put in when
those properties were platted. The City appointed a task force to address this problem.
With little further discussion or business, the Planning Commission was adjourned at 9:50
p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
David McDonald, Secretary
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
MASTER FILE NO: PP 2012-001 APPLICANT: Stealth Development
HEARING DATE: 2/16/2012 3710 E Man O' War Ln
ACTION DATE: 3/15/2012 Nampa, ID 83686
BACKGROUND
REQUEST: Preliminary Plat: Navigator Villas, 47-Lots (Multi-Family)
I.PROPERTY DESCRIPTION:
Legal: Lots 1 & 2 Short Plat 2 003-2 1
General Location: The S/W comer of Road 68 and Powerline Road
Property Size: 10.8 Acres
Number of Lots Proposed: 46 lots and 1 Tract
Square Footage Range of Lots: 8,225 ft2 to 17,951 ft2
Average Lot Square Footage: 9,880 ft2
ACCESS: The property will have access from Road 68.
UTILITIES: Municipal sewer currently exists along the east boundary of
the site in an easement adjacent to Road 68. Water service is currently
available from the main in the Road 68 easement.
LAND USE AND ZONING:The site is zoned R-4 (High Density
Residential). Surrounding properties are zoned and developed as follows:
NORTH:A - Agriculture (County Zoning)
SOUTH:R-4 - Stone Gate Apartments
EAST:R-T - Vacant Farm ground
WEST R-1 - Single Family Residences
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The Comprehensive Plan indicates the site is
intended for mixed residential development.According to the
Comprehensive Plan, mixed residential development means 5 to 20
dwelling units per acre. The criteria for allocation under the future land
use section of Volume II of the Comprehensive Plan (Vol. II, page 17)
encourages development of lands designated for mixed residential uses
when or where: sewer is available, the location is convenient to major
circulation routes, the site serves as a transition between more intense
uses and low density uses, and when there is a market demand. Goal H-
2 suggests the City strive to maintain a variety of housing options for
residents of the community. Goal LU-2 encourages the maintenance of
established neighborhoods and the creation of new neighborhoods that
are safe and enjoyable places to live.
1
6.ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The City of Pasco is the lead
agency for this project. Based on the SEPA checklist, the adopted City
Comprehensive Plan, City development regulations, comments received
from the Pasco School District, and other information, the City has
issued a Mitigated Determination of Non-Significance (MDNS) for this
project under WAC 197-11-158. To mitigate the impacts associated with
the proposed Navigator Villas Subdivision the developer will need to enter
into an agreement with the Pasco School District, as authorized under
RCW 82.02.020. The terms of said agreement may include impact fees or
other remuneration to ameliorate the impacts that 99 new students will
have on the School District.
ANALYSIS
The site was initially designated for mixed residential development under the
Comprehensive Plan in 1995. The R-4 (High Density Residential) zoning was
established in 2003 around the time Columbia Place (to the west) received
Preliminary Plat approval.
The applicant is proposing to subdivide the site in question into 46 lots to allow
the construction of 46 four-plexes and two duplexes. Each four-plex and
duplex will occupy one lot. The proposal for Navigator Villas is identical to the
process that was used for the development of the Villages at Chapel Hill.
Individual lots were created through the platting process with a common
driveway and parking area and a common lot for a management office and club
house.The Island Estates Row Home development in the Island Estates
subdivision (Phase 8) and the Mediterranean Villas subdivision are also
examples of multi-family developments that were established through the
platting process.Each of these subdivisions were zoned for multi-family
development and later platted into individual lots. The lot lines within these
subdivisions became the common boundary line separating the dwelling units.
LOT LAYOUT: The proposed plat contains 46 lots; with the lots varying in size
from 8,225 square feet to 17,951 square feet. The Plat also contains a 4,006
square foot tract that will be developed as a common playground area. The
proposal is consistent with the density requirements of the R-4 zoning of the
site.
RIGHTS-OF-WAY:The plat fronts Road 68 and Powerline Road. Both roads
will be developed to City standards.
UTILITIES:The developer will be responsible for extending utilities into the
plat. A common utility easement will be provided through the parking lot and
internal access driveway through the development. The final location and width
of the easements will be determined during the engineering design phase. The
,
Franklin County PUD has identified the need for easements on both sides of
the intemal access way. The PUD permits common use of utility trenches
which enables the easement to be used by other utility providers.
The City Engineer will determine the specific placement of fire hydrants and
streetlights when construction plans are submitted.As a general rule, fire
hydrants are located at street intersections and with a maximum interval of
300 feet between hydrants on the same side of the street.Streetlights are
located at street intersections, with a maximum interval of 300 feet on
residential streets, and with a maximum interval of 150 feet on arterial streets.
The intervals for street light placements are measure along the centerline of the
road. Street lights are place on altemating sides of the street.
STREET NAMES: Road 68 and Powerline Road are already named.
IRRIGATION:No irrigation pipe installation will be required as a part of this
plat.
WATER RIGHTS: Water rights for this area have been previously assigned to
the City.
FINDINGS OF FACT
State law (RCW 58.17.010) and the Pasco Municipal Code require the Planning
Commission to develop Findings of Fact as to how this proposed subdivision
will protect and enhance the health,safety and general welfare of the
community. The following is a listing of proposed "Findings of Fact":
Prevent Overcrowding: Density requirements of the R-4 zone are designed to
address overcrowding concems. The R-4 zone permits a density of 29 dwelling
units per acre. The proposed plat has a density of 16.3 units per acre. No more
than 60 percent of each lot is permitted to be covered with structures per the
R-4 zoning standards.
Parks Opens Space/Schools: City parks are located in Columbia Place and
Island Estates. The proposed subdivision will be served by Ruth Livingston
Elementary School, McLoughlin Middle School and Chiawana High School.
The Preliminary Plat was submitted to the School District for review. The
School District has indicated (see attached letter dated February 3, 2012) they
do not have capacity at Livingston or McLoughlin to serve the additional
enrollment expected from the proposed subdivision. The table below illustrates
the School Districts capacity constraints. The City is required by RCW
58.17.110 to make a finding that adequate provisions are being made to
ameliorate the impacts of the proposed subdivision on the School District. The
proposed Plat cannot be recommended for approval unless the Planning
3
Commission finds adequate provisions have been made for the schools. The
School District has requested the impacts be mitigated. Without a specific
impact fee ordinance the mitigation can be achieved by the developer entering
into a voluntary agreement with the School District as authorized under RCW
82.02.020. The voluntary agreement would specify the type or form of
mitigation being provided by the developer. The mitigation could take the form
of an impact fee cash payment to the District, the construction of portable
classrooms or combination of fees and in-kind services.Requiring the
developer to enter into an agreement with the School District for the payment
of mitigation fees or other kinds of remuneration would be one method of
addressing the finding requirements of RCW 58.17.110.
Effective Land Use/Orderly Development: The Plat is laid out for multi-
family development as identified in the Comprehensive Plan. The maximum
density permitted by the zoning regulations is 29 dwelling units per acre. The
developer is proposing a density of 16.8 units per acre. The proposed
development will provide for the continuation of improvements (curb, gutter,
sidewalk and utilities)to Road 68.The development will also provide
approximately the first 625 feet of street improvements for Powerline Road west
of Road 68.
Safe Travel as Walking Conditions: The Plat is connected to the community by
Road 68 and Powerline Road. Sidewalks will be installed in conjunction with
the construction of the apartment buildings. The sidewalk along Road 68 will
connect with the sidewalk previously installed on Road 68 with the
construction of the Stone Gate Apartments and must conform to current City
standards and Amercians with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements.
Adequate Provision of Municipal Services:All lots within the Plat will be
provided with water, sewer and other utilities.
Provision of Housing for State Residents: The proposed Preliminary Plat
contains 46 multi-family building lots, providing an opportunity for the
construction of 176 dwelling units.
4
SCHOOL CAPACITY OCTOBER 2010
ENROLLMENT
Ruth Livingston 500 800
McLoughlin
Middle
1,000 1,483
Chiawana High 2,200 2,032
Adequate Air and Light: The maximum lot coverage limitations and building
setbacks will assure that adequate movement of air and light is available to
each lot.
Proper Access as Travel: The streets adjoining the Plat will be paved and
developed to City standards to assure proper access to the property. Road 68
provides access to Sandifur Parkway, Burden Boulevard and I-182. The
Preliminary Plat was submitted to the Transit Authority for review. (The
discussion under "Safe Travel" above applies to this section also.)
Comprehensive Plan Policies as Maps: The Comprehensive Plan designates
the Plat site for mixed residential development. Policies of the Comprehensive
Plan suggest the City strive to maintain a variety of housing for residents.
Other Findings:
The site is within the Pasco Urban Growth Boundary.
The State Growth Management Act requires urban growth and urban
densities to occur within the Urban Growth Boundaries.
The Comprehensive Plan identifies the site for mixed residential
development.
The site is zoned R-4 (High Density Residential).
The site was zoned R-4 in 2003.
The Housing Element of the Comprehensive Plan encourages the
development of a variety of residential densities and housing types.
The Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan encourages the
interconnection of neighborhood streets to provide for the disbursement
of traffic.
The School District has purchased sites for future schools at the
northwest comer of Road 60 and Sandifur Parkway (elementary school)
and at the end of Road 52 (middle school).
A recent bond measure to fund construction of the Road 60 and Road 52
schools failed.
The School District has provided data indicating Pasco schools lack the
capacity to accommodate additional students.
The School District by letter dated February 3, 2012 requested the
impacts to the School District created by the proposed Plat be mitigated.
RCW 58.17.110 requires the City to make a finding that adequate
provisions have been made for schools before any preliminary plat is
approved.
5
The School District indicated by letter dated February 3, 2012 mitigation
fees address the requirement to ensure adequate provisions are made for
schools.
The City of Pasco does not have a school impact fee ordinance compelling
new housing developments to provide the School District with mitigation
fees.
RCW 82.02.020 authorizes the School District to enter into agreements
with developers for the purpose of mitigating the impacts new
development may have upon the School District.The terms of such
agreements may include the payment of school impact fees.
The Comprehensive Plan indicates Powerline Road will be an arterial
street.
The site borders on a partially developed section of Road 68.
CONCLUSIONS BASED ON THE FINDINGS OF FACT
Before recommending approval or denial of the proposed Plat the Planning
Commission must develop Findings of Fact from which to draw its conclusion
(P.M.C. 26.24.070) therefrom as to whether or not:
(1)Adequate provisions are made for the public health, safety and
general welfare and for open spaces, drainage ways, streets, alleys,
other public ways,water supplies,sanitary wastes,parks,
playgrounds, transit stops, schools and school grounds, sidewalks for
safe walking conditions for students and other public needs;
The proposed Plat will be required to develop under the standards of the
Municipal Code and the standard specifications of the City Engineering
Division. These standards for streets, sidewalks, and other infrastructure
improvements were designed to ensure the public health, safety and general
welfare of the community are secured. These standards include provisions for
streets, drainage, water and sewer service and the provision for dedication of
right-of-way. The Preliminary Plat was forwarded to the Franklin County PUD,
the Pasco School District and Ben-Franklin Transit Authority for review and
comment. The School District indicated that there are capacity constraints at
Ruth Livingston Elementary and McLoughlin Middle School. To address the
capacity issues and ensure adequate provisions are made for schools the
District is asking the developer to enter into an agreement with the Pasco
School District to mitigate the impacts the development will have upon the
provision of schools and school services.
City parks are located in the subdivisions to the west and southwest of the site.
All new developments participate in establishing parks through the payment of
park fees at the time of permitting.
6
7
The proposed subdivision contributes to the orderly development and
land use patterns in the area;
The proposed Plat makes efficient use of vacant land and will provide for
additional housing following the designation of the Comprehensive Plan and
the established zoning. The proposed subdivision will contribute to the
widening and improvement of Road 68 to the north end of the City limits and
will also contribute to the construction of the first 625 feet, plus or minus, of
Powerline Road extending West of Road 68.
The proposed subdivision conforms to the policies, maps and
narrative text of the Comprehensive Plan;
The Comprehensive Plan land use map designates the site for mixed residential
development. The Housing Element of the Plan encourages the promotion of a
variety of residential densities including multi-family development. The
Transportation Element of the Plan suggests major streets should be beautified
with trees and landscaping.
The proposed subdivision conforms to the general purposes of any
applicable policies or plans which have been adopted by the City
Council;
Development plans and policies have been adopted by the City Council in the
form of the Comprehensive Plan.The proposed subdivision conforms to the
policies, maps and narrative text of the Plan as noted in number three above.
The proposed subdivision conforms to the general purposes of the
subdivision regulations.
The general purposes of the subdivision regulations have been enumerated and
discussed in the staff analysis and Findings of Fact.The Findings of Fact
indicate the subdivision is in conformance with the general purposes of the
subdivision regulations provided certain mitigation measures are provided for
(i.e. school impact mitigation).
The public use and interest will be served by approval of the proposed
subdivision.
The proposed Plat, if approved, will be developed in accordance with all City
standards designed to insure the health, safety and general welfare of the
community are met. The Comprehensive Plan will be implemented through
development of this Plat. These factors will insure the public use and interest
are served.
PLAT APPROVAL CONDITIONS
At the time lots are developed, all abutting roads and utilities shall be
installed to City standards as approved by the City Engineer. This
includes, but is not limited to water and sewer lines, streets, street lights
and storm water retention. Sidewalks must be installed with the frontage
improvements for Road 68 and Powerline Road. The handicapped
accessible pedestrian ramps must be completed with the street and curb
improvements prior to final Plat approval. All proposed utilities must be
installed underground by the developer at the developer's expense.
The sewer main line shall be extended through the length of the property
and terminate in the right-of-way north of the proposed development.
Sewer mains must terminate in manholes; cleanouts will not be permitted.
A fifteen-foot sewer easement must be dedicated to the City. The easement
shall begin at the terminus of the existing sewer easement, shall be
centered on the proposed sewer main extension, and shall continue
through the length of the property.
Powerline Road shall be constructed to a 3/4 street standard with a
minimum of 28' of pavement. The pavement section shall consist of 3"
HMA, 2" CSTC, and 8" CSBC.
Improvements to Powerline Road must include curb and gutter, sidewalk,
landscaping and irrigation. All landscaping and irrigation plans shall be
reviewed and approved by the Parks Department prior to installation.
A temporary turn around shall be provided on the West end of Powerline
Road for emergency vehicle use.
The developer must file Covenants,Conditions,Restrictions and
Reservations (C, C & R's)establishing an Owners Association with
management and maintenance responsibilities for all common areas,
driveway and parking club houses, parking structures and easements.
Said C, C & R's must run with the land and be binding on all heirs,
assigns, transferees and subsequent successors in interest.The C, C &
R's must allow the annexation of all phases of the plat and bind all phases
to the same.
All Final Plats shall include a note clearly indicating maintenance
responsibility for excess right-of-way landscaping on Powerline Road and
Road 68, is the responsibility of the Owner's Association as per the
recorded C, C & R's. The Auditors file number of said recording must also
be show on the Final Plats.
All Final Plats shall include a note clearly indicating maintenance and
repair of the driveways, parking lots, parking structures, playgrounds and
all improvements on Lot 17 are the responsibility of the Owner's
Association as per the recorded C, C & R's. The Auditors file number of
said recording must also be show on the Final Plats.
8
Lots abutting Powerline Road shall not have direct access to said road.
Access shall be prohibited by means of deed restrictions or statements on
the face of the Final Plat(s).
Access to and from Road 68 will be limited to two common driveways as
shown on the preliminary plat. No other access will be permitted to Road
68. The northem driveway on Road 68 shall be located no closer than 125
feet from the intersection of Road 68 and Powerline Road. Other means of
access shall be prohibited by the means of deed restrictions or statements
on the final plat.
An additional 10 feet of right-of-way must be dedicated for Road 68. The
west half of Road 68 measured from the centerline of the road shall be 50
feet.
The developer shall install a common "Estate Type" fence/wall six-feet in
height along the property line bordering the Powerline Road right-of-way.
The fence must be constructed of masonry block and designed to minimize
graffiti. A fencing detail must be included on the subdivision construction
drawings.Consideration must be given to the vision triangle at the
intersection of Road 68 and Powerline Road. Maintenance and upkeep of
said fence must be the responsibility of the subdivision Owners
Association. All Final Plats shall include a note that clearly indicates the
maintenance responsibility for the estate fence is the responsibility of the
Owner's Association including the removal of graffiti.
The developer/builder shall pay the "traffic impact fee" established by
ordinance at the time of issuance of building permits for homes. Fees
collected shall be placed in a fund and used to finance signalization and
other improvements necessary to mitigate traffic impacts on the
circulation system within the I-182 corridor.
No utility vaults, pedestals, or other obstructions will be allowed at street
intersections.
The on-site water system shall be looped to the water main with the
construction of the first phase of this development. Premises isolation from
the domestic water system shall be maintained by backflow prevention as
prescribed by the Public Works Department.
At the time of initial construction plan review for the first phase of this
development, the developer shall provide a water model for the entire
development. The water model shall contain a pressure and flow analysis,
shall indicate the location and values of existing pressure, and shall
identify the flow data used in the analysis. Data from this analysis will be
used to verify adequate flow and pressure for the development.
All storm water is to be disposed of per City and State codes and
requirements.
The developer shall insure active and ongoing dust, weed and litter
abatement activities occur during the construction of the subdivision and
construction of dwellings thereon.
9
The developer shall prepare a dust, weed and erosion control plan to be
approved by the City prior to approval of any construction drawings for the
first phase of the subdivision.
The developer shall be responsible for the creation of record drawings. All
record drawings shall be created in accordance with the requirements
detailed in the Record Drawing Requirements and Procedure form provided
by the Engineering Division.This form shall be signed by the developer
prior to construction plan approval.
The developer shall be responsible for the creation of record drawings. All
record drawings shall be created in accordance with the requirements
detailed in the Record Drawing Requirements and Procedure form provided
by the Engineering Division.This form shall be signed by the developer
prior to plan approval.
All engineering designs for infrastructure and Final Plat drawings shall
utilize the published City of Pasco Vertical Control Datum and shall be
identified on each such submittal.
Final Plats shall contain easements parallel to all streets. The common
driveway and parking areas shall also be identified as an easement. An
additional easement shall be provided as needed for the Franklin County
PUD for electrical vaults. The width and length of the additional PUD
easement shall be determined by the PUD.
The Final Plats shall contain the following Franklin County Public Utility
District statement: "The individual or company making improvements on a
lot or lots of this Plat is responsible for providing and installing all trench,
conduit, primary vaults, secondary junction boxes, and backfill for the
PUD's primary and secondary distribution system in accordance with PUD
specifications; said individual or company will make full advance payment
of line extension fees and will provide all necessary utility easements prior
to PUD construction and/or connection of any electrical service to or
within the Plat".
Street lighting must be installed to the City of Pasco/Franklin County PUD
standards and as directed by the City Engineer. Residential street lights
are typically installed every 300 feet, and collector/arterial type street
lights are typically installed every 150 feet. Street light positioning is
alternating and is measured along the centerline of the road.
Prior to the City of Pasco accepting construction plans for review the
developer must enter into a Storm Water Maintenance Agreement with the
City. The developer will be responsible for obtaining the signatures of all
parties required on the agreement and to have the agreement recorded
with the Franklin County Auditor. The original signed and recorded copy
of the agreement must be presented to the City of Pasco at the first intake
meeting for construction plans for each phase of development.
The developer will be required to conform to all conditions set forth in the
Storm Water Maintenance Agreement including, but not limited to, regular
10
cleaning and maintenance of all streets, gutters, catch basins and catch
basin protection systems. Cleaning shall occur on a regular basis to
ensure that no excess buildup of sand, trash, grass clippings, weeds or
other debris occurs in any portion of the streets, gutters, or storm water
collection facilities. Cleaning and upkeep of the streets, gutters, and storm
water collection facilities must be to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
The developer will be responsible for operating and maintaining the storm
drain system in accordance with the Storm Water Maintenance Agreement
for a period of up to five years from the date of Final Plat approval for each
phase or until the system is accepted by the City of Pasco. The City of
Pasco's acceptance of construction plans for subsequent phases of the
subdivision will be contingent upon the developer satisfying all
requirements of the Storm Water Maintenance Agreement.
The developer will be required to comply with the City of Pasco Civil Plan
Review process.
To mitigate the school impacts associated with the proposed Navigator
Villas subdivision, the developer shall enter into an agreement with the
Pasco School District for the payment of impact fees or other remuneration
as determined by said agreement.
Final Plat approval is further contingent upon execution and recording of a
voluntary agreement authorized by RCW 82.02.020 between the Developer
and the Pasco School District providing for payment in mitigation of the
direct impact upon the Pasco School District as a consequence of the
Navigator Villas subdivision.
RECOMMENDATION
MOTION:I move to close the hearing on the proposed subdivision and
initiate deliberations and schedule adoption of Findings of Fact,
Conclusions and a Recommendation to the City Council for the
March 15, 2012 meeting.
11
C
r
)
c
z
r
l
-
1
7
-
1
$
n
-
1
c
t
o
-
c
t
z
'
t
c
t
.
)
C
)
c
t
c
t
N
(
3
)
T
-
1
N
"
T
=
1
4
)
;
-
-
1
r
:
L
4
)
c
i
l
r
"
r
0
1
2
1
1
1
1
N
1
1
1
1
1
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
9
d
r
5
1
1
E
r
l
i
'
.
-
2
;
i
N
I
U
M
I
N
m
o
n
o
M
L
R
t
1
1
1
0
1
1
m
i
n
r
a
m
1
1
1
1
:
E
S
M
E
§
M
S
M
S
S
M
O
M
0
1
1
1
0
1
1
!
B
M
M
I
R
A
M
e
l
W
S
-
r
u
m
L
-
o
r
m
a
i
m
m
i
n
i
[
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
r
-
n
V
I
I
N
I
S
3
1
1
1
1
1
0
2
M
t
I
t
.
r
.
r
.
M
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
i
t
r
n
,
9
1
»
,
.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
5
5
1
7
1
1
0
,
.
i
r
e
i
n
n
w
i
m
m
i
n
s
u
m
p
s
i
P
V
i
a
O
E
M
4
1
1
1
1
I
l
k
M
I
M
I
N
M
I
I
W
O
L
I
M
=
U
M
M
I
N
I
M
t
M
I
M
I
l
i
1
1
0
0
4
r
1
1
1
1
1
4
4
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
M
I
M
I
U
M
4
1
1
1
1
M
1
7
1
.
1
1
,
1
1
1
1
1
n
u
i
p
m
m
a
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
4
7
4
1
7
i
t
i
o
l
l
i
3
M
E
W
;
4
4
4
0
0
.
4
4
4
4
P
0
*
'
4
4
V
v
"
.
.
.
Y
u
1
1
2
1
1
7
4
1
7
4
.
,
4
1
4
1
?
P
a
i
n
I
I
I
n
l
i
f
i
p
'
4
4
)
P
4
1
t
.
.
.
4
.
4
0
1
2
!
A
n
m
e
w
z
a
t
i
a
t
t
v
t
"
0
1
0
.
.
l
a
.
.
.
.
.
,
,
.
.
.
.
w
w
4
1
2
1
L
.
,
:
,
4
t
,
4
0
1
4
,
:
0
1
4
f
i
f
i
l
a
t
i
.
-
4
1
4
,
,
r
m
.
1
1
1
1
9
.
6
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
r
-
T
A
P
P
-
4
1
r
-
'
W
(
5
1
,
:
4
1
)
M
E
W
'
V
W
c
-
1
7
A
r
l
i
g
i
g
i
g
r
L
a
l
r
i
t
a
r
t
A
0
1
1
4
0
3
A
n
i
k
1
(
f
i
f
.
0
°
.
'
n
:
!
-
-
r
L
I
i
f
f
l
u
I
n
i
o
i
m
e
i
v
s
I
F
7
3
9
%
I
x
e
.
.
.
.
0
.
Ì
4
1
0
4
.
2
.
,
1
N
A
x
Item: Preliminary Plat Navigator VillasVicinityApplicant: Stealth Development
MaP File #: PP 2012-001
o
OngS N ()MAL M I R
ill4KUNII"
1110141gles wow
RONweir
--
7" "V .4""-""'"4:7; T
,,
POW tRIEIN RCA
1 ,._
;FIP 4,,"; ;F FFp =Tik
r :;- r rste
TLai
o /i
1..11.81%
vrovIsrt wOitt
os quo* *ma,.
t
k I '" b,.01iratA AIM! TS
7;401'-'2,441FF''611kr
-
Item: Preliminary Plat Navigator VillasLand Use Applicant: Stealth Development
MaP File #: PP 2012-001
I (County)(County)
POWERLEINEN OAD
SFIDU
\
\Agriculture
1
GlIWALIMITS
Utility
(County)
S OQUALMIE DR111
SFDUs
SKAGIT DR
Multi-Family
1 Agriculture
Item: Preliminary Plat Navigator VillasZoningApplicant: Stealth Development
MaP File #: PP 2012-001
POWE-RLEINENROAD
SNOQUALMIE DR
SKAGIT DR
R-1
AP-20 RR-1
(County)(County)
tIem:Preliminary Plat Navigator VillasBuildingApplicant: Stealth DevelopmentLayoutFile #: PP 2012-001
ED T5 TJ EEI
IQ3 Q3E19 1E13
1Q3 CEI °C\
It
1111 1111_1111 11111 11_1111
-11 1 1_1 1111.1_1
190q3alelja
11111 iastc-1111111L11 1111 1111 11111111 It
Q3,Qa. aq3 ED Q3 ED Q3 ellVi
Looking North
04.
-
it)
t..
o f j....4,o ..
I 14 .1i;'4')'%,'o -i''/4'
Looking Northeast
Im liii Dial
-
'Wqtt.
exit;
8
,
..
Looking East
Looking Southeast
immwtemill
Looking South
"
OM
'A&
44r..,2-te.
AMmgr.-
Looking West
4111100 IA LEI
-A;
-
Looking Northwest
ft
I ,,,44 - 4;tti.1
REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
MASTER FILE NO. Z 2012-001 APPLICANT: Pasco Family Housing
HEARING DATE: 2/16/2012 12 E. Fifth
ACTION DATE: 3/15/2012 Spokane, WA 99202
BACKGROUND
REQUEST:REZONE Rezone from R-1 (Low-Density Residential) to R-3
(Medium-Density Residential)
I.PROPERTY DESCRIPTION:
Legal:All of Block 3 Whitehouse Addition and Lots 11-24
Block 2 Whitehouse Addition together with adjoining
vacated right-of-way.
Location:The west side of Charles Avenue between Adelia Street
and Alvina Street.
Property Size:3.58 Acres
ACCESS: The property has access from Charles Avenue on the east and
Alvina Street from the south.
UTILITIES:All utilities are available to the site.
LAND USE AND ZONING: The site is currently zoned R-1 (Low Density
Residential) and C-1 (Retail Business). The site is vacant and contains a
block building that was once used as an auto repair shop. Surrounding
properties are zoned and developed as follows:
North "R-1" Low Density Residential - Highland Park
South "R-1" Low Density Residential - Single Family & Vacant
East "R-1" Low Density Residential - Single Family
West "C-3" General Business - Vacant
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map
designates this area for Mixed Residential uses.Goals of the
Comprehensive Plan suggests the City strive to maintain a variety of
housing options for residents of the community (H-2) and supports
efforts to provide affordable housing to meet the needs of low and
moderate income households (H-5). Plan Goal LU-2 also encourages the
maintenance of established neighborhoods and the creation of new
neighborhoods that are safe and enjoyable places to live.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The City of Pasco is the lead
agency for this project. Based on the SEPA checklist, the adopted City
1
Comprehensive Plan,City development regulations,and other
information, a threshold determination resulting in a Determination of
Non-significance (DNS) has been issued for this project under WAC 197-
11-158.This is a non-project action and will therefore have no
immediate effect on the Pasco School District.
ANALYSIS
The property consists of two separate parcels totaling 3.58 acres. The two
parcels are divided by the unimproved right-of-way of East George Street. The
northem most parcel located between Highland Park on the north and East
George Street on the south contains 1.98 acres. The balance of the property is
located south of East George Street and westerly of Charles Avenue. This
property was platted in lots and block in 1911 and has remained mostly
undeveloped since that time. The property north of George Street contained one
single-family house which was demolished in 2003. For many years Lots 13-
18 of Block 24 located south of George Street were used as a vehicle storage
yard that was filled with broken down and partially dismantled cars, barrels
and other items. Lots 19-24 of the same block contained an automotive shop
(the shop building still remains on the property) at least one house and a large
storage building.In the early 1990's the City required the property owner to
remove the slum and blight conditions cause by the impound yard, the
accumulation of debris and the substandard buildings located on the property.
The property remains undeveloped in a substandard condition today as a
result of the lack of infrastructure improvements (no gutter, sidewalk, street
lights, storm drainage, etc) and the existence of dead trees, weeds and the
dumping that has occurred on the site.
The site is located between property that is zoned C-3 (General Commercial) on
the west and R-1 (Low Density Residential) on the east. Recognizing sound
planning practices often suggest there should be a transition or gradation of
land uses from more intense uses to less intense uses the City Council
designated the site for mixed residential during the last major Comprehensive
Plan update in 2008.
The site is currently zoned R-1 and C-1.The C-1 District permits the
development retail,office and commercial services such as retail stores,
automotive repair shops, tire store, restaurants and tavems.
One of the major concems property owners often have about the location of
higher density residential zoning adjacent to low density zoning is the possible
impacts the high density zoning may have on the values of properties in
adjacent lower density zoning district.A search of the Franklin County
Assessor Records in February of 2012 indicates that in many cases this may be
more of a perception than a fact.For example the single-family homes that
share a common lot line with the Stonegate Apartments have generally
increased in value in the last four years. All of the homes in question were
constructed two years after the construction of the Stonegate Apartments.
Similarly the single-family homes in the Loviisa Farms subdivision constructed
directly across Chapel Hill Boulevard from the Sandy Heights RV Park and the
Silver Creek Apartments have appreciated in value.It should also be pointed
out that the single-family homes located on Charles Avenue were constructed
long after the Pasco Housing Authority constructed the multi-family housing
units directly to the east.According to the records of the Franklin County
Assessor's (2012) the homes in the 300 block of North Charles Avenue have
increase in value since they were constructed in 2007.
In the cases referenced above it should be noted that the apartment complexes
and RV park are not accessed directly from the same street the lower density
housing is accessed. The apartment buildings may be considerably higher than
the adjoining single-family homes and may impact privacy in rear yards but the
traffic impacts are significantly reduced due to the location of access driveways.
For example the new multi-family complex built at the southwest comer of
Wehe Avenue and Spokane Street is accessed from Spokane Street rather than
Wehe Avenue, which fronts future single family residential lots.
Even though the property in question is identified in the Comprehensive Plan
for mixed use residential development the Planning Commission should
consider ways of ameliorating traffic impact to the neighborhood by
conditioning where the location of access driveways should be located. The site
is large enough to permit the construction 15 to 20 single family homes which
would generate 150 to 200 vehicle trips through the neighborhood each day. If
the site was developed with 51 apartment units about 336 vehicle trips could
be expected in the neighborhood or about 136 more vehicle trips than would be
generated by single family homes.
Multi-family complexes are often located on or convenient to major streets. The
proposed site is accessed only by local streets through the surrounding
neighborhood. Bonneville Street and California Avenue are both located on the
western edge of the proposed site and could provide an alternate means of
accessing the site.However both of these streets are currently unimproved.
The nearest improved street west of the site is Oregon Avenue which is over
600 feet away. While Bonneville Street may provide the best option of providing
an alternate means of access that would eliminate the need for traffic using
Charles Avenue there is a significant cost involved with improving Bonneville
Street. Because of the issues involved with access and increased traffic it may
be appropriate to continue the hearing to allow staff and the applicant time to
explore options for addressing these concems.
The initial review criteria for considering a rezone application are explained in
PMC. 25.88.030. The criteria are list below as follows:
3
1.The changed conditions in the vicinity which warrant other or additional
zoning:
The Comprehensive Plan designation for the property in question
was changed from Low Density Residential to Mbced Residential in
2011.
Sewer service was extended north in Charles Avenue from George
Street in 2007.
The former auto storage yard on the property has been removed.
All single-family homes have been removed from the property.
The commercially zoned portion of the property has not been used
for commercial purposes for approximately 30 years.
The most recent residential development within the vicinity has
been the construction of a multi-family complex directly north of
the Whittier Elementary School at the southwest comer of Wehe
Avenue and Spokane Street.
Much of the commercially zoned property along Oregon Avenue
has been developed in the last 20 years.
Commercial development is beginning to extend east of Oregon
Avenue.
Facts to justify the change on the basis of advancing the public health,
safety and general welfare.
The property has remained largely undeveloped for 100 years and has
seen a regression in development over the past 25 years with the removal
of all housing units and removal of the former automotive repair shop
from the property. Rezoning the property to R-3 Medium Density
Residential will provide additional flexibility for site development
providing a catalyst for the development of the partially improved streets
in the neighborhood and providing a buffer between the lower density
development to the east and the commercially (C-3) zoned property to the
west.
The effect it will have on the nature and value of adjoining property and
the Comprehensive Plan.
The proposal is supported by the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map.
Rezoning the property and eliminating the commercial zoning from the
neighborhood could enhance development options for the site benefiting
the neighborhood by completing street improvements and eliminating
nuisance conditions created by the weeds and dead trees on the
property. The rezone would also eliminate any chance for commercial
activities to be re-established in the neighborhood. The properties on
Charles Avenue east of the commercial zoned portion of the site have
decreased in value in recent years per Franklin County records. Based
on experience in other neighborhoods where multi-family development
4
has occurred improvements on the site and the property clean-up
associated therewith may improve property values in the neighborhood.
The effect on the property owners if the request is not granted.
The current R-1 and C-1 zoning has been in place for 30 years or more
and has not encouraged development on the property and in fact the
property has remained largely undeveloped since it was platted 100 years
ago. The proposed rezone may provide the property owner with some
flexibility for development and may make the installation of streets and
utilities more affordable. If the request is not granted it is probable the
property will continue to remain vacant as both commercial and single-
family development on the property has proven to be unviable.
The Comprehensive land use designation for the property.
The Comprehensive Plan designates the site for Mixed Density
Residential development. The proposed rezone will bring the zoning into
conformance with the Plan.
STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT
Findings of fact must be entered from the record. The following are initial
findings drawn from the background and analysis section of the staff report.
The Planning Commission may add findings to this listing as the result of
factual testimony and evidence submitted during the open record hearing.
The site is currently zoned R-1 (Low Density Residential) and C-1 retail
Business.
The property to the west is zoned C-3 and the property to the east is
zoned R-1 and R-2.
The Comprehensive Plan designates the site for Mixed Residential
development.
The property was platted into lots and blocks 100 years ago.
The one remaining house on the site was demolished in 2003.
The property is vacant and undeveloped except for a vacant block
building formerly used as an automotive shop.
Commercial use of the C-1 portion of the site has not occurred for
approximately 30 years.
The site has never been improved with standard streets, curb, gutter,
storm drainage and other infrastructure typical of an urban setting.
Multi-family duplex units are located directly east of the homes in the
300 block of Charles Street.
5
The multi-family duplex units directly east of the homes in the 300
block of Charles Street were constructed in 1978.
According to the records (2012) of the Franklin County Assessor's office
the homes in the 300 block of Charles Avenue have increase in value.
According to the records (2012) of the Franklin County Assessor's office
the homes in the 200 block of Charles Avenue east of the commercial
portion of the site and not sharing a common property line with multi-
family housing have decreased in value in recent years.
Single-family residential homes developed in the Loviisa Farms
subdivision across Chapel Hill Boulevard from the 200 unit Silver Creek
Apartment complex and the Sandy Heights RV park have increased in
value (per Franklin County records 2012) in recent years.
The single-family homes on Klickitat Lane sharing a common property
line with the 200 unit Stonegate apartment complex were constructed
after the Stonegate Apartments were constructed. The homes on
Klickitat lane have increased in value (per Franklin County records
2012) in recent years.
As the result of Commercial development along Oregon Avenue over the
past 20 years few properties are left to develop on Oregon Avenue.
Remaining vacant commercial properties east of Oregon Avenue toward
Highland Park and the site in question are beginning to develop.
If a 51 apartment unit apartment complex was developed on the site it
would generate 136 more vehicle trips per day than if the site was
developed with 20 single-family homes.
CONCLUSIONS BASED ON INITIAL STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT
Before recommending approval or denial of a rezone, the Planning Commission
must develop its conclusions from the findings of fact based upon the criteria
listed in P.M.C. 25.88.060 and determine tuhether or not:
The proposal is in accord with the goals and policies of the
Comprehensive Plan.
The goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan encourage the
development of old and netu neighborhoods into safe and enjoyable
places to live (Goal LU-2). The Comprehensive Plan also encourages
the development of a variety of residential environments (Goal H-2)
and the Plan and supports efforts to provide affordable housing to
meet the needs of lotu and moderate income households (Goal H-5).
The effect of the proposal on the immediate vicinity will not be
materially detrimental.
6
7
The property in question has remained largely undeveloped for the
past 100 years. Rezoning the property may provide some flexibility
for development options tuhich could lead to the improvement of the
streets and utilities in the neighborhood there by improving
conditions in the neighborhood that have only been partially
developed over the past 100 years. The proposed rezone is being
request to allotu the construction of up to 51 apartment units.Fifty-
one apartment units tuould generate (per the ¡TE Trip Generation
Manual 8th Edition) approximately 136 more vehicle trips on local
streets than a 20 unit single-family development. The additional
traffic could be revietued by the neighborhood as having a
detrimental impact on the neighborhood.
There is merit and value in the proposal for the community as a
whole.
As a tuhole the larger community tuould benefit from the proposal
additional housing units permitted by a rezone of the property and
the community tuould benefit from the development clean-up of an
underdeveloped neighborhood. In this respect there is merit and
value to the proposal. From the prospective of the immediate
neighborhood the completion of neighborhood streets and the
elimination of a parcel overgrotun tuith tueeds tuould have merit but
the additional traffic tuould not.
Conditions should be imposed in order to mitigate any significant
adverse impacts from the proposal.
The rezone should be conditioned to limit access to the property in
such a manner as to ameliorate the impacts of additional traffic on
Charles Avenue.
A concomitant agreement should be entered into between the City
and the petitioner, and if so, the terms and conditions of such an
agreement.
A concomitant agreement is necessary to ensure concerns of
increased traffic in the neighborhood are addressed.
RECOMMENDATION
MOTION:I move to continue the hearing to the March 15, 2012
Planning Commission meeting.
Item: Rezone R-1 to R-3VicinityApplicant: Pasco Family Housing IV
MaP File #: Z 2012-001
o
-
Land
Use
Map
Item: Rezone R-1 to R-3
Applicant: Pasco Family Housing IV
File Z 2012-001
ADELIA ST
GEORGE ST
ALVINA_ST_
LEWIS ST
IS
1 1
DU
j
Ui
Ui Lii
tIem:Rezone R-1 to R-3ZonmgApplicant: Paseo Family Housing IV
MaP File Z 2012-001
ea:,
Looking North
Looking East
\N_
St....Kt
'1)
Looking
Southeast
Prdl 1 1 r
Looking South
Looking Solithwest (from George Street)
Looking Northwest
REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
MASTER FILE NO. Z 2012-002 APPLICANT: David Richards
HEARING DATE: 2/16/2012 6150 Canoga Ave #214
ACTION DATE: 3/15/2012 Woodland Hills, CA 91367
BACKGROUND
REQUEST:REZONE Rezone from RT (Residential Transition)to R-3
(Medium-Density Residential).
I.PROPERTY DESCRIPTION:
Legal:Cole's Estates Lot 5.
Location:The 5900 Block of Road 90
Property Size:Approximately 4.7 acres
ACCESS: The property has access from Road 90 along the west property
line.
UTILITIES:All utilities are available to the site.
LAND USE AND ZONING: The site is currently zoned RT (Residential
Transition). The site is vacant.Surrounding properties are zoned and
developed as follows:
North R-1 (Low Density Residential) - SFDUs
South C-1 (Commercial) - Vacant
East R-1 (Low Density Residential) - SFDUs
West RT (Residential Transition) - Vacant
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map
designates this area for mbced residential uses.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The City of Pasco is the lead
agency for this project. Based on the SEPA checklist, the adopted City
Comprehensive Plan,city development regulations,and other
information, a threshold determination resulting in a Determination of
Non-significance (DNS) has been issued for this project under WAC 197-
11-158 .
ANALYSIS
The property is approximately 4.7 acres fronting on Road 90 along the west
property line. The lot was platted under Franklin County zoning as part of a
large-lot rural subdivision in 1967, before the City annexed the area in 1982.
The residential subdivisions to the north and east were subsequently rezoned
1
to R-1 and have largely been built out with single-family residences. Properties
to the west were rezoned with higher density R-3 zoning and developed with the
Mediterranean Villas condominiums. Adjacent properties to the south were
rezoned to C-1 and are vacant. Properties further to the south have been
developed with a mini-storage and a few professional office buildings. The C-1
District permits the development retail, office and commercial services such as
retail stores, automotive repair shops, tire stores, restaurants and tavems.
Applicant wishes to rezone the subject property to allow for residential
development consistent with the general vicinity.The City of Pasco
Comprehensive Plan shows the property to be within a mixed-density
residential designation. The developer is seeking a zone change from RT
(Residential Transition) to R-3 (Medium-Density Residential) to match that of
the Mediterranean Villas properties to the west. The R-3 Zone allows for up to
one dwelling per 3,000 square feet for multiple family dwellings, with up to
60% lot coverage and building heights up to 35 feet without a special permit.
One concem that may arise from surrounding residential owners is the
possibility of a tall apartment located close to their single-family residence
blocking light and views, and encroaching on their privacy.
The City's Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map indicates the property in
question should be utilized for mixed residential uses. Land Use Policy LU-3-B
encourages "infill and density including planned unit developments to protect
open space and critical areas, and provide recreational areas and amenities in
support of more intensive, walkable neighborhoods." Land Use Policy LU-3-E
calls for designating "areas for higher-density residential development where
utilities and transportation facilities enable efficient use of capital resources."
Housing Policy H- 1-B encourages "the location of medium and high density
housing in locations that will avoid the need for access through lower density
residential neighborhoods." Housing Policy H-1-D directs the City to "avoid
large concentrations of high-density housing." Housing Policy H-2-A calls for
the City to "Allow for a full range of residential environments including single
family homes, townhouses, condominiums, apartments, and manufactured
housing." Housing Policy H-4-B requires the City to "Maintain development
regulations and standards that control the scale and density of accessory
buildings and homes to maintain compatibility with other residential uses."
The initial review criteria for considering a rezone application are explained in
PMC. 25.88.030. The criteria are listed below as follows:
1.The changed conditions in the vicinity which warrant other or additional
zoning:
Adjacent residential development and grotuth tuithin the City make the zone
change appropriate, timely, and consistent tuith the City's Comprehensive Plan.
Properties to the north and east have been rezoned to R-1 and developed tuith
Single-Family residences. The property to the south has been recently rezoned C-
i in anticipation of future commercial development. Properties to the tuest have
been rezoned R-3 zoning and developed tuith condominiums.
Facts to justify the change on the basis of advancing the public health,
safety and general welfare:
The rezone will create a medium density transition or buffer bettueen residential
areas to the east and north and commercial zones to the south. A rezone from RT
to R-3 tuould encourage "infill and density including planned unit developments
to protect open space and critical areas," as per Land Use Policy LU-3-B, and
allotu for "higher-density residential development tuhere utilities and
transportation facilities enable efficient use of capital resources," in keeping tuith
Land Use Policy LU-3-E.This rezone tuould also "Allotu for a full range of
residential environments including single family homes,totunhou se s,
condominiums,apartments,and manufactured housing," consistent tuith
Housing Policy H-2-A.
The effect it will have on the nature and value of adjoining property and
the Comprehensive Plan:
Without a development or concept plan to revietu the particulars for this proposed
change of zone,it is not possible to assess the impacts to the existing
neighborhood. It is also not possible to establish a concomitant agreement that
tuould address mitigation of any impacts.
The effect on the property owners if the request is not granted:
If the request is not granted it is probable the property will continue to remain
vacant, and/ or the owner may submit a rezone for a different residential
designation.
The Comprehensive Plan land use designation for the property:
The Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map designates the site for medium-density
residential uses. The proposed rezone will bring the zoning into conformance tuith
the Plan.
STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT
Findings of Fact must be entered from the record.The following are initial
Findings drawn from the background and analysis section of the staff report.
The Planning Commission may add Findings to this listing as the result of
factual testimony and evidence submitted during the open record hearing.
The site is currently zoned RT (Residential Transition) and has been
zoned RT for approximately 30 years.
The site borders R-1 Zones to the north and east, which are developed
with single-family homes.
The Comprehensive Plan designates the site for medium-density
residential uses.
3
The property was platted in 1967 as part of a rural, large-lot
subdivision.
The site is vacant.
The site was annexed by the City of Pasco in 1982 (ORD #2388).
The purpose of the Mixed Residential area is to serve as a buffer or
transition between low-density residential and commercial districts.
Applicant is requesting a change of zoning from RT to R-3.
Properties to the west are zoned R-3 and have been developed with
condominiums.
The R-3 Zone allows for one dwelling per 3,000 square feet for
multiple family dwellings, or up to 68 units.
The R-3 Zone allows for building heights up to 35 feet without a
special permit.
Single-family residential homes developed in the Loviisa Farms
subdivision across Chapel Hill Boulevard from the 200 unit Silver
Creek Apartment complex and the Sandy Heights RV park have
increased in value (per Franklin County records 2012) in recent years.
The single-family homes on Klickitat Lane sharing a common property
line with the 200 unit Stonegate apartment complex were constructed
after the Stonegate Apartments were constructed. The homes on
Klickitat lane have increased in value (per Franklin County records
2012) in recent years.
No development plans have been submitted as part of this rezone
request.
CONCLUSIONS BASED ON INITIAL STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT
Before recommending approval or denial of a Rezone, the Planning Commission
must develop its conclusions from the Findings of Fact based upon the criteria
listed in P.M.C. 25.88.060 and determine whether or not:
The proposal is in accordance with the goals and policies of the
Comprehensive Plan.
The proposal is consistent tuith many of the goals and policies of the
Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan also encourages the development
of a variety of residential environments (Goal H-2) and the Plan and supports
efforts to provide affordable housing to meet the needs of low and moderate
income households (Goal H-5). Hotuever, conformance tuith H-4-B cannot be
determined due to lack of a concept or development plan.
The effect of the proposal on the immediate vicinity will not be materially
detrimental.
It is believed that the rezone tuill not have any adverse effect on adjacent
property values. Hotuever, no formal development proposal has been submitted
as part of this rezone request, and the property could be developed tuith up to 68
units at one unit per 3,000 square feet, tuith building heights up to 35 feet.
4
There is merit and value in the proposal for the community as a whole.
Adjacent residential development and grotuth tuithin the City make the zone
change appropriate, timely, and consistent tuith the City's Comprehensive Plan.
The rezone will create a medium density transition bettueen residential areas to
the east and north and commercial zones to the south and tuest.
Conditions should be imposed in order to mitigate any significant
adverse impacts from the proposal.
Conditions should address concerns over privacy encroachment and free flotu of
air and light near the established R-1 zone.
A Concomitant Agreement should be entered into between the City and
the petitioner, and if so, the terms and conditions of such an agreement.
A Concomitant Agreement may be tuarranted for the purpose of adjusting
building setbacks and limiting building heights adjacent established residential
neighborhoods in order to mitigate the possible impacts of higher densities near
the established R-1 zone. The applicant should submit a development plan to
enable appropriate measures to be included as a condition of any zone change.
RECOMMENDATION
MOTION:I move to continue the open record hearing to the March 15,2012
Planning Commission meeting.
5
Item: Rezone RT to R-3VicinityApplicant: Dave Richards
MaP File #: Z 2012-002
..cs)
a
®HESIBIREAA
WILSHIREDR(
ZEBRIERieN
STUTZ-DR
STISDEBIWEVCIR-
SITE
174
Luc()NASH DR
-15Tgar0 DPI."-
U
CO0641 tiRSI MUM 1ER qR
Graraiwirrofiyuga
0 VE R lEA N
51127821122121Lai
Item: Rezone RT to R-3Land Use Applicant: Dave Richards
MaP File Z 2012-002
WELLINGTON DR
CHESHIRE CT
ZEPHER CT
0111111111111111
111111wiiiiiaIPaAiii
11111111111111111
OVERLAND CT
/STUDEBAKER DR
ACKARD DR
NASH DR
-1 DESOTO DR
r
STUTZ DR
SFDUs
HUDSON CT
TUCKER CT 7-3CKER DR
1/4.
R-3
tIem:Rezone RT to R-3ZorungApplicant: Dave Richards
MaP File Z 2012-002
WELLINGTON DR
RT
CHESHIRE CT
C-1
ti,
rri
WILSHIRE DR
R-1
SITE
ZEPHER CT
STUTZ DR
0111111111111111
WUflUiiiiiaIPaiiii
11111111111111111
OVERLAND CT
/STUDEBAKER DR
et
2i
t%NASH DR
PACKARD DR
R-1
1/4,._)
TUCKER CT 70 CKER DR
HUDSON CT
Looking North
a=41111111
Looking Northeast
Looking East
Looking South
Looking Southwest
i,-----i.
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
MASTER FILE # SP 2012-002 APPLICANT: Culbert Construction
HEARING DATE: 2/16/2012 4908 Sonora Drive
ACTION DATE: 3/15/2012 Pasco, WA 99301
BACKGROUND
REQUEST: SPECIAL PERMIT:Location of a Contractor's Facility in a
C-3 (General Business) Zone
I.PROPERTY DESCRIPTION:
Legal:A portion of the southeast 1/4 of the
southwest 1/4 of Section 27, Township 9
North, Range 29 East as identified under
Franklin County Assessor parcel numbers
113730142 & 113730124
General Location:3905 East "A" Street
Property Size:Approximately 4 acres
ACCESS: The site has access from "A" Street.
UTILITIES:All municipal utilities are currently available for
extension to the site in the adjacent right-of-way and utility
easement.
LAND USE AND ZONING:The site is zoned C-3 (General
Business) and currently contains an excavation contractor's
facility. The zoning and land use of the surrounding properties are
as follows:
NORTH:R-1 - Tierra Vida Subdivision
SOUTH:I-1 - Automotive Wrecking Yard
EAST:C-3 - Vacant/scale & potato shed
WEST:C-3 - Vacant
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN:The Comprehensive Plan designates
this area for Mbced Residential/Commercial uses.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The City of Pasco is the
lead agency for this project.Based on the SEPA checklist, the
adopted City Comprehensive Plan, City development regulations,
and other information, a threshold determination resulting in a
Determination of Non-Significance (DNS) has been issued for this
project under WAC 197-11-158.
1
ANALYSIS
The applicant proposes to locate a contractor's facility/plant (excavation
contractor) on two parcels zoned C-3 (General Business) in the 3900
block of "A" Street. The site was previously used by a trucking firm and
contains a 3,200 square foot metal building with an office and shop, a
small storage building and a graveled storage yard. The shop building
was originally constructed in the early 1970's as a service garage.
The purpose of the C-3 zone is to provide areas for more intense
commercial land uses, including non-retail commercial businesses which
are primarily related to vehicle rather than pedestrian traffic. Some of the
permitted uses in the C-3 zone are: heavy machinery sales and service,
automotive sales and service and lumber sales businesses. The
applicant's proposed use is similar in nature to that of a heavy
equipment sales and service facility.
Although not specifically listed as a permitted use within the C-3
District, contractor facilities have been long been viewed as a permitted
use within the District. There are several examples of contractor's
facilities/laydown yards on properties zoned C-3.These examples
include the following: Phoenix Excavating (Commercial Ave.), Huesitos
landscaping (Spokane St.), Frontier Fence (Commercial Ave.), and the
WSDOT maintenance yard.These types of businesses are typically
characterized by outdoor storage of construction supplies and
equipment. Most of the contractor yards in the City are located on sites
that are more than 300 feet from a residential district. Historically, with
a few exceptions, most of the contractor facilities located in C-3 zones
have been in areas near industrial zones (Columbia East) or near other
C-3 areas (Oregon Avenue Corridor).
In June of 2011 the City Council amended the Zoning Code by [PMC
25.46.040(4)] adding contractor's plants within 300 feet of a residential
zone to the list of permitted conditional uses in the C-3 zone; thereby
requiring special permit review prior to their location. The special permit
process allows the Planning Commission to recommend conditions of
approval that will afford amelioration of possible impacts, noise or
otherwise,that a contractor's facility may have on a residential
neighborhood.
INITIAL STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT
Findings of Fact must be entered from the record.The following are
initial findings drawn from the background and analysis section of the
staff report.The Planning Commission may add additional findings to
-,
this listing as the result of factual testimony and evidence submitted
during the open record hearing.
The site contains two parcels: 113730142 & 113730124.
The site is zoned C-3 (General Business).
The site is approximately 4 acres.
The site was developed with a 3,200 square foot service garage in
1972.
The site was used as a truck and equipment storage yard for many
years.
The Tierra Vida subdivision is located directly north of the site.
The Tierra Vida subdivision was zoned R-1 (Low-Density Residential)
in 2003.
The Final Plat for Tierra Vida Phase 2 contains the following
statement: "This plat is adjacent to property zoned C-3 (General
Business) and as such lots in this plat will periodically experience
impacts of noise and dust associated with the operation of permitted
uses such as potato/onion sheds, heavy equipment repair and
similar uses."
The site was the location of a trucking company when the developers
of the Tierra Vida subdivision applied for a residential rezone in
2003.
Properties to the east and west of the site are zoned C-3.
A large potato warehouse with truck scale is located on the parcel to
the east of the proposed site.
Pasco Auto Wrecking is located directly south of the site on the
south side of "A" Street.
Pasco Auto Wrecking has been located at 3602 East "A" Street since
the 1950's.
PMC 25.46.040(4) requires special permit review for contractor's
plants within 300 feet of any residential zone.
The applicant is an excavation contractor.
The applicant participated with the developer of the Tierra Vida
subdivision in the construction of a block wall to separate the
proposed contractor storage yard from residential property to the
north.
The site is accessed directly from "A" Street. There is no connection
to the site from the streets in the Tierra Vida subdivision.
3
CONCLUSIONS BASED ON INITIAL STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT
The Planning Commission must make Findings of Fact based upon the
criteria listed in P.M.C. 25.86.060. The criteria and staff listed findings
are as follows:
Will the proposed use be in accordance with the goals, policies,
objectives and text of the Comprehensive Plan?
Policy LU-4-A encourages the location of commercial facilities at major
street intersections to avoid disruptions to residential neighborhoods.
The subject site is only accessible from "A" Street and is located 1200
feet west of US Highway 12; allowing their vehicles to access Highway 12
without traveling through residentially zoned property. Policy LU-1-B
encourages enhancement of the physical appearance of the community.
The proposal can be conditioned to require landscaping improvements
thereby enhancing the physical appearance of the area.
Will the proposed use adversely affect public infrastructure?
All municipal utilities are currently available for extension to the site
from surrounding streets. Commercial development standards require
right-of-way improvements on all road frontages to bring the bordering
roadways and sidewalks up to current standards.Water and sewer
demands of the proposed use will be minimal. A fairly recent Local
Improvement District (LID#145) constructed right-of-way improvements
such as curbs, gutters and sidewalks along "A" Street.
Will the proposed use be constructed, maintained and operated
to be in harmony with the existing or intended character of the
general vicinity?
The proposed site is in an area of the community that has historically
been characterized predominantly by industrial and heavy commercial
uses.The character of the area changed somewhat in 2004 with the
construction of the first phase of Tierra Vida. The character of the
surrounding properties to the south and east remain as industrial or
heavy commercial however the character of the property to the north has
change to residential. Conditions related to buffering and landscaping
will be needed to protect the residential properties to the north.
Will the location and height of proposed structures and the site
design discourage the development of permitted uses on
property in the general vicinity or impair the value thereof?
4
The 3,200 square foot metal building on the site is 16 feet in height
which is well below the maximum structure height of 45 feet.The
building is also located closer to "A" street than the back property line
thereby minimizing impacts to neighboring properties to the north. The
structures on the site have not discouraged the development of the Tierra
Vida subdivision to the north.
Will the operations in connection with the proposal be more
objectionable to nearby properties by reason of noise, fumes,
vibrations, dust, traffic, or flashing lights than would be the
operation of any permitted uses within the district?
The operation of the proposed facility will create an equal or lesser degree
of noise, fumes, vibration and dust as regularly permitted uses in the C-3
zone. Similar uses and contractor facilities are located in other C-3 areas
of the community which do not generate complaints to the City. However
the site in question is located adjacent to the Tierra Vida subdivision and
therefore conditions related to buffering and landscaping will be needed
to protect the residential properties to the north.
Will the proposed use endanger the public health or safety if
located and developed where proposed, or in any way will
become a nuisance to uses permitted in the district?
The proposed use is similar in nature to uses permitted within the C-3
District and the (I-1) Light Industrial District to the south. The future site
design involves limited construction. Operations of the facility will not
impair or deter the development of other C-3 or I-1 zoned properties in
the vicinity nor will the operations of the proposed use become a
nuisance to permitted uses in the surrounding C-3 properties. However
without conditions related to buffering and landscaping the proposal may
become a nuisance to the Tierra Vida subdivision.
TENTATIVE APPROVAL CONDITIONS
The Special Permit shall apply to parcels 113730142 &
113730124;
Prior to the connection to the water system the applicant must
extend a water line across the length of the two parcels in
question. The water line shall be placed approximately 15 feet
north of the edge of the "A" Street pavement and aligned with the
existing water main line installed at the intersection of Tierra Vida
Lane and "A" Street. The extension shall be a 12-inch line and
shall connect to the existing water line in the utility easement east
of the property;
5
A solid masonry wall at least 6 feet in height as measured from the
north side of the property line must be maintained along all
portions of the northem property lines abutting the Tierra Vida
subdivision;
A fifteen (15) foot wide irrigated landscape buffer containing pine
trees planted at a minimum rate of one pine tree for every thirty
(30) linear feet shall be located along the entire length of the wall
abutting Tierra Vida subdivision. Additionally the landscape buffer
shall contain shrubs equal to a rate of one shrub for every 10 feet
linear feet of the buffer strip;
A 10-foot wide landscape strip shall be required along the entire
frontage of "A"Street (exclusive of driveways) containing a
minimum of 65% live vegetation. The landscaped strip shall also
contain deciduous trees spaced at 50 foot intervals;
Fencing along "A" Street shall be relocated to the north side of the
"A" Street landscaping strip;
All driveway entrances shall be constructed per City of Pasco
Standards and have asphalt aprons that extend a minimum of 20
feet beyond the Right-of-Way line;
Heavy construction equipment (excavators, backhoes, scrapers,
bulldozers, etc.) shall only be stored on Parcel # 113730124;
Smaller pieces of equipment (trucks & trailers) may be store on
Parcel # 113730142 provided they are located 50 feet or more from
the north property line;
All outdoor lighting shall be shielded from spilling onto adjacent
residential properties;
The special permit shall be null and void if a building permit has
not been obtained by September 30,2013.
RECOMMENDATION
MOTION: I move to close the hearing on the proposed contractor's facility
and initiate deliberations and schedule adoption of Findings of Fact,
Conclusions and a Recommendation to the City Council for the March
15,2012 meeting.
6
Vicinity Item: Contractor's Facility in C-3
map Applicant: Culbert Construction
File #: SP2012-002
rtr-r-
r_
rr
_
r-Tr
roiL4 -
N
2
'
410.1111111
P ikg,3
\ ;;,...;It'll--!;_-,,ri
.i'-ilp
!.-',-.r,.:: ;';4 7.i...,w..--..!.
F AO* 4,-
'eA+,41
ft V4''1,<444$41-tif r-ti.t.,
---
'il! ;1.4'1'1:6 t4 Z:: 'it Yili;;41$t .
.,AR, 4 SIRE E T
MI
1
Land Use Item"Contractor's Facility in C-3
Applicant: Culbert Construction
MaP File #: SP2012-002
Vacant
S, `41
`RrAVP slow %# #k Aits.&,_1
re Lip&b,,ASingle
Family MINIM
ResidencesST
o
WHEW
WM Eli iii V NI_PialimiLIAIG111111.
-.11111111116.41&1111E111.1.1116.
Res.'-
acility Vacant TE
Vacant
Industrial Vacant
Heavy
Comm.
Industrial
1Vae nt
Vacant
Vacant
Industrial
Vacant
Flea Market Electrical Substation
Zoning Item: Contractor's Facility in C-3
Applicant: Culbert Construction
MaP File #: SP2012-002
C4
(Retail Business)R-3
(Medium. Den ity Residential)
"A" ST
wmip,OW viije01
R-1
Illei Low Density Residential)11I ,_MI LAGfil
'l 11111111600,1&11111111:111,1
Il
C-3
(General Business)
I-1
(Light Industrial)
EAST "B" STREET
Looking North
(at west end of site)
Looking North
(east end of site)
Looking
Northeast
Looking South to the Site
(residential lots in foreground)
LookingiSouth
1,
1 al
"A" Street Frontage
Looking West