HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-16-2010 Planning Commission Packet PLANNING COMMISSION - AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING 7:00 P.M. December 16, 2010
I. CALL TO ORDER:
II. ROLL CALL: Declaration of Quorum
III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: November 18, 2010
IV. OLD BUSINESS: NONE
(Items A and B under Public Hearings are continued from the
November 18, 2010 meeting.)
V. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
A. Special Permit Location of new Middle School in an R-S-1
District. (Rd 52 & Powerline Rd.) (Renewal of a
previously approved Special Permit) (Pasco
School District) (MF# SP 10-024)
B. Special Permit Location of a Church with daycare services in
a C-1 Zone (3806 W Court St.) (House of
Restoration) (MF# SP 10-025)
C. Comprehensive Land Use Designation change from Low-
Plan Amendment Density Residential to Mixed Residential
(3300 Block of Wernett Rd.) (Vinh Pham)(MF#
CPA 10-001)
D. Comprehensive Land Use Designation change from High-
Plan Amendment Density Residential to Industrial (Corner of
Pearl St. and 4th Ave.) (Terry Brown) (MF# CPA
10-002)
E. Comprehensive Urban Growth Area Expansion (Rd. 52 &
Plan Amendment Powerline Rd.) (Farm 2005, LLC.) (MF# CPA
10-003)
F. Comprehensive Land Use Designation change from Low-
Plan Amendment Density Residential to Mixed Residential
(Corner of Charles Ave and Clark St) (Beacon
Development) (MF# CPA10-004)
VI. WORKSHOP:
VII. OTHER BUSINESS:
VIII. ADJOURNMENT:
REGULAR MEETING November 18, 2010
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
CALL TO ORDER:
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman Cruz.
POSITION MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT
No. 1 Vacant
No. 2 James Hay
No. 3 Andy Anderson
No. 4 Alecia Greenaway
No. 5 Joe Cruz
No. 6 Kurt Lukins
No. 7 Vacant
No. 8 Jana Kempf
No. 9 Lisa Gemig
Rick White, Community and Economic Development Director explained that the
Planning Commission did not have a quorum. The members present (acting as a sub-
committee of the Planning Commission) could hear the items on the agenda and
develop a record, but no action could take place. The members absent would have an
opportunity to listen to the recorded record before the next Planning Commission
meeting. Having confirmed they listened to the proceedings, action could be taken at
the next meeting.
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. No other declarations were made.
Chairman Cruz then asked the audience if there were any objections based on conflict
of interest or appearance of fairness questions regarding any of 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:
Without a quorum approval of the October 21 st minutes was postponed until
December 16th.
-1 -
OLD BUSINESS:
NONE
NEW BUSINESS:
A. SPECIAL PERMIT Location of a new Middle School in an R-S-1
District. (Rd. 52 & Power Line Rd.) (Renewal of a
previously approved Special Permit) (Pasco
School District) (MF# SP10-0241
Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff.
Dave McDonald, City Planner, explained that the application involved a request by the
Pasco School District for a renewal of a Special Permit for Middle School # 4. The
Special Permit granted for the school in 2008 expired on October 31, 2010. Since the
original approval, the District constructed Road 52 and stubbed water and sewer
service to the site. The proposal was essentially the same as that which was approved
in 2008 with the exception of some changes in the site layout. The football field and
event parking lot were shifted to the north. The written report, including references to
the recommenced conditions, was reviewed for the benefit of the Planning Commission
John Morgan, 1215 W. Lewis Street, Executive Director of Facilities for the Pasco
School District was present to speak in favor of the Special Permit. Mr. Morgan stated
the District was still in the planning stages for the school and wanted to keep the
Special Permit current so they would be ready to go when a bond was passed.
Chairman Cruz asked if the proposed extension was long enough.
Mr. Morgan stated he felt it was.
Chairman Cruz asked Mr. McDonald if the special permit could be extend beyond
2014.
Mr. McDonald explained the recommendation for the 2014 date was longer than
typical. One of the reasons for a definitive date on Special Permits was because
conditions, codes and other things within the community change over time.
Establishing a date allows the City to apply new codes to a project if the project is not
started within the Special Permit approval timeframe.
Commissioner Hay moved, seconded by Commissioner Kempf, to continue the hearing
until the December 18, 2010 meeting. The motion passed unanimously.
B. SPECIAL PERMIT Location of a Church with daycare services in a
C-1 Zone (3806 W. Court St.) (House of
Restoration)JMF# SP10-025)
Chairwoman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff.
-2 -
Shane O'Neill, Planner I, explained the applicant was seeking a Special Permit for a
church and daycare to be located in the old Phil's Sporting Goods Store at 3806 W.
Court Street. Surrounding land uses and zoning were highlighted along with some of
the staff recommended conditions of approval including: the need for parking lot and
landscaping improvements, the addition of ADA compliant restroom facilities and the
installation of curb and gutter and the exclusion of a daycare.
Chairman Cruz asked if condition # 18 meant all improvements or just the parking lot.
Mr. O'Neill stated the condition should also include all improvements in the building.
Following additional discussion on parking Chairman Cruz asked if any one was
present to speak on the matter.
Oscar Perez, 1621 West 27th Ave. Kennewick, was present to represent the church.
Mr. Perez submitted a letter asking that recommended condition # 15 dealing with no
access to Brown Street be eliminated. The letter also requested parking lot
improvements be tied to future church expansion and that street improvements not be
required on Brown Street.
Mr. McDonald explained that the access issue on the property was settled in 1986
when the property was platted. At that time access was approved off Court Street and
Road 38. Access from Brown Street was prohibited. Mr. McDonald explained the
property was not denied access because of the common access on Road 38 and Court
Street.
Chairman Cruz suggested the applicant be given a year to complete the parking lot
improvements similar to the church at 14th Ave. and Sylvester Street.
Commissioner Hay moved, seconded by Commissioner Kempf, to continue the hearing
until the December 18, 2010 meeting. The motion passed unanimously.
WORKSHOP:
OTHER BUSINESS:
Mr. White, Community and Economic Development Director briefly discussed the
memo provided to the Commission on the County Sign Code amendment. State
consistency requirements between City and County development regulations was
explained along with staff's concern over the proposed County sign code amendments
lack of consistency with City code. The County Commissioner adopted the new sign
code with instruction for County staff to work with the City to correct the
inconsistencies.
With no further business, the Planning Commission was adjourned at 7:34 p.m.
David McDonald, Secretary
-3 -
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
MASTER FILE NO: SP-10-024 APPLICANT: Pasco School District #I
HEARING DATE: 11/18/08 1215 W Lewis St
ACTION DATE: 12/16/08 Pasco, WA 99301
BACKGROUND
REQUEST: SPECIAL PERMIT: Location of a New Middle School in an R-S-1
District. (Rd 52 & Power Line Rd) (Renewal of a
previously approved Special Permit)
1. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION:
Legal: The East 1/2 of the North 1/2 of the Northeast 1/4 in the Smith
Addition # 442003, Section 10, Township 9 North, Range 29
East, W.M., Franklin County.
General Location: Southwest corner of Road 52 & Power Line Road
Property Size: Approximately 40 acres
2. ACCESS: The site is adjacent to Road 52 and Power Line Road. Power
Line road is currently undeveloped
3. UTILITIES: A 16" water line is located in Road 52. A 10" sewer line is
stubbed into the southwest corner of the site.
4. LAND USE AND ZONING: The site is zoned R-S-1 (Suburban
Residential) and is being farmed. The property to the north is zoned A-P
(Agricultural Production) in the County and is currently being farmed.
The property to the west is zoned R-1 and is being farmed. The property
to the east is zoned R-1-S/PUD and is farmed and/or being developed as
the Northwest Commons subdivision. The properties to the south are
zoned R-S-20 in the county and are developed with homes on one acre
lots.
5. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The Comprehensive Plan designates the site
for low-density residential. Goal CF-5 suggests adequate provisions
should be made for educational facilities located throughout the urban
growth area. Policy CF-5-A encourages the appropriate location and
design of schools throughout the community. Goal TR-1 encourages the
creation and maintenance of an effective and convenient street system.
Other transportation policies (TR-1-E & TR-1-F) discourage through
traffic in residential neighborhoods and encourage the disbursement of
traffic through an interconnected network of streets. Various utility
goals and policies encourage the extension of water and sewer service in
the Urban Growth Area (UF-1, OF-1A & OF-1-E). OF-D-1 suggests
irrigation distribution lines be distributed with development where there
are irrigation districts. The City now maintains and operates an
irrigation system in the general area around the proposed school site.
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, 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.
DISCUSSION
In the fall of 2008 the Pasco School District received a Special Permit for the
location of a middle school at the southwest corner of Road 52 and Power Line
Road. Following the approval of the Special Permit Road 52 was extended
north from Sandifur Parkway and utilities were brought to the site. The School
District completed some initial site and building design work but, have not
constructed the school. The Special Permit expired on October 31, 2010 and
as a result the School District has applied to renew the permit. The new
application has been modified from the 2008 application in that the school
building has been rotated and located on the south portion of the site rather
than on the north. The site modifications were required due to the
construction of Road 52 and the accompanying the location of utility stubs and
site elevations.
Conditional uses may be permitted within the R-S-1 zoning district only after
review through the Special Permit process. Most of the schools in Pasco
including the Pasco High School and Chiawana High School are located in
residential zoning districts. An on-line search of the Franklin County Assessors
records (November 2, 2010) revealed that values of residential properties
located across the street from the existing middle schools have followed the
market cycles and have maintained values with a trend toward increased
values since 2007. Experience within Pasco has shown that the location of a
school adjacent to a residential neighborhood does not have a negative impact
on the values of homes surrounding the school.
Pasco currently has three middle schools. With decade of significant growth in
Pasco's population (24,234 since 2000), the School District has a need to
construct a fourth middle school. The proposed school site is located in an
area of the community that has experienced substantial growth over the last
2
decade. There are now about 2,800 single-family homes located north of I-182
east of Road 68. The population of this area is approximately 9,200. There is
enough vacant land and proposed subdivisions to accommodate another 2,200
dwelling units, bringing the population of the area up to 16,500 at build out.
The State Office of Financial Management has estimated Pasco could increase
in size by another 30,000 people by the year 2027. Continued population
growth will create the need for additional education facilities.
Along with the growth in population the community has experienced a
corresponding increase in student enrollment within the Pasco School District.
Since 2000 School District enrollment has increase by 70 percent. In 2000
there were 8,850 students enrolled in the District. By 2010 enrollment
increased to 14,965.
The proposed school has been designed as a two story structure consisting of
over 96,000 square feet with a capacity to house 1,000 to 1,200 students. The
proposed school grounds will contain baseball and softball diamonds, a football
field, soccer fields, tennis courts and parking. The proposed site contains 40
acres and is five acres smaller than the Ochoa Middle School site but, larger
than both the Stevens and McLaughlin Middle School sites. The three
proposed parking lots (staff, event 8s visitors) contain approximately 430
parking spaces. About a quarter of the parking spaces are occupied during a
typical school day.
Access to the site is limited due to the fact that Road 52 is a dead end street
and provides only one route to and from the proposed school site. Given that
the proposed middle school will be the size of a small high school there will be
significant traffic during certain hours of the day. The other middle school
sites in Pasco have at least two means of access that help diffuse traffic and
reduce the impacts of traffic on surrounding residential uses. For safety
reasons (fire, police and other emergencies) and to ameliorate traffic impact to
neighboring properties, at least two points of ingress are needed to service
middle schools and high schools. Access concerns are not unique to schools.
When the Three Rivers Crossing subdivision was being developed (one quarter
mile west of the proposed school site) the developer was required to provide a
second access point to the subdivision by extending Sandifur Parkway 1,800
feet west of the subdivision to Road 68. The creation of a second access point
must also be considered for the development of the proposed site for a school.
The extension of Power Line Road to the west would provided a second means
of access to the school site.
City codes require concurrent development of street, sidewalks and utilities
whenever a new building is constructed. In the case of the proposed middle
school site this would involve improvements to Power Line Road. These
improvements will include street construction and paving, installation of curb,
3
gutter, and sidewalk (7' wide) street lights, handicapped ramps, signage, lane
striping, street drainage, traffic signals, fire hydrants and any necessary speed-
reduction modifications needed by the School District.
With respect to traffic-related issues a signal warrant test may be needed to
determine when and if a signal should be installed at Road 52 and Sandifur
Parkway. Based on the Institute of Traffic Engineers Trip Generation Manual
(2003) an average middle school will generate about 1,300 vehicle trips per day.
That would amount to $55,900 in traffic impact fees. If the site was fully
developed with single-family homes about 1,200 daily vehicle trips could be
expected.
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
and comments made at the public hearing. The Planning Commission may
add additional findings as deemed appropriate.
1. The site is located in an R-S-1 zone.
2. Under the current zoning approximately 120 single-family dwellings
could be constructed on the site.
3. Schools are conditional land uses in the R-S-1 zone and require review
through the special permit process prior to permitting for construction.
4. The site is at the northern edge of the Pasco Urban Growth Boundary.
5. The site is within the City limits of Pasco.
6. The Comprehensive Plan identifies the site for low-density residential
uses.
7. Comprehensive Plan Goal CF-5 suggests that adequate provisions should
be made for the location of educational facilities throughout the urban
growth area.
8. Comprehensive Plan transportation goals and policies (TR-1, TR-1-E 8v
TR-1-F) encourage the development of an effective and convenient street
network that discourages through traffic in residential neighborhoods.
9. Various utility goals and policies (UF-1, UF-lA, OF-1E 8v OF-D-1) within
the Comprehensive Plan encourage the extension of water, sewer and
irrigation lines within the UGA.
10. The site is currently being farmed.
11. The site is owned by the Pasco School District.
12. Sewer and water utilities are stubbed to the site.
13. The site is located at the southwest corner of Road 52 and future Power
Line Road.
14. Power Line Road is unimproved and lacks the necessary right-of-way for
a road.
4
15. Road 52 is currently a dead-end street.
16. The proposed middle school site plan lacks a second primary road access
for the disbursement of traffic and for emergency vehicles.
17. All existing middle schools in Pasco have at least two access routes to
and from the schools
18. City development standards require off-site street and utility (sewer,
water, irrigation 8v etc) improvements to be constructed or installed
concurrently with site development.
19. Off-site street improvements include but are not limited to street
construction and paving, installation of curb gutter and sidewalk (7'
wide), street lights, handicapped ramps, signage, lane striping, street
drainage, traffic signals, speed-reduction modifications, and fire
hydrants.
20. According to the Institute of Traffic Engineers Trip Generation Manual
(2003) an average 96,000-square-foot middle school will generate about
1,300 vehicle trips per day.
21. If developed with single family homes the site would generate about
1,200 vehicle trips per day.
22. The School district did not submit a traffic report with the Special Permit
application.
23. Pasco's population has doubled since 1997.
24. The Pasco School District enrollment has grown from 8,850 in 2000 to
14,965 in 2010.
25. The area north of I-182 and east of Road 68 is estimated to increase in
population from about 9,200 to 16,500 during the next 20 years.
26. Residential property values near the existing Middle Schools
(McLaughlin, Ochoa 8v Stevens) have remained constant or increased
since 2007.
27. No sports fielding lighting will be constructed with the proposed middle
school.
28. In 2008 the Pasco School District was issued a Special Permit for the
location of a middle school on the site in question. The previously
approved Special Permit expired on October 31, 2010.
CONCLUSIONS BASED ON STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT
Before recommending approval or denial of a special permit the Planning
Commission must draw its conclusion from the findings of fact based upon the
criteria listed in P.M.C. 25.86.060. The criteria and staff listed conclusions are
as follows:
5
1) Will the proposed use be in accordance with the goals, policies, objectives
and text of the Comprehensive Plan?
The proposed use supports the following plan policies or goals: CF-5
suggests adequate provisions be made for educational facilities
throughout the Urban Growth Area. Transportation and Utility policies
support city standards that require the extension of streets and utilities
in conjunction with development. To be in accord with the
Comprehensive Plan the proposed middle school development would also
need to include the development of adjoining streets and utilities.
2) Will the proposed use adversely affect public infrastructure?
Development activities within the City are required to install or improve
all necessary public infrastructure concurrent with development.
Construction of the new middle school will require street improvements,
street lighting, sidewalks, fire hydrants, street drainage, and all other
items required in the standard specification of the City. Required
improvements will enhance public infrastructure facilities in the area
around the proposed school site. The proposed school will generate
about the same amount of daily traffic as a 40-acre subdivision.
However, with one way in and out (Rd 52) traffic will impact the
operation of the Road 52 and Sandifur Parkway intersection. A second
access road would mitigate that concern.
The location of a middle school on the proposed site may encourage the
development of residential homes to the north of the school site leading
to pressure to expand the UGA into areas which the city is not planning
to provide utilities. In this respect the proposal may adversely impact
public infrastructure.
3) Will the proposed use be constructed, maintained and operated to be in
harmony with existing or intended character of the general vicinity?
The proposed middle school has been designed to complement the
existing and future neighborhood by providing generous yard setbacks,
landscaping, screening of mechanical equipment and a pitched roof line
to moderate the school's height in keeping with typical pitched roofs of
residential homes. Middle schools are typically located in or near
residential neighborhoods and are an accepted part of the character of
residential areas.
4) 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?
6
The construction of schools in residential neighborhoods often
encourages development of nearby properties. The Highland Park Homes
Addition and the Mesa Verde subdivision are good examples of
subdivision that were built out with homes after Ochoa Middle School
was constructed. An on-line search of the Franklin County Assessors
records (November 2, 2010) revealed that values of residential properties
located across the street from the existing middle schools have followed
the market cycles and have maintained values with a trend toward
increased values since 2007. While the encouragement of development
within the UGA is not an issue the proposed school site is located on the
northern edge of the UGA and as a result housing development may
occur outside the UGA. The city is not planning for utilities in the area
north of the school site therefore any development would occur in a
substandard fashion potentially impacting the value of adjoining
properties within the city.
5) 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?
Experience has shown that schools within Pasco generate few
complaints from neighbors. The proposed middle school will not create
more dust fumes or vibrations than what would typically be created in a
40 acre subdivision. The proposed school could generate up to 1,300
vehicle trips per day. With two distinct peaks at approximately at 7:30
am and 2:30 pm. During weekends, the summer break, and other break
periods very little traffic will be generated. If developed with single family
homes the site would generate about 1,200 daily vehicle trips. However,
traffic from a residential development would be constant year round.
The daily calculation for traffic generation does not include event traffic
for ball games, concerts, and major extracurricular functions. There will
be no sports field lighting constructed with the middle school.
6) Will the proposed use endanger the public health or safety if located and
developed where proposed, or in anyway will become a nuisance to uses
permitted in the district?
The middle school will be constructed to meet all requirements of the
International Building Code, the Fire Code, the Plumbing Code, all other
construction codes and state regulations pertaining to middle school
construction. The building will be required to have fire-rated corridors,
area separation walls, sufficient exiting and fire sprinkler systems to
7
ensure the safety of the public. The construction of sidewalks and street
improvements will address traffic safety issues.
Schools have a long history of being accepted in residential
neighborhoods. In most communities schools, including middle schools,
are located in or near residential neighborhoods.
Proposed Approval Conditions
1. The special permit shall apply to Parcel No. 116170030.
2. The Middle School and Middle School site shall be developed in
substantial conformity with the site plan and building
elevations submitted with the special permit application.
3. Power Line Road abutting the school property shall be improved
to arterial street standards meeting all applicable regulations
and Construction Standards of the City Engineering Office.
Improvements shall include but not be limited to curb, gutter,
sidewalk and street lighting along the school side of the street.
4. The complete road widths for Power Line Road will be 48 feet;
the Pasco School District shall be responsible for constructing a
minimum of 28 feet of road width on the south side.
5. Sidewalks in the Road 52 right-of-way abutting the school
property shall be 7 feet in width.
6. Sidewalks in the Power Line Road right-of-way shall be 5 feet
wide and located along the property line rather than the curb
line.
7. The planting strip between the Power Line Road curb and the
off-set sidewalk must be planted in lawn and trees approved by
the Administrative and Community Services Department
planted at 50-foot intervals.
8. The School District shall construct a 6-foot tall block wall/fence
along the Power Line Road right-of-way per matching the block
wall in West Pasco Terrace to the west.
9. The School District shall provide a second access route to and
from the middle school site by either extending Power Line Road
from Road 52 west to Road 68 or by connecting Power Line
Road to Sandifur Parkway by way of Road 60. Improvements
beyond the west boundary of the school property on Power Line
Road or on Road 60 shall consist of a minimum of a 28-foot
wide paved road surface built to arterial street standards.
10. The School District shall prepare a traffic study for anticipated
traffic to and from the proposed school site to determine the
need for additional street improvements and/or the need for
traffic signals. This study shall include the increased traffic load
8
generated by the proposed elementary school at the northwest
corner of Road 60 and Sandifur Parkway. The traffic study
must be completed and submitted to the City Engineer prior to
the issuance of a building permit and may result in additional
conditions or requirements related to school construction.
11. Once both middle school #4 and the elementary school at the
northwest corner of Road 60 and Sandifur Parkway are
completed Power Line Road must be extended to Road 68 if the
traffic study required in condition #10 indicates the Power Line
Road connections with Road 60, Robert Wayne Drive and
Convention Drive as well as the Road 52 connection to Sandifur
Parkway do not provide sufficient traffic dispersal from the two
schools.
12. No on-street parking or bus staging will be permitted on or
adjacent to Road 52 or Power Line Road.
13. All costs associated with speed reduction/modification
including but not limited to flashing lights, signage, pedestrian
sensors, safety and crosswalks shall be paid for by the School
District.
14. All street/roadway signage abutting the property is to be
provided by the School District and must be per the most
current MUTCD 8s City of Pasco Construction Standards.
15. The School District shall construct all necessary improvements
and accommodations for pedestrian school routes along Road
52 and Power Line Road as required and identified in the traffic
study.
16. All recommended street improvements, including traffic signals,
recommended in the traffic study must be installed in
conjunction with the construction of the middle school.
17. No mid-block crosswalks will be permitted on Road 52 or Power
Line Road.
18. The School District shall pay the traffic mitigation fee in effect
at the time a building permit is issued.
19. The School District shall provide the City Engineer with an
event traffic plan for review and approval prior to the issuance
of a building permit.
20. The School District shall prepare a dust control mitigation plan
to be submitted with the building permit application.
21. All utilities, storm water facilities, and infrastructure
improvements shall be designed and constructed to meet the
standard specifications of the City Engineer.
22. The School District shall install a 16 inch irrigation line along
the length of the school site in Power Line Road
23. The School District shall dedicate the north 40 feet of the site
for the Power Line Road right-of-way.
9
24. The School District shall dedicate the east 10 feet of the site for
additional Road 52 right-of-way.
25. A 55-foot radius shall be dedicated at the southwest
intersection of Road 52 and Power Line Road.
26. No sports field light shall be permitted.
27. Water rights associated with site must be dedicated to the City
prior to the issuance of a building permit.
28. The special permit shall be null and void if a building permit
has not been obtained by January 1, 2014.
RECOMMENDATION
MOTION: I move to adopt findings of fact and conclusions
therefrom as contained in the December 16, 2010 staff report.
MOTION: I move based on the findings of fact and conclusions
therefrom the Planning Commission recommend the City Council
grant a special permit to the Pasco School District for the location of
a Middle School at the southwest corner of Road 52 and Power Line
Road with conditions as listed in the December 16, 2010 staff
report.
10
• Item: Special Permit - Middle School
Vicinity Applicant: Pasco School District # 1 N
Map File #: SP 10-024
r
CITY LIMITS -
K
t
SITE
LIMITS a
CITY � :- �• ,
Yrr• Z
r
Big I Ll t
U OVERTON RD T
CD
�-... m
Q _ O NW COMMONS DR
S°A FU'R�P
Land Use Item: Special Permit - Middle School 1
Applicant: Pasco School District # 1 -(x -
Map File #: SP 10-024
Farming
(City Limit)
(City Limit
Farming SITE
Farming
� (City Limit)
Lu
a� i Residential - � Churcb ,
Tr
� W L _ — - I r;, Residential `,
Zoning Item: Special Permit - Middle School Applicant: Pasco School District # 1 x
Map File #: SP 10-024
AP-20 (County)
(City Limit (City Limit)
RS- 1 SITE
RS-20
� (City Limit) ,.
{il
LU
F
�� RS-20 (County) ' �o' PARLEY
a CA
1 NW COMMONS R
- ---- ---------
-------------- ---------- ---------------------- ---------------------------------- -------
------------------------
----------- ----------------
------------
- --- ---------------------------------- --
----------------------------------------------------- 11 's
--- ------ -------------- CT
i � o
1 1r t----------------
It k
s
1 � S` /FAO / ., r
�. NT
I
ay I d1l K
BASEBALL
COMPETITION
SOFTBALL
SHED
FINI
CA FL OOR
CA
EL 510
Ln Of
> <
100 50 0 100 150 200
SCALE 1 INCH = 100 FEET
SOFTBALL
BASEBALL
00 00
LEGEND:
SCHOOL
INDICATES WELL
N.E DIRECTION
INDICATES POWER POLE WITH LINE DIREc
INDICATES GUY WIRE
TP
INDICATES TELEPHONE PEDESTAL
FUTURE ,
INDICATES 5 FOOT CONTOUR INTERVAL
0
PORTABLES
——————J INDICATES 1 FOOT CONTOUR INTERVAL
0
AF # INDICATES AUDITOR'S FILE NUMBER
SOCCER R/W INDICATES RIGHT—OF—WAY
SOCCER BUS LOADING SP INDICATES SHORT PLAT
FND INDICATES FOUND
STAFF PARKING USBR INDICATES UNITED STATES BUREAU OF
RECLAMATION
------ W-0,
-----------------------
---------A
--------- --- ----------------------------
rt
� a
i �•
• P
1
ivh
iw
IA
<`6
• EIIIIM I
IN
, ,� 1 I• ��� P��O• � ltai
Rio
of
1!� I r -
• _==_NEW
I
�- Pool:
,P I
MIIIIII, IN
IN a
— 5
Mill
IRV q ;
A
P �t
Till w
t 6is•�I
i
, TIC TIC
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
MASTER FILE #: SP 10-025 APPLICANT: Oscar Perez
HEARING DATE: l l/18/10 8v 12/16/10 8515 West 3rd Ave
ACTION DATE: 12/16/10 Kennewick, WA 99336
BACKGROUND
REQUEST: SPECIAL PERMIT: Location of a church with daycare
services (House of Restoration) in a C-1
(Retail Business) zone.
1. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION:
Legal: Lot 5 and 7 of Short Plat 86-1
General Location: 3806 West Court Street
Property Size: Approximately 0.66 acres
2. ACCESS: The site has access from West Court Street.
3. UTILITIES: All municipal utilities currently serve the site.
4. LAND USE AND ZONING: The site is zoned C-1 (Retail Business)
and contains a commercial building. The zoning and land use of
the surrounding properties are as follows:
NORTH - C-1 - Medical offices
SOUTH - RS-12 -Single-family residential
EAST- RS-12 & C-1 - Commercial and single-family
WEST- C-1 - Commercial
S. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The Comprehensive Plan designates this
area for Commercial uses. Policies of the Plan encourage
compatibility between land uses and harmony between existing
and proposed development. The plan does not specifically address
churches, but various elements of the plan encourage adequate
provision of off-street parking and situating businesses in
appropriate locations for their anticipated uses. Policies of the
Plan also encourage the location of facilities for educational and
cultural activities in the City.
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,
1
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 applicant is seeking a Special Permit to allow the location of a
church and a daycare in the old Phil's Sporting Goods store at 3806 West
Court Street. Churches are defined in Pasco Municipal Code as
"Unclassified Uses" which require a special permit prior to locating in
any zone within the City. Daycare centers are also required to be
reviewed through the Special Permit process and may be permitted in
any zone.
The 5,600 square foot building proposed to be used for a church and
daycare was originally built on the site in 1986. From 1986 to about
2005 the building was occupied by Phil's Sporting Goods. In 2006 the
interior of the building was remodeled and divided into five separate
spaces. The church is proposing to use up to 2,200 square feet of the
building. The remaining 3,400 square feet of the building will be
available commercial space for rent to permitted uses in the C-1 District.
The building was originally constructed and subsequently remodeled for
retail business uses. Using a portion of the interior of the building as a
church changes the building occupancy classification under the
International Building Code. Changing the occupancy impacts the
number of restroom fixtures required. In this case an additional sink
and toilet would be needed in both the men's and women's restrooms.
Additionally, restroom facilities are required to be ADA
compliant/handicapped accessible. Presently only one restroom is
handicapped accessible.
Occupancy standards of the building code will permit the 2,200 square
feet dedicated for the church to have an occupancy load of 147 people.
Thirty-seven (37) parking spaces would be needed to serve 147 people.
The site currently has 26 parking spaces available for the church. With
some site improvements an additional 12 spaces could be added along
the east side of the building; fulfilling parking requirements for the
church.
However, the issue of commercial parking remains. The site has
sufficient space to install a maximum of 38 parking stalls, which is the
minimum number required to serve the proposed church. Commercial
tenant spaces are proposed to occupy the remaining 3,400 square feet of
building area. An additional 11 parking spaces are needed to serve said
commercial uses. A total of 48 parking stalls are needed to serve all of
2
the proposed uses. By the calculations above, it can be determined the
site lacks the necessary area to install all of the required parking with a
deficiency of 10 spaces.
The parking situation is complicated since the church will hold meetings
on Friday evenings. Depending on types of commercial uses that will
rent space in the building there could be a conflict with parking during
that time. Restaurants and some retail businesses are open past 7:00 pm
on Friday evenings.
The proposed (and required) parking lot area along the eastside of the
building is not paved and does not contain on site drainage facilities. The
Planning Commission has made it a regular practice of requiring
churches to meet the commercial parking lot improvements standards
for hard surfacing and landscaping. In addition to the lack of parking lot
improvements the site is not bordered by curb, gutter and sidewalk.
These improvements would need to be added to control ingress and
egress to surrounding streets.
The applicant indicated in his application materials that a child daycare
would be located on the site. The site plan does not indicate where a
daycare playground area would be located. Revised Code of Washington
[WAC 170-295-2130(1)(a)] requires child daycare facilities provide
outdoor play areas. Given the parking constraints it does not appear
there is enough room on the site for a playground area.
Churches are typically located in or adjacent to residential zoning
districts of the city. The operations of churches generally generate few
complaints from adjoining property owners. The proposed church
property has generally been well maintained over the years despite the
fact the parking lot has never been improved.
It has been a long standing practice of the Planning Commission to
require properties converted to church use to complete full site
improvements including parking lot paving/striping prior to issuance of
occupancy registration. During the Planning Commission public hearing
on November 18, 2010 the applicant indicated the costs of making all
required parking lot improvements would be a substantial financial
burden; possibly to the point of being cost prohibitive. The applicant
further requested the Commission grant a grace period to allow parking
lot improvements be phased to stagger the costs. Chairman Cruz agreed
to grant a one year grace period for the installation of full parking lot
improvements. This grace period is reflected in condition #21 (p.8).
3
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.
1. Churches are unclassified uses and require review through the
special permit process prior to locating or expanding in any
zoning district.
2. Daycare centers fall within the definition of Level One Community
Service Facilities and require review through the special permit
process prior to locating or expanding in any zoning district.
3. The proposed site is zoned C-1 (Retail Business).
4. The proposed site is located at 3806 West Court Street.
5. The main access to the site is from West Court Street. Secondary
access is available from Road 38.
6. The proposed site has been developed with a commercial
structure since 1986.
7. Churches are often located in or near residential zoning districts
within Pasco.
8. The properties to the south and east are developed with single-
family homes.
9. The parking lot area to the east of the building is not improved.
10. Lot #7 lacks street and sidewalk improvements along Road 38
and Brown Street.
11. The area within the building proposed for church use will require
37 parking spaces.
12. The area within the building proposed for commercial uses will
require 11 parking spaces.
13. A total of 48 parking stalls are needed to serve all of the proposed
uses.
14. The site currently has 26 parking spaces.
15. The building has a 600 square foot basement.
16. The building lacks the necessary restroom facilities for an
assembly (church) occupancy combined with retail/office
occupancies.
4
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:
1) Will the proposed use be in accordance with the goals, policies,
objectives and text of the Comprehensive Plan?
Policy LU-2-13 of the Comprehensive Plan encourages the support of
facilities for educational and cultural activities.
2) Will the proposed use adversely affect public infrastructure?
The proposed use will have a minimal impact on public infrastructure.
Churches are generally used on Sundays and during evenings in the
middle of the week. The lack of an improved parking lot on the eastside
of the building combined with the lack of controlled access to said
parking area potentially has an adverse impact on the surrounding
neighbors and the public who utilize Road 38. These impacts can be
mitigated by adding parking lot improvements, landscaping along the
street and street improvements.
3) Will the proposed use be constructed, maintained and operated to
be in harmony with the existing or intended character of the
general vicinity?
Churches are typically located in or near residential areas. In this case,
the proposed church could serve as a buffer between the commercial
uses on Court Street and the residential uses to the south and east.
Landscaping, parking lot improvements and street improvements will be
needed along Road 38 to maintain harmony within the neighborhood.
4) 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
The location and height of the existing structure has not discouraged the
development of permitted uses on surrounding properties in the past.
The presence of churches in and adjacent to residential neighborhoods in
other parts of the community has not discouraged residential
development or impaired the value of residential properties.
5
5) 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?
Churches are typically used infrequently, generally two or three days a
week and generate traffic during off-peak times such as Sunday
mornings and in evenings during the week. Additionally, the applicant
mentioned on their application the possibility of holding Friday evening
services. The use of the unimproved parking lot on the eastside of the
building could create nuisance conditions such as fugitive dust and
gravel along with dirt being knocked into Road 38. These conditions can
be mitigated by the installation of curb, gutter and sidewalk. Certain
types of lighted signage could create nuisance conditions for the
neighboring residents. These conditions can be mitigated by prohibiting
signage on the Road 38 side of the building.
6) 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?
Churches are generally accepted uses in or near residential
neighborhoods. Past history of church operations within the City has
shown they usually do not endanger public health or safety. Without
improvements the use of a parking lot along the eastside of the building
will cause rocks and dirt to be knocked out into Road 38 creating a
nuisance condition for motorists and neighboring property owners.
These conditions can be mitigated by the installation of curb, gutter and
sidewalk.
TENTATIVE APPROVAL CONDITIONS
1) The special permit shall apply to parcel #119-492-185 and 119-
492-20;
2) The parking lot between the building and Road 38 shall be hard
surfaced and striped to meet the parking lot standards of PMC
25.78.090;
3) The parking lot shall be landscaped to meet the commercial
parking lot standards of PMC 25.75;
6
4) Street improvements meeting the Standard Specifications
including but not limited to curb, gutter and storm drainage shall
be installed on Road 38 and Brown Street;
5) The applicant shall dedicate a 25 foot radius at the intersection of
Road 38 and Brown Street.
6) A sidewalk matching the width of the existing sidewalk on Road
38 shall be installed on Road 38 only.
7) The basement must only be used for storage and cannot be used
for a church classroom.
8) One additional toilet and hand basin shall be installed for each
men's and women's restroom.
9) All restrooms must meet ADA requirements to be handicapped
accessible.
10) Signage shall be limited to Lot #5.
11) Wall signs facing Road 38 shall not be lit.
12) No wall signs shall be permitted on the Brown Street side of the
building.
13) No signage shall be permitted on Lot #7.
14) The Church shall not object to the issuance of a liquor license
within 1,000 feet of the church building.
15) Driveway access on Brown Street is not permitted.
16) Access to Road 38 shall be limited to the existing driveway.
17) A daycare center of any kind is not permitted.
18) Street curbing and gutter shall be installed along Road 38 to the
intersection of Brown Street prior to issuance of a City of Pasco
business license or occupancy registration.
19) The building occupancy load (all uses) shall be restricted to a
capacity directly related to the number of improved parking stalls
permitted by the City (building capacity will be derived from the
Required Off-Street Parking standards listed in PMC 25.78.170).
The property owner must acknowledge this restriction prior to
issuance of a building permit.
20) The special permit shall be null and void if a City of Pasco
building permit for tenant and site improvements is not obtained
by January 1, 2012.
21) The special permit shall be null and void if both parking lot areas
have not been hard surfaced and striped to meet the parking lot
standards of PMC 25.78.090 by January 1, 2012.
7
RECOMMENDATION
MOTION: I move to adopt findings of fact and conclusions therefrom as
contained in the December 18, 2010 staff report.
MOTION: I move based on the findings of fact and conclusions
therefrom the Planning Commission recommend the City
Council grant a special permit to Oscar Perez for the location
of a church at 3806 West Court Street with conditions as
listed in the December 18, 2010 staff report.
8
Item: Special Permit - Church & Daycare
Vicinity Map
Applicant: House of Restoration N
File #. SP 10-025
W RU_ BY ST _
V11.;RWBY ST
-��jo
T COURT ST -
,
S1
I WO
1 wow,
41t& &,:
Aw
Di
.. ; , .psi , �' . .. _ • " -..+K�
F• `�
4ii " • Q f r �t
yyJJ M W4,
W MARI E ST
Land Use Item: Special Permit - Church & Daycare
Applicant: House of Restoration x
Map File #: SP 10-025
W RUBY ST -F SFDU 's JVacant
SFDU's sysr
Office Commercial � C- 1 1 1
- COURT ST
Church � SITE Commercial
00
me
� - - owN sr - ° - - Vac.
o
SFDU 's
� rc Vac
W MARIE ST
Zoning Item: Special Permit - Church & Daycare
Applicant: House of Restoration N
Map File #: SP 10-025
W RUBY ST J� L
-1M l R- 1
W RUBY ST
C-1
C= 1
1101V LL�
COURT ST
SITE C-1
� CO
� OWN-ST �
R-1
RS- 12 0
a
0
-W MARIE ST i
T COURT STREET
0
EXSIT. SHARED
ACCESS V EXIST.5' CITY WALK
__ 70.0'• •
--
EXIST. EASEMENT
IEXIST. PARKING •�. 1
0 I
N
• EXIST. PARKING r (o •CO `
�y N CM W I
C.0 U*) u') OO I Y
N c N J
N M
I d O O
Co ^ a
N •M
M M I in
C14 04
Ln
- N CO �� I W
O • /
Pb
oNpl N M I ch
O oq
. I N
N N
EXIST. EASEMENT N L---- 1� ._i T 1 N
b`— 60.0 'I
-----------------
. �
---_EXIST. PARKING_— ------------� F Co
► I Xv
o
6 7 9 10 wQ
FINITRY
I
EXIST.' C%4 i I °�°
Q R
,RETAIL i Co
BUILDING 1 Lo I O
5 600 SF I I
PROPOSED 2.000 SF NEW PARKING
CHANGE OF OCCUP.
a ASSEMBLY-Max
EXIST. EASEMENT
" ca acit =99 Occu rO'
1 60'-0'
- N
— — ius------------------J
8070.0'd--, 60.0'
/ I
EXIST."o
W. BROWN ST. o ACCESS
O •
�
pub.
� EXISTING SITE PLAN 3806 W. COURT SITE
NDrawing lumber Drawn Uy ]10/22/10
Scale: V=40 ft A-01.1 Devi Tate lb__... .._ CAD File\ame
Vani1, . TE.vwx
01
i v 6 d s
w N w fA
CO) 700
LO N
� Lf) N
0
V_
V
a
Iglesia de Cristo "Casa de Restauracion"
1621 West,27`"Avenue Phone: 509 396 7199
Kennewick,WA. Cell: 509 737 7230
99336 E-mail: houseofrestoration @charter.net
November 18, 2010
Pasco Planning Commission
525 N Third Av. Pasco, WA.
99301
Dear Planning Commissioners:
This letter is submitted in support of the conditional use permit at 3806 W. Court Street. We have read the
tentative conditions of approval, and request that you consider the following information:
There are currently no businesses on the site that present parking conflicts with the church's proposed hours of
operation. If new businesses were to be proposed in the future that presented parking conflicts, they will be
reviewed by the city at the time that they are proposed to ensure compliance with the parking rules, rather than
relying on speculation for what might happen.
We are open to a condition of approval which limits the occupancy of the church to match the number of
currently improved parking spaces. Future expansion of the occupancy could trigger a requirement for additional
hard surfaced parking.
We ask that condition#15 be eliminated. The property has a right of access to Brown Street. There is no
evidence in the record stating that removing the Brown Street access implements an adopted access control
plan. While we do not expect much traffic from the church to use Brown Street, the city cannot take a right of
access without paying compensation and no compensation has been proposed. Likewise, we should not be
required to make improvements or easements dedications to a street that we cannot access. The Brown Street
access does provide a useful emergency vehicle access point to the site and we desire to retain it.
Thank you again for consideration of our CUP request, I am happy to answer any questions.
Sincerely,
Oscar Perez
UBI # 602 922 162
EIN # 26-4836579
State of Washington
MEMORANDUM
DATE: December 16, 2010
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Shane O'Neill, Planner I
SUBJECT: Comprehensive Plan Amendment (Vihn Pham) (MF# CPA 10-001)
The applicant, Vihn Pham, has applied to amend the Land Use Designation
indicated on the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map from Low-Density Residential
(1 unit/7,200 square feet) to Mixed Residential with the intent to rezone the site to
R-2 (Medium Density Residential) (1 unit/5,000 square feet) thereby allowing the
site to be developed with duplexes. The subject property is an approximately 5.1
acre parcel located on the north side of Wernett Road at the northern termini of
Roads 33 & 34.
The subject parcel is zoned R-1 (Low Density Residential) which conforms to the
Plan's current Land Use Designation. Properties to the west are zoned R-S-1
(Suburban), RS-12 (Suburban) to the south and R-1 to the east. The sites' current
zoning allows for relatively higher residential density development than
surrounding parcels.
With regard to surrounding land uses, the neighborhood is developed primarily
with single-family homes interspersed with duplexes. The adjacent parcel to the
west contains two duplexes while three more duplexes on separate parcels are
located directly to the southeast. The duplex units are nonconforming and were
constructed while under Franklin County's jurisdiction prior to annexation. The
site is bordered to the north by Highway I-182.
Wernett Road provides direct access to the site. Wernett Road connects to Road
36, Road 32 and other roads for access to the community.
The site is located in a larger area bounded by SR 395 on the east, I-182 and
Argent Road on the north, Road 68 on the west and Court Street on the south.
Except for a narrow band along Court Street and Road 68 this larger area is
designated for low-density development. This designation has been applied to the
area for about 30 years. Zoning for the area has been established to be consistent
with the Comprehensive Plan Designation.
It has been a long standing policy of the City to place High-Density Land Use
Designations on or near major streets. By doing so the City can encourage the
development multi-family projects to be conveniently located on or near major
transportation routes which help prevent the need for higher density apartment
traffic from traveling on local access street through low-density neighborhoods.
High density development located along or near major streets can also take
advantage of the larger utility lines that are often located in major streets as well
as the availability of transit service.
Higher density residential Land Use Designations have also been used to provide
buffers between high intensity commercial uses and low intensity residential uses.
In this case the creation of a higher density residential Land Use Designation will
not serve as a buffer because there are no nearby commercial uses, zoning
districts or Land Use Designations.
The following Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies are applicable to this
application:
LU-3-E Policy: Designate areas for higher density residential
development where utilities and transportation facilities
enable efficient use of capital resources.
H-1-A Policy: Medium and high density housing should be
located near arterials and neighborhood or community
shopping facilities and employment areas.
H-1-B Policy: Encourage the location of medium and high
density housing in locations that will avoid the need for access
through lower density residential neighborhoods.
The long standing practice of locating higher density residential Land Use
Designations along major streets is supported by Comprehensive Plan Policies LU-
3-E and H-1-13. Policy LU-3-E encourages designating areas for higher density
residential development where utilities and transportation facilities enable efficient
use of capital resources, in other words, where utilities and streets have the
capacity to absorb an added load from the high-density development. 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. The
establishment of multi-family dwelling units at the north end of Roads 33 and 34
would undoubtedly foster increased traffic on Road 32 for access to Court Street.
In this respect the proposal is not supported by the Comprehensive Plan Policy H-
1-13. This long standing policy would need to be modified before a Mixed
Residential Designation could be applied to the property in question.
A review of the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map indicates the nearest land with
a Mixed Residential Land Use Designation is approximately 1.2 miles to the west.
If the Plan amendment were approved, the site would appear as an isolated spot
2
on the Land Use Map. Typically the concept of "spot zoning" is viewed as an
unsound planning technique and should be avoided.
Planning Staff is recommending the application be denied particularly for the
three main points listed above. Again, they are: 1) Policy Goal H-1-B discourages
creating the need for traffic to and from medium/high density residential
development to flow through low density residential neighborhoods; 2) the
application proposes to establish an isolated Land Use Designation where no
similar Land Use Designation exists in the immediate vicinity to which the site
may be connected; 3) the amendment will not serve as a buffer between high
intensity and low intensity Land Use Designations.
The Planning Commission will need to determine if Vinh Pham's proposal
materially alters the general intent of the Comprehensive Plan and whether or not
it can be supported by the recommended goals and policies.
Findings of Fact
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 public hearing.
1. The site is currently identified for a low-density development on the
Comprehensive Plan Land Use map.
2. The site is part of a larger area bounded by SR 395, I-182, Argent
Road, Court Street and Road 68 that is designated for low-density
development.
3. The site and surrounding properties that have been identified for low-
density development for 30 years or more.
4. The site is in an area that is generally developed with low-density
suburban lots.
S. Policy Goal LU-3-E encourages designating areas for higher density
residential development where utilities and transportation facilities
enable efficient use of capital resources.
6. Policy goal 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.
7. Wernett Road is not a major street.
8. Wernett Road is not on a transit route.
9. Access to the site is through low-density neighborhoods along Road
36, Road 32 and Wernett Road.
10. No other properties within the general vicinity are designated for
mixed residential uses.
3
Conclusions
The site in question is located in an inappropriate location to be considered for
a Comprehensive Plan amendment. Wernett is not an arterial street and the
encouragement for permitting multi-family development on the site in question
may lead to higher density traffic through a low-density area which is
discouraged by the Comprehensive Plan.
Recommendation
MOTION: I move to close the public hearing and schedule
deliberations, the adoption of findings of fact, and develop a
recommendation for City Council for the January 20, 2011 meeting.
4
Item: Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Vic lnit y .Applicant: Vihn Pham N
MaP File #: CPA 10-001
SIT
!_ .:: -
N
I
WER ETT RD
1 i.
-
FT
y G - M
"� ' �SEABROOK.CT
` �^-,' - • JAY ST- ,0
„ it ) O �
imp ELLA ST .�r ELLA
AL WILCOX DR
~y r��. .. � `f'e. � �. ��a. �� � } [� •..a-•• Imo¢ y
1 _
PPP
Land Use Item: Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Map Applicant: Vihn Pham N
File #: CPA 10-00 1 +
OOOFCurrent Lan
IN
M ONE
NONE MENEM
NEI
Land Use Item: Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Map Applicant: Vihn Pham N
File CPA 10-00 1 +
0
Legend
Commercial
Public/Quasi-Public
Higl Density Residential
Industrial
Ne Low-Density Residential
Mixed Residential/Commercial MEN on
M 9
Parks/Open Space
Overview Item: Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Map Applicant: Vihn Pham Q
File #: CPA 10-00 1
oil IIII& mm,
MEN ul
���,•It 1•_:••`•151•
� I �` ♦► 1u■� r.■■� I off, ��
:���\��/� �■■■■■■■11111 _ ����1
1
■� :r �: �� 1111111 ■._._■. .■■■■■■�■■� MEMO.�-
1 •I_■_1■ J� ;;,� ;� 1111■111111 ■► `�■
1 ;�: - ��II1 ..11■ .11��111111 ■11� ■
���� ■ `■■ M1■111111111■111 =��� �1►i .
1 •�.�I,■�■�i1 .. ,1■1111 :1111111■ IIIIIIIIII :C::1\►
1���� r ■• �1■ ■ 1111111■1 ■1111111
•■■.�
I�111■ - � 11101' . MEN �■ 11111 i�
� — �� .... ...........� � :::: :::::: _■� � ■111 _ �1
deal': � .�:S moos.. 1 1k1111119
1 ■■■ -- .� ��■�
....$...... 1111 �i�t� 11111■■.O���■1 1 _
■■■ ■ monsoon _1...1-... .. —r ■\.
■ ■4 ,� ■ _ ■1_ 11111 ■■ `�■ . _1.11.
® 1■�■
slogan ■1is1■ --1■■ ■ C�
/r■ � I"'� � -1•_�1■,_■� 7 .....■ moos■■ ■■■..■ .. .. ■11111 1■■■1 .�
■�■ - ■ -. .. ..■ ■ ■■1111■ �.
1— �■ ■\w111 —� ��� ��■11111■ �■ ■;.11 ■■■■.■ J0■moos
I ®� ■ m_.., J11 .11 ■r��■■ �- ■.�... ii i. -- .■ ■1111■ ■■�■■■
JJ ■ - --•� ■i■11111 ■■■■■ 1
-■■ ■%I1111 ��� � �,I � ■1■■ ■ ��� —� ■00701 =— --- 3 ,
111111 �r'i :�� �� ■■■ 7\■1■IIIIn1:71■ 1■1:.■1111 ■Mill ■= ==:■ wa ■..■.■ ■�
11111 ■�' ■■■ _■— ■ -..... ■moos. ■o ■moss.■ 11111.1
Legend � � �i ■�s� �`■1■■■1■ �Ir111 ■11111 ■11 moos.■ 11111111
.■ - _I moos.■ .■.ii. ►•11111■ iii ■0111■ 11/11111
1 11111■�■��:■■��■11■�•��011101 ■sssol ►.ul i■ X110■■ ■■1■11
I COMMERCIAL ■nun ■■ 1111 \nnn uuuu Ali
MENN■■ ■00`
GOVERNMENT — �.�■■■111��, -IIIIIIIII�� 1111■■nisi ■I1.
■111■I■1111 I iioi' MEN IS 1� /iullll 1 1■, ■� -■
� . DENSITY
_ ■ ■ ■1111 1 1111■■111111■ ► 1 •••�ME EN LMOIXWEDENESSIITYENTEIASL ID
ENTIAL
MOM ■11■■ Wim—oEM m
.10111 ■��nfluluu: ■UR �_ _�� ■■. - ul"iiinl
• • - • - • ..1■ 00010■ ■11111 ■o■1i—i W � ,■■■I 111111 X ■ M �� .u.'0000 ■1111■ ■■■r• - • ■ ■■■ ■ ■1111■ 111111 ■0111■ ■ ■1111111 11111■ ■� g
•- • ■� ■■11■ 11111■ SOON 1111M■ ■ 1111111 ■■■111111 �� ■1111■ �'��� ' �1
- �■ ■� ��■■11 ■1111■ 1 M 1\ ■ 111111 ■11111111 ■■ ■1111■ �l�
2.-,.,
' .".•�....•, °°�m-� 111111111
�„�,� �.. 1�•.•.■.. -�:�'�I�■1==-� �N,■I��� 11■ ■r■r!■■■! ■■r■■— _��■1111■
_a�1.L 111111 ■11111111 -��---
MEMORANDUM
DATE: December 16, 2010
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Shane O'Neill, Planner I
SUBJECT: Comprehensive Plan Amendment (Terry Brown) (MF# CPA 10-002)
The applicant, Terry Brown, has applied to amend the Land Use Designation
indicated on the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map from High-Density
Residential to Industrial with the intent to rezone the site to C-1 (Retail Business)
to allow the site to be developed with a drive-thru coffee shop. The site, located on
the southeast corner of Pearl Street and 4th Avenue, is owned by the Pasco
Housing Authority and only involves the undeveloped land to the northerly of the
Housing authority play field. Lying along the southern portion of the site is an old
roadway belonging to the former war-time housing complex from the 1940's.
With regard to zoning and land uses, the subject site is currently zoned R-3
(Medium Density Residential) which does not permit commercial development.
The site directly to the north is zoned C-1 and contains the Shamrock Tavern. The
Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) shops and offices are
located directly to the west across 4th Avenue from the site. The WSDOT property
is zoned C-3 (General Business). To the east lie BFSF owned railroad tracks/right-
of-way. In terms of the originally advertised site (extending the full length of the
parcel to the railroad tracks), an industrially zoned parcel also lies to the north
and contains a building previously used for agricultural produce packing.
There has been some recent commercial development within the general vicinity. A
gas station, convenience store and laundry facility was constructed at 1949 N. 4th
Avenue. Action Towing at 1948 N. 4th has expanded with a new office and shop
building. The existence of new or expanded commercial establishments
demonstrates the viability of the neighborhood for commercial activities. These
changing conditions lend valuable insight to the potential level of utility and need
for retail businesses in this area of the community.
The following Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies are applicable to this
application:
LU-1-C Policy: Encourage cluster commercial development
and discourage strip commercial development.
1
LU-1-B Policy: Enhance the physical appearance of
development within the community through land use
regulations, design guidelines, and performance and
maintenance standards including landscaping, screening,
building facades, color, signs, and parking lot design and
appearance.
LU-3-D Policy: Encourage mixed-use development including
neighborhood scale shopping areas within planned
residential developments to promote walkable communities.
CF-2-A Policy: Encourage growth in geographic areas where
services and utilities can be extended in an orderly,
progressive and efficient manner.
UT-3 Goal: Assure the provision of adequate and efficient
storm water management (are met).
TR-3 Goal: Beautify the major streets of the City.
Commercial development of the site is supported by a variety of Policies and Goals
in the Comprehensive Plan. Plan Policy LU-3-D encourages mixed-use
development to promote neighborhood scale shopping areas and more walkable
communities. The proposal would contribute to the advancement of this Goal due
the site's close proximity to a large residential neighborhood to the west and
multi-family residential development on and to the south of the subject site.
Additional Policies and Goals (TR-3, UT-3, LU-1-13 & CF-2-A) also support the
proposal in the way that infrastructure improvements such as storm water
management, sidewalks and landscaping are standard requirements of
commercial development projects in the City. Encouraging commercial
development on the site advances Plan Goals related to economic development
and enhances the physical appearance of the community.
To the north of the site, Pearl Street serves as a physical boundary to delineate
land uses of different intensities and in a sense creates a buffer. If
commercial/industrial land uses are permitted to extend south of Pearl Street the
buffering provided by the street will be eliminated. The Municipal Code (Zoning)
however, incorporates buffering standards in the landscaping regulations by
requiring enhanced landscaping where a more intense land use, such as a
commercial business, is constructed adjacent to a less intense use, such as a
residential complex.
It should be noted the Comprehensive Plan Amendment request originally
proposed changing the Land Use Designation from High-Density Residential to
Industrial. Upon further evaluation and analysis of the Land Use Map, it appears
2
to be more appropriate to extend the Commercial Land Use Designation from
across 41h Avenue east to include a portion of the site in question. The remaining
area east of 3rd Avenue could remain under the current High-Density Residential.
This modification to the original request will address the applicants' needs for
commercial development while maintaining control over the potential
inappropriate location of industrial uses on 4th Avenue and adjacent to the
Housing Authority play field.
The site staff is recommending for a Commercial Land Use Designation can be
considered part of the 4th Avenue Corridor area identified in the City's Corridor
and Gateway Plan of 2008. Allowing the property to develop for commercial uses
rather than industrial uses will support efforts envisioned in the Gateway Plan
due to the fact commercial development requires more landscaping than
industrial development.
The Planning Commission will need to determine if the proposal materially alters
the general intent of the Comprehensive Plan and whether or not it can be
supported by the Goals and Policies of the Comprehensive Plan and the Corridors
and Gateway Plan.
Findings of Fact
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 public hearing.
1. The site is located on North 4th Avenue.
2. The site is current designated for high density residential development
under the Comprehensive Plan.
3. The site is zoned R-3 Medium Density Residential.
4. North 4th Avenue is an arterial street.
S. North 41h Avenue south of I-182 is included as a gateway street in the
City's Corridors and Gateway Plan.
6. Commercial landscaping standards require landscaping in parking
lots.
7. Industrial landscaping standards do not require landscaping in
parking lots.
8. The new convenience store, gas station, laundry facility and
automotive service facility have located a block north of the site in
question.
9. The site has remained vacant for the past 65 years.
10. An Industrial Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation permits
future rezones for industrial activities.
3
11. A Commercial Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation permits
future rezones for commercial activities.
12. The west side of North 41h Avenue is designated in the comprehensive
Plan for Commercial uses.
13. Both the east and west sides of North 41h Avenue, generally between
Court Street and 3rd Avenue, are identified for commercial
development in the Comprehensive Plan.
Conclusions
Commercial development along North 4th Avenue north of Court Street will
better support the Corridor and Gateway Plan and will complement other
commercial development that has recently taken place in the neighborhood.
The Commercial Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation of the site, or a
portion thereof, would permit rezones for commercial uses which would be
more compatible with the residential uses located to the south.
Recommendation
MOTION: I move to close the public hearing and schedule
deliberations, the adoption of findings of fact, and develop a
recommendation for City Council for the January 20, 2011 meeting.
4
Item: Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Vicinity Applicant: Terry Brown N
MaP File #: CPA 10-002
,-1 1 r ! - w z6rr. k,
_ � T �L'EOL AST = Q
T , � �
A too
OR
7
iZ..?
PEARL ST
SITE
LU
Ak
Aa
LO
•ere w.... •'° w / `
-- - GATE ST �-- , .
Land Use Item: Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Map Applicant: Terry Brown N File #: CPA 10-002
Current Land Use
W+
LEOLA ST
a '
M
PEARL S�Ti�
PEARL ST
SITE
W W W
QQ Q Legend
COMMERCIAL
HIGH-DENSITY-RESIDENTIAL
INDUSTRIAL
LOW_DENSITY_RESIDENTIAL
MIXED-RESIDENTIAL
AGATE ST
Land Use Item: Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Map Applicant: Terry Brown N File #: CPA 10-002
Land Use
-Proposed W
LEOLA ST
a
M
PEARL ST
PEARL ST
SITE
W W W -
QQ Legend
COMMERCIAL
HIGH-DENSITY-RESIDENTIAL
INDUSTRIAL
Li LOW_DENSITY_RESIDENTIAL
EW MIXED-RESIDENTIAL
AGATE ST
Vic ini Item: Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Brown
Map ty A plicant: Terry File CPAIO-002 +
"I Adveftised 111
11111 111111111 �� � �
loll
II
II 1!
IIMIXED RESIDENTIAL
MEMORANDUM
DATE: December 16, 2010
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Dave McDonald, City Planner
SUBJECT: Urban Growth Area Expansion (MF# CPA10-003) (Farm 2005 LLC)
Farm 2005, LLC., the owner of 160 acres of farm land directly north of the City
Limits, has applied for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment that would revise
the Urban Growth Area (UGA) to include 160 acres currently outside the Pasco
UGA. The property in question is located at the northeast corner of Road 52
and Power Line Road. The following provides the historical background on
Urban Growth Areas and may help with arriving at a recommendation on this
request.
The 1990 Growth Management Act (GMA) required the establishment of Urban
Growth Areas (UGA's) around urban centers throughout the State. Urban
Growth Areas have become a key component in managing urban growth within
Washington. Urban Growth Areas define the area in which a community is to
encourage higher density urban development and the area in which urban
services can be supported and promoted. Land located outside UGA's are to be
reserved for the promotion of rural density and functions. By directing growth
to UGA's natural resource lands such as farm lands and forest lands can be
conserved and the character of rural areas can be maintained for future needs.
Pasco's first Urban Growth Area was established in April of 1993 and has been
modified only three times since then. The designation of the Pasco UGA was
not only guided by the GMA Goals (see attachment #1), but also by the
provisions of RCW 36.70A.110 the most pertinent portions of which are as
follows:
• Each county that is required or chooses to plan under RCW
36.70A.040 shall designate an urban growth area or areas within
which urban growth shall be encouraged and outside of which
growth can occur only if it is not urban in nature.
• Each city that is located in such a county shall be included within
an urban growth area.
• An urban growth area may include territory located outside of a
city only if such territory already is characterized by urban growth
1
whether or not the urban growth area includes a city, or is
adjacent to territory already characterized by urban growth, or is a
designated new fully contained community as defined by RCW
36.70A.350.
• Based upon the growth management population projection made
for the county by the Office of Financial Management, the county
and each city within the county shall include areas and densities
sufficient to permit the urban growth that is projected to occur in
the county or city for the succeeding twenty-year period, except for
those urban growth areas contained totally within a National
Historical Reserve.
• Each city must include areas sufficient to accommodate the broad
range of needs and uses that will accompany the projected urban
growth including, as appropriate, medical, governmental,
institutional, commercial, service, retail, and other non-residential
uses.
• Each urban growth area shall permit urban densities and shall
include greenbelt and open space areas.
• An urban growth area determination may include a reasonable
land market supply factor and shall permit a range of urban
densities and uses. In determining this market factor, cities and
counties may consider local circumstances.
• Urban growth should be located first in areas already characterized
by urban growth that have adequate existing public facility and
service capacities to serve such development, second in areas
already characterized by urban growth that will be served
adequately by a combination of both existing public facilities and
services and any additional needed public facilities and services
that are provided by either public or private sources, and third in
the remaining portions of the urban growth areas. Urban growth
may also be located in designated new fully contained communities
as defined by RCW36.70A.350.
• In general, cities are the units of local government most
appropriate to provide urban governmental services. In general, it
is not appropriate that urban governmental services be extended to
or expanded in rural areas except in those limited circumstances
shown to be necessary to protect basic public health and safety
and the environment and when such services are financially
2
supportable at rural densities and do not permit urban
development.
Based on State law, the Pasco UGA is to include all lands within the city and
may include lands outside the City if the lands are urban in nature.
Development within the UGA is to occur first on lands that currently have
adequate public facility and service capacities and secondly on lands that will
be served adequately in the future. The UGA needs to contain a sufficient
amount of land to accommodate expected growth for the 20 year planning
horizon. The expected growth is determined by county wide population
projections prepared by the State Office of Financial Management (OFM). In
addition to the population projections the city must also considered land needs
for parks, school, retail businesses, offices, industrial buildings and other land
uses. In the determination for UGA land needs local market supply factors
may also be considered.
The population projections provided by the State Office of Financial
Management for Pasco's 20 year planning horizon (2007-2027) indicates
Pasco's UGA population could be about 87,300 by 2027. This is an increase of
over 30,600 people that will need to be accommodated within the Pasco UGA.
Pasco's population has increased by 6,000 since 2007 leaving only 24,600 for
planning purposes for the next 27 years.
Based on the population projects provided by the OFM, as discussed above, the
City needs to have enough land area within the UGA to accommodate another
24,600 people by 2027.
Housing needs are the main contributors to the need for expanding the UGA.
Various land use studies [APA Memo (Bringing land use ratios into the 90's)
1992] show that approximately half of all developed lands within American
cities are devoted to residential uses. The other half is occupied by streets,
open space, schools, and parks, industrial and commercial activities.
Approximately one third of Pasco's land area is zoned for industrial
development, and as much as 65 percent of the designated industrial lands are
currently vacant. The eastern boundary of the current UGA includes an
additional 1,000 acres of sparsely developed industrially designated lands east
of the City limits.
Approximately nine percent of Pasco is currently zoned for commercial
development. In 2003, the City Council commissioned a study of future
commercial land needs. The study prepared by Huitt-Zollars (2003) indicated
the City of Pasco had enough commercially designated (by zoning or Comp.
Plan designation) land in the main growth corridor (I-182 Corridor) to fulfill
future commercial service needs through the year 2050.
3
With considerable industrial/commercial land available for future needs the
primary need for additional lands within the Pasco UGA is for the
accommodation of residential development.
As a part of the 2007 Comprehensive Plan update it was estimated, (Appendix
III-Urban Growth Area Expansion) based on the OFM population projections,
9,300 to 9,500 new housing units would need to be constructed in Pasco by
2027. In 2007 it was determined that the then existing Pasco UGA could
absorb an additional 6,400 single-family dwelling units. To accommodate
future growth as determined through State mandated population projections
the Pasco UGA was expanded by approximately 1,100 acres. This expanded
UGA includes about 730 acres for additional housing, 150 acres for schools,
Parks and other community facilities and 220 acres for market supply factors.
A local market supply factor is permitted under (RCW 36.70A.110 [2]).
The Office of Financial Management has not provided any addition population
projection since 2007. As a result no justification exists on which to base the
need for an expanded UGA over and above the expansion that occurred in
2008. The actual growth rate (based on housing starts) for Pasco since 2007
has not exceeded the State population projections.
Population projections are only one of the factors which must be considered in
establishing an UGA. Another important factor is the availability and capacity
of the City's utility system.
The proposed UGA boundary amendment is located east of Road 60 and north
of I-182. The main sewer trunk line serving properties generally east of Road 60
and north of I-182 was designed to accommodate development within the UGA
established by Franklin County in 1992 and re-established in 2004. This
trunk line can serve approximately 1,000 more residential housing units. The
three major developments (Loviisa Farms, Northwest Commons & First Place)
yet to be built in this area will consume the reserve capacity in the trunk line.
There is little capacity available for the trunk line to serve property beyond the
existing UGA at Power Line Road. The sewer service capability beyond the
current UGA east of Road 60 is further complicated by topography. The ground
elevation north of the present UGA (in the area of the applicant's property)
breaks and falls off sharply to the east. Providing sewer service in this area
would be problematic. A major lift station would be needed. However, lifting
waste up to a trunk line with no capacity is not an option.
In 2001 the City of Pasco installed a significant sewer trunk line west through
the southern portion of West Pasco to the intersection of Court Street and the
I-182 bridge. This line was designed with excess capacity to serve properties
west and north of Road 100 (Broadmoor Blvd.). The trunk line extending north
from Argent Road in the vicinity of Road 72 was also designed to serve
properties to the north of Sandifur Parkway west of Road 68. The current sewer
4
system has capacity to serve additional growth west of Road 68 but little to no
capacity to serve additional properties north of the existing UGA east of Road
60.
The City's domestic water system has more flexibility for expansion with a
couple of water reservoirs close to the northern UGA boundary. However,
emphasis has been placed on expanding the system to serve properties west of
Road 68. A new water filtration plant and reservoir was constructed on Court
Street near Road 111 this year. The 2008 expansion of the UGA boundary on
the western edges of the community was based in part on the increased water
capacity that would be provided by the new plant on Court Street.
The Franklin County PUD and Big Bend Electric built a new substation north
of the Columbia Place subdivision (west of Rd 68 north of Snoqualmie) in 2004.
This substation was built to provide additional electrical capacity for the area
west of the substation and generally north of Sandifur Parkway.
In addition to population projections and utility service capacities,
transportation facilities was another factor considered for the 2008 UGA
expansion west of Road 68. The Comprehensive Plan has long called for the
extension of Road 100 (Broadmoor Boulevard) to the north. Franklin County
has included this extension in its six year street plan and has designed the
extension. Pending a settlement with a property owner, Broadmoor Boulevard
will be extended north to Dent Road in 2011. The completion of the connection
north to Dent Road and the planned connection to Dent Road to the west will
increase traffic capacity on Broadmoor Boulevard north of Sandifur Parkway.
This increase in capacity will generate interest in development near the Road
100/I-182 Interchange. Additionally, the completion of signalization and slip
ramps on the Road 100/I-182 interchange in the summer of 2007 combined
with the construction of the west bound on ramp increased the capacity and
safety of the interchange.
The GMA requires internal consistency between City planning documents.
While planning is currently underway for utility expansion westward and near
Broadmoor Boulevard there has been no planning effort related to expanding
water and sewer plans beyond the current eastern UGA to the east of Road 68.
Findings of Fact
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 public hearing.
5
1. The GMA (RCW 36.70A.110) requires the establishment of Urban
Growth Areas.
2. The goals of the Growth Management Act related to UGA's include: i)
Encouraging development of urban areas where adequate public
facilities and services exist or can be provided in an efficient manner;
ii) Reducing the inappropriate conversion of undeveloped land into
sprawling low-density development; and, iii) Maintaining and enhance
natural resource based industries, including productive timber,
agriculture, and fisheries industries.
3. Each city located in Franklin County must be included within a UGA.
4. UGA's are to encompass lands within the City's recognized utility
service area.
5. UGA's may include portions of the County already characterized by
urban growth.
6. Designated Urban Growth Areas are to include enough undeveloped
land to adequately accommodate forecasted growth for a 20 year
planning period.
7. Forecasted growth is determined by population projections provided
by the State Office of Financial Management.
8. The GMA mid-range population projections for the County anticipate
Franklin County will grow to over 100,000 people during the 20 year
planning horizon for Pasco.
9. For planning purposes during the development of the 2007
Comprehensive Plan update, City and County Planners assume 85
percent of future population growth in Franklin County would occur
in the Pasco UGA.
10. Pasco's UGA population is expected to be about 87,300 by 2027.
11. The Pasco UGA was increased by over 1,100 acres in 2008 to
accommodate the population growth eliminated by the Office of
Financial Management.
12. The 2008 UGA expansion included acreage for housing, parks
schools, streets and other public facilities.
13. The 2008 UGA expansion included 220 acres of additional land for
local market factors.
14. The Office of Financial Management has not provide any additional
population projections since 2007.
15. The main sewer trunk line that runs north of the freeway (I-182) west
of Desert Plateau (in Madison Ave.) was designed to serve only those
areas within the current UGA.
16. Housing units approved with preliminary plats east of Road 60 and
north of I-182 will consume the line capacity of the Madison Avenue
trunk line.
17. Topography at the north end of Section 11, Township 9 North, Range
29 East makes it impossible to install a gravity flow sewer system in
that part of the community.
6
18. The sewer trunk line running along the north side of the FCID
irrigation canal west of Rd 72 has additional capacity.
19. The main West Pasco sewer trunk line running west along Sylvester
Street, the Columbia River shoreline and Court Street currently has
excess capacity.
20. The West Pasco sewer trunk line extends west on Court Street to the
Richland Bridge.
21. The West Pasco trunk line at the Richland Bridge is 13 feet deep.
22. The City Public Works Department has undertaken studies for sewer
routes and needs for areas west of Road 76.
23. Franklin County will be extending Broadmoor Boulevard north to
Dent Road next year
24. Franklin County will also be connecting Broadmoor Blvd with Dent
Road to the west.
25. The Rd 68 to Broadmoor Boulevard connection along the north city
limits may be built within the next 5 years.
26. The Road 100 Interchange is located at the geographic center of the
Tri-Cities.
27. The City's Public Works Department has begun preliminary planning
for the location of a new waste water treatment plant to be located
west of Road 100.
28. A new electrical substation is located just north of the City limits west
of Road 68
Conclusions
Based on the GMA population projections for Franklin County the City of Pasco
must plan for an additional population of about 30,600.
The City and Franklin County properly considered state population projections
and increased the Pasco UGA in 2008 to accommodate urban growth.
Utility capacities, construction of a new water plant and planning for a new
sewer plant along with planned street network improvements factored into the
2008 UGA was expansion west of Road 68.
Utility and street planning has not changed since 2008.
Absent new or additional population projections from the Office of Financial
Management there is no justification to expand the Pasco UGA.
7
Recommendation
MOTION: I move to close the public hearing and schedule
deliberations, the adoption of findings of fact, and develop a
recommendation for City Council for the January 20, 2011 meeting.
8
Overview Item: Comprehensive Plan Amendment
City Applicant:
Lim its File CPA 10-003
u
V ■
.N
f
-y
K 1
�� - -+CiAIAIli S� [ :•
!•!`;v:���Lol
-
���rui1
IGII AI►\ 5S a�GA�i u::• :_ ':9 31'.rn F lliilA�111A
EZJ L
•
i
4
_ 0
r
P L
74
s -
y.
li
�tl
al I
-1:n:/' , '� .^'-marts - �.., .��, :��• �-7�:v �. _ 1 ;��;
\`� � � ?�► y%a:v• ..,•'.. = af:: ;i . !- ► ';•r=;� ':y: LPs,:::
: , �7.�7; f M�..•L`` '+ •� � .i+-*� +ii-.aiin:.�a�i'�ry:;i%�,L �4
ly� ,/� �o �IGi4o+51.1a°6�j i 'a3' ►L"'�.: -�!` :�`- _ ,�-•�;�' o nr...........:
�[q '-; � v .�� � �� � y•asu "'.. -r ._� vii `G��_ i � .,
- •' .� r"�- `�m ��+ a�V t e.1";i''7�' .����'F'�(�I::��kdrn..�.__eia�K u�r64; ';J �, �� � �,.d
y.b �f• '.�°-%�°-1'l,y v„1•i�r � 1�, L �R;f?�9•!6 i C @IlYIIR�r rglR!��" •�' �:p� w'•.'v"OGo�il r.�p, � �In.. -rjirCiJ
11Y. 1
'l��. ._ .L. � \ Ypl%,. " r� �.�1 C •? 44 � Qr�.`.A *1 �QI� 1%: �i6"Q�w•q� � � W1 ir�.'• 1�5� ,
- ---?It�iaa�� es�:Ci:�'de�z.wl] S.I�d'w�wc:_:1f@ ��� � �►_
'u
r ■
.N
f
�y
K 1
��y y � -+CiialAlli S�
•���� ��i�l'I � 1 � '�f 9���1 i.lis "671:
.. -?- •_B ���,•...:� - phi.�RU� s■nrf FA�,
- ••'� �s�•e �&�w�{�i.,7�-'I Q.�U�r _ 1 i u.�1 t..� ■� Jv- wv��L � D.
Y •3J
11' �
t�
R
- '�. i11111111t.
R
r
P
s -
l�
I
y.
�tl
�I
li
-- � � •11111....QIa�.�•::::'::::':'
— , R,: �,.. � ..`. �-ar. B B-;x1.1.1. s_ Es,� _ "`y _ I••
.V• \ 'IM
6
Q — L •�
..; Ark'.��• •i :� �Iw _ =t;�:`.� ,ill!..
° 4'„• yr/��'`s .`` .'�r{I, vglr�{, � � .� �.. •••'. :::..^,;;:'2:•• �
Overview Item: Comprehensive Plan Amendment N
UGB Applicant: Thomas Kidwell
File CPA 10-003
kAALTMER
Y.fe fo �GSQo ►�j i .:1 ;'�{` 1• ; .•' n..............
1 •d►c '*r, � �� �,� .Iwe,a ..e. w;. :�?:A Ts:,, i . : 'fit y o
'> ° .`1.!' '.tea.. ��== !�� ' � 1 � ■'° a{+�'}�f �:•:: r r►_, .... 1 ,,. 7 ,
- �. .+ s•."s �.�► � � � �u f. ,�.. :14� h'�{.��►'.:i�5uri,a .�..d�lPgL>3®r '�s�ai:J _ .�,�
ee a
My
,- A�11iii L 1 .��. tj�■l
rig to eed.lm IR W ♦i1• t
'�'�. _ .• 'It! .-1 `.:�.';116�E���.w�: :�'dt'��]d'r3.`.A5?'��lQI'>,ala�l♦i�ii°•w':.,w® ��,.!!�al_9��-..sssjlalfli.�y► �� i®
V I Item: Comprehensive Plan Amendment
'C*H'ty A plicant: Thomas Kidwell
Map Fi e CPA 10-00
On
iiilii11111
i .°i�ii11111�iii
-
sc+
.su u
• r ...� .e YiIG°i.r ccu �° b
° .r.. rrsa r■ rku � a
�■ ,,.:■■�.. all ®® 4!
q�iillle3��i'�e'�9�l��' � • `rr
1'iiiiil��iisi0�i i's.& viii ®� a ri
r yi w■/1'iliC�i��
-4 ��wifiifi8fiii�i►�t {fmtilyf@7r�tr1➢ai uilttttttttttl�
�WY9liliNilli iiiiiRl6�rr ii/r lillill� y sr .■,■• ••io� e tttttttttttl�
° s Ili li liiiil��iiSi�i�ii7i ���i�i ■i7i m�s°a®��i i�tII 111d
� 111J�+ V
I° '•ii9�eiil�E33Riifliiyiil s9i■Ar0��.�W ■ ..°r .r ar 1 ® ®II�IIII®,r®Irk �������
r sa .o r•r .• .. ISBN! t
1
I r ,®� �■itiisiiii��ii��1�� is t ®�■ °■r°■° 11111/ Q iAiiiiii,�il�li 111111 1 ® ® �/Wi k7
°• ��r �1li1111d1111ii31 w� � � �.� �..p �:� _ ��►�� .� iii�C,�O�IFDr»■�7 ���I����II u �e��r��� ,r
y, ..;,■.ar rr aliiil�1♦ ♦ F'��t ,��t�ui{ate�el\ al\ !\ ��
� � ��■l>iii�i�i6i1� �:. ...y �,r.r°■�e/r w.�� 1171�1�1�'•`D�e t � i�1�1�1i11�1J =��t♦wtt��.�ri' filtA�t�tt�31t tl
■ � ii1i ii�11i1 r ®ilulW�w'�i ®i rre�us■ ;110�i�� �11 111111171®1■i t tet�tt���IS7 SIG IOtlf� ��
W11OWN111 v r■ .r . o I w�1��lr4 �1111111111a --- �... ......��iiiitt0l�111111_ �_
Urban Item: Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Growth Applicant: Thomas Kidwell N
Boundary 10-00
Mill
11WIA
77_,T5_�,
p
vME
■ iii i�ii
111 POEM
rorto1 �:��
rur� rr �
® ■�iiiiilllllll�w� w ,.
v,�u i�u d yad�Gas��[�eta V -��■� _" � _
• v rr r� asr YiIG°i.r ccu '° 1
•O �Jd v.rriM1
m ry r�rr WIN 3i a� v `'� �
� ,ir a�a atr ■®® � � 7 011111111 �\��
tar scr rr F�ii�7eaar�a•v; ® � � _.
i� �� q�iY911i1illi iiiiiRl6irr rlErr!lierr�v sr rr,er .r lIIn�I�
! a ® 9 Ili li MINN H iMii7i ��ri�iiiu°ie7i � m�sra®��i i I�I�III�IIIJ♦�♦�
NOUN li�ARM iil l r9ilerY ®rrrro s rm.r rr.'.Mr IIi11�11I/ ♦♦® _ ®iP1®®i��1i� ��II��/�U
II `
111111/� ♦ i111111111�1111�11111
• ��r �1li1111d1111ii31 w®► � ;rm �r r, �:� _ �♦♦♦♦ .� �I�aC,�O�IFDr»■�7 �il��I�♦��II u �e���6� as
w °, ry;,°r ar rm a111i1�1♦ ♦ F'��� /����ui{ate�el� al\ !\ ��
! � �rsil�i�i�iZ6ilggy� �:s. ...y �,m.r°u�e/s a"r��� 117/��\♦♦♦♦t`�a�♦ i111111i11111 =��� V�1ii11A�I�11�aY5i�
■ � ���ii1i ii�11i11►�t. ®i!!!I!Ills'w'� r rare rmm rr xirr �.�♦♦♦♦'���r� �IIIIIi71®11 � EY ������y S7 SIG IOIIf���'��
r yr •r rr une 1° <♦ ♦ ♦ Ie1�\����1
�iiitiilii faiiiiileiii v rra rr rr o Or?M�♦-�♦�.4.�.� � �IIIIIIIII�a --- - �a.. ....r.m�iiiillolra�illlli_ �_
MEMORANDUM
DATE: December 16, 2010
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Jeffrey B. Adams, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map (MF# CPA 10-004)
Beacon Development, the developer of two multi-family housing developments
within Pasco (Tepecyac Haven on 22nd Ave. 8a Bishop Topel Haven on Wehe Ave.),
has submitted an application for a Comprehensive Plan land use map
amendment. The amendment involves changing the land use designation for
slightly more than two blocks of land south of Highland Park from Low-Density
Residential to Mix-Density Residential. Tepecyac Haven has 45 units on 3.05
acres, or slightly over 14 units per acre; Bishop Topel Haven has 43 units on
approximately 3.5 acres, or nearly 13 units per acre; the proposed development
will have approximately 60 units on a 3.2-acre parcel, calculated to be over 18
units per acre.
The applicant is in the process of planning a third housing complex and has
submitted the Comprehensive Plan Amendment application on behalf of the
property owner (three additional properties where included in the proposal by
staff to create a more uniform boundary for the proposed land use designation in
the event the proposal is recommended for approval).
The site is located west of Charles Avenue, north of Clark Street, south of
Highland Park and east of California Avenue. It is currently zoned R-1 and is
identified on the Comprehensive Plan map as a location for future low-density
residential development.
Most of the land encompassed by this request is vacant and undeveloped. The
six lots at the northwest corner of Charles Avenue between George Street and
Clark Street are zoned C-1(Retail Business). These six lots, plus some additional
lots to the north, were used in the past for an automotive repair shop and
storage facility. The vacant shop building is still located on the property. The
only other building on the subject property is a house located at 209 N. Franklin
Avenue.
Properties surrounding the site to the west have commercial land use
designation and are zoned C-3 (General Business) and properties to the east and
north are designated for low-density development and are zoned R-1 (Low-
Density Residential).
1
In 2007 and 2008 La Clinica Self-Help Housing assisted with construction of
seven self help homes in the 300 Block of Charles Ave. Many of the existing
homes in the surrounding blocks were constructed in the 1950' and 1960's.
Other changing conditions in the immediate neighborhood include an expansion
to Highland Park and the construction of the Bishop Topel housing complex
north of Whittier School. The Bishop Topel complex was constructed on a site
that was rezoned R-3 (Medium Density Residential) following a Comprehensive
Plan amendment in 2008 that designated a band between Whittier School and
James Street for Mixed Residential uses.
The following Comprehensive Plan goals and policies are applicable to this
proposal:
Goal LU-1 ("Improve the community's quality of life") and Policy LU-I-B ("Enhance
the physical appearance of development within the community") will be applied by
this proposed project as the owner has a track record of using high quality
building materials, color variations within the project, and attractive landscaping.
The goal LU-2 ("Maintain established neighborhoods and ensure new
neighborhoods are safe and enjoyable") will be met with this proposed
amendment by creating a buffer between low-density residential areas to the east
and general commercial zones to the west, and by establishing a nice "enjoyable,"
high-density housing complex.
Policy LU-2-A (" . . . encourage the individual identities of neighborhoods.") will be
reinforced by building more mixed residential units similar to the existing Bishop
Topel Haven property to the north.
Policy LU-2-D ("Require all development to be landscaped") will be maintained as
the developer will be required to landscape the project according to City
regulations.
Goal LU-3 ("Strive for long term reduction of energy consumption") will be
supported as the applicant proposes a project similar to that of the existing
Tepeyac Haven property, which met Leadership in Energy and Environmental
Design (LEED) gold standards, and the Bishop Topel Haven property, which is
expected to receive LEED certification.
Policies LU-3-A, (Reduce vehicular movement . "), B (Encourage infill and density
including planned unit Developments"), and E ("Designate areas for higher density
residential development where utilities and transportation facilities enable efficient
use of capital resources.") will be met as the applicant locates a high-occupancy
residential infill project close to schools, shopping, and transportation.
Goal H-1 ("Encourage housing for all economic segments of the city's population")
will be supported by allowing a land use designation and zoning which support
the proposed low-income housing project.
2
Policies H-1-A ("Medium and high density housing should be located near arterials
and neighborhood or community shopping facilities and employment areas") and
H-1-B ("Encourage the location of medium and high density housing in locations
that will avoid the need for access through lower density residential
neighborhoods") will be partially supported as the main access for the proposed
project will be near both Oregon Avenue and East Lewis Street, and near
commercially zoned areas which could support more community shopping facilities
and employment opportunities.
Policy H-1-C ("Support dispersal of special needs housing throughout the
community") and H-1-D ("Avoid large concentrations of high-density housing")
would not be supported since the development would concentrate more low-income
population density near another high-density, low-income project.
Goal H-2 ("Strive to maintain a variety of housing consistent with the local and
regional market") would be partially met, since there will always be a demand for
lower-income housing units, but the "variety"for this area would be limited to low-
income occupants, thus maintaining an "East-Pasco/West-Pasco income
imbalance.
Policy H-2-A (Allow for a full range of residential environments including single
family homes, townhouses, condominiums, apartments, and manufactured
housing") would be supported, albeit focused on low-income residents only.
Goal H-4 ("Encourage housing design and construction that ensures long term
sustainability and value") would be met because of the aforementioned LEED
design standards.
Goal H-5 ("Support efforts to provide affordable housing to meet the needs of low
and moderate income households in the community.") would be generally
supported, as the proposed units are to house low-income residents. However
Policy H-5-C ("The city shall work with public and private sector developers to
ensure that lower income housing is developed on scattered sites") would not be
supported, as the complex will be within a block of another high-density, low-
income complex, all of which would be located within a low-income area.
Analysis
The site in question is located at the edge of an area designated by the
Comprehensive Plan for Low-Density Residential land use. The site borders a
parks/open space strip to the west and a park to the north, with commercial to
the west. Best planning practices call for a separation of commercial uses from
low-density residential uses. This is typically done with "buffer" areas consisting
of higher density uses and open spaces. This amendment proposes to designate
the specific area noted as Mixed Residential.
3
The proposed Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map amendment is designed to
allow the applicant to develop high-density low-income housing between general
commercial and low-density residential Land Use designations. The proposed
development would generally be in harmony with the intent of the Land Use and
Housing goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan, with a caveat that the
proposal will not encourage lower income housing to be developed on "scattered
sites" throughout the City. The applicant's proposal has the following
characteristics: 1) it will be located near arterials, some shopping and
employment opportunities, with potential for more commercial development
nearby; 2) main access to the site will be through commercial zones and not
through low-density residential areas; 3) low-cost housing will allow residents to
better afford support services and possibly save for future home ownership; 4)
housing types will be diversified from the single-family homes and
manufactured/mobile homes typical to the area, albeit within a limited price
range; 5) judging from two similar projects by the same developer, the
construction and materials of the proposed development will be appealing; 6)
based on the two prior projects by the same developer, the proposed
development will most likely be far more energy efficient than the surrounding
single-family development.
In sum, most of the points listed are supportive of the Comprehensive Plan
amendment, although this particular development proposal would not disperse
low-income housing evenly throughout the community. However, neither the
proposed Land Use designation nor a high-density rezone in and of itself would
guarantee any particular development or income level for the site.
The Planning Commission will need to determine if the Beacon Development
proposal materially alters the general intent of the Comprehensive Plan and
whether or not it can be supported by the recommended goals and policies.
The attached material provided by Beacon Development provides a further
explanation of the various goals and policies that impact the proposed land use
modification (See Exhibit 1).
Findings of Fact
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 public hearing.
1. The site was originally platted in the 1880's
2. Four houses were built on the site, and one remains.
3. An automotive repair shop and storage yard occupied approximately
three-quarters of the east half of Block 2 of Charles Avenue.
4. A site is zoned both R-1 (Low -Density Residential) and C-1(Retail
Business).
4
5. Properties directly to the west are zoned C-3(General Business).
6. Properties to the south are zoned C-1 (Retail Business).
7. Properties to the east are zoned R-1 (Low-Density Residential)
8. The Housing Authority duplexes located on Wehe Avenue half a block
east of the site are zoned R-2 (Medium-Density Residential)
9. The site is currently identified for a low-density development on the
Comprehensive Plan Land Use map.
10. Highland Park is located directly to the north.
11. The Comprehensive Plan was amended in 2008 to include a mixed-
use buffer area between the low-density areas north of Whittier School
and the commercial land uses to the west.
12. A commercial Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation permits
future rezones for multi-family development.
13. The site is one block north of Lewis Street.
14. Access from the south is through commercially zoned areas.
Conclusions
The site is currently located in a transition area between a low-density area
and a commercial area. Changing the land use classification of the site to
mixed residential is consistent with accepted planning practices and will
provide a buffer between the low density to the east the commercial area to the
west.
Recommendation
MOTION: I move to close the public hearing and schedule
deliberations, the adoption of findings of fact, and develop a
recommendation for City Council for the January 20, 2011 meeting.
5
Vicin
Item: Comprehensive Plan Amendment
ity
Applicant: Beacon Development N
Map File #: CPA 10-004
— BROADWAY BLVD
ZVI
NNe ,
_ .
s
< D
ATZ
u. -
i
C
A
3 SITE _
GEORGE S—T
Lu
- }
W T * 1 W '
z:. _
r.r Q
cn • ;
w x A^ Z T
a.
w
mF
Ak
O
_ A
—Te }
T
T
■
Land Item: Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Use Applicant: Beacon Development N
Map File #: CPA 10-004
�� D
NXII
mm
Ell
Land Item: Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Use Applicant: Beacon Development N
Map File #: CPA 10-004
nn o n o v�nrn n �1
WIN
ME MEN
G
ao t N MEN ME
ME
�� M
Contact: Beacon Development Group on behalf of Catholic Housing Services of Eastern Washington
Contact's Address: Beacon Development Group/ 1221 East Pike Street, Suite 300/Seattle,WA 98122
Contact's Phone Numbers:
Paul Purcell 206-860-2491,ext.206,
206-478-4153
Brian Lloyd 206-860-2491,ext.210
206-890-4049
Aidan Poile 206-860-2491,ext.211
404-245-6716
Legal Description:
Whitehouse Addition all of Block 3. Whitehouse Addition,Lots 11 to 17,&lots 18-24 with 10'vacated.
See attached site map.
1.Proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment:
This proposed amendment concerns the Land Use Designations in the Comprehensive Plan for the areas noted in
legal description below and shown on the attached map (generally the area South of E. Adelia St. and North of E.
George St. between N. Franklin Ave and Charles St. and the area South of E. George St. and North of E. Alvina St.
West of Charles St and the mid-block alley). As shown in the plan the area is designated for Low-Density
Residential land use. This amendment proposes to designate the specific area noted is Mixed Residential.
2.How will the proposed amendment advance and support the policies and goals of the Comprehensive Plan?
The Comprehensive Plan identifies 7 Elements, all part of the State's Growth Management Mandate. The proposed
amendment fits within these Elements and advances and supports specific policies and goals of the Comprehensive
Plan in the following manner:
Land Use Element: While this proposed amendment addresses general land use patterns and designations, it is
worth noting that the applicant and its client, Catholic Housing Services of Eastern Washington, have developed
two other properties in the City of Pasco - Tepeyac Haven and Bishop Topel Haven. This amendment would allow
for the development of another project seeking to house Pasco's workforce. The goal (L U-1) and policy (L U-1-B) of
increasing the quality of life within Pasco will be met by this proposed project as the owner has as a priority, the
enhancement of the community with high quality building materials, color variations within the project, and
attractive landscaping.
The goal(LU-2) of maintaining established neighborhoods and ensuring new neighborhoods are safe and enjoyable
will be met with this proposed amendment. A Mixed Residential area would provide a transition lone between the
"C-1 and C-3 areas to the West of the subject area and R-I areas to the east of subject area. Additionally it
reinforces the Mixed Residential area to the North of Whittier Elementary, the location of the applicant and client's
Bishop Topel Haven property. This use reinforces the identity at the existing and new neighborhood, aligning with
policy LU-2-A.As noted previously, the applicant's focus an high quality landscaping supports policy LU-2-D.
The goal (LU-3) of reducing long-term energy consumption and creating community health will fit with this
proposed amendment. The applicant proposes a project similar to that of the existing Tepeyac Haven property,
which met LEED gold standards, and the Bishop Topel Haven property, which is expected to receive LEED
certification. Policies LU-3-A, B, and E will be met with this amendment. The result will be on infill development
and an area of higher density residential use close to schools and transportation.
Housing Element: As stated, the applicant is seeking a general land use amendment. Specifically, the applicant is
proposing this amendment for the purpose of developing affordable housing. This is applicable to the proposal in
that Pasco and the Countywide Planning Policies acknowledge the need for affordable housing in the area and
encourage the construction of affordable housing, "...particularly for low and moderate income segments of the
population."
The City endeavors to encourage housing for all economic segments of the population (H-Z), strives to maintain a
variety of housing consistent with the local and regional market(H-2), encourages housing design and construction
that ensure long-term sustainability and value (H-4), and supports efforts to provide affordable housing to meet the
needs of low-and mid-income households in the area(H-S).
Many of the specific policies supporting these goals will be met by a project such as that proposed by the applicant.
In sum, a change to the Camp Plan will allow the applicant to develop a project that is located near arterials,
community facilities, and employment areas (H-Z-A). The location is such that access will not be through the lower
density areas to the south and east of the site (H-1-B) but rather via the commercially designated andpublic areas.
As with the applicant's previous developments, the affordability to renters will allow for savings and support
services for residents, encouraging eventual home ownership potential from the population (H-1-E). The creation of
a higher density project in this area will encourage diversity in housing types in the area (H-2-A) while providing
character and variety (H-4-A). As with the Tepeyac Haven and Bishop Topel Haven properties, the proposed
development will be of appealing quality (H-S-A) and located such that it blends in with the neighborhood, not
creating a monotonous landscape of stereotypical affordable housing(H-S-C).
Capital Facilities, Utilities, and Transportation Elements: While this amendment is not specific to these elements, it
is worth noting that proposed amendment and project itself reinforce the goals and policies within the
Comprehensive Plan. Namely, the area is well served with existing utilities and transportation. The City and/or
developer would be able to capitalize on existing services by making this a Mixed Residential area.
4.How will the proposed amendment advance the health,safety and general welfare of the community?
Many of the benefits of this amendment are stated above and align perfectly with the City's Comprehensive Plan. As
such, the welfare of the community as forecast in this Plan and proposed in this specific amendment fit hand-in-
hand. The creation of an area of Mixed Residential serves to reinforce the Mixed Residential area to the North of
Whittier Elementary and acts as a transition between higher and lower intensity land use types in area. In sum, the
land use patterns envisioned by the City favor and encourage the type of development proposed by the applicant and
sought in this application.
The examples of Tepeyac Haven and Bishop Topel Haven make the best case far how this proposal will advance the
health, safety and general welfare of the community. Tepeyac (again -a similar project is envisioned by the
applicant if allowed under the Camp Plan) has been well received by the Pasco community with a significant wait
list (hundreds of families), a clean and quality appearance, affordable housing In an area that needs It for its
burgeoning workforce population, and a neighborhood anchor in what was an area in transition. The local police
mini-station has told the owner of the significant change in the area since Tepeyac's development. While still under
construction, we expect the some response and success from the Bishop Topel Haven property. We envision
acceptance of this Camp Plan proposal will allow for creation of another development that will benefit the Pasco
community.