Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-20-2011 Planning Commission Packet PLANNING COMMISSION - AGENDA REGULAR MEETING 7:00 P.M. October 20, 2011 I. CALL TO ORDER: II. ROLL CALL: Declaration of Quorum III. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: September 15, 2011 V. OLD BUSINESS: A. Special Permit Expansion of mini-storage facility (by 42,000 square feet/230 units) in a C-1 Zone (BLM Trust) (SW Cor. Rd 68 and Court) (MF# SP 2011-012)(Continued Public Hearin B. Special Permit Location of a Parking Lot in an R-2 (Medium Density Residential) Zone (Pasco School District) (1215 W. Lewis St) (MF# SP 2011-011) VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS: A. Special Permit Location of a Level Two Community Service Facility in an I-1 (Light Industrial) Zone (Union Gospel Mission) (112 N. 2nd Ave) (MF# SP 2011-014) B. Special Permit Location of a Level One Community Service Facility C-3 (General Business) Zone (PowerZone) (1202 W. Lewis St) (MF# SP 2011-013) C. Comprehensive Plan 2011 Comprehensive Plan Update (MF# CPA 2011-00 1) VII. OTHER BUSINESS: A. Workshop Hens in Residential "R" Zones VIII. ADJOURNMENT: REGULAR MEETING September 15, 2011 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at 7:00pm by Chairwoman Kempf. POSITION MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ASSENT No. 1 Michael Levin No. 2 James Hay No. 3 Andy Anderson No. 4 Alecia Greenaway No. 5 Joe Cruz No. 6 Kurt Lukins No. 7 Zahra Kahn No. 8 Jana Kempf No. 9 Lisa Gemig APPEARANCE OF FAIRNESS: Chairwoman Kempf read a statement about the appearance of fairness for hearings on land use matters. Chairwoman Kempf asked if any Commission member had anything to declare. No declarations were made. Chairwoman Kempf then asked the audience if there were any objections based on a conflict of interest or appearance of fairness questions regarding the items to be discussed this evening. There were no objections. ADMINISTERING THE OATH: Chairwoman Kempf explained that state law requires testimony in quasi-judicial hearings such as held by the Planning Commission be given under oath or affirmation. Chairwoman Kempf swore in all those desiring to speak. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: A correction was made to the August 18, 2011 minutes. The original minutes stated that Commissioner Anderson, "...stated school districts are financed by bonds," under Old Business in regards to the Preliminary Plat approval for Columbia Villas (MF# PP 2011-002) -1- The correction to be made was, "...school district construction is funded by bonds and not the school districts themselves." Commissioner Anderson moved, seconded by Commissioner Hay, that the minutes dated August 18, 2011 be approved as amended. The Motion carried unanimously. PUBLIC HEARINGS: A. Special Permit Expansion of mini-storage facility (by 42,000/230 units) in a C-1 Zone (Mor-Stor LLC) (SW Cor. Rd 68 and Court) (MF# SP 2011- 012 Chairwoman Kempf read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Community and Economic Development Director, Rick White, summed up the special permit report for the proposed expansion of the Mor-Stor Mini-Storage located in a C-1 Zone at the southwest corner of Court Street and Road 68. The proposal involves eight buildings and the matter was before the Planning Commission because mini-storage facilities are not permitted uses in the C-1 Zone. They are permitted only through approval of a special permit. It was explained the site in question (SW corner of Rd 68 and Court) is a high-impact site with a lot of pass by traffic and normally mini-storage facilities do not rely on pass-by traffic to be successful. Until further residential development happens to the West and to the North, it's not likely this site will attract a great deal of retail or office type investment. The Planning Commission should consider that it is in a C-1 Zone and C-1 Zones are intended for the retail and service shopping needs of the community. The special permit process allows that Planning Commission to determine whether the use can be developed in a manner that harmonious with the neighborhood and accomplishes the intent of the zoning district. The staff report explained that as a high impact site, there should be enhancements to the aesthetics of the proposal if the commission finds for approval. Conditions related to the aesthetics were been provided by staff. Chairwoman Kempf asked if the storage facility on Sandifur Parkway was also a C-1 Zone. Rick White responded it was zoned C-1. Commissioner Levin asked if there was a storage facility East on Court not far from the proposed site. Rick White answered that it is on the North side of Court and it was developed in the County and remains in the County. -2- Commissioner Anderson asked if the suggested use of block fencing had been discussed with the applicant. Rick White confirmed that it was discussed with the applicant. Commissioner Greenaway asked if the proposed block fencing would obstruct visibility. Rick White answered by stating that it would meet the criteria to allow visibility. Robert Puckett, 6620 West Park, presented his request for a special permit approval for the proposed mini-storage expansion. Mr. Puckett explained he needed more clarification on right-of-way dedication and street improvements. Mr. Puckett felt he should not have to rebuild the road to the center since the road was only three to four ,years old. He also objected to the need for a block wall and suggested a chain-link fence would comply with visibility and would match the current development to the south. The applicant also wanted to make a correction that it was not Mar-Star LLC applying for the permit, but rather BLM Trust is the applicant for the special permit. Commissioner Anderson asked the applicant to clarify that the land for the special permit was separate from the existing storage units to the south. Robert Puckett, stated ,yes, the land is separately owned. Commissioner Anderson asked the applicant if the Planning Commission were to consider the use of chain-link fencing, would he consider putting in slats in. Mr. Puckett preferred chain-link without slats for visibility reasons. He also mentioned that he wanted to install two streetlights; one on Court Street and one on Road 68. Mr. Puckett objected to the staff recommendation for architectural block or stucco on the sides of the buildings and stated he was planning on using metal to match the existing units. Commissioner Anderson asked the staff to respond to the applicants concerns. Rick White, stated a block wall would cause the site to look like what the site was intended for; a high-impact retail site. The chain-link fence would add to the perception that it is not a high-impact site, rather a lesser commercial site. The road standards are not an issue for the Planning Commission but an adopted standard applicable to all development. The common drive-way use necessitates a continuation of the landscaping along Road 68 as a way to limit any impact of the storage use on the neighborhood. Commissioner Anderson asked if the storage units would be visible if a block wall was used. Rick White said it depended on how the conceptual site plan turns out when it's a finished product. If set further enough back, the units would be visible. -3- Dave McDonald, City Planner, commented the applicant had indicated some issues needed to be worked out and that was the purpose for the public hearing. The Planning Commission needed to review the items of concern and work the issues out before a recommendation was forwarded to the City Council. Rob Puckett explained he hadn't received any complaints about the looks of the existing building, the fence, the dust, nothing since 1994. The block wall would be a huge expense on the Court Street side. He stated that the people like what is there because the storage units are always full. Commissioner Anderson asked the applicant if it would be acceptable for the Planning Commission to postpone the recommendation on the special permit for a month to allow him the opportunity to work with staff to find some middle ground on the issues. Rob Puckett stated it would be acceptable. Community and Economic Development Director, Rick White, let Chairwoman Kempf know that the special permit does not have to be postponed, but rather it could be continued. Then next month, there would be the ability to discuss if the Planning Commission is comfortable with discussing it and making a recommendation that same evening. Commissioner Anderson moved seconded by Commissioner Levin that hearing and the adoption of findings, the facts and conclusions be continued to the next Planning Commission Meeting to be held on October 20, 2011. The motion passed unanimously. City Staff explained how the application would move forward for the benefit of the audience. B. Special Permit Location of a Parking Lot in an R-2 (Medium Density Residential) Zone (Pasco School District) (1120 N 22nd) (MF# SP 2011-011) Chairwoman Kempf read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Staff member, Shane O'Neill, Planner I, summed up the special permit application. The Pasco School District was proposing to rearrange the bus staging area north of Stevens Middle School which would eliminate approximately 73 parking spaces. To compensate for the loss of parking the District was proposing to develop a parking lot across the street (east of Stevens Middle School) with 105 parking spaces. The proposal would add 11 spaces to the existing parking for the school. Mr. O'Neill also reviewed the surrounding -4- land uses and current use of the parcel in question for the benefit of the Planning Commission. Kim Marsh representing the School District stated he agreed with the staff report. Chairwoman Kempf asked the applicant if the proposed parking lot would back up to the park. Mr. Marsh answered that no, it would back up to the church and daycare. Mike Malley, 2121 W Henry Street, pastor for the church was in support of the Special Permit. Commissioner Levin asked if there were any safety issues with the church or chain-link fence where the proposed parking lot would be. Kim Marsh, answered no and that the parking lot would be shared between the Pasco School District and the Emmanuel Baptist Church. Commissioner Kahn asked if the proposed parking lot is on the same road as the Benton Franklin Transit transfer station. Kim Marsh stated the station was on 22nd down by Sylvester. Commissioner Hay moved seconded by Commissioner Anderson to close the hearing on the proposed parking lot and initiate deliberations and schedule adoption of Findings of Fact, conclusions and a recommendation to the City Council for the October 20, 20 11 meeting. Staff noted this item would go back to Planning Commission the next meeting, October 20, 20 11 to make a recommendation for City Council in November. C. Planning Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan (MF#PLAN2011-002) Chairwoman Kempf read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Shane O'Neill, Planner I, summed up the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan which was originally presented at the August 18, 2011 Planning Commission meeting. Revisions were incorporated into the plan as a result of Planning Commission comments from the last meeting. Mr. O'Neill explained the ranking system, the revised construction estimate costs and reviewed key bicycle routes -5- throughout the city. The identification of bicycle routes using pavement marking such as "sharrows" was also discussed. Community and Economic Development Director, Rick White, stated the plan would act as a blueprint to help identify where bike paths would need to be included when road projects take place. The plan would also provide guidance for the review of new developments. With the Plan in place developers could be asked to include bikeways on streets that have been identified as bike routes. Commissioner Anderson discussed the challenges for funding and pointed out Spokane has implemented "sharrows" for bike lane identification. However there have been a lot of bicycle and car accidents in Spokane and no matter how many public service ads are run or education is implemented there are still problems. Shane O'Neill, stated he spoke with a Planner in Spokane that explained Spokane has had limited success with the "sharrows" and that they can create a false sense of security for the bicyclist. Commissioner Greenaway asked whether or not Pasco would want to use "sharrows" if they have been used with limited success in Spokane. Rick White answered the "sharrows" would simply add another tool in the "tool box"; they wouldn't work irl every scenario, but would have to be evaluated case by case. Commissioner Levin asked staff if there have been public requests for more bike paths, if the current paths are used, and if studies have been done to support spending the money on a bike path in this financial climate. Rick White answered that he sees many bicyclists on the current paths in Pasco, although there aren't many paths in Pasco. Additional bike paths within the community add to the quality of life, however there isn't proof that people will use the proposed paths. Commissioner Kahn commented that she rides on Sandifur and notices there is not enough room on the road for bicyclists to ride with traffic nor is there room on the sidewalks. Commissioner Greenaway asked about the legal liability the City would have if the "sharrows" were implemented due to accidents caused by lack of public education on the meanings. Rick White answered that it wouldn't increase the City's liability as long as they were installed to meet State standards. -6- Commissioner Kahn asked what type of education would the community receive on the "sharrows" and would the education add to the costs of the plan. Rick White said that public service ads, pamphlets, websites, etc. could be used to educate the public with minimal costs. Brent Thompson, 1711 W. Henry St., wanted to applaud the Bike Plan. He stated that he bikes all over town; to and from work. He said that people who do use the roadways to get around have a very hard time, especially getting from north to south. Mr. Thompson uses the paths that exist but stated more are needed. He suggested painting bike lanes even when there might not be enough width in the road because it makes the drivers more aware. Following little additional discussion Commissioner Hay moved seconded Commissioner Anderson to adopt the findings, the facts and conclusions and recommend staff move forward with the Plan. The motion passed unanimously. OTHER BUSINESS: Rick White mentioned the Commission's regular meeting is for October 20, 2011 and staff is trying to bring to the Commission a revision to the Comprehensive Plan and was hoping the Commission would be available for a special meeting on October 27, 2011. The regular meeting would still occur. Commissioner Anderson indicated he had a scheduling conflict. With no further business, the Planning Commission was adjourned at Respectfully submitted, --------------- David McDonald, Secretary -7- REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION MASTER FILE # SP 2011-012 APPLICANT: Mor-Stor LLC HEARING DATE: 9/15/2011 SW Car. Rd 68 and Court ACTION DATE: 10/20/2011 Pasco, WA 99301 BACKGROUND REQUEST: SPECIAL PERMIT: Expansion of mini-storage facility (by 42,000 square feet/230 units) in a C- 1 Zone 1. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: Legal: Lots 2 & 3 of Short Plat 93-08 General Location: Southwest corner of Road 68 and Court Street Property Size: 2.1 acres 2. ACCESS: The site will have access from Road 68. 3. UTILITIES: Power, municipal water and sewer are all available to the site. 4. LAND USE AND ZONING: The site is zoned C-1 (Retail Business) and is undeveloped. The zoning and land use of the surrounding properties are as follows: NORTH: RS-20 (County) & C-1 (County); vacant & Commercial Nursery. SOUTH: C-1; Mini-storage units EAST: C-1; vacant WEST: R-2; vacant S. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The Comprehensive Plan designates this area for commercial uses. Policy LU-1-B encourages enhancement of the physical appearance of development within the City. The Comprehensive Plan (LU-4-B) encourages the grouping of commercial uses to promote functional and economical marketing and operations to produce sustainable clusters of shopping and services. Policy LU-2-D requires all development to be landscaped. ED-3-E suggests the use of landscaping to provide a buffer between less intensive uses (such as residential) from commercial and industrial facilities. 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 Nan-Significance (DNS) has been issued for this project under WAC 197-11-158. ANALYSIS The proposal involves the development of eight buildings with a total of 42,000 square feet of storage space in 230 units on a vacant site in a C-1 (Retail Business) zone. Access would be from an existing driveway to the mini-storage units to the south along Road 68. Mini-storage facilities are not a permitted use in the C-1 (Retail Business District). Mini-storage facilities are, however, a conditional use that may be permitted only by the granting of a Special Permit. Special Permit reviews and determinations are made based upon the criteria listed in P.M.C. 25.86.060 and itemized below under the "findings of fact" section. If it can be demonstrated that a mini-storage facility will be in accordance with the policies of the comprehensive plan, that it will be maintained in harmony with the existing or intended character of the surrounding neighborhood, and that it generally supports the other criteria of P.M.C. 25.86.060, a Special Permit may be approved. The mini-storage expansion is being proposed for property on the corner of two major streets (Rd. 68 and Court St). Properties on major street corners are sometimes referred to as high impact sites because they are often occupied by businesses that need high visibility and high traffic counts to succeed. A mini-storage facility does not rely on pass-by traffic for business. For this reason the last two mini-storage facilities (Rd 60/Burden Blvd and 9335 Sandifur Pkwy) approved through the Special Permit process were required to reserve the front portion of their properties along the arterial streets for future development by uses specifically permitted in the C-1 district. Office and retail development has been very slow to occur at the intersection of Court Street and Road 68. It is unlikely further retail development will occur at this intersection until the residential development increases in the neighborhood. Much of the land available for future residential development is located north of Court Street in the County and lacks the services needed for development. As a result the proposed mini-storage expansion may be a good interim use of the property until the area can support businesses that are permitted in the C-1 District. The construction methods typically used for mini storage buildings lend themselves well to simple dismantling. In the future when a better use can be found for the property the mini-storage buildings could be dismantled. However future dismantling is not a given, and the Planning Commission should consider the appropriateness of the use in a zoning district intended for meeting . "the retail shopping and service needs of the community." As discussed above the Special Permit review process allows the Planning Commission to make a determination on whether or not a proposed use will be or can be maintained in harmony with the existing or intended character of the neighborhood. It is through this process that the Planning Commission can establish approval conditions that would ensure the proposal will be established and operated in harmony with the neighborhood. The intended character of the neighborhood includes future retail and office uses as well as residential uses. The neighborhood is not intended for storage and warehousing. Due to the site's high visibility, an understanding of the intent for future uses, and the nature of current uses, the Special Permit should not be approved without design standards to ameliorate the impacts of an industrial appearance of the facility. The Planning Commission should consider requiring the face of the buildings fronting Court Street, Road 68, and properties to the west to be sided with stucco or architectural block and have the doors painted to match or complement the siding. An architectural masonry fence around the property may also be warranted. The Broadmoor Storage Solutions facility on Sandifur Parkway and the Express Storage facility on Court Street are good examples of mini-storage facilities that were constructed to complement future neighborhood uses. In addition to requiring enhancements to the architecture of the proposed buildings, site development must meet the requirements of the zoning regulations. The property also lacks street improvements along Road 68. These improvements should be included with any development of the property. City staff has reviewed the proposed special permit against future improvements that may be needed at the intersection of RD 68 and Court Street. That review has resulted in a conclusion that the intersection will be signalized as opposed to installing other traffic calming measures, such as a roundabout. This conclusion is based on the high volumes of traffic, future lane configurations and commercial land use designations at each corner of the intersection. Consistent with City development regulations, the applicant will be required to dedicate right of way and construct street improvements as a condition of any project at this site. 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) The applicant owns three parcels of land at the southwest corner of Road 68 and Court Street. The southernmost parcel was developed 3 with six mini-storage buildings in 1994. The storage buildings contain 36,000 square feet. 2) The original mini-storage buildings were constructed in the County and were built to County standards prior to annexation to the City, which occurred in 2002. 3) The original mini-storage buildings on the southern parcel were built without curb, gutter or sidewalk being installed along Road 68. The mini-storage buildings were also built without any landscaping or sight-screening. 4) Upon annexation in 2002 the City zoned all three parcels C-1 (Retail Business) which continued the commercial zoning that was previously established by the County. 5) C-1 (Retail Business) District permits the development of a variety of retail and office uses including restaurants. Mini-storage facilities are classified as a conditional use and are subject to Special Permit review. 6) Special Permit approvals can only be granted when and where it can be demonstrated the conditional use in question will be in accordance with the policies of the Comprehensive Plan and that the use will be maintained in harmony with the existing and intended character of the surrounding neighborhood. 7) The Comprehensive Plan identifies the area for commercial uses. 8) Following the policies of the Comprehensive Plan and the purpose of the existing zoning district, the character of the neighborhood includes future retail and office uses as well as residential uses. The neighborhood is not intended for storage and warehousing. 9) The property directly to the north is vacant, located in the County, and is zoned RS-20. 10) The property to the east is zoned C-1 and is vacant (the former Flower Farm property). 11) The property to the west is zoned R-2 and is vacant. 12) The property fronts on both Road 68 and Court Street. 13) Access to the site is proposed through a driveway on Road 68 serving the existing mini-storage units to the south. 14) Traffic control upgrades are planned for the intersection at Road 68 and Court Street to safely and efficiently accommodate increased traffic flow through the intersection. Right-of Way will be required from property owners on all corners of the intersection. This right-of-way acquisition is not shown on the site plan submittal. 4 15) The preliminary plans indicate a perimeter fence coming from the existing mini-storage facility to the south and continuing around the entire development. CONCLUSIONS BASED ON INITIAL STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT Before recommending approval or denial of a special permit the Planning Commission must develop findings of fact from which to draw its conclusions based upon the criteria listed in P.M.C. 25.86.060. The criteria are as follows: 1. Will the proposed use be in accordance with the goals, policies, objectives and text of the Comprehensive Plan? A mini-storage facility can be compatible xuith several Comprehensiue P1011 policies. Policy LU-1-B encourages enhancement of the physical appearance of development xuithin the City. The proposoI tuould replace a vacant lot ruith a ruell-developed facility containing perimeter- landscaping. policy LU-2-D requires all development to be landscaped. Development of the site including landscaping ruill support policies of the Comprehensive plan (LU2-D). 2. Will the proposed use adversely affect public infrastructure? All municipal utilities are currently available to the site from surrounding s tree ts. Commercial development standards requ ire right-of-rua y improvements on all road frontages to bring the bordering roadways up to current standards. Road 68 xuould need to be improved to the City of Pasco's Collector- Street section. This xuill include street poring and the installation of curb, gutter, siderualk, storm drainage and street lights to meet these standards. Water- and server- demo nds of the proposed use xuill be negligible compared to permitted uses such as restaurants and similar- uses. Impacts to the adjoining streets ruill likeruise be minimal. 3. Will the proposed use be constructed, maintained and operated to be in harmony with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity? Based on neighborhood zoning, neighborhood development and past rezone decisions for areas of the community ruest of Road 36 the existing and intended character- of the neighborhood includes future retail and office uses as ruell as residential uses. The Comprehensive Plan encourages the grouping of commercial uses to promote functional and economical marketing and operations to produce sustainable clusters of shopping and serf►ices (LU-4-B). The proposed use may be less intensive from an activity standpoint than other permitted uses in the C-1 zone but does not necessarily support the commercial clustering of businesses permitted in the C-1 zone. From a visual and functional standpoint the proposal may have an industrial/ruarehouse appearance and xuill not 5 support the commercial street appeal that is typical of neighborhood commercial centers. To support harmony in design xuith existing and intended neighborhood uses the elevations of the proposed mini-storage facility facing the street ruould need to include construction materials other- than painted sheet metal. Landscaping can also be used to help create harmony xuith the surround neighborhood. The mini-storage facility could also be considered an interim use until the surrounding neighborhood develops sufficiently to support neighborhood commercial activities. 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 proposal currently has an industrial warehouse appearance (metal buildings surrounded xuith gravel) that may not encourage the development of retail, office and foods service uses permitted ruithin the C- 1 District. The C-1 District requires a six foot fence to setback at least 15 feet from the property line. The proposal includes a six foot fence at the property line. To avoid the industrial appearance of the proposed facility and to encourage compatibility ruith the neighborhood, landscaping and restrictions on the building design xuould be needed. 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? Traffic is not a significant factor in the operation of a mini-storage facility. The operation of the proposed facility xuill create less noise, fumes and vibration than permitted uses for this zone. Unlike retail or office developments the customer/client parking areas around the proposed mini-storage buildings xuill be gravel creating the potential for dust. Fencing the mini-storage yard ruith a block ruall could aid in combating blowing dust and ruould improve the appearance of the facility. 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? On most days of the xueek minimal activity xuill occur- on the site. A mini storage complex of the size proposed can be considered a less intense commercial land use when compared to other- uses permitted in the C-1 zone. 6 TENTATIVE APPROVAL CONDITIONS 1. The Special Permit shall apply to Tax Parcels 119701412 and 119701421; 2. The applicant may choose one of the following design options for development of the site: 1. Transparent security fencing option: Fencing must consist of 6-foot maximum height architectural block pillars spaced on 10-foot centers with tubular metal/wrought iron between the pillars. All buildings must be sided with stucco or architectural block. All doors must be painted to complement the stucco or architectural block. The driveways and isle-ways around the buildings must be hard-surfaced. The west 10 feet of the site must be landscaped with trees and shrubs at a rate of one tree for every 20 linear feet and one shrub for every 8 linear feet. 2. Solid architectural block wall option: If the site contains an 8 foot architectural block wall or an 8 foot wall consisting of architectural block and stucco on the north, west and east, the buildings may be constructed of painted metal siding; no interior site pavement will be required except for the driveway entrance and no interior landscaping will be required. The landscaping requirement for the area along the west property line will be waived. 3. Stucco or architectural block building walls in lieu of an architectural block security wall: The Building walls may back to Road 68, Court Street and the west property line and be used as site security, provided each of the building walls contain at least three architectural features and are constructed of architectural block and/or stucco. No interior paving other than at the driveway entrance will be required and no interior landscaping will be required. The landscaping requirement for the area along the west property line will be waived. 3. The area between the architectural block fence and/or wall of the buildings and the sidewalk must be landscaped with 60 percent live vegetation at the time of planting. Street trees as included on the City's approved street tree list must be planted at 30 foot intervals along Court Street and Road 68. The landscaping must continue south on Road 68 to the south end of Lot 1, Short Plat 93-08. 4. No equipment or other materials shall be stored outside of the buildings; 7 5. Street lights shall be installed along the frontages of Court Street and Rd 68 per City and FPUD standards. 6. Road 68 shall be improved along the frontage of Tax Parcel 1 19 70 14 12 to bring the west half of the roadway into compliance with the City of Pasco Local Access Street standard. These improvements must include street paving, curb, gutter, storm drainage and sidewalk improvements. The sidewalk may be offset from the curb. Street improvements along Tax parcel 119701403 must include pavement widening to match the pavement along Parcel 199701412 and a grass drainage swale to the south end of the parcel. 7. The driveway drops along Court Street must be removed and replaced as per the standard city sidewalk section; 8. Handicapped ramps meeting the current ADA standards must be installed at the intersection of Road 68 and Court Street; 9. The driveway entrances shall be upgraded to meet current ADA and City standards; 10. Night lighting including parking lot lighting must be shielded to prevent light encroachment on adjoining properties; 11. This Special Permit shall not constitute rye facto acceptance of the Cell Tower placement as shown on the site plan submittal. A separate Special Permit application shall be required for any Cell Towers to be located on the site. 12. Right-of-way must be dedicated at the project level, as required. 13. The special permit shall be null and void if a building permit is not obtained by October 31, 2012. RECOMMENDATION MOTION: I move to adopt Findings of Fact and Conclusions therefrom as contained in the October 20, 2011 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 Mar-Stor LLC for the development of eight mini-storage buildings on a vacant site on Lots 2 & 3 of Short Plat 93-08 with conditions as contained in the September 15, 2011 staff report. 8 • Item: Mini-Storage in C- 1 Zone Vicinity Applicant: Mor-9tor LLC N M ap File # : SP 2011 -012 i till p o C'ImYLIMITS :URT-5-T - Bf .0 •S 4 A R. (��s'`_''' — ��\\`y\\\ ;- J�} I F i •r •—ram � A s SITE , 00 � •{ bt fan f rd 0 lie W a� � � •• s MARIE Land Item: Mini-Stora e in C- 1 Zone Use Applicant: Mor- tor LLC x Map File #: SP 2011 -012 Agricultural SFR Vac. Commercial SFR 4T 1 1 Vacant e COURT ST U)B � � Vac. Comm. � U. SITE o a 0 �.Q x SFDU's SFDU 's W MARIE ST I J HOiK � Q SFDU 's- 0 W OCTAVE ST Zoning Item- Mini-Storage in C- 1 Zone Applicant- Mor-9tor S LLC x Map File # : SP 2011 -012 RS-20 ( County) C -1 (County) _ COURTST BIXEDSUT -R' R-2 C -1 C-1 � SITE e <1 p R=S= 1 — _ PUD ST RSm1 2� Ho RS-20 T W�O C�TA V E_��T_ MOR-STOR - MINI STORAGE EXPANSION VICINITY MAP i PORTION OF N/E 1/4, N/E %4 OF SECTION 28 TOWNSHIP 9 NORTH RANGE 29 EAST, W.M. s `- PASCO, FRANKLIN ZOUNTY, WASHINGTON+! o Q a NTS ARGENT RD �y R 30 15 0 30 60 $ 4! v Z �'�'• PLAN SCALE COUiZT 5T 21 22 S a 26 27 PROJECT ` AF'425443 f,00ATION w CART ST LL PROPOSED PERIMETER IN EXISTING GVR6, GUTTER SECURITY FENCE AF0446676 I AND SIDEWALK aASCO Ar/L TO MATCH EXISTING t1 '� g - - ---——————-- ------_.a-- oc w sr+_vcsscR sr ------------------------ --------------_------- -------- -- 0A+&'44rytQ L"t a -------------------- --- — Q �lo'wIDC LANDSCAPE•-.- - "'------ ----------1`\ 100' 25' SETBACK 200' AFO425498 37' 30• PROPOSED STORAGE BLDG f PROPOSED STORAGE BLDG.3000 sq. ft . I] I 10 WIDE LANDSCAPE } - I i I SETBACyyK � a PROPOSED STORAGE 6LDG f. I PROPOSED STORAGE BLDG 4, 000 sq. ft , 8 , 000 sq. ft . r. I N I ' I' PROPO ED PERIMETER o .`jPROPOSED STORAGE BLDG PROPOSED STORAGE BLDG SC CVRITY FENCE v 4, 0 Q C S . f t . / 7, 000 s q . f t . SO 2III TO MATCH EXISTING q I `� RESER m FOR C' PROPOSED STORAGE BLDG PROPOSED S70RAGC BLDG TOWf333'EXISTING FENCE TO BE REMOVED Z I „ I f EXST STORAGE BLDG EXST STORAGE BLDG + LU f I I I I I k I 0 Q 10'PVE too) III cs IP �" Z9 EXST STORAGE BLDG EXST STORAGE BLDG - I III Hyy EXISTING GATED ENTRANCE��' "--�—EXISTING/PROPOSED TO REMAIN _ I JOINT ENTRANCE/EXIT - -- I I I f I I EXST STORAGE BLDG EXST STORAGE BLDG Iq: Q I I EXISTING - - - E-R IM-E TE SCGVRITY FENCE TO REMAIN ---rL—----IL—-------------/-------------—Y-----Y—_----+—�---I--- Y---J I I CITY ENGINEER GATE R NOTE: ALL UTILITY LOCATIONS ARE ""'-•" i APPROXIMATE. CONTRACTOR SHALL f f I 3 VCRfFY EXACT LOGATION5 WITH UTILITY I I f t COMPANIES PRIOR TO TRENCHING OVERALL SITE PLAN CALL 2 BUSINESS DAYS SCALE:x.30 BEFORE YOU D(G: 811 C1 OF 1 Looking North s � 4 AL ft" Ll i low i Looking East } j .l r X5 : 11 ll©Z16Z1 : © ,..:•ice • Looking West �"M" no UO _ f i rr 1r. xpress Stor WEI f,a- E rl�ll�°.�I���nnnd� Broadmoor Storage Solutions I� Broadmoor Storage Solutions At .�,s i w NOW RENTING - ' EXPRBS STORAGE 0 i 543-7496 .�� fS '�'�►1 -x. �r�1+fit;. •,Y REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION MASTER FILE # SP 20 11-0 11 APPLICANT: Pasco School District HEARING DATE: 9/15/2011 1215 W. Lewis St. ACTION DATE: 10/20/2011 Pasco, WA 99301 BACKGROUND REQUEST: SPECIAL PERMIT: Location of a Parking Lot in an R-2 (Medium Density Residential) Zone 1. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: Legal: The north 182.48 feet of the west 262.62 feet of the following described parcel: The south 1/2 of the southeast 1/4 of the northeast 1/4 of the northeast 1/4, except the south 106 feet of the west 139 feet of Section 25, Township 9 North, Range 29 East less the roads General Location: 1100 Block of N. 22nd Ave. Property Size: Approximately 1 acre 2. ACCESS: The parking lot site has access from 22nd Ave. 3. UTILITIES: All municipal utilities currently serve the site. 4. LAND USE AND ZONING: The site is zoned R-2 (Medium Density Residential) and contains a church. The zoning and land use of the surrounding properties are as follows: NORTH: C-1 - Commercial Businesses SOUTH: R-3 & C-1 - Commercial & Multi-Family Residences EAST: R-1 - Single Family Residences WEST: R-3- School 5. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The Comprehensive Plan designates this area for commercial uses. Policy LU-1-B encourages enhancement of the physical appearance of development within the City. Policy LU-2-D requires all development to be landscaped. The proposal would replace a vacant parcel with a landscaped parking lot. 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 1 Determination of Nan-Significance (DNS) has been issued for this project under WAC 197-11-158. ANALYSIS For several ,years the Pasco School District has been working on plans to improve vehicular and pedestrian safety around Stevens Middle School. Part of these plans call for the removal of the bus loading and unloading area on 22nd Ave and replacing it with a new bus staging area in the parking lot to the north of the school. School bus traffic would be routed from 24th Avenue rather than 22nd Avenue. The new bus staging area and bus turn-a-round would eliminate approximately 76 of the 141 existing parking stalls. Reconfiguration of the parent drop-off in front of the school will also eliminate 18 parking stalls. Eliminating much of the current off-street parking creates the need for additional parking. As a result, the School District has applied for a Special Permit to allow the construction of a new off-street parking lot on property across 22nd Avenue to the east of Stevens Middle School. Construction of the new parking lot will result in a net increase of 11 additional off-street parking stalls for the School. The proposed parking lot is located on a portion of the Emmanuel Baptist Church property, north of the church parsonage on the corner of Henry Street and 22nd Avenue. The parking lot is therefore an off-site parking lot and as such requires Special Permit review per PMC 25.86. The parking lot will occupy a 1.10 acre site with access to 22nd Avenue. The parking lot including the landscaping will be 252 feet deep and 182 feet wide. There will be 100 standard stalls included in the parking lot and 5 handicapped accessible stalls for a total of 105. Upon approval of the Special Permit the School District will work with the Baptist Church (the property owner) to complete a boundary line adjustment to properly configure the property to accommodate the parking lot. Construction of the parking lot is not expected until 2013 or 2014. 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. The Pasco School District is seeking to improve vehicular and pedestrian safety around the Stevens Middle School property on N. 22nd Avenue by relocating the current bus loading and unloading area. 2. The current on-street bus staging area is planned to be relocated to the parking lot on the north side of the Middle School. 3. With the relocation of the bus staging area school buses will no longer queue on N. 22nd Ave. when dropping off or picking up students. 4. Construction of the improved bus staging area will eliminate approximately 76 off-street parking spaces. An additional 18 off- street parking spaces will be lost due to a reconfiguration of the parent drop-off area in front of the Middle School. 5. The School District proposes to construct a replacement parking lot on the east side of N. 22nd Avenue, across the street to the east of Stevens Middle School. 6. The proposed parking lot site is off of the Stevens Middle School campus and is considered an off-site parking lot. 7. Off-site parking lots are unclassified uses per P M C 25.86.020. 8. Unclassified uses require review through the Special Permit process as enumerated in PMC 25.86. 9. The Pasco School District submitted a Special Permit application on August 12, 2011 requesting Planning Commission review of an off- site parking lot on n 22nd Avenue. 10. The site is zoned R-2 (Medium Density Residential) and is currently part of the Emanuel Baptist Church property. 11. The Emanuel Baptist Church property extends from N. 20th Avenue to N. 22nd Avenue and contains a church, a fellowship hall, a parsonage, a daycare playground and an undeveloped area. 12. The proposed parking lot is planned for the 1.10 acre (252' by 182') vacant portion of the church property fronting N. 22nd Avenue. 13. The proposed parking lot will provide 105 off-street parking stalls, five of which will be handicapped accessible stalls. 14. The proposed parking lot will increase the total number of off-street parking stalls for Stevens Middle School by 11 spaces. 15. The proposed off-site parking lot will be constructed in 2013 or 2014 depending on School District budgeting. 1 e. The proposed parking lot will be hard surfaced and will contain on- site drainage and landscaping. 3 17. The School District plans to install two man-gates in the fencing separating the Baptist church property from the proposed parking lot site to make the making lot available for additional church parking. CONCLUSIONS BASED ON 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-1-B encourages enhancement of the physical appearance of development within the City. The proposal would create a parking lot containing landscaping and a sight screening fence on vacant land. Policy LU-2-D requires all development to be landscaped. Conditions of approval contained herein require site landscaping thereby enhancing the appearance of the immediate vicinity. 2. Will the proposed use adversely affect public infrastructure? The proposal will lead to the removal of on-street school bus staging area and will provide additional off-street parking for Stevens Middle School. The reconfiguration of the bus staging area and addition of the off-street parking will lessen the impacts that Stevens Middle School currently has on 22nd. Avenue. 3. Will the proposed use be constructed, maintained and operated to be in harmony with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity? The neighborhood contains a mixture of commercial, multi-family, public or quasi public land uses. Parking lots are a customary development feature associated with schools, churches, apartment buildings and commercial buildings. The current on-site parking lots associated with the Middle School have not disrupted the harmony of the neighborhood or been the source of complaints from nearby multi-family residences. The addition of the proposed parking on the undeveloped church property will not alter the existing or intended character of the neighborhood. Parking lot landscaping will ameliorate potential impacts to the adjacent residences. 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? 4 The neighborhood is almost fully developed and much of development occurred after the Stevens Middle School and associated parking lots were constructed. The Middle School and associated parking lots have not discouraged development or impaired the value of neighboring properties. An online search of the Franklin County Assessors records property values have increased in the neighborhood over the past five years. 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? Properties immediately surrounding the proposed site contain church facilities, commercial establishments and Stevens Middle School. The operations of these facilities all involve the use of parking lots. The operation of the Middle School will be enhanced by the proposed parking. The church may also benefit from the parking lot due to the fact the parking lot is being designed to enable use by the church when the parking lot is not being used for school purposes. b. 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? Maintaining the current level of available off-street parking will benefit the community by providing sufficient parking for community events and school activities. Relocating the parking lot across the street should not disrupt existing uses nor endanger the public health or safety in the vicinity. APPROVAL CONDITIONS 1. The Special Permit shall apply to the west 2 60' of the north 182' of Tax Parcel 119331134; 2. The parking lot shall be constructed in substantial conformance with the site plan submitted with the Special Permit application; 3. Any and all parking lot lighting shall be shielded to prevent light encroachment on adjoining lots; 4. The driveway entrances shall be restricted to one entrance only and one exit only; 5. Driveways shall be marked to indicate the direction of traffic flow per the current edition of the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices; 6. The driveway entrances shall meet current ADA requirements; 5 7. The parking lot must be designed to contain all stormwater drainage on site; 8. No lava rock will be permitted within any area that may be landscaped; 9. The parking lot must meet the landscaping standards of PMC 25.75; 10. The special permit shall be null and void if a City of Pasco building permit is not obtained by October 31, 2014. RECOMMENDATION MOTION: I move to adopt Findings of Fact and Conclusions therefrom as contained in the October 20, 2011 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 an off-site parking lot at 1125 North 22nd Avenue with conditions as contained in the October 20, 2011 staff report. 6 Vicinity Item: PSD Off-Site Parkin 0 Lot Applicant: Pasco School District N Map File #: SP201 1 -0-1 _l � � � - •�� � �' � �+► I I_ .r� � L,'�"• :- r try ff MARIE SF cNi t r I TE 'E ur T ACT�c ST HENRY ST LLJ HENRY ST w. A� jr a N rte► �. Q �11V'�i�F'NRY L " r MaRGA%ETFST_ -� Land Use Item: PSD Off-Site Parking Lot Applicant: Pasco School District N Map . F 11e #. SP2011 -011 MF 'W S 'F' Commercial W R MARIE ST Q 4 z i4 im 0 School " Comm. I OCTAVE ST acan SF HENRY ST yu � Vacant HENRY ST Commercial N W HENRY PL S FR s MFR's MARGARET ST MFR'S Item: PSD Off--Site Parking Lot Z nin Map Applicant: Pasco School District N File #. SP201 1 -011 7L R-3 R 177 7 1 7 1 4 cm W MARIE ST a i � 0 R=2 " C= 1 SITE R=2 OCTAVE ST R-2 - HENRY ST R-2 R-3 HENRY ST = " W HENRY PL I I R=3 C= 1 r � I I-R-3- R=2._ I MARGARET ST I F 71 1 1 1 ILooking north Looking east ILooking southeast . = s Aw r- y A -. '�` 't Looking south Lookir. sn-.ithwest j REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION MASTER FILE # SP 2011-014 APPLICANT: Union Gospel Mission HEARING DATE: 10/20/2011 112 N. 2nd Avenue ACTION DATE: 11/17/2011 Pasco, WA 99301 BACKGROUND REQUEST: SPECIAL PERMIT: Location of a Level Two Community Service Facility in an I-1 (Light Industrial) Zone 1. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: Legal: The westerly 731 feet of Lot 2, Binding Site Plan 2003-06 General Location: 225 S. 4th Avenue Property Size: Approximately 6.70 acres 2. ACCESS: The site has access from 4th Ave. and from the southern terminus of 3=d Ave. 3. UTILITIES: All municipal utilities currently serve the site. 4. LAND USE AND ZONING: The site is zoned I-1 (Light Industrial) and is currently vacant. The zoning and land use of the surrounding properties are as follows: NORTH: I-1, C-3 & C-2 - Warehousing and an old inotel SOUTH: I-1 - Construction supply yard EAST: I-1 - Warehouses WEST: I-1 - Construction supply yard and night club 5. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The Comprehensive Plan designates this area for coininercial uses. 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. ANALYSIS The applicant proposes to relocate the existing Union Gospel Mission men's shelter and accessory buildings in the 100 block of North 2nd Avenue to a new site at 225 South 4th Avenue. The Mission has been providing services to the Tri-Cities community for over 57 years, much of which has been 1 provided through the current Mission facilities in the 100 block of North 2nd Avenue. These services include emergency shelter (housing), meals, recovery programs, transitional housing programs, weekly food boa distribution, and monthly clothing and furniture distributions. Services are provided to both transient and permanent residents. The mission is proposing to relocate all of their services, except the women and children's shelter, to a 6.7 acre site on South 4th Avenue. The Union Gospel Mission plans to construct a 35,990 square foot Men's Center, a 6,800 square foot Community Outreach Center and a 3,280 square foot maintenance facility on 6.70 acres of BNSF property with access to both S. 3rd Avenue and & S. 4th Avenue. A majority of the site will be devoted to the Men's Center which will contain a dining hall, dormitories, a chapel, office, and related facilities. The Community Outreach Center will contain a warehouse that will double as a weekly food bank and clothing distribution center. The development proposal includes site landscaping, a landscaped parking lot providing 113 parking stalls and four areas dedicated for future expansion. The main entrance to the facility will be on 4th Avenue with a service or secondary entrance off 3rd Avenue. Under PMC 25.12.156 the definition of Community Service Facility - Level Two includes missions, food banks and other types of non-profit services; PMC 25.86.050(4) requires special permit approval for the location of Community Service Facilities anywhere in the City. As part of the City project to convert the Lewis Street underpass into an overpass, the City has purchased properties east of 2nd Avenue between West Clark Street and West Lewis Street. A portion of the existing Union Gospel Mission property was included in those property purchases. The Mission needs to replace the two buildings purchased by the City as part of the overpass right-of-way acquisition. Relocating the Mission warehouse and maintenance building several blocks away will improve the efficiency of Mission operations through the elimination of the problems associated the lack of space and the fact that the buildings are separated by North 2nd Avenue. The Mission is seeking to replace the two buildings lost to the City purchase and consolidate most of their operations on one site, hence the application for the new Men's Center and Community Outreach Center on South 4th Avenue. The current Mission facility on North 2nd Avenue has no outdoor space where patrons may congregate (hang out) during the day. As a result, the sidewalk in front of the current Mission building routinely becomes an extension of the Mission and is used by Mission patrons to congregate during day or to queue up for services. The sidewalk has been used by the Mission in the past for locating bins to distribute items to the needy. Men milling around in front of the Mission walking back and forth across 2nd Avenue between Mission facilities and families queuing up on the street next to the side walk all tend to create traffic and safety issues on North 2nd Avenue between Lewis Street and Clark Street. The proposed facility on South 4th Avenue is designed more efficiently than the current facility to better accommodate Mission patrons by providing off- street parking, queuing areas and a fenced courtyard. With the fenced courtyard, liberal building setbacks and private sidewalk along the Community Outreach Center there will be no need for Mission distribution activities and other Mission related functions to occur on public sidewalks as they now on North 2nd Avenue. While the proposed new Mission site is located about 500 feet closer to the downtown center (4th and Lewis) than the current facility, the actual Men's Center and Community Outreach building are located in the center rear of the site about the same distance from 4th and Lewis as the current Men's Facility. The Men's Center is located 108 feet south of the end of South 3rd Avenue and 250 feet east of South 4th Avenue. Landscaping and a parking lot serve as buffers between the Men's Center and South 3rd Avenue and South 4th Avenue; which may help mitigate the problems associated with the current Mission Facilities where patrons spend much of the day milling around on City sidewalks and in 2nd Avenue. The edge of the proposed site is located on south 4th Avenue only 240 feet south of the Farmers Market parking lot, which is considerably closer to the Market than the current facilities on North 2nd Avenue. Travel distances to the proposed Mission buildings will be about 715 feet (accounting for building setbacks and site entrances) traveling south on 4th Avenue and about 550 feet along Columbia Street then south of south 3rd Avenue. Given past experiences, the Mission has demonstrated a history of contribution to general public disorder, loitering and other acts detrimental to the public image [PMC 2 5.44.050 (Exhibit#1)] of Downtown Pasco. The Planning Commission will need to give careful consideration to the possible impacts of this application to downtown revitalization in general and to the operations of the Farmers Market and downtown Festivals. 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. The Union Gospel Mission has operated at 112 North 2nd Avenue for over 50 years. 2. The City of Pasco has purchased the Union Gospel Mission warehouse and maintenance building on North 2nd Avenue in preparation for the construction of the Lewis Street overpass. 3. The existing Union Gospel Mission facility has no parking facilities for patrons. 4. The existing Union Gospel Mission contains no staging or queuing area off public sidewalks for food and clothing distributions. 5. The existing Union Gospel Mission lacks an outdoor gathering area/courtyard for Mission patrons to gather. City sidewalks are currently used for that purpose. 6. The existing Union Gospel Mission properties contain 0.76 acres of land. 7. The proposed site contains 6.7 acres. 8. The Union Gospel Mission proposes to construct a new Men's Center and Community Outreach Center at 225 South 4th Avenue. 9. Pasco Municipal Code (PMC) Section 25.12.156 defines missions and related non-profit organizations as Level Two Community Service Facilities. 10. PMC 25.86.020(4) requires special perinit review for Level Two Community Service Facilities. 11. The site proposed for the new Men's Center and Community Outreach Center is located at 225 South 4th Avenue. 12. The proposed site is zoned I-1 (Light Industrial). 13. The Comprehensive Plan designates the proposed site for commercial uses. 14. The site in question is owned by BNSF Railway Company. 15. The BNSF Railway Company signed the Union Gospel Mission Special Permit application. 16. The proposed Men's Center is 35,990 square feet in area. 17. The proposed parking lot contains 113 parking stalls. 18. The proposed on-site maintenance building is 3,280 square feet and is located behind or east of the Men's Center. 19. The proposed "Community Outreach Center" is a 6,800 square foot building located north of the maintenance shop to the east of the Men's Center. 20. The proposed Men's Center will be setback over 260 feet from South 4th Avenue. 21. The proposed Men's Center will be setback approximately 100 feet froin the south end of 3rd Avenue. 4 22. Parking lots and landscaping will be located between the Mission buildings and adjoining street right-of-way. 23. The proposed site is located 240' south of the Farmer's Market parking lot. The proposed site is separated from the Farmer's Market by Columbia Street and a row of buildings along the south side of Columbia and by an alley. Walking distance down 4th Avenue from the southwest corner of the Farmer's Market parking lot to the front door of the Men's center is about 715 feet. Walking distance from the Farmer's Market parking lot to the north side of the Men's Center (by way of Columbia Street) is 554 feet. 24. The Men' Center contains a walled outdoor courtyard for daytime gatherings. 25. All outdoor gathering areas and queuing areas will be contained onsite near the Men's center or along the front of the Community Outreach Center. 26. The proposed site layout contains extensive landscaping. 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? The site is identified in the Comprehensive Plan for commercial uses. The Commercial Land Use Designation includes all commercial uses listed in the C-1, C-2 and C-3 zones. Components (offices, warehouse, maintenance building, motels and parking) of the proposed facility are similar to permitted uses in the I-1 (Light Industrial) District. Policy LU-1-13 encourages enhancement of the physical appearance of development within the City. The proposal would replace a vacant lot with a well developed facility and parking lot containing landscaping. Policy LU-2-D requires all development to be landscaped. Development of the site, including landscaping, will support policies of the Comprehensive Plan (including LU-2-D) and enhance the appearance of the immediate vicinity. 2. Will the proposed use adversely affect public infrastructure? All municipal utilities are currently available to the site from surrounding streets. Commercial development standards require right-of-way improvements on all road frontages to bring the bordering roadways and sidewalks up to current standards. Water and sewer demands of the proposed use will be similar to a motel complex with a restaurant. The demands on the utility system may be less than the 5 demands of a permitted use such as a food manufacturing or bottling facilities. Impacts to the adjoining streets will likewise be minimal due to the fact the site has significant setbacks and a large area for service vehicles and parking. The proposal will lessen the impacts the current mission facility has on North 2nd Avenue. 3. Will the proposed use be constructed, maintained and operated to be in harmony with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity? The proposed use will be equally or less intensive from an activity standpoint than other permitted uses in the I-1 zone. Permitted uses in the I-1 zone such as automotive assembly and repair, trucking express storage yards, heavy equipment sales and service and metal fabrication shops all have the potential to generate higher levels of noise, fumes, vibration and glare than the proposed use. The food distribution will occur once a week and the clothing distribution occurs once a month. The design of the current Mission facilities encourages public loitering and general public disorder on city sidewalks due to the lack of outdoor courtyards and the lack of building setbacks. The sidewalk is essentially used as an extension of the Mission. Liberal building setbacks, building orientation and an enclosed courtyard may help address past Mission issues of patrons loitering on and blocking city sidewalks, but this is not guaranteed. The proposed location of the Community Outreach buildings with ample onsite queuing space will also address the issue of food bank patrons lining up on public sidewalks and streets to receive food boxes and clothing. The addition of landscaped berms and or landscape walls along the northern portion of the property near 3rd Avenue may further address concerns about loitering and general public disorder. If these design features fail to address issues associated with the Mission, the proposal will have an adverse impact on downtown revitalization. 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? Much of the property surrounding the proposed site is zoned I-1 (Light Industrial). There are no height limitations in the I-1 zone. The height limitation of the commercially zoned properties to the north is 45 feet. The proposed Men's Center will be about 22 feet in height which is similar to or less than the height of surrounding warehouses. The proposed facility will also contain significantly more unproved onsite parking and landscaping than the surrounding industrial supply facilities. Development of the site, which is currently a vacant lot, will consist of a paved parking lot, landscaping and new buildings, which 6 will improve the appearance of the neighborhood. An online search of the Franklin County Assessor's records (72011) indicate that property values surrounding the most recently approved food bank (Golden Age Food Share, 504 S Oregon Ave, 2005) have generally increased over the past few years. Food banks are the most analogous use for comparison with the Mission. 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? The design of the current of the current Mission facilities encourages public loitering and general public disorder on city sidewalks due to the lack of outdoor courtyards and the lack of building setbacks. The sidewalk is essentially used as an extension of the Mission. Loitering on public sidewalks has lead to other problems such as panhandling, verbal abusiveness, public drunkenness and other behavioral acts predominantly associated with the presence of transients [Ord # 2684 (Exhibit #2)]. The proposed facility has been designed with liberal building setbacks, a large onsite parking lot and extensive landscaping. Onsite queuing space and the enclosed courtyard will eliminate the need for Mission patrons to loiter on public sidewalks prior to receiving services from the Mission. The addition of landscaped berms and or landscape walls along the northern portion of the property near 3rd Avenue may further address concerns about loitering and general public disorder. The inclusion of a fence along the northern property line will provide controlled access to the main service entrance of the proposed mission buildings. The operation of the proposed facility will create less noise, fumes, vibration and dust than the nearby material supply facilities. 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? The design of the current of the current Mission facilities encourages public loitering and general public disorder on City sidewalks due to the lack of outdoor courtyards and the lack of building setbacks. The sidewalk is essentially used as an extension of the Mission. Loitering on public sidewalks has lead to other problems such as panhandling, verbal abusiveness, public drunkenness and other behavioral acts predominantly associated with the presence of transients [Ord # 2684 (Exhibit #2)]. 7 Development of the site with on-site parking, significant buildings setbacks, on-site queuing and an enclosed courtyard will address many of the safety and nuisance concerns associated with patrons of the current Mission facilities loitering and congregating on public sidewalks in front of the Mission. The addition of landscaped berms and or landscape walls along the northern portion of the property near 3rd Avenue may further address concerns about loitering and general public disorder. The inclusion of a fence along the northern property line will provide controlled access to the main service entrance of the proposed mission buildings. TENTATIVE APPROVAL CONDITIONS 1. The Special Permit shall apply to The westerly 731 feet of Lot 2, Binding Site Plan 2003-06; 2. The site shall be developed in substantial conformance with the site plan submitted with the Special Permit application; 3. A G foot chain link fence shall be installed along the northern boundary of the site; 4. A landscaping screen shall be planted along the west 25 feet of the east/west alley bordering the north line of the site; 5. No food commodities, clothing or other materials shall be stored outside of any building; G. The driveway entrances shall meet current ADA requirements. 7. The special permit shall be null and void if a building permit has not obtained by December 31, 2013. RECOMMENDATION MOTION: I move to close the hearing on the proposed Union Gospel Mission Men's Center and Community Outreach Center and initiate deliberations and schedule adoption of Findings of Fact, Conclusions and a Recommendation to the City Council for the November 17, 2011 meeting. 8 • Item: Union Gospel Mission Center Map Vlclni t Applicant: Union Gospel Mission N File #: SP2011 -014 Lv ho i SIT *A0, IN th Aubp •, 1 , ..... Land Use Item: Union Gospel Mission Center Map Applicant: Union Gospel Mission N File #: SP2011 -014 + MIMI ii In ISO Q � � 11■�N�I Mik ISM r; Site Data Men's Center 35,990 S.F. ;v� :Iw Community Outreach Center 6,800 S.F. Maintenance Shop 3,280 S.F. 1, Total Parking Spaces 113 n.- !� 29S`"�:f5 /� r a mi:^cs ! • • FUTURE • o ' COMMUNITY OUTREACH 1 FUTURE E ¢ �� CENTER m RP' a SPACE S i g � r MEN'S CENTER a L610nG � o«xa .�•�' 1 awnAMNANCiE \511 SHM _• • 185PACE5 ' PROPOSE.tE W M20PER--L 0* .. CURRENT PROPERTY LINE A_R E 5 ARES CORPORATION T Applied Research&Engineering Services New Men's Center and Community Outreach Center - Site Plan NORTH izooJadwin Avenue,Richland,WA 99352 WA//� PH 509.946.33oo _ Pasco, Y A Scale: 1/64� = 1'-0" ARESRL@aARESCORPORATION.COM Looking nortf� 1 yh`Y Looking east 1 1 ..airy: r " 1 X1 t r Looking south D5 Looking west a' Ion-site REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION MASTER FILE # SP 2011-013 APPLICANT: PowerZone HEARING DATE: 10/20/2011 P.O. Boa 5200 ACTION DATE: 11/17/2011 Pasco, WA 99301 BACKGROUND REQUEST: SPECIAL PERMIT: Location of a Level One Community Service Facility in a C-3 (General Business) Zone 1. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: Legal: Not Available-within BNSF Right-of-Way General Location: 1202 W. Lewis Street Property Size: Approximately 0.5 acres 2. ACCESS: The parking lot site has access from Lewis Street & l lth Avenue (11th Ave is located on Railroad right-of-way) 3. UTILITIES: All municipal utilities currently serve the site. 4. LAND USE AND ZONING: The site is zoned C-3 (General Business) and contains a commercial structure. The zoning and land use of the surrounding properties are as follows: NORTH: C-1 - Pasco School District Administrative Office SOUTH: C-3 -Vacant EAST: C-3 - Commercial Businesses WEST: C-3 - Vacant 5. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The Comprehensive Plan designates this area for commercial uses. 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. ANALYSIS The applicant proposes to operate PowerZone, a faith-based, after-school youth center in an existing commercial structure located in a C-3 zone. The proposed use is most closely aligned with a Level One Community Service Facility; which is considered an Unclassified Use and thus requires special permit review. The applicant has indicated that PowerZone will employ eight 1 (8) staff members who can serve up to 36 students. Students will primarily use public transit to access the center and a van will be used to transport students home. The youth center will not occupy the entire structure; rather, a 1,200 square foot portion of the structure will be used. The center will be open from 3:00 pin to 5:30 pin Monday-Thursday. The PowerZone Youth Center will provide an after school tutoring program to high-risk middle school and high school students. In addition to providing assistance with homework, the center will provide opportunities for students to attend retreats and camps with the goal of increasing personal self-sufficiency. PowerZone currently serves 36 students. The site is located on right-of-way owned by BNSF Railway and is not contained within a defined tax parcel. The site is bound by arterial streets to the north and to the south. Both arterials serve public transit, which provides convenient access for students traveling to the youth center from nearby schools. The proposed youth center adds to the consolidation of education related uses in the general vicinity. The Pasco School District administration office is located directly to the north and a few of Pasco's schools are located nearby. Longfellow Elementary, Pasco High, Emerson Elementary and Pasco Library are all located within less than one mile of the subject site. 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. The site is addressed 1202 West Lewis Street. 2. The site is zoned C-3 (General Business). 3. The site is located on right-of-way owned by BNSF Railway Company. 4. The PowerZone Youth Center is a non-profit organization dedicated to providing tutoring and mentoring for at risk middle and high school students. 5. PowerZone will provide tutoring services for 2.5 hours per day four days per week. G. PowerZone is defined as a Community Service Facility in the Pasco zoning code. 7. Community Service Facilities are considered Unclassified Uses and thereby require special permit review (PMC 25.86.020). 8. The proposed youth center is located approximately 0.7 miles south of the Pasco High School. 9. The proposed youth center is located directly south of the Pasco School District administrative offices. 10. The proposed youth center is located on a Benton Franklin Transit route. 11. The proposed youth center will occupy approximately 1,200 square feet of the existing commercial structure. 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? Comprehensive Plan Goal CF-5 encourages the fostering of adequate provisions for educational facilities throughout the urban growth area. PowerZone is a private educational support facility. 2. Will the proposed use adversely affect public infrastructure? The proposal will generate little demand for public utilities only being open to serve students for approximately 2.5 hours per day for four days per week. Water and sewer demands of the proposed use will be negligible compared to permitted uses such as restaurants. Impacts to the adjoining streets will likewise be minimal due to the fact the facility will only be open a total of 10 hours per week. 3. Will the proposed use be constructed, maintained and operated to be in harmony with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity? The building proposed for use by PowerZone is currently in place and has existed for over 40 years. No changes are planned for the exterior of this commercial building. The proposed use will have minimal impact on the existing and intended character of 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? PowerZone is proposing to occupy an existing building. No changes are planned for the height and size of the structure. The current building has not discouraged development in the general area. The lack of 3 development between West Lewis Street and West "A" Street west of 10th Avenue is due to the fact the property is railroad right-of-way. 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? The proposed facility will only be open for tutoring services 10 hours per week. There will be no fumes, vibrations, dust, noise, or flashing lights as a result of this activity. G. Will the proposed use endanger the public health or safety if located and developed where proposed, or in any way will become a nuisance to uses permitted in the district? The proposed tutoring center will be open 2.5 hours per day, four days per week primarily during the school year. Minimal activity will occur at the site minimizing any chance for the creation of nuisance conditions. TENTATIVE APPROVAL CONDITIONS 1. The Special Permit shall apply to Tax Parcel #200000220 for the building at 1202 West Lewis Street located within BNSF right-of-way; 2. The applicant shall comply with all building code requirements for the occupancy class applicable to the use; 3. Street frontage and utility improvements meeting City Standards shall be required if tenant improvements for PowerZone exceed 3W/0 of the leasehold value as established by the Franklin County Assessor under Tax Parcel # 200000220; 4. The Special Permit shall be null and void if an occupancy registration has not been obtained by June 30, 2012. RECOMMENDATION MOTION: I move to close the hearing on the proposed PowerZone Youth Center and initiate deliberations and schedule adoption of Findings of Fact, Conclusions and a recommendation to the City Council for the November 17, 2011 meeting. 4 Vicinity Item: Power Zone Youth Center 0 Map Applicant: Carole Schuh N File #: SP2011 -013 Zi LLB • � - , , " z Ap ,. . FP -_ Y • _r O af�l w ST 'I JAL �Tl.A� �t' )F4� ''TL - IVW r r. Land U Item: Power Zone Youth Center Applicant: Carole Schuh N Map 0 Fl ie #. S P2011 -013 Res,0 �G .R r a P.U.D. I. cow Office � Re5, I I 1 Commercial . Commercial �t� Gov Vacant "N' ST Vac. Vac. MFR'S Comm. z >SFR' s > �n Comercial Public z -SFR,s- '- -9 c� � Zoning Item: Power Zone Youth Center Map Applicant: Carole Schuh lv File #: SP2011 -013 R-2 C-1 FC= 1 R-3 C-1 C-1 C j C-3 �o C-3 I-1 "A" ST ? > > j W C-1 C- 1 z � z 7A � � R-2 R=2- Building front ! I L - r l I � 17 0 A � I 1 et Looking north `ham H -� __ F ��I r Looking east PSD Admin. Bldg. 6,., Boom 1 is sea 5LII {00� ILooking southeast Looking south "P,. Ao- - �' •• • �,_.�. �� '�' a .__ ._._--- _ .'i —.._ ���___ Shared use cAtgA. EN GENERAL. F $ A. A 11`IEMORANDUII'I DATE: October 20, 2011 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Dave McDonald, City Planner SUBJECT: Comprehensive Plan Update (MF# CP2011-001) The City is required by the Growth Management Act to develop and adopt a Comprehensive Plan. The Plan must be reviewed and if necessary updated every seven ,years. The Plan can also be updated on a more frequent basis as conditions change within the community. However, Plan updates cannot be more frequent than once a ,year. The last major Comprehensive Plan update began in 2007 and was completed in 2008. As a result of a request from the Pasco School District, industrial infrastructure improvements, adoption of the Broadmoor Concept Plan and adoption of the Marine Terminal/Boat Basin Plan, there is a need to consider revisions to the Comprehensive Plan. Land Use Map and Growth Area Boundary Update The following points represent changing conditions which warrant modification to the Land Use Map and Growth Area Boundary: • In 2009 the Broadmoor Concept Plan was completed. The Broadmoor Concept Plan altered the Land Use Designations in the Road 100/Broadmoor Interchange area by expanding both the Mixed Residential and Commercial areas to the west. • The Marine Terminal and Boat Basin Plan was adopted in the fall of 2010. The Marine Terminal and Boat Basin Plan is a master plan that provides a more detailed view of future land uses between the Cable Bridge and Osprey Pointe south of Ainsworth Street. • During the last couple of ,years the City has invested two million dollars in improvements to the north end of Capital Avenue. Capital Avenue was extended one mile north to provide a connection with East Foster Wells Road. The road i was constructed to industrial standards (additional base and asphalt) with curb and gutter to provide access to the industrial lands on the east side of SR 395 south of East Foster Wells Road. A mile of sewer line was also installed along with 1.25 miles of water line. Every 600 feet, 8 inch lateral sewer lines were stubbed out east and west of Capital Avenue to provide sewer service to future industrial users. The water line was also stubbed out to both sides of Capital Avenue. Finally the water line was extended west in Foster Wells and connected under SR 395 to a main line on the west side of SR 395. A spare 12 inch line was placed under SR 395 for future needs. • In 2010 the City bored under SR 12 and placed a large casing with four pipes of varying sizes under the freeway. This $600,000 plus project was the first phase of a multi- phase infrastructure project to provide utilities to current and future industrial users in and around the Lewis Street/Kahlotus Highway Interchange. Two million dollars of sewer improvements will be connected to the SR 12 casing in the next few ,years and an additional $800,000 will be devoted to water system improvements. The water system will aid in the future expansion of industrial processing and will provide fire protection that is currently lacking in the County east of SR 12. • Section lines or portions thereof are often used to delineate the Pasco Urban Growth Area boundaries. The east boundary of Section 35, Township 9 North Range 20 East along the Snake River northerly of the SR 12 Bridge dissects part of the Tidewater Barge Terminal. Under the provisions of the Growth Management Act urban growth is to be confined within Urban Growth Areas (UGA). The UGA should include areas that will provide for a broad range of land uses including nonresidential uses (RCW 3 6.70A.110). The broad range of land uses should include a reasonable "land market supply factor" to provide for a range of commercial and industrial land (RCW 36.70A.110). County-wide Planning Policies suggest UGA's should include lands already characterized by urban growth and as having existing public facilities and services (water and sewer) to serve existing and future growth [Policy No. 2 (Q. The City has recently completed $2.6 million of utility improvements to serve the lands suggested for inclusion in the UGA (see UGA Map attached). Another 2.8 million dollars is planned to be spent installing utilities to serve properties near the Kahlotus/Lewis Street Interchange. 2 Map Updates One thousand seven hundred and ninety-five (1,795) residential lots have been developed with homes since the last major Comprehensive Plan update was initiated in 2007. As a result, all of the base maps within the Comprehensive Plan are out of date and no longer reflect the street layout of the City. Capital Facilities Update Capital Facilities planning is a mandatory requirement of the Growth Management Act [RCW 36.70A.070(3)]. Capital facilities include city streets, parks, public buildings, water and sewer infrastructure and facilities of other public subdivisions of government such as the School District, the Irrigation District and the PUD. Information related to these special services districts are contained in either the Capital Facilities Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan or the Non-City Utilities Chapter of the Plan. In January of this year the Pasco School District submitted a letter to the City (attached) explaining the District had outgrown its ability to provide schools for new development without new development contributing to the cost of providing the schools. The District further explained that in their letter that the City could not approve residential subdivisions unless the city finds adequate provisions are made for schools (RCW 17.110). The School District placed the City on notice that without impact fees or SEPA mitigation for new residential development there will not be adequate provisions made for schools. The imposition of impact fees requires the City to amend the Comprehensive Plan by incorporating the Pasco School District's Capital Facilities Plan into the City's Capital Facilities Element of the Comprehensive Plan. By Resolution (attached) the School District has requested the City amend the Comprehensive Plan and adopt an impact fee ordinance. The Goals and Polices section of the Capital Facilities Element of the Comprehensive Plan contains a policy (CF-S-A) that states the City is to work with the School District to coordinate District facility plans with the Comprehensive Plan and encourage the appropriate location of schools throughout the community. While the current Plan (Volume II page 45) makes reference to the School District Facilities Plan is not incorporated in the Comprehensive Plan. The plan does however call for the City to work with the School District during the development review process to insure impacts of development on the School District are minimized. In the past this was accomplished by forwarding copies of proposed plats to the School District for 3 review and comment. During this process the city had developers set aside land the School District could purchase adjacent to sites dedicated for parks, thereby reducing the overall cost for school site acquisition. Due to the pace of growth this is no longer adequate to meet school needs; hence the January letter from the District requesting the imposition of school impact fees on new development. Incorporating the School District Capital Facilities Plan within the City's Comprehensive Plan will require amendments to both Volumes I and II of the Comprehensive Plan. The attachments contain the sections of the City's Plan that need to be amended along with proposed language to accomplish the amendments. The Pasco School District is in the process of updating their Capital Facilities Plan for 2011-2017. A copy of the Plan will not be available until October 26th. As a result the Findings listed below do not include information about the School District's Capital Facilities. The Public Hearing on this matter will need to be continued until the November 17, 2011 Planning Commission meeting. 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 Growth Management Act requires the development of local Comprehensive Plans. 2. The Comprehensive Plan can be updated no more than once a year. 3. The Growth Management Act mandates specific elements to be included within comprehensive plans including an element for capital facilities. 4. One thousand seven hundred and ninety-five residential lots have been developed with homes since the last major Comprehensive Plan update was initiated in 2007. As a result, all of the base maps used for the various maps within the Comprehensive Plan are out of date and no longer reflect the street layout of the City. 5. In 2009 the Broadmoor Concept Plan was completed. The Broadmoor Concept Plan altered the Land Use Designations in the Road 100/Broadmoor Interchange area by expanding both the Mixed Residential and Commercial areas to the west. 6. The Marine Terminal and Boat Basin Plan was adopted in the fall of 2010. The Marine Terminal and Boat Basin Plan is a master plan that provides a more detailed overview of future land uses 4 between the Cable Bridge and Osprey Pointe south of Ainsworth Street. 7. The City has invested $800,000 in the past two years to improve the Capital Avenue connection with East Foster Wells Road. Capital Avenue was improved to industrial standards with curb, gutter, storm drainage and a thickened road base and asphalt. 8. The City has invested $1,200,000 in water and sewer line improvements during the past two ,years to extend water and sewer lines in Capital Avenue and connect the water to the west side of SR 395. 9. The water and sewer utilities have been stubbed with lateral lines to serve properties on both the east and west side of Capital Avenue. 10. In 2010 the City 11. bored a casing under SR 12 and placed four pipe lines in the casing for a cost of $600,000. This is the first phase of a multi- phase infrastructure project to provide utilities to current and future industrial users in and around the Lewis Street/Kahlotus Highway Interchange. Two million dollars of sewer improvements will be connected to the SR 12 casing in the next few ,years and an additional $800,000 will be devoted to water system improvements. The water system will aid in the future expansion of industrial processing and will provide fire protection that is currently lacking in the County east of SR 12. 12. Section lines are often used to identify the extent of the Urban Growth Area around the City of Pasco. In one case the use of section lines cause the Urban Growth Boundary to inadvertently dissect the Tide Water Marine Terminal facilities causing a portion of the Tide Water Marine Terminal be inside the UGA and a portion of the Terminal to be outside the UGA. 13. RCW 36.70A.110 encourages Urban Growth Areas to include a broad range of land uses including a reasonable "land market factor" to ensure there is a wide range of land available for all uses including commercial and industrial uses. 14. County-wide Planning Policies suggest UGA's should include lands already characterized by urban growth and having existing public facilities and services (water and sewer) to serve existing and future growth [Policy No. 2 (Q. The city has spent $2.6 million on water sewer for industrial development needs east of SR 395 and SR 12. Another $2.8 million of utility improvements will occur over the next few ,years. 15. A portion of the land proposed to be included in the UGA was previously located within the UGA but was removed from the UGA because the land was developed with a large commercial dairy. The dairy has been relocated. 5 Recommendations MOTION: I move to continue the hearing on the Comprehensive Plan updates until November 17, 2011. 6 Land Use Map & Growth Area Boundary Update CITY OF �T= PASCO fill ! I -=MEN N �mm"M 1� r 1 Iwo �� 1•I I� a aO � ` / � r ur���1 r '�• /� i■ I/1�Ia•I// =nor ^■I il�mu ■1�� �» �`. � - '+ 11■ ,�����1 ■■ Ii...r �„ / -i rr•.nnr.r.'.=_- IIIIII�;V IrEoff I•��:T] % J-�i1 N= ow WO , loom ■� �� _,� `Nr - 1♦�_ NJ .nw °- _ � �- Lm. r ■ ' ■I i .'. , •`�VVVVVi I� `, ■`ail■ INS of �� 1� t .��`���•'`' ,.�� , IVV&�� -1 L, unuun ,*� ••*��� V•1V �Vls Legend °•• �l ' • _ .._a■....I-I INN Me ,, I• ■ �� Irl.■un• •� 11 '� .._. iu,hullull►�/ ■■111 ��II a!!L�_���■ Low-Densit y Residential commercial - Mixed Resid iential Industrial :I High-Density Residential Government/Public Mixed Residential/commercial open Space/Parks See asin/ Proposed UGA changes Marine Termi Term I Plan - - a NOTICE:NO WARRANTY OF ACCURACY. The information shown on the attached map was Comprehensive a compiled for use by the City of Pasco, its employees and consultants. The City of Pasco does not v warrant the accuracy of anything set forth on the map. Any person or entity requesting a copy should conduct an independent Inquiry regarding the Information shown on the map, including but not limited to, the location of any property lines, zones, streets, subdivisions, or other 2011 Update geographic features. Such features may or may not exist and may or may not exist at the location shown. Neither the City of Pasco nor its employees or officers shall be liable for information shown on this map,nor for any oral representation provided based upon said map. z a. ' N W , E r ` s r 0 - Legend 0 Urban Growth Area City Limits t ® Proposed UGA Changes - . NO TIC F:NO wnRAeeNTY OP nC C UFAC Y.The infortmnm ahoan m¢rr a¢aahvd map Qaa compiled forme hf lheCilp of Fasco,it¢emp•loyeeaandcmadtane TM City of4aco-0aa mt Urban Growth Area n th•ac<aracy of aryth n;an foeW on thr tm p.nnf person or entity rcgaectm;a<opa ahoald cwrdacr an in-0rpradert U'cu9 ngrdin;the Gdwmation sarevn on Fr map,imtadmg bat nN limited eo,rie location of any properg lines.rorra,alrcet;satdrrarwn,or other \(\ ;ecjraphc f<atvrca.SSch fro tnrermsy or may mat crier grid rvvy a may nct rxvat at the location ahe+n.Neither the Crlp of Paxo nw it rM,,W.ra a eft tees hall tr ua H<fw infwrt¢lien r aho:n on lNs map norfor any oral rc pnaenlation FmN&d lased¢pan acid ern p. Nlap Updates CITY OF 1 r rill, Nam W, 5 a � r .■ _ a�� m j Legend � .e _ Airport Reserve Airport Reserve Urban Growth Boundary Proposed UGA Changes NOT F:NCl Wr.RRa NTYtIF..CCURrf.Y.The;nformLion.horn on lee Llueei-ay r11 mmpilyd rorwehr the Ci1r cr Fa w,i•emybfea and con.Wla-a The Cif r of Cvco dm ml n IM1e accurlcJ of anflhine ea ronn on Ilse map wnf yn»n orenlilr rq.�,line a My nheuld conau�1n mdeyrnden Inquiry,eea+dme the InformL bn shorn on Iee may.is Udine M1ul nd Iimiled Io,Iha b�liyn of mJ pmpcnJ lino,ram,nlnxr n,1uAdirn..oln,or other emenylric fm um loch Ra1u.d maJ sr ma f m1 eetfn and ma J or ma)na c�e1 L the loralon shorn.Nei her IAe Cilf yf Coco nm iU emDloJea m office^•11111 Ae h4hle for inf-Lion shorn on IM1 map.nor(cyan J onI iepi.�rnlLion prodded haed uyrn.aid map. \\\v\`J r Q y u I— CITY OF PASCOO ' ED ®des cm Legend Parks Schools ^�` & Urban Growth Boundary Parks Schools Proposed UGA Changes NETT M:F,:NO Wa RRa NTY OF NCCtPRACY.The;nlormaian.boon on the aired m ay xu rnmyiled poruac�j the Ciy or Daam,d a emybym and conaullznh Tk Ch a or yzeco dm mi mn the aeaaruJ of anjllrinp ad ponh on the mzy.A yeron.—H.,rgw_ainp a m" abeuld eend4o m indeyrnden InquirT re�,dine the lnf aien alern en the maD.in bdinp M1W nd limned io,she bCZlion of anJ propmJ fine,ram,awh auhdiraiom,or ocher peaty nyhic fmueea ouch nnwm+mar sr maJml edr.landmajormzjnaa.6lalhe:.- ahem.Nether the Cilr Ar ehia map.norf r n,nl nor ie rnemybJea ro err d d b—d•hail he F>hle par inf maim /\ uyn said h f t y . r\ I 1't �O Y II III fJ b Y � Legend Resource Lands Urban Growth Boundary Resource Lands Proposed UGA Changes a NOT R:F.:NO W,RRANT Y OF IC.Ck)RM:Y.The i,fermLion.hero on the LixhSd m ay ru mmyiled roruachy the CLy of P—i a emybym and cmaWianh Tlm Ciir of p..dm mi ine xrurx)of anyihinp atl rodh on the may rnf peron eremiif tt9-vnp a myf 'heuld eend- independen 1-zW y meaWinp the lnf Lien'hewn on the may.;'l�dinp hW nd fimiied ia,she b��ien of any p'°ye'^r fine,ram�,'Iree'h auhdi�+iem,or ocher pmpnpt.fm urea iuch feaiurt'mar or ma)ml a AT and may or maf no L the IocLOn 'Tern.Nei her the Cil f or P—nor ie emy bred W Off—.hall be Table rae in1 mL ien 'tern en Ihia map.ner foram onI n:pmmiLion provided hued uyn said may. z a. ' N W , E r ` s r 0 - Legend 0 Urban Growth Area City Limits t ® Proposed UGA Changes - . NO TIC F:NO wnRAeeNTY OP nC C UFAC Y.The infortmnm ahoan m¢rr a¢aahvd map Qaa compiled forme hf lheCilp of Fasco,it¢emp•loyeeaandcmadtane TM City of4aco-0aa mt Urban Growth Area n th•ac<aracy of aryth n;an foeW on thr tm p.nnf person or entity rcgaectm;a<opa ahoald cwrdacr an in-0rpradert U'cu9 ngrdin;the Gdwmation sarevn on Fr map,imtadmg bat nN limited eo,rie location of any properg lines.rorra,alrcet;satdrrarwn,or other \(\ ;ecjraphc f<atvrca.SSch fro tnrermsy or may mat crier grid rvvy a may nct rxvat at the location ahe+n.Neither the Crlp of Paxo nw it rM,,W.ra a eft tees hall tr ua H<fw infwrt¢lien r aho:n on lNs map norfor any oral rc pnaenlation FmN&d lased¢pan acid ern p. i CITY OF LPASCO U- I Legend Aquatic Wetlands/Riparian Areas Steep Slope Q Liquefaction Susceptibility Urban Growth Boundary Critical Areas Proposed UGA Changes NO TTCF:NOwnRMNTY OF nCCUMCY.Thrinf--h—m u.r a a aohrdmapwas ompilydfarnar tyth.city of rtaK th•acavncy mTh Cayof3acd-1 If arythn;a ad on the e n perms or enlily rc......S a c.PY ahwld crndaa an inarpmdeK Inge rT rcgrding the Ldamation shown on Pr map,imlvdm� W na Inrilyd co,mr locavon of any prop—j IinK.ro rcet;svia. ,or olhrr gra3raphc fratarca.Sack fee rarer may oramyro and rnyor may"at.,al the location A2..Nrithrr the Ctly of Pasco—it rmployrra a ofl c<n hall br haNrf.,information any Qal rc prcaenlaYon FmNdrd board a pan said rm p. CITY OF PASCO Olson rommom I III r tCC�� ►tt�:. ii ` ��R'i(�/IIr7��i7 � �l _t . ROME ME I id --WWII wimmm ml MM �� ♦ 1� f it ■■■ ag bid • • • ' • • - b`° 13,5 13601 PASCO'6. 1 139 1 80 40 138 14 13804 13903 1iQ1 \. 14701 3 0 144 145 141 1 173 7- \ 1 0* 1 1 18 �..y - 15 176 11 1 Legend - ��� _ _ .- 168 Traffic Analysis Zones 282 Streets Urban Growth Boundary Traffic Analysis Zones � Proposed UGA Changes a N[TT M'F.:NC!Wr.RRRNTY QF�C.CURf1f.Y.Tbe;nlormaion.boon on the LlxhSd may xu rnmyiled forwc�Yl*eme,Or yam,iaemybree andcon•Wizm•Tlm C.il of➢acodm mi n the xaarxr of anrlhirq atl Wnh on the may.wn�yeron orcmdi rgw_,liny a coyl abeuld ennd4:,m indeyendem Inquiry+e�mline Ih<lnf Wien shorn an the may.is baine \'\UJ\r M1W nd limned�o,she brzliyn of am pmpmr fine,ram,mmfh aubdira•o�n,or aher Y�*a➢MC fmuin such rmwm mar sr ma�ml c.hl and maa or mzf nor c.ala the loaon ahyrn.Nether the Cnr of➢xco nor im emyloran a aRa++•hall Ae naAle�x inlbrmaion ,/� Ahern en Ibis may.War foram oral n:yryenlaliyn yrorided bored uyn said map. ,\1V\\/ p,—d p—q p+,.-d j­A-Aoj—q—.q �7 1q . .11 ,N. 77—pj 41 S,Ndn L,bq mp.,4 -1 11 11-Pwl PIW4- 696ueqo venpasodoid 9961 01 CV61 41LUA)d jo jueA Aq BuisnOH kepunog qlAAOJ!D Lleqjn CV61 01 K61 90N 016961- 17C61 01 ZZ61 696 L 01 L961 ZZ6[ 01 t7[61 L96 G 01996 V b 6[ 010681 puaba-j Alb �j 51 jal T-4 IM 1me 1i imw if L UI M -1 - _ _ n. 1.. ,rLiL�e-rf i:e A `fG' �Aw Una P, Hit, ME SU- qm - M ... i I I :s.........I NNIN.14 52• 917-V=0 C=mw ,. W,=s Im .=Mr iw III H I r u LNO 'L I , I I , , • ­4 0 011 look wN= i M21 Run I• CC SUM IN 1101- . T X,: IN 113"! 4 FUND IN, 0 4 -gill 1:2 -.111111415 RINI gm@&L IN 111 1• Ill mwd rr. ur-.I!I Ip I R!'! Mole I.......... E"87 sib 0�om INK M—. in= 'No – -.. larill S!!ivn": IN sp oil wo k6 MOVE ... ....... . .......... . ... ... ... ia. ....... le. W -j .-4 Tt"i rs .............. ......... �ji�IL U it Iljjw 1p Ill 1111004 sidel,11= 112– Capital Facilities Update Volume I Goals & Policies P A 4�omgrehensive Plan City of Pasco, Washington 2007 to 2027 This comprehensive plan and thepreparatory work which created it were paid for in part by a grant from the State of Washington, administered by the Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development. OWN ^T I = A concurrency management system is a regulatory process that establishes procedures to determine if public facilities have adequate capacity to accommodate a proposed development. The process uses criteria adopted and implemented in the municipal code. Under the GMA, concurrency must be established for transportation facilities; however jurisdictions may establish concurrency for any public facility or service. The City of Pasco adopted Ordinance # 3821 establishing concurrency procedures for transportation facilities in conjunction with new development. Six Year Capital Improyement Plan The Capital Improvement Plan (GIP) sets out the capital projects the city plans to undertake within the next six years to support implementation of the Comprehensive Plan. The six year schedule is up-dated annually, with the first year of the schedule acting as the capital budget for the current fiscal year. During the annual updating of the six-year schedule, cost estimates, and funding sources are updated and revised to reflect changed conditions or new information available to the city. The CIP and the twenty-year Capital Facility Plan should be revised to include additional projects that may be needed to maintain adopted levels of service. Pasco School District 41 Capital Facilities Plan The School District Coital Facilities Plan sets forth the Districts educational program standards (Level of Service) classroom sizes, core programs and services necessary for the education of children within the District. The olan also identifies the Caoital Facilities needs to accommodate project student enrollment over the next six years. The financing plan within the Capital Facilities Plan includes bonds, State matching funds and school impact fees as methods of raising capital for construction of school facilities. The District Capital Facilities Plan is included as a part of this Comprehensive Plan in the Capital Facilities Element in Volume II. Administrative Actions The Comprehensive Plan includes policies that should be carried out through administrative actions. These actions include development review,development permitting, preparation of reports, making information available to the public, and review for concurrency. Development review practices must be continually monitored to ensure administrative function are consistent with and support the policies of the Comprehensive Plan. Introduction 5 The source documents primarily used as functional comprehensive plans for infrastructure and the six-year capital improvement plans are prepared routinely and updated annually as required for obtaining funding from the State. The individual capital improvement plans define projects and proposed funding for those projects required, first to rehabilitate existing facilities and secondly to provide level of service (LOS) capacity to accommodate new growth. Generally, the proposed new capacity,replacement and rehabilitation of capital facilities, and financing for the next six years reflects the general planning goals and policies, as well as land use infrastructure requirements, identified in Pasco's longer-range planning documents. These documents include: • The Transportation Element, and related regional and county transportation plans; • The Comprehensive Park and Recreation Plan and Trails Plan; • Water, Sewer, and Storrriwater Comprehensive Plans; and • Specific facility= plans for infrastructure improvements and city- owned buildings. • Pasco School District No. 1 Cavital Facilities Plan Other source documents include, plans for �chooit, the irrigation district, the Benton-Franklin Council of Governments Regional Transportation Plan, the Columbia Basin Ground Water Management Area Plan, and other service providers. Supplemental Plans The Broadmoor Concept Plan s 20091 The Broadmoor Concept Plan covers approximately 1,100 acres oflandnorth and west of the Broadmoor/I-182 Interchange. The goal of the Broadmoor Concetat Plan is to provide a more detailed level of P_aidance for future development in the Broadmoor area than is provided for in the Comprehensive Plan. The Broadmoor Concept Plan (2000 and any subsequent amendments thereto is made wart of this Comprehensive Plan by reference. Boat Basin Marine Terminal Plan (2010) Thg Boat Basin Marine Terminal Plan covers that portion of the City located Capital facilities Element 22 south of Ainsworth Avenue between the Cable Bridge and Osn-reyy Pointe in the Big Port of Pasco. The zoal of the Boat Basin Marine Terminal Plan is to provide amore detailed level of guidance for future redevelopment of the Marine Terminal and Boat Basin area than is Movided for in the Comprehensive Plan. The Boat Basin Marine Terminal Plan 120101 and anv subsequent amendments thereto is made Part of this Compreheraive Plan by reference. The Capital Facilities Element is designed to comply with the following state GMA planning goals: • Public facilities and services. Ensure that those public facilities and services necessary to support development shall be adequate to serve the development at the time the development is available for occupancy and use without decreasing current service levels below locally established minimum standards. The state goals, in turn, led to the following Countywide Planning Policies (CPP) that provide specific guidance to the analysis and policies developed in this Element(note that only those policies or portions pertaining to infrastructure are included here): POLICY No. 1 Policies to Implement R Cif%36.70.4.020. The Comprehensive Plans of Franklin County and each of its cities therein shall be prepared and adopted with the objective to facilitate economicprosperity,by accommodating growth consistent with the following: 2. Avoid Sprawl: The inappropriate conversion of undeveloped land shall be avoided. Urban development shall be confined to appropriate areas within urban growth boundaries. S. Permits: Applications,for•permits should beprocessed in a timely and fair manner to ensure predictability. 10. Public Facilities and Services: Ensure that those public facilities and services necessary to support development shall be adequate to serve development at the time the development is available for occupancy and use without decreasing current service levels below locally established minimum standards. POLICY No. 2 G? Municipalities should limit the extension of water and sewer service to Capital facilities Elern 23 Volume H f Supporting Elements " Comprehensive Plan City of Pasco, Washington 2007 to 2027 This comprehensive plan and the preparatory work which created it were paid for in part by a grant from the State of Washington, administered by the Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development. w. s _7 R t: JJJ At J Ae Capital Facilities oductio_n Land use decisions such as annexation or commercial versus residential zoning,etc.,have direct. impacts upon the City financial' capabilities and liabilities in both the immediate and distant futures. Because of this relationship the Growth Management Act (RCW 36.70A.070[3]) requires that local governments include capital budgeting as an active plannin function. The GMA requires that capital budgeting support the land use decisions. If there is insufficient funding to meet the infrastructure demands of growth then the land use element should be adjusted to protect the integrity of the financial capabilities of the respective local government. The specific Statutory [RCW 36.70A.070(3)] requirements for capital facilities planning are provided as follows: 1. "(3) A capital facilities plan element consisting of: (a) an inventory of existing capital facilities owned by public entities, showing the locations and capacities of the capital facilities. (b) a. forecast of the future needs for such capital facilities; (c) the proposed locations and capacities of expanded or new capital facilities. (d)at least a six-year plan that will finance such capital facilities within projected funding capacities and clearly identify sources of pub licmoney for such purposes;and(e)a.requirement to reassess the land use element if probable funding falls short of meeting existing needs and to ensure that the land use element, capital facilities plan element, and financing plan within the capital facilities plan element are coordinated and consistent." Capital facilities planning is a tool that deliberately brings to the surface for public examination, the financial decisions necessary to maintain and improve the physical attributes of the City. Capital improvement projects are to be based upon the needs of the community and are to be consistent with, and promote the City's Comprehensive Plan. Under the GMA and countywide planning policy framework, urban growth begins in the unincorporated areas adjacent to a city. Counties use rural rather than urban standards for housing and other development. This practice has always left the expensive questions associated Capita]Facilities 28 with urbanization to the time of annexation before they are answered. The City is the sole supplier of water and sewer utilities, emergency medical service, and recreation services within the Urban Growth Area. It is anticipated this will continue and no joint financing of urban services will occur in the near future. No joint financing of urban level utilities and facilities is proposed by the City. The planning coordination required by the GMA is viewed as a continuing process and close coordination of land development standards for the Urban Growth Area is an objective of that continuing process. When land development standards are either common or consistent between the City and County for the Urban Growth Area,relative future financial relief will be felt by the City's capital facilities budget. ital Improvement i evelopmn Capital improvement projects are those major, non-reoccurring expenditures that have a useful life of five years or more and a minimum cost of$25,000. Specific types of capital improvement projects include one or more of the following: • Any acquisition of land for a public purpose; • Any construction of a new facility such as a public building, water lines, or play field, or an addition to, or expansion of such a facility; • Any non-recurring rehabilitation (i.e., something which is infrequent and would not be considered annual or other recurrent maintenance) or major repair of all or a part of a building, its grounds, or a facility, or of equipment; • Purchase of major equipment; • Any planning, feasibility, engineering, or design study related to an individual capital improvement project or to a program that is implemented through individual capital improvement projects. The City of Pasco has a.wide range of facilities which it funds to varying degrees based upon budget capabilities and priorities. These are: • storm drainage (collection system) • major and minor arterial streets ( between major intersections) • pedestrian and bicycle linkages and routes Capital Facilities 29 • potable water system (treatment, storage, distribution) • sanitary sewer system (collection system, treatment system) • park and open space system (including land support for existing or future educational facilities) • emergency response facilities (fire, paramedic, police) • community beautification (directed toward land acquisition and landscaping (with irrigation system) for any and all parts of the City • public building constriction and remodeling (libraries, city offices, community centers,maintenance buildings, etc.) Special service districts and utility companies represent an additional range of capital facilities. These are: • schools • public utility districts • irrigation districts Capital Budgeting Project Consideration Fact 1 , The following criteria are the basis for decision-making concerning new and proposed continuing capital budget items for the City of Pasco: Public Safety: The project must identify a. clear and immediate safety risk. Requests from departments, which deal principally with public safety, such as Fire and Police, do not automatically meet this standard. Another department, such as Parks and Recreation, could have a project that addresses a clear and immediate safety issue. Public Health: Benefit to the environment and public health is a primary consideration. This consideration is only used when public health is a. critical factor; a matter of necessity, rather than a. matter of choice. For example al] water or sewer projects concerns public health; however, this consideration would be used only when urgent. Continual health hazards, however, would make a.water or sewer project virtually mandatory. Legal Requirement: Many federal and state grants are contingent upon local participation,and such intergovernmental agreements require legal compliance. Court orders and judgments (e.g., annexation, property owner rights, environmental protection); also represent legal requirements which may affect a CIP proiect. Consideration must be given to both existing legal requirements Capital Facilities ;p (e.g., federal/state stipulation that earmarked funds must be spent by a certain date), and anticipated legal requirements (e.g., pending annexation which is expected to be approved by the end of the year). Related Projects: CIP projects in one category are essential to the success of projects in other categories. In some instances, a street should not be developed until a storm drain has been completed. Obviously, park development cannot proceed until parkland has been acquired, but the development may also depend upon the completion of a street project to provide access to the park. In addition, significant federal or state grants might be involved, and the City would be required to provide its matching share or forfeit the grant. Related projects by other agencies may affect a. saving which should be pursued. Consistency with Current Comprehensive Plan:A master plan for a specific category of public facilities has long-term objectives set during the planning process. City departments have an obligation to request CIP projects that support and implement the stated goals and objectives of the master plan. Consideration should not be given here to any project that does nothing to actively implement the plan, or adversely affects the plan. Net Impact on Future Operating Budgets: The substantial cost impact of a proposed CIP project on future operating budgets of the City is an important factor in the City's decision to construct the project. In some cases,however, a. project may generate enough revenue to offset,or even exceed, future operating costs (e.g., water or sewer treatment plant, stadium, airport, etc.). Other: There are additional priority factors that departments may include for evaluation. Some of these additional factors for consideration could include public support,level of service,cost savings to the City, and impact on economic development. by Plan For Capital Facffitieiis There are at least three reasons to p lan for capital facilities:(1)good m anagem ent, (2) growth management, and (3) eligibility for grants and loans. Good Management Planning for maior capital facilities and their costs enables City of Pasco to: a. Demonstrate the need for facilities and the need for revenues to pay for them; b. Estimate future operation/maintenance costs of new facilities that will impact the annual budget; Capital Faci lities 31 c. Tape advantage of sources of revenue (i.e., grants, impact fees, real estate excise takes)that require a CIP in order to qualify for the revenue; and d. Get better ratings on bond issues when the City borrows money for capital facilities (thus reducing interest rates and the cost of borrowing m oney). Growth Management Capital improvements plans are necessary in the comprehensive plan in order to: a. Provide capital facilities for land development that is envisioned or authorized by the land use element of the comprehensive plan; b. Maintain the quality of life for existing and future development by establishing and maintaining standards for the level of service of capital facilities; C. Coordinate and provide consistency among the many plans for capital improvements, including: • Other elements of the comprehensive plan (i.e.,transportation and utilities elements), • Master plans and other studies of the local government, • Plans for capital facilities of state and/or regional significance, • Plans of other adjacent local governments, and • Plans of special districts. d. Ensure the timely provision of adequate facilities to support existing populations and future development; e. Document all capital projects and their financing(including projects to be financed by impact fees and/or real estate excise taxes that are authorized by the State ofWashington Growth M an agem ent A ct (GMA)}. The CIP is the element that mattes the rest of the comprehensive plan "real". In reality, the CIP determines the quality of life in the community. Eligibility for Grants and Loans The State of-Washington Department of Commerce's Public -Works Tnist Capital Fa.-ilities _2 Fund requires that local governments have some type of CIP in order to be eligible for grants and loans. Some other grants and loans have similar requirements (i.e., Interagency for Outdoor Recreation), or give preference to governments that have a CIP. - a t urd ga Revenue sources are of several types and are designed either for one specific application or may be used for a.variety of projects.As an example, sources of grant money for transportation facility construction are dedicated to that single general purpose. State statues set out the powers local governments have for funding capital and other projects. There are four generic types of local government project funding: Taxes; Fees; Grants; and Dedicated Funds from State revenues. The following is a description of funding sources. Property Tax Property tax levies arethe most frequently used means of supporting operational and maintenance expenses due to the reoccurring nature of both. It is also used to meet general obligation bond debt service costs. Linder State law local governments are prohibited from increasing the property tax levy more than the lesser of 1% or the implicit price deflator as of July of the previous year. General Obligation Bonds There are two types of general obligation bonds. Those approved by the voters and those limited in amount that may be approved by the elected body of the county, city or special district, called councilmanic bonds. Voter-approved bonds increase the property tax rate so that for a given assessed value on a property, the owner will pay a higher percentage in taxes. This increase in taxes collected across the properties of the affected districts is exclusively dedicated to paying off the debt and interest of the money borrowed under the authority of the approved banding measure. As assessed property values increase, the bonds may be paid off in a shorter timeframe than originally projected.Approval for general obligation bonds requires 60 percent of the number of voters provided the voter turnout is at least 40 percent of the turnout at the last previous general election. Councilmanic bonds are different than voter-approved bonds because they do not have associated with them the authority to raise taxes. Councilmanic bonds must be paid off from the operating budget created with general tax revenues. Lease-Purchase arrangements also fall in this general type of financing public facilities. Capital Faci litie s f3 The amount of local government debt allowable in the form of general obligation bonds is limited to 7.5 percent of the taxable value of property in the jurisdiction. This is divided so that a jurisdiction cannot use all of its bonding capacity for one type of improvement. The total general obligation bonding capability is divided as follows:2.5 percent general purpose use;2.5 percent for utility bonds, and; 2.5 percent open space and parr facilities. If the jurisdiction has an approved general purpose bond with unused capacity, as much as 1.5 percent of the 2.5 percent may be used as councilmanic bonds. Real Estate Excise Tax RCW 82.46 authorizes the collection of a real estate excise tax levy of .25 percent of the purchase price of real estate within the City, at the time of sale. The legislature approved in the Growth Management Act an additional .25 percent excise tax that is dedicated to the support of the capital facilities of the community. Presumably this added money is to help a community deal with the "concurrency" requirements of the GMA. Concurrency is the requirement that land development cannot occur unless an urban level of facilities and services are provided at the time(concurrently)a land development is ready for occupancy. The first .25 percent excise tax also was dedicated to the planning and construction of urban services and facilities, but the two provisions differ a little as illustrated in the following. The first .2 5 percent of the real estate excise tax is for the following and includes the items listed for the second .25 percent excise tax: The acquisition of parks and recreation facilities, planning, acquisition, construction, reconstruction, repair,replacement,rehabilitation or improvement of law enforcement facilities, fire, protection facilities, trails, libraries, administrative and judicial facilities, and water front flood control projects, and housing projects subject to certain lim itations. The second .25 percent of the real estate excise tax and may be applied to: The planning, acquisition, construction, repair, replacement, rehabilitation or improvement of streets, roads, highways, sidewalks, street and road lighting systems, traffic signals, bridges, domestic water systems; storm and sanitary sewer systems,parks and recreation facilities. Business and Occupation Tax RCW 35.1 1 authorizes cities to collect this tax on the gross or net income of businesses,not to exceed a rate of.2 percent.Revenue thus received may be used for capital facilities acquisition,construction,maintenance and operations.Voter approval is required to initiate the tax or increase the tax rate to be applied Local Option Sales Tax Local government may collect a tax on retail sales of up to 1.1 percent, of which .1 percent can be used only for criminal justice purposes. Imposition of this tax requires voter approval. Capital Fa_ilities 34 Utility Tax RCW 35.21 authorizes cities to place a tax on the gross receipts of electricity, gas, garbage, telephone, cable TV, water, sanitary sewer and storm water management providers. The current rate is 8.5 percent. Community Development Block Grant Federal Department of Housing and Urban Development makes financial assistance available through this program to local general purpose governments. This money must be applied for by the local government and must be used for eligible activities meeting the national objects of the program. Community Economic Revitalization Board The State Department of Trade and Economic Development provides low interest loans and occasional grants to finance public sewer,water,access roads, bridges, and other facilities in support of a specific private sector development project which will trade goods and services outside of the State. One of the objectives is to create one job per each $3000 of loan or grant money made available. Public Works Trust Fund Grant The State D ep artm ent of Trade an d Econom ic D ev e lopm ent provides low interest loans for capital facilities, planning, emergency planning and construction of bridges, roads, domestic water, sanitary sewer, and storm water. Applicant jurisdictions must have a capital facilities plan in place and must be levying the original .25 percent real estate excise tax. Construction and emergency planning projects must be for construction or reconstruction of existing capital facilities only. Capital Improvement Planning projects are limited to streets and utilities. Special Purpose Districts RCW 67.38.130 authorizes cultural arts, stadium lconvention special purpose districts with independent taxing authority to finance capital facilities. The special district requires a majority voter approval for formation and has an annual funding limit of$25 per$1000 of assessed valuation;these districts may be formed across the borders of other governmental units. Emergency Medical Services The State authorizes $.50 per$1,000 assessed valuation property tax levy which may be enacted by fire and hospital districts, cities, towns, and counties. Fire Districts The State authorizes a levy limit of$1.50 per $1,000 of assessed valuation for fire and emergency medical response service. Fire Impact Fees RCW 82.02;0-090 authorizes a charge {impact fee} to be paid by new Capital Facilities ;� development for its fair share of the cost of the protection and emergency medical service facilities required to serve the development. Impact fees must be used for capital facilities necessitated by growth, and not to correct existing deficiencies in levels of service. Impact fees cannot be used for operating expenses. Park and Recreation Services Area RCW 36.68.400 authorizes park and recreation service areas as junior taxing districts for the purpose of fin ancing the acquisition,construction,improvement, maintenance or operation of any park,senior citizen activity center,zoo,aquarium and recreational facility. The maximum levy limit is $.15 per $1000 assessed valuation. The Park and Recreation Service District can generate revenue from either the regular or excess property tax levies and through general obligation bonds, subject to voter approval. User Fees and Program Fees Fees or charges for using City owned property, facilities or programs, such as swimming lessons. Park Impact Fees RCW 82.02.050.090 authorizes local governments to enact impact fees to fund parks and recreational facilities necessary to serve new development. These impact fees must be used for capital facilities necessitated by growth,and not to correct existing deficiencies in levels of service or operating expenses. School Impact Fees RCW 82.02.050-090 authorizes local governments to enact impact fees as a condition of development approval for a proportionate share of the cost to fund school facilities that reasonably benefit new development. State Parks and Recreation Commission Grants These State grants are for park capital facilities acquisition and construction, and require a 50 percent local match. Motor Vehicle Fuel Tax RCW 82.36 authorizes this tax,which is administered by the State Department ofLicensing,and paid by gasoline distributors.Cities and counties receive 11.53 percent and 22.78 percent, respectively, of the motor vehicle fuel tax receipts. Revenues must be spent for highway purposes including the construction, maintenance and operation of city streets, county roads and State highways. Local Option Fuel Tax RCW 82.80 authorizes this countywide local option tax equivalent to 10 percent of the statewide motor vehicle fuel tax and a special fuel tax of 2.3 cents per gallon. Revenues are distributed back to the county and its cities on a weighted per capita basis (1.5 for population in unincorporated areas and Capital Fa.:ilitits 36 1.0 for population in incorporated areas).Revenues must be spent for highway purposes (construction,maintenance, operation). Transportation Benefit District RCW 35.2 1.225 authorizes cities to create transportation districts with independent taxing authority for the purpose of acquiring, constructing, improving,providing,and funding any city street, county road or state highway improvement within the district. Road Impact Fees RCW 82.02.050.090 authorizes cities and counties to exact road impact fees from new development for its fair share of the system improvement cost of roads necessary to serve the development. Impact fees must be used for capital facilities necessitated by growth, and not to correct existing deficiencies in levels of Service. Impact fees cannot be used for operating expenses. Local Option Vehicle License Fee RC AV Ile Reventleq are diOriblited back to file County Ind cifiee, within t County le-vying file t1X on 1 '�veighted 1)er-C11)iti bisis, (1 .5 for 1)o1)tt1iti"II III for general transport Street Utility Charge RCW 35.95.040 authorizes cities to charge for city street utilities, to maintain, operate and preserve city streets. Facilities which may be included in a street utility, including street lighting, traffic control devices, sidewalks, curbs, gutters,parking facilities and drainage facilities.Households and businesses may be charged a fee up to 50 percent of actual costs of construction, maintenance and operations while cities provide the remaining 50 percent. The fee charged to businesses is based on the number of employees and may not exceed$2 per full-time employee per month. Owners or occupants of residential property are charged a fee per household which may not exceed$2 per month. National Highway System Grants The Washington State Department of Transportation awards grants for construction and improvement of the National Highway System. In order to be eligible projects must be a component of the National Highway System and be on the Regional Transportation Improvement Plan.Funds are available on an 86.5 percent Federal to a 13.5 percent local match, dependent upon the proposed project's ranking is sufficiently high enough on the Regional TIP list. Capital Fa.-ilities 37 Surface Transportation Program Grants This provides grants for road construction, transit capital projects, bridge projects,transportation planning, and research and development.To be eligible, a project must have a high enough ranking on the Regional TIP list. Funds are not be extended beyond 1999. Federal Aid Bridge Replacement Program Grants The Washington State Department of Transportation provides grants on a statewide priority for structurally deficient or functionally obsolete bridges. Funding is on an 80 percent Federal to 20 percent local match. Federal Aid Emergency Relief Grants This funding source is limited to restoration of roads and bridges on the federal aid system which are damaged by natural disasters or catastrophic failures. Funding is available at an 83.13 percent Federal to a 16.87 percent local match. Urban Arterial Trust Account Grants The Washington State Transportation Improvement Board manages funding for projects to alleviate and prevent traffic congestion. Project funding is an 80 percent Federal and a 20 percent local match. Transportation Improvement Account Grants The Washington State Transportation Improvement Board manages funding for projects to alleviate and prevent traffic congestion caused by economic development growth. Eligible projects should be multi-agency, multi-modal, congestion and economic development related which are partially funded locally.Funding is an 80 percent Federal to a 20 percent local match. Sewer Districts/Users Fees This is a special purpose district that must be established by the voters of the affected area.Once established with an operating levy it may assess properties in the district for operating and other expenses within approved limits and perform all the duties and responsibilities related to the construction, maintenance, and operation of sewage collection and treatment. The State authorizes cities, counties and special purpose districts to collect fees from waste water generator. Fees may be based upon the amount of potable water consumed or may be flat rate fees. The revenue may be used for capital facilities or operating and maintenance costs. System Development Fees The State authorizes a fee to connect to a sanitary sewer system based upon the capital cost of serving the new connection. Capital Fa.-ilities 38 Centennial Clean Water Fund Grant The State Department of Ecology issues grants and loans for the design, acquisition, construction and improvement of water pollution control facilities and related activities to meet State and Federal requirements and protect water quality. Future funding for this program cannot be reliably forecasted. State Revolving Fund Loans The State Department of Ecology administers low interest loans and loan guarantees for water pollution control projects. Applicants must demonstrate water quality need, have a facilities plan for water quality treatment, show ability to repay a loan through a dedicated source of funding, and conform to other State and Federal requirements. Department of Ecology Grants The State Department of Ecology grants to local governments for a variety of programs related to solid waste,including Remedial Action Grants to assist with local hazardous waste sites, Moderate Risk/Hazardous Waste Implementation Grants to manage local hazardous waste, and Food and Yard Waste Composing Grants. Flood Control Special Purpose District RCW 86.15.160 authorizes flood control special purpose districts with independent taking authority (up to a $.50 property tax levy limit without voter approval),to finance flood control capital facilities. In addition,the district can, with voter approval, use an excess levy to pay for general obligation dept. This is unneeded in the Pasco urban growth area. Storm Drain Utility Fee The State authorizes cities and counties to charge a fee to support storm drain capital improvements. The fee is usually a flat rate per month per residential equivalency. Residential equivalencies are based on an average amount of impervious surface. Commercial property is commonly assessed a rate based on a fixed number of residential equivalencies. Storm Drainage Payment In Lieu of Assessment Revenues from this fund may be used for the construction, maintenance and/ or repair of storm drainage facilities, acquisition of property, or related debt service. Utility Revenue Bonds and Property Tax Excess Levy See above for a general discussion of general obligation bonds. The amount of local government debt for utility bonds is restricted by law to 2 5 percent of the taxable value of property. Local government utilities tend to use bonds backed by utility user fees rather than general obligation bonds. Capital Fa.-ilities 39 Capital Improvements F TheCap ital Improvements Plan(CIP)supportsthe C ity ofPasco'sC omprehensive Plan. That CIP and amendments thereto is made a part of this Comprehensive Plan by reference. The referenced CIP is presented in three sections: I. Introduction: Purpose, benefits, and methodology of the CIP. II. Fiscal Policies: Statements of requirements and guidelines that are used to finance the CIP. III. Capital Improvements: List of proposed capital projects, including project costs, revenues, and timing, as well as future operating costs. The total cost of Capital Improvement Projects for 2012—2017 is: Cast Tyi)e of Facility (in thousands) General 16,605 Park 2,475 Street Overlays 6,880 Street Coonstruction 97,274 Water 26,707 Sewer 19,828 Process Water Reuse Facility 5,550 Storm Water 583 ILrigation 1,401 SW d ie s/M aster Plans 848 Total S 178.151 During the annual budgeting cycle the budgeted amounts per type of facility are changed to reflect the completion of some projects and the addition of others. ri portation Capital Improvement Pro— ra The Benton-Franklin Council of Governments is the designated Regional Transportation Planning Organization (RTPO) and Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO). It maintains the regional plans for all modes of transportation and allocates federal transportation funds for local improvements. That program is updated yearly and is incorporated in this plan by reference. Capital Faci lities 40 Properile The City maintains a record of properties it has accumulated from gifts, tax foreclosures, and purchases. The Planning Department has compiled a record of properties called the PASCO PROPERTIES PROFILE. The Properties Profile changes regularly as property is gained or sold by the City. This management tool helps enable the City to use all its available resources more effectively as it grows. This report may be viewed in the Planning D epartm en t. Mper & SewerM������� The City of Pasco is responsible for providing water and sewer service to the community. The City operates two water filtration plants, a water distribution and storage system, and a waste water collection system and treatment facility. Other utilities are operated by other public and private providers. The City utilities require expansion and maintenance which take resources.The following Table No. 2., shows how the demand for services has increased. General Statistics 2006 2007 2000 2009 2010 2011 Piat,ulation Served tUle) 47 610 X50,210 52.2-00 51,531 6-300 1,11 C ily Ar0 a I af:_ m ile:i _ ., f"xCC�71 rluCl Potable Water The delivery of safe drinking water is the most important utility service the City provides. Potable water is a necessary component of urban level residential, commercial and industrial growth. The City builds capacity into the water system for effective fire suppression in structures which is an important safety measure. Pasco currently has ' a very efficient storage and distribution system which includes all unincorporated lands within the urban growth area.. The City water system / is highly sophisticated and includes twowater treatment plants,reservoirs,pump stations and pipelines that serve the Pasco Urban Growth Area.Progress is being made through the City's efforts to bring former private systems in previously unincorporated Pasco up to American Water Works standards. Capital Facilities 41 The City system includes two water filtia:tion treatment plants and three Neater reservoirs. The following is a list of hey system water fixtures. • Butterfield Water Treatment Plant — capacity 30 million gallons per day • Riverview Heights reservoir - 10 million gallons. • Road 68 standpipe -2.7 million gallons (currently used for irrigation NN,ater) • Rd 68 Composite Tower - 2.5 million gallons • Broadmoor Boulevard reservoir— 1 million gallons • West Pasco Water Treatment Plant clear well - I million gallons The City water distribution system has been arranged into three (3)service zones. Generally these service zones may be described as: Service Zone 1: South of I- 182 and west of the railroad yard Service Zone 2: East of the railroad yard, the southern portion of the airport and a strip south of I-182. between Service Zone I and Service Zone 3 Service Zone 3: Generally north of I-1 82 and encompassing most of the north par-t of the city. The City has been implementing the Comprehensive Water Service Plan with facility improvements that have been made in recent years. That Plan and amendments thereto is made a part of this Comprehensive Plan by reference. The following Table No. 3 provides a statistical picture of the City's water system. Water 2006 I 2007 I 2008 2009 2010 2011 Mains(miles) 288.81 291.75 298.42 301.60 306.11 .309.38 Hy8 ants tri4.1 1887 1906 11266 1997 2036 2069 SC'vlccs 15621 15208 1 9006 15748 16081 16305. ,j3 t3aure(s�.s 1.) 70 7.0. 70 Number d Valves 6066 6129 6302 6369 tylt37 6580 �;Jater T eatment Plant 76.6 22.7 24.8 30.1 26.7 N/A Peak Day Prod.(mqc) Capital Facilities 42 Water 2008 2007 I 2008 ,.�. 2009 2010 2011 ®'tit 3ler T-e,atm en I Man I Ave-!:@ qc1 DayrFA ioc.'4.". � tl,* 1!�.�� 1114 �111-11 �� � 1:L.i� �,�, _� 4:r T'e]1nieriI Pl. 1,62 1.62 1,62 1 G 2 1.L,.2 'I . SlOrcgc R rse,vW- Gapaelly IiYiHilon gall The City of Pasco draws water for domestic use from the Columbia River for t#e both water treatment plants seiiTing Pasco. The river water requires treatment before being piped to customers. The main treatment plant (Butterfield) is located at "A" Street and 12th Avenue and can produce 30 million gallons of water per day (MGD). The secondary treatment ulant (West Pasco Water Treatment Plant WPWTP) located at 11315 West Court Street, can produce d million gallons per day. The Court Street plant was designed for expansion up to 18 million .eallons per day. The raw intake for the WPWTP«gill be ungraded in 2012. " ' '.. t 2 201-2 th 12 elly Irrigation In addition to the Franklin County Irrigation District,the City provides irrigation water. The City purchased the Water, Inc. system in 2003 which serves properties along the I-182 corridor.The system has more than quadrupled in size since the City's purchase as seen in the Table No below. In 2005 the City completed an I-182 Corridor Irrigation System Plan. Said irrigation plan and amendments thereto is hereby made a part of this Comprehensive Plan. Irrigation 2008 2007 2008 2009 1 2010 2091 Number of Servic.-s 3356 =6 3696 1 3WO 37 9 -,3W 2 In addition to water service, urban development with its associated concentration of people requires sanitary sewers to safeguard the public health. The current wastewater interceptor system is capable of accommodating the entire Pasco urban growth area when fully developed. Capital Facilities 43 Sewage Treatment The City of Pasco sewage treatment facilitywas updated in 2009 and is currently operating at approximately 55% of capacity. The plant is capable of handling a population of about 72,000 80,600. The current City population is -50,216 61,000. The Pasco UGA population is projected to reach 87,300 by the year 2027. Planning is currently underway for determining a location of a second treatment facility. The second treatment facility will provide additional capacity to cover the short fall and future growth beyond the planning horizon. Funding for the facility will be through the capital improvements process and will come from the serer utility fund. The City has a goal of extending municipal sewer to un-sewed portions of the city and improve affected streets, providing for recovery of the cost over time as adjacent properties choose to connect to sewer.This is being done through the local improvement district(LID) process and on select streets in recently annexed neighborhoods without LID'S. This process enables the city to provide sewer service to areas that are lacking service while at the same time upgrading the substandard county roads that have been annexed. The City under separate study has completed a Comprehensive Sewer Plan. That Plan and amendments thereto is made a part of this Comprehensive Plan by reference. An illustrated inventory of the sanitary sewer system is shown in Table No.5. Sanitary Sewer 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Mains(miles) 206.5 213.1 216.2 213.8 221.0 226.0 Numxl of Manholes 3656 375$ 3$18 .3,$91 3 ,72 40 AL Numoer of Services 12023 12302 12488 12776 13195 1:3.10;3 ,tit 5 S1 5 52 Pt,mp Stations 10 11 11 11 11 12 Sewage Treat ca achy Pop. 7 80600 80600 80600 Sewage Treatmenl Plait 3.2 3.1 3.3 3.G 3.5: NiA Daily Treatment (mgd) Storm Water Storm water is handled in Pasco by the storm sewer system, on-site collection and dissipation systems or grassy swales along roadways. The storm water sewer system has been used in the older parts of the City to accept storm run- off from adjacent land developments as well as streets. In recent years the City has been requiring development to mitigate the effects of storm water collection at projects. This eliminates the need for an extensive storm sewer system. Street drainage in newer areas is also accomplished in a similar fashion by the use of catch basins and drain fields or grassy swales along the side of the street or by Capital Facilities 44 collection ponds. The arid and often Nvindy climate which evaporates moisture quickly enables these methods to function effectively and avoids impacting the waters of the Columbia River. It is anticipated the City of Pasco «•ill continue to require onsite storm water retention m ethods through the planning period an d beyond. Table No.6 contains an inventory of the storm water system. Storm Water Systom 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 7CaLclhi Bailsins (nu.) X664 2738 2801 2878 130181 31713 EARration Storm Draln 13.31 13.8.4 14.4.4 15.45 16.05 a 16.29 4 . , j !. ,.1 M y Public Facilities in the State of 'Vashlnoon are defined as cauital facilities owned and oi�erated by .2ovenimental entities and include school facilities (RCIV 82.02.090 171), The Pasco School District is the P-ovenimental entity- that wovides P-eneral education services (K- 12.}within the Pasco Urb,-a1 Growth Area. The School District weuares FacilitA Plans including Calsital Facilitv Plans to assist with ylanninsz for future school facility needs. The current Cai)ital Facilities Plan (2011-2017) provides the community with the District's facility- and forecast needs for the next six Years. Capital Facilities 45 In accordance with capital facilities planning under the Growth Management Act, the School District Capital Facilities Plan contains the following elements: • The District's standard of service, or educational Drogram standards which are based on program year, class size by w7ade span,number of classrooms, types of facilities and other factors identified by the District. • An inventory of existing capital facilities owned by the District, showing the locations and capacities of the facilities, based on the District's standard of service. • Future enrollment forecasts for elementary, middle, and high schools. • A forecast of the future needs for capital facilities and school sites based on the District's enrollment proiections. • The proposed capacities of expanded or new capital facilities over the next six years based on the inventory of existing facilities and the standard of service. • The cost for needed facilities and the plan for fiil all cing capital facilities within proiected funding capacities. • A school impact fee calculation identifying the amount single-family and multi-family developers should pay to mitigate the impacts newconstruc- tion of single-family and multi-family homes has on the District. The School District's Capital facilities Plan Droiects student enrollment will increase to over 21,000 students by 2017,an increase of 5,000 students over the 2011 enrollment. To serve the forecasted increases in student enrollment the District will need to construct four new elementary schools,two middle schools and add capacity for approximately 1,600 high school students. Financing for planned school facilities is explained in Section 6 of the CFP. School capital facilities are financed through general obligation bonds, State Common School Construction Funds and impact or mitigation fees. General obligation bonds are the Drimary source for capital improvement Droiects within the School District. The general obligation bonds are often augmented with funding from the State Common School Construction Fund. The Growth Management Act authorizes the use of impact fees to supplement funding for the construction of public school facilities needed to accommodate increases in student enrollment due to new development in the community. Capital Fa.:ilities 46 School impact fees are a means of addressing the legal re+juirements that provisions have been made for schools and school o•ounds as a part of the develoomentprocess. The Cite is reguired by law (RCN5 8.17.1 l 01todetermine whether or not provisions have been made for all tomes of public facilities. including schools. when new subdivisions are being reviewed for ayaroval. The law prohibits the city from a Troving a subdivision unless written finding show appropriate provisions have been made for schools and school grounds. The Pasco School District has placed the City on notice through written correspondence (letter dated 1111/20111 that the District has outgrown its ability to provide schools for the community without reguiring development that will be served b-� the schools to eontribu to the cost of the schools. Miti ating the impacs of new development on the school system through individual review of new plats Addresses only part of the development ecuation in the City. Development can occur in anv area of the community on the numerous subdivisions that have been awtaroved in �aast vears as well as in new subdivisions_. School impact fees rather than individual mitigation would a12L)ly to all new residential development therebi addressing the re uirement to provide for schools and school grounds in a holistic fashion rather than a t)ieeelneal fashion. Adoption of School Capital Facilities, The Pasco School District No.1 Capital Facilities Plan (2011-2017) and anv went amendments thereto is made a part of Ibis Comprehensive Plan by reference. A co v of the UP is attached in Amoendix VII. Essential Public Facilities Essential public facilities are capital facilities typically difficult to site because of potential adverse impacts related to size, bulk, hazardous characteristics, noise, or public health and safety. Essential public facilities can be publicly of privately owned and include, but are not limited to the following: Airports, highways of state-wide significance, state or regional transportation facilities, correctional institutions, solid waste handling facilities, sewage treatment facilities, state educational facilities, mental health facilities, substance abuse facilities, group homes, correctional work release facilities,juvenile care and treatment centers, any and all facilities for incarceration and facilities identified by the office of Financial Management consistent with RCN 36.70A.200. The GMA precludes local comprehensive plans or development regulations from prohibiting the siting of essential public facilities. (RCN 36.70A.200 [5])• Essential public facilities are listed as unclassified uses in the city's development regulations. As such these uses are generally not restricted by zoning districts, Nom-C ity Utilities 47 but due to their nature require extraordinary review through the special permit review process prior to locating within the city. Unclassified uses are listed in PMC 25.86.020 and include the facilities discussed above. A few of the essential public facilities located in Pasco include, the Tri-Cities Airport, the Basin Disposal solid waste transfer station, the Franklin County jail,the Benton-Franklin Detox Center,the BNSF Classification yard,Columbia Basin College and the Chevron Tank Farms. The distinction between lands identified for public purposes, as shown on the land use map contained in Appendix VIII, and essential public facilities can create confusion. Table No. 7 below illustrates the distinction. Distinguishing Public Purpose Lands from Essential Public Facilities Public Ptirpose Lands Essential Public Facilities FOCUS: Lands needed to accommodate FOCUS: Facilities needed to provide public public facilities. services and functions that are typically difficult to site. Lands needed to provide the full range of services to the public provided by Those public facilities that are usually government, substantially funded unwanted by neighborhoods,have unusual site by government, contracted for by requirements, or other features that complicate government, or provided by private the siting process. entities to public service obligations. Examp les: Examples: • Utility Corridors • Airports • Transportation Corridors • Large-scale Transportation Facilities • Sewage Treatment Facilities a State Educational Facilities • Storm water Management • Correctional Facilities Facilities 0 Solid Waste Handling Facilities • Recreation Facilities Landfills • Schools • Inpatient Facilities (Substance Abuse • Other Public Uses Facilities,Mental Health Facilities Group Homes). Non-City Utilities 48 MEMORANDUM October-20, 2011 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Jeffrey B. Adams, Associate Planner RE: Hens in Residential Zones Issue statement The City of Pasco recently received a letter requesting the legalization of "small numbers of hens . . . in residential zones in Pasco." This letter reflects the sentiment of a growing number of Pasco residents that the Pasco Municipal code should be modified to allow for laying hens in residential zones. What is Currently Allowed The Pasco Municipal Code (PMC) allows for "the keeping of form animals upon the premises . . . for a personal use only . . ." in the RS-20, RS-12, and R-S-1 zones (PMC 25.12.040. No commercial animal husbandry operations are allowed. Chickens are not allowed in any other zones in the City. This provision for "the keeping of farm animals upon the premises . . . for a personal use only . . ." is allowed as long as the lot in question has at least "ten thousand (10,000 square feet over and above an area equal in size to 12,000 square feet set aside for the dwelling on the parcel." (See PMC 25.22.030; 25.24.030; 25.26.030). Thus farm animals are only allowed on parcels of 22,000 square feet (1/2 acre) or larger. Furthermore, "for each full ten thousand square foot increment of land over and above [the area] set aside for the dwelling" the owner may have one animal unit. An "animal unit" is defined as "any one of the following: steer, cow, milk cow, horse, mule/donkey, three goats, three sheep, three pigs, thuenty chickens, truenty forul or twenty rabbits" (See PMC 25.12.065). A cap of "2 animal units" is placed on the keeping of"chickens, fowl or rabbits" in these zones. Finally, chicken houses must be located at least ten feet from any adjoining or abutting property held under separate ownership and twenty-five feet from a public roadway (See PMC 25.22.030; 25.24.030; 25.26.030). In summary, if a property owner has at least 22,000 square feet of land in an R-S-1, RS-12, or RS-20 zone, they may keep up to 20 chickens for personal use; a person may keep up to 40 chickens if the lot has 32,000 or more square feet. All coops and chicken-related structures need to be positioned at least 10 feet from the side and rear property lines and 25 feet from any public road. Pros/Cons of Keeping Small Numbers of Hens Pros, (as put forth in the request letter): Hens provide healthier eggs. Their eggs supplement the diets of low-income families. Hens eat waste products like bugs, weeds, and kitchen scraps, changing trash into food. Chicken droppings provide valuable, odorless (sic) fertilizer that is high in nitrogen, preventing the need for petroleum-based commercial fertilizer. Chickens are fun, friendly pets. Chickens have educational value for children about where food like eggs comes from. Chickens are much more suited to a smaller area (such as a backyard) than a dog or a cat because they are smaller and don't have the need to run and roam such as dogs and cats. They contribute to sustainability and self-sufficiency. Corns (gatherers from various sources) Chicken-raising requires personal responsibility. Chicken eggs must be collected daily. Chickens create a great deal of waste. Chicken waste creates a less than pleasing aroma for neighborhoods. Chicken food may encourage rats and raccoons. Chickens make unwanted noise. Some ,yards are not large enough. Chickens can quickly denude vegetation in a run or pen, causing blowing dust concerns. Chickens can fly into neighboring ,yards. Code enforcement may increase. On the Pros and Cons Healthier- eggs: Whether homegrown eggs are healthier is not necessarily a zoning issue, and thus need not be dealt with here. Cost effectiveness: As with perceived nutritional value of eggs, home poultry- keeping economics is not a zoning issue, and will not be addressed. Pest Control: Chickens do eat bugs, and chicken byproducts are typically not as toxic as sprays. Weed Conti-ol: Weed control is an important consideration for code enforcement, but as noted above, chickens eat vegetation of all kinds. However, chickens given only a small patch of ,yard can quickly denude that area of vegetation, thus creating a blowing dust nuisance. Recycling Table Scraps: Chickens can efficiently convert most "wet" garbage, such as lawn clippings, and fruit and vegetable scraps, into manure. Recycling is an element of the City of Pasco's Comprehensive Plan "Odorless" Manure: Chicken manure is not unscented. Accumulations of chicken waste, like any animal waste, will create a nuisance for neighbors. But this is not unlike dog or cat manure control; owners are equally obligated to prevent pet waste buildup, regardless of the type of animal. However, unlike dog or cat manure, chicken manure is generally safe for food crops. As well, chickens given adequate space to roam, and kept off of impermeable surfaces, will work the manure into the dirt with their scratching behaviors, thus fertilizing and improving soil quality. Pets: Chickens, like many animals can be treated as domesticated pets. All pets require a certain level of personal responsibility for their care. For hens this includes feeding, watering, protecting from predators (skunks, raccoons, and neighborhood dogs), and daily egg collection. Most hens are docile, but like any other "pet" chickens (especially "broody" hens), can become unruly and would require special handling. The care of an unruly chicken would not be more onerous than that required for a troublesome dog or cat, except that chickens have the added feature of limited flight capability (Roosters would not be allowed under this code amendment). Generally, hens are fairly quiet, and can usually be favorably compared to a dog or cat in terms of noise output. Educational Value: The educational value of chickens may be seen as contributing to community self-reliance, as children can be instructed to some degree on animal husbandry, food production, and farm economics. Smaller-Area: It may be true that chickens require a smaller area than a cat or dog of similar size. However such small confinement may defeat the "free- range" component of the "healthier chickens/better eggs" argument. Sustainabilitg/Self-sufficiency: As noted above, chickens fed and housed in a certain way can contribute to sustainable agriculture/self sufficiency and perhaps produce healthier eggs. However chicken-raising at home as opposed to on a commercial ranch is not per se a guarantee of either. Possible Implementation Guidelines These code revisions would pertain only to residential zones (Chickens are already allowed in the RS-20, RS-12, and R-S-1 zones, but only with a minimum lot size of 22,000 square feet). The PMC could be revised to allow for up to three hens (no roosters) along with up to three cats or three dogs, or a combination not to exceed six total animals. (see attached Draft Ordinance). Because much of the demand for laying hens occurs in the smaller-lot R-2, R- 3, and R-4 zones, the code should be adapted for these zones in such a way as to allow hens only as long as ,yard space is sufficient for hens, coops, and runs. A 5,000 square-foot minimum ,yard size is suggested (see attached Draft Ordinance). Finally, development standards should reflect rules for placement of chicken coops and runs to keep them away from neighboring ,yards and to preempt a possible nuisance (see attached Draft Ordinance). Action Recommendation This proposed Ordinance should be reviewed by the Planning Commission in a workshop, in preparation for a Public Hearing. ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO ZONING AND AMENDING PMC TITLE 25 DEALING WITH LAYING HENS IN RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS. WHEREAS, cities have the responsibility to regulate and control the physical development within their borders and ensure that the public health. safety and welfare are maintained; and. WHEREAS, the City of Pasco has zoning regulations that encourage orderly growth and development of the city, and. WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the Planning Commission's recommendations. and has determined that to further the purpose of the comprehensive planning and to maintain and protect the welfare of the community. it is necessary to amend PMC Title ''S. NOW. THEREFORE. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASCO,WASHINGTON, DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That Section 25.20.030 of the Pasco Municipal Code be and the same is hereby amended to read as follows: 2.5.2-0.030 PERMITTED ACCESSORY USES. The following uses shall be permitted as accessory in the R-T district: (1 ) Accessory dwellings; Q) Home occupations (see definition in Section 25.12.220); (3) Ranch and farm buildings appurtenant to an agricultural use and agricultural uses (limited), as defined in Section ''5.1''.040, except that the keepin.R of animals shall be permitted on parcels consisting of ten thousand (10.000) square feet over and above an area equal in size to 12.000 square feet set aside for the dwelling on the parcel; and (4) Uses incidental and customary to a permitted use. (Ord. 3354 Sec. 2, 1999.); (5) The keepin.R of do.Rs, cats, and hens, provided such number of animals does not exceed three dogs. and/or three cats. and/or three hens. the total number of animals not to exceed six; in all cases. animals shall not be allowed to roam or fly to other properties; roosters are not allowed. Section 3. That Section 25.22.030 of the Pasco Municipal Code be and the same is hereby amended to read as follows: 2.5.2-2.030 PERMITTED ACCESSORY USES. The following uses shall be permitted as accessory to a permitted use in the R-S-''0 suburban district: (1 ) Detached residential garages as defined in Section 25.12.200. provided they do not exceed the height of 18 feet and are no larger than 1.200 square feet in area; (2) Home occupations as defined in Section ''5.1''.220; (3) Storage buildings not exceeding 480 square feet of gross floor area and fifteen feet in height; provided no container storage. as defined in Section 25.12.430. shall be permitted. For each additional 20.000 square feet of lot area. the gross floor area of storage sheds can be increased by 400 square feet; (4) Agricultural uses (limited). as defined in Section 25.12.040. except that the keeping of animals shall be permitted on parcels consisting of ten thousand (10.000) square feet over and above an area equal in size to 12.000 square feet set aside for the dwelling on the parcel; (5) One animal unit (as defined in Section 25.12.065) shall be allowed for each full ten thousand square foot increment of land over and above an area equal in size to 12­000 square feet set aside for the dwelling on the same parcel; provided that all barns. barnyards. chicken houses. or corrals shall be located not less than twenty-five feet from a public roadway and not less than ten feet from any adjoining or abutting property held under separate ownership; and provided said number of chickens. fowl or rabbits does not exceed 2 animal units; (6) The keeping of dogs. off& cats. and chickens. provided such number of animals does not exceed three dogs and/or three cats. and/or three hens, the total number of animals not to exceed six; in all cases. animals shall not be allowed to roam or fly to other properties; roosters are not allowed; Section 3. That Section 25.22.050 of the Pasco Municipal Code be and the same is hereby amended to read as follows: 2.5.2.050 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS. (1) Minimum lot area: Twenty thousand (20.000) square feet; Q) Density: One dwelling unit per lot. except as provide in 25.22.030 (8); (3) Maximum Lot Coverage: Forty (40)percent; (4) Minimum Yard Setbacks; (a) Front: Twenty-five (25)feet. (b) Side: Ten (10)feet. (c) Rear: Principal Building: Twenty-five (''S)feet. Accessory structures. Accessory structures adjacent an alley may be placed on the alley line provided there are no openings in the wall parallel to the alley. Garages with vehicle doors parallel to an alley shall be setback from the alley twenty (20) feet. Where there is no alley. the set back shall be five (5) feet. Structures related to hens, such as chicken coops. must be at least ten (10) feet from any property line. Property owners shall not allow such structures to become a nuisance due to noise or odor. Section 4. That Section 25.24.030 of the Pasco Municipal Code be and the same is hereby amended to read as follows: 2.5.24.030 PERMITTED ACCESSORY USES. The following uses shall be permitted as accessory to apermitted use in the R-S-12 suburban district: (1 ) Detached residential garages as defined in Section 2-5.12.2-00. provided they do not exceed 18 feet in height and 1.200 square feet in area; (2) Home occupations as defined in Section ''5.12.220; (3) Storage buildings not exceeding 260 square feet of gross floor area and fifteen feet in height; provided no container storage. as defined in Section 25.12.430. shall be permitted. For each additional 12­000 square feet of lot area the gross floor area of storage sheds can be increased by 260 square feet; (4) Agricultural uses (limited). as defined in Section 25.12.040. except that the keeping of animals shall be permitted on parcels consisting of ten thousand (10.000) square feet over and above an area equal in size to 12­000 square feet set aside for the dwelling on the parcel; (5) One animal unit (as defined in Section 25.12.065) shall be allowed for each full ten thousand square foot increment of land over and above an area equal in size to 12­000 square feet set aside for the dwelling on the same parcel; provided that all barns. barnyards. chicken houses. or corrals shall be located not less than twenty-five feet from a public roadway and not less than ten feet from any adjoining or abutting property held under separate ownership; and provided said number of chickens. fowl or rabbits does not exceed 2 animal units; (6) The keeping of dogs. aff4 cats. and chickens. provided such number of animals does not exceed three dogs and/or three cats, and/or three hens. the total number of animals not to exceed six; in all cases, animals shall not be allowed to roam or fly to other properties; roosters are not allowed; Section 5. That Section 25.24.050 of the Pasco Municipal Code be and the same is hereby amended to read as follows: 2.5.2-4.050 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS. (1 ) Minimum lot area: Twelve thousand (12.000) square feet; Q) Density: One dwelling unit per lot, except as provide in ''5.''4.030 (8); (3) Maximum Lot Coverage: Forty (40)percent; (4) Minimum Yard Setbacks: (a)Front: Twenty-five (25) feet. (b) Side: Ten (10)feet. (c) Rear: Principal Building: Twenty-five (25)feet. Accessory structures: Accessory structures adjacent an alley may be placed on the alley line provided there are no openings in the wall parallel to the alley. Garages with vehicle doors parallel to an alley shall be setback from the alley twenty (20) feet. Where there is no alley, the set back shall be five (5) feet. Structures related to hens, such as chicken coops. must be at least ten (10) feet from any property line. Property owners shall not allow such structures to become a nuisance due to noise or odor. Section 6. That Section 25.26.030 of the Pasco Municipal Code be and the same is hereby amended to read as follows: 2.5.26.030 PERMITTED ACCESSORY USES. The following uses shall be permitted as accessory to apermitted use in the R-S-1 suburban district: (1 ) Detached residential garages as defined in Section 25.12.200. provided they do not exceed 15 feet in height and 1.000 square feet in area; except on lots that are 12.000 square feet or more the height may be increased by 3 feet and the area may increase by 100 square feet; (2) Home occupations as defined in Section ''5.1''.220; (3) Storage buildings not exceeding 200 square feet of gross floor area and fifteen feet in height; provided no container storage. as defined in Section 25.12.430. will be permitted; (4) Agricultural uses (limited). as defined in Section 25.12.040. except that the keeping of animals shall be permitted on parcels consisting of ten thousand (10.000) square feet over and above an area equal in size to 12.000 square feet set aside for the dwelling on the parcel; (5) One animal unit (as defined in Section 25.12.065) shall be allowed for each full ten thousand square foot increment of land over and above an area equal in size to 12,000 square feet set aside for the dwelling on the same parcel. provided that all barns. barnyards. chicken houses. or corrals shall be located not less than twenty-five feet from a public roadway and not less than ten feet from any adjoining or abutting property held under separate ownership. and provided said number of chickens.fowl or rabbits does not exceed 2 animal units; (6) The keeping of dogs. aff4 cats. and chickens. provided such number of animals does not exceed three dogs and/or three cats. and/or three hens, the total number of animals not to exceed six; in all cases. animals shall not be allowed to roam or fly to other properties; roosters are not allowed; Section 7. That Section 25.26.050 of the Pasco Municipal Code be and the same is hereby amended to read as follows: 2.526.050 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS. (1) Minimum lot area: Ten thousand (10.000) square feet; Q) Density: One dwelling unit per lot. except as provided in 25.''6.030 (8), (3) Maximum Lot Coverage: Forty (40)percent; (4) Minimum Yard Setbacks: (a) Front: Twenty (20) feet. (b) Side: Principal building: Ten (10)feet. Accessory structures: Five feet. provided the accessory structure is located behind the rear building line. (c) Rear: Principal Building: Equal to the height of the dwelling. Accessory structures: Accessory structures adjacent an alley may be placed on the alley line provided there are no openings in the wall parallel to the alley. Garages with vehicle doors parallel to an alley shall be setback from the alley twenty (20) feet. Where there is no alley. the set back shall be five (5) feet. Structures related to hens, such as chicken coo-+s, must be at least ten (10) feet from any property line. Property owners shall not allow such structures to become a nuisance due to noise or odor. Section 8. That Section ''5.28.030 of the Pasco Municipal Code be and the same is hereby amended to read as follows: 2.5.28.030 PERMITTED ACCESSORY USES. The following uses shall be permitted as accessory to a permitted use in the R-1 low density residential district: (1 ) Detached residential garages as defined in Section 2-5.12.200. provided they do not exceed 15 feet in height and 1.000 square feet in area; except on lots that are 12.000 square feet or more the height may be increased by 3 feet and the area may increase by 200 square feet; (2) Home occupations. as defined by Section 2-5.12.2-20; (3) Storage buildings not exceeding two hundred square feet of gross floor area and fifteen feet in height; provided no container storage. as defined in Section 25.12.430. shall be permitted; (4) The renting of rooms for lodging purposes only; provided. however. such accommodations shall not exceed two persons in a single-family dwelling. One off-street parking space. per roomer. must be provided in addition to the requirement set forth under Section ?-5.78.170(5); (5) The keeping of dogs. aff4 cats. and chickens. provided such number of animals does not exceed three dogs and/or three cats. and/or three hens. the total number of animals not to exceed six; in all cases. animals shall not be allowed to roam or fly to other properties; roosters are not allowed; Section 9. That Section 25.28.050 of the Pasco Municipal Code be and the same is hereby amended to read as follows: 25.28.050 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS. H ) Minimum lot area: Seven thousand two hundred (7.200) square feet (2) Density: One dwelling unit per lot. except as provide in '25.28.030 (7); (3) Maximum Lot Coverage: Forty (40)percent; (4) Minimum Yard Setbacks: (a) Front: Twenty (20) feet. (b) Side: Five (5)feet. (c) Rear: Principal Building: Equal to the height of the dwelling. Accessory structures. Accessory structures adjacent an alley may be placed on the alley line provided there are no openings in the wall parallel to the alley. Garages with vehicle doors parallel to an alley shall be setback from the alley twenty (20) feet. Where there is no alley. the set back shall be five (5) feet. Structures related to hens, such as chicken coons, must be at least ten (10) feet from any property line. Property owners shall not allow such structures to become a nuisance due to noise or odor. Section 10. That Section 25.30.030 of the Pasco Municipal Code be and the same is hereby amended to read as follows: 2.5.30.030 PERMITTED ACCESSORY USES. The following uses shall be permitted as accessory to a permitted use in the R-1-A District; (1 ) Detached residential garages. as defined in Section 2-5.12.200. provided they do not exceed fifteen feet in height and 1.000 square feet in area; (2) Home occupations. as defined in Section ''5.12.220; (3) Storage buildings not exceeding two hundred square feet of gross floor area and fifteen feet in height; provided no container storage. as define in Section 25.12.430. shall be permitted; (4) The renting of rooms for lodging purposes only; provided. however. such accommodations shall not exceed two persons in a single-family dwelling. One off-street parking space. per roomer. must be provided in addition to the requirement set forth under Section ''5.78.170(5); (5) The keeping of dogs. aH4 cats. and chickens. provided such number of animals does not exceed three dogs and/or three cats, and/or three hens, the total number of animals not to exceed six; in all cases. animals shall not be allowed to roam or fly to other properties; roosters are not allowed; Section 11. That Section 25.30.050 of the Pasco Municipal Code be and the same is hereby amended to read as follows: 25.30.050 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS. (1 ) Minimum lot area: Seven thousand two hundred (7.200) square feet; (2) Density: One dwelling unit per lot, except as provided in 25.30.030 (7); (3) Maximum Lot Coverage: Forty (40)percent; (4) Minimum Yard Setbacks: (a) Front: Twenty (20) feet. (b) Side: Five (5)feet (c) Rear: Principal BuildinQ,: Equal to the heip,ht of the dwelling, but not less than ten (10) feet. Accessory structures. Accessory structures adjacent an alley may be placed on the alley line provided there are no openings in the wall parallel to the alley. Garages with vehicle doors parallel to an alley shall be setback from the alley twenty (20) feet. Where there is no alley. the set back shall be five (5) feet. Structures related to hens, such as chicken coops, must be at least ten (10) feet from any property line. Property owners shall not allow such structures to become a nuisance due to noise or odor. Section 12. That Section 25.32.030 of the Pasco Municipal Code be and the same is hereby amended to read as follows: 25.32.030 PERMITTED ACCESSORY USES. The following uses shall be permitted as accessory to a permitted use in the R-1 A2 District; (1 ) Detached residential garages. as defined in Section 2-5.12.200. provided they do not exceed fifteen feet in height and 1.000 square feet in area; (') Home occupations. as defined in Section '5.1''.220; (3) Storage buildings not exceeding two hundred square feet of gross floor area and fifteen feet in height. provided no container storage. as define in Section 25.12.430. shall be permitted; (4) The renting of rooms for lodging purposes only. provided. however. such accommodations shall not exceed two persons in a single-family dwelling. One off-street parking space. per roomer. must be provided in addition to the requirement set forth under Section ''5.78.170(5); (5) The keeping of dogs. aR4 cats. and chickens. provided such number of animals does not exceed three dogs and/or three cats, and/or three hens, the total number of animals not to exceed six; in all cases. animals shall not be allowed to roam or fly to other properties; roosters are not allowed; Section 13. That Section 25.32.050 of the Pasco Municipal Code be and the same is hereby amended to read as follows: 2.5.32.050 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS. (1 ) Minimum lot area: Seven thousand two hundred (7.200) square feet; (2) Density: One dwelling unit per lot. except as provided in 25.32.030 (7), (3) Maximum Lot Coverage: Forty (40)percent; (4) Minimum Yard Setbacks: (a) Front: Twenty (20) feet. (b) Side: Five (5)feet. (c) Rear: Principal Building: Equal to the height of the dwelling. but not less than ten (10) feet. Accessory structures. Accessory structures adjacent an alley may be placed on the alley line provided there are no openings in the wall parallel to the alley. Where there is no alley the set back shall be five (5) feet. Garages with vehicle doors parallel to an alley shall be setback from the alley twenty ('O) feet. Structures related to hens. such as chicken coops, must be at least ten (10) feet from any property line. Property owners shall not allow such structures to become a nuisance due to noise or odor. Section 14. That Section 25.34.030 of the Pasco Municipal Code be and the same is hereby amended to read as follows: '41.5.34.030 PERMITTED ACCESSORY USES. The following uses shall be permitted as accessory to a permitted use in the R-2 district: (1 ) Detached single family residential garages. as defined in Section 25.12.2-00. provided they do not exceed fifteen feet in height and 1.000 square feet in area; (') Home occupations as defined by Section ''5.1''.220; (3) Storage buildings not exceeding two hundred square feet of gross floor area and fifteen feet in height; provided no container storage. as defined in Section 2-5.12.430. shall be permitted; (4) The keeping of dogs and cats provided such number of animals does not exceed three dogs and three cats; (5) On lots with a minimum of 5,000 square feet and containin.R only one single-family dwellin,g unit. the keeping of up to three hens, provided the total number of animals (including dogs. cats. and hens) does not exceed six; in all cases. animals shall not be allowed to roam or fly to other properties; roosters are not allowed; Section 15. That Section 25.34.050 of the Pasco Municipal Code be and the same is hereby amended to read as follows: '41.5.34.050 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS. (1)MInimum lot area: Five thousand (5.000) square feet; Q) Density: One dwelling per 5.000 square feet of lot area except as provided in 15.34.030 (7); (3) Maximum Lot Coverage: Forty (40)percent; (4) Minimum Yard Setbacks: (a) Front: Twenty ('O) feet. (b) Side: Five (5)feet. (c) Rear: Principal Building: Equal to the height of the dwelling. Accessory structures. Accessory structures adjacent an alley may be placed on the alley line provided there are no openings in the wall parallel to the alley. Garages with vehicle doors parallel to an alley shall be setback from the alley twenty (20) feet. Where there is no alley the set back shall be five (5) feet. Structures related to hens. such as chicken coops. must be at least ten (10) feet from any property line. Property owners shall not allow such structures to become a nuisance due to noise or odor. Section 16. That Section 25.36.030 of the Pasco Municipal Code be and the same is hereby amended to read as follows: 2.5.36.030 PERMITTED ACCESSORY USES. The following uses shall be permitted as accessory to a permitted used in the R-3 district: (1 ) Detached single family residential garages. as defined in Section 2-5.12.2-00. provided they do not exceed fifteen feet in height and 1.000 square feet in area; Q) Home occupations as defined by Section 25.12.220; (3) Storage buildings not exceeding two hundred square feet of gross floor area and fifteen feet in height; provided no container storage. as defined in Section 2-5.12.430. shall be permitted; (4) The keeping of dogs and cats provided such number of animals does not exceed three dogs and three cats; (5) On lots with a minimum of 5,000 square feet and containing only one single-family dwellin,q unit, the keeping of up to three hens, provided the total number of animals (includin,q dogs, cats, and hens) does not exceed six; in all cases, animals shall not be allowed to roam or fly to other properties; roosters are not allowed; Section 17. That Section 25.36.050 of the Pasco Municipal Code be and the same is hereby amended to read as follows: 2.5.36.050 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS. (1) Minimum lot area: Five thousand (5.000) square feet; (2) Density: One dwelling unit per 5.000 square feet of lot area for single family dwellings and 3.000 square feet of lot area for multiple family dwellings; (3) Maximum Lot Coverage: Sixty (60) percent; (4) Minimum Yard Setbacks: (a) Front: Twenty (''0) feet. (b) Side: Five (5)feet. (c) Rear: Principal Building: Equal to the height of the dwelling. Accessory structures. Accessory structures adjacent an alley may be placed on the alley line provided there are no openings in the wall parallel to the alley. Garages with vehicle doors parallel to an alley shall be setback from the alley twenty (''0) feet. Where there is no alley, the set back shall be five (5) feet. Structures related to hens, such as chicken coops, must be at least ten (10) feet from any property line. Property owners shall not allow such structures to become a nuisance due to noise or odor. Section 18. That Section 25.38.030 of the Pasco Municipal Code be and the same is hereby amended to read as follows: 2.5.38.030 PERMITTED ACCESSORY USES. The following uses shall be permitted as accessory to a permitted use in the R-4 district: (1 ) Detached single family residential garages, as defined in Section ''5.1''.''00. provided they do not exceed fifteen feet in height and 1.000 square feet in area; (2) Home occupations as defined by Section ''5.1''.220; (3) Storage buildings not exceeding two hundred square feet of gross floor area and fifteen feet in height; provided no container storage, as defined in Section 25.12.430. shall be permitted; (4) The keeping of dogs and cats provided such number of animals does not exceed three dogs and three cats; (5) On lots with a minimum of 5.000 square feet and containing only one single-family dwellin,q unit, the keeping of up to three hens, provided the total number of animals (includin.R do.Rs, cats, and hens) does not exceed six; in all cases, animals shall not be allowed to roam or fly to other properties; roosters are not allowed; Section 19. That Section 25.38.050 of the Pasco Municipal Code be and the same is hereby amended to read as follows: 25.38.050 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS. (1) Minimum lot area: Five thousand (5.000) square feet; (2) Density: One dwelling unit per 5.000 square feet of lot area for single family dwellings and 1,500 square feet of lot area for multiple family dwellings; (3)Lot Coverage: Sixty (60)percent; (4) Minimum Yard Setbacks: (a) Front: Twenty (20) feet. (b) Side: Five (5)feet. (c) Rear: Principal Building: Equal to the height of the dwelling. Accessory structures. Accessory structures adjacent an alley may be placed on the alley line provided there are no openings in the wall parallel to the alley. Garages with vehicle doors parallel to an alley shall be setback from the alley twenty (20) feet. Where there is no alley. the set back shall be five (5) feet. Structures related to hens. such as chicken coox►s, must be at least ten (10) feet from any property line. Property owners shall not allow such structures to become a nuisance due to noise or odor. Section 30. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect five days after passage and publication as required by law. PASSED by the City Council of the City of Pasco. at its regular meeting of Matt Watkins Mayor ATTEST: APPRO`'ED AS TO FORM: Debra L. Clark Leland B. Kerr City Clerk City Attorney Name:* Kristin Peterson Email:* monkeyfamily44 @msn.com Subject:* chickens or rabbits in Pasco! Comment:* I am supporting Amelia Larson's request for legalizing hens and rabbits in residential zones in Pasco. Our family would love to have rabbits at our home. Thank you for your time and consideration. Kristin Peterson To Whom it may concern, I am writing to request that you legalize small numbers of hens (not roosters) and rabbits in residential zones in Pasco, WA. In this letter, I will describe the benefits of chickens in the city. I will also provide examples of backyard chicken laws from other cities. Benefits: Hens provide a number of benefits to an urban family that other pets, such as dogs, cannot provide. These include: -Hens provide healthier eggs that supplement the diets of low income families. •Hens eat waste products like bugs, weeds, and kitchen scraps, changing trash into food. -Chicken droppings provide valuable, odorless fertilizer that is high in nitrogen, preventing the need for petroleum-based commercial fertilizer. -Chickens are fun, friendly pets with educational value for children about where food like eggs comes from. -Chickens are much more suited to a smaller area (such as a backyard) than a dog or a cat because they are smaller and don't have the need to run and roam such as dogs and cats. -They contribute to sustainability and self-sufficiency. Noise: A noise concern is a valid worry for noisier fowl like roosters, peafowl, or guineas. Hens, however, are among the quietest of poultry species. They do cluck - for example, to brag about an egg they just laid - but if they are outdoors, they cannot be heard inside nearby buildings. Any noises a domestic bird might make are not as loud as a dog barking. Examples from other cities: A good example of a responsible chicken ownership law is found in Seattle, WA: SMC 23.42.052 Keeping of animals The keeping of small animals, farm animals, domestic fowl and bees is permitted outright in all zones as an accessory use to any principal use permitted outright or to a permitted conditional use, in each case subject to the standards of this Section 23.42.052. A. Small Animals. Up to three small animals may be kept accessory to each business establishment, other than an urban farm, or dwelling unit on a lot, except as follows: 1. In no case is more than one miniature potbelly pig allowed per business establishment or dwelling unit (see subsection 23.42.052.13). 2. In single-family zones, a. accessory dwelling units shall not be considered separate dwelling units for the purpose of this Section 23.42.052; b. up to four small animals are permitted on lots of at least 20,000 square feet; and c. one additional small animal is permitted for each 5,000 square feet of lot area in excess of 20,000 square feet. Accessory structures, including kennels, for four or more animals must be at least 10 feet from any other lot in a residential zone. B. Miniature Potbelly Pigs. That type of swine commonly known as the Vietnamese, Chinese, or Asian Potbelly Pig (Sus scrofa bittatus) may be kept as a small animal, provided that no swine that is greater than 22 inches in height at the shoulder or more than 150 pounds in weight may be kept in the city. C. Domestic Fowl. Up to eight domestic fowl may be kept on any lot in addition to the small animals permitted in subsection 23.42.052.A. 1. On lots greater than 10,000 square feet that include either a community garden or an urban farm, one additional fowl is permitted for every 1,000 square feet of lot area over 10,000 square feet in community garden or urban farm use. 2. Roosters are not permitted. 3. Structures housing domestic fowl must be located at least 10 feet away from any structure that includes a dwelling unit on an adjacent lot. D. Farm Animals. Cows, horses, sheep and other similar farm animals are permitted only on lots of at least 20,000 square feet. The keeping of swine is prohibited, except for miniature potbelly pigs allowed under subsection 23.42.052.B. 1. One farm animal for every 10,000 square feet of lot area is permitted. 2. Farm animals and structures housing them must be kept at least 50 feet from any other lot in a residential zone. E. Beekeeping. Beekeeping is permitted outright as an accessory use, when registered with the State Department of Agriculture, provided that: 1. No more than four hives, each with only one swarm, are allowed on lots of less than 10,000 square feet. 2. Hives shall not be located within 25 feet of any lot line except when situated 8 feet or more above the grade immediately adjacent to the grade of the lot on which the hives are located or when situated less than 8 feet above the adjacent existing lot grade and behind a solid fence or hedge six (6) feet high parallel to any lot line within 25 feet of a hive and extending at least 20 feet beyond the hive in both directions. F. Miniature Goats. The types of goats commonly known as Pygmy, Dwarf and Miniature Goats may be kept as small animals, provided that male miniature goats are neutered and all miniature goats are dehorned. Nursing offspring of miniature goats licensed according to the provisions of this Code may be kept until weaned, no longer than 12 weeks from birth, without violating the limitations of subsection 23.42.052.A. Here are examples from other major cities: Mesa, AZ: 5 hens can be kept on any lot as long as the coop is 45 feet away from the neighbor's house. Phoenix, AZ: Similar to Mesa. Law also requires coop be cleaned once every week. Chicago, IL: An unlimited number of chickens may be kept for pets or eggs. Slaughter is not permitted and the chickens must be penned. San Francisco, CA: You may keep any combination of 4 small animals on your lot without permission. Thank you for taking this issue into consideration. As a citizen working toward sustainability and the overall welfare of the earth I thank you for working with me toward my goal. When chickens are allowed in Pasco city I would fully expect the same type of restrictions that are in place for dogs and cats. I would also follow them exactly because I know the effects of lackadaisical pet ownership. Please inform me of how I may move forward in order to change this law for the good of all of Pasco's citizens trying to raise their own food in light of economic hardship. I feel this is a step toward a better community in general when citizens know how to take care of themselves and others by using the natural resources around them and the earth beneath them. Chickens seem a natural part of this for us and our children. We will throw away less (benefit to the city), provide more food for ourselves (eggs and garden produce helped by chicken manure which is essentially a benefit to the world). We'll be waiting for your response. In Summary: -Hens offer a number of benefits to urban families. -Perceived concerns (such as noise and odor) apply more to dogs than hens. -Many other cities have reasonable regulations permitting limited domestic hens. Chickens have existed in cities since the dawn of time, and they still exist all over the world. Benefits to raising hens in Pasco. As a citizen of Pasco, WA, I urge City Council to amend the code forbidding hens in residential areas in order to permit the responsible raising of small numbers of backyard poultry. Thank you, Mrs. Amelia Larson