Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-15-2011 Planning Commission Packet PLANNING COMMISSION — AGENDA REGULAR MEETING 7:00 P.M. September 15, 2011 I. CALL TO ORDER: II. ROLL CALL: Declaration of Quorum III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: August 18, 2011 IV. OLD BUSINESS: V. PUBLIC HEARINGS: A. Special Permit Expansion of mini-storage facility (by 42,000 square feet/230 units) in a C-1 Zone (Mor-Stor LLC) (SW Cor. Rd 68 and Court) (MF# SP 2011-012) 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) C. Planning Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan (MF# PLAN2011-002) VI. OTHER BUSINESS: VII. ADJOURNMENT: REGULAR MEETING August 18, 2011 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at 7:00pm by Chairman Cruz. POSITION MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT No. 1 Michael Levin No. 2 James Hay No. 3 Andy Anderson No. 4 Alecia Greenaway No. 5 Joe Cruz No. e Kurt Lukin s No. 7 Zahra Khan No. 8 Jana Kempf No. 9 Lisa Gemig APPEARANCE OF FAIRNESS: Chairman Cruz read a statement about the appearance of fairness for hearings on land use matters. Chairman Cruz asked if any Commission member had anything to declare. No declarations were made. Chairman Cruz then asked the audience if there were any objections based on a conflict of interest or appearance of fairness questions regarding the items to be discussed this evening. There were no objections. ADMINISTERING THE OATH: Chairman Cruz explained that state law requires testimony in quasi-judicial hearings such as held by the Planning Commission be given under oath or affirmation. Chairman Cruz swore in all those desiring to speak. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Anderson moved, seconded by Commissioner Greenaway, that the minutes dated July 21, 2011 be approved as mailed. The Motion carried unanimously. -1- OLD BUSINESS: A. Preliminary Plat Preliminary Plat approval for Columbia Villas, a 100-lot subdivision located at the northwest corner of Sandifur Parkway and Road 76 (Big Creek Land Company) (MF# PP 2011- 002 Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Dave McDonald, City Planner, stated that at the last meeting staff indicated the property owner made a request to provide the Planning Commission with a legal opinion related to school impact fees. As a result of that request, staff thought it was appropriate to also afford the same opportunity to the Pasco School District, resulting in the Planning Commission continuing the hearing to August 18, 2011. Rick White, Community and Economic Development Director, summed up the Staff memo of June 16, 2011 to the Planning Commission. Commissioner Lukins asked if the letters submitted from the property owner and Pasco School District had changed any previous opinions. Rick White confirmed that no previous opinions had changed and confirmed the City Attorney reviewed the letters. Commissioner Greenaway discussed the concern for possible negative impact a mitigation fee could present and posed a question regarding tax dollars in regards to building new schools. Commissioner Anderson stated school districts are financed by bonds. In the past the Pasco School District has brought bonds to the voters and the voters turned down the bond. All that is being asked of the Planning Commission is to require the developer to negotiate with the School District on what a fee would be and how they would mitigate the impacts. Commissioner Hay asked what would happen to the school levies if the fee was passed and if the mitigation fees are going to be the only thing the school district will rely upon. Rick White responded that there will not be any effects on current levies or bonds. Commissioner Anderson moved, seconded by Commissioner Lukins to adopt the Findings of Fact and Conclusions as contained in the August 18, 2011 staff report. The motion was approved with one dissenting vote from Commissioner Levin. -2- Commissioner Anderson moved, seconded by Commissioner Lukins, based on the finding of fact as adopted, the Planning Commission recommend the City Council approve the preliminary plat with the conditions as listed in the August 18, 2011 staff report. The motion was approved with one dissenting vote from Commissioner Levin. The Chairman explained the recommendation would go to the City Council for decision at the September b, 2011 meeting. B. Special Permit Location of a Community Service Facility in an I-1 Zone. (300 Block of S. 5th Ave.) (Saint Vincent de Paul Society) (MF# SP 2011-008) Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Staff had no additional comments. Commissioner Hay moved seconded by Commissioner Kempf to adopt the Findings, the Fact and Conclusions therefore contained in the August 18, 2011 staff report. The motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Hay moved, seconded by Commissioner Anderson, the Planning Commission recommend the City Council grant a special permit to the St. Vincent de Paul Society for the location of a community service facility at 215 S. 6th Avenue with the conditions as contained in the August 18, 2008 staff report. The motion passed unanimously. Staff noted this item would go to the City Council September 6, 2011. Staff briefly explained the appeal process. OTHER BUSINESS: A. Code Amendment Auto Body Shops as Accessory Uses in the C-R District PMC 25.48 Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked staff for comments. Dave McDonald, City Planner, stated staff recently received a request from an owner of a business on St. Thomas Drive for a building permit for a remodel and expansion including a new 20,000 square foot building. Part of the remodel was to permit the use of a spray booth. A spray booth is considered to be part of an auto body shop which is not permitted on St. Thomas Drive. Staff prepared a code amendment that would allow an auto body shop as an accessory use in the C-R district, provided the spray booth is totally enclosed within a primary -3- building that provides auto sales and service or RV sales and service and provided the building location is at least 300 feet from any residential zoning district. The code proposal would also require a qualifying building to be set back at least 30 feet from any property line and all outdoor storage would need to be completely screened from adjoining properties. Dave McDonald further explained the Planning Commission was conducting a workshop and is being asked to make a recommendation on the matter for the Council to consider in public hearing in September. Chairman Cruz asked why Auto or RV sales and services were used rather than adding tractors as well. Dave McDonald answered that it was because those uses were not permitted in the C-R district. Heavy equipment sales are permitted in C-3 or I-1 zones. Commissioner Hay asked if there were any environmental concerns. Dave McDonald, answered by stating spray booths are required to receive ail Air Quality Permit from the Department of Ecology and go through the SEPA process. John Ramsey, 8612 Whipple, stated he had been in business on St. Thomas Drive for 15 ,years and did not realize he was not zoned for painting. Mr. Ramsey explained his expansion plans. Safety for the community around his business is a big concern of his. Commissioner Lukins moved, seconded by Commissioner Greenaway, the Planning Commission recommend the City Council adopt the proposed code amendment modifying PMC 25.48 to include Auto Body Shops as an accessory use to automotive and RV sales and service facilities in the C-R district. The motion passed unanimously. B. Workshop Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan Chairman Cruz read the master file number opened the hearing and asked for comments from staff. Shane O'Neill, Planner I, presented the Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan to the Planning Commission explaining its purpose, the plan, and potential costs and funding sources. In 2006, the City Council formed an Adhoc Advisory Bikeway Committee, which created a plan. That plan is included in the current plan with some changes and consolidated. Rick White, Community and Economic Development Director, stated that the plan consolidates previous plans and is to be used in conjunction with the ,yearly capital improvement plan process. Staff will be coming back to the Planning Commission with a revised funding table -4- and the next steps would be to set up a public hearing to receive public comments prior to the Planning Commission developing a recommendation. C. CDBG 2011 CDBG Reallocation and Amendment to Annual Action Plan [MF# BGAP2011-007] Chairman Cruz read the master file number opened the hearing and asked for comments from staff. Rick White, Community and Economic Development Director, addressed the Planning Commission stating that the allocation of 2011 CDBG funding and the Annual Action Plan was an item the Commission saw one year ago. Staff is bringing the matter back to the commission due to funding cuts. Commissioner Lukins moved, seconded by Commissioner Hay, the Planning Commission recommends the City Council approve the reallocation of the use of funds for the 2011 CDBG Program as set forth in the 2011 Funds Summary as amended by staff. The motion was unanimously approved. NEW BUSINESS: A. Pledge of Allegiance Commissioner Greenaway proposed the Planning Commission Meetings begin with the Pledge of Allegiance. Commissioner Greenaway moved, seconded by Commissioner Anderson, the Planning Commission start each meeting with the Pledge of Allegiance. The motion was approved unanimously. With no further business, the Planning Commission was adjourned at 7:52 pm. Respectfully submitted, --------------- David McDonald, Secretary -5- 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. For example the landscaping regulations (PMC 25.75) require a 10 foot landscaped buffer along the west side of the property and the fencing standards do not permit 6 foot fences in the front ,yard setback area of C-1 zones. 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. 3 1) The applicant owns three parcels of land at the southwest corner of Road 68 and Court Street. The southernmost parcel was developed 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. Mimi-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. 4 This right-of-way acquisition is not shown on the site plan submittal. 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 Comprehensive Plan policies. Policy LU-1-B encourages enhancement of the physical appearance of development ruithin the City. The proposoI ruould replace a vacant lot ruith a xuell-developed facility containing perimeter- landscaping. Policy LU--2-D requires all development to be landscaped. Development of the site including landscaping tuill 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 rounding streets. Commercial development standards require right-of-ruay 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 paving and the installation of curb, gutter-, sidexualk, storm drainage and street lights to meet these standards. Woter- and server- demo nds of the proposed use ruill 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 post rezone decisions for areas of the community xuest 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 sert,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 5 noes 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/xuarehouse appearance and xuill not 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 ruith 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 ruould 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 xuith a block ruall could aid in combating blowing dust and ruould improve the appearance of the facility. 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? 011. most days of the xueek minimal activity ruill 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 zorz.e_. TENTATIVE APPROVAL CONDITIONS 6 1. The Special Permit shall apply to Tax Parcels 119701412 and 119701421; 2. The front and side elevations of all buildings facing Court Street, Road 68, and the west property line must be sided with stucco or architectural block. All doors on the same elevations must be painted to complement the stucco or block; 3. Security fencing on the east, west, and north sides of the property must be architectural masonry block fencing with an earth tone color; 4. The six foot perimeter security fencing along Court Street and Road 68 must set back from the property line a minimum of 15 feet; 5. The area between the block fence and the sidewalk must be landscape 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. 6. The 10 foot landscaped buffer along the western edge of the property must be in conformance with PMC 25.75.050 (3); 7. No equipment or other materials shall be stored outside of the buildings; 8. Street lights shall be installed along the frontages of Court Street and Rd 68 per City and FPUD standards. 9. Road 68 shall be improved to the City of Pasco Collector Street standard. These improvements will include street paving, curb, gutter, storm drainage and sidewalk. 10. The driveway drops along Court Street must be removed and replaced as per the standard city sidewalk section; 11. Handicapped ramps meeting the current ADA standards must be installed at the intersection of Road 68 and Court Street; 12. The driveway entrances shall be upgraded to meet current ADA and City standards; 13. Night lighting including parking lot lighting must be shielded to prevent light encroachment on adjoining properties; 14. This Special Permit shall not constitute cue facto acceptance of the Cell Tower placement as shown on the site plan submittal. 15. Right-of-way must be dedicated at the project level, as required. 16. The special permit shall be null and void if a building permit has not obtained by October 31, 2012. 7 RECOMMENDATION MOTION: I move to close the Bearing on the proposed mini-storage development and initiate deliberations and schedule adoption of Findings of Fact, conclusions and a recommendation to the City Council for the October 20, 2011 meeting. 8 • Item: Mini-Storage in C- 1 Zone Vicinity Applicant. Mor-Stor LLC N Map File # : SP 2011 -012 s • 7 � I %- I I k C'ImYLIMITS :URT-5-T SITE � � __ _ y t a A- c r, ` 1 •' ` rte.... MARIE S' a.., ►� M - - - , , . 77 Land Item: Mini-Stora e in C- 1 Zone Use Applicant: Mor- tor LLC x Map File #: SP 2011 -012 AS Vac. 1 1 Commercial SFR Vacant e COURT ST U)B � � Vac. Comm. � U. SITE o a 0 I-4F �.Q x SFDU's SFDU 's W MARIE ST I J HOOK � Q SFD ,, s z O W OCTAVE ST Item: Mini-Storage in C- 1 Zone ,Zoning Applicant. Mor-Stor LLC N File Map # : SP 2011 -012 N RS-2 (County) C =1 (County) o S a � - lamY � . COURT ST CITY LIMITS J a = — CBLU'E STAR -1 R-2 SITE co C -1 J � O R=S=1 PUD W MARIE ST RS-12 J RS-2U HOCK M1 r °a z o W OCTAVE ST 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. REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION MASTER FILE # SP 2011-011 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/z 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. ProUerty 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 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. 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 Determination of Non-Significance (DNS) has been issued for this project under WAC 197-11-158. 1 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 standards 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. 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 Pasco School District is seeking to improve vehicular and pedestrian safety around the Stevens Middle School property on N. 22nd Avenue by relocation 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 PMC 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. 16. The proposed parking lot will be hard surfaced and will contain on-site drainage and landscaping. 17. The School District plans to install two roan-gates in the fencing separating the Baptist church property from the proposed parking lot site to snake the snaking lot available for additional church parking. 3 CONCLUSIONS BASED ON INITIAL STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT The Planning Commission must make Findings of Fact based upon the criteria listed in P.M.C. 25.86.060. The criteria and staff listed findings are as follows: 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? 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, 4 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. 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? 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. TENTATIVE APPROVAL CONDITIONS 1. The Special Permit shall apply to 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 MUTCD; G. The driveway entrances shall meet current ADA requirements; 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 special permit shall be null and void if a City of Pasco business license is not obtained by October 31, 2014. RECOMMENDATION MOTION: I move 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, 2011 meeting. 5 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 MEMORANDUM DATE: September 15, 2011 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Shane O'Neill, Planner I SUBJECT: Bicycle/Pedestrian Master Plan (MF# PLAN 2011-00'x) Attached is a draft of the proposed Pasco Bicycle/Pedestrian Master Plan. The intent of the Plan is to: 1) consolidate previous efforts related to bicycle/pedestrian facilities planning in Pasco; 2) provide goals, policies and objectives for improving bicycle/pedestrian circulation; and 3) provide information useful in assigning priority to certain roadway improvements. Since the workshop on August 18th, changes to the Plan have been made. The Plan was changed in the following ways: 1) the ranking criteria have been pared down in number and the point scoring system was modified. 2) Language and maps identifying Key Routes for each Area have been included. 3) Project structure of construction costs have been altered to be identify Area sub-projects with individual costs that are at an implementable scale. 4) Additions to the City-Wide Challenges section have been included. These changes primarily identify physical barriers to bicycle and pedestrian facility continuity. Pasco Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan Citv of Pasco _ .rte Daze: 9j 15111 COMM Unity& Economic DevelDpment Department Contents Introduction......................................................................................................................................2 Master Plan Purpose Statement ...........................................................................................2 TimeFrame..........................................................................................................................2 Background..........................................................................................................................2 LegalRequirement,-,......................................................................................... 2 Adopted Local Plans............................................................................... ............................. Goal. Policies & Objectives.............................................................................................................5 Goal......................................................................................................................................5 Policiesand Objectives........................................................................................................5 ExistingConditions..........................................................................................................................7 City-Wide Challenges......................................................................................................................8 ProposedFacilities...............................................................................................................9 AreaDescriptions (1-6)..................................................................................................................1 l OverviewMap ...................................................................................................................1 l Area1 .................................................................................................................................12 Area2.................................................................................................................................18 Area3.................................................................................................................................20 Area4.................................................................................................................................24 Area5.................................................................................................................................27 Area6.................................................................................................................................32 AlternativeSolutions .....................................................................................................................37 Sharrows ............................................................................................................................37 Signage...............................................................................................................................38 Bike Boxes/Green Boxes...................................................................................................39 Potential Funding Sources.............................................................................................................39 Federal................................................................................................................................39 State....................................................................................................................................40 Local ..................................................................................................................................41 Prioritization and Ranking.............................................................................................................42 Scoring...............................................................................................................................44 Maps...............................................................................................................................................44 Additional Bicycle Facility Components Transportation SYSTEM Plan...........................................................................................44 Install municipal bike racks (identify effective locations).................................................44 1 Introduction Bicycling and walking as means of recreation and transportation have been growing in popularity as many communities work to create more balanced transportation systems by giving bicyclists and pedestrians a greater share in use of the roadway networks. In addition, recent national surveys find that more people are willing to cycle more frequently if better bicycle facilities are provided. Master Plan Purliose Statement The purpose of this document is to consolidate existing efforts addressing bicycle and pedestrian facilities; to provide a prioritized action plan for improving listed travel routes; and to analyze the costs and potential funding sources. Time Frame Pasco's Comprehensive Plan has a horizon to year 2027; this Plan will adhere to the same time frame. Background In 2006 the Pasco City Council authorized appointment of an ad hoc advisory Committee to assist staff in developing policies relating to the design, location and maintenance of bikeways throughout the City. The Committee was charged with the following tasks: 1) propose design standards and options for bikeways throughout the City; 2) propose policies regarding bicycle accommodation in the City; and, 3) propose maintenance standards for the bikeway system. This Committee convened a total of six times in late 2006 and early 2007. In 2007 City Council approved Resolution No. 3021 adopting a three page "Bikeway Plan". The Bikeway Plan is the culmination of ideas generated by the ad hoc committee and contains a total of one (1) overall goal, six (6) policies and thirty (30) related objectives aimed at creating a contiguous network of safe and convenient bicycle pathways. The Plan provides insight into the values of the local bicycling community, but lacks specific data needed for cost estimates and construction planning. The Committee also produced a map (see attached Bike Route Map) delineating both existing and proposed routes and pathways where bicycles should be able to travel safely and comfortably. Legal Retluirernen(s With the intent of promoting healthier and more physically active communities two pertinent bills (ESSB 5186 and 2 SHB 1565) were passed by the State of Washington. Engrossed Substitute Senate Bill (ESSB) 5186, passed in 2005, requires communities to consider urban planning approaches that promote physical activity, and also requires a bicycle and pedestrian component be included in the Transportation Element of a comprehensive plan. ESSB 5186 also added a 2 requirement to the Land Use Element of the comprehensive plan for jurisdictions fully planning under the GMA: "Wherever possible, the Land Use Element should consider utilizing urban planning approaches that promote physical activity" [RC`IJ 36.70A.070(1)] citing that several studies have demonstrated that a person's immediate environment is the most important determination of physical activity. Bill 2 SHB 1565 also passed in 2005, specifies that multiple modes of transportation may be included in concurrency programs when reviewing the transportation impacts of new development. This Plan together with the Pasco Comprehensive Plan and the Benton Franklin Council of Governments 2010 Regional Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan, are all collaborative efforts aimed at meeting the requirements set by ESSB 5186 and 2SHB 1565. Adopted Local Plaits Pasco Comprehensive Plan Pasco's Comprehensive Plan contains a number- of Goals and Policies which support the objectives of this Plan. The following Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies apply: - Goal TR-1 aims to continue to provide and maintain an effective and convenient street system. - Policy TR-1-G supports development of an interconnected network of streets, trails and other public ways while preserving neighborhood identity; and building streets and sidewalks without interrupted or patchwork rights-of-way or construction. - Goal TR-2 aims to encourage efficient, alternate and multi-modal transportation systems. - Policy TR-2-D encourages greater use of bicycles and walking by providing safe and purposeful bicycle and pedestrian routes. - Policy TR-2-E encourages park-and-ride lots for bicycles and automobiles. - Policy CF-3-A aims to assure land development proposals provide land and/or for facilities for pedestrian and bicycle trails. Pasco Parks and Recreation Plan The city's 2010 Park and Recreation Plan indicates trail corridors should be developed to include trees, landscaped areas, open lawn areas, seating areas, and some picnic facilities. The plan proposes ten future parks and improvements or expansions at many existing parks. Locations containing the amenities listed above may at least serve as rest areas or destinations for bicyclists. Adding landscaping features to pathways will require irrigation and continuous maintenance creating additional costs. 3 Landscaping feasibility should consider a sites' proximity to FCID irrigation water and relative benefits of the additional amenities. Benton Franklin Council of Governments (BFCG) 2010 Regional Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan The Denton-Franklin Council of Governments (DFCG) 20101 Regional Dicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan discusses many aspects of pedestrian and bicycle related issues throughout Benton, Franklin and Walla Walla Counties. The 20101 DFCG Regional Dicycle and Pedestrian Plan fulfills federal requirements (23 CFR 450) that a metropolitan transportation plan contain a bicycle and pedestrian component as well as state mandates (RCW 36.7OA) that regional transportation plans encourage efficient multi-modal transportation systems which are based on regional priorities and coordinated with city and county comprehensive plans. The DFCG Bike/Ped. Plan includes a useful bike route map at the Tri-Cities scale. The map is included in the appendices for reference. It is the policy (Policy 13) of the DFCG to promote pedestrian and bicycle travel as essential modes of transportation both within existing communities and new development and to provide opportunities for the safe and efficient use of pedestrian and bicycle facilities as a legitimate alternative to motorized travel and for improved health. Pasco Municipal Code (PMC) Titles 12 (Streets & Sidewalks), 25 (Zoning) & 26 (Residential Subdivision Regulations) Pasco Municipal Code does not require installation of sidewalks in the Suburban (RS-12 and RS-20) zones and bicycle facilities are not presently required as part of residential, commercial or industrial development in any zone. The absence of concurrency requirements for bicycle/pedestrian infrastructure improvements acts as a barrier to achieving the overall goal of this Plan by transferring the responsibility of pedestrian facilities (sidewalks) from private developers to the City. Modifications to PMC Title 26 (Pasco Urban Area Subdivision Regulations) and Title 12 (Streets & Sidewalks) may be an effective approach to establishing development requirements relative to bicycle/pedestrian infrastructure. Amending Title 12 to require curbs, gutters, sidewalks and bicycle lanes be installed concurrent with both commercial and residential development in Suburban zones would help meet the Goal of this Plan. 4 Goal, Policies &Objectives Goal Create and maintain a high-quality bikeway and pedestrian network that is safe, direct, comfortable, aesthetically pleasing, and which allows cyclist to access destinations accessible to automobiles where practical. Policies and Objectives; The overall Goal can be broken down into Policies and Objectives that help quantify the goal statement. 1) Policy: Connectivity/Access—Bicyclists should have safe access to City destinations accessible by motorized vehicles, where practical. Objectives a) Encourage bicycle lanes, paths, or trails and bicycle access points in new development design. b) Design bike paths for the most direct routes possible. c) Mitigate major barriers such as freeways and railroad crossings by including over/underpass facilities. Crossing points should be at right angles and to be as short as possible. d) Provide for bike path continuity. e) Loop and interconnect paths, or trails to provide a variety of trail lengths and destinations including small and large loops for a broad range of experiences and ability levels. f) Provide safe bicycle access and parking facilities for major commercial destinations, where practical. g) Provide safe bicycle access and parking facilities for major civic destinations, (e.g., library, post office, schools) where practical. h) Design bicycle routes and paths to minimize conflicts between motorists and bicyclists and increase the separation of cyclists from motorized vehicles. i) Design intersections with bicycle-friendly facilities such as bicycle-first signaling so as not to interfere with traffic flow. j) Include secure bicycle lock-up facilities at appropriate destinations. k) Design landscaping to be open and "visually secure". 1) Install clear right-of way indicators such as 8" wide edge line stripes, sharrow stencils and freestanding bicycle signs for automobiles and bicyclists. m) Utilize "Traffic Calming' measures where appropriate. n) Mark bike paths and lanes for safety. o) Install lighting along bike paths and trails as appropriate. 5 2) Policy: Comfort/Convenience - Bikeways shall be designed to encourage non-motorized travel citywide. Objectives: a) Plant shade trees along bicycle paths that do not possess a destructive root pattern. b) Include rest areas with water, air, and toilet facilities at convenient intervals along bicycle routes. c) Design bicycle lanes, paths, or trails for "flow," with as few stops as possible. d) _Mark trails for distance monitoring. 3) Policy: Aesthetics - Bikeways shall be aesthetically pleasing so as to encourage non-motorized travel citywide. Objectives: a) Plan bike paths and trails to provide visual and physical access to natural areas and to the Columbia/Snake Rivers. b) Landscape bicycle lanes, paths, or trails to be interesting and attractive to the user. 4) Policy: Incentives/Promotion - Encourage non-motorized travel Objectives: a) Develop bikeway maps that are easily available (brochures and internet) and provide safety guides/education. S) Policy: Maintenance - Establish bike path maintenance policies and schedules. Objectives: a) Maintain roadways and bikeways to a relatively hazard-free standard. b) Encourage bicyclists to report maintenance problems and other hazards. c) Include maintenance costs and maintenance procedures in bicycle facility projects as appropriate. d) Include reasonable estimates for the maintenance costs in the project budget. e) Establish clear maintenance responsibilities in advance of construction. 6 Existing Conditions Much of the residential development west of SR395 and south of Hwy I-182 is developed to a rural standard, without curbs, gutters and sidewalks and edge lines. The absence of the fore mentioned improvements facilitates road widening and bike lane striping by eliminating physical barriers which may complicate project implementation and add to the costs. A large majority of roadways east of SR395 and south of Hwy I-182 are fully developed with curbs, gutters and sidewalks. Right-of-way widths on proposed routes vary from 50ft. to 150ft. The most common right-of-way width is 60 feet. Roadways within residential development north of Hwy I-182 and west of Road 36 contain curbs, gutters and sidewalks. Most streets in this area have a 60ft. wide right-of-way with curbs, gutters and sidewalks adjacent to the roadway. Road 60 between Burden Boulevard and Sandifur Parkway is a fully developed roadway containing bike lanes and sidewalks and could be used as a model for many routes identified on the Overview Map. This Plan contains an Overview Map of roadways with needed bicycle and pedestrian facilities; though many facilities are needed some currently exist. There are existing bicycle and pedestrian facilities throughout the City which provide excellent opportunities for establishing connectivity to the proposed bicycle lanes and bicycle/ pedestrian pathways listed in this Plan. These existing amenities include the following: - A paved east-west bicycle/pedestrian pathway north of I-182 extending from Road 100 to the Argent underpass at I-182. - The Sacajawea Heritage Trail (a paved east-west bicycle/pedestrian pathway traversing the river shore from the I-182 overpass at Court Street to Sacajawea State Park) covers approximately 14 miles of the Columbia River shoreline. - Road 60 from Sandifur Parkway to Burden Blvd. contains stripped bicycle lanes and sidewalks along both travel lanes. - Court Street contains paved shoulders with striping between the I-182 Bridge and approximately Road 48. - Road 84 adjacent Chiawana High contains approximately 1200 feet of bike lane and sidewalk. 7 Road 36 north of I-182 and south of Burden Blvd. contains striped bicycle lanes in both directions. Intermittent segments of sidewalks exist on the west side of the Road 36 (adjacent residential development). The east side of Rd 36 abuts the Pasco Airport. This undeveloped area contains the runway and will remain in the current condition unless right-of-way improvements are initiated via a City Public Works project. City-Wide ChalleWes Although each Area contained in this Plan contains the sub-heading "Challenges", it is important to address challenges at a larger (City-wide) scale. The following list generally describes challenges to project implementation/construction. For more detailed descriptions of issues and conditions see the Area Descriptions section for Areas 1-6. - Sandifur Parkway between Convention Drive and Road 68 lacks bike lanes and sidewalks. Edge lines are present, but paved shoulders are of insufficient width to accommodate bike lanes. The paved shoulder is 22 inches wide eastbound 3 feet wide westbound. Each travel lane is 14 feet wide with no left-hand turn lane. - Burden Blvd. between Road 60 and Road 68 is a fully developed roadway and lacks bicycle lanes. This section of roadway may play an important role in the Plan by providing enhanced transportation at a location experiencing ever increasing traffic congestion. This location is arguably the most congested roadway in Pasco. - Bike lanes are needed on Sandifur Parkway from Road 100 to Road 44. Sidewalks are needed along most of the undeveloped properties fronting Sandifur Parkway. A significant challenge related to bicycle lanes on this roadway segment is that most of Sandifur Parkway is fully developed curb-to-curb without edge lines or shoulders. - Areas 5 & 6 are proposed in long established areas of Pasco. The proposed facilities primarily front residential development which do not contain curbs, gutters, sidewalks or edge line striping. Many of the road shoulders are too narrow to support the addition of a bicycle lane. In such instances, fill material and additional paving may be needed to provide the minimum 8 four (4) foot wide bike lane with 8" stripes. This is the predominant condition in areas south of I-182. 20th Avenue, contained in Area 5, presents significant constraints. Much of 20th Ave. experiences very high traffic volumes, especially around Court Street. Current roadway features impeded bicycle facility construction. Areas 3 & 5 contain primarily residential roadways developed to rural standards. This means sidewalks and wire road shoulders are largely lacking throughout both areas. Substantial infrastructure improvements are required to meet the goals of this Plan. The Road 100/I-182 Overpass Bridge contains edge line striping and five (5) foot wide shoulders in both directions. The existing shoulder may be wide enough to accommodate either a bike lane or a sidewalk, but not both adjacent one another. The ideal solution to this spatial constraint is widening the bridge. Right-of-way= Policies This Plan poses policy changes related to right-of-way development requirements for new development proposals in suburban zones. Contrary to past practices, development proposals on arterial and collector roads in suburban zoning districts will be required to accommodate right-of-way facility needs in the way of sidewalks, bike lanes and ADA features. Materials costs estimate tables indicate sidewalks are needed on various roadways however, the cost estimate dollar amounts do not include sidewalk construction costs because it is unlikely the City will construct sidewalks as part of any right-of-way project. Rather, sidewalk construction will be a concurrency requirement for new development. Proposed Facilities The Master Plan Overview Map (Map "M-1") illustrates a connected network of proposed bicycle and pedestrian routes to serve as a structural "backbone". Proposed bicycle/pedestrian routes generally follow arterial streets. All routes identified as solid lines in the Overview Map are in need of bicycle facilities. City-wide, bicycle lanes are needed on the following street segments: - Sandifur Parkway (Rd 100 to Rd 44) - Road 100 (Powerline Road to Court Street) - Road 103 (Court Street to Argent Rd) - Argent Road (Rd 103 to 4th Ave) *with the exception of segments in front of McLoughlin and Chiawana Schools - Road 60 (Argent Road to the river shore) 9 - Road 76 (Sandifur to I-182) - Burden Blvd. (Convention to Road 36) - Madison Ave (Burden to Road 44) - Road 44 (Sandifur Parkway to Argent Rd) - Road 52 (Sandifur Parkway to Burden Blvd) - Road 88 (Argent Rd to pathway south of Whipple Ave.) - Road 52 (Argent to Sylvester) - Road 60 (Court St to Sylvester St.) - Livingston Rd (Rd 48 to Rd 36) - Wernett Rd (Rd 48 to Rd 36) - Pearl St (Rd 48 to Rd 32) - Road 36 (I-182 to Haystad St) - Road 40 (Sylvester St to Riverhaven St) - Riverhaven St (Rd 40 to Rd 39) - Rd 39 (Riverhaven St to Haystad St) - Haystad St (Rd 39 to Rd 36) - Road 40 (Livingston Rd to Wernett Rd) - Court Street (Rd 48 to 26th Ave) - 26th Ave (Court St to Henry Street) to 24th Ave to West Henry P1 to 22nd Ave to Henry St to 20th Ave) - Henry Street (26th Ave to 24th Ave) 24th (Henry St to Henry Pl) (Approx. 180 feet) - Henry Pl (24th Ave to 22nd Ave) - 22nd Ave (Henry Pl to Henry St.) (Approx. 180 feet) - Henry St (22nd Ave to 18th Ave) 20th Ave (Argent Rd to "A" St) - West Lewis Street (Rd 28 to Heritage Blvd) - Road 28 (Sylvester to "A" St) - "A" St (Road 28 to Heritage Blvd) - Hopkins St (Sacajawea Trail (@ 395 Bridge to Road 28) - 4th Ave (Boeing St to 3rd Ave) _ 3rd (4th to Columbia St) - Columbia St (3rd Ave to 4th Ave) - Elm Ave (Sheppard St to Lewis St) 4th (Columbia to Ainsworth Ave) - Beech Ave (Sheppard St to Park View Blvd) - Wehe Ave (Park View Blvd to "A" St) - Oregon Ave ("A" St to Ainsworth Ave) - 14th Ave (Pearl St to "A" St) - Pearl St (20th to 14th) - Octave St (18th Ave to 16th Ave) - Henry St (16th Ave to 3rd Ave) - 5th Ave (Henry St to Margaret St) - Margaret St (5th Ave to 4th Ave) - Nixon St (4th Ave to 3rd Ave) 4th Ave (Washington St to Ainsworth Ave) - Sheppard St (Beech Ave to Elm Ave) 10 Road'' la_R1 r Pasco Bicycle/Pedestrian Master Plan Overview Map I 'C 'fl' L I C��t i ♦ . om ' A _� New; Y� -�';7.�"���F/h• I�' �� •,.y�. �lil�.°��_1���_w,•��.���JI. ,�i �iisiiii�� RM T ` Ili IQ�l. "'r?•w' �I _ �A rte_ SIC��•!t—till= C • `�� �Vj _. '�•�'. ■:�mr�ce_�'•�� •=a�� �—ii�a=a�� :f�ll:ylllv,� � 711;111 � Area 1 Area description Area 1 is bound by the Columbia River to the west, Powerline Road to the north, Chapel Hill Boulevard to the south and Road 60 to the east. Bicycle facilities are proposed on the following roadways: Roadway Needed Improvements Road 100 SW, ST, RW Harris Road NA Sandifur Parkway ST Road 76 SW, ST Convention Drive ST Homei-un Road ST Burden Blvd. I ST Bicycle/Pedestrian Master Plan - Area #1 J end m — +, P:, Rwtes O City I mufs B*e Pathway Rnu Shoe F1CID Canal m ti � O CL V 01 Chapel HIII Blvd. (All BIRD �J C *^ h� ,h/��$�va Homerun Rd CP m� ¢o T \ v v K o rY 12 Existing Facilities Most of the proposed routes indicated in the Bike Master Plan Area 1 Map contain standard sidewalks. The west side of Road 76 contains sidewalks from Sandifur Parkway to Burden Boulevard. Needed Facilities No sidewalks or bicycle lanes exist on the Sandifur Parkway between Road 68 and Convention Drive. This portion of Sandifur ParInvay is undeveloped on both the north and south sides (see photo below. As development occurs on Sandifur Parkway the adjoining propei-ties will be required to construct the right-of-way improvements. (Sandifiir Parkway between Rd, 68 &, Convention Dr,) Sandifur Parkway serves as a primary/arterial connection between large residential subdivisions and the Road 68 commercial corridor. A high priority should be placed on the installation of bike lanes to provide a safe connection between residences and the Rd 68 commercial center. Edge lines are present, but existing paved shoulders are of insufficient width to accommodate bike lanes. The paved shoulder is 22 inches wide eastbound and 3 feet wide westbound. Each travel lane is 14 feet wide with no left-hand turn lane. Development proposals adjacent to Sandifur Parkway must install bike lanes on their portion of Sandifur Parkway. Area 1 includes the proposal for a bicycle/pedestrian pathway to be constructed from Court Street at the I-182 river overpass bridge to Harris Road. The pathway would parallel I-182 at the base of the elevated roadway embankment gradient; extending to Harris Road from the existing pathway which currently leads riders and walkers up to the sidewalk on the bridge. Approximately 2,600 linear feet of pathway is needed in order to achieve this connection. To avoid the need to cross Harris Road, while maintaining pedestrian/bicycle travel in both directions, the pathway should connect directly to Road 100. 13 rds Rme XjWWOn laatlon (Future pathway extension from Court St @ I-182 to Harris Road) ti. (Existin g pathway @ I-182/Court St. Bridge) (Area proposed to extend pathway to Harris Rd.) The Road 100/I-182 overpass bridge should be widened to provide sidewalks and stripped bicycle lanes without reducing the existing number or width of travel lanes. The bridge currently contains edge lines with 5 foot wide shoulders on both sides without sidewalks. 14 s '1 (Rd.100/I-182 Overpass Bridge) (Rd.100/1-182 overpass bridge 5' shoulder) The entire length of Road 100 should be treated with bicycle lanes and sidewalks to foster neighborhood scale transportation between residential subdivisions and commercially zoned lands. A significant percentage of the commercially zoned land surrounding the Road 100 corridor remains vacant. Facilitating intra-neighborhood non-vehicular transportation may promote the marketability of these vacant tracts and invite commercial investors. The Area Description table indicates road widening is needed on Road 100 when in fact the I-182 Bridge is the only portion of Rd 100 needing to be widened. Road 100 currently terminates at the north city limits, soon to be Powerline Road. The west side of Road 100 at its northern terminus remains vacant. Age W 4U o r a (Road 100 south of Vincenzo Dr, - looking south) (Road 100 north of Vincenzo Dr. - looking south) Challenges Connecting bicycle/pedestrian facilities on Road 76 to the existing pathway by I-182 (behind Lowe's) presents some challenges created by the vacant parcels (117530015 & 117500118) owned by the Washington State Department of Natural Resources (DNR). Convention Drive from Fairchild Cinema to Powerline Road is currently constructed to 1/2 the standard width as the west side of Convention Drive is largely undeveloped. 15 Road 100 north of Chapel Hill Blvd. is a relatively high-traffic area which contains varied striping configurations. This roadway segment contains two (2) freeway on-ramps and two (2) freeway off-ramps. This relatively complex roadway layout may require creative solutions to accommodate safe bicycle lanes while maintaining acceptable vehicle traffic flow. Sandifur Parkway between Road 100 and Road 68 is a fully developed roadway without edge lines or shoulders to allow for widening. -WIN 4� (Sandifur Parkway at Rd 76) (Sandifur Parkway at Rd. 90) Undeveloped commercial parcels exist on Sandifur Parkway, however the roadway, sidewalks, curbs, gutters and landscaping improvements are currently contiguous from Road 68 to Road 100 with the exception of a few vacant parcels on the north side of Sandifur Parinvay. This existing infrastructure is not configured to allow for safe bicycle travel. A majority of this roadway is laid out with a single 25.5' wide travel lane in either direction and a 10.5 wide center turn lane, providing a total road surface width of 61.5 feet. The pathway parallel to Harris Road is proposed to be located within WSDOT right-of-way. Prior to beginning constriction of the pathway, an agreement granting permission to the City, must be made between the City and WSDOT. The existing pathway is located in WSDOT right-of-way and the same is true for the proposed pathway. Opportunities Physical constraints created by fully developed roadways require creative solutions for accommodating bicycle infrastructure. Some possible solutions for the challenges presented along Sandifur Parkway include freestanding signs located roadside at a minimum rate of 1/block; and/or, "sparrows". Sharrows are a combination of freestanding signs and painted symbols on the road surface. While sharrows are a feasible method they are not without drawbacks. Designating a travel lane for bicyclists to share already busy streets can create a false sense of security in the riders' mind. 16 Sandifur Parkways' 25.5' wide travel lanes could each be reduced by 4'8" resulting in approximately 21' wide travel lanes; allowing the minimum 4' wide bike lanes. This Plan supports the need for widening the I-182/Rd 100 Overpass Bridge. During the planning stage of the I-182 Bridge construction project, a larger width than currently exists was requested of the WSDOT. The request for extra width was denied at that time. The high rate of residential development in Pasco in recent ,years has greatly contributed to the need for this bridge to be widened. The bridge has edge lines and five (5) foot wide shoulders bound by a wall. The five foot shoulders are sufficient to accommodate bike lanes or sidewalks on both sides, but not both bike lanes and sidewalks on both sides. These factors support the need to widen the bridge. Key Route Key routes are identified within each Area as having particular importance based on a variety of factors; particular emphasis is placed on the function of east/west connectivity. Key routes can be interpreted as having high implementation priorities. Not all key routes connect in a contiguous fashion. The key route in Area 1 is Sandifur Parkway which extends from Road 100 to Road 60. Sandifur Parkway is a main thoroughfare connecting dense pockets of homes to the Road 68 commercial corridor. Materials Cost Estimate Materials cost estimates developed by the City Engineering Department are shown below. Area-wide materials cost estimate tables provide detailed estimates of cost and quantity as they relate to the individual components of construction. Subsequently, estimates have been pared down into linear foot cost figures which can be applied when attempting to estimate costs for various project configurations within an area. Materials Cost Estimate tables apply to an entire Area; not individual roadway segments within an Area. # Roadway(s) Required Improvements Cost 1a Broadmoor Blvd. S'.^•,r S I . R'.°.r (Pwrline to Bedford) $13,260.00 1 b Rd 100 Bridge St`.r S I I 1C Harris Rd NIA (pathway) $148,568.60 1d Rd 76 S.N'.SI (Sandifur-1-182) $7,71 0.00 1e Convention Dr. & Homerun S1 Rd. 591,65o.00 if Sandifur Prkwy S1 (Rd 100-Rd 60) S"I�,>3o.00 1 Burden Blvd. S1 g (Convtn -Rd 60) $4,500.00 TOTAL $197,518.60 17 Area 2 Area Description Area 2 is unique in that the proposed bicycle/pedestrian facility and key route is a stand-alone pathway located on the Franklin County Irrigation District canal extending from Road 111 at Court Street to the I-182/Argent Road underpass. The paved bicycle/pedestrian pathway is proposed within the Franklin County Irrigation District FCID canal right-of-way. Bicycle/Pedestrian Master Plan - Area #2 y8 a r Cha el Hill RIV °f � /FGt4�J Ctiape/ merun Rd. V 8 Lagead 11RG ENT an Project k2i FM Canal PatLway < Q Rnri shore O City Limits Existing Facilities The irrigation canal and gravel service road are currently contained within the FCID right-of-way (see photos below taken at Road 84) which narrows, approximately, from 134 feet to 55 feet east of Road 84 to the western terminus of Valley View Place. This right-of-way varies in width from 50 feet to approximately 130 feet; providing enough space for a future pedestrian trail and bicycle pathway. The irrigation canal from Court Street to Road 100 was placed in underground piping several years ago. Needed Facilities Additional information about pathways can be found on the US Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration website: http://www.fhwa.dot.p,ov/environmentfsldewalk2/sldewalks2l4.htm 18 Ll H?: (A well designed shared-use paths that provide different lanes for users who travel at different speeds prevent conflicts between user groups on high use trails.) 4 tt ? 3 (Frequent rest areas that include benches and wheelchair spaces provide relief from prevailing grades.) (FCID canal 'a� Road 84) Challenges Timing of Area 2 facilities constriction is dependent upon the completion of work to underground the canal by FCID. An agreement between the Irrigation 19 District and the City securing shared use of the FCID right-of-way must also be arranged. O-Pportunities The right-of-way trail would be ideal for walking/biking. Opportunities for using existing public rights-of-way for augmentation of the trail network will likely occur in the future following completion of the FCID plan to bury the canal. Materials Cost Estimate a Pathway Required Cost Improvements Court St. @ Rd 111 - Pedestrian/Bike 2 Rd. 68 Pathway $609,637.30 Area 3 Area Description Area 3 is bound by Road 103 to the west, Chapel Hill Boulevard to the north, the Columbia River shoreline to the south and Road 60 to the east. Bicycle facilities are proposed on the following roadways: Roadway Needed Improvements Chapel Hill Boulevard ST future Chapel Hill Blvd. ST, SW Argent Rd SW, ST Road 103 (350') ST Road 100 ST, SW Road 88 SW, RW, ST Road 84 SW, RW, ST Road 76 SW, RW, ST Road 68 SW, RW, ST Road 92 SW, RW, ST 20 Bicycle/Pedestrian Master Plan Area #3 m a 113 Hill BI c a A aO QO Q O Cr' D: PioFcned Routes •�� Fmsdng Bike Ines COUP s'i't_ FCM Canal River Shm ilce City Limnu it Existing Facilities Bike lanes exist on certain portions of Court Street. Sidewalks exist on very limited sections of Court Street west of Road 100. Needed Facilities The edge lines on Court Street need to be widened to the 8 inch standard for bike lanes. All of the proposed routes indicated on the Bike/Pedestrian Master Plan Area 3 Map require construction of bicycle facilities. As well, many of the proposed routes lack sidewalks with the consistent exception of those segments bordering public schools. The schools may serve as good beginning points from which to extend facilities outward. Development in Suburban zones, even when fronting arterial streets, does not currently require installation of sidewalks. 21 A more detailed site survey should be performed to identify spots where the Court Street road surface needs to be widened. Due to the extent of existing roadway bike lanes and wide shoulders, the need for shoulder widening on Court Street will be very limited. Part of Court Street (between Rd 48 and Rd 42) has steep shoulders intended to facilitate stormwater drainage which may require modification to accommodate widening. Additional striping may be needed in some areas to define the outer boundary of the bike lanes and to meet the minimum S inch wide striping standard for bicycle lanes. (Existing bike lanes on Court Street at I-182 looking east) Chapel Hill Boulevard from Road 100 to Road 84 is a fully developed 4-lane roadway without a left-hand turn lane or edge lines. Sidewalks exist along all developed parcels fronting this roadway. Bike lanes do not exist on any portion of Chapel Hill Blvd., but travel lanes could be reduced to allow bike lane striping. 1 6 (Chapel Hill Blvd. westbound) (Chapel Hill Blvd. eastbound) 22 Road 84 between the FCID canal and Argent Road contains bike lanes as shown on the Area 3 Map. The bike lanes are not contiguous from the canal to Argent Road. Between the FCID canal and Sterling Road the bike lane is on the west side of Road 84 only. A bike lane exists on the east side of Road 84 south of Sterling Road (fronting Chiawana High School). Even though the Area 3 Map indicates existing bicycle facilities, improvements are needed to snake there functional. Challenges Road 100 north of the irrigation canal is a relatively high traffic area and is largely developed with two travel lanes in either direction and a center turn lane. This short segment of roadway contains right and left-hand turn lanes and center-turn lanes. (Road 100 north of the FCID canal) (Road 100 at Massey Drive) Chapel Hill Blvd. east of Road 100 does not contain an unimproved shoulder- where bike lanes could be installed. One possibility for the inclusion of bicycle lanes on Chapel Hill Blvd. is the use of freestanding bicycle logo pole signs and/or sparrow stencils painted on the road surface. Another option is reducing the width of travel lanes to provide bike lanes. The extension of Chapel Hill Blvd. from Road 84 to Road 68 is complicated by the current ownership (WA Dept. of Natural Resources). Opportunities to develop this extension are contingent upon transfer of ownership and rezoning. O-guortunities The west side of Road 100 between I-182 and the FCID canal is mostly vacant. As in most cases, undeveloped properties present opportunities to install needed bicycle infrastructure. Much of the west side of Road 100 south of the irrigation canal has wide paved or graveled shoulders. Sufficient shoulder- width exists on both east and west sides to allow re-striping and to accommodate a bicycle lane with the exception of the east side of Road 100 south of Maple Drive. 23 Plans exist to extend Chapel Hill Blvd, from Road 84 to Road 68 concurrent with development proposals. At the time development is proposed in this location, conditions should be placed on all land divisions/development projects to require 4' wide bicycle lanes be stripped in both eastbound and westbound directions. Chapel Hill Blvd from Road 100 to Road 84 contains a total of four (4) travel lanes, two in each direction, and each lane is 14 feet wide. If each travel lane were reduced to twelve (12) feet, six (6) feet would become available on each side of the road where bike lanes could be installed without affecting the level of service. Once the roadway striping configuration has been decided, the same should be applied to the future extension of Chapel Hill Blvd. Key Route The key route in Area 3 is Argent Road. Within Area 3 Argent Road extends from Road 100 to Road 60. This key route will extend into Areas 5 & 6 finally connecting with 4th Avenue. Materials Cost Estimate a Roadway(s) Required Cost Improvements Rd. 100(1-182-court) 3a Chapel Hill (Rd. 100-Rd 84) ST, SW, RW $68,816.00 Rd 84 (Chapel Hill-Argent) Rd. 92 (Court-River), Rd. 88(Argent-s/Whipple), 3b Rd. 84 (Argent-5/sunset), ST, SW, RW $106,885.00 Rd. 76(Argent-5/River Blvd.) 3c Future Chapel Hill (84 -68) NA 3d Rd. 68(Argent-River) ST, SW, RW $57,590.00 3e Argent Rd. & Rd. 103 ST, SW, RW $116,860.00 (Court-Rd 60) TOTAL $350,151.00 Area 4 Area Descritition Area 4 is bound by Road 60 to the west, Sandifur Parkway to the north, Argent Road to the south and Road 36 to the east. Bicycle facilities are proposed on the following roadways: 24 Roadway Needed Improvements Sandifur Parkway ST, SW, RW Burden Boulevard ST Madison Avenue ST Road 52 ST Road 44 ST, SW, RW Bicycle/Pedestrian Master Plan - Area 004 R� 5and ur Par a V Ol Komertm Rd. end Pmpased RoWes ErsskugHikcLam FCm Canal Argent Place Bike PatLuMp City Limits LIVING ON ROA Existing Facilities Bike lanes exist along both travel lanes on Road 36 from Argent Road continuing to Burden Blvd. to Road 60. Madison Avenue west of the roundabout at Road 44 contains bike lanes and sidewalks. Sidewalks exist on Burden Boulevard. Needed Facilities Additional shoulder widening on the east side of Road 44 is needed to accommodate bike lanes. Sandifur Parkway is currently developed at one half of the standard width bordering the County island between Road 60 and Road 52. 25 To date, Madison Avenue is incomplete. Madison Avenue lies within the Linda Loviisa and First Place residential subdivisions. No connection exists between Madison Avenue at Salem Drive and Madison Avenue at E1 Paso Drive. Sidewalks are lacking on the east side of Road 36 bordering the Paso Airport. No sidewalks exist along Burden Blvd. when bordering undeveloped parcels. Several undeveloped parcels exist on Burden Blvd. between Road 60 and Road 68 creating the need for approximately 1235 feet of sidewalk in order to complete pedestrian facilities on Burden Blvd. Promoting safe bicycle travel on Burden Blvd. has the potential to alleviate traffic congestion by providing a reasonable option to access the Road 68 commercial corridor. Challenges The Franklin County "island" bordering Sandifur Parkway and Road 60 presents a challenge for concurrency development of bicycle and pedestrian facilities as the timeline for annexation is undetermined. The roadway on Burden Blvd. from Road 60 to Road 68 is fully developed with two travel lanes in both directions and a landscaped median with street lights. No edge lines or shoulders exist on which to locate bike lanes and the edge of road ends in curbs. Reduction of vehicle travel lanes is not advisable due to the existing traffic volume at this location. Opportunities The landscaped area with sidewalk on the south side of Burden Blvd. west of Road 60 is twenty five (25) feet wide. This may be the only area allowing for the installation of bicycle facilities. The sidewalk in this area is constructed as an asphalt pathway. The pathway could be widened and striped to provide a designated a bicycle lane. Key Route The key route in Area 4 is Sandifur Parkway combined with Road 44. In Area 4 Sandifur Parkway extends from Road 60 eastbound to connect with Road 44 continuing southbound to Argent Place. Materials Cost Estimate # Roadway(s) Required Cost Improvements Road 52 (Sandifr- Burdn) 4a Madison Ave. (Brdn - El Paso) ST $19,950.00 4b Rd.44(Sandifr-Madison Ave) ST, SW, RW $43,680.00 4c Sandifur Prkwy(Rd 60- Rd 44) ST, SW, RW $42,030.00 TOTAL $105,660.00 '6 Area 5 Area Description Area 5 is bound by Road 60 to the west, Argent Road to the north, the Columbia River shore to the south and 20th Avenue to the east. Most of the rights-of-way within this area is rural residential, 2 lane roads lacking edge lines (designated shoulders), curbs, gutters or sidewalks. Bicycle facilities are proposed on the following roadways: Roadway Needed Improvements Road 60 ST, SW, RW Road 52 ST, SW, RW Road 48 ST, SW, RW Livingston Road ST, SW, RW Wernett Road ST, SW, RW Pearl Street ST, SW, RW Court Street ST, SW Sylvester Street ST, RW Road 32 ST, SW, RW Road 36 ST, SW, RW Road 40 ST, SW, RW Haystad Street ST, SW, RW 26th Avenue ST Henry Street (fragmented) ST 24th Ave (200 ft,) ST 22nd Ave (200 ft,) ST Henry Place ST 20th Avenue ST, RW "A" Street ST, SW, RW W. Lewis Street ST Road 28 ST Hopkins Street ST, SW, RW Road 39 300 ft.) ST, SW, RW 27 Bicycle/Pedestrian Master Plan - Area #5 Argentflace Argo �e� LIVI Proposed Routes ndstmg Baw Lanes ERNE City Lmts Bike Pathway Rivu Share a — FCID Giaad WT 00 WF 0 0 E E St � w Existing Facilities Generally, sidewalks exist adjacent to commercial development and adjacent to a majority of the proposed routes east of Hwy 395. Court Street between Roads 48 & 36 contains 5'-6' wide shoulders on both sides of the roadway. Meaning, this segment of Court Street only requires edge line striping (4") to establish bike lanes. Needed Facilities All of the proposed routes indicated on the Area 5 Map require bicycle lane striping. Most of the proposed routes are in need of sidewalks with the exception of those segments bordering commercially developed properties. Shoulder widening should be completed where needed to achieve the minimum 28 bike lane width of four feet. Shoulder widening is needed on most of the identified routes ui the Area Map. Critical features of Area 5 are the east/west crossings over SR-395 at Court Street and Sylvester Street. These State Highway crossings will serve as the primary connecting routes between residential west Pasco and the commercial core east of Hwy 395. (Sylvester St./Hwy 395 Overpass - looking east) A third critical feature is the Argent Road/I-182 underpass which, once striped, will provide much needed north-south connectivity. Since west Pasco is bifurcated by the I-182 freeway this connection point should receive particular attention and priority. Challenges Road 40 between W. Pearl and Ella Street. has not. been dedicated to the City at. this time. Right-of-way dedications need to be obtained prior to construction of improvements proposed in this Plan. The need for right-of-way dedications, although fragmented, should be closely examined on the following roadways: - Wernet.t. Road - Road 40 - Road 52 - Sylvester Street - Court Street 200" Avenue, particularly north of Court Street., presents significant. challenges for installing bike lanes due to high traffic volumes and fully developed right-of- way improvements. Sharrows may be an unsafe recommendation at this location. Bike lanes are proposed on the Court. Street./SR 395 Overpass Bridge. The bridge is currently too narrow to accommodate bike lanes; widening is needed. Overpass widening is bevond the scope of this Plan. Cost estimates in this 29 situation reflect striping only. Bicycle and pedestrian facilities will have to be included in any future project to widen the overpass. All bike routes proposed on Sylvester Street require road widening and striping. Argent Road, from 20t'' Avenue to 4t'' Avenue, is identified as a bike route. Said portion of Argent belongs to the Port of Pasco. In 2011 the Port widened Argent Rd in this location, but did not provide bicycle facilities. Cost estimates are provided for this portion of Argent, however installation of bicycle & pedestrian facilities is not likely to be a City funded or implemented project. O1)portunities The lack of right-of-way infrastructure west of Hwy 395 poses fewer site specific limitations caused by existing infrastructure. Improvements have the potential to contain comparatively uniform and easy to follow bicycle/pedestrian routes. Completion of bicycle facilities on Sylvester Street and "A" Street will provide eight (S) separate connection points to the Sacajawea Heritage Trail; six (6) of which will clearly indicate connection between residential neighborhoods and the Trail. Particularly useful are the Road 44 and Haystad Street connections to the Sacajawea Trail. (Sylvester Street between Road 45 & Road 40 -looking east) (Sylvester Street/Road 60 pathway connection) 30 r. r (Road 26/Hopkins St. pathway connection point) (Pathway r@ Wade Park boat Iaunch) Once constructed, bicycle/pedestrian facilities at the Argent Rd./I-182 underpass will provide much needed north/south connectivity crossing Highway 1-182. The southbound lane on Road 52 between Court Street and Whitetail Court contains a 6.5' wide shoulder without an edge line. This wide shoulder eliminates the need to add paving to the road surface in order to accommodate a bike lane for approximately 616 linear feet on Road 52. Key Route Two key routes are identified in Area 5; they are: 1) Argent Road from Road 60 to 20th Avenue, and 2) Sylvester Street from Road 60 to Road 28. Both of these key routes enable cyclists to cross State highways. Materials Cost Estimate # Roadway(s) Required Cost Improvements 5a Rd. 60 (court-5/Sylvester) ST SW RW Rd. 52 (Argent- Rivershore) $9,750,00 Rd. 48 (Argent- Pearl) Livingston Rd. (Rd. 48- Rd 36) 5t) Rd. 40 (Livingston -Wernett) ST, SW, RW W ern ett(Rd.84 -Rd. 36) Pearl St. (Rd. 48 - Rd. 32) 1 1 $225,958.40 5c Court St(Rd.48-Rd. 36) ST, SW $23,310.00 5d Rd. 36 (Livingston -rivershore) ST,SW, RW $85,108.40 5e Sylvester St. (Rd. 6a- Rd. 28) ST, RW $301,125.60 31 Rd. 32 (Pearl-Court) Court St. (Rd. 32 -26th Ave.) 5f 26th Ave. (Court St-Henry St.) ST, SW, RW W. Henry PI. (24th Ave. -20th Ave.) 24th Ave. (Henry St-W. Henry PI.) 22nd Ave. (W. Henry PI. -Henry St) $97,768.80 58 20th Ave. (Argent-"A" St.) ST, RW $7,500.00 Rd. 28(Sylvester-"A" St.) 5h W. Lewis St. (Rd. 28-20th) ST,SW, RW "A" St. (Rd. 28-20th Ave.) Hopkins St. (HWY 395 -Rd. 28) $72,290.00 51 Argent (Rd 60-20th Ave) ST,SW, RW $104,372.00 TOTAL $927,183.20 Area 6 Area Description Area 6 is bound by 20th Avenue to the west, Argent Road/Boeing Street to the north, the Columbia River shore to the south and Heritage Blvd. to the east. Bicycle facilities are proposed on the following roadways: Roadway Needed Improvements Argent Road ST, SW, RW Boeing Street ST, SW, RW Pearl Street ST Henry Street ST Henry Place ST E. Lewis Street ST 5th Avenue ST "A" Street ST, SW 4th Avenue ST 3rd Avenue ST Ainsworth Avenue ST, SW Whehe Avenue ST Elm Avenue ST Sheppard Street (1,0001 ST Highland Street (3001 ST Beech Avenue ST 18th Ave 270') ST Octave Street 620') ST 16th Ave 200' ST 32 5th Ave (3501 ST Margaret St 450 ST Nixon Street (450) I ST Columbia Street 450' ST Washington Street (350) ST, SW 9th Ave (600') ST, SW, RW Bicycle/Pedestrian Master Plan - Ai-ea #6 Pr z,Do3ed Rcutci Existing Bike Lmea Argetiz Rd. Bike Pathway city I inii� River Shore S I S, a pard St. i E LEVAS ST = TT Rt m All St. m m-- Approximate distances are provided in the preceding list for those bicycle/pedestrian facilities proposed on relatively short sections of a road. This circumstance occurs when routes make a "jog" in order to make the desired connection between points. The proposed route containing Henry Street; extending from 20th Ave to 3rd Ave. is a good example. 33 Existing Facilities Bike lanes exist on "A" Street from unimproved Spokane Street to Road 40 East. Said section of"A" Street also contains sidewalk on the north side of the road and a 9' wide asphalt pathway with a 6' landscaping strip on the south side of the road. A large majority of routes indicated in the Area 6 map currently contain sidewalks with some exceptions. Needed Facilities All routes indicated in the Area 6 map are in need of bicycle facilities. Sidewalks are needed on those roadways indicated in the Area Description table. Challenges A large majority of the proposed routes in Area 6 are located on fully developed roadways in older established areas of town. Most roadways are fully developed without striping. Traffic from the Highland Park neighborhood (north of Lewis St. and east of Wehe Ave.) is funneled through the Lewis Street underpass in order to access the central downtown area. There are plans to convert this underpass into an overpass. Bike lanes are incorporated into the design of this project. Much of the roadway design work has been completed at this time. The City has established a high priority to conversion of the existing underpass to an overpass. The current design of the Lewis Street/railroad overpass includes a six (6) foot wide sidewalk and five (5) foot wide bike lanes. The C-2 (Central Business) District zoning regulations do not require businesses to provide off-street parking. On-street parking is the predominant condition while some small off-street parking lots are scattered throughout the downtown area. Lewis Street provides only parallel parking stalls which cannot be eliminated to install bicycle facilities. Opportunities The downtown area east of Hwy 395 is an active commercial area serving residents of the surrounding neighborhoods. The C-2 zoning regulations in the central downtown area emphasize pedestrian access and circulation. Enhancing pedestrian and bicycle safety in the downtown area will promote the economy of the Pasco downtown area. Residential neighborhoods east of Oregon Avenue and north of "A" Street contain three public schools: Whittier and Robinson Elementary Schools and Helen Ochoa Middle School. Establishing safe, well marked bicycle facilities on Wehe Ave., Elm Ave., Lewis St. and short segments of other roadways will enhance bicycle/pedestrian travel in the neighborhood. 34 Railroad tracks intersect "A" Street at two points east of Oregon Avenue. Curbing extends approximately eight (8) feet into the travel lanes; reducing the lanes' width and interfering with the availability of area to locate a uniform bike lane. It is recommended the curbing be removed and the area within it he paved to match the roadway allowing bike lanes to be striped. r' .1 T _ ("A" Street @ Railroad tracks - note extended curbing) ti (Pedestrian pathway along"A" Street) 35 1 _ t (Bicycle pedestrian facilities on "A" Street- looking east) A recently completed Local Improvement District (LID) installed bike lanes and sidewalk and pathway along the eastern portion of "A" Street. The layout/design of these improvements should serve as a model with which to match the proposed facilities in Area 6. Key Route Two key routes are identified in Area 6; they are: 1) Lewis Street from Road 28 to Heritage Blvd., and 2) "A" Street from Road 28 to Heritage Blvd. The Lewis Street route provides access to residential neighborhoods, commercial business areas and a school. Materials Cost Estimate # Roadway(s) Required Cost Improvements 4th Ave. (Argent-X/3rd&4th) 6a ST $32,375,00 3rd (4th -Col uinbia) fib W. Lewis St. (20th -Heritage) ST $106,550.00 6c "A" St. (20th-Heritage) ST,SW $106,490.00 6d Columbia(3rd-4th) ST $33,700.00 Pearl St. (20th-14th) 14th Ave. (Pearl-W. Lewis St) Henry St. (20th -5th) fie Sth Ave. (Henry-Margaret) ST, SW, RW $118,630.00 Margaret St. (5th-4th) 4th Ave. (Maragret- Nixon) Nixon St. (4th -3rd) Owen Ave. (Sheppard-Park view) Park View Blvd (Owen -Wehe) 6f WeheAve. (Park view-"A" St.) ST $$7,260,D0 Elm Ave. (Sheppard St. -E. Lewis) 36 6g Argent Rd. (loth -4th) ST, SW, RW $41,710.00 6h Heritage Blvd. (E. Lewis-"A" 5t.) ST, SW $20,580.00 10th Ave./397 (shore-Washington) 6i Washington St. (10th-9th) ST, SW, RW $52,040.00 9th Ave. (Washington -Ainsworth) Ainsworth Ave. (9th -Oregon Ave/397) TOTAL j $599,335.00 Alternative Solutions It should be noted that all of the bicycle and pedestrian facilities proposed in this Plan should be designed and constructed in accordance with the most current edition of the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) at the time of design. The following methods are presented as ways to accommodate bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure improvements where physical constraints exists due to the layout of previously constructed right-of- way infrastructure. Incorporating bicycle facilities into existing roadways without eliminating vehicle travel lanes is paramount. Facilities serving pedestrians and bicyclists should not come at the expense of vehicle traffic flow rates. Sharrows Sharrows are a relatively new method of bicycle route identification whereby a roadway is marked on the road surface (see roadway surface stencil below) and a freestanding pole sign with the image of a bicycle is placed near the edge line or curb at a minimum rate of 1/block. Due to their recent introduction, sharrows require an educational component in order to be safe and effective. The intent of the sharrow is to indicate to the motorist they are traveling on an identified bike route and to use caution when passing a bicycle. If a center/left-hand turn lane exists, the vehicle can pass the bicyclists safely without stopping. If a center/left-hand turn lane is not present, the vehicle is supposed to wait until on-coming traffic clears before passing the bicyclist. The City of Spokane has implemented sharrows with limited success. Due to the necessity of an educational component in order to facilitate safety, sharrows can create a false sense of safety in the cyclists' mind. The use of sharrows should be more closely examined prior to their implementation. 37 S4.0 in 122.0 in f2.0 in 40.0 in (Sharrow stencil) $lgnage Either as stand-alone features or together with sharrow roadway markings, freestanding pole signs may be installed adjacent to the roadside. Examples of sign designs extracted from the 2009 edition of the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) are provided below. f y RIDE MAY USE WITH • �� E LAIC FULL LANE TRAFFIC f �R KEEP SKARE LLTr p'WT To Fi E ROAD The signs above are intended to serve a variety of purposes including conveying a message to vehicles, directional signs for bicyclists and pathway use divisions and should be used accordingly. 38 Bike Boxes/Green Boxes The bike box is an intersection safety design to prevent bicycle/car collisions, especially those between drivers turning right and bicyclists going straight. It is a green box on the road with a white bicycle symbol inside. It includes green bicycle lanes approaching and leading from the box. r+' �fl The main goal is to prevent collisions between motorists turning right and cyclists going straight. It's all about visibility and awareness. At a red light, cyclists are more visible to motorists by being in front of them. At a green light, the green bike lane through the intersection reminds motorists and cyclists to watch for each other. Potential Funding Sources There are a wide range of potential funding sources for improving pedestrian and bicycle transportation options. Federal funding is administered through the state and regional planning agencies. Most, but not all, of these funding programs are oriented toward transportation versus recreation, with an emphasis on reducing auto trips and providing inter-modal connections. Federal funding is intended for capital improvements and safety and education programs and projects must relate to the surface transportation system. Many of the funding sources included below require local cities to take the lead to provide bicycle facility improvements. Federal The Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 included several funding categories wherein improvements for pedestrian and bicycle transportation could be funded, either as part of a road improvement project or 39 an independent improvement. The 1998 TEA 21 legislation perpetuated those funding categories. Of particular significance is the ten percent set aside of surface transportation funds for enhancements, which contains a specific category for pedestrian and bicycle facilities. 2005 marked the passage of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Act - A Legacy For Users (SAFETEA-LU), which reauthorizes the federal highway and transit programs through FY 2009. The bill increased funding of the Surface Transportation Program (STP) by roughly 30 percent. Tansportation Enhancements continue to be funded through a 10 percent set- aside of STP funds or the amount set aside in 2005, whichever is greater. As of 2009, over $5.3 million in enhancement funds have been allocated to projects in the RTPO area since the inception of the program, with $3.0 million, or 57 percent, awarded to bicycle/pedestrian. State Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety Funding; In 2005, the Governor and Washington State Legislature increased the state's role in safety by providing funding that supports pedestrian and bicycle safety and safe routes to school projects (ESSB 6091). In addition, with the passage of SAFETEA-LU in 2005, a new federal Safe Routes to School program was established that provided federal funding to the state. Pedestrian and Bicycle Safetv Grant This program focuses on pedestrian and bicycle safety and providing children a safe, healthy alternative to riding the bus or being driven to school. Its purpose is to aid public agencies in funding cost-effective projects that improve pedestrian and bicycle safety through engineering, education and enforcement. Safe Routes to School Grant The purpose of this program is to aid public agencies in funding cost-effective projects within two-miles of primary and middle schools (K-8) that provide children a safe, healthy alternative to riding the bus or being driven to school. These two programs are very lightly funded and highly desired. Grant cycles are based on the budget biennium, so there have been three full funding periods to date: 2005-2007, 2007-2009 and 2009-2011. The Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety program, over the combined 2005-2007 and 2007-2009 periods, had $15 million available which funded 47 projects from the over $63 million in requests. In the RTPO, a single project in Kennewick was funded during these two cycles. Safe Routes to Schools had a total of $10 million available to fund 39 projects from the over $49 million requested. In the RTPO, two projects were funded in Walla Walla during these two cycles. 40 For the 2009-2011 biennium, approximately $11 million was available to fund the over $82 million in requests received. WSDOT received 92 Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety project applications totaling approximately $35 million. Statewide, 16 projects were funded. Four were submitted from within the RTPO and one, from Richland was funded. The State received 112 Safe Routes to Schools project applications and funded 21. Three were submitted from the RTPO and none were funded. Additional Funding; Sources Under RCW 47.30, Paths and Trails, 0.3 percent of state construction expenditures must be spent on paths and trails: WSDOT estimates that it spends about 0.5 percent. This amounted to about $2.4 million in 1994. Some of these monies are distributed to cities and counties. The Transportation Improvement Board (TIB) has assorted legislatively funded categories wherein cities and counties annually compete for project funds. Some of these categories are specifically earmarked for pedestrian or bicycle improvements. Other categories for roadway and street improvement projects require pedestrian elements on either one or both sides. Community Development Block Grants target communities and neighborhoods that are principally low and moderate income. Such communities tend to have high demand for pedestrian and bicycle travel and public transit services. Funding is for street improvement projects, presumably including non- motorized and transit elements. Local Local revenue sources include: the road portion of "impact fees," county-wide vehicle license fees, commercial parking tax, local street utility tax, county-wide fuel tax, property tax, Local Improvement Districts, real estate excise tax, Transportation Benefit Districts, toll roads, and bonds. Funding; and Implementation Practices Bike lanes, shoulder bikeways, and sidewalks, which make up the majority of the bicycle and pedestrian system, are usually implemented as part of a standard roadway project and represent a small fraction of a project's cost. As new arterials and collectors are constructed or old ones are reconstructed to current standards, appropriate bikeways and walkways should be included in the project. Walkways and bikeways may also be provided as a part of routine roadway repairs. Resurfacing of an arterial or collector is an excellent time to restripe for bike lanes at little additional cost. In this way a bikeway system can develop incrementally in step with the road system. 41 In private developments, pedestrian and bicycle facilities are made a condition of approval, just as are the roads and parking lots. In some cases, System Development Charges (SDCs) or transportation impact fees can be imposed. If the impact of a development on adjacent streets is not immediate, the developer may participate in future improvements through a Local Improvement District (LID). Prioritization and Ranking Roughly forty (40) miles of bikeways, in all of their various forms, are needed in order to meet the Plan goals. The total mileage of needed striping is twice the length of the total roadways needing striping due to the need for striping on both sides of the road. Clear guidance for dedicating funds is needed. The materials cost estimates separate and list roadways (or groups of roadways) within each Area to organize construction phasing and to narrow the scale of individual projects for the purpose of securing reasonable funding amounts. When funding becomes available ranking scores can be used to quickly choose roadway improvement projects based on their effective importance. The following criteria were developed to serve as a guide for implementing roadway improvement projects. Ranking scores should apply to individual projects and be used to prioritize the project list. The criteria scale ranges from 0 to 3. The prioritization criteria are as follows: 1) Traffic Volume 2) Gap Closure/Increase Connectivity 3) Land Use Definition of Terms: The definitions below are included to assist in conducting an objective scoring of routes. The following terms are used in the evaluation criteria: 1) SIGNIFICANT ROUTE. "Significant route" includes all key routes and other routes located on major/minor arterial roads. 2) MINOR ROUTE. "Minor route" means a route on a collector road. 3) MAJOR BARRIER. "Major barrier" means a feature preventing or obstructing access or travel (i.e. SR 395, I-182, BNSF Rail). Traffic Volume The traffic volume criterion is based on gross volume. Data used to inform this criterion is based on actual traffic volumes or public works estimates. A higher 42 ranking value indicates higher traffic volumes and therefore a greater likelihood of dangerous incidents, and a greater number of people that would benefit from this improvement. The higher speeds that tend to accompany higher traffic corridors typically require improvements to allow separation of users. This criterion was given a scale of 0 to 3 based on the following guidelines: 0. Very Low volume. 1. Low to moderate traffic volumes and low speeds. Average daily traffic is less than 4,000 vehicles and speeds less than or equal to 30 mph. 2. Moderate traffic volumes and/or vehicle speeds. Average daily traffic equals 4,000 vehicles or greater and speeds equal 30 mph or greater. 3. Traffic volumes exceed 10,000 vehicles per day and/or traffic speeds are 35 mph or greater. Closure of a Gap / Increases Connectivity This criterion focuses on facilities that would close a gap or remove a barrier along an existing route, or would address a major safety concern for pedestrians and bicyclists at transition points such as bridges, interchanges, and other difficult environments for pedestrians and bicyclists to navigate. This criterion was given a scale of 0 to 3 based on the following guidelines: 0. Does not provide significant connection, safety improvement or improved access. 1. Provides limited connection or safety improvement to a minor route. 2. Provides connection on significant route and/or makes pedestrian and bicyclist environments better. 3. Provides multiple connections, closes significant gap, significantly improves safety or mitigates major barriers such as I-182, SR 395, BNSF Rail Line, or others. Land Use Criterion The land use criterion ranks projects based on connections or access to multiple land uses. Facilities that provide access to schools, shopping, transit, and public open space or parks rank favorably according to this criterion. Projects that connect compatible land uses or provide a critical link between two or more major land uses rank higher than projects that do not connect origins with destinations. This criterion was given a scale of 0 to 3 based on the following guidelines: 0. Does not go to specified destination; is not part of school, employment, or transit route. 1. Makes some connection to, or part of, a significant route. 2. Multiple connections or school route. 3. Multiple connections and school route or significant employment/ shopping route. 43 Scoring The simple chart below can be used to evaluate and compare priority ranking scores amongst the various roadway improvement projects identifiable in this Plan. Roadway Criterion Score T raff is Gap Closure/Connectivity Land Use TOTAL Maps (see attached) Additional Bicycle Facility Components Transportation SYSTEM Plan The Pasco Public Works Department plans to initiate a City-wide comprehensive traffic study to evaluate various needs related to vehicle circulation. The Transportation SYSTEM Plan is proposed to include elements addressing needed bicycle and possibly pedestrian facilities. The Plan may duplicate and contribute to efforts made in compiling this Bicycle/Pedestrian Master Plan. Install municipal bike racks fidentifv effective locations) A concurrency requirement for the installation of bicycle lock-up racks should be considered for new businesses locating on roadways identified as proposed bike/pedestrian routes in the Master Plan Overview Map. Such a development requirement may be imposed by amending PMC Title 12 (Streets and Sidewalks). The availability of convenient ways to secure bicycles in front of businesses may foster bicycle transportation; thereby advancing the stated goal, policies and objectives of this Plan. 44 m 0 >> CIP d SANMFi-9PIKAW 0 DEN-13L VDI � 1 ARGENaQ, CD co 1A � 1 _ COWRT T i -� E TER IIA" ST N s L Legend k1V ----.._,.^ Proposed Route/Path ` Library Bike Route ` Post Office Pathway Schools Bikeway Advisory Committee CITY LIMITS Parks Draft Map February 2007 � r ■ ' r ELI � � � _� �1�� ..r._ Saar..._.rr s►��-'`''+f. . - . - '�`- - INES '� 1 - 111111 11 111 mi . -. OEM � il�!�111► r . -- :. rr� , qq_=w■ in 11 111 _ -- y � � • �s 1� ���,; � ���■� :■tea 1 �■ ■ •• r� _ _ 111 1111 F ■ _ .. .l�.a• �� � � _■� ru■���_ +� ��� ,-ti�► !!IMF ■ . ■�.�■ i _ �■ _err r ME F - - • WIN 1Nmfg;vm Wild ON qP r � is c e e es rlan Master Plan - Area # 1 LT J egend Proposed Routes O City Limits Bike Pathway 0 ,Q River Shore 0, FCID Canal D O Q � � O s1 Chapel Hill Blvd. (F4� _�U'RD,EN-B�L'�1� - HOmerun d. C] cr co o N Bi* cycle/Pedestri* an Master Plan - Area #2 O Q. N CD a Chapel Hill Bled d' ��` �U-RD E -BL-V D vt4re J ch omerun Rd. ova p� o ow Legend� ARGENT RD Project#2/ I FCID Canal ao Pathway V � Q O River Shore ' City Limits 0 G Legend Proposed Routes Existing Bike Lanes River Shore BikePathway City Limits i Bicycle/Pedestrian Master Plan Area #4 11 wo fur Park f Homerun R4 Legend Proposed Routes Existing Bike Lanes FCID Canal City Limits Bicycle/Pedestrian Master Plan Area #5 Argent Place 0 Legend Proposed Routes City Lim-t Bike Pathwsay River Shore FCID Canal NO sonEW MEN ON wo mm M m- OEM Sol SUNNI r�� Bicycle/Pedestrian M . Area A a - PIN MOM 04 1 r . .��K�� � milli 1► �► 0NEW ,1"91-va POKIII P-1-2 HE MI I mom �MINIE loom "IMIN, ARM 1001111 me IBM MIS Legend Pasco Bi* cycle/Pedestrian Master Plan Overvi* ew ey Route Map Area#1 = 11 Area#2 Area#3 Area#4 .. i r WIN- Area#5 ZMEE I I NO River Shore Bike Pathway City Limits • �. I• ► MEN I I al. Vill Cow mm NO 11=111111 U t St i IT Y��11 ON man UNRUH NNW a�i■WON r.�"— � . ��s�■�� ■I� IF-ILI ce.■ ---. '� • r-. row��s. moll ■■■ mile 12 s • le e e e rlan Master Plan - Area # 1 Key Legend JIM Key Route O �T City Limits 0 1� P ike Pathway FR P F r"V River Shore tlif r Par I-D I-PU- FCID Canal C m � D �0 v o � v � o Chapel Hill Blvd. a�'o (fiyt�ro BURDEN-B-L VD a o 1:11,11�� Homerun Rd. o� o ¢ r © cf �a -0 W o Bicycle/Pedestrian Master Flan Area #3 Key Route + ° f eftr merun Rd. ARGE 4.� 0 D o —o o� _ o Le end Key Route COU t St. FCID Canal J River Shore BikePathway City Li mi t.s its; INN INN , D LArgen.t Place Key Route City Limits Bike Pathway River Shore FCID Canal BEE Legend Key Routes Bike Pathway City Limits River Shore NOW ME =MEN mmm Moo mom mmm 0 F I LN logo MEN �'-`���i��j1►t''�'4►� • 111 1111 RON