Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-18-2011 Planning Commission Packet PLANNING COMMISSION — AGENDA REGULAR MEETING 7:00 P.M. August 18, 2011 I. CALL TO ORDER: II. ROLL CALL: Declaration of Quorum III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: July 21, 2011 IV. 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) B. Special Permit Location of a Community Service Facility in an I-1 Zone. (300 Block of S. 51h Ave.) (Saint Vincent de Paul Society) (MF# SP 2011-008) V. PUBLIC HEARINGS: VI. OTHER BUSINESS: A. Code Amendment Auto Body Shops as Accessory Uses in the C-R District PMC 25.48 B. Workshop Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan C. CDBG 2011 CDBG Reallocation and Amendment to Annual Action Plan (MF# BGAP2011-007) VII. ADJOURNMENT: REGULAR MEETING July 21, 2011 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Vice-Chairwoman Kempf. 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: Vice-Chairwoman Kempf read a statement about the appearance of fairness for hearings on land use matters. Vice-Chairwoman Kempf asked if any Commission member had anything to declare. There were no declarations. Vice-Chairwoman Kempf then asked the audience if there were any objections based on conflict of interest or appearance of fairness questions regarding any of the items to be discussed this evening. There were no declarations. ADMINISTERING THE OATH: Vice-Chairwoman Kempf explained that State law requires testimony in quasi- judicial hearings such as those held by the Planning Commission be given under oath or affirmation. Vice-Chairwoman Kempf swore in all those desiring to speak. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Greenaway moved to adopt the June 16, 2011 minutes. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Lukins. The motion passed 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) Vice-Chairwoman Kempf read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Rick White, Community and Economic Development Director, stated a legal opinion was submitted to the Commission from the City Attorney on the role of the Planning Commissions as fact finder in quasi-judicial hearings. A representative for the property owner has requested time to prepare a legal opinion. Extending that opportunity to the property owner necessitates the opportunity be extended to the Pasco School District as well. Therefore staff requested the matter be continued to the August 18, 2011 Planning Commission meeting to allow for legal opinions from the property owner and the Pasco School District. The City Attorney will then have time to review those opinions and ensure that no new evidence is received since the public hearing was closed at the last hearing. If the Commission moves in that direction then two opinions will be in the packet for the August meeting and a recommendation can be made at that time. Commissioner Hay moved, seconded by Commissioner Greenaway, to continue the public hearing to allow for legal opinion to be submitted from the Pasco School District as well as the applicant. The motion passed unanimously. B. Special Permit Location of a Parking Lot in an R-3 (Medium Density Residential Zone (424 & 428 W. Shoshone Street) (Northwest Agriculture Products, Inc.) (MF# SP2011-007) Vice-Chairwoman Kempf read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Dave McDonald, City Planner stated staff had no further comments. Commissioner Khan moved, seconded by Commissioner Gemig, to adopt the Findings of Fact and Conclusions therefrom as contained in the July 21, 2011 staff report. The motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Khan further moved, seconded by Commissioner Gemig based on the Findings of Fact and Conclusions therefrom the Planning Commission -2 - recommends the City Council grant a Special Permit to Northwest Agriculture Products, Inc. for the location of a parking lot at 424 West Shoshone Street with conditions as contained in the July 21, 2011 staff report. The motion passed unanimously. NEW BUSINESS: A. Special Permit Location of a Community Service Facility in an I-1 Zone (300 block of South 5th Avenue) (Saint Vincent de Paul Society) (MF# SP 2011-008) Vice-Chairwoman Kempf read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Dave McDonald, City Planner stated the application was for the location of a food bank and clothing distribution center on a site north of"A" Street between 5th & 6th Avenue. The Saint Vincent de Paul Society has provided services for the residents in Pasco for 50+ ,years. They have been located on West Lewis Street for the past 30+ years. The city is purchasing the existing Saint Vincent de Paul property in preparation for the construction of the new Lewis Street overpass. The type of activities the St. Vincent de Paul Society engages in fall within the definition of a community service facility and as such a special permit is required. The new facility will include a fully landscaped and paved parking lot. The site will provide ample parking and a queuing area for recipients versus the current site which lacks parking and a queuing area where recipients stand in a line on the sidewalk. The facility will be open one day per week and staff/volunteers will be on site sporadically to prepare for the weekly distribution. Sina Pierret, 2 Daisy Court, stated the new facility will provide more safety for recipients than the current facility by providing a staging area for recipients versus standing on the city sidewalks. They will have enough parking on their site for staff, recipients and vendors. The location of the new site is near the current site and is also on a bus line which will provide easy access for recipients traveling on the bus. Vice-Chairwoman Kempf asked if Saint Vincent de Paul will provide a collection/drop-off location on site. Ms. Pierret stated not at this time. Vice-Chairwoman Kempf called for further public comment and with no response, the public hearing was closed. -3 - Commissioner Lukins moved, seconded by Commissioner Greenawav, to close the hearing on the proposed Level Two Community Service Facility and initiate deliberations and schedule adoption of Findings of Fact, Conclusions and a recommendation to the City Council for the August 18, 2011 meeting. The motion passed unanimously. B. CDBG 2012 Community Development Block Grant Allocations (Citywide) (MF# BGAP 2011-003) Vice-Chairwoman Kempf read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director stated this is the second public hearing and staff has outlined 16 requests for the Community Development Block Grant which were received for the 2012 ,year. The requests total approximately $1.47 million and the estimate of available funding is $981,000. At last month's meeting there was discussion involving a subrecipient requesting funds for public services. Staff provided an explanation of the public service cap required by Federal CDBG regulations and City of Pasco Resolution No. 1969 which limits public services to those operated by the City for recreational programs. The matrix in the packet shows the funding breakdown. The agency is listed with a numbering system and the estimated non-Community Development Block Grant match is provided in the next column, the requested amount is listed by agency and the staff recommendation is also listed. The Planning Commission recommendation will be added to the final column and will move forward to City Council for workshop discussion in August and a decision on August 15. Vice-Chairwoman Kempf opened the public hearing. Commissioner Lukins stated referring to the public service cap that even if the Commission wanted to fund two public service applications they would not be allowed. Mr. White stated ,yes; if the Commission followed Resolution #1969 then that would be the case. Vice-Chairwoman Kempf stated their hands are basically tied with what they have. Mr. White explained the public service cap for six items and noted ten other items for brick and mortar type of projects for consideration. -4 - Commissioner Lukins stated the only point of contention he had beyond staff's recommendation was the public service issue and it is moot now. Commissioner Greenaway stated she would like to see funding for PowerZone pulled from somewhere and asked how they could make that happen. Mr. White stated you would disregard Resolution 1969 and take money from the other public service allocated funding. Commissioner Lukins asked if staff could explain the background of Resolution # 1969and whether it was binding or not binding. Mr. White stated the Resolution provides guidelines for the City's use of Block Grant funds. He stated this happened long before his time with the City. There was a Community Development Block Grant board which entertained requests for funding and those recommendations from that board were not in a focused manner that provided community improvement the way the elected officials wanted to see the funds used for. Council adopted a Resolution which provided the guidelines for the recommendations from that group. That group has since been replaced and the Planning Commission is now the body that provides recommendations to the City Council for use of Community Development Block Grant funds. It is simply a matter of using the funds to make the most visible, longest lasting difference in the community. Mr. McDonald stated when the Block Grant program was initiated in 1974 it consolidated a number of Federal grant programs and most of them were related to brick and mortar type activities such as water lines, sewer lines, and street improvements. There was no authority back then for community service facilities to receive funding. That has since changed and the former committee would frequently try to help community service organizations and the program became over weighted with community service activities. The Resolution was created to provide guidance for the committee to make recommendations to City Council and it also provides guidance for the Council and how to distribute the funds. Vice-Chairwoman Kempf asked for discussion on whether the Planning Commission wanted to ignore the Resolution or to make the recommendations as provided by staff. Commissioner Greenaway asked where the money would be taken from if they were to recommend something different. Commissioner Lukins stated from item 2, 3, and 4. Commissioner Khan questioned if the Block Grant Administrator would be available to advise the applicants how to acquire other grants which are available for social services. -5 - Mr. White stated he thinks so; there are resources available in all communities that can provide that type of advice. It is still a matter of getting in cycle with funding opportunities and being successful when applying. Commissioner Gemig asked if they are allowed to allocate $78,000 then why are they only allocating the $70,000. Mr. White stated that cushion was put in for unforeseen circumstances. The City has to be extremely careful because if the cap is exceeded then they receive an audit finding on the City's part and that is a big deal. Carol Shuhe, 1202 W. Lewis, thanked the City for their consideration. Louisa Alaniz and Kim Lowe, Charity Training Center, stated they have developed a ,youth organic farming co-op for troubled ,youth for 10 teens in partnership with the Juvenile Center. Vice-Chairwoman Kempf called for additional comments from Commissioners. Commissioner Gemig stated she wanted funds to be available for PowerZone and did not know how to make that happen. Commissioner Lukins stated the Commission should ignore the Resolution and take 10% off the other recommended projects and give the funding to PowerZone. Commissioner Gemig asked if they needed to ignore the Resolution. Vice-Chairwoman Kempf stated yes. Commissioner Greenaway stated she was in favor of ignoring the Resolution. Commissioner Gemig moved to close the Public hearing. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Lukins moved, seconded by Commissioner Greenaway, to accept the fund summary dated 7/21/11 with the exception of decreasing items 2, 3, and 4 by 10% and the savings then be moved to item 7. The motion passed with one dissenting vote from Commissioner Hay. OTHER BUSINESS: With no further business, the Planning Commission was adjourned at 7:38 p.m. David McDonald, Secretary -6 - MEMORANDUM DATE: August 18, ' 011 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Dave McDonald, City Planner SUBJECT: Legal Opinions on School Impact Mitigation. (Columbia Villas) (MF# PP 2011-002) During the July hearing on the Columbia Villas preliminary plat, staff indicated a representative of the property owner requested additional time to provide a legal opinion on the School District's request that the proposed plat provide mitigation for impacts to the school system. Affording an opportunity for the property owner to provide a legal opinion necessitated providing the same opportunity to the School District. Accordingly the Planning Commission continued the public hearing on the Columbia Villas Plat to the August 18, 2011 meeting. The hearing continuation was provided to allow legal opinions only. No new evidence from the developer or the School District can be provided. Both the School District and the property owner have submitted letters explaining their positions on the use of "voluntary agreements" as a means of mitigating development impacts to the Pasco school system. The City Attorney has reviewed the legal opinions to ensure no new evidence is being provided. Following deliberations, based solely on the record and review of the legal opinions, the Planning Commission will need to complete the process by making a recommendation to the City Council. The findings of fact and other information in the staff report can be used to assist with making a recommendation. Attachments: Legal opinions from the Property Owner and School District are attached under the Correspondence Section following the staff report. Correspondence (PP 2011-002) Exhibit 1 Letter from Homebuilders Association Exhibit 2 Memo from Staff on Mitigation for School Impacts Exhibit 3 Letter from Pasco School District dated June 3, 2011 Exhibit 4 July 15, 2011 Memo from Staff with attached Memo from the City Attorney dated July 12, 2011 dealing with Mitigation Fees for School Impacts Exhibit 5 Property Owner Legal Opinion Exhibit 6 School District Legal Opinion Exhibit 1 - Letter from Homebuii+-ers Association Rome&,aldcrs MIWA66fi of Tri-C4`Ci Building the Tri-Cities since 1958 Pasco City Council Franklin County Commissioners Pasco Planning Commission Franklin County Planning Commission P.O. Box 293 1016 N. 0 Street Pasco, WA 99301 Pasco, WA 99301 March 25, 201 1 It has come to our attention that the Pasco School District is opposing all new subdivisions in the City of Pasco and Franklin County on the basis of insufficient capacity in the schools. In order to mitigate the impacts associated with new development, the Pasco School District has requested all applicants be required to sign a voluntary agreement and pay an amount equivalent to the proposed impact fees. On behalf of the Home Builders Association of Tri-Cities (NBA), I would like to express our opposition, not just to the impact fee proposals, but also to this proposed circumvention of impact fee ordinances through a so-called "voluntary" agreement. Whatever it is called or however it is imposed, whether it's an impact fee ordinance or a SEPA mitigation fee, it is quite simply a tax targeted at new construction. Growth is beneficial to the entire community. Residential construction not only creates jobs and increases the tax base, but also leads the way for commercial development as it provides those much needed consumers. And commercial development is certainly desired—not just for the tax revenue, but also for a better quality of life for the residents. And yes, there are costs to growth and development—they require more schools, parks, roads, and public services. But because the entire community gets to enjoy the benefits of growth, then the entire community should pay for the costs, which are ultimately returned to taxpayers through that tax revenue. In fact, in 2009, for every 400 single family homes built in the City of Pasco, the one-year, local impacts were equal to$51.6 million in local income; $7.5 million in taxes and other revenue for local governments, and 855 local jobs. In addition, those 400 homes generate substantial ongoing annual local impacts, including $10.1 million in local income; $4.0 million in taxes and other revenue for local governments and 189 local jobs. Although such "voluntary" agreements are allowed under state law, the use of such agreements to impose fees circumvents the impact fee process and has the potential to cause immediate and lasting damage to the building industry in our area. This damage may include lost jobs and increased unemployment rates, less economic development and declining tax revenues. Impact fees are currently being considered by both the City and County and until that process is complete, including the necessary and valuable public hearings and comment period, builders and developers should not be forced into paying the equivalent of such fees, Not only is this far Home Sunders Association of Tri-Cities,WA 10001 W Clearwater Ave I Kennewick,WA 99336 (509) 735-2745 or(877)842-8453 I Fax: (509) 735-8470 1 www.hbatc.com from "voluntary", but is a fee that builders and developers had no knowledge of when they bought their land, and is therefore a threat to property rights and another barrier to growth. The HBA urges the City of Pasco and Franklin County to pass any pending and fixture plat or development approvals without the condition to enter into a voluntary agreement and pay these outrageous fees and allow development and building to continue without pause. Sincerely, Rene6 Dahlgren Director of Government Affairs cc: Pasco School District; Jerrod MacPherson;Rick White Home Builders Association of Tri-Cities,WA 10001 W Clearwater Ave I Kennewick,WA 99336 (509)735-2745 or(877)842-84531 Fax:(509)735-847C I www.hbatc,com Exhibit 2 - Memo from staff MEMORANDUM June 16, 2011 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Rick White, Director, Community and Economic Development SUBJECT: Mitigation for School Impacts The Pasco School District (PSD) has prepared a capital facility plan that addresses the District's need for school facilities through the year 2016. In the Capital Plan, the District has indicated that nearly all educational facilities are above or at capacity, and that the enrollment in the year 2016 is expected to be nearly 21,000 students (an increase of 5,640 students over 2010 enrollment). Based on the District's Capital Facility Plan, the PSD has requested that the City (and County) establish impact fees for new residential development for the provision of new school facilities that can accommodate growth in the student population. The District has also indicated that the expected impact fees for a single family home is $6,012 and $5,272 for a multi—family dwelling. In the absence of established fees, the PSD has requested that the impacts of new development upon school facilities be mitigated. The PSD has requested that the City consider the impact that new development will have on educational facilities through the State Environmental Policy Act, which requires the impacts of a project to be analyzed and a determination made as to the effects of those impacts on the built (and natural) environment. The PSD has also requested that new residential platting be analyzed in accord with RCW 58.17.110, which requires a city and county to make assertive findings for plat approval that appropriate public facilities of all types are in place to accommodate expected impacts of new development. These findings are as follows: (1) The city, town, or county legislative body shall inquire Into the public use and interest proposed to be served by the establishment of the subdivision and dedication. It shall determine: (a) If appropriate provisions are made for, but not limited to, the public health, safety, and general welfare, for open spaces, drainage ways, streets or roads, alleys, other public ways, transit stops, potable water supplies, sanitary wastes, parks and recreation, playgrounds, schools and school grounds, and shall consider all other relevant facts, including sidewalks and other planning features that assure safe walking conditions for students who only walk to and from school; and (b) whether the public interest will be served by the subdivision and dedication. (2) A proposed subdivision and dedication shall not be approved unless the city, town, or county legislative body makes written findings that: (a) Appropriate provisions are made for the public health, safety, and general welfare and for such open spaces, drainage ways, streets or roads, alleys, other public ways, transit stops, potable water supplies, sanitary wastes, parks and recreation, playgrounds, schools and school grounds and all other relevant facts, including sidewalks and other planning features that assure safe walking conditions for students who only walk to and from school; and (b) the public use and interest will be served by the platting of such subdivision and dedication. If it finds that the proposed subdivision and dedication make such appropriate provisions and that the public use and interest will be served, then the legislative body shall approve the proposed subdivision and dedication. The PSD has previously stated that "...we have outgrown our ability to continue providing schools without requiring the development that will be served by the schools to contribute to the cost." The District has also stated that "...the County and City cannot approve residential subdivisions unless you find there are "adequate provisions for schools". The District is notifying the County and City that without impact fees or mitigation under SEPA, there are not adequate provisions for schools." The Pasco School District is the sole provider of public education facilities in the area of the proposed plat. As the sole provider of such facilities, the School District's assertion that the proposed plat requires mitigation should be accepted. RCW 82.02.020 authorizes a voluntary agreement to be created between the developer and the PSD for such mitigation. This mitigation can include the payment of fees or other in-kind measures. The PSD will execute and administer the voluntary agreement and assume stewardship of any payment, just as any other provider of public facilities would (such as with electric or other utility services). Staff has included a discussion of this provision in State law within the report for the Columbia Hills plat and urges the Planning Commission include the provision for a voluntary agreement between the District and the developer as a condition of plat approval. Exbibit3 -- Letter from Pasco Pasco School Distrid`f`lM Dttrict dated June 3, 2011 ' - Operations Depa><tmeat John Morgan, Executive Director (RO)W-6098 Jean Martin, Administrative Assistant (509)546-2880 1215 West Lewis Street -AsCQ Pasco, WA 99301 SCHOOL ISfR1cr#1 Fax: (509)543-6715 June 3, 2011 David McDonald City Planner City of Pasco PO Box 293 Pasco, WA 99301 RE: Columbia Villas (MF# PP2011-002) Dear Dave: On behalf of the Pasco School District, thank you for the opportunity to comment on the above referenced development proposal. The district is submitting this letter to inform the City of Pasco Planning Commission and the proposed developer of the impacts the proposed development will have on the Pasco Schooi District facilities and to respectfully request the impact be mitigated. District-wide, every new family unit in the district creates the need to provide school facilities for .59 students per multi-family unit. That means more than 59 students will live in new houses associated with the proposed development. This district will provide a public education to these 59 students at Livingston Elementary School, McLoughlin Middle School and Chiawana High School. The following table lists the number of students enrolled at Livingston Elementary School, McLoughlin Middle School and Chiawana High School. OCTOBER 2010 SCHOOL CAPACITY ENROLLMENT Livingston Elementary 500 800 McLoughlin Middle 1 1,000 1,483 L Chiawana Hi h t 2,200 2,032 The Information in this table was taken from the most recently adopted Capital Facilities Plan. The Capital Facilities Plan was adopted by the Board of Directors in December 2010 and is intended to be used to identify and plan for the public school facilities that are needed to serve new development. As shown in the table above and the Capital Facilities Plan, the district does not have capacity at Livingston or McLoughlin Middle Schools to serve the students from the proposed development. The issue of inadequate capacity is exacerbated when you consider other pending developments that will generate additional students. Celebrating academics, diversity,and innovation. David McDonald Page 2 Public schools are one of the many public facilities the city (and county) must plan for. As new development occurs it is necessary to have a plan and regulations that ensure public facilities, including schools will be provided. New subdivisions plats cannot be approved unless the city finds there are adequate provisions for schools RCW 58.17.110. Given the significant cost to build schools, and the lack of capacity in our schools to serve students from new developments, the Pasco School Board has asked the City of Pasco and Franklin County to adopt a school impact fee ordinance. (To construct a 750 student elementary school it will cost the district approximately $26,000,000, or about $35,000 per student. A 1,250 student middle school will cost the district approximately $69,000,000 or about $48,000 per student.) Impact fees address the requirement to ensure there are adequate provisions for schools. The District respectively requests that the city consider and address the impacts new development has on public schools and the District's ability to provide quality education for all students. Please contact me if you have questions or need additional information. Respectfully, )1 101" 01. , John M. Morgan Executive Director of Operations im:Clty of Pasco Columbia Was Response 6-2-11 Celebrating academics,divsrsitY.and innovation. Exhibit 4: July 15, 2011 Memo From Staff MEMORANDUM ' DATE: July 15, 2011 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Rick White, Director Community & Economic Development SUBJECT: Mitigation Fees for School Imp_aas Please find an attached legal opinion from the City Attorney regarding the Planning Commissions role as the fact finder for the approval of plats. In this memo Mr. Kerr explains the implications behind state law particularly 58.17.110 RCW. Although this is information that was not available at the June Planning Commission meeting, it is considered legal advice and the Planning Commission can freely view this without compromising the record. Sincerely, T - Rick White, Director Community & Economic Development RW/sa Attachment: Memorandum from Leland B. Kerr, City Attorney dated 7/12/11 RECEIVED KERR LAW GROUP JAIL 15 2011 7025 Grandridge Blvd., Suite A C ��FNOMIC� Kennewick, Washington 99336-7724 ----• WIRO 401r. (509)735-1542 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission City of Pasco FROM: Leland B. Kerr Attorney-at-La DATE: July 12,2011 RE: Mitigation Fees for School Impacts The planning Commission is the"fact-finder" for the City in evaluating the criteria that State law has established for approval of plats. As such, the Planning Commission receives evidence from the applicant to demonstrate that the plat meets each of the required criteria. Under RCW 58.17.110, one of the criteria for consideration is adequacy of "schools and schoolgrounds." It is important to remember that this statute is in the negative. "A proposed subdivision . . . shall not N a roved unless the city . . . legislature body makes written findings that: (a) Appropriate provisions are made for . . . schools and schoolgrounds . . ." The School District has presented evidence of significant overcrowding with limited resources . and facilities asserting that there are not appropriate provisions to meet the additional demand that this subdivision will cause without payment of a mitigation fee. This places the burden upon the applicant to prove by substantial evidence that either the School District has the existing capacity and resources to meet the additional demands caused by the subdivision, or alternative "provisions" which can make the existing school facilities and resources "appropriate"to meet this new demand. The important thing to remember is that the applicant must demonstrate through the evidence they present at the public hearing, facts, documentation, or expert testimony to support their position. The evidence cannot consist of opinions, conjecture, fears, or concerns. It must be based upon facts such as statistics, inventory of the facilities, student census, costs of student services, etc. In addition, the evidence must be substantial. This means that there must be a sufficient quantum of evidence in the record to persuade a reasonable person that their position is true. planning Commission July 12, 2011 Page 2 If there is no evidence in the record that meets this criteria, any conclusions, or decisions based upon those conclusions, may not stand. As fact-finders, the Planning Commission has the duty to gather and evaluate the evidence, to insure that there is a factual and substantial basis for the action. In this case, any applicant challenging the School District's determination that it does not have appropriate provisions to meet this new demand, must provide factual evidence and sufficient quality and quantity to persuade you. LBKJsla r RECEIVED MCCULLOUGH HILL LFARY, PS JUL 2 0 2011 July 15, 2011 0 _VIA CERTIFIED MAIL c CL City of Pasco Planning Commmission 0 PO Box 293 Bey Pasco, WA 99301 J Re: Preliminary Plat Approval for Columbia Villas (MF# PP 2011-002) k WO Proposed Plat Condition Requiring "Voluntary Agreement" for School Impact Fees Dear Planning Commission Members: a O L We represent FBA Land Holdings, LLC ("FBA Holdings'. FBA Holdings owns the 13.72- d acre "Columbia Villas" property currently under preliminary plat review before the Planning Commission, as well as approximately 48 additional acres of residentially-zoned land in the City of Pasco ("City"). This letter demonstrates that the City has no legal authority to impose plat conditions requiring developers to enter into unspecified, open-ended "voluntary agreements" with the Pasco School District to mitigate potential impacts of development on school facilities. Adequate funding for schools is ctitically important, but the mechanism the City is considering—forcing developers to pay whatever fee the District requests, with no individualized determination of that development's impact on the school district—would violate state law and set a damaging precedent. The Planning Commission should follow state law and refuse to impose these conditions. I. Background The City does not have a Growth Management Act ("GMA") school impact fee ordinance. In January 2011, the Pasco School District ("District") notified Franklin County and the City of Pasco ("City") that its schools ate over capacity, and it requested that the County and City adopt the District's Capital Facilities Plan and a school impact fee ordinance under the GMA. The District stated that if the County and City were unwilling to adopt a GMA impact fee ordinance, it would request that the County and City "refuse to approve new residential developments unless the developers have mitigated the impact their development have on schools." Letter from Pasco School District#1 to Franklin County Board of Commissioners and Mayor and Pasco City Council Members,January 11, 2011,p. 2. In March 2011, the District indicated that it would seek school impact fees from the proposed Ranger Heights subdivision, but it subsequently withdrew its request, based in part on the fact that "there was no formal statement of impact/mitigation fees for schools." Letterfrom John M. 701 Fifth Avenue • Suite 7220 - Seattle,Washington 98104 • 206.812.3388 - Fax 206.812.3389 • wwwmhsmtde.com City of Pasco Planning Commission July 15, 2011 Page 2 of 5 Morgan to Gene Ba g,March 31, 2011- The letter stated, however, that beginning on April 1, 2011, the District would begin requesting impact/mitigation fees for all residential developments—despite the fact that the City still lacks policies or regulations authorizing the imposition of school impact fees. Columbia Villas is the first plat application subject to Planning Commission review since April 1,2011. In a June 3, 2011 letter to the City, the District asked the City to impose a school mitigation requirement on the Columbia Villa preliminary plat. The District did not cite a specific fee in its letter, but it appears, based on past communications and the District's adopted Capital Facilities Plan, that the District will request a fee of$6012 per single-family unit.' If this fee were applied to the proposed 100-unit Columbia Villas plat, it would result in an impact fee of$601,200, which is ovct hdLthe udue Qf the undetiving pMUqy.Z At its June 16, 2011 hearing on the Columbia Villas preliminary plat, the Planning Commission considered two "tentative conditions" based on the District's request. These conditions provide: 27. To mitigate the school impacts associated with the proposed Columbia Villas subdivision, the developer shall enter into an agreement with the Pasco School District for the payment of impact fees or other remuneration as determined by said agreement. 28. A signed and notarized copy of the School District/Developer agreement must be provided to the City before a final plat is approved by the City Council. The Planning Commission discussed these proposed conditions at the June 16 hearing,and it will reconvene on July 21, 2011 to adopt its final recommendation to the City Council. The Planning Commission should refuse to impose Conditions #27 and #28. State law does not allow the imposition of open-ended, "voluntary" mitigation agreements that are not based on the direct, proportionate impact of a proposed development,especially when the City has not adopted regulations in its Comprehensive Plan or City Code that authorize such fees. In addition, there are no facts in the Columbia Villas plat record that support Conditions #27 and #28. if. Ands A City cannot collect impact/mitigation fees unless such fees are (1)authorized by state law and the City's own regulations (mast typically, under GMA or the State Environmental Policy Act); ' The District's Capital Facilities Plan cites a proposed fee of$6012 per single family unit and$3,272 per multi-family unit. Pasco School District No. 1 Capilal Faalities Parr,2010—2016,p. 13. 2 If the District's requested impact fee were applied to FBA Holdings'R4 zoned property(a higher-density zoning designation than the Columbia Villas property),the requested school impact fee would greatly exceed the market value of the property, City of Pasco Planning Commission July 15, 2011 Page 3of5 and (2) properly calculated to ensure that the fee is "reasonably necessary" as a "direct result" of the proposed development or plat. RCW 82.02.020. Here, neither of these requirements is satisfied. The City has not adopted a GMA school impact fee ordinance. Furthermore, the City has not adopted SEPA policies that allow it to impose impact fees for school facilities. See Pasco Municipal Code ("PMC") 23.07.060.' Finally, although the law may allow impact fees to be assessed under the state subdivision statute,RCW 58.17,' the City has not adopted provisions in its subdivision regulations that require impact fee payments for schools.' Accordingly, the City lacks substantive authority to impose plat conditions requiring payment of school impact fees. See View Ridge Park Associates v. Ciy of Mountlake Terrace, 67 Wn. App. 588, 599, 839 P.2d 343, review denied, 121 Wn.2d 1016 (1992)(mitigation must be based on jurisdiction's adopted SEPA powers or pursuant to adopted ordinance); tee also Trimen Dev. Co. v. King County, 124 Wn.2d 261, 274, 877 P.2d 187 (1994)(park fee ordinance adopted to authorize park fees imposed under RCW 58.17). The District has suggested that the state subdivision statute, RCW 58.17, may provide independent authority for the City to require developers to enter into a "voluntary agreement" with the District under RCW 82.02.020. Even if that were true, the requirements of RCW 82.02.020 cannot be met in this case. Voluntary agreements must be narrowly tailored to "mitigate a direct impact that has been identified as a consequence of a proposed development, subdivision or plat." RCW 82.02.020. The burden of demonstrating that a fee is reasonably necessary as a direct result of the proposed development falls solely on the local government. Isle Verde International Holdings, Inc. v. City of Camas, 146 Wn.2d 740, 759, 49 P.3d 867 (2002). The Washington Supreme Court analyzed the validity of development fee programs based on voluntary agreements in two cases, Henderson Homes, Inc. v. City of Bothell, 124 Wn.2d 240, 877 P.2d 176 (1994), and Trimen Dev. Co. v. King County, 124 Wn.2d 261, 877 P.2d 187 (1994). Under Henderson and Trimen, there are three basic requirements for valid voluntary agreement fees under RCW 82.02.020. First, the agreement to pay a fee must be truly "voluntary," i.e., there must be a viable 3 Under WAC 197-11-660,SEPA mitigation conditions must be"based on policies,plans,rules,or regulations formally designated by the agency;'"related to specific,adverse environmental impacts clearly identified in an environmental document on the proposal," and"imposed upon an applicant only to the extent attributable to the identified adverse impacts of its proposal." In this case,none of these standards are met. The City has not adopted a specific SEPA policy that would authorize the imposition of a SEPA impact fee related to school facilities,so SEPA cannot be the basis for the impact fee. See Pasco Municipal Code 23.07.060. 'RCW 58.1 7 requires cities to make written findings when approving subdivisions that"appropriate provisions"are made for schools and schoolgrounds. s The City has adopted regulations in its subdivision code requiring dedications and fees in lieu for parks and playgrounds. Ste Chapter 26.20 PMC,"Dedications for Pasks and Playgrounds." 6 While"voluntary agreements"under RCW'82.02.020 provide a vehicle for assessing fees,they do not provide substantive authority=for conditioning development of the payment of impact fees. See Carfle Homer v. City of Brier,76, Wn.App.95,105,882 P.2d 1172(1994). City of Pasco Planning Commission July 15, 2011 Page 4 of 5 alternative to paying the fee. I£a developer is given a choice between paying the fee and being denied development approval and/or is denied the opportunity to negotiate the amount of the fee, the fee payment is not voluntary. Trimen, 124. Wn.2d at 271-72. Second, the voluntary agreement fee must be necessary as a direct result of an identified impact of the proposed development. It cannot be used to address existing deficiencies or cumulative impacts not caused by a development proposal. Id. at 274;see also Castle Homes and Dev., Inc. v. Brier, 76 Wn.App. 95, 105, 882 P.2d 1172 (1994);Dolan v. Cite of Tigard, 114 S. Ct. 2309, 2319-20, 129 L.Ed2d 304 (199 4)(requiting "nexus" and "proportionality"between development impacts and conditions imposed by governments). Third, any money collected through voluntary agreements trust be expended for capital improvements constructed within the service area where the property is located within a specified time. Henderson, 124 Wn.2d at 249. Proposed Conditions #27 and #28 would violate each of these requirements. First, these conditions are not`voluntary." There is no viable alternative. These conditions would essentially abrogate the City's burden of demonstrating a reasonable, proportionate fee to the District, who may unilaterally cause final plat approval to be withheld until it receives its requested payment (whatever it may be). . Second, Conditions #27 and #28 are not based on a "direct impact" identified as a consequence of the Columbia Villas plat. In other words, these conditions lack the"nexus" and "proportionality" required by state and federal courts. The City has not formally reviewed or adopted the District's Capital Facilities Plan, it has not adopted its own regulations authorizing school impact fees, and it has made no attempt to discern whether the flat fee the District may seek to impose is necessary, equitable or proportionate as required by RCW 82.02.020. Third, because the City has no policies or regulations authorizing the imposition, collection or disbursement of school impact fees,it has no means of ensuring that fees collected by the District would be used for capital improvements that reasonably benefit the development in the legally required timeframe. In sum, Conditions #27 and #28 cannot be sustained as `voluntary agreements" under RCW 82.02.020 or any other authority. They are illegal fees, and the Planning Commission should refuse to impose them. III. Conclusion The District's own Capital Facilities Plan identifies bonds and state capital construction funds as the primary sources of funding for the construction of new schools and other capital fatalities projects. Pasco School District No. 1 Capital Facilities Plan, 2010—2016,p. 11. However, these sources of revenue have proven inadequate, and Pasco schools are currently over capacity. This is a complicated issue that requires a comprehensive solution,which may involve legislative action to increase bonding capacity. City of Pasco Planning Cornnission July 15, 2011 Page 5of5 This problem cannot be solved by requiring individual developers to shoulder a disproportionate share of the existing deficiencies that have mounted over the past decade. This is especially true where, as here, the City has not adopted regulations authorizing such fees, and when there has been no attempt to quantify the direct, proportionate impact of each residential unit as required by RCW $2.02.020. The open-ended, ad hoc plat conditions the City is considering would violate state Law, and the Planning Commission should reject them. Finally, as a practical matter, a school impact fee that amounts to half of the underlying property value is patently unreasonable and cannot be sanctioned by the City. We appreciate your attention to this letter. FBA Holdings looks forward to future cooperative discussions with the City and District on this issue. Sincerely, Ni LLOUGH HILL LEARY,P.S. Co y E. Flora cc: Gary Crutchfield, City Manager Rick White, Community& Economic Development Director Dave McDonald, City Planner John M. Morgan, Executive Director of Operations,Pasco School District Renee L. Dahlgren,Director, Government Affairs, Home Builders Association of Tri-Cities Exhibit 6: MARNIE School District Legal Opinion ALLE-4N-X1-T ORNEY Leval Solutions for Schoois August 9, 2011 City of Pasco Planning Commission PO Box 293 Pasco, WA 99301 Re: Columbia Villas Preliminary Plat(MF# PP 2011-002) Dear Commissioners: I represent the Pasco School District and appreciate the opportunity to respond to the letter FBA Land Holdings, LLC filed on July 15, 2011, objecting to the condition of approval requiring mitigation of the impacts the proposed development will have on schools through a voluntary development agreement. FBA Land Holdings, LLC owns the property that is the subject of the Columbia Villa's preliminary plat. FBA Holdings is not the applicant and FBA Holdings is not the developer, Despite this, FSA Land Holdings is questioning the Planning Commission's condition of approval requiring "the developer" to enter into a voluntary mitigation agreement with the Pasco School District. Why is FBA Land Holdings, and not the developer that is obligated to comply with the condition, challenging the condition? Setting aside questions about whether FBA Land Holdings has standing and is the proper party to object to the conditions, requiring mitigation pursuant to a voluntary development agreement is appropriate and is legally required, assuming the Planning Commission wants to approve the Columbia Villas Preliminary Plat. As explained below, the Planning Commission must require mitigation of the impacts the proposed development (Columbia Villas Preliminary Plat)will have on schools. The tool the law provides to address the required mitigation is a voluntary development agreement. 1. Mitigation is Required As stated in the letter the Pasco School District filed with the City on June 3,2011, the elementary and middle schools that will serve the proposed development do not have adequate capacity to serve the students that will live in the proposed development. At a minimum, the proposed development will generate 59 additional students. There is no capacity at the elementary or middle school to accommodate these students, The impacts associated with Columbia Villas are identified in the SEPA documents, the comments on the SEPA checklist, the Report to the Planning Commission and Rick White's June 1(3, 2011 Memorandum to the Planning Commission. The evidence of the adverse impacts on schools is uncontested. What appears to be at issue is how to address the impacts the proposed development will have on schools. The City has two options. The City can give the developer the opportunity to A pm9wri)of Educational Service District 112 21-'00 f,.L 61;1.1`A'.e'r w? L:-110U e, 54Puf,I I Ph 7".0 i5,^ir I �x 7i'1.7ji!ii7l�l1 1 mJ GU,.111Ht1K1�'1 �,.':, Letter to Planning Commission August 9, 2011 Page 2 of 6 enter into a voluntary agreement with the Pasco School District, under which the developer can agree to mitigate the direct impacts the proposed development has on the schools. Or, the City can deny the development because the impacts on schools have.not been mitigated. The better option is to impose the condition requiring mitigation under a voluntary development agreement, as is being done. N. The State Environmental Policy Act Requires Mitigation of Impacts on Schools As reflected in the documents in the record and state law, the State Environmental Policy Act (SERA) requires analysis of the impacts a project will have on the built and natural environment. Where a proposed development will have adverse impacts on the built environment (schools), the law authorizes local governments to impose conditions of approval requiring mitigation of the impacts. RCW 43.21C.060 and WAC 197-11-060. A condition requiring mitigation must be based upon city policy or regulations and the condition may only require mitigation of specific adverse impacts of the proposed development as identified in the SEPA and proposed development documents. The City of Pasco has adopted SEPA regulations, which specifically include the authority to impose conditions requiring mitigation. Section 23.03.050(8) of the Pasco Municipal Code (PMC) states "[m]igitation measures incorporated in the mitigated DNS shall be deemed conditions of approval of the permit decision and may be enforced in the same manner as any term or condition of the permit, or enforced in any manner specifically prescribed by the City." The City's SEPA regulations also adopt by reference the policies in the Comprehensive Land Use Plan, PMC 23,07.060(c)(1). The City's Comprehensive Land Use Plan contains the following policies "[e]nsure that those public facilities and service necessary to support development shall be adequate to serve development . . . " See Land Use and Capital Facilities Elements, Policy No 1, paragraph 10. The City's adopted regulations and policies support the imposition of conditions requiring mitigation under SEPA. Court's routinely uphold policies and regulations, similar to Pasco's, which support the imposition of conditions requiring mitigation. See West Main v, City of Bellevue, 49 Wn. App. 513, 742 P.2d 1266 (1987); Defray v. City of Lacey, 132 Wn. App. 1008(2006) (unpublished), As long as the condition requires mitigation of adverse impacts that are specific to the proposed development, as identified in the SEPA documents, the condition is appropriate and will be upheld. See Prisk v. City of Poulsbo, 46 Wn. App. 793, 732 P.2d 1013 (1987). Impacts the developer of Columbia Villas Preliminary Plat will be required to mitigate under a voluntary development agreement are those identified in the record which are specific to the development. While the record refers to the Pasco School District's request to have the City of Pasco and Franklin County adopt a school impact fee ordinance, neither the Pasco School District nor the City have stated the terms of the voluntary agreement will require payment of a school impact fee in the amount the District has asked the City and County to consider. There is no evidence in the record to this effect. Instead, what the District has requested and the City is requiring is an agreement under which the developer will mitigate the specific and direct impacts associated A program of Educational Service District 112 1500;�U c5;h Ay-,fio pr 3:0 7507'X0 I i Letter to Planning Commission August 9, 2011 Page 3 of 6 with Columbia Villas Preliminary Plat. Imposing a condition of approval requiring a voluntary development agreement between the District and developer, in which the developer must agree to mitigate the impacts the development will have on schools, is both allowed and required under SEPA. ill. The Subdivision Act and Pasco Subdivision Reguladons Require Mitigation The Washington State Subdivision Act says"every subdivision shall_oomph with the provisions of this chapter [RCW 58.17]." RCW 58.17.030. The provisions in Chapter 58.17 state "a proposed subdivision and dedication shall not be approved" unless the city finds"(a) [a]ppropriate provisions are made for, but not limited to, the public health, safety and general welfare, for open spaces, drainage ways, streets ... schools and schoolgrounds.° RCW 58.17.110(2). The City of Pasco Urban Area Subdivision Regulations (Subdivision Regulations) implement and are consistent with the Subdivision Act. Section 26.25.060 of the Subdivision Regulations states "the Planning Commission shall make and enter into findings from the record and conclusions thereof as to whether or not: (1) [a]dequate provisions are made for the public health, safety and general welfare and for open spaces, drainage ways, streets, alleys . . . schools and school grounds, sidewalks for safe walking conditions for students and other public needs." The Planning Commission cannot find there are adequate provisions for schools without imposing the condition requiring a voluntary agreement that will address mitigation of the impacts on schools. Accordingly, the condition is required. The legal requirement to ensure there are adequate provisions for public services is recognized and addressed in Washington court opinions. See Isla Verda Intem. Holdings, Inc. v. City of Camas, 446 Wn.2d 740,49 P.3d 867 (2002) ; Miller v. City of Port Angeles, 38 Wn. App. 904, 691 P.2d 229 (1984); Kenart&Associates v. Skagit County, 37 Wn.App. 295, 680 P.2d 439 (1984). According to the case law,where there is evidence in the record that demonstrates there are not adequate provisions for public services, including schools, a condition of approval requiring the developer to mitigate its impacts is appropriate. Id. Furthermore, as the court in Kenhart&Associates v. Skagit County stated, "school capacity is always a legitimate concern." The court explained that school capacity alone might be sufficient to halt a development, but only if no other solution exists. Kenhart, at 302. Here, as In other case, a solution other than denying the development exists; the developer can agree to mitigate the impacts pursuant to a voluntary agreement. The condition requiring mitigation is appropriate and required. The condition requiring mitigation of the impacts Columbia Villas Preliminary Plat will have on schools under a voluntary development agreement is necessary. If a condition requiring a voluntary agreement is not imposed and implemented, the City must deny the development. Without the condition, there are not adequate provisions for schools. The school mitigation condition ensures the development can proceed. The condition does not require payment of school impact fees or impose an involuntary burden on the developer A program of Educational Service Dislrict 112 LSW 1•.E!74 11s;�;nr.f:'. '.qrs 9K(')1 1 f'f' orj 75,j Y,t.;oJ lj k)7&.i i 'iid'IiiN.p it oo4c--.I 11 rQ Letter to Planning Commission August 9, 2011 Page 4 of 6 that is not supported by the evidence in the record and the law. The conditions require mitigation of the direct impacts the development will have on the schools, as reflected in a voluntary agreement that will be negotiated by the developer and the Pasco School District. IV. Requiring Mitigation Under a Development Agreement is Appropriate FBA Land Holdings appears to be confused about the authority the City is acting under. The condition is not being imposed under the Growth Management Act or the City's authority to assess school impact fees. Rather, Pasco School District requested mitigation in its comments on the SEPA checklist and proposed preliminary plat. The City is imposing the condition pursuant to its authority under SEPA,the Subdivision Regulations and RCW 82,02.020. The requirement to mitigate the impacts in accordance with a voluntary development agreement is authorized by law and is an appropriate alternative to denying the development because there are not adequate provisions for schools. As the court in Cobb v. Snohomish County, 64 Wn. App.451, at 458-459, 829 P. 2d 169(1991) stated '[w]ithin the context of RCW 82.02.020, the word "voluntary" means precisely that the developer has the choice of either (1) paying for those reasonably necessary costs which are directly attributable to the developer's project or(2) losing preliminary plat approval. The fact that the developer's choices may not be between perfect options does not render the agreement 'involuntary" under the statute."Where, as is the case with the Columbia Villas Preliminary Plat, a condition of approval requires mitigation of direct impacts pursuant to a voluntary agreement, and does not impose a requirement to agree to pay a predetermined fee amount, the condition is appropriate and authorized. In fact, such a condition arguably is required because it is an alternative to denying the development. FBA Land Holdings has cited two cases for the proposition that the City cannot impose a condition requiring the developer to enter into a voluntary agreement; Trimen Dev. Co. v. King County, 124 Wn.2d 261, 877 P.2d 187 (1994)and Henderson Homes, Inc. v. City of Bothell, 124 Wn.2d 240, 877 P.2d 176 (1994). In Trimen, the Washington Supreme Court upheld King County's decision to require a developer to pay a park development fee in lieu of dedicating property. The developer paid the park development fee pursuant to a King County Ordinance that set and assessed the fee, as opposed to paying the fee in response to a condition that required a voluntary agreement. After the developer paid the fee and built his project, he sued King County seeking a refund. Among other things, the developer claimed he should receive a refund because payment of the fee was not "voluntary." The Washington Supreme court held the County requirement to pay the fee was authorized by the statute and quoted the definition of voluntary set forth in the Cobb decision ("voluntary' means precisely that the developer has the choice of either(1) paying for those reasonably necessary costs which are directly attributable to the developer's project or(2) losing preliminary plat approval. The fact that the developer's choices may not be between perfect options does not render the agreement°involuntary' under the statute). A program of Educational Service District 112 25UJ kE 651h/,value.V% Letter to Planning Commission August 9, 2011 Page 5 of 6 In Henderson, the City of Bothell imposed a condition of approval requiring a developer to enter into a voluntary development agreement under which the developer had to agree to pay a predetermined fixed fee of $400 per lot. The $400 per lot fee was akin to a park impact fee, but it was not assessed pursuant to an impact fee ordinance. The Washington Supreme Court held the requirement to pay a predetermined fee was not consistent with the statute because the amount of the fee was predetermined as opposed to being calculated independently based on the impacts of the proposed development. There wasn't a "voluntary agreement" because the agreement and fee amounts "were not negotiated as to the impact fee amount to be paid." Neither of the two cases FBA Land Holdings has cited support the conclusion that is inappropriate for the Planning Commission to impose a condition requiring a voluntary development agreement where the terms of the agreement will be negotiated and will ensure the direct impacts the development has on the schools are mitigated. The condition being imposed by the Planning Commission does not require the developer to agree to pay a predetermined school impact fee, or to agree to mitigation measures that are beyond what is reasonably necessary to mitigate the direct impacts the development will have on schools. Rather, this is a case where the City is following the law, which requires a developerto mitigate adverse impacts directly caused by the development so there are adequate provisions for schools. The developer in this case, Big Creek Land Company, has not filed an objection to the condition and did not appeal the SEPA MDNS, which contained the same condition. Presumably the developer wants to negotiate an agreement so the development can proceed. In any event, it is appropriate and necessary to impose the condition requiring mitigate under a voluntary agreement so the developer has the choice to mitigate the impacts on schools or have the development denied. V. Conclusion Washington courts recognize the legal authority to impose a condition of approval requiring mitigation under a voluntary development agreement. An agreement is"voluntary" if the developer is given the choice to either pay the reasonably necessary costs which are directly attributable to the developers project or lose preliminary plat approval. The courts recognize the use of voluntary development agreements to mitigate the proposed development's direct impacts, even if a developer doesn't want to mitigate its impacts, because the preference is to give developers an opportunity to agree on mitigation terms as opposed to denying the development outright. The City of Pasco staff correctly described the options to address the impacts the proposed development will have on schools and the Planning Commission is acting within its authority if it approves the development subject to conditions that require mitigation under a voluntary development agreement. The District respectfully requests the Planning Commission include the mitigation conditions in its decision to approve the Columbia Villas Preliminary Plat. A program of Educational Service 01strict 112 ;n, rGU; r�', 1�3�io: 1 l r. 3 ".7 50"�OJ i h•.36 '5G 9 10,6 II'1'ilit%a11 1 c g Letter to Planning Commission August 9, 2011 Page 6 of 6 The Pasco School District is committed to providing quality education to students in the City of Pasco. The District is and remains open to discussions with Big Creek Land Development Company regarding measures that are necessary to mitigate the proposed developments direct impacts. While the District would prefer not to be in the position of having to require and negotiate mitigation measures with residential developers, there simply is not adequate capacity in the schools to serve students from new development. Mitigation is required. Thank you for considering these comments and for your continued support of Pasco Schools. Sincerely, Marnie Allen Special Legal Counsel for the Pasco School District c: Pasco School District Board or Directors Saundra Hill, Superintendent Sarah Thomton, Executive Director of Human Resources and Legal Affairs John Morgan, Executive Director of Operations Leland B. Kerr, City Attorney Rick White, Director, Community and Economic Development Courtney F. Flora,Attomey for FBA Land Holdings A program of Educational Service District 112 VVA 9E6G i i Ph:350.70.7500 1 Fx.?t i.7`_"�J.'_�70G I n'-ar.lic alicnwlesu' REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION MASTER FILE NO: PP 2011-002 APPLICANT: Big Creek Land Company HEARING DATE: 6/ 16/2011 11741 W. Romin Road ACTION DATE: 7/21/2011 Post Falls, ID 83854 BACKGROUND REQUEST: Preliminary Plat: Columbia Villas, 100-Lots (Multi-Family) 1. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: Legal: The east 525' of the south 1180' of the northwest quarter of Section 9, Township 9 North, Range 29 East except road rights-of-way General Location: The N/W corner of Sandifur Parkway and Road 76 Property Size: 12.72 Acres Number of Lots Proposed: 100 lots for zero lot line construction Square Footage Range of Lots: 3,018 ft2 to 5,793 ft2 Average Lot Square Footage: 4,300 ft= 2. ACCESS: The property will have access from Road 76 and Three Rivers D rive. 3. UTILITIES: Municipal sewer currently exists on the site. Water service will need to be extended through the site from the east and west. Irrigation lines will need to be installed through the site and extended the length of the site on both Road 76 and Three Rivers Drive. 4. LAND USE AND ZONING: The site is zoned R-3 (Medium Residential). Surrounding properties are zoned and developed as follows: NORTH: R-4 - Vacant and Apartments SOUTH: R-1 - Single Family Residences EAST: C-1 - Vacant WEST R-1 - Single Family Residences 5. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The Comprehensive Plan indicates the site is intended for mixed residential development. According to the Comprehensive Plan, mixed residential development means 5 to 20 dwelling units per acre. The criteria for allocation under the future land use section of Volume II of the Comprehensive Plan (Vol. II, page 17) encourages development of lands designated for mixed residential uses when or where: sewer is available, the location is convenient to major circulation routes, the site serves as a transition between more intense uses and low density uses, and when there is a market demand. Policy H-1-E encourages the advancement of home ownership and Goal H-2 I suggests the City strive to maintain a variety of housing options for residents of the community. Goal LU-2 encourages the maintenance of established neighborhoods and the creation of new neighborhoods that are safe and enjoyable places to live. 6. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The City of Pasco is the lead agency for this project. Based on the SEPA checklist, the adopted City Comprehensive Plan, City development regulations, comments received from the Pasco School District, and other information, the City has issued a Mitigated Determination of Non-Significance (MDNS) for this project under WAC 197-11-158. To mitigate the impacts associated with the proposed Columbia Villas Subdivision the developer will need to enter into an agreement with the Pasco School District, as authorized under RCW 82.02.020. The terms of said agreement may include impact fees or other remuneration to ameliorate the impacts that 59 new students will have on the School District. ANALYSIS The site was initially designated for mixed residential development under the Comprehensive Plan in 1995. The R-3 (Medium Density Residential) zoning was established in 2003 around the time Columbia Place (to the west) received Preliminary Plat approval. The right-of-way for Road 76 and Three Rivers Drive was deeded to the City in the fall of 2003. The applicant is proposing to subdivide the site in question into 100 lots to allow the construction of 50 duplexes. Each duplex would occupy two lots with the common lot line dividing each unit. This proposal for Columbia Villas is identical to the process that was used for the development of the Island Estates Row Homes in the Island Estates subdivision (Phase 8) and in the Mediterranean Villas subdivision. Each of these subdivisions was zoned for multi-family development and later platted into individual lots. The lot lines within these subdivisions became the common boundary line separating the dwelling units. LOT LAYOUT: The proposed Plat contains 100 lots; with the lots varying hi size from 3,018 square feet to 5,793 square feet. The proposal is consistent with the density requirements of the R-3 zoning of the site. RIGHTS-OF-WAY: All lots have frontage on streets which will be dedicated. UTILITIES: The developer will be responsible for extending utilities into the Plat. A utility easement will be needed along the first 10 feet of street frontage of all lots. The final location and width of the easements will be determined during the engineering design phase. The front ,yard setbacks for construction 2 purposes are larger than the requested easements; therefore the front vard easements will not diminish the buildable area of the lots. The City Engineer will determine the specific placement of fire hydrants and streetlights when construction plans are submitted. As a general rule, fire hydrants are located at street intersections and at a maximum interval of 500 feet. Streetlights are located at street intersections and at 300-foot intervals on residential streets. STREET NAMES: The street names follow the river theme of the Columbia Place subdivision to the west. IRRIGATION: The municipal code requires the installation of irrigation lines as a part of the infrastructure improvements. WATER RIGHTS: The assignment of water rights is a requirement for subdivision approval. Where no water rights exist the developer is required to pay a fee of$1,500 per acre. FINDINGS OF FACT State law (RCW 58.17.010) and the Pasco Municipal Code require the Planning Commission to develop Findings of Fact as to how this proposed subdivision will protect and enhance the health, safety and general welfare of the community. The following is a listing of proposed "Findings of Fact": Prevent Overcrowding: Density requirements of the R-3 zone are designed to address overcrowding concerns. The Comprehensive Plan suggests the property in question be developed with 5 to 20 dwelling units per acre. The proposed Plat has a density of less than 8 units per acre. No more than 60 percent of each lot is permitted to be covered with structures per the R-3 zoning standards. Parks Opens Space/Schools: City parks are located in Columbia Place and Island Estates. The proposed subdivision will be served by Ruth Livingston Elementary School, McLoughlin Middle School and Chiawana High School. The Preliminary Plat was submitted to the School District for review. The School District has indicated (see attached letter) that the District does not have capacity at Livingston or McLoughlin to serve the addition enrollment expected from the proposed subdivision. The table below illustrates the School Districts capacity constraints. The City is required by RCW 58.17.110 to make a finding that adequate provisions are being made to ameliorate the impacts of the proposed subdivision on the School District. The proposed Plat cannot be recommended for approval unless the Planning Commission finds adequate provisions have been made for the schools. The School District has requested 3 the impacts be mitigated. Without a specific impact fee ordinance the mitigation can be achieved through the developer entering into a voluntary agreement with the School District as authorized under RCW 82.02.020. The voluntary agreement would specify the type or form of mitigation being provided by the developer. The mitigation could take the form of an impact fee cash payment to the District, the construction of portable classrooms or combination of fees and in-kind services. Requiring the developer to enter into an agreement with the School District for the payment of impact fees or other kinds of remuneration would be one method of addressing the finding requirements of RCW 58.17.110. SCHOOL CAPACITY OCTOBER 2010 ENROLLMENT Ruth Livingston 500 300 McLoughlin 1,000 1 ,433 Middle Chiawana High 2,200 2,032 Effective Land Use/Orderly Development: The Plat is laid out for multi- family development as identified in the Comprehensive Plan. The maximum density permitted under the Comprehensive Plan is 20 dwelling units per acre. The developer is proposing a density of 7.8 units per acre. The proposed development will provide for the continuation of Road 76 north to Three Rivers Drive and will provide another outlet/entrance to the Columbia Place subdivision. Safe Travel & Walking Conditions: The Plat is connected to Sandifur Parkway, and Three Rivers Drive. Sidewalks will be installed at the time homes are built on individual lots. These sidewalks will connect with sidewalks to be built on Road 76 and with the existing sidewalk on Sandifur Parkway. Adequate Provision of Municipal Services: All lots within the Plat will be provided with water, sewer and other utilities. Provision of Housing for State Residents: This Preliminary Plat contains 100 residential building lots, providing an opportunity for the construction of 50 duplex units. Adequate Air and Light: The maximum lot coverage limitations and building setbacks will assure that adequate movement of air and light is available to each lot. 4 Proper Access & Travel: The streets through and adjoining the Plat will be paved and developed to City standards to assure proper access is maintained to each lot. Connections to the community will be provided by Road 76 and Three Rivers Drive. The Preliminary Plat was submitted to the Transit Authority for review. (The discussion under "Safe Travel" above applies to this section also.) Comprehensive Plan Policies & Maps: The Comprehensive Plan designates the Plat site for mixed residential development. Policies of the Comprehensive Plan encourage the advancement of home ownership and suggest the City strive to maintain a variety of housing for residents. Other Findings: • The site is within the Pasco Urban Growth Boundary. • The State Growth Management Act requires urban growth and urban densities to occur within the Urban Growth Boundaries. • The Comprehensive Plan identifies the site for mixed residential development. • Mixed residential development is described in the Comprehensive Plan as five to twenty dwelling units per acre. • The site is zoned R-3 (Medium Density Residential). • The site was zoned R-3 in 2003. • The Housing Element of the Comprehensive Plan encourages the advancement of programs that promote home ownership and development of a variety of residential densities and housing types. • The Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan encourages the interconnection of neighborhood streets to provide for the disbursement of traffic. • The east end of Three Rivers Drive in the Columbia Place subdivision is currently barricaded and does not contain a cul-de-sac. • Dedicated cul-de-sacs are provided on the ends of streets where they are not planned to be extended in the future. • The interconnection of neighborhood streets is necessary for utility connections (looping) and the provision of emergency services. • The right-of-way for Road 76 and Three Rivers Drive was deeded to the City in 2003. • The site was zoned R-3 in 2003 to provide an area of transition between the more intense C-1 zoning east of Road 76 and the less intense residential development in the Columbia Place subdivision. 5 • The School District has purchased sites for future schools at the northwest corner of Road 60 and Sandifur Parkway (elementary school) and at the end of Road 52 (middle school). • A recent bond measure to fund construction of the Road 60 and Road 52 schools failed. • The School District has provided data indicating Pasco schools lack the capacity to accommodate additional students. • The School District by letter dated June 3, 2011 requested the impacts to the School District created by the proposed Plat be mitigated. • RCW 58.17.110 requires the City to make a finding that adequate provisions have been made for schools before any preliminary Plat is approved. • The School District by letter dated June 3, 2011 indicated impact fees address the requirement to ensure adequate provisions are made for schools. • The City of Pasco does not have a school impact fee ordinance compelling new housing developments to provide the School District with mitigation fees. • RCW 82.02.020 authorizes the School District to enter into agreements with developers for the purpose of mitigating the impacts new development may have upon the School District. The terms of such agreements may include the payment of school impact fees. • The fully developed portions of Sandifur Parkway contain a curvilinear sidewalk and extensive landscaping. • The site borders on a partially developed section of Sandifur Parkway. CONCLUSIONS BASED ON THE FINDINGS OF FACT Before recommending approval or denial of the proposed Plat the Planning Commission must develop Findings of Fact from which to draw its conclusion (P.M.C. 26.24.070) therefrom as to whether or not: (1) Adequate provisions are made for the public health, safety and general welfare and for open spaces, drainage ways, streets, alleys, other public ways, water supplies, sanitary wastes, parks, playgrounds, transit stops, schools and school grounds, sidewalks for safe walking conditions for students and other public needs; The proposed Plat will be required to develop under the standards of the Municipal Code and the standard specifications of the City Engineering division. These standards for streets, sidewalks, and other infrastructure improvements were designed to ensure the public health, safety and general welfare of the community are secured. These standards include provisions for 6 streets, drainage, water and sewer service and the provision for dedication of park lands. The Preliminary Plat was forwarded to the Franklin County PUD, the Pasco School District and Ben-Franklin Transit Authority for review and comment. The School District indicated that there are capacity constraints at Ruth Livingston Elementary and McLoughlin Middle School. To address the capacity issues and ensure adequate provisions are made for schools the District is asking the developer to enter into an agreement with the Pasco School District to mitigate the impacts the development will have upon the provision of schools and school services. City parks are located in the subdivisions to the west and southwest of the site. All new developments participate in establishing parks through the payment of park fees at the time of permitting. (2) The proposed subdivision contributes to the orderly development and land use patterns in the area; The proposed Plat makes efficient use of vacant land and will provide for the looping of utilities and interconnectivity of streets as supported in the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed subdivision will provide another connection from Sandifur Parkway to and from Columbia Place. (3) The proposed subdivision conforms to the policies, maps and narrative text of the Comprehensive Plan; The Comprehensive Plan land use map designates the site for mixed residential development. Mixed residential development is described as 5 to 20 dwelling units per acre in the text of the Comprehensive Plan. The Housing Element of the Plan encourages the promotion of a variety of residential densities and suggests the community should support the advancement of programs encouraging home ownership. The Transportation Element of the Plan suggests major streets should be beautified with trees and landscaping. The Plan also encourages the interconnection of local streets for inter-neighborhood travel for public safety as well as providing for traffic disbursement. (4) The proposed subdivision conforms to the general purposes of any applicable policies or plans which have been adopted by the City Council; Development plans and policies have been adopted by the City Council in the form of the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed subdivision conforms to the policies, maps and narrative text of the Plan as noted in number three above. (5) The proposed subdivision conforms to the general purposes of the subdivision regulations. The general purposes of the subdivision regulations have been enumerated and discussed in the staff analysis and Findings of Fact. The Findings of Fact indicate the subdivision is in conformance with the general purposes of the subdivision regulations provided certain mitigation measures (i.e.: school impact fees are paid.) (6) The public use and interest will be served by approval of the proposed subdivision. The proposed Plat, if approved, will be developed in accordance with all City standards designed to insure the health, safety and general welfare of the community are met. The Comprehensive Plan will be implemented through development of this Plat. These factors will insure the public use and interest are served. PLAT APPROVAL CONDITIONS 1. At the time lots are developed, all abutting roads and utilities shall be developed to City standards as approved by the City Engineer. This includes, but is not limited to water, irrigation and sewer lines, streets, street lights and storm water retention. Sidewalks must be installed no later than the time each lot is developed with a house. The handicapped accessible pedestrian ramps must be completed with the street and curb improvements prior to final Plat approval. All existing and proposed utilities must be installed underground by the developer at the developer's expense. 2. Improvements to Sandifur Parkway must include a curvilinear sidewalk, landscaping and irrigation to match the existing sidewalk and landscaping on Sandifur Parkway. All landscaping and irrigation plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Parks department prior to installation. 3. Excess right-of-way along Road 76 and Three Rivers Drive must be landscaped. Said landscaping shall include irrigation, turf and trees. The species of trees and spacing will be determined by the Parks department. All landscaping and irrigation plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Parks department prior to installation. 4. All final Plats shall include a note that clearly indicates the maintenance responsibility for excess right-of-way landscaping on Sandifur Parkway, Road 76 and Three Rivers Drive is the responsibility of the Homeowners Association. 5. Lots abutting Sandifur Parkway, Road 76 and Three Rivers Drive shall not have direct access to said streets. Access shall be prohibited by means of deed restrictions or statements on the face of the final Plat(s). 6. The developer shall install a common "Estate Type" fence six-feet in height adjacent the rear line of all lots backing on Sandifur Parkway, Road 76 and Three Rivers Drive as a part of the infrastructure improvements 8 associated with each please abutting said streets. The fence must be constructed of masonry block. A fencing detail must be included on the subdivision construction drawings. Consideration must be given to the vision triangle at the intersection of streets. Maintenance and upkeep of said fence must be the responsibility of the subdivision Homeowners Association. All final Plats shall include a note that clearly indicates the maintenance responsibility for the estate fence is the responsibility of the Homeowners Association. 7. The developer/builder shall pay the "traffic mitigation fee" established by ordinance at the time of issuance of building permits for homes. Fees collected shall be placed in a fund and used to finance signalization and other improvements necessary to mitigate traffic impacts on the circulation system within the I-182 corridor. S. All corner lots and other lots that present difficulties for the placement of ,yard fencing shall be identified in the notes on the face of the final Plat(s). 9. No utility vaults, pedestals, or other obstructions will be allowed at street intersections. 10. All storm water is to be disposed of per City and State codes and requirements. 11. The developer shall insure active and ongoing dust, weed and litter abatement activities occur during the construction of the subdivision and construction of dwellings thereon. 12. The developer shall prepare a dust, weed and erosion control plan to be approved by the City prior to approval of any construction drawings for the first phase of the subdivision. 13. The developer shall be responsible for the creation of record drawings. All record drawings shall be created in accordance with the requirements detailed in the Record Drawing Requirements and Procedure form provided by the Engineering Division. This form shall be signed by the developer prior to plan approval. 14. The 16" PVC irrigation mainline in Sandifur Parkway shall be extended from its current termination point in Sandifur Parkway to the east right-of- way line of Road 76. 15. Irrigation mainlines shall be installed throughout the entire Plat of a size sufficient to service every lot within the Plat pursuant to PMC 26.04.116. All easements/rights-of-way necessary to convey an irrigation system to and through the Plat must be conveyed to the City of Pasco. 16. All water lines must be extended through the length of the final Plat(s). No phase may be left for more than six months without the subsequent looping of each system with the existing City of Pasco water system. The developer will be required to deposit funds for any non-looped system left longer than six months with the City of Pasco to insure the completion of 9 the water system. No water valves/meter boxes are to be located in any easements/walkways. 17. The final Plat shall contain the following statement: "Irrigation service lines are currently available to lots within this Plat; however, water for the irrigation system may not currently be available. The City of Pasco is constructing its irrigation infrastructure on an ongoing basis. The use of the system will become available as time and resources permit the expansion and connection of new systems to the existing irrigation supply." 18. The developer shall be responsible for all costs associated with construction inspection and plan review service expenses incurred by the City of Pasco Engineering department. 19. All engineering designs for infrastructure and final Plat drawings shall utilize the published City of Pasco Vertical Control Datum and shall be identified on each such submittal. 20. The final Plat shall contain 10-foot utility easements parallel to all streets. An additional easement shall be provided as needed by the Franklin County PUD. All other easement widths are to be as directed by the City Engineer. 21. The final Plat shall contain the following Franklin County Public Utility District statement: "The individual or company making improvements on a lot or lots of this Plat is responsible for providing and installing all trench, conduit, primary vaults, secondary junction boxes, and backfill for the PUD's primary and secondary distribution system in accordance with PUD specifications; said individual or company will make full advance payment of line extension fees and will provide all necessary utility easements prior to PUD construction and/or connection of any electrical service to or within the Plat." 22. Water rights shall be assigned to the City, if no water rights exist, the developer is required to pay a fee of $1,500 per acre to the City of Pasco prior to acceptance of any subdivision construction plans. 23. Street lighting will be installed to the City of Pasco/Franklin County PUD standards and as directed by the City Engineer. Residential street lights are typically installed every 300 feet and collector/arterial type street lights are typically installed every 150 feet. 24. Prior to the City of Pasco accepting construction plans for review the developer must enter into a Storm Water Maintenance Agreement with the City. The developer will be responsible for obtaining the signatures of all parties required on the agreement and to have the agreement recorded with the Franklin County Auditor. The original signed and recorded copy of the agreement must be presented to the City of Pasco at the first intake meeting for construction plans for each phase of development. 25. The developer will be required to conform to all conditions set forth in the Storm Water Maintenance Agreement including, but not limited to, regular 10 cleaning and maintenance of all streets, gutters, catch basins and catch basin protection systems. Cleaning shall occur on a regular basis to ensure that no excess build up of sand, trash, grass clippings, weeds or other debris occurs in any portion of the streets, gutters, or storm water collection facilities. Cleaning and upkeep of the streets, gutters, and storm water collection facilities must be to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. The developer will be responsible for operating and maintaining the storm drain system in accordance with the Storm Water Maintenance Agreement for a period of up to five ,years from the date of final Plat approval for each phase or until the system is accepted by the City of Pasco. The City of Pasco's acceptance of construction plans for subsequent phases of the subdivision will be contingent upon the developer satisfying all requirements of the Storm Water Maintenance Agreement. 26. The developer will be required to comply with the City of Pasco Civil Plan Review process. 27. To mitigate the school impacts associated with the proposed Columbia Villas subdivision, the developer shall enter into an agreement with the Pasco School District for the payment of impact fees or other remuneration as determined by said agreement. 28. Final Plat approval is further contingent upon execution and recording of a voluntary agreement authorized by RCW 82.02.020 between the Developer and the Pasco School District providing for payment in mitigation of the direct impact upon the Pasco School District as a consequence of the Columbia Villas subdivision. RECOMMENDATION MOTION: I move to adopt Findings of Fact and Conclusions therefrom as contained in the July 21, 2011 staff report. MOTION: I move based on the Findings of Fact and Conclusions, as adopted, that the Planning Commission recommend City Council approve a Preliminary Plat for the Columbia Villas Subdivision with the conditions as listed in the July 21, 2011 staff report. Ii Overview Item: Prelim. Plat - Columbia Villas Map Apple cant: Big Creek Land Company N File # : PP 2011 _002 I�J � if JY�r�' Via. - '! ! n `+` - 4.+►i SITE ry wr f. J. _ .. — -...: I - ��s�±Y9�..Lt2l,IT►�.'7.'t-1'R M7Fo LiT� ,ri'�. :SANDIFU'R`1PK'WY Rilt VIA pvrpl� VD ®EN d,L • Item: Prelim. Plat - C0lumbia Villas V c*n'tY ii App lic Big Creep Land C0mpany N Map File # : PP 2011 -002 J l R �• cn Y CT s•�� RUSH CREEK DR SITE rr rr IWHITE BLUFFS CTS • ~I 1 ` r•,,, �.. Z ,s. 'ENATCH DR � �"'� Q'ESC.HUTES DR SANDIF.UR PKYVY REDONDA DF. ' 7EIDOIV) Dot' •� r:�.ter' � � • ;. - r �— MAYNE iDr r��_ PEN DER Dt . ar,. Land Item: Prelim. Plat - Columbia Villas Use Applicant: Big Creek Land Company O Map File PP 2011 -002 Farming N NNN i 1�R*R", \OTC;;;.:; on soon 0 loss 0 —Commercial Towers �e O Item- Prelim. Plat - Columbia Villas Zoning A -mplicant: Big Creek Land Company Map -r-vp File PP 2011 -002 IN,AS'S ins �,t,4*t,I*js� SANDIFUR PKWY monsoon MENNEN MEN MEMO SEEM i j1 -1 .L s i \ A i i Z J . . 1 REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION MASTER FILE # SP 2011-009 APPLICANT: Pasco Conference of HEARING DATE: 7/21/2011 the Society of St. Vincent de Paul ACTION DATE: 8/18/2011 1120 West Sylvester Street Pasco, WA 99301 BACKGROUND REQUEST: SPECIAL PERMIT: Location of a 14,952 Square Foot Community Service Facility (Level Two) Warehouse in an I-1 (Light Industrial) Zone 1. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: Legal: Lot 1 of Binding Site Plan 2011-002 General Location: Between 5th Ave. and 6th Ave. 155 ft. north of"A" St. (2 15 S. 6th Ave.) Property Size: 1.7 acres 2. ACCESS: The site will have access from 5th and 6th Avenues. 3. UTILITIES: A municipal water line is located at the northwest corner of the site and both municipal sewer and water lines are located along the entire frontage of the site on 5th Avenue. 4. LAND USE AND ZONING: The site is zoned I-1 (Light Industrial) and is undeveloped. The zoning and land use of the surrounding properties are as follows: NORTH: I-1 - Warehouse SOUTH: R-2 - Single-Family Residences EAST: I-1 - Building Materials Supplier WEST: I-1 - Building Materials Supplier 5. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The Comprehensive Plan designates this area for commercial uses. Policy LU-1-B encourages enhancement of the physical appearance of development within the City. The proposal would replace a vacant lot with a warehouse and parking lot containing landscaping. Policy LU-2-D requires all development to be landscaped. 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 applicant is seeking a Special Permit to allow the location of Level Two Community Service Facility (PMC 25.12.156) on a vacant site in an I-1 (Light Industrial) zone. The Pasco Conference of the Society of Saint Vincent de Paul plan to construct a 14,952 square foot food bank/clothing distribution warehouse facility on BNSF property fronting both S. 5th & S. 6th Avenues. A majority of the building (11,000 sq ft) will be devoted to food bank functions. The development proposal includes a landscaped parking lot providing 97 parking stalls with four (4) driveways and a loading dock. Two driveways are proposed to access the site from South 5th Avenue and two driveways are proposed to access the site from South 6th Avenue. Under PMC 25.12.156 the definition of Community Service Facility - Level Two includes food banks and other types of non-profit services; PMC 25.86.050(4) requires special permit approval for the location of Community Service Facilities anywhere in the City. The Saint Vincent de Paul Society has maintained a food bank at 129 West Lewis Street for more than 30 ,years. The facility was originally designed for retail purposes and lacks on-site parking and queuing space for patrons of the food bank. The City is buying the Saint Vincent de Paul building along with the other buildings in the 100 block of West Lewis Street (north side of Lewis only) in preparation for the eventual construction of an overpass across the rail ,yard. Because of the City's purchase of the existing Saint Vincent de Paul building the Society is required to relocate. The proposed facility on S. 5th Avenue is designed more efficiently than the current facility to better accommodate food bank patrons by providing off-street parking and an indoor queuing area. With the covered entry sidewalk on either side of the building and the indoor queuing area there will be no need for patrons to queue on adjoining public sidewalks as they now do at the 129 West Lewis facility. 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 Saint Vincent de Paul Society has operated a food bank at 129 West Lewis Street for over 30 years. 2. The City of Pasco is purchasing the exiting Saint Vincent de Paul building to clear in preparation for the construction of the Lewis Street overpass. 3. The existing Saint Vincent de Paul facility has no parking facilities for patrons. 4. The proposed site is zoned I-1 (Light Industrial). 5. The applicant proposes to construct a food bank and clothing distribution facility. 6. By definition, food banks and other non-profit organizations qualify as Level Two Community Service Facilities (PMC 25.12.156). 7. The Municipal Code [PMC 25.86.020(4)] requires Special Permit review for Level Two Community Service Facilities S. The proposed site is currently owned by BNSF Railway Company. 9. The proposed facility is 14,952 square feet in size and contains 97 onsite parking stalls. 10. The proposed building provides indoor queuing for patrons 11. The proposed facility has onsite sidewalks for additional queuing areas. 12. The proposed food bank/clothing center uses each Wednesday as the distribution day. 13. The site is accessible from both 5th and 6th Avenues. CONCLUSIONS BASED ON STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT The Planning Commission must make Findings of Fact based upon the criteria listed in P.M.C. 25.56.060. The criteria and staff listed findings are as follows: 3 1. Will the proposed use be in accordance with the goals, policies, objectives and text of the Comprehensive Plan? The site is identified in the Comprehensive Plan for industrial uses. The Industrial Land Use Designation includes all commercial uses listed in the C-1, C-2 and C-3 zones. The nature of the proposed use fits within the intent of permitted uses in the I-1 (Light Industrial) District. Policy LU-1-B encourages enhancement of the physical appearance of development within the City. The proposal would replace a vacant lot with a well developed facility and parking lot containing landscaping. Policy LU-2-D requires all development to be landscaped. Development of the site including landscaping will support policies of the Comprehensive Plan (LU2-D) and enhance the appearance of the immediate vicinity. 2. Will the proposed use adversely affect public infrastructure? All municipal utilities are currently available to the site from surrounding streets. Commercial development standards require right-of-way improvements on all road frontages to bring the bordering roadways up to current standards. Water and sewer demands of the proposed use will be negligible compared to permitted uses such as food manufacturing and bottling facilities and restaurants. Impacts to the adjoining streets will likewise be minimal due to the fact the facility will only be open to the public one day a week. 3. Will the proposed use be constructed, maintained and operated to be in harmony with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity? The proposed use will be equally or less intensive from an activity standpoint than other permitted uses in the I-1 zone. Permitted uses in the I-1 zone such as automotive assembly and repair, trucking express storage ,yards, heavy equipment sales and service and metal fabrication shops all have the potential to generate higher levels of noise than the proposed use. The food bank and clothing center has one day a week (Wednesday) for distribution and will generate little activity on the other days of the week. To address the issue of food bank patrons lining up on public sidewalks the Saint Vincent de Paul Society has designed the proposed facility with indoor queuing space, covered outdoor queuing and additional onsite sidewalks. 4 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? Surrounding properties are zoned I-1 (Light Industrial). There are no height limitations in the I-1 zone. The proposed food bank warehouse building will be about 18 feet hi height which is similar to or less than the height of surrounding warehouses. The proposed facility will also contain significantly more improved onsite parking and landscaping than the surrounding industrial supply facilities. Development of the site, which is currently a vacant lot, will consist of a paved parking lot, landscaping and a new building, which will improve the appearance of the neighborhood. An online search of the Franklin County Assessor's records (7/2011) indicate that property values surrounding the most recently approved food bank (Golden Age Food Share, 504 S Oregon Ave, 2005) have generally increased over the past few ,years. 5. Will the operations in connection with the proposal be more objectionable to nearby properties by reason of noise, fumes, vibrations, dust, traffic, or flashing lights than would be the operation of any permitted uses within the district? The proposed food bank/clothing center will only be open to the public one day a week. The facility has been designed with a large onsite parking lot, with indoor queuing space and covered outdoor queuing space to eliminate the need for food bank patrons to line up for services on public sidewalks. The operation of the proposed facility will create less noise, fumes, vibration and dust than the nearby material supply facilities. 6. Will the proposed use endanger the public health or safety if located and developed where proposed, or in any way will become a nuisance to uses permitted in the district? Development of the site with the proposed food bank/clothing center will eliminate nuisances associated with blowing dust and weeds that are common on vacant lots within the City. On most days of the week minimal activity will occur on the site. The proposed facility has been planned to accommodate 60 more parking spaces than required by code for a warehouse. The facility has also been designed to accommodate indoor and onsite queuing of patrons to address concerns of individuals lining up on city sidewalks to receive services. The onsite parking and queuing will address safety concerns associated with the existing food bank that contains no onsite public parking or queuing. With distribution occurring one day a week, the food bank will have minimal impact on the surrounding neighborhood. 5 APPROVAL CONDITIONS 1. The Special Permit shall apply to Tax Parcel 112060378; 2. The site shall be developed in substantial conformance with the site plan submitted with the Special Permit application; 3. Site development shall conform to the commercial landscape standards of PMC 25.75; 4. No food commodities or other materials shall be stored outside of the building; 5. The driveway entrances shall meet current ADA requirements. 6. The special permit shall be null and void if a building permit has not obtained by September 30, 2013. RECOMMENDATION MOTION: I move to adopt Findings of Fact and Conclusions therefrom as contained in the August 18, 2011 staff report. MOTION: I move based on the Findings of Fact and Conclusions therefrom the Planning Commission recommend the City Council grant a Special Permit to Saint Vincent de Paul for the location of a Community Service Facility at 215 South 6th Avenue with conditions as contained in the August 18, 2 0 11 staff report. 6 Vicinity Item: Saint Vincent de Paul & a 0 Map Applicant: Saint Vincent de Paul N File #: SP2011 -009 -111,110IFow- 79p- V COP 41 A e C O.V n dft .06 ..�� SITE � • � ��. � � - • �. •�,',_, • � X11► .i �" i "A ST , _ 1 _ I ,• r ``"''- � . . 1 -�,,r-• __. rl-1410�, � ' i �• !x �l► �r. S' ' — f Vii, _ Land Use Item: Saint Vincent de Paul Map Applicant: Saint Vincent de Paul �v File #: SP2011 -009 I!k Commercial '07". Comm. ndustri SITE Industrials Industrial Residential ..A.. ST �—I �—I cow. Comm. Residential Zoning Item: Saint Vincent de Paul Map Applicant: Saint Vincent de Paul �v File #: SP2011 -009 C-3 G 3 s S °;A I. 1 G SITE rn R-2 "A" ST -1 C-1 R-3 R3 R-2 I-1 R-2 g_3 Looking eas iM,'� f Looking north I oil MEMORANDUM DATE: August 13, ' 011 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Dave McDonald, City Planner SUBJECT: Code Amendment PMC 25.48 Auto Body Shops as an Accessory Use in the C-R District BACKGROUND Staff recently met with the owner of the Broadmoor RV Center to review details of future expansion plans for the RV Center located on Saint Thomas Drive. The plans call of the addition of a new building, the refurbishing of the service portion of the existing building along with the addition of a spray booth for painting vehicle. Spray booths are an integral component of auto body shops. Auto body shops are permitted uses in Industrial Districts and may be permitted in C-3 (General Business) Districts by Special Permit only. The Broadmoor RV Center is located in a C-R Regional Commercial District. To assist with the proposed expansion plans and address the auto body shop issue the city has the option of rezoning the site to C-3 (allowing approval by the Special Permit process) or by amending the C-R regulations to include auto body shops either as a permitted or accessory use. The city has made a concerted effort over the last 30 ,years to ensure that commercial areas in I-182 corridor are preserved for retail and regional commercial activities rather than the heavy commercial activities permitted by the C-3 District. The rezone option is not recommended. Adding auto body shops as permitted uses in the C-R District is also not recommended. A stand alone auto body shop can be similar in many respects to uses permitted in the C-3 District. On the other hand accessory permitting auto body shops as an accessory uses addresses the needs for business expansion while moderating the external concerns related to stand alone auto body shops. Accessory uses by definition are clearly incidental and subordinate to principal uses. Accessory uses The proposed code amendment would permit auto body shops as accessory uses within a building that is used for automotive or RV sales and service. I Staff recently received an inquiry about locating an excavation contractor ,yard in a C-3 Zone adjacent to a residential neighborhood. In the past, such an inquiry would not have been a concern because most developed C-3 districts did not border upon residential neighborhoods. That is no longer the case. After considering the matter it became apparent the code needs to be amended to address contractor facilities in the C-3 District. The proposed code amendment attached to this memo would permit contractor facilities in the C-3 Districts as a permitted use provided the site selected for a contractor facility is at least 300 feet from a residential area. Any C-3 site 300 feet or closer to a residential zone would be required to obtain a Special Permit. Through the Special Permit process the City could apply mitigation measures for sites adjacent to or near residential areas. An alternative would be to require the Special Permit process for contractor ,yards in all C-3 zones regardless of distance from a residential zone. The proposed code amendment is not a site specific matter and therefore staff is recommending the matter be acted upon at the May 191h Planning Commission meeting. FINDINGS 1) PMC 25.04.020 explains one of the purposes of the zoning regulations is to assist in increasing the security of home life and preserve and create a more favorable environment for citizens and visitors of the Pasco Urban Area. 2) The C-3 District (PMC 25.46) permits the location of wholesale businesses, heavy machinery sales and service, lumber ,yards and landscaping storage businesses. 3) Contractor facilities are not listed as a permitted use in the C-3 District. 4) Contractor facilities are similar in nature and operation to a number of permitted uses within the C-3 District. 5) The City has permitted contractor facilities and storage ,yards in C-3 Districts since the 1970's. 6) The Special Permit process enables the city to apply mitigation measures that may be necessary to preserve and create a more favorable environment for citizens in residential neighborhoods adjacent to C-3 Districts. RECOMMENDATION MOTION: I move the Planning Commission recommend the City Council adapt the proposed Cade Amendments modifying PMC Chapter 25.48 to include Auto body Shops as an Accessory Use in the C-R District. 2 ORDINANCE NO.– — AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO ZONING AND AMENDING PMC TITLE 25 BY INCLUDING AUTO BODY SHOPS AS A PERMITTED ACCESSORY USE IN CHAPTER WHEREAS, cities have the responsibility to regulate and control physical development within their borders and to ensure public health, safety and welfare are maintained; and, WHEREAS, the City of Pasco has zoning regulations that encourage orderly growth and development of the City; and, WHEREAS, the zoning regulations are designed to increase the security of home life and preserve and create a more favorable environment for citizens and visitors of the Pasco Urban Area; and, WHEREAS, the C-R District (PMC 25.48) permits the location of auto sales and service and RV sales and service facilities; and, WHEREAS, services related to auto and RV sales include auto body restoration; and, WHEREAS, the 2009 International Fire Code adopted by the City provides safety guidelines for the installation and operation of auto body spray booths; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public meeting on August 18, 2011 and following deliberations made a recommendation that the City Council amend PMC 25.48 by including auto body shops as a permitted use in the C-R Regional Commercial District with certain conditions; and, WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on September 6, 2011 to consider the Planning Commission recommendation and to receive additional public comment; and, WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that to further the purposes of maintaining a quality community, it is necessary to amend PMC Title ''S; NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASCO, WASHINGTON, DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That Section 25.48.030 of the Pasco Municipal Code be and the same is hereby amended to read as follows: 2.5.46.020 PERMITTED ACCESSORY USES. 1 . The following accessory uses and buildings, as respectively defined in Sections 1?.1''.0''0 and 1112.115, shall be permitted in the C-R district. (1 ) Auto Body Sho-ps, -provided the shox+ and s-pray booth are enclosed within a building primarily used for automotive or RV sales and service, the building is setback at least 30 feet from all property lines and 300 feet from a residential zoning district and provided all vehicle parts are completely screened from adjoining properties and right-of-way by a solid continuous fence or wall at least six feet in height. (') Storage buildings; excluding container storage, as defined in Section ''5.1''.430; Section 2. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect five days after passage and publication as required by law. PASSED by the City Council of the City of Pasco, at its regular meeting of --------------- Matt Watkins Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: Debra L. Clark Leland B. Kerr City Clerk City Attorney 2 MEMORANDUM DATE: August S, 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. The Plan divides the City into six (6) separate areas based on geography in a way that attempts to group areas containing similar roadway development conditions. An Overview Map illustrates the proposed City- wide network of inter-connected bicycle/pedestrian routes. The Plan is structured such that each Area is given its own section with the following sub-headings: 1) area description, 2) existing facilities, 3) needed facilities, 4) challenges, 5) opportunities, 6) key routes and 7) costs. Specific priority ranking criteria are proposed in the Plan. Project costs as they relate to the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) together with priority ranking scores will drive project implementation priorities. Project cost estimates specific to each area developed by the City Engineering Department are included. Staff requests the Planning Commission review the Plan and provide comments/direction allowing staff to prepare a final draft of the Plan for public hearing during the August 18, 2011 Planning Commission meeting. no Pasco Bicycle/ Pedestrian Master Plan City of Pasco Date?8/18/11 Community&Economic Development 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 Area ? ..............................................................................................................18 Area3.................................................................................................................................20 Area4.................................................................................................................................24 Area5.................................................................................................................................27 Area6.................................................................................................................................33 AlternativeSolutions .....................................................................................................................38 Sharrows ............................................................................................................................38 Signage...............................................................................................................................39 Bike Boxes/Green Boxes...................................................................................................39 Potential Funding Sources.............................................................................................................40 Federal................................................................................................................................40 State....................................................................................................................................41 Local ..................................................................................................................................42 Prioritization and Ranking.............................................................................................................42 Scoring...............................................................................................................................46 Maps...............................................................................................................................................47 Additional Bicycle Facility Components.......................................................................................47 Transportation SYSTEM Plan...........................................................................................47 Install municipal bike racks (identify effective locations).................................................47 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. Mauer Plan Purpose 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. Back round 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. Leal Requirements 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. 2 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 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 2SHB 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. Adol)ted Local flans 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. 3 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. 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 Benton-Franklin Council of Governments (BFCG) 2010 Regional Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan discusses many aspects of pedestrian and bicycle related issues throughout Benton, Franklin and Walla Walla Counties. The 2010 BFCG Regional Bicycle 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 36.70A) 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 BFCG 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 BFCG 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. CiL -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 is 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. 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. 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) - 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) 9 Road 40 (Livingston Rd to Wernett Rd) Court Street (Rd 48 to 2 6th Ave) - 26th Ave (Court St to Henry Street) to 24th Ave to West Henry PI to 22nd Ave to Henry St to 20th Ave) - Henry Street (2 6th Ave to 24th Ave) - 24th (Henry St to Henry P1) (Approx. 180 feet) - Henry P1 (24th Ave to 22nd Ave) 22nd Ave (Henry PI 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) - 401 (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) The bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure proposed by this Plan is summarized in the table below. Infrastructure types are abbreviated for use in the Area Description roadway lists to indicate the needs of each particular roadway. Sidewalks SW Striping ST Road Widening RW 10 ' � I l I • r 1 =•�'°ice' �r ,,i��l � C'�^'�!' �� rTG PW magma r NWI!,Zllll=- IN-,Y VIL _jllllllt,I Sr, all CrE Pill r-IM111118811 mom • - �h• 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 SW, ST, RW Sandifur Parkway ST Road 76 SW, ST Convention Drive ST Homerun Road ST Bicycle/Pedestrian Master Plan -- Area #1 J m rr �a Routes Ell-I IT a N City t=ts Bike Pathway Rn,-ff Sbme r FCID Canal Pj 0 Q V 01 cnapei Hill siva. UfW 43 1 Cga�. � �eff11 C m — 0 � o 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. 12 Needed Facilities No sidewalks or bicycle lanes exist on the Sandifur Parkway between Road 68 and Convention Drive. This portion of Sandifur Parinuay is undeveloped on both the north and south sides (see photo below). As development occurs on Sandifur Parkway the adjoining properties will be required to construct the right-of-way improvements. (Sandifur Park ay 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 Harris Road ' •i roposed pathway extension location Wt (Future pathway extension from Court St r@ I-182 to Harris Road) P i (Existing pathway @ I-182/Court St. Bridge) (Area proposed to extend pathway to Harris Rd,) The Road 100/1-182 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. A/All] ryV (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. 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, "sharrows". 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. Sandifur Parkways' 25.5' wide travel lanes could each be reduced by 4'8" to resulting in approximately 21' wide travel lanes; allowing the minimum 4' bike lanes. 16 This Plan supports the need for widening the I-182 overpass bridge. During the planning stage of the I-182 Bridge construction project a larger width that 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 a five (5) foot wide shoulder bound by a wall. The five foot shoulder is sufficient to accommodate a bike lane or a sidewalk 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. 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 material 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 to linear foot cost figures which can be applied when attempting to estimate costs for various project configurations within an area. Material Cost Estimate tables apply to an entire Area and not roadway segments within an Area. Work Description Units Quantity Cost Totals Clear and Grub LS 1 $ 5,000 $ 5,000 Soil Sterilant SY 7,920 $ 0 $ 3,168 Roadway Fxc Inc Haul CY 342 S 15 $ 5,130 Crushed top course SY 12,026 S i $78,169 H MA SY 12,026 S 10 $ 120,260 Striping LF 9,020 S ? $ 13,530 Striping x-walk SI 80 $ 5 $ 400 Signage LS 1 $ �,0()0 $ 2,000 Flashing Beacons I A 0 $ 8,000 $ - Removable Bollards I A 0 $ 500 $ - Total $227,657 $/ft. $25 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 FCID Canal Pathway < Q Rrrri 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 to approximately 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. 18 ! i ZAI r4 (FCID canal @. Road 84) Opportunities 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 Work Description Units Quantity Cost Totals Clear and Grub LS 1 $ 5,000 $ 5,000 Soil Sterilant SY 34,182 $ 0 $ 13,673 Roadway Exc Inc Haul CY 3,794 $ 5 $ 18,970 Crushed top course SY 34,182 $ 5 $ 170,910 HMA SY 34,182 $ 10 $ 341,820 Striping LF 25,637 $ 2 $ 38,456 Striping x-walks SF 330 $ 5 $ 1,650 Striping Symbols EA 51 $ 20 $ 1,020 Signage LS 1 $ 2,500 $2,500 Flashing Beacons EA 12 $ 4,500 $ 54,000 Removable Bollards EA 12 $ 500 $6,000 Total $ 653,998 $/ft. $26 19 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 Bicycle/Pedestrian Master Plan Area # C6 Chapel Hill L31 ftmL rY Wnerun d. a m �o 0 0 oc V Ulm 9 cc Pforowd Rmfts /y • i f i i Emstmg Bike T mft CCU .'fit. FCID Canal Rim Sbm A City i ats City l.1IDItS 20 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. 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 require installation of sidewalks. 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 8 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. 21 r; M� P1 (Chapel Hill Blvd, westbound) (Chapel Hill Blvd, eastbound) 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 make them 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 sharrow stencils painted on the road surface. Another option is reducing the width of travel lanes to provide bike lanes. 22 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. Opportunities 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. 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. 2; Materials Cost Estimate Work Description Units Quantity Cost Totals Mobilization LS 1 $ 4,000 $ 4,000 Traffic Control LS 1 $ 10,000 $ 10,000 Clear and Grub LS 1 $ 5,000 $5,000 Soil Sterilant SY 15,142 $ 0.40 $ 6,056.80 Roadway Exc Inc Haul CY 100 $ 50 $5,000 Crushed top course SY 15,142 $ 5 $ 75,710 HMA SY 15,142 $ 10 $ 151,420 Striping LF 28,570 $ 1.50 $ 42,855 Striping x-walks SF 0 $ 5 $ - Striping Symbols EA 60 $ 35 $2,100 Signage LS 1 $ 5,000 $5,000 Flashing Beacons EA 0 $ 8,000 $ - Removable Bollards EA 0 $ 500 $ - Saw Cut LF 13245 $ 0.50 $ 6,622.50 Curb and gutter{R&R} LF 1200 $ 13 $ 15,600 Total $ 29,364.30 $/ft. $30 Area 4 Area Description 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: Roadway Needed Improvements Sandifur Parkway ST, SW, RW Burden Boulevard ST Madison Avenue ST Road 52 ST Road 44 ST, SW, RW 24 Bicycle/Pedestrian Master Plan - Area #4 KOIFUR-PFM and ur Pa!Lw — ET=/ P ;a_ N o d W V 13URS n,� ,�jj B LV Homerun Rd. !c Q w Proposed Routes �+�+ "esisttn a Bike Lases FCM Canal Ar ent Place Bite Pathway 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. 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. 25 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. Subsequent phases of Linda Loviisa will extend Madison Avenue south/east to connect with First Place. 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. '6 Materials Cost Estimate Work Description Units Quantity Cost Totals Mobilization LS 1 $2,000 $2,000 Traffic Control LS 1 $ 3,000 $3,000 Clear and Grub I LS I 0 I $ 5,000 I $ - Soil Sterilant SY 0 $ 0.40 $ - Roadway Exc Inc Haul CY 0 $ 50 $ - Crushed top course SY 0 $ 5 $ - HMA I SY I 0 I $ 10 I $ - Striping LF 23,410 $ 1.50 $35,115 Striping x-walks Sr 0 $5 $ - Striping Symbols EA 50 $ 35 $ 1,750 Signage LS 1 $ 2,000 $ 2,000 Flashing Beacons EA 0 $ 8,000 $ - Removable Bollards EA 0 $ 500 $ - Saw Cut LF 0 $ 0.50 $ - Curb and gutter(R&R) LF 0 $ 13 $ - Total $43,865.00 $/ft. $2.50 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: 27 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 "S 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 bike lane width of four feet. Shoulder widening is needed on most of the identified routes in the Area Map. 29 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: - Wernett Road - Road 40 - Road 52 - Sylvester Street - Court Street 20th 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. All bike routes proposed on Sylvester Street require road widening and striping. Oxaportunities 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. 30 Completion of bicycle facilities on Sylvester Street and "A" Street will provide eight (8) 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. r -- (Sylvester Street between Road 45 & Road 40 -looking east) (Sylvester Street/Road 60 pathway connection) • � r � f (Road 26/Hopkins St. pathway connection point) (Pathway @ Wade Park boat launch) Once constructed, bicycle/pedestrian facilities at the Argent Rd./I-182 underpass will provide much needed north/south connectivity crossing Highway I-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. 31 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 Work Description Units Quantity Cost Totals Mobilization LS 1 $5,000 $5,000 Traffic Control LS 1 $ 10,000 $ 10,000 Clear and Grub LS 1 $5,000 $5,000 Soil Sterilant SY 43,803 $ 0.40 $ 17,521.20 Roadway Exc Inc Haul CY 30 $ 50 $ 1,500 Crushed top course SY 43,803 $5 $ 219,015 HMA SY 43,803 $ 10 $ 438,030 Striping LF 111,000 $ 1.50 $ 166,500 Striping x-walks SF 0 $ 5 $ - Striping Symbols EA 50 $ 35 $ 1,750 Signage LS 1 $8,000 $8,000 Flashing Beacons EA 0 $8,000 $ - Removable Bollards EA 0 $ 500 $ - Saw Cut LF 25900 $ 0.50 $ 12,950 Curb and gutter(R&R) LF 0 $ 13 $ - Total $ 885,266.20 $/ft. $25 32 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 1,000 ST Highland Street (3001 ST Beech Avenue ST 18th Ave 270' ST Octave Street 620' ST 16th Ave 200' ST 5th Ave (3501 ST Margaret St (4501 ST Nixon Street 450 ST Columbia Street 450' ST Washington Street 350 ST, SW 9th Ave (6001 ST, SW, RW 33 Bicycle/Pedestrian Master Plan - Area #6 Lend Proposed routes •••••• Existing Bike Laney Argent d. Bike Pathway CitF Limits River Shore z S e d St. D i TT i M 77777 r 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. 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. 34 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 area. The C-2 zoning regulations in the central downtown area emphasize pedestrian access and circulation. Enhancing the safety of pedestrians and bicyclists and the ease of transportation between residential neighborhoods to the east and 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. Railroad tracks intersect "A" Street at two points east of Oregon Avenue. Curbing extends approximately eight (S) 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 be paved to match the roadway allowing bike lanes to be striped. 35 LM (".fin Street Railroad tracks - note extended curbing) (Pedestrian pathway along`A" Street) 36 (Bicycle c 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 Levis Street route provides access to residential neighborhoods, commercial business areas and a school. Material Cost Estimate Work Description Units Quantity Cost Totals Mobilization LS 1 $ 5,000 $ 5,000 Traffic Control LS 1 $ 1,000 $ 1,000 Clear and Grub LS 0 $ 5,000 $- Soil Sterilant SY 0 $ 0.40 $ Roadway Exc Inc Haul CY 0 $ 50 $ - Crushed top course SY 0 $ 5 $ H MA SY 0 $ 10 $ - Striping LF 15,000 $ 1.50 $ 22,500 Striping x-walks SF 0 $ 5 $ - Striping Symbols EA 50 $ 35 $ 1,750 Signage LS 1 $ 20,000 $ 20,000 Flashing Beacons EA 0 $8,000 $ - Removable Bollards EA 0 $ 500 $ - Saw Cut LF 25900 $ 0.50 $ 12,950 Curb and gutter(R&R) LF 0 $ 13 $ - Total $ 63,200 $/ft. $4.00 37 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. 54.0 in 122.0 in X2.0 in I 40.0 in i (Sharrow stencil) 38 Signage 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. r - � RIDE 0?4z MAY USE WITH FULL LANE I FAFF[ . X rk M; ==J l DEEP sKANt 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. 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. Aw : _ 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 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. 40 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 Safety 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. 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. 41 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 Im0ementation 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. 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 stated goal. The total miles of needed striping is twice the length of the total roadways needing striping due to the fact striping is located on both sides of the road. Challenges of this magnitude require a defined prioritization structure to provide clear guidance for dedicating funds when they become available. The prioritization structure will also provide 42 justification for expenditures by describing the intended effect of infrastructure improvements. The following criteria were developed to provide criteria 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 have different scales - ranging from 0 to 3 or 0 to 5 - depending on potential impacts on the network and quality or extent of data available. The prioritization criteria are as follows: 1) Traffic Volume 2) Collision History 3) Current Demand 4) Closure of a Gap/Increase Connectivity 5) Technical Ease of Implementation 6) Land Use 7) Funding 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 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, 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. Collision History This criterion highlights the importance of addressing projects at sites with high auto-bicycle, auto-pedestrian, or cyclist-pedestrian collision histories. Data is based on numbers reported by the Pasco Police Department. The criterion directly addresses issues of safety by focusing on intersections with a history of collisions involving bicyclists. This criterion was given a scale of 0 to 5 based on the following guidelines: 43 0. No collision History / no data available for location. 1. Collision data indicates low crash incidence. 2-3. Collision data indicates moderate crash incidence - Possibly in multiple anodes. 4-5. Collision data indicates High crash incidence and/or multiple modes. Current Pedestrian/Bicyclist Demand This criterion assigns Higher points to projects that currently Have significant usage. Usage was determined through counts and public input or by proximity to important origins and destinations. Actual counts were used where possible. This criterion was given a scale of 0 to 5 based on the following guidelines: 0. Little or no current use and little expected with improvement. 1. Cyclist and/or pedestrian use currently, serves very small population - limited potential for increased use. 2-3. Route used frequently, desired for increased usage expressed. More use likely e.g. proposal for a new Class I that has significant public support. 4-5. Route heavily used; likely to see increased use with improvement. 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 5 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. 2-3. Provides connection on significant route and/or makes pedestrian and bicyclist environments better. 4-5. Provides multiple connections, closes significant gap, significantly improves safety or mitigates major barriers such as 1-182, SR 395, BNSF Rail Line, or others. 44 Technical Ease of Implementation The technical ease of implementation criterion focuses on the actual engineering challenges of a project, emphasizing that the physical requirements of some pedestrian and bicyclist projects such as parking removal, traffic lane removal, or lane re-striping, refuge islands, and signals are not technically challenging from an engineering perspective. Projects requiring elaborate infrastructure and/or acquisition of right-of-way would receive a lower ranking in this category. While physical solutions to some barriers can be identified, they may require additional political support or further evaluation of an impact on the transportation system. This criterion was given a scale of 0 to 5 based on the following guidelines: 0. Engineering very difficult, expensive. 1. Difficult, environmental issues, jurisdiction questions. 2-3. Moderate to easy terrain, known road or right of width adequate, project engineering not prohibitive. 4-5. No significant impediments (based on type of route). 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, access to transit, and access to 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 ranked higher than projects that did 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. 45 Funding The funding criterion ranks projects based on the availability of grants. It is important to credit a project's ease of funding. Various roadway improvements can be included in grant proposals for larger roadway projects. When funds become available for roadway projects on roadways identified as bike routes it is critical that bicycle facilities be included during the design phase. This criterion was given a scale of 0 to 3 based on the following guidelines: 0. Grant funding is not available. 1. Partial (<50%) grant funding available to subsidize costs. 2. Significant (>50%) grant funding available to subsidize costs. 3. The full project cost can be funded with grant monies. Scoring The simple chart (below and attached) can be used to evaluate and compare priority ranking scores amongst the various roadway improvement projects identifiable in this Plan. Roadway Criterion Score Traffic Volume Collision History Current Demand Closure of a Gap/Increase Connectivity Technical Ease of Implementation Technical Ease of Implementation Land Use Funding TOTAL 46 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 (identity 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. 47 � 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 MEMORANDUM DATE: August 12. 2011 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Angela R. Pitman. Block Grant Administrator SUBJECT: 3011 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) PROGRAM REALLOCATION (MF#BGAP2011-007) Proposed Reallocation Attached for your review and consideration is the revised 2011 CDBG Fund Summary for proposed significant amendment to the ''011 CDBG Annual Action Plan. In accordance with the Citizen Participation Plan changes in funding greater than 10% of the annual entitlement. changes scope, purpose or beneficiaries requires a significant amendment to the plan. Reallocation of Funds Council passed Resolution 3262 on October 4, 2010 approving the 2011 CDBG grant allocations and annual work plan. The approved budget of$777,840 estimated receipt $150,000 in program income and annual entitlement of$600,000 in addition to prior year reallocations of$92.840. Program income received for program year 2011 to date is $500. Cuts to the CDBG program by Congress in the 2011 Budget Resolution resulted in an actual entitlement for 2011 of$56'',98''. The resulting $122,000 deficit triggers significant amendment to the 2011 CDBG Annual Action Plan in accordance with the Citizen Participation Plan. Public Service Cap HUD regulations state that the amount of CDBG Funds obligated within a program year to support public service activities may not exceed 150 of the combined total of the entitlement plus the prior year's program income. For 2011, the entitlement of$562,982, and 2010 program income of$49,000 makes the maximum available for public service activities $92.000. Current funding for public services total $80.000. Public Service caps are not exceeded. Planning & Administration Cap HUD regulations state that the amount of CDBG Funds obligated within a program year to support planning and administration activities may not exceed 20% of the combined total of the annual entitlement plus the current year"s program income. For ''011, the annual entitlement of $562,982 and program income of$500 makes the maximum available for planning and administration $112.000. Current budget for planning and administration is $120,000. Staff recommends planning and administration funding be reduced to $112,000, the maximum 20% allowable. Changes to Scope, Purpose & Beneficiaries Other significant changes to the purpose. scope and beneficiaries of the 2011 Annual Action Plan include cancellation of the Northwest Soccer Project due to lack of anticipated funding from other grant programs. Special Assessments for low-moderate income households in LID #1 46 budgeted for in program year 2010 and included with construction costs are a different type of activity and requires a new project be created and funds of$10.000 allocated for payment of these special assessments. The remaining funds totaling $6.460 may be added to the Kurtzman Park Neighborhood Improvement Plan (Phase III) to further pay down special assessments for construction of LID #148 in the target Kurtzman Park Neighborhood Improvement Plan area. Activity Reallocation Approved CDBG Program Administration ($8,000 00j $112,00000 Northwest Soccer Complex ($131,300 00j Neighborhood Improvements-Phase III $6,46000 $340,00000 LID#146 Special Assessments I $10,000 00 $10,000 00 Recommendation After discussions and staff evaluation. it is recommended that the activities set forth in Attachments 1 would best meet the City's Consolidated Plan and be most effective in carrying out the objectives for the City in 2011. Your review and consideration for recommendation to the City Council would be appreciated. Therefore. we propose the following Motions: MOTION: I move the Planning Commission recommend the City Council approve the use of funds for the 2011 Community Development Block Grant Pro2yam as set forth in the `2011 Fund Summary" as amended by Staff. The City Staff would like to thank the members of the Planning Commission for your time and assistance. /arp Attachments: 1. 2011 CDBG Fund Summary — Aug,ust 18. `'011 Attachment 1 2011 CD8G Fund Summary- August 18, 2011 Attachment 1 Planning Commission Meeting Page 1 Proposals-Recommendations ID Recipients ACTIVITY/AGENCY NonCDBGMatch Agency Staff Staff Planning CITY COUNCIL NAME Requested Recommended Recommend Commission APPROVAL City of Pasco-Community CDBG Program $0.00 $120,000.00 $120,00000 $112,000.00 1 &Economic Development Administration City of Pasco- Administrative& Civic Center-Youth $45,50000 $20,00000 $20,000.00 $20,000.00 2 lCommunity Services Recreation Specialist City of Pasco- Martin Luther King Administrative& Community Center $100,500.00 $20,000.00 $20,00000 $20,00000 3 Community Services Recreation Specialist City of Pasco- Administrative& Senior Citizen's Center $200,00000 $40,00000 $40,000.00 $40,000.00 4 C o mmu ni ty S ervi ces lRecreation Specialist Anti-Gang Prevention/Intervention $000 $1,365,586 00 $0.00 $0.00 5 lCharity Training Center Program Pasco Downtown Pasco Downtown Development Association- Development Commercial $40,420.00 $65,000.00 $50,00000 $50,000 00 5 SK Kitchen City of Pasco-Community Downtown Fagade $27,00000 $50,00000 $0.00 $0.00 6 &Economic Development Improvement(1 facades) Hispanic Chamber of Downtown Fagade $0.00 $80,000.00 $000 $000 7 Commerce Improvement(4 facades) Volunteer Chore Services $118,197 00 $6,0000 $4,000.00 $4,000.00 8 Catholic Family Charities 1(12 households) $184,935 00 $100,000 00 $0.00 $0.00 9 [arico Roads Ministries Havensafe(8 Households) Boys&Girls Club of Bent on&F ran klin $000 $99,30000 $11,000.00 $11,000.00 10 Counties E nergy Eff i ci ant L ightin g City of Pasco- Administrative& $000 $150,0000o $131,300.00 $0.00 11 Community Services Northeast Soccer Complex City of Pasco- Administrative& Senior Center Kitchen $0.00 $85,000.00 $000 $000 12 ICOMMLrity Services Remodel City of Pasco- Administrative& Martin Luther King Center- $000 $65,00000 $0.00 $0.00 13 Community Services HVAC Replacement City of Pasco-Community $130,000.00 $48,000.00 $48,00000 $48,00000 14 &Economic Development Code Enforcement Officer Neighborhood City of PaSCo-PUb11C Improvements-Phase Ill $300,00000 $350,00000 $333,540.00 $941.322,00 15 Works (CT201BG2) Revitalization Specialist- City of Pasco-Community Economic Project Delivery $000 $40,00000 $0.00 $0.00 16 &Economic Development for NRSA 17 lCity of Pasco- Administrative& 'Wighland Park Street $23.655.00 $150.000.00 $0.00 $0.00 CommunAySerkdoes tmprovements City of asco- Administrative& LID#146 Special $000 $000 $0.00 $10,OOD.00 16 Community Services Assessments "Project proposed con fingenfonmee ring fima iinessratio $1,170,207.00 $2,883,886.00 $777,84000 $656,322.00 $000 Entitlement(2011 Actual) $ 562,982 Program Income(2011 Actual) $ 500 Prior Year Reallocations(2008-2009) $ 92,840 Total Funds Available $ 656,322 $ Prior approved activities $ 777,840 `"SURPLUSi(DEFICIT FOR BACKUPPROJECTS) $ (Tv.518) 811212011