HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-28-2011 Planning Commission Packet PLANNING COMMISSION — AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING 7:00 P.M. April 28, 2011
I. CALL TO ORDER:
II. ROLL CALL: Declaration of Quorum
III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: March 17, 2011
IV. OLD BUSINESS:
A. Rezone Rezone from C-1 (Retail Business) to C-3 (General
Business) to allow for auto sales (624 W. Lewis
Street) (Shane Fast) (MF# Z 2011-001)
B. Rezone Rezone from R-1 (Low Density Residential) to R-2
(Medium Density Residential) Zone (3300 Block
west of Wernett Road) (Vinh Pham) (MF# Z 2011-
003
C. Special Permit Expand and continue resource recovery operation
in an I-1 (Light hidustrial) Zone (215 E. Ainsworth
Avenue) (Ray Poland & Sons, Inc.) (MF# SP 2011-
001
D. Special Permit Location of a church in a R-2 (Medium Density
Residential) Zone (316 N. 11th Avenue) (Mario
Rivera) (MF# SP 2011-005)
E. Preliminary Plat Preliminary Plat approval for Ranger Heights, an
11-lots subdivision located at 1621 Road SO
(Basswood, LLC) (MF# PP 20 11-00 1)
F. Comprehensive Land Use Designation change from Low-Density
Plan Amendment Residential to Mixed Residential (Corner of Charles
Avenue and Clark Street) (Beacon Development)
(MF# CPA 10-004) (CLOSED RECORD HEARING)
REMAND FROM CITY COUNCIL
V. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
A. Special Permit Location of a park in the Linda Loviisa Subdivision
(5520 Salem Drive) (City of Pasco) (MF# SP2011-
006
B. Rezone Rezone from "O" (Office) to R-1 (Low Density
Residential) Zone (1911 N. 20th Avenue) (Philip
Richardson) (MF# Z2011-004)
VI. OTHER BUSINESS: Ridges to Rivers Open Space Network Vision Plan
VII. ADJOURNMENT:
REGULAR MEETING March 17, 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 ASSENT
No. 1 Vacant
No. 2 James Hay
No. 3 Andy Anderson
No. 4 Alecia Greenaway
No. 5 Joe Cruz
No. 6 Kurt Lukin s
No. 7 Vacant
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 objections.
ADMINISTERING THE OATH:
Vice-Chairwoman Kempf explained that state law requires testimony in quasi-
judicial hearings such as held by the Planning Commission be given under
oath or affirmation. Vice-Chairwoman Kempf swore in all those desiring to
speak.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Commissioner Lukins moved to adopt the February 24, 2011 minutes. The
motion was seconded by Commissioner Hay. The motion passed unanimously.
OLD BUSINESS:
A. Special Permit Agricultural uses in a RS-20 (Residential
Suburban) Zone (the 2000 block of Road 72)
(Phillip W. Schmitt) (MF# SP 2011-002)
-1 -
Vice-Chairwoman Kempf read the master file number and asked for comments
from staff.
David I. McDonald, City Planner, stated this item was discussed at the last
meeting and as a result of that discussion a number of concerns were raised.
Mr. McDonald then explained that six conditions were added to the
recommended list of conditions; they are as follows: Condition #4 addresses
prohibiting equipment from turning on the roadway during plowing or
harvesting. Condition #5 addresses the storage of farm equipment. Condition #
8 deals with the types of crops to be grown and includes corn. Condition #9
permits only 18 head of cattle. Condition #10 requires fencing for the cattle
using best management practices for animal husbandry. Condition #15
requires a part-a-patty on site when picking crews are present.
No further discussion.
Commissioner Gemig moved, seconded by Commissioner Greenaway, to adopt
the Findings of Fact and Conclusions therefrom as contained in the March 17,
2011 staff report. The motion passed unanimously.
Commissioner Gemig further moved, seconded by Commissioner Greenaway,
based on the Findings of Fact therefrom the Planning Commission recommend
the City Council grant a Special Permit to Philipp Schmitt for the location of a
farm in the 2000 block of Road 72 with conditions as listed in the March 17,
2011 staff report. The motion passed unanimously.
B. Special Permit Location of a church in a C-3 (General
Business) Zone (3330 West Court Street,
Suite "K") (Troy Jeff Woods) (MF# SP 11-001)
Vice-Chairwoman Kempf read the master file number and asked for comments
from staff.
Shane O'Neill, Planner I, provided some clarification about exiting and the
maximum occupancy loading of the proposed church. The building has an
occupancy capacity of 113. The applicant has proposed 56 seats.
Commissioner Lukins moved, seconded by Commissioner Hay, to adopt the
Findings of Fact and conclusions therefrom as contained in the March 17,
2011 staff report. The motion passed unanimously.
Commissioner Lukins further moved, seconded by Commissioner Hay, based
on the Findings of Fact and Conclusions therefrom the Planning Commission
recommend the City Council grant a Special Permit to Troy Jeff Woods for the
location of a church in Suite "K" of 3330 West Court Street with conditions as
listed in the March 17, 20 11 staff report. The motion passed unanimously.
-2 -
C. Rezone Rezone from C-1 (Retail Business) to C-3
(General Business) to allow for Auto Sales
use (624 W. Lewis) (Shane Fast) (MF# Z 2011-
001
Vice-Chairwoman Kempf read the master file number and asked for comments
from staff.
Jeffrey Adams, Associate Planner, explained this item was continued from the
previous meeting to allow staff time to research several issues. The main issue
centered on comments from Teresa Orosco, the former owner of the property,
who indicated during the Public Hearing that a licensed auto sales facility was
located on the proposed site in the recent past. Staff found a Business License
dated January 9, 2001 showing an automobile sales business was approved for
C-3 zoned property at 612 W. Lewis Street. The copy of the Business License
showed that Lots 1-8, Block 16 of Gerry's Addition were the lots approved for
automobile sales. That corresponds with the area zoned C-3 in 1973 by
Ordinance Number 1594. Said Rezone applied to Lots 1-7. Staff could find no
other Ordinance rezoning other lots in the block to C-3. The site in question
(624 W. Lewis St.) has never been zoned C-3 and there has never been a
Business License for car sales for that location. Past Business Licenses for 624
W. Lewis St. include a 1990 Business License for Pasco Silkscreeners and a
1995 Business License for Showcase Advertising.
Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director, stated the initial
Public Hearing was continued and would need to be reopened for public
comment.
Vice-Chairwoman Kempf reopened the Public Hearing.
Shane Fast, 3109 W. 46th Avenue, Kennewick, stated the zoning map is
incorrect and the City website shows Lots 9-11 zoned C-3, he stated he had
visited with Shane O'Neill and confirmed that his lots were zoned C-3. The
building is zoned C-1. He stated he is asking that the building be rezoned to
match the zoning of the other lots on his property.
Teresa Orosco-Day, 915 S. Dawes, Kennewick, stated the staff findings were
incorrect and she paid quarterly taxes to the City of Pasco. She explained some
of the history of selling cars from her building at 624 W. Lewis St. and how the
state inspected her businesses. She sold the property to Shane Fast with the
knowledge that she sold cars from those lots and did bush-less from the
building at 624 W. Lewis Street.
Dave McDonald, City Planner, stated the information included in the staff
report was correct as it related to the zoning. Mr. McDonald provided some
-3 -
history on the zoning map and how the maps are computer generated. There
was an error transposed to the computer maps from the original map and as a
result the map on the website is not accurate. The map illustrating zoning
included in the report accurately reflects the zoning from the 1973 Ordinance
that established the C-3 zoning in the block. Mr. McDonald explained the
Business Licenses again and described the lots that were approved for
automobile sales. The Business License application clearly states the business
location was at 612 W. Lewis St. which is the location of the C-3 zoning. The
mailing address is often different than the Business License location and in
this case the mailing address was listed as 624 W. Lewis Street.
Teresa Orosco-Day stated she never got a copy of the business application. She
stated ,yes she did have a screen-printing business out of the building and did
write auto sales contracts as well from the same 624 W. Lewis Street building.
Ms. Orosco-Day then re-explained the auto sales business she conducted out
of 624 W. Lewis Street.
Mr. White recommended the hearing be continued to obtain all records
mentioned by the applicant and Ms. Orosco-Day.
Commissioner Lukins agreed with Mr. White.
Commissioner Greenaway stated she is in favor of the Rezone. She mentioned
the marked up application and would like to see the original application if the
applicant has a copy.
Vice-Chairwoman Kempf also is in favor of moving forward tonight on this
Rezone.
Commissioner Hay moved, seconded by Commissioner Lukins, to continue the
meeting to the April Planning Commission meeting. The motion passed with
Commissioners Gemig and Greenaway casting dissenting votes.
D. Rezone Rezone from RT (Residential Transition) to
C-1 (Retail Business) (the southeast corner
of Wrigley Drive and Clemente Lane) (Lee
Eickmeyer) (MF# Z 2011-002)
Vice-Chairwoman Kempf read the master file number and asked for comments
from staff.
Jeffrey Adams, Associate Planner, stated staff had no additional comments.
Commissioner Gemig moved, seconded by Commissioner Greenaway, to adopt
the Findings of Fact and Conclusions therefrom as contained in the March 17,
2011 staff report. The motion passed unanimously.
-4 -
Commissioner Gemig further moved, seconded by Commissioner Greenaway,
and based on the Findings of Fact and Conclusions therefrom the Planning
Commission recommend the City Council Rezone the site from RT (Residential
Transition) to C-1 (Retail Business). The motion passed unanimously.
NEW BUSINESS:
A. Rezone Rezone from R-1 (Low Density Residential)
to R-2 (Medium Density Residential) Zone
(3300 Block west of Wernett Road) (Vinh
Pham) (MF# Z 2011-003)
Vice-Chairwoman Kempf read the master file number and asked for comments
from staff.
David I. McDonald, City Planner, stated the property owner previously applied
for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment and after the Planning Commission's
review and recommendation; the applicant withdrew his application before it
was scheduled to go to the City Council. The applicant's intent was to develop
the property in conformance with the Preliminary Plat approved in 2008 for
only 21-single family lots.
The applicant re-filed an application for a zoning change that would permit 21
zero lot line homes on the site. Mr. McDonald explained Pasco does not have
specific regulations for allowing zero lot line homes and the only way to
accomplish that is through the Planned Unit Development process or through a
multi-family Rezone. Sun Willows and Ivy Glades are examples of Planned Unit
Developments and Mediterranean Villas off Road 100 is an example of a multi-
family Rezone where a variation of zero lot line homes was built. An additional
explanation of zero lot line development was explained along with a review of
the existing conditions in the neighborhood. It was pointed out that the
Newton's Addition which is to the southwest of the site and west of Road 34
has a density of around five units per acre which was approved. The applicants'
proposal is for four units per acre.
Mr. McDonald suggested that if the zero lot line concept was approved there
should be conditions attached which limit one unit per lot and the homes
should be required to have architectural features to give an individual look to
each dwelling.
Paul Christensen, 4121 W. Nixon, representing the applicant was present to
speak in favor of the Rezone. The applicant plans to maintain the of 8,000
square foot density however they would like to develop 22 lots instead of 21.
They want each unit to have different facades to make the homes
-5 -
architecturally appealing. They came in with the Comprehensive Plan
Amendment earlier and found that if they went through the Comprehensive
Plan change it would allow for 48 lots on that property and that is not what
was intended so they withdrew their application.
Commissioner Gemig questioned what is the difference of a zero lot home and a
duplex?
Mr. Christensen stated a duplex is built on a single lot and maintained under a
single ownership. A zero lot line home sits on its own lot and can be owned
individually.
Commissioner Gemig questioned if they would be connected.
Mr. Christensen stated ,yes however they are different than a row of
townhouses. The zero lot line homes have larger side ,yards.
Vice-Chairwoman Kempf opened the Public Hearing.
Richard McReynolds, 2220 Road 34, stated he resides next to the proposed
development and has attended previous Planning Commission and City
Council meetings. He is opposed to increasing the density in the area which
would lower his property value. He would like to see more expensive homes
with large lots versus what is proposed. He presented a letter from Barbara
Lombard who also is opposed to the development.
Lynn Hall, 2216 Road 33, stated he resides close to the proposed development
and mentioned a Special Permit application for a church in the neighborhood
and there has been no improvement made to the property. He was not in favor
of having duplexes in the area. He would like to see bigger lots with bigger
houses. He mentioned the sound barrier and was concerned it would only be a
large berm of dirt.
Commissioner Gemig asked if the Rezone was mainly for the zero lot line factor.
Mr. McDonald stated yes.
Commissioner Gemig stated the density is not changing only the lots.
Mr. McDonald stated the density is not changing and they are developing 21
lots.
Commissioner Gemig asked why they were rezoning the site.
-6 -
Mr. McDonald stated under the R-1 Zone setbacks are required and under the
R-2 Zone zero lot lines are permitted. Mr. McDonald also explained how the
sound wall needed to be constructed.
Mr. Christensen referred to the comments regarding the density and stated
they would match the current density in the area.
Vice-Chairwoman Kempf mentioned the concern regarding rental properties.
Mr. Christensen stated any home in the community could be a rental property.
They are hoping for an owner to purchase two units and live in one and rent
the other one.
Mr. McReynolds stated lie would like to see a requirement for a larger lot.
Mr. Hall stated lie was concerned about rentals.
Commissioner Greenaway questioned Mr. Christensen's intent to sell or build
for rental properties.
Mr. Christensen stated Mr. Pham has many rental properties and with the zero
lot lines purchasers have shown interest in purchasing both sides where they
would reside on one side and rent the other.
Mr. McReynolds wants an agreement from the developer that they would not be
rentals.
Mr. McDonald stated they cannot make such an agreement.
Commissioner Lukins moved, seconded by Commissioner Greenaway, to close
the hearing on the proposed Rezone and initiate deliberations and schedule
adoption of Findings of Fact, Conclusions and a recommendation to the City
Council for the April 28, 2011 meeting. The motion passed unanimously.
B. Special Permit Expand and continue resource recovery
operation in an I-1 (Light Industrial) Zone
(215 E. Ainsworth Avenue) (Ray Poland &
Sons, Inc.) (MF# SP 2011-001)
Vice-Chairwoman Kempf read the master file number and asked for comments
from staff.
Shane O'Neill stated this item was continued from last month to allow for
modifications to the application. The original request was to add hog fuel wood
chipping production to the site. Upon researching the matter it was discovered
the original Special Permit involving concrete crushing expired last ,year. The
-7 -
application was modified and a new notice was sent out. Mr. O'Neill discussed
the surrounding land uses and current activities taking place on the site. The
Comprehensive Plan has the site designated for industrial uses. Mr. O'Neill
reviewed the recommended conditions from the report for the benefit the
Planning Commission and applicant. It was also mentioned that there had
been no complaints regarding the concrete crushing facility since the original
Special Permit was issued in 1998.
Jack Finch, 3507 W. 36th Loop, representing Poland & Sons, stated they are a
good neighbor and would like to add hog fuel to their recycling process. He
mentioned that during construction of the overpass, they were told curb,
gutter, sidewalk and landscaping would to be installed as well as lowering the
existing sewer line and that never happened. He asked for direction as far as
what type of trees were allowed and if xeriscape landscaping would be
acceptable.
Following a brief discussion about landscaping Vice-Chaii-Xvoman Kempf
opened the Public Hearing.
After three calls and no response, the Public Hearing was closed.
Commissioner Hay asked the applicant if he had any concerns with the
recommended approval conditions.
Mr. Finch stated no. The approval conditions are similar to what already exist.
Commissioner Greenaway moved, seconded by Commissioner Hay, to close the
hearing on the proposed resource recovery facility expansion and permit
renewal and initiate deliberations and schedule adoption of Findings of Fact,
Conclusions and a recommendation to the City Council for the April 28, 2011
meeting. The motion passed unanimously.
C. Special Permit Child daycare center in a R-1 (Low Density
Residential) Zone (345 N. Wehe & 1604 E.
Broadway Street) (Elodia Gutierrez) (MF# SP
2011-004)
Vice-Chairwoman Kempf read the master file number and stated the applicant
has withdrawn their request for a Special Permit.
D. Special Permit Location of a church in a R-2 (Medium
Density Residential) Zone (316 N. 112th
Avenue) (Mario Rivera) (MF# SP 2011-005)
-3 -
Vice-Chairwoman Kempf read the master file number and asked for comments
from staff.
Shane O'Neill, Planner I, stated the application was for the re-establishment of
a church on a site which was originally developed as a church. Mr. O Neill
reviewed the written report for the benefit of the Planning Commission.
Mario Rivera, 5814 Ochoco Lane, stated he purchased the church in February
2010 and was under the impression the Special Permit would automatically
transfer to his church. When he received a notice from Code Enforcement he
quickly came in to resolve the issue. They are using the facility for religious
purposes for the Spanish speaking community.
Vice-Chairwoman Kempf opened the Public Hearing, after three calls and no
response the Public Hearing was closed.
Commissioner Hay moved, seconded by Commissioner Gemig, to close the
hearing on the proposed church and initiate deliberations and schedule
adoption of Findings of Fact, Conclusions and a recommendation to the City
Council for the April 28, 2011 meeting. The motion passed unanimously.
E. Preliminary Plat Preliminary Plat approval for an 11-lot
subdivision located at 1621 Road 60
(Basswood, LLC) (MF# PP 2011-001)
Vice-Chairwoman Kempf read the master file number and asked for comments
from staff.
Jeffrey Adams, Associate Planner, stated the application was for review of a
proposed 11-lot subdivision. The site location on Road 80 was discussed as
well as other items contained within the written report. The average lot size
proposed was 13,000 square feet.
As the result of receiving comments from the School District about classroom
capacity a Mitigated Determination of Non-Significance (MDNS) was issued. Mr.
Adams reviewed a School District letter that explained the capacity at Ruth
Livingston Elementary was 500 students and the October 2010 enrollment was
800. McLaughlin Middle School has a 1000 student capacity and 1480
enrolled, and Chiawana High School 2,200 student capacity and current
enrollment just over 2,000. As a result the School District requested that as a
condition of Plat approval the applicant should sign a voluntary agreement
under which the applicant would pay $6,012 per Building Permit to mitigate
the impact the subdivision will have on schools.
-9 -
Vice-Chairwoman Kempf asked if this language will be included in new Plats
coming in regarding education and will it be standard or is it just for this area.
Mr. Adams stated this is a new development within the School District and the
Districts intent is to include it in all future subdivisions.
Commissioner Lukins questioned staff if it was appropriate to discuss impact
fees or if was a legislative decision for the City.
Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director, stated this is the
appropriate decision point as it is relates to the Plat. The City does not have
impact fees for school facilities presently. The School District, as a provider of
an important community service, receives referrals about developments. The
District has indicated that due to enrollment overcapacity the District needs to
require mitigation for developments that will produce new impacts on the
school system. They are requesting the mitigation through the SEPA process
and through RCW 58.17 which requires cities or counties to make findings that
appropriate public facilities are available to serve new development.
Gene Batey, 9800 W. Maple Drive, stated the Commission might be as shocked
as he was regarding the impact fee. Mr. Batey explained he started this process
a few months ago and has been to the City, as well as reviewed the website, to
assess the fees involved to complete a subdivision. Nowhere on the website or
in asking the City was he told about the fee. Mr. Batey followed with some
additional comments about the impact of the fee on his proposed development.
Vice-Chairwoman Kempf opened the Public Hearing.
Jeff Lynch, 3507 W. 3611, Loop, a board member of the Tri-Cities Homebuilders
Association stated the impact fees were unfair and he was unaware of the fee
until this meeting. If you own a home in Pasco and want to upgrade to this
subdivision, you have already paid school fees for 30 ,years and now you have
to pay $6,000 just to buy a new home. It does not wash. The Homebuilders
Association has contributed 10% of the goal for the Pasco School District to get
the broad based levy passed.
John Morgan, 425 Road 37, Executive Director of the Pasco School District,
stated he visited with Mr. Batey on two different occasions and understands
his concerns. Mr. Morgan explained the Pasco School District has experienced
71% growth since the year 2000. The District is adding 600 new students per
year or one new elementary school per ,year. The Pasco School District is the
fastest growing school district in the state of Washington. Mr. Morgan
explained the problems the District is experiencing in trying to cope with the
growth. He further explained state law requires the City and County to ensure
there are adequate provisions for schools before the approval of any
subdivision Plats or multi-housing developments. State law requires new
_10 -
developments mitigate the impacts it has on the built environment which
includes schools. It can be satisfied three ways, 1) the developments can be
denied, 2) proposed developments can be approved subject to conditions that
require the mitigation of the impact, 3) cities or counties can implement what is
known as an impact fee. Mr. Morgan also explained the District is pursuing a
bond measure to build new schools.
Julie Woodbury, 1817 Road 80, stated she purchased her home in the fall of
2009 with intent to subdivide their 5-acre lot. The impact fees proposed would
throw a wrench in her future plans. She pays over $5,000 in property taxes
and a significant amount of that goes to the School District. Ms. Woodbury also
mentioned the cost of extending utilities and the impact of the school fee on
same subdivisions.
Bill Hanson, 1600 Road 80, stated he resides across the street and loves the
sizes of the proposed lots. He was concerned about dust control from the new
development and the "V" (swale) for storm water. The new swales on Court
Street are the biggest mosquito nest he ever had.
Lynn Hall, 2216 Road 33, stated the School District mentioned a fee for this
applicant and did not mention a fee for the previous applicant who would
involve twice the number of kids for Mark Twain Elementary School. The City
and the School District spend money and are not being careful about spending.
There are schools that are not full to capacity, such as Captain Gray with a low
density of students. The School District is padding their report to support their
demand for supporting schools. He does not agree that they should assess
every little subdivision for this extra money to build a new school.
Commissioner Lukins asked if the School District had authority to impose a fee
and they have asked County Commissioner and City Council to approve a fee.
Mr. White stated that is correct.
Commissioner Lukins stated the fee has been proposed and not ,yet finalized.
Roger Lenk, 1817 Road 76, stated neighbors along Roads 72, 76, and 80 and
other adjoining streets are concerned about the method of development. The
new subdivisions are encapsulated into compact cul-de-sacs which provide
ingress and egress from a single point of the road. Mr. Lenk discussed traffic
safety, subdivision design, safety of school children, sidewalks, substandard
streets in the neighborhood, the poor drainage swales on Court Street and
other issues. Mr. Lenk recommended against approval of the Preliminary Plat.
David Meyers, 1621 Road 80, stated he is trying to sell his house and the lot is
too large and won't sell as one piece. Mr. Lenk raised concerns, there are
water, sewer, irrigation utilities in place, and walks 300 feet to catch the bus.
-11 -
There is adequate access to schools and finds that the $6,000 proposal is
obscene and ridiculous. It is not in effect ,yet and putting it in as a condition is
a bit premature.
Mr. Morgan stated he did not pad any of their enrollment figures. In the report
it states the Captain Gray Early Learning Center is not at capacity at this time.
That freed up 12 classrooms that were already filled at city schools by
refurbishing it into an early learning center.
Mr. Batey spoke again about the school fees, portable classrooms being added
to many of the schools and the upcoming bond measure. He was concerned
about the imposition of the fee without making the public aware of it.
Commissioner Lukins stated the fee is not a requirement right now and Mr.
Morgan sent the letter to the City asking them to impose impact fees. Mr.
Lukins explained the Planning Commission has no say in the fee; that is the
Councils responsibility.
Mr. White stated he did not want the applicant to leave with the wrong
impression. The fee is not in place right now and if you have an existing lot,
such as the comment made earlier regarding the Rezone the Commission
considered, it does not apply to the Rezone because they are not platting. An
existing lot does not pay anything and will not come in front of the Commission
because building a single home is exempt from SEPA and from platting
requirements. The School District has chosen to use the SEPA process and the
findings in state law to identify that mitigation is needed. So even though there
is not an impact fee Ordinance in place, they are asking the Planning
Commission, Council and the Franklin County Planning Commission to
approve mitigation in the form of a fee per lot. It won't be stricken from the
record just because there is not an existing impact fee.
Dennis Poland, 199864 E. Gamefarm Road, Kennewick, stated it is ironic that
the Commission and City Council wanted growth and they did everything they
could to bring growth and now they want money. He is not saying stop growth,
they just need money. He discussed the closing of schools in Las Vegas and the
Hanford economy of the area. He is in favor of approving the Plat however he
did not feel taxing (the fee) should occur and it should be stricken.
Commissioner Greenaway stated her husband knows the owner of this lot and
has never met the owner personally and would recuse herself if requested.
Vice-Chairwoman Kempf noted there were no requests.
Mr. White stated this is an unusual circumstance and if it makes the
Commission feel comfortable they may continue the Public Hearing to consider
any additional information.
-12 -
Commissioner Hay stated he is in favor of continuing the hearing since he is
not satisfied with the $6,000 impact fee Per lot.
Commissioner Gemig asked if they were approving the fee if they approve the
Plat.
Mr. White stated they are not approving anything tonight, however continuing
the hearing will allow the applicant to discuss and provide additional
information to consider.
Commissioner Lukins stated it is noted that tentative Plat approval condition
#18 is to actually agree to approve the impact fee.
Commissioner Greenaway moved, seconded by Commissioner Gemig, to
continue the Public Hearing to the April Planning Commission meeting. The
motion passed unanimously.
Commissioner Lukins asked staff for comparison data where other cities who
have experienced growth similar to the City of Pasco.
Mr. White stated the Association of Washington Cities has information readily
available however an analysis of an impact fee would be difficult.
Commissioner Lukins called for other situations such as lessons learned from
other cities.
Mr. White stated there is a lot of information out there and staff will try.
OTHER BUSINESS:
Mr. White reminded the Commission that the regular Planning Commission
meeting for April will be held a week later due to the Recognition Dinner being
held on April 21.
Mr. White also stated a Plan done by the Rivers to Ridges Open Space Network
and has been distributed to City Council. At the March 28th City Council
workshop this group formerly known as the Tapteal Greenwayy Association in
Richland will make a presentation identifying and outlining the high points of
their two county Open Space Plan and series of recommendations. It took place
with the National Park Service and has been developed over the course of
approximately four ,years. The Planning Commission may be tasked with seeing
if there are measures within the Plan that would be appropriate with the City of
Pasco.
-13 -
With no further business, the Planning Commission was adjourned at 9:10
P.m.
David McDonald, Secretary
-14 -
REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
MASTER FILE NO. Z 2011-001 APPLICANT: Shane Fast
HEARING DATE: 2/24/20 11 624 West Lewis Street
ACTION DATE: 4/28/2011 Pasco, WA 99301
BACKGROUND
REQUEST: REZONE Rezone from C-1 to C-3 to allow for Auto Sales Use
1. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION:
Legal: Lots 9 through 12 & East 1/ of Lot 13, Block 16,
Gerry's Addition
General Location: 624 West Lewis Street
Property Size: Approximately .36 acres
2. ACCESS: The property has access from West Lewis Street and from an
east-west alley along the south property line.
3. UTILITIES: All utilities are available at the site.
4. LAND USE AND ZONING: The site is currently zoned C-1 (Retail
Business). The site is occupied by a building. Surrounding properties
are zoned and developed as follows:
North: C-1 (Retail Business District—Sea Mar Motel)
South: C-1 (Retail Business District—Auto service; residential
unit; vacant lots)
East: C-3 (General Business District—Car lot)
West: C-1 (Retail Business District—auto shop)
5. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The Comprehensive Plan designates this area
for commercial uses.
6. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The City of Pasco has been the
lead agency in issuing a Determination of Non-Significance (DNS) in
accordance with review under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA),
Chapter 43.21(c) RCW.
ANALYSIS
The property in question consists of two tax parcels located on the south side
of West Lewis Street, one parcel east of 61h Avenue in the Gerry's Addition
Subdivision, which was platted in 1906. Block 16 of Gerry's Addition, which
contains the subject property, lies just west of an area of C-2 zoning and is
part of the current Central Business District. The subject property is zoned C-1
and is surrounded by C-1 zoning except for the tax parcel directly to the east,
1
which is zoned C-3. A building on the west parcel has been used as a Print
shop, a clothing store, and a retail plumbing supply store.
The tax parcel to the east was rezoned from C-1 to C-3 in 1973 presumably to
accommodate auto sales (City of Pasco Ordinance 1594). It is one of two C-3
spots in the western downtown area. While this type of "spot" zoning may have
been typical of the era, it is not recommended under current zoning practices.
Since the 1973 rezone, the City has tightened regulations in the downtown
area, including the implementation of a Central Business District (CBD) overlay
zone. The subject property is within that overlay zone. According to PMC
25.45.010, "The purpose of the Central Business Overlay District is to provide
regulations that reinforce a positive public image and confidence in commercial
activities within the geographical area of the city . . . ." The district does not
specifically target C-3 type uses, but it does target undesirable conditions,
including "nuisance." C-1 zones generally have fewer potential nuisances than
C-3 zones.
The applicant wishes to sell cars on the lot, a use which is not allowed in the
C-1 zone except with a Special Permit, and only if the property is adjacent the
intersection of two arterial streets (Option #1); or adjacent a single arterial
street (provided it is not adjacent to or across a public street right-of-way from
a residential district, and would not be located closer than 300 feet to any
existing car lot—Option #2).
This property does not qualify for the Special Permit provisions; it is neither on
a corner nor adjacent two arterial streets (Option #1 above); and although the
subject property is located on an arterial (West Lewis Street) it is nevertheless
within 300 feet of an existing car lot (Option #2 above), thus excluding it from
this Special Permit option.
Furthermore, a rezone to C-3 would run contrary to the spirit of the CBD
overlay zone, as it would allow such land uses as wholesale businesses, heavy
machinery sales and service, warehouses, landscape gardening and storage
area for equipment and materials, mobile home and trailer sales and service,
and lumber sales business. Veterinarian clinics for livestock, including outdoor
treatment facilities, (including boarding or overnight holding of animals), and
auto body shops could be allowed in a C-3 zone with a Special Permit.
On March 17, 2011 the Planning Commission continued the 24 February 2011
hearing for this issue in order to respond to two concerns; first, a claim that
the property in question was previously licensed and used as an auto sales lot,
and second, that the eastern part of the property was already zoned C-3.
Planning staff produced evidence, included in the last staff report, to disprove
both these claims (See EXHIBIT #2) and the applicant claimed to have
paperwork to support the claims. Because of this disagreement the Planning
Commission continued the hearing to the April 28, 2011 Planning Commission
meeting in order to give the applicant time to gather evidence for presentation
to the Commission. In addition, staff sent a letter (See EXHIBIT #3) inviting the
applicant to bring any and all exhibits in to the Planning Office for inclusion in
the Planning Commission packet for the April 28, 2011 Planning Commission
meeting. On April 19, 2011 the Planning department has received a FAX copy
of a State of Washington Master Business License for Fast pipe and Supply Co.,
Inc and Fast Cars (See Exhibit #4), issued 2/3/2010. While Fast Pipe and
Supply was licensed October of 2005 for a location on "A" Street, and renewed
with the new 624 W Lewis Street address in February of 2008, no
corresponding City of Pasco Business License Application was received, filed or
approved for an auto sales lot.
The initial review criteria for considering a rezone application are explained in
PMC. 25.88.030. The criteria are listed below as follows:
1. The changed conditions in the vicinity which warrant other or additional
zoning:
Since the 1973 rezone the City has tightened regulations for the downtown
area, including the introduction of the CBD overlay zone. The subject property
is within that overlay zone. However none of the subsequent changes have
warranted the inclusion of many of the uses allowed by the C-3 zoning,
including wholesale businesses, heavy machinery sales and service,
warehouses, landscape gardening and storage area for equipment and
materials, mobile home and trailer sales and service, and lumber sales
business, as well as veterinarian clinics for livestock, including outdoor
treatment facilities, (including boarding or overnight holding of animals), and
auto body shops with a Special Permit.
2. Facts to justify the change on the basis of advancing the public health,
safety and general welfare:
A rezone from C-1 to C-3 has the potential of being detrimental to "public
health, safety and general welfare" by allowing more intense land uses closer to
retail commercial customers.
3. The effect it will have on the nature and value of adjoining property and
the Comprehensive Plan:
There is no evidence that auto sales in particular would inhibit new business
growth, contribute to business loss and decline of property values, and/or
perpetuate a public image which is undesirable or unattractive and detrimental
to public and private investment in business property within the CBD; however
the C-3 zone allows for uses not compatible with the intent of the CBD overlay
zone, such as wholesale businesses, heavy machinery sales and service,
warehouses, landscape gardening and storage area for equipment and
materials, mobile home and trailer sales and service, and lumber sales
business, and, with a Special Permit, veterinarian clinics for livestock,
including outdoor treatment facilities, (including boarding or overnight holding
of animals), and auto body shops.
3
Furthermore, a Rezone to C-3 with a Concomitant Agreement prohibiting all C-
3 uses except auto sales would not be appropriate because it defeats the
purpose of the C-3 zone creating an exception to the rule which is as large as
the rule itself.
4. The effect on the property owners if the request is not granted:
The property owners would still be able to enjoy all uses currently available in
the C-1 district and CBD Overlay zone, which was the zoning at the time of
property acquisition.
5. The Comprehensive Plan land use designation for the property:
The Comprehensive Plan designates the site for commercial uses.
STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT
Findings of fact must be entered from the record. The following are initial
findings drawn from the background and analysis section of the staff report.
The Planning Commission may add findings to this listing as the result of
factual testimony and evidence submitted during the open record hearing.
1. The Comprehensive Plan designates the site for commercial uses.
2. The site is developed with a commercial building.
3. The site is zoned C-1 (Central Business District).
4. The site was zoned C-1 in 2007 when the applicant acquired the
property.
5. The purpose of the C-1 zone, among other things, is to promote
commercial activities outside the Central Business District that meet the
retail shopping and service needs of the community.
6. The site is in the Central Business Overlay District.
7. The applicant is proposing a Rezone to allow vehicle sales on the
property.
8. Special Permits for such vehicle sales is inappropriate because the
property does not qualify for either of the Special Permit provisions;
being on a corner adjacent two arterial streets; or located on an arterial
at least 300 feet from an existing car lot.
9. The Central Business Overlay District was not intended to include uses
such as wholesale businesses, heavy machinery sales and service,
warehouses, landscape gardening and storage area for equipment and
materials, mobile home and trailer sales and service, and lumber sales
business, and (with a Special Permit), veterinarian clinics for livestock,
including outdoor treatment facilities, (including boarding or overnight
holding of animals), and auto body shops. It is primarily zoned C-1 and
C-2, with a retail commercial focus.
4
CONCLUSIONS BASED ON INITIAL STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT
Before recommending approval or denial of a Rezone, the Planning Commission
must develop its conclusions from the Findings of Fact based upon the criteria
listed in P.M.C. 25.88.060 and determine whether or not:
1. The proposal is in accordance with the goals and policies of the
Comprehensive Plan.
There are no Comprehensive Plan Goals or Policies which directly address this
type of request.
2. The effect of the proposal on the immediate vicinity will not be materially
detrimental.
Expanding the C-3 District into the established central core of the city would
allow uses incompatible with the retail intent of the CBD. Allowed uses would
include wholesale businesses, heavy machinery sales and service, warehouses,
landscape gardening and storage area for equipment and materials, mobile
home and trailer sales and service, and lumber sales business, and (with a
Special Permit), veterinarian clinics for livestock, including outdoor treatment
facilities (including boarding or overnight holding of animals), and auto body
shops.
3. There is merit and value in the proposal for the community as a whole.
Uses allowed in a C-3 Zone, such as wholesale businesses, heavy machinery
sales and service, warehouses, landscape gardening and storage area for
equipment and materials, mobile home and trailer sales and service, and
lumber sales business, and (with a Special Permit), veterinarian clinics for
livestock, including outdoor treatment facilities, (including boarding or
overnight holding of animals), and auto body shops, are generally incompatible
with retail business uses found in the CBD.
4. Conditions should be imposed in order to mitigate any significant
adverse impacts from the proposal.
Conditions necessary to mitigate adverse impacts would essentially cause the
rezone to mirror the permitted uses within the C-1 Zone, with the addition of
auto sales, rather than reflect the intent of the C-3 Zone.
5. A Concomitant Agreement should be entered into between the City and
the petitioner, and if so, the terms and conditions of such an agreement.
A Concomitant Agreement is not necessary because the Rezone is not
warranted.
RECOMMENDATION
MOTION: I move to adopt Findings of Fact and Conclusions therefrom as
contained in the March 17, 2011 staff report.
5
MOTION: I move based on the Findings of Fact and Conclusions therefrom
the Planning Commission recommend the City Council deny the
rezone from C-1 (Retail Business) to C-3 (General Business).
NOTE: A second set of Findings of Fact, Conclusions based on Findings of
Fact, and Recommendations has been assembled below (Option "B") if the
Commission is of the opinion that this project should be approved:
STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT (OPTION "B")
Findings of fact must be entered from the record. The following are initial
findings drawn from the background and analysis section of the staff report.
The Planning Commission may add findings to this listing as the result of
factual testimony and evidence submitted during the open record hearing.
1. The applicant is proposing a Rezone to allow vehicle sales on the
property.
2. The site is developed with a commercial building.
3. The site is in the Central Business Overlay District.
4. The Central Business Overlay District was designed to "provide
regulations that reinforce a positive public image and confidence in
commercial activities within the geographical area of the city
described in Section 25.45.020."
5. The site is zoned C-1 (Central Business District).
6. The purpose of the C-1 Zone is to "provide for the location of
commercial activities outside the central business district that meet
the retail shopping and service needs of the community."
7. The site was zoned C-1 in 2007 when the applicant acquired the
property.
8. The property does not qualify for either of the Special Permit
provisions for auto sales in a C-1 Zone; being on a corner adjacent
two arterial streets; or located on an arterial at least 300 feet from an
existing car lot.
9. The Comprehensive Plan designates the site for commercial uses. The
Plan also encourages commercial development to locate along major
arterials and encourages the concentration of activities that
functionally benefit each other.
10. The proposed rezone area is just west of an existing auto sales lot and
east of a business which received a Special Permit for auto sales at
the corner of 6th Avenue and West Lewis Street in October of 2 00 1.
6
11. Other automotive-related uses are available in the vicinity to the
south of the site.
12. The proposed auto sales use would be located along a major arterial
and would place minimal demands on the established infrastructure
systems. Other permitted uses such as restaurants and taverns would
place a greater demand on the public infrastructure than this
proposed use.
13. The proposed auto sales use will not create more traffic, flashing
lights, fumes or vibrations than many of the permitted uses, such as
convenience stores or fast food restaurants.
CONCLUSIONS BASED ON INITIAL STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT
Before recommending approval or denial of a Rezone, the Planning Commission
must develop its conclusions from the Findings of Fact based upon the criteria
listed in P.M.C. 25.88.060 and determine whether or not:
1. The proposal is in accordance with the goals and policies of the
Comprehensive Plan.
There are no Comprehensive Plan Goals or Policies which directly address this
type of request. However the Comprehensive Plan designates this area for
commercial development. Policy LU-I-D encourages the clustering commercial
development at major intersections. Policy LU-4-A also encourages to location
of commercial activities at major intersections. Policy LU-4-B encourage the
concentration of activities which are functionally and economically beneficial to
each other
2. The effect of the proposal on the immediate vicinity will not be materially
detrimental.
Expanding the C-3 District into the established central core of the city would
allow uses incompatible with the retail intent of the CBD. Allowed uses would
include wholesale businesses, heavy machinery sales and service, warehouses,
landscape gardening and storage area for equipment and materials, mobile
home and trailer sales and service, and lumber sales business, and (with a
Special Permit), veterinarian clinics for livestock, including outdoor treatment
facilities (including boarding or overnight holding of animals), and auto body
shops. In order to prevent the above uses from being allowed in the downtown
area a concomitant agreement should be entered into limiting allowable uses to
auto sales, in addition to all uses allowed in the C-1 Zone.
3. There is merit and value in the proposal for the community as a whole.
Auto sales exist to the immediate east of the subject properties. However, uses
allowed in a C-3 Zone, such as wholesale businesses, heavy machinery sales
and service, warehouses, landscape gardening and storage area for equipment
and materials, mobile home and trailer sales and service, and lumber sales
7
business, and (with a Special Permit), veterinarian clinics for livestock,
including outdoor treatment facilities, (including boarding or overnight holding
of animals), and auto body shops, are generally incompatible with retail
business uses found in the CBD. While auto sales would cluster compatible
uses, other C-3 uses do not fit well in the area. In order to prevent the above
uses from being allowed in the downtown area a Concomitant Agreement
should be entered into limiting allowable uses to auto sales, in addition to all
uses allowed in the C-1 Zone.
4. Conditions should be imposed in order to mitigate any significant
adverse impacts from the proposal.
The proposed Rezone should be accompanied by a Concomitant Agreement
limiting uses to those allowed in the C-1 Zone, with the addition of auto sales.
5. A Concomitant Agreement should be entered into between the City and
the applicant, and if so, the terms and conditions of such an agreement.
A Concomitant Agreement may be crafted limiting uses to only those allowed in
the C-1 Zone, with the addition of auto sales.
RECOMMENDATION
MOTION: I move to adopt Findings of Fact, "Option B" and Conclusions
therefrom as contained in the April 28, 2011 staff report.
MOTION: I move, based on the Findings of Fact and Conclusions therefrom,
the Planning Commission recommend the City Council approve the
Rezone from C-1 (Retail Business) to C-3 (General Business), with
the following conditions:
1. A Concomitant Agreement shall be attached to the property limiting uses
to only those allowed in the C-1 zone, with the addition of auto sales.
2. Only one freestanding sign shall be allowed on the property and shall be
limited to a maximum of 30 feet in height. No roof signs shall be allowed.
3. A minimum of eight parking spaces shall be reserved for customer
parking;
4. The property shall be landscaped to meet the provisions of PMC Chapter
25.76 Landscaping and Screening, including a 10-foot landscape buffer
along the northern property line (Lewis Street). This landscaping buffer
shall be separated from the parking area by perimeter curbing, improved
with 100% live vegetation including a predominant amount of grass and
underground irrigation systems;
5. All required improvements and modifications shall be completed prior to
the issuance of a City of Pasco Business License for the car sales activity.
8
Vicinity Item: Rezone C - 1 to C-3
Map File .
App 11 c ant: Shane Fast N
# : z 2011 -001
WW
0 ki
a ' ,
.
SITE .
- ,
• M
D
ey
i
Vl* cl*nl Item: Rezone C - 1 to C-3
'*ty Applicant* Shane Fast
Map File Z 2011 -001
Or
PIP
Aw
P �
Land Use Item: Rezone C- 1 to C-3
Applicant: Shane Fast N
Map File #: Z 2011 -001
Res.
SS
Commercial s
SITE, 74
Commercial
�► V
s
74 Res
S1
Commercial
FEMME/a
Avg FAA W- Iffasoja
MAP
Zoning Item: Rezone C - 1 to C-3
Applicant- Shane Fast x
Map File # : Z 2011 -001
R-2
C-1
to's SOI C-2
C-3
SITE 'e
C-1
74 "111
m 1,
�� ` 5S
Mew
1 �
v AI-5
MY
/�%// /%� ,/ //j, j/.�
WIP
'0 m pled
MONA A :'SO,
9AP SO
"00 01010
AOA pop
.921A 4
or ARM
IN i
IVA
0!SI � NN
1 •
or
_.►tom _'
EXHIBIT #1
Jeff Adams
From: Charles Grigg [chas Ogriggsonline.com]
Sent: Monday,January 31, 2011 2:01 PM
To: Jeff Adams
It is our feeling thatwe should notre-zone C-1 zone to C-3 zone (mf# z 2011-001)
The downtown area should not be down zoned to allow car lots.
Pasco has many locations for zoned c-3 around the city, Lets not use the downtown are
For c-3 uses.
Thank you,
Charles Grigg
Grigg Enterprises, Inc
801 West Columbia Street
Pasco, Wa 99301
509-547-0566 Voice
509-547-4387 fax
chas grkcgsonline.com
i
E X 1411311' 4-2
MEMORANDUM
DATE: March 17, 2011
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Jeffrey B. Adams, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: Rezone - Shane Fast C-1 to C-3 (MF# Z 2011-001)
Due to issues raised at the February 24, 2011 Planning Commission meeting
concerning the Fast Rezone for property along West Lewis Street the matter
was continued to March 17, 2011 to allow staff time to research the issues and
report back. As a result of that research Staff found the following:
Issue #1: Teresa Orosco the former owner of 624 West Lewis, indicated in the
hearing that a licensed auto sales facilities was located on the proposed rezone
site in the recent past.
Staff response: A January 9, 2001 business license application shows an
automobile sales business was approved for the C-3 zoned property at 612 W.
Lewis Street (Lots 1-8, Block 16, Gerry's Addition). The mailing address (not the
business location) on the business license application was listed as 624 West
Lewis Street. The 612 W. Lewis Street site is located at the southwest corner of
5th Avenue and W. Lewis Street. The rezone site involves Lots 9 through 12 and
a portion of Lot 13 Gerry's Addition. Staff could not find records for a car sales
lot on the proposed rezone site. There are two expired licenses of record for a
portion of the rezone site at 624 W. Lewis Street. Neither license is for car
sales. In 1990 a license was issued for Pasco Silkscreeners (printing &
graphics) and in 1995 a second license was issued for Showcase Advertising
(retail clothing). There is no evidence in the business licensing records that a
car sales lot was issued a business license for lots involved in the current
rezone application.
Issue #2: Applicant claims the property in question is already zoned C-3
Staff Response: A 1973 Ordinance (#1594) rezoned Lots 1-7, Block 16, Gerry's
Addition from C-1 to C-3. Lots 1-7 are located at the eastern end of the block at
the southwest corner of 5th Avenue and W. Lewis Street. No other ordinances
could be found in the record changing the zoning of any of the other lots in the
block. The oldest zoning map of record (1979) shows approximately the east
half (Lots 1-8) of Block 16, Gerry's Addition fronting W. Lewis Street as a C-3
zone. The west half of the block (Lots 9-16 ) are shown as a C-1 zone. The
applicant's property (Lots 9-12 & part of 13) is located in the west half of the
block and is zoned C-1.
i
011
qu Date Pd.: � °1_ C' . Amt. Pd.:_ ��, CR. No.
CITY OF PASCO -7
BUSINESS LICENSE APPLICATION '5 G avis�dQ
THIS SECTION MUST BE FILLED OUT CLEARLYIND COMPLETELY TO BE REVIEWED j -2-
Circle all that apply: New Business//Owner Change/INarne Change/lrransfer of location
1. Business Name:` .Sc S e5 r
If making a name change, previous name of business:_ `
Business Location: t,1,Q Ltd• Lp_Wi 5 Do-sco Lop U G 36)
/ tf transfering location, previous address:
3. Mailing Address: t_ea fvi 5
4. Owner!Operator Name 1 \� Bus Phone 547-C} l�/�
ale
5. Corporation_ Partnership_ Private (L ate of Birth: 3131 5�
6. Social Security# - r1�'-rULL— Tax ID# .57 9 _7y 1,711�
7. Describe the type of business and how your business operates: , wazza -
8. If you are a contractor,what is your state license number:
Expiration date Type of License: General_ Specialty_Lic.
9. Bond/Certificate of Ins.#� _ what is the expiration date:
<< ( ss ;s Ns7�_L A°-EDUN
10. Number of employees o! Number of off-street parking spaces_ )o
11. Do you own/operate more than one business at above location: Yes ✓ No If, yes
�c 1 [
list their names and license numbers: ? 't r r r rJL. f 3T 7
12. Please fill in the square feet of floor ar on our remises�n_ inch of the following:
}
Office a Ob Retail Manufacturirxg Shop
Inside Storage Outside Storage TOTAL OF ALL—,
13. Does the building have a basement? Yes—No s� IF yes, square feet
14. Does the business involve radioactive substances or radioiogic/toxic chemical wastes of any
amount: Yes _ No v-- (If yes, complete disclosure form and attach an emergency plan and
any required state license).
15. Will hazardous material or flammable liquid be stored? Yes—No
16. Will the building have high-piled material in storage? Yes—`No f
17. Does building have automatic sprinkler or fire alarm other
(describe)
18. In case of emergency regarding your business, please furnish after-hour contact information.
(Any change must be resorted immediately. to City Hall).
f
A. /r ', f r Wit:.! ��U�If
Owners Named Horne Addressr� Home Phone
B. '71 —
Name Relationship to Business Home Address r 4 Home Phone
19. Do (will) any of these operations occur at your business? Circle letter of all that apply.
A. Are you an amusement device distributor? Yes _ No Z. If yes, how many do you own
and/or lease in Pasco? (Please attached a separate sheet showing the locations in Pasco and
number at each location.) (5.20)
B. Apartments. Number of units Number of sewer hookups (5.04)
C. Arcades, Places of amusement. (5.64)
D. Circuses,carnivals and street shows. (5.16)
E. Communication Offices. (5.04)
e
F. Dance halls. (5.24)
G. Financial Institutions. (5.04)
H. Food establishments. Do you sell/serve prepared food? Do you sell/serve any intoxicating
beverages? On-site (food)consumption . Off-site (food)consumption Both
(5.29)(22.52.020(6))
I. Gravel pits (5.36)(22.68)
J. Hotels and rooming houses. Number of units (5.04)(5.40)
K. Video games, jukeboxes, pinball games and other amusement devices. Number on-site owned
. Number on-site leased . Total number of devices on-site (5.20)
L. Mobile home park. Number of sewer hookups (19.12)
M. Mortuary. (5.04)
N. Pawnbroker. (5.12)
O. Public massage and bath houses. (5.60)
P. R.V. Park. Number of sewer hookups (19.12)
O. Security police, merchant patrol and private detectives. (5.48)
R. Second Hand Dealer. (5.12)
S. Solicitor: Residential Charitable Commercial Information RECEIVED
Religious Other(describe)
T. For-Hire Vehicles. Number of Vehicles (5.45) FEB 0 1 2001
U. Theater. (5.04) CITY CLEWS V. Transfer and storage. Number of trucks (5.04) OFFICE
W. Utility Installer. (5.32)
DATE OWNER'S SIGNATURE(OTHER AUTHORIZED PERSON) TITLE
*OFFICE USE ONLY-
1. Planning Department: P-Sic# -))021 A-Sic# A-Sic#
Zone �� Census Tract_'ZO2– Block 3=5z.—Home Occup.Yes No IM
a)Zoning Compliance OK� No Initials � Date- 1-36-6
2. Building Inspector: OK ✓ No Initials A `T. Dale -/ 0
3. Police Department: OK No Initials Date
5 /
IJ ,!
r-� ORDINANCE NO. 1594
1
AN ORDINANCE CHANGING THE ZONE CLASSIFI-
CATION OF CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY WITHIN THE
CITY OF PASCO FROM RETAIL COMMERCIAL C-1
TO GENERAL COMMERCIAL C-3
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASCO DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 12 The zone classification is hereby changed
a from Retail Commercial C-1 to General Commercial C-3 for the following
described property situated in Pasco , Franklin County, Washington to-wit:
Lots 1 through 7, i,nciusive, Block 16,
i Gerry's Addition as Recorded in Volume
` B, Page 18, Book of Plats, Franklin
County, Washington
Section 2. Any and all zoning maps are hereby amended to conform
j to the aforesaid zone change.
! Section 3. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect after
its passage and publication as required by law.
PASSED by the City Council and APPROVED as provided by law, this
day ofuly 1973.
M _ R. Denney, Councilman
"Acting Ivlayor'pro-Tem
ATTEST: � != .
� Sterl Adams , Councilman
9R YY la. I Z Cit C er
i
1 APPROVED AS FORM:
D. Wayne Campbell , City Attorney
Qriginal Zoning Map
_ Pre-1979)
�l R3
T - Gs l
Site
M
ct ° SS t! V
G:� y s
10
.1i J a I 1 i
�. CaC�J CCU �Q
c 1 , '�,.
EXHIBIT #3
1 ' OOMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPAM-MENT (509)545-3441 / Fax(509)545-3499
r P.O. Box 293, 525 North Third Avenue, Pasco,Washington 99301
29 March 2011
Mr. Shane Fast
624 W Lewis Street.
Pasco WA 99301
RE: Rezone Request for property located at 624 W Lewis Street (MF #Z 20 11-00 1)
Dear Mr. Fast,
This letter is a request for any and all records you intend to use to support
your rezone application before the Planning Commission. Staff would prefer
to include such support in the Planning Commission Report. For example if
you have a license from the State at a particular address, we would like to
give you the opportunity present this as evidence to the Planning
Commission, if you so desire.
As well, this is to confirm that you have had the opportunity to view and
handle the original business license pertaining to the proposed rezone
property that was discussed at the March 17, 2011 Planning Commission
meeting.
If you have further comments or questions please feel free to contact us.
Sincerely,
�effreydams
Associate City Planner
#5217 P. 001/001
04l19l2011 11 . 15 EXHIBIT
■y+t
�,. 10.
to
tlnified•Susi'riess.•I.D Y*t 6.02141 (T$4, ' dg
..Domestic Profit Corpm-atiori Business 'ID •lea I 's
'Sp' �.oCai
-on: 2
Expires; 0.9-30-2911
� . FAST PIPE AND SUPPLY CD, , ,INC.
FAST CARS
624 W LEWIS ST
r•! PASCO WA 99301 5538
TAX REGISTRATION s
MOTOR VEHICLE DEALER t#7453
tip, REGISTERED TRADE NAMES:
FAST CARSE•
PAST PIPE AND SUPPLY CO INC
;A:
I i
it
M.:
,41
1d•
} i
4T«a
4vt been w the; +or j " ;,yo-
e� P. % 0R1 rl
}� or�Ye ` OnivrAlGjE @51�${ hrtaltGi$CCt7fdE�V4 r
�i��� '"'C,1"� °�°�',saY' g•'J� tin. �.+ � r 7 ___ �i we'*
t Y S ,. n s4'.-w7.,.° {,.gyp ,.H,4: .. -5 F� �' 3".L.o�+}r--1l �.L•J' ,k 4 _ ....y. V, �
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
MASTER FILE NO. Z 2011-003 APPLICANT: Vinh Pham
HEARING DATE: 3/17/2011 203 Huntington
ACTION DATE: 4/28/2011 Kennewick, WA 99366
BACKGROUND
REQUEST: REZONE Rezone from R-1 to R-2 with a Concomitant
Agreement limiting the density and applyin
minimum design standards
1. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION:
Legal Lot 2, Short Plat 2008-09
General Location 3300 Block of West Wernett Road
Property Size Approximately 5 acres
2. ACCESS: The property has access from West Wernett Road.
3. UTILITIES: All utilities are available at the site.
4. LAND USE AND ZONING: The site is currently zoned R-1 (Low Density
Residential). The site is vacant. Surrounding properties are zoned and
developed as follows:
North R-S-1- Highway I-182
South R-S-12 - Single-family
East R-S-1 - Single-family
West R-S-1 & R-S-12 - Duplex's, single-family and vineyard
5. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The Comprehensive Plan designates this area
for Low Density Residential uses.
6. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The City of Pasco is the lead
agency for this project. Based on the SEPA checklist, the adopted City
Comprehensive Plan, City development regulations, and other
information, a threshold determination resulting in a Determination of
Non-Significance (DNS) has been issued for this project under WAC 197-
11-158.
ANALYSIS
The property consists of a 5.12 acre parcel located between Wernett Road and
Highway I-182. Although other properties in the neighborhood have been
developed, this parcel has remained undeveloped. In 2004 the parcel was
annexed and in 2008 a developer received Preliminary Plat approval to allow
development of 21 lots on the property. The current owner desires to develop
the property and has explored cost effective ways to accomplish development
1
while complying with Preliminary Plat approval conditions which included the
construction of a sound wall along the freeway. The property owner is
proposing to build zero lot line dwellings at densities approved (21 lots) with
the Preliminary Plat for Sun View Estates.
Zero lot line houses are homes built on individual lots with no side ,yard
setback on one side of the lot. Zero lot line homes have a common wall along a
shared property line. The opposite side of the lot often has a setback greater
than required by code. Pasco does not have specific zero lot line standards. The
only way to accomplish development of zero lot line homes is to either receive
approval for a Planned Unit Development (PUD) or obtain a Rezone for medium
density development.
The Sun Willows PUD is an example a development where homes were built
with zero lot lines and Mediterranean Villas is another example. The applicant's
property is only five acres and does not qualify for a PUD designation. The only
option available to construct zero lot line dwellings on the property would be
through rezoning the site to a multi-family designation with a restriction on the
number of units to ensure densities are consistent with the approved
Preliminary Plat. This process was used for development in the College View
Heights subdivision at the north end of 24th Avenue. In 2002 this 47-lot
subdivision, identified in the Comprehensive Plan for low density development,
was rezoned to R-2 (Medium Density Residential) with a Concomitant
Agreement limiting the total number of dwellings to the number of lots in the
plat and permitting only one dwelling per lot.
The parcel in question has been identified in the City's land use plans for the
last 30 ,years as an area for low density development. The Preliminary Plat
(Sun View Estates) that was approved for the property in 2008 contained 21
individual lots with an average lot size of 8,106 square feet. The approved lots
in the Preliminary Plat are similar in size to the lots in the Newton's Addition
located to the southwest across Wernett Road.
Lots in the Newton Addition average 7,200 square feet in size. The Newton
Addition is 3.7 acres and contains 19 lots for a density of 5.1 units per acre.
The property in question was approved for a density of 4.1 units per acre. Lots
to the south are developed at 3.63 dwellings per acre. Rezoning the site to R-2
with a Concomitant Agreement on density would maintain the approved
density of 4.1 units per acre. It should be noted that there are a number of
duplexes and other higher density dwellings within the neighborhood.
The current Comprehensive Land Use map designates the subject property and
all surrounding properties for low density development. Pursuant to CP.3.15 of
the Comprehensive Plan the Low Density Residential Designation allows a net
density of 2-5 units per acre. The approved subdivision for the property allows
a density of 4.1 units per acre. The applicant's proposal is consistent with the
approved Preliminary Plat and density suggested in the Comprehensive Plan.
The initial review criteria for considering a rezone application are explained in
PMC. 25.88.030. The criteria are list below as follows:
1. The changed conditions in the vicinity which warrant other or additional
zoning:
• Sewer service is now available in the neighborhood.
• All properties to the south and southeast are fully developed with a
variety of housing types, single family units being the predominate
type.
• The Newton Addition directly across Wernett Road to the
southwest was developed with 7,200 square foot lots.
• Duplex units are located to the east and west of the site.
• Many of the streets in the neighborhood have been rebuilt to a
higher standard in the last ten ,years.
• The water system was upgraded in the neighborhood within the
last ten ,years.
• A Preliminary Plat with 21 lots was approved for the site in 2008.
• The approved Preliminary Plat approval conditions require a sound
wall to be constructed along the freeway.
2. Facts to justify the change on the basis of advancing the public health,
safety and general welfare.
The Rezone will provide additional flexibility for site development while
maintaining the low density nature of the site envisioned in the Comprehensive
Plan. Encouraging development of homes on the site will lead to the elimination
of the potential fire hazard created by the current vacant field. The low density
housing will be maintained and future development will participate in the costs
previously incurred by the community for the water and sewer system that
serve the parcel. The general welfare will be supported by additional in-fill
development that will contribute to the cost of providing municipal services.
3. The effect it will have on the nature and value of adjoining property and
the Comprehensive Plan.
The proposed Rezone is supported by the Comprehensive Plan and would be
considered a proper implementation of the Plan. Maintaining the previously
approved density of the site will protect the established character of the nearby
neighborhoods and thereby the nature and value of the neighboring properties.
The proposal could enhance development of the site and lead to the elimination
of a large field that grows weeds and grasses that can be considered a fire
hazard for adjoining residential structures.
4. The effect on the property owners if the request is not granted.
The proposed Rezone will permit zero lot line single-family dwellings providing
the developer with options that may help cover the costs of required Plat
3
improvements including a sound wall along the freeway. Without the Rezone
the zero lot line development would not be permitted.
5. The Comprehensive Land Use designation for the property.
The Comprehensive Plan designates the site for low density residential
development. The proposed Rezone will not increase the density and is
therefore consistent with the Plan.
STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT
Findings of Fact must be entered from the record. The following are initial
Findings drawn from the background and analysis section of the staff report.
The Planning Commission may add Findings to this listing as the result of
factual testimony and evidence submitted during the open record hearing.
1. The site is currently zoned R-1 (Low Density Residential).
2. The Comprehensive Plan designates the site low density residential
development, which allows a net density of 2-5 units per acre.
3. The approved Preliminary Plat for the site contains 21 lots.
4. The approved Plat has a density of 4.1 dwelling units per acre.
S. The Newton Addition to the southwest of the site is developed to a
density of 5.1 units per acre.
6. The applicant is requesting a Rezone to R-2 with an agreement limiting
the number of dwelling units to no more than 22 units.
7. Duplex units are located directly west and east of the site and other
multi-family units are located nearby.
8. The Newton Addition across Wernett was developed with 7,200 square
foot lots matching the minimum lot size for the R-1 District.
CONCLUSIONS BASED ON INITIAL STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT
Before recommending approval or denial of a Rezone, the Planning Commission
must develop its conclusions from the Findings of Fact based upon the criteria
listed in P.M.C. 25.88.060 and determine whether or not:
1. The proposal is in accord with the goals and policies of the
Comprehensive Plan.
The goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan encourage the development
of old and new neighborhoods into safe and enjoyable places to live (Goal LU-
2). The Comprehensive Plan also encourages the development of a variety of
residential environments (Goal H-2).
2. The effect of the proposal on the immediate vicinity will not be
materially detrimental.
4
The surrounding properties will not be detrimentally impacted by the proposed
change because the land will be able to be developed with densities similar to
other developments in the neighborhood.
3. There is merit and value in the proposal for the community as a
whole.
Rezoning the property to R-2 will allow the site to develop with dwellings at a
density consistent with the surrounding neighborhood (Newton Addition) and
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
4. Conditions should be imposed in order to mitigate any significant
adverse impacts from the proposal.
The Rezone should be conditioned to limit one dwelling per lot to maintain the
low density development envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan. Additionally to
assist with enhancing neighborhood property values the zero lot line houses
should contain at least three separate architectural features on the front and
side elevations. The front elevations should be articulated or otherwise
constructed to provide a distinct identity for each dwelling.
5. A Concomitant Agreement should be entered into between the City
and the Petitioner, and if so, the terms and conditions of such an
Agreement.
A Concomitant Agreement is necessary to ensure the number of dwelling units
does not exceed the number of approved lots and that the dwellings be
constructed with some minimal architectural features. (See attached
Agreement.)
RECOMMENDATION
MOTION: I move the Planning Commission adopt the Findings of Fact as
contained in the April 2S, 2011 staff report.
MOTION: I move, based on the Findings of Fact as adopted, the Planning
Commission recommend the City Council Rezone the site from R-1
(Low Density Residential) to R-2 (Medium Density Residential) with
a Concomitant Agreement limiting the number of dwelling units to
21 and requiring minimal architectural features on each dwelling
unit.
5
Vicinity Item: Rezone - R- 1 to R-2
Map Applicant: Vinh Pham N File #: z 2011 -003
2 i7b,
ti
4.
.M „
SITE
vim I f7
rm
w 77 RD
CD
CNr'
Q
.• I �'. � '� ., � '` �! n O ,rte ►' � "�. + � « •, 31.L
I NA
icon-
„JA ST _ , SE�►�BR-00
K
Uinh Phaiu
Land Use Item: Rezone - R- 1 to R-2
Applicant: Vinh Pham x
Map File #: Z 2011 -003
� Vacant
Vacant
SITE
CD
Resid e t o I �w
JAY 3T 3E BROO --F-]
Zoning Item: Rezone - R- 1 to R-2
Applicant: Vinh Pharr x
Map File #: Z 2011 -003
R=S= 1
R-S-1 SITE
WERNETT RD
D °
a
M `"
" O
� a R=S=12 °a o
JAY ST SfABROOK CT-F-]F I
Looking west
rL 0
%-y lb Fr
I T` f
vp
b�,- '1 04
t J � : 11.x' �i•� �.1 Y �M v n t � - h 4 ;1 �� � r�.
R •111,!'. /�, �; � `� ti s/
R _
i
- ♦ .� '
.dam � � .�� � 'Y � •`�-- i + ��;,,I Y•
- � ~Y•%fir _�' '� 'r�T � •.• ? ti•+� �'' f,`:a'�'���1''ni :���.:,� 'I �
IR
+ � y .t.� 7�` YID •/�� ''n� r•J.' . !' 1 � �¢• ♦lp ,-ti. `�;• 'w1c
... .. - I. _ .� -. ♦�. • i`~, �~� r ec�+ -�.�' 'Id �` � • ,r •• 1.rV �•*' .1. r e - `'Y i �'I Y�[+� ♦'' _
° � r:T�l. !;i',r� � 't� 11• !1'a-. i �� a� T Y, �Y. . '�' .�i a.l .. �� � , r ti f t ♦ Y
ev
_ - _ - _ - _.fir_ ��!'` '�,�w.:' .as � ` .. `• ;s�`}{. .;` — ��� y � � -
..Ws�` �=•.•• `'ice r� - �„ 'a
- � ;., •.... � .:�. ` fi _ - - ]'tom. .
r
•
'To the east of the site
a
Owl
v
s
� it � •� 1 41 1. �
Op k
ii • i � .
k
I
t
n I
_ I
VL
M1
•M+r. .#T
All
PAL
_ i ; � � _� 1 r it r1•J+�e � F 1 �j••5 ' (J t
• t � r �, Ir r t fi� - F�
_ �j.: 1 '� r -t T t r r 1 t...'•I +i i
• .j �t ]]]"'���� / .� �lyy�'„ � �^}( I { I _ ' �� / �'. � � 1 r �� ��/ � .� ,�+1�•.'.�y1� ,.;� r�r'i` �1 5�
1 `t
M I ,
�
of I,r /_r �Y � � � � .�. �/ .lj i;Y� .`f`f �i/. . - � +r� '� .�� ,. :f r1� r � •.2': ' .
Looking northwest
all
r
"Exhibit # ?"
CONCOMITANT ZONING AGREEMENT
WHEREAS, the City of Pasco, Washington, a non-charter code city,
under the laws of the State of Washington (Chapter 35A.63 R.C.W. and
Article 11, Section 11 of the Washington State Constitution) has authority to
enact laws and enter into agreements to promote the health, safety and
welfare of its citizens, and thereby control the use and development of
property within its jurisdiction; and
WHEREAS, the Owner(s) of certain property have applied for a Rezone
of such property described below within the City's jurisdiction; and
WHEREAS, the City pursuant to R.C.W. 43.12(c), the State
Environmental Policy Act, should mitigate any adverse impacts which might
result because of the proposed Rezone; and
WHEREAS, the City of Pasco and the Owner(s) are both interested in
compliance with the Pasco Municipal Code provisions relating to the use
and development of property situated in the City of Pasco, described as
follows:
Lot 2 Short Plat 2008-09
(Parcel # 119231029)
WHEREAS, the Owner(s) have indicated willingness to cooperate with
the City of Pasco, its Planning Commission and Planning department to
insure compliance with the Pasco Zoning Code, and all other local, state and
federal laws relating to the use and development of the above described
property; and
WHEREAS, the City, in addition to civil and criminal sanctions
available by law, desires to enforce the rights and interests of the public by
this concomitant agreement, NOW, THEREFORE,
In the event the above-described property is rezoned by the City of
Pasco to R-2 [Medium Density Residential] and in consideration of that
event should it occur, and subject to the terms and conditions hereinafter
stated, the applicant does hereby covenant and agree as follows:
1. The Owner(s) promise to comply with all of the terms of the
agreement in the event the City, as full consideration herein grants a Rezone
on the above-described property.
2. The Owner(s) agrees to perform the terms set forth in Section 4 of
this agreement.
3. This agreement shall be binding on their heirs, assigns, grantees
or successors in interest of the Owner(s) of the property herein described.
CONCOMITANT ZONING AGREEMENT PAGE 1 OF
4. Conditions:
a. Only 21 single-family low density residential lots will be
permitted on the property;
b. The average lot size shall be at least 8,400 square feet with
no lot less than 8,000 square feet;
C. No more than one dwelling unit is permitted per lot;
d. Zero lot line dwellings must contain at least four separate
architectural features on front and side elevations. Any four
of the following will satisfy the architectural features
requirement of this Agreement; vertical siding, accent
materials, (stone, brick, stucco, shingles and horizontal
siding), dormers, cantilevers, cornices, bay windows and
other fenestration, porches, and complementary contrasting
paint colors;
e. Front elevations of zero lot line dwellings must be articulated
or otherwise constructed to provide a distinct identity for
each dwelling.
The person(s) whose names are subscribed herein do hereby certify
that they are the sole holders of fee simple interest in the above-described
property:
Owner:
STATE OF WASHINGTON)
) ss.
County of Franklin )
On this _-- day of --------, 2011, before me, the
undersigned, duly commissioned and sworn, personally appeared
--------------------- to me known to be the
individual(s) described above and who executed the within and foregoing
instrument as an agent of the owner(s) of record, and acknowledged to me
that he/she/they signed the same as his/her/their free and voluntary act
and deed, for the uses and purposes therein mentioned, and on oath stated
that he/she/they is/are authorized to execute the said instrument.
GIVEN under by hand and official seal this _-- day of
-------- 2 011.
Notary Public in and for the State
of Washington, residing at
-----------------
CONCOMITANT ZONING AGREEMENT PAGE 2 OF 2
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
MASTER FILE NO. SP 2011-001 APPLICANT: Ray Poland & Sons, Inc.
HEARING DATE: 3/17/2011 503 West Columbia Drive
ACTION DATE: 4/28/2011 Kennewick, WA 99366
BACKGROUND
REQUEST: SPECIAL PERMIT Renewal and expansion of a resource
recovery facility in an I-1 (Light Industrial)
Zone
1. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION:
Legal That portion of the southeast 1/4 of the northwest
1/4, Township 9 North, Range 30 East, Section 32
included in parcel #'s (112 401151, 112401142 &
112401124)
General Location 215 East Ainsworth Avenue
Property Size Approximately 14 acres
2. ACCESS: The site has access from Ainsworth Avenue.
3. UTILITIES: All municipal utilities currently serve the site.
4. LAND USE AND ZONING: The property is zoned I-1 (Light Industrial)
and contains a resource recovery facility. The site has been partially
mined for gravel. Surrounding properties are zoned and developed as
follows:
North I-1- BNSF railroad
South R-2 & R-3 - Single family residences & duplexes
East I-1 - Municipal sewer treatment facility
West R-2, R-3 & I-1 - BNSF railroad, single family residences &
duplexes
5. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The Comprehensive Plan designates this area
for industrial uses.
6. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The City of Pasco is the lead
agency for this project. Based on the State Environmental Policy Act
checklist, the adopted City Comprehensive Plan, city development
regulations, and other information, a threshold determination resulting
in a Determination of Nan-Significance has been issued for this project
under WAC 197-11-158.
1
ANALYSIS
Resource recovery facilities are listed as unclassified uses in PMC Chapter
25.86.020(9) and as such are required to be reviewed through the Special
Permit process before locating or expanding anywhere in the City. The
property in question was issued a Special Permit in 1998 for concrete crushing
and recycling operations. The applicant is requesting to simultaneously renew
their Special Permit for concrete crushing and recycling and to add hog fuel
production to their existing facility.
The proposed hog fuel facility is essentially a wood recycling plant. Activities
associated with the proposed use include accumulation of scrap wood, wood
chipping via mechanized chipper, piling of wood chips and transportation of
wood chips to off-site locations for use as fuel.
The concrete crushing operation involves scrap concrete arriving on-site; the
concrete is loaded into the crusher, crushed and comes out as a finer material.
The crushed concrete is stored in large piles outdoors until it is transported for
use at construction sites. All resource activities on site occur within a
substantial topographic depression which serves as a noise and sight barrier.
The western border of the site however, is level with the 41h Avenue road grade
and the residences located on 41h Avenue. It should be noted that the homes
on 4th Avenue are separated from the facility by an 80 foot wide right-of-way
and active BNSF railroad tracks. The combined width of the adjacent railroad
and City rights-of-way equal approximately 277 feet.
The concrete crushing and recycling business has been operating for the past
thirteen (13) ,years without generating complaints from any of the neighboring
residences.
STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT
Findings of Fact must be entered from the record. The following are initial
Findings drawn from the background and analysis section of the staff report
and comments made at the Public Hearing. The Planning Commission may
add additional findings as deemed appropriate.
1. The site is zoned I-1 (Light Industrial).
2. The site is within the Urban Growth Boundary.
3. The Comprehensive Plan designates the property for industrial uses.
4. The site was originally used as a gravel mine.
5. The site is located along the western edge of the City's Sewer Treatment
Facility.
6. The Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railroad right-of-way and the 4th
Avenue right-of-way are located along the western boundary of the site.
7. Ray Poland & Sons Inc. was granted a Special Permit in 1998 to operate
a concrete crushing resource recovery facility.
8. The existing and proposed mechanical equipment is located toward the
east side of the complex which is furthest away from residences.
9. The concrete crushing equipment is located in the bottom of the old
gravel mine.
10. The wood chipping equipment will be located in the bottom of the old
gravel mine.
11. The Special Permit was issued in 1993 and expired in January of 2010.
CONCLUSIONS BASED ON INITIAL STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT
The Planning Commission must make Findings of Fact based upon the criteria
listed in P.M.C. 22.80.060. The criteria and staff listed findings are as follows:
1. Will the proposed use be in accordance with the goals, policies,
objectives and text of the Comprehensive Plan?
Although resources recovery facilities are not specifically addressed in the
Comprehensive Plan, the proposal will serve an important role in reducing the
volume of waste entering landfills. Policy ED-2-B encourages the development
of a wide range of commercial and industrial uses strategically located to
support local and regional needs.
2. Will the proposed use adversely affect public infrastructure?
The proposed land use does not require sewer and water service. The impact
on public infrastructure associated with the addition of hog fuel production will
be unnoticeable when combined with the associated current concrete crushing
operations.
3. Will the proposed use be constructed, maintained and operated to be in
harmony with existing or intended character of the general vicinity?
The concrete crushing facility has been operating in harmony with the
surrounding uses for approximately thirteen (13) ,years. The general vicinity
can be characterized by the surrounding industrial land, including the railroad
and sewer plant.
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?
This proposal will not involve the construction of permanent structures and
will not differ from previous specially permitted uses on the property and
3
adjoining properties. Additional mechanical equipment will be located on site
for wood chipping but will not substantially alter the appearance of the site
from its current condition. The use of the site for concrete crushing and
recycling over the past 13 ,years has not discouraged development within the
general vicinity nor has it impaired the value of adjoining property.
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 activities will be limited to certain daytime hours and dust will be
controlled. The proposed use could be objectionable but in this case mitigation
measures on emission controls and hours of operation will address those
concerns. No complaints from the surrounding neighbors have been received
over the span of the previous Special Permit for concrete crushing. The
addition/operation of wood chipping equipment is anticipated to be masked by
the effects of concrete crushing operations.
6. Will the proposed use endanger the public health or safety if located
and developed where proposed, or in any way will become a nuisance to
uses permitted in the district?
The proposal with mitigation measures including dust control will not become
a nuisance to other uses permitted in the district. Additionally, limitations on
the days and hours of operation are measures to assure this use does not
become a nuisance to the residences within the general vicinity.
RECOMMENDED APPROVAL CONDITIONS
1. The special permit shall apply to parcels 112401151, 112401142 &
112401124;
2. The activities approved by this special permit are limited to concrete
crushing and recycling and wood chipping;
3. The site shall not be used for the disposal or storage of any items
classified as solid waste and/or which readily decompose;
4. The applicant shall obtain and maintain all necessary governmental
permits for the operations permitted by this special permit;
5. Crushing and chipping activities shall only be permitted between 7:00
am and 6:00 pm;
6. Crushing and chipping activities on Sundays and holidays is
prohibited. Holidays include the date of observance of New Years Day,
Martin Luther King Day, Memorial Day, 4th of July, Labor Day,
Thanksgiving Day and Christmas Day;
7. A five (5) foot wide landscaping strip meeting standards listed in PMC
25.75 shall be installed along Ainsworth Avenue east of the driveway
4
8. The concrete crushing operation must follow best management
practices. Best management practices include, but are not limited to:
• Using water or chemical dust suppressant on particulate matter
(PM) containing surfaces (i.e. haul roads, staging areas, transfer
areas and parking areas) and/or materials prior to and during
activities that may release PM into the air. Re-application may be
required periodically to maintain effectiveness;
• Managing activity during high winds, if the winds are likely to
cause the release of PM into the air;
• Minimizing the free fall distance, i.e. drop height, of PM containing
materials at transfer points such as the end of conveyors, front-
end loader buckets, etc.;
• Managing vehicle loads with potential of release of PM with
appropriate covers or freeboard consistent with applicable laws;
• Minimizing exposed areas of PM containing materials such as
storage piles, graded surfaces, etc, and/or using tarps or chemical
dust suppressants to minimize releases to the air;
• Limiting vehicle speed to less than 15 miles per hour on unpaved
surfaces;
• Consolidating storage piles whenever possible;
• Managing stockpile loader and haul truck travel to control release
of PM;
• Prevent the deposition of PM onto paved public roadways;
9. This Special Permit shall expire on January 1, 2021.
RECOMMENDATION
MOTION: I move to adopt Findings of Fact and Conclusions therefrom as
contained in the April 28, 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 Ray Poland & Sons Inc. for the operation of a
concrete crushing/hog fuel production facility with conditions as
listed in the April 28, 2011 staff report.
5
Vicinity Special Item: Permit (resource recove }
MapA licant: Ray Poland & Sons c .
FiNe: SP 2011 -001
litJs
I �C ST � " --
T y/
EA
_ A.
i
r
Q; 8.397
f , ,
4 4 a
r.
Land Use Item.: Special Permit (resource recovery)
Map File SP 2011 Ray 001 a nd & Sons Inc. N--------------------
"C" ST Z
�> � BNSF Railroad-
(vacant)e Sewer
FRs P D Treatment
'ublic Works
W Facility
' SITE
Port o ..... 0
A/psw0
Pasco s RryAv
FiS
p
"SF s, R%3 9,
A.
ar "ST
Site Plan =Ray Poland & Sons Inc. N
�0(4
IlWood chip piles
2,
l
Proposed wood chipper
Existing concrete `
L� crushing equipment
Ak
IBS � 1
Ar
'ta • Y.^' The sites' only
access point
ax,e ': 4 ' tea,. a �' ��/� �•�`'� _ r;w . � ` -. :.
ILooking to a south ]
1+1! of ��"•'
^t— _ C__=-.- - �� _ - •"'_" 'xT .T y; '� �� !"may _���.. - Jdb
Wd
for
l�•
'iL •.. .,��,b � - - � �,�,�i� �+►i]ter
� r �
i
Looking to the west
lk-
AL-
1,
•
� 1 t
1 �
9,31 0 9 12
Hog fuel area
14P ft,
r
}r
_f
�'' :,�, ��' •_r✓: lid , '>f(�._; •s �`
ti�' • '• .•�, '� •tip• -,• �„� � :�'�� "��15. 1�/s: 'j;! �r��. �'•• _
,
• 1 , ••' lei. 1 �'� �� .�; '•'�` •. Ir•+" �:�.: sue. ±? } ♦' t T,
r �.. ��- , 'a�;I�. �}t:�� l,� s�' ,i'•� nis ��-�� '� a �� a�s � ,,4. ���.1►.}, `"2�`�l's• !�1
y ,j.r• j •1' 1 �.r � ' •r 1� r V P' t� �,j� -7� �1l� •'�('T�•1P �i •, •�{��'� r. �.t�- 1
1 !%s.Y _ ;'Y� �s i '� �'����.. t� ��jt�`�► -�f�i�l � - .�� � `�\ s".'11 'rfy;'t :�f�.w�7711{{��1��/� � Y ��• 1
.. � -'� ? J •J�:.:? . ,•:Y�' %iw' ... �!r.• -l•-r}a1 '.i-��v�r�s �.rn'4"��•1�� rs�",ri.`�"4 ,`7�'"k 1 Y�e� _ .. ,br�LN'i. •.����
Looking • the east
Jw INC
,�. ;� _ ► -
• n "
L i _
.r
i
>� r
. � w 03/ 0912011 10 : 3
IL -
.,,��-Lookincj to the north _
1
or
1 RQ?9..•' Q � b
r
t'P�`iRUN ' -
�'o1-ICiiLE{/.�S^-F• •^a
tall 1Q ��4' �'
tiz : o < < � � ziso � �o
AA�lk
limp -
MdP
REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
MASTER FILE NO. SP 2011-005 APPLICANT: Mario Rivera
HEARING DATE: 3/17/2011 5314 Ochoco Lane
ACTION DATE: 4/28/2011 Pasco, WA 99301
BACKGROUND
REQUEST: SPECIAL PERMIT Location of a church in an R-2 (Medium
Density Residential) Zone
1. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION:
Legal The east half of Block 10 Pettits Addition together
with adjoining vacated right-of-way
General Location 316 North 11th Avenue
Property Size Approximately 0.5 acres
2. ACCESS: The site has access from 11th Avenue.
3. UTILITIES: All municipal utilities currently serve the site.
4. LAND USE AND ZONING: The site is zoned R-2 (Medium Density
Residential) and contains a partially occupied multi-tenant commercial
building. The zoning and land use of the surrounding properties are as
follows:
North R-2 - Single family residences & duplexes
South C-1 - Single family residences
East R-2 - Single family residences
West R-2 - Single family residences
5. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The Comprehensive Plan designates this area
for Low-Density Residential uses. Policies of the Plan encourage
compatibility between land uses and harmony between existing and
proposed development. The Plan does not specifically address churches,
but various elements of the Plan encourage adequate provision of off-
street parking and situating businesses in appropriate locations for their
anticipated uses.
6. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The City of Pasco is the lead
agency for this project. Based on the SEPA checklist, the adopted City
Comprehensive Plan, city development regulations, and other
information, a threshold determination resulting in a Determination of
Nan-Significance (DNS) has been issued for this project under WAC 197-
11-158.
1
ANALYSIS
The applicant is seeking a Special Permit to allow the location of a church in an
existing church. Churches are defined in Pasco Municipal Code as
"Unclassified Uses" which require a Special Permit prior to locating in any zone
within the City.
The approximately 3,648 square foot building proposed to be used for a church
was originally developed for church uses is 1985. Prior occupants have
received City of Pasco Special Permits to conduct church activities on the site.
Those Special Permits were conditioned to require termination of the Permit if
the owner/applicant changed. In this case, the recommended conditions
would apply to the parcel and would not be personal to the applicant.
In terms of occupancy load, the proposed church contains 22 parking stalls.
Pasco Municipal Code requires one parking stall for every four seats in a
church. Inversely, we can interpret that to imply that for every parking stall
four occupants are allowed. Accordingly, the existing off-street parking will
support up to 88 people attending church at any one given time. A condition
addressing maximum the occupancy load is contained below under Initial
Approval Conditions.
Traffic generated by the church will occur mostly on Sunday mornings when
traffic is minimal. The operations of churches generally generate few
complaints from adjoining property owners.
STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT
Findings of Fact must be entered from the record. The following are initial
Findings drawn from the background and analysis section of the staff report.
The Planning Commission may add additional Findings to this listing as the
result of factual testimony and evidence submitted during the open record
hearing.
1. Churches are unclassified uses and require review through the Special
Permit process prior to locating or expanding in any zoning district.
2. The proposed site is zoned R-2 (Medium Density Residential).
The propo sed site is located at 316 North 11th Avenue.
4. The site is approximately 0.5 acres.
5. The site contains 22 off-street parking stalls.
6. Access to the site is from 11th Avenue.
7. The proposed site has been developed with a church structure since
1985.
S. Churches are classified as an "A" occupancy under the International
Building Code.
9. The municipal Code (PMC 25.78.170) requires one off-street parking
space for every four fixed seats.
CONCLUSIONS BASED ON STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT
The Planning Commission must make Findings of Fact based upon the criteria
listed in P.M.C. 25.86.060. The criteria and staff listed findings are as follows:
1. Will the proposed use be in accordance with the goals, policies,
objectives and text of the Comprehensive Plan?
Policy LU-2-13 of the Comprehensive Plan encourages the support of facilities
for educational and cultural activities.
2. Will the proposed use adversely affect public infrastructure?
The proposed use will have a minimal impact on public infrastructure.
Churches are generally used during off-peaks hours, on Sundays and during
evenings in the middle of the week. The church will use existing City utilities
and infrastructure.
3. Will the proposed use be constructed, maintained and operated to be
in harmony with the existing or intended character of the general
vicinity?
Churches are typically located in or near residential areas. This site is largely
surrounded by single family residences. The site does not require substantial
exterior modifications to its current appearance.
4. Will the location and height of proposed structures and the site design
discourage the development of permitted uses on property in the
general vicinity or impair the value thereof?
The location and height of the existing structure has not discouraged the
development of permitted uses on surrounding properties in the past. No
exterior site modifications are proposed. Any prospective businesses seeking to
locate within the vicinity will be aware of the church since it is an existing
structure.
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?
If the site were to be developed residentially, under the current zoning up to
four units could be permitted. The noise, fumes, vibrations, dust, traffic, and
flashing lights generated by four dwelling units would be less than those
generated by the church during peak operation. However, churches are
typically used infrequently, generally two or three days per week and generate
3
traffic during off-peak times such as Sunday mornings and in evenings during
the week. During the remainder of the week, the site is likely to generate far
less disruption to the surrounding residents than would four dwelling units.
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?
Past history of church operations within the City has shown they usually do
not endanger public health or safety. Churches are generally accepted uses
within the community.
APPROVAL CONDITIONS
1. The special permit shall apply to Tax Parcels 112271033 & 112271042;
2. The church occupancy shall be limited to 33 People;
3. The church shall not object to the issuance of a liquor license within
1,000 feet of the church building;
4. The Special Permit shall be null and void if a City of Pasco Business
License is not obtained by August 1, 2011.
RECOMMENDATION
MOTION: I move to adopt Findings of Fact and Conclusions therefrom as
contained in the April 28, 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 Mario Rivera for the operation of a church with
conditions as listed in the April 28, 2011 staff report.
4
tem: Church in R-2 Zone
Vi cinit
Y
Applicant: Mario Rivera N
M"11
File #. SP2011 -005
F T-
AN 91-P
i
K r HOPKINS ST-
J
- /► ��'' rev • y
IT z
_ o
dP
* i �r
Land Use Item: Church in R-2 Zone
Applicant: Mario Rivera N Map File #: SP2011 -005
Duplexes F SFR's School
HOPKINS ST SFR's
N IT
W s
Library a a 74 IS sot o
M
r
s Comm.
SFR' s 74
S
F.C. F ,S mm. s
F PUD Comm. P.S.D. F
offices R's
Zoning Item: Church in R-2 Zone
Applicant: Mario Rivera N
Map File #: SP2011 -005
1 7
R-1
R- ^ HOPKINS ST
L
N SITE
y
R- 1 7e , S R-1
Ic
VA
m
Z
�L
C- 1 s�
r C-1
C- 1
Looking east
s• -- - r
F w _
Looking west
A6 vi, FS
oil
-9 CAI
Lookinq west
VT.
_ 1
r— t
k
9 a
f. -
r
ONORROM Hong
[Looking north
i
CASA
ALAS%T
AIL lamil.
IGILf �I UC�If1�
Y
r �h
REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
MASTER FILE NO. PP 2011-001 APPLICANT: Basswood, LLC
HEARING DATE: 3/17/2011 1119 West Columbia Drive
ACTION DATE: 4/28/2011 Kennewick, WA 99366
BACKGROUND
REQUEST: PRELIMINARY PLAT Ranger Heights, 11-lots
1. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION:
Legal Short Plat 76-10 Lot 2
General Location East side of Road 80 at Ruby Street
Property Size 4.37 Acres
Number of Lots Proposed 11 single family lots
Square Footage Range of Lots 12,207 to 24,361 square feet
Average Lot Square Footage 17,302 square feet
2. ACCESS: The property has access from Road 80.
3. UTILITIES: Municipal water and sewer are stubbed to the site. Both will
need to be extended throughout the site from the west.
4. LAND USE AND ZONING: The site is zoned RS-12 (Suburban
Residential). Surrounding properties are zoned and developed as follows:
North RS-12 - Single Family Residences/Vacant Lots
South RS-12 - Church/Vacant Lot
East RS-12 - Single Family Residences/Vacant Lot
West RS-12 - Single Family Residences
5. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The Comprehensive Plan indicates the site is
intended for low-density residential development. According to the
Comprehensive Plan low-density residential means two to five 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 residential uses when or
where: sewer is available; land is suitable for home sites; and when there
is a market demand. Policy H-1-E encourages the advancement of home
ownership and Goal H-2 suggests the City strive to maintain a variety of
housing options for residents of the community. Goal LU-2 encourages
the maintenance of established neighborhoods and the creation of new
neighborhoods that are safe and enjoyable places to live.
6. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The City of Pasco is the lead
agency for this project. Based on the State Environmental Policy Act
checklist, the adopted City Comprehensive Plan, City development
I
regulations, comments received from the Pasco School District, and other
information, the City issued a Determination of Nan-Significance (DNS)
under WAC 197-11-158.
ANALYSIS
The City's land use plans for the last 29 ,years have indicated the property in
question should be utilized for low density residential development. For much
of the past 29 ,years the site was located outside the City limits but within the
City's urban growth area. The site was annexed in 2002 and sewer service was
extended north on Road 80 to the intersection with Ruby Street in 2007.
The applicant is proposing to subdivide the site in question into 11 single-
family lots. The plan calls for a cul-de-sac branching west from Road 80. Due
to the proximity of Court Street this would be an acceptable design, although a
through-street with the intent of punching through to Road 76 would be
preferable. The proposed lot sizes will conform to the RS-12 zoning and existing
lots within the neighborhood.
LOT LAYOUT: The proposed plat contains 11 lots; with the lots varying in size
from 12 ,207 square feet to over 24,000 square feet. The average lot size is
around 17,000 square feet, consistent with the site and neighborhood zoning.
RIGHTS-OF-WAY: All lots have adequate frontage on streets that will be
dedicated.
UTILITIES: The developer will be responsible for extending sewer, water and
other 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 purposes are larger than the requested easements;
therefore the front ,yard easements will not encroach upon the buildable
portions 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 of 500-foot
intervals and streetlights are located at street intersections and at 300-foot
intervals on residential streets.
STREET NAMES: The only street in the proposed plat is a continuation of
Ruby Street (Ruby Court).
IRRIGATION: The site is within the Franklin County Irrigation District and all
irrigation line extensions must conform to the requirements of the District.
WATER RIGHTS: The site is located within the Franklin County Irrigation
District.
STAFF 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: Minimum lot sizes of 12,000 square feet or
greater will address the overcrowding concern by providing manageable lots
and usable open spaces. The Comprehensive Plan suggests the property in
question be developed with two to five dwelling units per acre. The proposed
Plat has a density of about 2.5 units per acre. No more than 40 percent of each
lot can be covered with structures per RS-12 zoning standards.
PARKS OPENS SPACE/SCHOOLS: Chiawana Park is located approximately
850 ,yards west of the site. Ruth Livingston Elementary School, McLoughlin
Middle School, and Chiawana High School are all located less than a mile to
the north. The preliminary plat was submitted to the School District for review.
The School District has determined that the proposed subdivision will generate
over 9 student units (4.5 elementary, 1.8 middle school, and 1.9 high school
multiplied by 11 SFDU's). Since one of the lots is already developed, this
reduces the potential new enrollment to 8.2 student units. The School District
is in the process of installing several new portable classrooms at Livingston
Elementary School and McLoughlin Middle School and will not be requesting a
voluntary agreement for the imposition of mitigation fees on the proposed plat.
A March 31, 2011 letter from the School District indicates no requests for
mitigation fees will be made by the School District for plats submitted for
review prior to April 1, 2011.
EFFECTIVE LAND USE/ORDERLY DEVELOPMENT: The plat is laid out for
low density residential development as identified in the Comprehensive Plan.
The maximum density permitted under the Comprehensive Plan is five dwelling
units per acre. The proposed development with about 2.5 dwelling units per
acre is an orderly continuation of the existing residential subdivisions
surrounding the site.
SAFE TRAVEL & WALKING CONDITIONS: The plat is connected to Road 80.
No sidewalks are required in the RS-12 zone.
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 one developed site and ten undeveloped residential building lots to
provide new housing sites for Pasco residents.
3
ADEQUATE AIR AND LIGHT: The lot sizes and maximum lot coverage
limitations will assure that adequate movement of air and light is available to
each lot.
PROPER ACCESS & TRAVEL: The one cul-de-sac street in the Plat will be
paved and developed to City standards to assure that proper access is
maintained to each lot. Connections to the community will be provided by Road
80, which feeds out to Court Street to the south. 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 low density 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: (list additional findings as appropriate)
• 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.
• Comprehensive Plans for the past three decades have set the site aside
for low density residential development.
• Low-Density Development is described in the Comprehensive Plan as two
to five dwelling units per acre.
• The site is zoned RS-12 (Suburban Residential).
• 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 interconnection of neighborhood streets is necessary for utility
connections (looping) and the provision of emergency services.
• This subdivision has not been laid out to have interconnecting streets or
utilities.
• Dedicated cul-de-sacs are provided on the ends of streets where they are
not planned to be extended in the future.
• Properties to the west and south of the site have been developed. Partial
development has occurred to the north and east.
• A sewer line is located along Road 80.
• An 8-inch water line runs north In Road 80 between Court Street and
Wernett Road.
4
CONCLUSIONS BASED ON INITIAL STAFF 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 infrastructure standards were designed to ensure the public
health safety and general welfare of the community are secured. These
standards include provisions for streets, drainage, water and sewer service and
the payment of park fees. This preliminary plat has been forwarded to the
Franklin County PUD, the Pasco School District and Ben-Franklin Transit
Authority for review and comment. Chiawana Park is located approximately
850 ,yards west of the site. Ruth Livingston Elementary School, McLoughlin
Middle School, and Chiawana High School are all located less than a mile to
the north. The School District has stated it is not in a position to accept further
enrollment at the elementary or middle school levels in this area.
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, with access to nearby
Court Street via Road 80.
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 low density
residential development. Low density development is described as two to five
single-family 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 Plan also encourages the
interconnection of local streets for inter-neighborhood travel for public safety
as well as providing for traffic disbursement. The proposed Subdivision
conforms to the policies, maps and narrative text of the Comprehensive Plan.
4. The proposed subdivision conforms to the general purposes of any
applicable policies or plans which have been adopted by the City
Council;
5
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.
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 ensure the public use and interest
are served.
RECOMMENDED APPROVAL CONDITIONS
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 and sewer lines, streets, and storm water retention.
Curb, gutter, sidewalks, and street lights are not required in the RS-12 Zone.
All existing and proposed utilities must be installed underground by the
developer at the developer's expense.
1. Ruby Court shall be built to the City of Pasco's Local Street Standard.
2. 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.
3. 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).
4. No utility vaults, pedestals or other obstructions will be allowed at street
intersections.
5. The developer/builder shall pay the current City "Park fund fee" upon
issuance of building permits for homes.
6. All storm water is to be disposed of per city and state codes and
requirements.
6
7. The developer shall ensure active and ongoing dust, weed and litter
abatement activities occur during the construction of the subdivision and
of the houses thereon.
8. 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 department. This form shall be signed by the
developer prior to plan approval.
9. The developer shall install a properly designed irrigation system which
includes valves to each of the lots of the development, as well as an
appropriate size distribution system. Developer shall also furnish proper
construction documents and final as-built drawings showing any
deviations from the construction drawings.
10. Any and all utilities shall be located as directed by the City Engineer.
This shall include but, is not limited to gas, phone, power, cable and all
other utilities located within or adjoining the Plat. Any existing utilities
that present difficulties shall be relocated at the developer's expense,
pursuant to the City Engineer's direction. All utility plans, including the
above mentioned, are required to be submitted to the City of Pasco prior
to Subdivision approval.
11. 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.
12. 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.
13. 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.
14. 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."
15. All storm water shall be disposed of through grassy swales paralleling the
paved surface of the street. The developer shall install the swale with the
construction of the street. The swale area must be fully irrigated and
7
sodden or seeded before a certificate of occupancy is issued for each lot.
A note shall be placed on the final Plat stating these requirements.
16. The developer will be required to comply with the City of Pasco Civil Plan
Review process. A copy of the requirements for the Civil Plan Review
process is available from the City of Pasco Engineering department.
RECOMMENDATION
MOTION: I move to adopt Findings of Fact and Conclusions therefrom as
contained in the April 2S, 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 Ranger Heights Subdivision with the
conditions as listed in the March 17, 2011 staff report.
8
Pasco School District #1
C. L. Booth Education Service Center
,,, 1215 W. Lewis • Pasco, Washington 99301
ASCQ
SCHOOL D19MCT#1 (509) 543.6700
March 11, 2011
Rick White
City of Pasco
PO Box 293
Pasco, WA 99301
RE: Ranger Heights Subdivision — Master File Number: PP2011-001
Dear Rick:
As indicated in the letter the Pasco School District filed, there is not sufficient capacity to serve
elementary and middle school students from the 11 houses that are contemplated in the proposed
Range Heights Subdivision.
As reflected in the 2010-2017 Pasco School District Capital Facility, a copy of which is attached to this
email, the District needs to construct a new elementary and new middle school to serve students from
new residential development. The cost to construct a new 750 student elementary is over
$26,000,000, or approximately $35,000 per student. The cost to construct a new 1,250 student
middle school is over$60,000,000, or approximately $48,000 per student.
The Ranger Heights Subdivision will generate at least 5 elementary school students and 2 middle
school students, using a district-wide average of the number of students that live in new single family
homes. The proportionate share of the cost to construct the new elementary school, which is
necessary as a direct result of the proposed subdivision, is $175,000 (5 students x $35,000 per
student). The proportionate share of the cost to construct the new middle school, which is necessary
as a direct result of the proposed subdivision, is $96,000 (2 students x $48,000 per student). The
total cost to mitigate the direct impacts associated with the proposed subdivision is $271,000.
As you know, the Pasco School District has requested the City of Pasco and Franklin County adopt a
school impact fee ordinance and collect $6,012 from the builder of every new single family home to
mitigate the impacts new homes are having on schools.
To mitigate the impacts associated with the proposed Ranger Heights Subdivision, the District is
willing to accept payment of $67,122, or the equivalent of what would be collected in school impact
fees if the City were implementing the District's requested school impact fee program. The payment
of $67,122, as demonstrated in the materials the District has submitted, is significantly less than the
actual cost to mitigate the direct impacts.
If the City determines it is appropriate to approve the proposed Ranger Heights Subdivision, the
District requests a condition of approval requiring the applicant to sign a voluntary agreement under
which the applicant will be required to pay $67,122 to mitigate the impacts the subdivision will have on
the schools. We understand voluntary agreements are authorized under RCW 82.02.020.
Equal Opportunity Employer
Rick White
March 11, 2091
Page 2
Thank you for asking for more information and for considering the District's request.
Sincerely,
John M. Morgan
Executive Director, Operations
Celebrating academics, diversity and innovation.
i
Pasco School District No. 1
Operations Department
John Morgan,g , Eacecvnve Director (509)543.609$
Jean Martin, Adminimative Assistant (509)546-28$0
1215 West Lewis Street
SC Pasco, WA 99301
+ 11001, ImI fr#1 Fax: (s09?50-6715 RECEIVED
MAR 31 2011
March 31, 2011 COMMUNITY&ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Gene Batey
9800 W Maple Drive
Pasco, WA 99301
RE: Ranger Heights Subdivision — Master File No. PP2011-1
Dear Gene:
After careful consideration of your concerns regarding the Pasco School District's
decision to request impact/mitigation fees on your proposed development, the district
decided to withdraw its request for mitigation payments associated with your proposed
development. Factors that led the district to this decision were:
1. Your development had already received preliminary approval
2. There was no formal statement of impact/mitigation fees for schools as
you pursued city or county approval.
Please note that Pasco School District will request impact/mitigation fees on all housing
developments after the date of April 1, 2011.
The district believes this decision is in the best interest of the school district and
community.
Sincerely,
r. Morgan
Executive Director Operations
cc: city of Pasco Planning Department
Overview Item: Prelim. Plat - Ranger Heights Map Applicant: Basswood LLC N
File # : PP 2011 -001
"2 Tor
`LA R
+_S T ATE AG
. ,
-
= t '
� . - ,SITE
T
AAA
Ah
Item: Prelim. Plat - Ranger Heights
Vicinity
Ap
Map plicant: Basswood LLC N
File # : PP 2011 -001
Co.
• ti -- - --- it �. rt
1
1.,CL,
SITE
�+�p�
foe
COURT ST
I 3 m
1 I
188.0' 93.2' 93.2' `Q9.6' 170.5'
i i / x
`�
CC) 11 1 r + / EXISTING \
SHOP BLDG x \
Q 3b' + \
o EXISTING HOME r - x a t
5 �\
I a b 2 0 , 3 0 4
' °'- 12,388 SF
KTG
' W R 12 207 SF 12,265 SF �•
1 I 0. F- r
WATER \ 24,631 SF I R � ; x 12,207 SF
�'� z
METER.' \ / I R O
EXTG 9' �' \ t_ — _ U I x
FIRE + J � P1V'T ``�' EXTG ' -� X48
HYD nl! { 1 _ �`. .'' + FENCE x x '`��
it n � RSS rn
�} t _(y' xL Lx xFW�xQT; -1 _.�4>3' \ 6 \ Y
V V w f ----- ------------------ — — _... \ \LP
�� I
36� 64JL _ 93.2' 93.2' 54.3' R=7 �n 12,462 SF
R / ' f — �n
4' •V f ROAD SIDE DITCH(TYP)
(S T ,� ' � $"PVC S �°
EXTG _SAN MH — _ cn j _ SAN MH
N MH 8'DI �.
EDGE ,IRR M FIRE HYD
OF I ' R EDGE OF 93.7'
EXTG I I — — — ROAD SIDE DITCH(TYP) — — _ PAV'T
PAV'T A ; f g 109.3' 125.7' 125.7' 46.4' -� \
UJI
T 1 0 W
f W 1 0 9 0 ----- -- 8 12,x97 SF \
y ; 14,573 SF 13,699 SF x 13,699 SF o
13,128 SF o r
A ' +
_ ---- EXISTING /
If ( x GROUND /
CONTOUR,---
" \ 136.0' 125.7' 125.7' 148.1' 99.0'
f ----------- 21- _-- ----
FhAY
Till
r
I I
I
r
Scale 1" = 50' 'd� 38322
°•��,e'erSTF, ti
0 11 50 100 SSf ONAL � 2 1 7/Zp I I
Pasco, A9 301. 930 DESIGNED• JEF SCALE H. 1 A SHEET
PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR: � Paeco,w,49930,-8930 V: N/A
509!547-5119
RANGER HEIGHTS SUBDIVISION 5091547.5129 fax DRAWN: JEF DATE: FEB 17,2011
DESIGN GROUP
APRELIMINARY PLAT IN THE CITY OF PASCO, WA englneers I landscapearchitects I planners I s—eyors Inlemetwww.hdidest ngroup.com CHECKED: JEF JOB NO.:
f r�' � - ,� � _ - /._�' .ice- �•.
• Southwest
�.
r
tam
NA jw
or
OL
tat
. i
View Looking East
•
qm
` i
dDIC
r
_ ,± ...- o _A • "� K 1.
ir
View Looking Southeast ;, •. '���.�t `�� - •: �`''�'
Exhibit 1 - 3/25/11 better from HBA
RECEIVED
i
MAR 2 5 2011
Nome Builders As acirUun o'Tr;. sties C0Ml t ffYfi EMlY0NG flEVEV
Building the Ti•i-Cities since 1958
Pasco City Council Franklin County Commissioners
Pasco Planning Commission Franklin County Planning Commission
P.O. Box 293 10I6 N. 4`h Street
Pasco, WA 99301 Pasco, WA 99301
March 25, 2011
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 (HBA), 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.I 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 Builders Association of Tri-Cities,WA
10001 W Clearwater Ave)Kennewick,WA 99336
(509)735-2745 or(877)842-8453 1 Fax:(509)735-8470 1 www.hbatc.com
from t'vuluntanY',but is a fee that builders and developers had no knowledge of when they
bought their land, and is therefore a threat to property nights and another barrier to growth.
The HDA urges the,City of Pasco and Franklin County to pass any pending and future ptat or
development approvals n4thout the condition to enter into a voluntary agreement and pay these
outrageous fees and allow development and building to continue without pause.
Sincerely,
'•-t ttit�- I r4 yi:jr- tt r^�
Renee Dahlgren
Director of Government Affairs
cc: Pasco School District; Jerrod MacPherson; Rick White
Home 6udders Association of Tri•Cities,WA
10001 W Clearwater Ave)Kennemek,`lYA 98336
(Mg)731.5-2 74".;or(677)8421-8453'F.-,x.%1509)735-8470 1 www hbat`nom
MEMORANDUM
DATE: April 1, 2011
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Jeffrey B. Adams, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map (MF# CPA 10-004)
This item has been remanded to the Planning Commission by the City Council
so that it may be considered independent of any possible confounding factors
of a specific development proposal. The application to change the land use
designation of an area must be seen as a stand-alone issue as it would impact
any subsequent owners and neighbors, regardless of the current ownership or
development plans.
Beacon Development has submitted an application for a Comprehensive Plan
Land Use Map Amendment. The Amendment involves changing the land use
designation for slightly more than two blocks of land south of Highland Park
from low density residential to mixed residential.
The applicant has submitted the Comprehensive Plan Amendment application
on behalf of the property owner (three additional properties where included in
the proposal by staff to create a more uniform boundary for the proposed land
use designation in the event the proposal is recommended for approval).
The site is located east of California Avenue, west of Charles Avenue, north of
Clark Street, and south of Highland Park. It is currently zoned R-1 with a
triangle on the northwest corner of the site zoned C-3, and is identified on the
Comprehensive Plan map as a location for future low density residential
development; the triangle on the northwest corner for commercial development.
Most of the land encompassed by this request is vacant and undeveloped. The
six lots at the northwest corner of Charles Avenue between George Street and
Clark Street are zoned C-1 (Retail Business). These six lots, plus some
additional lots to the north, were used in the past for an automotive repair
shop and storage facility. The vacant shop building is still located on the
property. The only other building on the subject property is a house located at
209 N. Franklin Avenue.
Properties surrounding the site to the west have a commercial land use
designation and are zoned C-3 (General Business) and properties to the east
and north are designated for low density development and are zoned R-1 (Low
Density Residential).
In 2007 and 2008 La Clhiica Self-Help Housing assisted with construction of
seven self-help homes in the 300 block of Charles Avenue. Many of the existing
I
homes in the surrounding blocks were constructed in the 1950's and 1960's.
Other changing conditions in the immediate neighborhood include an
expansion to Highland Park and the construction of the Bishop Topel housing
complex north of Whittier School. The Bishop Topel complex was constructed
on a site that was rezoned R-3 (Medium Density Residential) following a
Comprehensive Plan Amendment in 2005 that designated a band between
Whittier School and James Street for mixed residential uses.
The following Comprehensive Plan goals and policies are applicable to this
proposal:
The goal LU-2 ("Maintain established neighborhoods and ensure new
neighborhoods are safe and enjoyable") xuill be supported tuith this proposed
mixed residential land use designation by creating a buffer- between loru
density residential areas to the east and general commercial zones to the
tuest.
Policy LU-2-D ("Require all development to be landscaped") tuill be
maintained as any nexu development xuill be required to landscape according
to City regulations.
Policies LU-3-A, (Reduce vehicular movement..."), B (Encourage infill and
density including Planned Unit Developments"), and E ("Designate areas for
higher density residential development where utilities and transportation
facilities enable efficient use of capital resources.") ruill be more likely as the
neru mixed residential land use designation xuill a lloru for higher- occupancy
residential infill close to schools, shopping, and transportation.
Goal H-1 ("Encourage housing for all economic segments of the city's
population") xuill be supported by allowing a mixed residential land use
designation which support a broader- range of housing types.
Policies H-1-A ("Medium and high density housing should be located near
arterials and neighborhood or community shopping facilities and
employment areas") and H-1-B ("Encourage the location of medium and
high density housing in locations that will avoid the need for access through
lower density residential neighborhoods") xuill be partially supported as the
main access for the proposed mixed residential land use designation xuill be
near- both Oregon Avenue and East Lexuis Street, and near- commercially
zoned areas which could support more community shopping facilities and
employment opportunities.
H-1-D ("Avoid large concentrations of high-density housing") ruould not be
supported since the proposed mixed residential land use designation ruould
permit zoning for higher- density xuithin 1,350 feet of another high density
project. However- the proposed site is separated from the higher- density
development by a park and by Whittier Elementary School.
Goal H-2 ("Strive to maintain a variety of housing consistent with the local
and regional market") ruould be supported as the proposed mixed residential
2
land use designation tuould allotu for a broader- mix: of housing types in a
fairly homogenous single family neighborhood. There is a market demand for-
more affordable housing types, including manufactured housing, smaller
housing units and accessory apartments, as tuell as duplexes, condominiums
and other- multi-family housing types. The current land use designation
minimizes variety by restricting higher-density development such as duplexes,
apartments, and condominiums from the area.
Policy H-2-A (Allow for a full range of residential environments including
single family Homes, townhouses, condominiums, apartments, and
manufactured housing") tuould be supported, as the proposed mixed
residen.tia l la nd u se designa Lion tuou Id a llotu fo r- a grey ter- va riety of hou sing
types in the neighborhood.
Goal H-5 ("Support efforts to provide affordable housing to meet the needs of
low and moderate income households in the community.") tuould be
sustained, as the proposed mixed residential land use designation tuould
allotu for higher- density development; i.e., townhouses, condominiums, and
apartments, which tend to be more affordable to rent/buy than a single-
family dwelling of similar- size.
ANALYSIS
The site in question is located at the edge of an area designated by the
Comprehensive Plan for low density residential land use. The low density
residential designation allows for a range of densities from zones RT (minimum
5-acre lot size per dwelling unit) through R-1, (7,200 square foot minimum lot
size per dwelling unit). The proposed mixed residential land use designation
would allow for the same range of zones plus the addition of the R-2 (5,000
square foot minimum lot size), and R-3 (3,000 square foot lot size for multiple
family dwelling units) zoning. These Comprehensive Plan designations are a
"broad brush" approach used by public entities to indicate land use and a
range of densities. Specific zoning follows these broad guidelines and provides
a basis for more detailed analyses.
The site borders a low-density residential neighborhood to the west and a City
park to the north. South of the site is vacant City owned land. To the west is
vacant land zoned for general commercial development. Best planning practices
call for a separation of commercial uses from low density residential uses. This
is typically done with "buffer" areas consisting of higher density uses and open
spaces. This amendment proposes to designate the specific area noted as
"mixed residential."
The proposed Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map Amendment is designed to
allow the development of higher density housing between general commercial
and low density residential land use designations. The proposed mixed
residential land use designation would generally be in harmony with the intent
of the Land Use and Housing Goals and Policies of the Comprehensive Plan,
with a caveat that it will not serve to "avoid large concentrations of high-density
3
housing" in the City. The applicant's proposal has the following characteristics:
1) it will be located near arterials, some shopping and employment
opportunities, with potential for more commercial development nearby; 2) main
access to the site can be primarily through commercial zones and not through
low-density residential areas; 3) housing types will be diversified from the
single-family homes and manufactured/mobile homes typical to the area.
In sum, except for not encouraging the dispersal of higher densities throughout
the community, most of the points listed are supportive of the Comprehensive
Plan amendment.
The Planning Commission will need to determine if the application materially
alters the general intent of the Comprehensive Plan and whether or not it can
be supported by the recommended goals and policies.
FINDINGS OF FACT
The following are initial Findings drawn from the background and analysis
section of the staff report. The Planning Commission may add additional
Findings to this listing as the result of factual testimony and evidence
submitted during the public hearing.
1. The site was originally platted in the 1880's
2. Four houses were built on the site and one remains.
3. An automotive repair shop and storage yard occupied approximately
three-quarters of the east half of block 2 of Charles Avenue.
4. The site is zoned both R-1 (Low-Density Residential) and C-1(Retail
Business).
5. Properties directly to the west are zoned C-3 (General Business).
b. Properties to the south are zoned R-1 (Low-Density Residential) and
C-1 (Retail Business).
7. Properties to the east are zoned R-1 (Low Density Residential).
8. The Housing Authority duplexes located on Wehe Avenue half a block
east of the site are zoned R-2 (Medium-Density Residential).
9. The site is currently identified for low density development on the
Comprehensive Plan Land Use map.
10. Highland Park is located directly to the north.
11. The Comprehensive Plan was amended in 2008 to include a mixed
use buffer area between the low density areas north of Whittier School
and the commercial land uses to the west.
12. A mixed residential Comprehensive Plan Land Use designation
permits future rezones for multi-family development.
13. The site is one block north of Lewis Street.
14. Access from the south is primarily through commercially zoned areas.
4
CONCLUSIONS
The site is currently located in a transition area between a low density area and
a commercial area. Changing the land use classification of the site to mixed
residential is consistent with accepted planning practices and could provide a
buffer between the low density to the east the commercial area to the west.
RECOMMENDATION
MOTION: I move to adopt the Findings of Fact and Conclusions
as contained in the Comprehensive Plan Land Use
Map MF# CPA 10-004 staff memo dated April 1, 2011.
MOTION: I move, based on the Findings of Fact and Conclusions
therefrom, that the Planning Commission recommend
the City Council approve a Comprehensive Plan
Amendment under Master File number CPA 10-004.
5
Pnnt Form
01��Zmza FEE: $700.00
CITY OF PASCO
PETITION FOR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT
(OFFICIAL USE ONLY) MASTER FILE# DATE SUBMITTED: tb t a
CPA l0.O
The undersigned hereby petition for an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan:
Applicant: Beacon Development Group on behalf of Catholic Housing Services of Eastem WA
Appl'icant's Address: 1221 E Pike St, Suite 300,Seattle, WA 98144
Applicant's Phone Numbers: 206.860.2491 o),206.860.2094 f)(see attached for additional)
(home/work, cell, fax)
Legal description of property (attach separate sheet if necessary):
See attached
1. Proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment:
F F-WA LOW. DjON54TY z5 t rvT�A L
See attached `tb
M 1 �C E t7 RES t T7F ry T.� �
2. How will the proposed amendment advance and support the policies and goals
of the Comprehensive Plan?
See attached
4. How will the proposed amendment advance the health, safety and general
welfare of the community?
See attached
Signature of Applicant
Contact: Beacon Development Group on behalf of Catholic Housing Services of Eastern Washington
Contact's Address: Beacon Development Group/1221 East Pike Street,Suite 300/Seattle, WA 98122
Contact's Phone Numbers: Paul Purcell 206-850-2491,ext. 206,
206-478-4153
Brian Lloyd 206-860-7491,ext. 210
206-890-4049
Aldan Poile 206-860-2491, ext.211
404-245-6716
Legal Description:
Whitehouse Addition all of Block 3. Whitehouse Addn, Lots 11 to 17, &lots 18-24 with 14'vacated.
See attached site map.
1. Proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment:
This proposed amendment concerns the Land Use Designations in the Comprehensive Plan for the areas
noted in legal description below and shown on the attached map (generally the area South of E Adelia St.
and North of E. George St. between N. Franklin Ave and Charles St. and the area South of F. George St.
and North of E. AlOna St. West of Charles St and the mid-block alley.) As shown in the plan, the area is
designated for Low-Density Residential land use. This amendment proposes to designate the specific
area noted as Mixed Residential.
Z. Now will the proposed amendment advance and support the policies and goals of the
Comprehensive Plan?
The Comprehensive Plan identifies 7 Elements, all part of the State's Growth Management Mandate. The
proposed amendment fits within these Elements and advances and supports specific policies and goals of
the Comprehensive Plan in the following manner:
Land Use Element. While this proposed amendment addresses general land use patterns and
designations, it is worth noting that the applicant and its client, Catholic Housing Services of Eastern
Washington,have developed two other properties in the City of Pasco—Tepeyac Haven and Bishop Topel
Haven. This amendment would allow for the development of another project seeking to house Pasco's
workforce. The goal(LU-1)and policy(L U-1-8)of increasing the quality of life within Pasco will be met by
this proposed project as the owner has as a priority, the enhancement of the community with high
quality building materials, color variations within the project, and attractive landscaping.
The goal(LU-2)of maintaining established neighborhoods and ensuring new neighborhoods are safe and
enjoyable will be met with this proposed amendment. A Mixed Residential area would provide a
transition zone between the C areas to the West of the subject area and R1 areas to the East of subject
area. Additionally it reinforces the Mixed Residential area to the North of Whittler Elementary, the
location of the applicant and client's Bishop Toppel Haven property. This use reinforces the identity of
the existing and new neighborhood, aligning with policy LU-2-A As noted previously, the applicant's
focus on high quality landscaping supports policy LU-2-D.
The goal (LU-3) of reducing long-term energy consumption and creating community health will fit with
this proposed amendment. The applicant proposes aproject similar to that of the existing Tepeyac Haven
property, which met LEED gold standards, and the Bishop Topel Haven property, which Is expected to
receive LEED certification. Policies LU-3-A, B, and E will be met with this amendment. The result will be
an infill development and an area of higher density residential use close to schools and transportation.
Housing Element. As stated, the applicant is seeking a general land use amendment. Specifically, the
applicant is proposing this amendment for the purpose of developing affordable housing. This is
applicable to the proposal in that Pasco and the Countywide Planning Policies acknowledge the need for
affordable housing in the area and encourage the construction of affordable housing, "...particularly for
low and moderate income segments of the population."
The City endeavors to encourage housing for all economic segments of the population (H-I), strives to
maintain a variety of housing consistent with the local and regional market (H-2), encourages housing
design and construction that ensure long-term sustainabiiity and value (H-4), and supports efforts to
provide affordable housing to meet the needs of low and mid-income households in the area(H-5).
Many of the specific policies supporting these goals will be met by a project such as that proposed by the
applicant. In sum, a change to the Comp Plan will allow the applicant to develop a project that is located
near arterials, community facilities, and employment areas (H-1-A). The location is such that access will
not be through the lower density areas to the south and east of the site (H-1-B) but rather via the
commercially designated and public areas. As with the applicant's previous developments, the
affordability to renters will allow for savings and support services for residents, encouraging eventual
home ownership potential from the population (H-1-E). The creation of a higher density project in this
area will encourage diversity in housing types in the area (H-2-A) while providing character and variety
(H-4-A). As with the Tepeyac Haven and Bishop Topel Haven properties, the proposed development will
be of appealing quality (H-5 A) and located such that it blends in with the nelghborhood, not creating a
monotonous landscape of stereotypical affordable housing(H-5-C).
Capital Fa illties, Utilities, and Transportation_Elements While this amendment is not specific to these
elements, it is worth noting that proposed amendment and project Itself reinforce the goals and policies
within the Comprehensive Plan. Namely, the area Is well served with existing utilities and transportation.
The City and/or developer would be able to capitalize on existing services by making this a Mixed
Residential area.
4. flow will the proposed amendment advance the health, safety and general welfare of the
community?
Many of the benefits of this omendment ore stated above and align perfectly with the Cityrs
Comprehensive Plan. As such, the welfare of the community as forecast in this Plan and proposed in this
specific amendment fit hand-in-hand. The creation of an area of Mixed Residential serves to reinforce the
Mixed Residential area to the North of Whittier Elementary and acts as a transition between higher and
lower intensity land use types in area. In sum, the land use patterns envisioned by the City favor and
encourage the type of development proposed by the applicant and sought in this application.
The examples of Tepeyac Haven and Bishop Topel Haven make the best case for how this proposal will
advance the health, safety and general welfare of the community. Tepeyac (again+ -a similar project is
envisioned by the applicant If allowed under the Comp Plan) has been well received by the Pasco
community with a significant wart list (hundreds of families), a clean and quality appearance, affordable
housing In an area that needs it for its burgeoning workforce population, and a nelghborhood anchor in
what was an area in transition. The local police mini-station has told the owner of the significant change
in the area since Tepeyoc's development. While still under construction, we expect the some response
and success from the Bishop Topel Haven property. We envision acceptance of this Comp Plan proposal
will allow for creation of another development that will benefit the Pasco community.
PROPERTY OWNERSHIP
\,\�A
1 l,,e� ..' �� ��•'�'liy� II`il" �,j� �'' ! '� ±"l!'iIlCu�l••,'`' ,:�I;il�r. I
I', i�!I'yrkp ;�'Iry�`yr'+ !
•1lT .r /i•;� \ �a I I r Il� EI , EI I;'j• ,i •r.�''�
��ch �j � •� ��/,
1: city {
ili,l
i },''.,lif! }`� 4.;;
� �fy , �,rll � ;.•i:,,,,1��,
I , e �''/ `7 I l
ir v-H l ^ rl, l� l ;•q ,r l: J111 n. ,��: ,,
f � �.� 1.��,f.� ,��; III Ik : ,: ' ,•,,y,f�!'.E �•!,!a' �;.�� ;I I ;
Ae "Ir�S.Q�,��l�,l
1 01
ryYx�',
4 t. ' ! 11.1�L7 a./1.0�`r - -z-i- a—.4�t- `. .. .•_ .. !
Ir ', J ilk• ;�yJ•� ` „� ' r'_ EORGB ST t
��'f~ �`� � 1 411•. ~�' '� � !
S '� � ice•`'' �' ��•` � I !. I i
PROPERTY OWNERSHIP
City
/mn�
ey
-Z E. GICORGE ST
2.J
ALLVINA ST
Item : Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Vicinity
Applicant: Beacon Development
Map File # : CPA 10 -004
V ,
r BR�JAD. AY BL
rA 000O.W, / v I i r a I W
P •�.
' S
do
Or
.1
SITE 'E(D t RGE S;.T
Lu &I
lit W.
0.
TA
LL
� u
4
*�_ �4
P
■ � � r rte, � �
Land Item: Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Use Applicant: Beacon Development
Map File CPA 10-004
Land Item: Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Use Applicant: Beacon Development N
Map File CPA 10-004
� r IMMI
IM IM IM IM
� IM IM IM
IM IM IM IM
■ IM Mr I :
IM IM IM
� I � IM r -
IM IM IM IM I
IM IM IM IM
IM IM
END",j
\, ■ IM ..
REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
MASTER FILE NO. SP 2011-006 APPLICANT: City of Pasco
HEARING DATE: 4/28/2011 525 North Third Avenue
ACTION DATE: 4/28/2011 Pasco, WA 99301
BACKGROUND
REQUEST: SPECIAL PERMIT Location of a -public -park in an R-1
(Low Density Residential) Zone
1. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION:
Legal: Tracts A, B & Linda Loviisa Park, Linda Loviisa
Please 1
Location: 5520 Salem Drive
Property Size: Approximately 5.5 acres
2. ACCESS: The site has access from Salem Drive, Juneau Lane,
Sacramento Drive and Providence Lane.
3. UTILITIES: All municipal utilities are currently available the site.
4. LAND USE AND ZONING: The site is zoned R-1 (Low Density
Residential) and is currently vacant. The zoning and land use of
the surrounding properties are as follows:
North R-1 - Single family residences
South R-1 - Single family residences
East R-1 - Single family residences
West R-1 - Single family residences
5. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The Comprehensive Plan designates
this area for low density residential uses. Policy CF-4-A encourages
implementation of the adopted Parks and Recreation Plan. This
year the City adopted a new Parks, Recreation & Forestry Plan
which contains various goals, objectives and policies related to
development of parks within the City. It is the intent of the Parks,
Recreation & Forestry Plan to establish well developed
neighborhood parks serving surrounding neighborhoods within a
radius of one-half to one mile.
6. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The City of Pasco is the
lead agency for this project. Based on the SEPA checklist, the
adopted City Comprehensive Plan, city development regulations,
and other information, a threshold determination resulting in a
1
Determination of Nan-Significance (DNS) has been issued for this
project under WAC 197-11-158.
ANALYSIS
Parks within residential neighborhoods are generally identified as a
desirable urban amenity. The Comprehensive Plan encourages the
location of parks throughout the City. Neighborhood parks are
characterized by parks that are designed primarily for non-supervised,
non-organized recreational activities. These parks are generally small in
size (3-7 acres) and are intended to serve a radius of about one-half of a
mile. In residential areas where densities are two to three units per acre
the service area can be expanded to a one mile radius.
From the Parks, Recreation & Forestry Plan, the most applicable policies
and development criteria for neighborhood parks are as follows:
1. A neighborhood park should be provided when the area it serves
reaches a 60% development level either by land mass or
population. (This park is intended to serve the Linda Loviisa plat
but is within walking distance to the Desert Oasis and Desert
Estates subdivisions. In land mass and population these
subdivisions are nearing the 60% development level.)
2. A neighborhood park should not be less than 5 acres in size if it is
to be located without any other amenities. Where practical
neighborhood parks should be co-located with elementary schools.
(The proposed park is 5.5 acres.)
3. In neighborhoods where the densities are 2-3 dwelling units per
acre the service area for neighborhood parks should be extended to
a mile radius.
4. At least 50% of the park site should be flat and usable. (The
proposed park site has been leveled.)
5. Appropriate facilities for neighborhood parks include:
a. Practice fields for softball, soccer, ,youth baseball etc.;
b. Children's playgrounds;
C. Unstructured open play areas;
d. Paved game courts;
e. Picnic areas with shelter buildings;
f. Trails systems;
g. Trees;
h. Natural open space; and,
i. Drainage corridors
6. The location criteria suggest neighborhood parks be central to the
area they serve, be adjacent a green belt or trail system, be within
walking distance of the area they serve, avoid the need to cross
major streets or physical barriers and be readily visible from
adjoining streets.
The proposed location of the Linda Loviisa Park meets the development
criteria for a neighborhood park.
The Administrative & Community Services Director conducted a
neighborhood meeting on April 12, 2011 to accept input from residents
of the surrounding neighborhood. Approximately thirty residents
attended the meeting. No specific requests or issues needing to be
addressed resulted from the meeting.
Scheduling of action on this item has been consolidated to allow
sufficient time for landscaping to establish during the Fall. Following
closure of the public hearing staff urges the Planning Commission to
deliberate and develop their recommendation. Accordingly, additional
motions are included in the Recommendation section of this report
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 proposed site is located at 5520 Salem Drive.
2. The proposed site is zoned R-1 (Low Density Residential).
3. The site is approximately 5.5 acres.
4. The Comprehensive Plan designates this area for low-density
residential uses.
5. The R-1 zoning regulations list parks as a "Conditional Use" and
thereby require Special Permit review.
6. Surrounding properties to the north, south, east and west are
zoned R-1 (Low Density Residential).
7. Access to the site is from Salem Drive, Juneau Lane, Sacramento
Drive and Providence Lane.
S. The proposed site is located within the Linda Loviisa subdivision.
9. The Parks Department held a public meeting on April 12, 2011 to
inform the neighborhood about design considerations and funding
for the development of the Linda Loviisa Park.
3
CONCLUSIONS BASED ON STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT
The Planning Commission must make Findings of Fact based upon the
criteria listed in P.M.C. 25.86.060. The criteria and staff listed Findings
are as follows:
1. Will the proposed use be in accordance with the goals, policies,
objectives and text of the Comprehensive Plan?
Policy CF-4-A encourages implementation of the adopted Parks and
Recreation Plan. This year the City adopted a new Parks, Recreation &
Forestry Plan which contains various goals, objectives and policies
related to development of parks within the City. It is the intent of the
Parks, Recreation & Forestry Plan to establish well developed parks
serving surrounding neighborhoods within a radius of one half to one
mile. The Comprehensive Plan encourages the development of open space
and parks within the city.
2. Will the proposed use adversely affect public infrastructure?
The proposed use is considered an infrastructure improvement.
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 park will be an asset to the surrounding neighborhoods.
The park will be maintained by City maintenance crews for litter removal
and landscaping to ensure the park does not become a nuisance or
eyesore.
4. Will the location and height of proposed structures and the site
design discourage the development of permitted uses on property
in the general vicinity or impair the value thereof?
The playground equipment, restrooms and gazebo will be lower in height
than the surrounding houses. The tallest structures in the park are the
gazebo and restrooms which are proposed to be a maximum of thirteen
feet in height. A home's close proximity to public open space is
commonly viewed as an asset and as such can enhance the appeal of a
neighborhood to prospective home buyers.
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 park will create less traffic, flashing lights, fumes or vibrations than
the permitted uses in the neighborhood.
4
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?
Parks are typically located in residential neighborhoods to enhance the
quality of life and improve the general welfare of neighboring residents.
Well maintained public open spaces generally contribute to the public
welfare and enhance the appeal of residential neighborhoods.
APPROVAL CONDITIONS
1. The Special Permit shall apply to Tax Parcel 117330179;
2. The park shall be developed in substantial conformance with the
site plan submitted with the application (Attachment "A") ;
3. The Special Permit shall be null and void if the proposed
improvements are not made by June 25, 2012.
RECOMMENDATION
MOTION I move to close the hearing on the proposed park and initiate
deliberations.
MOTION for Findings of Fact: I move to adopt Findings of Fact and
Conclusions therefrom as contained in the April 28, 2011
staff report.
MOTION for Recommendation: I move based on the Findings of Fact
and Conclusions therefrom the Planning Commission
recommend the City Council grant a special permit to the
City of Pasco for the location of a neighborhood park with
conditions as contained in the April 28, 2011 staff report.
5
� s M
EL :k
W,
Fmis
t
�Ipi �ll II •
MPA
Ol
' � 1
Zoning Item: Neighborhood Park in R- 1 Zone �
Map
A pplicant: City of Pasco
#:* SP2011 -006 N
AUSTIN CT
C-1 y
L z M O TPEU E.Z
.1*
SPRINGFIELD DR Z m
5
BOISE DR u=i
G) TOPEKA DR �
r y
Z �
SAtEM DR N
z
SALEM DR z
3 IT
0
1 m
.A y
M p
� z
M Rwl
z Z
SP2011-006
Looking east
r.
00
ILooking n s
L;I -
• .
ILooking n•
ul
00 .
•• • �n•rth
11 17
lob
L v
4 -
W
z
� #�-"' -�. rk � - - i s� �'=;i<'"• - � to r�_'-�
6-
wm-:!r�
E7
L! i
900-TTOZas
SP2011-006
ILooking s•
Oro 115 1 2►L"" ' 1 16 , 012
SP2011-006
Attachment "A"
y
i I'LL �• ... � I� - � ��-
SALEM rDRIVE '
REST ROOM
%ft—W _owm�
i
a
PLAY GROUND — --
u
PLAY GROUND UAW
�WM
0
_ -- GAZEBO � � �
` '
W
i oo p
3 Ln -
,
W BASKETBALL COURT
r
FOOTBALL/SOCCER/PLAYFIELD ^�
FATHWAY (GRASS)
! ( ?L
CL I ! Qo Y�
� °CZo
"' r {a q; aw Q
cn >IZ
' > 0 LL
I TREE (TYPICAL) GAZEBO _ O °
IZ
n'
S A C R A I E N TO DP �KDJ-
,+ S+ 7 NQ.
DATF 04-07-11
WI:Ytt $Y.
"� H ECT
�8Y-
NU_St2E-SCnE W REF - SO' I If ',EFZ SCALE. PA
hllf vZE-SGN.E�fffi• 6C' � ;� 1
SHEET
i�
r
�y � 1
MEMORANDUM
DATE: April 11, 2011
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Rick White, Director
Community & Economic Development 4f
SUBJECT: Ridges to Rivers Open Space Network (RROSN) Vision Plan
At last month's Planning Commission meeting, a Vision Plan prepared by the RROSN was
distributed to the Commission.
The Pasco City Council received a formal presentation of the RROSN Vision Plan at the March 28
Council Workshop, and has directed the Planning Commission review the Vision Plan and
forward appropriate recommendations to City Council on policy or project actions from the Plan
that will complement the Pasco community.
The RROSN group started in 2005 as the Tapteal Greenway Association. That group was
dedicated to preserving a specific geographic area within the Richland City limits. It branched
out in late 2007 to form an effort in the greater Mid-Columbia to begin a public discussion about
local vision and future plans for open space.
The purpose of the RROSN Plan is to develop a regional vision for retention of special
geographic and geologic features in the Mid Columbia and how a system of trails and linkages
can allow residents and visitors to experience these features. The RROSN Plan also provides a
series of policy recommendations and specific implementation measures. Each jurisdiction will
need to evaluate which recommendations are appropriate and determine the extent of
implementation.
The group has come this far with their planning efforts using staff representatives of Pasco,
Kennewick, Richland, Benton/Franklin Counties, the Council of Governments and volunteer
efforts of individuals and community groups. The RROSN feels that further efforts now require
significant involvement of elected and appointed officials.
The features in Pasco's Urban Growth Area identified as Regional Open Space and linkages
include the Heritage Rivershore Trail and Sacajawea Park. Several areas outside of Pasco's
jurisdiction are suggested as part of the Regional Open Space Network in Franklin County.
Planning efforts in Franklin County are focused on connection of the Columbia Plateau Trail with
Sacajawea State Park; establishment of a multi-use trail around Scootney Reservoir;
establishment of permanent access to the Juniper Dunes Natural area and a trail that connects
Juniper Dunes to Smith Canyon; establishment of an interpretative trail at Esquatzel Coulee that
ties in with a future Ice Age Flood National Geologic Trail and establishment of a trail from
Lyons Ferry to Palouse Falls. Much of the RROSN Plan focuses on areas in South Richland and
Kennewick and Benton County.
The RROSN Plan represents a significant effort at establishing an inventory of existing and
potential regional open space and providing an array of policy recommendations focused on
leveraging the value of open space to our economy, environment and community health.
The RROSN Plan also provides a series of potential measures and timefrarrie that can be used
to implement the policy recommendations. The Plan contains many examples from a variety of
sources to illustrate "best practices"of jurisdictions undertaking similar open space efforts.
It is proposed that the Planning Commission review of this Plan begin with a discussion of the
general policy recommendations that begin on page 100 of the Plan. The Plan also contains a
suggested timeline for implementation of the policy recommendations — including a
recommended implementation "lead" for primary responsibility (begins on page 106).