Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
04-19-2012 Planning Commission Packet
PLANNING COMMISSION -AGENDA REGULAR MEETING 7:00 P.M. April 19, 2012 I. CALL TO ORDER: II. ROLL CALL: Declaration of Quorum III. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: March 15, 2012 V. OLD BUSINESS: A. Special Permit Location of a private bus terminal (Fronteras Travel) (MF# SP 2012-003) B. Special Permit Pasco School District Elementary (Renewal) (MF# SP 2012-004) VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS: A. Special Permit Continued Public Hearing for the Location of a Caretaker's Facility in an I-1 (Light Industrial) Zone (Dean Shelton) (MF# SP 2012-005) B. Special Permit Expanding the capacity of a pre-school from 50 to SO children in an existing church in an R-S-20 Zone (Imagination Studios Academy Preschool) (MF# SP 2012-007) C. Special Permit Redevelopment of a school recreation field in an RS-12 Zone (Tri-Cities Jr. Academy) (MF# SP 2012-008) VII. OTHER BUSINESS: A. Code Amendment Variable Rear Setback (MF# CA 2011-007) B. Plan Rivershore Amenities/Linkages Plan (PLAN 2012- 003) C. Workshop Goodwill Secondhand Stores in C-1 Zones VIII. ADJOURNMENT: REGULAR MEETING March 15, 2012 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at 7:00pm by Chairman Cruz. POSITION MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT No. 1 Michael Levin No. 2 James Hay No. 3 Andy Anderson No. 4 Alecia Greenaway No. 5 Joe Cruz No. 6 Vacant No. 7 Zahra Khan No. 8 Jana Kempf No. 9 Vacant APPEARANCE OF FAIRNESS: Chairman Cruz read a statement about the appearance of fairness for hearings on land use matters. Chairman Cruz asked if any Commission member had anything to declare. There were no declarations. Chairman Cruz then asked the audience if there were any objections based on a conflict of interest or appearance of fairness questions regarding the items to be discussed this evening. There were no objections. ADMINISTERING THE OATH: Chairman Cruz explained that state law requires testimony in quasi-judicial hearings such as held by the Planning Commission be given under oath or affirmation. Chairman Cruz swore in all those desiring to speak. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Hay moved, seconded by Commissioner Greenaway, that the minutes dated February 16, 2012 be approved as mailed. The Motion passed unanimously. OLD BUSINESS: A. Preliminary Plat Navigator Villas, 47-Lots (Multi-family) (Stealth Development) (MF# PP2012-001) Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. David McDonald, City Planner, discussed the proposed preliminary plat. A public hearing was held for this item at the February 16, 2012 meeting. Staff had no -1- additional comments. One note was provided in the Report to Planning Commission addressing City Council action on the school impact fees because those fees were enacted after the hearing was closed, nothing could be changed in the actual report. With no questions from the Planning Commission, a motion was made. Commissioner Levin moved, seconded by Commissioner Kempf, to adopt the Findings of Fact and Conclusions therefrom as contained in the March 15, 2012 staff report. The motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Levin moved, seconded by Commissioner Kempf, based on the Findings of Fact and Conclusions, as adopted, that the Planning Commission recommends City Council approve a preliminary plat for the Navigator Villas Subdivision with the conditions as listed in the March 15, 2012 staff report. A motion passed unanimously. B. Special Permit Location of a Contractor's Facilitv in a C-3 (General Business) Zone(Culbert Construction) (MF# SP2012-0021 Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Shane O'Neill, Planner I, discussed the proposed special permit. A public hearing was held on this item during the February 16, 2012 meeting. Since the previous meeting staff has worked with the applicant, Steve Culbert, with regards to conditions related to water lines and utility extensions as well as easements. Conditions 1 and 2 have been modified. With no questions or comments from the Planning Commission, a motion was made. Commissioner Levin moved, seconded by Kempf, to adopt Findings of Fact and Conclusions therefrom as contained in the March 15, 2012 staff report. The motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Levin moved, seconded by Hay, based on the Findings of Fact and Conclusions therefrom the Planning Commission recommend the City Council grant a special permit to Culbert Construction for the location of a contractor's facility with conditions as contained in the March 15, 2012 staff report. The motion passed unanimously. PUBLIC HEARINGS: A. Zoning Rezone from R-1 (Low Density Residential) to R- 3 (Medium Density Residential) (Pasco Family Housing) (MF# Z2012-001) Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. David McDonald, City Planner, explained the hearing on this matter was continued from the February 16, 2012 meeting to allow staff time to meet with the applicant to review issues related to traffic, crime and effect of multi-family development on property values. Staff indicated the applicant was willing to sign a concomitant agreement that -2- would prohibit access to the property from Charles Street which would require traffic coming to the site to enter from the West. hi regards to crime and property values, information and research papers were attached to the Report to Planning Commission indicating high or medium density development does not negatively affect property values or crime rates in adjoining single-family neighborhoods. Commissioner Khan asked about the need for a "transition or gradation" from low-, med- and then high-density. In the case of this master file, Commissioner Khan asked why there wouldn't be a recommendation of R-2 zoning instead of the proposed R-3 zoning. Mr. McDonald answered that R-2 and R-3 are similar in that they both allow duplexes, four-plexes or multi-plea buildings. The applicant requested the R-3 zoning because it suited the needs for their development. The R-3 will provide the buffer between the C-3 and R-1 zones. Commissioner Levin asked staff how many units per acre are in an R-3 zone. Mr. McDonald answered that R-3 permits one unit per 3,000 square feet, or 14.52 units per acre. The proposed site is 3.58 acres, meaning 51 units would be allowed on the property which is what the applicant is proposing. Keith James, 2304 South Meadowview, Green Acres, WA, the applicant, spoke on behalf of the proposed rezone. He spoke briefly on dispelling myths about affordable high- density housing. After three calls for public comment the chairman closed the public hearing. Commissioner Greenaway preferred to see the rezone as an R-2 rather than an R-3. She thought R-3 zoning was to dense for that part of town. Commissioner Levin asked what the difference is between R-2 and R-3 zoning. Mr. McDonald stated R-2 requires 5,000 square feet of land area for each dwelling unit where the R-3 requires 3,000 square feet for each dwelling unit. Chairman Cruz stated that making the project an R-2 rather than an R-3 could drastically cut down the size of the project when other factors take effect and could mean the project would not be able to be done. Commissioner Levin asked Commissioner Greenaway how she felt about the idea that R-2 zoning could cut the project. Commissioner Greenaway answered that due to location and surrounding zoning she felt there shouldn't be R-3 zoning in the area. Commissioner Khan commented about statements from citizens related to crime and graffiti problems in the neighborhood and also discussed the "Myths and Facts of Urban Housing" which was provided in the Packet. She expressed the belief that low-income housing was concentrated in the area. She understood the rezone did not automatically mean low-income housing but that is what is planned by Pasco Family Housing. -3- Chairman Cruz stated that the rezone does not mean low-income housing would be built. In fact, high-end apartments could be built instead. What is built and charged for rent is different than the zoning determination. Also, he felt the R-2 zoning would not be effective. The applicant has a higher purpose than making money on this project. It is to provide affordable housing to fill a need. Commissioner Kempf felt that to be consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan, to go from a C-3 (General Business) to an R-2 (Medium Density Residential) isn't going to help. It should go from a C-3 to an R-3 so there is enough R-3 in the community. Commissioner Hay moved, seconded by Commissioner Kempf, to adopt Findings of Fact and Conclusions therefrom as contained in the March 15, 2012 staff report. The motion passed four to two, with Commissioner Greenaway and Commissioner Khan dissenting. Commissioner Hay moved, seconded by Commissioner Kempf, based on the Findings of Fact and Conclusions therefrom, the Planning Commission recommend the City Council approve the Rezone from C-1 (Retail Business) and R-1 (Low Density Residential) to R-3 (Medium Density Residential), with a concomitant agreement prohibiting access to the property from Charles Street. The motion passed four to two, with Commissioner Greenaway and Commissioner Khan dissenting. B. Zoning Rezone from R-1 (Low Density Residential) to R-3 (Medium Density Residential) (David Richards) (MF# Z 2012-002) Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director, discussed the proposed rezone involving change from the current RT (Residential Transition) to R-3 (Medium Density Residential) for the five acres site in question. The public hearing was continued from the February 16, 2012 meeting due to the lack of details related to the proposed development. In the meantime, staff met with the applicant to find out more about development plans for the property and as a result have prepared recommendations and conditions for the concomitant agreement that reflected the discussion of the meeting. Mr. White reviewed the recommended conditions for the benefit of the Planning Commission. The recommended conditions limit the number of units to 30 for the five acres, which is roughly 7,000 square feet per unit. Side yard setbacks adjacent to the R-1 (Low Density Residential) zones would be a minimum of 15 feet, no matter how the site was arranged. The conditions would also limit building heights to 30 feet and prohibit special permits for increasing the height beyond 30 feet. Commissioner Kempf asked about the minimum lot size of the R-1 zone north of the proposed site. -4- Mr. White answered that 7,200 square feet is the minimum lot size for R-1 zoning, meaning the lot sizes for the proposed rezone would only be 200 square feet smaller than in the R-1 zones. David Richards, 1415 6th Street, Clarkston, WA, the applicant, explained he desired to develop the land in a way that was consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan. The finalized site plan has not been completed because he was waiting for the status of school impact fees. The Mr. Richards did not want to "lock in" his development options because the impact fee would affect the cost to build and develop the site. The hope is to build senior style housing; however he would like some room to change plans if needed. Chairman Cruz asked the applicant if he was in agreement with the conditions as outlined by City staff. Mr. Richards stated that he was in agreement. Tom Russell, 8814 Wilshire Drive, wanted to clarify that the neighbors were all under the impression that the land was all zoned at R-1. As far as the 15 foot setback he wanted clarification as to what that means. Chairman Cruz answered that it meant that the buildings can be built 15 feet back from the property line. Mr. Russell felt 15 feet was too close to the property. The homeowner's did not imagine having tall buildings that close to their fence when they purchased their homes. He also wanted to know why the applicant did not have a definitive plan. Chairman Cruz clarified that no matter what the applicant choses as the intent for his development, whether for retirement housing or anything else, it does not change the structure or conditions that staff has recommended. Victor Owens, 8910 Wilshire Drive, wanted to ask why rezone the property to R-3 when perhaps R-2 zoning would be better. With his intentions not set in stone what is to say he doesn't build a 30 foot apartment complex that is packed. Mr. White answered that the reason for not rezoning to R-2 is because staff has not received an application for R-2. The applicant has applied for a rezone to R-3. The City has advertised for a rezone to R-3 and without and consent of the developer or additional staff report and findings, the Commission should not be considering an R-2 when the request is for R-3. Mr. Owens stated that rezoning to an R-2 would eliminate the fear that neighbors have. Deanna Dryer, 9114 Durham Court, asked if the applicant chose not to put in a senior living complex, would the item have to come back for zoning again or is it still R-3. Chairman Cruz answered that the rezone plus the conditions would make the property R-3 regardless of what is developed at the site. -5- Ms. Dryer also commented oil the crowded conditions the Maya Angelou Elementary School, and the lack of parks within walking distance. She would also like to see R-2 zoning instead of R-3. Pablo Perez, 8906 Wilshire Drive, has a problem with R-3 zoning and would prefer to see R-2 zoning. The notion that it is a "Residential Transition"justifies the need to go to an R-2 and not R-3. He also had questions about rear yards setbacks. Mr. White stated the configuration of the plat will determine the location of rear or side yards. Mr. Perez stated that before he purchased his house he asked the developer what the zoning would be on the property behind his home. The developer was unable to answer the question so now R-3 zoning is an issue for him. Chairman Cruz mentioned that developers or builders can sometimes have other reasons for not disclosing the zoning information. He also pointed out the concomitant agreement states that only 30 units on 4.7 acres would be allowed and is binding whether the property changes hands or when the plat comes forward, it will still only allow for 30 units. The concern about 3,000 feet per dwelling doesn't exist with the concomitant agreement. There will only be 1 unit per 7,000 square feet with the agreement. The focus should not be on the fact that the applicant is requesting an R-3 zone because with the concomitant agreement, the site would have conditions similar or close to an R-1 zone. It would be a very restricted R-3 zone. Mr. White stated that the minimum lot size in an R-1 zone is 7,200 square feet and the proposed rezone, with the concomitant agreement, the minimum lot size would be 7,000 square feet. Mr. Perez asked if in an R-1 zoning senior living could be constructed. Mr. White answered that senior living could be constructed anywhere. The Plat can be arranged and limited to seniors regardless of the residential zoning. John Sawyer, 4103 Segovia Drive, was concern with impacts on schools and whether a traffic impact study has been done. Mr. White answered no traffic impact study was done for the rezone. However the City has done an overall traffic study for most of West Pasco and it is updated every four to five years. Mr. White also mentioned a school impact fee ordinance is now in place in order to help the schools and traffic impact fees are also in place. Chairman Cruz stated that the traffic plan is available for the public if that is a concern. Duncan Nisbett, 9013 Cheshire Court, was concerned about traffic generated by the proposal and the continued development by New Tradition Homes. Tim Fisher, 9113 Durham Court, asked what the zoning was for the site just south of the proposed property. Mr. White answered the site was zoned C-1 (Retail Business). -6- Mr. Fisher questioned about the proximity of living next to commercial zones. Chairman Cruz explained commercial development can be next to residential, which is why higher density residential is typically located closer to commercial so that there is a gradual change from commercial to low density residential. Ramona Castro, 5120 Robert Wayne Drive, was concerned about traffic and the amount of children already living in the neighborhood without parks. Chris Helms, 15908 NE 102nd Street, Vancouver, WA stated people are uncomfortable with the uncertainty. He believes without more information it is hard to make a good decision. If the proposal is done properly it could be great for the area but it could be detrimental to the area. Chairman Cruz pointed out the rezone doesn't get into the plans or details of the site. The rezone is all the public hearing is for at the moment. Later, if the rezone passes, the applicant will have to submit a preliminary plat with details of the project. Mr. White commented on what is known for the rezone. Street access will come from Road 90. Assuming the rezone is approved, there will be a limit of 30 units. There will be a height limit of 30 feet and a prohibition of applying for a special permit to make buildings any taller. Setbacks adjacent to the R-1 properties to the north and east will be 15 feet rather than the minimum of 5 feet. Chris Slotemaker, 9007 Wilshire Court, stated she believes that what the applicant has come up with is reasonable but was concerned would make it easier to change other areas to R-3. The neighborhood has shown up to protect their property. She felt that 30 feet was still too high. She wants the Planning Commission to turn down the rezone and have someone come back with a different idea. Chairman Cruz asked staff what happens to all of the other RT (Residential Transition) zones. Mr. White replied that it is likely a similar situation will occur. Richard Leigh, 9007 Wellington Drive, stated that he and his neighbors have a great neighborhood, which is why they all showed up. Tom Russell, 8814 Wilshire Drive, questioned the difference between the back of his house and the back of the proposed property. He thinks it would be odd to have a side yard limed up with his back yard. Mr. White answered that due to the possible development the project to the south could have side yards abutting his lot. That is why a condition has been developed that if there are side yards along the neighboring lots the setback would at least be a minimum of 15 feet rather than 5 feet. It is more likely that backyards will be adjacent the surrounding properties assuming the road comes in from Road 90. Deanna Dryer, 9114 Durham Court, explained there has already been so much growth and with the only close park being at Maya Angelou, it is not safe to walk to this park since there are no good roadways or paths. Traffic around the school is terrible because -7- people feel they have to drive their child to school because it is not safe for them to walk and they don't live within a busing radius. She also feels another major road should be developed to alleviate some of the traffic issues. David Richards, 1415 6th Street, Clarkston, WA, stated he believed that a well- constructed subdivision will provide a better long term neighborhood. The reason the full site plan has not been developed yet is due to the costs. Without knowing if the rezone would pass or the impending school impact fees, he did not want to put a lot of money into a plan that might not be able to happen. Mr. Richards said he was not opposed to a park if the residents were serious and interested in paying for the property he would meet with them to work out a solution. They would have to come up with the money if they want the park and not expect someone else to buy them a park. He stated his rezone was in accordance with the City's Comprehensive Plan. Commissioner Levin asked the applicant if he would consider rezoning the site as R-2 instead of R-3. Mr. Richards answered that with the conditions in the concomitant agreement the R-3 zone change is reasonable. He has no intent to crowd buildings along the R-1 zones. They would like the option to build two-story units. Commissioner Levin stated that he feels a neighborhood meeting with the residents would be a good idea. Commissioner Greenaway asked if the 30 units were single-family units or multi-family units. Mr. Richards answered that there would either be duplexes, triplexes or townhomes. Pablo Perez, 8906 Wilshire Drive, said that he would like to see some of the things Mr. Richards has developed in the past. He was also concerned about the park fees he paid and there is no park in the neighborhood. (Maya Angelou Park is his neighborhood park) He also asked if that the 30 unit complex would allow for a large centralized community center or clubhouse. Mr. White answered that the restriction is on the number of living units, so yes, there could be an activity center. The money that was paid for parks when the homes were developed goes into the applicable district and is spent within the district. There is nowhere near enough money that comes in from the payment to cover the full cost of a City park. Ongoing maintenance of a parks is another cost. This is why there aren't parks adjacent to every single development in every subdivision because the community can't afford it. This is a reason for partnering with the School District in pairing playgrounds next to schools and parks. Jim O'Conner, 3922 South Olsen Place, Kennewick, WA stated he was selling the property. He said at one time there was talk of making the south side of the property commercial. He would like to see more commercial zoning to bring more businesses into the area and it wouldn't bring more children into the schools. Following three calls for additional testimony the Chairman closed the public hearing. -8- Commissioner Greenaway felt the rezone should be postponed one more month for the builder to meet with the neighbors. Chairman Cruz stated said a decision should be made since the discussion between the citizens and the builder would be best done during the platting stage, not the rezone stage. Commissioner Kempf stated the applicant already said that if the R-3 zoning is rejected he will not come back with an R-2 thus losing the concomitant agreement. The next developer may not be as willing to work with the City and the 15 feet setback is gone, which is why this item should not be continued or thrown out. Commissioner Levin asked if the rezone is approved to R-3 will the conditions be set in stone. Chairman Cruz answered that because of the agreement, if this rezone is approved the setbacks, height of the buildings and density will be set in stone. Mr. McDonald clarified that once approved, the concomitant agreement it would be recorded in the Franklin County Courthouse and become a covenant and restriction running with the land, so regardless of who ends up developing the land, they will have to meet the conditions. Commissioner Kempf moved, seconded by Commissioner Hay, to adopt the Findings of Fact and Conclusions therefrom as contained in the March 15, 2012 staff report. The motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Kempf moved, seconded by Commissioner Hay, based on the Findings of Fact and Conclusions therefrom, the Planning Commission recommend the City Council approve the Rezone from RT (Residential Transition) to R-3 (Medium Density Residential), with a concomitant agreement limiting the density to 30 units, restricting side yard setbacks to a minimum of 15 feet and prohibiting special permits for increases in building heights and limiting building heights to 30 feet. The motion passed unanimously. Staff explained the appeal process C. Special Permit Location of a Private Bus Terminal (Frontera's Travel) (MF# SP2012-003) Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director briefly reviewed the written report and explained this item was considered in the Spring 2010 but the applicant had let the special permit expire prior to receiving a business license and this is why the item is back on the agenda. Mr. White reviewed the recommended conditions dealing with maneuvering room for larger buses, the number of arrivals and departures per day and the prohibition of on-street loading. Chairman Cruz stated that the Planning Commission discussed this item in great deal the first time it was on the agenda. -9- Griselda Melendez, 516 S. 6th Street, Yakima, WA, the applicant, explained that proper attention was not applied to this item originally but is ready to act on the proposal. She stated that there were no changes to the plans since it was previously discussed. Commissioner Greenaway moved, seconded by Commissioner Khan, to close the public hearing and schedule deliberations, the adoption of findings of fact, and development of a recommendation for City Council for the April 19, 2012 meeting. The motion passed unanimously. D. Special Permit Pasco School District (Renewal) (MF# SP2012-004) Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. David McDonald discussed the proposed special permit for the location of an elementary school in an R-1 (Low Density Residential) District. It was explained this school was originally granted a special permit in 2003 and again in 2010. The School District is seeking to keep the permit active in the event they can move forward on the construction of the school. Kim Marsh, 1215 W. Lewis, spoke on behalf of the Pasco School District. He stated there were no changes in the plans. Commissioner Kempf moved, seconded by Commissioner Khan, to close the public hearing and schedule deliberations, the adoption of findings of fact, and development of a recommendation for City Council for the April 19, 2012 meeting. The motion passed unanimously. E. Special Permit Location of a Caretaker's Facility in an I-1 (Light Industrial) Zone (Dean Shelton) (MF# SP2012-005) Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Shane O'Neill, Planner I, explained the applicant had request approval of a caretaker's facility in an I-1 (Light Industrial) Zone for property located at 1102 E. "A" Street. The request was for a special permit to allow a caretaker's facility on the second level of Sonny's auto Parts. Mr. O'Neill reviewed the written report for the benefit of the Planning Commission. The key criteria for the approval of a caretaker's special permit specifically relates to whether or not a caretaker's residence is needed solely for the purpose of security. In this case staff is of the opinion application does not meet the criteria. The location is not an isolated area of the community, as "A" Street is an arterial street that has a steady amount of traffic. Tentative conditions have not been prepared because staff does not believe a caretaker's residence is warranted at this location. Chairman Cruz asked if there is any unusual or significant amount of crime in the neighborhood. -10- Mr. O'Neill answered in the past two years police records indicate there were between 12-15 burglaries or thefts reported in the general area. A 1,500 buffer was used to generate the reports. Commissioner Khan asked about the fire damage to the building and whether it had been repaired to make it fit for living. Mr. O'Neill stated the question should be directed to the applicant. Commissioner Levin asked what type of business was on the first floor. Mr. O'Neill stated an auto parts store. Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director, stated the Planning Commission needed to understand why this application is before attention. Following a fire at the site an insurance inspection revealed there was an unpermitted living unit above the store, resulting in the application for the caretaker's facility. The insurance claim will not be settled until the matter of the special permit is settled, however there is already a caretaker's facility at the site. Commissioner Greenaway stated there were roughly seven burglaries or theft per year. She asked at what rate was it considered "excessive". Mr. O'Neill answered that there isn't an established criteria. Commissioner Greenaway responded that she considered the current number of reported incidents to be high. Chairman Cruz stated that in the past on the same topic, staff has had to use their judgment on whether there is a safety concern. David McDonald, City Planner, stated that the caretaker provision was placed in the Zoning regulations to allow businesses that were located on the fringes of the community, that didn't receive a lot of police patrols and that lacked street lighting, to allow those facilities to have on site night security to provide property protection. It was never the intent to allow the caretaker's facilities to be located in more developed or established areas of the community. Typically this process is not used for an individual who would like the convenience of living at their business to save rent or time. The crime statistics are not just for this particular location, rather for the whole 1,500' radius, which takes in the larger neighborhood. Chairman Cruz asked about growth centers where residential and commercial units are combined and someone could live and work within close proximity. He wanted to know if there was a provision the Pasco Municipal Code that would allow for this. Mr. McDonald answered that in the C-1 (Retail Business) District this is allowed as a conditional use, not a permitted use Commissioner Levin wanted clarification in that it is just the owner who wants to be able to live upstairs of his business to watch over the property. -11- Mr. McDonald answered that staff is under the impression that the applicant wants the special permit for those reasons. Dean Shelton, 1102 E. "A" Street, the applicant, stated he spends all of his time at the business. The same day he applied for the special permit he went to the Police Department and reported a stolen dolly. He has had other incidents at this location. He was unaware that he was supposed to have a caretaker's permit, otherwise he would have obtained one as soon as he found out. Chairman Cruz let the applicant know that he would need to report information to illustrate the need for a caretaker's facility due to safety issues. Mr. Shelton explained that he just bought the property a few months ago and that he believed the previous owner had a caretaker's permit however the City does not have a permit on record. Chairman Cruz asked the applicant if he could remember any other incidents of crime other than the stolen dolly. Mr. Shelton answered that he couldn't think of any other incidents. He believes on site secure would help but would need more time to give the Planning Commission details and examples of the need for on-site security. He needs the Special Permit to deal with his insurance company. Chairman Cruz stated that the last special permit he remembers for a caretaker's facility, the applicant of the property or the neighboring property had been a victim of crime roughly eight times it an unreasonable span of time. Chairman Cruz reiterated to the applicant that the Commission needs him to explain his case to them in order to grant a special permit for a caretaker's facility. Commissioner Levin asked the applicant if his sole purpose was to just look after his property. Mr. Shelton answered that he only wants to be able to protect his property. Commissioner Levin stated he believed in property rights and being able to look after property that is rightfully the owners. He asked if the City will not allow Mr. Shelton to watch his property in a caretaker's facility, would he have to hire a security company or get a concealed weapons permit. Mr. Shelton answered that just his presence alone on the property would be sufficient protection. Commissioner Levin believed the applicant should be able to protect his property. Mr. White stated that the issue is if the applicant meets the conditions for a special permit for a caretaker's facility. In staff opinion those conditions have not been met but perhaps at this point it would be wise to continue the public hearing and allow the applicant gain time to provide evidence. -12- Chairman Cruz explained to the applicant what exactly staff and the Commission will need to have presented at the next meeting to grant a special permit. Ramona Castro, 5120 Robert Wayne Drive, spoke in support of the applicant to be able to protect his property as a land and business owner. Commissioner Khan moved, seconded by Commissioner Greenaway, to approve the amended motion and to continue the public hearing to the April 19, 2012 meeting. The motion passed unanimously. F. Preliminary Plat Desert Estates III, Phase 9, 34-Lots (Barton Laser Leveling) (MF# PP2012-001) Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. David McDonald, City Planner, explained the proposed preliminary was originally part of the Desert Estates III Subdivision which was approved about 11 years ago. Under state law preliminary plat approvals are only applicable for seven years. It was further explained Desert Estates III, Phase 9 was located east of Santa Fe Lane and northerly of Burden Boulevard. The property is zoned R-S-1 requiring minimum lot sizes of 10,000 square feet. The plat is laid out with 34 lots with an average lot size of 11,333 ft2. Utilities will be extended and looped to Santa Fe to provide redundancy in the system. Schools and parks have been addressed, including the school impact fee for the schools. The developer had recently submitted their construction plans to the Engineering Division for approval of the water sewer and street design. The plan review process was underway when the Planning Division became aware that an expired plat was being reviewed. As a result of the confusion over the plan review, Staff recommended this be reviewed in one meeting. Jeffrey Smith, SE 8th, Pendleton, OR, 97801 spoke on behalf of Barton Laser Leveling. With the scheduling issue, they would like to get that alleviated so they can continue their project and loop the utilities. He said that there have been no design changes since it was originally approved. Dan Owen, 3811 Antigua Drive, felt there was a problem with sand and dust issues. He feels there needs to be a retaining wall to stop the sand issues since there are steep hills. Mr. McDonald stated there will be slope protection easements required due to the steep grade once the building permits are obtained. The builders will have to maintain the proper slope or build a retaining wall. Chairman Cruz stated that much of this is the Engineering Department that has to do their part and deal with the slope requirements. -13- Walt Crayne, 4004 Segovia Drive, was concerned about traffic in the area and doesn't feel much planning was done. He thinks the City needs to start thinking about street access and to stop building until there is more adequate access. Mr. McDonald explained the Comprehensive Plan laid out the backbone of major arterial streets to connect neighborhoods and funnel the traffic out to major points to take traffic to the highways. The bottleneck occurs because the State put in only two connections to the freeway system. The Public Works Department is working with the State to develop solutions but a lot depends on what the State will allow the City to do. Mr. McDonald encouraged people to contact the Public Works Department to see what is being planned to help address traffic issues. John Sawyer, 4103 Segovia Drive, voiced his concern over the access to this development, which is only through Santa Fe. There are a few other ways to get into the development but those ways are not easily accessible. Brett Butcher, 3911 Mariola Court, was concerned about dust blowing into neighbors yards and onto their property. He has had issues with dust already. Walt Crayne, 4004 Segovia Drive, spoke again about his concern for traffic at Burden and Road 68. Commissioner Khan responded to Mr. Crane that she understands what he is experiencing in regards to traffic since she has to drive through the area. Following three calls for additional testimony the Chairman closed the public hearing. Commissioner Khan stated that she remembered at a previous hearing there was discussion of dust control, which is one of the concerns surrounding neighbors have of this development. Dust and debris needs to be controlled in some fashion while the development is occurring. Mr. McDonald responded that the construction drawings contain dust and litter control requirements. Code Enforcement can even hire water trucks, as has been done in the past, to water construction sites where the developer has failed to do so. Mr. White stated one of the plat conditions states the developer must control dust. This City has a water truck on retainer. The minimum fee for that truck is roughly $800 plus another $400 per hour and is a lien against the property if not paid which affects any sale of the property in the future. There is a 24-hour phone number for citizens to call in case of dust. Commissioner Greenaway moved, seconded by Commissioner Khan, to adopt Findings of Fact and Conclusions therefrom as contained in the March 15, 2012 staff report. The motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Greenaway moved, seconded by Commissioner Khan, based on the Findings of Fact and Conclusions, as adopted, the Planning Commission recommend the City Council approve the Preliminary Plat of Desert Estates III, Phase 9 with conditions as listed in the March 15, 2012 staff report. The motion passed unanimously. -14- OTHER BUSINESS: A. Block Grant Contract 2011 Community Housing Development Organization (CHDO) Set-Aside Grant (MF# BGCA2011-001) Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director, explained the Community Housing Development Organization (CHDO) Set-Aside Grant to the Planning Commission. Pasco, along with Richland and Kennewick, formed a consortium that allows each City to be eligible for federal HOME funds. Under the HOME program, 15 9,) of funds are earmarked for federally designated Community Housing Development Organizations (CHDO). The three cities rotate the responsibility for distributing these funds. Pasco is responsible for distributing the 2011 HOME CHDO funds totaling $90,294 this year. The City advertised for proposals and only two housing providers within the City of Pasco, Tri-County Habitat for Humanity and Benton Franklin Community Action Committee (CAC), turn in their proposals. Tri-County Habitat for Humanity would use the grant money along with "sweat" equity to provide two single-family homes for families between 30°Si-60°S, of the area median income. The CAC proposal involved a partnership with the Housing Authority that would use all of the CHDO funds for the acquisition of an apartment building along with a series of other grants for rehabilitation to make up for remaining acquisition funds. The apartment complex will be used to provide transitional housing for families coming out of homelessness as transition housing to gain skills necessary to get them into permanent housing. Staff has had time to think over the recommendation and due to previously focusing on single-family home opportunities staff looks favorably on the Planning Commission recommending the CAC project because it fills a niche that isn't currently being addressed in a proper manner. Theresa Richardson, 1750 Meadow Hills Drive, Richland, WA, Executive Director of Habitat for Humanity, spoke on behalf of the proposal from Habitat for Humanity. Habitat for Humanity does not believe that housing efforts should be accomplished solely by the use of government funds. Habitat for Humanity believes leveraging matching public and private funds from across the community is the best approach because then everyone is engaged on addressing solutions to community issues. Habitat for Humanity believes a home provides an investment, economic security, a safe place to raise a family and stimulus to support a family's self-sufficiency and advancement. The government investment through CHDO could create a multiplier effect in local economies. Habitat's investment leads to greater employment in the community where Habitat works. In the past, Habitat has used CHDO funds to purchase lots in Pasco. Of the completed 75 homes, 40 homes have been built in Pasco and 13 of those homes were using CHDO dollars. On top of being homeowners, they will also become property taxpayers, which is good for the community. Habitat has never had a single foreclosure in the Tri-Cities. A survey done by Habitat homeowner's -15- indicated significant increases in homeowner's self-esteem, well-being, overall family health and neighborhood pride. Judith Gidley, 4102 Meadowview Drive, Executive Director of Benton Franklin Community Action Committee, spoke on behalf of the proposal for Benton Franklin CAC. The CAC proposed to use the grant for transitional housing. They are a non- profit in business for 46 years in Pasco and Kennewick with the majority being in Pasco. They have been the lead agency for providing services to homeless and reducing homelessness in both Benton and Franklin County for over 10 years. One of the hardest things for the families that come to the CAC that are homeless or pending homelessness because they cannot afford to live where they are that they due use rent subsidies in order to get people back on their feet. The housing market in the area has a low vacancy rate, rentals are up and people who are low income cannot afford the rents. The plan for the project is to by a four-plea to turn into transitional housing. The CAC has a five year grant with the Washington Family Fund, which is private funding from the Bill and Linda Gates Foundation along with State Legislature. They are in the second year with the Washington Family Fund with 10 families who meet 15°S, of the area median income to be eligible for the program. An array of services are offered to give the families a hand-up with secure transitional housing while they work on their needs. Not everyone who comes through the doors of the CAC are ready for housing or can even afford housing, much less be eligible for low income housing. Commissioner Kempf asked Ms. Gidley if the CAC sees a lot of families or individuals. Ms. Gidley responded that the majority are families. They serve those up to the 50°S, area median income. Some programs are set aside strictly for individuals who are chronically homeless, coming from the streets or The Gospel Mission. The partnership with the Pasco Housing Authority will assist both the CAC and them since they are losing Section 8 housing and the abilities to be able to support those types of programs. The CAC restricts the length of time the families can be in the housing. This project would allow the clients to live in the housing longer while they are receiving education and their families, lives and jobs together where they can actually afford to even rent or be eligible for a house. Commissioner Khan agreed that it would be good to give the CAC a chance since they haven't been granted the CHDO funds before and that it could certainly be used in Pasco however she knows that Habitat for Humanity does great work in the area. Commissioner Levin asked if the money could be split between the two organizations. Mr. White answered that he would not be sure how splitting the money would affect the projects since it is a small amount of money to be granted in the first place. Chairman Cruz feels that if the money were split Habitat for Humanity might be able to come up with money or work to finish the project but it would make the CAC's proposal not viable. He feels that he is willing to support the CAC's proposal due to the need for transitional housing in Pasco. Commissioner Kempf moved, seconded by Levin, to move the Planning Commission recommend to City Council the 2011 Community Housing Development Organization (CHDO) Set-Aside Grant Award to the Benton Franklin Community Action Committee. The motion passed unanimously. -16- B. Sewer Master Plan Appointment To Sewer Master Plan Advisory Committee Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director, explained what the Sewer Master Plan Advisory Committee was and asked for two Planning Commission members to be on the committee. They would look at the City of Pasco Sewer Comprehensive Plan and have a longer window to look at than the Land Use Comprehensive Plan but they set the tone for land use policies to a great extent. The schedule is for the beginning of the process and should expect at least three meetings around two hours a piece in the early evenings beginning around Mid-April. Commissioner Greenaway and Commissioner Khan agreed to serve on the Advisory Committee. With little further discussion or business, the Planning Commission was adjourned at 10:25 p.m. Respectfully submitted, David McDonald, City Planner -17- REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION MASTER FILE NO: SP 2012-003 APPLICANT: Griselda Melendez HEARING DATE: 3/15/12 516 S. 6th Street ACTION DATE: 4/19/ 12 Yakima, WA 98901 BACKGROUND REQUEST: SPECIAL PERMIT: Location of a private bus terminal (Fronteras Travel) (Griselda Melendez) (2 05 S. 4th Avenue) 1. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: Legal: Lots 13-17, Block 19, Gerry's Addition General Location: 205 S. 4th Avenue Property Size: 14,300 square feet 2. ACCESS: The site is adjacent to South 4th Avenue. 3. UTILITIES: Water and sewer services are located in the alley to the east. 4. LAND USE AND ZONING: The site is currently zoned C-3 (General Business) and is vacant. Surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows: NORTH- C-2 Farmer's Market parking lot SOUTH- I-1 Vacant EAST- C-3 & C-2 Commercial/old motel WEST- I-1 Golden Nugget nightclub 5. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The Comprehensive Plan designates the site for commercial uses. The Comprehensive Plan (Goal TR-2) encourages the efficient use of multi-modal transportation systems, which would include bus and van services for residents. 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 A private van/bus service has been operating at 205 S. 4th Avenue for approximately 4 ,years without the benefit of a City business license. The business owner applied for a business license in 2010 and was informed by staff that a license could not be issued for the van/bus services until a special permit had been granted for the site. A Special Permit was approved by the City Council in July of 2010 with a condition the applicant obtain a business license by October 2010. The applicant failed to obtain a business license and is now facing code enforcement action. Upon receiving notice of the need for a business license the applicant submitted an application. Staff was unable to approve the license because the Special Permit had expired. This request is similar to other private bus service applications that have been reviewed by the Planning Commission in the past. Private bus/van services have operated with Special Permit approval at 115 N. 4th Avenue, 1320 N. 4th Avenue, 702 W. Lewis Street and 1011 W. Sylvester Street. There is also a bus/van service (Estrella Blanca) operating from the Pasco Multi-Modal Terminal on North 1St Avenue. The special permit application for proposed van/bus service indicated scheduled service at 205 S. 4th Avenue, including one arrival and one departure per day, seven days a week. The departing van leaves the site at 7:00 am and the arrivals occur at 7:00 pm. The applicant further emphasized to staff that the scheduled arrival and departures are the Company's advertised schedule. If no tickets have been sold, no stops are made in Pasco. During the winter months when ridership is down vans do not arrive or depart from the site on a daily business. The applicant further indicated their vehicle fleet includes 15-passenger vans, 25-passenger vans and 51-passenger buses. Twenty-five passenger vans are the primary vehicles used by Fronteras Travel to transport passengers to Yakima where a 51-passenger bus provides connections to other states. No changes to the site or building are planned as a result of the bus service to and from the Fronteras Travel office at 205 S. 4th Avenue. STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT Findings of fact must be entered from the record. The following are initial findings drawn from the background and analysis section of the staff report and comments made at the public hearing. The Planning Commission may add additional findings as deemed appropriate. 1. The site is located in a C-3 (General Business) zone. 2. The site is located at 205 S. 4th Avenue. 3. There is currently a van ticket office located at 205 S. 4th Avenue. 4. The applicant has plans to continue to operate a regularly scheduled van service from an existing ticket office at 205 S. 4th Avenue. 5. Scheduled departures will occur at 7:00 a.m. every day of the week. 6. Scheduled arrivals will occur at 7:00 p.m. every day of the week. 7. Twenty-one passenger vans are the primary vehicles used in the proposed van service. 8. A twenty-one passenger van is 24.5 feet in length. 9. Private operator carriers, charter or transit buses, vans and similar businesses are listed as unclassified uses in PMC 25.86.020. 10. Unclassified uses require review through the special permit process before locating in the community. 11. Private bus/van companies have been permitted by special permit to locate in other commercial zoning districts on N. 4th Avenue, Lewis Street and Sylvester Street. 12. No alterations are planned for the office or site. 13. The site has a small on-site parking area that can be used for passenger loading and unloading. 14. The on-site parking and loading area is shared with a wholesale produce business. 15. The wholesale produce business utilizes large trucks for receiving and delivering produce. CONCLUSIONS BASED ON STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT Before recommending approval or denial of a special permit, the Planning Commission must draw its conclusion from the findings of fact based upon the criteria listed in P.M.C. 25.86.060. The criteria and staff listed conclusions are as follows: 1) Will the proposed use be in accordance rice ruith the goals, policies, objectives and text of the Comprehensive Plan? The site is designated by the Plan for commercial uses. The Plan also encourages the efficient use of multi-modal transportation systems. The van service would be considered part of the multi-modal transportation system. 3 2) Will thepr-oposed use adversely affect public infr-ash-uctur-e? The site is developed with all municipal utility services. No building additions or alterations are planned that would increase demands on the utility system. Fourth Avenue is a designated arterial street and has been constructed to arterial street standards to carry more traffic and heavier loads as compared to local access streets. The addition of a van on 41h Avenue at off peak travel times is not anticipated to generate significant demands on the surrounding street system. 3) Will the proposed use be constructed, maintained and operated to be in harmony tuith existing or-intended character- of the general vicinity? The intended character of the area includes the development of various commercial enterprises. The proposed use is a commercial activity. No changes to the building or site are planned as a result of the proposed van service. 4) Will the location and height of proposed s tr-u ctu r-es 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 structures on-site will not change as a result of the proposed van service. The property will continue to be used for commercial purposes. 5) Will the operations in connection ruith the proposal be more objectionable to nearby properties by reason of noise, fumes, vibrations, dust, traffic, or- flashing lights than would be the opera do n of any permitted uses xuithin the dis h-ict? The proposed van service will create no more noise, vibrations, and fumes than the semi-trucks and delivery trucks used by the produce business located on the site. 6) Will the proposed use endanger the public health o r- safety if located and developed where proposed, or- in anyway ruill become a nuisance to uses permitted in the district? The on-street parking area directly in front of 205 South 4th Avenue is about 37 feet long. On-street parking of a passenger van along with the loading and unloading of passengers and luggage on a public sidewalk may lead to the creation of a nuisance situation twice a day. This problem can be resolved by requiring all vans to load and unload on private property. RECOMMENDED APPROVAL CONDITIONS 4 1. The special permit shall apply to parcel 112041317. Scheduled van service shall be limited to one arrival and one departure per day. 3. No van loading or unloading shall occur on 4th Avenue or Columbia Street. 4. Vans must be assisted across the sidewalk by one or more spotters when exiting the site. 5. No more than a 25-passenger van may be permitted at the site. 6. The applicant shall maintain all necessary governmental approvals and licenses required for the operation of a transportation business. 7. The special permit shall be null and void if a City of Pasco business license is not obtained by June 1, 2012. RECOMMENDATION MOTION for Findings of Fact: I move to adopt findings of fact and conclusions therefrom as contained in the April 19, 2012 staff report. MOTION for Recommendation: I move based on the findings of fact and conclusions as adopted the Planning Commission recommend the City Council grant a special permit to Fronteras Travel for the location of a private van transportation business at 205 S. 4th Avenue with conditions as listed in the April 19, 2012 staff report. 5 Vl*cl*nity Item: Special Pennit - Bus Ten-ninal Map Applicant: Griselda Melendez N File # : SP 2012-003 r " f Jv r �►' .l SITE Land Use Item : Special Permit - Bus Terminal Applicant : Griselda Melendez x Map File # : SP 2012-003 a 0 7 O's St �\m 9� Commercial F g'C 1 cO�V�eN � SITE Industrial Zoning Item- Special Pen-nit - Bus Terminal Applicant: G Melendez x Map File # : SP 2012-003 C-2 ;o C-2 C ffis S11 � C -2 'm yG C '2 10 m 7m gj C C =3 SITE - 1 I - 1 r . "' .e lb- Lookin North ~ Ap IT #1 6-2-4- • f ite _ EEL N OATS Alc D'ps AE,INYERN.C.ONAI' Qj`gpLID SALC^MIONEPA HARE + ^ LOS AMaLl AjepCV1 ETGUANA9 L#"'L �©� M N►afa.a�fa�/o�,.Arai ' _ fsal talc ypCa�l V�MY� Ip3 fOYfN an'A _ < 1 Y i Y � - W l kM 1 Looking Nest T r REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION MASTER FILE NO: SP 2012-004 APPLICANT: Pasco School District #1 HEARING DATE: 3/15/12 1215 W Lewis St ACTION DATE: 4/19/12 Pasco, WA 99301 BACKGROUND REQUEST: SPECIAL PERMIT: Location of an Elementary School in an R-1 District. (Sandifur Parkway & Road 60) 1. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: Legal: The easterly 564' of the southerly 34b' of the southeast 1/4 of the northwest 1/4 of Sec 10, T 9 N, R 29 E, W.M., except that portion lying southerly of the north right-of-way line of Sandifur Parkway. General Location: Northwest corner of Sandifur Parkway and Road 60 Property Size: Approximately S acres 2. ACCESS: The site is adjacent to Sandifur Parkway and Road b0. 3. UTILITIES: Water service is available from adjoining streets. Sewer service for the site has been extended east in an easement from Coppercap Mountain Lane to the City park site to the north. 4. LAND USE AND ZONING: The site is currently zoned R-1 (Low Density Residential) and is vacant. Surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows: NORTH- R-1 Vacant future park site SOUTH- R-1 Single-Family EAST- R-S-20 County-Residential WEST- R-1 Single-Family 5. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The Comprehensive Plan designates the site for low-density residential. Goal CF-5 suggests adequate provisions should be made for educational facilities located throughout the urban growth area. Policy CF-5-A encourages the appropriate location and design of schools throughout the community. 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 1 Nan-significance (DNS) has been issued for this Project under WAC 197- 11-158. ANALYSIS The site in question was identified during the preliminary plat process for the Three Rivers Crossing development as a future school location. To ensure the site would remain available for a school at some future date the School District purchased the property in 2004. Schools are conditional uses and may be permitted within the R-1 zoning district only after review through the Special Permit process. Even though the School District purchased the property in question S years ago the proposed school is required by the Municipal Code to be reviewed through the Special Permit hearing process. The proposed school was granted a special permit in 2003 and again in 2010. Pasco currently has eleven elementary schools (the School District has one additional elementary school [Edwin Markham] outside the Pasco UGA). With the recent growth in population (Pasco's population has more than doubled in size since 1997) and student enrollment, the School District needs to construct several elementary schools. Elementary school enrollment in Pasco has increased by an average of about 360 new students per year for the last decade. This year the elementary enrollment increased by over 400 new students. The State Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction estimates Pasco's elementary enrollment will increase by 3,157 students over the next 6 ,years. This continued growth in school enrollment will create the need for additional elementary schools. To address part of the need for additional school space the District is proposing to develop the site in question with a 69,330 square foot elementary school similar to Maya Angelou and Virgie Robinson. The two story building will have classroom space for 730 students. The site will contain public parking and bus loading off Road 60. The school site is the same size (8 acres) as the Maya Angelou site. A future neighborhood park will be developed immediately to the north of the school site, and will help provide necessary open space for student use. The proposed site is almost fully improved with necessary infrastructure. Sidewalks and fire hydrants have not been installed. The overhead power lines bordering the site will need to be placed underground. Hayden Homes, the developer of the Three Rivers subdivision, previously undergrounded most of the overhead power lines along Sandifur Parkway. The School District is responsible for undergrounding the portion that remains overhead. With respect to traffic-related issues a signal warrant test will be needed to determine when a signal should be installed at Road 60 and Sandifur Parkway. The I-182 Subarea Transportation Plan identifies the proposed school but the plan does not identify a need for a traffic signal at Road 60 and Sandifur Parkway. The Regional Transportation Analysis model used by the Regional Council does not include elementary schools in the data used to identify future traffic impacts because elementary schools do not impact the peak hour traffic conditions in the way other land uses do. Based on the Institute of Traffic Engineers Trip Generation Manual (81h Ed) an elementary school with 730 students on average can be expected to generate about 941 vehicle trips per day. That would amount to $40,463 in traffic impact fees. If the site was fully developed with single-family homes about 300 vehicle trips could be expected per day. Most of the schools in Pasco including the Pasco High School and Chiawana High School are located in residential zoning districts. An on-line search of the Franklin County Assessors records (February, 2012) revealed that many of the residential properties located near the existing Maya Angelou Elementary School have increased in valued since the school was built. The Maya Angelou neighborhood was not fully developed until after the school was built. This provides a good indication that elementary schools do not discourage the development of permitted uses on property in the general vicinity of a school or impair the value thereof. Recent development around the McGee Elementary School also provides another example of a residential neighborhood that developed after a school was constructed. STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT Findings of fact must be entered from the record. The following are initial findings drawn from the background and analysis section of the staff report and comments made at the public hearing. The Planning Commission may add additional findings as deemed appropriate. 1. The site is located in an R-1 zone. 2. The site was identified during the preliminary platting process as a location for a future elementary school. 3. The Pasco School District purchased the site in 2004 for a future elementary school. 4. Schools are conditional land uses in the R-1 zone and require review through the special permit process prior to permitting for construction. 5. The site is within the city limits of Pasco. 3 6. The Comprehensive Plan identifies the site for low-density residential uses. 7. The site is currently vacant. 8. Comprehensive Plan Goal OF-5 suggests that adequate provisions should be made for the location of educational facilities throughout the urban growth area. 9. Street and utility improvements surrounding the site were completed in 2010. 10. Overhead power lines are located along the southern and eastern edge of the site. 11. According to the Institute of Traffic Engineers Trip Generation Manual (8th Ed) a 730 student elementary school will generate about 941 vehicle trips per day. 12. If developed with single family homes the site would generate about 300 vehicle trips per day. 13. The Pasco School District enrollment has grown from 8,048 in 1997 to 15,633 in the 2011-2012 school year. 14. The Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction estimates Pasco's elementary school enrollment will increase by another 3,157 by 2017. 15. Residential development near the existing Maya Angelou Elementary School indicates elementary schools do not negatively impact the value of surrounding homes or the intended development of residential neighborhoods. CONCLUSIONS BASED ON STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT Before recommending approval or denial of a special permit the Planning Commission must draw its conclusion from the findings of fact based upon the criteria listed in P.M.C. 25.86.060. The criteria and staff listed conclusions are as follows: 1) Will the proposed use be in accordance ruith the goals, Policies, objectives and text of the Comprehensive Plan? The proposed use supports the following plan goal CF-5 that suggests adequate provisions be made for educational facilities throughout the Urban Growth Area. Transportation and utility policies support city standards that require the extension of streets and utilities in conjunction with development. To be in accord with the Comprehensive Plan the proposed elementary school development would also need to include the development of utilities through the length of the site and development of corresponding street improvements. 2) Will the proposed use adversely affect Public infrastructure? 4 Surrounding utility and street improvement have been completed and were constructed in anticipation of an elementary school being constructed on the site. The proposed school will generate about 600 more vehicle trips per day than if the site was fully developed with homes. However, the operations of elementary schools do not fully correspond with surrounding peak hour traffic. The sewer system was designed with a stub specifically to service the proposed school. 3) Wire the proposed use be constructed, maintained and operated to be in h.co-mony ruith existing or intended character- of the general vicinity? The proposed elementary school has been designed to complement the existing and future neighborhood by providing generous ,yard setbacks, landscaping, screening of mechanical equipment and a pitched roof line to moderate the school's height in keeping with typical pitched roofs of residential homes. Elementary schools are typically located in or near residential neighborhoods and are an accepted part of the character of residential areas. 4) Will the location and height of proposers structures and the site design discourage the development of permitted uses on property in the general vicinity or impair- the value thereof? The construction of schools in residential neighborhoods often encourages development of nearby properties. Residential development around the Maya Angelou and McGee schools was not completed until after the schools were in place. An on-line search of the Franklin County Assessors records (February, 2 01 2) revealed that values of many residential properties located near the existing Maya Angelou Elementary School have increased since the school was built. SJ Will the operations in connection xuith the proposal be more objectionable to nearby properties by reason of noise, fumes, vibrations, dust, traffic, or- flashing lights than xuould be the operation of any permitted uses xuitzin the district? Experience has shown that schools within Pasco generate few complaints from neighbors. Elementary schools typically are not a source of dust, fumes, vibrations or flashing lights. The proposed school could generate up to 940 vehicle trips per day. During weekends, the summer break, and other break periods very little traffic will be generated. 6) Will the proposed use endanger- the public health or safety if located and developed where proposed, or in anyway xuill become a nuisance to uses permitted in the district? 5 The elementary school will be constructed to meet all requirements of the International Building Code, the fire code, the plumbing code, all other construction codes and state regulations pertaining to elementary school construction. The building will be required to have fire-rated corridors, area separation walls, sufficient exiting and fire sprinkler systems to ensure the safety of the public. The construction of sidewalks and street improvements will address pedestrian and traffic safety issues. Schools have a long history of being accepted in residential neighborhoods. In most communities schools, including elementary schools, are located hi or near residential neighborhoods. RECOMMENDED APPROVAL CONDITIONS 1. The elementary school and school site shall be developed in substantial conformity with the site plan and building elevations submitted with the special permit application. No driveway on Road 60 may be located closer than 270 feet from the center of the intersection of Road 60 and Sandifur Parkway. 3. One driveway will be permitted on Sandifur Parkway. The driveway shall not be located closer than 350 feet from the center of the intersection of Road 60 and Sandifur Parkway. 4. Sidewalks shall be off-set to match surrounding subdivisions on Road 60 and Sandifur Parkway 5. The planting strip between the curb and the off-set sidewalk must be planted in lawn and trees at 50-foot intervals. The type of trees and landscaping plan must be approved by the city prior to installation. 6. All costs associated with speed reduction/modification including but not limited to flashing lights, signage, pedestrian sensors, safety and crosswalks shall be paid for by the School District. 7. All street/roadway signage abutting the property and off-site, is to be provided by the school district and must be per the most current MUTCD & City of Pasco construction standards. S. The School District shall identify and provide all necessary accommodations for pedestrian school routes along Sandifur Parkway and Road 60 adjacent to the school site. 9. No mid-block crosswalks will be permitted. 10. The School District shall pay the traffic mitigation fee in effect at the time a building permit is issued. 11. The School District shall prepare a dust control mitigation plan to be submitted with the building permit application. 6 I No sports field lighting shall be permitted. 1 The special permit shall be null and void if a building permit has not been obtained by May, 2015. RECOMMENDATION MOTION: I move to adopt Findings of Fact and Conclusions therefrom as contained in the April 19, 2012 staff report. MOTION: I move based on the Findings of Fact and Conclusions therefrom the Planning Commission recommend the City Council grant a Special Permit to the Pasco School District for the location of an elementary school at the northwest corner of Sandifur Parkway & Road 60 (parcel #s 116-240-072 & 116-240-067) with conditions as listed in the April 19, 2012 staff report. 7 Vicinily Item: Elementary School in R- 1 Zone Map Applicant: Pasco School District N File # : SP 2012-002 � o 1 Z v 11 O 0 GLACIER PEAK DR uj OF HREE RIVERS DR. �' • bAMON POINT.D ' A Of LU ACPIHE LAKES DR`m a s +• S � a • � TO- R ' J �'��1— or a C3 SQUALLY C IF %SITE 0 1ENZIAN F4CES-U'R a R• � 1 - SAN61FUR PK1111Y -_ _ �► , - ROBINSON DR; ORIOLE DR t , t at 1 Ti .Y�i JEFFE'RS N O,�- },,W:,R�• f c V - -C ISKEY DR Item: Elementary School in R- 1 Zone Land Use A plicant.- Pasco School District Map File SP 2012-002 O IM Ell so i ...' WEENE I loom SFDUs WIN (County) - M . SITE MINNIE son ez iFl Zoni*ng Item: Elementary School in R- 1 Zone Map Applicant: Pasco School District O . 1 NO - a � Ep NEES 04 RS=20 (County) SITE ;LAN, ool MMINEIN iFl IM011111111 � MINE Looking North loft. ., • M ' l.. .may ' A. '� N•t•`nl ;i_i.s, i I � Looking East ' ary � � i • t.• f� too pl� r a• VP op - mow* �' '. ., •t' _ ... a 44-to�-- �'r �� wr- dft tL Ylvv WTVI jw u 4- 14-hol � air. fir.-,•._ Looking Southeast 40P Ak xa>` '�" �� - - '� ,_4'��f/►�*%a �sr.1►'r'�!MVO ��s+,�.�..� +F aw -;� •yam: � ��. .� _ r _� �, _ -c .r Looking South M" ; - �=, LM All 4ft 4�—�•�+.Mao _...� ...!!r�"r`.�'_.�y -+y�r.�.::��ri- -.,c._- `_ ry - � _ ��. � ��/'�i- = _ ` ~��• � \�ti� '� _•' � `� sf�M►+lam—. •���'� J .S. � .- !le _ , � •; "��^�- . ~•� •fir•��� t AW - _ Lookin g West .Mallet- mob& rt 71f Ilse IX _ -- ' •�• ( �� _ .►. 1. _ < <•� REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION MASTER FILE # SP 2012-005 APPLICANT: Dean Shelton HEARING DATE: 3/15/2012 1102 E. "A" Street ACTION DATE: 4/19/2012 Pasco, WA 99301 BACKGROUND REQUEST: SPECIAL PERMIT: Location of a Caretaker's Facility in an I-1 (Light Industrial) Zone 1. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: Legal: Lots 14, 15 & 16, Block 4, Steffins Amended Addition General Location: 1102 E. "A" Street Property Size: Approximately 0.4 acres 2. ACCESS: The site has access from "A" Street and Maitland Ave. 3. UTILITIES: All municipal utilities currently serve the site. 4. LAND USE AND ZONING: The site is zoned I-1 (Light Industrial) and currently contains a retail auto parts business. The zoning and land use of the surrounding properties are as follows: NORTH: I-1 - Vacant BNSF Railroad SOUTH: I-1 - Vacant EAST: I-1 - Vacant BNSF Railroad WEST: I-1 - Industrial Business 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 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. ANALYSIS The applicant proposes to locate a caretaker's residence on the second floor of a retail auto parts business in a Light Industrial zone on "A" Street. The site in question was originally developed in 1998 with an 8,000 square foot metal building for retail sales purposes. Sometime after the original construction the property owner included an 858 1 square foot caretaker's living quarters within the building without the benefit of a building permit. On September 9, 2011 a fire destroyed a majority of the metal building's interior. It is believed that the fire was caused by a gas powered pressure washer being knocked over; allowing gasoline to spill. While the business was closed, the spilled gasoline volatilized into fumes which then ignited after coming in contact with the pilot light in the water heater. Insurance adjusters investigating the fire then discovered the presence of the living quarters. With no Special Permit authorizing the residential area the insurance company will not reimburse the owner for damages to said area. The key criteria for the approval of a caretaker's residence would be whether or not there is a security need on site twenty-four hours per day. Caretaker residences are not intended to provide low cost housing. The intended purpose of such residences must be solely for security purposes. The surrounding vicinity does not necessarily qualify as an isolated area of the community where staff would typically encourage caretaker facilities. Further discussion is provided in the Caretaker Residence Criteria below. During the March 151h public hearing the Planning Commission sympathized with the applicant and discussed issues of general property rights intrinsic to ownership. The discussion deviated from addressing the intent of the law which clearly states that caretaker's residences must be solely for security purposes. INITIAL STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT Findings of Fact must be entered from the record. The following are initial findings drawn from the background and analysis section of the staff report. The Planning Commission may add additional findings to this listing as the result of factual testimony and evidence submitted during the open record hearing. 1. The site contains one parcel (112-351-143). 2. The site is zoned I-1 (Light Industrial). 3. The site is approximately 18,750 square feet or 0.4 acres. 4. The site was developed with an 8,000 square foot metal building in 1998. 5. The site contains a retail auto parts sales business. 6. The site is accessed directly from "A" Street. 7. The intended purpose of caretaker residences is solely for security purposes. 8. The site is completely contained within a 6 foot tall chain-link security fence with three strands of barbed wire. 9. The applicant established an unpermitted living unit in the existing building at an unknown date. 10. Customer's vehicles are periodically stored outdoors on the site. 11. A neighborhood of residential units is located directly to the south and west. 12. Increasing industrial development continues to expand in this area of the community. 13. A search of Pasco Police Department records related to properties within 1000 feet of the subject site revealed that within the last two ,years there have been twelve (12) cases related to either theft, burglary or trespassing in which a police report was turned in. Of the twelve cases ten (10) were theft, 1 was trespassing and 1 was burglary. Only one of the police reports was tied specifically to the Sonny's Auto Parts address. CONCLUSIONS BASED ON INITIAL STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT The Planning Commission must make Findings of Fact based upon the criteria listed in P.M.C. 25.86.060. The criteria and staff listed findings are as follows: 1. Will the proposed use be in accordance with the goals, policies, objectives and text of the Comprehensive Plan? The site is designated for industrial uses by the Comprehensive Plan. The plan does not specifically address security issues. 2. Will the proposed use adversely affect public infrastructure? The proposed use will have minimal demands on public infrastructure and are less demanding than many types of permitted uses in the I-1 zone. Utilities in the area are sized to handle much greater demands than a caretaker's facility. 3. Will the proposed use be constructed, maintained and operated to be in harmony with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity? 3 The area is zoned I-1 and designated for industrial uses by the comprehensive plan. Located inside an existing structure, the caretaker's facility may not be noticeable to surrounding businesses. 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 caretaker's facility will be located inside an existing industrial building. The height of the building and the principle use of the site will not be altered. 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 caretaker's facility will not create noise, dust, fumes, vibrations, or additional traffic that would be more objectionable to adjoining properties. 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? Safety of the caretaker is a concern when dwelling accommodations are located inside an industrial building. The IBC contains safety requirements that must be adhered to in these situations. CARETAKER RESIDENCE CRITERIA In addition to the standard special permit review criteria the Planning Commission needs to consider the requirements of PMC 25.70.060 dealing with the permitting of caretakers residences. Each criterion should be answered in the affirmative for special permit approval. (1) The caretaker's resilience is solely intended to provide security for the established principal permitted use of the property; The applicant has not demonstrated a specific need for enhanced security 24 hours per day. The site is located on a major arterial street which experiences steady traffic flows at all hours. A neighborhood of 4 residential units is located directly to the south and west, residents of which regularly pass by the site via Maitland Avenue to access "A" Street. Staff did notice a steady flow to traffic on Maitland Avenue while gathering site photos. Increasing industrial development (i.e. Northwest Agriculture) continues to expand in this area of the community. The applicant requests to use approximately 10% of the building area for residential purposes to enhance security. The burden of proof to support the need for 24 hour security is upon the applicant. In the opinion of staff the applicant has failed to substantiate said need. The dominant use of the site will remain commercial in nature. All aspects of criteria #1 have not been met. (2) The residential structure, to include factory assembled homes, xuill be located on a parcel at least two times the size of the caretaker's residence; The parcel is 18,900 square feet in area and the caretaker's residence is 858 square feet. The area of the residence equates to 4.5% of the lot area. The parcel is 22 time the size of the residence. Criteria #2 is met. (3) The structure ruill conform to other- applicable codes and regulations for residential structures. Upon reconstruction of the residential space the applicant will be required to obtain a building permit; part of which includes an inspection respective to residential occupancy requirements drawn from the International Building Code (IBC). Briefly, said habitation requirements include amenities such as: a toilet, sink, shower, hot and cold water, a cooking area and space heating. TENTATIVE CONDITIONS Conditions have not been prepared as staff does not believe a caretaker's residence is warranted at this location. RECOMMENDATION MOTION: I move to close the hearing on the proposed caretaker's facility, adopt Findings of Fact, Conclusions as contained in the April 19, 2012 staff report and a Recommendation of denial to the City Council. 5 If the Planning Commission deliberations result in a recommendation of approval the following motion is in order: MOTION: I move to close the hearing, adopt Findings of Fact and Conclusions as contained in Alternate #1 of the April 19, 2012 staff report, and a recommendation of approval to the City Council. ALTERNATE#1 INITIAL STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT Findings of Fact must be entered from the record. The following are initial findings drawn from the background and analysis section of the staff report. The Planning Commission may add additional findings to this listing as the result of factual testimony and evidence submitted during the open record hearing. 14. The site contains one parcel (112-351-143). 15. The site is zoned I-1 (Light Industrial). 16. The site is approximately 18,750 square feet or 0.4 acres. 17. The site was developed with an 8,000 square foot metal building in 1998. 18. The site contains a retail auto parts sales business. 19. The site is accessed directly from "A" Street. 20. The adjacent parcel to the south contains a condemned home. 21. Property to the north and east is owned and operated by BNSF Railway Company and is largely undeveloped. 22. Previous special permits for caretaker's residences have been granted on sites within more heavily developed areas of the community. CONCLUSIONS BASED ON INITIAL STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT The Planning Commission must make Findings of Fact based upon the criteria listed hi P.M.C. 25.86.060. The criteria and staff listed findings are as follows: 7. Will the proposed use be in accordance with the goals, policies, objectives and text of the Comprehensive Plan? The site is designated for industrial uses by the Comprehensive Plan. The plan does not specifically address security issues. 6 8. Will the proposed use adversely affect public infrastructure? The proposed use will have minimal demands on public infrastructure and are less demanding than many types of permitted uses in the I-1 zone. Utilities in the area are sized to handle much greater demands than a caretaker's facility. 9. Will the proposed use be constructed, maintained and operated to be in harmony with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity? The area is zoned I-1 and designated for industrial uses by the comprehensive plan. Located inside an existing structure the caretaker's facility will barley be noticeable to surrounding businesses. 10. 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 caretaker's facility will be located inside an existing industrial building. The height of the building and the principle use of the site will not be altered. 11. 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 caretaker's facility will not create noise, dust, fumes, vibrations, or additional traffic that would be more objectionable to adjoining properties. 12. 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? A residence is much less intense from a land use perspective than industrial businesses. Safety of the caretaker is a concern when dwelling accommodations are located inside an industrial building. The IBC contains safety requirements that must be adhered to in these situations. 7 CARETAKER RESIDENCE CRITERIA In addition to the standard special permit review criteria the Planning Commission needs to considered the requirements of PMC 25.70.060 dealing with the permitting of caretakers residences. (4) The caretaker's residence is solely intended to provide security for the established principal permitted use of the property; The applicant requests to use approximately 10% of the building area for residential purposes to enhance security. The dominant use of the site will remain commercial in nature. Criteria #1 is met. (5) The residential structure, to include factory assembled homes, xuill be located on a parcel at least txuo times the size of the caretaker's residence; The parcel is 18,900 square feet in area and the caretaker's residence is 858 square feet. The area of the residence equates to 4.5% of the lot area. The parcel is 22 time the size of the residence. Criteria #2 is met. (6) The structure xuill conform to other- applicable codes and regulations for residential structures. Upon reconstruction of the residential space the applicant will be required to obtain a building permit; part of which includes an inspection respective to residential occupancy requirements drawn from the International Building Code (IBC). Briefly, said habitation requirements include amenities such as: a toilet, sink, shower, hot and cold water, a cooking area and space heating. Conditions of approval contained herein also obligate applicable codes to be met. TENTATIVE APPROVAL CONDITIONS 1) The special permit shall apply to the property (Tax Parcel #112- 351-143); 2) If the business activity ceases, the caretaker's facility must be vacated within 30 days following the date the business closes; 3) The applicant shall provide City of Pasco Inspection Services with structure design and placement information as deemed necessary by the Building Department; 4) The applicant must obtain a City of Pasco building permit prior to beginning reconstruction work to the damaged building; 5) The special permit shall be null and void if the caretaker's residence has not received a certificate of occupancy by December 31, 2 012. 8 Vicinity Item: S onn y's Auto C aretaker's Residence 0 Map Applicant : Dean Shelton File ##: SP2012-005 Pomp J 40, AN ,� . . SITE ST .�f � ��, r � , •` -�= sue_. . i"` ..'` r T `�� '�► 5�°•�rrr:'S�I rJgC9�taE P�4.. k�+y 4 Fe,I } '�Q"r'•i',T^' w L ' 1� l I fM,r� 1, \ ✓ �•"+�nw^'�(:.t1-n�{fR��( �� rr -1 . Balm ui Z-A N LU �1� �� 1 Q (n• �r _ �s� r r n�� O hand Use Item: Sonny's Auto Caretaker's Reside ce Dean Shelton a Applicant : N File ##: SP2012-005 Industrial & w Industrial/Railroad Heavy Commercial I ILU m SFR's --------------- -------------------------------------- SITE 'W ST h�k Residential & Res. Heavy Commercial- Vacant MEOW Q FVacant Res. & Vacant I Industrial 1V ST PU —Vacant Sub-Station o Zoning Sonny's Item: Auto Caretaker's Residence Ma p Applicant : Dean Shelton File #:: SP2012-005 + Z -- Q W LL $1TE R-3 "A"ST a � I-2 LU c� z 3 "B"ST w I- 1 (Light Industrial "IV'ST S O 04? Looking North • _ �� + YAKS i Looking East R y 1 y r Looking South ` y A: 0 Val, w - 3 it&::CPS, � - M • • • FT - - _rt . Looking West zw;�o All s y REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION MASTER FILE NO: SP 2012-007 APPLICANT: Imagination Studios Academy Preschool HEARING DATE: 04/19/2012 1800 Road 72 ACTION DATE: 05/17/2012 Pasco, WA 99301 BACKGROUND REQUEST: SPECIAL PERMIT: Expanding the capacity of a permitted preschool from 50 to 80 children in an existing church in an R-S-20 Zone. 1. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: Legal: The Northeast 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4 of Section 21, Township 9 North, Range 29 East, W.M. General Location: 1800 Road 72 Property Size: Approximately 10 acres 2. ACCESS: The site is accessible from Road 72. 3. UTILITIES: All municipal utilities currently serve the site. 4. LAND USE AND ZONING: The site is currently zoned R-S-20 (Suburban) and contains the Pasco Faith Assembly of God Church. Surrounding properties are zoned and developed as follows: North: R-S-20 - Single Family Residence (largely vacant land) South: R-S-20 - Single Family Residences East: R-S-20 - (County) Single Family Residences West: R-S-12 - Single Family Residences 5. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The Comprehensive Plan designates the site for Low-Density Residential uses. Goal LU-3-A encourages the location of school facilities in each residential neighborhood. 6. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: This proposal has been issued a determination of non-significance in accordance with review under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), Chapter 43.21(c) RCW. ANALYSIS The Faith Assembly of God Church has been located on Road 72 for over 20 ,years. In September of 2002 the church was granted a special permit by the City for a major expansion. Following the completion of the new addition in 2004 the Faith Assembly Christian Center applied to the State and received a child day care center license. Since that time the Church has operated a child care center/preschool in the original portion of the Church building. The original preschool application was approved by the Planning Commission, appealed, and finally approved by the City Council on March 15, 2010 with the following conditions: a. The special permit shall be personal to the applicant; b. The special permit shall be for a preschool only; c. The preschool attendance shall be limited to no more than fifty (50) children on site at any given time; d. The applicant shall comply with all necessary state licensing requirements; e. The applicant shall continue to maintain the fenced playground as currently developed on the site; f. The pick-up and drop-off area for children shall not be in the public right-of-way; g. The special permit shall be null and void if the applicant has not obtained a City of Pasco business license by April 1, 2010. There is little outward appearance that indicates there is a preschool in the church. There is a fenced playground area directly behind the church that is difficult to see from Road 72. The nearest house is located 418 feet west of the playground across the Church parking lot. The 70,107 square foot church facility contains 18,650 square feet of classroom space, a kitchen, bathrooms and a playground available to preschool activities. The ages of the children served range from 3 to 5 ,years. The preschool is open from 9:00 AM to 4:00 PM Monday through Friday. Since receiving the Special Permit to operate a preschool the student count has increased to 44 at peak times, and is projected to reach up to 72 by 2013, according to enrollment figures submitted by the preschool. These figures have been entered into a table (see below) which uses the Institute of transportation Engineers (ITE) Manual multipliers to calculate average, minimum, and maximum projected traffic flows to the site for different traffic conditions (7- 9:00 AM, 4-6 PM, peak AM and peak PM). Added to these estimates is a conceptual maximum based on the Special Permit request for up to 80 students. According to the ITE Manual it is estimated that an enrollment of 80 students could generate up to approximately 143 vehicle trips per day. By way of comparison, if the site were developed with single-family homes under the current zoning, it is estimated that the 10 acre site would generate up to 160 vehicle trips per day (16 homes x 10 vehicle trips per day). The previous Special Permit conditions limited the student population to 50 students on-site at any given time, with the intent of keeping traffic flows comparable to those which might occur if the property were to have been developed with single-family residential units in accordance with current RS-20 zoning. Traffic to and from the proposed preschool will typically coincide with the morning and afternoon peak traffic through the neighborhood. The proposed site contains over 500 parking spaces. A preschool facility with an enrollment of 80 students and 8 staff members requires about 22 parking stalls. Dayare/Preschools Study#1--Students 7-9AM Weekday Year Days Time Students Avg Trips Min Trips Max Trips 2012/13* MWF 9:00 a m-12:00 62 49.6 24.18 110.36 2012/13* TTh I 9:00 a m-12;00 52 41.6 20.28 92.56 Max Enrollment So 64 31.2 142.4 Study#2--Students 4-6 PM Weekday 2012/13* M-F I 1;00 pm-4:00 10 8.2 2.4 17.2 Max Enrollment 80 65.6 19.2 137.6 Study#3--Students Peak AM Weekday 2012/13* MWF 9:00 a m-12:00 62 50.84 24.18 110.36 2012/13* TTh 9:00 a m-12:00 52 42.64 20.28 92.56 Max Enrollment 80 64 31.2 142.4 Study#4--Students Peak PM Weekdays 2012/13* M-F I 1;00 pm-4:00 10 8.5 3.9 17.2 Max Enrollment So 68 31.2 137.6 I ,*Projected Enrollments for 2013 L j Preschools are defined as community service facilities and as such are required to obtain a special permit before locating anywhere within the city. Preschools are often located in or adjacent to residential neighborhoods. School activities in residential neighborhoods typically do not generate complaints from neighbors. INITIAL STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT Findings of fact must be entered from the record. The following are initial findings drawn from the background and analysis section of the staff report. The Planning Commission may add additional findings to this listing as the result of factual testimony and evidence submitted during the open record hearing. 1. The site is zoned R-S-20 (Suburban). 2. All municipal utilities currently serve the site. 3. Preschools are Conditional Uses in the RS-20 zone (PMC 25.22.040(5). 4. Conditional Lases require Special Permit approval prior to establishment. 5. The Comprehensive Plan identifies the site for Low-Density Residential uses. 6. The site proposed for a children's preschool currently contains a church. 3 7. The proposed preschool could generate up to 143 vehicle trips per day (per the ITE Trip Generation Manual). 8. The applicant indicated a maximum capacity of 80 children for the preschool. 9. The preschool will accommodate children ages 3-5 ,years. 10. With a maximum capacity of 80 children the preschool could have up to 8 staff members. 11. The site contains over 500 on-site parking stalls. 12. The preschool received a Special Permit in March of 2010 and has been in operation at the church since that time. 13. The city has not received complaints about the preschool in the church. CONCLUSIONS BASED ON INITIAL STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT Before recommending approval or denial of a special permit the Planning Commission must develop findings of fact from which to draw its conclusions based upon the criteria listed in P.M.C. 25.86.060. The criteria are as follows: 1 j Will the proposed use be in accordonce xuith the goons, policies, objectives and text of the Comprehensive plan? The site is identified in the Comprehensive Plan for Low-Density Residential uses. The proposed preschool supports Plan Goal LU-3-A which encourages such facilities to be located in neighborhoods. 2) Will the proposed use adversely affect public infrastructure? The church has a permitted occupancy load in the main sanctuary of over 1,000 people and has a parking lot with over 500 parking stalls. The weekday use of the building for 80 preschool aged children will have a negligible impact on public infrastructure. No infrastructure modifications would be required for the preschool. 3) Will the proposed use be constructed, maintained and operated to be in harmony xuith existing or intended character-of the general vicinity? The intended character of the neighborhood is suburban residential. Typically, schools and or preschool facilities are located in or adjacent to residential neighborhoods. 4 j 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 preschool school is located in an existing church which previously received a special permit and building permit from the City of Pasco. The County Assessor's records indicate the value of the adjoining residential properties 4 have increased over the past four ,years, and no evidence is apparent that permitted uses in the vicinity have been discouraged by the existing preschool. 5) Will the operations in connection ruith the proposal be more objectionable to nearby properties by reason of noise, fumes, vibrations, dust, traffic, or flashing lights than ruould be the operation of any permitted uses xuithin the district? The preschool school was permitted in March of 2010 and has been operating on the site without generating objectionable amounts of noise, dust, traffic or other conditions. The city has not received any complaints about the preschool since receiving a Special Permit. 6) Will the proposers use endanger- the public health or safety if located and developed where proposers, or in any ruay become a nuisance to uses permitted in the district? Preschools are commonly located in or adjacent to residential neighborhoods where they are generally not viewed as a nuisance. TENTATIVE APPROVAL CONDITIONS a) The special permit shall be for Franklin County Tax Parcels #118 49 10 b2 and #118 49 10 44; b) The special permit shall be for a preschool only; c) The preschool attendance shall be limited to no more than eighty (80) children on site at any given time, and not more than 80 in any 24-hour period; d) The applicant shall comply with all necessary state licensing requirements; e) The applicant shall continue to maintain the fenced playground as currently developed on the site; The pick-up and drop-off area for children shall not be in the public right-of-way; g) The special permit shall be null and void if the applicant has not obtained a City of Pasco business license by September 1, 2012. RECOMMENDATION MOTION: I move to close the hearing on the proposed preschool and initiate deliberations and schedule adoption of findings of fact, conclusions and a recommendation to the City Council for the May 17, 2012 meeting. 5 Jeff Adams Subject: FW: Imagination Studios Academy Preschool Current Enrollment I have a spreadsheet that I believe was used when we applied for the permit that showed enrollment history through the 2009/2010 school year. I am not sure if you still have that on file. Here is the 2010/2011 enrollment, current enrollment and the projected enrollment fort he 2012/2013 school year. 2010/2011: 9am-12r)m Mon. Wed. Fri Students: 48 Teachers: 5 Cars dropping off(approx.): 45 9am-12r)m Tues. Thurs. Students 28 Teachers: 3 Cars dropping off(approx.) 26 1pm-4 m Monthrouph Friday Students: 9 Teachers: 1 Cars dropping off(approx.) 7 2011/2012: 9am-12[)m Mon. Wed. Fri. Students: 44 Teachers: 5 Cars dropping off(approx.) 42 9am-12pm Tues. Thurs_ Students: 31 Teachers: 4 Cars dropping off(approx.) 30 No afternoon classes 2012/2013 projected: 9am-12pm Mon. Wed. Fri. Students: 62 Teachers: 7 Cars dropping off (approx.) 58 9am-12pm Tues. Thurs Students: 52 Teachers: 7 Cars dropping off (approx.) 48 fpm-3:30pm Mon through Fri Students: 10 Teachers: 1 Cars dropping off(approx.) 10 I hope this is what you need. Let me know if there is something more that would be helpful. Thanks, Tracy Colon 509-547-5773 509-521-3340 i • Applicant:Item: Special Permit - Preschool Vicinity Imagination Studios N Map File # : SP 2012-007 1N W R TT RD JACOBS LN '` ' 'r � ,•.# -,r$1� rTERN,LiT,--I E o Op �l L a t, EAR IST TE,,,s• • fC SITE ' - ' CW RUBY T tea.d- `''� •` . IOL .. _ Nn FAA Q SQL, Z. i. �, Land Item: Special P - Preschool Use Applicant: Imagination Studios N Ma File # : SP 2012-007 —T-:WWt=RNETT RD _JACOBS LN - - T-6I C SFDU's F_ �-- IL A R C R ST CT (County) PEARL ST SFDU's :kTE ST 8R-RAY CT SITE SFDU's b (County) s� I I cc RlY CT Z L °D cc Church 0 Z O� Z p CIT■Y-L•IMI� za. BLU r= STAK w E- c a T-�-IVY`LW z SFDU's RjV� 4, • Item: Special Pen-nit - Preschool Zoning Applicant: Imagination Studios N File Map # : SP 2012-007 -W-WERNE=TT RD RS=20 OUTTEAI T CIRCLE �U (County) Rs R+OSECREEFC CT _ —EARL S IRS 2� 9 A, CY - (Co u nty) SITE o� RU RS-12 OD T RS-20 Z 10�Q z r toz _ to E3LUE STAFF T RS=20 R=Sml /PUD Rz C=1 e� - JV HV ® Lo __lak r P 3 1 � ll x ' C1dr yy 9Xs8 omr.! 16 TH J ll �__ M , f • i 4e XI-14 �s ---- ---------------ROAD 72 ------------------------- I- -- 12C 111 114 t lon 107 110 �` D0 125 1 131 CwfE 21l� 210 212 213 LOW - too IV lam 214 AM 206 204 -e L— j 202 MUU 128A in MAIN FLOOR SEOOND FLOOR .•f s f� 1 • n��,rR R�� Looking North Looking ! 'r M Looking East LL Looking -Southeast • . 1t _f�l.:�►ti�`�/ k-� �:; ••� �ji j��,•4�+���•• \',: rte.�_", ^ .r_ _ �',• ' -_ � r .may _ �r���:-c 1,�.:s�• _�^�`.'�' � �r.w_w• � vt�;1'4j `,ark ,•+ '.t .� ;r. r Y ~_ �.♦I, a:. fY'1�1•?t�..'f\ ♦.•• rl•.r � •:�J Y�'�.,����. 1 � •,t .,� x, .i�ll'-ice „a i�'•�.C__r,5.�f t;'. 1q!` -r •v ~'�.,1 _\-•`.� '••� _ �r Looking South Y f'- ` i�IT�.y F4M a!. #`A ti►a ,` b� v w s. �4 Looking Nest _ � _�y- � • � -- t -._i � � ��.i'F I.'►!� .sew i I Looking North REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION MASTER FILE # SP 2012-002 APPLICANT: Tri-City Jr. Academy HEARING DATE: 2/16/2012 4115 W. Henry Street ACTION DATE: 3/15/2012 Pasco, WA 99301 BACKGROUND REQUEST: SPECIAL PERMIT: Redevelopment of a School Recreation Field in an RS-12 (Suburban) Zone 1. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: Legal: Southwest 1/4 of the northwest 'A northeast 1/4, less the north 425 feet except the west 181 feet of Section 26 Township 9 North Range 29 East General Location: 4115 W. Henry Street Property Size: Approximately 2.3 acres 2. ACCESS: The site has access from West Henry Street. 3. UTILITIES: All municipal utilities are available in Henry Street. 4. LAND USE AND ZONING: The site is zoned RS-12 (Suburban) and currently contains a recreation/ball field. The zoning and land use of the surrounding properties are as follows: NORTH: RS-12 - Single Family Residences SOUTH: RS-12 - Single Family Residences EAST: RS-12 - School WEST: RS-12 - Single Family Residences 5. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The Comprehensive Plan designates this area for Government/Public 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 Tri-City Junior Academy is requesting a special permit to redevelop an existing recreational ball field adjacent to their private school facility on West Henry Street. Tri-City Junior Academy provides educational services to most grade levels including daycare and preschool services. The proposed field improvements include installation of an oval running track, a scoreboard, signage and fencing (see attached site plan). Per Pasco Municipal Code 25.24.040(3) public and private schools are listed as Conditional Uses in the RS-12 zone; requiring special permit review prior to location or expansion. This application is similar to the Pasco School District application of 2010 for renovations to the high school baseball field and tennis courts and the Tri-City Prep. application in 2007 that included baseball fields and a football field as a part of the Prep. school expansion plans. The site in question fronts West Henry Street east of Road 44 and contains a soccer field in the most basic form which the Academy wishes to improve with a track along the border, a six (6) foot fence along the W. Henry Street frontage, a Tri-City Junior Academy sign and a sports scoreboard. The site is effectively surrounded by single family residences except the parcel directly to the east contains the main Tri-City Junior Academy school facility and parking lot. Adjacent parcels to the west and north contain single family residences. It is common to locate schools and school related facilities within residentially zoned areas. The operation of the Tri-City Junior Academy and use of the related sports field does not generate nuisance complaints from neighboring residential properties. STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT Findings of Fact must be entered from the record. The following are initial findings drawn from the background and analysis section of the staff report. The Planning Commission may add additional findings to this listing as the result of factual testimony and evidence submitted during the open record hearing. 1. The site is zoned RS-12 (Suburban). 2. Public and private schools are conditional uses requiring special permit review. 3. The site is approximately 2.3 acres. 4. The site has 480 feet of road frontage along W. Henry Street. 5. An ingress/egress driveway is located at the east end of the site. 6. Properties to the north and west contain single family residence. 7. The Tri-City Junior Academy has been located on West Henry Street for 40 ,years. 8. Within the site is an existing sports field that is essentially undeveloped. 9. The Tri-City Junior Academy proposes to install an oval running track, a scoreboard, signage and fencing. 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? The proposed use supports the following plan policies or goals: Policy LU- 2-B supports existing and future recreational, educational and cultural facilities and services. Policy LU-2-C encourages adequate provisions be made for the recreational needs for future residents. Policy CF-5 suggests adequate provisions be made for educational facilities throughout the Urban Growth Area. Policy CF-5-A encourages the appropriate location and design of schools throughout the community. 2. Will the proposed use adversely affect public infrastructure? All municipal utilities are currently available to the site from Henry Street. The proposal will not increase demands on public 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? The surrounding vicinity can be characterized as residential in nature. It is common for schools and recreational facilities such as outdoor ball fields and running tracks to be located within residential neighborhoods. Similar recreational facilities have been developed within residential areas of the community without generating complaints received by the city. 3 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 tallest structure included in the proposal is a game scoreboard. The exact height and size of the scoreboard is undetermined at this time, but the applicant indicated that they do not intend to install an electric scoreboard. The applicant has stated that the scoreboard would be manually operated; containing no illuminations. A manually operated scoreboard would not discourage future residential development within the vicinity. One possible location of the scoreboard is indicated on the site plan included herein. 5. Will the operations in connection with the proposal be more objectionable to nearby properties by reason of noise, fumes, vibrations, dust, traffic, or flashing lights than would be the operation of any permitted uses within the district? The proposed renovations to the Tri-City Junior Academy property will not increase the schools capacity to house more students. The proposal updates and improves existing facilities that have been in the neighborhood for 40 ,years. Pasco School District has recently completed similar recreational facilities renovations without disrupting the residential character of the adjacent neighborhoods. 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? It is unlikely that improvements to the existing recreation field will become a nuisance to surrounding residences or endanger public safety. A six foot fence is proposed along West Henry Street which will help secure field activities from spilling into the roadway. APPROVAL CONDITIONS 1. The Special Permit shall apply to parcel 119502084; 2. No outdoor sports light shall be permitted. Any new lighting related to securing the parking lot area shall be shielded from spilling onto adjacent residential properties; 3. West Henry Street shall be widened on the north half to create a half width of 18' on the north side. The widening shall be completed in accordance with the City of Pasco Local Access Street without Curbs standard. 4. A sign permit must be obtained prior to construction of signs and/or scoreboards; 4 5. Fencing along West Henry Street must not be solid fencing and shall be limited to a maximum of six (6) feet in height. 6. A building permit must be obtained prior to construction of any fencing; 7. The special permit shall be null and void if a building permit is not obtained by June 1, 2013. RECOMMENDATION MOTION: I move to close the hearing on the proposed redevelopment of a recreational field and initiate deliberations and schedule adoption of Findings of Fact, Conclusions and a Recommendation to the City Council for the May 17, 2012 meeting. 5 Vicinity Item: Sports Field Redevelopment Ma p Applicant: TJr. Academy N File #: SP2012-008 + 44 h• ;_ ' I�r _ ^A 7 .;j iii!!' 1��1 J� `_IMI�1 _ 1 �. MAP I E C-j io*- -V11 „ W KCr T — all, Ali + 717' r .«� 4j�• :A,� 1 '�` ,fir ,,ttom� - >1.,,�_�� , ��.�' • 1�' Y"ST 544;��x s - Qell }► 1 * yr Land Use Item: Sports Field Redevelopment Map Applicant : Tri-City Jr. Academy N File #-. SP2012-008 p■■■ ' iii■ �� •at�f� ■ tiv��c�ia.� � ' ■ ■ ■■' •nc� rea��aar. loss In 111101101111 son lolls mass ME 1 0 loons ��■,����■w■ � � ■I 00111 MEN son Zoning Item: Sports Field Redevelopment Map Applicant: Tri-City Jr. Academy N File #: SP2012-008 W, b IF mill �00 son MINN on 1001 a i w N - • m • . poi Tri=CI*ty Jr. Academy Sports Field Redevelopment Site Plan , coreboard 4$0.7' : _ ... Trackr- 1i1..- a Ball Field N 4 ' Track GATE W HENRY ST ` fw* !"' rpm, A'026' ON — fence site = 2.3 acres r� * M sy o Look * n th _�.&_=maw 11 :a ' - - � _ + -�_�� •�� ... ter_- - -� Looking East -mom- V-- wm%*MWwO"W" e�— .tea r - d Loo'kl* ngr South Ak Oki" A Y � 1!j! • e A' Look * r West ing Af IBM i r - - 3 - - r, s J •• - • - ,`tea.i � _ �' - • �. MEMORANDUM DATE: April 11. 2012— TO: Planning Commission FROM: Shane O'Neill. Planner I SUBJECT: Code Amendment—Variable Rear Setback for Accessory Structures in Suburban Zones (MF# CA2011-007) This Code amendment stemmed from a complaint regarding effects the height allowance for detached shops and garages has on neighboring property owners. Current Code language allows detached shops and garages in suburban zones (RS-12 & RS-20) to be a maximum of 18 feet in height measured to the mid-roof-line (half way between the eve and the peak) and 15 feet in height in the R-S-1 zone. Additional Code language restricts accessory structures from exceeding the height of the home. Accessory structures in suburban zones. regardless of height. have a minimum rear setback of five (5) feet. The tables below illustrate proposals for a variable rear yard setback dependent upon height and size. Since Code language divides accessory structures into two categories. sheds and garages/shops. the maximum shed size is used as a breaking point for applicability of the variable rear setback. In other words. the proposed variable rear setback will not affect sheds. An accessory structure height of twelve (12)feet is also used as a breaking point for applicability of the variable rear setback. Specific height thresholds and rear setbacks may be valuable discussion points. During the January 2012— Planning Commission workshop Commissioners Cruz and Kempf supported Alternate #'' while Commissioner Anderson was in favor of mirroring the County's standards. Pasco Municipal Code currently allows the following with respect to residential accessory structures: RS-1 Zone 15' Ht. max. Up to 1000ft. Z 5' rear setback RS-12 Zone 18' Ht. max. Up to 1200ft. 2 5' rear setback RS-20 Zone 1 S' Ht. max. tTp to 1`00ft. ' 5' rear setback Page 1 of 3 ALTERNATE 1: Current County Code permits the following: Accessory Structure Rear Setback Tables RS-12 Zone 15' Ht. max. Over 200 ft2; up to 1200ft z 5' rear setback Linder ''00 ft2 5' rear setback RS-20 Zone 1 S' Ht. max. Over''00 ft2; up to 1200ft z 10' rear setback Linder ''00 ft2 10' rear setback The alternate above reduces the currently allowable accessory structure height in the RS-12 zone from 18 feet to 15 feet. Reducing the allowable accessory structure height in the RS-12 by 3 feet would almost certainly be unappreciated my many residents and would create a large volume of non-conformities. It also increases the rear setback for accessory structures in the RS-20 zone from 5 feet to 10 feet regardless of height. The proposal above does not affect/address the RS-1 zone. This alternate only partially addresses the issue at hand. ALTERNATE '2: Alternate 2 uses a twelve (12) foot height as the threshold for applying an increased (10 foot) rear setback in all Suburban zones. Accessory Structure Rear Setback Tables RS-1 Zone <12' Ht. >11T Ht. Over '?00ft2; 5'rear 10' rear Up to 1000ft2 setback setback 5'rear 5' rear Under'? 0ft2 setback setback RS-12 Zone <1''' Ht. >IT Ht. Over '60ftz; 5' rear 10' rear Up to 1?00 ft2 setback setback 5' rear 5'rear Under 260 ft2 setback setback Page 2 of 3 RS-20 Zone <l'T Ht. >lT Ht. Over80ft2; 5' rear 10' rear Up to l'?00ft2 setback setback 5' rear 5' rear Under 480ft2 setback setback The direction of the Planning Commission on this item will ultimately be incorporated into the Title 25 Zoning Code Amendment (MF# CA2012-006). Page 3 of 3 ► ► Siding Type Engineered wood Installation Included Yes Paintable No Primed Yes Number of Windows Included 0.0 Nuniberof Shelves Included 0.0 � Roof Shingles Included Yes Construction 1 Gin on center Warranty 10 Year Interior Width (Neetl 9.5 Interior Length (Feet) 11.5 Exterior WR th (Feet) 10.0 Interior Peak Height(Feet) 10,0 Foundation Width (Feet) 10.0 Foundation Length (Feet) 12,0 Si 0 0�,TT l Oft x 10ft Storage Capacity Range (Sq. Ft.) Over 100 Stoi-acre Capacity Lange (Cu, Ft.) 50o to 1000 Exterior Length (Feet) 12.0 Exterior Peal's Height (feet) 10.5 Door Opening Width (Inches) 43.0 Door Opening Height {Inches) 75,0 Floor Included Yes Floor Storage Capacity (Sq. Feet) 120 Storage Capacity (Cu. Feet) 840 MEMORANDUM DATE: April 19, 2012 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Jeffrey B. Adams SUBJECT: PLAN 2012-003 RIVERSHORE LINKAGES & AMENITIES PLAN The City Council recently approved the Tri-Cities Rivershore Enhancement Council (TREC) 2012 Tri-Cities Rivershore Master Plan, which was crafted for the purpose of encourage the participating jurisdictions to "develop facilities and programming that face and embrace the river,rather than turning away from it." The ten overarching elements of the 2012 Tri-Cities Rivershore Master Plan are as follows: 1. Improve wayfinding and identity '. Integrate and interpret arts, culture, heritage and environmental features 3. Create "place" through viewpoints, seating areas and user amenities 4. Enhance water-oriented activities and recreation 5. Increase birding and wildlife viewing opportunities 6. Enhance linkages to and from the rivershore, across the river, and through historic downtowns, commerce, and cultural areas. 7. Enliven the rivershore through formal and informal programming S. Strengthen the connection with the Yakima Delta and the Yakima and Snake River systems Re-engage the riverfront through land use In response to this plan staff has assembled a draft Linkages and Amenities Plan which builds on TREC Plan items specific to the City of Pasco. The City's Comprehensive Plan specifies a goal that "All residents of the city are afforded access to the Columbia River." This plan is designed to ensure "Pasco is oriented toward and connected with the River through parks, pathways, bikeways, boats launches and docks." Because the Columbia and Snake Rivers form approximately half of the city's border (approximately 14 Miles) it is appropriate to consider the Pasco Rivershore Area the "front door" to Pasco from the vantage of sister cities Richland and Kennewick, and treat the Rivershore Area as a key resource in the ongoing project of cityscape enhancement. The Linkages and Amenities Plan is structured with a general amenities section and then broken down into individual sections representing geographical segments, each pertaining to a length of the river with similar characteristics. Each segment has a set of maps showing existing and proposed amenities. as well as a brief narrative for that area. The narratives. in turn. cover ownership. existing landscaping and natural features. transportation and access. general land use patterns. current linkages and amenities. opportunities. and constraints. Each section concludes with a selection of short- mid- and long-range recommendations for that segment. The Planning Commission is receiving this item to introduce the subject and allow adequate time to review the draft. It will be placed on the agenda for Workshop discussion in May. City of Pasco 2010 Rivershore Linkage and Amenity Plan Draft, April 12, 2012 City of Pasco 2011 Rivershore Linkage and Amenity Plan Draft, April 12, 2012 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION a) Scope b) Definitions c) Background d) Purpose Guiding Principles e) General Challenges Inventory Concepts a) Ownership b) Landscape & Natural Features c) Transportation d) General Land Use Pattern e) Current Linkage and Amenities Inventory f) Linkage and Amenities Opportunities g) Linkage and Amenities Constraints h) Phasing Strategies—Short/Mid/Long i) Potential Implementation Actions j) Maps & Images Definitions Amenities: Public conveniences which enhance the River/Trail experience, such as Drinking fountains, restroo ms, parks and picnic areas, and boat facilities. Destination: facilities such as recreational areas, community centers, and commercial enterprises which are attractive and enhance the River/Trail experience. Linkage: (See Upland Linkage) River: In this Plan "River" refers to the system of Columbia and Snake Rivers which surround the City of Pasco. Trail: The Sacagawea Heritage Trail winds along the Columbia River around the Tri- Cities area. Upland Linkage: A multimodaI transportation route connecting the Columbia River and Sacagawea Heritage Trail to proximal destinations which have the potential of enriching the River/Trail experience. Scope and Area The City of Pasco Shoreline Amenities Plan includes all waterfront areas along the City Limits of Pasco, extending along the Snake River from the Northeastern reach of the City of Pasco's Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) near Highway 12, south to the confluence of the Snake and Columbia Rivers at the southernmost point of Sacajawea State Park, and then west and north along the Columbia River to the northern point of the U G B at Dent Road. This plan is focused on rivershore trails, recreation amenities, community gathering spaces, development opportunities, wayfinding, and connecting to downtown and neighborhood lands, as well as establishing or improving gaps across bridges, natural areas, railway tracks, roads and parks. Jurisdictions and Agencies • City of Pasco —The City of Pasco is the lead agency for and sole proprietor of this Plan. Located along the Columbia River's northern shore, the City of Pasco has many residential neighborhoods that abut the Sacagawea Heritage Trail. • Franklin County - Franklin County is located north of the Columbia River and includes the City of Pasco. Franklin County also has rivershore land in unincorporated areas. • Port of Pasco - The Port of Pasco operates an intermodal rail hub, barge terminal, industrial and business parks in the riverfront area between the Cable Bridge and Sacajawea State Park. Osprey Pointe is the Port of Pasco's newest business development project along the river. • U.S. Army Corps of Engineers - The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) has jurisdiction over use and development standards along the Columbia River. The constructed levees are maintained by the USACE as a flood control tool for the region. Background The Columbia and Snake Rivers form approximately half of the city's border (approximately 14 M iles) making the Pasco Rivershore Area the "front door" to Pasco from the vantage of both Richland and Kennewick, and thus the Rivershore Area is a key resource in the ongoing project of cityscape enhancement. Past planning efforts pertaining to the local shorelines, including the City of Pasco Rivershore Area have resulted in a plethora of documents ranging from regional, cooperative efforts to local plans. The following comprise a partial list of documents reviewed in preparation of this plan: 1) TREC Tri-Cities Rivershore Master Plan 2012 2) Comprehensive Plan 2007-2027 3) BPIC Shoreline Permit; April 2008 4) Parks & Recreation Plan 2005 U pdate 5) Broadway Properties Land Use and Market Analysis; December 2004 6) Master Plan; Sacajawea Heritage Trail: May 2000 7) Tri-Cities Rivershore Enhancement; 1997 8) Pasco Rivershore Enhancement Vision Some of the plans are broad in scope and general in their outlook; others are highly focused with measurable outcomes. Project Purpose The 2012 Tri-Cities Rivershore Master Plan encourages the participating jurisdictions to "develop facilities and programming that face and embrace the river, rather than turning away from it." Similarly, Pasco Vision reads: "All residents of the city are afforded access to the Columbia River. Pasco is oriented toward and connected with the River through parks, pathways, bikeways, boats launches and docks" (Comprehensive Plan; "The Pasco Vision for 2027;" Introduction P3). The Rivershore Linkage and Amenities Concept Plan provides guidance for a coordinated and efficient overall pattern of development in the long term which can maximize benefit for stakeholders, the City of Pasco, and the wider community. It delineates an approach for connecting the public to the Sacagawea Heritage Trail and the extensive Columbia River waterfront. It is based on a specific vision with supporting goals and objectives drawn from over 35 years of planning efforts. Project Guiding Principles The primary Goals of this document are to identify appropriate upland linkages to the Sacagawea Heritage Trail, city parks, and public access points on the Columbia River, and to provide recommendations on future location of same. Linkages to and from the River/Trail only make sense when they lead to recreational facilities such as parks and sports facilities; commercial enterprises such as retail shops, restaurants and hotels/motels; and community facilities such as art galleries, museums, and theaters. Amenities enhance the River/Trail experience and make it a place worth visiting. The best facilities and amenities are clustered in synergistic relationships and are attractive to local citizens and visitors alike. These amenities are within a comfortable walking distance, and ideally, within sight of the River/Trail. The upland Linkages can be promenades, creating a "view portal" for many of these upland attractions. The ten overarching elements of the 2012 Tri-Cities Rive rshore Master Plan are as follows: 1. Improve wayfinding and identity 2. Integrate and interpret arts, culture, heritage and environmental features 3. Create "place" through viewpoints, seating areas and user amenities 4. Enhance water-oriented activities and recreation 5. Increase bird ing and wildlife viewing opportunities 6. Enhance linkages to and from the rivershore, across the river, and through historic downtowns, commerce, and cultural areas. 7. Enliven the rivershore through formal and informal programming S. Strengthen the connection with the Yakima Delta and the Yakima and Snake River systems Re-engage the rive rfront through land use General Challenges While each segment of the River/Trail along Pasco's shoreline offers a unique mix of Challenges and opportunities, a few of these challenges/opportunities can be generalized as follows: 1) Way-Finding: The regional rivershore area lacks a cohesive signage and way-finding system; The City of Pasco should work with the other jurisdictions to create and adopt a cohesive, regional signage and way-finding system. 2) Parking areas for River/Trail access: Access points to trail and River are not sufficient. Unless a visitor lives within walking/bicycling distance of the Trail/River, they need a place to park vehicles. Parking should be integrated into access features. 3) Connections: Few connections exist to link the City's urban areas to the rivershore trail system. Trail users need well-marked, direct, safe and convenient walking and bicycling routes to the water at locations that can serve large potential user groups. Improving these connections can bring important economic development and transportation ben ef its to the City of Pasco. Accessibility from trail/water to commercial amenities: A synergistic relationship can occur between commerce and River/Trail activity, but only if those commercial amenities are within reach of the River/Trail system. We suggest focusing our River/Trail planning on an area within easy walking distance (not more than % mile) from the River/Trail. Projects to consider include improved trail connections between Pasco's urban center and the Boat Basin/Marine Terminal area; between downtown Pasco and Osprey Pointe Business Park; and between the Pasco urban core area east of 1-395 and the river area between the Blue and Cable Bridges. 4) Levees: the levees were built to protect the citizens against flood events. However they create a nearly insurmountable obstacle to boaters, waders and anyone desiring general access to the river. The City of Pasco's system of levees create a visual and physical separation between the rivershore and developed areas. Levee #2 between Wade Park at Road 59 and Ivy Glades should be prioritized as needed trail improvements to establish visual and physical access to the river. 5) Army Corps of Engineers "Wildlife Management Area": Wildlife areas are desirable for protecting the environment and enhancing biological functionality. However overgrown areas adjacent urban areas more often become refuge areas for criminal activity rather than for woodland creatures. With hundreds of miles of river frontage compared to just a few miles along the City limits, it may be wise to rethink how wildlife areas are managed close to urban areas. Elements such as public supervision and access need to be addressed. Trails with periodic "lookout" points would serve the dual function of granting public access to wild areas and create better public supervision of these areas. 6) Location/Distribution of current amenities: Amenities attract, and lack of amenities deter visits to the River/Trail. Basic amenities relate directly to River/Trail enjoyment, and include, but are not limited to the following: a) Drinking fountains: Walkers, runners, bicyclists, recreationalists and picnicking families, all depend on availability of water. Drinking fountains should be placed periodically along the Trail and clustered with park facilities such as pavilions and picnic areas. b) Restrooms: River and Trail users also depend on availability of restroom facilities. Restrooms should be clustered with park facilities such as pavilions and picnic areas, and should be stationed periodically in pocket parks along the Trail. c) Shade (trees/picnic pavilions): In the semi-arid Tri-Cities area, protection from the summer sun is desirable and adds to the pleasure of the River/Trail experience. Shade areas are severely lacking along the Trail on the Pasco side of the River. Along with tree planting, placement of picnic pavilions is crucial for enjoyment along the River/Trail. Picnic Pavilions would typically be clustered with parks and pocket parks. d) Benches: The Trail has an assortment of seating areas, although very few of them are coupled with natural or artificial shading. Both tree planting and pavilion placement should "cluster" with seating areas along the River/Trail. e) Parks: General gathering places are important for increasing social bonds and a sense of community. Parks serve a community purpose in providing some of those meeting places. Parks should be designed with high public visibility and supervision so as to reduce the incidence of vandalism and criminal activity. A well-designed park will have houses, apartments and/or condominiums along the periphery, each with park-facing porches and balconies. This design will serve the dual function of increasing supervision of park facilities and increasing the desirability and value of park-side ho mes. f) Availability of dog cleanup facilities: For the sake of sanitation, good manners, and aesthetics, canine waste cleanup stations should be provided periodically, with City of Pasco dog nuisance code prominently displayed. g) Current residential development along river: One of the main obstacles to linkage and amenities development along the River/Trail will be developed residential areas. Homeowners typically desire parks but resent the higher traffic volumes and intrusion of strangers into their neighborhoods. 7) River Crossings: The Blue and Cable Bridges were not designed with non-motorized traffic as a priority, and are severely limited in terms of trail width, accessibility and safety. The effort to provide state-of-the-art separated Class I multiuse paths over them should be explored. Consultant MIG has also suggested that the possibility of a cantilevered pedestrian bridge built to the side of the BNSF bridges should be explored to improve the range of river crossing choices for trail users. If a future bridge is built, bike and pedestrian access should be a priority. 8) Railroad: The BNSF railroad bridge between the Boat Basin and Marine terminal requires pedestrians traveling along the Rivershore to go around and over it via the Ainsworth Overpass, forcing people away from the water. This also serves to further isolate the Boat Basin neighborhood, bringing a higher crime and gang risk factor to the neighborhood. Efforts to build a BN S F/Sacagawea Trail underpass should be enthusiastically pursued. General Opportunities 1) Provide potential links to commercial and civic districts 2) Improve existing and build new trails to patch gaps in trail system 3) Incorporate interpretive signage & informational plaques 4) Encourage more boat and water-oriented activities 5) Commercial/industrial zoning along river: a) Potential accessibility from trail/water to commercial amenities: b) Potential restaurants/eateries/refreshment establishments c) Potential sporting goods: i) Bicycle/roller blade rental/repair ii) Bait and tackle iii) Boat iv) Mooring/docks/slips v) Sales vi) Rental vii) Maintenance/repair viii)fueling d) Potential General Shopping: i) Art galleries ii) Tourist shops iii) Specialty shops 6) Provide self-guided smart phone tours addressing unique history, culture and environment of the Tri-Cities. Examples include: Mid-Century House and Historic Alphabet House Tour, Port of Pasco Tour, Environmental Preserve Areas, Tri-Cities Bridges and Pompy's Lessons trail markers. 7) Guiding development of vacant land alongtrails a) Pocket Parks in vacant lots along river: Small lots along the path may be suitable for "pocket" parks, areas with minimal amenities for bicyclists and pedestrians and the occasional boater using the River/Trail b) Possible access points to trail: Small River/Trail-adjacent lots may also serve as ROW and minimal parking for trail access. c) Possible access points to water 8) Complement Pompy's Lessons trail markers 9) Consider low-profile and night sky sensitive lighting at key gathering spots along the trail for improved safety and visibility 10) Develop kiosks and gateway features 11) "Zero" habitat along levee areas: Levees are constructed with an impermeable core covered with large basalt rip-rap. As the minimum State of Washington/ Department of Ecology requirement for development along rivers is "no net loss of ecological function," permitting for heavier public access and uses should be easier. 12) Broadmoor Area Plan: The Plan for this area west of Road 100/Broadmoor Boulevard has been approved by the Pasco City Council. 13) Osprey Pointe Plan: The Plan for this area South of Ainsworth Avenue and East of the Boat Basin/Marine Terminal has been approved by the Pasco City Council and Phase One is now built. 14) Boat Basin/Marine Terminal Plan: The Plan for this area South of Ainsworth Avenue and East of the Cable Bridge has been approved by the Pasco City council. 15)Army Corps of Engineers Wildlife Management Area: This stretch of land is under public ownership and can be planned for and permitted as a single entity. 16) Residential areas along river to monitor criminal activity Inventory Rivershore Segments The Segments are numbered 1-20, beginning upriver on the Columbia River at the City of Pasco Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) just north of the Kohler Segment, flowing downstream to Sacagawea Park, and then continuing upstream along the Snake River to the Tidewater Terminal Segment. Each Segment is an arbitrary breakdown of river frontage which contains somewhat similar characteristics (see Rivershore Segments Map below). Inventory of existing amenities The following amenities have been installed along the City of Pasco shoreline to date: 1) Access points 2) Beaches 3) Bike Path/Trail 4) Boat Launches 5) Environmental/wildlife conservation/protection areas 6) Historic markers 7) Interpretive elements 8) Landscaping 9) Levee Lowering 10) Parking areas 11) Park/Sport Fields 12) Picnic areas/ Pavilions 13) Public piers 14) Restrooms 15) Water fountains r N view anch •T E S is Yiew Park l Acres n City of Pasco ge ark rid e Rivershore Segments anoaBasin- Tid rPort 2011 Portof Pasco Legend Ainsw To*n 01 Kohler 08 Sunset Acres - - 15 Marine Terminal $acagaw ark 02 Dream View 09 Levee #2 r —" 16 Boat Basin 03 Pasco Ranch 10 Wade Park 17 Port of Pasco 04 Horiigan Farms 11 Moore Mansion 18 Sacagawea Park 05 Rivershore Estates 12 Flamingo Village 19 Ainsworth Town 06 Columbia View 13 Riverview Park 20 Tidewater Terminal 07 Chiawana Park 14 West Cable Bridge 1) Kohler a) Ownership: Private/US Government b) Landscape and Natural Features: The land along this segment is fairly flat, with a short drop-off into the river. The shoreline is thickly vegetated with a mix of native and non- native trees and shrubs. Farming activities occur within about 30 yards of the river. A private unimproved road separates an orchard/vineyard from the river. c) Transportation:There is no direct public access to the River at this segment.The closest public right-of-way is Kohler Road. While the road connects to Dent Road to the South, right-of-way has not been secured to connect the two. d) General Land Use Pattern: i) Agricultural Areas: Farming activities occur within about 30 yards of the river. A private unimproved road separates an orchard/vineyard from the river. ii) Natural Area:A 20 yard strip of US Government-owned natural area lies between the private road and the River. iii) Preservation of View Corridors: Due to the flat terrain in this section of the River views would be limited to those structures built close to the River. e) Current Linkage and Amenities Inventory: None in this segment f) Linkage and Amenities Opportunities: Public ownership of about 20-30 yards of land along the river would allow the extension of the Sacagawea Heritage Trail along this section. This section is undeveloped except for farming activities, and may lend itself well to a park/River/Trail access point. g) Linkage and Amenities Constraints:there is neither direct public access to the River nor secure Right-of-Way from Kohler Road to Dent Road at this time. Roads to the property lead through neighborhoods and are designed for low-volume traffic. h) RECOMMENDATIONS: Short-Term Recommendations: i) Work with Army Corps, the County and property owners to design and build a continuation of the Sacagawea Trail north to the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) line. ii) Securethe Right-of-Way from Dent Road to Kohler Road and purchase land for ROW from Kohler road to the shoreline and for future park development. iii) Include bona fide river access points/future parks alongthis section of trail which connect to Kohler and Dent Roads. iv) With Property owner approval (and covenant) Begin irrigation and tree planting along proposed greenbelt. v) Secure ROW and purchase park property. Long-Term Recommendations vi) Develop a public park with access off of Dent/Kohler roads. Continue Sacagawea Heritage Trail with "pocket" parks along river. 1 Kohler Segment N �+ 0 30 60 90 120 150 Feet +e • - s+�- -,wee1� r t i - a' r " } 4 _ - t .6 'O r+ Q 1 i C1 Z dab ti JA • • i Iry �.. , •tom• ; yQA W-_ to O �+ N rn �n r Kohler Proposed N • i VI► E •`. t S • • Legend ---- Sacagawea Trail Proposed GO r • r • ♦ ♦ ♦ • ♦ t t f r ! ! ! t • • 1 t t t t I • • 1 a • • • • f 1 • • • u 2) Dream View a) Ownership: Private/US Government b) Landscape and Natural Features: The land along this segment is fairly flat, with a short drop-off into the river. Area developed with high-end residential units within about 100 yards of the river. The shoreline is vegetated with a mix of native and non-native trees and shrubs. c) Transportation:There is no direct public access to the River at this segment.The closest public rights-of-way are neighborhood streets branching off from Kohler Road. While Kohler road connects to Dent Road to the South, right-of-way has not been secured to connect the two. d) General Land Use Pattern: i) Residential Development:This area is developed with higher-end residential units in a mix of four subdivisions and a series of short plats. ii) Natural Area:A strip of US Government-owned natural area between 20 and 150 yards separates the river from residential uses. iii) Preservation of View Corridors: Due to the flat terrain in this section of the River views are limited to those structures built close to the River. Most River frontage lots have been developed. e) Current Linkage and Amenities Inventory: None in this segment D Linkage and Amenities Opportunities: Public ownership of about 20-150 yards of land along the river would allow the extension of the Sacagawea Heritage Trail along this section. g) Linkage and Amenities Constraints:there is neither direct public access to the River nor secure Right-of-Way from Kohler Road to Dent Road at this time. Some homeowners have extended their residential landscaping onto public lands. h) RECOMMENDATIONS: Short-Term Recommendations: i) Work with Army Corps, the County and property owners to design and build a continuation of the Sacagawea Trail north to the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) line. Obtain ROW for access to the Trail. ii) Include bona fide river access points/future parks alongthis section of trail which connect to Kohler and Dent Roads. iii) With Property owner approval (and covenant) Begin irrigation and tree planting along proposed trail extension. Long-Term Recommendations iv) Greenbelt/parks/pocket parks along river; Dream View § Segment N w e Q 75 150 225 300 375 • cr ;F Feet IW �±� - ti A. j s . _ Ir # • • t y • r (rl oil * a V, I _ dL i s 'Ak.ar� c 1 i a { h N pLL AV r-r -MIL N dIP ASr `" ... • w: +fir S � r��-�" j � � 11 -`�'A,,*r � 4� IA.- - + lWAWA f v CD N � � i �fj Dream View Proposed r N - ♦ • W E f i S ' - - r • • • Legend ' Sacagawea Trail Proposed ♦ r ♦ • • t • r • r r 1 r - - f ♦ • tt t t t t t t t I I r t I t • r i t 1 _ / 1 f r l r • 1 i I► • t / • • t Y� S� ' a`/ o•/ �Rte,{`��•�t_ • �. CO Dream View AP r r Cross-Section Concept /f2 i •1t Dream 3) Pasco Ranch a) Ownership: Private/US Government b) Landscape and Natural Features: The land along this segment is fairly flat, with a short drop-off into the river. Orchard farming activities occur within about 100 yards (or less) of the river.The shoreline is vegetated with a mix of native and non-native trees and shrubs. The water is fairly shallow along here, and wide shallow areas are periodically exposed during low water events c) Transportation: Court Street runs along the south half of this segment up to Dent Road, where direct access is available to an irrigation pump station and a private dock. Right- of-way has not been secured for either Dent or Court Street in this section. d) General Land Use Pattern: i) Residential Development:This area is developed with scattered farmstead residential units at the periphery of farming activity. ii) Natural Area:A strip of US Government-owned natural area between 20 and 150 yards separates the river from residential uses. This area has been designated by the US Army Corps of Engineers as a "Wildlife Management Area." Hunting is permitted, but no motorized vehicles are allowed. iii) Preservation of View Corridors: There is a slight rise in the terrain in this section of the River, which would allow for subtle views close to the River. A handful of modest homes have been built in a cluster near the river. e) Current Linkage and Amenities Inventory: None in this segment D Linkage and Amenities Opportunities: Dent Road cuts directly inland from the middle of this segment, giving residents of northwest Pasco easy access to the site. As well, Shoreline Road (formerly Court Street) separates the private ownership from the Public lands, reducing the potential for shoreline owner resistance to park and trail proposals. Public ownership of about 20-150 yards of land along the river would allow the extension of the Sacagawea Heritage Trail along this section. g) Linkage and Amenities Constraints: Land along this segment of the River has been designated by the Army Corps of Engineers as a "Wildlife Management Area." Any trail development will go through a strict Army corps review and approval process. h) RECOMMENDATIONS: NOTE—the Southern% of Pasco Ranch is part of the Broadmoor Area Plan and has been extensively evaluated and planned. These recommendations correspond to that general planning effort. Short-Term Recommendations: i) Work with Army Corps, the County and property owners to design and build an extension of the Sacagawea Trail with raised wildlife watching decks on piers as a continuation of the Sacagawea Trail north toward the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) line. ii) Include bona fide river access points/future parks alongthis section of trail which connect to Dent Road and Shoreline Road (formerly Court Street). Long-Term Recommendations iii) Greenbelt/parks/pocket habitat areas along river; '# -�,fir' •1, '�; Pasco Ranch Segment 0' 150 300 450 600 750 i . ,tt , •' i�'� ' s. Feet + % _ �' : : ,r.:; ,'�. ta f o i J 1 r `Q J • r v. IT VU • r SVP �• t r- f ♦ vl� .d lw r( 2w ib ,. * r * rr `s r t 10 so r A44 i 7' 6'2012007 �r N "' Is ,1 7 .�41 R ♦. . rr ;� y - O 00 �� a- r� D � u d �r T � u N • O 'y H ' Q Iii Q n vk a �i2 t. k �r cc O � • • 1 } f r ��.�. Pasco Ranch Ll T-T L Amenities N W E S Legend HABITAT AREA Pier(Private) __ Pasco Ranch • LL ;-..L Proposed Legend Sacagawea Trail Proposed I f • Park Proposg,O �! • ♦ • Beach Proposed ♦ Parking Proposed ♦ ♦ ♦ Potential Habitat Area f Road DEN I KU IU ♦ ♦ • ♦ f f f f - f r r r t1! Z J 1 O 'If's a Ak- T CJ rF a � K I-a H C1 _---�.•ice! �r�.fa d-.sYr � 00 � _t`w -,.1fT�'^" '�r�, . .'•may` - a Pasco Ranch `- `* Gross-Section Concbpt 4 apt=: � &--1 Pasco Ranch --- 1 t u nr w r 4 AIL V O .. r - �: .- - • - i r 7L • : •I w t. r ,-• t ► 1 a wr 7� .Y jP i r .�; Y '�' iar�..•.ri: ��-f1^+`n `. J.- • t _ - _ _�•,". -. v . �.. .�� b ter• �', :;. •r y � p ��- , .r,� �� .s �. _�, r • - ,. L. Pasco Ranch , A:A', �- .� •. Irrigation_ Rumps v d T t-1• OJ r-F N O Ime- Aig t�� F 4 S? '�_._ ..,- --Y�- � .,,.�. •err �-- `�`'�.�^�i^ �'��s_' r �` - •�i _.� _-. .. -='�:�- �s '�' �.., .� -; Perr AC SIf�•`�'p�:,:� a., - . •-:� �,,,,,�. _ ,� -, • _ �'_,rte ;� �.^'� ��.'��y--`ham _ - %=�•1;.� .. i• - �"��, '" :. - - _ fir"♦- Y _ ` `-'� � Ip.�, '2"� .-!�:'+ •,� .� i:c• -. , �� Lai.•� r.,..;.+ < - Pasco Ranch Boat Dock ` C Jr CFO'/ ��•/ �4Y'. +}��Iti'- '` '.I. 1+ _ •f _ !. 4'��Y��Ty4A-��,�. '�.� 'Y t •{: �yt��-rte' '.:�. r r.✓ ��1.7�",� ,�a i-L tea'••. �� �_- , I�y+,�'+r � � y PF T '+i'y -1 4' �r'• ��.tT'�-''�yrA�..�+}. y���^� .e7-•��j��• 't� , Z �T ����,�, �,a`� v `�T?J��4_�l�yi"'!'"i' � �r�a �, ~! � b 7.. arY ir.-... •+�tia a..4. a: -l. :�� - ��a� X 15:5'��i. Wlmld elf Manage Area Hunting Permitted No Motorized, Vehicles FDr Information Contact: US. Army Carps of Engineers Walla Walla aISITIC# 201 'N. 3rd St 'walla Walla WA 99362 (509) 527.71 US Army Corps of Engineers RLA Plan First Draft 2011.Doc 34 of 168 4) Horrigan Farms a) Ownership: Private/US Army Corps of Engineers b) Landscape and Natural Features: The land along this segment is fairly flat, with a short and increasingly steep drop-off into the river toward the south. East of Shoreline Road (formerly Court Street) orchard farming activities occur on the north of the City Limits line, and Central Pre-Mix gravel extraction operation south of the City Limits line. West of Shoreline Road and down to the Riverthe shoreline is heavily vegetated with a mix of native and non-native trees and shrubs. c) Transportation: Shoreline Road (formerly Court Street) runs along the entire length of this segment between the Army Corps of Engineers designated Wildlife Management Area to the West and Horrigan Farms Orchard to the East. d) General Land Use Pattern: i) Residential Development:There is one residential unit along this segment. ii) Industrial Uses:The Central Pre-Mix gravel extraction operation has a long-term lease on the land. iii) Natural Area:A strip of Army Corps of Engineers-owned natural area between 20 and 150 yards separates the river from residential uses. This area is a Wildlife Management Area. iv) Preservation of View Corridors: There is a slight rise in the terrain in this section of the River, which would allow for subtle views close to the River. A handful of modest homes have been built in a cluster near the river. e) Current Linkage and Amenities Inventory: None in this segment f) Linkage and Amenities Opportunities: i) Preservation of View Corridors: Views along the Columbia River in the Broadmoor area have a strong potential for value-added development. View corridors should be maximized for optimal visual access to the river. ii) Strong Visibility of Broadmoor from 1-182 Freeway: The north end of the 1-182 bridge is a major gateway into the City of Pasco and this section especially of the Broad moor area should be designed and built in such a way as to "put our best foot forward." iii) Columbia River Natural Character & Recreation:This section of the Pasco Rivershore lends itself well to fulfilling the needs of both rec reatio n a list and naturalist. Extending the Sacagawea Heritage Trail should be a high near-term priority, granting foot and bicycle access to the more than 40 acres of designated natural area. Boat access via boat launches and docks is an equally high priority. iv) Mineral Extraction Area: The long-term plan for the mineral extraction area is to create a boat marina and a mixed-development of retail commercial and high-end shorefront residential units. g) Linkage and Amenities Constraints: i) Impact of Mining/ Industrial Uses: The current gravel mining operation physically separates the upper property from the River. The externalities of a mining operation also have obvious impacts. ii) Local Roadways and Truck Traffic: Heavy industrial and agricultural traffic negatively impact the area. iii) Physical Separation from the River: Large tracts of agricultural land separate the River from the upper Braodmoor area. iv) River Flow / Drift Material:The Broadmoor area is at the curve of the Columbia River, and a natural collection area for silt, debris, drift wood and other waterborne materials. h) RECOMMENDATIONS: NOTE—the BroadmoorArea Plan completely encompasses the Horrigan Farms area. The text of the BroadmoorArea Plan indicates the following for the Harrigan Farms area: Open Space --- The government owned property between the shoreline and Shoreline Road has been designated in the Comprehensive Plan as an open space area. The area is also identified as a critical area geologically and for habitat purposes. Hiking and walking trails through this area would provide for public access and minimal use of the area for recreation and public enjoyment of the river. Trails through this area to view points along the river would support the Comprehensive Plan vision statement dealing with access to the river. Coordination with the Army Corps of Engineers along with shoreline permits may be necessary for the development of trails in this area." The following recommendations are more focused efforts within the general Broadmoor Area Plan guidelines: Short-Term Recommendations: i) Work with Army Corps to design and build a continuation of the Sacagawea Trail along the river to City Limits line. Work with County and property owners to design and build a continuation of the Sacagawea Trail to the northernmost Urban Growth Boundary line. ii) Include bona fide river access points/future parks alongthis section of trail which connect to Shoreline road. iii) Begin negotiations with Army Corps to establish park facilities/raised view decks along river (see link recommendation). iv) With Property owner approval (and covenant) Begin irrigation and tree planting along proposed greenbelt. Long-Term Recommendations v) Improve area for waterfowl and elevated bird watching along the rive rshore trail, adding nature trails as needed vi) Greenbelt/park/pocket wildlife preserve areas along river and along main boulevard; vii) boat basin and launch; viii)Rivershore commercial development scaled to pedestrian/bicycle traffic. Horrigan Farms It. Segment. w E 0 150 300 450 000 750 �•_. �,: :.. � � Feet .A (t N .. f .} _ I N)k. ' r 4 1 / !`4, A - t. • •F • a : • • Via• - �:a �� M.Rt• � �' 999 * yam, - l� �� '* �µ ��•7*� y why s rn IPA .0 AL Aw a tt _ siue]}�]r,, , `� `.r•. .� � ♦6. • ; x ' kip it 6 it LL a WWI } _ • s♦'*t L w i,•��{Sum , ' ar 4c, 41wM 41" `stir ♦ .f j1P�` '�"• �IV►��'' 4 � rr� � '�t• � ''' y, '•' • .t.; t.�' '� ,�f1•�,�. `L•L r 1 t -yam � � ` �! 'y; ,�` �'; ` 7 • 'fi•��.�° T pry t •:l` .'VG ��•~ ' j� .+y. , , t V:a'•, r rte•,� Ir'r :,�`�"Jr: t • . �, '4. #j 1# 410` ? i IWO CD co t It A 4j 41 IL • 40 Ai A X1'1 -l.• . .*'- .1«�l,a 4 '4ft 4k NV 16 vp v �ell •r ' r WU10.4°uUU 4 �y a, to �� •.� N ♦ • ti p.7► 41 lb —Ak lk �_ yam' � " •• .. .'� R - '4' •, '�� ,�'�"{��t�`1rr1 t► •�i �� .i r! •..j •rr. hs. .� A •v r-h •• ,I�r.. .Ie .. � • � T CD �A 11 a� p J K •.. n 10' i�>ti. r • � o ,,. Y :i A W ' 4 61 - �k Horrigan Farms Amenities N M W E S Legend OBoat Launch OPotential Habitat Area 0 sy0RF<�jVlc Rp i I- Horrigan Farms Proposed Legend Sacagawea Trail Proposed Park Proposed Beach Proposed _ Parking Proposed OPotential Habitat Area Road f: Ts' i irrSi e z a1 T W rY Q w rt N O f--s Q - O 4 k. .� metal •.'ti���� ��'a•l v - e ty�w - �� Cy IMP CC rw Horrigan Farms VLCross-Section Concept Horrigan Farms with < }• -+��. — -- view Deck Horrigan Farm "Lighthouse" i 1 � L '!^ 1 � � 1 s RLA Plan First Draft 2011.Doc 47 of 168 q.. a �9 Rich'land -Bend Haboltat •W,S Army Corps -of Engineers 'a n a a ei Lake Wallula �. ,7, � _ _• �Ml � '�. ��r �' - l.�r >' •'�,'� ski - __ I ' *'i '� r fi x o Greenbelt T iownhomes Along u �- Arterial q �` High End `View' Housing Boulevard N Buffer Medium SF Oriented �NTRD, _ To River 'High End' River Housing I f - Vain Street ( a -- Civic Feature Playfields, Active Park _ i Civic LAS regional jet# - toter PHASF,.I `High End'Housing -� ---•— j �� r -Rd. Realignment I Interchange- dj Boulevard �� ' P Commercial w Townhom�s Greenbelt a � Near Retail ° Improved River Park I a -`— Boulevard Sandifur Pkwq Townhcmes Medium S F. Condominiums Oriented lb River At Boat Basin - y Boat Basin/Marina Marina _ Related Commercial Center N x n s si n I 4 pptttt kl: c 1 a CD P t O - N 00 w e„ 2� A,lI,.,.. Otrlwq Op I:4Y9�¢nrn.dnvP�y 7001 FdN.,w��c 8.4,NO tienuitl.WAlig1Y� 9AT;i 5) Rivershore Estates a) Ownership: Private/US Government b) Landscape and Natural Features: The land along this segment has a steep, 40-to 50- foot drop into the river. The shoreline is moderately vegetated with a mix of native and non-native trees and shrubs. A high-end, 33-lot subdivision separates the Central Pre- Mix gravel extraction operation from the River. The development is nearly half built out. c) Transportation: Shoreline Road and Court Street run between the gravel pit and the residential area along the river. An unimproved river access road connects Shoreline Road to the River about 300 yards west of the subdivision. d) General Land Use Pattern: i) Residential Development: A 33-lot high-end subdivision along the river is nearly half built out. ii) Natural Area:A 15-20 yard strip of US Government-owned natural area lies between the residential lots and the River. iii) Preservation of View Corridors: Views are limited beyond the 22 river frontage lots. iv) Industrial Uses:The Central Pre-Mix gravel extraction operation occupies the majority of the area north of Shoreline Road/Court Street and has a long-term lease on the land. e) Current Linkage and Amenities Inventory:A parking area has been installed adjacent the Sacagawea Heritage Trail and under the 1-182 Bridge. f) Linkage and Amenities Opportunities: Public ownership of about 15-20 yards of land along the river would allow the extension of the Sacagawea Heritage Trail along this section, although the trail cross-section would need to accommodate the steep sloping bank. There exists an unimproved access road and informal boat launch south of Rivershore Drive about 300 yards west of the subdivision. g) Linkage and Amenities Constraints:The Central Pre-Mix gravel extraction operation occupies the majority of the area north of Shoreline Road and Court Street and has a long-term lease on the land. h) RECOMMENDATIONS: Short-Term Recommendations: i) Work with Army Corps, the County and property owners to design and build a continuation of the Sacagawea Trail north along this segment. ii) Improve the existing river access point/boat launch and add a "Pocket" park. iii) Begin irrigation and tree planting along proposed greenbelt. Long-Term Recommendations iv) Build a Boat basin on the current Central Pre-M ix gravel mine. Build the marina as the centerpiece for mixed residential and commercial development. Aim t } Al ANA r •t Rivershore Estates Segment N i. V✓ w E 450 300 450 00 75 ti ,r 4 y t T _ ET law r-F I 4;k �. IL �. IL ,, , +e AOL Ink Ul Xh .00 40 Av _t. P W. f i a # a yp AF C1 _ aw j i •r Ln Ln 1 _ e '► 00 Y — _ _ �� _ •_ 612012007 F r GI 3 T tTIJfLn pop 0 GI -�N rt N O N N O O f � r �► . �-:x.:17`-�- j;- ,«. ,� +=,'r�,� O1 -� N r _ rr .Z7 ■ N ' T I R N u Ry N O n r" _'•���f'._� ' _ +. ,fir ."� -f r,• � _y �� ` � .r `rte ,,�. _. Ot Cn ' 11 eta y is ► � r_*°a� � - _ 1 i C HARRIS RD ATERS EDGE DR Sy 0 RF(itiF cT W E S Rivershore Estates °ARTS, Amenities Legend $D BOAT-LAUNCH SACAGAVVEA TRAIL L SHORELINE RD HARRI- RD WAT'�R ED E R N R T W E S Rivershore Estates osed `ST L,,egend Sacagawea Trail Proposed Parking Proposed iv T rF Q CL) JL O h Q - O n .s „fir;'.r • _ - r.- - r •�i.r +ice•' '''••* Rivershore Estates / C Cross-Section Concept V" - Alp Ole Pr Rivershore Estates low;, +�L :-�•a• .. ...�.Y11.1R+V .n- 'e-.'?r�.�.'� $lA� ?'-s:� n.r` ';� <J• .. �. f � . r ;, � ����..' � r� •ice-»�. � � 'f ^: ~¢, s °ter° - ��,�~�° �`}��+• :; CD OL d^ r �''r,A7I.t�r•'�;,~R}_ •�F'`1• ' %-0• y ,_ _ 1 Jf • S'!�T�, -.. �� vershore Estates ver Access_�, Qom.^' �l� �.+ t` •� �. �� ' _ ~ •Cif 1, '� ;.- ' � r i.— t )' - . • ,� - G 1. �'}'� �. t y-A.!' p accross from Central • _ R�{�'��Ri'— 'a`-. :.:�,,,," ,,,,j��1,_, _'--ter:� �--=�- . :.-L"T+.��'�..��li.`�r•� � .N _. 4►.1',r�r yg4q+ �.�r ♦ 1•��?", - ... . iii �{�'• �.,� `a L. A.� �r�,��,+ .. -'in�.a� e• 1. �,.� �• •_ � � 's � Us 6) Columbia view a) Ownership: Private/US Government b) Landscape and Natural Features: The land along this segment has a very steep slope profile. The shoreline is moderately vegetated with residential landscaping elements mixed with native and non-native trees and shrubs. c) Transportation: Court Street runs between the riverfront residential area and more upland residential subdivisions. Although an unimproved road leads from Court Street down to a Franklin County Irrigation District pump station, there are no bona fide public access points to the River along this segment. d) General Land Use Pattern: i) Residential Development: The entire length of this segment is built out with upper- middle to high-end single-family residential units, with the exception of a couple of vacant lots and a pump station located about 350 yards from the 1-182 freeway bridge. This area also has the highest concentration of private docks in the study area. ii) Natural Area:A slim strip of US Government-owned land lies between the residential lots and the River. iii) Preservation of View Corridors: Views are very limited beyond the river frontage lots. iv) Industrial Uses:A newly installed City potable water filtration plant is located just north of Court Street, next to the 1-182 freeway bridge.The inlet pump for the filtration plant is located under the 1-182 freeway bridge. The Franklin County Irrigation District pump station is located just beyond the south terminus of Road 111 and blocks the shoreline well into the River. e) Current Linkage and Amenities Inventory:A parking area has been installed adjacent to the Sacagawea Heritage Trail and under the 1-182 Bridge. D Linkage and Amenities Opportunities: Public ownership between the residential lots and the river averages around 10 yards, with some lots directly abutting the water line. g) Linkage and Amenities Constraints:The Sacagawea Heritage Trail currently runs alongside Court Street in this segment. Because of the extreme grade,the obstacle of the pump station, the proximity of residential lots to the river, and the high number of private dock facilities, extending the Sacagawea Heritage Trail along the river in this section will require both engineering prowess and strong political will. h) RECOMMENDATIONS: Short-Term Recommendations: i) Work with Army Corps and property owners to design and build a continuation of the Sacagawea Trail nort h along the River on this segment. ii) Negotiate with the Franklin County Irrigation District to use the irrigation district land for a view and River/Trail access park with parking lot. Long-Term Recommendations iii) Add a view park with parking and River/Trail access on the Franklin County Irrigation District land. �''r�` fir'' r * •��� � i !" •T'tT i7• jp ti� \ , � v/ .firs � '�' � ♦ l Columbia View ' Segment S R 0 250 500 750 '1000 s • Feet * S� tt � o � � •��, "►moo/ Y' 4 JL P IMF sit 00 , — .;� 777 I 4 �} fir• 1 `• ,� • :A AIL aaarr Yi'wr�n�..hn„Igf Eo?` ���� b +, ,ti r 9 6�. Ems• ' . 1 r co o • + - a... co Ol 0) • s ' � - ll • i l..r. - T Pm IP'O - "- 4 - A. AL LA a ` 7 �r2Q1200r7 IL • r t � '� T IV r N- _ J • -1aL �• as � - 4r - IL4. � , a i " tit N r. CD _ *s � y . 4 .� F-1 1 �J DO .c .y► �o ,i LA As L a o ,� " iw•-mar�� ..''.. ' 1 `` i V Imw N � _ � 4 _ ni Ali d .rte p ;t x K �! WNW So vm • 2 Q rb 41 r+ A a o .. AN Olaf � a GP AA� 4 00 46 • A. ' MA OM OVA l MA bl,HIM kit s see -0 Q Pr - f l7� `s CO POW Columbia few -•y F}: J � s�' U�U U O� O I0 - . at 1-182 Bridge ',� .Iw �' -.�� .� Fly �y ^ �/ 1 `� ,�� +^ • 'ryh:.,���� r;.,, Ilk loll CD * .ART DO Go Columbia View Cross-Sectlon Concept Columbia Vie at F • Station y.� INA �: /'r ire f• .r • - �. , h�:. Chiawana Park a) OWNERSHIP: US Government/Local Government leasehold b) Landscape & Natural Features: Chiawana Park is a partially developed community park with two areas of groomed lawns, one overgrown "natural" area, and the balance of the park periodically-mowed weeded areas, c) Transportation: the Park has only one open access point leading through a neighborhood street out to Court Street.There are seven potential access points along the length of the park (See Chiawana Access Points Map). d) General Land Use Pattern:The area is a designated park, although a fraction of it is actually maintained at this point with full amenities. e) Current Linkage and Amenities Inventory: (See Amenities Map) f) Linkage and Amenities Opportunities: The Chiawana Park area includes large undeveloped areas with potential for synergistic water-dependent and water-related Enterprises and amenities. There are seven potential access points along the perimeter of the park. g) Linkage and Amenities Constraints:The Park is leased from the Army Corps of Engineers, and as such, requires Corps approval for even the smallest activity. As well, the Park is surrounded by an established residential neighborhood. All but one of seven potential access points are currently closed to public traffic. Activating any of the potential access points is likely to be unpopular with adjacent property owners. h) RECOMMENDATIONS: Short-term Recommendations: Clear undergrowth in "natural" area at north end of park (vandalism/gan,; activity/public safety hazard) ii) Install (more) drinking fountains iii) Construct more small "family" scale, and large "family reunion" scale pavilions. iv) Identify and develop future riverside dining venues with scenic, recreational or cultural attributes. v) Establish mobile vendor lease areas for diverse, small-scale vendors near pavilion reas; Include standards for vendor quality/aesthetics. i) Add/Upgrade restrooms vii) Complete landscaping: Lawn, trees Long-term recommendations: viii)Construct high-end, pedestrian-scale "micro-village" lease space for diverse, small- scale vendors �. . erg� r , -�� �, �.: *� � I'�� - :�� �I►!K�� .� �,� f �:• /1r • _ _ .r ►+asp es+,... Is t��lt�� rte, _ a J/i u' • 's '^3r,�r �7►,',. � t �lr. �_� �� ���J`•: �J-F•f'� p� i _ ` r� ,y —� ' ''� r � .. 5 _ rs�r �.'M�• 7.a,. �,d,c� • � , i 'i;t r jj"`� �Cq�• :,J,. Y '1 'awana Park Segment 0 300 600 900 1200 Feet uVINGSTOR RD t. � , .� • . `�i.=�" ,,.. .� � �-� �'•• .�'° �i.'i +�� �•�� 1'���`�ii': t. '.,�1'� r � :f u � ��°"'��, ►sue �•r# r C - .,�,�,►',�,t• i.Q. '... fA. r _" . F"KLIN Rp t FRANKLIN R)& '- VVy� � t > ' -T NG j roll __� _ - °:fit. •K� '� - �.� Z'� �' •�,;�' � y.- �;x�. � °rte". VF Chiawana Park Potential Access y ,,. $ 3 0 300_ 600 900 1200 feet . � Ar ap z �:�► Imo_,• v _ ti . � "� �• it A& IL r t On • i .� d'r M■ u., +W ..., . kL co i�°A .:._ tY i X74• i { Vw IN xe 00 Att 4r K F� a �i lip _ V ry • do 44b, y i • �d _ f 4 J % a _ pr 44, ft WA P t • L L, rn r - at op AIL ,1 PO` lh Cl o rn _ �:- • �i�M�fi', ;'ice+ � _ e � - #.�. ,7 4 Y - s 1 + co O N rn co ; r T • Q ,w • f Nom■ • � ` Co ' ` ow CAI _ � 1 .1 � w F ■ i co s, ell 0 Imo" '; ;.� _ _ ., - ''mix- .=�` e - .',�• ., _ � �. �_ i I _ uvlNc FRANKLIN FL FRA7�KLIN P.D ck HICHARn$ON RD m rc o C.YIUH I Sl R 11 W�IIPPLE AVE N ESRCSERTS OR w E S Chiawana Park Amenities Legend DBencp Interpretive Markers � Recreational Area ® Developed Areas DBoat t unch ® Parking Area aB RestroorB Pier/Dock Public yy 1 � J ODrinking Fo`unta'in Id Pavillion ® Shelter Trail Connection y i rr+ T� ; (Historic Vlarker. O Picnic Table ® Trail Access Point Sacagawea Heritage Trail Potential Habitat Area D Pier O Pier(Private) `-x y F FR N L1 �L RIC�IjA _N R xCy�? ice* N a � o D--T Poo r.Qu till .4 91MCYC @ a� �IP�L N L w E S '.hiawana Park Proposed Legend Sd agawea Trail Sacagavrea Trail Proposed j;'ark Developed Areas F�ark Proposed Potential Entrances `", -6 0 A Chiawana Park Bike Path Entrance at Court Street ! � ••• + 1 -�i � f1 t R+f� ' f i + :.� f, t• J �. -1 Nis;' w, ` Eee,999•y a .`� � l�.�'1 t4��}td � ;.,u � ��`�` ; .1.-'f ` '� •� � t ,r'��t�t _ �►"`.. � •r' �� �1, ' �� �f1 t � �.�'.3 ark �t •S � �t.���` ,� ��� � r., � � � 4 . �• � �; ' 'rte` � J ,'�� ;t `' � �x+. �. ��. <- q* .Ir.`� `�� .�a•�,�JIB `' ., ••f•..'.; � ' � y' , �,y�'��' c* ��. �. `� 1.t� �, '� �t;�. ' ,i.� tl '7�Sa 't• aE!}sd -ai` •�� `� �� t' � C. chiawana Park #�',` _ � ' J! •ti '' r � -� .! ej a f �I .i/ .lf� +l�i.� a'ij�l� `� J�, n L �I , t• � �'L`'I C 1 �9 r a may. . _ j Path A" - - ►. - ► ) �' ice.. lei rte,- 1 G, * .e�ti • ~. Aim . - s .`i a �• (e.�•. 711 Wks woo at .fir I r� z1{�tii - y - I �f J160 n Park �. T t!t r-F Q N r7 N Cl N Q O MEN rm-rkki n , t - �• ' ` _ +r N _ �• O rW?-. s ,.,,4Chiawana Park East Unimproved Area =~ .•-- .�Y. rr ;,.�•I#. ��n :,� -;� ti�t,'r �•� { _ 11. '�w.J ��7 f ti.,. •`�f'1T'I. '' - �. ;�� - . Ilk '1 `� � ;'Y 1�♦ .,•fir r Sri il° ; i 9 r: • y�.6 � � -/r' * fir, 0 .w• �. �. �� a- t �.•,� r _ i c 1 "l+r_tea— - ,,, y• J , r '� 1'- n` T .aet '?'..� ..r •r ,� A f•1 �' ,t� f '1 a y`` 1 .� -. • a �; r1 xf l Ar y ff �rly�r,n t',,tt .IR°,�•y'•� c �r i ..t -� RIB ` � 1rt�. fs Maw ..._ A - •� - • • y y ,� + +, �-Y!�.. '.i.�•S•yam �� h�r?�l`�_t_-�y��,"r���, '• ,l ''�� �•�ti °t71 - . rte+; � +� .�r• ��•�t.' �y �"` , n� T r'F Ol r+ N O N N O 4 n w Ar Chiawana Park Columbia River Shallow Area _ ►� x n� T N � low �' 0 r -, BOO, O 00 �_ r � J Chiawana Park Boat Launch • , •; , ♦ j V 's .'114 ••'�.'7►y' •r ` •` 1. �'�•! .4 k'tlA�yJ/ • •L '� ••�'T � v . ,r•• �' �' • •�'-•!► •'Ark 40 ' •p .te r` �1. ,r. t r s..,, 'lw' Lta 'K 1 IL l� is i1 r,,�, ,� J •�a7•'+•y + .� ' Y pry•,. • � AN �:r ,�• 1 •- ' Std +J ��' O%pl'y • r�•',. f ° WL Of Re Yl Jf lI r ,�,N:' Ti.r' �� trj�• : ,,.1 'l h' � /• �-1�_' :a J/,STr• ., � ' • = t . j 4 _ WA �.g :' 'r t. r.tai .t+• ,�_n. Tj '„ � R � l ^ ;�, ' .qj, �•� • •• yam, . .r�«�'f►yy '^1r 1 F ��•�r�r. ':' Vii:!e`: S..�f: af!. •�. , T 3 .M r •tip ' r�.f _.�y . �•� .1 ��f..� �.,j`.'J'r y P�`°• _I 4w1y,�rse� �4�:. �` /�4` r y� r♦ !%�'� •, �f .�, T"'r�,♦�!Y. � r — 1 r �i�';1/,.. •'• , u* ��JJ' !r{•♦,I' Y�r�!4� � �i ';� •'+T,SlI', ..�l,���.��•y�1�Z�,� { w_ of'../ r. , S , • r' I?���• V, 1r' - . �L cry X41 y, a Zri r, .f 9,.x'4'/t -1. � �w •.Si ,.!Lf. .. �, '� � t r ' .�. •+1f 3(+t. „ •` ,' � •y,T � '"• r i !'.Mlr �'� i '• '�,}I�>l��^ 1�; •i�i�i*� • �' r��. ^• � aa�y • Yrj -Aw Sir • 1+r r ?.J'4 '� .r ,, ti j .. •, 1 ,�. ,,�' '+,�' as 'r:• , r `.. .,,dam �! �+� 1 •�''y • '' ,' p�• ,. 8) Sunset Acres a) Ownership:Army Corps of Engineers (private ownerships adjacent) b) Landscape & Natural Features: mostly flat with mix of native and non-native vegetative types. Vegetative growth is mostly sparse weeds and pasture grasses, with dense undergrowth and trees along the River. c) Transportation:Access from Court Street via Roads 76 and 84. The Sacagawea Heritage Trail is built along the entire segment. d) General Land Use Pattern: i) Residential: Over 65 yards of vacant Army Corps of Engineers land separates two single-family residential subdivisions (Sunset Acres and Ivy Glades) from the River here. ii) Trail Development: The Sacagawea Heritage Trail is developed along the entire length of this segment. iii) Industrial:A major natural gas transmission line extends south and crosses the River from the south terminus of Road 76. e) Linkage and Amenities Opportunities: The width of this area lends itself to both developed park and pocket wilderness areas. There are shallower areas to the east which may lend themselves to beach development. A boat launch could be located near the end of Road 76. D Linkage and Amenities Constraints: There are two access points, one from Road 84 and one off of Road 76. Neither has developed parking at this point.View opportunities for surrounding residences are very limited due to the flat terrain and the tree growth along the River. Any activity close to Road 76 would be highly limited due to the presence of the natural gas transmission line. g) RECOMMENDATIONS: Short-Term Recommendations: i) Develop parking facilities at Roads 76 and 84. ii) Install seating areas and drinking fountains at strategic points along the Trail. iii) Plant clusters of shade trees around the seating areas and drinking fountains. Medium-Range iv) Develop a parking area and mid-sized park at the terminus of Road 76, complete with restrooms, pavilions, and beach area. v) Develop a "pocket park" with restrooms at road 84. Long-Term Recommendations: vi) Develop the entire width of the Army Corps land with linear park as an extension of Chiawana Park, including small, clustered wildlife areas. vii) Investigate the need for another boat launch. of. ar • Sunset Acres ' Segment - N "r, . w E S • 0 1.50 UO 450 600 750 Feet c-t _ 1 0 1 t ,F • � 4 W co r Wow— ter. lo 1 s -WWI tv T .1 oll, •� , e y Now ,VI •fir r ' N F bp Alp Al CD a a) �1 s ,.��''- '•mss_ 4 . r ew LOW ow ' � ry . t ) 1 - _!:. oa�or,rr,�,�Or►a�tram.+ t ��a�,r, o p Z ti COURT Tz Q > j, B ti q to p RO.s �9.as N H.QL(LYF W E _FF 'z s Sunset Acres Amenities Legend ICAcce'ss Point Min Parking Area Upland Linkage Sacagawea Trail N o � I � a' COURT ST J O Q t _JV --N PIS N G� H-OL Y S � Sunset Acres 1 Proposed Legend SacagaWea Trail Proposed Park Proposed I i Parking Proposed Potential Habitat Area Sri .+Rr __ '�� �' � � �- '1•,11 j��t�t '` ���7�`+'._}r. .1� i I Y law c -s � s . l � � fir,_ .. o►►��� J'i`41.^d Tr- Sunset Acres Parking Area at Road 7F 1 1: t 1 . ,'i�J d T N r-F 61 rh N a H C1 Sunset Acres *'' _ , ,.. _ +v -- ,. Path to Columbia River 'V .4, -:.� ' . ¢x �` Z �. 'Yti`r �#. :,� •, `� � vI �a I 7i HIGH PRESSURE v N O v O PRESSURE CROSSING NATURAL GAS PIPELINE CROSSING , • ap ID.. DGE In an emergency, please call toll free (24 hours) 11 Gf pple 1-800-972-7730 Williams Williams 1.804.912.77&1 _ NORTHWEST PIPELINE CC � � X� ti SALT LAKE CITY U r ' '� SIiTIAI(f{7P4 N Sunset Acres Natural Gas Pipeline - •� '. h i' ' ����'- a, T t!t r•F Q N --h N O N � 5 O n "u Sunset Acres r: Ivy Glades Area ET T r-F Q d -h r-h N O F" r-� Q O n r*1. `* o 0 Sunset Acres }. Ivy Gladest Beginning of Levee #2 9) Levee No. 2 a) Ownership:Army Corps of Engineers (private ownerships adjacent) b) Landscape & Natural Features:Army Corps of Engineers rip rap levee c) Transportation:There are three developed public access points (Roads 54, 60, and 68) and one access point through a private subdivision (Ivy Glade between the 7200-7400 blocks) to the levee. d) General Land Use Pattern: Single-family dwelling units in the Ivy Glades, Park Estates, Summer's Park, Allstrom view, and Glen Acres Subdivisions. e) Linkage and Amenities Opportunities:There are three developed public access points to the levee. f) Linkage and Amenities Constraints:The levee and drainage canal between the levee and residential development hinder access to Trail and River along this segment of river shore. While the trail is readily accessible at strategic points, access to the water is accomplished only by a careful climb down a steep, oversized rock embankment. Levee height blocks most river views. g) RECOMMENDATIONS: Short-Term Recommendations i) Lower Levee; widen path and add landscape features; ii) pipe and fill landward side of ditch at select locations; iii) Design and build interpretive signagethat describes living river concepts as related to shoreline development, such as rive rshore management, natural flood processes, and impacts of manmade levees. Long-term Recommendations iv) Fill, grade, and vegetate river face of levee; v) Create parks with "step" access points/ boat docks at road 60, 68. vi) Create beach area in shallows between levee and island. vii) Develop strategically sited signature gateway at 1-182 & Road 68 pis � c • p. -rte. j r r �� r�� �1�• r' ti� �a ��.3��..� •„^,.,S _ 1 I � i` +r�.�Y - — CA ;� r.. lc ,' s �•� �t 1. 1 •i� 1 h ' 8 •fir BONN— mobil Levee #2 Segment = N W E S f� 0 300 600 900 1200 Feet z a SI 17TTTI r a v: C O BROWN ST S CED S CT rONE CT W MARIE ST hMRIE ST MARIE ST N W OCTAVE Sr VICTORIA OD %V OCTAVE Sr HENRY z s OLiVIA CT 'L T j BUENA T O n W HENRY ST i �n U AARkS7 PARK PL PARK ST SYLVESTER ST Levee #2 Amenities ® ' Legend ® Access Point Q Pier N Boat Launch Upland Linkage E w ® Parking AWa SACAGAWEA_TRAf 1_ S a _ Q _ C J CD� Q i Ef.C. DES C 'o Q �Q b TT- NMI-RI `-S• ti 2 IE (yIA RIE ST H I U HOCK us- T o _ QA O VI _T9_IA- I- IN LIVIASJ a -BJJENA CT a r F d HEN a v p = C A kS_P_L ARK-5T Y V � O c Levee #2 - Proposed Legend Sacagawea Trail Proposed l Beach Proposed Park Proposed P _ _ Parking Proposed W E S -o o� T Q OJ h Q Q n t Y �j. r •4 _ r'_'' - �� CAA ° ' ..� r ��. .✓� v.. Levee No. 2 Ivy Glades Area 1 r T� 1 CD Levee No. 2 '�� Ivy Glades Area i d T W r•F 61 rh N a H N i ,v T 4, � ^r 1 Levee No. 2 Road 68 Area •.,, - ea.iv $9 peak z 'ON 00 D-1 ' Ar _ - I'D A ; `A, �• V d e-1 c-t d N 4t 1 f9 i C f0 d i r i pal ' �►� �a 1 �� _1. :—.; ;%-�„_ ..� Yom. f _ r7• Y. '� _ • r 4 ! ';� y. _ '_;may-•i • � e `, a - r d Levee No. 2 Access to Road 68 m T r-F d N O N Q O Ul n O '" ^•� 00 Levee No. 2 Access Point to Road 68 x n� T r _ h y. y ; N ! a H C1 'i �� + ��9 ` �.•� �, _�. AAW-54 •fir - • p_ t_ �1 y �� IF r ? �� f ♦ - 1 I ✓ /• f 10 ell Q7 � , I,� "�� Y� � • �, ;.. •�,• •lam 1� 00 t_ f Awl A, Levee No. 2 Drainage Canal �� A Behind Levee 's �- , „ r a ��,.Z. I�• � �•.! �'r� ..+r^`Y> �a. �r,,• � `.Il' X- *'�`�'�9'_-"5+' r•+, .�. '�'_-� �� ��... i .. .. `_:��zv'��''�3E,'r�avt2tl/Y«�e.SA�M1����' e•���'���'�`�c�.'- :i' _-. .�. .. ! _- •s�+ 10)Wade Park a) OWNERSHIP: Army Corps of Engineers with City of Pasco/Franklin County lease(?) b) Landscape & Natural Features: gently sloping with park-type vegetation: grass and trees c) Transportation:The Trail is fully developed along Wade Park. Wade park can be directly accessed from River Haven Street off of Roads 39, 40, and Road 44, from Road 52, and from Road 54.A boat launch has been developed at Road 54. d) General Land Use Pattern:The land around Wade Park is fully developed with single- family residential units.The boat launch at Road 54 includes paved parking. Another park extension with parking, restrooms and other amenities is being developed at Road 54. A rough gravel parking lot at the east end of Wade Park between Road 39 and 40 is owned by a private party but has been made available to the public. e) Linkage and Amenities Opportunities:The new boat launch at the west end of Wade Park is easily accessible from Court Street via Road 54, and is near a proposed park with existing parking. This area is adjacent to the boat race course and is augmented with temporary commercial refreshment enterprises during the races. More permanent parking pads with power hookups, which would double as pavilion/picnic areas during the off-season, could be installed. f) Linkage and Amenities Constraints:The Trail along Wade Park can get very hot in the summer due to the lack of shade trees; however adjacent neighbors may object to additional tree plantings of these public areas. g) RECOMMENDATIONS: Short-term Recommendations: i) Place water fountains at strategic locations along path; ii) Plant more shade trees in clusters along the Trail; iii) Place canine cleanup stations at strategic locations along path. Long-Term Recommendations: iv) Build restrooms at both ends of the park. v) Identify and develop future riverside dining venues with scenic, recreational or cultural attributes. r � i4 Go f r WbL IM For tamp �`� _ }. ._fir►-_ . -, 1C f 1 J * •r �" 1 � it �• �• +4 �+ � ." 'S Wade Park Segment N W E 0 250 500 750 '1000 Feet d a �pY. f O ST "' W NIXON,ST NIXON v W NIXON ST TT n 0 do d T1 L I L SYLY STER ST IRVING L L I � T tL a ¢ w[ e �® �4 64 V T WADE PARK - W S Wade Park Amenities Legend ® Access Point ® Parking Area Upland Linkage Bench ED Pier Sacagawea Teail Boat Launch Q Pier(Private) Interpretive Markers Potential Habitat Area 0 mm.. mill 0 NINE � ly MEIN I off -0 4 off _1 11) Moore Mansion a) Ownership:Army Corps of Engineers/WA State Dept of Transportation b) Landscape & Natural Features:Army Corps of Engineers rip-rap levee c) Transportation:The Trail extends the length of the Moore Mansion segment; it can only be accessed from River Haven Street off of Roads 39 and 40. d) General Land Use Pattern: Levee#1 terminates between Road 39 and 40 next to a rough gravel parking lot at the east end of Wade Park which is owned by a private party but has been made available to the public. e) Linkage and Amenities Opportunities:As the segment name implies, this path could have direct access to the Moore Mansion, a prominent historic site within the City. Shallow areas in the River and easy river access near the Road 39/40 Park entrance may lend to construction of a beach in this area. There is a dedicated, but as yet undeveloped (Havistad) park platted as part of the Amended Pierret's Subdivision south of Havistad Street which could also add to the appeal of this segment. f) Linkage and Amenities Constraints: Due to the levee and the drainage ditch behind, the area is accessible only at one point, a gravel parking area at Road 39/40, which is rather small and is currently under private ownership. There are at present no potable water or restroom facilities at this location. The platted, but undeveloped Havistad park lot is at a considerably lower elevation than the levee, and would not have the "feel" of a rive rfront amenity without visual access to the river. As well, it is separated from the River by the levee drainage canal. g) RECOMMENDATIONS: Short-Term Recommendations: i) pipe and fill landward side of ditch; ii) Vegetate landward side of levee with grass, shade trees. iii) Fill, grade, and vegetate river face of levee. Long-Term Recommendations: iv) Develop Havistad Park level with levee. v) Install a beach area at the Road 39/40 Wade Park entrance, and extending east approximately 100-200 yards. vi) provide state-of-the-art separated Class I multiuse paths over the Blue Bridge VIN A. 40i At AIM MDore Mansion vim` Segment I 0 150 300 45(r 600 Feet w��J` to M LijQ 0 Q.M&1U.S_ST H4VSTAD ST ,� ro J S i' - Moore Mansion _ Amenities - -- Legend ® Access Point Paint of Interest Bench Upland Linkage ® Parking Area Sacagawea Trail :T '0 H4PK7:NS-ST r H-ausrA M I - co N r W E Moore Mansion Proposed Legend Park Proposed Parking Prpposed 12) Flamingo Village a) Ownership:Army Corps of Engineers with City of Pasco/Franklin County lease(?)/City of Pasco. b) Landscape & Natural Features:Army Corps of Engineers rip rap levee c) Transportation:Access to the Trail is by way of "A" Street near the terminus of 25th Avenue.An undeveloped access point also exists at 20th Avenue. The 25th Avenue access point has been developed as a pocket park with parking but no amenities d) General Land Use Pattern:The west end of this segment lies adjacent to the Flamingo Village Trailer Park. Further east is mostly vacant industrially zoned land. The trail is separated from the trailer park and industrially zoned land by a drainage canal and a significant elevation change up towards the levee. The Levee blocks the view of the river and there is no developed access from the Trail down to the water. e) Linkage and Amenities Opportunities: Because of its largely vacant nature, this area between the Pioneer Memorial ("Blue") Bridge and Ed Hendler ("Cable") Bridge has perhaps the most development potential of all City of Pasco segments. Retail commercial development could conceivably be built over the current drainage canal with ground-level parking and levee-level (and higher) retail, restaurant, entertainment, and water-dependent/water-related uses. Steps could be built down the face of the levee to the river for "toes-in-the-water" access. f) Linkage and Amenities Constraints: Levees are owned and maintained by the Army Corps of Engineers. Any development on or around the levees would require complex and time-consuming reviews. g) RECOMMENDATIONS: Short-Term Recommendations: i) Pipe and fill landward side of ditch; ii) Rezone the area along the River for Retail Commercial development Long-Term Recommendations: iii) Fill, grade, and vegetate parts of the river face of levee (see Pasco Rivershore Enhancement vision). iv) Develop levee top as a wide commercial boardwalk with periodic River view decks. v) Build stair/step access on parts of the River face of the levee down to the water. vi) Allow/encourage retail commercial to build with street-level parking and upper floor shopping, level with, and directly up to the levee, with full levee access. vii) provide state-of-the-art separated Class I multiuse paths over the Blue Bridge viii)Develop strategically sited signature gateway at and 20th & Sylvester � low qp - �` � � •r•r ��, � �!'�itj� � �i n: _r fro V. ag i Of Flamingo Village `'" �_ Segment i S a 250 500 750 100 Feet C ... 111 � 111111 HIM 1 \ IIINI MC milli 1111111�►�,. �� ,� ,� � ■ � mm u G PASCO RIV£RSHORE ENHANCEMENT VISION CD .- - �- c:]c3cD t CD <� 0 go r ■ - �� ' ! ILA 911 4 & 1 ° 1 �f a � ° + M ❑ 4,7 ��,, 4 be it �Ae p S a shoo ��.�. haa�t � es 0 358 -? 9 4 .• '�� y■ 10 y-- s r 7 ° F�3 w —FSws 7S Q0 I, kvaYllc Pond•Plme I Q 2, Pimic Slxleer 1 —n 3. PMD fioM � a. eooQrc Fk1d co 6' �a Phase I Plan ��, 7. Pkvk shehe 6. ReSLMM 9. AmpMNeater lo. 190q Pier JGM Placnen-LandscaPc Amhilats ox®nc 1996 6 a 4 1 13) Riverview Park a) Ownership:Army Corps of Engineers with City of Pasco/Franklin County lease(?)/City of Pasco b) Landscape & Natural Features:Army Corps of Engineers rip rap levee; City of Pasco Baseball/softball facility; City of Pasco Riverview Park. There is a shallow, manmade drainage pond to the west of the park. c) Transportation Access to the Trail is by way of "A" Street from an undeveloped access point at 20th Avenue, and between 17th and 18th Avenues through the City of Pasco baseball/softball field and Riverview Park. A loop of the Trail circles around near the Animal Shelter at 18th Avenue.A BNSF rail spur crosses "A" Street, curving south along the ball fields and loops east roughly parallel to the river. This rail spur is currently being utilized by a single client, a small concrete company leasing land at the Port of Pasco. The spur will be abandoned when the lease expires. d) General Land Use Pattern:This area is developed with an animal shelter, a City of Pasco baseball/softball field and Riverview Park. e) Linkage and Amenities Opportunities:This is one of the few areas not locked out of potential "destination" development by residential zoning. The area south of "A" Street could be enhanced with river-oriented commercial uses, augmenting the developed park and sports facilities. The manmade pond has potential for wildlife viewing, fishing for young families, and should be enhanced as park land with grassy areas, pavilions, restrooms, pond access and barbecue amenities. There is potential for a pocket wildlife area as part of the pond-centric development. Once the BNSF rail spur is abandoned the City should negotiate with the BNSF to acquire the land adjacent to the ball fields. This area could benefit from additional baseball fields and the addition of soccer facilities. f) Linkage and Amenities Constraints:The area is still zoned 1-1 Light Industrial, and as such can be legally developed with such things as building material storage yards, trucking companies, a central power station, automotive assembly and repair facilities, and blacksmith, welding or other metal shops. g) RECOMMENDATIONS: Short-Term Recommendations: i) Rezone the area south of "A" Street as C-1 Retail Commercial. ii) Improve Riverview Park for waterfowl and elevated bird watching along the rivers hore trail, adding nature trails as needed; Develop a park around the pond with a pocket wildlife viewing area, fishing areas for young families, grassy areas, pavilions, restrooms and barbecue amenities. iii) Place drinking fountains, shade trees, and rest room facilities at strategic points; Long-Term Recommendations: iv) Fill, grade, and vegetate river face of levee (see Pasco Rivershore Enhancement vision). v) Purchase the BNSF lands east of the ball fields; add baseball and soccer fields. vi) Develop a beach area just south of the Riverview Park. •� .. �� F Ajogl 'AV 1 c - "`�, . �• fill Zft Riverview Park ` ~' Segment `' W S ' 0 'i00 200 300 400 500 Feet "A" ST CO / / RMIz—:RVIEW PARS' FP lS � Riverview Park Amenities Legend ® Access Point Kiosk �B Restroom Bench ® Parking Area Upland Linkage w E ODrinking Fountain Picnic Table Sacagawea Trail s L 14)West Cable Bridge a) Ownership:Army Corps of Engineers a) Landscape & Natural Features:Army Corps of Engineers rip-rap levee; BNSF Railroad spur line; undeveloped scrub land. b) Transportation:A BNSF Rail spur bisects most of this area; One unfinished access point leads to 13th Avenue. The trail leading to 13th crosses BNSF land and the BNSF rail spur. c) General Land Use Pattern:This area is mostly vacant with some residential and industrial uses along Washington Avenue, extending south towards the River. d) Linkage and Amenities Opportunities: Because this area is mostly undeveloped it has more flexibility for future plans. It is close to the ballpark and Riverview park and could eventually be an extension of and expansion area for that facility. e) Linkage and Amenities Constraints:The BNSF-owned rail spur is a prominent and central barrier to any development in this area. Until the spur is abandoned and the land changes hands this area is essentially off-limits to any redevelopment. f) RECOMMENDATIONS: Short-Term Recommendations: i) Acquire BNSF land upon rail spur abandonment. ii) pipe and fill landward side of ditch; Long-Term Recommendations: iii) Extend park facilities east, with picnic areas and typical park amenities. iv) Fill, grade, and vegetate river face of levee (see Pasco Rivershore Enhancement vision). v) provide state-of-the-art separated Class I multiuse paths over the Cable Bridge -t4 r x �. R t`t! •. ,n 4 It P r t West Cable Bridge mow. Segment N w E s 0 100 200 300 400 50 Feet Q e� ti 1 N ' W E S � West Cable Bridge Amenities Legend 0 Access Point [z�Ll Picnic Table Bench Upland Linkage Kiosk Proposed Upland Linkage: ® Parking Area SACAGAWEA_TRAIL 15) Marine Terminal g) Ownership: Port of Pasco/Some private h) Landscape & Natural Features:Army Corps of Engineers rip-rap levee; commercial/industrial area (mostly vacant—marine terminal side); BNSF railroad main line and trestle bridge to the east; Sacagawea trail does not connect former Port of Pasco marine terminal with Boat basin area due to BNSF Railroad tracks and trestle bridge. i) Transportation:The Trail extends through the entire length of this segment. Access is from 10th Avenue, Washington Street, 9th Avenue, Ainsworth Avenue, and 4th Avenue. j) General Land Use Pattern: Mostly Vacant industrially zoned land. a) Linkage and Amenities Opportunities:The Trail extends through the entire length of this segment. There is a barge dock which would be an excellent location for an indoor/outdoor waterfront restaurant with integrated dockfacilities. Retail commercial development should be built with ground-level parking and levee-level (and higher) retail, restaurant, entertainment, and water-dependent/water-related uses. This is another prime potential retail commercial area. k) Linkage and Amenities Constraints:This is the site of a former WWII fuel tank facility. Some toxic spillage has occurred along the west end of the Marine Terminal area and is in the remediation process. Unfortunately, the remediation is "low-tech" and thus more time-consuming. The area may not be "shovel-ready" for some time. An anxious developer may choose to invest in a more intensive (and expensive) remediation process, but this is not a current likelihood. The two available direct north-south routes from this neighborhood to downtown Pasco are 4th Avenue under the Ainsworth Underpass, and north along the BNSF main rail line to the City Center; and north on 10th Avenue. While both routes are fairly well sidewalk-equipped for pedestrians, however neither is designed for bicycle traffic. As well, neither route is aesthetically pleasing. 1) RECOMMENDATIONS: (See Boat Basin/Marine Terminal Master Plan). Short-Term Recommendations: i) Rezone the area for Business Park/Commercial retail. Long-Term Recommendations: ii) Invest in higher-tech toxic spill remediation iii) Encourage/promote development as per the Boat Basin/Marine Terminal Plan. iv) Build an improved trail connections between Pasco's urban center and the Boat Basin/Marine Terminal area v) Consider the possibility of a cantilevered pedestrian bridge built to the side of the BNSF bridge vi) Develop strategically sited signature gateway at 4th Ave & Lewis St vii) Identify and develop future riverside dining venues with scenic, recreational or cultural attributes. Ar "'J�f ' ...,� � 1 r r/ jr Y� - ~�.r- L� � � �'-�?r� �k 'yam a• ' � a 1 �y or z Marine Terminal Segment W+ .. • 5 0 100 200 300 400 500 Feet �W � W Wr W • r �1 . J se ert,ne+iawaL�����mss� air rarr�.aie- Li U a RLA Plan First Draft 2011.Doc 149 of 168 16) Boat Basin a) Ownership:Army Corps of Engineers with City of Pasco lease/Private owners b) Landscape & Natural Features:Army Corps of Engineers rip-rap levee and dike; commercial/industrial boat marina area and boat launch and dock in disrepair; BNSF railroad main line and trestle bridge to the west, separating the Port Marine terminal from the Boat Basin; Schlagle City park; modest residential areas; boat launch in disrepair, private marina facility; Sacagawea trail does not connect former Port of Pasco marine terminal with Boat basin area, due to BNSF Railroad tracks and trestle bridge. c) Transportation:This area is barricaded in by the BNSF Railroad main line to the west, The Ainsworth Overpass along the nort h, and the Port of Pasco's Osprey Pointe project to the east. Access is from 2nd and Gray avenues to the nort heast, and a foot access from the Osprey Pointe development to the east. Since the construction of the Ainsworth overpass this area has become further isolated and less accessible, as the overpass cut off access from Railroad, 4th, and 3rd Avenues. Furthermore, the Sacagawea Heritage Trail does not go through this area, instead winding north across the overpass avoiding the Boat Basin neighborhood, and then back down along the river at Osprey Pointe. Neighbors have reported that crime is higher here because the area is isolated from public supervision. d) General Land Use Pattern:A private marina operates in the industrially zoned waterfront area, next to a public boat launch and a public park. Modest residential units occupy the residentially zoned north half of the area.A large percent of these units are owner-occupied and are neatly maintained. There are a few industrially zoned lots in the east part of the neighborhood. e) Linkage and Amenities Opportunities:A neighborhood park is already in place, with a boat launch close by. This basin lends itself well to development of a separate beach/swimming area. However the beach should be designed in a way as to separate swimming and boating activities. If the BNSF Railroad would allow a trail underpass for the Sacagawea Trail under its main line, the Trail could continue through the neighborhood, opening up the neighborhood somewhat and adding public supervision to the area.As the Osprey Pointe project develops to the east, this area will be in higher demand for upscale residential development and an upgrade will be warranted to the marina facility, with demand for mini-market, boat fueling, fishing supplies, and perhaps restaurant facilities at the marina. f) Linkage and Amenities Constraints:The BNSF Railroad has been reluctant in times past to allow for an underpass under its mainline, citing transportation security issues. As well, the Port of Pasco is reluctant to include the Boat Basin in its plans as long as the neighborhood remains unsightly and uninviting to business visitors. The high owner- occupied ratio reduces the likelihood of any major upgrades to the residential neighborhood in the short-term, although as land values in the neighborhood increase due to Osprey Pointe development, owners may be induced to sell for a reasonable profit. There are no direct north-south routes from this neighborhood to downtown Pasco. The closest access would require a circuitous route either west along Ainsworth Avenue and south at 6th Avenue, thence circling east and north to 4th Avenue underthe Ainswort h U nderpass, and north to the City Center; or east to 0 regon avenue, north to Lewis Street, and west again to the city Center. The former route navigates through industrial and residential areas, the latter primarily through industrial zones on a truck route that is not bike/pedestrian friendly. g) RECOMMENDATIONS: (See Boat Basin/Tank Farm Master Plan) Short-Term Recommendations: i) Rezone neighborhood to higher-density residential, to allow for higher-end condos. Establish design standards for all new construction compatible with the Marine Terminal and Osprey Pointe themes. ii) Begin negotiations for a BNSF/Sacagawea Trail underpass. Prepare a "plan B" "floating deck" option for the trail to drop into and floats on the River, if necessary. iii) Begin plans for continuation of the Sacagawea Trail through the neighborhood. iv) Begin plans for a public beach separated from the boat launch facility. v) Upgrade dike and park facility. vi) Add path and view deck at harbor entrance of dike. Long-Term Recommendations: vii) Build Sacagawea Trail underpass and trail through the Boat Basin neighborhood. viii)Build a beach and swimming area as part of Schlagel Park, separating boat launch uses from swimming. ix) Upgrade boat launch and dockfaciIities. x) Build a park along the River between the Boat Basin and Osprey Pointe, thematically connecting the two developments. xi) Consider the possibility of a cantilevered pedestrian bridge built to the side of the BNSF bridge �T �° � 'ter i ~� .e t.-.�. ` !�•?"� y' �~ � f '�a� I Boat Basin segment Not Ilk AC �r ��►'fit. 'eft. -�•� '-ar 0 100 200 300 400 500 11 - M� A LR� ,�,/� I •, cw I r"' •Sw Feet "OR tew- +►�' z /`wit �`" +-- ' ' - `'�``'' ` t • a i N wl W E Q CD S J�4 'lot �- © w TO Q ' SIC P RK as a� ++ �a .. �Ot Boat Basin - Amenities Legend —°-_ ® Access Point Historic Marke? fRestroom Bench ® Parking Area SACAGAWEA_TRAIL Boat Launch O Pier Sacagawea Trail Proposed ,.x� n� i tic � � .A - F ••a_ +e� � ��'� n + Olt dw vp .4 - qr Ss o yiew Co do - • • "'E / 4. G Tudund4brossing - - Pub4c beach COIU *Rvgr maw Paint canoed goat launak--• �-.-4- parking wd access Nit marina park t U1 f r-F ❑ J N N O 4 r F ' r i { M N In O 17) Port of Pasco a) Ownership: Port of Pasco b) Landscape & Natural Features: gently sloping to increased slope, scrub vegetation with thick tree growth along river edge (NOTE—Trees have recently been thinned around the Osprey Pointe development to the west). c) Transportation:The port of Pasco is a hub of industrial River, rail, and truck transportation. The Port owns a barge docking and loading facility on the Columbia River, which leads out to the Pacific and to markets in the Pacific Rim and beyond. This barge facility is located just east of the Osprey Pointe development. Several rail-spurs access the BNSF main lines through the Port from both the northwest and northeast. Ainsworth and Oregon Avenues provide quick access for trucking to major highways heading in all directions. The Trail has been developed through the Port property; along the river of the Osprey Pointe area and then inland along Ainsworth Avenue to the last block of warehouses, and then back south to the river. The Trail ends at the Sacagawea State Park access road. d) General Land Use Pattern:The Port of Pasco has a mix of WWII-era warehouse facilities and vacant lands, and is zoned for heavy industrial use, thought Osprey Pointe is planned as a higher-end business park. e) Linkage and Amenities Opportunities:The completion of the first Osprey Pointe building (the Port of Pasco office) and utilities infrastructure has set the stage for furt her office development in the park.The Port has designed the building as an example of the design standards expected of future buildings on the site. Landscaping (includingthe removal of dead trees and undergrowth along the River) is professional and aesthetically pleasing, as well as drought-resistant. The rest of the Port will remain heavy industrial into the foreseeable future. f) Linkage and Amenities Constraints:Trail location is constrained by industrial uses in the area. The Trail currently follows Ainswort h Avenue through the heaviest industrial use areas, leaving the river to avoid the barge loading facility and some outdoor warehousing. One river view access trail weaves between some outdoor storage areas down to the River, but does not subsequently join up with the Trail. g) RECOMMENDATIONS: (See Port of Pasco Osprey Pointe Business Park Plan). Short-Term Recommendations: i) Continue development of Osprey Pointe as planned. ii) Connect Lookout point trail to main Trail along the River. iii) Provide self-guided smart phone tours addressing unique history, culture and environment of the Port of Pasco; Highlight Big Pasco's working port and businesses as a trail exhibit Long-Term Recommendations: iv) Build a park along the River between the Boat Basin and Osprey Pointe, thematically connecting the two developments. v) Build an improved trail connection between Pasco's urban center and the Osprey Pointe Business Park. t � �6 ,•, 0 8-1- OOZ1 009 0 4t Juaw6as owed 10 Pod C ► I.k\/ V a N W E 8 S Port of Pasco Amenities Legend ® Access Point Interpretive Markers o Pier Upland Linkage Bench KidSk e8 Restroom Sacagawea Trai OPotential Habitat Area ® Parking Ares • VIEW POINT Sacagawea Trail Proposed �`r1 Historic Marker O Picnic Table Pier/Dock(Public) _ 68F F CO Klsw Track-410 j_ New Trader -p fj I y L �, ao Future Track 416 Retention Area Hulldinge 7 ~� d New Track 450 rr= i < •',u Borp rn f 1 - Termlr►at �a -200'ShoninaZoro —'� Floatlrg Exkdng vt*ing Doric — — Rlverfront Fared Trail Miumbin Rlrer Business Park z m T , 4� r-F r�F N O Q O n I i to o � ' N T " 18)Sacagawea Park a) Ownership:Army Corps of Engineers/Wash St Parks & Recreation b) Landscape & Natural Features: State park; mostly flat, mix of native and non-native (park) vegetation; beach areas; docks; boat launch; historic Ainsworth Town site. c) Transportation:Access to the Park is limited to a single two-lane road entering the park from the nort hwest. The Trail ends at this road. An undeveloped path/road meanders through the historic Ainsworth town site. d) General Land Use Pattern:This area is partially developed as a state park with patron amenities such as parking, family and group picnic areas, a boat launch and docks, and a beach. There is housing for park staff and a museum/interpretive center. The balance of the park is vacant, with the exception of some high voltage power lines utilities crossing the Columbia River at the south shore. e) Linkage and Amenities Opportunities: Sacagawea State Park is partially developed and contains the only developed beach within Pasco city limits. This park rests at the confluence of the Snake and Columbia Rivers and is historic for its role in the Lewis and Clark Expedition, and contains a museum and interpretive center. The park is periodically used for sternwheeler riverboat docking as they come up rive rfrom the Pacific coast. While this may be an ideal site for summer food vending, any commercial activity would need to be sanctioned by the State Parks Department. The Park is just south of the historic Ainsworth town site, and the only public access to the site. The Sacagawea Trail should continue through the park along the north border of the access road and developed park areas, continuing along the meandering Ainsworth access road, and then north up along the Snake River. Many areas of the park are ideal for local camping and scouting/wilderness club-type activities. The balance of the park area is undeveloped and amenable to wildlife viewing. Future development should allow for a few "look but don't touch" viewing trails in appropriate parts of the park. D Linkage and Amenities Constraints: Because the park is owned and operated by the State Parks Department, the City of Pasco has limited influence over its development. As well, the Ainsworth town site is an historic site and may be difficult to protect as an archaeological site, off-limits to scavenging. The nort heast part of the old town site is swampy and any trail through the area may require footbridges or boardwalks to cross overthe swamp areas. g) RECOMMENDATIONS: (State of Washington Parks Department); Short-Term Recommendations: i) Place drinking fountains, shade trees, and rest room facilities at strategic points; ii) Develop overnight camping areas throughout the park iii) Design a trail extension of the Sacagawea Trail through the Ainsworth Town site and beyond. iv) DeveloptraiIs in Sacajawea State Park for o ppo rtu n iti es to learn about native wildlife, geological features and the Confluence Project v) Consider more summer fairs and activities and related food vendor opportunities Long-Term Recommendations: vi) Develop the Sacagawea Heritage Trail through park and towards the Columbia Plateau/Ice Harbor Dam trail linkage; _•� • ' •' +� mil• � /` �. /'11 •t ' - - -- bi�6 Y ♦Tt:�4 r�w�te�J r,l ! �•'.r `i!�rJ y !'���. I j f'.l� � -A(i mil^'• V� ••1� .� jr N.4% Sacagawea Park _ • y _ {{{yyy')��� � Segment '��`� : ,,.�, •� ,,s•s .� ������� _.r'' g i X0 of 0 300 600 900 1200 N Feet y t• f♦ t f r � f s N >; w E Sacagawea Park a Segment, Legend d6 ® A=essPaint r Historic Marker p- Parking Area dol HSCtr vr• A� r 111 p YPAR7 (� Beach Interpretive Markers Parillion ShelteY ? SACAJA4yEAST9cncn K:o I ti PcmcTablo SacagaweaTroll y ' A�IV ?Aat Launch Museum '�i r"cr Sacagarca Trait Propose, Dotenbal Habibt Area 19)Ainsworth Town a) Ownership : US Government b) Landscape & Natural Features: steep slope areas, BNSF R-0-W with trestle bridge; overgrown with mostly non-native vegetation, salt deposits and marsh/swamp areas c) Transportation:There are no direct public access points to this point. An undeveloped, meandering path extends north from Sacagawea State Parkto the site. d) General Land Use Pattern:Vacant with an undeveloped archaeological site from the former Town of Ainsworth. e) Linkage and Amenities Opportunities:The Ainsworth Town site could be developed as an historic site.The undeveloped path which winds through the site could easily be developed into an extension of the Sacagawea Trail as it converges with the Columbia Plateau trail along the Snake River. D Linkage and Amenities Constraints: Much of the proposed Trail path lies in Railroad right-of-way.Any trail development would be dependent upon vacation of existing rail uses and cooperation of the railroad. g) RECOMMENDATIONS: h) Short-Term Recommendations: i) Begin conversations with the State Park Service and BNSF Railroad. ii) Plan and design a Sacagawea Heritage Trail extension through the Ainsworth Town site. i) Long-Term Recommendations: i) continue Sacagawea path towards Ice Harbor Dam trail linkage; ii) place drinking fountains, shade trees, and rest room facilities at strategic points; iii) Develop Town of Ainsworth archaeology site iv) Consider the possibility of a cantilevered pedestrian bridge built to the side of the BNSF bridge Ir �+t �'1 � ,� ors.• -�' � ' �7 > �. > . Ainsworth sworth Town Segment �'• t �� �" �•� W E ` ► J ,' - All t.. 0 100 200 300 400 500 Feet • ♦ ♦ • • f t 1 f 1 1 • • / / • I N W E S Ainsworth Town Segment DD Legend i i Boa,'Laundh ® NOkirig,Ar$a E�otential Habitat Area O Pier r� 1 Historic Marken. aB Restroorn Sacagawea Trail Proposed ® Shelter � aB � 20)Tidewater Terminal a) Ownership: BNSF Railway/TidewaterTerminaI Company/Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission. b) Landscape & Natural Features: Steep slope; BNSF R-O-W ; industrial uses; US -12 highway and bridge c) Transportation:There are no public access points to any portion of this segment. Plans are being considered to connect Sacajawea State Park with the Columbia Plateau Trail (CPT). Currently two existing, off-site fuel tank farms prevent a direct link between CPT and the park. While the Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission owns the former BNSF Railroad ROW just north of the Tidewater terminal, the Southern part of CPT to Ice Harbor has yet to be developed and the trail still has railroad tracks and is used for railcar storage. The Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) is scoping a project to build an interchange over highway 12. The current WSDOT plans include a bridge wide enough to include a bike lane. One potentially indentified route would follow Sacajawea Park Road up to the bridge and a route would have to be identified to connect from the bridge to the Southern end of the Trail. d) General Land Use Pattern:this area is developed with two fuel storage tank facilities, with the balance of the land being vacant. e) Linkage and Amenities Opportunities: Plans are being considered to connect Sacajawea State Park with the Columbia Plateau Trail (CPT). The Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission owns the former BNSF Railroad ROW just north of the Tidewater terminal. WS DOT is scoping a project to connect Sacajawea Park to the CPT via Sacajawea Park Road up to an interchange over highway 12, including a bridge wide enough to include a bike lane. D Linkage and Amenities Constraints:Two off-site fuel tank farms prevent a direct link between the Columbia Plateau Trail and the park. While the Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission owns the former BNSF Railroad ROW just north of the Tidewater terminal, the Southern part of CPT to Ice Harbor has yet to be developed and the trail still has railroad tracks and is used for railcar storage. g) RECOMMENDATIONS: Long-Term Recommendations: i) Continue the Sacagawea Trail/Columbia Plateau Trail towards the Columbia Plateau /Ice Harbor Dam trail linkage; ii) Install drinking fountains, shade trees, and restroom facilities at strategic points; iii) Consider the possibility of a cantilevered pedestrian bridge built to the side of the BNSF bridge A. s Ilk,R y �O OFA A r�wrJA;A 004 _ ^r Now OIVA POW a. r r � y (/ r � S` r .*► Tidewater Port Segment • w E 0 300 600 900 1200 i ,` Feet + z z m T 4� r-F 61 rt N r O � N � Q Am O n � r r • � 4 ■ ry - r 1 I 1 I r r r�1 r �. o ` f 0o MEMORANDUM DATE: April l9, 2012 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Jeffrey B. Adams SUBJECT: CODE AMENDMENT - SECONDHAND DEALERS IN C-1 ZONES (MF# CA ''012-003) This memo is in response to a request by Goodwill Industries' to locate a secondhand store in a C-1 Zone, which is prohibited by current zoning code. The request is to explore the advisability of altering the code to allow secondhand stores in C-1 zones, in terms of expected positive and negative outcomes for public health, safety, and welfare. In 1989 there were 10 secondhand stores located within two blocks of the City's Central Business District; Goodwill, the Salvation Army, St. Vincent de Paul, two pawnshops, four used TV shops and one used book store. Additionally, it was noted that the area between First Avenue and 14th Avenue of West Lewis Street contained a disproportionately high number of secondhand stores and pawnshops in comparison with other commercially zoned areas within the city. A survey of these businesses conducted in 1989 revealed that the majority of these establishments were maintained in such a haphazard manner as to create visual blight for the area in which they were located. The buildings in question also exhibited signs of physical decay and varying degrees of deferred maintenance, perpetuating a negative public image for the community and presumably discouraging business investment within these areas. On the 20th of February 1990 the City Council passed ordinance 2-768 prohibiting secondhand dealers from operating in the C-1 (Retail Business), C-'' (Central Business District), and C-1-D (Designated Shopping Center) zones (Now eliminated from the zoning code), as well as restricting placement of these and similar uses in the C-3 (General Business District) and I-1 (Light Industrial) zones to no less than 1,000 feet from each other. The reasoning cited in the ordinance is as follows: 1) the concentration of secondhand stores and pawnshops along with the manner in which they are maintained contributes to visual blight,physical decay, declining property values and perpetuates a negative public image for the community in general; ' ) the external effects of physical decay and blight make the Central Business District and certain portions of Lewis Street less desirable for business investment: 3) secondhand dealers and pawnshops require considerable regulation to protect the community and public interest by preventing said establishments from becoming facilities for the concealment of crime and outlets for stolen goods: 41 the enforcement of municipal codes relative to the operation of pawnshops and secondhand dealers is time consuming. burdensome. and costly to the community; The purpose of this project is to analyze the Goodwill Industries request in light of the above criteria and any other likely concerns related to secondhand businesses in general. It should be noted that donation-dependent secondhand stores such as Goodwill Industries differ substantially from pawnshops and resale/consignment-type secondhand stores in that there is no built-in incentive for patrons "fencing" stolen goods for cash. and thereby contributing to overall criminal activity in the community. As such. criminal-based policing is not likely going to be an issue. so much as nuisance-based code enforcement. This said. we need to evaluate this particular business model in light of the above criteria. First. do all secondhand stores contribute to visual blight. physical decay. declining property values and perpetuate a negative public image for the community in general? As Goodwill is a donation-dependent operation. people drop items off as a matter of course; these items ranging in value from slightly less-desirable to complete junk. While secondhand stores often strive to control the flow of castoffs. "midnight drop-offs" are virtually inevitable. and result in visual blight. As well. revenues for secondhand businesses may not be adequate to fund periodic upgrades or repairs to facilities. resulting in physical decay. These two factors will likely contribute to a decline in the physical value of the subject property. and in turn pulling down the value of surrounding properties. A critical mass of these factors will project a negative public image of local citizens not caring about their community. As an example. the long-term effects of these forces on the downtown area. the external effects of physical decay and blight. have in fact driven business investors out of the area. left many buildings vacant. and made the Central Business District (CBD) and certain portions of Lewis Street less desirable for business investment. This is what happened in the 1980s. With the eventual removal of secondhand stores from the CBD there has been some growth in business activity including major investments such as Rite-Aid and Fiesta Foods. as well as many smaller businesses. and vacancy rates have decreased overall. While pawnshops require considerable regulation to protect the community and public interest by preventing them from becoming facilities for the concealment of crime and outlets for stolen goods. consignment-based secondhand dealers have traditionally seen minimal levels of stolen goods; but fencing of stolen goods at consignment stores is on the rise. Donation-dependent facilities rarely have that problem. since goods are donated. not exchanged for profit. This eliminates the incentive and thus virtually eliminates the likelihood of criminal "fencing" of goods. However the issues of building decay, visual blight, and negative public image remain, and enforcement of municipal codes relative to the operation of secondhand dealers is still going to be time consuming. burdensome, and costly to the community; the special conditions which would be required of a donation-dependent secondhand store could be burdensome to enforce. In summary, while increased criminal activity is likely not a factor when dealing with donation- based secondhand stores, visual blight, physical decay, declining property values, and probable increased costs for code enforcement are real issues. Options A) No change to the code. B) Amend the secondhand store code to allow donation-based secondhand stores in C-1 zones by special permit if they meet and maintain appropriate conditions. This may be difficult to enforce, as determining if a store is donation-based or not may be complicated. C) Review the provisions for secondhand stores in the C-1, C-2, C-3 and I-1 zones.