Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012.07.23 Council Special Meeting PacketAGENDA PASCO CITY COUNCIL Special Meeting 7:00 p.m. July 23, 2012 CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL (a) Pledge of Allegiance. 3. BUSINESS ITEMS Q(a) Rezone Appeal (MF #Z2012 -001): R -1 and C -1 to R -3 on N. Charles Avenue (Pasco Family Housing): 1, Agenda Report from Dave McDonald, City Planner dated July 19, 2012. 2. Vicinity Map. 3. Record of the Remand Proceedings [Council previously received a full transcript of the original Planning Commission hearing. This reference contains the record of the Planning Commission remand hearing (6/21/12) and is only included in the Council packets; copies are available for public review in the Planning office, the Pasco Library or on the city's webpage at www.i)asco-wa.gov/citycouncilrei)ort Proposed Ordinance. CONDUCT A CLOSED RECORD HEARING Ordinance No. , an Ordinance of the City of Pasco, Washington, amending the zoning classification of property located in Block 2 and 3; Whitehouse Addition from R -1 (Low Density Residential) and C -1 (Retail Business) to R -3 (Medium- Density Residential) with a Concomitant Agreement. MOTION: I move to adopt Ordinance rezoning the property from R -1 and C- I to R -3 with a concomitant agreement as recommended by the Planning Commission and, further, authorize publication by summary only. 4. ADJOURNMENT AGENDA REPORT FOR: City Council July 19, 2012 TO: Gary Crutchfiel anager Regular Mtg.: 7/16/12 Rick White, Special Mtg.: 7/23/12 Community & E onomic Development Director P'4 FROM: David McDonald, City Planner SUBJECT: REZONE APPEAL (MF# Z2012 -001): R -1 and CA to R -3 on N. Charles Ave. (Pasco Family Housing) I. REFERENCE(S): 1. Vicinity Map 2. Record of the remand proceedings* 3. Proposed Ordinance * (The Council previously received a full transcript of the original Planning Commission hearing. Reference 92 contains the record of the Planning Commission remand hearing (6/21/12) and is only included in the Council packets; copies are available for public review in the Planning office, the Pasco Library or on the City's webpage at htti)://www.pasco-wa.gov/citycouncilreports) II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: A. CONDUCT A CLOSED RECORD HEARING: 7/23: Motion: I move to adopt Ordinance # , rezoning the property from R -1 and C -1 to R -3 with a concomitant agreement as recommended by the Planning Commission and, further, authorize publication by summary only. III. FISCAL IMPACT: NONE IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF: A. On May 7, 2012 the City Council held a closed record hearing to consider an appeal filed on a zoning recommendation for approximately 3.5 acres in the 200- 300 block of North Charles Avenue. B. Following the closed record hearing the Council remanded the matter to the Planning Commission for additional review relating to the potential impacts of multi -story structures in proximity to Charles Avenue and to address the potential impact of the rezone on the Pasco School District. V. DISCUSSION: A. On June 21, 2012 the Planning Commission reviewed options of addressing the multi -story height concern through limiting building heights and or increasing building setbacks. Based on the permitted building heights in the surrounding low density neighborhood the Planning Commission recommended the building 3(a) height for the rezone property be limited to 25 feet. The 25 foot restriction matches the limitations of the R -1 Low - Density Residential District. B. The Planning Commission did not recommend any additional conditions on the proposed rezone related to school impacts. That decision was based on the District's Capital Facilities Plan and correspondence with the District that indicated impact fees would ensure adequate provisions were made for schools to accommodate residential development. C. Following their discussion on June 21, 2012 the Planning Commission's recommended the property in question be rezoned from C -1 and R -1 to R -3 with a concomitant agreement prohibiting access from Charles Avenue and limiting the height of buildings to 25 feet. ..... i, s: it R M •r O O �O v1 ' • 00 � CAS LV z N Y WHEN RECORDED, PLEASE RETURN TO: City of Pasco Attn: City Planner 525 N. Third Avenue Pasco, WA 99301 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF PASCO, WASHINGTON, AMENDING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF PROPERTY LOCATED IN BLOCK 2 AND 3, WHITEHOUSE ADDITION FROM R -I (LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) AND C -1 (RETAIL BUSINESS) TO R -3 (MEDIUM - DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) WITH A CONCOMITANT AGREEMENT. WHEREAS, a complete and adequate petition for change of zoning classification has been received and an open record hearing having been conducted by the Pasco Planning Commission upon such petition; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recommendation from the open record hearing of March 15, 2012 was reviewed by the City Council on May 7, 2012. On May 21, 2012 the City Council remanded the matter to the Planning Commission for the purpose of addressing potential impacts of multi -story structures in proximity to Charles Avenue and the potential impacts of the rezone on the Pasco School District; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a remand hearing on June 21, 2012 and determined the impacts of multi -story structures could be addressed by limiting the height of structures to 25 feet matching the height limitation of the surrounding Low Density Residential zoning and that the school impact fee for new residential development addressed the issue of impacts to the School District; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission determined the effect of the requested change in zoning classification would not be materially detrimental to the immediate vicinity if conditioned by restricting access from Charles Avenue and limiting building heights to 25 feet; and, WHEREAS, based upon substantial evidence and demonstration of the Petitioner, that: (A) the requested change for the zoning classification is consistent with the adopted Comprehensive Plan; (B) the requested change in zoning classification is consistent with or promotes the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan serving the general public interest in the community; and (C) there has been a change in the neighborhood or community needs or circumstances warranting the requested change of the zoning classification; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASCO, WASHINGTON DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That the Zoning Ordinance for the City of Pasco, Washington, and the Zoning Map, accompanying and being part of said Ordinance shall be and hereby is changed from R -1 (Low Density Residential) and C -1 (Retail Business) to R -3 (Medium- Density Residential) for the real property as shown in the Exhibit No. "I" attached hereto and described as follows: All of Block 3, Whitehouse Addition (parcel # 112071026) and Lots 11 to 17 Block 2, and Lots 18 to 24 Block 2, Whitehouse Addition together with the adjacent vacated 10' of Alvina Street (parcel # 112072098) Section 2. That the change of a zoning classification as provided in Section I is contingent and conditioned upon execution of and compliance with a Concomitant Agreement entered into between the Petitioner and the City which will attach to and run with the real property described in Section I above. Said Concomitant Agreement is attached to this Ordinance as Exhibit No. " 2 ". Section 3. This ordinance shall take full force and effect five (5) days after its approval, passage and publication as required by law. Passed by the City Council of the City of Pasco this 23rd day of July, 2012. Matt Watkins, Mayor ATTEST: Debra L. Clark, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Leland B. Kerr, City Attorney I Z m L � L ' - 3" sv -ionoa LLL O O 3AV H3338 H j w Ell u -- 3" 3H3M I T-FT -F] EL=1 O U V S31HVHO � �c al V1 � N IN 4 Ct Q 2 � cn Z \ i • Z 39 EGON M \/ W j I r "' "Exhibit 2" CONCOMITANT ZONING AGREEMENT WHEREAS, the City of Pasco, Washington, a non - charter code city, under the laws of the State of Washington (Chapter 35A.63 R.C.W. and Article 11, Section 11 of the Washington State Constitution) has authority to enact laws and enter into agreements to promote the health, safety and welfare of its citizens, and thereby control the use and development of property within its jurisdiction; and WHEREAS, the Owner(s) of certain property have applied for a rezone of such property described below within the City's jurisdiction; and WHEREAS, the City pursuant to R.C.W. 43.12(c), the State Environmental Policy Act, should mitigate any adverse impacts which might result because of the proposed rezone; and WHEREAS, the City of Pasco and the Owner(s) are both interested in compliance with the Pasco Municipal Code provisions relating to the use and development of property situated in the City of Pasco, described as follows: ALL of BLOCK 3, WHITEHOUSE ADDITION (Parcel # 112071026) and LOTS 11 TO 17 BLOCK 2, and LOTS 18 TO 24 BLOCK 2, WHITEHOUSE ADDITION TOGETHER WITH THE VACATED 10' OF ALVINA STREET (Parcel # 112072098) WHEREAS, the Owner(s) have indicated willingness to cooperate with the City of Pasco, its Planning Commission and Planning Department to insure compliance with the Pasco Zoning Code, and all other local, state and federal laws relating to the use and development of the above described property; and WHEREAS, the City, in addition to civil and criminal sanctions available by law, desires to enforce the rights and interests of the public by this concomitant agreement, NOW, THEREFORE, In the event the above - described property is rezoned by the City of Pasco to R -3 (Medium Density Residential) and in consideration of that event should it occur, and subject to the terms and conditions hereinafter stated, the applicant does hereby covenant and agree as follows: 1. The Owner(s) promise to comply with all of the terms of the agreement in the event the City, as full consideration herein grants a rezone on the above - described property. 2. The Owner(s) agrees to perform the terms set forth in Section 4 of this agreement. 3. This agreement shall be binding on their heirs, assigns, grantees or successors in interest of the Owner(s) of the property herein described. 4. Conditions: a. No driveways or vehicular access shall be permitted from North Charles Street; The person(s) whose names are subscribed herein do hereby certify that they are the sole holders of fee simple interest in �e above-described property: Own P n STATE OF WASHINGTON) ss. County of�� ) On this � day of 2012, before in th undersigned, y commissioned and sworn, personally appeared /dy -'d� V km n /('y/ A to me known to be the individual(s) described abo e and who executed the within and foregoing instrume as an agent of the owner(s) of record, and acknowledged to me that he /she/ ey signed the same as his/her/ eir ee and voluntary act and deed, for the usrs and purposes therein mentioned, and on oath stated that he /she/ ey ' /are authorized to execute the said instrument. GIV under by hand and official seal this day of 2012. Notary Public in residing at LL My Commission MELANIE S. WELLS Notary Public State of Washington My Commission Expires August 17, 2013 FEE: $700.00 1 ' ' CITY OF PASCO PETITION FOR CHANGE OF LAND USE CLASSIFICATION MASTER FILE # z 2-cif- 00k DATE SUBMITTED: 10 L7-- PLEASE COMPLETE APPLICATION NEATLY (Name of licant) '�3 (Name of Owner, (if other than Applicant)) Sax'Hc,r\-e , W A apt j9'Kiatk ,,—VJ-fl qg9 Cg (Address) (Address) Sci (Phone) (Phone) General Location of Property: 3o2S/ N (Give location in relation to streets, intersections, etc.) W. 1 Legal Description: Sne 6 -4 A, t� _ -u-1 A Uz kp (Attach to Application if too Lengthy) Square Feet/Access of Property: 2 5-7 5 S Current Classification: pl-1 LOW be,r►--4':� 1 Requested Classification: - bC'-i/'Je 1. Briefly describe the nature and effect of the proposed change: 2. Estimated timeframe of development: CaMk'►rk2n 5iLA l kl 3. Date existing classification became effective FEE: $700.00 4. 'What changed or changing condition warrant the proposed change? i s 4 12 ce-1604 Czn- Ave t i� uAL by,0�-c kte- rysOe"4 uses, 5. How will the proposed change advance the health, safety and general welfare if the community? t , 6. What effect will the proposed change have on the value and character of adjacent propperty? , [�_v%ja /1���IO�cIAr• s��' �'`c� N �r�'•� vrsccs�►� �. 0�� ��- �` -5 d- 7. How does the proposed change relate to City's Comprehensive Plan? t `-k' l ` �n ; Pty.. cc�4�,�c_ Q no:1'a � -V--24t 2 8. Ut er circumstances: 9. What effect will be realized by the owner(s) if the proposed change is not granted? �� CI �Ii 10. List any maps, drawings or other exhibits attached to this application: i-A is AFFIDAVIT I, _ _;� 6 , v4 et , being duly sworn, declare that I am the legal owner of the property involved in this application and that the foregoing statements are answers herein contained and the application herewith submitted are in all respects the true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. �i ,) (Signature of Owner) Subscribed and sworn before me this A day of 0-'t'! , 200 -��.�lrru&lr� Notary Public in and for the State o�Vu�-s�ri�� Residing at C L/P '� � C IA- 9 Y-C CAr'K �akAGEZIAIN Notary P�s�aIIC -C�:3torriict ' °1 Los Angeles County FEE: $700.00 NOTE: Variance report giving a list and mailing address of owners of all property within 300 feet of the applicant's property, as shown by a local title company OR payment of $80.00 which shall be utilized to purchase an ownership listing from the Franklin County Assessor's Office must be included. EXHIBIT A Legal Description Parcel 112071026 Block 3, WHITEHOUSE ADDITION TO PASCO,according to the plat thereof recorded in Volume B of plats, Page 56, Records or Franklin County, Washington, TOGETHER WITH the west 10 feet of Charles Avenue adjacent to said Block 3 as vacated by City of Pasco ordinance no. 3099 and recorded under auditor's file no. 522965. Parcel 112072098 Lots 11 through 24, inclusive, Block 2, WHITEHOUSE ADDITION TO PASCO, according to the plat thereof recorded in Volume B of plats, Page 56, Records of Franklin County, Washington, TOGETHER WITH the north 10 feet of Alvina Street adjacent to said Lot 24, as vacated by City of Pasco ordinance no. 3345 and recorded under auditor's file no. 1566193 AND TOGETHER WITH the West 10 feet of Charles Avenue adjacent to said Lots 13 through 24, inclusive, as vacated by City of Pasco ordinance no. 3099 and recorded under auditor's file no. 522965. t 4410 � rr zap �3 t� � c, Q 4 2+ l' Zz iP3 I 2.4 1 4 !P „ 13 it I $� !1 , 14 to tca ,C 15 17 S { - 4 _ i0 19 i I� El : 1 E4 Z- V11\7A 6 l REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION MASTER FILE NO. Z 2012-001 APPLICANT: Pasco Family Housing HEARING DATE: 2/16/2012 12 E. Fifth ACTION DATE: 3/15/2012 Spokane, WA 99202 BACKGROUND REQUEST: REZONE Rezone from R-1 (Low-Density Residential) to R-3 (Medium-Density Residential) 1. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: Legal: All of Block 3 Whitehouse Addition and Lots 11-24 Block 2 Whitehouse Addition together with adjoining vacated right-of-way. Location: The west side of Charles Avenue between Adelia Street and Alvina Street. Property Size: 3.58 Acres 2. ACCESS: The property has access from Charles Avenue on the east and Alvina Street from the south. 3. UTILITIES: All utilities are available to the site. 4. LAND USE AND ZONING: The site is currently zoned R-1 (Low Density Residential) and C-1 (Retail Business). The site is vacant and contains a block building that was once used as an auto repair shop. Surrounding properties are zoned and developed as follows: North "R-1" Low Density Residential - Highland Park South "R-1" Low Density Residential - Single Family & Vacant East "R-1" Low Density Residential - Single Family West "C-3" General Business - Vacant 5. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map designates this area for Mixed Residential uses. Goals of the Comprehensive Plan suggests the City strive to maintain a variety of housing options for residents of the community (H-2) and supports efforts to provide affordable housing to meet the needs of low and moderate income households (H-5). Plan Goal LU-2 also encourages the maintenance of established neighborhoods and the creation of new neighborhoods that are safe and enjoyable places to live. 6. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The City of Pasco is the lead agency for this project. Based on the SEPA checklist, the adopted City 1 Comprehensive Plan, City development regulations, and other information, a threshold determination resulting in a Determination of Non-significance (DNS) has been issued for this project under WAC 197- 11-158. This is a non-project action and will therefore have no immediate effect on the Pasco School District. ANALYSIS The property consists of two separate parcels totaling 3.58 acres. The two parcels are divided by the unimproved right-of-way of East George Street. The northern most parcel located between Highland Park on the north and East George Street on the south contains 1.98 acres. The balance of the property is located south of East George Street and westerly of Charles Avenue. This property was platted in lots and block in 1911 and has remained mostly undeveloped since that time. The property north of George Street contained one single-family house which was demolished in 2003. For many years Lots 13- 18 of Block 24 located south of George Street were used as a vehicle storage yard that was filled with broken down and partially dismantled cars, barrels and other items. Lots 19-24 of the same block contained an automotive shop (the shop building still remains on the property) at least one house and a large storage building. In the early 1990's the City required the property owner to remove the slum and blight conditions cause by the impound yard, the accumulation of debris and the substandard buildings located on the property. The property remains undeveloped in a substandard condition today as a result of the lack of infrastructure improvements (no gutter, sidewalk, street lights, storm drainage, etc) and the existence of dead trees, weeds and the dumping that has occurred on the site. The site is located between property that is zoned C-3 (General Commercial) on the west and R-1 (Low Density Residential) on the east. Recognizing sound planning practices often suggest there should be a transition or gradation of land uses from more intense uses to less intense uses the City Council designated the site for mixed residential during the last major Comprehensive Plan update in 2008. The site is currently zoned R-1 and C-1. The C-1 District permits the development retail, office and commercial services such as retail stores, automotive repair shops, tire store, restaurants and taverns. One of the major concerns property owners often have about the location of higher density residential zoning adjacent to low density zoning is the possible impacts the high density zoning may have on the values of properties in adjacent lower density zoning district. A search of the Franklin County Assessor Records in February of 2012 indicates that in many cases this may be 2 more of a perception than a fact. For example the single-family homes that share a common lot line with the Stonegate Apartments have generally increased in value in the last four years. All of the homes in question were constructed two years after the construction of the Stonegate Apartments. Similarly the single-family homes in the Loviisa Farms subdivision constructed directly across Chapel Hill Boulevard from the Sandy Heights RV Park and the Silver Creek Apartments have appreciated in value. It should also be pointed out that the single-family homes located on Charles Avenue were constructed long after the Pasco Housing Authority constructed the multi-family housing units directly to the east. According to the records of the Franklin County Assessor's (2012) the homes in the 300 block of North Charles Avenue have increase in value since they were constructed in 2007. In the cases referenced above it should be noted that the apartment complexes and RV park are not accessed directly from the same street the lower density housing is accessed. The apartment buildings may be considerably higher than the adjoining single-family homes and may impact privacy in rear yards but the traffic impacts are significantly reduced due to the location of access driveways. For example the new multi-family complex built at the southwest corner of Wehe Avenue and Spokane Street is accessed from Spokane Street rather than Wehe Avenue, which fronts future single family residential lots. Even though the property in question is identified in the Comprehensive Plan for mixed use residential development the Planning Commission should consider ways of ameliorating traffic impact to the neighborhood by conditioning where the location of access driveways should be located. The site is large enough to permit the construction 15 to 20 single family homes which would generate 150 to 200 vehicle trips through the neighborhood each day. If the site was developed with 51 apartment units about 336 vehicle trips could be expected in the neighborhood or about 136 more vehicle trips than would be generated by single family homes. Multi-family complexes are often located on or convenient to major streets. The proposed site is accessed only by local streets through the surrounding neighborhood. Bonneville Street and California Avenue are both located on the western edge of the proposed site and could provide an alternate means of accessing the site. However both of these streets are currently unimproved. The nearest improved street west of the site is Oregon Avenue which is over 600 feet away. While Bonneville Street may provide the best option of providing an alternate means of access that would eliminate the need for traffic using Charles Avenue there is a significant cost involved with improving Bonneville Street. Because of the issues involved with access and increased traffic it may be appropriate to continue the hearing to allow staff and the applicant time to explore options for addressing these concerns. The initial review criteria for considering a rezone application are explained in PMC. 25.88.030. The criteria are list below as follows: 3 1. The changed conditions in the vicinity which warrant other or additional zoning: • The Comprehensive Plan designation for the property in question was changed from Low Density Residential to Mixed Residential in 2011. • Sewer service was extended north in Charles Avenue from George Street in 2007. • The former auto storage yard on the property has been removed. • All single-family homes have been removed from the property. • The commercially zoned portion of the property has not been used for commercial purposes for approximately 30 years. • The most recent residential development within the vicinity has been the construction of a multi-family complex directly north of the Whittier Elementary School at the southwest corner of Wehe Avenue and Spokane Street. • Much of the commercially zoned property along Oregon Avenue has been developed in the last 20 years. • Commercial development is beginning to extend east of Oregon Avenue. 2. Facts to justify the change on the basis of advancing the public health, safety and general welfare. The property has remained largely undeveloped for 100 years and has seen a regression in development over the past 25 years with the removal of all housing units and removal of the former automotive repair shop from the property. Rezoning the property to R-3 Medium Density Residential will provide additional flexibility for site development providing a catalyst for the development of the partially improved streets in the neighborhood and providing a buffer between the lower density development to the east and the commercially (C-3) zoned property to the west. 3. The effect it will have on the nature and value of adjoining property and the Comprehensive Plan. The proposal is supported by the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map. Rezoning the property and eliminating the commercial zoning from the neighborhood could enhance development options for the site benefiting the neighborhood by completing street improvements and eliminating nuisance conditions created by the weeds and dead trees on the property. The rezone would also eliminate any chance for commercial activities to be re-established in the neighborhood. The properties on Charles Avenue east of the commercial zoned portion of the site have decreased in value in recent years per Franklin County records. Based on experience in other neighborhoods where multi-family development 4 has occurred improvements on the site and the property clean-up associated therewith may improve property values in the neighborhood. 4. The effect on the property owners if the request is not granted. The current R-1 and C-1 zoning has been in place for 30 years or more and has not encouraged development on the property and in fact the property has remained largely undeveloped since it was platted 100 years ago. The proposed rezone may provide the property owner with some flexibility for development and may make the installation of streets and utilities more affordable. If the request is not granted it is probable the property will continue to remain vacant as both commercial and single- family development on the property has proven to be unviable. 5. The Comprehensive land use designation for the property. The Comprehensive Plan designates the site for Mixed Density Residential development. The proposed rezone will bring the zoning into conformance with the Plan. STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT Findings of fact must be entered from the record. The following are initial findings drawn from the background and analysis section of the staff report. The Planning Commission may add findings to this listing as the result of factual testimony and evidence submitted during the open record hearing. 1) The site is currently zoned R-1 (Low Density Residential) and C-1 retail Business. 2) The property to the west is zoned C-3 and the property to the east is zoned R-1 and R-2. 3) The Comprehensive Plan designates the site for Mixed Residential development. 4) The property was platted into lots and blocks 100 years ago. 5) The one remaining house on the site was demolished in 2003. 6) The property is vacant and undeveloped except for a vacant block building formerly used as an automotive shop. 7) Commercial use of the C-1 portion of the site has not occurred for approximately 30 years. 8) The site has never been improved with standard streets, curb, gutter, storm drainage and other infrastructure typical of an urban setting. 9) Multi-family duplex units are located directly east of the homes in the 300 block of Charles Street. 5 10) The multi-family duplex units directly east of the homes in the 300 block of Charles Street were constructed in 1978. 11) According to the records (2012) of the Franklin County Assessor's office the homes in the 300 block of Charles Avenue have increase in value. 12) According to the records (2012) of the Franklin County Assessor's office the homes in the 200 block of Charles Avenue east of the commercial portion of the site and not sharing a common property line with multi- family housing have decreased in value in recent years. 13) Single-family residential homes developed in the Loviisa Farms subdivision across Chapel Hill Boulevard from the 200 unit Silver Creek Apartment complex and the Sandy Heights RV park have increased in value (per Franklin County records 2012) in recent years. 14) The single-family homes on Klickitat Lane sharing a common property line with the 200 unit Stonegate apartment complex were constructed after the Stonegate Apartments were constructed. The homes on Klickitat lane have increased in value (per Franklin County records 2012) in recent years. 15) As the result of Commercial development along Oregon Avenue over the past 20 years few properties are left to develop on Oregon Avenue. Remaining vacant commercial properties east of Oregon Avenue toward Highland Park and the site in question are beginning to develop. 16) If a 51 apartment unit apartment complex was developed on the site it would generate 136 more vehicle trips per day than if the site was developed with 20 single-family homes. CONCLUSIONS BASED ON INITIAL STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT Before recommending approval or denial of a rezone, the Planning Commission must develop its conclusions from the findings of fact based upon the criteria listed in P.M.C. 25.88.060 and determine whether or not: (1) The proposal is in accord with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. The goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan encourage the development of old and new neighborhoods into safe and enjoyable places to live (Goal LU-2). The Comprehensive Plan also encourages the development of a variety of residential environments (Goal H-2) and the Plan and supports efforts to provide affordable housing to meet the needs of low and moderate income households (Goal H-5). (2) The effect of the proposal on the immediate vicinity will not be materially detrimental. 6 The property in question has remained largely undeveloped for the past 100 years. Rezoning the property may provide some flexibility for development options which could lead to the improvement of the streets and utilities in the neighborhood there by improving conditions in the neighborhood that have only been partially developed over the past 100 years. The proposed rezone is being request to allow the construction of up to 51 apartment units. Fifty- one apartment units would generate (per the ITE Trip Generation Manual 8th Edition) approximately 136 more vehicle trips on local streets than a 20 unit single-family development. The additional traffic could be reviewed by the neighborhood as having a detrimental impact on the neighborhood. (3) There is merit and value in the proposal for the community as a whole. As a whole the larger community would benefit from the proposal additional housing units permitted by a rezone of the property and the community would benefit from the development clean-up of an underdeveloped neighborhood. In this respect there is merit and value to the proposal. From the prospective of the immediate neighborhood the completion of neighborhood streets and the elimination of a parcel overgrown with weeds would have merit but the additional traffic would not. (4) Conditions should be imposed in order to mitigate any significant adverse impacts from the proposal. The rezone should be conditioned to limit access to the property in such a manner as to ameliorate the impacts of additional traffic on Charles Avenue. (5) A concomitant agreement should be entered into between the City and the petitioner, and if so, the terms and conditions of such an agreement. A concomitant agreement is necessary to ensure concerns of increased traffic in the neighborhood are addressed. RECOMMENDATION MOTION: I move to continue the hearing to the March 15, 2012 Planning Commission meeting. 7 Vicinity Item: Rezone R- 1 to R-3 Applicant: Pasco Family Housing IV N Map File #. Z 2012-001 jr SIP k Aw Ord .y ► �. l < X �. 1 i E .s `�. i - �, ADELIA SiT to F r SITE W , 1 F bTEORGE ST• W s ; W — Q 'A W ui ui a m•. NN �► .vs �, ALV1, -ST. s# Y - 1 I ' Z ^ 0�1 41V , E LEWF�S T ° Land Item: Rezone R- I to R-3 Use Applicant: Pasco Family Housing IV N Map File Z 2012-001 II�� III . . . � • � � � � � � MW zoning Map Applicant: Pasco Family Housing IV N File Z 2012-001 II�� III . . . � • � � � � � � � s rit � M I iX I Vii . mob ' . I '. � � , . Y '�� • _ � < y>- _ � � s . a� ' � � < Y.� A l � �_ n Y � � � �. �. - .- . ,�: 6zv < ' . � � / .:- � �® , :s '7 , , �: ",� - �i � � , �. � fi � � • ,. • b • — ii � . i I i t � �bl , � .� �} }�i �P r,�q�. Y '�A�~-.'M. ' .. �;� � , i *-� ' -- 4 %� _ | & . r 0 o Y • J . r �� J ;��` ��;',.' � �,:�; :_ a.�.�`'_ ;;� : ? =�: � , , ` , ,, �? r -, c . � - _ 0 �. ara 0 c� �, ; rr , i i " ; , '�- I STATE OF WASHINGTON 2 CITY OF PASCO 3 4 In Re: Rezone from R-1 ) 5 (Low Density Residential) ) to R-3 (medium-density ) Master File# 22012-001 6 Residential) ) (Pasco Family Housing) ) 7 - 8 9 10 11 EXCERPT OF THE PASCO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 12 13 14 TIME: 7 : 00 p .m. , Thursday, February 10, 2032 15 TAKEN AT: Pasco City Hall 16 Pasco, Washington 17 CALLED BY: City of Pasco 18 REPORTED BY: ChaRae Kent, CCR, RPR License No. 2408 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ChaRae Kent, CCR, RPR Kent Reporting * (509) 627-2244 2 1 APPEARANCES 2 FOR THE PASCO PLANNING COMMISSION: 3 CHAIRMAN JOE CRUZ COMMISSIONER JAMES L. HAY 4 COMMISSIONER JANA KEMPF COMMISSIONER ALECIA GREENAWAY 5 COMMISSIONER ZAHRA KHAN 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ChaRae Kent, CCR, RPR Kent Reporting * (509) 627-2244 3 1 BE IT REMEMBERED that on Thursday, February 16, 2012 2 at 7 p.m. , at Pasco City Hall, Pasco, Washington, the 3 Pasco Planning Commission Meeting was taken before 4 ChaRae Kent, Certified Court Reporter and Registered 5 Professional Reporter. The following proceedings took 6 place _ 7 8 P R O C E E D I N G S 9 10 CHAIRMAN CRUZ : All right. Moving right along. Item 11 number 6B is zoning, rezone from R-1 low-density 12 residential to R-3 medium-density residential, Imagination 13 Academy, Master File number 22012-001. Mr. McDonald. 14 MR. MCDCNALD: Yes, Mr. Chairman, Commission Members, 15 as indicated, this public hearing involves a possible 06 rezone of property located on Charles Avenue from the 1"I existing designation of R-1 to R-3 medium-density "_8 residential. This property, as indicated on the overhead, 19 is located just to the west side of Charles Avenue north 20 of Alvina Street . The property was platted over 100 years 21 ago in 1911 and basically has remained undeveloped since 22 that time. Property to the -- properties directly to the 23 west of the site are vacant and zoned C-3, general 24 commercial., which is our heavy commercial designation. 25 The properties to the north are R-1 and developed ChaRae Kent, CCR, RPR Kent Reporting * (509) 627--2244 4 I into a city park. And the properties to the east are 2 zoned R-1. And the property to the south is zoned R-1 3 with some C-1 along Lewis Street. 4 The parcel in question for the site in question 5 actually is comprised of two different parcels divided by 6 George Street. There is 1 . 98 acres to the north up 7 towards the park and then the balance of it is south of 8 George Street . About one-third of the property south of 9 the George Street is currently zoned C-1, retail business, 10 which allows a variety of retail businesses; it ' s store 11 shops, convenience stores and so forth. 12 As I mentioned just a minute ago, this property was 13 platted in 1911 . It never really has developed. There 14 was a house at one time on the north end up by Island 15 Park. That was demolished several years ago. 16 On the southern end of the property there was one or 17 two houses, if I remember correctly, and a couple of other 18 out structures and then a block building that was used for 19 an automotive repair shop. In addition to that the site 20 had a bone yard or an impound area that was full of old 21 vehicles and barrels and so forth and through the City 22 code enforcement efforts that was cleaned up. 23 The property was designated in the comprehensive plan 24 a couple of years ago for mixed-residential development, 25 which would allow it to be rezoned R-1 -- excuse me, R-2 ChaRae Dent, CCR, RPR Kent Reporting * (509) 627-2244 5 1 or 3, and would allow anywhere from single-family 2 development to multi-family units. 3 One of the major concerns that neighbors often have 4 when properties are up for potential rezone from R-1 to 5 multi-family is the impact that that may have on the 6 neighborhood, particularly values of the neighborhood. 7 And we just concluded a public hearing for an apartment 8 project on Road 68 . And as we look around the community 9 and compare where multi-family projects are across the 10 street or back up to a single-family residential, for 11 example, Stonegate apartment complex, the homes directly to the west of Stonegate Apartments were actually 13 constructed a couple years after the apartment complex was 14 constructed and those homes have, according to the county assessor ' s records, increased in value in the last few 16 years . 17 We have also examples on Chapel Hill Boulevard and 18 The Crossings at Chapel Hill where the homes directly 19 across the street and were actually built after or 20 simultaneously with the apartments . We see some increases 21 in value there. And the same thing has occurred on Chapel 22 Hill Boulevard just east of Road 100 with the Silver Creek 23 Apartments and the Sandy Heights RV Park. So there are 24 indications within the records of the Franklin County 25 Auditor that multi-family construction in the neighborhood ChaRae Kent, CCR, RPR Kent Reporting * (509) 627-2244 6 1 does not always lead to a lowering of property values . 2 Another big concern that neighbors often have is the 3 increase that would occur in traffic through the 4 neighborhood. This particular property could be developed 5 for 15 to 20 single-family homes and that would generate 6 anywhere from 150, perhaps 200, vehicle trips per day. 7 The proposal is to develop it with 51 apartment units, if 8 it was rezoned. And the vehicle trip generation from that 9 would be approximately 336 according to the trip 10 generation manual, which is about 136 more vehicles per 11 day than the site was developed for single family. So 12 there are some concerns with traffic . 13 And maybe T should just jump now to some of the other 14 sections of your -- on page 4 . We provide a listing and 15 discussion on the criteria that you are required to review 16 when you consider rezones. The first item you are 17 required to review is the changed conditions within the 18 neighborhood -- and we 've listed several for your 19 consideration; facts to justify the change and the basis 20 for advancing public health and safety and general 21 welfare. Again, we 've provided information on that . And 22 same with the other two or three that you are required to 23 consider. 24 We ' ve also provided for your consideration findings 25 of fact and a review of the criteria that we are required ChaRae Kent, CCR, RPR Kent Reporting * (509) 627-2244 7 1 to in P .M. 0 25 . 88 . 060 . 2 And then just backing up again, with the concern over 3 access to this property, it ' s located off of Lewis Street 4 about a block. The streets are poorly developed within 5 the neighborhood. Some of them basically are not 6 developed at all . And so that creates some concerns. 7 There may be a means of accessing this property from the 8 west, from Morgan; however Bonneville is just a dirt 9 street which is problematic. 10 And what staff is suggesting the Planning Commission 11 do at this point is to hold the public hearing and receive 12 comments from both the proponent, the applicant, and the 13 neighbors and then we ' re recommending that the matter be 14 continued for one month to allow staff to meet with the 15 proponent and explore ideas on access to the site that 16 would address traffic concerns throughout the neighborhood 17 and then come back next month and have you continue the 18 hearing and move forward from there. 19 So are there any comments or questions? 20 CHAIRMAN CRUZ : Thank you, Mr. McDonald. 21 Any questions or comments on behalf of the 22 commission? 23 Okay. I have one. Has this been up in front of us 24 before -- 25 MR. MCDON1=: It was -- ChaRae Kent, CCR, RPR Kent Reporting * (509) 627-2244 8 1 CHAIRMAN CRUZ : -- two years ago? 2 MR. MCDONALD: It was before you two years ago; 2008 3 time frame. Excuse me . Just last year it was a comp plan 4 amendment to include it in the come plan for 5 mixed-residential . Similar to the portion of the price 6 Addition just north of the Whittier School. That was also 7 included in the comp plan for mixed-residential . 8 CHAIRMAN CRUZ : Thank you very much. 9 Okay. At this time we ' ll open the public hearing. 10 Would the applicant please come forward at this time 11 and again please state your name and address for the 12 record. Thank you. 13 MR. KEITH JAMES: Good evening, Commissioners. Keith 14 James, 2304 South Meadowview Road in Green Acres, 15 Washington 99016. 16 Thank you, David, for the thorough summary of the 17 proposed rezone . 18 I 'm here on behalf of Pasco Family Housing for the i9 applicant. That ' s an entity owned and controlled by 20 Catholic Housing Services of Eastern Washington as it ' s 21 affiliated with the Catholic charities of Spokane . 22 We 've developed two other farm-worker housing 23 projects . This is a site for a proposed third farm-worker 24 housing project. Our most recent is Bishop Topel Haven 25 Apartments about four blocks to the north, 43 units. To ChaRae Kent, CCR, RPR Kent Reporting * (509) 627-2244 9 1 give you some idea of the need, those 43 units opened in 2 February; were completely full in 60 days and there ' s a 3 wait list of about 250 families . So we know for certain. 4 that in this case if you build this product of this 5 quality, there' s definitely a need. They will definitely 6 be occupied. 7 Unfortunately I can' t provide project information 8 quite like the previous applicant . We currently have the 9 site under contract for purchase. And until we close on 1.0 that and we close on financing and build something, if the 11 rezone goes through -- in other words, the rezone could go 12 through, we could not close on the property and therefore 13 our project could become someone else' s project. So I 14 want to caution you and the audience with that fact . 15 Having said that, what we would propose is additional 16 townhome style units, 2, 3 and 4 bedroom units, for 17 additional occupancy by low income farm-worker housing 18 families . That means, in this case, incomes for a family 19 of four not to exceed about $34, 000 per year. That ' s 20 initial occupancy. An agricultural worker has to earn an 21 income of about -- of at least $3, 000 per year in 22 agriculture for purposes . After initial occupancy the 23 income restriction remains but the farm-worker housing 24 does not . So in future years it could be occupied by 25 nonagricultural workers . ChaRae Kent, CCR, RPR Kent Reporting * (509) 627--2244 10 1 Our proposal, as mentioned, is for several townhome 2 buildings and adequate parking and adequate or appropriate 3 amenity spaces, including like a child' s play structure 4 and one common building where there would be community 5 room, computer lab and an outdoor barbecue congregation 6 area. 7 In our initial plans, based on some feedback from 8 David and staff, we tried to pull as many of the units 9 away from the single-family neighbors to the east as 10 possible. And accordingly, there' s more -- thank you -- 11 there ' s more -- there ' s units toward the south of the site 12 along Charles Avenue. There ' s very few along the north. 13 I think the biggest challenge for us and for the 14 neighborhood is really access . And I know that ' s a scary 15 trip generation number and I am respectful of that. So we 16 definitely want to work to make that as palatable as 17 possible. And the trouble is, just frankly, that access 18 from the south -- we want to make that work -- but if 600 19 feet of road has to be developed, we as an affordable 20 housing developer, just can 't afford to do that. So we' re 21 hoping for some creative solutions with Dave ' s help. 22 That ' s about the extent of my presentation, unless 23 there are questions. 24 CHAIRMAN CRUZ : Actually it probably wouldn ' t hurt to 25 go into a little bit more about your management policies ChaRae Kent, CCR, RRR Kent Reporting * (509) 627-2244 11 1 and such for your previous projects . Because, without the 2 benefit of that, I think it ' s hard for people who may not 3 be familiar to understand the concept . We 've all heard 4 that before. But if you can kind of go through that about 5 management policy and consistency and oversight . -- 6 MR. KEITH JAMES: Well, specifically, currently we 7 hire a third-party management company, Coast Property 8 Management. They manage thousands of units . They have a 9 regional manager here in addition to an on-site manager at 10 Bishop Topel Haven. The same would be proposed here, 11 where there' s actually an on-site manager living in one of 12 the apartments. 13 There ' s, of course, the standard lease agreement that 14 can be terminated and forced eviction if house rules and 15 relevant regulations are not followed. These rules and 16 regulations are pretty standard in the industry. 17 I think that the Catholic Charities, the property 18 management asset management overseeing the professional, 19 third-party management company has a pretty low tolerance 20 for any activity that either hurts the reputation or hurts 21 the properties continuing financial feasibility. I know 22 that Topel Haven thus far, you know, it ' s new, it 's only a 23 year old, but it ' s not only been smoothly operated but, as 24 I understand it, there ' s been a nice sense of community 25 built there so far, which is also one of the main goals. ChaRae Kent, CCR, RPR Kent Reporting * (509) 627-2244 12 1 CHAIRMAN CRUZ : Another question : is there any 2 history of code enforcement or additional police presence 3 in Bishop Topel Haven compared to the surrounding 4 neighborhood? 5 MR. KEITH JAMES : Not that I am aware of. I don' t 6 know, to be completely honest, but not that I 'm aware of. 7 CHAIRMAN CRUZ : That ' s okay. I just -- anybody on 8 the staff have anything that they' d like to add on that 9 topic? 10 MR. MCDONALD: No. 11 CHAIRMAN CRUZ : I know that was a big discussion with 12 the previous project so I just thought I would bring that 13 up to you. Okay. Thank you very much. And if you can 14 stand by until we got done with public comment, we' ll have 15 you back up again. Thank you, Mr. James. 16 Okay. Anyone in the audience who would like to speak 17 on this item please come forward at this time. 18 MS . GRACIE CHACON: Hi, my name is Gracie Chacon and 19 I live at 323 North Charles Avenue . 20 I am here today because, like I said, my name is 21 Gracie Chacon and I 'm the captain of the Charles Avenue 22 Block Watch Program. And I 'm here to represent the seven 23 families that -- we live along the -- right in front of 24 the property. Yeah, right there (indicated) . 25 Okay. We are aware of what happens in apartments and ChaRae Kent, CCR, RPR Kent Reporting * (509) 627-2244 13 1 are extremely concerned about the safety of our 2 neighborhood. We already have apartments on the east side 3 of us. The question is: Why put more? Why not build 4 more single-family homes, which would be better for the 5 community and homeowners would be more stable. Building 6 apartments would just cause a lot of problems that would 7 affect us dramatically. Apartments come with plenty of 8 hazards and dangers to consider like fires, water damages, 9 is more common in apartments where many people reside all 10 together in one house where only one family resides. 11 Also, it would bring increased traffic flow, increase 12 in break-ins, increase of crime, increase of gang 13 activity. It would definitely cause a huge impact on 14 schools since they are already overcrowded as it is. And 15 that ' s all I have to say. 16 CHAIRMAN CRUZ: All right. Thank you. Any questions 17 that we can answer for you or any questions you would like 18 to pose to the staff? 19 MS . GRACIE CHACON: Not at this time. 20 CHAIRMAN CRUZ : Okay. Thank you. 21 MS . GRACIE CHACON: Thank you. 22 CHAIRMAN CRUZ : Anyone else in the audience who would 23 like to speak for or against this item? 24 I expected everyone to come up on B and everybody is 25 here waiting for C. Oh, we ' ve got one more. ChaRae Kent, CCR, RPR Kent Reporting * (509) 627-2244 14 1 MR. DANNY JIMENEZ : My name is Danny Jimenez, 323 2 North Charles . 3 it sounds like it ' s the same people that want to 4 build apartments as last time. And last time they wanted 5 to have the entrance to their apartments here and down 6 here (indicated) . So, I mean, this area here (indicated) 7 is a death child area. So that would increase a lot of 8 traffic through here (indicated) , because these roads, 9 like I said, these are pretty small roads from here down 10 (indicated) . All these are just little roads . Just it 11 brings crime . I 've been listening to the scanner. It 12 seems like 75 percent of the calls are from apartment 13 complexes . There' s always problems going on. That ' s all 14 I got . 15 CHAIRMAN CRUZ : Thank you, sir. 16 Any other people in the audience who would like to 17 speak for or against this item? 18 Ma ' am, did we swear you in? 19 MS . ANITA SOTO: Yes . 20 CHAIRMAN CRUZ : Okay. Thank you. 21 MS . ANITA SOTO: My name is Anita Soto and I live at 22 209 North Franklin and we own property there. 23 And the thing is that it ' s quite renown, but if we do 24 get a complex there, it would create more problem for our 25 trucks . Because our trucks, we run more than 15 to 20 ChaRae Kent, CCR, RPR Kent Reporting * (509) 627-2244 15 1 trucks and we always get somebody that breaks all our 2 windows, steals our batteries and that is not having a big 3 complex there yet . But if one is developed there that 4 would be more trouble for us. So a residential housing, 5 single home, would be more stable than a complex. Thank 6 you. 7 CHAIRMAN CRUZ : Thank you very much. 8 Anyone that would like -- anyone else who would like 9 to come forward at this time before I invite the applicant 10 to come back up? 11 Okay. Mr. James, would you like another opportunity 12 to speak? 13 MR. KEITH JAMES: I don' t have anything else, unless 14 there is specific questions from commissioners . 15 CHAIRMAN CRUZ : Okay. The applicant doesn' t have 16 anything else to add at this time and so -- do I close the 17 public hearing and continue or leave it open? 18 MR. MCDONALD: No, you' ll need to continue the public 19 hearing. 20 CHAIRMAN CRUZ : Continue the public hearing. 21 MR. MCDONALD: Yes . 22 CHAIRMAN CRUZ : See, you guys change these and I 23 can ' t keep up sometimes. Okay. 24 So any other questions or comments on behalf of the 25 commission or guidance towards staff on this one? ChaRae Kent, CCR, RPR Kent Reporting * (509) 627-2244 16 1 I think we heard crime, probably some statistics on 2 Bishop Topel and any other sister developments and then 3 some conclusions on traffic. 4 I 'm assuming from the comments the preference would 5 be from the west or the south for the occupants in the 6 audience. A show of hands . West or south access? i 7 Not getting anything. So you guys will have to work 8 with the developer a little bit . 9 Okay. So I don' t think -- do I need a motion to l6 continue that? 11 MR. MCDONALD: Yes, we do. We do have a motion on 12 page 7 . 13 CHAIRMAN CRUZ : I 'm not always on top of stuff here. 14 COMMISSIONER KHAN : Mr. Chairman, I move to continue 15 the hearing to the March 15, 2012 Planning Commission i. 6 meeting . 1'7 COMMISSIONER GREENAWAY: Second. 18 CHAIRMAN CRUZ : Moved by Commissioner Khan. Seconded 19 by Commissioner Greenaway. 20 All those in favor say aye. 21 COMMISSION MEMBERS (in unison) : Aye . 22 CHAIRMAN CRUZ : Okay. You can be chair any time you 23 would like. 24 COMMISSIONER HAY: Been there. Done that . 25 (ITEM CONCLUDED. ) ChaRae Kent, CCR, RPR Kent Reporting * (509) 627-2244 17 1 C E R T I F I C A T E 2 STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) ss . 3 COUNTY OF BENTON ) 4 This is to certify that I, ChaRae Kent, the 5 undersigned Washington Certified Court Reporter, residing 6 at Richland, reported the within and foregoing Planning 7 Commission Meeting on the date herein set forth; that said 8 meeting was taken by me in shorthand and thereafter 9 transcribed, and that same is a true and correct record of 10 the meeting. 11 I further certify that I am not a relative or 12 employee or attorney or counsel of any the parties, nor am 13 I financially interested in the outcome of the cause. 14 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and 15 affixed my Washington State CCR number this day 16 of 2012 . 17 18 19 ���11111111l1I1�/ 20 `���� �pE kfi/i,�� CHA E KENT, RPR, CC 21 y�,�`�1NGTp lX��� CCR N0. 2408 . CCR d. 22 '0+.ro��: ��+• �. 23 �?cps I��q,• � `\`. 24 !!ln111%0 25 ChaRae Kent, CCR, RPR Kent Reporting * (509) 627-2244 REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION MASTER FILE NO. Z 2012-001 APPLICANT: Pasco Family Housing HEARING DATE: 2/16/2012 12 E. Fifth ACTION DATE: 3/15/2012 Spokane, WA 99202 BACKGROUND REQUEST: REZONE Rezone from R-1 (Low-Density Residential) and C-1 (Retail Business) to R-3 (Medium-Density Residential) 1. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: Legal: All of Block 3 Whitehouse Addition and Lots 11-24 Block 2 Whitehouse Addition together with adjoining vacated right-of-way. Location: The west side of Charles Avenue between Adelia Street and Alvina Street. Property Size: 3.58 Acres 2. ACCESS: The property has access from Charles Avenue on the east and Alvina Street from the south. 3. UTILITIES: All utilities are available to the site. 4. LAND USE AND ZONING: The site is currently zoned R-1 (Low Density Residential) and C-1 (Retail Business). The site is vacant and contains a block building that was once used as an auto repair shop. Surrounding properties are zoned and developed as follows: North "R-1" Low Density Residential - Highland Park South "R-1" Low Density Residential - Single Family & Vacant East "R-1" Low Density Residential - Single Family West "C-3" General Business - Vacant 5. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map designates this area for Mixed Residential uses. Goals of the Comprehensive Plan suggests the City strive to maintain a variety of housing options for residents of the community (H-2) and supports efforts to provide affordable housing to meet the needs of low and moderate income households (H-5). Plan Goal LU-2 also encourages the maintenance of established neighborhoods and the creation of new neighborhoods that are safe and enjoyable places to live. 6. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The City of Pasco is the lead agency for this project. Based on the SEPA checklist, the adopted City 1 Comprehensive Plan, City development regulations, and other information, a threshold determination resulting in a Determination of Non-significance (DNS) has been issued for this project under WAC 197- 11-158. This is a non-project action and will therefore have no immediate effect on the Pasco School District. ANALYSIS The property consists of two separate parcels totaling 3.58 acres. The two parcels are divided by the unimproved right-of-way of East George Street. The northern most parcel located between Highland Park on the north and East George Street on the south contains 1.98 acres. The balance of the property is located south of East George Street and westerly of Charles Avenue. This property was platted in lots and block in 1911 and has remained mostly undeveloped since that time. The property north of George Street contained one single-family house which was demolished in 2003. For many years Lots 13- 18 of Block 24 located south of George Street were used as a vehicle storage yard that was filled with broken down and partially dismantled cars, barrels and other items. Lots 19-24 of the same block contained an automotive shop (the shop building still remains on the property) at least one house and a large storage building. In the early 1990's the City required the property owner to remove the slum and blight conditions cause by the impound yard, the accumulation of debris and the substandard buildings located on the property. The property remains undeveloped in a substandard condition today as a result of the lack of infrastructure improvements (no gutter, sidewalk, street lights, storm drainage, etc) and the existence of dead trees, weeds and the dumping that has occurred on the site. The site is located between property that is zoned C-3 (General Commercial) on the west and R-1 (Low Density Residential) on the east. Recognizing sound planning practices often suggest there should be a transition or gradation of land uses from more intense uses to less intense uses the City Council designated the site for mixed residential during the last major Comprehensive Plan update in 2008. The site is currently zoned R-1 and C-1. The C-1 District permits the development retail, office and commercial services such as retail stores, automotive repair shops, tire store, restaurants and taverns. One of the major concerns property owners often have about the location of higher density residential zoning adjacent to low density zoning is the possible impacts the high density zoning may have on the values of properties in adjacent lower density zoning district. A search of the Franklin County Assessor Records in February of 2012 indicates that in many cases this may be 2 more of a perception than a fact. For example the single-family homes that share a common lot line with the Stonegate Apartments have generally increased in value in the last four years. All of the homes in question were constructed two years after the construction of the Stonegate Apartments. Similarly the single-family homes in the Loviisa Farms subdivision constructed directly across Chapel Hill Boulevard from the Sandy Heights RV Park and the Silver Creek Apartments have appreciated in value. It should also be pointed out that the single-family homes located on Charles Avenue were constructed long after the Pasco Housing Authority constructed the multi-family housing units directly to the east. According to the records of the Franklin County Assessor's (2012) the homes in the 300 block of North Charles Avenue have increase in value since they were constructed in 2007. In the cases referenced above it should be noted that the apartment complexes and RV park are not accessed directly from the same street the lower density housing is accessed. The apartment buildings may be considerably higher than the adjoining single-family homes and may impact privacy in rear yards but the traffic impacts are significantly reduced due to the location of access driveways. For example the new multi-family complex built at the southwest corner of Wehe Avenue and Spokane Street is accessed from Spokane Street rather than Wehe Avenue, which fronts future single family residential lots. Even though the property in question is identified in the Comprehensive Plan for mixed use residential development the Planning Commission should consider ways of ameliorating traffic impact to the neighborhood by conditioning where the location of access driveways should be located. The site is large enough to permit the construction 15 to 20 single family homes which would generate 150 to 200 vehicle trips through the neighborhood each day. If the site was developed with 51 apartment units about 336 vehicle trips could be expected in the neighborhood or about 136 more vehicle trips than would be generated by single family homes. Multi-family complexes are often located on or convenient to major streets. The proposed site is accessed only by local streets through the surrounding neighborhood. Bonneville Street and California Avenue are both located on the western edge of the proposed site and could provide an alternate means of accessing the site. If Bonneville Street and other streets to the west were used as the main access there would be little need for traffic from future development on the site to used Charles Avenue or other neighborhood streets to the east. Staff met with the applicant and discussed the issues related to access and as a result of that discussion the applicant has agreed to a concomitant agreement limiting access from the west only. During the initial hearing on this matter the Planning Commission asked staff to provide some information about crime statistics related to low income housing complexes. In a study prepared by the Urban Land Institute (High Density Development Myth 8, Fact 2005) it was reported that crime rates at higher-density developments are not significantly different than crime rates for 3 lower-density development (See Exhibit # 1). Other recent studies confirm the fact that low-income housing does not necessarily cause increases in crime rates (See Exhibit #2 Cornell University Study Abstract). Other studies have considered both the impacts on crime and property values as they related to the development of affordable housing and have concluded affordable housing does not increase crime or reduce neighboring property values (See Exhibit #3 Myths & Facts about Affordable & High Density Housing and Exhibit # 4 Princeton University Study Abstract). (Full copies of the referenced studies are available in the Planning Office.) The initial review criteria for considering a rezone application are explained in PMC. 25.88.030. The criteria are list below as follows: 1. The changed conditions in the vicinity which warrant other or additional zoning: • The Comprehensive Plan designation for the property in question was changed from Low Density Residential to Mixed Residential in 2011. • Sewer service was extended north in Charles Avenue from George Street in 2007. • The former auto storage yard on the property has been removed. • All single-family homes have been removed from the property. • The commercially zoned portion of the property has not been used for commercial purposes for approximately 30 years. • The most recent residential development within the vicinity has been the construction of a multi-family complex directly north of the Whittier Elementary School at the southwest corner of Wehe Avenue and Spokane Street. • Much of the commercially zoned property along Oregon Avenue has been developed in the last 20 years. • Commercial development is beginning to extend east of Oregon Avenue. 2. Facts to justify the change on the basis of advancing the public health, safety and general welfare. The property has remained largely undeveloped for 100 years and has seen a regression in development over the past 25 years with the removal of all housing units and removal of the former automotive repair shop from the property. Rezoning the property to R-3 Medium Density Residential will provide additional flexibility for site development providing a catalyst for the development of the partially improved streets in the neighborhood and providing a buffer between the lower density development to the east and the commercially (C-3) zoned property to the west. 3. The effect it will have on the nature and value of adjoining property and the Comprehensive Plan. 4 The proposal is supported by the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map. Rezoning the property and eliminating the commercial zoning from the neighborhood could enhance development options for the site benefiting the neighborhood by completing street improvements and eliminating nuisance conditions created by the weeds and dead trees on the property. The rezone would also eliminate any chance for commercial activities to be re-established in the neighborhood. The properties on Charles Avenue east of the commercial zoned portion of the site have decreased in value in recent years per Franklin County records. Based on experience in other neighborhoods where multi-family development has occurred improvements on the site and the property clean-up associated therewith may improve property values in the neighborhood. 4. The effect on the property owners if the request is not granted. The current R-1 and C-1 zoning has been in place for 30 years or more and has not encouraged development on the property and in fact the property has remained largely undeveloped since it was platted 100 years ago. The proposed rezone may provide the property owner with some flexibility for development and may make the installation of streets and utilities more affordable. If the request is not granted it is probable the property will continue to remain vacant as both commercial and single- family development on the property has proven to be unviable. 5. The Comprehensive land use designation for the property. The Comprehensive Plan designates the site for Mixed Density Residential development. The proposed rezone will bring the zoning into conformance with the Plan. STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT Findings of fact must be entered from the record. The following are initial findings drawn from the background and analysis section of the staff report. The Planning Commission may add findings to this listing as the result of factual testimony and evidence submitted during the open record hearing. 1) The site is currently zoned R-1 (Low Density Residential) and C-1 retail Business. 2) The property to the west is zoned C-3 and the property to the east is zoned R-1 and R-2. 3) The Comprehensive Plan designates the site for Mixed Residential development. 4) The property was platted into lots and blocks 100 years ago. 5) The one remaining house on the site was demolished in 2003. 5 6) The property is vacant and undeveloped except for a vacant block building formerly used as an automotive shop. 7) Commercial use of the C-1 portion of the site has not occurred for approximately 30 years. 8) The site has never been improved with standard streets, curb, gutter, storm drainage and other infrastructure typical of an urban setting. 9) Multi-family duplex units are located directly east of the homes in the 300 block of Charles Street. 10) The multi-family duplex units directly east of the homes in the 300 block of Charles Street were constructed in 1978. 11) According to the records (2012) of the Franklin County Assessor's office the homes in the 300 block of Charles Avenue have increase in value. 12) According to the records (2012) of the Franklin County Assessor's office the homes in the 200 block of Charles Avenue east of the commercial portion of the site and not sharing a common property line with multi- family housing have decreased in value in recent years. 13) Single-family residential homes developed in the Loviisa Farms subdivision across Chapel Hill Boulevard from the 200 unit Silver Creek Apartment complex and the Sandy Heights RV park have increased in value (per Franklin County records 2012) in recent years. 14) The single-family homes on Klickitat Lane sharing a common property line with the 200 unit Stonegate apartment complex were constructed after the Stonegate Apartments were constructed. The homes on Klickitat lane have increased in value (per Franklin County records 2012) in recent years. 15) Studies prepared by the Urban Land Institute, Cornell University, Princeton University, and the California Department of Housing and Community Development (Higher Density Development Myth and Facts, 2005; Low Income Housing Development and Crime, Cornell University 2010; Do Affordable Housing Projects harm Suburban Communities? Crime, Property Values and Property Taxes in Mt. Laurel, New Jersey 2011; Myths and Facts About Affordable & High Density Housing, 2002. Full copies of these reports are on file in the Planning Office.) 16) As the result of Commercial development along Oregon Avenue over the past 20 years few properties are left to develop on Oregon Avenue. Remaining vacant commercial properties east of Oregon Avenue toward Highland Park and the site in question are beginning to develop. 17) If a 51 apartment unit apartment complex was developed on the site it would generate 136 more vehicle trips per day than if the site was developed with 20 single-family homes. 6 CONCLUSIONS BASED ON INITIAL STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT Before recommending approval or denial of a rezone, the Planning Commission must develop its conclusions from the findings of fact based upon the criteria listed in P.M.C. 25.88.060 and determine whether or not: (1) The proposal is in accord with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. The goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan encourage the development of old and new neighborhoods into safe and enjoyable places to live (Goal LU-2). The Comprehensive Plan also encourages the development of a variety of residential environments (Goal H-2) and the Plan and supports efforts to provide affordable housing to meet the needs of low and moderate income households (Goal H-5). (2) The effect of the proposal on the immediate vicinity will not be materially detrimental. The property in question has remained largely undeveloped for the past 100 years. Rezoning the property may provide some flexibility for development options which could lead to the improvement of the streets and utilities in the neighborhood thereby improving conditions in the neighborhood that have only been partially developed over the past 100 years. The proposed rezone is being requested to allow the construction of up to 51 apartment units. Fifty-one apartment units would generate (per the ITE Trip Generation Manual 8th Edition) approximately 136 more vehicle trips on local streets than a 20 unit single-family development. The additional traffic could be viewed by the neighborhood as having a detrimental impact on the neighborhood. (3) There is merit and value in the proposal for the community as a whole. As a whole the larger community would benefit from the proposal additional housing units permitted by a rezone of the property and the community would benefit from the development clean-up of an underdeveloped neighborhood. In this respect there is merit and value to the proposal. From the prospective of the immediate neighborhood the completion of neighborhood streets and the elimination of a parcel overgrown with weeds would have merit but the additional traffic would not. (4) Conditions should be imposed in order to mitigate any significant adverse impacts from the proposal. 7 The rezone should be conditioned to limit access to the property in such a manner as to ameliorate the impacts of additional traffic on Charles Avenue. (5) A concomitant agreement should be entered into between the City and the petitioner, and if so, the terms and conditions of such an agreement. A concomitant agreement is necessary to ensure concerns of increased traffic in the neighborhood are addressed. RECOMMENDATION MOTION: I move to adopt Findings of Fact and Conclusions therefrom as contained in the March 15, 2012 staff report. MOTION: I move, based on the Findings of Fact and Conclusions therefrom, the Planning Commission recommend the City Council approve the Rezone from C-1 (Retail Business) and R-1 (Low Density Residential) to R-3 (Medium Density Residential), with a concomitant agreement prohibiting access to the property from Charles Street. 8 Vicinity Item: Rezone R- 1 to R-3 Applicant: Pasco Family Housing IV N Map File #. Z 2012-001 jr SIP k Aw Ord .y ► �. l < X �. 1 i E .s `�. i - �, ADELIA SiT to F r SITE W , 1 F bTEORGE ST• W s ; W — Q 'A W ui ui a m•. NN �► .vs �, ALV1, -ST. s# Y - 1 I ' Z ^ 0�1 41V , E LEWF�S T ° Land Item: Rezone R- I to R-3 Use Applicant: Pasco Family Housing IV N Map File Z 2012-001 II�� III . . . � • � � � � � � MW zoning Map Applicant: Pasco Family Housing IV N File Z 2012-001 II�� III . . . � • � � � � � � � s rit � M I iX I Vii . mob ' . I '. � � , . Y '�� • _ � < y>- _ � � s . a� ' � � < Y.� A l � �_ n Y � � � �. �. - .- . ,�: 6zv < ' . � � / .:- � �® , :s '7 , , �: ",� - �i � � , �. � fi � � • ,. • b • — ii � . i I i t � �bl , � .� �} }�i �P r,�q�. Y '�A�~-.'M. ' .. �;� � , i *-� ' -- 4 %� _ | & . r 0 o Y • J . r �� J ;��` ��;',.' � �,:�; :_ a.�.�`'_ ;;� : ? =�: � , , ` , ,, �? r -, c . � - _ 0 �. ara 0 c� �, ; rr , i i " ; , '�- i 1 STATE OF WASHINGTON 2 CITY OF PASCO 3 4 In Re: Rezone from R-1 ) 5 (Low Density Residential) ) to R-3 (medium-density ) Master File# 22012-001 6 Residential) ) (Pasco Family Housing) ) 7 ) 8 9 10 11 EXCERPT OF THE PASCO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 12 13 14 TIME: 7 : 00 p.m. , Thursday, March 15, 2012 15 TAKEN AT: Pasco City Hall 16 Pasco, Washington 17 CALLED BY: City of Pasco 18 REPORTED BY: ChaRae Kent, CCR, RPR License No. 2408 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ChaRae Kent, CCR, RPR Kent Reporting * (509) 627-2244 2 I APPEARANCES 2 FOR THE PASCO PLANNING COMMISSION: 3 CHAIRMAN JOE CRUZ COMMISSIONER JAMES L. HAY 4 COMMISSIONER MICHAEL LEVIN COMMISSIONER JANA KEMPF 5 COMMISSIONER ALECIA GREENAWAY COMMISSIONER ZAHARA KHAN 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ChaRae Kent, CCR, RPR Kent Reporting * (509) 627-2244 3 1 BE IT REMEMBERED that on Thursday, March 15, 2 2012 at 7 p.m. , at Pasco City Hall, Pasco, Washington, the 3 Pasco Planning Commission Meeting was taken before 4 ChaRae Kent, Certified Court Reporter and Registered 5 Professional Reporter. The following proceedings took 6 place : 7 8 CHAIRMAN CRUZ : Moving onto agenda item number 6, 9 public hearing, 6 (A) , rezone from R-1 (low-density 10 residential) to R-3 (medium-density residential) . Pasco 11 Family Housing, Master File Z2012-001 . 12 Mr. McDonald? 13 MR. MCDONALD: Yes, Mr. Chairman, Commission Members, 14 you recall last month this item was before you in public 15 hearing process . And during the course of that hearing 16 staff recommended that the hearing be continued to allow 17 staff time to meet with the applicant to discuss some of 18 the issues related to traffic in the neighborhood. And 19 then some of the neighbors have some concerns or questions 20 about crime and property values . 21 We can report that we met with the applicant and 22 worked out details on the access . The applicant is 23 agreeable to signing a concomitant agreement that would 24 prohibit access to this property from Charles street . And 25 so that would require or force all traffic coming to the ChaRae Kent, CCR, RPR Kent Reporting * (509) 627-2244 4 1 site to enter the site from the west, from basically 2 Bonneville Street and Franklin Avenue . So with that, 3 that ' s part of our recommendation this evening that if 4 this was to be approved it would be with the concomitant S agreement ,limiting the access . 6 The other issue related to crime and property values, 7 we 've provided some research papers that have been 8 attached to your report that indicate that through various 9 studies that have been done in different parts of the 10 country that high-density or medium-density residential 11 development adjacent to single-family development does not 12 necessarily impact or diminish the value of the 13 surrounding single-family neighborhood. And those studies 14 pretty much bear what we see within. Pasco when you do 15 research on the Franklin County Assessor' s web page 16 dealing with property values . 17 The reports also contain information relative to a 18 crime statistics in higher-density development versus 19 single-family development . And again, the various studies 20 indicate that there isn' t a significant increase in crime 21 related to the development of multi-family near 22 single-family development . 23 So with that, I 'm not going to go through all of the 24 information we went through last time about land use and 25 so forth. But I would be open to any questions you may ChaRae Kent, CCR, RPR Kent Reporting * (509) 627-2244 5 1 have. 2 CHAIRMAN CRUZ : Thank you, Mr. McDonald. 3 Any questions or comments on behalf of the 4 commission? 5 COMMISSIONER KHAN: I have a question. So I saw in 6 the analysis it stated that there should be a transition, 7 a gradation from low density, medium and to high. 8 MR. MCDONALD: Yes. 9 COMMISSIONER KHAN: So in this case why not recommend 10 R-2 instead of R-3? 11 MR. MCDONALD: Well, R-2 and R-3 are similar. They 12 both allow duplexes, fourplexes or multi-plex buildings. 13 The applicant is the one that requested the R-3 in this 14 particular case because it suited their needs for their 15 development. 16 Now as far as the gradation is concerned, the proper 17 planning practices always encourage a gradation from 18 commercial to residential with a buffer of mixed 19 residential or higher density in between the low density 20 and the commercial . And that ' s what this proposal 21 accomplishes . We have the C-3 zoning to the west, which 22 is a heavy commercial zoning district . And then to the 23 east we have the lower density R-1 . And those two would 24 be buffered with this proposal in between. 25 COMMISSIONER KHAN: Thank you. ChaRae Kent, CCR, RPR Kent Reporting * (509) 627 -2244 6 1 MR. MCDONALD: I did forgot to mention that you will 2 need to reopen the hearing for public comment . 3 CHAIRMAN CRUZ : Okay. Thank you for the reminder. 4 For those of you in the audience who may not have had 5 the chance to look at the packet, the studies are pretty 6 thorough. There ' s some academic study and studies by 7 housing and urban development organizations and it' s not 8 HUD. What was it? 9 MR. MCDONALD: Urban Land Institute. 10 CHAIRMAN CRUZ : Urban Land Institute. So it ' s a 11 pretty diverse study and they' re largely consistent in 12 their conclusions and for a variety of east coast, west 13 coast suburb and urban development. So it ' s a fairly 14 comprehensive data set, if you want to read more about it 15 on your own. 16 Any other questions or comments on behalf of the 17 commission? 18 COMMISSIONER LEVIN: I 've got a question, Dave . So 19 basically R-3 is how many units per acre? 20 MR. MCDONALD: R-3 is one unit per 3, 000 square feet 21 and divide that into 43560 . I can' t do the math right now 22 but somewhere around 16 to 20 . Somewhere around there . 23 COMMISSIONER LEVIN: So I total of about 68 units . 24 MR. MCDONALD: Yes . And the applicant is proposing 25 51 units . ChaRae Kent, CCR, RPR Kent Reporting * (509) 627-2244 7 1 You need to be aware, though, that even though the 2 code will allow you to go to that density, you' ve got 3 building setbacks, you 've got parking requirements, one 4 parking -- two parking spaces for every unit . And once 5 you get your yard areas, your parking, you don't always 6 get the density that the code with allow you to get . 7 COMMISSIONER LEVIN: Okay. 8 CHAIRMAN CRUZ : Good question.. 9 Any other questions or comments on behalf of the 10 planning commission? 11 Okay. So we ' re going to reopen the public hearing on 12 this item. And at this time we would like the applicant 13 to come forward. 14 MR. KEITH JAMES : Good evening, I 'm Keith James, 2304 15 South Meadow View, Greenacres, Washington 99016. 16 Thank you, Dave, Commissioners for having us back. 17 I don' t have much additional prepared. I think the 18 research -- I tried to find as diverse of research as 19 possible so it really hit on not just an urban area and 20 not just a suburban, not just high density, not just 21 affordable housing. 22 So if you took the time to read it, I know it ' s kind 23 of painstakingly dry, especially the academic and 24 statistical research. But I do think it bears the point 25 of sort of dispelling the myths about higher crime in ChaRae Kent, CCR, RPR Kent Reporting * (509) 627-2244 8 1 housing, especially in affordable housing. I think that 2 is important to note. 3 More than anything I ' d just reiterate our commitment 4 relative to the concomitant agreement and access from the 5 south or access from other than Charles Avenue, and make 6 myself of available for any questions. 7 CHAIRMAN CRUZ : Thank you very much, Mr. James . 8 Any questions or comments for the applicant? 9 Okay. So if you' ll take a seat . Thank you very much 10 for coming back. And if there ' s any other questions or 11 comments brought up during the remainder of the public 12 hearing, we ' ll ask you to come back up. 13 Is there anyone in the audience who would like to 14 speak on behalf of this item? 15 Okay. Going once for public comment . 16 Going twice for public comment . 17 The public hearing on this item is now closed. Okay. 18 Mr. McDonald? 19 MR. MCDONALD: I have no further comments . 20 The Planning Commission needs to discuss the matter 21 and make a recommendation to the City Council. 22 CHAIRMAN CRUZ : Okay. It ' s back in our court. 23 Any other discussion, thoughts, comments, concerns on 24 behalf of the Planning Commission? 25 Commissioner Greenaway? ChaRae Kent, CCR, RPR Kent Reporting * (509) 627-2244 9 1 COMMISSIONER GREENAWAY: I am like Commissioner Khan. 2 I would rather see it R-3 than R-2 . I understand the R-3 3 perspective . I just think that ' s a .little high for that 4 part of the town. That ' s all. 5 CHAIRMAN CRUZ : Okay. Any thoughts? 6 COMMISSIONER LEVIN: Why don ' t we have the gentleman 7 comment on that . Do you want to comment on that? We 8 can't do that . 9 CHAIRMAN CRUZ : Now it ' s in our court. 10 COMMISSIONER LEVIN: So my question is: What ' s the 11 difference between R-2 and R-3? 12 MR. MCDONALD: R-2 requires. 5, 000 square feet of land 13 area for each dwelling unit versus the 3, 000 . 14 CHAIRMAN CRUZ : So 5, 000 square feet of dwelling 15 unit, by the time you add the net and everything in like 16 that, that cuts the project probably by 40 percent, is my 17 guess off the top of my head. 18 COMMISSIONER LEVIN: So from 51 units to 40 perhaps? 19 No, less . 20 CHAIRMAN CRUZ : 35 . 21 COMMISSIONER LEVIN : That ' s a big difference, right . 22 What are your feelings on that? 23 COMMISSIONER GREENAWAY: Just from where the R-2 is 24 located, all the R-1s, there ' s one little section of R-2 25 and then you ' ve got your C-3s . I don't think you need to ChaRae Kent, CCR, RPR Kent Reporting * (509) 627-2244 10 1 put that much impact into that amount of space. 2 COMMISSIONER KHAN: Also, what I was taking into 3 consideration was from the last public hearing we had the 4 neighbors who commented about already prevalent crime in 5 the area, graffiti and break-ins . And so when reading 6 these, I guess the myths and facts of urban housing and 7 high-density housing and affordable housing, what came to 8 mind was we have a lot of housing on the east side that ' s 9 lower income. So it just seems concentrated. 10 CHAIRMAN CRUZ: Okay. 11 COMMISSIONER KHAN: It doesn' t seem disbursed well 12 enough. But I know that ' s up to the developer and the way 13 they choose to purchase land. 14 CHAIRMAN CRUZ: Well, no, there ' s nothing to saying 15 that these can't be $1, 900 a month apartments or dwelling. 16 The price point is something different than the zoning. 17 What they charge is different than the zoning 18 determination. 19 And so I, you know, from my perspective if you look 20 at the history of the site, which has been undeveloped 100 21 years, right? Over 100 years . And you look at the 22 proximity to the commercial, the commercial property it' s 23 highly unlikely that it would develop effectively at 24 density in the R-2 range. That ' s my observation of 25 sitting on the planning commission for a while. ChaRae Kent, CCR, RPR Kent Reporting * (509) 627-2244 �l I I think that it ' s important to note we are dealing 2 with a developer whose purpose is a higher purpose than 3 just making money and they have other things they do to 4 facilitate growth. We 've had a lot of success with these 5 kind of developments in the city. And, you know, the 6 information that was added to the packet is consistent 7 with our experience in the city. So I don' t have an issue 8 with the R-3 zoning. Just because I think it fulfills a 9 need. 10 One of the things in the packet is it talks about, 11 you know, the need for affordable housing. These people 12 are already in our community. And so this is generally 13 higher quality of housing at the same price point if these 14 developments are set up right . That is not something I 15 think we should let go when we have the opportunity to 16 facilitate it . 17 COMMISSIONER KHAN: I agree which is why I 'm not 18 opposed to development at all, just was wondering why it 19 couldn' t be a little bit more, I guess, trimmed down. 20 COMMISSIONER KEMPF: I think in order to keep with 21 the comprehensive plan going from C-3 to an R-2 isn ' t 22 going to help the City. I think we need to stay within 23 the City' s use and go from C-3 to R-3 . I think that ' s so 24 that we have enough of R-3 in the community. 25 The lot size isn' t going to be big enough for them to ChaRae Kent, CCR, RPR Kent Reporting * (509) 627-2244 12 1 put in as many units as R-3 will allow but the zoning is 2 going to be proper for the city I think. 3 CHAIRMAN CRUZ : Okay. 4 COMMISSIONER HAY: Yes, I would like to make a 5 motion. I think it should be R-3. 6 1 move to adopt the findings of fact and conclusions 7 therefrom as contained in the March 15th, 2012 staff 8 report . 9 COMMISSIONER KEMPF: Second. 10 CHAIRMAN CRUZ : It' s been moved by Commissioner Hay. 11 Seconded by Commissioner Kempf. 12 All those in favor say aye. 13 COMMISSION MEMBERS (in unison) : Aye. 14 CHAIRMAN CRUZ : All opposed? 15 COMMISSIONER GREENAWAY: Nay. i6 CHAIRMAN CRUZ : Let the record show the motion passed 17 with Commissioner Greenaway dissenting. 18 COMMISSIONER KHAN: And Khan. 19 CHAIRMAN CRUZ : Excuse me, and Khan. 20 So that ' s 4 to 2 . 21 Anyone want to comment on both? 22 COMMISSIONER HAY: I further move, based on the 23 findings of fact and conclusions therefrom, the Planning 24 Commission recommend to the City Council approve the 25 rezone from C-1 (retail business) and R-1 (low--density ChaRae Kent, CCR, RPR Kent Reporting * (509) 627-2244 13 1 residential) to R-3 (medium-density residential) , with a 2 concomitant agreement prohibiting access to the property 3 from Charles Street. 4 COMMISSIONER KEMPF: Seconded. 5 CHAIRMAN CRUZ : Moved by Commissioner Hay. Seconded 6 by Commissioner Kempf. Ali those in favor say aye. 7 COMMISSION MEMBERS Sin unison) : Aye . 8 CHAIRMAN CRUZ : All opposed? 9 COMMISSIONER GREENAWAY: Nay. 10 COMMISSIONER KHAN: Nay. 11 CHAIRMAN CRUZ : Let the record show it was 4 to 2 . 12 Motion passes with Khan and Greenaway dissenting. 13 Where is this headed? 14 MR. MCDONALD: As with the other items, this will go 15 to the City Council at their April 2nd meeting unless an 16 appeal is filed. And if the appeal is filed, that would 17 cause a closed-record hearing. 18 If you have questions or want to know about the 19 process, you are welcome to call the office. 20 CHAIRMAN CRUZ : Thank you very much. 21 22 23 (ITEM CONCLUDED. ) 24 25 ChaRae Kent, CCR, RPR Kent Reporting * (509) 627-2244 14 1 C E R T I F I C A T E 2 STA'T'E OF WASHINGTON ) ) ss . 3 COUNTY OF BENTON ) 4 This is to certify that I, ChaRae Kent, the 5 undersigned Washington Certified Court Reporter, residing 6 at Richiand, reported the within and foregoing Planning 7 Commission Meeting on the date herein set forth; that said 8 examination was taken by me in shorthand and thereafter 9 transcribed, and that same is a true and correct record of 10 the testimony of said meeting. 11 1 further certify that I am not a relative or 12 employee or attorney or counsel of any the parties, nor am 13 I financially interested in the outcome of the cause. 14 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and 15 affixed my Washington State CCR number this day 16 of 2012 . 17 18 CHA T, RPR, CC 19 CCR NO. 2408 20 Ei1l1I�j�,i `N kF� ris 21 .� �; 1 G y � �CR •; r 22 'M��+�• . 23 �A . 1 4408 Q°.:o 2 4 rxi�iAq�►,��``` 25 ChaRae Cent, CCR, RPR Kent Reporting * (509) 627--2244 March 22,2012 Att: Pasco City Council, This appeal is to inform you of our concerns for the proposed development between N. Charles Ave,and N. Franklin Ave. On behalf of my Neighbors, Daniel Jimenez @ 323 N. Charles Ave,Rogelio Caristo @1509 E. George St, Isidro Chavez @1510 E. Adelia, Celina Garcia @307 N. Charles Ave,Angelita Nunez @ 315 N. Charles Ave, Carolina Chavez @319 N. Charles Ave, Isidro Zamudio @ 311 N. Charles Ave,Antonio&Anita Soto @ 209 N. Franklin Ave, Samuel &Martha Limon cr? 220 N. Wehe Ave. We began our neighborhood through the self-housing program for the first time home buyers sponsored by La Clinica in October of 2007. A total of seven families participated to build and establish a safe neighborhood. Our hard work and dedication paid off when the completions of all seven homes were completed. Due to unfortunate budget cuts,La Clinica was no longer able to sponsor additional projects such as these. In its original plan, it was to continue building single family homes in the area of the current proposed project. We as neighbors want to see more single family homes instead of apartments. It is evident that homeowners take better care and pride in their ownership than the constant tenant turn around. In addition it is also proven that property value depreciates when apartment complexes are built near homes. Our entire neighborhood also participates in the"Neighborhood watch"enforced by the Pasco police department. We continue to provide support for each other and are dedicated to establish a crime and drug free environment for our children. Upon my research of other projects such as the proposed one we,as neighbors, are extremely concerned. I also interviewed residents in Toppenish who stated that crime rate increased dramatically as well as traffic after the completion of apartment complexes. They also stated that burglaries increased and a swat team was even called out during one incident.In addition graffiti increased,which in some locations took approximately three months for the removal. This is also true for the projects completed in Buena, Sunnyside and other communities. I also interviewed the principal and other teachers at Whittier Elementary School who stated that it would affect the school dramatically since they are so overcrowd as is. So the idea of the proposed project is not where this idea should be" implemented. The proposed location would bring many concerns to our neighborhood We as neighbors are extremely concerned due to the fact that E. Clark St,N. Franklin Ave,E Alvina St and N. Charles Ave are not adequate for the"Increase"of the traffic flow. It will affect us significantly. We arc trying very hard to keep our neighborhood safe for our children. We are also concerned with the huge impact that it would have on school district and hospitals. It will"Increase"and pressure them because of the influx of people. We don't want high crime rate like in Toppenish, Sunnyside, and Yakima. We want a safe environment and we want to keep it that way. Pasco is a nice place to live in. Why build more apartments? We already have the new addition of apartments just two blocks N. of the proposed property. Which is impacting Whittier Elementary school and it's over crowed. In conclusion I am also attaching the latest vicious crime taking place at 915 N. 22 Ave. Tepeyac Haven. I am also attaching a capital facilities plan that provides important information about the schools capacities and how the proposed project will impact the schools dramatically. Please understand our concerns; it's just not the location for it since we want to continue establishing single family homes. Thank You for your time and this appeal is supported by the following community neighbors: Name l .[!�rf Date z La Nam �L17A 1�°Z- Date Name_ 1 °y�G `A 6L,I t i A. Date 2D Name c Date Namer[y ' C` G� Date .. Name DateGl - Name - Date . Name � P - Date atrne ! /r Date _ Name 9 Date _ Nam — Date1� Name �'�- '11w'6 , Date Name Date Bail set at $5 million in Pasco mom's slaying - Crime I Tri-City Herald : Mid-Columbia n... Page 1 of 2 Current Sun Mon Tue a� 33°F M� CI*Vdywah w� Cloudywith Cloudy and s 3s°23' �. snow _ ,.� snow e� chihy 1 Complete Forecast showers showers 33,124` 35'23• 34°24• voice ofthe Mid Columbia I Kennew,r„L,Paaco and Richland.Wash.I Sa:arday,Cecamber 18.,2010 3,27 Ph' FO-,:L!. SUBSCR€BE PLACE Ark AD E-EDH ION I HOME NEWS CRIME I SPORTS BUSINESS I OPINION A&E I LIFESTYLE SLOGS PHOTp51VIDED WINE CLASSIFIED OBITS ABOUT USIHELP t_.. ....._..____ . ........ ..... ............... .,., ._ .....,..,.... ..... ......_... .. .. ......... ....,....,.... SEARCH SIGN IN BECOME A MEMBER Search o trl-eltyherald.eom Wei)Search powered by YAHOO!SEARCH 1 kncityhera]d.COm/News;Mid-Calurnhia News/Crime C,�.{Ck�,,� � � 9� Fawrveernenrs — A Print reprint or license Buzz upl �Email Story ` - N y {. siillik _10 4:PdCom ey,tAay.2q 2o1a Comments o ments Bail set at$5 million in Pasco mom's slaying Kristin M.Kraemer,Herald staff writer PASCO A—A 5-year-old boy was rushed out of a Pasco apartment Monday morning just ` minutes before his mother was stabbed in the lO�fTMlilllilf chest,court documents revealed. Two OnnNallo Griselda Ccampc Meza,21,died of her injuries but the quick actions of her boyfriend Jairo Flores-Flores may have saved her son's life. so aIdMIC Documents filed Tuesday in Franklin County Superior Court show Gregorio Luna Luna- -- Ocampo Mel former live-in boyfriend and Re } Y /"� the father of her son-then allegedly turned Why C`tCl�l You Can his rage on Flores-Flores in an attempt to find the boy.He was unsuccessful and left the Herakileab emwdy y Gregorio Luna Luna keeps his head and eyes down through most lm%i scene,documents said, his first appearance Tuesday in Franklin County Supenor Court.Luna Luna is accused of sabbiag to death his romrer live-in The boy now is safe in protective custody gidfrlend.Griselda Ocampo Meza.21,eddy Monday during a and is""getting counseling,"said Prosecutor romesbc dispute En her North 22nd Avenue apartment Hewas g g ordered held on 35 r ion bail,see complete story below. Steve Lowe. Meanwhile,Luna Luria LICK FOR MORE PHOTOS a is behind bats on$5 144ZS'F3r3ID�+�ZBAA2f�L'f�/a~alge million bail while prosecutors decide if the 7`!�"i'?V! deadly domestic dispute warrants pursuit of 509- + r the death penalty. The 31-year-old man,who was deported to Mexico on May 1,is in the Franklin County jail on suspicion of first-degree murder.Prosecutors have until Thursday afternoon to file charges. 01 MCI U Luna Luna bowed his head Tuesday through his first court appearance. Director of Institutional Lowe told the court that the investigation over the next couple of days will determine if he seeks Planning and an aggravated murder charge and the potential for a death sentence. Assessment Walla Walla Community If charged,Luna Luna will return to Superior Court on June 1.Shawn Sant and Karla Kane have Co6ege been appointed to represent him. Associate in Research Entomology This Lawyer Matt Rutt stood in for Sant and Kane on Tuesday and said that he thought the bail was position conducts excessive,but left it to Luna Luna's new attorne y s to ar ue. research _ g Dental Assistant Full Luna Luna has been ordered to have no contact with his son and five witnesses,includin Flores- Time g Member Service Flores,while the case is pending. Representative n Numerica Credit Union, Ocarnpo Meza and Luna Luna were together for seven years and had one chiid during their Financial Services relationship.Luna Luna was believed to have moved out of their North 22nd Avenue apartment in Officer Treasury January. Services Of icer$5.638 COMMERCIAL LOAN Ocampo Meza got a protection order against Luna Luna nearly three months ago after filing OFFICER SUNNYSIDE, documents that said she feared for her Life because he'd"tried two times before"to kill her and WA x is a great day had twice taken their son and threatened to kill the boy. a See More Jabs The two-year order included instructions for Luna Luna to stay away from Ocampo Meza and his Find a Job son and to not commit any"acts of abuse"on them. Keywords: Luna Luna sat in jail from Jan.30 to March 16 on an arrest for alleged domestic violence and e.g..raghtered none malicious harassment,both involving his ex-girlfriend and his son. Location: He was then turned over to U.S.Immigration and Customs Enforcement and held in Tacoma's Oty.siti *Zp Northwest Detention Center until an immigration judge ordered his removal from the United States. Luna Luna was flown back to Mexioo on May 1.It is not known when in the following 23 days he recrossed the Mexican border and returned to Pasco. anrr,..,4;r careerbadder,ilian http://www.tri-cityherald.com/2010/05/26/1028988/suspect-get-5-million-bail-in.html 12/18/2010 Bail. set at $5 million in Pasco mom's slaying - Crime f Tri-City Herald : Mid-Columbia n... Page 2 of2 According to court documents,he called a friend about a day before Ocarnpo Meza's death and 02010 said he was going to kill her.He called the fiend again shortly after the slaysng to say he had Tri•Ctty done it,documents said. Herald, Pasco police got the call at 4,09 a.m.Monday for an assault involving a knife at 841 N.22nd Ave. Officer Brett Hansen found Ocampo Maze laying on the floor inside her home.Neither Hansen nor responding paramedics could find a pulse.She was taken to Lourdes Medical Center in Pasco,where she was pronounced dead. Investigators learned from Ocampo Meza's boyfriend that Luna Luna had entered the apartment "and threatened to kill the victim and her 5-year-old son,"Flores-Flores then grabbed the boy and ANOHOME fled the apartment,court documents said. PHONE A neighbor in the Tepeyac Haven apartment complex told police he had heard the two arguing and was familiar with both of them because his wife provided daycare for their son.That same neighbor heard the argument stop,saw Luna Luna leave the apartment and begin to fight Flores- Flores as he tried to find his son,documents said. Luna Luna was tracked down 11 hours later inside a vacant east Pasco home.In a subsequent interview with police,he reportedly"indicated he had been in a fight and he accidentally killed the victim." An autopsy Tuesday afternoon revealed that Ocampo Meza died from a single stab wound to her chest,said Franklin County Coroner Dan$fasdel_ Dr.Daniel Selove,a forensic pathologist from Everett,performed the autopsy. Ocampo Meza's family is in Mexico,Blasdel said.Her body is expected to be retumed there. An administrator with the state Division of Children and Family Services confirmed Tuesday that the boy is in their custody and is safe.Officials are providing services to him and will try to find the best placo for him,the state official said. Ocampo Meza is the second woman to be killed in a domestic dispute in Pasco in two weeks. Shenay Greenough of West Richland,who was eight months pregnant,was strangled to death May 8. Mid-Columbia residents in domestic viofenoe relationships can call a 24-hour hotline at 582-9841 for information about services and the shelter. —Herald reporter Paula Horton contributed to this report —Kristin M_Kraemer:509-582-1531;kktaemer@tricityherald.cum Similar Stories' Associated press,McCtatehy-Tribune Other wire Services Murder trial delayed until January Terris of ServicalPrrvacy PollcylAbout our adslCopyright Pasco murder trial delayed until January Deferrse seeks time to transcribe interview in Paws slaying case Kennewick center removes 1 bamer for violence victims Connell man pleads innocent to raping girl Add New Comment Required:Please login below to comment. Type your comment here. I Post as... { Showing 0 comments Sort by Newest first : Subscribe by email -j Subscribe by RSS Real-time updating is enabled.(Pause) 1 Tig To Lose I Weird Tip To Belly Columbia Colteg€ £t4Amach Fat fm Get your degree online FoNpw This 1 Simple Follow This 1 Rule And faster than you think. Diet Tap And Lose 9 Lbs Lose 13lbs to 14 Days. Financial Aid Available. A week rjPWo1eaVi6,c_,m Urlvars.'*_y-College CUXuchen_corr Ads by Yahoo? http://www.tri-cityherald.com/2010/05/26/1028988/suspect-get-5-million-bail-in.html 12/18/2014 PASCO SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 2011 - 2017 BOARD OF DIRECTORS Sherry Lancon, President William Leggett, Vice President Jeffery Dong, Member Ruben Peralta, Member Ryan Brault, Member SUPERINTENDENT Saundra L. Hill ASSISTANT SUPERINTENDENT OF OPERATIONS John Morgan Adopted by the Pasco School Board December 13, 7011 Pasco School District Capital Facilities Plan Page 1 of 21 November 2011 SECTION 9 INTRODUCTION A. Purpose of the Capital Facilities Plan Washington land use and environmental Paws include schools in the category of public facilities and services for which cities and counties must plan. When new development places demands on schools, cities, counties and developers must ensure school facilities are adequate to accommodate the additional demands. School districts adopt capital facilities plans to assist counties and cities to address legal requirements to ensure adequate school facilities will exist to serve new development. The capital facility plans identify school facilities that are necessary to meet the educational needs of the growing student populations. The Pasco School District has prepared this Capital Facilities Plan (the "CFP") to provide the community, Franklin County, the City of Pasco and the developers information regarding the District's facilities and forecast needs for the next six years (2011-2017). In accordance with capital facilities planning under the Growth Management Act, this CFP contains the following elements: • The District's standard of service or educational program standards which is based on program year, class size by grade span, number of classrooms, types of facilities and other factors identified by the District. • An inventory of existing capital facilities owned by the District, showing the locations and capacities of the facilities, based on the District's standard of service. • Future enrollment forecasts for elementary, middle, and high schools. • A forecast of the future needs for capital facilities and school sites based on the District's enrollment projections. • The proposed capacities of expanded or new capital facilities over the next six years based on the inventory of existing facilities and the standard of service. • The cost for needed facilities and the plan for financing capital facilities within projected funding capacities. • A school impact fee calculation identifying the amount single-family and multi-family developers should pay to mitigate the impacts new construction of single-family and multi-family homes has on the District. Pasco School District Capital Facilities Flan Page 2 of 21 November 2011 B. Overview of the Pasco School District The Pasco School District serves students in the City of Pasco and in unincorporated Franklin County. The Pasco community is experiencing accelerated growth and has experienced significant growth for the past fifteen years. Pasco is near six other school districts: North Franklin, Star, Columbia, Finley, Kennewick, and Richland. The District serves over 15,600 students. The District currently has one (1) early learning center, seven (7) elementary schools serving K-5, four(4) elementary schools serving grades 1-5, three (3) middle schools serving grades 6-8, two (2) high schools serving grades 9-12 and one alternative middle/high school serving grades 6-12. The District also has 171 portable classrooms that provide capacity for 4,275 students. The most significant issues facing the District in terms of providing classroom capacity to accommodate existing and projected demands follow. • K-12 facility needs have been projected for the short and long term. Presently, the elementary and middle schools are housing students in excess of capacity_ • Providing the educational programs that are either required by the state and federal government, or that are desired by the public for quality education, requires additional facility space. For example, to provide for the visual and performing arts programs the District must find additional facility space that can accommodate music instruction without interrupting general education classrooms. • The District is expected to experience significant growth in Franklin County. Over 2000 residential lots have been previously approved by the City of Pasco without school capacity mitigation remain vacant and the market continues to consume them at the rate of over 400 per year. Developers continue to approach the City for additional new residential development, which is subject to SEPA mitigation. This continued growth is of concern in light of the overcrowding and inadequate capacity at the existing schools. • The District must obtain a super majority vote (60% yes votes) to secure the funds that are necessary to build new schools. The most recent bond to address current needs failed with just a 48% yes vote. • Assessed property values in Franklin County are relatively low, which limits the district's bonding capacity and increases the tax burden on district patrons. Pasco's per pupil AV in 2009-10 was $311,000 placing Pasco 271St out of the 295 districts, the largest district in the bottom 25. The majority of this assessed value is in residential property with a serious lack of commercial and industrial value. This makes it more difficult to obtain the voters' approval on bond measures. Pasco School District Capital Facilities Plan Page 3 of 21 November 2011 • There is a shortage of large parcels that are suitable as school sites and as growth continues to occur there will be fewer suitable sites to acquire at prices the District's taxpayers will support in the locations where the largest growth is occurring. • The prolonged and significant growth in the District has resulted in enrollment that significantly exceeds capacity in the school facilities. The District, out of necessity, must look at less desirable methods of providing education such as Multi Track Year Round Education, double shifting and other solutions that create a subpar learning environment. The District also has to increase the number of students that are served in portables beyond generally acceptable levels that strain and exhaust the school's infrastructure or lease and renovate facilities never intended for serving children as schools. These approaches to providing more capacity to serve students may be implemented on a short term and temporary basis until measures can be taken to permanently increase capacity in the schools. SECTION 2 DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL PROGRAM STANDARDS School facility and student capacity needs are dictated by the types and amounts of space required to accommodate the District's adopted educational program. The role that quality education plays in growing a strong local economy is vital. In order to accomplish the community value of having a strong local economy, schools must have quality facilities. These facilities serve as the supporting space for developing the whole child within a community to prepare them for a competitive global economy. The educational program standards which typically drive needs for educational space for students include grade configuration, optimum facility size, class size, educational program offerings, supplemental program offerings, specialty spaces, classroom utilization and scheduling requirements. On October 11 , 2011, the Pasco School Board voted to adjust the elementary schools' configuration from a K-5 model to a K-6 model in order to serve the enrollment growth at a reduced per pupil cost to Pasco taxpayers. This shift delays the need for a middle school but increases the need for additional elementary schools. The per pupil cost for elementary schools is significantly less than the cost for a middle school. While the District is exploring and may implement Multi Track Year Round Education, double shifting, changes to service area boundaries, increased use of portables and/or use of leased facilities, these measures are temporary. They are not the preferred or permanent standard of service. In addition to student population, other factors such as collective bargaining agreements, government mandates, and community expectations affect classroom Pasco School District Capita! Facilities Plan Page 4 of 21 November 2011 • There is a shortage of large parcels that are suitable as school sites and as growth continues to occur there will be fewer suitable sites to acquire at prices the District's taxpayers will support in the locations where the largest growth is occurring. • The prolonged and significant growth in the District has resulted in enrollment that significantly exceeds capacity in the school facilities. The District, out of necessity, must look at less desirable methods of providing education such as Multi Track Year Round Education, double shifting and other solutions that create a subpar learning environment. The District also has to increase the number of students that are served in portables beyond generally acceptable levels that strain and exhaust the school's infrastructure or lease and renovate facilities never intended for serving children as schools. These approaches to providing more capacity to serve students may be implemented on a short term and temporary basis until measures can be taken to permanently increase capacity in the schools. SECTION 2 DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL PROGRAM STANDARDS School facility and student capacity needs are dictated by the types and amounts of space required to accommodate the District's adopted educational program. The role that quality education plays in growing a strong local economy is vital. In order to accomplish the community value of having a strong local economy, schools must have quality facilities. These facilities serve as the supporting space for developing the whole child within a community to prepare them for a competitive global economy. The educational program standards which typically drive needs for educational space for students include grade configuration, optimum facility size, class size, educational program offerings, supplemental program offerings, specialty spaces, classroom utilization and scheduling requirements. On October 11, 2011, the Pasco School Board voted to adjust the elementary schools' configuration from a K-5 model to a K_5 model in order to serve the enrollment growth at a reduced per pupil cost to Pasco taxpayers. This shift delays the need for a middle school but increases the need for additional elementary schools. The per pupil cost for elementary schools is significantly less than the cost for a middle school. While the District is exploring and may implement Multi Track Year Round Education, double shifting, changes to service area boundaries, increased use of portables and/or use of leased facilities, these measures are temporary. They are not the preferred or permanent standard of service. In addition to student population, other factors such as collective bargaining agreements, government mandates, and community expectations affect classroom Pasco School District Capital Facilities Plan Page 4 of 21 November 2011 space requirements. Space is necessary for regular classrooms, the fine and performing arts, physical education, special education, Highly Capable, English as a Second Language (ESL), technological applications, computer labs, preschool and daycare programs, and other specialized programs. Space must be provided for common areas such as media centers, gyms, cafeterias, kitchens, and auditoriums. Space is needed for groups of students and employees to work together. These programs can have a significant impact on the available student capacity within school facilities. Further, the community expects all spaces to be well utilized during the school day and available after the school day for public use. A. District Educational Program Standards: Core program includes the following: • Core classroom space for all curriculum areas which includes space for group learning, direct instruction, and individual student work to meet the rigors set forth in state standards. • Science classroom space that supports advanced coursework (including water, sinks, gas, fume hoods, and safety equipment). Students must achieve rigorous state-mandated science standards. This requires specialty space that is not met by adding portables. High school and middle school science lab space is a high priority. • Physical education space is needed for students to meet rigorous health and fitness standards. This includes covered areas, fields, gymnasiums, and other multi-use spaces. • Technological competency is expected for all students. Space must be allocated for technological equipment and applications in classrooms and specialty spaces. Space must also be provided for state assessments required to be administered to every student on a computer. Square footage for this equipment and its infrastructure is not calculated in current state allowances, yet must be provided. • Art, music, and theatre arts spaces are critical to the core program for students. Spaces are necessary to adequately meet the rigorous standards of these state required programs and programs that are local priorities. The visual and performing arts programs for students are a high priority for the Pasco community and adequate space needs to be provided. • Library/media services (research, technology, collaboration) and space must be provided for students to achieve the rigors in the core program. In an information-driven environment, student access to information through appropriately sized library/media spaces is essential. • Extra-curricular activities need adequate space in order to safely support program activities. Special programs are essential to meet the needs of special populations. • Special Education services are delivered at each of the schools within the District. Program standards and services vary based on the disabling conditions of the students and their Individual Education Plans (IEP). Implementing each student's IEP requires large and small specialty spaces, which the District must provide. Program standards change as a result of various external or internal Pasco School District capital Facilities Plan Page 5 of 21 November 2011 influences. External influences include changing federal mandates, funding changes, and the introduction of new technological applications which meet the needs of students. Internal influences include modifications to the program year, class size, grade configurations, and facility changes. For example, some students require significant equipment from wheel chairs to specialized equipment for toileting. Others need room specially designed and equipped for security. ® Special populations receive special support. Specialty space is essential to delivery of this support. Federal and state programs, including Title 1/LAP Reading and Math and Highly Capable, provide limited funding and do not legally allow for the expense of adding facilities to support them. Early childhood programs for special needs students are legally mandated, essential educational programs to develop early childhood literacy skills and are vital to the community. These programs require specialty space which is not funded by the state. 6 Supplementary services in core academic areas (tutoring, on-line learning) and providing multiple pathways to prepare students for a broader range of post- secondary learning opportunities require additional spaces that have not been calculated in current state square footage allowance formulas. Support services are often overlooked services and are essential to a quality educational program.. ® Food delivery, storage, preparation, and service require spaces that are specially designed and equipped also need specific attention. As student populations increase, adequately calculating space needs for this core service is crucial to the overall planning of the facility. Adequacy in planning for this space has significant impacts on the overall learning environment for students if not done appropriately. • Transportation support centers are required to handle growing transportation needs. a Maintenance and administrative support facilities must also be considered and are often overlooked as core support services. 0 Space for legally-mandated records retention must also be provided. ® State-approved secured space must be provided for high stakes state assessment materials. E. Elementary Educational Program Standards The District educational program standards, which directly affect school capacity, include: 0 Class sizes for grades K-1 are targeted not to exceed 25 students per class. ® Class sizes for grades 2-6 are targeted not to exceed 29 students per class. • Music, which includes both strings and band instruction along with general music, will be provided in separate classrooms. A Physical education instruction must be provided in a full size area. o Some special education services are provided in a self-contained classroom for some children, while others need highly specialized services. This means that some special education classes have much smaller class sizes than general education classes, based on the individual needs of the students. Pasco School District Capital Facilities Plan Page 6 of 21 November 2011 • Title I and LAP programs may require specialized areas. • All elementary schools will have a library/media resource center, which includes space for a technology lab. • A sufficient number of computer labs will be available and must be provided for state-mandated testing for all students. • A specialized science lab for grades 4-6 will be available. C. Middle and High School Program Standards The District education program's standards, which directly affect middle school and high school capacity include; • Class sizes for 6th grade are not to exceed 29 students per class. • Glass sizes for grades 7-8 are not to exceed 32 students per class or 155 students per day. • Class sizes for high school grades 9-12 are not to exceed 32 students or 155 students per day. • The middle and high school classroom utilization standard is set at a factor of 85% (based on a regular school day) due to the need to provide planning and teaming periods. • Special education services are provided in a self-contained classroom for some children, while others need highly specialized spaces. • Students will also be provided other programs in classrooms or specialty classrooms, such as computer labs, individual and large group study rooms, practice labs and production rooms. i Each school will have an adequate library/Media Center. * Career and Technical Education requires specialized spaces suited to the curriculum. SECTION 3 CAPITAL FACILITIES INVENTORY The facilities inventory serves to establish a baseline for determining the facilities necessary to accommodate future demand (student enrollment) at acceptable levels of service. This section provides an inventory of capital facilities owned and operated by the District including schools, portables, undeveloped land and support facilities. School facility capacity was inventoried based on the space required to accommodate the District's educational program standards. The capacity does not include temporary capacity that may be provided through alternative delivery methods, like Multi Track Year Round Education, double shifting, excessive use of portables or use of leased facilities. A. Schools The District currently maintains one (1) early learning center, seven (7) elementary schools serving K-5, four(4) elementary schools serving grades 1-5, three (3) middle schools serving grades 6-8, two (2) high schools serving grades 9-12. The District also operates an alternative program for middle and high school students in portable facilities. Based on the October 11, 2011 action of the Pasco School Board, the elementary configuration will be changed to include sixth grade, if Pasco School District Capital Facilities flan Page 7 of 21 November 2011 necessary, for the purposes of reducing the cost of new school construction for Pasco taxpayers. School capacity is based on the number of teaching stations within each building and the space requirements of the District's current educational programs. This capacity calculation is used to establish the District's baseline capacity, and to determine future capacity needs based on projected student enrollment. The District believes educational programs are best delivered in brick and mortar facilities. However, the prolonged and significant rate of growth, and the state funding policy of not providing state match until there are unhoused students, requires use of portables. In light of this, the District plans to house some elementary, middle and high school population permanently in portables. The number of portables counted as permanent capacity varies by building and is calculated based upon the reasonable maximum each building's infrastructure can accommodate to provide all the components of an adequate educational program, which include the ability to meet health and fitness requirements, to feed students, to provide for adequate music, band and orchestra instruction, to host the minimal amount of parent and family programs, to provide for safety in the pickup and drop off of students as well as provide classroom space. The portable classrooms housing more students than the amount determined maximally reasonable for each school are deemed to provide temporary capacity and are not included in the district's permanent capacity calculations. The school capacity inventory is summarized in Tables 1, 2, and 3. Pasco School District Capital Facilities Plan Page 8 of 21 Noverr ber 2011 Table 1 — Elementary School Brick and Mortar Inventory Early Learning Location Yr Built/ Acres Bldg Area Teaching Brick & Center Remodel sq ft Stations* Mortar Capacity Captain Gray(K) 11_024N. 10" Ave 1986 8.6 _ 47,478 _ 22 484 Elementary Schools K-5 Edwin Markham 4031 Elm Rd 1962/1984 12 34,898 13 312 James McGee 4601 N Horizon Dr 1981 14 44,774 20 480 Mark Twain 1801 Road 40 195311999 15 52,725 18 432 Maya An elou 6001 Road 84 2004 13 59,630 27 648 Ruth Livingston 2515 Road 84 1977 14 44,717 20 480 Whittier 616 N Wehe Ave 1998 16 46,845 19 456 Vi r ie Robinson 125 S Wehe Ave 2005 13 59,630 24 576 Elementary Schools 1-5 Emerson 1616 W Octave St 1997 8.6 46,845 22 528 Longfellow 301 N 10" Ave 1989 6 44,325 20 480 Robert Frost 1915 N 22" Ave 1997 10.6 46,845 20 480 Rowena Chess 715 N 24 1h Ave 2000 11 49,360 23 552 TOTAL 1 578,072 248 51908 Table 2 — Middle School Brick and Mortar Inventory Middle Schools Location Yr Built/ Acres Bldg Area Teaching Brick & (6-8) Remodel sq ft Stations* Mortar Capacity*** Ellen Ochoa 1801 E Sheppard St 2002 36 115,029 30 637 McLoughlin 2803 Road 88 1982 30 133,161 37 787 Stevens 1120 N 22r' Ave 1960/1984/ 12.7 91,934 28 595 2005 TOTAL 340,124 95 2,019 Table 3— High School Brick and Mortar Inventory High Schools Location Yr Built/ Acres Bldg Area Teaching Brick & (9-12) Remodel sq ft Stations* Mortar Capacity*** Pasco High School 1108 N 1 01h Avenue 1953/1972/ 34 255,992 86 1,827 1993/2005 Chiawana HS 8125 W. Argent 2009 80 1 337,703 1 102 1 2,167 New Horizons 3110 Ar ent Road All inventory in portables TOTAL 593,695 1 188 3,994 The elementary capacity was calculated on 24 students to each teaching station using the state's calculation of number of teaching stations per school, realizing some teaching stations serve Pasco School District Capital Facilities Plan Page 9 of 21 November 2011 substantially fewer and others substantially more than 24. Rooms such as music rooms, special education rooms, LAP rooms, library, computer labs and science rooms, advanced placement rooms, and similar rooms that are used for special programs have been included in the number of teaching stations reported above. However, there are 35 teaching stations that are used to deliver special programs in the elementary schools, which cannot be used to serve the standard class size of 25 to 29 students. There are 29 teaching stations that are used to deliver special programs in the middle schools, which cannot be used to serve the standard class size of 29 to 32 students. There are 9 teaching stations that are used to deliver special programs in the high schools, which cannot be used to serve the standard class size of 32 students. The number of teaching stations in this chart excludes portables. "Captain Gray Early Leaming Center was calculated using 22 students per teaching station. *** Permanent capacity for secondary schools is calculated by multiplying the number of teaching stations times the students per classroom defined in the educational standards, times the 85% efficiency factor. The efficiency factor recognizes the time teaching stations are not used due to circumstances such as teacher planning periods. B. Portables Portables are used to house students until growth slows to a more manageable level and until funding can be secured to construct permanent facilities. Because of the prolonged and significant rate of growth in the District, students may be permanently served in portables. To the extent the District is unable to accommodate enrollment in brick and mortar facilities and the limited number of permanent portables, additional portables may be used to provide temporary capacity. The inventory of portables identifies the facilities that are used as regular teaching stations, special programs and other educational purposes. Also noted is the number of portables that are providing permanent capacity. Table 4— Portables Inventory School Portable School Portable Classrooms Classrooms Elementary Elementary Edwin Markham 3 Robert Frost 5 Emerson 1 Vr ie Robinson 6 .lames McGee** 14 Rowena Chess 5 Longfellow 4 Ruth Livingston 13 Mark Twain 8 Whittier 9 Maya Angelou 6 Captain Gray 6 Total Elem 80* *To serve approximately 1517 of the enrolled elementary students in portables, 63 of the 80 portable classrooms provide permanent capacity. Portable classrooms that are needed to serve more than the 1517 students are considered temporary housing. ** McGee has one double portable (2 classrooms)that are not full size classrooms and are not suitable for general education classes, thus limiting their use. Pasco School District Capital Facilities Plan Page 10 of 21 November 2011 School Portable School Portable Classrooms Classrooms Middle High Ellen Ochoa 8 Pasco High 25 McLoughlin 26 New Horizons 16 Stevens 14 Total High 41*** Total Middle 48** ** To serve approximately 575 of the enrolled middle school students in portables, 20 of the 48 portable classrooms provide permanent capacity. Portables that are needed to serve the remaining enrolled middle school students are temporary capacity. *** All the portable classrooms currently at the high schools are deemed to provide permanent capacity. C. Support Facilities In addition to schools, the District owns and operates facilities that provide operational support functions to the schools. An inventory of these facilities is provided in Table 5. Table 5 - Support Facility Inventory Facility Location Building Area--sq ft Booth Bldg / District Office 1215 W Lewis Street 55,000 Building 2101 M & O 3412 W Stearman Avenue 28,000 D. Land Inventory Table 6-- Unimproved Parcels Owned by the District Parcel Location Area —Acres Notes Roads 48/52 21.93 Acres Potential elem or ELC site Fre 's Addition/Block 18 1.88 acres N California St. .32 acres Rd 60/Sandifur 8 acres Elementary site Rd 52 1Powerline 41 acres Middle School site N California/Spokane St 6.25 acres Adjacent to Whittier Henry St. between 22124 1.9 acres Adjacent to Stevens Pasco School District Capital Facilities Plan Page 11 of 21 November 2011 SECTION 4 STUDENT ENROLLMENT PROJECTIONS A. Projected Student Enrollment The District's enrollment projections are based on an estimate by the Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI). OSPI estimates future enrollment for all Washington State school districts. OSPI uses a modified cohort survival methodology to forecast future enrollment. This methodology estimates how many students in one year will attend the next grade the following year by looking at historical data. The methodology also forecast how many new kindergarten students will enroll based on the number of live births in the county and historical averages for the number of children that enter kindergarten relative to the number of live births. The enrollment forecast is more accurate in the earlier years and less accurate in later years. The adjusted forecast is released annually in November. TABLE 7- ENROLLMENT FORECAST WITH K-5 CONFIGURATION Grade 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 K 1,408 1,471 1,534 1,597 1,660 1,723 1,788 1 1,428 1,485 1,552 1,618 1,685 1,751 1,817 2 1,371 1,470 1,528 1,597 1,665 1,734 1,802 3 1,385 1,407 1,508 1,568 1,638 1,708 1,779 4 1,235 1,423 1,445 1,549 1,611 1,683 1,755 5 1,298 1,252 1,442 1,465 1,570 1,633 1,706 Total Elern 8,125 8,508 9,009 9,394 9,829 10,232 10,647 7,971- 6 1,186 1,317 1,270 1,463 1,486 1,593 1,657 7 1,189 1,212 11,346 1,298 1,495 1,518 1,627 8 1,189 1,210 1,233 1,370 1,321 1,521 1,544 Total Mid 3,564 3,739 3,849 4,131 4,302 4,632 4,829 3,498* 9 1,520 1,697 1,727 1,760 1,965 1,886 2,172. 10 1,013 11,063 11,187 1,208 1,231 1,368 1,313 11 865 838 879 982 999 1,108 1,131 12 757 787 762 800 894 909 926 Total High 4,155 4,385 4,555 4,750 5,089 15,181 5,542 4,164* TOTAL 15,844 16,632 1117,413 18,275 19,220 20,045 21,017 15,633* *Reflects the actual student enrollment for October 1, 2011. The updated OSPI forecast will not be available until the end of November 2011. Pasco School District Capital Facilities Plan Page 12 of 21 November 2011 The Multi Track Year Round Task Force recommended that sixth grade become a part of the elementary schools, thereby decreasing a need for middle school space and increasing the need for elementary schools which sages the taxpayers the higher cost of building a new middle school. The board approved the configuration change on October 11, 2011. The projections using the new configuration follow in Table 8. TABLE 8- ENROLLMENT FORECAST WITH K-6 CONFIGURATION Grade 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 K 1,408 1,471 1,534 1,597 1,660 1,723 1,788 1 1,428 1,485 1,552 1,618 1,685 1,751 1,817 2 1,371 1,470 1,528 1,597 1,665 1,734 1,802 3 1,385 1,407 1,508 1,568 1,638 1,708 1,779 4 1,235 1,423 1.445 1,549 1,611 1,683 1,755 5 1',298 1,252 1,442 1,465 1,570 1,633 1,706 6 1,186 1,317 1,270 1,463 1,486 1,593 1,657 Total 9,311 9,825 10,279 10,857 11,315 11,825 12,304 Elem 9,147* 7 1,189 1,212 1,346 1,298 1,495 1,518 1,627 8 1,189 1,210 1,233 1,370 1,321 1,521 1,544 Total 2,378 2,422 2,579 2,668 2,816 3,039 3,171 Mid 2,322- 9 1,520 1,697 1,727 1,760 1,965 1,886 2,172 10 1,013 1,063 1,187 1,208 1,231 1,368 1,313 11 865 838 879 982 999 1,108 1,131 12 757 787 762 800 894 909 926 Total 4,155 4,385 4,555 4,750 5,089 5,271 5,542 High 4,164* TOTAL 15,844 16,632 17,413 18,275 1 19,220 20,045 21,017 15,633- * Reflects the actual student enrollment for October 1, 2011. The updated OSPI forecast will not be avaiiabie until the end of November 2011. SECTION 5 CAPITAL FACILITIES NEEDS A. Facility Needs Pasco School District Capital Facilities Plan Page 13 of 21 November 2011 Facility needs are derived by subtracting existing capacity from the existing and forecast enrollment. The District's current capacity, its educational programs, standard of service and enrollment forecast are used to determine its facility needs. Existing needs are derived by subtracting the current capacity from the students that are currently enrolled. The six year needs equal the forecast enrollment in 2017 minus the existing capacity, or the current needs plus the needs to serve increased student enrollment attributed to growth. As shown in Table 9 below, by 2017 in a K-6 elementary configuration, the district needs to add capacity to serve 4879 elementary school students, 221 middle school students and 749 high school students. Fable 9— Enrollment, Capacity and Needs Needs Current Current 2017 Remaining Needs Total 2017 Projected after Remaining Brick � Permanent 9 Facilities Mortar Portable Current Projected Facility Phase 2 after Capacity Capacity Capacity* Enrollment Needs Brick& Phase 2 Mortar Portables Additions Elementary 5,908 1,517 7,425 12,304 4,879 1,279 559 (K-6) Middle (7-8) 2,019 575 2,59+4 3,171 577 577 577 High (9-12) 3,994 799 4,793 5,542 749 0 0 Totals 11,921 2,891 14,811 21,017 6,205 1856 1,136** * Current capacity equals capacity in the brick and mortar facilities reflected in the inventory of facilities, plus permanent portable capacity, to the maximum extent possible yet able to maintain an optimal educational environment within each school's infrastructure limitations. "Capacity to house the projected remaining 1,136 unhoused students is not included in either Phase one or two to account for what may be an overestimate by OSPI of Pasco's growth by 2017. Because this document must be updated every two years, the enrollment projections will be updated based on real enrollment numbers. To serve the projected 21,017 students in 2017, the District needs to restructure its grade configuration to become K-6 elementary schools and 7-8 middle schools. This postpones the need to construct another middle school for about six years but creates the need to construct five schools serving elementary students, which could be four 760-student elementary schools and one 600 student early learning center serving half day kindergarteners. It must also add portables at the elementary schools and add capacity at the high school level. Pasco School District Capital Facilities Plan Page 14 of 21 November 2011 The District's current permanent facility needs are for 1722 K-6 elementary students (Current K-6 enrollment at 9147 minus permanent capacity of 7425). Reconfiguring the grade levels provides for adequate middle school capacity by using both brick and mortar and permanent portable capacity at reasonable maximum levels until at least 2016. This was calculated using the October 2011 state count of students who are actually enrolled and attending Pasco Schools then subtracting the total capacity. B. Planned Improvements A To serve the forecast growth, the District will construct needed facilities in phases. In the first phase, the District will construct two 750-student elementary schools, one early learning center and add portables. An early learning center is recommended for two reasons. First, since it would be designed for kindergarten needs, the cost per square foot is less. Second, an early learning center allows for the whole school to focus solely on the needs of the young learner and provides an enriched educational experience. The District will also make facility improvements needed to maintain current facilities adequately to serve existing students. While the Phase 1 improvements are being constructed, the District will start working on financing and plans to construct two additional 750-student elementary schools, add capacity at the high schools and add additional portable classrooms at the new elementary schools as needed. The additional capacity and costs for the planned improvements is shown in Table 10. Table 10 —Added Facility Capacity and Costs Needed Facility Improvements Additional Capacity Total Cost PHASE 1 New Elementary School#13 750* $23,827,071 New Elementary School#14 750 $27,044,006 New Early Learning Center 600** $20,717,573 Facility Site Needs 0 $5,100,000 Structural Needs 0 $525,000 HVAC Needs 0 $1,500,000 Energy Efficiencies 0 '$700,000 144 Elem**" Portables 150 HS $1,350,000 300 Total Costs $80,763,650 PHASE 2 New Elementary School #15 750 $27,044,006" New Elementary School #16 750 $27,044,006 Pasco School District Capital Facilities Plan Page 15 of 21 November 2011 CHS Expansion 600*'' $5,600,000' Portables 576 Elem' $2,700,000 Total $62,388,012 "This amount is less than the other elementary schools because the district already owns the land and has already completed much of the architectural and engineering work in preparation for construction. The cost for schools in future phases is a conservative estimate using the cost to construct the Phase 1 schools and reflects the estimates based on the prevailing wage and green building laws. The cost for inflation has not been included. It will be captured when this CFP is updated. "*The Early Learning Center would serve 600 full time students, meaning that it could serve up to 1200 half day kindergarteners. ***To serve the remaining forecast K-6 growth, the District would need to add 54 more portable classrooms. However, it is estimated that space will exist on the elementary campuses to only add 30 portable classrooms, totaling 110 portable classrooms. The 30 new classrooms can serve another 720 students for a total of 2,237 K-6 students served in portables all of which are permanent. Of the 110 portable classrooms, 93 classrooms would be considered permanent capacity after Phases one and two. The remaining portable classrooms, or 17 of the 110 portable classrooms, will provide temporary interim capacity and are not counted as permanent capacity. After adding portables to the maximum amount _possible, 559 K-6 students will remain unhoused after Phase two. (See Table 11 for details.) About six portables will need to be added at the high school level to serve about 150 more students as permanent capacity. School impact fees may be used to pay for the cost of portables. ****The cost to add capacity for 600 high school students is conservative and is based on an estimate of$232 per sq ft (10% more than the original construction of$211)for about 1,000 square feet per classroom for 24 classrooms (includes allowance for halls and stairwells). (The cost of per square foot in western Washington ranges from $289-$312.) Chiawana was originally designed to add the additional classrooms to the wings of the school to absorb future growth. The 24 classrooms will house about 600 additional students. Therefore, about six portable classrooms will need to be added to house the remaining 149 students in the projection and are scheduled in Phase 1. Shawn in Table 11 is the analysis of the amount of current permanent K-6 portable capacity and an estimate for the future. No set percentage is possible due to the individual characteristics and limitations of each school and site. The district has analyzed each site to determine the maximum enrollment possible yet maintain a quality educational program and all of its components. Table 11 —Analysis of K-6 Permanent and Temporary Portable Capacity Pasco School District Capital Facilities Plan Page 16 of 21 November 2011 Maximum Unhoused Reasonable BEM Max- #Portable Temporary Total Remaining Enroll Enroll for capacity B{M=#st in !Classrooms Port Portable Unhoused : optimal perm as perm Classrooms Classrooms Students Quality portables 20,11 7,971 7,425 5,908 1,517 63 17 80 2017 After Phase 1 12,304 9,669 8,008 *144 69 17 86 2017 After Phase 2 12,304 11,745 9,508 *576 93 17 110 559 . *Portable capacity at unbuilt schools sites are estimates of 6 classrooms per new school. *The permanent capacity attributed to portable classrooms at those schools that are not yet built is only an estimate and subject to change once sites are secured and designs are finalized. In 2017, the OSPI enrollment forecast projects that the District will be serving 21,017 students. Table 12 shows the current capacity, the added capacity for the planned improvements, the total capacity when the planned improvements are complete, and the forecast enrollment. As shown in Table 12, when all the planned improvements are constructed the District will have permanent capacity to serve 11,745 out of the 21,017 projected students. Capacity to house the projected remaining 780 unhoused students is not included in either Phase one or two to account for what may be an overestimate by OSPI of Pasco's growth by 2017. Because this document must be updated every two years, the enrollment projections will be updated based on real enrollment numbers. Table 12-- Planned Capacity and Forecast Enrollment in a K-6 Configuration 2017 2017 Increased 2017 Increased Total Facility 2017 Total Facility Capacity Projected Capacity Capacity Needs Facilities Projected Current Jf P Y Needs after 1 Capacity- Facility from after from Phases 1 after Enrollment Needs Phase 1 Phase 1 Phase 2 and 2 Phases 1 and 2 Elementary(K-6) 12,304 7425 4,879 2,244* 2,635 2076* 11,745 559 Middle(7-8) 3171 2,594 577 0 577 0 2,594 577 High (9-12) 5,542 4,793 749 150 599 600 5,543 (1) Totals 21,017 14,811 5,849 2,394 3,811 2,676 19,882 1,136 *Includes brick and mortar schools and portables. Table 13— Planned Capacity and Forecast Enrollment Facility Current Added Total Planned Forecast Remaining Capacity* Capacity Capacity Enrollment Projected Pasco School District Capital Facilities Plan Page 17 of 21 November 2011 unhorsed Students Elementary K-6 7,425 4,320 11,745 12,304 559 Middle (7-8) 2,594 0 2,594 3,171 577 High (9-12) 4,793 750 5,543 5,542 (1) TOTAL 14,811 5,070 1%882 21,017 1,136 Total planned capacity in Phase 1 includes six portable classrooms at the elementary level, all of which are considered permanent capacity. After Phase 2 construction, 24 more portable classrooms will be considered permanent capacity. The 6 portable classrooms for the high school are also considered permanent capacity. The District's ability to fund the planned improvements that will add capacity is dependent upon the passage of bond elections at a 60% supermajority and capital construction funds from the state. Numbers for permanent portable classroom capacity for schools not yet constructed are only estimates and may change based on site selection and layout. SECTION 6 CAPITAL FACILITIES FINANCING PLAN A. Planned Improvements Planned improvements in Phase 1 include the construction of two elementary schools and one early leaming center, the addition of six portable classrooms at the high school level and another six portable classrooms at the elementary level. The District also needs to acquire school sites and must make a variety of improvements that are needed at existing facilities. When the planned Phase 1 improvements are constructed there will be permanent capacity for 9,669 students. B. Financing for Planned Improvements 9. General Obligation Bonds Bonds are typically used to fund construction of new schools and other capital improvement projects. Bonds are then retired through collection of property taxes. The District must pass a bond election with a 60% majority since it is the primary source of funding for the capital improvements listed in this plan. 2. State Capital Construction Funds State Capital Construction funds come from the Common School Construction Fund ("the fund"). Bonds are sold on behalf of the Fund, and then retired from revenues accruing predominantly from the sale of timber from the common school lands. If these sources are insufficient, the Legislature can appropriate funds or the State Board of Education can change the standards. School districts may qualify for state match funds for specific capital projects based on a prioritization system. Based on the District's assessed valuation per student, the formula in the state regulations and the Pasco School District Capital Facilities Plan Page 18 of 21 November 2011 significant number of unhoused students (calculated by the State's definition), the District is currently eligible for state match funds for new schools at a factor of approximately 86% within the state's calculation formula only if local voters approve the funds for the local portion of the projects. 3. Impact or Mitigation Fees Impact or mitigation fees are a means of supplementing traditional funding sources for construction of public facilities needed to accommodate new development. School impact fees or SEPA mitigation fees are generally collected by the permitting agency at the time plats are approved or building permits are issued. Improvements that do not add capacity and that are constructed to existing schools to serve existing enrollment, are not included in impact fee or mitigation fee calculations. The existing needs and deficiencies are excluded from the cost that is attributed to growth because impact and mitigation fees cannot be used to remedy existing deficiencies. C. Six-Year Financing Plan Table 14 demonstrates how the District intends to fund new construction and improvements to school facilities in the first phase of the Capital Facility Plan. A similar financing plan will be prepared for improvements that are planned for Phase 2 once the improvements in Phase 1 are under construction. The financing components include a bond issue, state match funds, and impact fees. Projects or portions of projects which remedy existing deficiencies are not appropriate for impact fees. Thus, fees collected from new developers will not be used to finance projects or portions of projects which remedy existing deficiencies. Table 14- Capital Facilities Financing Plan Phase 1 Unsecured Funds Project Added Cost Capacity Bonds State Match* impact Fees" New Elementary School#13 750 $23,827,071"** $9,757,686 $13,169,385 $900,000 New Elementary School#14 750 $27,044,006 $11,647,044 $14,496,962 $900,000 New Early Learning Center 600 $20,717,573 $9,612,446 $10,655,127 $450,000 Facility Sites 0 $5;100,000 $5,100,000 $0 $0 Existing Facility Improvements 0 $2,725,000 $2,725,000 $0 $0 Portables 300 $1,350,000 $0 $0 $1,350,000 TOTAL 7400 $80,763,650 $38,842,176 538,321,474 $3,600,000 *This number is an estimate of state match and is subject to verification by OSPI. **This number is an estimate that assumes housing development will occur at a rate similar to what has been experienced the past six years and impact fees in the amount of at least$4,683.34 will be collected from builders for every new housing unit. ***This amount is less than other similar elementary schools because the district already owns the land and has already completed much of the architectural and engineering work in preparation for construction. SECTION 7 SCHOOL IMPACT OR MITIGATION FEES Pasco School District Capital Facilities Plan Page 19 of 21 November 2011 The Growth Management Act(GMA) authorizes jurisdictions to collect impact fees to supplement funding of additional public facilities needed to accommodate new development. The State Environmental Policy Act requires mitigation of impacts that new development has on schools and the State Subdivision Act requires there be adequate provision for schools prior to approving subdivisions. Impact fees or mitigation fees address these legal requirements. They cannot be used for the operation, maintenance, repair, alteration, or replacement of existing capital facilities used to meet existing service demands. A. Fee Calculations Franklin County and the City of Pasco have not adopted a school impact fee ordinance. However, the District's Capital Facility Plan addresses the forecast growth for which the City and County must plan, and it identifies the need to collect fees to address a portion of the cost the District will incur to build facilities to serve growth.. The fees have been calculated using a standard school impact fee formula that is authorized by the Growth Management Act and adopted in Washington counties and cities. The fees, calculated as shown in attached Appendix A, are based on the District's cost per dwelling unit to construct new elementary and middle schools to add capacity to serve new development. Construction costs do not include that portion of the total cost to build new schools that is being incurred to serve unhoused students (to remedy existing deficiencies). Credits have been applied in calculating the fees to account for future state match funds the District could receive and projected future property taxes that will be paid by the owner of the dwelling unit. The fees have been discounted by 25% to minimize the impacts the fees may have on new development and ensure new development is not paying more than its fair share. B. District's Proposed Fees The District requests collection of school impact fees in the amounts of: Single Family: $4,633.34 Multi-Family: $4,525.36 Pasco School District Capital Facilities Plan Page 20 of 21 November 2011 PASCO SCHOOL DISTRICT 25%reduction 2011 Impact Fee Calculation APPENDIX A SIP' c°s(sr�)._lstV .. � .. {l-,t)lU a w AA r°n rr x x A.....Fc Ifl' ,Fjt4 Single Family Residence: Elementary Middle School High School Formula $72,203 1350.00 $0.40 $675.OM 00 Facility Cast 2,244 300 150 AddWonal Capacity 532 203.05 $000 $4,500,00 t=ort per Student;�: 0.450 03180 01190 Student Facto,1S= $14,49'[.37 $0.00 SBB.ri.00 CS x SE 518017 $18017 $180.17 80edk index 90.00 117.40 1311.00 OSFt SG Ft 86,10% 8614% 88.M% State Match Bgitaility% 55.262.62 50100 S4.00 State Match Credit•`.S`r'i M208.78 SO.00 5855.130 CS x SF-SM Cost per Single Family Residence 4.0434 Average irde€est Rate 0.5283550758 Tax Credit Nurnerator 0.46637401 Tax Credit Denominator s:975336462 Tax Cfed t Multiplier fTGM) 5147.600.00 Average Assessed Value(AAV) 1177715966 TCM x AAV 0.00240 Tax Lesy Rate`TLR) S2.81920 TCM x AAV x TLR=(TC.) 6.244.48 Cost per Single Family Residence-Tax Credit S1,5431.19 25%reducttan W $4,863.34 Calculated Single Fatuity Fee Amount TBD Reconuinow ded Fee Amount A4ulti-Family Residence: Meanentary Muddle srchoo{ High School Formula 572,263£50:00 S0.00 515,0M.00 Facility Cost 2244 300 150 Additional Capacity $32.2013.05 54.00 $4 500.00 Cost per Studer; 4j 3a.3.R0 0.1217 0.120 Student Factor "`i $11,271.07 $0.00 $640.00 CS x SF 618017 $1aC.17 $180.17 Boeci<Index, 90-00 117.00 130.00 CGRt 8q Ft 86.10% 86.14% 86,110% State Match EligiNlq% 64,866.48 53.00 54,00 Stale Match Credit!F,;= 58,384.59 30.00 SSAOAO CS x SF-SM 38424.58 Cost per Multi-Family Residency 04434 Average interest Rate a 52@3."5058 Tax Credit Numerwor 0.06637401 Tax Cretin Denominator 7-975336462 Tex Great Mutiplier(TCM) 646,6001.00 Average Assessed value(AAV) 371e,50.168 TCM x AAV 000240 Tax Levy Rale(TLR) 539010 TCM x AAV x TLR=(TC) S 94.4 Cost per Multi-FerMiy Residence-Tax Credit 51.608.62 25%reduction r:) 54,625.88 Calcotated Multi-Family Fee Amount TBD Rertanurtended Fw Amount Pasco School District Capital Facilities Plan Page 21 of 21 November 2011 Links to Planning Commission Meeting Videos: February 16, 2012 Planning Commission Meeting: http://Pscty.pegcentral.com/plaVer.php?video=fbda476de70647fad5afb7ed82f99c64 March 15, 2012 Planning Commission Meeting: http://pscty.pegcentral.com/player.php?video=4c46a24ba7bc8bO5ec66c37fO24889f7 MEMORANDUM DATE: June 21, 2012 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Dave McDonald, City Planner SUBJECT: Pasco Family Housing Rezone (MF# Z2012-001) On March 15th of this year, following the public hearing process, the Planning Commission recommended the City Council rezone approximately 3.5 acres of land on North Charles Avenue. The recommendation for the rezone from R-1 (Low Density Residential) and C-1 (Retail Business) included provisions for a concomitant agreement prohibiting all access to the property from Charles Street. Adjoining neighbors appealed the Planning Commission recommendation and the matter was reviewed in a closed record hearing by the City Council on May 7, 2012. Following the initial closed record hearing on May 21, 2012, the City Council remanded the matter to the Planning Commission for the purpose of addressing potential impacts of multi-story structures in proximity to Charles Avenue and the potential impact of the rezone on the Pasco School District. The remand was specific to those issues only. A remand hearing has been scheduled for the June 21, 2012 Planning Commission meeting. No public testimony is to be taken in a remand hearing. Multi-Story Impacts The property in question is currently zoned R-1 and C-1 with 665 feet of frontage along Charles Avenue being zoned R-1 and 185 feet of the frontage zoned C-1. The R-1 District permits houses to be constructed up to 25 feet in height while the C-1 District permits building heights of 35 feet. In both districts the height limit may be increased upon approval of a special permit. Another factor to consider when assessing building height impacts on other properties are setback requirements. The front yard setback in the R-1 District is 20 feet and the front setback in the C-1 District is 15 feet. The proposed R-3 District recommend for the property has a height limit of 35 feet and a setback restriction of 20 feet. This zoning would permit a 10 foot increase in height over the R-1 District but is equal to the building height permitted in the C-1 District. The R-3 front yard setback is equal to the I setback required in the R-1 District and 5 feet greater than the C-1 District. The proposed rezone would provide a small benefit to the property owners on the south end of Charles Avenue in that the front yard setback would be increased by 5 feet. Typical two-story single-family homes are 22 to 24 feet in height as measured to the mid-point on the roof. A typical four-plex is also about 22 to 24 feet in height. The multi-family buildings in the new Bishop Topel development, on Spokane Street, are 24.5 feet in height. The proposed site is large enough for 51 dwelling units under an R-3 designation. Considering the area of land involved and the permitted density there will be little need for a developer to build taller than two-story buildings. Never the less if the property were to be zoned R-3, three-story buildings reaching a height of 35 feet would be permitted; therein lies the concern expressed by the City Council. The Council's concern about building height impacts on the surrounding neighborhood can be addressed by either a restriction on building heights or through an increased setback. The difficulty with the increased setback is the southern half of the site is relatively narrow and with requirements for parking there is little room for any additional setback. The best option for this area of the site would be to limit building heights to 25 feet matching the permitted heights in the surround neighborhood. The northern half of the site is twice the width of the southern half lending itself to the possibility of increased setbacks or a height limitation. School Impacts Based upon information provided to the Planning Commission for multi- family developments, the Pasco School District estimates that each new multi-family unit built in Pasco generates .59 students per unit. The proposed rezone will permit 51 dwelling units to be constructed on the site, generating an additional 30 students (18 elementary, 6 middle school and 6 high school). The same property developed with 20 single- family homes could add 16 new students to the school system (9 elementary, 3 middle school and 4 high school). To address the impacts of new residential development on the Pasco School District the City Council adopted Ordinance #4046 establishing a school impact fee. The School District would receive $94,000 in impact fees if the site developed with 20 single-family dwellings and $230,775 if the site developed with 51 multi-family units. In past correspondence to the City and in the District's Capital Facilities Plan, the School District has indicated impact fees would ensure adequate provisions are made for schools to accommodate residential development. The District has not advised the City that the proposed project/rezone would 2 present unusual or unique circumstances that would not be addressed through the collection of impact fees. The findings and conclusions in the attached report from the March 15, 2012 Planning Commission meeting will need to be modified as follows: Additional Findings 1. The R-1 District permits buildings heights of 25 feet (PMC 25.28) and the C-1 District (PMC 25.42) permits building heights of 35 feet. Therefore the southern 185 feet of the site currently permits three-story or 35 foot tall buildings. Two-story 25 foot tall buildings are currently permitted on the northern portion of the site. 2. The proposed R-3 zoning would permit 35 foot tall buildings on the entire site. 3. The property on the east side of Charles Avenue is zoned R-1 permitting buildings 25 feet in height. Modifications to Staff Report Conclusions (3) There is merit and value in the proposal for the community as a whole. As a whole, the larger community would benefit from the proposed additional housing units permitted by a rezone of the property and the community would benefit from the development clean-up of an underdeveloped neighborhood. In this respect there is merit and value to the proposal. From the prospective of the immediate neighborhood, the completion of neighborhood streets and the elimination of a parcel overgrown with weeds would have merit but the additional traffic would not. The possible concern over permitting building heights over 25 feet in a neighborhood that restricts building heights to 25 feet or less may have an impact of the character and value of the neighborhood. (4) Conditions should be imposed in order to mitigate any significant adverse impacts from the proposal. The rezone should be conditioned to limit access to the property in such a manner as to ameliorate the impacts of additional traffic on Charles Avenue. The rezone could be further mitigated to lessen the impact of multi= amilu buildings on the neighborhood bU limiting building heights to match the surrounding residential neighborhood. 3 (5) A concomitant agreement should be entered into between the City and the petitioner, and if so, the terms and conditions of such an agreement. A concomitant agreement is necessary to ensure concerns of increased traffic in the neighborhood are addressed as well as addressing concerns about increased building heights associated with multi family buildings. Recommendation MOTION: I move to adopt the additional Findings of Fact and modified Conclusions therefrom as contained in the staff memo of June 21, 2012. MOTION: I move, based on the Findings of Fact and Conclusions therefrom, the Planning Commission recommend the City Council approve the Rezone from C-1 (Retail Business) and R-1 (Low Density Residential) to R-3 (Medium Density Residential), with a concomitant agreement prohibiting access to the property from Charles Street, limiting the height of buildings placed south of the south line of Block 3, Whitehouse Addition to 25 feet and requiring a minimum of 40 feet for a front yard setback for any building over one-story north of the south line of Block 3, Whitehouse Addition. 4 REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION MASTER FILE NO. Z 2012-001 APPLICANT: Pasco Family Housing HEARING DATE: 2/16/2012 12 E. Fifth ACTION DATE: 3/15/2012 Spokane, WA 99202 BACKGROUND REQUEST: REZONE Rezone from R-1 (Low-Density Residential) and C-1 (Retail Business) to R-3 (Medium-Density Residential) 1. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: Legal: All of Block 3 Whitehouse Addition and Lots 11-24 Block 2 Whitehouse Addition together with adjoining vacated right-of-way. Location: The west side of Charles Avenue between Adelia Street and Alvina Street. Property Size: 3.58 Acres 2. ACCESS: The property has access from Charles Avenue on the east and Alvina Street from the south. 3. UTILITIES: All utilities are available to the site. 4. LAND USE AND ZONING: The site is currently zoned R-1 (Low Density Residential) and C-1 (Retail Business). The site is vacant and contains a block building that was once used as an auto repair shop. Surrounding properties are zoned and developed as follows: North "R-1" Low Density Residential - Highland Park South "R-1" Low Density Residential - Single Family & Vacant East "R-1" Low Density Residential - Single Family West "C-3" General Business - Vacant 5. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map designates this area for Mixed Residential uses. Goals of the Comprehensive Plan suggests the City strive to maintain a variety of housing options for residents of the community (H-2) and supports efforts to provide affordable housing to meet the needs of low and moderate income households (H-5). Plan Goal LU-2 also encourages the maintenance of established neighborhoods and the creation of new neighborhoods that are safe and enjoyable places to live. 6. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The City of Pasco is the lead agency for this project. Based on the SEPA checklist, the adopted City 1 Comprehensive Plan, City development regulations, and other information, a threshold determination resulting in a Determination of Non-significance (DNS) has been issued for this project under WAC 197- 11-158. This is a non-project action and will therefore have no immediate effect on the Pasco School District. ANALYSIS The property consists of two separate parcels totaling 3.58 acres. The two parcels are divided by the unimproved right-of-way of East George Street. The northern most parcel located between Highland Park on the north and East George Street on the south contains 1.98 acres. The balance of the property is located south of East George Street and westerly of Charles Avenue. This property was platted in lots and block in 1911 and has remained mostly undeveloped since that time. The property north of George Street contained one single-family house which was demolished in 2003. For many years Lots 13- 18 of Block 24 located south of George Street were used as a vehicle storage yard that was filled with broken down and partially dismantled cars, barrels and other items. Lots 19-24 of the same block contained an automotive shop (the shop building still remains on the property) at least one house and a large storage building. In the early 1990's the City required the property owner to remove the slum and blight conditions cause by the impound yard, the accumulation of debris and the substandard buildings located on the property. The property remains undeveloped in a substandard condition today as a result of the lack of infrastructure improvements (no gutter, sidewalk, street lights, storm drainage, etc) and the existence of dead trees, weeds and the dumping that has occurred on the site. The site is located between property that is zoned C-3 (General Commercial) on the west and R-1 (Low Density Residential) on the east. Recognizing sound planning practices often suggest there should be a transition or gradation of land uses from more intense uses to less intense uses the City Council designated the site for mixed residential during the last major Comprehensive Plan update in 2008. The site is currently zoned R-1 and C-1. The C-1 District permits the development retail, office and commercial services such as retail stores, automotive repair shops, tire store, restaurants and taverns. One of the major concerns property owners often have about the location of higher density residential zoning adjacent to low density zoning is the possible impacts the high density zoning may have on the values of properties in adjacent lower density zoning district. A search of the Franklin County Assessor Records in February of 2012 indicates that in many cases this may be 2 more of a perception than a fact. For example the single-family homes that share a common lot line with the Stonegate Apartments have generally increased in value in the last four years. All of the homes in question were constructed two years after the construction of the Stonegate Apartments. Similarly the single-family homes in the Loviisa Farms subdivision constructed directly across Chapel Hill Boulevard from the Sandy Heights RV Park and the Silver Creek Apartments have appreciated in value. It should also be pointed out that the single-family homes located on Charles Avenue were constructed long after the Pasco Housing Authority constructed the multi-family housing units directly to the east. According to the records of the Franklin County Assessor's (2012) the homes in the 300 block of North Charles Avenue have increase in value since they were constructed in 2007. In the cases referenced above it should be noted that the apartment complexes and RV park are not accessed directly from the same street the lower density housing is accessed. The apartment buildings may be considerably higher than the adjoining single-family homes and may impact privacy in rear yards but the traffic impacts are significantly reduced due to the location of access driveways. For example the new multi-family complex built at the southwest corner of Wehe Avenue and Spokane Street is accessed from Spokane Street rather than Wehe Avenue, which fronts future single family residential lots. Even though the property in question is identified in the Comprehensive Plan for mixed use residential development the Planning Commission should consider ways of ameliorating traffic impact to the neighborhood by conditioning where the location of access driveways should be located. The site is large enough to permit the construction 15 to 20 single family homes which would generate 150 to 200 vehicle trips through the neighborhood each day. If the site was developed with 51 apartment units about 336 vehicle trips could be expected in the neighborhood or about 136 more vehicle trips than would be generated by single family homes. Multi-family complexes are often located on or convenient to major streets. The proposed site is accessed only by local streets through the surrounding neighborhood. Bonneville Street and California Avenue are both located on the western edge of the proposed site and could provide an alternate means of accessing the site. If Bonneville Street and other streets to the west were used as the main access there would be little need for traffic from future development on the site to used Charles Avenue or other neighborhood streets to the east. Staff met with the applicant and discussed the issues related to access and as a result of that discussion the applicant has agreed to a concomitant agreement limiting access from the west only. During the initial hearing on this matter the Planning Commission asked staff to provide some information about crime statistics related to low income housing complexes. In a study prepared by the Urban Land Institute (High Density Development Myth 8, Fact 2005) it was reported that crime rates at higher-density developments are not significantly different than crime rates for 3 lower-density development (See Exhibit # 1). Other recent studies confirm the fact that low-income housing does not necessarily cause increases in crime rates (See Exhibit #2 Cornell University Study Abstract). Other studies have considered both the impacts on crime and property values as they related to the development of affordable housing and have concluded affordable housing does not increase crime or reduce neighboring property values (See Exhibit #3 Myths & Facts about Affordable & High Density Housing and Exhibit # 4 Princeton University Study Abstract). (Full copies of the referenced studies are available in the Planning Office.) The initial review criteria for considering a rezone application are explained in PMC. 25.88.030. The criteria are list below as follows: 1. The changed conditions in the vicinity which warrant other or additional zoning: • The Comprehensive Plan designation for the property in question was changed from Low Density Residential to Mixed Residential in 2011. • Sewer service was extended north in Charles Avenue from George Street in 2007. • The former auto storage yard on the property has been removed. • All single-family homes have been removed from the property. • The commercially zoned portion of the property has not been used for commercial purposes for approximately 30 years. • The most recent residential development within the vicinity has been the construction of a multi-family complex directly north of the Whittier Elementary School at the southwest corner of Wehe Avenue and Spokane Street. • Much of the commercially zoned property along Oregon Avenue has been developed in the last 20 years. • Commercial development is beginning to extend east of Oregon Avenue. 2. Facts to justify the change on the basis of advancing the public health, safety and general welfare. The property has remained largely undeveloped for 100 years and has seen a regression in development over the past 25 years with the removal of all housing units and removal of the former automotive repair shop from the property. Rezoning the property to R-3 Medium Density Residential will provide additional flexibility for site development providing a catalyst for the development of the partially improved streets in the neighborhood and providing a buffer between the lower density development to the east and the commercially (C-3) zoned property to the west. 3. The effect it will have on the nature and value of adjoining property and the Comprehensive Plan. 4 The proposal is supported by the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map. Rezoning the property and eliminating the commercial zoning from the neighborhood could enhance development options for the site benefiting the neighborhood by completing street improvements and eliminating nuisance conditions created by the weeds and dead trees on the property. The rezone would also eliminate any chance for commercial activities to be re-established in the neighborhood. The properties on Charles Avenue east of the commercial zoned portion of the site have decreased in value in recent years per Franklin County records. Based on experience in other neighborhoods where multi-family development has occurred improvements on the site and the property clean-up associated therewith may improve property values in the neighborhood. 4. The effect on the property owners if the request is not granted. The current R-1 and C-1 zoning has been in place for 30 years or more and has not encouraged development on the property and in fact the property has remained largely undeveloped since it was platted 100 years ago. The proposed rezone may provide the property owner with some flexibility for development and may make the installation of streets and utilities more affordable. If the request is not granted it is probable the property will continue to remain vacant as both commercial and single- family development on the property has proven to be unviable. 5. The Comprehensive land use designation for the property. The Comprehensive Plan designates the site for Mixed Density Residential development. The proposed rezone will bring the zoning into conformance with the Plan. STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT Findings of fact must be entered from the record. The following are initial findings drawn from the background and analysis section of the staff report. The Planning Commission may add findings to this listing as the result of factual testimony and evidence submitted during the open record hearing. 1) The site is currently zoned R-1 (Low Density Residential) and C-1 retail Business. 2) The property to the west is zoned C-3 and the property to the east is zoned R-1 and R-2. 3) The Comprehensive Plan designates the site for Mixed Residential development. 4) The property was platted into lots and blocks 100 years ago. 5) The one remaining house on the site was demolished in 2003. 5 6) The property is vacant and undeveloped except for a vacant block building formerly used as an automotive shop. 7) Commercial use of the C-1 portion of the site has not occurred for approximately 30 years. 8) The site has never been improved with standard streets, curb, gutter, storm drainage and other infrastructure typical of an urban setting. 9) Multi-family duplex units are located directly east of the homes in the 300 block of Charles Street. 10) The multi-family duplex units directly east of the homes in the 300 block of Charles Street were constructed in 1978. 11) According to the records (2012) of the Franklin County Assessor's office the homes in the 300 block of Charles Avenue have increase in value. 12) According to the records (2012) of the Franklin County Assessor's office the homes in the 200 block of Charles Avenue east of the commercial portion of the site and not sharing a common property line with multi- family housing have decreased in value in recent years. 13) Single-family residential homes developed in the Loviisa Farms subdivision across Chapel Hill Boulevard from the 200 unit Silver Creek Apartment complex and the Sandy Heights RV park have increased in value (per Franklin County records 2012) in recent years. 14) The single-family homes on Klickitat Lane sharing a common property line with the 200 unit Stonegate apartment complex were constructed after the Stonegate Apartments were constructed. The homes on Klickitat lane have increased in value (per Franklin County records 2012) in recent years. 15) Studies prepared by the Urban Land Institute, Cornell University, Princeton University, and the California Department of Housing and Community Development (Higher Density Development Myth and Facts, 2005; Low Income Housing Development and Crime, Cornell University 2010; Do Affordable Housing Projects harm Suburban Communities? Crime, Property Values and Property Taxes in Mt. Laurel, New Jersey 2011; Myths and Facts About Affordable & High Density Housing, 2002. Full copies of these reports are on file in the Planning Office.) 16) As the result of Commercial development along Oregon Avenue over the past 20 years few properties are left to develop on Oregon Avenue. Remaining vacant commercial properties east of Oregon Avenue toward Highland Park and the site in question are beginning to develop. 17) If a 51 apartment unit apartment complex was developed on the site it would generate 136 more vehicle trips per day than if the site was developed with 20 single-family homes. 6 CONCLUSIONS BASED ON INITIAL STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT Before recommending approval or denial of a rezone, the Planning Commission must develop its conclusions from the findings of fact based upon the criteria listed in P.M.C. 25.88.060 and determine whether or not: (1) The proposal is in accord with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. The goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan encourage the development of old and new neighborhoods into safe and enjoyable places to live (Goal LU-2). The Comprehensive Plan also encourages the development of a variety of residential environments (Goal H-2) and the Plan and supports efforts to provide affordable housing to meet the needs of low and moderate income households (Goal H-5). (2) The effect of the proposal on the immediate vicinity will not be materially detrimental. The property in question has remained largely undeveloped for the past 100 years. Rezoning the property may provide some flexibility for development options which could lead to the improvement of the streets and utilities in the neighborhood thereby improving conditions in the neighborhood that have only been partially developed over the past 100 years. The proposed rezone is being requested to allow the construction of up to 51 apartment units. Fifty-one apartment units would generate (per the ITE Trip Generation Manual 8th Edition) approximately 136 more vehicle trips on local streets than a 20 unit single-family development. The additional traffic could be viewed by the neighborhood as having a detrimental impact on the neighborhood. (3) There is merit and value in the proposal for the community as a whole. As a whole the larger community would benefit from the proposal additional housing units permitted by a rezone of the property and the community would benefit from the development clean-up of an underdeveloped neighborhood. In this respect there is merit and value to the proposal. From the prospective of the immediate neighborhood the completion of neighborhood streets and the elimination of a parcel overgrown with weeds would have merit but the additional traffic would not. (4) Conditions should be imposed in order to mitigate any significant adverse impacts from the proposal. 7 The rezone should be conditioned to limit access to the property in such a manner as to ameliorate the impacts of additional traffic on Charles Avenue. (5) A concomitant agreement should be entered into between the City and the petitioner, and if so, the terms and conditions of such an agreement. A concomitant agreement is necessary to ensure concerns of increased traffic in the neighborhood are addressed. RECOMMENDATION MOTION: I move to adopt Findings of Fact and Conclusions therefrom as contained in the March 15, 2012 staff report. MOTION: I move, based on the Findings of Fact and Conclusions therefrom, the Planning Commission recommend the City Council approve the Rezone from C-1 (Retail Business) and R-1 (Low Density Residential) to R-3 (Medium Density Residential), with a concomitant agreement prohibiting access to the property from Charles Street. 8 Vicinity Item: Rezone R- 1 to R-3 Applicant: Pasco Family Housing IV N Map File #. Z 2012-001 jr SIP k Aw Ord .y ► �. l < X �. 1 i E .s `�. i - �, ADELIA SiT to F r SITE W , 1 F bTEORGE ST• W s ; W — Q 'A W ui ui a m•. NN �► .vs �, ALV1, -ST. s# Y - 1 I ' Z ^ 0�1 41V , E LEWF�S T ° Land Item: Rezone R- I to R-3 Use Applicant: Pasco Family Housing IV N Map File Z 2012-001 II�� III . . . � • � � � � � � MW zoning Map Applicant: Pasco Family Housing IV N File Z 2012-001 II�� III . . . � • � � � � � � � s rit � M I iX I Vii . mob ' . I '. � � , . Y '�� • _ � < y>- _ � � s . a� ' � � < Y.� A l � �_ n Y � � � �. �. - .- . ,�: 6zv < ' . � � / .:- � �® , :s '7 , , �: ",� - �i � � , �. � fi � � • ,. • b • — ii � . i I i t � �bl , � .� �} }�i �P r,�q�. Y '�A�~-.'M. ' .. �;� � , i *-� ' -- 4 %� _ | & . r 0 o Y • J . r �� J ;��` ��;',.' � �,:�; :_ a.�.�`'_ ;;� : ? =�: � , , ` , ,, �? r -, c . � - _ 0 �. ara 0 c� �, ; rr , i i " ; , '�- 1 1 STATE OF WASHINGTON 2 CITY OF PASCO 3 4 In Re : Rezone from R-1, ) 5 Low Density Residential, ) to R-3, Medium Density ) Master File# Z 2012-001 6 Residential, ) Pasco Family Housing ) 7 7 ORIGINAL 9 i0 EXCERPT OF THE PASCO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 11 12 13 14 TIME: 7 : 00 p.m. , Thursday, June 21, 2012 15 TAKEN AT: Pasco City Hall Pasco, Washington 16 CALLED BY: City of Pasco 17 REPORTED BY: ChaRae Kent, CCR, RPR 18 License No. 2408 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ChaRae Kent, CCR, RPR Kent Reporting * (509) 627-2244 2 APPEARANCES _. FOR THE PASCO PLANNING COMMISSION; 3 CHAIRMAN JOE CRUZ COMMISSIONER JANA KEMPF 4 COMMISSIONER ALECIA GREENAWAY COMMISSIONER ANDY ANDERSON 5 COMMISSIONER MICHAEL LEVIN COMMISSIONER ZAHRA KHAN 6 ALSO PRESENT: 7 MR. RICK WHITE MR. DAVID MCDONALD MS. KRYSTLE SHANKS MS. ANGIE PITTMAN 1(? 11 12 1 1 ? 16 20 G] 23 24 2r ChaRae Kent, CCR, RPR Kent Reporting * (509) 527--2244 3 BE IT REMEMBERED that on Thursday, June 21, 2012 at 7 p.m. , at Pasco City Hall, Pasco, Washington, the Pasco 3 Planning Commission Meeting was taken before ChaRae Kent, 4 Certified Court Reporter and Registered Professional 5 Reporter . The following proceedings took place: P R O C E E D I N G S s- CHAIRMAN CRUZ : Item number 5B is a zoning issue, 10 rezone from R--1, low density residential, to R-3, medium 11 density residential. Pasco Family Housing is the applicant . Master file 22012-001 .. Mr. McDonald? MR. MCDONALD: Yes, Mr. Chairman, Commission Members, '> as you' ll recall back in March the Planning Commission 16 reviewed this item and forwarded a recommendation to the ll City Council that the property in question be rezoned R-3 18 with a condition limiting access. The Council reviewed 19 that recommendation on May 7th and then again on May 21st . 20 They remanded it back to the Planning Commission for you 21 to look at a couple of specific items, and those items 22 related to the potential impacts of multi--story buildings 23 across the street from the single family homes on Charles 24 Street and then also to consider the impacts of the rezone 25 on the Pasco School District. ChaRae Kent, CCR, RPR Kent Reporting * (509) 627--2244 4 1 We ' ll look at impacts on the adjoining properties as 2 a result of increased heights first. The property is 3 currently zoned R-1, low density residential . For the 4 most part, the bottom southern 185 feet along Charles 5 Avenue is zoned C-1 . The R-1 zone allows building heights 6 up to 25 feet . The C-1 allows building heights up to 35 7 feet . If the property was rezoned to R-3, all of the 8 property would permit building heights up to 35 feet . UD 9 there was a concern by some on the City Council that if a 10 developer went in there and built 35 foot tall. apartments 11 or four-plexes it may cause some impact on the low rise, 12 single family homes . The homes on the west side -- excuse 13 me, on the east side of Charles could be built to 25 feet . 14 Most of them are single story homes. 15 In looking at possible remedies or options or 16 conditions, one would be to limit the height, as we 've 17 indicated in the memo. Another would be to increase the 18 setback so the taller height wouldn' t impact surrounding 19 properties as much. Unfortunately, on the southern 20 portion of the lot below George Street there isn' t much 21 room to increase the setbacks . Any multi-family buildings 22 in that area would have to have parking, so they' re 23 limited in what they can do. 24 So I believe the best option in this case, from the 25 southern portion anyway, would be to limit the height to ChaRae Kent, CCR, RPR Kent Reporting * (509) 627-2244 5 1 match the height restrictions across the street in the 2 single family area. And that would be to include a 3 condition in your recommendation to limit the height to 25 4 feet south of George Street . 5 And north of George Street the property is twice as 6 wide so there is an opportunity for the builder to set 7 buildings back further. However, if you build a single 8 story building or perhaps a clubhouse management office, 9 usually those are one story and it would be similar in 10 size to a home. So if that building was setback 20 feet, 11 it won ' t really impact the homes on the other side of the 12 street . So the recommendation would be to include those 13 provisions within the concomitant agreement . 14 The second concern of the City Council was that of 15 impacts to the Pasco School District -- and you are all 16 very familiar with this. Just this year the City Council, 17 as you know, passed an ordinance that would require school 18 impact fees of all new residential development . it 19 applies to single family and apartment buildings . And we 20 provided some information in your report that reflects 21 what the school district has been telling us for the last 22 year and a half or so as to the number of students that we 23 can expect in multi-family versus single family. 24 The proposed project for rezone would allow the 25 property to develop with 51 units . It would be 30 ChaRae Dent, CCR, RPR Kent Reporting * (509) 627-2244 6 1 additional students. If it was developed with single 2 family, the school strict would see an additional 16 ? students . The school district has indicated through 5 correspondence to the City and through their capital 6 facilities plan that school impact fees will address most 7 of their concern related to the impacts of the residential S development. So there ' s no recommendation or modification 9 of the prior report related to the school district 10 concern. 11 With that, I ' d be open to any questions, comments . 12 CHAIRMAN CRUZ : Okay. Thank you very much. 13 Any questions or comments for city staff? Any 14 concerns about their proposed solution to the challenge on 15 the property? 16 COMMISSIONER GREENAWAY: I would tend to agree with 17 the 23-foot maximum height and not necessarily do a 18 setback. Then it would be more uniform throughout the 19 whole: two blocks or so. 20 CHAIRMAN CRUZ : Okay. That ' s one. Twenty-five feet 21 across the board. 22 COMMISSIONER KHAN: I ' d say twenty-five feet. 23 CHAIRMAN CRUZ: That ' s two for 25 feet across the 24 board. Three? Four? Anderson? 25 COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: (Nodded head. ) ChaRae Kent, CCR, RPR Kent Reporting * (509) 627-2244 =_ CHAIRMAN CRUZ : Okay. So it sounds like we' re more interested in establishing an expectation of 25 feet. Does City staff see any problem with that? -'� MR. MCDONALD: (Shook head. ) 5 CHAIRMAN CRUZ : Do you think the developer is going 6 to have heartburn? 7 MR. MCDONALD: Pardon me? 8 CHAIRMAN CRUZ : Do you think the developer is going 9 to have heartburn? 10 MR. MCDONALD: No, I don ' t believe so. 11 As pointed out in the memo, there ' s another project 12 just north of the school that was recently built and those 13 buildings were 24 and a half feet . The new six-plexes on 14 24th Avenue are about 24, 25 feet . So it shouldn ' t be a 15 problem. 16 CHAIRMAN CRUZ : Okay. So I think with that, we would 17 have a -- let ' s see, recommendation, where is that 1 ' documented in the --- is that in the second part where you changed -- _ _ MR. MCDONALD: It will be the second part that you' ll 21 have to modify with the concomitant agreement permitting 22 access to the property from Charles Street and limiting 23� building height to 25 feet . 24 CHAIRMAN CRUZ : Okay. 25 MR. MCDONALD: And that would be it . ChaRae Kent, CCR, RPR Kent Reporting * (509) 627-2244 s 1 CHAIRMAN CRUZ : All right . If there ' s any other 2 concerns, then we' re at a point where a motion would be 3 appropriate to amend that condition. n COMMISSIONER GREENAWAY: I would more to adopt the 5 Findings of Facts and Conclusions therefrom as we stated 6 with the 25-foot maximum height contained on the March 15, 7 2012 staff report . COMMISSIONER KHAN: I ' ll second that. 9 CHAIRMAN CRUZ : Okay. I think that ' s pretty close. 10 MR. WHITE: It should reference the June 21st staff 11 report . 12 COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: Mr. Chair, page 4 . 13 CHAIRMAN CRUZ : Got it. I 'm looking at page 4 . 14 COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: It ' s June 21st . CHAIRMAN CRUZ : Oh. COMMISSIONER GREENAWAY: I don' t have page 4 . CHAIRMAN CRUZ : Let' s call that a do-over. Let ' s 18 start over again. 19 COMMISSIONER GREENAWAY: Sorry. My page 4 is not in 20, here. 21 I move to adopt the additional Findings of Facts and 2z_ modified Conclusions therefrom as contained in the staff 23 memo of June 21st, 2012 . 24 COMMISSIONER KHAN: I ' ll second that . 25 CHAIRMAN CRUZ : All those in favor say aye. ChaRae Kent, CCR, RPR Kent Reporting * (509) 627-2244 9 1 COMMISSION MEMBERS (in unison) : Aye . 2 CHAIRMAN CRUZ : Okay. Let the record show the motion 3 passed unanimously. COMMISSIONER GREENAWAY: I move, based on the Findings of Fact and Conclusions therefrom, the Planning Commission recommend the City Council approve the rezone of C-1 (retail business) and R-1 (low density residential) 8 to R-3 (medium density residential) with a concomitant 9 agreement prohibiting access to the property from Charles 10 Street, limited the height of buildings placed south of 11 the south line of Block 3, Whitehouse Addition, to 25 feet 12 and requiring a minimum of 40 feet for a front yard l:? setback for any building over one story north of the south 14 line of Block 3, Whitehouse Addition. 15 CHAIRMAN CRUZ : So let me pause for a second. You 15 can have tall buildings on the north side and short 17 buildings on the south side? 18 COMMISSIONER GREENAWAY: That ' s not what we agreed. 19 CHAIRMAN CRUZ : They would basically say limit the 20 buildings on the property to 25 feet period. 21 COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: Period. 22 CHAIRMAN CRUZ : So you want to -- we ' ll call that one 23 back again. 24 COMMISSIONER GREENAWAY: Okay. So I need to read the 25 whole thing back over? ChaRae Kent, CCR, RPR Kent Reporting * (509) 627-2244 10 1 MR. MCDONALD: I think we can understand what you are 2 talking about -- and the rest of the group does . 3 COMMISSIONER GREENAWAY: Okay. 4 MR. MCDONALD: It ' s a concomitant agreement for 5 limiting access from Charles Street, limiting the height 6 of 25 feet on all of the property, not just the southern 7 half. 8 COMMISSIONER GREENAWAY: Correct . 9 CHAIRMAN CRUZ : Okay. We need a second. 10 COMMISSIONER KHAN: I ' ll second that . 11 CHAIRMAN CRUZ : I 'm going to give that one to 12 Commissioner Khan. Seconded by Commissioner Khan. 13 All those in favor say aye. 14 COMMISSIONER MEMBERS (in unison) : Aye. 15 CHAIRMAN CRUZ : Let the record show the motion passed 16 unanimously. 17 When we don't get our music, Folks, we just aren' t 18 getting it together. 19 Okay. So that takes us to item number 6 in the 20 agenda which is public hearings. Item number A is block 21 grant administration. 22 (CONCLUDED. ) 23 24 25 ChaRae Kent, CCR, RPR Kent Reporting * (509) 627-2244 1 C E R T I F I C A T E. 2 STATE OF WASHINGTON } ) ss . 3 COUNTY OF BENTON } 4 This is to certify that I, ChaRae Kent, the 5 undersigned Washington Certified Court Reporter, residing 6 at Richland, reported the within and foregoing Planning 7 Commission Meeting on the date herein set forth; that said 8 examination was taken by me in shorthand and thereafter 9 transcribed, and that same is a true and correct record of 10 the proceedings . 11 I further certify that I am not a relative or 12 employee or attorney or counsel of any the parties, nor am 13 I financially interested in the outcome of the cause. 14 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and 15 affixed my Washington State CCR number this day 16 of 2012 . 17 18 19 `a` 1uurr ���` AE ,►� CHA E KENT, RPR, CR 20 e�,Ca�A•S""Ta tij.��i CCR NO. 2408 ` , V `cIIN(3 y. i : CCR 21 *: ' .m--a*• 22 2408. � Pw• A, ` 2 3 �;e <"'�^ N 0UVi-*0-'N 24 25 ChaRae Kent, CCR, RPR Kent Reporting * (509) 627-2244