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