HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-18-2012 Planning Commission PacketPLANNING COMMISSION – AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING 7:00 P.M. October 18, 2012
I. CALL TO ORDER:
II. ROLL CALL: Declaration of Quorum
III. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: September 20, 2012
V. OLD BUSINESS:
A. Rezone Rezone from BP (Business Park) to C-3
(General Business) (Bill Dolsen) (MF# Z2012-
003) – Continued to November 15, 2012
Meeting (No Written Material Provided)
B. Preliminary Plat Preliminary plat approval for Sunset Village
(Dave Richards) (MF# PP2012-003)
VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
A. Special Permit Location of a thrift store in a C-1 Zone
(Riverview Baptist Church) (MF# SP2012-020)
– Continued from September 20, 2012
Meeting
B. Special Permit Location of a Level 1-Community Service
Facility (Sol Educational Services) (MF#
SP2012-022)
C. Zoning Determination Zoning Determination of unincorporated
property located in the Riverview Area (MF#
ANX2012-001)
D. Zoning Determination Zoning Determination of unincorporated
property located at I-182 Water Intake Facility
(MF# ANX2012-002)
VII. OTHER BUSINESS:
VIII. WORKSHOP:
IX. ADJOURNMENT:
-1-
REGULAR MEETING September 20, 2012
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
CALL TO ORDER:
The meeting was called to order at 7:00pm by Chairwoman Kempf.
POSITION MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT
No. 1 Michael Levin
No. 2 Vacant
No. 3 Andy Anderson
No. 4 Alecia Greenaway
No. 5 Joe Cruz
No. 6 Vacant
No. 7 Zahra Khan
No. 8 Jana Kempf
No. 9 Paul Hilliard
APPEARANCE OF FAIRNESS:
Chairwoman Kempf read a statement about the appearance of fairness for hearings on
land use matters. Chairwoman Kempf asked if any Commission member had anything
to declare.
Chairwoman Kempf then asked the audience if there were any objections based on a
conflict of interest or appearance of fairness questions regarding the items to be
discussed this evening. There were no objections.
ADMINISTERING THE OATH:
Chairwoman Kempf explained that state law requires testimony in quasi-judicial
hearings such as held by the Planning Commission be given under oath or affirmation.
Chairwoman Kempf swore in all those desiring to speak.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Commissioner Anderson moved, seconded by Commissioner Levin, that the minutes
dated August 16, 2012 be approved as mailed. The motion passed unanimously.
Commissioner Greenaway made a correction to the August 22, 2012. The minutes
stated that Commissioner Greenaway seconded the minutes however she was not at
the August 22, 2012 meeting. Staff noted the correction and changed the August 22,
2012 minutes to state Chairwoman Kempf seconded the minutes.
Commissioner Anderson moved, seconded by Commissioner Greenaway, that the
minutes dated August 22, 2012 be approved as amended. The motion passed
unanimously.
-2-
OLD BUSINESS:
A. Special Permit
Location of a church in an R-1 District (Manual
Estrada) (MF# SP2012-015)
Chairwoman Kempf read the master file number and asked for comments from staff.
Shane O’Neill, Planner I, discussed the application for a special permit for the location
of a church in an R-1 District. Mr. O’Neill explained that staff contacted the applicant
since the previous meeting to make sure he was clear on the conditions in the report
and that there were no changes since the previous Planning Commission Meeting.
Commissioner Greenaway asked if Mr. Estrada accepted the conditions.
Mr. O’Neill answered that he believed the applicant is accepting on the conditions.
Commissioner Anderson moved, seconded by Commissioner Levin, to adopt findings of
fact and conclusions as contained in the September 20, 2012 staff report. The motion
passed unanimously.
Commissioner Anderson moved, seconded by Commissioner Levin, based on the
findings of fact and conclusions that the Planning Commission recommend the City
Council grant a special permit to Manuel Estrada for the location of a church and
parsonage at 605 North 5th Avenue with the conditions as contained in the September
20, 2012 staff report. The motion passed unanimously.
B. Special Permit
Location of an Elementary School in a C-3
District (Pasco School District) (MF# SP2012-
017)
Chairwoman Kempf read the master file number and asked for comments from staff.
Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director, discussed the application
for an elementary school in a C-3 District. Mr. White explained that there were no
changes in conditions since the previous meeting.
Commissioner Levin moved, seconded by Commissioner Greenaway, to adopt findings
of fact and conclusions therefrom as contained in the September 20, 2012 staff report.
The motion passed unanimously.
Commissioner Levin moved, seconded by Commissioner Greenaway, based on the
findings of fact and conclusions therefrom the Planning Commission recommend the
City Council grant a special permit to the Pasco School District #1 for location of an
elementary school at the southeast corner of the intersection of Spokane Street and N.
California Avenue, with conditions as listed in the September 20, 2012 staff report.
The motion passed unanimously.
-3-
C. Special Permit
Location of a cell phone tower (Verizon
Wireless) (MF# SP2012-018)
Chairwoman Kempf read the master file number and asked for comments from staff.
Shane O’Neill, Planner I, discussed the application for a special permit for the location
of a cell phone tower in a C-1 Zone. Mr. O’Neill explained that there were no changes
since the previous Planning Commission Meeting.
Commissioner Hilliard moved, seconded by Commissioner Khan, to adopt findings of
fact and conclusions as contained in the September 20, 2012 staff report. The motion
passed unanimously.
Commissioner Hilliard moved, seconded by Commissioner Anderson, based on the
findings of fact and conclusions that the Planning Commission recommend the City
Council grant a special permit to Verizon Wireless for the location of a cellular antenna
tower at 9335 Sandifur Parkway with the conditions as contained in the September
20, 2012 staff report. The motion passed unanimously.
D. Rezone
Rezone from CR (Regional Commercial) to C-1
(Retail Business) (General Advertising Agency)
(MF# Z2012-004)
Chairwoman Kempf read the master file number and asked for comments from staff.
Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director, discussed the application
for a rezone application from a CR (Regional Commercial) Zone to a C-1 (Retail
Business) Zone. He explained that nothing has been added since the previous staff
report.
Commissioner Khan moved, seconded by Commissioner Greenaway, to adopt findings
of fact and conclusions therefrom as contained in the September 20, 2012 staff report.
The motion passed unanimously.
Commissioner Khan moved, seconded by Commissioner Greenaway, based on findings
of fact and conclusions therefrom the Planning Commissioner recommend the City
Council approve a rezone from CR (Regional Commerci al) District to C-1 (Retail
Business) District for lots 1 & 2 of Binding Site Plan 2011-05, located at 3521 W.
Court Street. The motion passed unanimously.
E. Special Permit
Goodwill in a C-1 District (Goodwill Industries)
(MF# SP2012-019)
Chairwoman Kempf read the master file number and asked for comments from staff.
Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director, discussed the special
permit application for the location of a donation -based thrift shop in a C-1 (Retail
Business) Zone. Mr. White explained that the only item staff had added since the
previous staff report was a standard condition restricting light spillage to adjacent
properties.
-4-
Commissioner Anderson moved, seconded by Commissioner Levin, to adopt findings of
fact and conclusions therefrom as contained in the September 20, 2012 staff report.
The motion passed unanimously.
Commissioner Anderson moved, seconded by Commissioner Greenaway, based on the
findings of fact and conclusions therefrom the Planning Commission recommend the
City Council grant a special permit to Goodwill Industries of the Columbia Basin for
location of a donation-based thrift shop on lot 1 of Binding Site Plan 2011 -05, located
at 3521 W. Court Street, with conditions as listed in the September 20, 2012 staff
report. The motion passed unanimously.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
A. Special Permit
Location of a thrift store in a C-1 Zone
(Riverview Baptist Church) (MF# SP2012-020)
Chairwoman Kempf read the master file number and asked for comments from staff.
Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director, discussed the special
permit application for a donation-based thrift store in a C-1 Zone, located at 1208 N.
20th Avenue.
Mr. White noted that there were two recommendations in the staff report; one is the
standard recommendation to close the public hearing and schedule adoption of
findings and conditions. However, after the staff report was prepared, staff noticed a
slight error in the public hearing notice. Staff recommends the second motion on the
report to continue the public hearing to allow the re -advertisement of the public
hearing notice and to gather more information from the applicant regarding
operational procedures of the proposal.
Dr. John Paisley, 4805 W. Wernett, Lead Pastor for Riverview Baptist Church, spoke
on behalf of his special permit application. To assist in paying for missionaries the
church had the idea of a donation-based secondhand store. The church would have
volunteers to assist with the intake of donations and cleaning of the clothes dropped
off. The building for the store has been donated as well as a warehouse to store extra
items dropped off. There will be a drop-off for Wednesday and Sunday services. There
would be no drop-offs allowed outside of the secondhand store. Donations would be
allowed at the store but only inside.
Chairwoman Kempf asked Dr. Paisley if the store would be mostly consignment.
Dr. Paisley clarified that it would not be consignment. It would strictly be donation-
based only.
Commissioner Anderson asked if items other than clothing would also be accepted as
a donation, such as, furniture.
-5-
Dr. Paisley answered that they would accept any donation they coul d. They might
have volunteers to pick up large items at the homes of people donating to deter drop -
offs at the store or warehouse location.
Commissioner Khan asked if the applicant had a chance to look over the approval
conditions and if he agrees to them, primarily regarding signage pertaining to no drop-
offs after-hours.
Dr. Paisley answered yes to everything.
Mr. White reminded the Planning Commission that the staff recommendation is that
the Public Hearing be continued to October 18, 2012.
With no further comments the public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Anderson moved, seconded by Commissioner Levin, to continue the
public hearing to the October 18, 2012 Planning Commissioner meeting. The motion
passed unanimously.
B. Preliminary Plat
Preliminary Plat approval for Sunset Village
(Dave Richards) (MF# PP2012-003)
Chairwoman Kempf read the master file number and asked for comments from staff.
Shane O’Neill, Planner I, discussed the preliminary plat for Sunset Village. The plan is
for 26-lots with two tracts, consisting of 12 duplexes and 2 single -family homes. The
site was recently rezoned from RT (Residential Transition) to R-3 (Medium Density
Residential) with a concomitant agreement. That concomitant agreement limited the
density to 30 dwelling units on the site with maximum building heights of 30 feet.
The approval conditions in the staff report are standard for preliminary plats. Access
for the 26-lots will come from Road 90 by way of private drive. One of the conditions
is that a Home Owner’s Association be formed and maintained.
Commissioner Hilliard requested clarification as to why the utilities for this site were
private rather than through the city.
Mr. O’Neill answered that the utilities will come from the city.
David McDonald, City Planner, clarified that the site will be connected to both city
sewer and water but because the water lines and sewer lines will be on private
property with an easement, the developer or Home Owner’s Association will be
responsible for the maintenance and upkeep of those lines.
Commissioner Khan asked if the plan for 10 duplexes and 1 triplex was out of the
question.
Mr. McDonald answered that staff is not sure exactly what the developer is planning.
It would allow for duplexes, triplexes or single-family homes.
-6-
Commissioner Hilliard asked a question regarding street access in regards to
emergency vehicles.
Mr. McDonald answered that the streets are designed the way that they are, as a
“hammerhead”, to allow a large area for trucks to turn around and meets the
standards for the Fire Department.
John Laney, 1415 6th Street, Clarkston, WA, business partner to David Richards,
spoke on behalf of the preliminary plat. The plans are to build some duplexes
comparable to Mediterranean Village.
Tom Russell, 8814 Wilshire Drive, asked a few questions and gave statements
regarding the proposed preliminary plat. He stated that a meeting between the
developer and the neighbors that was recommended by staff in previous meetings
never took place. He asked staff if these duplexes will be condos or rental units and
what the proposed “buffer” between the residential homes and the proposed plat will
look like.
Chairwoman Kempf answered that the buffer will be a strip of landscaping.
Mr. Russell asked if the meeting for the night was to discuss building heights.
Chairwoman Kempf answered that he can discuss building heights if he would like.
Mr. Russell asked what the developers plans were for building heights since the
neighbors are still unsure what the plans are for the development and have never seen
any pictures or the plans.
Chairwoman Kempf answered that the proposal is only for a preliminary plat and does
not include many details.
Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director, stated that the building
height was restricted to 30 feet along with setbacks that have been accomplished on
the north side of the plat with the 15 foot tract. There will still be a setback required
equal to the height of the building on the lot itself.
Mr. Russell asked again if the buildings are to be condos or rental units.
Mr. White answered that the Pasco Municipal Code does not required that to be
addressed by the Planning Commissioner. Single-family homes, duplexes and
triplexes can all be rented. Property lines will go through each unit of the duplexes so
that each unit could be purchased by different buyers.
Mr. McDonald explained that the purpose for the plat being set up as it is for multi -
family development is to be able to allow individual units to be sold, having ownership
interest planned rather than rentals, however they could be rented just as someone in
a single-family neighborhood could rent their house.
Mr. Russell asked if it was a recommendation or a requirement to have an HOA for the
development.
-7-
Mr. McDonald answered that it will be a plat requirement that they set up a Home
Owner’s Association to maintain the common areas, private road, utilities and any
other items they may wish.
Mr. Russell stated that the geography is not flat. He asked if the land will fall once it
is landscaped.
Mr. McDonald answered that the geography will be determined once the applicant is
farther into their engineering work which has not been completed yet. The roads will
have to meet proper grades tying into the street at the proper elevation. Onc e into the
property it may rise.
Mr. Russell asked why the owner chose not to contact the neighbors to meet.
Mr. McDonald stated that he did not know. It was a recommendation but not
mandatory that the developer meet with the neighbors.
Mr. Russell stated that the developer failed to show up and the neighborhood is very
passionate about this application. Thirty people from the neighborhood have shown
up to voice their opinions at previous meetings and it was disappointing for them that
the developer did not take the recommendation to meet with them.
With no further comments the public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Khan moved, seconded by Commissioner Greenaway, to close the
hearing on the proposed subdivision and initiate deliberations and schedule adoption
of findings of fact, conclusions and a recommendation to the City Council for the
October 18, 2012 meeting. The motion passed unanimously.
Mr. White stated that this item will come back to the Planning Commission in October
for the recommendation to City Council. Staff will most likely enhance some of the
conditions, particularly landscaping, so that the plans are more definitive as well as
some minor issues with the Home Owner’s Association for maintenance of the utility
system.
OTHER BUSINESS:
A. Rezone
Rezone from BP (Business Park) to C-3
(General Business) (Bill Dolsen) (MF# Z2012-
003) – Continued to October 18, 2012 Meeting
Chairwoman Kempf read the master file number and asked for comments from staff.
David McDonald, City Planner, explained the rezone from BP (Business Park) to C-3
(General Business). The applicant in this case is in the process of working with an
engineer/architect to lay out design for the property with respect to the building.
Because the location of the building and the orientation there was concern relative to
the single-family residential neighborhood to the east. There may be conditions
-8-
attached to the rezone. The recommendation is to continue the hearing on this item to
the October 18, 2012 meeting to allow more time.
Commissioner Hilliard moved, seconded by Commissioner Greenaway, to continue the
hearing on Master File # Z2012-003 to the October 18, 2012 meeting. The motion
passed unanimously.
WORKSHOP:
A. Code Amendment
Regional Commercial Zones (MF# CA2012-004)
Chairwoman Kempf read the master file number and asked for comments from staff.
Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director, discussed the workshop
item of Regional Commercial Zones. Out of the code amendment process for the sale
of secondhand goods, one of the outcomes was a series of quest ions regarding what
specific purpose or benefit does the Regional Commercial zoning designation bring to
the community. The memo to the Planning Commission contained current permitted
uses in the CR Zone and questions for discussion.
Commissioner Anderson asked if CR zones were eliminated if economic development
would be impeded in those zones and force businesses to locate elsewhere in regards
to auto dealerships.
Mr. White explained that currently C-1 zones don’t allow auto dealerships outright but
with a special permit process and there are restrictions, so if CR zoning was
eliminated then there could be problems.
Chairwoman Kempf stated that the CR zones are important, especially in the Road
100 and I-182 Interchange area and that area should remain zoned as CR.
Commissioner Levin asked if CR zoning was appropriate for hotels.
David McDonald, City Planner, answered that hotels are allowed in CR zones. Hotel
franchisees have looked at the location on Road 100 over the years but have chosen
not to locate there.
Commissioner Anderson asked if the CR zone was expanded to the whole Road 100
area if it would enhance the marketability, for example for box stores.
Mr. White answered that having CR zoning would enhance the area for uses that are
in addition to those already included in the C-1 zone, particularly for auto and RV
sales. A box store could go in a C-1 or CR zone. One of the questions to the
Commission is if the right areas are zoned CR. Perhaps the area north of I-182 should
also be zoned CR.
Chairwoman Kempf asked if CR zoning included amusement and water parks.
-9-
Mr. White answered that in the memo to the Planning Commission, amusement, game
and recreation centers are permitted uses in the CR zoning district.
Commissioner Anderson stated that he would prefer to do whatever it would take to
enhance the economic development of that area. If it would be beneficial to make it a
CR zone to attract business then he would be in favor. He did not like the idea of
having amusement, game and recreation centers included in CR zones because it
could be a waste of that property because that area has greater potential.
Commissioner Khan agreed with Commissioner Anderson but added that if the area is
full of auto sales how beneficial that would be to the school and neighborhood area.
She would like to see bakeries, hotels and other type of commercial activities.
Commissioner Anderson added that auto dealerships bring in a good amount of tax
income for little services needed so they are beneficial to the City, however, how many
car dealerships are really needed.
Commissioner Levin stated that he lives off of Road 100 and would personally like to
see a coffee shop. Currently everything is located on Road 68 which is heavily
trafficked. Retail use would be desired in that area.
Commissioner Khan added that she didn’t see the value of completely eliminating the
CR zoning if it is so close to C-1 zoning.
Mr. White stated that general retail use can currently occur in CR zones. This
particular site has been a puzzle for the community. The location is ideal in terms of
freeway access but yet it has been hindered. There aren’t enough vehicle trips per day
to lend them for making retailers invest in the area. Until that occurs, general retail
business will probably not occur.
Commissioner Levin asked if that was why the Broadmoor Outlet Mall where churches
are located has not been successful in retail.
Mr. White answered that retail does not generally do well all by itself. This property
pretty much sits all by itself.
Commissioner Hilliard stated that he always thought the layout of the outlet mall was
visually unappealing and does not draw people into the mall. The Road 100 area
needs to be kept the most inviting for marketability. The current zoning doesn’t have
as many restrictions keeping it the most open.
Chairwoman Kempf stated that it sounds like most of the Commissioners wish to keep
the CR zoning in the I-182 Corridor but remove it from Court Street/Downtown.
Mr. White asked if the Commission is interested in pursuing an analysis of the
possibility of rezoning the north side of the Road 100/I-182 area to CR.
Commissioner Hilliard and Commissioner Greenaway answered yes.
-10-
Chairwoman Kempf stated that if amusement parks are left in the CR zoning then she
would like to see that area zoned C-1 on the north side of I-182.
Mr. White suggested that the area to the north of I-182 could include the use as one
that requires a special permit.
Chairwoman Kempf said that would work.
Commissioner Anderson stated that he would like to see an analysis as to what zoning
would be the most inviting to the development in that area.
With no other items to discuss, Mr. White thanked the Commission for their input.
B. Code Amendment PMC Title 25 Amendments (MF# CA2011-006)
Chairwoman Kempf read the master file number and asked for comments from staff.
Shane O’Neill, Planner I, discussed the workshop item of PMC Title 25 Amendments.
Many of the changes are perfunctory and grammatical. Some defini tions are included
in the perfunctory revisions that are new.
The residential zones have been revised in respect to family day care, mostly to be
consistent with state law.
Height and rear setback of accessory structures was also amended with the Planning
Commission’s recommendation.
Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director, added clarification on the
height and rear setbacks of accessory structures.
Commissioner Hilliard asked if the amendment to the accessory structures would only
be for new structures, not structures currently standing.
Mr. White responded that it would only be for new structures.
Chairwoman Kempf asked if the reasoning for the amendment was to match the
County’s code for accessory structures.
Mr. O’Neill answered that the City is trying to match the County code.
Commissioner Anderson stated that people should have the ability to build a structure
that they could store their motor home in if that’s what they want to do yet you don’t
want to overpower the neighborhood either.
Commissioner Hilliard asked if the height could be set by use of a special permit.
Mr. White said that would be one option but not by variance but a special permit
would allow the Commissioner to look at the setbacks in particular and the design of
the building.
-11-
Mr. O’Neill reminded the Commission that dancehalls and nightclubs are being added
as a conditional use in a C-1 Zone to address the possible concern of their proximity
to residential zones and uses.
Commissioner Anderson asked if Pasco had any nightclubs.
Mr. O’Neill answered that Pasco does have nightclubs.
Mr. White added that there are roughly 4-6 nightclubs.
Mr. O’Neill discussed Chairman Cruz’s recommendation regarding batch and asphalt
plants. Staff focused on those recommendations to make sure they were correctly
addressed.
Clarification to the language was also made relating to commercia l landscaping
standards to ensure landscape strips are located in the correct spot.
Commissioner Hilliard asked if there were a drought situation, could the Planning
Commission look at changing the rules on live vegetation in regards to the
landscaping.
Mr. O’Neill answered that the landscaping standards are typical for commercial
landscapers and they would have automatic sprinkler systems. Currently the
requirement is for 60% of all required landscaped areas to have live vegetation. The
owners can choose to development in a drought tolerant condition.
Mr. White stated that it is a big issue and with the rapid growth in Pasco it is not as
easy to get water rights as some of the neighboring communities. The Public Works
Department is looking at how the water is being used, trying to incentivize wise use of
water.
Commissioner Hilliard stated that as a Commission planning for the future, the live
vegetation may need to be a restriction.
With no further code amendments to discuss, Mr. White discussed future action on
this workshop item.
C. Zoning Riverview Zoning Determination (MF#
ZD2012-001)
Chairwoman Kempf read the master file number and asked for comments from staff.
Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director, discussed this workshop
item. No action is needed for the night but staff wanted to alert the Planning
Commission that the City is looking toward annexing a portion of the “donut hole” or
Riverview Island Area. The annexation process requires the Planning Commission to
determine the zoning for the area. Most of the area is zoned in the County as RS-20.
There are few uses, if any, that are not in conformance. There are also some areas
zoned R-2 and Commercial. The R-2 zoning seems to be a result of the County’s
interpretation of the Pasco’s Comprehensive Plan. However, the areas zone R-2
-12-
(Medium Density Residential) are actually developed with site built single -family
homes on fairly large lots. The City has not receive d copies of the concomitant
agreements yet from the County but staff believes that is what the agreement states,
single-family homes will be built on fairly large lots. The question for the Planning
Commission is should the zoning mirror the County zoning as closely as possible. The
City on several occasions, as a matter of policy, has made it a priority to not impose
changes in zoning as a result of annexation so that the residents have some assurance
that what they are used to living with will be allowed to continue. From the staff
prospective, the recommendation is for the Commission to adopt the zoning most
closely matching the County’s zoning.
There was going to be a special meeting scheduled for October 3, 2012. That meeting
is no longer necessary as it will be held at the regular meeting on October 18, 2012.
The issue will not be on annexation, strictly on zoning.
With no further discussion or business, the Planning Commission was adjourned at
8:19 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
______________________________
Dave McDonald, City Planner
1
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
MASTER FILE NO: PP 2012-003
HEARING DATE: 9/20/2012
ACTION DATE: 10/18/2012
APPLICANT: Dave Richards (Crest LLC)
P.O. Box 38
Clarkston WA, 99403
BACKGROUND
REQUEST: Preliminary Plat: Sunset Village, 26-Lots (Multi-Family)
1. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION:
Legal: Lot 5, Cole Estates
General Location: Road 90, approximately 960 feet north
of Sandifur Parkway
Property Size: 4.7 Acres
Number of Lots Proposed: 26 lots and 2 tracts
Square Footage Range of Lots: 5,700 ft² to 8,686 ft² with a 24,382 ft²
and an 11,328 ft² common area tract
Average Lot Square Footage: 6,480 ft² (excluding Tract “A” & “B”)
2. ACCESS: The property will have access from Road 90. A 28 foot wide
private road will provide access to each lot.
3. UTILITIES: Municipal sewer and water services are currently available
from the main in Road 90.
4. LAND USE AND ZONING: The site is zoned R-3 (Medium Density
Residential) with a concomitant agreement limiting the residential
density to 30 units. Surrounding properties are zoned and developed as
follows:
NORTH: R-1 – Single Family Residences
SOUTH: C-1 – Vacant
EAST: R-1 – Single Family Residences
WEST RT – Vacant
5. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The Comprehensive Plan indicates the site is
intended for mixed residential development. According to the
Comprehensive Plan, mixed residential development means 5 to 20
dwelling units per acre. The criteria for allocation under the future land
use section of Volume II of the Comprehensive Plan (Vol. II, page 17)
encourages development of lands designated for mixed residential uses
when or where: sewer is available, the location is convenient to major
circulation routes, the site serves as a transition between more intense
uses and low density uses, and when there is a market demand. Goal H-
2
2 suggests the City strive to maintain a variety of housing options for
residents of the community. Goal LU-2 encourages the maintenance of
established neighborhoods and the creation of new neighborhoods that
are safe and enjoyable places to live.
6. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The City of Pasco is the lead
agency for this project. Based on the SEPA checklist, the adopted City
Comprehensive Plan, City development regulations, comments received
from the Pasco School District, and other information, the City has
issued a Mitigated Determination of Non-Significance (MDNS) for this
project under WAC 197-11-158.
ANALYSIS
The site was originally part of Coles Estates, which was developed as a rural
large lot subdivision 45 years ago. The property was annexed to the City in
1982 and zoned RT (Residential Transition). The RT zone is essentially used as
a holding zone that is applied to properties until public services are available or
can be conveniently extended. Road 90 was constructed in 2009 and water
and sewer service were brought to the property in the same year. Following the
land use designation of the Comprehensive Plan, the property was rezoned to
R-3 earlier this year. The rezone restricted development on the site to no more
than 30 dwelling units. The rezone included other limitations dealing with
building heights (limited to 30 feet) and setbacks (at least 15 feet on the north
and east depending on yard orientation).
The applicant is proposing to subdivide the 4.7 acre site in question into 26
lots and two tracts to allow the construction of 26 zero lot-line single-family
residences. Essentially the developer is proposing to build 12 duplex buildings
and two single family homes or 10 duplex units and two tri-plexes. Each
dwelling unit will occupy an individual lot in the same manner as the duplexes
and multi-family buildings do in the Mediterranean Villas development to the
west. The proposal for Sunset Village is identical to the process that was used
for the recent approval of the Navigator Villas development now being built on
Road 68 and Powerline Road. Individual lots were created through the platting
process with a common driveway, parking area and common areas including
an area for a clubhouse. The Island Estates Row Home development in the
Island Estates subdivision (Phase 8) and the Mediterranean Villas subdivision
are also examples of multi-family developments that were established through
the platting process. Each of these subdivisions were zoned for multi-family
development and later platted into individual lots. The lot lines within these
subdivisions became the common boundary line separating the dwelling units.
LOT LAYOUT: The proposed plat contains 26 lots; with the lots varying in size
from 5,700 square feet to 8,686 square feet; the average size being 6,480
3
square feet. The Plat also contains two common area tracts of 11,328 square
feet and 24,382 square feet. These tracts will be developed as a common open
space with the possibility of a clubhouse on the larger tract to the south. The
proposal will allow 4 fewer dwelling units on the site than permitted by the
April, 2012 rezone.
RIGHTS-OF-WAY: The Plat fronts Road 90 which is currently developed to
City standards.
UTILITIES: The developer will be responsible for extending utilities into the
Plat. A common utility easement will be needed along either side of common
access driveway. The Franklin County PUD has identified the need for
easements on both sides of the internal access way. The PUD permits common
use of utility trenches which enables the easement to be used by other utility
providers.
The City Engineer will determine the specific placement of fire hydrants and
streetlights when construction plans are submitted.
STREET NAMES: Road 90 is already named. A name of the private access
road will be assigned during the final platting process.
IRRIGATION: Municipal Code requires installation of irrigation lines as a part
of infrastructure improvements. Although the site is outside of the Franklin
County Irrigation District service area, a City irrigation meter will be installed
to provide irrigation water.
WATER RIGHTS: The assignment of water rights is a requirement for
subdivision approval. Water rights have not yet been assigned to the City.
FINDINGS OF FACT
State law (RCW 58.17.010) and the Pasco Municipal Code require the Planning
Commission to develop Findings of Fact as to how this proposed subdivision
will protect and enhance the health, safety and general welfare of the
community. The following is a listing of proposed "Findings of Fact":
Prevent Overcrowding: Density requirements of the R-3 zone are designed to
address overcrowding concerns. The R-3 zone permits a density of 14.5
dwelling units per acre. The proposed plat has a density of 5.53 units per acre.
The April, 2012 rezone for the property restricted development to a maximum
of 6.38 units per acre. No more than 60 percent of each lot is permitted to be
covered with structures.
4
Parks Opens Space/Schools: A City park is located adjacent to Maya Angelou
Elementary School. The proposed subdivision will be served by Maya Angelou
Elementary School, McLoughlin Middle School and Chiawana High School.
The Preliminary Plat was submitted to the School District for review. The City
is required by RCW 58.17.110 to make a finding that adequate provisions are
being made to ameliorate the impacts of the proposed subdivision on the
School District. Since the Pasco School District has requested residential
development impacts be mitigated, the City has implemented a schools impact
fee paid at the time of building permit issuance. In response to the subdivision
proposal the School District, by letter dated August 30, 2012, has the
expectation that impact fees will be collected for the purpose of addressing the
requirements of RCW 58.17.110. The School District letter also indicated the
proposed development could add an additional 15 students to the District
enrollment
Effective Land Use/Orderly Development: The plat is laid out to effectively
utilize the site consistent with the rezone approval that occurred in April 2012.
The rezone permitted 30 dwelling units to be developed on the site. The Plat is
designed for 26 units.
Safe Travel & Walking Conditions: The Plat is connected to the community by
Road 90. Sidewalks are a part of the development requirements for the
property and must conform to current City standards and the Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements.
Adequate Provision of Municipal Services: All lots within the Plat will be
provided with water, sewer and other utilities.
Provision of Housing for State Residents: The proposed Preliminary Plat
contains 26 multi-family building lots, providing an opportunity for the
construction of 26 dwelling units.
Adequate Air and Light: The maximum lot coverage limitations and building
setbacks will assure that adequate movement of air and light is available to
each lot.
Proper Access & Travel: Road 90 has been developed to City standards and
provides access to the property from Sandifur Parkway. The Preliminary Plat
was submitted to the Transit Authority for review. (The discussion under “Safe
Travel” above applies to this section also).
Comprehensive Plan Policies & Maps: The Comprehensive Plan designates
the Plat site for mixed residential development. Policies of the Comprehensive
Plan suggest the City strive to maintain a variety of housing for residents.
5
Other Findings:
1. The site is within the Pasco Urban Growth Boundary.
2. The State Growth Management Act requires urban growth and urban
densities to occur within the Urban Growth Boundaries.
3. The Comprehensive Plan identifies the site for mixed residential
development.
4. The site is zoned R-3 (Medium Density Residential).
5. The site was zoned R-3 in April of 2012.
6. The zoning Ordinance (adopted in 2012) for the site, limits the number
of dwelling units on the site to thirty (30).
7. The developer is proposing to build 26 dwelling units on the site.
8. The proposed Plat contains 35,710 square feet of common open space,
equivalent in size to four adjoining single family lots.
9. The Housing Element of the Comprehensive Plan encourages the
development of a variety of residential densities and housing types.
10. The Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan encourages
the interconnection of neighborhood streets to provide for the
disbursement of traffic.
11. Road 90 provides access to the site from the north and south.
12. The School District, by letter dated August 30, 2012, indicated the
proposed Plat could cause an additional 15 students to be enrolled in
the Pasco School District.
13. The School District, by letter dated August 30, 2012, stated there was
an expectation that school impact fees would be collected for
development within the proposed Plat.
14. RCW 58.17.110 requires the City to make a finding that adequate
provisions have been made for schools before any preliminary plat is
approved.
15. The School District indicated by previous correspondence dated
February 3, 2012, that impact fees address the requirement to ensure
adequate provisions are made for schools.
CONCLUSIONS BASED ON THE FINDINGS OF FACT
Before recommending approval or denial of the proposed Plat the Planning
Commission must develop Findings of Fact from which to draw its conclusion
(P.M.C. 26.24.070) therefrom as to whether or not:
(1) Adequate provisions are made for the public health, safety and
general welfare and for open spaces, drainage ways, streets, alleys,
other public ways, water supplies, sanitary wastes, parks,
6
playgrounds, transit stops, schools and school grounds, sidewalks for
safe walking conditions for students and other public needs;
The proposed Plat will be required to develop under the standards of the
Municipal Code and the standard specifications of the City Engineering
Division. These standards include all infrastructure improvements designed to
ensure the public health, safety and general welfare of the community are
secured. These standards include provisions for access, drainage, water and
sewer service and fire safety. The Preliminary Plat was forwarded to the
Franklin County PUD, the Pasco School District and Ben-Franklin Transit
Authority for review and comment. The School District indicated the Plat may
add another 15 students to the District’s enrollment and there was an
expectation that the development would pay a school impact fee to ensure
adequate provisions are made for schools.
A neighborhood park is located on Road 84 adjacent to Maya Angelou
Elementary School. All new developments participate in establishing parks
through the payment of park fees at the time of permitting.
The development will be required to pay a traffic mitigation fee with each
permit for the development’s share of future street improvements including the
installation of new traffic signals.
(2) The proposed subdivision contributes to the orderly development and
land use patterns in the area;
The proposed Plat makes efficient use of vacant land and will provide for
additional housing following the designation of the Comprehensive Plan and
the established zoning. The proposed subdivision provides a transition buffer
between the commercially zone properties to the south and the single-family
properties to the north. The development of the property will include 325 feet of
new sidewalk along Road 90.
(3) The proposed subdivision conforms to the policies, maps and
narrative text of the Comprehensive Plan;
The Comprehensive Plan land use map designates the site for mixed residential
development. The Housing Element of the Plan encourages the promotion of a
variety of residential densities including multi-family development.
(4) The proposed subdivision conforms to the general purposes of any
applicable policies or plans which have been adopted by the City
Council;
7
Development plans and policies have been adopted by the City Council in the
form of the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed subdivision conforms to the
policies, maps and narrative text of the Plan as noted in number three above.
(5) The proposed subdivision conforms to the general purposes of the
subdivision regulations.
The general purposes of the subdivision regulations have been enumerated and
discussed in the staff analysis and Findings of Fact. The Findings of Fact
indicate the subdivision is in conformance with the general purposes of the
subdivision regulations provided certain mitigation measures are provided for
(i.e. school impact mitigation, park fees and traffic fees).
(6) The public use and interest will be served by approval of the proposed
subdivision.
The proposed Plat, if approved, will be developed in accordance with all City
standards designed to insure the health, safety and general welfare of the
community are met. The Comprehensive Plan will be implemented through
development of this plat. These factors will insure the public use and interest
are served.
PLAT APPROVAL CONDITIONS
1. At the time lots are developed, all abutting roads and utilities shall be
installed to City standards as approved by the City Engineer. This
includes, but is not limited to water and sewer lines, streets, street lights
and storm water retention. Sidewalks must be installed along the frontage
Road 90 as a part of the Plat improvements. All sidewalks must conform to
current City standards and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)
requirements. All utilities must be installed underground.
2. Common Tracts “A” and “B” must be landscaped and maintained in a
healthy growing condition before the ninth Certificate of Occupancy for
dwelling units may be issued. All required landscape areas shall be
installed to meet the minimum landscape standards set forth in PMC
25.75.080. Prior to installation of landscaping a landscape plan must be
submitted and approved by the Community & Economic Development
Director.
3. The developer must file Covenants, Conditions, Restrictions and
Reservations (CC&R’s) establishing an Owners Association with
management and maintenance responsibilities for all common areas,
common driveways and parking, common fencing, clubhouse, private
utility lines and facilities, common landscaping and easements. Said
CC&R’s must run with the land and be binding on all heirs, assigns,
8
transferees and subsequent successors in interest. The Auditors file
number of said recording must be shown on the Final Plat.
4. Lots 1 and 26 abutting Road 90 shall not have direct access to said road.
Access shall be prohibited by means of deed restrictions or statements on
the face of the Final Plat(s).
5. Each lot shall have parking for a minimum of two vehicles.
6. Nine visitor parking spaces shall be provided within the Plat.
7. The developer shall install a common fence/wall six-feet in height along
the south property line. A fencing detail must be included on the
subdivision construction drawings. Maintenance and upkeep of said fence
must be the responsibility of the subdivision Owners Association. All Final
Plats shall include a note that clearly indicates the maintenance
responsibility for the fence is the responsibility of the Owner’s Association
including the removal of graffiti.
8. The developer/builder shall pay the “traffic impact fee” established by
ordinance at the time of issuance of building permits for homes. Fees
collected shall be placed in a fund and used to finance signalization and
other improvements necessary to mitigate traffic impacts on the
circulation system within the I-182 corridor.
9. The private on-site water system must have a water meter and backflow
preventer at the right-of-way line. The water meter must be located out of
the street and in the right-of-way. The size of the meter and backflow
preventer must be adequate to serve the 26 lots and two tracts within the
plat. All water utility structures and appurtenances must follow City
standards between the main and the backflow preventer.
10. A private fire line, with appropriate backflow prevention, will be required
for the subdivision. The size of the meter and backflow preventer must be
adequate to serve the fire hydrants necessary for the plat. All water utility
structures and appurtenances must follow City standards through the
backflow preventer.
11. The existing sewer stub must be utilized or the existing stub must be
removed and replaced by a new service line to the manhole. A new, private
manhole must be installed at the property line to provide access to the
sewer system without utilizing the existing public manhole.
12. All storm water generated on the site must remain on the site including
storm water generated on the private driveway. All storm water must have
pretreatment prior to being discharged into the ground.
13. No grading activity shall commence without a dust control method
approved by the Inspection Services Manager for the entire site. Dust
control shall be available on site 24 hours per day. The developer shall
insure active and ongoing dust, weed and litter abatement activities occur
during the construction of the subdivision and construction of dwellings
thereon.
9
14. The developer shall be responsible for the creation of record drawings. All
record drawings shall be created in accordance with the requirements
detailed in the Record Drawing Requirements and Procedure form provided
by the Engineering Division. This form shall be signed by the developer
prior to plan approval.
15. All engineering designs for infrastructure and Final Plat drawings shall
utilize the published City of Pasco Vertical Control Datum and shall be
identified on each such submittal.
16. The common driveway and parking areas shall be identified as an access
and utility easement. An additional easement shall be provided as needed
for the Franklin County PUD for electrical vaults. The width and length of
the additional PUD easement shall be determined by the PUD.
17. The Final Plat shall contain the following Franklin County Public Utility
District statement: “The individual or company making improvements on a
lot or lots of this Plat is responsible for providing and installing all trench,
conduit, primary vaults, secondary junction boxes, and backfill for the
PUD’s primary and secondary distribution system in accordance with PUD
specifications; said individual or company will make full advance payment
of line extension fees and will provide all necessary utility easements prior
to PUD construction and/or connection of any electrical service to or
within the Plat”.
18. Prior to the City of Pasco accepting construction plans for review the
developer must enter into a Storm Water Maintenance Agreement with the
City. The developer will be responsible for obtaining the signatures of all
parties required on the agreement and to have the agreement recorded
with the Franklin County Auditor. The original signed and recorded copy
of the agreement must be presented to the City of Pasco at the first intake
meeting for construction plans.
19. The developer will be required to conform to all conditions set forth in the
Storm Water Maintenance Agreement to the satisfaction of the City
Engineer.
20. The developer will be required to comply with the City of Pasco Civil Plan
Review process.
RECOMMENDATION
MOTION: I move to adopt Findings of Fact and Conclusions therefrom as
contained in the October 18, 2012 staff report.
MOTION: I move based on the Findings of Fact and Conclusions, as adopted,
that the Planning Commission recommend City Council approve a
Preliminary Plat for the Sunset Village Subdivision with the
conditions as listed in the October 18, 2012 staff report.
Vi
c
i
n
i
t
y
Ma
p
It
e
m
:
P
r
e
l
i
m
i
n
a
r
y
P
l
a
t
S
u
n
s
e
t
V
i
l
l
a
g
e
Ap
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
:
C
r
e
s
t
L
L
C
Fi
l
e
#
:
P
P
2
0
1
2
-
0
0
3
SI
T
E
La
n
d
U
s
e
Ma
p
It
e
m
:
P
r
e
l
i
m
i
n
a
r
y
P
l
a
t
S
u
n
s
e
t
V
i
l
l
a
g
e
Ap
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
:
C
r
e
s
t
L
L
C
Fi
l
e
#
:
P
P
2
0
1
2
-
0
0
3
SI
T
E
Va
c
a
n
t
Of
f
i
c
e
Of
f
i
c
e
Si
n
g
l
e
F
a
m
i
l
y
Re
s
i
d
e
n
c
e
s
Si
n
g
l
e
F
a
m
i
l
y
Re
s
i
d
e
n
c
e
s
Zo
n
i
n
g
Ma
p
It
e
m
:
P
r
e
l
i
m
i
n
a
r
y
P
l
a
t
S
u
n
s
e
t
V
i
l
l
a
g
e
Ap
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
:
C
r
e
s
t
L
L
C
Fi
l
e
#
:
P
P
2
0
1
2
-
0
0
3
SI
T
E
C-
1
(R
e
t
a
i
l
B
u
s
i
n
e
s
s
)
R-
3
R-
1
(L
o
w
D
e
n
s
i
t
y
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
)
RT
Lo
o
k
i
n
g
S
o
u
t
h
w
e
s
t
Lo
o
k
i
n
g
N
o
r
t
h
w
e
s
t
Lo
o
k
i
n
g
S
o
u
t
h
w
e
s
t
Lo
o
k
i
n
g
N
o
r
t
h
Lo
o
k
i
n
g
S
o
u
t
h
w
e
s
t
Lo
o
k
i
n
g
N
o
r
t
h
e
a
s
t
Lo
o
k
i
n
g
S
o
u
t
h
w
e
s
t
Lo
o
k
i
n
g
E
a
s
t
Lo
o
k
i
n
g
S
o
u
t
h
w
e
s
t
Lo
o
k
i
n
g
S
o
u
t
h
Lo
o
k
i
n
g
S
o
u
t
h
w
e
s
t
Lo
o
k
i
n
g
S
o
u
t
h
w
e
s
t
Lo
o
k
i
n
g
S
o
u
t
h
w
e
s
t
Lo
o
k
i
n
g
W
e
s
t
Lo
o
k
i
n
g
S
o
u
t
h
w
e
s
t
Lo
o
k
i
n
g
N
o
r
t
h
w
e
s
t
\PROJECTS\6900-\6960 Cole Estates Pasco Subdivision\DWG\PRELIM.PLAT.dwg - Aug 27,2012 - 12:47pm - jlm
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
MASTER FILE NO: SP 2012-020 APPLICANT: Riverview Baptist Church
HEARING DATE: 9/20/12 4921 W Wernett
ACTION DATE: 10/18/12 Pasco WA
BACKGROUND
REQUEST: SPECIAL PERMIT: Location of a donation-based thrift shop in a
C-1 Zone.
1. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION:
Legal: PTN N1/2, SE1/4, NE1/4, NE1/4, 25-9-29.
Location: 1208 N 20th Ave
Property Size: Approximately .58 acres
2. ACCESS: The property has access from 20th Avenue.
3. UTILITIES: All utilities are available to the site.
4. LAND USE AND ZONING: The site is currently zoned C-1
(Commercial Retail). The site is developed with an 8,080 square-foot
retail building. Surrounding properties are zoned and developed as
follows:
North C-1 (Retail Business) – Commercial
East R-1 & “O” (Low- Density Residential/Office) – SFDUs &
Office
South R-2 (Medium Density Residential) – Church
West R-2 (Medium Density Residential) – School
5. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map
designates this area for commercial uses.
6. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The City of Pasco is the lead
agency for this project. Based on the SEPA checklist, the adopted
City Comprehensive Plan, city development regulations, and other
information, a threshold determination resulting in a Determination of
Non-significance (DNS) has been issued for this project under WAC
197-11-158.
2
ANALYSIS
The property is an 8,080 square-foot retail center on approximately .58 acres
located on the south side of a major shopping center with Albertsons and Rite-
Aid as anchors. The east side of the building is currently vacant, with a
Laundromat in the west end. There is a bank located in a separate building to
the east, and a vacant lot to the west. The property to the south is developed
with a church and a parsonage.
Applicant wishes to locate a donation-based thrift shop on the property.
On August 6, 2012 the City Council approved a Code Amendment allowing
donation-based thrift shops to operate in C-1 Zones with a Special Permit.
In the Code Amendment secondhand uses were conceptually separated and
defined to include three specific categories, as follows: 1) Pawnshops; 2)
Consignment stores; and 3) Thrift Shop (Donation-based).
It was noted that donation-dependent thrift shops such as Goodwill Industries
differ substantially from pawnshops and consignment-type secondhand stores
in that there is no built-in incentive for patrons “fencing” stolen goods for cash,
and thereby contributing to overall criminal activity in the community. As
such, criminal-based policing would not likely be an issue, so much as
nuisance-based code enforcement.
People drop items off at donation-dependent operations as a matter of course;
these items ranging in value from “slightly used” to “junk.” While secondhand
stores often strive to control the flow of castoffs, “midnight drop-offs” are
virtually inevitable, and result in visual blight. Thus, visual blight, declining
property values and probable increased costs for code enforcement are issues
for consideration. “Midnight drop-off” activity can be mitigated through site
management (signage, store policies, cameras) and site design (additional
landscaping, walls, fencing and drop-off facilities).
Applicant has indicated that items will be dropped off inside the store only;
there will be no external drop-off site.
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 C-1 (Retail Business).
2. The Comprehensive Plan designates the site for commercial uses.
3. The site is developed with an 8,080 square-foot retail building.
3
4. The east half of this building is currently vacant.
5. Applicant is requesting a Special Permit for the location of a donation-
based thrift shop.
6. Experience within the community has shown secondhand stores may
contribute to visual blight, physical decay, declining property values and
perpetuate a negative public image for the community in general,
particularly if allowed to receive donations at the site
7. People drop items off at donation-dependent operations as a matter of
course; these items ranging in value from “slightly used” to “junk.” While
secondhand stores often strive to control the flow of castoffs, “midnight
drop-offs” are virtually inevitable, and result in visual blight.
8. Applicant has indicated that items will be dropped off inside the store
only; there will be no external drop-off site.
9. The parking lot island landscaping does not conform to current
standards.
CONCLUSIONS BASED ON INITIAL STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT
The Planning Commission must make Findings of Fact based upon the criteria
listed in P.M.C. 25.86.060. The criteria and staff listed findings are as follows:
(1) Will the proposed use be in accordance with the goals, policies, objectives
and text of the Comprehensive Plan?
The site is identified in the Comprehensive Plan for Commercial use. The
Commercial Land Use designation includes all commercial uses listed in
the C-1 zones. Donation-based thrift stores are specifically mentioned in
the Pasco Municipal Code as being allowed by Special Permit. Policy LU-
1-B encourages enhancement of the physical appearance of
development within the City.
(2) Will the proposed use adversely affect public infrastructure?
The public infrastructure surrounding this property was installed to
support the original retail nature of the property. The proposed
redevelopment of the site for a thrift store will not have any adverse
effect on public infrastructure.
(3) Will the proposed use be constructed, maintained and operated to be in
harmony with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity?
Re-occupying the building and putting it to some beneficially use will
assist in arresting the declining appearance of the property; however the
4
proposed use could bring a new set of challenges that would disrupt the
harmony and character of the general vicinity. Conditions will be needed
to ensure the proposed thrift store is operated and maintained to be in
harmony with the neighborhood.
(4) Will the location and height of proposed structures and the site design
discourage the development of permitted uses on property in the general
vicinity or impair the value thereof?
Surrounding properties are fully developed. As well, no new structures
are proposed.
(5) Will the operations in connection with the proposal be more objectionable to
nearby properties by reason of noise, fumes, vibrations, dust, traffic, or
flashing lights than would be the operation of any permitted uses within the
district?
This use will not generate any noise, fumes, vibrations, dust, traffic, or
flashing lights above and beyond permitted uses for the zone.
(6) Will the proposed use endanger the public health or safety if located and
developed where proposed, or in any way will become a nuisance to uses
permitted in the district?
Items are dropped off at donation-dependent operations as a matter of
course. Applicant has indicated that items will be dropped off inside the
store only; there will be no external drop-off site. Even so, site
conditions could quickly occur that may be objectionable to nearby
property owners without proper management and control of
unauthorized drop-offs. Special Permit conditions will be needed to
specifically address the management of any and all drop-offs and
general screening of the property.
TENTATIVE APPROVAL CONDITIONS
1. The special permit shall apply to Parcel No. 119331046.
2. Signs shall be posted on all sides of the building indicating drop-offs and
donations are not accepted after hours.
5
3. No donation boxes, trailers, containers or similar items for the collection of
donations shall be permitted outside the building. Any drop-offs shall be
managed so as to not create a nuisance to the area.
4. No food commodities or other materials shall be stored outside of the
building.
5. The landscape island north of the building between the parking area and
the Rite-Aid/Albertsons shopping center shall be refurbished and brought
up to current City landscape standards.
6. A landscape plan must be submitted and approved by the Community and
Economic Development Director.
7. The special permit shall be null and void if a business license has not been
obtained by March 1, 2013.
RECOMMENDATION
MOTION: I move to adopt findings of fact and conclusions therefrom as
contained in the October 18, 2012 staff report.
MOTION: I move based on the findings of fact and conclusions therefrom
the Planning Commission recommend the City Council grant a
special permit to Riverview Baptist Church for location of
donation-based thrift shop at 1208 N 20th Ave, with conditions as
listed in the October 18, 2012 staff report.
SI
T
E
Vi
c
i
n
i
t
y
Ma
p
It
e
m
:
D
o
n
a
t
i
o
n
-
b
a
s
e
d
T
h
r
i
f
t
S
h
o
p
i
n
C
-
1
Fi
l
e
#
:
S
P
2
0
1
2
-
0
2
0
Ap
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
:
R
i
v
e
r
v
i
e
w
B
a
p
t
i
s
t
C
h
u
r
c
h
SI
T
E
It
e
m
:
D
o
n
a
t
i
o
n
-
b
a
s
e
d
T
h
r
i
f
t
S
h
o
p
i
n
C
-
1
Fi
l
e
#
:
S
P
2
0
1
2
-
0
2
0
Ap
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
:
R
i
v
e
r
v
i
e
w
B
a
p
t
i
s
t
C
h
u
r
c
h
SI
T
E
SFDUs
C
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
Mu
l
t
i
-
F
a
m
Sc
h
o
o
l
SF
D
U
s
Ch
u
r
c
h
Va
c
.
La
n
d
Us
e
Ma
p
Of
f
i
c
e
Va
c
.
C
o
m
m
.
It
e
m
:
D
o
n
a
t
i
o
n
-
b
a
s
e
d
T
h
r
i
f
t
S
h
o
p
i
n
C
-
1
Fi
l
e
#
:
S
P
2
0
1
2
-
0
2
0
Ap
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
:
R
i
v
e
r
v
i
e
w
B
a
p
t
i
s
t
C
h
u
r
c
h
SI
T
E
Zo
n
i
n
g
Ma
p
R-
3
C-
1 C-
1
"O
"
R-
4
R-
2
R-
3
R-1R-4
C-
1
Lo
o
k
i
n
g
N
o
r
t
h
Lo
o
k
i
n
g
N
o
r
t
h
e
a
s
t
Lo
o
k
i
n
g
E
a
s
t
Lo
o
k
i
n
g
S
o
u
t
h
e
a
s
t
Lo
o
k
i
n
g
S
o
u
t
h
(
S
i
t
e
)
Lo
o
k
i
n
g
S
o
u
t
h
w
e
s
t
Lo
o
k
i
n
g
W
e
s
t
Lo
o
k
i
n
g
N
o
r
t
h
w
e
s
t
RIVERVIEW BAPTIST CHURCH
August 24, 2012
Home of Riverview Baptist Christian Schools
(Kindergarten through Twelfth Grade)
Christian Family Radio-KOLU 90.1 FM
P.O.Box2734~4921 W. WemettRd.~Pasco, WA99301
Church Phone (509) 547-2021
Dr. John Paisley, Pastor Dr. Ken Griffin, Co-Pastor
To Members of the Pasco City Council:
My name is Dr. John Paisley, Senior Pastor of Riverview Baptist Church in Pasco. I have
been on staff at the church for 38 years. We have a congregation of over 2,000 members; we
provide transportation to our services on 22 bus routes that run on Sunday mornings. The
church financially supports 456 missionaries around the world in 102 nations. In the past ten
years, by the grace of God, Riverview Baptist Church has given nearly $5,000,000.00 to world
missions. The church supports three orphanages in other countries, two of which were started
by our church. I list all of these statistics for one reason-we want to do more!
Riverview is concerned about our community and the world. It is our desire to open a non-
profit "World-wide Thrift Store" in the Tower Plaza at ~Oth Street and Court Street. All of the
profits from the store would be given to our world-wide ministry.
It is apparent to us, that in order for us to be successful in this endeavor, cleanliness in the store
would have to be a main priority. We have three members in our congregation who own dry
cleaner/laundromats and have volunteered to clean all of the clothes before placing them for
sale. Any other goods to be sold would be inspected to see that they were in good condition,
functioning and cleaned before they were sold. We have a large warehouse in Kennewick that
has been given to reduce any clutter at the store.
We are seeking a conditional use permit for the above stated purpose. It truly is our desire to be
a blessing to our community and the world.
Thank you in advance for your consideration.
Sincerely~ •
~Pais!~
Pastor, Riverview Baptist Church
L EG EN D 0 • SET 5/8• R£BAR W/ 'rfilOW PLASTIC CN' M ARKED ·sTRATTON 14120-0R AS INDICATED BINDING SITE PLAN NO J[Df.th e ""' FOUND AS INDICA T(()
8 .0.8, .. BASIS Of 8£ARING
(NS) f6 .,. NOl FOUND OR S£1
S • fOUND U ONUMENT (CASED)
SE 1/4, NEl /4, S E C. 25, T. 9 N., R. 29 E .• W.M .
--~---rn<CE
• SIGN
• CONCR£T£ CURB
• CONCRETE
• ASPHALT B
f--·---· --
I
i
:-'I
-~~~
~~~
z '
,·
__ sa9.~ 7~tn:
662.90'
b-'"") ~ . 'o .. <6,..,
I .x x'>-"
~
I '-~~J#' I .. , ---.-~,-.-------------;,,
I o·o· w·· ,, I I''' ... -><" '"f-~411 .. '+-J:'
Cl TY OF PASCO
FRANKLIN CO UNTY, WAS HIN GT ON
I "'I 5:!i !3~
~-
i
.~ e
Cl~~~~::,;~o --~~~
ElEV. J8L!)2'
~ _____ sa9~2n ~ ,l-g,-=._-_-:_-_-_-_-_-_-_--l' I .... 1~;~-L~_J!,W.~, ~<\I!:~:LT S;u.' !
I ~ h I ,~=-ru l.
' to J < I ~ L=-:::.___ i I ~· : t al -r.Ji ~iiif!lYi!i::s.L__ :
I ~ i I~
! <:::~,
I ~o .o C\J?;:~
'"~8 •::!
'$ . h-J b ' . . ( . ... 'rl ; ·L -' .., ,, •. ")n• <s• ,,. . . ' ":,.1 11
I .. "'IS .. '( 2 •9 ,.1 ~ -, •' ~ .· --. ----j _ • • ·-:r=r 1 , , , I c 1 =-...... = a
l!l .. 1!; ;f.rt; .... ,.'. -~ . ~f"~;~;;:;~. ~~
: ~. ,, ~?,' .~ ,. ur:------·-. -. ;,~ ;; . J.-l-+--f-1 .. !-,-. I ,, ' : .i ~ --~-.. .:: -/~!. ;::: -
I a~;:' AcR r~-' ~~ u.o.~ . · .-· _ .: I. ~ ~~
1 _ .,_· [ J ~~" ~~ • tor _z.__lltfl /1 .•~ -I d ,. ~~~~ "~S :
i ,.:: i / ,.~g:l "'·''"'
/i I I I '.••.X·. 1 : >: ----~~~~ ·,-'-.. :~ !
I ~,, ' ~~-~-·--·-·--
I .--~ ·~ ; .___.J . ';-----w--w,r;w-.:~--
. ~~ . ~ ! ! I
'i
~~~~z i
i'l
"I
1:.1
I I ..... 8 ~ .:5 i!'O so,· I \ g ~ . ·t 1 . . LOT 1 ~~~; -•• 1 >lo r C 5' ACRE~ } /1),.8 --~-~ _ .·. 2f;.€<E ~O~T~ 8j;l < f, <-
L~l r -:--~ cO l·.., .... , ~ L__j :~;
,:. I ri ;~~~l I' I 1 1 I )-z U ·'-=.....:...: e.G) >Cf-E-I .2 , 'c
1C"Qof: -· 1;:,;.-!_ -=~-:;;.~ lot -• L __ , -'-~ .1 i . ,. ~ ~··•Itt' -'< '·o· "" ./ Sl'•·•o·J ~'[ 593c ,· J.; "'" . =;'~.l~~~~n itJ ~~§~-;--..,-r/f·~i--=-
I• i•l
II;
I 1'/ ,., I : ! ' ~ !
u r-: ( I
NOTES
L THf UNOERCHOUN~ UfiUli(S SHOWN HAV ~ B!:EN ;.X .:..i'C.(1 ~OW fl!::.~
SliRVCY INFORtJA n:)t:. TH[ SURVEYOR I-A All.($ NO CUAR .•~.;T[f Tri'-.; THE
UNOERC.ROUNO UlU.JTIF:S SHO~~ CQt.!PRIS[ A:..L sur:~ UTIUTIES IN THE .:.r\LA.
EITHER IN SER-..,C[ OR AeANDONEO. TH( SURVEYCP. r\JRTH:..:;. DOCS NOT
WARRANT llv,T THE UN0£RCR0UNO UllliTIES SHO~ AR:( IN TI-l[ f.)t.:.r.:;
LOCATION iNDICATED ALlltOL:CH HE. DOCS CERTifY n;AT THCY AH C:: !..OC A'!£0 A~
-'.CC\JRA Ttl Y AS PCSSI8L( fR~ THE INH)RUA TlON AVAILA9LC . THIS SURVE. YOR
HAS NOT PHYSICAU. Y LOCA T[Q THE UNDERGROUND UTIU1lfS.
2 . All LOTS IN THIS BINOINC SIT[ PLAN PARnCrP.H( It~ REC*f"ROCA L ACC(SS
AND UTUTY [ASEMOHS ANO SHARf. COt.U.tON ACCESS , PARKING, STOR~ 'lil A T[R
R(l[NTION, AND CIRCUI..AllON RIQHS.
SURVEYOR'S CERT IF ICATE
I, ROBERT H. STRATTON, A UCE.NSED LANO SUR\I£YOR IN TH[ STATE Of
WASHl NGTCl'l, HEREBY CfRTlf'r Tl-IAT THIS MAP C0RR£CTL'I' REPRESENTS AN
ACTUAL FIElD SLJR'>,£Y CONDUCTED 8Y U £. IN CONfORMANCE 'M TH THE
SURVEY R(COROtNG ACT AND THAT ll-1E CORNERS HA\1£ BEEN STAKED ON
THE GROUND AS SHOWN HEREON AT TH E REOUESi OF STERUNG SAVINGS
BANK, ,._NO J.U. BEARiNGS AND DISTANCES ARE CORRECT .
tt!rl?/LJy-
I I
.DESCRIPTION
PiL SOlll'h 160 (\\1 rt:('i 0' -=-;;[ t-tr.PTH h~.:..F' Cit Tni:
SOI.J"LHEAST Qi,;.:..RITR Of TI-l [ NORTri£;.$'! OUARl[R Of TP '.C
NORTH~AST CUARTER Ql'" SEC'TlON 2~. TO~SHtP 9 N001li,
RANG( 29 EAST, W.M., (XC£Pl COUNT'Y ROADS AND EXC£rT
111~ T PORTION AS DISCLOSED BY OUIT CLAIM OEEO RECORDf.C
UNOCR AUDITOR'S FIL( NO . .::5206 27 .
TOGETHER Wllti AND SUBJECT TO EASE~ENTS. R(SERVAllON!;,
CO\£NANTS AND R(SlJUCnoNS Of RECORD AHO IN V1(W.
I
l ~~-·,
~
SCJ..l[ l . -50'
SURVEY FOR INDEX ~~----
!' X 1 SEC j T. ; R.
S TERL/JVC p.p,·iT j I ~ ! 25 I . N 129 E
___ ' _:._ J _J-. -.
i ' SA V/JVCS BAJVK
D•rr EXPIRCS : 07 /:lG/2000
.~ ~
jb~·{ g,NI f '1
! lg i 2 :~! :
' 6:---_.sss.;.'4.~._t1lL -----~Nl 6b~tjE.NS.i.....:iJ_
~~···~·'o ~·~'. ~ -vl =-~~'!.!.~=-
~s!~
SECT!ONAL SUBDIVISION /VIC INITY MAF
NOT TC SCAt.!.
!i ll''i:llll .!IJ I ·~ II' :'IH'II ,,,,~.:~·~!' 1654&48 , ; .1\: j j-' II t :!J . a, I l. 1 1f'•-· 1 o f 2 lJJ,J .,c· •. l :h .~~:~.ru L !A , ,,.:".,~ . .,·~
:·.~,.. ... ·' --' ' .... :~ ....... ·
0 50' 100' ,~-1-.•? I I
AUDITOR'S CERTIFICATE
&>~ FOI< RECORD Tl-ii S ~ DAY Of
.200-4 AT_1_MINUTES P,t..ST_:l_
~-~ ... ;N~~(~~0P!~/~~~ AT
1
1liE CF
REQUEST Of R08~ H . STRATION. P.LS.
h15Y'\a, .Q. <Tlroh'll'l:k:,.'=-=--
iiANKUN COUNTY AUD:TOR iNDEX NO.
~· ~·~~.t' tk>filtf
8AS!S Q( 8j:' AR:t'i(.
RECORD SUR\-t:Y 1-560
Ell!il~
A Fl\-£-SECONO TOTAl STA 1:0t~
lRtW.Bl£ RTK GPS
f#:;"-,STRA17'0N SURVEHYC' ,,..~<\ ·, J: AIAPPJNC
·~'J·.o 1:.2:. w otS<H•,m:s h . uN•T ~-;-·
-~<f', M.(Nh(IIIIC". Yllo. <J9J}6
(~17)~-7~
r.u (:;o9 } 13!.-Ei~G
--..e).~llfOIIOt'l-•"q•C.O,..
JJ6485P-1B.DWC 1
DATI:: 10/05/04 I SHT . 1 OF 2
OI<AWN BYo Boll l JOB' 3364 ----
\
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
MASTER FILE # SP2012-022
HEARING DATE: 10/18/2012
ACTION DATE: 11/15/2012
APPLICANT: Sol Case Management
117 S. 3rd Avenue
Pasco, WA 99301
BACKGROUND
REQUEST: SPECIAL PERMIT: Location of a Level One Community
Service Facility in a C-2 (Central
Business) Zone
1. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION:
Legal: Lots 9 & 10, Block 22, NP Plat
General Location: 117 S. 3rd Avenue
Property Size: 14,000 square feet
2. ACCESS: The parking lot has access from Columbia Street and an
alley from 3rd Avenue.
3. UTILITIES: All municipal utilities currently serve the site.
4. LAND USE AND ZONING: The site is zoned C-2 (Central Business)
and contains a commercial structure. The zoning and land use of the
surrounding properties are as follows:
NORTH: C-2 – Commercial
SOUTH: I-1 – Commercial
EAST: C-2 – Commercial
WEST: C-2 – Commercial
5. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The Comprehensive Plan designates this
area for commercial uses.
6. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The City of Pasco is the lead
agency for this project. Based on the SEPA checklist, the adopted
City Comprehensive Plan, City development regulations, and other
information, a threshold determination resulting in a Determination
of Non-Significance (DNS) has been issued for this project under WAC
197-11-158.
ANALYSIS
The applicant proposes to operate an after-school child tutoring center in an
existing commercial structure located in a C-2 zone. The proposed use is
most closely aligned with a Level One Community Service Facility, which is
considered an Unclassified Use; thus requiring special permit review. The
applicant has indicated that Sol Educational Services will employ six (6)
2
staff members serving up to 40 students. Students will use public transit
and personal vehicle drop-off/pick-up to access the center. The
education/tutoring service will be available from 3:00 pm to 8:00 pm
Monday-Friday and from 10 am to 2 pm on Saturday.
Sol Educational Center will provide an after school tutoring program to
elementary, middle school and high school students; providing assistance
with homework.
The site is composed of two parcels located on the northeast corner of the
intersection of South 3rd Avenue and Columbia Street. The site is bound by
arterial streets to the west and to the south. Both arterials serve public
transit, which provides convenient access for students traveling to the youth
center from nearby schools.
The site also contains two paved parking areas with a total of 13 striped
parking stalls. Assuming each of the six (6) employees occupy one stall,
seven (7) stalls would remain available to customers. Additionally, sites
zoned C-2 are exempt from off-street parking requirements. It is also
assumed that most or all of the children will likely be dropped off by family
or friends and that the vehicles will not remain on-site while tutoring
services are in session.
INITIAL STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT
Findings of Fact must be entered from the record. The following are initial
findings drawn from the background and analysis section of the staff report.
The Planning Commission may add additional findings to this listing as the
result of factual testimony and evidence submitted during the open record
hearing.
1. The site is addressed 117 South Third Avenue.
2. The site is zoned C-2 (Central Business).
3. The site is located on the northeast corner of Columbia Street and
South Third Avenue.
4. The site is comprised of two tax parcels (112039044 & 112049053)
5. Sol Educational Services is a for-profit organization dedicated to
providing tutoring and mentoring for students.
6. Sol Educational Services will provide tutoring services for up to 8 hours
per day five days per week.
7. Sol Educational Services is classified as a Community Service Facility
in the Pasco zoning code.
8. Community Service Facilities are considered Unclassified Uses and
thereby require special permit review (PMC 25.86.020).
3
CONCLUSIONS BASED ON INITIAL STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT
The Planning Commission must make Findings of Fact based upon the
criteria listed in P.M.C. 25.86.060. The criteria and staff listed findings are
as follows:
1. Will the proposed use be in accordance with the goals, policies,
objectives and text of the Comprehensive Plan?
Comprehensive Plan Goal CF-5 encourages the fostering of adequate
provisions for educational facilities throughout the urban growth area.
Sol Educational Services is a private educational support facility that
will offer special services for students.
2. Will the proposed use adversely affect public infrastructure?
The proposal will generate little demand for public utilities only being
open to serve students for up to 5 hours per day for six (6) days per
week. Water and sewer demands of the proposed use will be negligible
compared to permitted uses such as restaurants. Traffic generation of
the proposal will be minimal and easily accommodated by the existing
road system.
3. Will the proposed use be constructed, maintained and operated to
be in harmony with the existing or intended character of the
general vicinity?
The structure proposed to contain the youth education center has
existed for approximately 63 years. The intended character of the
vicinity is commercial in nature. The purpose of the C-2 zone, in part,
is to promote a commercial clustering concept and revitalization by
emphasizing pedestrian access. The proposed community service
facility is a commercial business and its central location will
complement existing commercial businesses by increasing the number
of vehicle trips per day in the vicinity.
The proposed use will have minimal adverse impacts on the existing
and intended character of the neighborhood.
4. Will the location and height of proposed structures and the site
design discourage the development of permitted uses on property
in the general vicinity or impair the value thereof?
Sol Educational Services is proposing to expand their services within
an existing and recently remodeled facility originally constructed 63
years ago. The facility is single-story whereas the C-2 zone permits
structures up to 45 feet in height. Surrounding properties are fully
developed. The subject property’s renovations make it stand out as
4
current and tasteful. The condition of the subject structure will likely
encourage use and development of existing or potential businesses
within the immediate vicinity.
5. Will the operations in connection with the proposal be more
objectionable to nearby properties by reason of noise, fumes,
vibrations, dust, traffic, or flashing lights than would be the
operation of any permitted uses within the district?
An educational center serving up to 40 students per day may have
similar levels of activity to other permitted uses in this zone. The C-2
zone permits uses with generally higher levels of adverse impacts
than the proposed education center and is not expected to create
adverse impacts to other permitted uses.
6. Will the proposed use endanger the public health or safety if
located and developed where proposed, or in any way will become
a nuisance to uses permitted in the district?
It is expected that the proposed tutoring center will in no way cause
harm to public health and safety and that the associated activity will
not become a nuisance to permitted uses in the vicinity.
TENTATIVE APPROVAL CONDITIONS
1. The Special Permit shall apply to Tax Parcels #112039044 &
112049053 for the building at 117 South Third Avenue;
2. The applicant shall comply with all building code requirements for the
occupancy class applicable to the use;
3. The Special Permit shall be null and void if a City of Pasco business
license has not been obtained by February 28, 2013.
RECOMMENDATION
MOTION: I move to close the hearing on the proposed Sol Educational
Youth Center and initiate deliberations and schedule adoption of Findings of
Fact, Conclusions and a recommendation to the City Council for the
November 15, 2012 meeting.
Vi
c
i
n
i
t
y
Ma
p
It
e
m
:
Sp
e
c
i
a
l
P
e
r
m
i
t
Y
o
u
t
h
T
u
t
o
r
i
n
g
C
e
n
t
e
r
Ap
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
:
S
o
l
E
d
u
c
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
Fi
l
e
#
:
S
P
2
0
1
2
-
0
2
2
SI
T
E
La
n
d
U
s
e
Ma
p
It
e
m
:
Sp
e
c
i
a
l
P
e
r
m
i
t
Y
o
u
t
h
T
u
t
o
r
i
n
g
C
e
n
t
e
r
Ap
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
:
S
o
l
E
d
u
c
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
Fi
l
e
#
:
S
P
2
0
1
2
-
0
2
2
3 R D A V E
C
O
L
U
M
B
I
A
S
T
4 TH A V E
2 N D A V E
L
E
W
I
S
S
T
SI
T
E
Co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
Va
c
a
n
t
I
n
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l
Co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
Zo
n
i
n
g
Ma
p
It
e
m
:
Sp
e
c
i
a
l
P
e
r
m
i
t
Y
o
u
t
h
T
u
t
o
r
i
n
g
C
e
n
t
e
r
Ap
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
:
S
o
l
E
d
u
c
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
Fi
l
e
#
:
S
P
2
0
1
2
-
0
2
2
3 R D A V E
C
O
L
U
M
B
I
A
S
T
4 TH A V E
2 N D A V E
L
E
W
I
S
S
T
SI
T
E
C-
2
(C
e
n
t
r
a
l
B
u
s
i
n
e
s
s
)
C-2
(C
e
n
t
r
a
l
B
u
s
i
n
e
s
s
)
I-
1
(L
i
g
h
t
I
n
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l
)
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSIONER
MASTER FILE NO: (MF# ZD2012-001) APPLICANT: City of Pasco
ACTION DATE: 10/18/2012 PO Box 293
Pasco, WA 99301
BACKGROUND
REQUEST: Develop zoning recommendation for the Riverview Annexation Area #
2.
1) AREA ID: Area Size # of Dwellings Population
Riverview Area # 2 608 acres 528 1,584
2) UTILITIES: City water lines are located in most streets throughout the
proposed annexation area. City sewer mains are located in Sylvester Street
and in Argent Road.
3) LAND USE AND ZONING: The proposed annexation area is currently zoned
R-S-20, R-2 and C-1 under the County zoning regulations. About 90 percent
of the area (541 acres) is zoned R-S-20 and 8.5 percent (52 acres) is zoned
R-2. Thirty-three acres of the R-2 properties contain concomitant
agreements restricting development to single-family site built construction.
The other 19 acres of R-2 zoning does not contain any restrictions. R-2
zoning permits the development of multi-family structures. The R-2 zoning
is concentrated along Court Street and Road 68. The 13 acres of C-1 zoning
is located between Road 60 and Road 64 fronting Court Street.
4) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The Comprehensive Plan designates the proposed
annexation area for low density residential development, mixed residential
and commercial uses.
5) ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The City of Pasco is the lead agency
for this project. Based on the SEPA checklist, the adopted City
Comprehensive Plan, City development regulations, and other information, a
threshold determination resulting in a Determination of Non-Significance
(DNS) has been issued for this project under WAC 197-11-158.
ANALYSIS
On June 18, 2012 the City Council approved Resolution 3407 accepting a
Notice of Intent to commence annexation proceeding for a 608 acre area of
Riverview, generally located between Road 68 and Road 52, southerly of the
FCID irrigation Canal. Following acceptance of the Notice and Intent and
prior to Council action on an annexation petition, the Planning Commission
is to hold a zoning determination hearing. The purpose of said hearing is for
the Planning Commission to recommend appropriate zoning districts for the
proposed annexation area in the event it may become part of the City.
In determining the most appropriate zoning for the annexation area the
Planning Commission needs to consider the existing land uses, development
patterns, current County zoning, policies of the Comprehensive Plan and the
land use designations of the land use map. The Planning Commission also
needs to be guided by the criteria in PMC 25.88.060 (as discussed below) in
developing a zoning recommendation.
Approximately 90 percent of the proposed annexation area is zoned R -S-20
and developed in a low-density suburban fashion. An additional 8.5 percent
of the area is also developed with lower density single -family dwellings on
properties zoned R-2 Medium Density Residential. Thirteen 13 acres of C-1
zoning is concentrated along Court Street between Road 64 and Road 60.
Most of the proposed annexation area is designated in the Comprehensive
Plan for low-density residential development with a band of mixed
residential paralleling Court Street and Road 68 . There is also a pocket of
mixed residential/commercial land set aside more or less near the
intersection of Road 60 and Court Street. The low density areas identify
lands that should be zoned for only low density development while the
mixed residential areas have been set aside to accommodate low density
through medium density development including multi-family units. The
mixed residential/commercial identify lands that could be zoned for single -
family, multi-family and commercial development.
When comparing the current County zoning to the actual development
patterns there are several anomalies that should be pointed out. Almost all
of the 52 acres zoned R-2 Medium Density Residential has been developed
with low density single-family dwellings. A few parcels still remain vacant.
The R-2 zoning and the County R-2 development patterns are inconsistent
with each other. The R-2 zoning does not fully support the preservation of
the current single-family character of the neighborhoods. R-2 zoning
permits the development of duplexes, tri-plexes and other multi-family
development. There are also four neighborhoods within the proposed
annexation area that are currently zoned R -S-20 but developed with lots
that do not meet the R-S-20 lot size requirements. Neighborhoods in and
around Melville Road, 62 Place and Park Place were permitted by the County
to develop to the R-S-12 standards rather than the R-S-20 standards.
Instead of having the required 20,000 square foot lots these neighborhoods
were developed with 12,500 to 13,500 square foot lots.
A significant portion of the commercially zoned properties have been
developed with greater consistency between the established development
patterns and the current zoning.
The initial review criteria for considering a rezone application are explained
in PMC 25.88.030. The criteria are listed below as follows:
1. The changed conditions in the vicinity which warrant other or additional
zoning:
The property is located within the Pasco Urban Growth Boundary.
The property in question may be annexed to the City of Pasco.
The major change is the annexation of the parcels in question.
Upon annexation the property will need to be zoned.
The current R-2 zoned properties have been developed with single
family dwellings rather than multi-family dwellings.
2. Facts to justify the change on the basis of advancing the public health,
safety and general welfare.
The property may be annexed to the City and will need to be zoned. The
justification for the rezone is the fact that if a zoning designation is not
determined the property could become annexed without a zone. For the
advancement of the general welfare of the community the property needs
to be zoned consistent with the established development patterns.
Eliminating the R-2 zoning in areas that have developed with single-
family homes will protect the existing character and intended nature of
the single-family neighborhoods.
3. The effect rezoning will have on the nature and value of adjoining
property and the Comprehensive Plan.
Zoning the proposed annexation area to reflect the current County
zoning will maintain the current nature and value of the neighborhood
and surrounding areas. Changing those areas currently zoned R-2 and
developed in the County with single-family homes to a low density single-
family zone will provide additional benefits to the neighborhood and will
ensure areas developed with single-family homes will remain as single-
family neighborhoods.
4. The effect on the property owners or owner of the request is not granted.
Without the annexation area being assigned a specific zoning district, the
area will essentially be un-zoned upon annexation. The area needs to be
zoned for the benefit of the property owners and property owners
adjoining the proposed annexation area.
5. The Comprehensive Plan land use designation for the property.
The Comprehensive Plan designates much of the annexation area for
low-density residential development. Certain properties along Court
Street and Road 68 have been designated in the Plan for mixed
residential development. The mixed residential land use designation
permits the assignment of low density development. The Plan also
identifies areas for commercial development along Court Street. Sixty -
five percent of the commercially zoned properties on Court Street have
been developed
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 within the Pasco Urban Growth Boundary.
2) The Urban Growth Boundary was established by Franklin County in 1994.
3) The property is being proposed for annexation by the end of 2012.
4) The annexation area is identified in the Comprehensive Plan for mainly low-
density residential uses with a band of mixed residential/commercial uses
along Court Street and Road 68.
5) Mixed residential development includes low density suburban development
through medium density multi-family development.
6) The Comprehensive Plan also identities sites along Court Street between
Road 60 and Road 64 for mixed residential/commercial development.
7) Approximately 90 percent of the proposed annexation area is zoned R-S-20
8) Fifty-two acres within the proposed annexation area are zoned R-2.
9) Most of the properties zoned R-2 are developed with low density single-
family homes on lots that are 20,000 square feet or larger.
10) R-2 zoning permits the development of duplexes and multi-family dwellings.
11) Thirteen acres within the proposed annexation area are zoned C-1.
CONCLUSIONS BASED ON 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 PMC 25.88.060 and determine whether or not:
(1) The proposal is in accord with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive
Plan.
Zoning the properties to reflect the land use designations in the
Comprehensive Plan will cause the proposal to be in accord with the Plan.
(2) The effect of the proposal on the immediate vicinity will not be materially
detrimental.
Retaining low density zoning on those properties developed with low density
single-family homes will preserve the suburban nature o f the neighborhood
and will have no material impact on surrounding properties. Rezoning those
areas currently zoned R-2 but developed with single-family homes to a
suburban single-family residential zone will be beneficial to the neighborhood
and surrounding properties. Two parcels along Court Street were approved
by Franklin County for R-2 zoning on May 25, 2011. The County R-2 rezone
was conditioned to prohibit multi-family structures. In essence the County
created an R-2 single-family zone. To maintain consistency with the intent of
the County’s May 2011 rezone for these two parcels Staff is recommending
the parcels be zoned R-S-20.
(3) There is merit and value in the proposal for the community as a whole.
It is in the best interest of the community and neighborhood to have the
annexation area zoned to support the low density nature of the area. Without
zoning, the value and character of the neighborhood would not be protected or
maintained.
(4) Conditions should be imposed in order to mitigate any significant adverse
impacts from the proposal.
Zoning the neighborhood consistent with the established development
patterns within the neighborhood will mitigate the impacts of the property not
being zoned upon annexation. If the area was zoned to reflect the land use
designations of the Comprehensive Plan and established densities and
development patterns no additional conditions are needed.
(5) A concomitant agreement should be entered into between the City and the
petitioner, and if so, the terms and conditions of such an agreement.
A concomitant agreement is not needed.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
MOTION: I move the Planning Commission adopt the Findings of Fact as
contained in the October 18, 2012 staff report.
MOTION: I move, based on the findings of fact as adopted, the Planning
Commission recommend the City Council zone the Riverview
Annexation Area to R-S-20, R-2 and C-1 as indicated on the zoning
map identified as Exhibit # 1 attached to the October 18, 2012 staff
report.
Vi
c
i
n
t
y
Ma
p
Fi
l
e
#
:
Z
D
2
0
1
2
-
0
0
1
Ap
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
:
C
i
t
y
o
f
P
a
s
c
o
It
e
m
:
Z
o
n
i
n
g
D
e
t
e
r
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
-
R
i
v
e
r
v
i
e
w
#
2
Si
t
e
Fi
l
e
#
:
Z
D
2
0
1
2
-
0
0
1
Ap
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
:
C
i
t
y
o
f
P
a
s
c
o
It
e
m
:
Z
o
n
i
n
g
D
e
t
e
r
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
-
R
i
v
e
r
v
i
e
w
#
2
Si
t
e
La
n
d
Us
e
Ma
p
SF
D
U
s
(
C
o
u
n
t
y
)
SFDUs (County)
SF
D
U
s
SFDUs
Va
c
a
n
t
Sc
h
o
o
l
Ap
t
.
SF
D
U
s
TR
A
C
Va
c
a
n
t
Co
m
m
.
Fi
l
e
#
:
Z
D
2
0
1
2
-
0
0
1
Ap
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
:
C
i
t
y
o
f
P
a
s
c
o
It
e
m
:
Z
o
n
i
n
g
D
e
t
e
r
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
-
R
i
v
e
r
v
i
e
w
#
2
Cu
r
r
e
n
t
Zo
n
i
n
g
Si
t
e
Le
g
e
n
d
An
n
e
x
A
r
e
a
#
2
Ci
t
y
L
i
m
i
t
s
R-
1
L
o
w
D
e
n
s
i
t
y
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
R-
S
-
1
S
u
b
u
r
b
a
n
R-
S
-
1
/
P
U
D
S
u
b
u
r
b
a
n
P
l
a
n
n
e
d
-
U
n
i
t
-
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
R-
2
M
e
d
i
u
m
-
D
e
n
s
i
t
y
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
R-
3
M
e
d
i
u
m
-
D
e
n
s
i
t
y
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
R-
4
H
i
g
h
D
e
n
s
i
t
y
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
RS
-
2
0
S
u
b
u
r
b
a
n
RS
-
1
2
S
u
b
u
r
b
a
n
RP
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
P
a
r
k
RT
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
T
r
a
n
s
i
t
i
o
n
C-
1
R
e
t
a
i
l
B
u
s
i
n
e
s
s
C-
2
R
u
r
a
l
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
C
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
"O
"
O
f
f
i
c
e
Fi
l
e
#
:
Z
D
2
0
1
2
-
0
0
1
Ap
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
:
C
i
t
y
o
f
P
a
s
c
o
It
e
m
:
Z
o
n
i
n
g
D
e
t
e
r
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
-
R
i
v
e
r
v
i
e
w
#
2
Si
t
e
P
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
Zo
n
i
n
g
Exhibit #1Exhibit #1
Le
g
e
n
d
An
n
e
x
A
r
e
a
#
2
Ci
t
y
L
i
m
i
t
s
R-
1
L
o
w
D
e
n
s
i
t
y
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
R-
S
-
1
S
u
b
u
r
b
a
n
R-
S
-
1
/
P
U
D
S
u
b
u
r
b
a
n
P
l
a
n
n
e
d
-
U
n
i
t
-
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
R-
2
M
e
d
i
u
m
-
D
e
n
s
i
t
y
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
R-
3
M
e
d
i
u
m
-
D
e
n
s
i
t
y
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
R-
4
H
i
g
h
D
e
n
s
i
t
y
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
RS
-
2
0
S
u
b
u
r
b
a
n
RS
-
1
2
S
u
b
u
r
b
a
n
RP
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
P
a
r
k
RT
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
T
r
a
n
s
i
t
i
o
n
C-
1
R
e
t
a
i
l
B
u
s
i
n
e
s
s
C-
2
R
u
r
a
l
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
C
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
"O
"
O
f
f
i
c
e
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSIONER
MASTER FILE NO: (MF# ZD2012-002) APPLICANT: City of Pasco
ACTION DATE: 10/18/2012 PO Box 293
Pasco, WA 99301
BACKGROUND
REQUEST: Develop zoning recommendation for the Water Intake property
Annexation Area on West Court Street.
1) AREA ID: Area Size # of Dwellings Population
Water Intake Property 21,004 sq. ft. 0 0
2) UTILITIES: The Court Street sewer interceptor terminates at the current
city limits on Court Street. The city water main that provides service to
Shoreline Estates is located on Court Street.
3) LAND USE AND ZONING: The proposed annexation area is currently
zoned R-T under the County zoning regulations and was used for growing
vegetables. The lot is 12,427 square feet and adjoining right-of-way and
shoreline area add another 8,577 square feet to the annexation area.
Properties to the west and north are zoned RT in the County. Properties
down river along West Court Street are in the City and zoned R-S-20.
4) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The Comprehensive Plan designates the
proposed annexation area for low density residential development.
5) ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The City of Pasco is the lead
agency for this project. Based on the SEPA checklist, the adopted City
Comprehensive Plan, City development regulations, and other information, a
threshold determination resulting in a Determination of Non-Significance
(DNS) has been issued for this project under WAC 197-11-158.
ANALYSIS
In August of this year the City purchased a small parcel of land (12,427 sq.
ft.) directly west of the I-182 Bridge. The property was purchased to
accommodate piping and other equipment for a new water inta ke facility to
be located in the Columbia River. The property was originally part of the
Harris Family Farm established in the 1940’s and has been used primarily
for the production of vegetables.
In determining the most appropriate zoning for the annexati on area the
Planning Commission needs to consider the existing land uses, nearby
development, zoning, policies of the Comprehensive Plan and the land use
designations of the land use map. The Planning Commission also needs to
be guided by the criteria in PMC 25.88.060 (as discussed below) in
developing a zoning recommendation.
The general area around the proposed annexation site can be characterized
primarily as a suburban agricultural area with pockets of low-density
residential single-family development. The bulk of the Harris Farm is
located on the north side of Court Street. There are three single-family
homes on the parcels directly upriver from the water intake parcel.
Downstream from the site, south of the I-182 Bridge, are a number of
single-family homes on lots ranging in size from 15,000-18,000 square feet.
The new city water treatment plant is located on the north side of Court
Street to the south of the I -182 freeway.
The Harris Farm and associated property is zoned RT in the County. The
properties in the City south of the I -182 Bridge are zoned R-S-20 and the
water treatment plant is zoned R-S-12. To maintain consistency with
nearby development patterns and the Comprehensive Plan, the most
appropriate zoning would be a suburban zoning district (RT, R-S-20 or R-S-
12). The water intake facility will not be impacted by the establishment of a
zoning district on the property because the proposed facility will require a
special permit regardless of what zoning is chosen.
Because most of the Harris properties north of the I -182 Bridge are
currently zoned RT, it may be appropriate to continue with the RT zoning on
the intake property upon annexation. The RT zoning could then remain on
the property until the Harris Farm is annexed.
The initial review criteria for considering a rezone application are explained
in PMC 25.88.030. The criteria are listed below as follows:
1. The changed conditions in the vicinity which warrant other or additional
zoning:
The property is located within the Pasco Urban Growth Boundary.
The property in question is being annexed to the City of Pasco.
Conditions have changed little in the neighborhood in the last few
years. The major change is the annexation of the parcel in
question. Upon annexation the property will need to be zoned.
2. Facts to justify the change on the basis of advancing the public health,
safety and general welfare.
The property is being annexed to the City and will need to be zoned. The
justification for the rezone is the fact that if a zoning designation is not
determined the property could become annexed without a zone. For the
advancement of the general welfare of the community the property needs
to be zoned.
3. The effect rezoning will have on the nature and value of adjoining
property and the Comprehensive Plan.
Rezoning the property to RT will maintain the status quo for the
neighborhood. The nature and value of adjoining properties will not be
impacted by retaining the RT zoning.
4. The effect on the property owners or owner of the request is not granted.
Without the annexation area being assigned a specific zoning district, the
area will essentially be un-zoned upon annexation. The area needs to be
zoned for the benefit of the owner (City of Pasco) and adjoining property
owners.
5. The Comprehensive Plan land use designation for the property.
The Comprehensive Plan designates the site for low -density residential
development. Utility Goal, UT-1, of the Plan suggests the City should
ensure adequate utility service is provided within the UGA to
accommodate anticipated growth.
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 within the Pasco Urban Growth Boundary.
2) The Urban Growth Boundary was established by Franklin County in 1994.
3) The property is being proposed for annexation by the end of 2012.
4) The annexation area is identified in the Comprehensive Plan for low -density
residential uses.
5) Properties to the north and west are zoned RT.
6) According to the Franklin County Assessor’s records (October 2012), the
property values for lots in Rivershore Estates adjacent to RT zoning on the
Harris Farm have increased over the past four years.
7) The current Franklin County zoning for the site and adjoining properties
north of the I-182 Bridge is RT.
CONCLUSIONS BASED ON 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 PMC 25.88.060 and determine whether or not:
(1) The proposal is in accord with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive
Plan.
The Comprehensive Plan encourages the development of utility services to
accommodate anticipated growth within the UGA (UT-1). The property being
annexed will be used specifically for enhancing the C ity’s utility system for
current and future growth.
(2) The effect of the proposal on the immediate vicinity will not be materially
detrimental.
Retaining the RT zoning on the property will have no material impact on
surrounding properties.
(3) There is merit and value in the proposal for the community as a whole.
It is in the best interest of the community and neighborhood to have the
annexation area zoned to match surrounding properties. Without zoning, the
value and character of the neighborhood would not b e protected or
maintained.
(4) Conditions should be imposed in order to mitigate any significant adverse
impacts from the proposal.
RT zoning would mitigate the impacts of the property not being zoned and
therefore no conditions are needed.
(5) A concomitant agreement should be entered into between the City and the
petitioner, and if so, the terms and conditions of such an agreement.
A concomitant agreement is not needed.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
MOTION: I move the Planning Commission adopt the Findings of Fact as
contained in the October 18, 2012 staff report.
MOTION: I move, based on the findings of fact as adopted, the Planning
Commission recommend the City Council zone the Water Intake
Annexation Area to RT.
Vi
c
i
n
t
y
Ma
p
Fi
l
e
#
:
Z
D
2
0
1
2
-
0
0
2
Ap
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
:
C
i
t
y
o
f
P
a
s
c
o
It
e
m
:
Z
o
n
i
n
g
D
e
t
e
r
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
-
W
a
t
e
r
I
n
t
a
k
e
Si
t
e
ROAD 110
SHORELINE CT
COURT ST
I -
1
8
2
ROAD 111VIEW LA N ESHA
Vi
c
i
n
t
y
Ma
p
Fi
l
e
#
:
Z
D
2
0
1
2
-
0
0
2
Ap
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
:
C
i
t
y
o
f
P
a
s
c
o
It
e
m
:
Z
o
n
i
n
g
D
e
t
e
r
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
-
W
a
t
e
r
I
n
t
a
k
e
Si
t
e
Fi
l
e
#
:
Z
D
2
0
1
2
-
0
0
2
Ap
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
:
C
i
t
y
o
f
P
a
s
c
o
It
e
m
:
Z
o
n
i
n
g
D
e
t
e
r
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
-
W
a
t
e
r
I
n
t
a
k
e
Si
t
e
La
n
d
Us
e
Ma
p
SF
D
U
s
Fa
r
m
i
n
g
Wa
t
e
r
Tr
e
a
t
m
e
n
t
Pl
a
n
t
Vacant SFDUs
S F D U s
Fi
l
e
#
:
Z
D
2
0
1
2
-
0
0
2
Ap
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
:
C
i
t
y
o
f
P
a
s
c
o
It
e
m
:
Z
o
n
i
n
g
D
e
t
e
r
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
-
W
a
t
e
r
I
n
t
a
k
e
Si
t
e
Zo
n
i
n
g
Ma
p
RS
-
2
0
RS-12
RT
(
C
o
u
n
t
y
)
R S-20