HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-15-2013 Planning Commission PacketPLANNING COMMISSION – AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING 7:00 P.M. August 15, 2013
I. CALL TO ORDER:
II. ROLL CALL: Declaration of Quorum
III. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: July 18, 2013
V. OLD BUSINESS:
A. Plan Auto Repair in Commercial Zones (MF# PLAN 2012-
006)
VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
A. Special Permit Farming Operations in an RT (Residential
Transition) Zone (Washington Dept. of Natural
Resources) (MF# SP 2013-013)
B. Rezone Rezone from C-3 (General Business) to R-3 (Medium
Density Residential) (NICO Investments LLC) (MF # Z
2013-004)
C. Block Grant Annual Action Plan Substantial Amendment (MF#
BGAP 2013-006)
VII. OTHER BUSINESS:
A. Code Amendment Detached Accessory Structure Heights (MF# CA
2013-003)
VIII. WORKSHOP:
IX. ADJOURNMENT:
-1-
REGULAR MEETING July 18, 2013
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
CALL TO ORDER:
The meeting was called to order at 7:00pm by Chairman Cruz.
POSITION MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT
No. 1 Tim Hoekstra
No. 2 Tony Bachart
No. 3 Andy Anderson
No. 4 Alecia Greenaway
No. 5 Joe Cruz
No. 6 Loren Polk
No. 7 Zahra Khan
No. 8 Jana Kempf
No. 9 Paul Hilliard
APPEARANCE OF FAIRNESS:
Chairman Cruz read a statement about the appearance of fairness for hearings on
land use matters. Chairman Cruz asked if any Commission member had anything
to declare. There were no declarations.
Chairman Cruz then asked the audience if there were any objections based on a
conflict of interest or appearance of fairness question regarding the items to be
discussed this evening. There were no objections.
ADMINISTERING THE OATH:
Chairman Cruz explained that state law requires testimony in quasi-judicial
hearings such as held by the Planning Commission be given under oath or
affirmation. Chairman Cruz swore in all those desiring to speak.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Commissioner Hilliard moved, seconded by Commissioner Greenaway, that the
minutes dated June 20, 2013 be approved as mailed. The motion passed
unanimously.
OLD BUSINESS:
A. Special Permit Location of an automotive body shop in a C-3
(General Business Zone) (Russell Dean) (MF #
SP 2013-012)
Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff.
Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director, explained there was
-2-
nothing to add from what was explained at the previous meeting.
Commissioner Hilliard moved, seconded by Commissioner Polk, to adopt the
findings of fact and conclusions therefrom as contained in the July 18, 2013 staff
report. The motion passed unanimously.
Commissioner Hilliard moved, seconded by Commissioner Greenaway, based on
the findings of fact and conclusions as adopted the Planning Commission
recommend the City Council grant a special permit for the construction and
operation of an auto body shop on the south 200.04 feet of Lot 1, Short Plat 77-27.
The motion passed unanimously.
Mr. White stated that this will go to City Council at their Special Meeting on July
29, 2013 unless an appeal is received.
B. Rezone Rezone from R-2 (Medium Density
Residential) to C-1 (Retail Business) (Jeff
McClure) (MF # Z 2013-003)
Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff.
Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director, explained there was
nothing to add from what was explained at the previous meeting.
Commissioner Greenaway moved, seconded by Commissioner Hilliard, to adopt
the findings of fact and conclusions therefrom as contained in the July 18, 2013
staff report. The motion passed unanimously.
Commissioner Greenaway moved, seconded by Commissioner Hilliard, based on
the findings of fact and conclusions as adopted the Planning Commission
recommend the City Council approve the rezone from R-2 (Medium Density
Residential) to C-1 (Retail Business) for 2302 E. Lewis Street. The motion passed
unanimously.
Mr. White stated that this will go to City Council at their Special Meeting on July
29, 2013 unless an appeal is received.
C. Preliminary Plat Aintree Pre-Plat (Nathan Machiela of Hayden
Homes) (MF # PP 2013-001)
Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff.
David McDonald, City Planner, explained that a revised set of conditions was place
on the bench prior to the meeting. The revised conditions address question by the
developer who asked for some flexibility in the language for how and where the
-3-
sewer line would connect to the proposed subdivision. The other change related to
the requirement for irrigation water. The property is served by the Irrigation
District and will not be served by the City.
Commissioner Hoekstra moved, seconded by Commissioner Greenaway, to adopt
the findings of fact and conditions as contained in the July 18, 2013 staff report.
The motion passed unanimously.
Commissioner Hoekstra moved, seconded by Commissioner Greenaway, based on
the findings of fact and conclusions, as adopted, the Planning Commission
recommend the City Council approve the Preliminary Plat of the Aintree
subdivision with conditions as listed in the July 18, 2013 staff report. The motion
passed unanimously.
Mr. McDonald stated that this will go to City Council at their Special Meeting on
July 29, 2013 unless an appeal is received.
D. Code Amendment Park Fees Update (MF# CA2013-002)
Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff.
Dave McDonald, City Planner, discussed the Park Fee Updates. At the April
meeting the Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider consolidating
the park fees with other development impact fees (traffic and schools). During the
prior workshop the Director of Administrative & Community Services indicated the
current park fees for park development have not kept pace with the rising costs of
new park construction. The Director suggested the park fee should increase to
$1,500 per dwelling unit to more accurately cover the costs for new park
development.
As a result of the public hearing, staff prepared a code amendment that would
establish a higher base fee and also move the park fees and place them with the
other fees in Title 3 rather than Title 25 and 26. Staff also prepared proposed
district modification for park locations although no action on this item will need to
be taken by the Planning Commission. The park districts were also briefly
explained.
Commissioner Polk asked if a sliding scale as mentioned in the April was
investigated any further.
Mr. McDonald explained under the proposal if a developer provides a 5 acre park
with infrastructure, grades the park and hydro-seeds it and dedicates it to the City
as part of the plat, he would receive a 50 percent deduction regardless of how
many homes are in the subdivision. If the developer provides the park with all of
the infrastructure, playground equipment, pathways, and so forth, all of the
neighborhood park fee would be taken care of and the developer would only be
required to pay the community park portion of the fee.
-4-
Commissioner Hoekstra asked if the fee was per acre or per home.
Mr. McDonald answered per home.
Commissioner Hilliard moved, seconded by Commissioner Greenaway, to adopt
the findings of fact as contained in the July 18, 2013 staff memo on the park fee
amendments. The motion passed unanimously.
Commissioner Hilliard moved, seconded by Commissioner Greenaway, the
Planning Commission recommend the City Council adopt the proposed park fee
amendments as attached to the July 18, 2013 staff memo to the Planning
Commission. The motion passed unanimously.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
A. Block Grant 2014 Community Development Block Grant
(CDBG) Fund Allocations (MF # BGAP 2013-
003)
Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff.
Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director, discussed the 2014
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Fund Allocations. He stated that
the Planning Commission heard presentations from the applicants at the public
hearing last month. There was a total of a little less than $1.5 million and only
roughly $656,000 of funds is available so a certain amount of cuts had to occur to
make staff recommendations. Mr. White briefly discussed the attachment that
was part of the staff memo which represented how much was requested by each
applicant and how much staff recommends allocating. It is estimated after the
Planning Commissioner makes a recommendation this item will be forwarded to
City Council.
Commissioner Hilliard asked about the ADA Improvements allocations and if they
were going to be reallocation again since they have been in the past.
Mr. White answered that those reallocations came back to the Planning
Commission twice last year because once the reallocations exceed a certain
amount they have to go through the public process to reallocate the funds. He
stated that he didn’t foresee the 2014 ADA Funds being reallocated.
Commissioner Greenaway stated that she felt the staff has done a good job.
Chairman Cruz noted that since the previous years, a lot of funding has been cut
and that there is less to be distributed.
Commissioner Hoekstra voiced his appreciation to staff on the recommendations
and where they would best be served.
-5-
Chairman Cruz commented for the people watching at home that the “non-
matched funds” mean a lot to the program and a well-established and mature
organization typically is received well for a recommendation.
With no further comments the public hearing closed.
Commissioner Hilliard moved, seconded by Commissioner Greenaway, to close the
public hearing and recommend the City Council approve the use of funds for the
2014 Community Development Block Grant Program as set forth in the “2014
Fund Summary” as recommended by staff. The motion passed unanimously.
B. Block Grant 2014 HOME Fund Allocations (MF # BGAP
2013-004)
Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff.
Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director, discussed the 2014
HOME Fund Allocations. He explained that the City of Pasco formed a consortium
with Kennewick and Richland several years ago in order to receive these funds.
Like CDBG, these funds have been decreasing as well. Staff recommends that the
money be used for down payment assistance for low-moderate income
homebuyers. It provides a measure of the down payment and assists with the
closing costs associated with buying a home.
With no further comments the public hearing closed.
Commissioner Kempf moved, seconded by Commissioner Hoekstra, the Planning
Commission recommend the City Council approve the use of funds for the 2014
HOME Investment Partnerships Program as set forth in the “2014 HOME Fund
Summary” as recommended by staff. The motion passed unanimously.
C. Block Grant 2014 NSP Fund Allocations (MF # BGAP 2013-
005)
Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff.
Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director, discussed the 2014
NSP Fund Allocations. These funds are also federal funds the City received in
2010 to alleviate the effects of home foreclosures in neighborhoods. With that
money the City purchased four foreclosed homes and two additional homes were
donated by the School District, making a total of six homes. Those homes have
been rehabilitated, three have been sold, there is an offer pending on the fourth
and two homes still remain. Once those homes sell there will be program income
coming back for use for acquisition of foreclosed homes to rehabilitate and sell.
With no further comments the public hearing closed.
Commissioner Polk moved, seconded by Commissioner Greenaway, the Planning
Commission recommend the City Council approve the use of funds for the 2014
Neighborhood Stabilization Program (NSP) as recommended by staff. The motion
passed unanimously.
-6-
OTHER BUSINESS:
A. Plan Tri-Cities Prep Master Plan
Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff.
Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director, discussed the Tri-
Cities Prep Master Plan. They currently have a 10-year Master Plan approved in
2007 that is good until 2017, which is a long time to look ahead at future needs.
During a recent struggle attempting to meet the scheduling needs due to the
number of students, it was brought to their attention that a two-classroom
portable was available from St. Joseph’s school in Kennewick for little or no cost.
This unit would provide temporary relief until the adequate funds are raised to add
on to the current facility. They would like to be able to add the two portables
without going through the special permit process. Staff believes that the portable
classroom is consistent with the master plan that was approved in 2007. Staff
would like input from the Planning Commission on this item.
Chairman Cruz opened up an informal public hearing on this item since there was
someone in the audience regarding this item.
Arlene Jones, 9612 St. Thomas Drive, spoke on behalf of Tri-Cities Prep as their
principal.
Commissioner Hoekstra asked the applicant if she could put in context how the
portables will affect the future plans.
Ms. Jones answered that their intent is that they will eventually occupy the final
footprint of the building. Currently the structure is only 50 percent of the overall
plan. They raise the funds that they need prior to building the exterior and then
raise money to finish the interior when they expand onto the school. When the
portable became available for free it assisted their needs until they can raise the
funds to add on to their school.
Chairman Cruz asked the Commissioner’s if they had any issues with the stance
staff has taken as considering this a special circumstance that would not require a
special permit.
None of the Commissioner’s stated any issues.
With no further comments the informal public hearing closed.
COMMENTS:
Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director, stated that at the next
-7-
month’s meeting there may be some extra items on the agenda, such as the
accessory structure height issue, the auto repair issue and the auto sales issue in
Commercial Zones.
With no further discussion or business, the Planning Commission was
adjourned at
7:38 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Dave McDonald, City Planner
MEMORANDUM
DATE: August 15, 2013
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Rick White, Director
Community & Economic Development
SUBJECT: Automobile Repair Operations
Attached is a copy of the June 20, 2013 Memo to the Planning Commissioner regarding outdoor
automobile repair operations. At the June 20, 2013 Meeting, the Commission recommended that the
ordinance included in the staff report be forwarded to Council for approval. Since that time, further
review of the ordinance has produced two changes.
The first of these changes precludes establishing new uses for outdoor repair operations in the C-1 Zoning
District. This is accomplished by providing a date so that only uses in existence prior to September 1,
2013 are able to undertake minor outdoor automobile repair. Uses established after that date will be
unable to establish outdoor repair operation outdoors in C-1 Zones. The purpose of that additional
language is to prohibit new operations from conducting outdoor automobile repair outside of a building.
The second change is to offer a repair business that does not have outdoor automobile repair facilities (as
defined by the proposed ordinance) the ability to conduct outdoor automobile repairs. The number of
vehicles undergoing outdoor automobile repair cannot exceed the number of repair facilities or in the case
of a use without repair facilities is limited to two.
Staff believes that both of these minor changes offer a better legislative product for governing outdoor
automobile repair operations in C-1 Zones.
Staff would recommend that the Planning Commission forward the proposed ordinance with these
changes to City Council for approval based on the following finding of facts listed below (which are
identical to the findings approved by the Planning Commission on June 20th):
Findings of Fact
1. Automobile repair operations are permitted in various degrees in the C-1 (Retail Business), C-3
(General Business) and Industrial Zoning Districts.
2. The Pasco Municipal Code contains both zone-specific and general regulations governing the
conduct of automobile repair that have been inconsistently enforced over the course of time.
3. Automobile repair in many locations and sites has evolved to include operations that are in
conflict with applicable regulations of the Pasco Municipal Code including the use of the public
right-of-way for storage and parking repair business vehicles, outdoor repair operations, outdoor
dismantling of vehicles, parts salvaging and automobile hulk storage in public view and
depositing oil, grease and similar substances on City Streets.
4. Operations occurring in violation of the Pasco Municipal Code have an adverse effect on the
health and safety of nearby businesses and residents, discourage private investment in
commercial and industrial areas and present a negative perception of the City as a whole to the
general public.
5. The Pasco City Council has directed the Planning Commission to develop an action plan for
resolving code conflicts and preparing code revisions and options for enforcement regarding auto
repair operations.
6. The Planning Commission created a committee of Planning Commissioners and business
operators to prepare an action plan for addressing the issue.
7. The Planning Commission has notified affected business operators and land owners involved in
automobile repair operations of the task directed by the City Council and of the various meetings
and preliminary strategies of the Commission on this matter.
8. The proposed ordinance amends Title 25 of the PMC to establish definitions for minor
automobile repair and applicable regulations governing such repair in the C-1 (Retail Business)
Zone.
9. The proposed ordinance amends Title 25 of the PMC to establish a screening requirement for
inoperable automobiles in the C-3 (General Business) and I-1 (Light Industrial) Zones.
10. The proposed ordinance is necessary to protect the safety and economic vitality of business
districts within Pasco.
MOTION: I move that Planning Commission adopt the finding of facts as contained in the August
15, 2013 Staff Memo on automobile repair operations.
MOTION: I move the Planning Commission recommend that City Council adopt the proposed
ordinance amending Title 25 of the PMC as contained in the August 15, 2013 Staff
Memo.
M E M O R A N D U M
DATE: June 20, 2013
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Rick White, Director
Community & Economic Development
SUBJECT: Automobile Repair Operations
One of the issues of City Council concern noted during Council’s biennial retreat in 2012
was the outdoor occurrence of major auto repair and dismantling operations. These
operations are often, but not always, located in former service stations that that have been
converted to full-time repair shops.
Typically, the issues surrounding automobile repair operations include:
• The use of the public right-of-way for parking and storing business related vehicles
and equipment;
• Depositing oil, grease and other automobile fluids on the public street;
• Parts salvaging and storage of automobile hulks;
• Outdoor dismantling and repair of vehicles; and
• A scale of auto repair that is outside that allowed by the C-1 (Retail Business) Zoning
District.
Council Resolution 3441 tasked the Planning Commission to develop an action plan for a
solution.
At the Planning Commission meeting of April 25th, the Commission recommended that City
Council accept an Action Plan for automobile repair operations in various commercial
districts. The Commission also opened a public hearing on the issue and continued the
hearing to allow any further testimony or comments, noting that staff would be preparing an
ordinance reflecting the Action Plan for the Planning Commission’s consideration. City
Council accepted the Action Plan from the Planning Commission and the Commission
discussed the proposed regulations at the Planning Commission meeting of May 16. At that
meeting, the public hearing was continued to allow an additional opportunity for testimony
from owners and operators of automobile repair businesses. The Commission also provided
direction to coordinate the definition of “minor automobile repair” with the existing noise
ordinance regulations to better accommodate consistent enforcement procedures.
The proposed attached ordinance amending the Zoning Code contains the specific language
to implement the Action Plan. The Planning Commission is requested to again review the
proposed ordinance and provide suggestions or comments. The report also contains
attachments of PMC 25.12.475 (definition of inoperable vehicles) 25.70.150 (3) (adding
required screening) and 25.75.040 (definition of required screening) as these are referenced
in the proposed ordinance.
Findings of Fact
1. Automobile repair operations are permitted in various degrees in the C-1 (Retail
Business), C-3 (General Business) and Industrial Zoning Districts.
2. The Pasco Municipal Code contains both zone-specific and general regulations
governing the conduct of automobile repair that have been inconsistently enforced
over the course of time.
3. Automobile repair in many locations and sites has evolved to include operations that
are in conflict with applicable regulations of the Pasco Municipal Code including the
use of the public right-of-way for storage and parking repair business vehicles,
outdoor repair operations, outdoor dismantling of vehicles, parts salvaging and
automobile hulk storage in public view and depositing oil, grease and similar
substances on City Streets.
4. Operations occurring in violation of the Pasco Municipal Code have an adverse effect
on the health and safety of nearby businesses and residents, discourage private
investment in commercial and industrial areas and present a negative perception of
the City as a whole to the general public.
5. The Pasco City Council has directed the Planning Commission to develop an action
plan for resolving code conflicts and preparing code revisions and options for
enforcement regarding auto repair operations.
6. The Planning Commission created a committee of Planning Commissioners and
business operators to prepare an action plan for addressing the issue.
7. The Planning Commission has notified affected business operators and land owners
involved in automobile repair operations of the task directed by the City Council and
of the various meetings and preliminary strategies of the Commission on this matter.
8. The proposed ordinance amends Title 25 of the PMC to establish definitions for
minor automobile repair and applicable regulations governing such repair in the C-1
(Retail Business) Zone.
9. The proposed ordinance amends Title 25 of the PMC to establish a screening
requirement for inoperable automobiles in the C-3 (General Business) and I-1 (Light
Industrial) Zones.
10. The proposed ordinance is necessary to protect the safety and economic vitality of
business districts within Pasco.
If the Planning Commission is satisfied that the Findings and proposed ordinance addresses
the issues with auto repair operations, the following motions are in order:
Recommendation
MOTION: I move the Planning Commission adopt the Findings of Fact as contained in the
June 20, 2013 staff memo on automobile repair operations.
MOTION: I move the Planning Commission recommend the City Council adopt the
proposed ordinance amending Title 25 of the PMC as contained in the June 20, 2013 staff
memo.
Ordinance Amending Title 25
Page 1 of 3
ORDINANCE NO. ______
AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO AUTOMOBILE REPAIR
OPERATIONS AND LAND USE AMENDING TITLE 25 OF THE
PASCO MUNICIPAL CODE
WHEREAS, cities have the responsibility to regulate and control the physical development within
their borders and to ensure public health, safety and welfare are maintained; and,
WHEREAS, the City of Pasco has zoning regulations that limit vehicle repair in commercial zoning
districts; and
WHEREAS, over time, conditions involving minor vehicle servicing and repair operations have
evolved so that enforcement of Title 25 has revealed the need to address changing conditions in the
community; and,
WHEREAS, over time, changed conditions within the community and the need for revising
applicable regulations concerning vehicle repair have caused the need for revised regulations and additional
definitions within Title 25; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that to further the purposes of comprehensive planning
and to maintain and protect the welfare of the community, it is necessary to amend PMC Title 25, NOW,
THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASCO, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS
FOLLOWS:
Section 1. That Chapter 25.12 entitled "Definitions" of the Pasco Municipal Code shall be and
hereby is amended and shall read as follows:
25.12.093 “Auto Repair Facilities” means the machinery permanently installed on-site to facilitate
automobile repair such as hydraulic lifts, hoists or repair pits.
25.12.311 “Minor Automobile Repair” means repairs that are started and completed in one business
day, which is defined as the 12 hour period from 7 AM until 7 PM, and do not involve vehicle disassembly,
dismantling, salvage or recycling; and include belt and bulb replacement, oil changes and lubrication, fluid
flushes, tire and rim replacement or mounting, muffler and exhaust replacement, filter and hose replacement,
audio and alarm system installation and glass or wiper replacement or other similar activities.
Section 2. That Section 25.42.020 entitled "Permitted Uses” of the Pasco Municipal Code shall
be and hereby is amended and shall read as follows:
25.42.020 PERMITTED USES. The following uses shall be permitted in the C -1 district:
(1) Auto Detail Shops;
(2) Banks;
(3) Dancing schools;
(4) Hotels and motels;
(5) Printing shops;
(6) Restaurants;
(7) Stores and shops for the conduct of retail business;
(8) Stores and shops for repair and similar services such as:
(a) Bakeries, retail for distribution from the premises.
(b) Barbershops and beauty shops.
Ordinance Amending Title 25
Page 2 of 3
(c) Catering establishments.
(d) Garage and filling stations, provided:
(i) No repair work is performed out -of- doors, All outdoor repair work is “minor” as
defined by 25.12.311, and
(ii) The garage or filling station conducting outdoor repair work was in existence and
conducting outdoor auto repair prior to September 1, 2013 and
(iii) the number of vehicles undergoing outdoor repair does not exceed the capacity
of the existing outdoor repair facilities, or no more than two vehicles if there are no existing
outdoor repair facilities and
(iv) the number of vehicles stored outdoors and awaiting customer pick-up cannot
exceed the capacity of the indoor and outdoor auto repair facilities, and further provided that
all vehicles must be kept on the business premises, and
(iv) Pumps, lubrication or other devices are located at least fifteen feet from any
street property line, and
(vi) All stored automobiles, automobile parts and storage and dismantled or
inoperable automobiles are stored contained within the building, except material on outdoor
display racks.
(e) Laundromats and dry - cleaning establishments employing not more than five persons,
(f) Locksmith shops,
(g) Offices,
(h) Membership clubs,
(i) Photo shops,
(j) Shoe repair shops;
(9) Sign shops, commercial (no outdoor storage of materials);
(10) Theaters;
(11) Veterinarian clinics for household pets (no boarding or outdoor treatment);
(12) Upholstery shops; and
(13) Parking lots within 500 feet of a C -2 district boundary, provided such lots are paved and half of
the required landscape is live vegetation and, provided further, that any such property adjacent a
residential zoned parcel shall provide a site obscuring fence along the common lot line(s) in
accordance with residential fence height requirements.
Section 3. That Section 25.70.150 entitled "Vehicle Related Uses” of the Pasco Municipal Code
shall be and hereby is amended and shall read as follows:
25.70.150 VEHICLE RELATED USES.
(1) Any building to be used as an AUTO BODY SHOP, as defined in Section 25.12.085, shall have a
spray paint room or spray paint booth which complies with the requirements of the International Fire Code and
/or International Building Code;
(2) INOPERABLE VEHICLES, as defined in Section 25.12.475 are permitted within the R -T, R -S -
20, R -S -12, R -S -1, R -I, R -2, R -3, R -4, and RFA -1 /1 -A Districts and on all non - conforming residential
uses in other districts subject to the following conditions:
(a) Only one (1) inoperable vehicle may be stored outside of a fully enclosed building on the
property, as an accessory use to a dwelling unit.
(b) The inoperable vehicle stored outside shall not be stored upon a public right -of -way or in
the front or side yard areas of the property, and shall not conflict with other residential requirements
such as off - street parking and lot coverage.
(c) The trunk of the outside inoperable vehicle shall be removed or locked at all times it is
unattended, and the unattended vehicle shall be completely enclosed within a six (6) foot fence, which
is fully site obscuring.
(d) All vehicle parts not properly installed upon a vehicle shall be stored inside a fully
enclosed building except that parts may be stored within the outside inoperable vehicle.
Ordinance Amending Title 25
Page 3 of 3
(3) In the C-3 and I-1 Zoning Districts, inoperable vehicles as defined in Section 25.12.475 and
vehicle parts, tires and accessories that are not readily moveable and for immediate sale shall be stored or
parked behind screening as defined by 25.75.040 (1) (d).
PASSED by the City Council of the City of Pasco, Washington, and approved as provided by law this
____ day of _________________, 2013.
__________________________________
Matt Watkins, Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
__________________________________ __________________________________
Debbie Clark, City Clerk Leland B. Kerr, City Attorney
1
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
MASTER FILE NO: SP2013-013 APPLICANT: WA DNR
HEARING DATE: 8/15/2013 713 Bowers Rd.
ACTION DATE: 9/19/2013 Ellensburg, WA 98926
BACKGROUND
REQUEST: SPECIAL PERMIT: Farming Operations in an RT (Residential
Transition) Zone
1. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION:
Legal: That portion of the Southwest ¼ of the Southeast ¼ of Section 16,
Township 9 North, Range 29 East, W.M. lying south of the Franklin
County Irrigation District canal.
General Location: 7500 Block of Argent Road
Property Size: The entire parcel is approximately 411.6 acres; a 25 acre
portion of the parcel is the subject site.
2. ACCESS: The site is accessible from both Argent Road.
3. UTILITIES: All municipal utilities exist in Argent Road and are currently
available to serve the site. Water from the FCID irrigation canal is
currently used to irrigate the existing farm.
4. LAND USE AND ZONING: The site is currently zoned C-3 (General
Business). The north portion of the site contains an automotive
parts/accessories wholesale warehouse and distribution center while the
south portion is vacant. Surrounding properties are zoned and developed
as follows:
NORTH: RT – Agriculture
SOUTH: RS-20 (County) – Single-Family Residence
EAST: RS-20 (County) – Single-Family Residence
WEST: RS-1 – High School
5. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The Comprehensive Plan designates the site
for Low-Density Residential uses. The Plan does not specifically address
agricultural 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 Washington State Department of Natural Resources (DNR) has applied to
renew their special permit allowing farming operations on a site zoned
Residential Transition which is within 1,000 feet of a residential zone.
Pursuant to PMC § 25.20.040(1) commercial agriculture is a permitted
conditional use in the RT zone; thereby requiring special permit review. Also,
pursuant to PMC § 25.70.110(2)(b) the production of alfalfa or pasture grasses
on acreage of any size are permitted uses within all zoning districts. Finally,
pursuant to PMC § 25.86.035(1) for commercial agricultural uses listed as
conditional uses [PMC 25.20.040(1)] the applicant shall be required to submit a
conservation plan approved by the Farm Service Agency.
In 2008, DNR received special permit approval for farming on the site under
Master File # SP08-001; limiting the crop type to alfalfa and with a validity
period of up to five (5) years. The special permit has since expired, creating the
need for renewal. Approval conditions of the 2008 special permit limited crop
types to alfalfa and pasture grasses. As part of this application the applicant is
currently requesting not to be limited in the types of crops to be grown on the
site.
The site currently contains less than one quarter of a full crop circle, with the
eastern one third being unfarmed and in a natural sagebrush condition. The
unfarmed portion serves as a physical buffer between the farm and the
residence to the east.
In review of this proposal staff has identified three issues for consideration by
the Planning Commission: 1) dust control; 2) noise and 3) the eventual
conversion to a residential use.
During grading and tilling of the site between harvests and plantings, fugitive
dust could potentially impact adjacent lands if not properly monitored and
controlled. This impact would be eliminated once a crop is planted. Staff
suggests the applicant be required to maintain a viable water source on site
during soil disturbing activities to prevent dust from leaving the site. The
existing FCID irrigation water is a sufficient source to manage dust.
Often commercial agricultural activities occur at odd hours which could
potentially impact adjacent residences. Staff suggests the applicant be required
to submit a complaint monitoring plan to help alleviate these impacts. At
minimum, the plan should include potential hours of operation, a contact
person where complaints can be submitted and a preliminary plan outlining
how noise complaints will be addressed.
The planting of wheat and other similar cereal grains, within a suburban
neighborhood brings with it a concern for fire safety. Wheat fields become very
3
dry prior to harvest and burn rapidly if ignited. Considering the two homes and
the school immediately adjacent to the site and other homes nearby, planting
wheat in a particularly built neighborhood is a concern. The simplest way to
address the fire safety concerns is not to permit the planting of grains.
However, grains can sometimes be an effective cover crop to prevent dust from
blowing. If grains are to be used for a cover crop, restrictions should be placed
on their usage to address fire safety concerns presented by wheat.
The DNR owns approximately 330 acres (including the subject property) at the
intersection of Rd. 68/I-182. The property is encircled with urban development.
The city has made substantial effort to facilitate the urban development of this
property, including a conceptual land use plan reviewed by the Commission in
late 2012. The recently adopted State budget contains a provision that will
require portions of this DNR ownership to be sold and/or developed. Staff will
research the budget provisions applicable to the subject property and a report
to the Planning Commission in September. Additional or revised conditions
may be appropriate as a result of this research.
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 parcel is currently 411.6 acres in area.
2. The “site” is an approximately 25 acre portion of the parcel lying south of
the FCID irrigation canal.
3. Parcel number 117-510-016 is zoned RT (Residential Transition).
4. The site fronts Argent Road.
5. The subject site is within 1,000 feet of a residential zone.
6. The subject site is bordered on the east and south by the City Limits
boundary.
7. The subject site is located within the I-182 Overlay District.
8. The subject site is bordered to the west by Chiawana High School.
9. The subject site is bordered to the north by the FCID irrigation canal.
10. The site is within the Urban Growth Area boundary.
11. The Comprehensive Plan identifies the parcel for low-density residential
uses.
4
12. The FCID irrigation water system serves the site via a pump located on
an undeveloped portion of the Chiawana High School property.
13. The applicant is requesting not to be limited in the types of crops to be
grown on the site.
14. Washington State Department of Ecology water rights permit # S3-28876
(assigned to the Washington State Department of Natural Resources)
applies to the site.
15. Farms are listed as permitted conditional uses in the RT zone [PMC
25.20.040(1)].
16. Pursuant to PMC § 25.70.110(2)(b) the production of alfalfa or pasture
grasses on acreage of any size are permitted uses within all zoning
districts.
17. Pursuant to PMC § 25.86.035(1), commercial agricultural uses listed as
conditional uses requires the applicant to submit a conservation plan
approved by the Farm Service Agency.
TENTATIVE CONCLUSIONS BASED ON INITIAL STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT
Before recommending approval or denial of a special permit the Planning
Commission must develop findings of fact from which to draw its conclusions
based upon the criteria listed in P.M.C. 25.86.060. The criteria are as follows:
(1) Will the proposed use be in accordance with the goals, policies, objectives
and text of the Comprehensive Plan?
The Comprehensive Plan designates the proposed site for low-density
residential development. The Comprehensive Plan encourages urban
development within the Pasco Urban Growth Boundary. Agricultural
uses are not specifically addressed in the Comprehensive Plan.
(2) Will the proposed use adversely affect public infrastructure?
The proposed use will have negligible impacts on public infrastructure.
Crop circle farms are visited infrequently, generating almost no vehicle
traffic on a regular basis.
(3) Will the proposed use be constructed, maintained and operated to be in
harmony with existing or intended character of the general vicinity?
The existing character and intended character of the vicinity is
predominately rural residential. Residential development in the vicinity
has developed around and coexisted with a variety of agricultural uses
5
for many years. No additional site modifications beyond ones existing
are proposed as part of this special permit application.
(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?
No construction of any kind is proposed and no development will occur if
the special permit is granted.
(5) Will the operations in connection with the proposal be more objectionable to
nearby properties by reason of noise, fumes, vibrations, dust, traffic, or
flashing lights than would be the operation of any permitted uses within
the district?
The proposed farm lies south of the I-182 freeway. The farming operation
will not create more noise, fumes, vibrations, traffic and flashing lights
than the freeway. The farm will also create less traffic and related
activity than the school to the west. Dust and noise may potentially
impact nearby uses. To address the issue of dust, staff suggests the
applicant be required to maintain a viable water source on site during
soil disturbing activities to prevent dust from leaving the site. Staff
suggests the applicant be required to submit a complaint monitoring
plan to help alleviate the impact of noise. At minimum, the plan should
include potential hours of operation, a contact person where complaints
can be submitted and a preliminary plan outlining how noise complaints
will be addressed.
(6) Will the proposed use endanger the public health or safety if located and
developed where proposed, or in any way become a nuisance to uses
permitted in the district?
The proposed farm is only an interim use, and will not impede the
development of future uses; nor will it become a nuisance to future
permitted uses. The existence of numerous farming operations within the
I-182 area generally demonstrates that the proposed use should not
become a nuisance to permitted uses nor endanger public health and
safety.
TENTATIVE APPROVAL CONDITIONS
1. The special permit shall apply to that portion of parcel # 117510016
lying south of the Franklin County Irrigation District canal;
2. The special permit is personal to the applicant;
6
3. The applicant shall submit a conservation plan approved by the Farm
Service Agency prior to beginning farming operations on the site;
4. Prior to beginning farming operations on the site, the applicant must
submit a complaint monitoring plan to help alleviate the impact of noise.
At minimum, the plan must include potential hours of operation, a
contact person where complaints can be submitted and a preliminary
plan outlining how noise complaints will be addressed;
5. The applicant must manage the farm to control dust from leaving the
site;
6. Cereal grains may only be used as a winter cover crop or for green
manure;
7. The special permit expires on July 1, 2015.
RECOMMENDATION
MOTION: I move to close the public hearing and schedule deliberations, the
adoption of findings of fact, and development of a
recommendation for City Council for the August 15, 2013
Planning Commission meeting.
Fi
l
e
#
:
S
P
2
0
1
3
-
0
1
3
Ap
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
:
W
A
D
N
R
It
e
m
:
F
a
r
m
i
n
g
i
n
a
n
R
T
Z
o
n
e
Zo
n
i
n
g
Ma
p
SIT
E
I-182
Le
g
e
n
d
Ci
t
y
L
i
m
i
t
s
Ci
t
y
Z
o
n
i
n
g
C-
1
R-
1
R-
3
R-
4
R-
S
-
1
RP RS
-
1
2
RS
-
2
0
RT
Co
u
n
t
y
R
S
-
2
0
Fi
l
e
#
:
S
P
2
0
1
3
-
0
1
3
Ap
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
:
W
A
D
N
R
It
e
m
:
F
a
r
m
i
n
g
i
n
a
n
R
T
Z
o
n
e
Vi
c
i
n
i
t
y
Ma
p
SIT
E
Le
g
e
n
d
Ci
t
y
L
i
m
i
t
s
I-182
La
n
d
U
s
e
Ma
p
SIT
E
I-182
Fi
l
e
#
:
S
P
2
0
1
3
-
0
1
3
Ap
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
:
W
A
D
N
R
It
e
m
:
F
a
r
m
i
n
g
i
n
a
n
R
T
Z
o
n
e
Si
n
g
l
e
-
F
a
m
i
l
y
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
Co
m
m
.
Va
c
a
n
t
SFR's
Si
n
g
l
e
-
F
a
m
i
l
y
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
Multi-Family ResidentialMFR's
SF
R
Va
c
.
Commercial
Va
c
.
Co
m
m
.
Va
c
.
Fi
r
e
Comm.
SF
R
'
s
Hi
g
h
S
c
h
o
o
l
Tr
a
i
l
e
r
P
a
r
k
Ag
r
i
c
u
l
t
u
r
e
Va
c
a
n
t
R o a d 6 8
Road 84
Ar
g
e
n
t
R
o
a
d
Dr
a
d
i
e
R
o
a
d
1
REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
MASTER FILE NO. Z 2013-004
HEARING DATE: 8/15/2013
ACTION DATE: 9/19/2013
APPLICANT: NICO Investment LLC
4216 Santa Ana Loop
Pasco WA 99301
BACKGROUND
REQUEST: REZONE Rezone property from C-3 (General Commercial) to
R-3 (Medium-Density Residential).
1. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION:
Legal: Lots 13-17, Block 5, NP Plat.
Location: 120, 124, and 132 W. Shoshone Street
Property Size: Approximately 0.8 acres
2. ACCESS: The property has access from W. Shoshone Street along the
northern property line and N. 1st Avenue to the west.
3. UTILITIES: All utilities are available to the site.
4. LAND USE AND ZONING: The site is currently zoned C-3 (General
Commercial) and is occupied by apartment buildings. Surrounding
properties are zoned and developed as follows:
North I-1 (Light Industrial) – Commercial
South I-1 (Light Industrial) – Commercial
East I-1 (Light Industrial) – Heavy Commercial
West R-3 (Medium-Density Residential) – SFDUs
5. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map
designates this area for high-density residential uses.
6. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The City of Pasco is the lead
agency for this project. Based on the SEPA checklist, the adopted City
Comprehensive Plan, city development regulations, and other
information, a threshold determination resulting in a Determination of
Non-significance (DNS) has been issued for this project under WAC 197-
11-158.
ANALYSIS
The property is approximately 0.8 acres fronting W. Shoshone Street along the
northern property line and North 1st Avenue to the west. The lot was platted in
1889 by the Burlington Northern Railroad as one of the earliest additions to the
2
original Town of Pasco. By 1938 the block was zoned C-1 (“Commercial
District”), later to be rezoned to its current C-3 (General Commercial).
The site is developed with four residential structures, including two multi-
family units.. The structures on site were built between 1961 and 1967.
The current use is multi-family apartments and is considered a legal
nonconforming use in the C-3 zone. Applicant wishes to bring the multi-family
use into conformity with the zoning ordinance by rezoning the parcels to R-3
(Medium-Density Residential) so as to allow replacement, enhancement and/or
expansion of the multi-family residential use.
Properties to the north, east, and south are zoned industrial and contain
general commercial and light industrial uses. Properties to the west are zoned
medium-density residential and are developed primarily with single-family
units, with a few multi-family uses. The site is also within walking distance of
Downtown Pasco, the Pasco Intermodal Train Station as well as Pasco City
Hall.
The City of Pasco Comprehensive Plan shows the property to be within a high-
density residential designation. The R-3 Zone allows for up to one dwelling per
3,000 square feet for multiple family dwellings, with up to 60% lot coverage and
building heights up to 35 feet without a special permit.
The City’s Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map indicates the property in
question should be utilized for high-density residential uses. Land Use Policy
LU-3-B encourages “infill and density including planned unit developments to
protect open space and critical areas, and provide recreational areas and
amenities in support of more intensive, walkable neighborhoods.” Land Use
Policy LU-3-E calls for designating “areas for higher-density residential
development where utilities and transportation facilities enable efficient use of
capital resources.” Housing Policy H-1-B encourages “the location of medium
and high density housing in locations that will avoid the need for access
through lower density residential neighborhoods.” Housing Policy H-1-D directs
the City to “avoid large concentrations of high-density housing.” Housing Policy
H-2-A calls for the City to “allow for a full range of residential environments
including single family homes, townhouses, condominiums, apartments, and
manufactured housing.” Housing Policy H-4-B requires the City to “maintain
development regulations and standards that control the scale and density of
accessory buildings and homes to maintain compatibility with other residential
uses.”
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 City is gradually and consistently developing its vacant residential land.
This location is part of the potential infill area still close to downtown. The
3
Comprehensive Plan Maps from at least 1963 to the present have designated this
area for high-density residential uses.
2. Facts to justify the change on the basis of advancing the public health,
safety and general welfare:
The rezone will legalize and allow the continuance of a high-density transition or
buffer between residential areas to the west and industrial zones to the north,
east and south. Land Use Policy LU-3-B, was designed to encourage “infill and
density including planned unit developments to protect open space and critical
areas,” and allow for “higher-density residential development where utilities and
transportation facilities enable efficient use of capital resources,” in keeping with
Land Use Policy LU-3-E. This rezone would still align with that intended goal
and also “allow for a full range of residential environments including single
family homes, townhouses, condominiums, apartments, and manufactured
housing,” consistent with Housing Policy H-2-A.
3. The effect it will have on the nature and value of adjoining property and
the Comprehensive Plan:
This development would legalize and allow the continuance of a high-density
transition or buffer between residential areas to the west and industrial zones to
the north, east, and south.
4. The effect on the property owners if the request is not granted:
If the request is not granted the property will continue as a legal nonconforming
use, and/or change from multi-family residential use to a use allowed in the C-3
(general commercial) zone.
5. The Comprehensive Plan land use designation for the property:
The Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map designates the site for high-density
residential uses. The proposed zone change would not contravene the
Comprehensive Plan.
STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT
Findings of Fact must be entered from the record. The following are initial
Findings drawn from the background and analysis section of the staff report.
The Planning Commission may add Findings to this listing as the result of
factual testimony and evidence submitted during the open record hearing.
1. The site is currently zoned C-3 (General Commercial).
2. Applicant is requesting a zone change to R-3 (Medium-Density
Residential) to bring the current legal nonconforming residential use
into conformity and to allow for expansion of the residential use.
3. The site was zoned C-1 (“Commercial District”) in 1938 and rezoned
sometime between then and the present to C-3 (General Commercial).
4
4. The site is developed with four residential structures, including two
multi-family units. These structures were built between 1961 and
1967.
5. The site borders an R-3 (Medium-Density Residential) Zone to the
west which is developed with single-family dwellings and a few multi-
family units, and an I-1 (Light Industrial) Zone to the north, east, and
south, containing general commercial and light industrial uses.
6. The Comprehensive Plan designates the site for high-density
residential uses.
7. The property was platted in 1889 by the Burlington Northern Railroad
as one of the earliest additions to the original Town of Pasco.
8. The site is developed with four residential structures, including two
multi-family units.
9. The purpose of the High-Density Residential area is to serve as a
buffer or transition between low-density residential and
commercial/industrial districts.
10. The R-3 Zone allows for one dwelling per 3,000 square feet for
multiple family dwellings, or up to 68 units.
11. The R-3 Zone allows for building heights up to 35 feet without a
special permit.
CONCLUSIONS BASED ON INITIAL STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT
Before recommending approval or denial of a Rezone, the Planning Commission
must develop its conclusions from the Findings of Fact based upon the criteria
listed in P.M.C. 25.88.060 and determine whether or not:
1. The proposal is in accordance with the goals and policies of the
Comprehensive Plan.
The proposal is consistent with many of the goals and policies of the
Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan also encourages the
development of a variety of residential environments (Goal H-2) and the
Plan supports efforts to provide affordable housing to meet the needs of
low and moderate income households (Goal H-5).
2. The effect of the proposal on the immediate vicinity will not be materially
detrimental.
This development would legalize and allow the continuance of a high-
density transition or buffer between residential areas to the west and light
industrial zones to the north, east, and south.
3. There is merit and value in the proposal for the community as a whole.
Adjacent residential development and growth within the City make the
zone change appropriate, timely, and consistent with the City’s
Comprehensive Plan. The rezone would create a high-density transition or
5
buffer between residential areas to the west and light industrial zones to
the north, east, and south.
4. Conditions should be imposed in order to mitigate any significant
adverse impacts from the proposal.
No special conditions are necessary, as any future building would be
required to comply with current city of Pasco site design and building
standards.
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.
No concomitant agreement is necessary.
RECOMMENDATION
MOTION: I move to close the public hearing and schedule deliberations, the
adoption of findings of fact, and development of a
recommendation for City Council for the September 19, 2013
Planning Commission meeting.
Fi
l
e
#
:
Z
2
0
1
3
-
0
0
4
Ap
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
:
N
I
C
O
I
n
v
e
s
t
m
e
n
t
G
r
o
u
p
It
e
m
:
H
a
c
i
e
n
d
a
A
p
t
s
.
R
e
z
o
n
e
(
C
-
3
t
o
R
-
3
)
Vi
c
i
n
i
t
y
Ma
p
SIT
E
Fi
l
e
#
:
Z
2
0
1
3
-
0
0
4
Ap
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
:
N
I
C
O
I
n
v
e
s
t
m
e
n
t
G
r
o
u
p
It
e
m
:
H
a
c
i
e
n
d
a
A
p
t
s
.
R
e
z
o
n
e
(
C
-
3
t
o
R
-
3
)
La
n
d
U
s
e
Ma
p
Re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
(M
u
l
t
i
&
S
i
n
g
l
e
F
a
m
i
l
y
)
Ci
t
y
H
a
l
l
SF
R
He
a
v
y
Co
m
m
.
SIT
E
Co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
Co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
He
a
v
y
C
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
&
In
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l
Co
m
m
.
Va
c
a
n
t
Va
c
a
n
t
B N S F R a i l r o a d
Fi
l
e
#
:
Z
2
0
1
3
-
0
0
4
Ap
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
:
N
I
C
O
I
n
v
e
s
t
m
e
n
t
G
r
o
u
p
It
e
m
:
H
a
c
i
e
n
d
a
A
p
t
s
.
R
e
z
o
n
e
(
C
-
3
t
o
R
-
3
)
Zo
n
i
n
g
Ma
p
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
)
C-
1
I-
1
(L
i
g
h
t
I
n
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l
)
SIT
E
Si
t
e
Lo
o
k
i
n
g
N
o
r
t
h
Lo
o
k
i
n
g
E
a
s
t
Lo
o
k
i
n
g
S
o
u
t
h
Lo
o
k
i
n
g
W
e
s
t
M E M O R A N D U M
DATE: August 9, 2013
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Angela Pitman, Block Grant Administrator
Community & Economic Development
SUBJECT: HOME Annual Action Plan Amendment for HOME Assisted-Rental Projects (MF#
BGAP 2013-006)
Introduction
The City owns three homes from the six that were purchased/donated and rehabilitated with federal
funds from the HOME and Neighborhood Stabilization Program funds. One of the remaining homes
(120 North Owen) is a manufactured home that has proven problematic to sell. Banks often require up
to 20% of the purchase as a down payment which lower income buyers have trouble providing.
Interest rates for manufactured housing are often greater than that charged for site-built housing. In
2012, the City had only received one offer to buy the property, and that buyer was turned down by
separate lenders.
Recent changes to the HUD HOME Final Rule imposed a nine-month sale deadline for homebuyer
(owner occupied) units. A homebuyer unit that is not sold to an eligible homebuyer within nine
months of construction completion must be converted to a HOME-assisted rental unit. The Tri-Cities
HOME Consortium will need to change infill homebuyer program requirements to include sale to
pre-qualified homebuyers and contingencies to allow for conversion to rental for 2014 and beyond.
Background
This year during the annual Community Development Block Grant allocation process, the Columbia
Basin Veterans Coalition (CBVC) requested a $100,000 allocation to purchase and rehabilitate a yet
unknown site in Pasco to provide a location for supportive housing for veterans. The CDBG request
was not recommended for approval, but staff did contact the CBVC to see if they would be interested
in the transfer of ownership of the home at 120 North Owen to them for supportive housing for
veterans in Pasco. CBVC was definitely interested in that opportunity and staff has determined that
HUD likewise favors the proposal.
The ability to process this type of ownership transfer and comply with HOME regulations involves a
substantial amendment to our Block Grant Annual Action Plan, public comment period and the
issuance of a Request for Proposals (RFP). We believe an RFP can be narrowly written to focus on
the provision of supportive housing - particularly housing which supports low income population
groups (such as veterans).
If Planning Commission concurs with conversion of 120 N Owen from a homebuyer unit to a rental
unit, a substantial amendment to the annual action plan will be prepared for consideration of the City
Council at their next regular meeting.
MOTION: I move the Planning Commission recommend to City Council that the Annual Action
Plan for Community Development Block Grants be amended to include the provision
for rental occupancies.
/arp
1
M E M O R A N D U M
DATE: August 15, 2013
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Shane O’Neill, Planner I
SUBJECT: Accessory Structure Heights (MF# CA2013-003)
At their regular meeting on July 15th, Council adopted Ordinance # 4110
making a variety of amendments to PMC Title 25 (Zoning). Included in the
amendments are provisions for special permit review for requests to allow
detached shops and garages in excess of eighteen (18) feet in height in the RS-
12 & RS-20 zones. During the meeting Council discussed the need for Code
provisions offering an avenue for similar height increases in the other
residential zones and once again Council remanded the issue of detached
shop/garage height back to the Planning Commission further analysis.
Currently, the Zoning Code permits detached shops and garages up to fifteen
(15) feet in height in the RS-1, R-1, R-2, R-3 & R-4 zones with a provision for a
three (3) foot increase in height in the RS-1 and R-1 zones provided lot size
criteria are met. The maximum detached shop/garage height in the RS-12 &
RS-20 zones is eighteen (18) feet. It should be noted that heights are measured
at the mid-roof-line which is half way between the roof eve and the roof peak.
This results in structures with a roof peak height over the listed maximums.
Additionally, in all zones, detached structures may not exceed the overall
height of the home.
Staff suggests the Planning Commission address the following questions:
• Is it appropriate to increase the allowable maximum height for detached
shops and garages in the RS-1, R-1, R-2, R-3 & R-4 zones?
• What process should be used to request height increases (administrative
or special permit)?
• Which criteria should be used to evaluate height increase requests?
• Should the city maintain the catch-all requirement restricting detached
structures from exceeding the height of the home?
Alternate solutions suggested by Staff:
• Use the special permit process to evaluate height increase requests with
corresponding criteria for evaluation.
• Apply a graduated scale allowing incremental height increases based on
the provision of increased setbacks (side and/or rear).
Based on the outcome of the Planning Commission’s discussion, Staff will bring
a code amendment back to the Planning Commission for further review.