HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-17-2014 Planning Commission PacketPLANNING COMMISSION -AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING
I. CALL TO ORDER:
II. ROLL CALL:
III. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
v. OLD BUSINESS:
A. Special Permit
B. Rezone
C. Plan
VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
A. Block Grant
B. Code Amendment
VII. OTHER BUSINESS:
VIII. WORKSHOP:
A . Code Amendment
IX. ADJOURNMENT:
7:00P.M. July 17, 2014
Declaration of Quorum
June 19, 2014 and June 24, 2014
Location of a Church in a C-1 Zone (Casa de
Avivamiento) (MF# SP 2014-006)
Rezone from C-3 (General Business) to R -3 (M edium
Density Residential) (Solano Ent) (MF# Z 2014-003)
Sylvester Neighborhood Plan (MF# PLAN 2013 -003)
2015 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)
Fund Allocations (MF# BGAP 20 14-003)
Hi storic P reserva tion Title 27 Code Amendment (MF#
CA 2014-001)
Minimum Lot Size in Multi-F amily Zones (MF # CA
2014-003)
REGULAR MEETING
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
CALL TO ORDER:
The meeting was called to order at 7:OOpm by Chairman Cruz.
POSITION MEMBERS PRESENT
No. 1
No.2
No.3
No.4
No. 5
No.6
No. 7
No.8
No.9
Tony Bachart
Andy Anderson
Alecia Greenaway
Joe Cruz
Loren Polk
Zahra Khan
Jana Kempf
Gabriel Portugal
APPEARANCE OF FAIRNESS:
MEMBERS ABSENT
VACANT
June 19, 2014
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.
Commissioner Polk recuse d herself from the public hearing ite m, MF# PLAN2013-003.
Chairman Cruz then asked the audience if there were any objections based on a conflict
of interest or appearance of fairness question r egarding 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 Greenaway moved, seconded by Commissioner Portugal, that the minutes
dated May 15, 2014 b e approved as mailed. The motion passed unanimously.
OLD BUSINESS:
A. Special Permit Location of a Church in a C -3 (General Business)
Zone (Templo de Alabanza) (MF# SP 20 14-004)
Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff.
Shane O'Neill, Planner I , discussed the special permit for the location of a church in a C-3
Zone. He stated that there h ad b een no changes to the staff r e port or conditions s ince the
previous m eeting.
Commissione r Portugal asked about parking improvement s.
-1 -
Chairman Cruz responded that parking requirements are included in the approval
conditions.
Commissioner Bachart moved, seconded by Commissioner Khan, to adopt the fmdings of
fact and conclusions therefrom as contained in the June 19, 2014 staff report. The
motion passed unanimously.
Commissioner Bachart moved, seconded by Commissioner Khan, based on the findings of
fact and conclusions therefrom the Planning Commission recommend the City Council
grant a special permit for the location of a church at 1202 Unit B, West Lewis Street
(Parcel# 200-000-220), with conditions as listed in the June 19, 2014 staff report. The
motion passed unanimously.
B. Special Permit Location of a Wireless Communications Facility
(AT&T) (MF# SP 2014-005)
Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff.
Shane O'Neill, Planner I, discussed the special permit application for the location of a
wireless communications facility in a C-1 (Retail Business) Zone. Mr. O'Neill stated that
the only change to the staff report has been the language in condition #5 regarding the
block wall fencing around the facilities. Staff received the AM Frequency Analysis Report
that was completed by request, however wasn't required by the FCC. The r eport indicated
that there would be l ittle to no interference between the proposed wireless facilities and
current AM towers.
Commissioner Portugal asked is a study was completed or if the report was the same as a
study.
Mr. O'Neill clarified that they were the same.
Commissioner Greenaway requested clarification that the AM Frequency Analysis Report
indicated that there would be little or no effect on the surrounding towers.
Mr. O'Neill stated that is correct and is further substantiated in that a report wasn't even
required due to technical reasons. If the special permit is approved the applicant would
still be required to follow FCC regulations, as one of their approval conditions.
Commissioner Greenaway asked staff what would happen if the proposed facility was
approved and did cause interference with the AM station.
Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director, responded that as a condition
they will be required to fix the problem.
Commissioner Kempf moved, seconded by Commissioner Bachart, to adopt the findings of
fact and conclusions therefrom as contained in the June 19, 20 14 staff report. The
motion passed 7 to 1, with Commissioner Greenaway dissenting.
Commissioner Kempf move, seconded by Commissioner Bachart, based on the findings of
-2-
fact and conclusions as adopted the Planning Commission recommend the City Council
grant a special permit to allow wireless communication facilities on tax parcel # 119-701-
412 with conditions as contained in the June 19, 2014 staff report. The motion passed 6
to 2, with Commissioner Greenaway and Commissioner Khan dissenting.
c. Rezone Rezone from C-3 (General Business) to R-3 (Medium
Density Residential) (Chester & Jaqueline Fortune)
(MF# Z 2014-002)
Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff.
Shane O'Neill, Planner I, discussed the rezone application from C-3 (General Business) to
R-3 (Medium Density Residential). He stated that there had been no changes to the staff
report since the previous meeting.
Commissioner Kempf moved, seconded by Commissioner Greenaway, to adopt the findings
of fact and conclusions as contained in the June 19, 20 14 staff report. The motion passed
unanimously.
Commissioner Kempf moved , seconded by Commissioner Greenaway, based on the
findings of fact and conclusions as adopted the Planning Commission recommend the City
Council approve the rezone from C-1 to R-3 for Franklin County tax parcel # 113-504-020
and # 11 3-504-011. The motion passed unanimously.
D. Rezone Zoning of Department of Natural Resources Section
16 (MF# Z 2014-001)
Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comme nts from staff. Dave
McDonald, City Planner, discussed the Department of Natural Resources rezone
application from RT (Re sidential Transition) to C-1 (Retail Business), RS-1 (Suburban
Residential), R-1 (Low Density Residential), R-3 (Medium Density Residential) and 0
(Office). He stated that there had been no changes to the staff report since the previous
meeting. He added that the proposed zoning map that was included in the s taff report is
the proposed zoning that will be presented to City Council.
Commissioner Portugal moved, seconded by Commissioner Kempf, to adopt the findings of
fact and conclusions therefrom as contained in the June 19 , 2014 staff report. The
motion passed 6 to 2, with Commissioner Greenaway and Commissioner Polk dissenting.
Commissioner Portugal moved, seconded by Commissioner Kempf, based on the findings
of fact and conclusions as adopted the Planning Commission r ecommend the City Council
rezone the DNR and School District property in Section 16 from RT to RS-1, R-1, R-3,
Office and C-1 as illustrated in the "Proposed Zoning" exhibit attached to the June 19,
20 14 staff report. The motion passed 6 to 2, with Commissioner Greenaway and
Commissioner Polk dissenting.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
A. Special Permit Location of a Church in a C-1 (Retail Businessl Zone
(Manuel Diazl (MF# SP 2014-006)
-3 -
Chairman Cruz 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 church in a C-1 (Retail Business) Zone. Churches in any
zone require a special permit through provisions in the Municipal Code. In this particular
case, this church was first initiated in the early 1990's and has been a church ever since,
however in those days special permits were personal to the applicant rather than the
property. The applicant wishes to continue the current use as a church. The previous
special permit for the existing church was abandoned and the new applicant needed to
submit an application for a special permit for their use and one of the approval conditions
would be that the special permit be subject to the property rather than the applicant.
Antonio Diaz, 1734 North 5th Avenue, spoke on behalf of his special permit application .
Chairman Cruz asked if Mr. Diaz was alright with all of the conditions in the staff report.
Mr. Diaz replied that everything was fme.
Rosa Perez, 1711 North 6 th Avenue, gave her support of this special permit application.
Ms. Perez stated that she is a neighbor to this property and feels that the church would
improve the neighborhood and keep it safer.
With no further comments the public hearing closed.
Commissioner Bachart moved, seconded by Commissioner Khan, to close the public
hearing and schedule deliberations, the adoption of findings of fact and development of a
r ecommendation for City Council for the July 17, 20 14 Planning Commission Meeting.
The motion passed unanimously.
B. Rezone Rezone from C-3 (General Business) to R-3 (Medium
Density Residential) (Solano Enterprises) (MF# Z
2014-003)
Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff.
Shane O'Neill, Planner I, discussed the rezone application from C -3 (General Business) to
R-3 (Medium Density Residential). The site is located 909 North 3 rd Avenue and is nearly
surrounded by mostly residential properties with only one commercial property to the
north . Most of those residential uses are multi-family or high density. The
Comprehe nsive Plan designates this site for residential uses which allows for zones from
RS-20 through R-3. The site zoned as R-3 could accommodate up to 49 units , roughly
14.5 units per acre. Recently the City completed a capital improvement project putting in
a roundabout and street frontage improvements directly in front of the site. Residential
development on t his site would bolster the City's recent investment along the 4 th Avenue
Corridor.
Commissioner Khan asked if there would be any requirements to the fac;ade of multi-
family residential pertaining to the downtown area.
-4-
Mr. O'Neill answered that there are no additional design requirements.
Dave McDonald, City Planner, a dded that this site is outside of the boundary of Downtown
Pasco Development Area.
With no comments the public hearing closed.
Commissioner Anderson moved, seconded by Commissioner Greenaway, to close the
public hearing on the proposed rezone and initiate deliberations and schedule adoption of
findings of fact, conclusions and a recommendation to the City Council for the July 17,
201 4 meeting. The motion passed unanimously.
c. Plan Sylvester Neighborhood Plan (MF# PLAN 2013-003)
Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff.
Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director, discussed the proposed
Sylvester Neighborhood Plan. The purpose of the hearing is to culminate with the public
effort the staff has put into this project over t he past year. The City has met with citizens
and property owners over the course of four or five neighborhood meetings developing
possible solutions to the problem with the trees in the planting strips causing damage and
issues to the sidewalks. The area of focus h as been narrowed down to include Park Street
between 5th Avenue and 7th Avenue as the highest priority improvement area to use
Community Development Block Grant Funds this coming year. An application for 2015
Community Development Block Grant Funds has been submitted and will be discussed at
a public hearing on June 24 , 2014 to repair the trees and the sidewalks and reinstall trees
and dry irrigation lines at each property under the new sidewalk to allow for connections
to a water source if the owner chooses to do so.
Earl Lunders, 801 West Park Street, spoke on behalf of the proposed plan. He shared
concern about finances and if property owner s would be responsible to pay for the project
as well as taking trees that don't need to be removed.
Chairman Cruz responded that with block grant funds , homeowner's would not be
responsible paying for the project as it either gets funded or it doesn't. If it doesn't get
funded the project does not move forward.
Mr. White added that the proposal would be t o place an appropriately sized tree in the
planting strip to replace any tree that has been removed . If the current trees can be
worked around, the City would like to retain them but the project isn't designed at this
point and there isn't a guarantee that they can be retained. There are some trees that
aren 't a problem at the time but will be in the fu ture and would most likely be replaced at
this time to prevent costs in the future . Mr. White briefly discussed the types of trees and
design. This project will only occur if funded by block grant funds .
Michael Anderson, 811 West Park Street, asked about the schedule and if the 800 block
and 900 block of Park Street will be done after this first phase.
Mr. White responded that there isn't a schedule but the City wants to use the experience
of Park Street between 5th Avenue and 7 th Avenue to help finalize other portions of the
plan. There are other portions in the neighborhood that are anticipated to be included in
-5-
some kind of improvement at a later time.
Clare Cranston, 907 West Nixon Street, discussed the history of the trees in the
neighborhood and stressed the importance of keeping as many possible rather than
removing them if not necessary.
Earl Lunders spoke again and asked what would happen to his irrigation that he already
has installed on his property and if it is damaged.
Mr. White answered that the City would ensure that his irrigation would still work and if
replaced, it would be improved, and the property owner would not have to pay for this
work.
Jan Connolly, 135 Camargo Lane, gave her support of the plan and thanked the City for
their work with the citizens and members of the neighborhood in improving the area.
With no further comments the public hearing closed.
Commissioner Khan if there would be a way to keep any of the trees for property owners
who wish to keep them.
Chairman Cruz responded that some of the trees in the removal process would die and
could also cause more damage.
Mr. White added that without a detailed design or onsite inspection it is hard to answer at
this time. Cutting some proble m roots may end up killing the tree or the tree could fall
over more easily in the long run so it would be better to remove the tree or the tree. Those
types of assessments will have to be completed in the field.
Commissioner Portugal moved, seconded b y Commissioner Greenaway, to close the public
hearing and schedule deliberations, the adoption of findings of fact and development of a
recommendation for City Council for the July 17, 201 4 meeting. The motion passed
unanimously.
OTHER BUSINESS:
A. Memorandum Kurtzman Neighborhood Alley Vacation Process
Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff.
Rick White, Community & Development Director, discussed the Kurtzman Neighborhood
Alley Vacation Process. Recently this area had several LID (Lo cal Improvement District)
projects using some Community Development Block Grant funds to share the costs with
property owners making storm drainage, street, curb, gutter and sidewalk improvements.
The LID 's have been completed and now that the infrastructure is complete there is a
question as to the alley. Most of the alleys are not used for public access and there aren't
utilities in all of the alleys. Staff would like to consider a holistic a pproach to vacating all
of the alleys which would involve an inventory of all of the utilities , access and recommend
to City Council that staff b egin work on that.
-6 -
Chairman Cruz asked what would happen once the alleys are vacated.
Mr. White responded that they alleys would be split between each abutting property.
Many of the alleys are already fenced in by property owners.
Commissioner Portugal asked if the property owners in the area are aware of this item.
Mr. White responded that the notification would happen at a later time during the process.
Commissioner Portugal stated that he has a similar situation where he lives and many of
the property owners use the alley for access to get to their garages.
Mr. White added that there might be an instance where an alley is used to provide access
but in this area he cannot think of any.
Commissioner Polk asked for clarification regarding the properties who have already
fenced in the alley space. She asked if the fences included the addition land that is in the
alley.
Mr. White responded yes, many of the alleys are already fenced in.
Commissioner Bachart asked if the assessed value of the properties will increase due to
the additional land given to them with the alley vacation.
Mr. White stated that the assessed value of lots in that area, regardless of size, they all
seem to be assessed at the same amount and this holds true until roughly Y2 or more of
land.
Commissioner Polk asked if the Planning Commission decided not to move forward with
any sort of neighborhood plan to vacate, if those properties with fences have to remove
their fence to make the alley accessible again.
Mr. White answered that they would most likely at that point to alley vacations
individually.
The Planning Commission was all in agreement to move forward with the Kurtzman Alley
Vacation Process.
WORKSHOP:
A. Code Amendment Highway Follow-Through Signs (MF# CA 2011-001)
Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff.
Shane O 'Neill, Planner I, discussed the code amendment for highway follow-through signs.
He explained that previously this code amendment which proposes to incorporate highway
follow-through signs into the Pasco Municipal Code only included certain areas of the City.
Staff has made expanded the areas of applicability to include all of the freeway
interchanges throughout the community. Currently the City of Pasco has a prohibition on
off-premise signs. Some businesses qualify for the WASDOT, On-Highway Logo Program,
which are the blue signs that have a series of corporate logos to instruct citizens where to
-7-
go . Some businesses are not readily apparent once traffic gets off of the highway and
without off-premise signs it may be hard to locate the business.
Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director, added that staff is requesting
the Planning Commission to look at the expansion of applicable locations to allow for
follow-through signs within 900 feet of an interchange which was advised by the City
Attorney. The question is if that legislation should apply to all of the locations proposed
and not just at Road 68 or Road 100.
Commissioner Kempf stated that she felt it was appropriate to expand the areas in which
off-premise signage would be allowed.
The Planning Commission was in agreement with the City Attorney's recommendation.
Mr. White explained that staff will take another look at the proposed code amendment to
make sure all city departments are in agreement and will come back to the Planning
Commission with a final proposed code amendment.
B. Plan Shoreline Master Program (MF# PLAN 2013-003)
Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff.
Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director, discussed the Shoreline
Master Plan Program update. Mr. White thanked Commissioner Portuga l for attending the
pre -meeting workshop for the consultant presentation of the outline of the Shoreline
Process. In this stage an inventory is being done. It is an inventory of the ecological
functions of the Columbia River and Snake River as they occur in the Pasco Jurisdiction
and an assessment of zoning, land use, physical constraints and assets that the two rivers
pose in a s e ries of reaches and sub-reaches.
Beginning in August staff is expecting to c ome back to the Planning Commission with
more d etails from the consultant. This is a long process and will extend into 2015.
Chairman Cruz clarified the Shoreline Master Program process.
Mr. White and Chairman Cruz briefly discussed "no net loss" in terms of ecologic function
as being an important part of the process .
Commissioner Portugal added tha t this plan is to balance public access to the river as well
as ecological function.
COMMENTS:
With no further discussion or business, the Planning Commission was adjourned at
8:04p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
David Mc Donald, City Planner
-8-
SPECIAL MEETING
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
CALL TO ORDER:
The meeting was called to order at 6:30pm by Chairman Cruz.
POSITION MEMBERS PRESENT
No.1
No.2 Tony Bachart
No.3
No.4
No. 5
No.6
No.7
No.8
No .9
Alecia Greenaway
Joe Cruz
Loren Polk
Zahra Khan
Jana Kempf
APPEARANCE OF FAIRNESS:
MEMBERS ABSENT
VACANT
Andy Anderson
Gabriel Portugal
June 24, 2014
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:
There were no minutes to approve a t this meeting.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
Angie Pitman, Block Grant Administrator, discussed Community Development Block
Grant Funds. The purpose of the grant program is to preserve and develop viable urban
communities by expanding economic opportunities, providing decent housing
opportunities and creating and sustaining suitable living environments. There are specific
grant requirements to receive the funds: (1) The City has to be an entitlement city and to
qualify it has to have a population over 50,000 or it has to be in an urban community, (2)
To r eceive funds it is based on the demographics as the jurisdiction, such as the
availability of suitable housing and income level. A five-year consolidate d plan is required
to set the goals and strategies for spending during the five -year grant period. Each year
an annual action plan is developed that i s a supplement to that consolidated plan which
forms the basis of carrying out annual goals and objectives throughout the program year.
-1-
At the end of the program year a consolidated annual performance evaluation report
evaluates the City's performance in meeting the goals that it had set out in the annual
action plan. Citizen participation is mandatory throughout the process and encouraged.
The City publishes in the newspaper and other outlets as necessary to get public opinion
on the grant programs .
In 2009 the consolidated plan was prepared for program years 2010-2014. Currently the
City is operating in the last year of the plan. At this time information is being gathered to
create a plan for the next five years for 2015-2019.
A. Block Grant 2013 Consolidated Annual Performance Evaluation
Report (CAPER) (MF# BGAP 2014-0011
Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff.
Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director, discussed the 2013
Consolidated Annual Performance Evaluation (CAPER). Mr. White pointed out the
expenditures which were broken down into categories. For 2013, Public Service activities
totaled $70,000 (per HUD regulations cannot exceed 15% of total entitlement), $100,000
Planning & Administrative obligations (are costs that come with reporting, monitoring,
direct staff costs for multiple positions and are limited to no more than 20% of total
entitlement), there were further spending priorities for improving local economies ,
increasing decent housing and public infrastructure improvements .
Commissioner Khan discussed 2013 budgeted spending and actual spending and asked if
the unspent money budgeted gets reallocated.
Mr. White responded that it does get reallocated or rolls over to the following year.
With no comments the public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Khan moved, seconded by Commissioner Greenaway, to close the public
hearing and recommend the City Council approve the 2013 Consolidated Annual Plan
Evaluation Report as presented. The motion passed unanimously.
B. Block Grant 2015 Community Development Block Grant (CDBGI
Fund Allocations (MF# BGAP 2014-003)
Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff.
Rick White , Community & Economic Development Director, discussed the 2015
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) fund allocations. Each year the Planning
Commission is designated as the body that conducts the public hearing and provides a
recommendation to City Council regarding the allocations of these funds. The Planning
Commission was provided a packet with all of the applications for funding for their review.
Mr. White briefly discussed the applications for: CDBG Program Administration, Martin
Luther King Community Center Recreation Specialist, Civic Center Recreation Specialist,
Senior Citizen's Center Recreation Specialist, Kurtzman Park & Volunteer Park Playground
Equipment, Code Enforcement Officer, Alley CHIP & Seal Project, Sidewalk Replacement &
-2-
Ramp Installation, and Sylvester Neighborhood Improvements . All of which were applied
for from various departments in the City, such as Community & Economic Development,
Engineering and Administrative & Community Services.
Karleen Crume of Benton Franklin Community Action Connections (CAC), 606 Davenport
Street, Richland, W A spoke on behalf of the Community Housing Improvement Minor
Rehab Program application. The project would assist low-income , owner-occupied
homeowners in the City of Pasco with minor repair or rehabilitation funds for construction
hard costs, actual construction, soft costs and project delivery.
Commissioner Khan asked about the median and if the median mcome they use to
determine eligibility is just for Pasco or for all of the Tri-Cities .
Ms. Crume answered that all three citiesmake up the Kennewick-Pasco-Richland
metropolitan statistical area w hich is where HUD established the guidelines determined by
the number of household members.
Commissioner Khan asked how many applicants has the CAC had for these funds.
Ms. Crume responded that it is a new program for the CAC, starting in 2013. With
assistance from city staff they are picking up speed. They have had several applicants,
however one of the barriers has been every household must have legal citizenship per
HUD guidelines. With marketing efforts, more and more people are applying.
Chairman Cruz asked how CAC came up with $1,000 for matching funds.
Ms. Crume replied that their Executive Director would be more able to answer that
question but was unable to attend but they could get an answer by the next meeting.
Chairman Cruz stated that typically the Planning Commission prefers to see higher
matching funds.
Marilou Shea of the Downtown Pasco Development Authority /Pasco Specialty Kitchen,
10412 Pine Court, discussed the application for the Pasco Specialty Kitchen. In the past
the kitchen has typically been awarded $50,000 but with new initiatives in development
they are requesting a $20,000 increase in funds. They are building alternative sources of
revenue to diminish the grant dependencies on CDBG, creating jobs and their goal as the
entire DPDA organization is to build the Pasco Specialty Kitchen into a state of the art
facility. They wish to expand the use of the facility and increase the use of the kitchen in
the community. To do this they wish to provide nutrition and cooking classes in the
evenings throughout the week when there is low use in the kitchen to maximize the
facility, partnering with medical community organizations and medical practitioners in an
identified need of diabetes education and nutrition classes for what has become a n a tional
pandemic. They currently have a practitioner in the community looking for an outlet in
which to provide diabetes education, particularly targeting the Hispanic community.
Healthy alternative cooking classes, gluten free, canning classes are all popular classes as
well as serve-safe certification classes. The kitchen is adding fee-based consulting
services this year in terms of their business plans, marketing and obtaining funding. Ms.
Shea stated that they are trying to provide jobs and education and optimize the facility.
They wish to enhance the technology for ease of use for the clients, security updates,
installation of a screen and projector for the Commercial Foods Academy. They anticipate
scheduling software and budgeting software.
-3-
Chairman Cruz asked what the other sources are from their matching fund s .
Ms . Shea answered that it is program revenue from storage usage and facility fees.
Chairman Cruz asked if that is an increase in revenue since the previous years.
Ms. Shea responded that the revenue has stayed pretty flat but with the anticipated
alternative sources of revenue they hope to have a larger match next year.
Michael Goins of the Downtown Pasco Development Authority, 403 West Lewis Street,
spoke in support of the Pasco Specialty Kitchen. He explained that in May 20 14 the
kitchen increased rates for the first time in a while, not just with hourly r ates but also
with equipment fees to assist with utility increases.
With no further comments the public hearing closed.
Commissioner Bachart moved, seconded by Commissioner Polk, to continue the public
hearing and schedule deliberations and development of a recommendation for City Council
for the July 17, 2014 Planning Commission Meeting. The motion passed unanimously.
c. Block Grant 2015 HOME Program Allocation & Annual Work
Plan (MF# BGAP 2014-004)
Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff.
Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director, discussed the 20 15 HOME
Program Allocation and Annual Work Plan. The last few years the HOME program has
been amended to delete rehabilitation projects from the work plan and limit the HOME
funding to down payment assistance to first-time home buyers because of increased
regulations and the penalty of not complying with regulations was becoming onerous to
the point where it did not make sense to provide rehabilitation for activities through
HOME funding. The 2015 HOME Work Plan is focused on providing down payment
assistance. The staff report indicates that the HOME Consortium itself (Pasco, Kennewick
and Richland) is projected to receive $465,000 this year. That amount is based on an
income l evel, household level and pove rty level for all three cities, however, it is estimated
that Pasco's share of this entitlement would be about $116,000 and perhaps a share of
another $100,000 in program income that the Consortium may receive in 2 015. It is
estimated that the City of Pasco will assist 12 first-time home buyers in 2015 with that
$116,000.
Commissioner Khan asked if there is a percentage allocated to how much each first-time
homebuyer would qualify for or is it an income based decision.
Angie Pitman , Block Grant Administrator , responded that the applicants must be income
qualified to participate at 80% or below median income. They can receive up to $10 ,000
for the down payment or closing costs and it i s based on need. There is a calculation used
to determine how muc h the applicant h as and how much is actually needed.
Commissioner Bachart asked if there has been a problem with applicants maintaining
payments.
-4-
Ms. Pitman answered that the program has more stringent requirements to qualify than
the lenders do, l ooking at their ratios , ensuring they aren't purchasing a horne that they
cannot afford. The City has not had any homes default and come back to the City to our
knowledge .
Commissioner Kempf moved , seconded by Commissioner Polk, to recommend the City
Council approve the use of funds for the 2015 HOME Investment Partnerships entitlement
as set forth in the "2015 HOME Fund Summary" as recommended by staff. The motion
passed unanimously.
D. Block Grant 2015 Neighborhood Stabilization Program (NSP)
Fund Allocations (MF# BGAP 2014-005)
Chairman Cruz read the master fil e number and asked for comments from staff.
Rick White , Community & Economic Development Director, discussed the 2 015
Neighborhood Stabilization Program (NSP) fund allocations . The Neighborhood
Stabilization Program was an economic revitalization effort started by the federal
government in 2010. In that year the City received over $425,000 to specifically help with
mitigating the impacts of home foreclosures on neighborhoods. With the funds, the City
has given down payment assistance to 12 horne buyers, the City has purchased and
rehabilitated 3 homes that have since been sold to income eligible families and there is
still money left from program income from the sales of these homes. It is estimated that in
program year 2015, funds will be able to be used to recover 1 -2 foreclosed homes or
provide down payment assistance for foreclosed homes and owner-occupied rehabilitation
as/ or needed.
Commissioner Bachart asked who t h e project manager on the homes purchased 1s for
rehabilitation and who does the work.
Mr. White r esponded that Angie Pitman, Block Grant Administrator, is the project
manager and there i s a bidding process to see who is awarded the work. Working with
federal requirements is sometimes a challenge for contractors.
Commissioner Khan asked if the contractors have to have federa l certifications for doing
work on the homes.
Mr. White answered that in some cases they do, such as, sometimes they are required to
be sufficient in minimizing hazards to lead-based paint.
Ms. Pitman added that it depends on the age of the home. Any home built prior to 1978
requires a lead-based paint evaluation and abatement. In that case a contractor would
have to be certified as a lead-safe supervisor and have lead-safe trained workers in order
to ensure the safety of the contractors and their employees.
Commissioner Khan asked if there is a "pool" of contractors available.
Ms. Pitman answered that there is a very small "pool" and there will be steps taken in the
next few months to advertise and get more contractors added to the Small Works Roster
and training for them. Currently there is Davis-Bacon Labor Compliance Training
-5-
scheduled for the contractors.
Chairman Cruz briefly discussed the costs and burdens involved with contracts dealing
with federal requirements.
Commissioner Bachart asked where the funding for the contractor classes come from.
Ms. Pitman answered that for the currently scheduled class there isn't funding . HUD is
sponsoring the class and it i s free to the attendees. The City provides the facility free of
charge. In the future, the l ead-based paint contractor training may come from the CDBG
Administrative grant fund .
Commissioner Khan moved, seconded by Commissioner Polk, to recommend the City
Council approve the use of funds for the 2015 Neighborhood Stabilization Program (NSP)
entitlement set forth, as recommended by staff. The motion passed unanimously.
E. Block Grant 2014.1 CDBG Annual Action Plan Substantial
Amendment (MF# BGAP 2014-006)
Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff.
Rick White, Community & Economic Development Department, discussed the 2014.1
CDBG Annual Action Plan Substantial Amendment. Mr. White handed out a revised
matrix for the amount requested and the staff recommendation for this particular item. It
is a substantial amendment to the 2014 Annual Action Plan in which the Planning
Commission considered a year ago. In December 2013, the Benton-Franklin Council of
Governments, who the City has provided block grant funding to in the past for a revolving
loan fund program, has returned $422,000 of unused funds to the City. This was money
that their loan pool applicants had paid back with interest during the course of the
revolving loan fund . They received an audit where it was noted that they had not returned
the money to Pasco.
With this sum of money it must be combined with all other money that has not been spent
for 2014 or won't be spent and provide some reallocations. Staff provided a list of
applications received for projects requesting the funds. Mr. White briefly discussed the
projects requesting to be funded.
Chairman Cruz discussed taking money from the proposed Alley Chip & Seal project and
allocating it to the proposed Pasco Specialty Kitchen Facility Improvements and projector
for and the YMCA Public Service.
Commissioner Khan asked if the amount requested is from a bid or an estimate.
Chairman Cruz responded that i t was most likely an estimate.
Angie Pitman, Block Grant Administrator, added that they did receive quotes for the Pasco
Specialty Kitchen activity and this particular choice was for a particular type of flooring
that was mid-range between the high and low options and bids received.
-6-
Commissioner Khan stated that she was in agreement with the YMCA project but unsure
about the projector for the Pasco Specialty Kitchen.
Chairman Cruz provided clarification on his proposed reallocations.
Commissioner Khan was then in agreement with Chairman Cruz.
Commissioner Khan moved, seconded by Commissioner Polk, the Planning Commission
recommend the City Council approve the use of funds for the 20 14 Community
Development Block Grant Program as set forth in the Attachment 1 "20 14.1 Fund
Summary" as amended. The motion passed unanimously.
F. Block Grant 2015-2019 Tri-Cities Consolidated Plan (MF# BGAP
2014-007)
Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff.
Rick White , Community & Economic Development Director, discussed the 2015-2019 Tri-
Cities Consolidated Plan. This plan outlines the strategies that the Community
Development Block Grant fund and HOME fund must be consistent with. It is designed to
provide decent housing, to improve economic opportunities and suitable living
environments to low-moderate income people and their families .
Commissioner Khan asked for clarification as to what applies to these funds, in particular
funding for parks.
Mr. White answered that the funds may go towards parks but the purpose of the plan is to
lay out the broad strategies that the requests and applications would have to be in line
with.
With no comments the public hearing closed.
Mr. White reminded the Planning Commission that the purpose of this hearing was to
gather information for the consultants who are putting together the plan. There are other
methods the consultants are using to create the plan and receive community input.
Chairman Cruz asked if there could be another public hearing at a later time if needed.
Angie Pitman, Block Grant Administrator, stated that the consultant would most likely
allow it to be opened back up. The purpose of the plans needs assessment is if an activity
is to be funded , it must be identified as a priority need in this particular plan. If it's not in
the plan and doesn 't have a priority then staff does not have the ability to fund it.
COMMENTS:
With no further discussion or business, the Planning Commission was adjourned at
8:00p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Krystle Shanks, Administrative Assistant II
-7-
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
MASTER FILE # SP 2014-006
HEARING DATE: 6/19/2014
ACTION DATE: 7/17/2014
APPLICANT : Casa de Avivamiento
1734 North 5th Ave.
Pasco, WA 99301
BACKGROUND
REQUEST: SPECIAL PERMIT: Location of a Church in a C-1 (Retail
Business) Zone
1. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION:
Legal:
General Location:
Property Size :
Lots 4 to 7, Block 1, Holt's Addition
1734 North 5th Avenue
Approximately 0.57 acres
2. ACCESS: The site has access from 5 th Avenue.
3. UTILITIES: All municipal utilities currently serve t he site.
4. LAND USE AND ZONING: The site is zoned C-1 (Retail Business)
and contains a church structure. The zoning and land use of the
surrounding properties are as follows :
NORTH: R -1 -Apartment Building
EAST: C-3 -WA State Department of Transportation
SOUTH : R-1-SFDUs
WEST: R-1-SFDUs
5. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The Comprehensive Plan designates
this area fo r low-density residential uses.
6. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The City of Pasco is the
lead agency for this project. Based on the SEPA c hecklist, the
adopted City Compre hensive 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 a church in an existing 4,650 square-
foot structure located in a C-1 zone. Churches require special permit
review regardless of the zone.
In 1992 Lighthouse United Pentecostal Church (Frank Blanchard)
obtained a Special Permit to operate a church at this location with the
following conditions:
1) This special permit shall be personal to the applicant.
2) Thirty-two (32) off-street parking spaces shall be maintained.
3) Two percent (2%) of the net lot (approximately 450 sq. ft.) shall
be landscaped by November 1, 1992.
4) All signs not pertaining to the church activity shall be removed
by July 6, 1992.
5) This permit shall be null and void if a valid business license has
not been obtained by July 6, 1992.
The church name was changed in 2008 to Faith Center International.
The building has been used as a church from 1992 to the present.
Since the special permit granted in 1992 was personal to the applicant,
and has now been abandoned, a new special permit application process
is required.
The church plans on holding services Tuesday 7:00pm to 8:30/8:45 pm;
Thursday 7:00 pm to 9:00 pm; Sunday 11:00am to 2:00pm and /or
5:00pm to 8:00pm. Estimated attendance is 60-80 parishioners.
Required parking for church uses is one space for each four seats based
upon maximum seating capacity or at least one space for every ten lineal
feet of bench seating. The church sanctuary has seven 15' benches and
thirteen 7' benches with a total of 196 lineal feet of seating. This would
require 20 paved and striped parking spaces.
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. Churches are considered Unclassified Uses and thereby require
special permit review (PMC 25.86.020).
2. The site is located at 1734 North 5th Avenue.
3. The site is zoned C-1 (Retail Business).
4. The site comprises approximately .57 acres.
5. The proposed church will occupy an existing 4,650-square-foot
structure .
2
6. The municipal Code (PMC 25 . 78 .170) requires one off-street
parking space for every four fixed seats or at least one space for
every ten lineal feet of bench seating.
7. A church (Lighthouse United Pentecostal Church/ Faith Center
International) was previously granted a Special Permit to operate
on the site.
8. The Casa de Avivamiento is a non-profit organization.
9. Casa de Avivamiento is defined as a church in the Pasco Zoning
Code.
CONCLUSIONS BASED ON STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT
The Planning Commission must make Findings of Fact based upon the
criteria listed in P.M.C. 25 .86.060. The criteria and staff listed findings
are as follows:
1. Will the proposed use be in accordance with the goals, policies,
objectives and text of the Comprehensive Plan?
The Plan does not specifically address churches, but Policy LU-2-B of the
Comprehensive Plan encourages the support of facilities for educational
and cultural activities. Elements of the Plan encourage the promotion of
orderly development including zoning standards for landscaping and off-
street parking. Parking and landscaping improvements may be required
as conditions of the special permit. The site is identified in the
Comprehensive Plan for low-density residential use. Church uses are
allowed in residential zones with a special permit.
2. Will the proposed use adversely affect public infrastructure?
Churches are generally used during off-peaks hours, on Sundays and
during evenings in the middle of the week. The church will use existing
City utilities and infrastructure. The proposal will generate little d e mand
for public utilities, operating for only a few hours per week. Water and
sewer demands of the proposed use will be negligible compared to
permitted uses such as restaurants. Impacts to the adjoining streets will
likewise be minimal due to the fact the facility will only be open a few
hours per week.
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 building proposed for worship use is currently in place and has
existed for over 40 years. No changes are planned for the exterior of this
3
commercial building. The proposed use will have minimal impact 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?
Casa de Avivamiento is proposing to occupy an existing building in a
fully built-out neighborhood. No changes are planned for the height and
size of the structure. The current building has not discouraged
development in the general area.
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?
Churches typically operate two or three days per week and generate
traffic during off-peak times such as Sunday mornings and weekday
evenings. The proposed facility will only be open for religious services a
few hours per week. There will be no excessive fumes, vibrations, dust,
noise, or flashing lights as a result of this activity .
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?
Church operations within the City typically do not endanger public
health or safety. Churches are a generally accepted use within the
community.
APPROVAL CONDITIONS
1. The Special Permit shall apply to Tax Parcel #113 391 027 (1734
North 5th Avenue);
2. The church shall not object to the issuance, transfer, or renewal of a
liquor license for an existing or new establishment within 1,000 feet of
the property;
3. The applicant shall comply with all building code requirements for the
occupancy class applicable to the use;
4 . Paved and striped parking shall be provided at the rate of one space
for each four seats based upon maximum seating capacity or at least
one space for every ten lineal feet of bench seating, as per PMC
25. 78.170(2);
4
5. Landscaped areas shall be restored and maintained, as per PMC
25.75.
6. The Special Permit shall be null and void if an occupancy registration
has not been obtained by August 30, 2015.
RECOMMENDATION
MOTION: I move to adopt findings of fact and conclusions therefrom as
contained in the July 17, 2014 staff report.
MOTION: I move based on the findings of fact and conclusions
therefrom the Planning Commission recommend the City Council grant a
special p ermit for the location of a church at 1734 North 5th Avenue
(Lots 4 to 7, Block 1, Holt's Addition; Parcel # 113 39 1 027), with
conditions as listed in the July 17 , 2014 staff report.
5
EXHIBIT# 1
Rogers Annexation N
w z
<(
_J
~--------------------------~~----~ w
VA LLE Y V I EW PL
ARGENT RD
0
{'-.
0
<{
0
0::::
w
0:::
1-'-------1
Vicinity
Map
Item: Church in C-1 Zone
Applicant: Casa de A vivamiento
File#: SP 2014-006
.. I ,~SITE ~
r ~~n4Jfi s
Land Item: Church in C-1 Zone I
Use Applicant: Casa de Avivamiento N
Map File #: SP 2014-006 ' LEO LA S T u
I I I I I I
Residential -Commercial l J J I I I
Park
PE ARL ST '--f3 ·E:ARt-s
B
r-Residential-~ w w w SITE > ~ ~ 1 -<t: (/J ... O PA L ST I I I c:
I-1-1-Q) ~ f'.. <.0 E w
~ Comm. ~ I I I I I cu
Residential-I-c.v 1.0 c:r:~ -AG A T E ST
I MH Park
Zoning Item: Church in C-1 Zone ~
Applicant: Casa de A vivamiento i Map File #: SP 2014-006
LEOLA Sl I u
C-3 1-1
I
I
C-1 C-1-
I I ~~=>·E:f\R·r:-s ! P EARL ST
R-1 C-3
w w w SITE > > ~ <! <! O PA L ST I I I r-r-1-R-3 ~
"'"' <D w > <!
I r-1.._/"' l() ~
A GA T E ST /
I I I R-3 RP
I I
f
i
I
I
I
I
J
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
MASTER FILE NO: Z 2014-003
HEARING DATE: 6/19/2014
ACTION DATE: 7/17/2014
APPLICANT: Solano Enterprises LLC
5311 Eisenhower Ct
Pasco, WA 99301
BACKGROUND
REQUEST: REZONE: Rezone from C-3 (G eneral Business) to R-3 (Medium-
Density Residential)
1. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION:
Legal: Parcel# 112-023-042: Block 11 Northern Pacific Plat First Addition
General Location: 909 N 3rd Avenue
Property Size: The parcel is approximately 3.4 acres
2. ACCESS: The site is accessed from 3rd Avenue.
3. UTILITIES: The site is currently served only by municipal water service. The
site contains a septic system. The sewer line lying approximately 240 feet
south of the site is not available to serve the site due to its shallow depth.
There is a sewer line which terminates near the northeast corner of the site;
however, the line is on Pasco Housing Authority private property. It is
uncommon for sewer lines to be extended from adjacent private parcels. A
private sewer lift-station may be needed.
4. LAND USE AND ZONING: The site is currently zoned C-3 (General
Business) and contains a commercial building. Surrounding properties are
zoned and developed as follows:
NORTH:
SOUTH:
EAST:
WEST:
C-1
RP
R-3
R-1
-Commercial
-Mobile Homes
-Multi-Family Residences
-City Park
5. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The Comprehensive Plan designates the site for
Mixed Residential uses. Goal LU-3-B encourages infill and (higher) density
to protect open space and critical areas in support of more walkable
neighborhoods. Goal LU-3-E encourages the city to designate area for
higher density residential development where utilities and transportation
facilities enable efficient use of capital resources.
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
Santos Solano of Solano Enterprises LLC has applied to change the zoning
designation of Block 11, Northern Pacific Plat First Addition from C-3 (Gene ral
Business) to R-3 (Medium-Density Residential) to allow for multi-family residential
development. The subject site is approximately 3.4 acres in area.
The City's Comprehensive Plan designates this site for Mixed Residential land uses
which allows for a variety of residential (density) zones ranging from RS-20
(Suburban) through R-3. Of the allowable zones under the Mixed Residential
designation, the R-3 zone permits the highest residential density at a rate of one
dwelling unit for every 3,000ft2 of land area or 14.5 units per acre. For
comparison, the single-family R-1 zone permits an approximate density of 6-units
per acre.
Currently the site appears to be an isolated C-3 (General Business) zoned site
among a variety other zoning districts in the surrounding vicinity . Generally, the
uses permitted in the C-3 zone are heavy commercial in nature such as
contractor's yards and heavy equipment sales and services. These heavy
comme rcial uses are potentially disruptive to lifestyles enjoyed in residential
neighborhoods. It is common urban planning practice to assign higher-density
residential zones or sometimes office zones, to transitional areas to serve as
buffers between contrasting zoning districts. For this reason it may be appropriate
to assign the R-3 zone to the site.
This relatively large site can be characterized as unde rdeveloped. The asphalt
parking area is highly weathered. The east 2 I 3 of the site remains unimprove d.
Recently, the City completed the 4th Avenue corridor capital improveme nt project
whereby a round-a-bout and street frontage improvements were installed direc tly
in front of the site. Due to the investment of public funds into the roadside
appearance of the vicinity it may be in the best interest of the public to promote
full site development consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
The initia l review criteria for considering a rezone application are explained m
PMC. 25.88.030. The criteria are listed below as follows:
1. The date the existing zone became effective:
The current zoning classification was established over 35-years ago.
2. The changed conditions, which are alleged to warrant other or a dditional
zonmg:
Over the years adjacent parcels to the east and south have been developed with a
variety of multi-family and single-family residential developments aimed mostly at
providing housing opportunities for low to moderate income families.
2
Of particular importance is Council's adoption of the City's Comprehensive Plan
which occurred after the C-3 zone was assigned to the site. A change in zoning
classification to the R-3 zone is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and with
existing land uses in the vicinity .
3. Facts to justify the change on the basis of advancing the public health,
safety and general welfare:
Changing the zoning classification of the site will likely lead to the development of a
largely unimproved/undeveloped parcel of land near t h e central downtown core of
the city. Development ofthis site would contribute to the city's recent investment into
right-of-way infrastructure along the 4th Avenue corridor; thereby enhancing the
overall character of the vicinity . There is also merit in the e limination of an
underdeveloped site near the central core of the city as it is likely to foster further
development in the area.
4 . The effect it will have on the value and character of the adjacent property
and the Comprehensive Plan:
A change in zoning classification resulting in a multi-family residential development
will enhance the residential character of the vicinity by providing an increased
number of housing opportunities. The re zone from C-3 to R-3 will encourage ((i n.fill
and d ensity including planned unit deve lopments to protect open space and critical
areas," as per Land Use Policy LU-3 -B, and allow for ((higher-density residential
development where utilities and transportation facilities enable efficient use of
capital resources," in k eeping 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 Pol icy H-2-A.
5. The effect on the property owner or owners if the request is not granted:
Without transitioning the site to a residential zoning classification residential
development will not occur on the property. The applicant may not wish to proceed
with any site development if it cannot be residential in nature.
STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT
Findings of fact must b e 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 currently zoned C-3 (General Business).
2. The site contains a commercial building.
3
3. The applicant is requesting R-3 (Medium-Density Residential) zoning be
assigned to the site.
4. The Comprehensive Plan identifies the site and much of the vicinity for
Mixed-Residential uses which allows assignment of a range of residential
zones including R-3 (Medium-Density Residential).
5. The R-3 zone is the highest density allowed under the Mixed Residential
land use designation, allowing 1 dwelling unit for every 3,000 square feet of
land area.
6. The site is approximately 3.4 acres in area.
7. Municipal water currently serves the site from 3rct Avenue.
8. The site to the east is similarly zoned R-3 and contains a multi-family
residential development.
9. The site to the southeast is similarly zoned R-3 and contains a multi-family
residential development
CONCLUSIONS BASED ON 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 PMC 25.86.060. The criteria are as follows:
1. The proposal is in accordance with the goals and policies of the
Comprehensive Plan.
The proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map and several
Plan policies and goals. Land Use Policy LU-3-B encourages "infill" development
while H -2-A suggests the City permit a full range of residential environments.
Housing Policy (H-B-A} encourages standards that control the scale and density of
accessory buildings and homes to maintain compatibility with other reside ntial uses.
The zoning standards for proposed rezone would be similar to the standards for the
multi-family development to the south.
2. The effect of the proposal on the immediate vicinity will not be materially
detrimental.
The proposed R-3 zoning will permit site development similar to the density of the
Pasco Housing Authority residential development to the east/ southeast. Based on
past experience with rezoning and development of vacant land adjacent to existing
single-family and multi-family developments, and evidence provided by tax records
of Franklin County, the proposed rezone will not be materially detrimental to the
value of properties within immediate vicinity.
3. There is merit and value in the proposal for the community as a whole.
Establishment of zoning and development on the subject site will further establish
the multi-family character matching much of the vicinity. These similar developments
in the area have consistently experienced high rates of occupancy. From this we can
4
infer that there is a need in the community for affordable multi-family housing
opportunities.
There is merit in providing an increased range of housing opportunities available in
those areas currently served by municipal utilities and public transportation and will
enable efficient use of capital resources. The proposal is supported by land use goals
and policies contained in the Comprehensive Plan.
4. Conditions should be imposed in order to mitigate any significant adverse
impacts from the proposal.
No special conditions are proposed.
5. A Concomitant Agreement should be entered into between the City and the
p etitioner, and if so, the terms and conditions of such an agreement.
A concomitant agreement is not needed.
RECOMMENDATION
MOTION for Findings of Fact:
I move to adopt findings of fact and conclusions therefrom as contained in the
July 17, 2014 staff report.
MOTION for Recommendation:
I move based on the findings of fact and conclusions as adopted the Planning
Commission recommend the City Council approve the rezone from C-3 to R-3
for 909 N. 3rd Avenue.
5
..
Vicinity
Map
Itetn: Rezone (C-3 to R-3)
Applicant: Solano Enterprises LLC
File #: Z20 14-003
Land Use Item: Rezone ( C-3 to R-3)
Map Apphcant: Solano Enterprises LLC
Office
File #: Z20 14-003
COURT ST
I I 1 f
Commercial
~
I I<
Government/Public
= ~
~ ~
lo.
~
~ c •• u
Residential
Zoning
Map
Itetn: Rezone ( C-3 to R-3)
Applicant: Solano Enterprises LLC
0
(Office)
File #: Z20 14-003
COURT ST
I I
C-1
(Retail Business)
~ >
= ~
~
R-1
(Low-Density Residential)
~ ~· % ~
~1? ~·Ul ~
~ ~· ~ ~ ~· ~ .:;;.;
.: . ~
(])
~
·~ w
I
~
0
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
MEMORANDUM
July 17, 2014
Planning Commission
Shane O'Neill, Planner I
SUBJECT: Sylvester's Addition Neighborhood Revitalization Plan (MF# PLAN
2013-003)
Council's adopted 2012-2013 goals included development and implementation
of a neighborhood revitalization plan east of lOth Avenue and west of the BNRR
mainline.
In 2012, staff began surveying the condition of city streets and sidewalks east
of lOth Avenue to identify those that would benefit from the development of a
revitalization plan of repairs. Based upon results from t h e field surveys a
project area was defined and includes Margaret, Park, Sylvester and Nixon
Streets bound by 5th Avenue to the east and by lOth Avenue to the west.
Within the overall project area, Park Street contains the highest level of
sidewalk damage and the highest number of large street trees proposed for
replacement.
In 2013 , staff began the scoping process by mailing information and holding a
series of neighborhood meetings with affected property owners. To date, five
neighborhood meetings have been held.
Throughout the public involvement process, property owners were relatively
agreeable to the need for sidewalk repairs but were discouraged by the need to
remove the large existing street trees that give the neighborhood much of its
character. However, several property owners provided perspective on the
dangerous condition of many of the street trees and the high cost for their
removal.
The Plan recommends tha t the priority repair area containing the highest
concentration of severe tree and sidewalk issues (P ark Street between 5th and
7th Avenues) be t h e initial subject of an application for CDBG funds to remove
and replace the sidewalk and street trees. An application for 2015 Community
Development Block Grant funds has been prepared and submitted by staff for
this purpose.
The Plan a l so recommends that dry irrigation lines be installed in conjunction
with the sidewalk repairs so adjacent property owners will have the ability to
provide underground irrigation to the planting strips adjacent their property.
Currently few owners have this ability. Maintenance of the planting strips is
the responsibility of the adjacent owner per our existing Municipal Code
provisions.
During the June 19, 2014 public hearing, the Planning Commission provided
direction regarding the following question:
1) Should homeowners be provided the option of choosing not to have a
new street tree planted in front of their homes?
Based on the Planning Commission's direction related to the question above,
staff has modified the Plan accordingly by adding two options related to trees.
Option-1 provides property owners the opportunity to retain existing street
trees where practical. Option-2 provides property owners the opportunity to
choose whether or not a new tree will be planted in the landscape area abutting
their property.
Motion to close the hearing:
I move to recommend the City Council approve the Sylvester's Addition
Neighborhood Revitalization Plan.
MEMORANDUM
DATE : June 27,2014
TO: Pl a nning Commission
F ROM: Ange la R . Pitman, Bl ock Grant Administrator
SUBJECT: 2015 CDBG ANNUAL ACTION PLAN (MF# BGAP2014-003)
Requests for Funding
Attached for your re v iew and cons id e rat ion are the CDBG Fund and Proposa l Summaries (Attachments I
& 2) relating to our Community Development B lock G ra nt Program for program year 20 15. F ifteen ( 15)
reques ts for funds were submitted t o t aling $1,420,500. A pp licants pres ent their pro posals before the
Plan ni ng Comm ission o n Ju ne 24,2014 and July 17,2014.
Es tim ated F unds Available
It is estimated that the 20 15 annual entitlement gran t w i l l be $640,072 based on the award fo r program
year 2014.
Th e re is a lways so me questio n re gardin g actua l funding leve ls approved by Congress. Actua l availa ble
f u nd in g for these FY 2015 activities wi ll rem a in in qu estion until the earl y part of t he yea r w hen t he
CDBG award is made by Congressional Re so lution a nd the 2014 Consolidated Annua l P lan Evaluat ion
Rep o rt (CAPER) is completed . U nob li gated funds r e maining a t t he end of th e 20 14 program year may be
a ll ocat ed to 2015 Annual Action P lan contingenc y project s. If funding levels a re lower than estimated,
activity funding may be reduced accordingly.
Timeliness
HUD performs a timeliness ratio c h eck performed a t th e beginning of the 4 1h quarter. Regulations state
t h at t he C ity m u st n o t have more than I .5 times t he a nnu al entitle m ent in unexpended funds at that poin t
in t im e. Cont in gen cy projects may be approved in the 2015 Annual Action P lan to added o r exch anged
for stalled 2014 projects to meet time li ness requirements in 2014. The projects should be s hovel-ready to
q u a li fy fo r acce lerated fun din g.
Public Service Cap
HUD regu lati o ns st at e that the amount ofCDBG Funds o bli gated within a program yea r to s upport public
serv ice activ iti es may not exceed 15% of the comb in ed t o tal of the entitl emen t plu s th e prior year 's
program in come. For 2015 , the estimated en titl e me nt is $640,0 72. The max imum avail ab le fo r pub lic
service act ivities is $96,000. C urrent requests for pub li c se rvices total $132,500. Pub lic Service act iv it ies
may only be fu nded if it is a new service, or a q uant ifiable increase in existing services, t here fore. staff
recomme nd s cont inued funding of $90,00 0 for public services ( 14%). Fund s u p t o $6,0 00 ma) be
a v ailable for on-going project s provid ed the public serv ice cap is not ex ceeded for the program year.
Planning & Administration Cap
HUD regulations state that the a m o unt of CDBG Fund s o bligat e d within a program year to s upp ort
planning a nd adm ini stratio n activities may not exceed 20% of the combined total of the entitlement pl us
the curre nt year's program incom e. For 2015, the estimated entitlement of $640,072 makes the m aximu m
ava il a bl e fo r p la nnin g and administration $128,000. Current request s for planning a nd administratio n
total $120,000. Staff recommend s continued funding $120,000 for plannin g and adm inistration (19%).
Recommendation
After di scussions a nd staff evalu ation, it is recommended that the acti v ities set f o rth in Attachments ·] and
2 would best meet the City's Con so l ida ted Plan and be most effective in carrying o ut th e o bj ectives for
th e C ity in 201 5. Your review and consideration for recommendati o n to the C ity Counci l would be
appreciated.
The C ity Staff would like to thank the members of the Planning Commission for your time and assistance.
MOTION: I move the Planning Commission close the public hearing and recommend the Cit y
Council approve the us e of funds for the 2015 Community Development Block Grant Program as
set forth in the "2015 Fund Summary" as recommended by Staff (as amended).
Attachments: 1.
2.
2015 CDBG Fund Summary
2015 CDBG Proposal Summary
Attachment 1 2015 CDBG Fund Summary BGAP201 4-003 -7.17.14.xls Attachement 1
Planning Commission Meeting
Proposal s-Recommendations
RECIPIENT I ACTIVITY I AG ENCY NAME
0001 01
City of Pasco-Community & Econom ic
Devel opment CD BG Program Admin is tration $100,000.00 $120,000.00 $120,000.00 0 1 0
0002 02
City of Pasco -Administrative & Community Martin Luther King Community Cen t er
$100 ,500.00 $37,500.00 $20,000.00 V.2 3 82 Services Rec reation Specialist
0002 03
City o f Pasco-Administrative & Community
Services
Civic Center -Youth Re creation Specia list $4 5,500.00 $37,500.00 $20,000.00 V.2 3 82
0002 04
City of Pa sco-Administrative & Community Sen ior Cit izen's Center Recreation
$200,500.00 $37,500.00 $30,000.00 Services Specialist V.2 3 82
0002 OS YMCA of the Greater Tri -Cities
YMCA-Martin Luther King Community $123,214.00
Center
$20,000.00 $20,000.00 V.2 3 82
0003 06 Downtown Pasco Development Authority Pasco Speci alty Kitchen $44,200.00 $70,000.00 $50,000.00 1.1-5 5 A2
0004 07
Benton Franklin CAC-CH IP M inor Re hab & Co mmunity Housing Improvement $5,000.00 $50,000.00 $40,000.00 IV.2 5 C1
Repaors Minor Rehab Program
ooos 08
City o f Pasco -Administrative & Community Playground Equipment (Kurtzman Park
$0.00
Services & Volunteer Parks)
$130,000.00 $125,000.00 11.2 3 Al
0005 09
City of Pasco-Admi nistrative & Community Playground Equipment (Kurtzma n Park
$0.00
Services & Volunteer Parks)
$130,000.00 $125,000.00 1.5 3 A1
0006 10
City of Pas co-Co mmunity & Eco nom ic
Development
Code En forcement Officer $147,000.00 $48,000 .00 $48,000.00 IV.2 0 A1
0007 11 City of Pasco-Public W orks
Alley CHIP & Sea l Project 2014.1
$0.00
Amendment
$250,000.00 11 .2 6 A1
0007 12 City of Pasco-Public Works
Sidewalk replacement & ramp $0.00
installation/replacement
$250,000.00 $42,072.00 11.2 4 Al
0007 13
City of Pasco-Commu ni ty & Econom ic Sylv es t er N eighborhood I mpr ovemen ts $0.00 $100,000.00 11.2 6 Al
Development 2014.1 Amendment
14
City of Pasco -A dministrative & Community
Pasco Specialty Kitchen facility
coos improvements Flooring· 2014.1 $0 .00 $70,000 .00 11.2 3 A1
Serv oces Amendment Contingency
City of Pasco-Administrative & Community
Pasco Specialty Kitchen Facade
ooos 15 Serv ices
improvements -2014.1 Amendment $000 $70,000.00 11.2 3 Al
Contingency
765,914.00 1 ,420,500.00 640,072 .00
Estimated Enti tl ement 2015 (based on 201 4 award) $ 640,07 2
Estimated PI 2015 $
Unobligated · Available to Commit (2014 CAPER) $
Total Funds Available $ 640,072
Proposals Re ceive d s 1,420.500
SURPLUS/DEFICIT s (780A2R)
Proposa ls Recommended $ 640,07 2
REMAINING COMMI T 0
7110/2014
1
2
3
4
Attachement 2
CITY OF PASCO
2015 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT
PROPOSAL SUMMARY -JULY 17,2014
CDBG Program Administration-Requested: $120,000
Recommended: $120,000
CDBG fund s provide for salary and b en efits for the Block Grant Administrator to
plan, administer and provide for the successful delivery of hou sing, community
development and economic activities. The City receives fund s for CDBG, HOME
and NSP activities. The Block Grant Administrator ensures compliance with local,
stat e and federal rules , regulations and laws for pro grams that primarily benefit low
to moderate income people in Pasco.
Planning and Administration is capped at no greater than 20%.
Civic Center-Youth Recreation Specialist-Requested: $37,500
Recommended: $20,000
CDBG funds provide a portion of the s alary and benefits for re creation specialist at
the Youth Civic Center. Thi s facility's program i s to pro v ide re creation pro gra ms for
youth at risk and familie s in low-to-moderate income Cen su s Tract (2 02).
Public s ervices are capped at no greater than 15% o f curren t e ntitlement plu s pri or
ye ar program income.
Martin Luther King Community Center Recreation Specialist -Requested:
$37,500
Recommended: $20,000
CDBG fund s prov ide a portion of th e s alary and benefits for recreation sp ec ia li st at
the Martin Luther King Center. This faci l ity's program is coo rdinated with the
YM C A , Salvation Army a nd Campfire USA, who all coll a borate to prov ide
education and physical activitie s to school age children. (See al so #5 be lo w).
Public services are cappe d at no greater than 15% of current entit le ment plu s p ri or
year program income.
Senior Citizen's Center Recreation Specialist-Requested: $37,500
Recommended: $30,000
C DBG fund s provide a portion of the sala ry and benefit s for recreat ion spec ia li st to
o ve rsee and oper ate pro gram at Pasco's se nior ce nt e r. Thi s fac ility's program
prov id es sup ervision and leade rship necessary for program s servi ng the elder ly of
P asco w ith support s erv i ces, nutrition , health and li vin g s ki ll s sup port .
Public s ervices are capped at no greater than 15% current entitlement plus prior ye ar
program income.
5
6
7
8
CITY OF PASCO
2015 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT
PROPOSAL SUMMARY-JULY 17, 2014
YMCA of the Greater Tri-Cities-Martin Luther King Community Ce nter-
Requested: $20,000
Recommended: $20,000
CDBG funds are requeste d to provide s upport for th e YMCA in their operat ion of
the Martin Luther King Community Center. The YMCA re cently lost Unit ed Way
funding for operation of the center and the requested amount will enabl e the YMCA
to continue to provide activi ti es, sup ervi sed recreation and tutoring support for you th
at the center.
Pasco Specialty Kitchen -Sma ll Bus inesses (Job Creation/Service Area)-
Requested: $35,000
Recommended: $25,000
CDBG fund s provide for continue operations of th e P asco Specialty K itchen , a
certifi ed commercial incubator kitchen. B y providing technica l support to small
food-related businesses t he Pasco Specialty Kitchen improves their success rate by
he lping them to establish and achieve their goals. In cons ideration for technical
assistance, the startup businesses agree to make jobs creat ed availabl e to low-to-
moderate income persons in Pasco (Census Tract 202).
Pasco Specialty Kitchen-Microenterprises (Businesses)-Requested: $35,000
Recommended: $25,000
C DB G fund s provide for continue operati ons of th e Pasco Specialty Ki tchen, a
certified commercial incubator kitchen . By prov iding techni cal su pp01t to small
food -re lated bus inesses the Pasco Specialty Kitchen improves the ir s ucce ss rate by
helping them to establ ish and achieve their goals. In consideration for technical
assistance, the startup businesses agree to make jobs created available to low-to-
moderate income persons in Pasco (Cen su s Tract 202).
CHIP Minor Rehab Program CAC-Requested: $50,000
Recommended: $50,000
CDBG funds provide minor household repairs, energy efficient upgrades and
hazardous material removal for low to moderate income households w ith priority
gi ven to those with housing burden gr eat er than 30% and/or income less than 50%
AMI, or in a target neighborhood.
This project for minor reha bili tation/repair serves those 80% and below median
income, but priority is g iven to those those with housing costs over 30% of monthl y
income, and income below 50% AMI w hen funds ar e scarce.
2
9
10
11
12
13
CITY OF PASCO
2015 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT
PROPOSAL SUMMARY -JULY 17,2014
Volunteer Park Play E quipment-Requested: $130,000
Recommended: $
CDBG funds are requested for ac qui sition and installation of playground equipment
at Kurtzman Park and installation of safety mat.
Kurtzman Park Play Equipment-Requested: $130,000
Recommended: $130,000
CDBG funds are r equ ested for acquisiti on and installation of playground equipment
at Kurtzman Park and in sta ll at ion of safety mat.
Code Enforcement Officer-Requested: $48,000
Recommended: $48,000
CDBG funds provide a portion of the salary and benefits for one of three co de
enforcement officers to help bring approximately 500 properies into comp li ance
with City codes. Code enforcement encourages property owners to maintain ho using
units to minimum property standard s and improves neighborhood a p pearance in
primarily low to moderate inco m e neighborhoods (Census Tracts 20 1, 202, 203 and
2 04).
Alley Chip Seal Project to construct/reconstruct alleys-Requested: $250,000
Recommended: $
Proposed for funding in the 2014.1 Annual Action Plan Substantial Amendment
CDBG funds are requested to make area-wide a ll ey improvements in co njunction
w ith the street o verlay project, and construct or reconstruct alleys in low-mod
n eighborhoods where they do n ot ex ist or where they must be graded and
reconstructed.
Curb, Gutter, Sidewalk & Roadway Improvements and install ramps where
missing or non-functional-Requested: $250,000
Recommended: $42,072
CDBG funds are requested to make area-wide str eet and sidewalk improveme nt s in
conj tmction with the s treet overl ay project, and replace areas of pub lic s idewalks
w it h ramp access (intalling approximately 20 new ramps) for disabled perso ns.
3
14
15
CITY OF PASCO
2015 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT
PROPOSAL SUMMARY -JULY 17,2014
Sylvester Neighborhood Improvement Plan-Requested; $100,000
Recommended; $
Proposed for funding in the 2014.1 Annual Action Plan Substantial Amendment.
CDBG funds are requested to make area-wide sidewa lk improvements for the
Sylvester Neighborhood Improvement Plan, replace damaged sidewalks, replace
problematic trees, and install irrigation.
Pasco Specialty Kitchen Floor Replacement-Requested; $70,000
Recommended; $
Proposed for funding in the 2014.1 Annual Action Plan Substantial Amendment as a
contingency project.
CDBG funds are requested to purchase and intall replacement flooring for the
commercial kitchen and administrative offices. Current flooring i s at the end of its
lifecycle.
4
MEMORANDUM
DATE: July 17, 2014
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Jeffrey B . Adams, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: Historic Preservation Title 27 Code Amendment (MF# CA 2014-001)
The City Council approved Title 27 Historic Preservation (Ordinance 3785) in
August 2006 to facilitate Special Tax Valuation for State and Nationa l Historic
Register properties within the City.
In November of 2013 the City expanded its interest in preserving artifacts of
historical significance to the City by approving a more comprehensive Historic
Preservation Work Plan (Resolution 3521), which includes action items for
establishing a local historic register and generally increasing awareness of historic
resources important to the citizens of P asco . One of the priorities in the Plan is to
apply for Certified Local Government (CLG) status.
The CLG Program is a tec hnical and financial assistance program established by
the National Historic Preservation Act and administered in the State of Washington
through the State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (DAHP).
Local governments that establish a historic preservation program which meets
federal and stat e standards are eligible to apply to the State Historic Preservation
Officer (SHPO) and the National Park Service for certification. A local government
that receives such certification is known as a "Certified Local Government."
Benefits of participating in the program include eligibility to apply for special
grants from the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), authority to offe r Special
Tax Valuation to locally listed properties, technical assistance and training from
the SHPO, ability to participate in the review of nominations to the National
Register of Historic Places, access to the national historic preservation assi stance
network, and access to the State Historic Preservation Office data exchange. CLGs
are expected to maintain a historic preservation commission, maintain a survey of
local historic properties, enforce local preservation laws, review National Register
Nominations, and engage the public in historic preservation activities.
Among the requirements for CLG status is passage of a Historic Preservation
Ordinance. While the city has a historic preservation ordinance in place , it is
limited in scope, and missing key e lements including sections dealing with a local
register of historic places as well as historic resources design r eview. The current
Historic Preservation Ordinance was not deemed "comprehensive" b y the State as
it does not address these items .
In order to rectify this situation the City Historic Preservation Commission has
undertaken to update and augment Title 27 by adding the following elements:
• Language allowing for the expansion of the Historic Preservation
Commission by two members.
• A chapter dealing with the establishment of a City of Pasco Register of
Historic Places compiled of buildings, structures, sites, objects, and districts
identified by the Commission as having historic significance worthy of
recognition and protection by the City of Pasco.
• Language dealing with the establishment of a comprehensive inventory of
local historic resources which may be eligible for Special Tax Valuation
andfor with potential to be listed on the City, State, or Federal Historic
Registers
• A chapter dealing with the review process for resources bidding for inclusion
on the City of Pasco Historic Register.
• A review process for proposals to construct, change, alter, modify, remodel,
move, demolish, or significantly affect properties or districts listed on the
City of Pasco Historic Register.
• New definitions in conjunction with the two new chapters above.
Findings of Fact
1) Title 27 Historic Preservation (Ordinance 3785) was approved by the City in in
August of 2006.
2) The Historic Preservation Work Plan (Resolution 3521), was approved by
Council in November of 2013.
3) Certified Local Government (CLG) status is one of the Historic Preservation Plan
priorities.
4) The CLG Program administered through the State DAHP provides technical and
financial assistance to qualified "Certified Local Governments."
5) A Historic Preservation Ordinance including sections dealing with a local
register of historic places as well as historic resources design review is required
for CLG status.
6) The current historic preservation ordinance was not deemed "comprehensive"
by the State as it does not including sections dealing with a local register of
historic places as well as historic resources design review.
7) The Historic Preservation Commission has recommended the augmented
ordinance which includes the necessary elements, as per the State DAHP.
The revised Historic Preservation ordinance is attached as "Exhibit A."
MOTION: I move to close the hearing on the proposed code amendment and
initiate deliberations, schedule adoption of findings of fact, conclusions and a
recommendation to the City Council for the August 21, 2014 meeting.
2
TITLE 27
HISTORIC PRESE RVATION
!EXHIBIT "A" I
CHAPTER 27.040 PURPOSE ...................................................................................................... 2
CHAPTER 27.050 SHORT TITLE ................................................................................................. 3
CHAPTER 27.060 DEFINITIONS ................................................................................................. 4
CHAPTER 27.070 CITY OF PASCO HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISS ION ............................... 8
CHAPTER 27.075 CITY OF PASCO REGISTER OF HI STORIC PLACES ........................................... 11
CHAPTER 27 .076 REVIEW OF CHANGES TO THE CITY OF PASCO REGISTER OF HISTORIC
RESOURCES ........................................................................................................................... 14
CHAPTER 27.080 REVIEW AND MONITORING OF PROPERTIES FOR SPECIAL PROPERTY TAX
VALUATION ........................................................................................................................... 16
CHAPTER 27.090 CRITERIA ..................................................................................................... 1 8
CHAPTER 27.100 AGREEMENT ............................................................................................... 20
CHAPTER 27.110 APPEALS ..................................................................................................... 21
PMC Titl e 27 8/7/2006 (R EVI SED 6/23/14) 1
CHAPTER 27.040 PURPOSE.
Sections:
27.040.010 PURPOSE ................................................................................ 2
27.040.010 PURPOSE. The purpose of this ordinance is to provide for the
identification, evaluation, designation, and protection of designated historic and
prehistoric resources within the boundaries of the City of Pasco and preserve and
rehabilitate eligible historic properties within the City of Pasco for future generations
through special valuation, a property tax incentive, as provided in Chapter 84.26
RCW in order to :
1) Safeguard the heritage of the City of Pasco as represented by those
buildings, districts, objects, sites and structures which reflect significant
elements of Pasco's history;
2) Foster civic and neighborhood pride in the beauty and accomplishments of
the past, and a sense of identity based on Pasco's history;
3) Stabilize or improve the aesthetic and economic vitality and values of such
sites, improvements and objects;
4) Assist, encourage and provide incentives to private property owners for
preservation, restoration, redevelopment and use of outstanding historic
buildings, districts, objects, sites and structures;
5) Promote and facilitate the early identification and resolution of conflicts
between preservation of historic resources and alternative uses; and,
6) Conserve valuable material and energy resources by ongoing use and
maintenance of the existing built environment.
PMCTitle 27 8/7/2006 (REVISED 6/23/14) 2
CHAPTER 27.050 SHORT TITLE
Sections :
27.050.010 SHORT TITLE .......................................................................... 3
27.050.010 SHORT TITLE. The following sections shall be known and may be
cited as the "Special Valuation for Historic Properties Ordinance of the City of
Pasco."
PMCTitle 27 8/7/2006 (REVISED 6/23/14) 3
CHAPTER 27.060 DEFINITIONS
Sections:
27.060 .005 DEFINITIONS .......................................................................... 4
27.060.006 CITY OF PASCO HISTORIC INVENTORY ................................... .4
27.060.010 CITY OF PASCO HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION ......... .4
27.060.011 CITY OF PASCO REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES .................... .4
27.060.020 ACTUAL COST OF REHABILITATION ........................................ .4
27 .060.030 BUILDING ............................................................................... 4
27.060.035 CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS ...................................... .4
27.060.036 CERTIFIED LOCAL GOVERNMENT ............................................ .4
27 .060.040 CLASS OF PROPERTIES ELIGIBLE TO APPLY FOR SPECIAL
VALUATION IN THE CITY OF PASCO .......................................................... 5
27.060.050 COST ...................................................................................... 5
27.060.060 EMERGENCY REPAIR ............................................................... 6
27.060.070 HISTORIC PROPERTY .............................................................. 6
27.060.075 INCENTIVES ............................................................................ 6
27.060.080 LOCAL REVIEW BOARD ............................................................ 6
27 .060.090 NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES ............................. 6
27.060.091 OBJECT ................................................................................... 6
27.060.092 ORDINARY REPAIR AND MAINTENANCE. .. ............................... 6
27.060.100 OWNER ................................................................................... 6
27 .060.105 SIGNIFICANCE OR SIGNIFICANT .............................................. 6
27.060.106 SITE ....................................................................................... 7
27.060.110 SPECIAL VALUATION .............................................................. .?
27.060.115 STATE REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES ................................... 7
27 .060 .120 STRUCTURE ............................................................................ 7
27.060.125 UNIVERSAL TRANSVERSE MERCATOR OR UTM ........................ 7
27.060.126 WAIVER OF A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS .................. 7
27.060.130 WASHINGTON STATE ADVISORY COUNCIL'S STANDARDS FOR
THE REHABILITATION AND MAINTENANCE OF HISTORIC PROPERTIES ....... 7
27.060.005 DEFINITIONS . The following words and terms when used in this
ordinance shall mean as follows, unless a d ifferent meaning clearly appears f rom the
context:
27.060.006 CITY OF PASCO HISTORIC INVENTORY . "City of Pasco Historic
Inventory" or "Inventory" means the comprehensive inventory of historic and
prehistoric resources within the boundaries of the City of Pasco .
27.060.010 CITY OF PASCO HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION. "City
of Pasco Historic Preservation Commission," or "Commission " means the Commission
created in Section 27.070.010 herein.
27.060.011 CITY OF PASCO REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES. "City of Pasco
Reg i ster of Historic Places", "Local Registe r", or "Register" means the listing of
locally designated properties provided for in Section 27.075 herein.
PMC Title 27 8/7/2006 (REVISED 6/23/14) 4
27.060.020 ACfUAL COST OF REHABILITATION. "Actual Cost of
Rehabilitation" means costs incurred within twenty-four months prior to the date of
application and directly resulting from one or more of the following: a)
improvements to an existing building located on or within the perimeters of the
original structure; or b) improvements outside of but directly attached to the original
structure which are necessary to make the building fully useable but shall not
include rentable/habitable floor-space attributable to new construction; or c)
architectural and engineering services attributable to the design of the
improvements; or d) all costs defined as "qualified rehabilitation expenditures" for
purposes of the federal historic preservation investment tax credit.
27.060 .030 BUILDING. A "building" is a structure constructed by human
beings. This includes both residential and nonresidential buildings, main and
accessory buildings.
27.060.035 CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS. "Certificate of
Appropriateness" means the document indicating that the commission has reviewed
the proposed changes to a local register property or with in a local register historic
district and certified the changes as not adversely affecting the historic
characteristics of the property which contribute to its designation.
27.060.036 CERTIFIED LOCAL GOVERNMENT. "Certified Local Government"
or "CLG" means the designation reflecting that the local government has been jointly
certified by the State Historic Preservation Officer and the National Park Service as
having established its own historic preservation commission and a program meeting
Federal and State standards.
27.060.040 ClASS OF PROPERTIES ELIGIBLE TO APPLY FOR SPECIAL
VALUATION IN THE CilY OF PASCO. "Class of properties eligible to apply for Special
Valuation in the City of Pasco" means properties listed on the National Register of
Historic Places or certified as contributing to a National Register Historic District
which have been substantially rehabilitated at a cost and ·.vithin a time period which
meets the requirements set forth in Chapter 84.26 RCW.
27 .060 .040 CLASS OF PROPERTIES ELIGIBLE TO APPLY FOR SPECIAL
VALUATION IN THE CTIY OF PASCO . "Class of properties eligible to apply for Special
Valuation in the City of Pasco" means all properties listed on the National Register of
Historic Places or certified as contributing to a National Register Historic District
which have been substantially rehabilitated at a cost and within a time period which
meets the requirements set forth in Chapter 84.26 RCW. until the Citv of Pasco
becomes a Certified Local Government (CLG). Once a CLG. the class of properties
eligible to apply for Special Valuation in the City of Pasco means only all properties
listed on the local and national Register of Historic Places or properties certified as
contributing to a local or national Register Historic District which have been
substantially rehabilitated at a cost and within a time period which meets the
requirements set forth in Chapter 84.26 RCW.
27.060.050 COST. "Cost" means the actual cost of rehabilitation, which cost
shall be at least twenty-five percent of the assessed valuation of the historic
PMC Title 27 8/7/2006 (REVISED 6/23/14) 5
property, exclusive of the assessed value attributable to the land, prior to
rehabilitation.
27.060.060 EMERGENCY REPAIR. "Emergency repair" means work necessary
to prevent destruction or dilapidation to real property or structural appurtenances
thereto immediately threatened or damaged by fire, flood, earthquake or other
disaster .
27.060.070 HISTORIC PROPERTY. "Historic property" means real property
together with improvements thereon, except property listed in a register primarily
for objects buried below ground, which is listed on the National Register of Historic
Places.
27 .060.075 INCENTIVES. "Incentives" are such rights or privileges or
combination thereof which the City Council, or other local, state, or federal public
body or agency, by virtue of applicable present or future legislation. may be
authorized to grant or obtain for the owner(s) of Register properties . Examples of
economic incentives include but are not limited to tax relief. conditional use permits,
rezoning, street vacation. planned unit development, transfer of development rights.
facade easements, gifts, preferential leasing policies, beneficial placement of public
improvements or amenities, or the like.
27.060.080 LOCAL REVIEW BOARD. "Local Review Board", or "Board" used in
Chapter 84.26 RCW and Chapter 254-20 WAC for the special valuation of historic
properties means the Commission created in Section 27.070.010 herein.
27.060 .090 NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES. "National Register
of Historic Places" means the national listing of properties significant to our cultural
history because of their documented importance to our history, architectural history,
engineering, or cultural heritage.
27.060.091 OBJECT. An "object" is a thing of functional. aesthetic, cultural,
historical, or scientific value that may be, by nature or design, movable yet related
to a specific setting or environment.
27.060.092 ORDINARY REPAIR AND MAINTENANCE. "Ordinarv repair and
maintenance" means work for which a permit issued by the City of Pasco is not
required by law. and where the purpose and effect of such work is to correct any
deterioration or decay of or damage to the real property or structure appurtenance
therein and to restore the same, as nearly as may be practicable. to the condition
prior to the occurrence of such deterioration, decay, or damage.
27.060.100 OWNER. "Owner" of property is the owner of record as exists on
the Franklin County Assessor's records.
27.060.105 SIGNIFICANCE OR SIGNIFICANT. "Significance" or "significant"
used in the context of historic significance means the following: a property with
local. state, or national significance is one which helps in the understanding of the
history or prehistory of the local area, state. or nation (whichever is applicable) by
illuminating the local. statewide, or nationwide impact of the events or persons
associated with the property. or its architectural type or style in information
PMCTitle 27 8/7/2006 (REVISED 6/23/14) 6
potential. The local area can include The Citv of Pasco, Franklin County, or
southeastern Washington, or a modest geographic or cultural area, such as a
neighborhood. Local significance may apply to a property that illustrates a theme
that is important to one or more localities: state significance to a theme i mportant to
the history of the state; and national significance to property of exceptional value in
representing or illustrating an important theme in the history of the nation .
27.060.106 SITE . A "site" is a place where a significant event or pattern of
events occurred. It may be the location of prehistoric or historic occupation or
activities that may be marked by physical remains ; or it may be the symbolic focus
of a significant event or pattern of events that may not have been actively occupied.
A site may be the location of ruined or now non-extant bui lding or structure of the
location itself possesses historic cultural or archaeological sig nificance.
27.060 .110 SPECIAL VALUATION. "Special Valuation for Historic Properties"
or "Special Valuation" means the local option program which when implemented
makes available to property owners a special tax valuation for rehabilitation of
historic properties under which the assessed value of an eligible historic property is
determined at a rate that excludes, for up to ten years, the actual cost of the
rehabilitation. (Chapter 84 .26 RCW).
27.060.115 STATE REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES. "State Registe r of
Historic Places" means the state listing of properties significant to the community,
state. or nation but which may or may not meet the criteria of the National Reg ister.
27.060 .120 STRUCTURE. A "structure" is a work made up of interdependent
and interrelated parts in a definite pattern of organization. Generally constructed by
man, it is often an engineering project.
27.060 .125 UNIVERSAL TRANSVERSE MERCATOR OR UTM. "Universal
Transverse Mercator" or "UTM" means the grid zone in metric measurement
providing for an exact point of numerical reference.
27.060.126 WAIVER OF A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS . "Wa ive r of a
Certificate of Appropriateness" or "Waiver" means the document indicating that the
commission has reviewed the proposed whole or partial demolition of a local register
property or in a local register historic district and failing to find alternatives to
demolition has issued a waiver of a Certificate of Appropriateness which allows the
building or zoning official to issue a permit for demolition.
27 .060 .130 WASHINGTON STATE ADVISORY COUNCIL'S STANDARDS FOR
THE REHABILITATION AND MAINTENANCE OF HISTORIC PROPERTIES.
"Washington State Advisory Council's Standards for the Rehabilitation and
Maintenance of Historic Properties" or "State Advisory's Council's Standards" means
the rehabilitation and maintenance standards used by the City of Pasco Historic
Preservation Commission as minimum requirements for determining whether or not
an historic property is eligible for special valuation and whether or not the property
continues to be eligible for special valuation once it has been so classified.
PMCTitle 27 8/7/2006 (REVISED 6/23/14) 7
CHAPTER 27.070 CITY OF PASCO HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
Sections :
27.070 .010 CREATION AND SIZE ............................................................... 8
27.070 .020 COMPOSffiON OF THE COMMISSION ....................................... 8
27 .070 .030 TERMS .................................................................................... 8
27.070 .040 POWERS AND DUTIES ............................................................. 8
27.070.050 COMPENSATION .................................................................... 10
27.070.060 RULES AND OFFICERS ........................................................... 10
27.070 .070 COMMISSION STAFF .............................................................. 10
27.070 .010 CREATION AND SIZE. There is hereby establ ished a City of Pasco
Historic Preservation Commission, consisting of not less than five (5) and no more
than seven (7) members, as provid ed in Sections 27.070.020 and 27.070.030 below.
Members of the City of Pasco Historic Preservation Commission shall be appointed
by the Mayor and approved by the Pasco City Council and shall be residents or own
property in the City of Pasco, except as provided in Section 27.070.020(2) below.
27 .070 .020 COMPOSITION OF THE COMMISSION .
1) All members of the Commiss ion must have a demonstrated interest and
competen ce in historic preservation and possess qual ities of impartiality and
broad judgment.
2) The commission shall always include at least two (2) professionals who have
ex perience in identifying, evaluating, and protecting hist oric resources and are
se lected from among the d isciplines of architecture, history, architectura l h ist ory,
planning, prehistoric and historic archaeology, folklore, cultural anthropology,
curatorship, conservation, landscape architecture, or related disc i plines. The
Commission action that would otherwise be valid shall not be rendered invalid by
the temporary vacancy of on e or all of the professional positions. Furthermore,
exception to the residency requirement of Commiss ion members ma y be granted
by the May or and City Council in order to obtain representatives f r om these
disciplines.
3) In making appointments, the Mayor may consider names submitted from any
source.
27 .070.030 TERMS. The original appointment of members to the Comm ission
shall be as follows: two (2) for two (2) years; two (2) for three (3) years; and ooe
fB three for four ( 4) years. Thereafter, appointments shall be made for a three (3)
year term. Vacancies shall be filled by the Mayor for the unexpired term in the same
manner as the original appointment.
27.070.040 POWERS AND DUTIES. 1) Responsib ility. The major responsibil ity
of the Historic Preservation Comm ission is to identify and actively encourag e the
conservation of Pasco's historic resources by reviewing National Reg ister properties
applying for Special Ta x Valuation; to raise community awareness of Pasco's history
and historic resources ; and to serve as the City of Pasco 's primary resource in
matters of history, historic planning, and preservation. I n ca r rying out these
responsibilities, the Historic Preservation Commission shall engage in the following :
PMC Title 27 8/7/2006 (REVISED 6/23/14) 8
a) Conduct and maintain a comprehensive inventory of historic resources within the
boundaries of the City of Pasco and known as the City of Pasco Historic
Inventory, and publicize and periodically update inventory results. Properties
listed on the inventory shall be recorded on official zoning records with an "HI"
(for historic inventory designation). This designation shall not change or modify
the underlying zone classification.
b) Initiate and maintain the City of Pasco Register of Historic Places. This official
register shall be compiled of buildings, structures, sites, objects, and districts
identified by the commission as having historic significance worthy of recogn ition
and protection by the City of Pasco and encouragement of efforts by owners to
maintain, rehabilitate, and preserve properties.
c) Review nominations to the City of Pasco Register of Historic Places according to
criteria in Section 27.075 of this ordinance and adopt standards in its rules to be
used to guide this review.
d) Review proposals to construct. change, alter, modify, remodel, move, demolish,
or significantly affect properties or districts on the register as provided in Section
27.076: and adopt standards in its rules to be used to gu ide this review and the
issuance of a certificate of appropriateness or waiver.
e) Provide for the review either by the commission or its staff of all applications for
approvals, permits, environmental assessments or impact statements, and other
similar documents pertaining to identified historic resources or adjacent
properties .
f) aT-Conduct all Commission meetings in compliance w ith Chapter 42.30 RCW,
Open Public Meetings Act, to provide for adequate public participation and adopt
standards in its rules to guide this action.
g) bJ-Participate in, promote and conduct public information, educational and
interpretive programs pertaining to historic and prehistoric resou rces.
h) eJ-Establish liaison support, communication and cooperation with federal, state,
and other local government entities which will further historic preservation
objectives, including public education, within the City of Pasco.
i) 67 Review and comment to the Pasco City Council on land use, housing and
redevelopment, municipal improvement and other types of planning and
programs undertaken by any agency of the City of Pasco, other neighboring
communities, the Franklin County, the State or Federal governments, as relate to
historic resources of the City of Pasco.
j) e1 Advise the Pasco City Council and the Mayor generally on matters of Pasco's
history and historic preservation.
k) f1 Perform other related functions assigned to the Commission by the Pasco City
Council or the Mayor.
I) ~ Provide information to the public on methods of maintaining and rehabilitating
historic properties. This may take the form of pamphlets, newsletters,
workshops, or similar activities.
m) ft7 Officially recognize excellence in the rehabilitation of historic buildings,
structures, sites and districts, and new construction in historic areas; and
encourage appropriate measures for such recognition.
PMCTitle 27 8/7/2006 (REVISED 6/23/14} 9
n) t7 Be informed about and provide information to the public and City of Pasco
departments on incentives for preservation of historic resources including
legislation, regulations and codes which encourage the use and adaptive reuse of
historic properties.
o) Review nominations to the State and National Registers of Historic Places.
p) j} Investigate and report to the Pasco City Council on the use of various federal,
state, local or private funding sources available to promote historic resource
preservation in Pasco.
q) ~Serve as the local review board for Special Valuation and :
1. Make determinations concerning the eligibility of historic properties for special
valuation;
2. Verify that the improvements are consistent with the Washington State
Advisory Council's Standards for Rehabilitation and Maintenance:
3. Enter into agreements with property owners for the duration of the special
valuation period as required under WAC 254-20-070(2);
4 . Approve or deny applications for special valuation; Monitor the property for
continued compliance with the agreement and statutory eligibility
requirements during the 10 year special valuation period;
5. Monitor the property for continued compliance with the agreement and
statutory eligibility requirements during the 10 year special valuation period:
and;
6. Adopt bylaws and/or administrative rules and comply with all other local
review board responsibilities identified in Chapter 84.26 RCW.
r) J1 The Commission shall adopt rules of procedure to address their responsibilities
under this ordinance.
27.070.050 COMPENSATION. All members shall serve without compensation.
27 .070.060 RULES AND OFFICERS The Commission shall establish and adopt
its own rules of procedure, and shall select from among its membership a
chairperson and such other officers as may be necessary to conduct the
Commission's business.
27.070 .070 COMMISSION STAFF. Commission and professional staff
assistance shall be provided by the Director of Community & Economic Development
with additional assistance and information to be provided by other City of Pasco
departments as may be necessary to aid the Commission in carrying out its duties
and responsibilities under this ordinance.
PMCTitle 27 8/7/2006 (REVISED 6/23/14) 10
CHAPTER 27.075 CITY OF PASCO REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES
Sections:
27.075.010 CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING DESIGNATION IN THE REGISTER
............................................................................................................. 11
27.075 .020 CITY OF PASCO REGISTER OF HISTORIC RESOURCES ............. 12
27.075.030 REMOVAL OF PROPERTIES FROM THE REGISTER .................... 12
27.075.040 EFFECTS OF LISTING ON THE REGISTER ................................ 13
27 .075 .010 CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING DESIGNATION IN THE REGISTER .
Any building, structure, site, object. or district may be designated for inclusion in the
City of Pasco Register of Historic Resources if it is significantly associated with the
history, architecture, archaeology, engineering, or cultural heritage of the
community; if it has integrity; is at least 50 years old. or is of lesser age and has
exceptional importance: and if it falls in at least one of the following categories:
1. Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the
broad patterns of national. state, or local history .
2. Embodies the distinctive architectural characteristics of a type, period.
style. or method of design or construction. or represents a significant and
distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction.
3. Is an outstanding work of a designer. builder. or architect who has made a
substantial contribution to the art.
4 . Exemplifies or reflects special elements of the City's cultural. special.
economic. political. aesthetic. engineering. or architectural history.
5. Is associated with the lives of persons significant in national, state. or local
h istory.
6. Has yielded or may be likely to yield important archaeologica l information
related to history or prehistory.
7. Is a building or structure removed from its original location but which is
significant primarily for architectural value, or which is the only surviving structure
significantly associated with an historic person or event.
8. Is a birthplace or grave of an historical figure of outstanding importance
and is the only surviving structure or site associated with that person.
9. Is a cemetery which derives its primary significance from age. from
distinctive design features. or from association w ith historic events, or cultural
patterns.
10. Is a reconstructed building that has been executed in an historically
accurate manner on the original site .
11. Is a creative and unique example of folk architecture and design created
by persons not formally trained in the architectural or design professions, and which
does not fit into formal architectural or historical categories.
PM CTitle 27 8/7/2006 (R EVI SED 6/23/14) 11
27.075 .020 City of Pasco Register of Historic Resources
1. Anyone may nominate a building, structure, site. object. or district for
inclusion in the City of Pasco Register of Historic Resources. Members of the Historic
Preservation Commission or the commission as a whole may generate nominations.
In its designation decision, the commission shall consider the City of Pasco Register
of Historic Resources and the City Comprehensive Plan.
2. In the case of individual properties. the designation shall include the
Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) reference and all features-interior and
exterior-and outbuildings that contribute to its designation.
3. In the case of districts. the designation shall include description of the
boundaries of the district; the characteristics of the district justifying its designation;
and a list of all properties including features. structures, sites, and objects
contributing to the designation of the district.
4. The Historic Preservation Commission shall consider the merits of the
nomination, according to the criteria in Section 27.075.010 and according to the
nomination review standards established in rules. at a public hearing. Adequate
notice will be given to the public, the owner(s) and the authors of the nomination, if
different, and lessees, if any, of the subject property prior to the public hearing
according to standards for public meetings established in rules and in compliance
with Chapter 42.30 RCW, Open Public Meetings Act. Such notice shall include
publication in a newspaper of general circulation in Pasco and any other form of
notification deemed appropriate by Pasco. If the commission finds that the
nominated property is eligible for the City of Pasco Register of Historic Resources,
the commission shall make recommendation to the City Council that the property be
listed in the register with owner's consent. In the case of historic districts, the
commission shall consider 75% of property owners to be adequate for owner
consent. Owner consent and notification procedures in the case of districts shall be
further defined in rules. The public, property owner(s) and the authors of the
nomination, if different, and lessees, if any, shall be notified of the listing.
5. Properties listed on the City of Pasco Register of Historic Resources shall
be recorded on official zoning records with an "HR" (for Historic Register)
designation and with the Franklin County Recorder's Office and a certificate of
registration of Historical Resource shall be recorded with the Franklin County Auditor's
Office as provided by RCW 84.26.060. This designation shall not change or modify the
underlying zone classification.
27.075.030 Removal of Properties from the Register
In the event that any property is no longer deemed appropriate for
designation to the City of Pasco Register of Historic Resources. the commission may
initiate removal from such designation by the same procedure as provided for in
establishing the designation, Section 27 .075.010. A property may be removed from
the City of Pasco Register of Historic Resources without the owner's consent if it fails
to maintain minimum register standards.
PMCTitle 27 8/7/2006 (REVISED 6/23/14) 12
27.075.040 Effects of Listing on the Register
1. Listing on the City of Pasco Register of Historic Resources is a designation
denoting significant association with the historic, archaeological, engineering, or
cultural heritage of the communitv. Properties are listed individually or as
contributing properties to an historic district.
2. Prior to the commencement of any work on a register property. excluding
ordinary repair and maintenance and emergency measures defined in Section
27.060.060, the owner must request and receive a Certificate of Appropriateness
from the commission for the proposed work. Violation of this rule shall be grounds
for the commission to review the property for removal from the register.
3. Prior to whole or partial demolition of a register property, the owner must
request and receive a waiver of a Certificate of Appropriateness.
4. Once Pasco is certified as a Certified Local Government (CLG), all taxable
properties listed on the City of Pasco Register of Historic Resources may be eligible
for Special Tax Valuation on their rehabilitation (Section 27.080).
PMC Title 27 8/7/2006 (REVISED 6/23/14) 13
CHAPTER 27.076 REVIEW OF CHANGES TO THE CITY OF PASCO REGISTER
OF HISTORIC RESOURCES
Sections:
27.076.010 REVIEW REQUIRED ............................................................... 14
27.076 .020 EXEMPTIONS ........................................................................ 14
27.076.030 REVIEW PROCESS ................................................................. 14
27.076.010 REVIEW REQUIRED.
No person shall change the use, construct any new building or structure, or
reconstruct alter, restore, remodel. repair, move, or demolish any existing property
on the City of Pasco Register of Historic Resources or within an historic district on
the City of Pasco Register of Historic Resources without review by the commission
and without receipt of a Certificate of Appropriateness, or in the case of demolition,
a waiver, as a result of the review.
The review shall apply to all features of the property, interior and exterior,
which contribute to its designation and are listed on the nomination form.
Information required by the commission to review the proposed changes are
established in rules.
27.076.020 EXEMPTIONS.
The following activities do not require a Certificate of Appropriateness or
review by the commission: ordinarv repair and maintenance-which includes
painting-or emergency measures defined in Section 27.060 .060.
27.076 .030 REVIEW PROCESS
1. Requests for Review and Issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness or
Waiver
The building or zoning official shall report any application for a permit to work
on a designated City of Pasco Register of Historic Resources Register property or in
a Pasco historic district to the commission. If the activity is not exempt from review,
the commission or professional staff shall notify the applicant of the review
requirements. The building or zoning official shall not issue any such permit until a
Certificate of Appropriateness or a waiver is received from the commission but shall
work with the commission in considering building and fire code requirements.
2. Commission Review
The owner or his/her agent (architect, contractor, lessee, etc.) shall apply to
the commission for a review of proposed changes on a City of Pasco Register of
Historic Resources property or within a Pasco historic district and request a
Certificate of Appropriateness or, in the case of demolition, a waiver. Each
application for review of proposed changes shall be accompanied by such
information as is required by the commission established in its rules for the proper
review of the proposed project.
The commission shall meet with the applicant and review the proposed work
according to the design review criteria established in rules . Unless legally required,
PMCTitle 27 8/7/2006 (REVISED 6/23/14) 14
there shall be no notice, posting, or publication requirements for action on the
application, but all such actions shall be made at regular meetings of the
commission. The commission shall complete its review and make its
recommendations within thirty (30) calendar days of the date of receipt of the
application . If the commission is unable to process the request. the commission
may ask for an extension of time .
The commission's recommendations shall be in writing and shall state the
findings of fact and reasons relied upon in reaching its decision. Any conditions
agreed to by the applicant in this review process shall become conditions of approval
of the permits granted . If the owner agrees to the commission 's recommendations, a
Certificate of Appropriateness shall be awarded by the commission according to
standards established in the commission's rules.
The commission's recommendations and, if awarded, the Certificate of
Appropriateness shall be transmitted to the building or zon ing official. If a
Certificate of Appropr iateness is awarded, the building or zoning official may then
issue the permit.
3. Demolition
A waiver of the Certificate of Appropriateness is required before a permit may
be issued to allow whole or partial demolition of a designated City of Pasco Register
of Historic Resources property or in a Pasco historic district. The owner or his /her
agent shall apply to the commission for a review of the proposed demolition and
request a waiver. The applicant shall meet with the commission in an attempt to
find alternatives to demolition. These negotiations may last no longer than 45
calendar days from the initial meeting of the commission, unless either party
requests an extension. If no request for an extension is made and no alternative to
demolition has been agreed to, the commission shall act and advise the official i n
charge of issuing a demolition permit of the approval or denial of the waiver of a
Certificate of Appropriateness . Conditions in the case of granting a demolition
permit may include allowing the commission up to 45 additional calendar days to
develop alternatives to demolition. When issuing a waiver the board may require
the owner to mitigate the loss of the City of Pasco Register of Historic Resources
property by means determined by the commission at the meeting. Any conditions
agreed to by the applicant in this review process shall become conditions of approval
of the permits granted. After the property is demolished, the commission shall
initiate removal of the property from the register.
4. Appeal of Approval or Denial of a Waiver of a Certificate of
Appropriateness.
The commission's decision regarding a waiver of a Certificate of
Appropriateness may be appealed to a hearing examiner pursuant to PMC Chapter
25 .84 within ten days. The appeal must state the grounds upon which the appeal is
based.
The appeal shall be reviewed in a closed-record hearing by a hearing
examiner pursuant to PMC Chapter 25.84 only on the records of the commission.
PMCTitle 27 8/7/2006 {REVI SED 6/23/14) 15
Appeal of the hearing examiner's decision regarding a waiver of a Certificate of
Appropriateness may be appealed to Superior Court.
CHAPTER 27.080 REVIEW AND MONITORING OF PROPERTIES FOR SPECIAL
PROPERTY TAX VALUATION
Sections:
27.080 .010 TIMELINES ............................................................................ 16
27.080.020 PROCEDURE .......................................................................... 16
27.080.010 TIMELINES.
1) Applications shall be forwarded to the Commission by the Franklin
County Assessor within ten (10) calendar days of filing.
2) Applications shall be reviewed by the Commission before December 31
of the calendar year in which the application is made provided that the
application is received prior to October 1.
3) Commission decisions regarding the applications shall be certified in
writing and filed with the Franklin County Assessor within ten (10)
calendar days of issuance.
27.80.20 PROCEDURE.
1) The Franklin County Assessor forwards the application(s) to the
Commission.
2) The Commission reviews the application(s), cons istent with its rules of
procedure, and determines if the application(s) are complete and if
the properties meet the criteria set forth in WAC 254-20-070(1) and
listed in Section 27 .090.030 of this ordinance.
a) If the Commission finds the properties meet all the criteria, then,
on behalf of the City of Pasco, it enters into a Historic Preservation
Special Valuation Agreement (set forth in WAC 254-20-120 and in
Section 27.100 of this ordinance) with the owner. Upon execution
of the agreement between the owner and Commission, the
Commission approves the application(s)
b) If the Commission determines the properties do not meet all the
criteria, then it shall deny the application(s).
3) The Commission certifies its decisions in writing and states the facts
upon which the approvals or denials are based and files copies of the
certifications with the Franklin County Assessor.
4) For approved applications:
PMCTitle 27
a) The Commission forwards copies of the agreements, applications,
and supporting documentation (as required by WAC 254-20-090
(4) and identified in Section 27.090.020 of this ordinance) to the
Franklin County Assessor,
b) Notifies the state review board that the properties have been
approved for special valuation, and
8/7/2006 (REVISED 6/23/14) 16
c) Monitors the properties for continued compliance with the
agreements throughout the 10-year special valuation period.
5) The Commission determines, in a manner consistent with its rules of
procedure, whether or not properties are disqualified from special
valuation either because of:
a) The owner's failure to comply with the terms of the agreement, or
b) Because of a loss of historic value resulting from physical changes
to the building or site .
c) For disqualified properties, in the event that the Commission
concludes that a property is no longer qualified for special
valuation, the Commission shall notify the owner, assessor, and
state review board in writing and state the facts supporting its
findings.
6) For disqualified properties. in the event that the commission concludes
that a property is no longer qualified for special valuation. the
commission shall notify the owner, assessor. and state review board in
writing and state the facts supporting its findings.
PMCTitle 27 8/7/2006 (REVISED 6/23/14) 17
CHAPTER 27.090 CRITERIA
Sections:
27.090 .010 HISTORIC PROPERTY CRITERIA ............................................. 18
27.090 .020 APPLICATION CRITERIA ........................................................ 18
27.090.030 PROPERTY REVIEW CRITERIA ................................................ 18
27.090 .040 REHABILITATION AND MAINTENANCE CRITERIA .................... 19
27.090 .050 EVALUATION COSTS .............................................................. 19
27.090.010 HISTORIC PROPERTY CRITERIA : The class of historic property
eligible to apply for Special Valuation in City of Pasco means properties listed on the
National Register of Historic Places which have been substantially rehabilitated at a
cost and within a time period which meets the requirements set forth in Chapter
84.26 RCW, until the City of Pasco becomes a Certified Local Government (CLG).
Once a CLG, the class of property eligible to apply for Special Valuation in the City of
Pasco means all taxable properties listed on the local and National Register of
Historic Places or properties certified as contributing to a local and/or national
Register Historic District which have been substantially rehabilitated at a cost and
within a time period which meets the requirements set forth in Chapter 84.26 RCW.
27 .090 .020 APPLICATION CRITERIA : Complete applications shall consist of
the following documentation:
1) A legal description of the historic property,
2) Comprehensive exterior and interior photographs of the historic property
before and after rehabilitation,
3) Architectural plans or other legible drawings depicting the completed
rehabilitation work, and
4) A notarized affidavit attesting to the actual cost of the rehabi litation work
completed prior to the date of application and the pe r iod of time during
which the work was performed and documentation of both to be made
available to the commission upon request, and
5) For properties located within historic districts, in addition to the standard
application documentation, a statement from the Secretary of the Interior
or Pasco Director of Community and Economic Development, indicating
the property is a certified historic structure is required.
6) Any other documents that the Commission needs to evaluate the request.
All costs shall be the responsibility of the applicant.
27 .090.030 PROPERTY REVIEW CRITERIA. In its rev iew the Commission shall
determine if the properties meet all the following criteria:
1) The property is historic property;
2) The property is included within a class of historic property determined
eligible for Special Valuation by the City of Pasco under Section
27.080.020 of this ordinance;
3) The property has been rehabilitated at a cost which meets the definition
set forth in RCW 84.26.020(2) (and identified in Section 27.060.020 of
this ordinance) within twenty-four months prior to the date of application;
and the property has not been altered in any way which adversely affects
PMC Title 27 8/7/2006 (REVISED 6/23/14) 18
those elements which qualify it as historically significant as determined by
applying the Washington State Advisory Council's Standards for the
Rehabilitation and Maintenance of Historic Properties (WAC 254-20-
100(1).
27.090 .040 REHABILITATION AND MAINTENANCE CRITERIA: The
Washington State Advisory Council's Standards for the Rehabilitation and
Maintenance of Historic Properties in WAC 254-20-100 shall be used by the
Commission as minimum requirements for determining whether or not an historic
property is eligible for special valuation and whether or not the property continues to
be eligible for special valuation once it has been so classified.
27.090.050 EVALUATION COSTS : Costs, mutually agreed upon by the
applicant and Commission, including but not limited to the costs of professional
services, incurred by the Commission in evaluating applications for Special Valuation
shall be the responsibility of the applicant(s).
PMCTitle 27 8/7/2006 (REVISED 6/23/14} 19
CHAPTER 27.100 AGREEMENT
Sections:
27.100 .010 AGREEMENT ......................................................................... 20
27.100 .010 AGREEMENT. The historic preservation special valuation
agreement in WAC 254-20-120 which shall be recorded with the Franklin County
Auditor's Office shall be used by the Commission as the minimum agreement
necessary to comply with the requirements of RCW 84.26.050(2).
PMCTitle 27 8/7/2006 (R EV ISED 6/23/14) 20
CHAPTER 27.110 APPEALS
Sections:
27.110 .010 APPEALS .................................................................................. 21
27 .110.010 APPEALS. Any decision of the Commission acting on any
application for classification as historic property, eligible for special \'aluation, may
he appealed to Superior Court under Chapter 31 .05 .510 31.05.598 RCW in addition
to any other remedy of law. Any decision on the disqualification of historic property
eligible for special valuation, or any other dispute, may be appealed to the Franklin
County Board of Equalization . Any decision of the Commission on an application for
classification as historic property under this Chapter shall be subject to an
administrative appeal before the Hearing Examiner pursuant to PMC Chapter 25.84,
prior to initiating an action for appeal to the Franklin Cou ntv Superior Court as
provided in RCW 84.26.130. Any decision of the Commiss ion on the disqualification
of historic property eligible for special valuation may be appea led to the Franklin
Countv Board of Equalization in accordance with RCW 84.40.038.
PMC Title 27 8/7/2006 (REVISED 6/23/14} 21
MEMORANDUM
DATE: July 17,201 4
TO: Planning Commis s ion
FROM: Dave McDona ld, City Pl a nne r
SUBJECT: Minimum Lo t Size in Multi-Family Zones (MF# CA2014 -00 3 )
Introduction
On June 2, 2014 t he City Council a pproved Resolut ion No. 3557 imposing a
six month moratorium on t h e acceptance of plat appli cations for properties in
R -2, R-3 and R-4 zoning districts.
The R -2, R -3 and R -4 zo ning districts are primarily intended fo r the
d evelopment of multiple family structures such as duplexes, four-plexes and
a p a rtment buildings. Although not specifically intended fo r single -family
development the multi-family Zoning districts have p e rmitted single-fa mily
homes on individual lots since the inception of zoning in Pasco. Single fa mily
lots within the R-2 , R -3, a nd R -4 zones must be at le ast 5,0 00 square feet.
Earlier this year a d evelop e r a pplied for R -2 zoning wit h the intent of building
only single-family homes. Although most of the lots in the proposed
deve lopment will be in excess of 6,000 square feet the pote ntial was t h ere for
a development with nume rous 5,000 square foot lots . The c r eation of 5,000
s qua re foot single-family lots w ithout forethought to building design a nd
subdivision integration with existing a nd adjacent n eighborhoods has the
pote ntial to impact t hose n eighboring d evelopments. As a result the Pla nning
Commission was asked to provid e some input on the m atter as to w h e ther or
not the multi-family zoning distric ts should be reviewed a s it r e la tes lot sizes.
From the Planning Commission's original discussion on thi s matter in May
the City Council established t he moratorium to provide an opportunity to
study the matter before any additional single-family plats are considered for
approval.
Bac kground
The earliest z oning ordinance to be found for the City d ates to 1939. Between
1939 and 1965 the minimum lot size for single family lots in the R -1 district
was 4,500 square feet; a 37.5 fo ot by 120 foot lot. There was no separate R -2
zoning district in the early code.
In 1965 the code was amended to add regulations for R-2 and R-3 districts.
The minimum lot sizes were established by lot dimensions. No lot within
those two districts could be smaller than 50 feet by 100 feet. This 5,000
minimum lot size has b een in the code in one form or another since 1965.
Much of the original portions of Pasco were platted prior to the establishment
of zoning. The general practice for platting in the early years was to divided
blocks into 25 foot wide lots. Builders would then buy two or more lots to
build houses or commercial buildings. As a result it is not uncommon to find
single-family lots close to or below 5,000 square feet in size in older areas of
town. The smallest lots in central Pasco between the High school and
Sylvester Park (Zoned R-1) are 4,750 square feet. Other lots in that area of
town range in size from 5,550 square feet to over 7,000 squar e feet. There
are many lots in the range of 5,750 to 6,000 square feet. South of "A" Street,
an area predominately zoned R-2 . The smallest lots south of "A" Street are
just over 4,600 square feet; some contain 5,250 square feet and others are
slightly larger at 5,400 square feet. The Kurtzman Park area east of Wehe
Avenue which is also zoned mostly R-2, has lots ranging size from 6,000
square feet to over 7,500 square feet.
In recent years smaller single-family lots have been created in the following
subdivisions:
Sun Willows (5,200 sq. ft.)*
Sunny Meadows (4,876 sq. ft.)*
Three Ri vers (5,000 sq. ft.)*
Columbia Place (5,400 sq. ft .)*
Loviisa Farms (5,100 sq. ft .)*
* (Smallest lot created)
These subdivision are zoned R -1 and developed with planned density
d evelopment plats permitting single-family lots smaller than 7,200 square
feet. Sun Willows is the exception. Sun Willows is a Planned Unit
Development. The developer of Sunny Meadows and Loviisa Farms (AHO
Construction) subdivisions used the smaller lots to build cottage style homes
providing some variety in the housing market.
Three Ri vers West is the only subdivision in the City that h as ever included
an R-2 zoning element specifically for the construction of single-family homes.
Due to the requirement for 60 feet of frontage and the configuration of the
streets the average lot size in R-2 portion of this proposed development is
6,812 square feet. Considerably larger tha n the lots d eveloped under the
planned densi t y process in t h e subdivisions listed above.
2
The City currently has approximately 57 acres of vacant land zoned for various
multi-family uses. This multi-family zoning includes seven acres of R-4 ground,
24 .5 acres of R-3 zoning (not including the Housing Authority Property) and 25
acres of R-2 zoning. In addition there are 26 individual lots of varying sizes
zoned R-2 lo cated south of "A" Street and in the Kurtzman Park Neighborhood.
The City's Comprehensive Plan identifies several hundred acres of land in
various loc ations within the Urban Growth Area for mixed residential uses.
Approximately 500 acres still remains to be developed. The mixed residential
land use category allows zonin g that would permit a full range of residential
development including sin gle-family, multi-family, townhomes, patio homes
and condominiums. Zoning in these areas could range from RS-20 to R-3. The
largest (300 acres) single area containing the Mixed Residential designation is
located a long the Columbia River west of Road 100. The Mixed Residential
designation was chosen for this area because it would permit the development
of townhouses and condominiums within close proximity to the river similar to
Columbia Point in Richland.
Given past experience it is highly unlikely the Mixed Residential sites will be
rezoned R-2 and R-3 s trictly for single -family deve lopment. Market demand
and the highest and best use doctrine generally determine the zo ning
developers seek. The Chapel Hill development for example was designated for
Mixed Residential d evelopment and zoned R-1, R-3 and R -4. Single-family
homes were constructed in the R-1 areas and apartments were built in the
multi-family areas. Once a developer goes through the process (which
sometimes is a struggle) to obtain multi-family zoning he does not usually
squ a nder his potential return by building single-family homes.
Not a ll Mixed-Residential areas will be or h ave been rezoned for multi-family
deve lopment. This land use designations provides a range of options for the
development community but does not require lands within the designated
areas to be zon ed multi-family. The Linda Loviisa subdivision located east of
the soccer complex is partially in a Mixed Residential area but, the developer
r equested and received approval for R-1 zo ning for single family lots. The Sun
Willows development is a lso within a Mixed Residential a r ea but, is developed
with mostly s ingle-family h omes (91 %). There are fifteen condo units in Sun
Willows each on a lot that is equal to or larger than the lots occupied with
single-family homes.
One of the problems with choosing multi-family zoning for single-family lots is
the apprehension it may create for some home buyers who do not want a
single-family home in a multi-family district. If a family buys a single-family
home in a multi-family zon ing district they have n o guarantee there will always
be s ingle-family development around them.
3
The fundamental que stion remains this: what is the smallest single-family lot
size the city is willing to permit in the R-2, R-3 and R-4 zoning districts?
Zoning Comparisons
Kennewick and Richland both permit individual lots in their version of the R-2
and R-3 zones with a minimum of 4,000 square feet. Lots sizes for single-
family homes in multi-family zoning districts for surrounding communities, 1s
as follo ws:
Richland
R-2s 4,000 sq. ft.
R-3 4,000 sq. ft.
Kennewick
RM-2
RM-3
4,000 sq. ft.
4,000 sq. ft.
West Richland
MR-2
MR-3
Spokane
RSF
RSF-C
4,000 sq. ft.
4,000 sq. ft.
4,350 sq. ft.
3,000 sq. ft.
The cities listed above all have minimum lot standards for comparable districts
with less square footage than currently required in Pasco.
Non -Conforming Questions
Increasing the minimum lot size in the R-2, R-3 and R-4 zoning districts will
create some minor non -conforming issues for owners of existing lots that meet
the current standards. It will mainly create confusion for insurance companies
a nd real estate agents. It may prohibit a property owner that may have been
planning to develop some lots in older portion of the town from developing his
property to match existing lots in the neighborhood. This would only impact
properties that needed to be short platted or r e-platted. Legal lots of record
would still be able to be developed even if they were only 5,000 square feet.
4
Options
# 1 Increase the mm1mum lot size in the R -2, R-3 and R-4 zones to 6,000
square feet or increase the minimum in the R-2 zone to 6,000 square feet,
the R-3 zone to 5,500 square feet and leave the R -4 zone at 5,000 square
feet.
#2 Some other variation of Option # 1.
#3 Allow lot d imensions to control lot size.
#4 Permit lot size averaging based on the existing lots within a given block.
#5 Reduce the minimum site development area for Planned Density
Development projects to make t h e process available to more properties
#6 Maintain the current standard.
Summary
The 5,000 square foot minimum lot size for the R-2 and R-3 zoning districts
has been part of the Pasco Zoning Code since 1965. The majority of the single-
family lots within R-2 and R-3 zones today were platted as 25 foot to 50 foot
lots near the turn of the last century ( 1900) and were zoned well after housing
types and development patterns were established. In the past 35 years only
one developer has ever request R -2 zoning specifically for the purpose of
creating smaller lots for single-family homes. However, the Planned Density
Development process has b een used often and quite successfully to provide a
range of lot sizes, including 5,000 square foot lots, within in larger s ingle-
family subdivision. Developers prefer the Planned Density process for creating
a range of lot sizes because it protects their investment and the investment of
future single-family home purchasers. Many home buyers do not want to
purchase single-family homes in multi-family districts because they risk the
chance that a neighbor may convert their home to a multi-family rental or that
vacant lots within the neighborhood could be developed with multi-family
rental units.
In comparing Pasco with the surrounding cities of Kennewick, Richland and
West Richland Pasco has t he largest minimum lot size requirement for
individual lots in multi-family zoning districts. Lot sizes are a 1 ,000 square
feet larger in Pasco than the minimum in the other cities .
5
Planning Commission Direction
The Planning Commission needs to determine if the question at hand is a
perceived issue or a real i ssue that needs to b e addressed. Other questions to
consider are:
• Will increasing the minimum lot size for multi-family zones discourage
developers from requesting R-2 or R-3 zoning to develop s ingle-family
lots?
• Will market forces and current mm1mum lot dimen s ion s be enough to
address the concern?
• Does the current Planned Density Deve lopment process provide enough
fl exibility for the d evelopment community to create a wide range of lots
for single-family development?
• Why do neighboring cities have smaller mm1mum l ots s1zes m multi-
fa mily zoning districts?
• Have the smaller lots sizes in the neighboring cities encouraged rezones
for single-family development in multi-family zones?
After considering the issue the Planning Commission should p r ovide s taff with
direction as to whether or not a code amendment is necessary. If the Planning
Commission feels an amendment i s warranted a lot size will need to be
d etermined so a code amendment can be prepa r e d for a hearing in August.
If a code a mendment is not warranted the Commission will need to recommend
the moratorium be resc inded.
6