Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-21-2014 Planning Commission Packet PLANNING COMMISSION - AGENDA REGULAR MEETING 7:00 P.M. August 21, 2014 I. CALL TO ORDER: II. ROLL CALL: Declaration of Quorum III. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: July 24, 2014 V. OLD BUSINESS: A. Code Amendment Historic Preservation Title 27 Code Amendment (MF# CA 2014-001) VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS: A. Special Permit Farming in an RT Zone (Tom Kidwell) (MF# SP 2014-007) B. Special Permit Structure Height (James Pickens) (MF# SP 2014- 0 C. Rezone From RT (Residential Transition) to R-1 (Low- Density Residential) and C-1 (Retail Business) (P&R Construction)(MF# Z 2014-004) D. Code Amendment Minimum Lot Size in Multi-Family Zones (MF# CA 2014-003) VII. OTHER BUSINESS: VIII. WORKSHOP: IX. ADJOURNMENT: REGULAR MEETING July 24, 2014 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at 7:00pm by Chairman Cruz. POSITION MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT No. 1 VACANT No. 2 'Pony Bachart No. 3 Andy Anderson No. 4 Alecia Greenaway No. S Joe Cruz No. 6 Loren Polk No. 7 Zahra Khan No. S Jana Kempf No. 9 Gabriel Portugal APPEARANCE OF FAIRNESS: Chairman Cruz read a statement about the appearance of fairness for hearings on land use matters. Chairman Cruz asked if any Commission member had anything to declare. There were no declarations. Chairman Cruz then asked the audience if there were any objections based on a conflict of interest or appearance of fairness question regarding the items to be discussed this evening. There were no objections. ADMINISTERING THE OATH: Chairman Cruz explained that state law requires testimony in quasi-judicial hearings such as held by the Planning Commission be given under oath or affirmation. Chairman Cruz swore in all those desiring to speak. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Greenaway moved, seconded by Commissioner Kempf that the minutes dated June 19, 2014 and June 24, 21014 be approved as mailed. The motion passed unanimously. OLD BUSINESS: A. Special Permit Location of a Church in a C-1 Zone (Casa de Avivamientol (MF# SP 201,4-005) Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director, stated that there was no further evidence or testimony to add. -1- There were no further questions or comments. Commissioner Bachart moved, seconded by Commissioner Greenaway, to adopt findings of fact and conclusions therefrom as contained in the July 17, 2014 staff report, The motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Bachart moved, seconded by Commissioner Greenaway, based on the findings of fact and conclusions therefrom the Planning Commission recommend the City Council grant a special permit for the location of a church at 1734 North 5th Avenue (Lots 4 to 7, Block 1, Holt's Addition; Parcel #113-391-027), with conditions as listed in the July 17, 2014 staff report. The motion passed unanimously. B. Rezone Rezone from C-3 (General Business) to R-3 (Medium Density Residential) (Solaro Enterprises) (MF# Z 2014-003) Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff.. Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director, stated that there was no further evidence or testimony to add. Commissioner Bachart asked if this application would be affected by the minimum lot size moratorium. Mr. White responded that the applicant had previously stated that their intent was for multi-family dwelling units which would not require subdividing the property. There were no further questions or comments. Commissioner Kempf moved, seconded by Commissioner Khan, to adopt findings of fact and conclusions therefrom as contained in the July 17, 2014 staff report. The motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Kempf move, seconded by Commissioner Khan, 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. 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, briefly discussed a provision added to the plan based on public comment allowing the property owners within the areas to opt-out of having a tree placed in their frontage or to work with staff to retain any trees that are not problematic. Commissioner Polk asked if there would be a requirement on the area if they don't have a tree, -2- Mr. White responded that the homeowner will still have to maintain the grass or ground cover to code. There were no further questions or comments. Commissioner Khan moved, seconded by Commissioner Bachart, to recommend the City Council approve the Sylvester's Addition Neighborhood Plan. The motion passed unanimously. PUBLIC HEARINGS: A. Block Grant 2015 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Rick White, Community 8v Economic Development Director, summarized the 2015 CDBG allocation recommendations by staff. There was brief commission discussion on the projects approved in June through the amendment to the 2014 CDBG allocations. Chairman Cruz called for public comment. There were no applicants present. Commission Greenaway moved, seconded by Commissioner Khan, to close the public hearing and recommend the City Council approve the use of funds for the 2015 Community Development Block Grant Program as recommended by staff. The motion passed unanimously. B. Code Amendment Historic Preservation Title 27 Code Amendment (MF# CA 2014001) Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Rick White, Community 8v Economic Development Director, discussed the Historic Preservation Title 27 code amendment. The City of Pasco has a Historic Preservation Ordinance allowing for special valuation if there is a valuable property important to Pasco's history. The amendments allow the City of Pasco to create a historical register and to allow that property to receive special valuation at the County level but also State and Federal register for tax benefits. The wording in the proposed code amendment is verbatim from the State and Federal regulations that pertain to this same program. There were no further questions or comments. Chairman Cruz called for public comment. There were no comments and the public hearing closed. Commissioner Kempf moved, seconded by Commissioner Polk, to close the public 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. The motion passed unanimously. -3- WORKSHOP: A. Code Amendment Minimum Lot Size in Multi-Family Zones IMF# CA 2014-003) Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. David McDonald, City Planner, discussed the code amendment for minimum lot size in multi-family zones. Mr. McDonald explained the City Council recently approved a resolution establishing a moratorium on the acceptance of any plats for single-family development within multi-family zoning districts (R-2, R-3 and R-4). The concern that caused the moratorium to be established was the fear that perhaps a developer could take a plat and rezone it R-2 or R-3 for the purpose of building single-family dwelling units on 5,000 square foot lots. As a result of the moratorium, the Planning Commission has been tasked with the job of reviewing the code to provide input as to whether or not the code needs to be changed or to determine whether the concern is more perceived than real. Mr. McDonald explained the background for minimum lot sizes within the community and stated the original zoning ordinance established 4,500 square feet as the minimum size for single-family development. The 5,000 square foot standard was established in 1965. Discussion then centered on lots sizes in the central core of the community where they range from 4,000 to 7,500 square feet. Smaller lots in the new subdivisions in the I- 182 area were also discussed. It was pointed out there are roughly 57 acres of land available with multi-family zoning, and roughly 26 lots in the older parts of the community that are vacant that are also zoned R-2. Most of these lots are in the 5,000-6,000 foot range. The Comprehensive Plan identifies several hundred acres that could in theory be zoned for multi-family residential. The largest such area is located along the Columbia River west of Road 100 and the gravel pit. The thought was that area is well suited for condos and townhouses to take advantage river views similar to the development on Columbia Point in Richland. Mr. McDonald briefly discussed the minimum lot size in other local jurisdictions. He also discussed non-conforming issues that may create some confusion. Mr. McDonald briefly discussed the following options available to the the Planning Commission; (1) Increase the minimum 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 5,000 square feet and leave the R-4 zone at 5,000 square feet; (2) Some other variation of Option 1; (3) Allow lot dimensions 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 the process available to more properties; (6) Maintain the current standard. Questions for the Planning Commission to ask were; (1) Will increasing the minimum lot size for multi-family zones discourage developers from requesting R-2 or R-3 zoning to develop single-family lots? -4- (2) Will market forces and current minimum lot dimensions be enough to address the concern? (3) Does the current Planned Density Development process provide enough flexibility for the development community to create a wide range of lots for single-family development? (4) Why do neighboring cities have smaller minimum lot sizes in multi-family zoning districts? (5) Have the smaller lot sizes in the neighboring cities encouraged rezones for single-family development in multi-family zones? After considering the issue, staff asked the Planning Commission to provide direction as to whether or not a code amendment is necessary. Commissioner Greenaway asked how this would affect the former "donut-hole" area. Mr. McDonald answered that it would have minimal to no impact. A developer could possibly request an R-2 or R-3 rezone but it would have to be in the corridor along Road 68 or Court Street where the mixed-residential designations are. Another problem in that area is the lack of sewer so lots would have to be a little over a half acre per. Commissioner Bachart asked what the row homes by Walmart are zoned. Mr. McDonald answered R-4 and the lots are roughly 2,400 square feet. Commissioner Bachart asked if the lot size minimum was increased if it would limit the ability to build those types of homes. Mr. McDonald responded he didn't believe so since they are treated as a multi-family complex which is why the R-4 zoning was used. Chairman Cruz discussed that Kennewick and Richland both permit individual lots at 4,000 square feet. He asked if they had anything to fit a planned development to allow for the row type of homes. Mr. McDonald answered that when he talked to the Planner in Richland, he stated that their developers use the PUD process, such as Sun Willows, to get a mix of smaller and larger lots. Kennewick uses the same process. Chairman Cruz asked the Planning Commission if they had any issues with continuing to use the Planned Unit Development process. He added that using the PUD would prevent having an area of high-density of single-family homes on small lots, rather a mix of small lots and larger lots. Chairman Cruz wanted to look at Options 1, 2 and 6. Increasing the minimum lot size to 6,000 square feet doesn't seem consistent across the Tri-Cities. Chairman Cruz discussed variability in lot sizes adding character to a neighborhood and he would not have an issue with that. He asked what would be the advantage to increasing the minimum lot size relative to the other jurisdictions in the area. And in clarifying Option 1, it is for minimum lot sizes for single-family dwellings in the mixed- residential areas. Commissioner Bachart was in agreement with Chairman Cruz. -5- Commissioner Kempf stated that she wouldn't mind maintaining the current standard and didn't understand the need to change. Chairman Cruz responded that he didn't know how attractive it is to developers to allow for a large block of 5,000 square foot lots for single-family homes. He stated that at 6,000 square feet it would be a skinny lot and would not want any smaller. Commissioner Khan agreed with Commissioner Kempf and didn't feel that there really needed to be an amendment and would like to maintain the current standard. Commissioner Khan asked if there is a special permit process for a developer to build a single-family in the R-2 zone. Mr. McDonald answered that single-family dwelling units are listed as permitted uses in R-2, R-3 and R-4 zoning districts. Commissioner Khan tried to clarify some of the concerns if the lots were too small. Mr. McDonald added that in all cases a 5,000 square foot lot wouldn't allow for anything other than a single-family home. A duplex requires 10,000 square feet in the R-2 zone and 6,000 square feet in the R-3 zone. Commissioner Khan responded that she could go along with Option 1. Commissioner Barhart asked if there was an R-3 zone with a minimum lot size of 6,000 square feet, then a duplex could be built. Rick White, Community 8v Economic Development Director, answered that a duplex could be built but this code amendment is mainly to focus on the single-family lots. Commissioner Bar hart responded that if the minimum lot size is moved up to 6,000 square feet and there are single-family homes in the neighborhood, your neighbor could still put a duplex next to your house and could create problems for the neighbors. Mr. White stated that the real question is, what is the smallest lot size the community wants for single-family dwellings in the multi-family zoning districts? Commissioner Polk asked if this code amendment will come back as a public hearing for the community to voice their opinion. Mr. White stated that the intent is to have a public hearing next month. Staff is trying to complete the review process by the end of September. Don Paddock, 2574 Magnolia Court, Richland, was present representing Habitat for Humanity. Mr. Paddock suggested that the Planning Commission recommend Caption 6, maintaining the current standard. Chairman Cruz asked Mr. Paddock why he wished to recommend Option 6. Mr. Paddock replied that they would like to get down to the 5,000 square foot lots. Most of their homes would be built using 6,000-7,000 square foot lots but some lots would need to drop down to 5,500 square feet for what they currently have planned to be developed in -6- order to snake the neighborhood look presentable. Len Harms, 1705 Road 64, spoke on behalf of Habitat for Humanity. Mr. Harms agreed with Mr. Paddock in recommending Option 6 and perhaps adding Option 3 to it if needed. He stated that the 5,000 square foot lot size has been a relatively useful tool and stated that there must have been a significant event to cause an emergency moratorium on subdividing but, he is unaware of what situation must have happened to bring, this about so abruptly. Mr. Harms discussed the need for people to have smaller lots. People will choose to buy what they can afford and developers are sensitive to that. Mr. Harms stated that ultimately he would like to see the code stay the way it is. Habitat for Humanity has projects in process waiting to advance and the lot sizes for their proposed plat are between 5,000-6,000 square feet and would like to see the rescinding of the moratorium. Chairman Cruz stated that some of their concerns are having entire subdivision of 5,000 square foot lots and whether that would be attractive for the community Chairman Cruz felt that 6,000 square foot lot size is pretty generous in R-2, 5,500 square feet in R-3 and 5,000 square feet in R-4. He asked Mr. Harms why they shouldn't pursue the change to protect the City from a situation with 30 acres of 5,000 square foot single-family homes. Mr. Harms responded that was reasonable rationale. The Planned Unit Development process works well for higher-end communities. The challenge with a PUB is that is has to be unique is some way to qualify as a PUD. Sometimes that is not easy to accomplish so perhaps there could be a way that is addressed. Chairman Cruz asked staff what the plans are for PUD's. Mr. McDonald answered that in order to qualify to use the process you have to have at least 20 acres. Some developers, such as Habitat for Humanity, do not have 20 acres, they have 2-3 acres and that would be off the table for them. Commissioner Khan asked if the developer did have the 20 acres then the developer could still have the 5,000 square foot lots. Mr. McDonald stated that in a PUD you aren't going to get 100% of the lots at 5,000 square feet. There is an overall density assigned to the 20 acres and it cannot be exceeded. To get the smaller lots, there will still have to be some larger lots in the development. Chairman Cruz stated that he just didn't like the idea of a wash of 5,000 square foot lot sizes in one area. In the R-2, R-3 and R-4 he asked if there were any other ideas to protect against that super high-density of single-family homes. Mr. Harms suggested averaging lot sizes, where you have a minimum lot as 5,000 square feet but the average of all of the lots would have to meet a certain square footage. That would perhaps provide some relief from having a "cookie-cutter grid. Chairman Cruz stated that would make him more comfortable but there will need to be more discussion and thought from staff. He stated that he just really opposes 5,000 square foot lot sizes as the mass. Chairman Cruz asked what is the regular minimum lot size in residential. Mr. McDonald responded that 7,200 square feet is the minimum lot size in an R-1 zone. -7- Chairman Cruz stated that he felt something needed to be done rather than leaving the code alone. Mr. McDonald made a clarification that with the idea of averaging the lot sizes is already somewhat in place with the Planned Density Development. Commissioner Bachart stated that he didn't have a problem with 5,000 square foot lot sizes here and there because some people want a smaller house or smaller yard. The only concern is to have a 20 acre parcel and having it all developed as 5,000 square foot lots. Chairman Cruz added that they don't want to get in the way of developments such as Habitat for Humanity who do a good job and is a win for all, but they simply want to prevent large acres of becoming filled up with 5,000 square foot lots. Chairman Cruz brought the discussion back to Option 1 and stated there is difference between 5,000 and 7,200 square foot lot sizes. Commissioner Polk asked if there could be exceptions built into the code for cases like Habitat for Humanity. Chairman Cruz asked if for those cases a rezone could be done instead. Mr. McDonald answered that they could if the Comprehensive Plan had the site designated for mixed residential but only a few areas would permit R-4, allowing the 5,000 square foot minimum. Commissioner Polk asked if they needed to pick an option before coming back to a public hearing. Chairman Cruz stated that he would recommend that they choose Option 1, increasing the minimum lot size 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. The Planning Commissioners were in agreement. COMMENTS: Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director, let the Planning Commission know that there is a Short Course in Planning in Pasco on September 16, 2014. With no further discussion or business, the Planning Commission was adjourned at 8:27 p.m. Respectfully submitted, David McDonald, City Planner MEMORANDUM DATE: August 21, 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 National 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 Pasco. One of the priorities in the Plan is to apply for Certified Local Government (CLG) status. The CLG Program is a technical 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 state 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 offer 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 assistance 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 elements including sections dealing with a local register of historic places as well as historic resources design review. The current Historic Preservation Ordinance was not deemed "comprehensive" by the State as it does not address these items. 1 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 and/or 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 the Planning Commission adopt the Findings of Fact as contained in the August 21, 2014 staff memo on Historic Preservation Title 27. MOTION: I move the Planning Commission recommend the City Council adopt the proposed Code Amendments as shown in the attached "Exhibit A." 2 TITLE 27 HISTORIC PRESERVATION CHAPTER 27.040 PURPOSE......................................................................... 2 CHAPTER 27.050 SHORT TITLE................................................................... 3 CHAPTER 27.060 DEFINITIONS.................................................................. 4 CHAPTER 27.070 CITY OF PASCO HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION ............................................................................................... 8 CHAPTER 27.075 CITY OF PASCO REGISTER OF HISTORIC 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 ...................................................................... 18 CHAPTER 27.100 AGREEMENT.................................................................. 20 CHAPTER 27.110 APPEALS........................................................................ 21 PMC Title 27 8/7/2006(REVISED 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. PMC Title 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." PMC Title 27 8/7/2005(REVISED 6/23/14) 3 CHAPTER 27.060 DEFINITIONS Sections: 27.060.005 DEFINITIONS.........................................................................A 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 ...............................................................7 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 different meaning clearly appears from 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 Register of Historic Places", "Local Register", 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 ACTUAL 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 within 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 yayn(d��State standards. �� ��[ ELIGIBLE �7 27' 0600.0 TO CLASS ln�TTT\E)PER44ES ELIGIBLLE T1"7�5PPLY FOR SPEGIAC VALUX-RE)N 1N THE CITY OF PASCO. "Class Register of whieh have been substaRtially rehabilitated at a Eest and within a tirne period Wh*Eh 27.060.040 CLASS OF PROPERTIES ELIGIBLE TO APPLY FOR SPECIAL VALUATION IN THE CITY OF PASCO. "Class of rrooperties 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 City 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 Rrivilecles 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. "Ordinary 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" a "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 PM Title 27 8/7/2006 (REVISED 6/23/14) 6 potential. The local area can include The City 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 important 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 occuQation 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 building or structure of the location itself possesses historic cultural or archaeological significance. 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 Register 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 Register. 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. "Waiver 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. PMC Title 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 COMPOSITION 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 BYLAWS AND OFFICERS..............................................10 27.070.070 COMMISSION STAFF..............................................................10 27.070.010 CREATION AND SIZE. There is hereby established a City of Pasco Historic Preservation Commission, consisting of not less than five (5) and no more than seven (7) members, as provided 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 Commission must have a demonstrated interest and competence in historic preservation and possess qualities of impartiality and broad judgment. 2) The commission shall always include at least two (2) professionals who have experience in identifying, evaluating, and protecting historic resources and are selected from among the disciplines of architecture, history, architectural history, planning, prehistoric and historic archaeology, folklore, cultural anthropology, curatorship, conservation, landscape architecture, or related disciplines. The Commission action that would otherwise be valid shall not be rendered invalid by the temporary vacancy of one or all of the professional positions. Furthermore, exception to the residency requirement of Commission members may be granted by the Mayor and City Council in order to obtain representatives from 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 Commission shall be as follows: two (2) for two (2) years; two (2) for three (3) years; and one (1) 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) Responsibility. The major responsibility of the Historic Preservation Commission is to identify and actively encourage the conservation of Pasco's historic resources by reviewing National Register properties applying for Special Tax 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. In carrying 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 buildin_gs1 structures, sites, objects, and districts identified by the commission as having historic significance worthy of recognition 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 bylaws 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 bylaws to be used to guide 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) a3—Conduct all Commission meetings in compliance with Chapter 42.30 RCW, Open Public Meetings Act, to provide for adequate public participation and adopt standards in its fu-le-s bylaws to guide this action. g) b}- Participate in, promote and conduct public information, educational and interpretive programs pertaining to historic and prehistoric resources. h) e)-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) El� 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) e) Advise the Pasco City Council and the Mayor generally on matters of Pasco's history and historic preservation. k) f� Perform other related functions assigned to the Commission by the Pasco City Council or the Mayor. 1) g} 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) 4-) 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. PMC Title 27 $/7/2006(REVISED 6/23/14) 9 n) i) 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) k) 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 the agreement and statutory eligibility requirements during the 10 year special valuation period; and; 6. Adopt fH4, s bylaws and/or administrative rules and comply with all other local review board responsibilities identified in Chapter 84.26 RCW. r) �The Commission shall adopt ft:i+es bylaws to address their responsibilities under this ordinance. 27.070.050 COMPENSATION. All members shall serve without compensation. 27.070.060 RULES BYLAWS AND OFFICERS The Commission shall establish and adopt its own f+es bylaws, 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. PIVIC Title 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. With owner's consent any building, structure site object or district ma 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 histo . 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 histo 6. Has yielded or may be likely to yield important archaeological 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 with historic events, or cultural patterns. 10. Is a reconstructed building that has been executed in an historic& 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. PMC Title 27 8/7/2006(REVISED 6/23/14) 11 27.075.020 City of Pasco Register of Historic Resources 1. With owner's consent, 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 ma 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 desi,nag tion. 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 bylaws, at a public hearing,. Adeguate 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 bylaws 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 gropertj is eligible for the City of Pasco Register of Historic Resources, the commission shall make recommendation to the City Council that the prope±j be listed in the register with owner's consent. In the case of historic districts, the commission shall consider 750/o_of property owners to be adequate for owner consent. Owner consent and notification procedures in the case of districts shall be further defined in bylaws. 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 certif=icate 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. PMC Title 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 community. 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 by a eligible for Special Tax Valuation_on their rehabilitation (Section_27.0U PMC Title 27 8/7/2006 (REVISER 6/23/14) 13 CHAPTER 27.076 REVIEW OF CHANGES TO THE CITY OF PASCO REC,ISTER 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 gropertv 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 AnAropriateness, 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 commission bylaws. 27.076.020 EXEMPTIONS. The following activities do not require a Certificate of Appropriateness or review by the commission; ordina 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 al2plicant 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 bylaws 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 commission bylaws. Unless PMC Title 27 8/7/2006 (REVISED 6/23/14) 14 legally required, 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 implication. 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 b y the anglicant 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 bylaws. The commission's recommendations and, if awarded, the Certificate of Appropriateness shall be transmitted to the building or zoning official. If a Certificate of Appropriateness 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 mayr be issued to allow whole or partial demolition of a designated City of Pasco Resister 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 in 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 Appia ropriateness 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 dosed-record hearing by a hearing examiner pursuant to PMC Chapter 25.84 only on the records of the commission. PMC Title 27 8/7/2006 (REVISED 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 27.080.010TIMELINES. 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), consistent with its des bylaws, 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: 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 PMC Title 27 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 f+les bylaws, 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. PMC Title 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 rehabilitation work completed prior to the date of application and the period 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 review 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). PMC Title 27 $/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). PMC Title 27 8/7/2006(REVISED 6/23/14) 20 CHAPTER 27.110 APPEALS Sections: 27.110.010 APPEALS.................................................................................. 21 27.110.010 APPEALS. valuation, Equalization,elig'b'e feF spedal valuation, eF any ether dispute, may be appealed te the Frian 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 County Superior Court as provided in RCW 84.26.130. Any decision of the Commission on the disqualification of historic property eligible for special valuation may be appealed to the Franklin County Board of Equali7ation in accordance with RCW 84.40.038. PMC Title 27 8/7/2006(REVISED 6/23/14) 21 BY-LAWS OF THE CITY OF PASCO HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION 2014 SECTION 1: GENERAL RULES AND PROCEDURES These By-Laws establish the rules and procedures under which the City of Pasco Historic Preservation Commission (HPC or Commission) executes those duties and functions set forth in City of Pasco City Ordinance No. Historic Preservation. A. NAME 1. The name of the organization shall be THE CITY OF PASCO HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION. B. PURPOSE 1. The purpose is to provide for the identification, evaluation, and protection of historic resources; raise community awareness; and serve as the city's primary resource in matters of history, historic planning, and preservation in a manner prescribed in Pasco Municipal Code(PMC) Section 27.040.010. C. MEMBERSHIP 1. The Commission shall consist of at least five (5) and not more than seven(7) members appointed by the Mayor and approved by the City Council as prescribed in PMC 27.070.010; 2. "Creation and Size; There is hereby established a City of Pasco Historic Preservation Commission, consisting of at least five(5) and not more than seven(7) members, as provided in subsection B below. Members of the City of Pasco Historic Preservation shall be appointed by the Mayor and approved by the City Council and shall be residents of the City of City of Pasco, except as provided in subsection B below. 3. Composition of the Commission: b. All members of the commission must have a demonstrated interest and competence in historic preservation and possess qualities of impartiality and broad judgment. c. The commission shall always include at least 2 professionals who have experience in identifying, evaluating, and protecting historic resources and are selected from the disciplines of history, architecture, architectural history, historic preservation, planning, cultural anthropology, archaeology, cultural geography, American studies, law, and real estate. The commission action that would otherwise be valid shall not be rendered invalid by the temporary vacancy of one or all of the professional positions, unless the commission action is related to meeting Certified Local Government(CLG) responsibilities cited in the Certification Agreement between the Mayor and the State Historic Preservation Officer. Furthermore, the Mayor, and City Council may grant exception to the Pasco Historic Preservation Commission By-Laws Page 1 of 24 SECTION I - General Rules and Procedures Adopted XXIXXl2014 residency requirement of commission members in order to obtain representatives from these disciplines. d. In making appointments, the Mayor may consider names submitted from any source,but the Mayor shall notify history and city development related organizations of vacancies so that names of interested and qualified individuals may be submitted by such organizations for consideration along with names from any other sources. 4. Terms of Members a. The original appointment of members to the Co ission shall be from August 1, 2006 and shall proceed as follows. two(2) f (2)years; two (2) for three(3) years; and at least one (1)but no more th (3) for four(4)years. Thereafter, appointments shall be made for a three( a: beginning on August 1"of each year. Vacancies shall be filled yat ayor the unexpired term in the same manner as the original appo' ht. ?� D. ATTENDANCE OF MEMBERS 1. All members shall attend regularly scli d meetings and shall, n time. If three consecutive regularly scheduled meetings missed i out good'1 4 e as determined by the commission,resignation shall be enc W 0 E. QUORUM ` 1. A quorum is a simple majority.,of the five to sevennbers{depending upon the composition of the quorum) eli�ihle to N,ote at a mee .Should there be less than five members on the five-member con-unissiori-at any given'time, a quorum of three (3) shall be shall still be:required. Should there be less than seven members on the seven-member commission at any given time, a quorum of five (5) shall be shall still be required. A quorum is necessary to transact any official business. F. OFFICERS AND STAFF I. The officers of this organization shall be Chairman and Chairman Pro Tem. The Recorder and Secretary, though present, shall not-be members. Officers beyond these mentioned are not a functional need of the commission. Should the need arise on a permanent or temporary basis, the necessary office shall be voted in by a majority vote. 2. All officers shall perform their duties as prescribed by these by-laws and by parliamentary authority adopted by the organization. a. The election for Chairman and Chairman Pro Tem shall be held at the regularly scheduled August meeting. Nominations shall be made from the floor and election held immediately before new business. The officers shall be elected for a one-year term or until their-successors are elected, with their term of office beginning immediately after election. b. The Chairman shall preside over all regularly scheduled and all special or called meetings of the Commission. The chairman shall appoint members to specific task forces (ad-hoe) committees which term shall end when the task is completed. All tasks presented to a committee shall be executed in a timely manner. c. The Chairman Pro Tern assumes the duties of the Chairman in the absence of the Chairman. In the absence of the Chairman, the Chairman Pro Tern will have the same powers and duties as those of the Chairman. Pasco Historic Preservation Commission By-Laws Page 2 of 24 SECTION I -General Rules and Procedures Adopted XX/XX/2014 d. The Recorder shall assure that the minutes of all commission meetings are taken and provided to the appropriate persons. e. Commission and professional staff assistance shall be provided by the Director of Community & Economic Development, and additional assistance and information to be provided by other City departments as may be necessary to aid the commission in carrying out its duties and responsibilities as prescribed in PMC Section 27.070.040. f. The Community&Economic Development staff representative shall act as secretary. The secretary shall distribute information to members including minutes, information pertinent to tasks at hand, and all current and updated materials that members are in need of in order-to carry out their tasks. Also, the secretary shall act as an advisor to the Commi8, on and shall notify members of meeting dates and times not less than five(5) days before the meeting. E.POWERS AND DUTIES 1. The major responsibility of the Historic.Preservation Commissid to identify and actively encourage the conservation of the City of Ci .of Pasco's h' 0 'c resources by initiating and maintaining a register of historiw resources, reviewing pr wed changes to register properties,raising community awareness of the city's history an historic resources; and serving as the city's primary resource in matters of history, historic planning, and preservation. 2. Review nominatiorzs..to the City of Pasco Register of Historic Places according to criteria in PMC 27.0$0=and adopt standards to be used to guide this review. 3. Review proposals to construct, change, alter,.modify, remodel, move, demolish or significantly affect properties or districts on the register as provided in PMC 27.090.040; and adopt standards to be used to guide this review, and the issuance of a certificate of appropriateness. 4. No member of the HPC. shall advisc,or express an opinion about a proposed Certificated of`Appropriateness outside of a regular xn_eeting. F. MEETINGS 1. The regularly scheduled meeting of this Commission shall be monthly with the date and time determined by a vote of the Commission and will be held in a predesignated location unless others ise directed by the Chairman or a commission vote in compliance with Chapter 42-30 RCW, Open Public Meeting Act, to provide for adequate public participation and adopt standards to guide this action. All meetings shall start on time and shall be executed expeditiously by the Chairman. 2. Special meetings may be called by the Chairman. The purpose of the meeting will be stated in the call. Except in emergencies, at least three (3) days notice shall be given for special meetings and five(5) days notice for regularly scheduled meetings. 3. Parliamentary authority of the meetings shall be the current edition of Robert's RULES OF ORDER NEWLY REVISED. 4. Procedures for conducting regular meetings. a. Pre-Meeting Pasco Historic Preservation Commission By-Laws Page 3 of 24 SECTION I - General Rules and Procedures Adopted XX/XX/2014 i. If there are agenda items, regular meetings will be held monthly and a date and time specified by the HPC. In case of scheduling conflicts the meeting place may be changed at the discretion of the Chair with ten(10) days advance notice given to HPC members and the public. If the meeting date falls on an official holiday, the meeting may be changed to a time and place as determined by the HPC at the preceding month's meeting.If such a change occurs, the regular meeting place will be posted as to the new time and place. ii. If there are no agenda items,the Chair ma cancel the regular meeting after giving all HPC members and the publi urs advance notice. However, if a majority of HPC members expre _, =desire to hold the meeting, it shall convene as scheduled. If the meet' led, a notice to that effect will be posted at the regular meetm 1 a at th ular time. iii. Special meetings maybe calf the Char a " a majority of the HPC members. Commission monib:ers will be given a t 24 hours advance notice of the time and place,of such meetings. iv. All regular and special meetings will ben to the pu and the date, place and agenda will be publicized inr4tWrdance with t1"i Owen Public Meetings Act(Chapter 42.30 RCW), except when a majority of Commission members detern-iitie that an executive session is necessary as detailed in the Open Public Meeting Act (Chapter 42.3 0, The agenda for regularly scheduled meetings shalI he posted and advertised 48 hours prior to the regularly scheduled meetings. V. The order of agenda items will he determined by their order of receipt. All applications, including desnation review'and special valuation review must be filed at least one(1)month before the meeting at which the case is m to be considered. This allows staff sufficient time to copy and distribute ,materials,to HPC members. Design Review applications must be filed at g PP least one (1) week prior to the regularly scheduled meetings at which they ,r,65, are to be considered. V1. Staff shall be responsible for notifying principles in each case as specified under the rules for review procedures. b. Regular Order of Business for Meetings i, Business will be conducted under Robert's Rules of Order. All issues will be decided by simple majority vote except amendments to the By-Laws, which require a vote of two-thirds (213) of the membership. ii. Three(3)members or 60 percent(60%) of the non-vacant membership on the HPC constitute a quorum. Meetings without a quorum will be recessed to the earliest possible date. iii. Minutes will be taken during all HPC proceedings.. iv. The regular order of business shall be as follows: (a) Call to order. (b) Roll call. (c)Adoptions of minutes. Pasco Historic Preservation Commission By-Laws Page 4 of 24 SECTION I- General Rules and Procedures Adopted XXIXX/2014 (d) Unfinished business. (e)New business. (f) Other business. (g)Adjournment. v. The regular order of business for consideration for applications for local register review, design review and special valuation review shall be as follows: (a) The Chair shall open the hearing and have staff offer a preliminary statement concerning the application., (b) The applicant or the designated agent of the applicant presents statements in favor of the application including relevant pictures, models, etc. (c) Statements in opposition to the apphca n. (d) Comments by interest.� rl;ons, organAkens, or legal entities. (e) Rebuttal by all cony d''parties. ,WL (f) Staff comments. M (g) Summary of above byir or chair=designated` on, (h. The Chair shall close the hearing:and initiate delibertin by Commission. (i) Motion for action. (j) Vote. ` During the course of the meeting', the above procedure may be temporarily -modified by',the concurrence-of all parties.and the HPC. vi. The HPC shall act on each application at the meeting unless a majority of the Commission decide to defer consideration to a later date. Requests for continuance may be granted if all parties agree. The Chair will publicly announce the continuance, and`the case automatically set on the agenda for the next regularly scheduled meeting. In such a case,no further notice is required for the principles in the case. vii. In the event of the uncontrollable disruption of the meeting, the HPC may clear the meeting room and continue in executive session or may adjourn and reconvene at another location selected by majority vote of the members. In such a case, business shall be restricted to those items on the printed agenda. Persons or news media representatives not participating in the disturbance may be readmitted in this situation. c. Plan for copying, distributing and implementing rules i. The master copies of all historic preservation related rules and procedures, application standards, criteria, and standard forms will remain on file with the City of City of Pasco in electronic format. Complete copies of these documents will be made available to the Mayor and members of the City Council and the general public via the City of Pasco website. Electronic and/or hard copies of Design and Designation Review processes documents will be made available to the Building Inspector, Complete electronic copies Pasco Historic Preservation Commission By-Laws Page 5 of 24 SECTION I- General Rules and Procedures Adopted XX/XX/2014 of all such documents will be provided for the members of the HPC, the City Clerk staff and OAHP. G. AMENDING BY-LAWS These by-laws may be amended at any regularly scheduled meeting of The City of Pasco Historic Preservation Commission by a 2/3 vote of the attending membership provided the amendment has been submitted in writing. .4 �. 4 � �. t ra ABU,, c it Iq V Is It i k. _ � VL&uaa . V 8E Pasco Historic Preservation Commission By-Laws Page 6 of 24 SECTION I- General Rules and Procedures Adopted XX/XX/2014 SECTION II: RULES AND PROCEDURES FOR DESIGNATION REVIEWS—CITY OF PASCO REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES Under the provisions of the City of Pasco Historic Preservation Ordinance (HPO) the City of Pasco Historic Preservation Commission (HPC or Commission) is directed to initiate and maintain a City of Pasco Register of Historic Places (RHP or Register) and to review nominations to the Register. Any building, structure, site, object or district may be placed on the Register if: 1. The HPC determines it meets RHP criteria. 2. The Pasco City Council approves it. 3. The owner consents to register placement of the property. Any individual, group of property owners or other interested group or association, City or County Council member, City of Pasco Historic Preservation Commission member or HPC as a whole may nominate a building, structure, site,object or district for inclusion on the Register. There shall be a minimum of one (1)public hearing as well as a posting of the hearing. Owner consent for individual properties is required for placement on the RHP. A. CITY OF PASCO REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES CRITERIA The following are criteria for the inclusion of properties on the City of Pasco Register of Historic Places (RHP) as stated in the United States Secretary of Interior Standards and pertaining to PMC 27.075.010. Any building, structure, site, object, or district may be placed on the RHP if it is significantly associated with history, architecture, archaeology, engineering, or cultural heritage of the City of Pasco; has historical integrity; is at least 50 years old, or, if younger, possesses exceptional importance; and if it meets at least one of the following criteria set forth by the Secretary of the Interior Standards: 1. It is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of national, state or local history. 2. It embodies the distinctive architectural characteristics of a type, period, style, or method of construction, or represents a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction. 4. It is an outstanding work of a designer,builder or architect who has made a substantial contribution to the art. 5. It exemplifies or reflects special elements of the City's cultural, special, economic, political, aesthetic, engineering or architectural history. 6. It is associated with the lives of persons significant in national, state, or local history. 7. It has yielded or is likely to yield important archaeological information. 7. It 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. Pasco Historic Preservation Commission By-Laws Page 7 of 24 SECTION 11 - Design Review Adopted XX/XX/2014 8. It is a birthplace or grave of a historical fixture of outstanding importance and is the only surviving structure or site associated with that person. Q. It is a cemetery that derives its primary significance from age, from distinctive design features, or from association with historic events or cultural patterns. 10. It is a reconstructed building that has been executed in a historically accurate manner on the original site. 11. It 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. B. APPLICATION STANDARDS FOR CITY OF PASCO REGISTER. OF HISTORIC PLACES An acceptable City of Pasco Register of Historic Places application is a nomination form completed according to uniform guidelines of the City of Pasco Historic Preservation Commission. All interior and exterior features and outbuildings that contribute to the designation should be mentioned and described. District designations should include a description of proposed district boundaries including alleys, the characteristics of the district which justifies its designation, and a list of all properties including features, structures, sites, objects and open spaces which contribute to the designation of the district. The original form should be presented along with the following documentation: 1. Copy of the historic property inventory form. 2. Current and historic (if available)photographs. 3. Newspaper articles. 4. Other relevant materials. Uncompleted forms or those with insufficient documentation will not be considered and will be returned to the applicant with recommendations C. PROCEDURES FOR DESIGNATION REVIEW MEETINGS 1. Pre-meeting a. Applicant or Designated Agent: i. Meets with HPC staff(Staff) concerning the application form and the necessary documentation. ii. Submits the completed application to Staff at least one (1)month before the regularly scheduled meeting at which the application is to be considered. b. Staff: i. Meets with the applicant concerning the application form and the necessary documentation. Pasco Historic Preservation Commission By-Laws Page 8 of 24 SECTION 11 -Design Review Adopted XX/XX/2014 ii. Reviews the application for completeness and includes the case on the agenda based on determination that the application is complete. 2. Meeting a. Designation review will occur as a hearing held during a regularly scheduled meeting as detailed in the rules for conducting HPC meetings. b. The regular order of business for consideration of applications to the REP shall be as follows: i. The Chair shall open the hearing and shall call upon staff to offer a preliminary statement concerning the application. ii. The applicant or designated agent of the applicant presents statements in favor of the application including relevant pictures, models, etc. iii. Questions by Commissioners. iv. Statements in opposition to the application. v. Comments by HPC, interested persons, organizations or legal entities. vi. Rebuttal by all concerned parties. vii. Staff comments. viii. Summary of above by Chair or designated person and closing of the hearing. ix. Deliberation by Commission. x. The motion for the recommendation should be based on the designation criteria. Criteria should be included in the motion. During the course of the hearing, the above procedure may be temporarily modified by the concurrence of all parties and the HPC. c. Commission members apply designation criteria, as outlined in the Secretary of the Interior's Standards,to the property or district to evaluate the nomination. The members should consider information related to the designation criteria as presented above during the designation hearing and from the site visit. The Commission: i. Determines the category of historic property. ii. Establishes a context for evaluating the property. iii. Identifies the level of significance (National, State, local). iv. Evaluates the integrity of the property. v. Determines if there are special conditions that might make the property eligible. vi. Determines if the property meets the criteria. vii. Votes on the recommendation. 3. Post Meeting a. Staff and/or Chair: Pasco Historic Preservation Commission By-Laws Page 9 of 24 SECTION II - Design Review Adopted XX/XX/2014 i. Notify owner and applicant in writing of the HPC's recommendation within one(1) week of the meeting. ii. Notify applicant of the appeals process if the recommendation is against placement of the property on the Register. iii. Get the owner's written acknowledgement when the property is placed on the Register. iv. Shall forward the Commission's recommendation for individual properties to the City Council including the application and supporting documentation, including letters of support and opposition, and the owner's written acknowledgement to the City Council for final determination. v. Shall forward district nomination with the HPC's recommendation with supporting documentation to the City Council for final determination. vi. Notifies the Building Inspector if the property is listed on the Register. vii. Notifies applicant of the City Council's final decision. b. City of Pasco City Council: Once the case is with City Council,they can concur with or reject the Commission's recommendation, or send the case back to the Commission for further study. If the Council: i. Concurs with a positive recommendation the property is listed on the City of Pasco Register of Historic Places (RHP) by resolution. ii. Concurs with a negative recommendation, the property is not listed on the RHP. iii. Rejects the recommendation; the case goes back to the HPC. C. City of Pasco Historic Preservation Commission If the recommendation is rejected by the City Council, at the next regularly scheduled meeting, the Commission: i. Shall decide whether any other protection for the property is necessary or possible. D. APPEALS OR RESUBMISSION 1. A negative recommendation or a non-acceptance of an application by the HPC is not irrevocable. If new information becomes available or if the applicant wishes,the application may be resubmitted with HPC approval to the HPC. In such a case,the entire procedure must be repeated. 2. If the applicant disagrees with the Commission's recommendation, the applicant may present the case directly to City Council. In such a case,documentation shall be limited to that nomination material presented during the HPC public meeting and the minutes of that meeting. E. MISCELLANEOUS 1. Once a property has been approved by the HPC for placement on the City of Pasco Register of Historic Places,the Certificate of Appropriateness review process becomes Pasco Historic Preservation Commission By-Laws Page 10 of 24 SECTION II - Design Review Adopted XX/XXf2014 effective. If the City Council does not concur with the "PC's recommendation and the property is not listed,the review process no longer applies. 2. If the case involves a historic district, the boundaries of that district are set with City Council approval by resolution. 3. In the event that any property is no longer deemed appropriate for designation to the City of Pasco Register of Historic Placed, the HPC may initiate removal by following the same procedure as provided for listing. 4. In its designation recommendation, the Conanaission shall consider the City of Pasco Historic Inventory and the City Comprehensive Plan. Pasco Historic Preservation Commission By-Laws Page 11 of 24 SECTION 11 -Design Review Adopted XX/XX/2014 SECTION III; RULES AND PROCEDURES FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND ISSUANCE OF A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS—CITY OF PASCO REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES Design Review is the process through which the City of Pasco Historic Preservation Commission (HPC or Commission)reviews proposed changes to City of Pasco's historic resources. Once a property is listed on the City of Pasco Register of Historic Places (RHP), any work done on the exterior of the property that would ordinarily necessitate a building permit will, in addition, require a Certificate of Appropriateness. These activities include: 1. Alterations to historic structures. 2. New construction within historic districts. 3. Change of use. 4. Replacement and repair. 5. Demolition of historic structures. The basis for all rehabilitation design review shall be the Standards of Rehabilitation developed by the United States Department of Interior a. Every reasonable effort shall be made to provide compatible use for a property, which requires minimal alteration of the building, structure, or site and its environment, or to use a property for its originally intended purpose. b. The distinguishing original qualities or character of a building, structure or site and its environment shall not be destroyed. The removal or alteration of any historic material or distinctive architectural feature should be avoided when possible. C. All buildings, structures, and sites shall be recognized as products of their own time. Alterations that have no historical basis and which seek to create an earlier appearance shall be discouraged. d. Changes which may have taken place in the course of time are evidence of the history and development of a building, structure, or site and its environment. These changes may have acquired significance in their own right, and this significance shall be recognized and respected. C. Distinctive stylistic features or examples of skilled craftsmanship shall be treated with sensitivity. f. Deteriorated architectural features shall be repaired rather than replaced, wherever possible_ In the event replacement is necessary, the new material should match the material being replaced in composition, design, color,texture and other visual qualities. Repair or replacement of missing architectural features should be based on accurate duplication of features, substantiated by historic,physical, or pictorial evidence rather than on conjectural designs or the availability of different architectural elements.from other buildings or structures. g. The surface cleaning of structures shall be undertaken with the gentlest means possible. Sandblasting and other cleaning methods that will damage the historic building materials shall not be undertaken. Pasco Historic Preservation Commission By-Laws Page 12 of 24 SECTION III - Design Review & Certificate of Appropriateness Adopted XX/XX/2014 h. Every reasonable effort shall be made to protect and preserve archeological resources affected by, or adjacent to, any project. i. Contemporary design for alterations and additions to existing properties shall not be discouraged when such alterations and additions do not destroy significant historical, architectural or cultural material, and such design is compatible with the size, scale, color, material, and character of the property, neighborhood, or environment. j. Wherever possible,new additions or alterations to structures shall be done in such a manner that if such additions or alterations were to be removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the structure would be unimpaired. The Certificate of Appropriateness is approved by the HPC as required under powers granted it by the Historic Preservation Ordinance of the City of Pasco (PMC 27.070.040). A. PROCEDURES FOR CONDUCTING MEETINGS 1. Pre-meeting a. Applicant/Designated Agent An applicant wishing to make such changes; i. Applies to the Building Inspector according to usual procedure. ii. Applies to the HPC staff for a review of proposed changes on a City of Pasco Register of Historic Places property or within a historic district. iii. May meet with HPC or staff to review design guidelines. iv. Submits application for design review at least one (1)week before a regularly scheduled meeting. b. Building Inspector: i. Report to the HPC staff on any application for a permit to work or a designated City of Pasco Register of Historic Places property or a property within a designated City of Pasco Historic District. ii. Continues processing the permit. iii. Works with the HPC staff in considering fire and building codes. iv. Does not issue permits until the HPC recommendations are received. C. Staff i. Notify the applicant of the Commission review requirements. ii. May meet with the applicant to transmit design guidelines and information on necessary documentation and completion of the application farm. iii. After the form is submitted, review it for completeness. iv. If the form is complete, place the case on the agenda for the next regularly scheduled meeting. V. Make arrangements, if necessary, for the HPC to visit the property. This may include interior visitation. Vi. Review the modifications and prepare a report for the Commission. d. City of Pasco Historic Preservation Commission: i. Review application and staff report. ii. May visit the property. Pasco Historic Preservation Commission By-Laws Page 13 of 24 SECTION III - Design Review& Certificate of Appropriateness Adopted XX/XX/2014 e. Meeting: i. Design review will occur at regularly scheduled meetings. Design review applications will be considered in the order in which the Commission received them. ii. The regular order of business for consideration of design review applications shall be as follows: (1) The Chair will open the hearing and staff shall offer a preliminary statement concerning the application. (2) The applicant or the designated agent of the applicant presents statements in favor of the application including relevant pictures, models, etc. (3) Statements in opposition to the application. (4) Comments by interested persons, organizations or legal entities. (5) Rebuttal by all concerned parties. (6) Staff comments. (7) Summary of above by Chair or designated person and closing the hearing. (8) Deliberation by Commission. During the course of the hearing, the above procedure may be temporarily modified by the concurrence of all parties and the HPC. iii. As part of this deliberation, the HPC shall review the proposed work, using information from the site visit and application materials, comparing this information with the design review criteria established in Rules. The design review criteria for the City of Pasco shall be those as outlined in The Secretarof the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings. (1) If the alterations meet the Standards, a Certificate of Appropriateness is issued. (2) If the alterations fail to meet the Standards,the Certificate of Appropriateness not issued, the HPC notifies the Building Inspector that the recommendation is against the issuing of the permit. (3) If the alterations would meet the Standards with modification, the Certificate of Appropriateness is issued with Conditions of Issuance. 2. Post Meeting a. Owner/Designated Agent: The owner/designated agent has the following options: i. If the owner agrees in writing to comply with the HPC's recommendations and Conditions or Issuance, s(he)receives a Certificate of Appropriateness. Pasco Historic Preservation Commission By-Laws Page 14 of 24 SECTION III - Design Review & Certificate of Appropriateness Adopted XX/XX/2014 ii. If the owner disagrees with the recommendation, s(he) can drop the case and reapply with modifications. The applicant should be encouraged to reapply to the Commission with modified plans. iii. The owner may appeal the decision of the HPC to the Pasco City Council (PMC 27.110.010). iv. The owner may request removal of a property not part of a local district from the City of Pasco Register of Historic Places; however a building permit is still required through the Building Inspector. b. Staff: i. Issue the commission's recommendation as a finding of fact, clearly stating the intended modifications and how they meet or fail to meet the Secretary of the Interior's Standards. ii. Within a week of the meeting notify the owner/designated agent in writing of the Commission's decision. ill. Get the owner/designated agent's signature on the Certificate of Appropriateness. iv. Within thirty(30)days of the receipt of the complete application, forward the Commission's recommendation,the Certificate of Appropriateness (if issued) and any Conditions of Issuance to the Building Inspector. C. Building Inspector: After receiving the Certificate of Appropriateness (if issued) and any Conditions of Issuance from the HPC staff, the Building Inspector may: i. Issue the permit. ii. Notify the HPC of the permit issuance. B. APPLICATION STANDARDS Documentation is required for alterations to or demolition of a property on the City of Pasco Register of Historic Places(RHP)or for new construction within a district on the Register. Required documentation shall minimally include all the materials identified illustrating: 1. Existing conditions. 2. Proposed alterations. 3. Affect on historic properties (impact). At least one (1) copy of the documents detailed below must be submitted with the application. These will remain on file with the HPC. All drawings, mean plans and elevations must be drawn to scale or have the measurements included and be signed by the architect or draftsman. For phased projects, one(1) copy of all required documentation shall be submitted for each phase of the project. 1. Alterations: Pasco Historic Preservation Commission By-Laws Page 15 of 24 SECTION III - Design Review &. Certificate of Appropriateness Adopted XX/XX/2014 a. Existing conditions i. A copy of the City of Pasco Register of Historic Places nomination. ii. Photographs must be clearly labeled to identify case, locations, subjects and the direction the photograph was taken. Necessary photographs include: (1) Building on lot, including elevations and facades that are to be altered. b. Proposed alterations i. On the Certificate of Appropriateness precise written statement describing work on City of Pasco Register of Historic Places property. ii. Working drawings, where applicable. iii. For rehabilitation or restoration work,historic photographs (if available) and statement of physical or documentary evidence for proposed changes particularly if replacement is proposed. iv. Materials, samples and additional photographs may be required by the HPC. V. Descriptions of proposed signs, re-roofing plans, fences, parking lots and landscaping changes. vi. Other information as required. C. Impact Show how proposed alterations would affect historic elements listed in the property nomination form. d. The Secretary of the Interior has established Standards for Rehabilitation to be considered during the Design Review process. When necessary, refer to these Standards to guide in the design review criteria. (See Section Ill, a j of this document). Many features define the historic character of a property or district. Cladding whether of wood or masonry; style, composition and decorative features of the roof; the presence of architectural metals; window number, arrangements and styles; entrances and porches; storefronts on commercial buildings; internal arrangement and detailing; and the historic relationship between buildings, landscape features and open space, as well as many other materials and features can contribute to a property's character. After identifying the distinguishing historic characteristic of a property subject to the Design Review process, retention and preservation of those features and materials is the primary goal of the Design Review effort. This is accomplished through the review process individual to each property. However, there are preferred options, specified by the Secretary of the Interior, common to each property. i. Protecting and Maintaining ii. Repairs Pasco Historic Preservation Commission By-Laws Page 16 of 24 SECTION III - Design Review & Certificate of Appropriateness Adopted XX/XX/2014 Repairs may include patching, splicing,piecing in, or reinforcing present materials and features(including upgrading individual elements of feature), following recognized preservation methods. If there are seriously deteriorated or missing elements along with surviving models or prototypes, repairs may also include limited in kind replacement or replacement with a compatible substitute material if the original material is not economically feasible. In repairing, duplication of the appearance, strength, composition, color and texture is sought. For example, in repainting masonry, care should be taken to replicate the size and shape of the mortar joint and the color of the mortar. For repairing stucco, the damaged material should be removed and the stucco matched in strength, composition, color and texture. iii. Replacing If an entire feature is too deteriorated to repair, but the overall form and detailing are still evident, the feature should be replaced. The replacement should attempt to replicate the original,using the physical evidence to guide the new work. If using the exact material is not technically or economically feasible a compatible substitute material may be considered. The substituted material should offer the same, or greater, structural support. iv. Design for Missing Historic Features Due to its complex technical and/or design implications, this option should only be considered after the other possibilities have been explored. It entails designing and installing a copy when the historic feature or model is physically missing. A restoration using historical descriptions,pictorial representations, and/or physical documentation may be attempted, or a new design, compatible in size, scale, material and color may be substituted. V. Alterations and Additions New additions to historic buildings should be a last resort and should be placed to minimize loss,damage or the obscuring of character defining features. Both internal and external alterations should be as inconspicuous as possible from public rights-of-way and from main interior spaces. Such new features should be compatible with overall building design in terms of size, scale, material and color, but should not try to duplicate existing historical features. Excavations adjacent to historic foundations should be limited to avoid damage to those foundations or to any archeological deposits that may be nearby. Pasco Historic Preservation Commission By-Laws Page 17 of 24 SECTION III - Design Review& Certificate of Appropriateness Adopted XX/XX/2014 Alterations for health and safety codes or for energy retrofitting should be done so that the historic building's character defining spaces, features, etc.,will not be impacted. 2. New Construction: New construction refers to building within a local historic district listed on the City of Pasco Register of Historic Places. A Certificate of Appropriateness(COA) is required. a. Existing conditions i. Site plan or measured drawing indicating the following: (1) Existing adjacent buildings. (2) Property lines and utilities. (3) Right of ways. (4) Building setbacks and allowed side yards. (5) Existing planting materials and size. ii. Photographs must be clearly labeled to identify case, location subjects and the direction the photograph was taken. Photographs of structures adjoining the property, as well as those across the street and/or alley are necessary(streetscapes). iii. Other information as required. b. Proposed construction: A precise written statement describing proposed work is required. This is to be included on a HPC Certificate of Appropriateness application form. A site plan including that information specified above shall be included as well as: i. The proposed buildings outline with dimensions relative to property lines and existing buildings adjacent to the property. ii. New parking areas, driveways,utilities, etc. iii. Any proposed planting and landscaping, sidewalks, and patios, mechanical equipment and other appurtenances such as walls, gates and accessory buildings. iv. Other information as required. 3. Demolition: a. A Copy of the nomination of the property to the City of Pasco Register of Historic Places. b. Description of structural integrity. C. Reason or justification for demolition(should include statements of why the property is not salvageable or why it cannot be maintained). d. Any planned new construction. e. Photographs of all sides of structure and the interior. f. Any additional documentation required by the Commission. Pasco Historic Preservation Commission By-Laws Page 18 of 24 SECTION III -Design Review & Certificate of Appropriateness Adopted XX/XX/2014 SECTION IV: PROCESS FOR THE FORMATION OF LOCAL HISTORIC DISTRICTS These rules establish the process for the formation of a local historic district, as set forth in the City of City of Pasco Municipal Code (PMC) 27.075.020(3&4). A local historic district is a definable district that represents one or more periods of architecture and that is designated by a local ordinance that falls under the jurisdiction of a local historic preservation review commission. It deals only with the appearance of the properties in the district, not with the use of those properties A local district protects the significant properties and the historic character of the district There shall be an open public meeting to hear the completed nomination of the local historic district. At this meeting, the public shall have the opportunity to speak for or against the formation of the district. After public input, the City of Pasco Historic Preservation Commission shall make a final decision regarding the formation of the local historic district. A. EDUCATION 1. A minimum of two (2) public meetings shall be held. a. Parcel owners in the affected area shall receive written notification of these meeting by U. S. Postal Service, 2. Further public education is desirable. a. Flyers and/or brochures. b. Newspaper articles. 3. An informational packet shall be given to parcel owners. a. Period of significance. b. Design standards. c. Benefits to the parcel owner. B. BOUNDARIES 1. Boundaries shall be stated using street names and map directions. 2. A map of local historic districts shall be posted and available in three (3)public places. a. Map will show boundaries, including alleys, as well as parcels. C. VOTING 1. Ballots shall be sent to all property owners. If multiple parcels are owned, a corresponding number of ballots shall be sent. 2. Ballots shall be shall be mailed to parcel owners with self-addressed stamped,returned envelope enclosed. A positive vote indicates that parcel owner is FOR formation of the district. 3. In order for a district to be formed, there must be a 51% majority. 4. If a property owner owns more than one (1)parcel, s(he) is entitled to one(1) vote per parcel owned. In the case of multiple names appearing on the deed, one (1) signature of an authorized person will be sufficient. 5. Deadline for return of ballots shall be clearly and prominently placed on the ballot. Pasco Historic Preservation Commission By-Laws Page 19 of 24 SECTION IV- Formation of Local Districts Adopted XX/XX/2014 6. Ballots not returned shall be regarded as IMPLIED CONSENT and shall be tallied as in favor of the formation of the local historic district.Implied consent means consent that is inferred by inaction or silence. The consequence of a non-returned ballot shall be clearly stated and prominently displayed on the face of the ballot stating that the ballot shall be counted as a favorable vote. 7. Notification of the vote's outcome shall be mailed to the parcel owners in a timely manner. A legal notice shall also be placed in a local newspaper. 8. A majority vote shall be submitted to the City of Pasco Council for their approval. D. OBLIGATIONS AND BENEFITS 1. Exterior work on ALL properties within the local historic district is subject to a Certificate of Appropriateness(COA), as per PMC 27.076.030. 2. As long as City of Pasco remains a CLG, contributing homes shall be eligible for special tax valuation consideration. a. Special tax valuation requirements are set forth in PMC 27.080, Pasco Historic Preservation Commission By-Laws Page 20 of 24 SECTION IV - Formation of Local Districts Adopted XX/XX/2014 SECTION V: SPECIAL VALUATION REVIEW— CITY OF PASCO REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES In 1985, the Washington State Legislature passed a "special valuation"law which makes it possible for Certified Local Governments (CLGs),for a ten (10)year period, to ensure that property taxes will not reflect substantial improvements made to certain classes ofproperties as identified by the CLG. The CLG may amend the criteria for eligibility, however, if made more restrictive these do not become effective for two (2)years following October l of the year they were enacted. This means that owners of certain types of historic properties have the potential to realize substantial tax savings. Only properties on the City of Pasco Register of Historic Places or certified as contributing to a City of Pasco Register Historic District are eligible for special valuation. A. PROCEDURES FOR CONDUCTING MEETINGS 1. Pre-Meeting a. Applicant or Designated Agent: At least one(1)month prior to the meeting, the applicant must: i. Consult with the City of Pasco Historic Preservation Conunission (HPC) staff prior to beginning rehabilitation work. ii. Submit the application to the County Assessor on a Department of Revenue form no later than 24 months after initiating work. The application must be submitted before October 1 for action before December 31 of that year. iii. Monitor construction work to ensure that it conforms to the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation (Standards)(See Section,111, a j of this document). iv. Maintain accurate records of projects costs and dates. b. County Assessor: i. Reviews the application for completeness. ii. Verifies the legal owner and legal description. iii. Submits the application to the HPC within ten (10)working days of receipt of the completed application. c. Staff: i. Places the case on the agenda for the next regularly scheduled meeting as long as there is at least thirty(30) days review period before that meeting. If there is not thirty (30) days,the case will be scheduled for the next month's regularly scheduled meeting. ii. Reviews the case and may prepare a report for the Commission. iii. If necessary, arranges a property visitation with the owner for the Commission. d. City of Pasco Historic Preservation Commission: i. Reviews the application and the staff report. ii. If necessary, visits the property. 2. Meeting Pasco Historic Preservation Commission By-Laws Page 21 of 24 SECTION V- Special Valuation Adopted XX/XX/2014 Special valuation review will occur at regularly scheduled City of Pasco Historic Commission meetings. The Special Valuation cases shall be considered in the order the staff receives therm. a. The regular order of business for consideration of Special Valuation applications shall be as follows; i. The Chair will open the hearing and staff shall offer a preliminary statement concerning the application. ii. The applicant or the designated agent of the applicant presents statements in favor of the application including relevant pictures, models, etc. iii. Questions by Commissioners. iv. Statements in opposition to the application. v. Comments by City of City of Pasco Planning Department, interested persons, organizations, or legal entities. vi. Rebuttal by all concerned parties. vii. Staff comments. viii. Summary of above by Chair or designated person and closing the hearing. ix. Deliberation by Commission. During the course of the meeting,the above procedure may be temporarily modified by the concurrence of all parties and the HPC. b. City of Pasco Historic Preservation Commission determines if: i. The property is on the City of Pasco Register of Historic Places or certified as contributing to a City of Pasco Register of Historic Districts. ii. The work was done within 24 months prior to the application date. The applicant must submit evidence to this effect. iii. The work complies with the Standards by not adversely affecting those elements that contribute to the property's significance. iv. The "qualified rehabilitation expenditures" constitute at least 25 percent(25%) of the assessed value of the property prior to the rehabilitation. c. If all the conditions are satisfied, the HPC votes on the recommendation. 3. Post Meeting a. Staff/Commission Chair: i. Notifies the owner in writing within a week of the meeting of the Commissions recommendation. ii. If the property is ineligible, advise the applicant of the reasons for the denial and inform him/her of the appeals process. iii. If the applicant signs the terms of agreement and the Commission approves the application, transmits the application and agreement to the County Assessor's office for recording. iv. Monitors, at least once a year during the special valuation 14-year period, the owner's compliance with the terms of the agreement. Pasco Historic Preservation Commission By-Laws Page 22 of 24 SECTION V- Special Valuation Adopted XX/XX/2014 v. If the owner fails to comply with the terms of the agreement or, because of the rehabilitation the property loses historic value to such an extent that it is no longer deemed appropriate for inclusion to the City of Pasco Register of Historic Places by a majority of the HPC members,notify the owner and the assessor of the disqualification. B. APPEALS OR RESUBMISSION 1. A negative recommendation or a non-acceptance of an application by the HPC is not irrevocable. If new information becomes available or if the applicant wishes,the application may be resubmitted with HPC approval to the HPC. In such a case, the entire procedure must be repeated. 2. If the applicant disagrees with the Commission's recommendation,the applicant may present the case directly to City Council. In such a case,documentation shall be limited to that nomination material presented during the HPC public meeting and the minutes of that meeting. C. APPLICATION STANDARDS Documentation shall include, at a minimum, all identified materials illustrating: That the property is eligible for Special Valuation status; when the work occurred; whether special valuation financial requirements have been fulfilled; and whether the work complies with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation. (See Section III, a j of this document). To properly document each of these divisions, at least one(1) copy of the following documents must be submitted with the application. These will remain on file with the HPC. For phased development plans,the complete process as detailed in rules and regulations must be followed and documentation submitted for each phase.All drawings, mean plans and elevations must be drawn to scale or have the measurement included and be signed by the architect or draftsman. For phased projects, complete documentation must be submitted for every phase of the prof ect. 1. Eligibility. A copy of the nomination form to the City of Pasco Register of Historic Places clearly indicating when the property was listed on the City of Pasco Register of Historic Places. 2. When the work occurred. a. A notarized affidavit of completion of rehabilitation work within 24 months of the date of application. 3. Special valuation financial requirements required documentation. a. Notarized affidavit attesting to the actual costs of the rehabilitation work. b. The most recent Franklin County Assessor's assessment of the value of the rehabilitated structure. Pasco Historic Preservation Commission By-Laws Page 23 of 24 SECTION V - Special Valuation Adopted XX/XX/2014 4. Compliance with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards (See Section III, a j of this document). To assure that the applicant has complied with the standards, the following materials are necessary: 1. Precise written statement describing the completed rehabilitation work on the City of Pasco Historic Preservation Commission's application form. 2. A copy of the Design Review application and accompanying documentation, Certificate of Appropriateness for the rehabilitation work from the City of Pasco Historic Preservation Commission, and a copy of the terms of agreement as specified under the Special Valuation rules and procedures. 3. Materials as specified in Application Standards for Design Review illustrating conditions prior to construction (existing conditions), and proposed alterations. 4. The City of Pasco Historic Preservation Commission may require samples of utilized materials. S. Other information as required. D. CRITERIA The criteria to be followed in the Special Valuation process is the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation as established in the Federal Code Regulations (36 CFR 67) (See Section X, a j of this document). For the Special Valuation process no new construction is eligible. Pasco Historic Preservation Commission By-Laws Page 24 of 24 SECTION V- Special Valuation Adopted XX/XX/2014 REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION MASTER FILE NO: SP2014-007 APPLICANT: Torn Kidwell HEARING DATE: 8/21/ 14 2400 W Court St ASTION DATE: 9/ 18/ 14 Pasco, WA 99301 BACKGROUND REQUEST: SPECIAL PERMIT: Location of a Farm in an R-T Zone west of Broadmoor Blvd north of 1-182. 1. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: Legal: All of Section 7, Township 9 North, Range 29 East, WM except that portion deeded to the State of Washington for 1-182 and except all of that portion lying southerly of 1-182 excluding the east 748.97 feet thereof all contained in Parcel # 115-210-022 General Location: The site is located at the southwest corner of Broadmoor Boulevard and Burns Road. Property Size: Approximately 150 acres of Parcel # 115-210- 022 will be utilized for the farm. The total site contains 560 acres. 2. ACCESS: The site has access from Broadmoor Blvd and Burns Rd, 3, UTILITIES: Municipal water is located in Burns Rd. and Broadmoor Blvd. Other utilities are also nearby. 4. LAND USE AND ZONING: The site is zoned R-T (Residential Transition) and is vacant land. Surrounding zoning and land use is as follows: NORTH: AP (County) - Farming SOUTH: RT - Vacant EAST: R-4 & R-1 - Single 8s Multi-Family Res. WEST: RT - Central Pre-Mix 8s a Farm 5. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The Comprehensive Plan designates portions of the overall parcel near the I-182 interchange for commercial development with mixed residential and low density residential extending to the north and west. The portion of the parcel to be used for farming is located in an area set aside for future low density residential use. Policy LU-3-F encourages the use of irrigation water in residential districts and Policy OF-3-B that calls for the continued expansion of the water system. 6. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The City of Pasco is the lead agency for this project. Based on the SEPA checklist, the adopted City Comprehensive Plan, City development regulations, and other information, a threshold determination resulting in a Determination of Non-Significance (DNS) has been issued for this project under WAC 197-11-158. ANALYSIS The City owns and operates an irrigation water system serving properties within the Pasco Urban Area using ground water and associated water rights obtained through urbanization mainly in the northwest quadrant of the City. The City is interested in increasing the amount of water rights that may be perfected by putting the water associated with those rights to a beneficial use. The applicant has previously entered into a "Water Use Agreement" to purchase City irrigation water for a two year period to effectuate the water perfection process on about 315 acres of farm land within the City Limits. Under the current application the applicant is proposing to develop an additional 150 acres for farming and purchase City irrigation water to perfect waters rights for the community. The proposal involves grading the northeast corner of Parcel # 115-210- 022 and installing an irrigation pivot to provide water to a field. The field will be used primarily for the production of alfalfa. The irrigation heads on the circle will be low pressure drops designed to minimize drifting and over spraying of water. To cover the cost of installing the farm field and equipment the applicant is seeking a permit for a minimum of five years. Recognizing the importance of agricultural production to the community as a whole the City Council specifically established all farm fields within the City as of 1990 lawfully established non-conforming uses. (Ordinance # 2780). In 1990 agricultural uses were also added as an unclassified use in the zoning regulations and as such require review thorough the special permit process when they are to be within 1,000 feet of a dwelling or residential subdivision. In 1999 commercial agricultural uses were added as a conditional use (special permit required) in the R-T zone. In the early 1990's much of the I-182 corridor area was put into agricultural production with farming operations still occurring between new subdivisions. These farms made productive use of the land and played an important role in preserving water rights for the community. 2 Farming is ubiquitous in the general vicinity around the applicant's site. The Harris farm is located to the south. The Wilson farm is located to the west and several large farm fields are located to the north, northeast and northwest. The property is currently zoned R-T (Residential Transition). The R-T zone is applied to those properties in the city that are essentially undeveloped but generally intended for suburban or urban residential uses (PMC 25.20.010). As utility extensions are made and residential development expands, vacant lands mainly designated for low density residential uses in the Comprehensive Plan are then transitioned through the rezone process from the holding status under the R-T District to a suburban district such as R-S-1, or to the R-1 low density residential district. Farming is an interim use that can be easily converted to intended uses when utilities become available. Recent growth in Pasco is a good example of how the conversion process takes place. Most of the development in the I-182 corridor over the last ten years has occurred on lands that were formally zoned R-T and contained farms. The farms have not restricted the implementation of the Comprehensive Plan nor has the development of housing restricted to any great extent, continued farming activities. In reviewing this proposal staff has identified a couple of issues for consideration by the Planning Commission. These issues include dust control and noise from farm equipment. During grading and farm tilling operations fugitive dust could potentially impact adjacent lands if not properly monitored and controlled. Because of the very sandy nature of the soil on the site the unirrigated corners outside the farm circle could be a problem for blowing dust. Following a conservation plan calling for the rotation of high residue crops along with the planting of cover crops will go a long way toward addressing the dust concern. Special treatment of the corners may be needed to ensure dust and sand does not blow across Broadmoor Boulevard. Additionally the applicant is proposing to primarily grow alfalfa which will provide a constant ground cover. often commercial agricultural activities occur at odd hours which could potentially impact adjacent residences. Staff suggests the applicant be required to submit a complaint monitoring plan to help alleviate these impacts. At minimum, the plan should include potential hours of 3 operation, a contact person where complaints can be submitted and a preliminary plan outlining how noise complaints will be addressed. In 2006 the owner of the property in question applied for a special permit to allow farming on about 320 acres. The proposal involved mass grading and installing three and a half farm circles. Due to concerns over the time frame for the special permit the application was eventually denied. INTIAL STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT Findings of fact must be entered from the record. The following are initial findings drawn from the background and analysis section of the staff report. The Planning Commission may add additional findings to this listing as the result of factual testimony and evidence submitted during the open record hearing. 1. The site is located zoned R-T. 2. The Comprehensive Plan identifies the site for future single family, development. 3. The site is not designated as a critical area. 4. R-T zoning is a holding zone that preserves land for future intended uses, principally residential uses. 5. Commercial agricultural (farms) are listed as conditional uses in the R-T zone and require approval through the special permit process. 6. The site is in the Pasco Urban Growth Boundary. 7. The overall parcel contains 564 acres. The proposed farm will occupy 150 acres in the northeast corner of the parcel. 8. Most of the site is vacant. 9. Approximately 20 acres of the overall parcel is currently being farmed. 10. All-terrain vehicles (four wheelers, dirt bikes, etc) have used the site for many years for off-road recreation activities. 11. Farms are located directly to the north, northeast and northwest, of the site. 12. Approximately 500 acres of farm land is located near the site. 13. The Central Pre-Mix gravel pit and concrete facility is located to the west of the site. 4 14. In the mid 1990's approximately 2,400 acres of farm land was located in the 1-182 Corridor. 15. In the 1990's, almost without exception, the farms in the I-182 corridor were located on R-T zoned land. 16. Farming occurs today in the 1-182 Corridor on land that has been zoned C-1, R-1, R-T and R-S-1/PUT). 17. Desert Plateau, Broadmoor Estates, Wilson Meadows, Rivershore Estates, Heritage Village and other residential subdivisions in the 1-182 Corridor are located adjacent to active farms. 18. Broadmoor Estates and Mediterranean Villas are both located to the east across Booadmoor Blvd from the proposed farm site. 19. Pursuant to PMC 25.86.035(1), requires the applicant to submit a conservation plan approved by the Farm Service Agency. 20. The operation of a farm on the site will facilitate the perfection of water rights that are needed in the community. TEN'T'ATIVE CONCLUSIONS BASED ON INTIAL 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 conclusion based upon the criteria listed in P.M.C. 25.86.060. The criteria are as follows: 1) Will the proposed use be in accordance with the goals, policies, objectives and text of the Comprehensive Plan? The Comprehensive Plan designates the proposed farm site for low density residential development. The proposal is an interim use that will preserve the site for uses designated in the Comprehensive Plan, The proposal also supports Policy LU-3-F that encourages the use of irrigation water in residential districts and Policy UF-3 B that calls for the continued expansion of the water system. The proposal will preserve water rights for the Pasco Community. 2) Will the proposed use adversely affect public infrastructure? The proposed farm will have no adverse impact on public infrastructure. A farm is not dependant upon City utilities or infrastructure like residential and commercial development. Long term, the proposal will significantly benefit public infrastructure 5 namely the municipal irrigation system. The proposal will secure scarce water rights for the community. 3) Will the proposed use be constructed, maintained and operated to be in harmony with existing or intended character of the general vicinity? The proposed use will be in harmony with the farms surrounding the site. The location of other farms within the I--182 Corridor have demonstrated that farms within close proximity to dwellings can be operated harmoniously with intended uses. Farms operated simultaneous with the development of Island Estates, Sunny Meadows, The Village of Pasco heights and urith, other residential developments in the I-182 Corridor. The proposed use will not make intensive use of the land or lead to the disorderly growth of the community or in any way inhibit development of future intended uses as demonstrated by residential and commercial development within the 1-182 Corridor on farm land. The proposed farm is not an industrial use or intensive commercial use but is an interim use that will easily convert to uses as outlined in the Comprehensive Plan. 41 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? There will be no structures erected with this proposal other than a pivot irrigation system. Development over the last 20 years within the I--182 Corridor attests to the fact that farming operations do not discourage the development of permitted uses or impair the value of nearby development. Broadm.00r Estates was developed adjacent to an existing farm. Farms are currently interspersed with residential development throughout the I--182 Corridor and the West Pasco area as explained in # 3 above. s) Will the operations in connection with the proposal be more objectionable to nearby properties by reason of noise, fumes vibrations, dust, traffic, or flashing lights than would be the operation of any permitted uses within the district? The proposed use will not create more traffic, flashing lights, fumes, noise or vibrations, than future permitted commercial and multi family uses. Current farming operations within the I-182 Corridor attest to the fact that such activity is not more objectionable to property owners by reason of traffic, flashing lights and etc.. Dust and noise from farming operations have the potential to create objectionable conditions for neighboring properties. A farm 6 conservation plan and a noise complaint plan may be needed to address this concern. 60 Will the proposed use endanger the public health or safety if located and developed where proposed, or in anyway will become a nuisance to uses permitted in the district? The overall parcel on which the farm site is located is zoned RT. The only uses on the overall parcel include the Central Pre-Mix pit and the Wilson farm.. The proposed use will not impact the gravel mining operation. The proposed farm will be compatible with the existing farm on the overall parcel. The proposed farm will make less intense use of the land than uses identified in the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed farm is only an interim use that will not impede the development of future uses nor will it become a nuisance to future permitted uses. The existence of numerous farming operations within the 1 182 Corridor demonstrate the proposed use will not become a nuisance to permitted uses nor will it endanger public health and safety. A farm conservation plan and a noise complaint plan may be needed as a precaution to address any possible nuisance concerns. The corners outside the farm circle could become a nuisance is not properly treated to prevent blowing sand and dust. TENTATIVE APPROVAL CONDITIONS 1. The special permit shall apply to Parcel No. 115-210-022. 2. Prior to beginning farming operations on the site the applicant must submit a conservation plan approved by the Farm Service Agency; 3. Prior to beginning farming operations on the site, the applicant must submit a complaint monitoring plan to help alleviate the impact of noise. At a minimum, the plan must include potential hours of operation, a contact person and a telephone number where complaints can be submitted and an outline of how noise complaints will be addressed; 4. The corners outside the farm circle must be treated with a straw mulch, other organic materials and or a combination of a ground cover and irrigation to prevent blowing dust and drifting sand from leaving the property; 7 5. The farm crop shall primarily be alfalfa. b. The special permit expires on October 1, 2019, RECOMMENDATION MOTION: I move to close the hearing on the proposed special Permit and initiate deliberations and schedule adoption of findings of fact, conclusions and a recommendation to the City Council for the September 18, 2014 meeting. 8 Item: Farming in an RT Zone Vicinily Applicant: Tom Kidwell N Map File - : SP 2014-00 '� ,.r^ - 1Ri �'�����qql���� i•iyi l'�.au � , fir I�1s'• ��iY'iI�li�.g�jJEloi,7i �� �� ��il�li'.if��■ • W mi�o � ��� �Bp a ��i LORI IS :� - '�� , '� �, ��till�ll 6�Itirrj,�}�'�';��Iliflt�sillide:� �As��iieilltcllC�llllElli�� r--' � w r rt,rr:r ;it11ti1ftiE � � it�r;iii.ei!1 "" r. 'p-i� ilalLsdf�iiliiri�i!'►������Iiilii4iitlitil� iiliiiiillf��� Y 11 1`>r Land Item: Farming 'in an RT Zone Use Applicant: +1 Farming Map File # : SP 2014-007 A W Farming ■■■■■■■■■��ia�. ■■■■■ ��iiu�mi�miq/ 1gZpRReannmf��n ■�an��nm��n�u���1 J ■, r i MO of IIIIII • • • �I11� C rumuun�r���m �uumu+uu� wuuuua�� , ■ E ■. MEME NMI t I Zonin Item: Farmi g in an RT Zone 9 Applicant: i Q; Map File 2014-007 ���junuuune���f,���, nun�uu��u��u�1q� ■� If11I1111111�`��� � (jlllllllll`�1�! �: Illlillllll .uu�unu�umu�►11'1�///� rumn��u+t� ■ �r�■ ■■ ■ ■ RMT (County) all Oil Fr R=T SITE ■ �t■1 OFF Looking North Looking East Looking South + r r�. � - ."L 1 REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION MASTER FILE NO: SP 2014-008 APPLICANT: James Pickens HEARING DATE: 8/21/2014 2907 W ELLA ST ACTION DATE: 9/ 18/2014 Pasco, WA 99301 BACKGROUND REQUEST: SPECIAL PERMIT: Detached garage height increase in an RS 12 (Suburban) Zone 1. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: Lejgal: A Portion of the south 1/2 of the northeast 1/4 of the northeast 1/4 of the southwest 1/4 of Section 24, Township 9, Range 29, commencing at the southeast corner of said south 1/2 section; thence northwest 89° 56' along the south boundary of said south 1/2 section 328.23' to the true point of beginning; thence continuing northwest 89° 56' along said south boundary 201'; thence northeast 2° parallel with the west boundary of said south 1/2 section 165.1'; thence southeast 89' 56' parallel to said south boundary 201'; thence southwest 2° parallel with said west boundary 165.1' to the point of beginning, subject to easements for road along south 10 feet thereof. General Location: 2907 W Ella Street Property Size: The parcel is approximately 0.75 acres. 2. ACCESS: The site is accessible from W. Ella Street. 3. UTILITIES: Municipal utilities currently serve the site. 4. LAND USE AND ZONING: The site is currently zoned RS-12 (Suburban) and contains a single family residence. Surrounding properties are zoned and developed as follows: NORTH: RS-12 - Single-Family Residence/Church SOUTH: RS-12 Single-Family Residence EAST: RS-12 - Single-Family Residence WEST: RS-12 - Single-Family Residence 5. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The Comprehensive Plan designates the site for Low-Density Residential uses. Housing Policy (H-4-A) encourages standards that control the scale and density of accessory buildings and homes to maintain compatibility within neighborhoods. I 6. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The City of Pasco is the lead agency for this project. Based on the SEPA checklist, the adopted City Comprehensive Plan, City development regulations, and other information, a threshold determination resulting in a Determination of Non-Significance (DNS) has been issued for this project under WAC 197- 11-158. ANALYSIS The applicant recently purchased a large pre-engineered steel building for a garage to be located in his rear yard at 2907 W. Ella Street in an RS-12 zoning district. After purchasing the building the applicant's contractor contacted the city about the permit process for the construction of the 2,000 square foot, 24 foot tall (to the peak of the roof) building. The contractor was informed a permit could not be issued for the building due to the size and height of the building. Detached residential garages are permitted accessory uses in the RS-12 zoning district provided they do not exceed 18 feet in height and are no larger than 1,200 square feet in size. The zoning code (PMC 25.24.030) does not permit shops or detached garages to be larger than the principle structure on a residential lot, nor are they to be taller than the principle structure. The code was amended in 2013 to provide a specific relief remedy to permit taller garages/shops in the RS-20 and RS-12 zoning districts through the special permit review process. The special permit process requires a garage height increase to be reviewed under the standard special permit review criteria (PMC 25.86.060) plus the supplemental criteria (PMC 25.86.065) as discussed below. There is no relief remedy for increasing the size of a detached garage in the RS-20 or RS-12 districts. Although there is no special permit option for increasing the area of a garage in an RS-12 district the code does permit a 260-foot increase in size for every additional 12,000 square feet of lot area. In this case the lot is 33,165 square feet which would permit a 1,460 square foot garage/shop. Unfortunately the applicant's house is only 1,200 square feet and therefore his garage cannot be any larger than 1,200 square feet. The matter is further complicated by the fact that there are already four accessory buildings on the lot totaling over 1,200 square feet. The existing shop and sheds will have to be removed and the proposed garage will need to be reduced in size to or below 1,200 square feet to meet the threshold requirement for a permit based on building size. The applicant has proposed building an "L" shaped garage with an open carport to be in compliance with the area limitations. The proposal is analogous to a house with a covered patio. Many homes will have a roof structure covering a patio and although the patio cover is attached to the house the covered patio area is not included as additional square footage for the house. The applicant is requesting a permit to exceed the 18-foot limitation by one foot and the limitation due to the height of his house by six feet for a structure height of 19 feet as measured at the mid-roof level_ The peak of the structure is proposed to be approximately 24 feet tall as measured from the top of the roof 2 to the finished grade. The maximum height for houses within the neighborhood is 25 feet. However, most of the houses in the neighborhood are single-story. It is important to remember that structure heights are measured at the mid-point of the roof which is half way between the roof eve and the roof peak. The garage is proposed to be located to the north (behind) the applicant's house in a location that is about 2 feet higher in elevation than W. Ella Street_ With only minimal grading, the elevation difference could exacerbate the height of the garage rather than attenuate the height. The size of the lot and the relatively large distances from houses and buildings on adjoining lots may help reduce the impact of the proposed garage on neighboring properties. The nearest house to the east of the proposed garage is just over 100 feet away; the house to the west is separated by about 85 feet and the house the northwest is about 110 feet away. There are no houses directly to the north of the proposed garage, only the overflow parking lot of a church and the backyard of another lot. Part of the special permit review process for granting additional height to garages/shops includes consideration for whether or not the proposed garage/shop matches the principal structure in design and exterior treatments such as roofing materials, siding, color, window and door openings, eave overhangs, fenestrations and other architectural features. In this case the proposed garage is a metal framed building with metal siding. There are no exterior treatments that would cause the garage to complement the applicant's house or surrounding residential buildings. The zoning code requires accessory buildings (garages) to be compatible and similar in construction with the primary structure (house) on the lot. For metal buildings the compatibility is achieved to a degree by requiring the colors of the metal building to match the colors of the house for both the siding and the roof. Due to the height and size of the proposed garage in relation to the applicant's house and surrounding houses more than color matching will be needed to achieve assimilation with the character of the neighborhood. Without some modification such as adding eave overhangs, additional windows, wainscoting of brick or stucco and fencing or landscaping the building will be out of character with the neighborhood. Given the condition of the applicant's property the landscaping option may only provide temporary screening. The applicant has been cited at least 5 times by code enforcement for the poor condition of his yard. There is absolutely no landscaping on the lot. INITIAL STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT Findings of fact must be entered from the record. The following are initial findings drawn from the background and analysis section of the staff report. The Planning Commission may add additional findings to this listing as the result of factual testimony and evidence submitted during the open record hearing. 1. The parcel is approximately 0.75 acres in area. 3 2. The site is zoned RS-12 (Suburban). 3. Neighboring lots range in size from 'A acre to slightly under 1f2 acre. 4. The subject property was annexed into the city in 1996 (Ordinance 3140). S. The site fronts and is accessed by W. Ella Street. 6. The proposed garage will be located approximately 48 feet from W. Ella Street. 7. The applicant is requesting a permit to exceed the 18 foot limitation by one foot and the limitation due to the height of his house by six feet for a structure height of 19 feet as measured at the mid-roof level. The peak of the structure is proposed to be 24 feet tall as measured from the top of the roof to the finished grade. 8. Structure height is measured at the roof mid-point. 9. The RS-12 zone allows homes to be up to twenty-four (24) feet in height. 10. The average height of the home on-site is 13 feet. 11. Pursuant to PMC 25.22.030(1) the maximum height of detached structures in the RS-12 zone is eighteen, (18) feet. 12. Pursuant to PMC 25.22.030(1) detached shops and garages exceeding eighteen (18) feet in height may be approved by special permit. 13. The house on-site has a floor area of 1,200 square feet. 14. The applicant is requesting a permit to construct a 2,000 square foot garage. 15. Pursuant to PMC 25.70.030(3) a detached garage cannot contain more square footage than the principal building (house) on the same lot. 16. The applicant must reduce the size of his proposed garage to 1,200 square feet or less. 17. The RS-12 zone requires a minimum 10' side yard setbacks and 5' rear yard setback. 18. The nearest house to the east of the proposed garage is just over 100 feet away, the house to the west is separated by about 85 feet and the house the northwest is about 110 feet away. There are no houses directly to the north of the proposed garage; only the overflow parking lot of a church and the backyard of another lot. 19. Accessory structures in the neighborhood generally consist of small garden sheds and a few detached garages of modest size. 20. The proposed garage is a metal building that has the appearance of an industrial/commercial building rather than a residential accessory structure. 4 21. The special permit review process requires the Planning Commission to consider whether or not the garage will match the principle structure in design and exterior treatments such as roofing materials, siding, color, window and door openings, eave overhangs, fenestrations and other architectural features. 22. The special permit review process requires the Planning Commission to consider whether or not existing topography and elevation of the site and surrounding property exacerbate or attenuate the height of the proposed shop/garage. 23. The garage is proposed to be located to the north of (behind) the applicant's house in a location that is about 2 feet or more higher in elevation than W. Ella Street. 24. The special permit review process requires the Planning Commission to consider whether or not landscaping features or berms can be used to ameliorate the height of the shop/garage. 25. The property is currently devoid of landscaping except for a few old trees that are in poor condition. TENTATIVE CONCLUSIONS BASED ON INITIAL STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT Before recommending approval or denial of a special permit the Planning Commission must develop findings of fact from which to draw its conclusions based upon the criteria listed in PMC 25.86.060. The criteria are as follows: (1) Will the proposed use be in accordance with the goals, policies, objectives and text of the Comprehensive Plan? Though the Plan does not specifically address detached residential garages, Plan Policy H-4-A encourages innovative techniques in the design of residential neighborhoods to provide character and variety in the community. The availability of the special permit review process to increase shop and garage heights is a new zoning technique aimed at providing a location specific evaluation of such requests. No aspect of the application conflicts with the Comprehensive Plan. (2) Will the proposed use adversely affect public infrastructure? Additional public infrastructure demand resulting from the use of the proposed garage will be minimal. (3) Will the proposed use be constructed, maintained and operated to be in harmony with existing or intended character of the general vicinity? The RS-12 District provides a low density residential environment permitting single-family dwellings and accessory structures on quarter-acre lots. The general neighborhood is developed with single-family residences (a church is located to the north and a four-plea is located on Road 30) on suburban lots. Accessory structures in the neighborhood generally consist of small garden 5 sheds and a few detached garages of moderate size. The proposed garage is a metal building that has the appearance of an industrial/commercial building rather than a residential accessory structure. The zoning code requires accessory buildings to be compatible and similar in construction with the primary structure (house) on the lot. For metal buildings the compatibility is achieved to a degree by requiring the colors of the metal building to match the colors of the house for both the siding and the roof. Additional compatibility can be achieved by requiring eave overhangs and windows to help take the industrial edge off the building. Harmony with the character of the neighborhood will not be achieved without some modification and perhaps landscaping and fencing around the building. (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 thereofp Construction of the proposed garage will have little impact on development in the neighborhood because the neighborhood is fully developed. However without some modifications to the building and site property values could be impaired or neighbors may be reluctant to make major improvements. The current site proposed for the garage is 2 feet or more higher than the street elevation which will accentuate rather than attenuate the height of the garage.. (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? Staff sees no reason why structure height would increase the potential for objectionable effects such as noise, fumes, vibrations, dust, traffic or flashing lights. It should be pointed out the property is completely devoid of any residential landscaping and fails to meet neighborhood standards or the city code dealing with landscaping. The property owner/applicant has been cited at least 5 times for weed/nuisance violations in the past. (6) Will the proposed use endanger the public health or safety if located and developed where proposed, or in any way become a nuisance to uses permitted in the district? Requirements of the International Building Code will ensure the garage will be built to conform to all public health or safety standards. However, without modification of the building to reduce the industrial nature of the garage it may become nuisance to nearby homes. SUPPLEMENTAL FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS BY PLANNING COMMISSION FOR SHOPS/GARAGES. In addition to making and entering conclusions from the record for special permits based on the criteria in 25.86.060 the Planning Commission shall 6 consider the following for special permits dealing with increased heights for detached shops and garages: (1) Will the shop/garage match the principle structure in design and exterior treatments such as roofing materials, siding, color, window and door openings, eave overhangs, fenestrations and other architectural features? Residential detached shops and garages are required to have siding and roofing materials consistent with and similar to the home they are built adjacent to. The proposed garage is a steel structure with metal roofing and siding. In addition it contains no cave overhangs or other architectural features necessary to match the residential character of the neighborhood. Windows, cave overhangs and other features are necessary to ameliorate the industrial nature of the proposed structure. (2) Will the existing topography and elevation of the site and surrounding property exacerbate or attenuate the height of the proposed shop/garage? The property rises in elevation such that the garage location may be two feet higher than the street elevation. This change in elevation could potentially exacerbate the height of the shop vis-a-vis the house. To diminish the effects of the elevation difference the garage site could be graded to reduce the impacts of the height of the garage over the house. (3) Will the proposal include landscaping features or berms to ameliorate the height of the shoplgarage? There are no landscaping features indicated on the proposed site plan. The property does not meet neighborhood standards or current City of Pasco landscaping requirements and has been cited at least 5 times for weed/nuisance violations. The lot is large enough to create berms to help reduce the impact of the additional height of the garage on the neighborhood. (4) Will the shop/garage be erected on the property utilizing mi nimum setbacks? Based on the site plan (Exhibit `1') the shop will be placed well within the minimum ten (10) foot side setback line. (5) Is the site larger than the minimum lot size requirement for the zoning district? The RS-12 zone requires parcels be a minimum of 12,000 square feet. The site is 33,165 square feet. TENTATIVE APPROVAL CONDITIONS 1. The special permit shall apply to Franklin County tax parcel #119251104, addressed 2907 W. Ella Street; 2. The garage must be developed in substantial conformance with the site plan submitted with this special permit application. 7 3. The garage must not be larger than 1,200 square feet in size. 4. The garage shall not exceed 19 feet in height as measured at the mid- point of the roof; 5. The site location of the garage must be graded to match the finished grade at the base of the house. 6. The Planning Commission should consider the following for additional conditions: The garage must be constructed with eave overhangs of a least one foot. The east, west and south elevations of the garage must contain a wainscoting of brick, block, stucco, or lap siding. The east, west and south elevation of the garage must contain at least 2 windows 36" by 48".. Shutters must be placed on either side of the windows. The garage must be painted to match the house A landscaped berm shall be placed around the east, southeast and west sides of the garage. 7. The special shall be null and void if a building permit has not been obtained by April 1, 2015. RECOMMENDATION MOTION: 1 move to close the public hearing and schedule deliberations, the adoption of findings of fact, and development of a recommendation for City Council for the September 18, 2014 Planning Commission meeting. 8 Item: Shop Height Limit Increase V'C'n'ty Applicant James Pickens N Map File- #: _SP LIE- ji Nal ��it .. � I¢�;� _ , •�. �:,. r i q+f +' Y mow w_ a + 4 , Land Item: Shop Height Limit Increase Use Applicant: James Pickens N Map File #: SP 2014-008 SFDUs Vac. E. Church SFDUs 0 SITE � Vac. 0 I -j- ELLA ST SFDUs WILCOX DR Zoning Item: Shop Height Limit Increase Applicant: James Pickens x Map File #: SP 2014-008 RS-12 EABROOK CT CD RS-12 < 0 Of SITE -10 ELLA ST RS-12 WILCOX DR Detail Item: Shop Height Limit Increase MapApplicant: James Pickens N File : SP 2014-008 "� :ate 7"Standard 5' Rear I` ry Setback Line Standard 10' Side Setback Lines _ _ SITE . �y a -- Standard 25' Front r Setback Line ,. Standard 60' ROW Line Existing 0 Acc. Str. Exis sheds r -� ��I �f j E.�G•L �G�- i I r 2907 W. Ella St. xistin SFR 1,200 sq. ft. I Y ra er =line 202.7' edge of road W. Ella Street cr >\ O I a \t' / ¢EVAnOx YA% pLSaaGnW ISLWETRIC LRw iRER]$1p.,(IR.E UM o) s fF i2 cusipMER JAMes c llmx s OD UaR .MMES G MC .S 6RCx WDM%U(MR W L A) 6 6 I] Exp V5E CJAgI£ LEFT EMO L(MR L 1) 2W W E STS PASM,.M 9 Wl �vm w�p Nuve RA PoEXT ENOWALI(fAI.ME LME d) 8 M 12 RR p °_PLIC£BOLT TABLE - MEMBER LL _ Web 0 lh Wei ate 0ulslde Flange Inside Flange Ot7 frladc 51art Rtl Thick Len nth W x Thk x Len th W x Thk x L n lh 11ar'r T1 Bot Int T)2e Dia Len tfi .F1-1 10.0/28,0 0.135 14-2 11/16' 5 x} 4 x is-5 5 16 x 1/4'x 12-0 1 16 -1 4- 4 2 A325 0.625 2.00 5 x 1/4" x 3-2 3 B" F 4 4 0 A325 0.625 2.00 RF1-2 2.3,0/18.2 0,188 8'-7 t}/16" 5 x 1/4"x 20'-4°' S x 1/4a x 20'-C" 5x14 x3-0116' 5x14 x3'-41116" `.✓FL41aU BRAUS', d)lh Sid-,(v N.) FE, A(1). xing}h(in) FE-51(13} x= A - 12x2x14G "\.y Ar 12 - Ly t tB 12 "(R-25)WMP-'�P. I� - I I I I I I I I I I I ) I I G I I ( I B 1.,4- �2'-4 1/2.1 13'-10 I,(::` �`•,2•-4 7/2;�f 1 r CLEAR+f- '-D� T-TO-9t1T C1F�lEEl - _ U RIGID FRAME ELEVATION: FRAME LINE 2 IS^":UE DEr,-,MPnpN DATE DRN. CHK. DES. DESCRIPTOR RIC1D FRAME ELEVATION A APPROVAL 12.m1s MJO RAJ PA I( .I CUSTOMER JAMES C PICKENS Al REVEED APPROVAL W1.14 JC RAJ RA Dnm END USER JAMES C PICKENS P PERMIT WVR JC TSP RA - * END UgE GARAGE/SHOP O CON5IRVCTaN OL11.R ODK SW RA ggnq s a...,�a...,,,g,y,p�—LJCATION 2907 W ELLA 5T.PAS:X1,WA 9430I - F. W-sus-sin m.lwmiwl,wm N.T. _ 4 OF 1 a ► 11 � 1 w � i r._ F llv- 2 pr r- w A r 'g ooking South fit{'• �. � r �M �� if Lookin g West , �a r fis E?.' X�S -�' ,) Y � L -s w '.., 4ys� r i t t•sX'. K xcE i. r t ?p �.anf�, ', �t'$ '!r7 ,..� +s. ` 5�; > l y .✓r2r w lN�r ry(y�, .v'ta .� ,!w':. ✓�°�l':i.n_ � -��-. 11`y X11 l > .ccessor Bu * ld i in y g ro tik= I i':• S T' y I i¢ INS IN \� ,. -. �l ._ Fri r .. •,�' • � \ �yJ��`�,:y4 _ _ r ��: W _ . 'l T((. .No, •A 'Z � 4y4 P,�iTI� �/�� ei.'[ . t 1 J �d . vw r R y �+ ��� .7;,+��1���• � . 7" j� ��AHic'R';.�*'`'F ;:•` .hew - - K - -,Lw - r � - 4 -i s s r- REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION MASTER FILE NO: Z 2014-004 APPLICANT: P &, R Construction HEARING DATE: 8/21/2014 6223 W Deschutes Ave ACTION DATE: 9/ 18/2014 Kennewick WA 99337 BACKGROUND REQUEST: REZONE: Rezone from RT (Residential Transition) to R-1 (Low- Density Residential) and C-1 (Retail Business) 1. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: Legal_ Parcel #'s 115-382-079 & 11 5-392-013: Lots 11 and 19 Coles Estates General Location: The 6000 Block of Road 90 and Road 92 Property Size: The combined area of the parcels is approximately 5 acres. 2. ACCESS: The parcels are accessible from Road 90 and Road 92. 3. UTILITIES: All municipal utilities are currently available to serve the site from Road 90 and Road 92. 4. LAND USE AND ZONING: The parcels are currently zoned RT (Residential Transition) and are vacant. Surrounding properties are zoned and developed as follows: NORTH: R-1 - Vacant SOUTH: C-1 - Road 90 and Road 92 EAST: C-1 & R-3 - Single-Family Residences/Vacant WEST: R-3 - Multi-Family Residences 5. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The Comprehensive Plan designates the sites for Mixed Residential and Commercial uses. Land Use Policy LU--3-B encourages infill and (higher) density development to protect open spaces and critical areas and to support more walkable neighborhoods. Other goals and policies suggest the City permit a full range of residential environments including single family homes (H-2-A) and standards that control the scale and density of accessory buildings and homes to maintain compatibility with other residential uses (H-4-13). 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. 1 ANALYSIS P & R Construction has applied to change the zoning designation of Lots 11 & 19, Coles Estates from RT (Residential Transition) to R-1 (Low-Density Residential) and C-1 (Retail Business) to allow for single-family residential development on the R-1 portion and office development on the C-1 portion. The subject site is comprised of two parcels with a combined area of slightly less than five acres. Generally, the parcels are located north of Sandifur Parkway; one fronts Road 90 and the other fronts Road 92. The City's Comprehensive Plan designates parcel #115-382-079 for Mixed Residential land uses, allowing a variety of residential (density) zones ranging from RS-20 (Suburban) through R-3 (Medium-Density Residential); including the R-1 (Low-Density Residential) zone. The applicant is requesting R-1 zoning be applied to parcel #115-382-079. The other parcel (#115-392-013) is divided by a land use designation boundary running from east to west along the lower 1/3 of the parcel, approximately. The Comprehensive Plan designates the southerly 165 feet of this parcel (#115-392-013) for Commercial land uses, while the remaining portion to the north is designated for Mixed-Residential land uses. Accordingly, the applicant has applied to assign C-1 zoning to the southerly 165 feet of parcel #115-392-013 consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Tax parcel numbers are identified on the vicinity map included in this report for reference. Also, a Zoning (Request) Map is included to help illustrate the zoning configuration being requested. The requested R-1 zone permits construction of single-family homes on lots with a minimum land area of 7,200 square feet. This equates to a density of 4.5 units per net acre. The Broadmoor Estates, Vintage Village and Heritage Village residential subdivisions to the north are similarly zoned R-1 and are developed with single-family homes. It should be noted that each of the surrounding R-1 zoned neighborhoods were conditioned with a concomitant agreement requiring larger minimum lot sizes than the 7,200 square-foot minimum permitted in the R-1 zone. Concomitant agreements regulating minimum lot sizes in the surrounding subdivisions vary as follows. Vintage Village = Average lots no less than 8,500 square feet Heritage Village = 8,200 square foot minimum lots Broadmoor Estates = 8,500 -- 9,000 square foot minimum lots Directly west of the site lies Mediterranean Villas, a zero-lot-line townhome style development. The attached dwelling units are each located on individual lots ranging in area from 2,400 to 7,000 square feet, approximately. The 2 density of Mediterranean Villas is the result of the R-3 (Medium-Density- Residential) zoning assigned to the site. The requested C-1 zone permits a range of retail sales and service business types. This can be contrasted with the C-3 (General Business) zone which is best suited for heavy commercial businesses such as contractor's yards and heavy equipment sales and services. Heavy commercial uses allowed in the C-3 zone are not permitted in the C-1 zone. Land directly south of the site is currently zoned C-1 and remains largely vacant. The initial review criteria for considering a rezone application are explained in PMC. 25.88.030. The criteria are listed below as follows: 1. The date the existing zone became effective: The current zoning classification was established in 1982 when the property was annexed to the City. The property was originally subdivided and zoned in the county in 1967, 47-years ago. 2. The changed conditions, which are alleged to warrant other or additional zoning Much of the vicinity to the north, east and west has been developed with residential neighborhoods containing primarily single-family homes; they are 13roadmoor Estates and Heritage Village. Said neighborhoods are also zoned R-1. Mediterranean Villas to the west is zoned R-3 and developed with a mix of townhouses, duplexes and single family homes. 3. Facts to justify the change on the basis of advancing the public health, safety and general welfare: Approval of the proposed rezone will continue the existing pattern of residential development in the vicinity. The proposed zoning assignment is consistent with Pasco's Comprehensive Plan which has been determined to be in the best interest of advancing public health, safety and general welfare. Allowing residential development on the site(s) will encourage the elimination of vacant land within city limits. Vacant sites can potentially generate fugitive dust and weeds which may create afire hazard. 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 single-family residential development will continue the existing residential character of the vicinity. The rezone from RT to R-1 will encourage infill as per Land Use Policy LU-3-B, and allow for "...residential development where utilities and transportation facilities 3 enable efficient use of capital resources," in keeping with Land Use Policy LU-3- E. This rezone would also allow for a full range of residential environments including single family homes, consistent with .Housing Policy H-2-A. S. The effect on the property owner or owners if the request is not granted: Without transitioning the site primarily 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. INITIAL STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT Findings of fact must be entered from the record. The following are initial findings drawn from the background and analysis section of the staff report. The Planning Commission may add additional findings to this listing as the result of factual testimony and evidence submitted during the open record hearing. 1. The site is comprised of two tax parcels. 2. The site is vacant. 3. The site is approximately 5 acres in area. 4. The site is currently zoned RT (Residential Transition). 5. The applicant is requesting the R-1 (Low-Density Residential) zoning district be assigned to a majority of the site. 6. The applicant is requesting the southern 165 feet of Lot 11 be rezoned C- 1. 7. The Comprehensive Plan identifies a majority of the site for Mixed- Residential uses which allows assignment of a range of residential zones including R-1 (Low-Density Residential). 8. The Comprehensive Plan designates the south 165-feet of tax parcel # 113-392-013 for commercial land uses which allows assignment of C-1 (Retail Business) zoning. 9. All municipal utilities are currently available in close proximity to serve the site from adjoining roadways. 10. The rezone will facilitate infill development which is encouraged by the Comprehensive Plan. 11. The Broadmoor Estates and Heritage Village residential subdivisions located to the north of the site are similarly zoned R-1 and are developed with single-family homes. 4 12. Surrounding R-1 neighborhoods were conditioned with a concomitant agreement requiring larger minimum lot sizes than the 7,200 square-foot minimum permitted in the R-1 zone. 13. Single-family lots in surrounding subdivisions range in size from 8,200 square feet to 9,000 square feet. 14. The Mediterranean Villas subdivision to the west is zoned R-3 and developed with a mix of townhouses, duplexes and single family homes. 15. Lots in the Mediterranean Villas subdivision range in size from 2,400 square feet to 7,000 square feet. TENTATIVE CONCLUSIONS BASED ON INITIAL STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT Before recommending approval or denial of a special permit the Planning Commission must develop findings of fact from which to draw its conclusions based upon the criteria listed in 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 residential uses. 2. The effect of the proposal on the immediate vicinity will not be materially detrimental. The proposed R-1 & C-1 zoning assignments will permit site development matching the character of the residential neighborhoods to the north and would allow commercial development, on the C-1 portion, consistent with other commercial businesses which line Sandifur Parkway. Based on past experience with rezoning and development of vacant land adjacent to existing single-family and evidence provided by tax records of Franklin County, the proposed rezone will not be materially detrimental to the immediate vicinity in terms of property value and/or character. 3. There is merit and value in the proposal for the community as a whole. There is merit in developing vacant parcels within the City in accordance with the goals and policies contained in the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed zoning configuration is consistent with the Plan's Land Use Map. Elimination of vacant land near existing homes will reduce potential impacts of dust and fire danger. 5 Providing an increased range of housing opportunities available in those areas currently served my 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 by staff. S. A Concomitant Agreement should be entered into between the City and the petitioner, and if so, the terms and conditions of such an agreement. A concomitant agreement is only needed if the Planning Commission deems it necessary to increase lots sizes similar to the surrounding single-family lots to the north, northwest and northeast. RECOMMENDATION MOTION: I move to close the 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 September 18, 2014 meeting. 6 Vicinity Item: Rezone RT to R- 1 & C- 1 Applicant: P&R Construction N MaP File #: Z2014-004 11F 11 CHFAI9.E.CT. r 7 ' EN,�O D SITE WIVSHIRE DR W 115-382-079 ,� } MAJESTIA LN c ITE 115-392-013 I Land Use Item: Rezone RT to R- 1 & C-1 Applicant: P&R Construction N MaP File #: Z2014-004 a Residential CHESHIRE CT x � a O � Q � y z Vacant Residential CENZO DR © SITE WILSHIRE DR Residential. L] J MAJESTIA LN CIS 0 SIT Vacant Vacant Vacant Zoning Item: Rezone RT to R- 1 & C-1 Applicant: P&R Construction N MaP File #: Z2014-004 Z x � w H CHESHIRE CT w � R-1 (Low-Density Residential) z CENZD DR ALIT WILSHIRE DR R-3 MAJESTIA LN RT R-3 c SIT A 0 a C-1 (Retail Business) Zoning Item: Rezone RT to R- 1 & C-1 (Re q uest) Applicant: P&R Construction N Map File #: Z2014-004 U A4 � Z CHESHIRE CT U � A � k" z R-1 CENZO DR (LOW-Density WILSHIRE DR N,4� � Residential) —7 1 R-1 MAJESTIA LN (LOW-Density SITES Residential) Q a C-1 (Retail Business' � • • • ': f _ �� �?L _e:,_ i -. _ ��- • • - �� �_- -- .d s - „�� �._ Looking South r - mar, =':r- ���y'�.4 .- —". � �� � _.� � g_ •�. �.n_1._._ _ -mow .� .. h � R�.•� ♦) � �Jy ' - �y- F - k 17 MEMORANDUM DATE: August 21, 2014 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Dave McDonald, City Planner SUBJECT: Minimum Lot Size in Multi-Family Zones (CA2014 -003 Introduction On June 2, 2014 the City Council approved Resolution No. 3557 imposing a six month moratorium on the acceptance of plat applications for properties in R-2, R-3 and R-4 zoning districts. The R-2, R-3 and R-4 zoning districts are primarily intended for the development of multiple family structures such as duplexes, four-plexes and apartment buildings. Although not specifically intended for single-family development the multi-family zoning districts have permitted single-family homes on individual lots since the inception of zoning in Pasco. Single family lots within the R-2, R-3, and R-4 zones must be at least 5,000 square feet. Earlier this year a developer applied for R-2 zoning with the intent of building only single-family homes. Although most of the lots in the proposed development will be in excess of 6,000 square feet there was potential for a development with numerous 5,000 square foot lots. The creation of 5,000 square foot single-family lots without forethought to building design and subdivision integration with existing and adjacent neighborhoods has the potential to impact those neighboring developments. As a result the Planning Commission was asked to provide some input on the matter as to whether or not the multi-family zoning districts should be reviewed as it relates lot sizes. From the Planning Commission's original discussion on this matter in May, the City Council established the moratorium to provide an opportunity to study the matter before any additional single-family plats are considered for approval. Background The earliest zoning ordinance to be found for the City dates 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 foot 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 been in the code in one form or another since 1965. Many 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 Pasco High School and Sylvester Park (Zoned R-I) are 4,750 square feet. Other lots in that area of town range in size from 5,550 square feet to over 7,000 square feet. There are many lots in the range of 5,750 to 6,000 square feet. 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 Rivers (5,000 sq. ft.)* Columbia Place (5,400 sq. ft.)* Loviisa Farms (5,100 sq. ft.)* * (Smallest lot created) These subdivisions are zoned R-1 and developed with Planned Density Development plats permitting single-family lots smaller than 7,200 square feet; Sun Willows being 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 Rivers West is the only subdivision in the City that has 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 the R-2 portion of this proposed development is 6,812 square feet. Considerably larger than the lots developed under the planned density process in the subdivisions listed above. 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, 2 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 located south of"A" Street and in the Kurtzman Park Neighborhood. The City's Comprehensive Plan identifies several hundred acres of land in various locations within the Urban Growth Area for mixed residential uses. Approximately 500 acres remain to be developed. The mixed residential land use category allows zoning that would permit a full range of residential development including single-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 along 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 strictly for single-family development. Market demand and the highest and best use doctrine generally determine the zoning developers seek. The Chapel Hill development for example was designated for Mixed Residential development 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 squander his potential return by building single-family homes. Not all Mixed-Residential areas will be or have been rezoned for multi-family development. This land use designations provides a range of options for the developers but does not require lands within the designated areas to be zoned multi-family. The Linda Loviisa subdivision located east of the soccer complex is partially in a Mixed Residential area but, the developer requested and received approval for R-1 zoning for single family lots. The Sun Willows development is also within a Mixed Residential area but, is developed with mostly single-family homes (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 zoning district they have no guarantee there will always be single-family development around them. The fundamental question 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? 3 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 is as follows: Richland R-2s 4,000 sq. ft. R-3 4,000 sq. ft. Kennewick RM-2 4,000 sq. ft. RM-3 4,000 sq. ft. West Richland MR-2 4,000 sq. ft. MR-3 4,000 sq. ft. Spokane RSF 4,350 sq. ft. RSF-C 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. The non-conforming issue will mainly create confusion for insurance companies and real estate agents. It may also 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 need to be short platted or re-platted. Legal lots of record would still be able to be developed even if they were only 5,000 square feet. Options 4 #1 Increase the minimum 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 dimensions 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 the process available to more properties #6 Maintain the current standard. Planning Commission Direction Following a workshop on this item in July the Planning Commission generally determined Option # 1 above would be appropriate to address the concern about single-family development within multi-family zoning districts. The 6,000 square foot minimum lot size for R-2 districts corresponds to the minimum lot dimensions required by the subdivision regulations. The attached code amendment includes the minimum lot sizes highlighted in Option # 1. This item has been schedule as a public hearing. The Planning Commission will need to hold the hearing prior to making a recommendation to the City Council. FINDINGS OF FACT 1) The Pasco Zoning Ordinance contains R-2, R-3 and R-4 zoning districts primarily intended for multiple-family dwellings with a range of minimum densities. 2) Single-family homes are permitted in all multi-family zoning districts in Pasco. 3) The current minimum lot size in multi-family zones is 5,000 square feet. 4) Developers often build subdivisions to the minimum standard with respect to lot sizes. 5) The creation of 5,000 square foot lots without forethought to building design, subdivision integration with existing and adjacent neighborhoods and overall acceptance by the community has the potential to harm the residents of Pasco. 5 6) Single-family lots within the most recent R-2 development (Three Rivers West) averaged 6,800 square feet due to dimensional requirements and due to street configuration. 7) The Planning Commission held a public hearing on August 21, 2014 to receive public comment on the proposed code amendment. RECOMMENDATION MOTION: I move the Planning Commission adopt the findings of fact as contained in the August 21, 2014 staff memo on minimum lot size in multi-family zoning districts. MOTION: I move the Planning Commission recommend the City Council adopt the proposed code amendments for minimum lot size requirements in multi-family zoning districts as attached to the August 21, 2013 staff memo to the Planning Commission. ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING PMC TITLE 25 DEALING WITH MINIMUM LOT SIZES IN THE R-2 AND R-3 ZONING DISTRICTS. WHEREAS, cities have the responsibility to regulate and control physical development within their borders and to ensure public health, safety and welfare are maintained; and, WHEREAS, the City of Pasco has zoning regulations that encourage orderly growth and development of the City; and, WHEREAS, on August 21, 2014 the Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider amending the minimum lot size requirements for the R-2 Medium Density and R-3 Medium Density zoning district;and, WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that to further the purposes of maintaining a quality community, it is necessary to amend AMC Title 25; NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASCO, WASHINGTON, DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That PMC Section 25.34.050 be and the same is hereby amended to read as follows: 25.34.050 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS. (1) Minimum lot area: Five tho sand (5,000) Six thousand(6,00Q)square feet; (2) One single family dwelling shall be permitted per lot. Multiple dwellings shall be permitted based on the density standards in Section 25.34.050(3); (3) Density: One dwelling per 5,000 square feet of lot area except as provided in 25.34.030 (4) Maximum Lot Coverage: Forty(40) percent; (5) Minimum Yard Setbacks: (a) Front: Twenty(20)feet. (b) Side: Five (5) feet. (c) Rear: Principal Building: Equal to the height of the dwelling. Accessory structures. Accessory structures adjacent an alley may be placed on the alley line provided there are no openings in the wall parallel to the alley. Garages with vehicle doors parallel to an alley shall be setback from the alley twenty (20) feet. Where there is no alley the setback shall be five (5) feet. Structures related to rabbits and/or chicken hens, such as rabbit hutches and/or chicken coops, must be at least ten (10) feet from any property line, may not exceed six (6) feet in height and thirty (30) square feet in size, and must be located behind the rear line of the dwelling. Rabbit hutches and/or chicken coops adjacent an alley may be placed within five (5) feet of the alley line provided there are no openings in the wall parallel to the alley. Property owners shall not allow such structures to become a nuisance due to noise or odor; (6) Maximum building height: (a) Principal building: Twenty-five (25) feet, except a greater height may be approved by special permit. (b) Accessory buildings: Fifteen (15)feet. (7) Fences and hedges: See Chapter 25.75; (8) Parking: See Chapter 25.78; 1 (9) Landscaping: See Chapter 25.75; and (10) Residential Design Standards: See Chapter 25.70.085. Section 2. That PMC Chapter 25.36.050 be and the same is hereby amended to read as follows: 25.36.050 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS. (1) Minimum lot area: Pive *''•...nand (5,000) Five thousand five hundred(5,500) square feet; (2) One single family dwelling shall be permitted per lot. Multiple dwellings shall be permitted based on the density standards in Section 25.36.050(3); (3) Density: One dwelling unit per 5,000 square feet of lot area for single family dwellings and 3,000 square feet of lot area for multiple family dwellings; (4) Maximum Lot Coverage: Sixty(60)percent; (5) Minimum Yard Setbacks: (a) Front: Twenty(20)feet. (b) Side: Five (5) feet. (c) Rear: Principal Building: Equal to the height of the dwelling, Accessory structures. Accessory structures adjacent an alley may be placed on the alley line provided there are no openings in the wall parallel to the alley. Garages with vehicle doors parallel to an alley shall be setback from the alley twenty (20) feet. Where there is no alley, the setback shall be five (5) feet. Structures related to rabbits and/or chicken hens, such as rabbit hutches and/or chicken coops, must be at least ten (10) feet from any property line, may not exceed six (6) feet in height and thirty (30) square feet in size, and must be located behind the rear line of the dwelling. Rabbit hutches and/or chicken coops adjacent an alley may be placed within five (5) feet of the alley line provided there are no openings in the wall parallel to the alley. Property owners shall not allow such structures to become a nuisance due to noise or odor; (6) Maximum building height: (a) Principal building: Thirty-five (35) feet, except a greater height may be approved by special permit. (b) Accessory buildings: Fifteen (I5)feet. (7) Fences and hedges: See Chapter 25.75; (8) Parking: See Chapter 25.78; and (9) Landscaping: See Chapter 25.75; (10) Residential Design Standards: See Chapter 25.70.085. Section 3. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect five days after passage and publication as required by law. PASSED by the City Council of the City of Pasco, at its regular meeting of September----,,2014. Matt Watkins Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: Debra L. Clark Leland B. Kerr City Clerk City Attorney 2