HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-18-2014 Planning Commission PacketPLANNING COMMISSION -AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING
I. CALL TO ORDER:
II. ROLL CALL:
III. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
V. OLD BUSINESS:
A . Special Permit
B. Special Permit
C. Re zone
VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
A. Special Permit
B. Rezone
C. Preliminary Plat
VII. OTHER BUSINESS:
VIII. WORKSHOP:
A. Plan
IX. ADJOURNMENT:
7:00P.M. September 18, 20 14
Declaration of Quorum
August 21, 2014
Farming in an RT Zone (Tom Kidwell) (MF# SP
2014-007)
Structure Height (James Pickens) (MF# SP 2014-
008)
Rezone from RT (Residential Transition) to R-1
(Low-Density Residential) and C-1 (R e tail
Business) (P&R Construction)(MF# Z 2014-004)
Special Permit to Sell Motorcycles and Other
Vehicles in a C-1 (Retail Business) Zone (JMC
Motor Sports LLC) (MF# SP 2014 -009)
Rezone from I -1 (Light Industrial) to I-2 (Medium
Industrial) (Columbia East LLC) (MF# Z 2014-005)
Replat a Portion of the Whitehouse Addition (Tri-
County Partners) (MF# PP 2014-004)
Shoreline Management Act -SMP Regulatory
Components and Draft Shoreline Master Program
REGULAR MEETING August 21, 2014
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
CALL TO ORDER:
The meeting was called to order at 7:00pm by Acting Chairwoman Khan .
POSITION MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT
No. 1 VACANT
No. 2 Tony Bachart
No.3 VACANT
No.4 Alecia Greenaway
No.5 Joe Cruz
No.6 Loren Polk
No.7 Zahra Khan
No.8 JanaKempf
No.9 Gabriel Portugal
APPEARANCE OF FAIRNESS:
Acting Chairwoman Khan read a statement about the appearance of fairness for hearings
on land use matters. Acting Chairwoman Khan asked if any Commission member had
anything to declare . There were no declarations.
Acting Chairwoman Khan 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:
Acting Chairwoman Khan explained that state law requires testimony in quasi-judicial
hearings such as held by the Planning Commission be given under oath or affirmation.
Acting Chairwoman Khan swore in all those desiring to speak.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Commissioner Greenaway moved, seconded by Commissioner Polk that the minutes
dated July 24, 2014 be approved as mailed. The motion passed unanimously.
OLD BUSINESS:
A. Code Amendment Historic Preservation Title 27 Code Amendment
fMF# CA 2014-001)
Acting Chairwoman Khan read the master file number and asked for comments from staff.
Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director, discussed the code
amendment for the Historic Preservation, Title 27. There was a revised set of bylaws
distributed to the Commission prior to the meeting. Mr. White pointed out corrections to
the bylaws. Other than the corrections there were no further comments.
-1-
Commissioner Greenaway asked if the proposed code amendment would have any effect
on currently listed historical properties .
Mr. White stated that it would not.
Commissioner Bachart moved, seconded by Commissioner Polk, the Planning Commission
adopt the findings of fact as contained in the August 21, 20 14 staff memo on Historic
PreseiVation, Title 27 . The motion passed unanimously.
Commissioner Bachart moved, seconded by Commissioner Polk, the Planning Commission
recommend the City Council adopt the proposed code amendments as shown in the
attached "Exhibit A". The motion passed unanimously.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
A. Special Permit Farming in an RT Zone (Tom Kidwell) (MF# SP
2014-007)
Acting Chairwoman Khan read the master file number and asked for comments from staff.
David Mc Donald, City Planner, discussed the special permit for farming in an RT
(Residential Transition) Zone. The proposed farm will occupy 150 acres in the northeast
corner of a 568 acre parcel that is located west of Broadmoor Boulevard and south of
Burns Road. The City operates an irrigatio n system and provides irrigation water to many
of the homes in the I-182 Corridor area. Over the years as that area is developed and
transitioned from farm land to urban devel opment, the City's has acquired water rights
with those developments. Some of the water rights need to be perfected. The applicant
recently entered into an agreement with the City to use some of the City's irrigation water
on other farms to perfect water rights. The city is endeavoring to do the same thing with
the proposed farm.
Mr . McDonald briefly reviewed the written repor t fo r the benefit of the Planning
Commission. The proposal is very similar to other farms the Commission has reviewed in
the past that have been approved to preseiVe water rights.
Commissioner Portugal asked if the plan was to rotate crops grown on the property.
Mr . McDonald answered that the applicant has indicated that they would grow mainly
alfalfa.
Commissioner Portugal asked if the applicant could grow other types of crop.
Mr. McDonald responded that it depends on how strict the special permit conditions are
written.
Commissioner Portugal stated that some crops may require more pesticides and could
cause concern with nearby homes.
Mr. McDonald replied that could be a concern. With alfalfa, pesticides are almost non-
-2-
existent; fertilizer is sometimes used. This general part of the community does have a
number of farms surrounding it.
Commissioner Bachart asked about site preparations to flatten out the land in order to
farm.
Mr. McDonald stated they will keep the leveling to a minimum, only doing enough for the
wheel line to go around, so it won't be perfectly flat.
With no public comments the public hearing closed.
Mr. McDonald asked the Planning Commission to give Staff direction regarding the
conditions of the special permit. The applicant has indicated that they wish to use the
field for alfalfa. Mr. McDonald asked the Planning Commission if they thought there
should be a condition to limit the crop on this site.
Commissioner Polk asked if the amount of work done on the field significantly less with
alfalfa opposed to other crops, minimizing noise impact.
Mr. McDonald answered that there wouldn't be as much tilling with alfalfa because the
crop regenerates itself but there is still noise from the bailers and other equipment,
roughly 4-5 times per year.
Acting Chairwoman Khan asked if Staff sees any conflict m how farming may effect
business from wanting to locate in the 1-182 Corridor.
Mr. McDonald responded that the whole I-182 Corridor was one big farm at one time and
as the community grew, the circles were reduced. There hasn't been a conflict as far as
development is concerned with the circles that have been around in the past.
Acting Chairwoman Khan asked the Commissioners for their thoughts on adding a
condition to the special permit limiting the crop on this site. Acting Chairwoman Khan
stated that she was for adding the condition.
Commissioner Polk agreed and was for adding the condition.
Commissioner Greenaway stated that the applicant should be able to farm whatever they
choose, however, she was not against placing a condition to only grow alfalfa.
Acting Chairwoman Khan asked how long the special permit lasts.
Mr. McDonald stated that Staffis recommending 5 years.
Acting Chairwoman Khan responded that the Commission would like to add the condition
to limit the crop to alfalfa.
Commissioner Polk asked if there are crops with similar conditions.
Mr. McDonald answered that he was not aware .
-3 -
Acting Chairwoman Khan re-opened the public hearing to allow for a member of the
audience to speak on behalf of this item.
Jason Maddox, 6115 Burden Boulevard, of HDJ Design Group spoke on this item for
clarification to the Planning Commission. He stated that he was not affiliated with this
project but felt he could explain the process of transferring water rights from previously
farmed parcels to the City of Pasco. One of the things to note about transferring water
rights, is that if the land is conditioned for only farming alfalfa, alfalfa carries a certain
volume of water that can be placed on that crop every year. On an unperfected water
right, once it is perfected, the State will go over a five year period to examine what crops
had been farmed. If crops are farmed that do not have a certain volume of water placed
on them, alfalfa for instance only has so much water placed on it per year, where other
crops could have more or less. If they don't use the water rights that they are trying to
transfer to the property they could lose the water rights. So by specifically conditions this
parcel to alfalfa, that limits the amount of water on the property every year. If the
applicant decides they need to use more water to keep the water rights in place they will
have to show that the water is being used as a beneficial use or else they could lose the
water right.
With no further comments the public hearing closed.
Acting Chairwoman Khan asked Mr. McDonald how long the process takes for the City to
perfect water rights.
Mr. McDonald answered at least 2-3 years. In response to Mr. Maddox, there is a
condition in the staff report stating that the crop should be primarily alfalfa. Removing
the word "primarily" would restrict the use to only alfalfa.
Acting Chairwoman Khan asked the Commissioners how they felt about the wo rd
"primarily" in the conditions.
Commissioner Bachart stated that he wasn't sure.
Commissioner Polk responded that since the applicant was not present and could not
answer what types of crops would impact the land, she felt that the word "primarily"
should be removed from the condition and limit the crop to alfalfa.
Commissioner Greenaway and Commissioner Portugal agreed and wished to take the work
"primarily" out.
Acting Chairwoman Khan was also in agreement in removing the word "primarily" and
restricting the crop to alfalfa.
Commissioner Portugal moved, seconded by Commissioner Bachart, 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. The motion passed unanimously.
-4 -
B. Special Permit Accessory Structure Height (James Pickens) (MF#
SP 2014-008)
Acting Chairwoman Khan read the master file number and asked for comments from staff.
Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director, discussed the application for
an accessory structure height that is talle r than what is permitted in the zoning code. The
applicant applied for a permit to build a 2,000 square foot detached garage that would
have a height at the midpoint of 19 feet, however, detached garages on this site cannot
exceed 18 feet and cannot be larger than 1,200 square feet in size. The Planning
Commission worked on a code amendment over the past year regarding accessory
structure height and size and arrived at a "stair-step" approach to allow increases in size
based upon the square footage of a lot. In this case, the lot is over 33,000 square feet and
would permit almost a 1,500 square foot shop but not a 2,000 square foot shop. There is
also a provision in the zoning code that further limits the size of the detached garage or
shed to no larger than the size of the house. In this case , the house is 1 ,200 square feet.
The applicant is requesting a special permit to allow an increase in the height of the
garage.
The Planning Commission must consider whether or not the proposed building will match
the house in design and exterior treatments, such as roofing, siding and color. In this
case the garage is a metal frame building with metal siding and would be out of character
for the n eighborhood. Mr. White reviewed the written report with findings and tentative
conditions for the benefit of the Planning Commission. Staff was seeking direction from
the Planning Commission on the best ways to make adju stments to make the current
design of the garage work to minimize the impact on the neighborhood.
Acting Chairwoman Khan asked a question if the site plan included in the staff report
exhibits was created by the city or the applicant.
Mr. White answered by the applicant.
Commissioner Portugal asked for clarification on a "pre-engineered steel building'' that
was discussed in the staff report.
Mr. White answered that the structural components are already measured and tested for
strength and durability and assemble on-site.
Commissioner Bachart asked about a structure with what appears to be a metal roof in
one of the exhibit photos. He asked if those were existing metal structures and if they are
located on the applicant's property.
David McDonald, City Planner, responded that one is a garage and isn't as close to the
applicant's property as the picture indicates. Mr. McDonald gave further clarification on
other surrounding structures.
Commissioner Bachart asked if the siding on the white building behind the applicant's
property is metal siding.
Mr. McDonald replied that he was unsure if the house had metal siding or not but the roof
did.
-5 -
Commissioner Portugal asked if the applicant already purchased the 2,000 square foot
garage.
Mr. White answered that Staff understood that the applicant has purchased the garage .
Commissioner Polk asked how the garage could be permitted even if the height is
approved since the structure is 2,000 square feet and larger than the horne which is not
permitted.
Mr. White addressed the staff report where the applicant has proposed building an L-
Shaped garage with an open carport so that he can be in conformance of the limitation of
SIZe.
Commissioner Bachart asked if that would require re-engineering of the building.
Mr. White replied that he could not answer.
James Pickens, 2907 W. Ella Street, spoke on behalf of his application. Mr. Pickens
stated that as it stands, even if the height of the structure is permitted , with the additional
cost of re-engineering the structure and adding the eaves and overhangs which are
required per the staff report, it would be outside the budget and he would be unable to
construct. He stated if the Planning Commission approves the special permit with all of
the conditions he will have to withdraw his application for a permit.
Commissioner Greenaway asked if there was a smaller size of garage he could work with.
Mr. Pickens stated that he already invested money in the proposed structure. He would
have to try to sell it. He stated the auxiliary sheds on the property will be removed prior to
construction of the proposed garage.
With no further comments the public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Bachart voiced sympathy for the applicant in regards to the additional
costs and land use but with it being a residential neighborhood, there should still be
restrictions placed on the structure.
Commissioner Greenaway agreed with Commissioner Bachart and also voiced
understanding but added that City Code should be looked into prior to moving forward.
Commissioner Bachart stated that it appears there are other metal structures in the area
and didn't feel that a metal structure would be completely out of character for the
neighborhood.
Commissioner Portugal stated that he thought it was a certain type of metal , such as an
industrial look, that drew concern.
Mr. White responded that the metal structure itself isn't t he issue, it is what i s done with
it, such as painting or dressing it up with eaves or overhangs to make it look less
industrial.
Commissioner Portugal asked if the City notifies citizens on the codes and issues so that
they don't purchase things, such as this. Commissioner Portugal voiced concern that not
-6-
all citizens may know the code and permit expectations.
Mr. White stated that there is a requirement on the homeowner to due diligence to see
what is necessary before beginning a project or work to see what is allowed. Citizens are
not notified randomly.
Commissioner Portugal responded that it probably just isn't possible.
Commissioner Greenaway asked if that information was already on the City website.
Mr. White responded that it is on the City website and there are handouts available at the
City.
Commissioner Bachart would like an approval condition added , although already
mentioned by the applicant, to remove the existing accessory structures on the property
prior to constructing the new one.
Mr. White responded that condition will need to be added prior to be moving forward.
Mr. White asked if the Commission had a consensus on the type of aesthetic treatments
applicable based on the choices in the staff report.
Commissioner Bachart asked what defined a landscape barrier.
Mr. White answered that it would hide or soften the appearance of the structure.
Commissioner Polk stated that she would be in favor of a landscape barrier.
Acting Chairwoman Khan stated that painting the garage would be a reasonable request
as well as windows.
Commissioner Bachart moved, seconded by Commissioner Polk, 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. The motion passed unanimously.
c. Rezone Rezone from RT (Residential Transition) to R-1
(Low-Density Residential) and C-1 (Retail Business)
(P&R Construction) (MF# Z 2014-004)
Acting Chairwoman Khan read the master file number and asked for comments from staff.
Shane O'Neill, Planner I, discussed the rezone application from RT (Residential Transition)
to R-1 (Low-Density Residential) and C-1 (Retail Business). The site is located on two
parcels located north of Sandifur Parkway, surrounded by mostly vacant land. The staff
report includes a land use request map to illustrate the zoning configuration being
proposed. Mr. O 'Neill briefly discussed the proposed zoning configuration. The R-1 zoning
being requested permits single-family residential development with minimum lot sizes of
7,200 square feet . The development of the surrounding single-family neighborhoods were
the subject of c oncomitant agreements when they were rezoned. Those concomitant
agreements required that the minimum lot sizes be slightly larger than the 7,200 square
foot minimum lot size required by the R-1 zone. Also in the staff report were more
-7-
conditions the concomitant agreements required for the surrounding single-family
developments. The proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
Acting Chairvvoman Khan asked if there is a requirement for minimum lot size.
Mr . O'Neill answered that the proposal is for R-1 zoning on one parcel which would allow
for 7,200 square foot lot sizes. With approximately 4 homes per acre and there are
roughly 3 acres of proposed residential zoning.
Jason Maddox, 61 15 Burden Boulevard, of HDJ Design Group spoke on behalf of the
applicant, P & R Construction. Mr. Maddox noted that P & R Construction is not the
underlying owner of the two properties, they are simply requesting the rezone of the two
properties. He reiterated that the rezone request does follow the Comprehensive Plan and
would be for low-density residential housing on one parcel and retail business on the
other parcel. In terms of the concomitant agreement discussed, the applicant does not
wish to condition this property to be any more stringent that what the R-1 would allow,
which would be 7,200 square feet. The intentions of the applicant are to develop the
property into single-family housing and would seek to fill in the property in terms of
connectivity of roads.
Acting Chairvvoman Khan asked Mr. Maddox if he knew what the applicant planned to do
with the proposed C -1 parcel.
Mr. Maddox responded that their intentions were to develop the residential part of the
property and the C -1 portion just trailed along. They still feel that they can make their
plans work but don't have any immediate intentions with the C -1 portion at this time.
Bruce Pritchard, 2025 W. 27th Avenue, Kennewick, spoke on this item. Mr. Pritchard
stated that he owns a piece of land adjacent to the proposed site. He feels the area is
becoming awkward for commercial use in terms of lack of access and roads . Mr. Pritchard
explained that when he purchased the property it was his understanding that Road 92
would become a straight-through street. Road 90 does have straight-through access but
as Road 90 goes further north it is more and more residential. He asked what the plans
for the area are because he doesn 't understand the commercial rating of the property
anymore.
Acting Chairwoman Khan asked for clarification about the zoning of the surrounding area.
Mr. O'Neill answered that the proposed sites are currently RT zoning but is almost gone in
this vicinity and rezoned as other land uses.
Mr. Pritchard asked for clarification on the difference between RT and R-1 zoning.
Mr. O'Neill responded that RT zoning is a "holding" zone . A site typically cannot be
developed as RT. The R -1 zoning allows for single-family homes on 7,200 square foot
minimum lots. Mr. O'Neill pointed out that the Comprehensive Plan for this site is
actually for mixed-residential which would allow R-2 or R -3 (medium density residential)
zoning but the applicant is only requesting R-1 , which is substantially less dense.
Commissioner Bachart state d that Road 92 does somewhat dead-end. He asked if there
were plans to tie that into Kent.
-8 -
Mr. O'Neill responded that at some point it will connect.
Acting Chairwoman Khan clarified that it just hasn't happened yet.
David McDonald, City Planner, added that this area was platted in the 1960's before it was
part of the City. As the properties to the north were developed or purchased, the lot sizes
didn't quite fit with a standard subdivision and part of Road 92 was vacated so that a
subdivision could fit in and the thought was as the area develops to the south, the rest of
Road 92 would be vacated to make a connection to Kent Lane.
Acting Chairwoman Khan stated the City was protecting the interest of the property
owners by keeping the lower parcel as C-1 in the same zoning as his property.
With no further comments the public hearing closed.
Commissioner Greenaway moved, seconded by Commissioner Polk, 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. The motion passed unanimously.
D. Code Amendment Minimum Lot Size in Multi-Family Zones (MF# CA
2014-003)
Acting Chairwoman Khan 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. Staff provided the Commission with a memo including facts,
background and history on lot sizes within the community. At the last workshop there
was considerable discussion on this topic and essentially there was a concern in the
community relative to developers using multi-family zoning districts to develop
subdivisions with smaller lot sizes without thought to design standards. As a result of
that a moratorium was established to allow that City time t o study the issue and perhaps
amend the code if needed.
As a result of the previous month's discussion, where the Commi ssion was provided a
number of options to consider, the prevalent option was to increase the minimum lot size
for s i ngle-family homes in the R-2 Zone to 6,000 square feet and 5 ,500 in the R-3 Zone.
There was one correction since the previous meeting related to the R-3 Zone and one
suggestion. Mr. McDonald provided clarification on the correction and suggesti on.
Rick Jansen, 313 Wellsian Way, spoke on behalf of Habitat for Humanity. He stated that
the proposed 5,500 square foot minimum lot size for single-family dwelling units in the R-
3 Zone would be fine. They are more concerned about getting the process moving since
they are ready to start building on land that this code amendment would apply to.
Len Harms, 1705 Road 64, spoke on behalf of this item. He was in agreement with Mr.
Jansen and stated they would like to get the project going and the 5,500 square foot lot
minimum would work.
With no further discussion the public hearing closed.
Commissioner Portugal moved, seconded by Commissioner Greenaway , the Planning
-9-
Commission adopt the fmdings of fact as contained in the August 21, 2014 staff memo on
minimum lot size in multi-family zoning districts. The motion passed unanimously.
Commissioner Portugal moved, seconded by Commissioner Greenaway, the Planning
Commission recommend the City Council adopt the proposed code amendments for
minimum lot size requirements in multi-family zoning districts as discussed and as
attached to the August 21, 2014 staff memo to the Planning Commission. The motion
passed unanimously.
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.
Mr. White also informed the Commission that Commissioner Anderson resigned and that
there are currently two vacant positions on the Planning Commission.
With no further discussion or business, the Planning Commission was adjourned at
8:26p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
David McDonald, City Planner
-10 -
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
MASTER FILE NO: SP2014-007
HEARING DATE: 8/21/14
ASTION DATE: 9/18/14
APPLICANT: Tom Kidwell
2400 W Court St
Pasco, WA 99301
BACKGROUND
REQUEST: SPECIAL PERMIT: Location of a Farm in an R-T Zone west of
Broadmoor Blvd north of I -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 I-182
and except all of that portion lying southerly of I -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 (R e sidential
Transition) and is vacant land. Surrounding zoning and land use
is as follows :
NORTH:
SOUTH:
EAST:
WEST:
AP (County)
RT
R-4 & R -1
RT
-Farming
-Vacant
-Single & Multi-Family Res.
-Central Pre-Mix & a Farm
5. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The Comprehensive Plan designates
portions of t h e 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 UF-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 a l so 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 1-182 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 25.20.0 10). 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
wh en utilities become available. Recent growth in Pasco is a good
example of how the conversion process takes place. Most of the
develo pment 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 Comprehe nsive 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 t reatmen t of the comers 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 addi tiona! 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 t he 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 list ed as condit ional 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 I -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 I-182 Corridor on land that has been
zoned C -1, R -1, R-T and R -S -1/PUD.
17. Desert Plateau, Broadmoor Estates, Wilson Meadows, Rivershore
Estates, Heritage Village and other residential subdivisions in the
I-182 Corridor are located adjacent to active farms.
18. Broadmoor Estates and Mediterranean Villas are both located to
the east across Boradmoor 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.
TENTATIVE 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 fann 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.
3J Will the proposed use be constructed, maintained and operated
to be in harmony w ith 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-1 82 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 with other residential
developments in the I-18 2 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 resid ential and commercial development within
the I-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 .
4J 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 t hereof?
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. Broadmoor 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.
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 b e 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 notse complaint plan may be needed to
address this concern.
6) 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 I-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 comers 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 be alfalfa.
6. The special permit expires on October 1, 2019.
RECOMMENDATION
MOTION: I move to adopt findings of fact and conclusions therefrom as
contained in the September 18, 2014 staff report.
MOTION: I move based on the findings of fact and conclusions
therefrom the Planning Commission recommend the City Council grant a
special permit for the location of farm at the southwest corner of Burns
road and Broadmoor Boulevard on Parcel # 115210022 with conditions
as listed in the September 18, 2014 staff report.
8
Vicinity
Map
Item: Farming in an RT Zone
Applicant: Tom Kidwell
File#: SP 2014-007
Land
Use
Ma
Farming
Item: Farming in an RT Zone
Applicant: Tom Kidwell
File#: SP 2014-007
Farming
Vacant
SITE
Vacant
Gravel
Extraction
Farming
Zoning
Map
RS-40
(County)
Item: Farming in an RT Zone
Applicant: Tom Kidwell
File#: SP 2014-007
R-T (County)
R-T /
...-------11 SITE
R-
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 m an RS-12
(Suburban) Zone
1. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION:
Legal: A Portion of the south % of the northeast % of the northeast % of
the southwest 1/4 of Section 24, Township 9, Range 29, commencing at
the southeast corner of said south % section; thence northwest 89° 56'
along the south boundary of said south % 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 % section 165.1'; thence southeast 89° 56' parallel to said
south boundary 201 '; thence southwest 2o 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
Prop erty 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:
SOUTH:
EAST:
WEST:
RS -1 2
RS-12
RS-12
RS-12
-Single-Family Residence/Church
-Single-Family Residence
-Single-Family Residence
-Single-Family Residence
5 . COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The Comprehensive Plan designates the site
for Lo w-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.
1
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 s tructure
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
relative ly 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 nort hwest 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 j 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 th at 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 t o a degree by requiring the colors of the m e tal 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 a ssimilation 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
landscap ing on the lot.
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 1/4 acre to slightly under lh acre .
4. The subject property was annexed into the city in 1996 (Ordinance
3140).
5. 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 s tructure 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 thirty-five (35) feet in height.
10 . The average height of the home on-site is 13 feet.
11. Pursuant to PMC 25 .22 .0 30(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 foot age 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 th at 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 I 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.
CONCLUSIONS BASED ON STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT
Before recommending approval or denial of a special permit the Planning
Commission must develop findings of fact from which to draw its conclusions
based upon the criteria listed in PMC 25.86.060. The criteria are as follows :
( 1) 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-plex is located on Road 30) on suburban lots.
Accessory s tructures 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 th e 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 thereof?
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 improve ments. The
current site proposed for the garage is 2 feet or more higher than the s treet
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 t o 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 eave overhangs or other architectural features
necessary to match the residential character of the neighborhood. Windows,
eave 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 shop/ garage?
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 minimum
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.
APPROVAL CONDITIONS
1. The special permit shall apply to Franklin County tax parcel
# 1192 51104, 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 south elevation of the garage must contain at least 2 windows
36" by 48".
7. The garage must be painted to match the house
8. A two (2) foot landscaped berm conforming to the standards found
in PMC 25.75.050(4) shall be placed around the east and west
sides of the garage, and shall be maintained according to PMC
25.75.110.
9. All accessory structures must be removed from the property prior
to a final inspection on the detached garage.
10. The Special Permit shall be null and void if a building permit has
not been obtained by April 1 , 2015
RECOMMENDATION
MOTION: I move to adopt findings of fact and conclusions therefrom as
contained in the September 18, 2014 staff report.
MOTION: I move based on the findings of fact and conclusions therefrom the
Planning Commission recommend the City Council grant a special permit to
allow a detached garage at 2907 W Ella Street (tax parcel #119 251 104), with
conditions as listed in the September 18, 2014 staff report.
8
Vicinity
Map
Item: Shop Height Limit Increase
Applicant: James Pickens
File#: SP 2014-008
Land
Use
Map
----~'--RO.J...-OK---CT_
Item: Shop Height Limit Increase
Applicant: James Pickens
File#: SP 2014-008
I
SFDUs
I
Church
ELLA ST
WILCOX DR
N
Zoning
Map
----~'--RO..__OK--C~
Item: Shop Height Limit Increase
Applicant: James Pickens
File#: SP 2014-008
I ~0 RS-12
I
ELLA ST
...-------T"""-R S -12 -,.---~-----.,
WILCOX DR
'
N
Detail
Map
Item: Shop Height Limit Increase
Applicant: Jatnes Pickens
File #: SP 2014-008
..
Standard 60'
ROW Line
lprooertv line
cdg~ or road
-
I
Existing
Ace. Str.
8
202.7
DO
,/
'
Exis
sheds
I
I
I
I
'
~ 2907 W. Ella St.
SFR
1 ,200 sq. ft.
w. Ella Street
-
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
MASTER FILE NO: Z 2014 -004
HEARING DATE: 8/21/2014
ACTION DATE: 9/18/2014
APPLICANT: P & R Construction
6223 W Deschutes Ave
Kennewick W A 9933 7
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 & 115-392-013: 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:
SOUTH:
EAST:
WEST:
R-1
C-1
C -1 & R -3
R-3
-Vacant
-Vacant
-Single-Family Residences/Vacant
-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-B).
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
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 (# 115-392-0 13) is divided
by a land use designation boundary running from east to west along the lower
1 j 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 l and area of 7,200 square feet. This equates to a density of
4.5 unit s per net acre. The Broadmoor Estates, Vintage Village and He ritage
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
density of Mediterranean Villas is the result of the R -3 (Medium-Density
Residential) zoning assigned to the site.
2
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 1 967, 4 7-years ago.
2. The changed conditions, which are alleged to warrant other or additional
zon1ng:
Much of the vicinity to the north, east and west has been developed with
residential neighborhoods containing primarily single-family homes; they are
Broadmoor 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 a fire hazard.
4. The effect it will have on the value and character of the adjacent property
and t he 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
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.
3
5. 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.
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
Comprehe nsive 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.
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.
4
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.
CONCLUSIONS BASED ON STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT
Before recommending approval or denial of a special permit the Planning
Commission must develop findings of fact from which to draw its conclusions
based upon the criteria listed in FMC 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.
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.
5
4. Conditions should be imposed in order to mitigate any significant
adverse impacts from the proposal.
No special conditions are proposed by staff
5. A Concomitant Agreement should be entered into between the City and
the petitioner, and if so, the terms and conditions of such an agreement.
A concomitant agreement is not proposed by staff
RECOMMENDATION
MOTION for Findings of Fact:
I move to adopt findings of fact and conclusions therefrom as contained
in the September 18, 20 14 staff report .
MOTION for Recommendation:
I move based on the fmdings of fact and conclusions as adopted the
Planning Commission recommend the City Council approve the rezone
from RT to R -1 and C -1 for Lots 11 and 19, Coles Estates.
6
Vicinity
Map
Item: Rezone RT to R-1 & C-1
Applicant: P&R Construction
File #: Z20 14-004
Land Use Item: Rezone RT to R-1 & C-1
M Applicant: P&R Construction
ap File#: Z2014-004
~ Residential "'y-l I /
lf-------i e ~~ ~ 1--j----------( CHESHIRE CT
11--------1 ~ ~ / '\
~ ~
0
1------1 ~ ~
Vacant
~~~~~
Ill, ~~r~
Residential-~
MAJESTIALN
Vacant
Vacant
0
0\
~
0
~
rJ)
----~--------~ 0 ~~
-----1-------t ~
l:'!j
...,~
-------~--------~ t"'' z
Residential-~,
WILSHIRE DR
1---------1
Vacant
Zoning
Map
Item: Rezone RT to R-1 & C-1
Applicant: P&R Construction N
File #: Z20 14-004
00
1------11---1 0 := ~ 1--------t-11
L-----...11----------1 ~
~
..., 1----------t-11
(Low-Density Residential) -+-----1 ~
~~
WILSHIRE DR ~ -~R-3 ~~~~~~-~~~~..............,
MA1STIALN RT -
C-1
(Retail Business)
0
=--~ ~
R-3
--------1
Zoning
(Request)
Map
Item: Rezone RT to R -1 & C-1
Applicant: P&R Construction
,
N
' File#: Z20 14 -004
~ 3 f--------l ~ I I ) •~---------~ ~ ~-i--~ z~-' 1----f---t~ oo CHESHIRE CT
11-------1 ~ ~ u ~~~-~-~
~
1-------7'8 '-<------------l
~CENZODR-V-~ (Low~D!nsity
1---------4 ~ Residential)
M AJ E STIALN
-L-----...--------11
R-1
(Low-Density
1""'--.. Residential) Q
'1-------' C\
r----~----k-' ---~---1 ~ ,, ~
, ' ,
00
1----+------1 0
1----+---------l ~
~
"":l 1------r--1
1-------+------1 t"" z
W ILSHIRE DR
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
MASTER FILE NO: SP2014-009
HEARING DATE: 9/18/2014
ACTION DATE: 10/16/2014
APPLICANT: JMC Motorsports LLC
1225 S lOth Ave
Pasco, WA 99301
BACKGROUND
REQUEST: SPECIAL PERMIT: Location of an auto sales business m . a C -1
(Retail Business) Zone
1 . PROPERTY DESCRIPTION:
Legal: Parcel #112 -311-104: The south 97 feet of Lots 11 and 12
Riverside Addition
General Location: The southeast corner of Washington Street and lOth
Avenue
Property Size: The parcel is 14,445 sq. ft. or approximately 0.33 acres.
2. ACCESS: The site is accessed from both lOth Avenue and Washington
Street
3. UTILITIES: All municipal utilities currently serve the site.
4. LAND USE AND ZONING: The site is currently zoned C -1 (Retail
Business). The west portion of the site contains a paved parking lot.
Surrounding properties are zoned and developed as fo llows:
NORTH:
SOUTH:
EAST:
WEST:
C-1
I -1
I -1
C -1
-Commercial retail
-Vacant
-Industrial
-Commercial
5. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The Comprehensive Plan designates the site for
commercial uses. Goal LU-4 encourages the development of high quality
regional and community shopping facilities within the City. LU-4-B
promotes the idea of clusters or centers for shopping and services that are
functionally and economically similar operationally. LU -4-C encourages
the application of standards and guidelines that will result in attractive
and efficient commercial centers.
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
The applicant is requesting special permit approval to locate an auto sales lot
in a C-1 zone in order to provide an outdoor area to display primarily off-road
recreational vehicles. The site is located at the intersection of Washington
Street and lOth Avenue which is directly at the north end of the Cable Bridge.
In the early 1980's the zoning regulations were amended to add automobile
sales as a Permitted Conditional Use in the C-1 zone. In an effort to assist with
the reuse of old gas stations the zoning code was amended to conditionally
permit auto sales on C-1 properties by Special Permit. The term "Conditional
Use" means auto sales may be approved under certain circumstance and
conditions in one location and not in another location. T he Special Permit
review process is used to determine whether or not a conditional use would be
appropriate in a given location. Pasco Municipal Code regulations for the C -1
(Retail Business) zone include the followin g special permit review criteria for
locating automotive sales and service businesses:
25.42.040 PERMITTED CONDITIONAL USES. The following uses are
permitted subject to the approval of a special permit:
(2} Retail automobile sales, including rental or lease, provided the
property is:
(a} Adjacent the intersection of two arterial streets, or
(b) Adjacent a single arterial street; provided it is not adjacent to
or across a public street right-of-way (rom a residential district, and would
not be located closer than 300 feet to any existing car lot;
Meeting either of the locational criteria above allows a business owner to apply
for a Special Permit. In this case, the site proposed for auto sales meets the
criteria listed above in that it fronts lOth Avenue which is classified as a
principal arterial roadway, it is not adjacent to or across from any residential
district, and is just over 300 linear feet from the nearest auto sales lot located
at the intersection of lOth Avenue and Ainsworth Avenue. In this location lOth
Avenue is also classified as a State Highway (Hwy 397). The Comprehensive
Pl an encourages the grouping of similar types of businesses while the Zoning
Code requires separation between automobile sale businesses in the C -1 zone .
The subject site is a corner lot with roadway frontages on both Washington
Street along the south side and lOth Avenue bordering the westerly property
line. Driveways lead into the site from both lOth Ave. and Washington Street.
The parking area to be used for vehicle sales j display occupies the west half of
the parcel which is closest to lOth Avenue.
The warehouse on-site is approximately 4,800 square feet; 3,000 square feet of
which is dedicated to retail business functions. The remaining 1 ,800 square
feet is designed as an indoor vehicle repair facility. Although not the subject of
2
this special permit, it may be noteworthy to mention that the adjacent
warehouse facility to the east (1224 S 9th Ave.) is owned and operated by JMC
solely as a repair facility serving the JMC Motorsports business.
In 1992, Howard Rowell, who was the property owner at the time, was granted
a special permit for vehicle sales at the subject location. At that time Pasco's
Zoning Code contained the identical criteria for retail automobile sales in the
C-1 zone as in today's Code.
Having a commercial land use designation in the Comprehensive Plan indicates
the site's location may be suitable for more intense commercial businesses
allowed under the C-3 (General Business) zoning. Currently however, while
under the C-1 zoning regulations these more intense uses are not permitted . In
order to allow heavy commercial uses, indicated as appropriate by the
Comprehensive Plan, the property would need to undergo reassignment of
zoning classification and based on the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map said
zone change may be feasible. The preceding points are to provide perspective
on Council's view of the vicinity as suitable for more intensive business types.
1Qtll Avenue serves as one of Pasco 's entry gateways. Cities often give enhanced
consideration to development characteristics in the immediate gateway areas .
For many years Pasco's southern river shore has been home to heavy
commercial and heavy industrial businesses, this is reflected in Pasco's Zoning
Map and Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map as we see the River east of
Highway 395 lined with industrial zoning and the industrial land use
designation. The site 's vicinity is one of a somewhat abrupt zoning transition
from I-1 (Light Industrial) to C-1 (Retail Business). In fact, many of the
surrounding business are heavy commercial in nature; they include: pesticide
and fertilizer specialists, sign fabrication, industrial plumbing supply yard,
automotive repair, a farm service/supply business and a motel.
In the opinion of staff, a small ATV, OHV and motorcycle sales lot in this
community gateway would not be ill fitted. Motorcycles and oth e r ATV's are
relatively high dollar retail sales items. The appearance of luxury item retail
sales activity may have a complimentary effect on the perception of the
neighboorhood's economic health and stamina.
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.
3
1. The Planning Department has r eceived a Special Permit application to
allow the conduct of an automotive sales lot at 1225 S. lOth Avenue .
2. The site is approximately 0.33 acres in area.
3 . The site is a corner lot with access from both Washington Street and 1 Q th
Avenue.
4. The site is zoned C -1 (Retail Business).
5. The Comprehensive Plan identifies the site for commercial uses.
6. The Comprehensive Plan encourages the grouping of similar types
businesses.
7. C -1 zoning is often used as intermediate zoning between more intense
commerce areas (such as C -3) and low-i ntensity uses such as residential.
In this case the C -1 zoning is bordered only by industrial zoning.
8. Car sales are a conditional use in C -1 zone; thereby requiring review and
consideration of needed conditions through the Special Permit process.
9. The term "conditional use, means auto sales may be approved under
certain c ircumstance and conditions in one locat ion and not in another
location. The Special Permit review process is used to determine whether
or not a conditional use would be appropriate in a given location.
10. For a C -1 property to qualify for special permit review for a car sales lot,
the property in question would have to either be located at the
intersection of two arterial streets or be located on one arterial street and
not adjacent to or across a public right-of-way from any residentially
zoned properties. A proposed site must also be more than 300 feet from
another auto sales business.
1 1 . In the early 1980's the zoning regulations were amended to add
Automobile sales as a Permitted Conditional Use in the C-1 zone.
12. The Permitted Conditional Uses of PMC 25.42 .040 were amended in
1981 to address a growing concern about how to reuse many of t he old
service stations in town that had closed. After closing , it was difficult for
the old gas station to be reused because they were built for a single
purpose related to servicing vehicle s. The C -1 zone was amended to
specifically allow the adaptive reuse of old service station for car sales
lots.
13. Comprehensive Plan policy LU-4-C encourages the application of
standards and guidelines that will result in attractive and efficient
commercial centers.
14. I-182 Overlay District standards do not apply to this site as it is located
outside of the District.
4
TENTATIVE CONCLUSIONS BASED ON INITIAL STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT
Before recommending approval or denial of a special permit the Planning
Commission must develop findings of fact from which to draw its conclusions
based upon the criteria listed in P.M.C. 25.86.060. The criteria are as follows:
( 1) Will the proposed use be in accordance with the goals, policies, objectives
and text of the Comprehensive Plan?
The site is identified in the Comprehensive Plan for commercial uses.
Plan Policy LU-4-B promotes t he idea of clusters or centers for shopping
and services that are functionally and economically similar
operationally. The Comprehensive Plan (LU-4-C) also encourages the
application of standards and guidelines that will result in attractive and
efficient commercial centers.
(2) Will the proposed use adversely affect public infrastructure?
The proposed use will have little impact on the capacity of public
infrastructure. The site h as been developed and operating for the past
seven years without issue of utility and infrastructure demands. Sewer
and water needs for automobile sales businesses are generally nominal.
(3) Will the proposed use be constructed, maintained and operated to be in
harmony with existing or intended character of the general vicinity?
The existing character of the immediate vicinity is heavy
commercial /light industrial while characterization of the larger vicinity
includes a residential component. The intended character of the vicinity
as indicated by the Comprehensive Plan is transitional . Beginning at the
river shore we see industrial intent, moving north along the lOth Avenue
corridor the intent moves to a commercial character surrounded t o the
east and west by a medium density residential land use designation. An
automobile sales business on the subject site is unlikely to disrupt the
character of the surrounding area.
(4) Will the location and height of proposed structures and the site design
discourage the development of permitted uses on property in the general
vicinity or impair the value thereof?
Surrounding properties are zoned to permit commercial and industrial
development. Buildings on surrounding lots and on the lot in question
are permitted to be 35 feet in height and without limit in the industrial
zones. The site has been previously developed and the proposal does not
involve new construction.
5
(5) Will the operations in connection with the proposal be more objectionable to
nearby properties by reason of noise, fumes, vibrations, dust, traffic, or
flashing lights than would be the operation of any permitted uses within
the district?
The operation of the proposed use within an existing parking lot will not
create objectionable impacts to surrounding land uses. A State
Highway /principal arterial roadway runs through the vicinity, creating a
certain degree of expected disruption created by noise, dust and fumes
emitted by the high traffic volumes. The proposed auto sales lot would
not likely create similar impacts that would be noticeable over the
existing traffic.
(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?
It is unlikely that a small ATV /motorcycle sales lot on the subject site
would present any additional hazards beyond the typical traffic concerns
common to high traffic volume areas.
APPROVAL CONDITIONS
1. The special permit shall apply to Franklin County tax parcel # 112-311 -104:
The south 97 feet of Lots 11 and 12 Riverside Addition, addressed 1225
South lOth Avenue;
2. All right-of-way landscaping adjacent to the site together with all required
landscaping interior to the property shall at all be maintained to be in
healthy condition meeting the requirements of PMC 25. 75;
3. The special permit shall be null and void if a City of Pasco business license
for the proposed auto sales business has not been obtained by December 1,
2015.
RECOMMENDATION
MOTION: I move to close the public hearing and schedule deliberations, the
adoption of findings of fact, and development of a
recommendation for City Council for the October 16, 2014
Planning Commission meeting.
6
Vicinity
Map
IteiTI: Special Permit -Auto Sales in C-1
Applicant: JMC Motorsports LLC
File #: SP20 14-009
Land Use Item: Special Permit-Auto Sales in C-1
M Applicant: JMC Motorsports LLC
ap File #: SP20 14-009
Residential
I I I
Vacant
Zoning
Map
Legend
C-1
C-3
I
R-3 I
I
!
Ite1n: Special Permit -Auto Sales in C-1
Applicant: JMC Motorsports LLC
File #: SP20 14-009
MEMORANDUM
DATE: September 18, 2014
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Dave McDonald, City Planner
SUBJECT: Rezone from I-1 (Light Industrial) to I-2 (Medium Industrial) (Z2014 -
005)
The applicant for this rezone has requested that the hearing be continued for
one month. The applicant will not be able to attend the hearing on
September 18th and may want to alter the boundary lines of the proposed
rezone.
The hearing will need to be opened briefly so an explanation can be provided
for the delay in the hearing. Following the explanation the hearing should be
continued using the motion below.
Motion:
Recommended Motion
I move the Planning Commission continue the hearing for the
rezone under Master File # Z 20 14-005 to the October 16,
20 14 Planning Commission meeting.
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
MASTER FILE NO: PP 2014-004
HEARING DATE: 9/18/2014
ACTION DATE: 1 0 /16 /2 014
APPLICANT: Tri-County Partners
Habitat for Humanity
313 Wellsian Way
Richland, WA 99352
BACKGROUND
REQUEST: Preliminary Plat: Replat of Whitehouse Addition
1. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION:
Legal: Block 3 and the east half of Block 2 Whitehouse Addition.
General Location: 200 -3 00 block of N. Charles Ave.
Property Size: 4.48 Acres
Number of Lots Proposed: 24 lots
Square Footage Range of Lots: 5,504ft 2 to 9,678 ft2
Average Lot Square Footage: 8,135 ft2
2. ACCESS: The property has acc ess from N. Charles Avenue and Alvina
Street.
3. UTILITIES: Utilities exist in North Charles Avenue and Alvina Street.
4. LAND USE AND ZONING: The site is zoned R -3 . Surrounding properties
are zo n ed and developed as follows:
NORTH:
SOUTH:
EAST:
WEST
R -1 -Highland Park
R-1-Vacant
R-1-Single-Family
R -1 & C -3-One Single-Family dwelling and Vacant land
5. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The Comprehensive Plan indicates the site is
intended for mixed residential development. Policy H-1-E encourages the
advancement of home ownership and Goal H -2 suggests the City strive to
maintain a variety of housing options for residents of the community.
Goal LU-2 encourages the maintenance of established neighborhoods
and the creation of new neighborhoods that are safe and enjoyable places
to live.
6. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The City of Pasco is the lead
agency for this project. Based on the SEPA checklist, the adopted City
Comprehen sive Plan, City development regulations, and o t h er
information, a threshold determination resulting in a Determination of
Non-Significance (DNS) has been issued for this project under WAC 197-
11 -158.
ANALYSIS
The property consists of two separate parcels totaling 3.58 acres (4.48
including undeveloped right-of-way). The two parcels are divided by the
unimproved right-of-way of East George Street. The northern most parcel
located between Highland Park on the north and East George Street on the
south contains 1. 98 acres. The balance of the property is located south of East
George Street and westerly of Charles Avenue. This property was platted in lots
and block in 1911 and has remained mostly undeveloped since that time. The
property north of George Street contained one single-family house which was
demolished in 2003. For many years Lots 13-18 of Block 2 located south of
George Street were used as a vehicle storage yard that was filled with broken
down and partially dismantled cars, barrels and other items. Lots 19-24 of the
same block contained an automotive shop (the shop building still remains on
the property} at least one house and a large storage building. In the early
1990's the City required the property owner to remove the blighted conditions
on the property.
The original Whitehouse Addition was platted into 24 lots per block with each
lot being 30 feet by 115 feet for a total of 3,450 square feet . The proposed replat
which includes most of the original lots and all of the undeveloped right-of-way
will contain 24 lots. The undeveloped streets and alleys will need to be vacated
as a part of the platting process. The applicant has submitted a vacation
petition and a hearing on the vacation will be scheduled for October 20, 2014.
LOT LAYOUT: The proposed plat contains 24 lots; with the lots varying in
size from 5,500 to 9,678 square feet. The average lot size is 8,135 square feet.
RIGHTS-OF-WAY: All lots have adequate frontage on streets which will be
dedicated. Existing undeveloped right-of-way platted in 1911 will need to be
vacated. The applicant has initiated the vacation process.
UTILITIES: The developer will be responsible for extending utilities into the
plat. A utility easement will be needed along the first 10 feet of street frontage
of all lots. The final location and width of the easements will be determined
during the construction design phase of the platting process. The front yard
setbacks for construction purposes are larger than the requested easements;
therefore the front yard easements will not encroach upon the buildable
portions of the lots.
The City Engineer will determine the specific placement of fire hydrants and
streetlights when construction plans are submitted. As a general rule, fire
2
hydrants are located at street intersections and wi th a maximum interval of
500 feet between hydrants on alternating sides of the street. S t reetlights are
located at street intersections, with a maximum interval of 300 feet on
residential streets, and with a maximum int erval of 150 feet on arterial streets.
The intervals for street light placements are measure along the centerline of the
road. Street lights are placed on alternating sides of the street.
STREET NAMES: Streets within the plat will all be named pnor to final
platting.
IRRIGATION: The proposed plat is located in a part of the City that does not
h ave access to the City's irrigation system.
WATER RIGHTS: The assignment of water rights or a payment of a fee in lieu
thereof is a requirement for final plat approval p er Pasco Municipal Code
Section 3.07.160. In this case there are no water rights to deed to the City as a
result the current fee will be required before a final plat is approved.
FINDINGS OF FACT
State law (RCW 58.17.110) and the Pasco Municipal Code require the Planning
Commission to develop Findings of Fact as to how this proposed subdivision
will protect and enhance the health, safety and general welfare of the
community. The following is a listing of proposed "Findings of Fact":
Prevent Overcrowding: With an average lot size of 8,135 square feet the
proposed development will address the overcrowding concern by providing
manageable lots and usable open spaces. R -3 zoning requires a 20 foot front
yard setback, five foot side yard setbacks and a rear yard equal to or greater
than the height of the house.
Parks Opens Space I Schools: Highland Park is located directly to the north of
the proposed plat. Kurtzman Park is located to the south adjacent to Virgie
Robinson Elementary School. Two elementary schools (Whittier & Robinson)
are located within half a mile from the site. A t hird elementary school to be
loc ated north of Highland Park is under construction. The owner j deve loper of
each lot will be required to pay the current park impact fee at prior to receiving
a building permit.
The City is required by RCW 58.17.110 to make a finding that adeq uate
provisions are being made to ameliorate the impacts of the proposed
subdivision on the School District. At the request of the School District the City
enacted a school impact fee in 2012. The imposition of this impact fee
addresses the requirement to ensure there are adequate provisions for schools.
3
Effective Land Use/Orderly Development: The plat is laid out for low-density
residential development consistent with the adjoining residential
neighborhoods. The proposed plat layout provides for an orderly continuation
of the existing residential subdivisions to the east.
Safe Travel & Walking Conditions: The Plat will connect to the community
through the existing network of streets. Sidewalks are installed at the time
homes are built on individual lots. The sidewalk will be constructed to current
City standards and to the standards of the American's with Disabilities Act
(ADA). The ADA handicap ramps at the corners of each intersection will be
installed with the construction of the road improvements.
Adequate Provision of Municipal Services: All lots within the plat will be
provided with water, sewer and other u t ilities.
Provision of Housing for State Residents: The proposed preliminary plat
contains 24 building lots, providing opportunities for the construction of 24
new homes for Pasco residents.
Adequate Air and Light: The maximum lot coverage limitation of 60 percent
and building setbacks will assure that adequate movement of air and light is
available to each lot.
Proper Access & Travel: The access streets will be paved and developed to
City standards to assure that proper access is maintained to each lot. (The
discussion under safe travel above applies to this section also .)
Comprehensive Plan Policies & Maps: The Comprehensive Plan designates
the plat site for mixed-residential development. Policies of the Comprehensive
Plan suggest the City strive to maintain a variety of housing for residents.
Other Findings:
• The site is within the Pasco Urban Growth Area Boundary.
• The State Growth Management Act requires urban growth and urban
densities to occur within Urban Growth Boundaries.
• The Comprehensive Plan identifies the site for mixed residential
development.
• The site was zoned R -3 in 2012.
• The site was originally platted in 1911.
• The original plat contained 24, 30 by 115 foot lots per block.
• The proposed replat occupies the original lots and adjoining undeveloped
right-of-way and contains a total of 24 lots.
4
• The Housing Element of the Comprehensive Plan encourages the
developmen t of a variety of residential densities and housing types.
• Per the ITE Trip Generation Manual 8 th Addition the proposed
subdivision, when fully developed, will generate approximately 240
vehicle trips per day.
• RCW 58 .17.110 requires the City to make a finding that adequate
provisions have been made for schools before any preliminary plat is
approved.
• The City of Pasco has adopted a school impact fee ordinance compelling
new housing developments t o provide the School District with mitigation
fees. The fee was effective April 16, 2012.
• Past correspondence from the Pasco School District indicates impact fees
address the requirement to ensure adequate provisions are made for
schools.
• There are no water rights associated with this plat therefor a payment in
lieu of dedication of water rights will be required to receive final plat
approval.
• A park impact fee will be required at the time of issuance of building
permits for each lot.
CONCLUSIONS BASED ON THE FINDINGS OF FACT
Before recommending approval or denial of the proposed Plat the Planning
Commission must develop Findings of Fact from which to draw its conclusion
(P.M .C. 26.24.070) therefrom as to whether or not:
(1) Adequate provisions are made for the public health, safety and
general welfare and for open spaces, drainage ways, streets, alleys,
other public ways, water supplies, sanitary wastes, parks,
playgrounds, transit stops, schools and school grounds, sidewalks for
safe walking conditions for students and other public needs;
The proposed plat will be required to develop under the standards of the Pasco
Municipal Code and the standard specifications of the City Engineering
Division. These standards for streets, sidewalks, and other infrastructure
improvements were designed to ensure the public health, safety and general
welfare of the community are secured. These standards include provisions for
streets, drainage, water and sewer service and the provision for dedication of
right-of-way. The preliminary plat was forwarded to the Franklin County PUD,
the Pasco School District, Cascade Gas, Charter Cable and Ben-Franklin
Transit Authority for review and comment. The PUD requested easements along
the front of all lots for utility service.
5
Based on the School Districts Capital Facilities Plan the City collects school
mitigation fees for each new dwelling unit. The fee is paid at the time of
building permit issuance. The school impact fee addresses the requirements of
RCW 58.17.110 .
(2) The proposed subdivision contributes to the orderly development and
land use patterns in the area;
The proposed plat makes efficient use of vacant land and will provide for
additional housing. The proposed plat will also cause the west half of Charles
Avenue to be fully developed and will complement the single-family
development to he east.
(3) The proposed subdivision conforms to the policies, maps and
narrative text of the Comprehensive Plan;
The Comprehensive Plan land use map designates the site for mixed residential
development. Single-family homes are identified in the Comprehensive Plan as
a permitted land use a nd also a permitted uses under the R -3 zoning. Plan
Go al H-2 suggests the City strive to maintain a variety of housing options for
residents of the community while Plan Policy H -1 -B supports the protection
and enhancement of the established character of viable residential
neighborhoods .
( 4) The proposed subdivision conforms to the general purposes of any
applicable policies or plans which have been adopted by the City
Council;
D evelopment plans and policies have been adopted by the City Council in the
form of the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed subdivision conforms to the
policies, maps and narrative text of the Plan as noted in number three above.
(5) The proposed subdivision conforms to the general purposes of the
subdivision regulations.
The general purposes of the subdivision regulations have been enumerated and
discussed in the staff analysis and F indings of Fact. The Findings of Fact
indicate the subdivision is in conformance with the general purposes of the
subdivision regulations provided certain mitigation measures (i.e. school, park
and traffic fees) are included in approval conditions .
(6) The public use and interest will be served by approval of the proposed
subdivision.
If approved the proposed plat will be developed in accordance with all City
standards designed to insure the health, safety and general welfare of the
6
community are met. The Comprehensive Plan will be implemented through
development of this Plat. These factors will insure the public use and interest
are served.
PLAT APPROVAL CONDITIONS
1. At the time lots are developed, all abutting roads and utilities shall be
installed to City standards as approved by the City Engineer. This
includes, but is not limited to water, sewer and irrigation lines, streets,
street lights and storm water retention. The handicapped accessible
pedestrian ramps must be completed with the street and curb
improvements prior to final plat approval. All proposed utilities must be
installed underground by the developer at the developer's expense. The
phrase "all abutting roads" includes California Avenue along the western
boundary of the plat.
2. All excess and undeveloped right-of-way as now existing must be vacated.
3. The developer /builder shall mitigate impacts to the Public School System
by the "school impact fee" established by Ordinance at the time of
issuance of building permits for homes.
4. The developer must comply with PMC 26.40.115(B) and PMC 3.07.160
dealing with water rights acquisition.
5. No utility vaults, pedestals, or other obstructions will be allowed at street
intersections.
6. All corner lots and other lots that present difficulties for the placement of
yard fencing shall be identified in the notes on the face of the final plat(s).
7. All storm water is to be disposed of per City and State codes and
requirements.
8. The developer shall insure active and ongoing dust, weed and litter
abatement activities occur during the construction of the subdivision and
construction of dwellings thereon.
9. The developer shall prepare a dust, weed and erosion control plan to be
approved by the City prior to approval of any construction drawings for the
first phase of the subdivision.
10. The developer shall be responsible for the creation of record drawings. All
record drawings shall be created in accordance with the requirements
detailed in the Record Drawing Requirements and Procedure form provided
by the Engineering Division. This form shall be signed by the developer
prior to construction plan approval.
11. All engineering designs for infrastructure and final plat(s) drawings shall
utilize the published City of Pasco Vertical Control Datum and shall be
identified on each such submittal.
7
12. The final plat(s) shall contain a 10-foot utility easement parallel to all
streets unless otherwise required by the Franklin County PUD.
13. The final plat(s) shall contain the following Franklin County Public Utility
District statement: "The individual or company making improvements on a
lot or lots of this Plat is responsible for providing and installing all trench,
conduit, primary vaults, secondary junction boxes, and backfill for the
PUD's primary and secondary distribution system in accordance with PUD
specifications; said individual or company will make full advance payment
of line extension fees and will provide all necessary utility easements prior
to PUD construction and/ or connection of any electrical service to or
within the plat".
14. Street lighting must be installed to the City of Pasco/Franklin County PUD
standards and as directed by the City Engineer. Residential street lights
are typically installed every 300 feet, and collector I arterial type street
lights are typically installed every 150 feet. Street light positioning is
alternating and is measured along the centerline of the road.
15. Prior to the City of Pasco accepting construction plans for review the
developer must enter into a Storm Water Maintenance Agreement with the
City. The developer will be responsible for obtaining the signatures of all
parties required on the agreement and to have the agreement recorded
with the Franklin County Auditor. The original signed and recorded copy
of the agreement must be presented to the City of Pasco at the intake
meeting for construction plans.
16. The developer will be required to conform to all conditions set forth in the
Storm Water Maintenance Agreement including, but not limited to, regular
cleaning and maintenance of all streets, gutters, catch basins and catch
basin protection systems . Cleaning shall occur on a regular basis to
ensure that no excess buildup of sand, trash, grass clippings, weeds or
other debris occurs in any portion of the streets, gutters, or storm water
collection facilities. Cleaning and upkeep of the streets, gutters, and storm
water collection facilities must be to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
The developer will be responsible for operating and maintaining the storm
drain system in accordance with the Storm Water Maintenance Agreement
for a period of up to five years from the date of final plat(s) approval
depending on the build out schedule for homes on the lots.
17. The developer will be required to comply with the City of Pasco Civil Plan
Review process.
18. The developer shall install a common fence 6 feet in height adjacent the
north line of lots 21, 22 and 24. The fence on lot 24 must meet the front
yard setback provisions of the zoning ordinance.
19. The developer shall install a common Estate type masonry wall/fence 6
feet in height along the west line of Lots 21, 20, 19, 18, 11, 10 and 9.
Property owners adjoining said fence shall be responsible for payment of
all costs associated with maintenance and upkeep. These fencing
8
requirements shall be noted clearly on the face of the final plat(s). The
undeveloped portion of the California right-of-way between the sidewalk
and the fence must be treated with soil fabric/weed block and crushed
basalt approved by the City prior to installation.
20. A detail of the common fence required in # 17 and the block fence required
in # 18 shall be included on the construction drawing for the subdivision.
RECOMMENDATION
MOTION: I move to continue the hearing on the proposed preliminary plat to
the October 16, 2014 meeting.
9
Vicinity Item: PreliminarY Plat (24 Lots)
Applicant: Tri -County Partners
Map File #: PP 2014-004
Overview Item:.Prelimiqary Plat (24 Lots)
Apphcant: Tn-County Partners
Map File #: PP 2014-00 4
Land Use Item:.Prelimir~ary Plat (24 Lots)
Applicant: Tn-County Paertners
Map File #: PP 2014-00 4
Park
Vac.
1-----l w 1--------1
~> <( 1--1
I~
1--------l (.)
wl-------l i-------I W
1---------l CD ~
SFDUs
=5
:t
I-.:
l :i~ I ~C> >-::t It~ 0 I :c ... ~~~
I if~
' .... 0 -
I
I I !
~ I
~ I -~
I I
~~~ '
i!l li .. '. '-f l
I . l
I I
I
I
I
I I
1 ~~I ~-
~ • l
i
i
I I'
I
! i
,,, ... ~ ........ It A ~ .... ~~""""'.,.,.,..,.,..,rr:,..-:=:--•-v-r~
ssss~;6~f6(J'~rS~QY$';.tVt.t >f:liH
I -UIN11WOH ~O,f .1.V.U9'0'H Sll:ilfC.L\IVd A.1.NI).%tll!); r +---------~~~~~~~~~~
r
G..~U'.O.ln.«J
~<'QtfYl-I!:M .0-'f\'"'~}.JJJ
..
~ dlljj~~·~l!lo d t ~~nnnrnn~
inn unun~
ij i~nn~H~~i
nnq.~;;q;~= ~at •~-~~:1••·~
5 n~q~np~~t ~:i :•b811!'l!~ .!!!.!loll
n -•l:n~a~':'•li n~nnnnn
ii n~auns~p ~~-"s ~gus ~".~
~~···~-'~ ~~h ijdnd.t~:;.h
I
I
/
L....----~-1-
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
TO:
September 18, 2014
Planning Commission
FROM: Jeffrey B. Adams, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: Shoreline Management Act-SMP Regulatory Components and
Draft Shoreline Master Program
Introduction
Pasco is updating its Shoreline Master Program (SMP) with project funding
from the Department of Ecology (Ecology). In February of 2013 the Planning
Commission received an SMP orientation from representatives from the
Washington State Department of Ecology. This is a follow-up report of current
SMP activities and an introduction to the Shoreline Jurisdiction and Public
Participation Plan components of the City's SMP.
SMP Regulatory Components
Pasco c urrently uses the Franklin County Shoreline Management Master
Program to regulate developments within its shorelines. The Franklin County
SMP was adopted in a County/City joint hearing on July 16, 1974 and has
been periodically updated. The current SMP process will create a separate SMP
document for Pasco and implement the SMA consistent with the Ecology
guidelines. The Anchor QEA Memo describes key regulatory items and offers
multiple options for each item, with a recommendation designed to
accommodate the unique challenges and opportunities of the City of Pasco (See
attached Anchor QEA Memorandum of August 7, 2014).
Once a dopted, these recommendations will be integrated as part of the PMC
and will be used to regulate deve lopment within the City's shoreline
jurisdiction.
Shoreline Master Program
The following SMP components are required by the Shoreline Manage ment Act
(SMA) and are presented in outline form in the PC Packet (see attached):
• G eneral goals, policies and regulations which apply throughout
shoreline jurisdiction, without regard to environment designation;
• Environment designations, and their purpose statements,
classification criteria, management policies and r egulations , maps
and boundary descriptions;
• Shoreline modifications policies and regulations ;
• Shoreline use policies and regulations;
• Administrative provisions for conditional use permits, variances, and
nonconforming development;
Page l of2
• Goals and policies for restoration of impaired shoreline ecological
functions; and
• Definitions.
This document will be "fleshed out" to meet the regulatory requirements of
the State of Washington Shoreline Management Act and the Department of
Ecology guidelines, and in conjunction with input received in the City of
Pasco visioning process.
Page 2 of2
MEMORANDUM
To:
From:
Rick White, Community and Economic
Development Director, City of Pasco
Ben Floyd, Anchor QEA, LLC
Vivian Shin Erickson, Anchor QEA, LLC
Ferdouse Oneza, Oneza & Associates
8033 W. Grand ridge Avenue, Suite A
Kennewick, Washington 99336
Phone 509.491.3151
www.anchorqea.com
Date: August 7, 2014
Project: 131050-01.01, Task 5
Re: Shoreline Master Program: Update Approach and Requirements
This memorandum discusses the key topics of the Shoreline Management Act (SMA; Revised
Code ofWashington [RCW] 90.58) that the City of Pasco needs to address in the Shoreline
Master Program (SMP) update, with a particular focus on the SMP regulatory components.
Pasco uses the current Franklin County SMP to regulate developments within its shorelines.
The Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) adopted the SMA Guidelines
(Washington Administrative Code [WAC] 173-26) in 2003. This SMP process will create a
separate SMP document for Pasco and implement the SMA consistent with the Ecology
guidelines.
This SMP update includes preparing the following documents:
• Inventory, Analysis , and Characterization (lAC) Report : This report provides the
baseline information that is used to develop the regulations and other documents.
Note: A Draft IAC Report (Anchor QEA 2014a) has been developed, with a final draft
expected in the fall of 2014.
• SMP Goals, Policies, Environment Designations, and Regulations: Once adopted,
these program elements will guide new d evelopments within the shoreline
jurisdiction in the City.
• Cumulative Impact Analysis Report: This report demonstrates how the updated SMP
will achieve "no net loss" of shoreline ecological functions.
• Restoration Plan: This plan identifies degraded areas and restoration actions to
improve ecological functions and describes how the plan will be implemented. It
includes a restoration fr am ework that builds off of information in the lAC Report and
is also consistent with the Cumulative Impact Analysis Report.
\\Kennewick l \Kennewick\Projccu ,Ci ty of Pa sco\De l iverab l ~ SMP,Tech Memo\2014_0807 _Pasco_SMP Update_TechMemo .docx
Rick White
August 7, 2014
Page 2
The following key topic areas for the SMP's regulatory requirements are discussed in the
remainder of this memorandum:
1. Shoreline jurisdiction, i.e., minimum and optional jurisdiction areas to include in the
SMP
2. Protecting and managing shorelines of statewide significance (SSWS)
3. Environment designation options
4. Providing for water-oriented uses
5. Shoreline use and modification regulation considerations
6. Providing for public access
7. Options for incorporating critical area protections in SMP regulations
8. Focus on riparian and wetland buffers and protections, as part of critical area
protections
9. Vegetation management considerations
Note that the list of topics addressed in this memorandum is not intended to be
comprehensive to all SMP and regulatory elements; rather, the memorandum is focused on
those topics that broadly impact the overall program and where more flexibility in
approaches or multiple options for addressing requirements exist.
SHORELINE JURISDICTION
Guidelines: RCW and WAC
The shoreline area includes the following waterbodies and lands:
• Rivers and streams with more than 20 cubic feet per second (cfs) mean annual flow
• Lakes and reservoirs greater than 20 acres in area
• Associated wetlands within the 100-y ear floodplain
• Shorelands within 200 feet of the ordinary high-water mark ( 0 HWM) of the
waterways
• Floodways and contiguous floodplain areas landward 200 feet from the edge of
floodways , per RCW 90.58.030(2)(e)
• Per RCW 90.58.030(2)(£), SSWS for east of the crest of the Cascades are those lakes,
whether natural, artificial, or a combination thereof, with a surface acreage of 1,000
or more measured at the OHWM and streams or rivers (or segments of natural
Rick White
August 7, 2014
Page 3
streams) "that have either: a mean annual flow of 200 cfs or more, or the portion
downstream from the first 300 square miles of drainage area"
Shorelines of the State are the total of all "shorelines" and "shorelines of statewide
significance" within the State (RCW 90.58.030(2)(g)).
Options
Option 1: Minimum Jurisdiction
• Lands extending 200 feet landward in all directions from the OHWM or the floodway
plus contiguous floodplain extending 200 feet landward from the floodway,
whichever is greater
• Associated wetlands and river deltas
Option 2: Customized Area
• Identified by local government, and larger than the minimum shoreline jurisdiction
area
• May include portions of the floodplain or land outside the floodplain necessary for
buffers for critical areas within shorelines
Option 3: Maximum Jurisdiction
• The entire 100-year floodplain , plus any land necessary for wetland buffers within
shorelines
Applicability
Minimum jurisdiction will result in less shoreline area under State oversight during SMP
implementation. Maximum jurisdiction will result in more shoreline areas under State
oversight.
Much of the Columbia River and Snake River shoreline already has additional restrictions in
place under the public ownership, and it is under State and federal management. Much of
the Pasco's shoreline has flood protection levee managed by the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (USACE).
Recommendation
• Use the minimum jurisdiction for Pasco's shoreline
SHORELINES OF STATEWIDE SIGNIFICANCE (SSWS)
Guidelines (RCW and WAC)
For SSWS , SMPs shall give preference to uses in the following order:
1. Recognize and protect the statewide interest over local interest
2 . Preserve the natural character of the shoreline
3 . Result in long-term rather than short-term benefit
4. Protect the resources and ecology of the shoreline
5 . Increase public access to publicly owned areas of the shorelines
6. Increase recreational opportunities for the public in the shoreline
Rick White
August 7, 2014
Page 4
7. Provide for any other element, as defined in RCW 90.58.100, deemed appropriate or
necessary (RCW 90.58.020)
Applicability
The entire Pasco shoreline is bounded by the shorelines of statewide significance and the
Columbia River and Snake River shorelines. All of the preferred uses for SSWS can be
implemented either through general or more specific SSWS regulations developed for the
City.
Options
Option 1: Separate SSWS Regulations
• Include separate set of regulations for SSWS
Option 2: Integrated Regulations
• Implement SSWS policy requirements into one integrated set of regulations instead of
separate regulations for SSWS
Recommendations
Use Option 2 as follows:
Rick White
August 7, 2014
Page 5
• Apply tailored regulations for local conditions that also meet the SSWS's use
preference
• Maintain consistency with the policy and apply regulations for SSWS when general
regulations do not seem adequate to implement the policies
ENVIRONMENT DESIGNATIONS
Guidelines (RCW and WAC)
Environment designations shall be based on the following criteria:
• The existing land-u se pattern
• The biological and physical character of the shoreline
• The goals and aspirations of the City as expressed through comprehensive plans, as
well as criteria in RCW 173 -26 -211 associated with the six shoreline environments
subsequently provided
The State has identified a recommended classification system that can be used as a starting
point in considering environment designations most applicable to the City. These
designations consist of High-intensity, Shoreline Residential, Urban Conservancy, Rural
Conservancy, Natural, and Aquatic, as described in WAC 173 -26-211.
The purpose for each of these environment designations is described in WAC 173-26-211
and listed here for reference:
• High-intensity: Provide for high-intensity water-oriented commercial,
transportation, and industrial uses while protecting existing ecological functions and
restoring ecological functions in areas that have been previously degraded.
• Shoreline Residential: Accommodate residential development and appurtenant
structures that are consistent with this chapter. An additional purpose is to provide
appropriate public access and recreational uses.
Rick White
August 7, 2014
Page 6
• Urban Conservancy: Protect and restore ecological functions of open space, flood
plain and other sensitive lands where they exist in urban and developed settings,
while allowing a variety of compatible uses.
• Rural Conservancy: Protect ecological functions, conserve existing natural resources
and valuable historic and cultural areas in order to provide for sustained resource use,
achieve natural flood plain processes, and provide recreational opportunities.
Examples of uses .. .include low-impact outdoor recreation uses, timber harvesting on
a sustained-yield basis , agricultural uses , aquaculture, low-intensity residential
development and other natural resource-based low-intensity uses.
• Natural: Protect those shoreline areas that are relatively free of human influence or
that include intact or minimally degraded shoreline functions intolerant of human
use. These systems require that only very low-intensity uses be allowed in order to
maintain the ecological functions and ecosystem-wide processes. Consistent with the
policies of the designation, local government should include planning for restoration
of degraded shorelines within this environment.
• Aquatic: Protect, restore, and manage the unique characteristics and resources of the
areas waterward of the ordinary high water mark.
Local governments may also establish a different designation system or may retain their
current environment designations, provided these are consistent with the purposes and
policies ofWAC 173 -26-2 11. Parallel environments can also be used where appropriate,
with shorelands divided into different sections generally running parallel to the shoreline or
along a physical feature such as a bluff. In applying environment designations, the State
reminds local governments they should ensure existing shoreline ecological functions are
protected with the proposed pattern and intensity of development and consider restoration
potential for an area (WAC 173-26 -211).
Environment designations shall des cribe the following items:
• Purpose: The unique shoreline management objectives of the designation in a manner
that distinguishes it from other designations
• Classification Criteria: The basis for assigning the particular designation to specific
sections of the shoreline
Rick White
August 7, 2014
Page 7
• Management Policies: The basis for the environment regulations with sufficient detail
to assist in their interpretation (WAC 173-26-211)
Applicability
The lAC Report summarizes existing conditions in light of the State-identified designations,
as provided in Table 1. Several areas identified under High-intensity have a recreation focus,
suggesting that a recreation-focused, higher-intensity environment designation may be
appropriate for these areas. Some High-intensity areas have industrial activity where
industrial-focused environment designations may be appropriate. The levee areas along the
Columbia River may benefit from a designation specific to public facilities and recreation.
Existing residential uses along the Columbia River shoreline may benefit from the use of
Residential environment designation.
Conservancy areas comprise unimproved areas, low-intensity recreation, and open-space
lands, suggesting that a Conservancy designation might be appropriately tailored to one or
more of these uses. Both Conservancy and Natural designations appear appropriate for areas
along the Columbia and Snake Rivers.
Table 1
Preliminary Environment Designation Considerations
Shoreland
Characteristics Applicable Geographic Areas
• Industrial areas, including water-dependent facilities on the Columbia (Reach 6) and
High -intensity
Snake rivers (SR 8b)
• Chiawana, Wade, Riverview, Sc hlagel, and Sacajawea parks (SR 3a, Sc, and 6b and
Reach 7)
• Several areas along the Columbia River (Reaches 1, 2; and SR 3b, 4a, and 4b, and
Residential portions of SR Sb and 6b)
• Open space areas located in SR lc, 3a, 3b, Sc, and 6c and Reaches 7 and 8, which
Conservancy include lower inten sity recreation areas at Chiawana and Sacajawea parks
Natural • All isl ands
• Consider a special designation area for leveed areas along the Co l umbia River , where
Other limited ecological function and future development potential exists, and the areas are
dedicated for public recreation as part of the regi onal t rail system
Table 1
Preliminary Environment Designation Considerations
Shoreland
Characteristics Applicable Geographic Areas
• Consider a recreation-based designation for the several park areas
Note:
SR = subreach
Options
Option 1: Recommended Classifications
Rick White
August 7, 2014
Page 8
• Use the WAC-recommended classifications for environment designation and fit all
shoreline categories within the six-classifications system
Option 2: Tailored Designations
• Customize environment designations , as necessary, based on the local criteria, and use
tailored purpose, criteria, and management policies that reflect existing uses,
ecological functions , and community visions as bases for environment designation
Recommendations
• Use a hybrid system of Option 1 and 2, utilizing Natural, Shoreline Residential, and
Aquatic designations from the WAC-recommended classifications, with one or two
other additional tailored designations, based on local conditions.
As discussed above, environment designations are based on local conditions and land uses.
Table 2 shows the relationship between proposed environment designations and associated
land-use and zoning designations. For the most part, Pasco's Comprehensive Plan land use is
consistent with the current land use pattern; however, the zoning designations may not be
con sistent in some areas. This is mostly due to the zoning oflarger parcels or areas, which
could be different from the current use in the shoreline portion.
Table 2
Proposed Environment Designations
Shoreland Proposed Environment
Characteristics Designations
Public Flood Protection
High-intensity Recreation
High-intensity
Residential Shoreline residential
Conservancy Urban Conservancy
Natural Natural
WATER-ORIENTED USES
Guidelines (RCW and WAC}
Pasco Zoning
• RT: Residential Transition
• 1-1: Light Industrial (Levee}
• RT: Residential Transition
• 1-1: Light Industrial
(Riverview, Schlagel, and
Sacajawea parks}
• 1-2 : Medium Industrial
• 1-3: Heavy Industrial
• RS-20 : Suburban
• RT : Residential Transition
• RT: Residential Transition
• 1-1: Light Industrial (non-
levee portion of the
wetland near Riverview
park}
• 1-2 : Medium Industrial
(Sacajawea Park}
• 1-3 : Heavy Industrial
(waterward portion of the
trail of Osprey Pointe}
Not available
Rick White
August 7 , 2014
Page 9
Pasco Comprehensive Plan
Land Use
• Parks/Open Space
• Industrial
• Parks/Open Space
• Industrial
• Low-density Residenti al
• Mixed Residential
• Mixed Residential
Commercial (portion of SR
ld)
• Parks/Open Space
• Industrial
Not available
Preferred water-oriented uses should be consistent with pollution control and prevention of
damage to the natural environment or be unique to or dependent upon use of the State's
shoreline (RCW 90.58 .020). Water-oriented uses include water-dependent, water -related,
and water-enjoyment uses as defined in WAC 173-26-020.
Rick White
August 7, 2014
Page 10
The hierarchy of use preferences dependent on shoreline location is described as follows per
WAC 173-26-201(2)(d):
1. Water-dependent use: This use "cannot exist in any other location and is dependent
on the water by intrinsic nature of its operation." Examples of water-dependent uses
include barge-loading facilities and marinas .
2. Water-related and Water-enjoyment uses:
a. Water-related uses are those uses not intrinsically dependent on a waterfront
location but whose operation cannot occur economically without a shoreline
location.
b. Water-enjoyment uses: These uses provide the opportunity for a significant
number of people to enjoy the shoreline. They must be located, designed, and
operated to ensure the public's ability to enjoy the physical and aesthetic qualities
of the shoreline, and they must be open to the public, with shoreline space
devoted to public shoreline enjoyment. Examples include parks, museums,
restaurants (depending on design), interpretive centers, and resorts (depending
upon design).
3 . Single-family residential uses: These uses are to be located where they are appropriate
and can be developed without significant impact to ecological functions or
displacement of water-dependent uses.
4 . Non-water-oriented uses: These u ses have no functional relationship to the shoreline
and are not designed to enhance the public's enjoyment of the shoreline.
Non-water-oriented uses are required to provide a significant public benefit with respect to
the following SMA objectives:
• Providing public access
• Ecological restoration (WAC 173-26-241(3)(d))
Applicability
Pasco's water-dependent uses include boat launches, docks, and piers on Chiawana, Wade,
and Sacajawea parks. The marina is located near the Schlagel Park. Private docks are also
located adjoining residential properties on the Columbia River. Port facilities include a barge
Rick White
August 7 , 2014
Page 11
dock on the Columbia River. Tidewater, a private transportation and terminal company,
owns a barge dock along the Snake River.
Pasco's water-related uses include industrial and barge facilities along the Snake River and
the Port of Pasco's industrial facilities along the Columbia River.
Pasco's shoreline consists of many water-enjoyment uses, such as parks, beach areas, open
spaces, and trails along the shoreline; there are also fishing and passive recreational
opportunities in multiple shoreline locations. Water-enjoyment u ses are mostly located in
conjunction with water-dependent uses.
Recommendations
• Verify existing and future water-oriented development areas
• Establish appropriate use regulations based on the use preference criteria
SHORELINE USES AND MODIFICATION REGULATIONS
Guidelines (RCW and WAC)
These guidelines identify permitted uses and development standards for each environment
designation (WAC 173-26-201(3)).
To be consistent, SMPs, comprehensive plans, and development regulations should prevent
new uses that are not compatible with preferred uses from being located where they may
restrict preferred uses or development (WAC 173-26-211(3)(b)).
To ensure strict implementation of the SMP will not create unnecessary hardships or thwart
the policy enumerated in RCW 90.58.020, each SMP shall contain provisions to allow for the
varying of the application of use regulations of the SMP, including provisions for permits for
conditional uses and variances. Any such varying shall be allowed only if extraordinary
circumstances are shown and the public interest suffers no substantial detrimental effect
(RCW 90.58.100(5)).
As previously discussed, the following use preferences are listed in WAC 173 -26-201(2)(d):
• Protection and restoration of ecological function
• Water-dependent uses
• Water-related uses
• Other compatible water-enjoyment uses
• Single-family residences
Rick White
August 7, 2014
Page 12
Per WAC 173-26-231 (1), shoreline modifications are generally related to construction of a
physical element such as a dike, breakwater, dredged basin, or fill, but they can include other
actions such as clearing, grading, application of chemicals, or significant vegetation removal.
Shoreline modifications usually are undertaken in support of or in preparation for a shoreline
use, for example, fill (shoreline modification) required for a dam facility (industrial use) or
dredging (shoreline modification) to allow for a marina (boating facility use).
Applicability
Regulations can be tailored as appropriate based on local ecological functions and land uses.
For example, vegetation conservation for Pasco needs to consider the semi-arid climate
conditions when developing standards. Standards for future recreational or other High-
intensity developments would account for existing uses and habitat functions within the
shoreline. The facilities to support the flood protection levees should also be considered in
the regulations. Additionally, regulations need to consider the urban and developed setting
of the shoreline.
Low-impact recreational facilities such as fishing and trails could be regulated under low-
impact categories compared to higher-impact recreational facilities in the parks. Standards for
public access would also focus on the appropriateness for public access locations and be based
on the public access plan (Rivershore Linkage and Amenity Plan) prepared by the City.
Some uses may not be applicable for the City's shoreline, such as mining, forestry or
agriculture.
Recommendations
• Customize regulations following the WAC 173-26-241 regulations as guidelines
Rick White
August 7, 2014
Page 13
• Use customized regulations that are consistent with existing zoning, land use,
ecological functions, and critical areas regulations
PUBLIC ACCESS
Guidelines (RCW and WAC)
RCW 90.58.020 stipulates that "the public's opportunity to enjoy the physical and ae sthetic
qualities of natural shorelines of the State shall be preserved to the greatest extent feasible
consistent with the overall best interest of the State and the people."
Under these guidelines, no permit shall be issued for any new or expanded building or
structure more than 35 feet above average grade level on shorelines of the State that will
obstruct the view of a substantial number of residences on areas adjoining such shorelines.
An exception to this can be where an SMP does not prohibit it and when overriding
considerations of the public interest will be served (RCW 90.58.320).
Public access guidelines in WAC 173-26-221 ( 4) include principles and standards that are
designed to provide the following benefits:
• Promote and enhance the public interest with regard to the right to access waters
held in public trust by the State, while protecting private property rights and public
safety
• Protect the rights of navigation and space necessary for water-dependent uses
• To the greatest extent feasible and consistent with the overall best interest of the State
and the people, protect the public's opportunity to enjoy the physical and aesthetic
qualities of shorelines of the State, including views of the water
• Regulate the design, construction, and operation of permitted uses in the shorelines of
the State to minimize interference with the public's use of the water
Public access standards are designed to accomplish the following goals:
• Establish policies and regulations that protect and enhance physical and v isual public
access (the SMP shall address public access on public lands)
• Require that shoreline development by public entities, including local governments,
port districts, State agencies, and public utility districts, include public access
Rick White
August 7, 2014
Page 14
measures as part of each development project, unless the access is incompatible due to
reasons of safety, security, or impacts to the shoreline environment, where public
access planning, as described in WAC 173-26-221 (4)(c), demonstrates that a more
effective public-access system can be achieved through alternate means, such as
focusing public access at the most desirable locations, local governments may institute
SMP provisions for public access based on that approach in lieu of uniform site-by-
site public access requirements
• Provide standards for the dedication and improvement of public access in
developments for water-enjoyment, water-related, and non-water-dependent uses
and for the subdivision of land into more than four parcels
• Adopt provisions, such as maximum height limits, setbacks, and view corridors, to
minimize the impacts to existing views from public property or substantial numbers
of residences
• Ensure public access improvements do not result in a net loss of shoreline
ecological functions
Applicability
The City's shoreline has public access opportunities in multiple locations in parks, trails , and
road termini. The City has developed the Rivershore Linkage and Amenity Plan (Pasco
2012). This plan provides an in depth analysis of public access opportunities, needs, and
constraints for the entire shoreline. It also makes short-term and long-term
recommendations for public access and other rivershore improvements.
Visioning Notes
To help identify the community vision for the local shoreline and engage the public in the
SMP update process, the City visioning workshops in July, 2014. The visioning workshops
indicated several potential public-access improvements as follows (Anchor QEA 2014b):
• Riparian vegetation (both native and non-native) is blocking access and views at
Wade Park and around Schlagel Park and the marina.
• Manage or upgrade the jetties that protect the Pasco Boat Basin marina and Schlagel
Park to provide for improved public access.
Rick White
August 7, 2014
Page 15
• Provide for a trail underneath the railroad bridge that allows bicycle and pedestrian
traffic. (Note: One resident pointed out that there has been access under this bridge
for the past 100 years).
• At a May 2014 Franklin County visioning workshop, a member of the public
identified that a beach at Chiawana Park would be a nice public access improvement
(Anchor QEA 2014c).
Options
Option 1: Review Case-by-case
• Require public access as part of new development, and review the feasibility of public
access on a case-by-case basis
Option 2: Apply the City-wide Public Access Plan
• The City has already developed the Rivershore Linkage and Amenity Plan
(Pasco 2012). Consider this as the public access plan, and future public accesses
should be consistent with this plan.
Recommendations
• Use Option 2 supplemented with the following actions:
-Establish general policies and regulations for public access consistent with the
public access plan
-Identify types of public access, e.g., passive versus active and visual versus physical
access
CRITICAL AREAS
Guidelines (RCW and WAC)
In 2010 , the Washington State Legislature passed Substitute House Bill1653, which amended the
Growth Management Act (GMA; RCW 36.70a.480), clarifying that "critical areas within
shoreline jurisdiction are regulated under the local critical areas ordinance required by the GMA
until Ecology approves a comprehensive [shoreline] master program update, new [shoreline]
Rick White
August 7 , 2014
Page 16
master program, or segment of a master program related to critical areas . After approval, critical
areas within shoreline jurisdiction are regulated solely by the SMP" (Ecology 2012).
According to RCW 90.58.090( 4), the SMP needs to include critical areas regulations that
provide a level of protection "at least equal to that provided by the local government's critical
areas ordinances (CAO)." In addressing issues related to critical areas, the use of "the most
current, accurate and complete scientific and technical information available" (WAC 173-26-
201(2)(a)) is required. The regulatory provisions for critical areas shall protect existing
ecological functions and ecosystem-wide processes (WAC 172-26-221 (2)).
Considerations for Preparing Critical Areas Provisions for the SMP Update
Model CAO language has been developed by the Washington State Department of
Community, Trade, and Economic Development (CTED 2007) and Ecology (Ecology 2010).
When preparing critical area provisions for the SMP, provisions included in these model
ordinances should be taken into consideration, except for the following items:
• Reasonable use exceptions
• Administrative exemptions
• Waivers
Other considerations when protecting critical areas within the SMP context include
GMA -authorized administrative provisions of a CAO that may not be applicable in the SMP,
such as the following:
• Appeals
• Permits
• Penalties
• Enforcement
Applicability
The City has an existing SMP and critical areas regulations (adopted in 2009) for wetl ands,
critical aquifer-recharge areas, frequently flooded areas, geologically hazardous areas , and
fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas.
•
Options
Rick White
August 7, 2014
Page 17
Option 1: Prepare New Critical Areas Ordinance in the Shoreline Master
Program
• Develop new critical areas regulations specific to the SMP
• New regulations ensure that SMP critical area provisions in the SMP are the most up-
to-date standards based on the latest science and related analysis conducted as part of
the comprehensive SMP update
• Existing CAO would not be incorporated into the SMP and would not apply within
the shoreline jurisdiction
Option 2: Copy and Embed Critical Areas Ordinance Sections in the Shoreline
Master Program
• Copy specific sections from the CAO and embed them into the SMP
• Embedded sections in the comprehensive SMP update will provide sole protection to
critical areas within shoreline jurisdiction
Option 3: Adopt the Critical Areas Ordinance by Reference
• Adopt the CAO by r eference or attach relevant portions as an appendix
If adopting the entire CAO by r eference, note specific provisions that do not apply
to the SMP
• Referenced or attached sections must be submitted to Ecology for ap proval
• Any changes to referenced CAO provisions will constitute a limited SMP amendment
and must be submitted to Eco logy for review and approval
Recommendations
• Recommend a combination of Options 1 and 2
• Incorporate existing CAO provisions, with updates as necessary, to meet GMA and
SMA requirements
• Consolidate critical areas administrative items (e.g., exemptions, enforcement, and
other provisions) into the SMP administrative sections
Rick White
August 7, 2014
Page 18
To implement this recommendation, the following information would be revised as needed.
The majority of code revisions would occur in the General Provisions section of the
2009 CAO.
• General Provisions
Work with the 2009 CAO and update it to meet SMA requirements and the most
current, accurate, and complete scientific and technical information available,
along with meeting G MA best available science requirements
Delete language from the 2009 CAO that is inconsistent with the SMA
(e .g ., reasonable -use and administrative exceptions and waivers) and not
applicable to the SMP (e.g., administrative processes and variances that would be
governed by the SMP)
• Wetlands
-Update buffers and mitigation ratios per Ecology's model ordinance included in
2010 Wedand Guidance for Small Cities-Eastem Washington Version (Revised
2012))
-Update reference for wetland delineation manual to the approved 1987 USACE
Wetlands Delineation Manual, as amended and its regional applicable regional
supplements, as amended (The Arid West Final Regional Supp lement was last
updated in 2008)
-The City's 2009 CAO currently references the Washington State Wetlands Rating
System for Eastern Washington, as revised. The most current copy (2007, revised
in 2014) ofthat document should be referred to for additional information on
classification of wetlands.
• Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas
-Include a discussion on critical freshwater habitats per WAC 173 -26-22 1(2)(c)(iv)
-Provide updated stream buffer recommendations based on local ecological
functions and conditions, as discussed in more detail in Section 8, Riparian and
Wetland Buffer
• Frequently Flooded Areas
Rick White
August 7, 2014
Page 19
-The City's 2009 CAO currently references the Pasco Municipal Code (PMC)
Chapter 24-Floodplain regulations (1987). Update as needed for SMA
consistency and also consider provisions in Ecology's model floodplain
management ordinances and CTED's Critical Areas Assistance Handbook,
Appendix A: Example Code Provisions for Designating and Protecting Critical
Areas (CTED 2007).
RIPARIAN AND WETLAND BUFFER
Guidelines (RCW and WAC)
Shoreline buffers help meet the goal of "protecting against adverse effects to ... the land and
its vegetation and wildlife, and the waters ofthe State and their aquatic life" (WAC 173 -26-
221(6)(b)). Buffers help protect riparian and wetland habitats.
SMPs shall contain requirements for buffers adjacent to riparian areas and around wetlands.
Per WAC 173-26-221(2)(c)(i)(D ), "buffer requirements shall be adequate to ensure that
riparian and wetland functions are protected and maintained in the long term.
Requirements for buffer zone widths and management shall take into account the ecological
functions, the characteristics and setting of the buffer, the potential impacts associated with
the adjacent land use, and other relevant factors."
Standards to implement the vegetation conservation principles also include setback or buffer
requirements (WAC 173-26-22 1(5)(c)).
Applicability
The City's 2009 CAO identifies wetland buffe r width ranging from 250 feet to 50 feet for
Category I to IV wetlands for High-intensity land use. The 2009 CAO also includes fish and
wildlife habitat conservation buffers width of 100 feet for the Columbia and Snake rivers.
Additionally, the City's 2009 CAO allows reduced riparian buffer widths where lots are
adjacent to pre-existing development, with a 60-foot minimum buffer width for these
exceptions.
Options
Option 1: Use Existing CAO Buffers
• Use buffer widths and regulations as identified in the existing CAO
Option 2: Modify and Tailor Buffer Widths
Rick White
August 7 , 2014
Page 20
• Apply the guidelines from the documents mentioned above, and modify and tailor
buffer width and regulations to local conditions; evaluate the applicability of buffer
averagmg proVIsiOns
Recommendations
• Use a combination of Options 1 and 2, further refining buffer recommendations
where appropriate.
• Update existing critical areas regulations in the context of the shoreline type,
ecological functions, and land use
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECT IONS AND VEGETATION MANAGEMENT
Guidelines (RCW and WAC)
Environmental protection and vegetation management standards are important t ools to
ensure no net loss of ecological functions.
To ensure no net loss of shoreline ecological functions, SMPs shall include provisions that
require proposed individual uses and developments to analyze environmental impacts of the
proposal and include measures to mitigate environmental impacts not otherwise avoided or
mitigated by compliance with the SMP and other applicable regulations. Mitigation
measures should also follow a sequence of steps listed in order of priority as follows:
1. A void the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action
2. Minimize impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its
implementation by using appropriate technology or by taking affirmative steps to
avoid or reduce impacts
3. Rectify the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected environment
Rick White
August 7, 2014
Page 21
4. Reduce or eliminate the impact over time by preservation and maintenance
operations
5 . Compensate for the impact by replacing, enhancing, or providing substitute resources
or environments
6. Monitor the impact and the compensation projects and taking appropriate corrective
measure (WAC 173-26 -201(2)(e))
Applying the mitigation sequence achieves no net loss of ecological functions for each new
development and does not result in required mitigation in excess of that necessary to ensure
development will result in no net loss of shoreline ecological functions and not have a
significant adverse impact on other shoreline functions fostered by the policy of the act.
Per WAC 17 3-26-221(5)(b), "the intent of vegetation conservation is to protect and restore
the ecological functions and ecosystem-wide processes performed by vegetation along
shorelines . Vegetation conservation should also be undertaken to protect human safety and
property, to increase the stability of river banks and coastal bluffs, to re duce the nee d fo r
structural shoreline stabilization measures, to improve the visual and aesthetic qualities of
the shoreline, to protect plant and animal species and their habitats, and to enhance
shoreline u ses."
Per WAC 173-26-22 1 (5)(c), "methods to do this may include setback or buffer r equirements,
clearing and grading standards, r egu l atory incentives, e nvironment d esignation standards, or
other [SMP ] provisions."
Local government shall, at a minimum, and to the extent that such information is relevant
and reasonably available, collect the following information:
• Shore line a nd adjacent land-use patte rns and transportation and utility fa cilities,
including the extent of exis ting structures, impervious surfaces, vegetation, and
shoreline modifica tions in shoreline jurisdiction. Special attention should be paid to
ide ntification of ecologically intact blocks of upland vegetation, developed areas with
largely intact riparian vegetation, water-oriented uses and related navigation,
transportation and u tility facilities (WAC 173-26 -201(3)(c)).
Applicability
Rick White
August 7, 2014
Page 22
Environmental protection standards shall be applicable to all new developments throughout
City's shorelines. Due to the urban and agricultural development within the shoreline, there
is already a loss, fragmentation, and degradation of shrub-steppe habitat. Much of the
riparian vegetation exist in the parks and unimproved public lands. Shrub-steppe upland
habitat is the largest native land cover type in the shoreline. In some areas, shrub-steppe
communities abut or nearly abut the shoreline, and there are small remnants of shrub-steppe
habitat interspersed among the irrigated agricultural fields that displaced the original habitat.
Visioning Notes
At the visioning meeting, protection and restoration opportunities were identified as follows:
• Protect the wetland area upstream of the I -182 bridge and also the islands in the
Columbia River.
• Manage or upgrade the jetties that protect the Pasco Boat Basin marina and Schlagel
Park in a way that provides improved ecological function on the shoreline and for in-
water habitat.
• Manage invasive vegetation and replant with native vegetation along non-leveed
areas of the shoreline and in-water (e.g., milfoil). Geese and terns can also be a
problem.
• Tumbleweeds are stacking up in slack water areas along the river. For example, this is
occurring at the boat launch at Wade Park, just downstream of the railroad bridge,
and just downstream of Osprey Point.
Recommendations
• Apply environmental protection according to the mitigation sequence
• Apply vegetation management according to the guidelines
• Address local conditions in vegetation management regulations
Specific standards may be applied to buffer areas in order to protect riparian and wetland
vegetation.
REFERENCES
Rick White
August 7 , 2014
Page 23
Anchor QEA (Anchor QEA, LLC), 2014a. CI'tyofPasco Draft Shoreline Inventory, Analysis}
and Characterization (lAC) Report. Prepared for the City of Pasco. March 2014.
Anchor QEA, 20 14b. City of Pasco Master Program Update Visioning Workshops Summary.
Prepared for the City of Pasco. July 2014.
Anchor QEA, 2014c. Franklin County Coalition Shoreline Master Program Update
Visioning Workshops Summary. Prepared for Franklin County. June 2014.
CTED (Washington State Department of Community, Trade, and Economic Development),
2007 . Critical Areas Assistance Handbook, Appendix A: Sample Code Provisions.
Updated: January 2007. Available from:
http://www.commerce.wa.gov/Documents/GMS-Critical-Areas-Appendix-A-Sample-
Code-Provisions. pdf.
Ecology (Washington State Department of Ecology), 2010. Wetlands & CAO Updates:
Guidance for Small Cities; Eastem Washington Version. Publication No. 10 -06 -001.
January 2010.
Ecology, 2012. Shoreline Master Program Handbook, Chapter 2: Shoreline Management
Overview. U pdated: September 2012. Available from:
http://www. ecy. wa. gov /programs/sea!s horelines/smp/handbook! chapter2. pdf.
Pasco (City of Pasco), 2012. Rivershore Linkage and Amenity Plan. Prepared for the
City of Pasco. July 16, 2012.
CITY OF PASCO
SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM
Prepared for
City of Pasco
Prepared by
Anchor QEA, LLC
8033 West Grandridge Avenue, Suite A
Kennewick, Washington 9933 6
Prepared with assistance from
Oneza & Associates
1508 44th Ave SW, Un it B
Seattle, Was h ington 98116
Th is report was funded through a grant from the Washington State Department of Ecology.
August 2014
August 2014
TABLE OF CONTENTS
2 SECTION 1: Shore line Goals and P o li cies (R C W 90.58.100) ....................................................... 1
3 I ntroduction ....................................................................................................................... 1
4 Relationsh ip to Growth Management Act ...................................................................... 1
5 Profile of the Shoreline Jurisdiction within Pasco ......................................................... 1
6 Rivers and Streams ................................................................................................... 1
7 Shorelines of Statew ide Signi fi cance ....................................................................... 1
8 Development of Goals a nd P olicies .................................................................................. 1
9 Econo mi c Developme nt E lem e nt ............................................................................. 2
10 Pu blic A ccess and R ecreat ion E lem ent .................................................................... 2
11 C irculat ion E lem ent .................................................................................................. 2
12 Shore line Uses and Mo di fica ti ons Element ............................................................. 2
13 Con servation E lem ent .............................................................................................. 2
14 Hi storic, Cultura l, Scien t ific, a nd Edu catio nal Re sources E lem ent ......................... 2
15 Floo d Hazard Managem e nt E lement ........................................................................ 3
16 Priv ate Property Ri ght (WA C 17 3-26 -191(2)(a)(i )) ................................................ 3
17 SECT ION II : Shoreline Re g ul ati ons .............................................................................................. 4
18 Art icle I. Authority and Pur pose ..................................................................................... 4
19 29.0 1.010 Authority ............................................................................................... 4
20 29 .0 1.02 0 Applicabili ty ......................................................................................... 4
2 1 29.01.030 Purpose ................................................................................................. 4
22 29 .0 1.040 R e lati on s hi p t o Other Codes, O rdina nc es, a nd Pl ans ........................... 4
23 29.01 .050 Li bera l Cons tr uc ti on ............................................................................. 4
24 29.01 .060 Severa bili ty ........................................................................................... 4
25 29.0 1.070 Effective Date ....................................................................................... 4
26 Ar tic le II. Envi ron m ent Design a t ion ............................................................................... 5
27 29.0 1.1 00 E nv ironment Design at ions .................................................................... 5
2 8 29.01 .110 Aqu ati c .................................................................................................. 5
29 29.01 .120 Natura l .................................................................................................. 5
30 29.01.1 30 U rban Conservancy .............................................................................. 5
3 1 2 9.01.140 Publi c Floo d Protection ........................................................................ 5
32 29.0 1.150 Recreat ion ............................................................................................. 6
33 29.01.160 H igh In ten si t y ....................................................................................... 6
34 29.0 1.1 70 Shore! ine Resident ial ............................................................................ 6
35 A r ticle I II. Genera l R eg u la ti on s ...................................................................................... 7
36 29.0 1.200 Shore line Use a nd Mo di fic at ion ........................................................... 7
37 29.01 .2 10 Deve lo pment Standards ........................................................................ 7
38 29.01 .22 0 Archaeologica l and H is tori c Resources ................................................ 8
39 29.01.23 0 Env iron m e nta l Protection ..................................................................... 8
40 29.0 1.240 Shorelin e Vegetation Conservation ...................................................... 8
4 1 29 .0 1.250 Water Q ua lity, Stormwater, an d Non -P oint Po llu t io n .......................... 8
City o f Pasco Shoreline Ma s ter Progra m
An ch or QEA!Oneza & Ass ociates
Outline
August 2014
I 29.01.260 PublicAccess ........................................................................................ 8
2 29.01.270 Flood Hazard Reduction ....................................................................... 8
3 Article IV. Shoreline Modifications and Use Regulations ............................................. 9
4 29.01 .300 Agriculture ............................................................................................ 9
5 29.01.310 Aquaculture ........................................................................................... 9
6 29.01.320 Boating Facilities .................................................................................. 9
7 29.01.330 Breakwater, Jetties, Groins, and Weirs ................................................. 9
8 29.01.340 Commercial Development .................................................................... 9
9 29.01.350 Dredging and Dredge Material Disposal .............................................. 9
l 0 29.01.360 Fill and Excavation ............................................................................... 9
II 29.0 I .3 70 Industry ................................................................................................. 9
12 29.01.380 In-Stream Structures ........................................................................... 10
13 29.01.390 ~ining (discuss ap_glicability) ............................................................ 10
14 29.01.390 Piers and Docks .................................................................................. 10
15 29.01.400 Recreational Development.. ................................................................ I 0
16 29.01.410 Residential Development.. .................................................................. I 0
17 29.01.420 Shoreline Habitat and Natura l Systems Enhancement Projects ......... I 0
18 29.01.430 Shoreline Stabilization ........................................................................ 1 0
19 29.01.440 Transportation: Trails , Roads, and Parking ........................................ I 0
20 29.01.450 Utilities ............................................................................................... 10
21 Article V. Critical Areas ................................................................................................. 11
22
23
24
2 5
26
27
28
29.01.500 Critical Areas ...................................................................................... 11
29.01.51 0 G eneral Provisions .............................................................................. 11
29.01.510 Wetland s ............................................................................................. 12
29.01.520 Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas ................................... 13
29.01.530 Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas ........................................................ 13
29.01.540 Geologically Hazardous Areas ........................................................... 13
29.01.550 Frequently Flooded Areas ................................................................... 14
29 Article VI. Existing Uses, Structures, and Lots ............................................................ 15
30 29.01.600 Appl icability ....................................................................................... 15
31 29.01.610 Non-ConformingUses ........................................................................ l5
32 29.01.620 Non-Conforming Structures ............................................................... 15
33 Article VII. Administration and Enforcements ........................................................... 16
34 29.01.700 Roles and Responsibilities .................................................................. 16
35 29.0 1. 71 0 Interpretation ....................................................................................... 1 6
36 29.01.720 Statutory Noticing Requirements ....................................................... I6
37 29.01.730 Application Requirements .................................................................. 16
38 29.01.740 Shoreline Substantial Development Permits ...................................... I 6
39 29.01.750 Shoreline Conditional Use Permits ..................................................... I6
40 29.01 .760 Shoreline Variance Permits ................................................................ 16
41 29.01.770 Exemptions from Shoreline Substantial Development Permits .......... 16
42 29.01.780 Duration of Permits ............................................................................. I6
43 2 9.0 I. 790 Initiation of Development.. ................................................................. 16
44 29.01.800 ReviewProcess ................................................................................... I6
45 29.01.810 Appeal s ............................................................................................... 16
City of P as co Shoreline Ma s ter Program
Anchor QE A!Oneza & Associ ates
Outline
ii
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
August 2014
29.01 .820 Amendments to Permits ...................................................................... 16
29.01.830 Enforcement. ....................................................................................... 17
29.01.840 Cumulative Effects ofShoreline Developments ................................. 17
29.01.850 Amendments to Shoreline Master Program ........................................ 17
29.01.860 Definitions .......................................................................................... 17
29.01.870 Shoreline Environment Designation Map .......................................... 17
List of Tables
9 Table 29.01.200(2) Shoreline Use and Modification Matrix for City of Pasco ...................... 7
I 0 Table 29.01.210(2) Shoreline Development Standards Matrix for City of Pasco .................. 7
City of Pasco Shoreline Mas ter Program
Anchor QEA/Oneza & Associa tes
Outline
iii
August 2014
SECTION 1: Shoreline Goals and Policies (RCW 90.58.100)
2 Introduction
3
4 Relationship to Growth Management Act
5
6
(1) Consistency between Growth Management Act (GMA) and Shoreline
Management Act (SMA) required according to RCW 36.70A.480
7 Profile of the Shoreline Jurisdiction within Pasco
8 Rivers and Streams
9
10
(1) Extract informati o n from Table 4 of the Inventory, Analysis, and Characterization
(lAC) Report
II
12
(a)
(b)
Columbia River
Snake River
13 Shorelines of Statewide Significance
14 RCW 90.58.030: Natural rivers or segments thereofthat have a mean annual flow of two
15 hundre d (200) cubic feet per second ( cfs) or more (or for streams east of the of the crest of the
16 Cascades [RCW 90.58.030], the portion downstream from the first 300 square miles of drainage
17 area); a nd lakes, whether natural, artificial , or a combination thereof, of 1,000 acres or greater in
18 surface area.
19 RCW 09.58.020: Goals and preferences for Shorelines of Statewide Significance (SSWS). This
20 policy contemplates protecting against adverse effects to the public health, the land and its
21 vegetation and wi ldli fe, and the waters of the state and their aquatic life, while protecting
22 generally public rights of navigation and corollary rights incidental thereto.
23 Streams
24 Development of Goals and Policies
25 RCW 90.58.020: The overarching goal of the SMA is "to prevent the inherent harm in an
26 uncoordinated and piecemeal deve lopment of the state 's shorelines."
27 RCW 90.58.100: Address elements and include policies for environment des ignations.
28 WAC 173 -26-I 91 (1 )(a): Master program p o licies and regulations. Master programs shall
29 provide clear, consistent policies that translate broad statewide policy goals set forth in WAC
30 173-26-176 and 173-26-181 into local directives. Policies are statements of intent directing or
3 1 authorizing a course of action or specifying criteria for regulatory and non-regulatory actions by
City of Pasco Shoreline Master Program
Anchor QEA!Oneza & Associates
Outline
1
August 2014
I a local government. Master program policies provide a comprehensive foundation for the
2 shoreline master program regulations, which are more specific standards used to evaluate
3 shoreline development.
4 Economic Development Element
5
6
7
8
(1) RCW 90.58.020: .. .location and design of industries, projects of statewide
significance, transportation facilities, port facilities , tourist facilities, commerce
and other developments that are particularly dependent on their location on or use
of the shorelines of the state.
9 Public Access and Recreation Element
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
(1)
(2)
(3)
RCW 90.58 .020: ... protecting generally public rights of navigation and corollary
rights incidental thereto.
RCW 90.58 .100: A public access element making provision for public access to
publicly owned areas.
RCW 90.58.100: A recreational element for the preservation and enlargement of
recreational opportunities, including but not limited to parks, beaches, and
recreational areas.
17 Circulation Element
18
19
20
21
(I) RCW 90.58.1 00: Circulation element consisting of the general location and extent
of existing and proposed major thoroughfares, transportation routes, terminal s,
and other public utilities and facilities, all correlated with the shoreline use
element.
22 Shoreline Uses and Modifications Element
23
24
25
26
27
(I) RCW 90.58.100: Considers the proposed general distribution and general location
and extent of the use on shorelines and adjacent land areas for housing, business ,
industry, transportation , agriculture, natural resources , recreation , education,
public buildings and grounds, and other categories of public and private uses of
the land.
28 Conservation Element
29
30
31
(I) RCW 90.58.100: Preservation ofnatural resources , including but not limited to
scenic vistas, aesthetics, and vital estuarine areas fo r fisheries and wildlife
protection.
32 Historic, Cultural, Scientific, and Educational Resources Element
33
34
(I) RCW 90.58.100: Protecti on and restoration of buildings , sites, and areas having
historic, cultural , scientific, or educational values.
City of Pasco Shoreline Master Program
Anchor QEA!Oneza & Associates
Outline
2
2
3
4
August 2014
Flood Hazard Management E lement
(1) RCW 90.58.1 00: Consideration to the statewide interest in the prevention and
minimization of flood damages, and also specific protections for channel
migration zones (CMZ), where applicable.
5 Private Pro perty Right (WAC 173-26-191(2)(a)(i))
6
7
8
9
10
11
(1)
(2)
RCW 90.58.020: ... protecting generally public rights of navigation and coroll ary
rights incidental thereto .
WAC 173 -26-191 (2)(a)(i): At a minimum, shoreline master program policies
shall : ... (D) Be designed and implemented in a manner consistent with all
relevant constitutional and other legal lim itations on the regulation of private
property.
City of Pasco Shoreline Master Program
Anchor QEA!Oneza & Associates
Outline
3
2
3 29.01.010
4 29.01.020
5 29.01.030
6 29.01.040
7 29.01.050
8 (1)
9
10
I I 29.01.060
12 29.01.070
August 2014
SECTION II: Shoreline Regulations
Article I. Authority and Purpose
Authority
Applicability
Purpose
Relationship to Other Codes, Ordinances, and Plans
Liberal Construction
RCW 90.58.900 : SMA is exempted from the rule of strict construction , and it
shall be liberally construed to give full effect to the objectives and purposes for
which it was enacted.
Severability
Effective Date
City of Pasco Shoreline Master Program
Anchor QEA/Oneza & Associates
Outline
4
2 29.01.100
3 (1)
4 29.01.110
5 (1)
6 (2)
7 (3)
8 29.01.120
9
10 (1)
11 (2)
12 (3)
13 29.01.130
14
15
16
17
18 (1)
19 (2)
20 (3)
21 29.01.140
22
23
24
25
26
27
(1)
(2)
(3)
August 2014
Article II. Environment Designation
Environment Designations
WAC 173-26-211 (2), WAC 173-26-211 (5)
Aquatic
Purpose
Designation Criteria
Management Policies
Natural
(All islands)
Purpose
Designation Criteria
Management Policies
Urban Conservancy
Open space areas located water ward of the parcel boundaries in the Columbia
River Reach 1, SRs 3a (north portion of Chiawana Park), 3b, 5c (non-levee
portion of the wetland near Riverview Park), 6c (portion water ward of the trail),
Reaches 7 (Sacajawea Park excluding the boat launch and recreation area) and 8.
Purpose
Designation Criteria
Management Policies
Public Flood Protection
Leveed areas a long the Columbia River, where limited ecological funct ion and
fut ure d evelopment potential exists, and the areas are dedicated for public
recreation as part of the regional trail system.
Purpose
Designation Criteria
Management Policies
City of Pa sco Shoreline Master Program
Anchor QEA/On eza & Associates
Outline
5
2
3
29.01.150
4 (1)
5 (2)
6 (3)
7 29.01.160
8
9
10 (1)
11 (2)
12 (3)
13 29.01.170
14
15
16
17
18
(1)
(2)
(3)
August 2014
Recreation
(Chiawana, Wade, Riverview, Schlagel, and Sacajawea parks, marina, boat
launch areas)
Purpose
Designation Criteria
Management Policies
High Intensity
(Port of Pasco, Osprey Point, industrial areas on Col urn bia River SR 6c, and the
Snake River SR 8b)
Purpose
Designation Criteria
Management Policies
Shoreline Residential
(Residential areas along the Columbia River in Reaches 1 and 2 , SRs 4a and 4b,
and portions ofSRs 5b and 6b)
Purpose
Designation Cr iteria
Management Policies
City of Pasco Shoreline Master Program
Anchor QEA!Oneza & Associates
Outline
6
Article III. G ener al Regulation s
2 29.0 1.200 Shoreline Use an d M od ifi cation
3 (1) Regulations
4 (2) Tabl e
Table 29.01 .200(2) 5
6 Shoreline Use and Modification Matri x for City of Pasco
Abbreviations:
A= Allowed with Substantial ~ Development Permit >-"C (.)
0 c: ·u;
C = Conditional Use c: c: c: "' ..2o 0 Cl>
(.) i::: LL ·-.. .....
X= Prohibited ~ ..... "' c: .. c: Cl> (.) (.) Cl> -"' "' en ·-Cl> ::s :0(5 .... .=. ::s ..... .cC: (.) .!21 C'" "' ... 0 ::s ... Q)
Use/Modification < z ::>(..) a.. a.. 0:: :I:
Recreational Develop_me nt
Water -ori en ted A A A A A A
Non-water -o ri ented X X X c c c
7
8 2 9.0 1.2 10 Develo p ment St a ndard s
9 (I) Regulations
I 0 (2) Table
1 I Ta b le 29.01 .21 0(2)
12 Shoreli ne Development Standards Matrix for City of Pasco
(.) :o:;
"' ::s
C'"
Use/Modification <
Build in g heigh t 15
Imperviou s surface cover(%)
Rip arian buffer width in feet
T rail width in feet
City of Pa sco Shoreline Master Program
Anchor QE A/On eza & A ssociates
i::: -"' Cl> ... ::s en c: .....
"' 0 z (..)
35 35
0 ~ .. F-~ "C ~ "' ·u; Cl>
t'; ... ~ c: 0 ..... (.) Cl> ? 0 0 c: ~ c: .....
"' l.i:i:O:c 0 ~ c: -
35 35 35
August 20 14
~ ~ ~
Q) -~
c:C: = Cl> Q)"C .... ·-0 en .=. Q)
U>O::
A
X
.. c:
Cl>
"C ·u;
Cl>
Cl> 0:: ii
35
Outline
7
29.01.220
2 (1)
3
4
5 29 .01.230
6 (I)
7
8 (2)
9
10
11 29.01.240
12 (1)
13
14
15
16
17 29.01.250
18 (I)
19
20
21 29.01.260
22 (I)
23
24
25
26 29.01.270
27 (I)
28
29
August 2014
Archaeological and Historic Resources
WAC 173-26-221(1): ... applies to archaeological and historic resources that are
either recorded at the state historic preservation office and/or by local
jurisdictions or have been inadvertently uncovered.
Environmental Protection
WAC 173-26-186(8): Di rects that master programs "include policies and
regulations designed to achieve no net loss of ecological functions."
WAC 197-26-201 (2)(e): Master programs shall indicate that, where required to
assure no net loss o f shoreline ecological functions, mitigation measures s hall be
app lied.
Shoreline Vegetation Conservation
WAC 173-26-221(5): Vegetation conservation includes activities to protect and
restore vegetation along or near marine and freshwater shorelines that contribute
to the ecological functions of shoreline areas. Vegetation conservation provisions
include the prevention or restriction of plant clearing and earth grading,
vegetation restoration, and the control of invasive weeds and non-native species.
Water Quality, Stormwater, and Non-Point Pollution
WAC 173-26-221 (6): ... protect against adverse impacts to the public health, to
the land and its vegetation and wildlife, and to the waters of the state and their
aquatic life.
Public Access
WAC 173-26-221 (4): Public access includes the ability of the general public to
reach, touch, and enjoy the water's edge, to travel on the waters of the s tate, and
to view the water and the s horeline from adjacent locations. Pub lic access
provisions below apply t o all s horelines of the state unless stated othenvise.
Flood Hazard Reduction
WAC 173-26-221 (3): Provisions apply to actions taken to reduce flood damage or
hazard and to u ses, development, and shoreline modifications that may increase
flood hazards. Also identify s pecific protections for CMZs.
City of Pasco Shoreline Master Program
Anchor QEA/Oneza & Associates
Outlin e
8
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
29.01.300
(1)
29.01.310
(1)
29.01.320
(1)
29 .01.330
(1)
29.01.340
(1)
29.01.350
(1)
29.01.360
(I)
29.01.370
(I)
August 2014
Article IV. Shoreline Modifications and Use Regulations
Agriculture
WAC 173-26-241 (3)(a): Provisions to address new agricultural activities ,
conversion of agricultural lands to other uses, and other development not meeting
the definition of agricultural activities.
Aquaculture
WAC 173-26-241 (3)(b ): A water-dependent preferred u se when consistent with
control of pollution and prevention of damage to the environment.
Boating Facilities
WAC 173-26-241(3)(c): Provisions to assure no net loss of ecological functions
as a result of development of boating facilities while providing the boating public
recreational opportunities on waters of the state .
Breakwater, Jetties, Groins, and Weirs
WAC 173-26-231 (3)( d): Allowed where necessary to support water-dependent
uses, public access, shoreline stabilization, or other specific public purpo se.
Commercial Development
WAC 173-26-241(3)(d): Preference given first to water-dependent uses, then to
water-oriented commercial uses.
Dredging and Dredge Material Disposal
WAC 173-26-23 1 (3)(f): Shall avoid or minimize significant ecolo gical impacts
and impacts that cannot be avoided should be mitigated in a manne r that a ss ures
no net lo ss of shoreline ecological functions.
Fill and Excavation
WAC 173-26-23 1 (3)(c): Location, des ign , and construction of all fills protect
ecological processes and functions, including channel migration.
Industry
WAC 173 -26-24 I (3)(f): Preference given first to water-dependent indu strial uses
over non-water-d e pendent indu strial uses, and second to water-related industrial
u ses over non-water-oriented industrial u ses.
City of Pasco Sho relin e Ma ster Program
Anchor QEA/Oneza & Associates
Outline
9
29.01.380
2 (1)
3
4
5
6 29.01.390
7 29.01.390
8 (1)
9 29.01.400
10 (1)
11
12
13 29.01.410
14 (1)
15
16
I 7 29 .01.420
18 (I)
19
20
21 29.01.430
22 (1)
23
24
25 29.01.440
26 (I)
27
28
29
30
3 1 29.01.450
32 (1)
33
August 2014
In-Stream Structures
WAC 173-26-241 (3)(g): Protect and preserve ecosystem-wide process es,
ecological functions, and cultural resources, including, fish and fish passage,
wildlife and water resources , shoreline critical areas, hydrogeological processes,
and natural scenic vistas.
Mining (discuss applicability)
Piers and Docks
WAC 173-26-231(3)(b): Allowed only for water-dependent uses or publi c access.
Recreational Development
WAC 173-26-241 (3)(i): Priority given to recreational development for access to
and use of the water. Location, des ign, and operation of facilities are to be
consistent with purpose of environment designations in which they are allowed.
Residential Development
WAC 173-26-241 (3)(j): Identified as a priority use only when developed in a
manner consistent with control of pollution and prevention of damage to the
natural environment.
Shoreline Habitat and Natural Systems Enhancement Projects
WAC 173-26-231 (3)(d): Projects include those activities proposed a nd conducted
specifically for th e purpose of establishing, restoring, or e nh a ncing habitat for
priority species in shorelines.
Shoreline Stabilization
WAC 173-26-231 (3)(a): Includes actions taken to address ero sion impacts to
property and dwellings , bu sinesses, or structures caused by natura l processes ,
s uch as current, flood , tides , wind, or wave action .
Transportation: Trails, Roads, and Parking
WAC 173-26-241 (3)(k): Proposed tran s portation and parking facilities mu st be
designed and located where they will have the least possible adverse effect on
unique or fragile shorelin e features, will not res ult in a net lo ss of shoreline
ecological functions , or adversely impact existing or planned water-dependent
uses.
Utilities
WAC 173-26-241 (3)(1): Design, location and maintenance of utilities required to
assure no net loss of ecological functions.
City of Pasco Shoreline Master Program
Anchor QEA!Oneza & Associates
Outline
10
August 2014
Article V. Critical Areas
2 (This section provides a suggested revised outline and sections for the C ity of Pasco's 2009
3 Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO).)
4 29.01.500 Critical Areas
5 ( l) Authorization, Purpose, and Intent
6 (2) Juri sdiction
7 (3) Critical Areas
8 (4) Critical Area Categories
9 (5) Intent
I 0 (6) Relationship to Other Regulations
11 (7) Most Current Scientific and Technical Information
12 29.01.510 General Provisions
13 (1) Critical Area Review
14 (2) Minimum Standards
15 (3) Concurrent Requirements
16 (4) Pre-Application Meeting
17 (5) Critical Area Checkli st
18 (6) Initial Determination
19 (7) Waivers from Critica l Area Detailed Study Requirements
20 (8) Critical Area Detailed Studies
2 1 (9) Final Detennination
22 (I 0) Comp letion of the Critic al Area Review
23 (11) Mitigation Standards
24 (12) Buffers
25 (13) Bonding
City of Pasco Shoreline Master Program
Anchor QEA/Oneza & Associates
Outlin e
11
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
(14)
(15)
29.01.510
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
August 2014
Incentives
Critical Areas Map
Wetlands
Purpose
Wetland Designation
(a)
(b)
Current reference:
(i) Washington State Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual
(Ecology, March 1997, Publication #96-94)
Update reference to:
(i) 1987 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual
(ii) Regional Supplements to the 1987 Wetland Delineation Manual
(iii) Include statement, "Identification of wetlands and delineation of
their boundaries pursuant to this Chapter shall be done in
accordance with the approved federal wetland delineation manual
and applicable regional supplements . All areas within the City
meeting the wetland designation criteria in that procedure are
hereby designated critical areas and are subject to the provisions of
this Chapter."
Wetland Rating (Classification)
(a) Washington State Wetlands Rating System for Eastern Washington-
revised and the most current copy should be referred to for additional
information on classification of wetlands.
Wetland Indicators
Wetland Detailed Study-Requirements
Wetland Detailed Study-Exemptions
Basic Wetland Requirement
Required Buffers
(a) Update buffers per Ecology's Model Ordinance included in 2010 Wetland
Guidance for Small Cities -Eastern Washington Version (Revised 2012)
Compensatory Mitigation
City of Pasco Shoreline Master Program
Anchor QENOneza & Associates
Outline
12
2
3
4
5
6
7
August 2014
(a) Current references:
(i)
(ii)
Wetland Mitigation in Washington State, Part I: Agency Policies
and Guidance (Version I, Ecology Publication # 06-06-011 a,
March 2006)
Wetland Mitigation in Washington State, Part 2: Developing
Mitigation Plans (Version 1, Ecology Publication # 06-06-011 b,
March 2006)
8 (1 0) Innovative Mitigation
9
10
II
I2
13
14
15
(a) Current references:
(i)
(ii)
Wetland Mitigation in Washington State, Part 1: Agency Policies
and Guidance (Version 1, Ecology Publication # 06-06-011 a,
March 2006)
Wetland Mitigation in Washington State, Part 2: Developing
Mitigati o n Plans (Version I , Ecology Publication# 06-06-011 b,
March 2006)
16 (11) Mitigation Exceptions
17 (12) Restoration
18
I9
20
2 I 29.01.520
22 (1)
23
24 (2)
25
26 (3)
27
28 29.01.530
29 (1)
30 29.01.540
3 I (1)
(a) Update mitigation rati os per Eco log y's Model Ordinance included in 2010
Wetland Guidance for Small C itie s-Eastern Washington Version
(Revised 20 I2)
Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas
City of Pasco 2009 CAO-upd ate as needed for SMA consistency and based
upon shoreline inventory and more detailed evaluation .
WAC 17 3-26-221 (2)(c)(iv): Include provisions to protect critical freshwater
habitat.
Consider options for modifyi ng and further tailoring riparian habitat area widths,
and revisit other provisions such as buffer reductions and buffer width averaging.
Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas
City of Pasco 2009 CAO-update as needed for SMA consistency.
Geologically Hazardous Areas
City of Pasco 2009 CAO -update as needed for SMA consistency.
City of Pasco Shoreline Master Program
Anchor QEA!Oneza & Associates
Outline
13
2
3
4
5
29.01.550
(1)
August 2014
Frequently Flooded Areas
City of Pasco 2009 CAO references the PMC Chapter 24 -Floodplain regulations
(1987) -update as needed for SMA consistency and also consider provisions in
Ecology's model floodplain management ordinances and CTED's Critical Areas
Assistance Handbook (2003; updated 2007).
City of Pasco Shorelin e Master Program
Anc hor QEA!Oneza & Ass o ciates
Outline
14
2
3
4
5
6
Article VI. Existing Uses, Structures, and Lots
29.01.600 Applicability
29.01.610 Non-Conforming Uses
(1) WAC 173-27-080
29.01.620 Non-Conforming Structures
(1) WAC 173-27-080
City of Pasco Shoreline Master Program
Anchor QEA/Oneza & Associates
August 2014
Outline
15
August 2014
Article VII. Administration and Enforcements
2 29.01.700 Roles and Responsibilities
3 29.01.710 Interpretation
4 29.01.720 Statutory Noticing Requirements
5 (1) WAC 173-27-110
6 29.01.730 Application Requirements
7 (l) WAC 173-27-180
8 29.01.740 Shoreline Substantial Development Permits
9 (l) WAC 173-27-150
10 29.01.750 Shoreline Conditional Use Permits
11 (1) WAC 173-27-160
12 29.01.760 Shoreline Variance Permits
13 (1) WAC 173-27-170
14 29.01.770 Exemptions from Shoreline Substantial Development Permits
15 (l) WAC 173-27-040
16 29 .01.780 Duration of Permits
17 (I) WAC 17 3 -27-090
18 29.01.790 Initiation of Development
19 (l) RCW 90.58.140 and WAC 173-27-130
20 29.01.800 Review P rocess
21 (l) WAC 173-27-090 through WAC 173 -27-220
22 29.01.810 Appeals
23 (l) RCW 90.58.175
24 29.01.820 Amendments to Permits
25 (1) WAC 173-27-100
City of Pasco Shoreline Master Program Outline
Anchor QEA!Oneza & Associates 16
August 2014
29.01.830
2 (I)
3
4 29.01.840
5 (I)
6 29.01.850
7 (1)
8 29.01.860
9 29.01.870
Enforcement
WAC 173-27-270 (Order to cease and desist), 173-27-280 (Civi l penalty),
173-27-290 (Appeal of civil penalty), 173-27-300 (Criminal p enalty)
Cumulative Effects of Shoreline Developments
WAC 173-26-191
Amendments to Shoreline Master Program
WAC 173-26-110
Definitions
Shoreline Environment Designation Map
City of Pasco Shoreline Master Program
A nchor QEA!Oneza & Associates
Outline
17