HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-20-2014 Planning Commission Packet PLANNING COMMISSION - AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING 7:00 P.M. November 20, 2014
I. CALL TO ORDER:
II. ROLL CALL: Declaration of Quorum
III. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: October 16, 2014
V. OLD BUSINESS:
A. Rezone Rezone from I-1 (Light Industrial) to I-2 (Medium
Industrial) (Bob Tippett) (MF# Z 2014-005)
B. Rezone Rezone from "O" (Office) to R-1 (Low Density
Residential) (Charles Steltenpohl) (MF# Z 2014-006)
C. Comprehensive Plan Comprehensive Plan Amendment to Modify the
Urban Growth Boundary (Farm 2005, LLC) (MF#
CPA 2014-002)
D. Comprehensive Plan Comprehensive Plan Amendment to Change the
Land Use Designation from Low-Density Residential
to Mixed Residential (Roger & Kay Walker) (MF# CPA
2014-003)
E. Plan Shoreline Master Plan - Environmental Designations
VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
A. Code Amendment Car Rentals in C-1 (Retail Business) Zones (MF# CA
2014-004)
VII. WORKSHOP:
VIII. OTHER BUSINESS:
IX. ADJOURNMENT:
REGULAR MEETING October 16, 2014
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
CALL TO ORDER:
The meeting was called to order at 7:00pm by Chairman Cruz.
POSITION MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT
No. 1 VACANT
No. 2 Tony Bachart
No. 3 VACANT
No. 4 Alecia Greenaway
No. 5 Joe Cruz
No. 6 Loren Polk
No. 7 Zahra Khan
No. 8 Jana Kempf
No. 9 Gabriel Portugal
APPEARANCE OF FAIRNESS:
Chairman Cruz read a statement about the appearance of fairness for hearings on land
use matters. Chairman Cruz asked if any Commission member had anything to declare.
There were no declarations.
Chairman Cruz then asked the audience if there were any objections based on a conflict
of interest or appearance of fairness question regarding the items to be discussed this
evening. There were no objections.
ADMINISTERING THE OATH:
Chairman Cruz explained that state law requires testimony in quasi-judicial hearings
such as held by the Planning Commission be given under oath or affirmation. Chairman
Cruz swore in all those desiring to speak.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Commissioner Portugal made not of some typos in the minutes. Staff made note and
stated they would make the proper corrections.
Commissioner Greenaway moved, seconded by Commissioner Polk that the minutes
dated September 18, 2014 be approved as amended. The motion passed with only
Chairman Cruz abstaining.
OLD BUSINESS:
A. Special Permit Special Permit to Sell Motorcycles and Other
Vehicles in a C-1 (Retail Business) Zone (JMC Motor
Sports LLC) (MF# SP 2014-009)
Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff.
M -1-
Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director, discussed the special permit
to locate motorcycle and other vehicle sales in a C-1 (Retail Business) Zone. There were
no additional comments since the previous meeting.
Commissioner Bachart moved, seconded by Commissioner Kempf, to adopt the findings of
fact and conclusions therefrom as contained in the October 16, 2014 staff report. The
motion passed unanimously.
Commissioner Bachart moved, seconded by Commissioner Kempf, based on the findings
of fact and conclusions as adopted the Planning Commission recommend the City Council
grant a special permit to allow vehicle sales on tax parcel # 112-311-104 with conditions
as contained in the October 16, 2014 staff report. The motion passed unanimously.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
A. Preliminary Plat Replat a Portion of the Whitehouse Addition (Tri-
County Partners) (MF# PP 2014-0041
Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff.
Dave McDonald, City Planner, discussed the preliminary replat for the Whitehouse
Addition. This item was held over as a public hearing from the previous meeting. Mr.
McDonald explained that much of the discussion last month centered on the need for a
boundary fence around the proposed subdivision. The property abuts a public park which
has considerable activity during certain times of the year. The property is also directly
across the street from a C-3 Zoning District that can develop with heavy commercial uses.
A block wall would provide a buffer for the families that would ultimately live in the
subdivision. The block wall requirement isn't any different than requirements in other
subdivisions, for example, the Linda Loviisa Subdivision backs up to the soccer complex
and was required to have a 8' block wall for the entire length of the subdivision. There is
no code provision that requires fencing at the proposed site but because of where it is,
staff feels it should be included. However, if a boundary fence is included as a plat
approval condition the fence must be constructed of masonry block or poured concrete.
Possible funding for the fence through the HOME was also discussed.
Mr. McDonald also discussed water rights issues, storm water management and the need
to improve California Avenue. That option is in the code and carries a caveat that it has to
be approved by the Public Works Director. The Engineering Department suggested a
deferral agreement or a cash deposit of$20,00 to $25,000 would be way way of addressing
the short segment of California Avenue.
Commissioner Bachart asked if Resolution 3078, regarding fencing, was new or came to
be within the last few years since he's noticed several subdivisions with inconsistent
fencing.
Mr. McDonald replied yes, that it was in response to some of the problems experienced
with the wooden and Sherwood fences. From the date of that resolution forward the
fencing along arterial streets have all been block walls.
M -2-
Commissioner Greenaway asked how the developer feels about the block wall now.
Mr. McDonald answered that the applicant is present. He believed that the applicant
would agree that the block wall would make for a nicer development and provide some
protection for the residents but, they are concerned about the costs.
Commissioner Portugal asked if the height of the wall is 6' or 8'.
Mr. McDonald answered 6' is the requirement for the block wall.
Chairman Cruz stated that a few years ago the Planning Commission went through a long
process looking into the maintenance of fencing. The architectural block wall was decided
to be the best option because other fencing was becoming a maintenance problem and eye
sore.
Rick Jansons, 313 Wellsian Way, Richland, WA spoke on behalf of Habitat for Humanity.
He wanted approval condition 1 to have the following sentences added, "The installation of
abutting roads and utilities for or along California Avenue are expressly and specifically
excluded from the plat avenue conditions. Further, neither the homeowner's nor Tri-
County Partners Habitat for Humanity will be required to fund any portion of installation
of abutting roads or utilities for or along California Avenue during the 20 years following
completion of the last of the 24 homes in the subdivision." Mr. Jansons briefly gave
reasons for adding those sentences to the approval conditions; (1) California Avenue is not
developed at all in this area, (2) There has been discussion in abandoning California
Avenue in this area which would mean no road is necessary, (3) This development is for
Habitat for Humanity for low-income families and would be an added expense and (4)
There would be no benefit to the families in the subdivision to leave a condition on their
property to build a road sometime in the future. He stated that Habitat for Humanity is
asking for a deferment for up to 20 years.
Regarding the fencing, Mr. Jansons agreed that the block wall would be aesthetically
pleasing but felt that along the park, the fencing wouldn't be much help since there is an
incline in elevation at the park. The block wall, however, would be roughly a $50,000
added expense. He stated that he acquired about the HOME funds but received a written
response stating that no funds were available. There may be funds next year but it is a
competitive process. If they were awarded the money, they would put the block wall up.
Per code, the block wall is not required. Mr. Jansons requested the condition 18, 19 and
21 be removed. As an alternative, he stated the following sentence could be added to
condition 19, "Only if HOME funds are available and awarded in an amount sufficient to
fully cover the costs ...and if said HOME funds are not awarded, no fencing is required for
the project."
Mr. Jansons also discussed the soil additives in plat approval condition 4, stating that
they must comply with PMC 26.04.115(b). As stated in previous testimony, Habitat for
Humanity has found two commercially available additives that would exceed the 30%
requirement and they wish to retain the capability to perform a cost benefit analysis to
determine which method, payment or soil additive, would be most economical. He would
like the following sentence added to approval condition 4 stating, "Tri-County Partners
Habitat for Humanity may use soil treatment in lieu of fees per PMC 26.04.115(b)." In
regards to the storm water maintenance fee and would like to have, "The developer would
M -3-
be responsible for operating and maintaining the storm drain system for one year in
accordance with the storm water maintenance agreement," added to the approval
condition.
Commissioner Portugal asked the applicant if there isn't a block wall fence, what would be
idea for a fence.
Mr. Jansons responded that in reading of the resolution, that if a fence is required it has
to be a concrete masonry fence. However, if a fence is not required, almost all of their
families build cedar fences of their own. Churches come out and assist in building the
fences and the families pay for the cost of materials.
Christine Batayola, 2931 W. 43rd Court, Kennewick, with Harms Engineering, spoke on
behalf of this application. Ms. Batayola stated that she has been working with the
applicant and has been out to the site. She added that there are no other block walls in
this area. All other fencing in the area are 4' tall, chain link fencing and no other fencing
around the park and it would seem out of character with that particular neighborhood.
Lastly, she agreed with the other comments made by Mr. Jansons.
Mr. McDonald then responded to the applicant's comments. Starting with California
Avenue, the City doesn't have money to build local streets. The streets are built by the
abutting property owners, in this case, the developer. If the applicant doesn't build the
street it doesn't get built. In the future the community will have to pay for it. The options
are doing the waiver or providing a cash bond $20,000-$25,000 that would go toward the
street. There has been talk of vacating the street but that hasn't gone very far. There is
an argument that it should be maintained to provide circulation around the park and
another exit for all of the park traffic. For the fence, there are no other subdivisions in the
neighborhood that abut a park. The park is elevated slightly and the people who will live
in this subdivision shouldn't be treated any different than those who live in Linda Loviisa;
they were benefited by a block wall next to the park. To address the soil additive, Staff
recommends keeping the condition in the Staff Report. Lastly, the storm water agreement,
City Engineers are recommending it be handled like any other subdivision with the
standard agreement signed rather than deferring it out to the Department of Ecology or
adding any additional conditions or sentences. All of the conditions being asked are
typically placed on all developers and is part of the development process.
Chairman Cruz asked if there was a block wall requirement for a previous charitable
development, like Bishop Topel Haven.
Mr. McDonald replied no, it was a multi-family development that already had a fence
separating the development from the school but they were required to build two streets,
with curb, gutter, storm drain and street lights.
Chairman Cruz mentioned that in previous discussions about block walls there was talk
of the size of subdivisions and asked what the definition or size is required to be a
subdivision.
Mr. McDonald answered that any development that has more than 9 lots would be the
defined as a subdivision.
o -4-
Chairman Cruz stated that he is not inclined to waive any recommendations that Staff is
proposing since other non-profit developers and for-profit developers have all been treated
the same.
Commissioner Portugal asked for clarification as to whether there were other concrete
fences in the area.
Ms. Batayola stated that there were none.
Mr. McDonald added that the only concrete wall in East Pasco is near Sunrise Estates, on
the corner of"A" Street and Heritage Boulevard.
Commissioner Portugal noted that it may not appear fair to require this development to
have a concrete wall when there aren't other concrete walls in the area.
Commissioner Bachart asked if there was a lot and the City wished to develop a road
behind it, even though they would have no access or need for it, they would have to
develop it.
Mr. McDonald said if that was the case it would most likely be a road that the City would
build. Those roads are typically done by an LID or by the developer the City builds very
few roads.
Commissioner Bachart asked how it would pertain to California Avenue.
Mr. McDonald responded that the street is already there and is a dedicated, platted street
of record. The only way that it will be developed is by the property owner or LID.
Commissioner Bachart asked if somebody wants to develop the commercial property and
they want the road, would the residents have to put in the road.
Mr. McDonald stated the person who develops the commercial property would be required
to put in their side of the road to the centerline, plus two to four feet and curb, gutter and
sidewalks.
Commissioner Bachart was concerned for the two lots that abut California Avenue and the
potential costs to finish the road.
Mr. McDonald stated that if the developer does it the cost is folded into all 24-lots as
opposed to just the two properties, which is what almost all developers do.
Chairman Cruz added that historically, the developers are treated the same way in terms
of infrastructure.
Commissioner Bachart asked what the municipal code states exactly regarding fencing.
Mr. McDonald replied that the municipal code states that a fence is only required if it's on
an arterial street and if a fence is required it must be poured concrete or architectural
IN -5-
block. In this case, California Avenue is not an arterial street and neither is the park, so
there is no code requirement for it, but during the hearing process the Commission is
allowed to look at additional conditions to ensure neighborhood is protected.
Chairman Cruz added that the City is strongly recommending that there should be a block
wall fence but is not necessarily a requirement.
Commissioner Greenaway asked if there was a way to have the applicant put the money in
a bond or holding pattern for California Avenue and if the road is required to go through
the money is there but if it doesn't go through it could be refunded.
Mr. McDonald answered that there might be a way but is unsure as to how. There is an
account for deposits for subdivision bonds and after a number of years that money can be
reimbursed.
Commissioner Polk asked if there is potential to develop a parking lot in the area in
between the park and California Avenue.
Mr. McDonald responded yes, the Parks Department is looking at that location for extra
parking.
Commissioner Polk asked if the Parks Department would then have to finish the road,
curb and sidewalk or any other conditions.
Mr. McDonald responded that if it is developed then the Parks Department would have to
put in their part of the curb, gutter, sidewalks, landscaping and any other requirements at
the time of development.
Chairman Cruz asked the applicant if he had any additional questions or comments.
Mr. Jansons reiterated that the fence is not required by code. While the fence would be
nice for the neighborhood, however, the costs would be passed on to the low-income
families that will be living on the lots. He would like the sentence added to the conditions
that if HOME funds are awarded, then a fence would be installed. Mr. Jansons also stated
that they will be working with the Engineering Department for a deferment for California
Avenue.
With no further comments the public hearing closed.
Chairman Cruz asked the Planning Commission if they were in favor of the fence
requirement.
Commissioner Greenway, Commissioner Polk, Commissioner Bachart and Commissioner
Portugal were not in favor of the fence requirement.
Commissioner Kempf was in agreement for the fence requirement.
Chairman Cruz stated that they Planning Commission would like to remove the fence
M -6-
requirement but leave all other conditions as recommended by City staff.
Mr. McDonald clarified that he understood conditions 18, 19 and 21 will be removed from
the recommendation to City Council.
Commissioner Portugal moved, seconded by Commissioner Bachart, to adopt findings of
fact and conclusions therefrom contained in the October 16, 2014 staff report. The
motion passed unanimously.
Commissioner Portugal moved, seconded by Commissioner Bachart, based on the findings
of fact and conclusions, as adopted, the Planning Commission recommend the City
Council approve the Preliminary Plat for the Replat of the Whitehouse Addition with
conditions as listed in the October 16, 2014 staff report as amended by the Planning
Commission.. The motion passed unanimously.
B. Rezone Rezone from I-1 (Light Industrial) to I-2 (Medium
Industrial) (Bob Tippett) (MF# Z 2014-005)
Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff.
Dave McDonald, City Planner, discussed the application to rezone roughly 350 acres from
I-1 (Light Industrial) to I-2 (Medium Industrial). The rezone site is located south of "A"
Street and east of Cedar Street. This general area of the community has been identified in
the Comprehensive Plan for over 30 years as an area for future industrial development.
Mr. McDonald explained the planning history for the site and discussed a Sacajawea
Industrial Park plan for the area. That plan was initiated about 12 years ago and
eventually lead to the area being called the "Heritage Industrial Park". The City, through
expenditures and work with the property owners, has tried to posture the property for
industrial development. Over the years, the City has installed water lines near the
property, there's a 21" sewer line along the bottom edge of the property, there's a major
sewer trunk line and there is a major water line that runs through the northern third of
the property. A major rail spur was recently installed through the length of the site from
the west end to Road 40. A number of years ago along the southern portion of the
property, Burlington Northern built a rail yard with 7 miles of track along with some high
intensity lighting that allows the railroad to work 24 hours a day. One of challenges or
changes in the community occurring now is that most of the I-2 (Medium Industrial)
property within the community has been developed.
Mr. McDonald also explained that although there was a need for additional I-2 ground in
the city a number of uses permitted in the I-2 Zoning District and other uses permitted
through special permit process may not be appropriate for the area. These uses were then
highlight and it was suggested that a concomitant agreement would be needed to remove
the undesirable uses from the list of possible uses for the site.
Charles Laird, P.O. Box 3027, Pasco, WA spoke on behalf of Columbia East LLC who owns
the majority of the rezone site. Columbia East LLC has been largely responsible for
developing the Commercial Avenue Corridor. The primary reason for the rezone
application is to increase the potential industrial users who may choose to locate in the
Tri-Cities. I-2 zoning puts the Heritage Industrial Center in a better position to compete
with industrial centers and will allow for full advantage of the recently installed rail spur.
o -7-
The rail spur construction was a joint effort between the State of Washington, City of
Pasco, Port of Pasco and the property owners. Columbia East LLC recognizes that there
are some uses permitted under I-2 Zoning that may not be viewed favorably by nearby
neighbor. The applicant is willing to sign a concomitant agreement with the City to
restrict the following uses: junkyard, slaughterhouse, livestock yard, automobile wrecking
yard, scrap iron, distillation of bones, fat rendering, garbage or dead animal reduction or
dumping. With the exception of scrap paper, rag storage, sorting or bailing, the remaining
permitted uses under I-2 Zoning will be subject to further public scrutiny during the
conditional special permit process. In addition to the concomitant agreement, Columbia
East LLC intends to record restrictive covenants that will establish an upfront expectation
that Heritage Industrial Center will be a clean, orderly and well thought out development.
Gary Ballew, 1100 Osprey Pointe, spoke on behalf of the Port of Pasco for this application.
The Port Commissioner's reviewed this zoning request at their September 25th meeting. At
that meeting they passed a motion to support the request.
Leanne Smith, 506 Manzanita Lane, stated she supports the growth for business in Pasco
but was concerned with the type of businesses that could locate with I-2 Zoning. Ms.
Smith wanted to make sure that any changes made to the zoning won't have a negative
impact on the residential neighborhood nearby. She was concerned with her property
value and quality of life.
Chairman Cruz asked Ms. Smith if she would be supportive of the rezone with the
concomitant agreement.
Ms. Smith answered the concomitant agreement was a great effort to ensure their
community is protect. She was concerned about the description of the I-2 Zone, such as
noise levels, lighting, odors and smoke. Those are the things that will affect her and her
home.
Chairman Cruz responded that the Planning Commission has had experience in the past
with development of industrial near residential and they review the conditions and
agreements to ensure minimal impact on the residential neighborhoods. He asked if there
were specific things in the I-2 Zone that should be prevented, such as animal rendering.
Ms. Smith stated that anything that would make noise, odor or any other disturbance.
She stated that the only people that got notified by mail on this rezone were people within
300 feet of the proposed site. Her neighborhood is beyond 300 feet yet she feels she is still
close enough to be affected by this rezone. She happened to find out about the hearing
through other people.
Chairman Cruz stated that concern has come up a few times and asked staff if 300 feet is
statutory.
Mr. McDonald answered that it is a municipal code requirement.
Ryan Brault, 617 Esperanza Court, stated he was a resident in the nearby neighborhood
he appreciates the concomitant agreement idea.
Ted Osborn, 3808 E. "A" Street, stated he owns the salvage operation at the corner of
Road 40 and "A" Street. He spoke in favor of the proposed zone change.
M -8-
Mr. Laird reiterated that the intention is to record restrictive covenants along with a
concomitant agreement and in those covenants offensive uses will be addressed.
Chairman Cruz responded that there is general support for the rezone to I-2, however,
there needs to be more clarity as to which uses will be restricted.. Chairman Cruz asked
staff how many restrictions should be put in the covenants.
Mr. McDonald answered that the covenants Mr. Laird referred to arc different than the
concomitant agreement. The concomitant agreement is controlled by the City and the City
will make sure that it is recorded.
Mr. McDonald went through a list of uses that the Planning Commission stated they
wished to have placed in the concomitant agreement as prohibited uses, such as:
slaughter houses, plaster manufacturing, distillation of bones, manufacturing and storage
of explosives, fat rendering, glue manufacturing, fertilizer, garbage, dead animal reduction
or rendering, race tracks, asphalt and concrete batch plants and commercial composting
companies.
Chairman Cruz stated that some items listed are in the middle in it would depend on the
company and their plans.
Chaiman Cruz stated that there were a few activities that should be completely restricted
without the option of a special permit.
Mr. Laird responded that finding language that isn't too restrictive will be the challenging.
There may be uses that can be done in a tasteful and clean manner and certain language
in the agreement could prevent such uses.
Mr. Brault added that he would like some consideration to extending the buffer. He asked
for clarification on the buffer.
Mr. McDonald answered that the site is 350 to 600 feet from "A" Street. He stated that the
issue of buffers came up when Tierra Vida was approved. The properties on the north side
of"A" Street where zoned to provide an additional buffer from the I-1 zone. The applicants
wish to further enhance that buffer by staying back to 350-600 feet.
Linda Patrick, 3914 Milagro Dr., stated concern that residents in Tierra Vida didn't receive
written notification in the mail. Ms. Patrick also added that the buffer didn't provide
much protection to the residents as there is still a lot of noise, odor and other problems.
With no more comments the public hearing closed.
Commissioner Greenaway moved, seconded by Commissioner Polk, to close the public
hearing and schedule deliberations and development of a recommendation for City Council
at the November 20, 2014 meeting. The motion passed unanimously.
C. Rezone Rezone from "O" (Office) to R-1 (Low Density
Residential) (Charles Steltenpohl)_(MF# Z 2014-0061
Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff.
Rick White, Community 8v Economic Development Director, discussed the rezone
M -9-
application from "O" (Office) to R-1 (Low Density Residential). The proposed rezone would
allow the existing structure on the site to be used as a single-family residence. Originally
it was constructed in the late 1950's as a duplex and later converted to a medical office.
The Comprehensive Plan designates the site for low-density residential uses and there is
R-1 Zoning to the west and northwest and Office Zoning directly across the street and
behind the property, however Office Zoning and Residential Zoning are often harmonious.
Charles Steltenpohl, 3005 Road 56, the applicant, stated one of the main issues with the
property has been parking causing it to be unattractive for businesses uses. Converting to
residential will make the property more attractive.
With no further questions or comments the public hearing closed.
Commissioner Polk asked if it currently being used as a single-family residence or office.
Mr. Steltenpohl stated that it is used as a single-family residence.
Commissioner Greenaway moved, seconded by Commissioner Polk, to close the public
hearing on the proposed rezone and initiate deliberations and schedule the adoption of
findings of fact and conclusions and a recommendation for City Council for the November
20, 2014 meeting. The motion passed unanimously.
D. Rezone Rezone from C-1 (Retail Business) to CR (Regional
Commercial) (City of Pasco) (MF# Z 2014-007)
Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff.
Dave McDonald, City Planner, discussed the rezone application from C-1 (Retail Business)
to CR (Regional Commercial). The property is on Sandifur Parkway, west of Bedford. The
site is 14 acres and is owned by the City of Pasco. The CR Zoning District would allow for
commercial uses included; RV sales, car sales and related type of businesses. Mr.
McDonald briefly referenced the findings of fact in the written report and the
recommendation for rezoning this property.
Chairman Cruz stated that the report notes motorcycles sales.
Mr. McDonald added the motorcycles sales are located directly to the south of I-182 in the
new building being built on St. Thomas Drive. The rezone provides a little more flexibility
for signage and perhaps size of the sales lots and numbers of vehicles.
Commissioner Bachart stated that he is a little concerned with the other types of
commercial properties already in this vicinity and how this rezone could affect those
businesses. The special permit would require new cars only. He asked if it would really
be preferable to rezone or use the special permit process.
Mr. McDonald said yes and no. In this particular case, it would be more than just a used
car lot. The special permit process and some of the limitations, particularly for signage,
doesn't quite work. A rezone is preferable in this particular case.
Commissioner Bachart asked if all 14 acres of this property are going to be developed into
a single car lot.
M -10-
Mr. McDonald answered only 7 acres, with the possibility of the other 7 acres for a
different dealership.
Commissioner Greenaway stated that she was also concerned since the majority of the
area consists of medical offices and banks.
Mr. McDonald replied that most of those businesses are on the north side of the
boulevard. Also, in the I-182 Corridor, there will be landscaping requirements along with
building enhancement not found in other parts of the community.
Chairman Cruz added that there is a nice gradient from less intense to more intense.
Preston Ramsey, 415 S. Alpine, Liberty Lake, WA, stated that he represents the original
developer and owner of the site. The site is encumbered with restrictive covenants that
will have to be reviewed by the architectural committee.
Mr. McDonald stated that he is aware of the covenants and he has been in communication
with Mr. Ramsey.
With no further comments the public hearing closed.
Commissioner Kempf moved, seconded by Commissioner Greenaway, to adopt findings of
fact and conclusions therefrom as contained in the October 16, 2014 staff report. The
motion passed unanimously.
Commissioner Kempf moved, seconded by Commissioner Greenaway, based on the
findings of fact and conclusions as adopted the Planning Commission recommend the City
Council approve the rezone for the property at the southeast corner of Bedford Street and
Sandifur Parkway from C-1 to CR. The motion passed unanimously.
E. Zoning Determination Develop Zoning Recommendation for Rogers
Annexation Area (MF# ZD 2014-001)
Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff.
Dave McDonald, City Planner, discussed the need to develop a zoning recommendation for
the Rogers Annexation Area. The owners of the property signed a notice of intent to annex
the property in August. Subsequent to that the owners signed a 60% annexation petition
which has now been certified by the County Assessor. A zoning determination needs to be
made so when the public hearing is held in December a zoning recommendation will be
ready for City Council to consider. In looking at the general area and surrounding
properties, staff is suggesting that the property be zoned R-S-1 to match the DNR property
directly to the west which is also zoned R-S-1.
Following additional discussion the public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Greenaway moved, seconded by Commissioner Bachart, the Planning
Commission adopt the findings of fact as contained in the October 16, 2014 staff report.
The motion passed unanimously.
Commissioner Greenaway moved, seconded by Commissioner Bachart, based on the
findings of fact adopted, the Planning Commission recommend the City Council zone the
M -11-
Rogers Annexation Area R-S-1 Suburban Residential upon annexation. The motion
passed unanimously.
F. Comprehensive Plan Comprehensive Plan Amendment to Modify the
Urban Growth Boundary (Farm 2005, LLCL(MF# CPA
2014-002)
Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff.
Dave McDonald, City Planner, discussed the Comprehensive Plan Amendment to modify
the Urban Growth Boundary. He stated the applicant is seeking to have the urban
Growth Boundary expanded to include 160 acres north of Northwest Commons. Mr.
McDonald explained the staff memo for contained pertinent sections of the Growth
Management Act relating to urban growth boundaries. The property is next to the city
limits and there is a new school and a new subdivision located to the south. There is a
provision within the law that the cities and counties can consider a local market supply
factor to provide a buffer and an opportunity to prohibit the boundary from being so
restrictive it would drive the price of property up. Mr. McDonald also shared concerns
with the local supply factor as well as concerns with the airport. Mr. McDonald briefly
discussed some possible uses on this property.
Tom Kidwell, 4320 Riverhaven Street, stated that including his property in the urban
growth boundary would be a natural progression of the city. With the new school, he
built a water main and new street down to his property. He stated that this would be a
good site for homes.
Ron Foraker of the Port of Pasco and Spencer Montgomery of J.U.B. Engineers spoke on
the application. Mr. Foraker stated over the past two years the Port of Pasco has worked
with the City of Pasco and Franklin County to safeguard future service capabilities of the
Airport. Ideally they would prefer there be no development on a runway approach to the
airport. There will be low-flying aircraft arriving and departing above the proposed site. In
planning of the airport overlay zone, it was agreed that no residential development would
be allowed in Zone 2 but the compromised reached was that Zone 4 would allow for large
lots due to some existing conditions on other runway approaches. Of the 160 acre parcel
that is being considered for the urban growth boundary, nearly half will be protected in
the approach zones. Because restrictions were not in place previously, the Port of Pasco is
forced to purchase 34 acres southeast of the subject property to retain protection for
growth of the airport. There will also be height restrictions on the entire parcel.
Chairman Cruz asked for clarification as to what land uses would conform to the airport
overlay zoning.
Mr. Foraker responded mostly farming.
Mr. Montgomery added that the overlay district would prohibit residential in parts of this
property and public assemblies or anything that would have a large amount of people
gather.
Chairman Cruz responded that this puts the Planning Commission in a tough spot since
part of the property can't be developed and other parts probably shouldn't or should be at
a lower density. He asked the applicant how these restrictions will affect his plan.
M -12-
Mr. Kidwell answered half the property on the south side of the runway will be available
but he needs city water and in order to have city water they have to be in the urban
growth boundary. Mr. Kidwell added that even decreasing the size of the property to
include into the urban growth boundary would still facilitate his needs.
Chairman Cruz stated that it will become awkward for the land owner because this land
won't be large enough to be farmable and the rest would be limited on the amount of
homes.
Mr. Kidwell stated he still wished to move forward on this application.
With no more questions or comments the public hearing closed.
Commissioner Greenway stated that she would have difficulty approving this application
due to safety of the airport.
Commissioner Bachart moved, seconded by Commissioner Portugal, to close the hearing
on the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment and initiate deliberations and schedule
adoption of findings of fact, conclusions and a recommendation to City Council for the
November 20, 2014 meeting. The motion passed five to one with Commissioner
Greenaway dissenting.
G. Comprehensive Plan Comprehensive Plan Amendment to Change the
Land Use Designation from Low-Density Residential
to Mixed Residential (Roger & Kay Walker) (MF#
CPA 2014-003)
Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff.
Dave McDonald, City Planner, discussed the Comprehensive Plan Amendment to modify
the urban growth boundary. The property is located at the north end of Crescent Drive
where it meets Chapel Hill Boulevard. The 3-4 acre site is currently zoned RS-12 and was
zoned that way when annexed in the 1980's. The applicants wish to develop the property
at a little higher density than RS-12. The property to the north is designated as mixed-
residential which would allow for apartments and the property to the east is zoned C-1
and the properties to the south are zoned RS-12. One of the issues to consider is that this
site is difficult to develop, particularly for single-family homes due to the elevation for the
on Crescent Dr. It would be cost prohibitive to develop single-family homes due to the
amount of fill needed for Crescent Dr. This is one of the reasons why they would like to
change the plan. Changing the designation would provide a transition or buffer between
the R-4 zoning to the north and RS-12 to the south.
Chairman Cruz added to building up the property for road access and stated that it would
be expensive.
Harvey Prickett, P.O. Box 34341, Pasco, WA with Wave Architects spoke on behalf of the
application. Initially this property was an orchard with the plans to develop it as a single-
family home for themselves. When discussions with the Engineering Department revealed
issues with the road, grade and utilities, it was no longer economically feasible for them to
do so and they are now trying to adjust their plans. They would like to see a townhome
style of residence for this property.
M -13-
Shawn Defferding, 4500 Crescent Road, stated that she was also speaking for other
neighbors near this property. They do not wish to see a buffer zone but would like to see a
single-family residence. She stated that it will change their quality of life and the
character of the neighborhood. Traffic increase was a main concern and they feel that
they will get more traffic from this development. She stated that when Mediterranean
Villas first opened it was mostly seniors or adults and now they are renting and leasing to
all ages and there is concern the same will happen in this case. She noted that the
applicants will have to finish the infrastructure in front of their home but asked who
would have to finish the rest.
Chairman Cruz responded that the mixed residential nearby could easily be apartments.
Chairman Cruz stated that some of the concerns are a little late due to the zoning of the
surrounding properties and that the nearby farm will not always be a farm.
Ms. Defferding responded that the surrounding neighbors had not understood that. They
thought that it would be more commercial zoning.
Chairman Cruz responded to the street closures and stated that he can't recall ever asking
for street closures and didn't know if that could even be done.
Mr. McDonald stated that the difficulty in this case is Crescent Drive and Road 108 are
identified in the Major Street Plan to connect to Chapel Hill Boulevard and in the future
there will be that connection. This area is within the urban growth boundary so this area
will develop and as it develops the street will have to go through.
Chairman Cruz asked for clarification as to how the street will get developed. He asked if
the road will be completed as needed.
Mr. McDonald answered that is correct and briefly explained the process.
Ms. Defferding asked how the land is going to be leveled for development.
Chairman Cruz answered that in order to get the street to City standards they will have to
fill it in. Once it is filled in there will need to be a wall or have it graded to that there is a
flat spot to build on. Roughly 70% of that lot would be available to build on so there won't
be room for several units on this property, just enough to make the development costs
worthwhile.
Zana Griffith, 4205 Road 111, asked if Crescent Road would open up and feed into Chapel
Hill Boulevard.
Mr. McDonald responded the applicants will be responsible for building their portion of
the road.
Ms. Griffith asked for clarification on keeping a barrier to keep people from coming down
to Crescent Drive.
Mr. McDonald stated that it wouldn't be advisable and would eventually be removed.
Chairman Cruz discussed the option of an LID to help with street, road, sewer and
M -14-
irrigation improvements and there may be a street plan. There was discussion between
Chairman Cruz and Ms. Griffith on the different options and what could potentially be
developed.
Mr. McDonald reminded the Planning Commission that at this time they should only be
considering the Comprehensive Plan Amendment.
Commissioner Polk addressed the problem of speeding from church traffic and suggested
that anyone with issues should contact the church to let them know.
Mr. McDonald stated that currently the church congregation shouldn't be able to use the
road because it is blocked off.
Mr. Pritchett stated that he agreed with many of the comments made and they too would
like to see the lowest speed. They plan to be responsible developers.
With no further questions or comments the public hearing closed.
Commissioner Bachart moved, seconded by Commissioner Kempf, to close the public
hearing and initiate deliberations and schedule adoption of findings of facts, conclusions
and a recommendation to the City Council for the November 20, 2014 meeting. The
motion passed unanimously.
H. Code Amendment Revisions to PMC Title 17 (Signs) dealing with
Highway Follow-Through Signs (MF# CA 2011-011)
Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff.
Rick White, Community 8s Economic Development Director, discussed the code
amendment for revisions to PMC Title 17 (Signs) dealing with highway follow-through
signs. The Commission has seen this item several times. After meeting with the
Department of Transportation, the Engineering Department and working out code
language, a proposed ordinance that uses existing language in the sign code, will allow for
highway follow-through signs with the same parameters that the Commission has given
approval at previous workshops on this issue. It captures all of the permitting
requirements necessary for the State Code.
With no further comments the public hearing closed.
I. Block Grant Preliminary Draft of the 2015-2019 Tri-Cities
Consolidated Plan (MF# BGAP 2014-0071
Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff.
Rick White, Community 8v Economic Development Director, discussed the preliminary
draft of the 2015-2019 Tri-Cities Consolidated Plan. The Consolidated Plan is established
to provide a framework on how to utilize Block Grant and HOME fund money. Mr. White
referred to the draft plan which was sent to the Planning Commissioners and is available
on the City website as well as the Pasco Branch Libraries. The major change in this plan
from previous years is the format due to a change in federal reporting requirements.
Instead of seven goals there are only three goals; (1) Affordable housing creation,
preservation, access and choice, (2) Community, neighborhood and economic development
M -15-
and (3) Homeless intervention and prevention and supportive services. Each goal has a
priority system for recommending what should or should not be considered for funding.
With no questions or comments the public hearing closed.
OTHER BUSINESS:
A. Plan Shoreline Master Plan Update - Environmental
Designations
This item was postponed and will be on the upcoming meeting.
COMMENTS:
With no further discussion or business, the Planning Commission was adjourned at
10:06 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
David McDonald, City Planner
M -16-
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
MASTER FILE NO: Z 2014-005 APPLICANT: Tippett/Lampson/City
HEARING DATE: 9/18/2014 &, 10/16/14 2815 St Andrews Loop # F
ACTION DATE: 11/20/2014 Pasco WA 99301
BACKGROUND
REQUEST: REZONE: Rezone from I-1(light Industrial) to 1-2 (Medium
Industrial)
1. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION:
Legal: Parcel #'s 112540019, 112470014, 112510060, 112510079,
112530053 and 112430021.
General Location: South of "A" Street north of the Port of Pasco and west
of Road 40 East.
Property The combined area of the parcels is 365 acres.
2. ACCESS: The parcels are accessible from Road 40 East. Currently there
is not dedicated right-of-way from "A" Street.
3. UTILITIES: All municipal utilities are currently available in Road 40
East. A 16 inch water main also runs east and west through the western
half of the property and along the western boundary. This 16 inch line
reduces down to a 12 inch line through the eastern half of the property.
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: I-1 - Vacant/salvage yard/temp office rental
SOUTH: I-3 8v I-1 - Port of Pasco/ Vacant
EAST: 1-1 - Vacant/farm land
WEST: 1-1 - Vacant
5. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The Comprehensive Plan designates the
property for industrial uses. Land Use Goal ED-2 encourages the
appropriate location and design of commercial and industrial facilities
within the city. Policy ED-2-13 encourages the development of a wide
range of industrial uses strategically located within the community to
support local and regional needs.
6. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The City of Pasco is the lead
agency for this project. Based on the SEPA checklist, the adopted City
1
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 applicants have applied to change the zoning designation of their property
from I-1 (Light Industrial) to I-2 (Medium Industrial). The subject site is
comprised of five parcels of land located west of Road 40 East between the Port
of Pasco on the south and "A" Street on the north. The site contains about 365
acres of land which is mostly in agricultural production.
The Comprehensive Plan designates site for Industrial land uses that are
permitted in the I-1 through I-2 zoning districts. The I-3 District is only
applicable to the Big Port of Pasco area to the south of the site.
The City has been working with the Port and property owners for many years to
encourage industrial development on the site. Approximately 12 years ago the
City contracted with a land use consulting firm to develop a sub-area land use
plan for much of the area located between Oregon Avenue, Cedar Street and SR
12. The result was the Sacajawea Industrial Area and Circulation Concept
Plan which identified future streets, rail corridors and land uses for the area.
Following the Concept Plan, the City constructed the Heritage Boulevard truck
route connecting "A" Street with the Lewis Street Interchange in 2005. A rail
spur was also recently added to the rezone site more or less following the
direction of the referenced Concept Plan. The rail spur was a joint project of the
Port, City, Franklin County and property owners.
For marketing purposes the Sacajawea Industrial Area has been renamed as
the Heritage Industrial Area. The future street network though the Heritage
Industrial Area was further refined with the completion of the Tank Farm Road
Interchange Study completed in 2008. The Heritage Industrial Area will
eventually be connected to SR 12 through two freeway interchanges.
To assist with preserving the Heritage Industrial Area for future industrial
development the City acquired 15 acres of land between Elm Street and Cedar
Street in 2009 and then in 2011 acquired the old Western Meats property.
These properties were cleaned up to look more presentable. About 12 years
ago the BNSF built a rail yard between the rezone site and the Port of Pasco.
This rail yard contains 7 miles of track and high intensity lighting to permit
work 24 hours a day if necessary.
2
Prior to the development of the industrial park concept plan the City installed a
16 inch water main through the center of the western half of the property
proposed for the rezone. A 12 inch water line is also located in the eastern half
of the property.
In 1999 the City in conjunction with the Port installed a 21 inch sewer main
along the southern boundary of the rezone. That line also was extended a short
distance north in Road 40 East. In 2004 the sewer line was extended all the
way to "A" street. The rezone site is now severed by both a major sewer line
and a major water line.
The above items can be considered changing conditions that would merit
consideration of a rezone for the property. Another changing condition in the
community is the fact that the Pasco Processing Center no longer has large
enough parcels of land to accommodate another food processing plant. The
Processing Center is essentially full and there is no other land available with a
rail spur that would permit the development of a full range of food processing
plants. The Processing Center was zoned I-2 and developed with a rail spur
specifically for the food processing industry.
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 1979 when the property
was annexed to the City.
2. The changed conditions, which are alleged to warrant other or additional
zoning:
The City, Port and property owners have been posturing the property for
industrial development for many years. The site has been identified as the
Heritage Industrial Park by the City. The Heritage Boulevard truck route was
constructed in 2007 to provide a link between "A" Street and the Lewis Street
Interchange. Planning for the Tank Farm Road Interchange on Highway 12
identified the general location of future street connections from the end of
Heritage Boulevard to the Tank Farm Road Interchange that will traverse the
rezone property. The old "Pig Farm" site to the west and north has been razed
and cleared and the City purchased the Western Meats packing facility and other
properties to support industrial development in the area. A rail spur was
constructed though the property last year. Construction of the spur was a joint
project between the City, Port, Franklin County and property owners. The
Burlington Northern and Santa Fe railroad constructed a rail yard between the
property and the Port of Pasco over 12 years ago. Seven miles of rail track are
3
now located in the area. The Port of Pasco was annexed and zone I-3 (Heavy
Industrial) in 1994 and since that time the Port has made significant
improvements to infrastructure in the area to further support industrial
development. A major industrial sized water line was located through the
property to support future industrial development in the late early 1980's.
3. Facts to justify the change on the basis of advancing the public health,
safety and general welfare:
Rezoning the property will support past public and private efforts and
expenditures to posture the property for major industrial development. By
expanding opportunities for industrial development the city will be expanding
employment opportunities and the tax base thereby advancing the general
welfare of the community.
4. The effect it will have on the value and character of the adjacent property
and the Comprehensive Plan:
The comprehensive Plan designates the site for Industrial development. Policies
(ED-2-B) of the plan encourage the development of a wide range of industrial
uses strategically located within the community to support local and regional
needs. There will be little immediate impact to surrounding properties which are
currently zoned either I-3 or I-1. Development of large industrial plants on the site
may encourage the development of support related facilities (trucking, packaging
suppliers, repair facilities, cold storage, raw product storage etc.) on adjacent
properties. For example support facilities were constructed in and near the Pasco
Processing Center after the food processing plants were built.
5. The effect on the property owner or owners if the request is not granted:
Without the rezone the site may be less attractive for the development of
industrial plants and the public and private expenditures to position the property
for industrial development will not provide a positive return for the community.
INITIAL STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT
Findings of fact must be entered from the record. The following are initial
findings drawn from the background and analysis section of the staff report.
The Planning Commission may add additional findings to this listing as the
result of factual testimony and evidence submitted during the open record
hearing.
1. The site is comprised of five tax parcels.
4
2. A majority of the site is being farmed.
3. The site is approximately 365 acres in area.
4. The site is currently zoned I-1 (Light Industrial).
S. The applicant is requesting the I-2 (Medium Industrial) zoning.
6. The Comprehensive Plan designates the site for industrial development.
7. In the early 2000's the City contracted with a consultant to develop an
industrial land use and circulation concept plan for the property
included within the rezone request area.
8. The concept plan referenced in # 6 generally identified the future location
of major streets and rail spurs through the rezone site.
9. The City constructed the Heritage Boulevard truck route connecting "A"
Street to the Lewis Street Interchange.
10. The City, Port and property owners recently constructed a rail spur
through the rezone site.
11. The BNSF built a rail yard between the Port of Pasco and the rezone site
about 12 years ago. This yard contains seven miles of track
12. The Comprehensive Plan designates the properties for industrial land
uses.
13. In the mid-1990s the City and the Port jointly developed the Pasco
Processing Center. The Port developed the industrial park on Industrial
Way and the City built an industrial waste water facility to support the
industrial park.
14. The Pasco Processing Center is essentially built out and cannot
accommodate any additional food processing plants.
15. The Pasco Processing Center was zone I-2 and contains a rail spur.
16. There are no more I-2 industrial sites within the City with a rail spur.
17. The Port of Pasco is located to the south of the rezone site and is zoned I-
3.
18. A 12 inch and 16 inch water line was installed through the rezone site in
the early 1980's.
19. A 21 inch sewer line was installed along the south boundary of the
rezone site in 1999 and completely extend up Road 40 East to "A" Street
in 2004.
20. The I-2 District permits the location of junkyards, automobile wrecking
yards and scrap iron yards.
5
21. Conditional uses permitted through the special permit process in the I-2
District include:
(1) Slaughterhouses and stockyards;
(2) Acid manufacture or wholesale storage of acids;
(3) Cement, lime, gypsum, or plaster of paris manufacture;
(4) Distillation of bones;
(5) Manufacture of explosives or storage of explosives, including gases;
(6) Fat rendering, fertilizer, gas or glue manufacture;
(7) Garbage, offal, or dead -animal reduction or dumping;
(8) Petroleum or petroleum products refining;
(9) Smelting or reduction of ore or metallurgical products;
(10) Foundry casting of nonferrous metals or electric foundry causing
noxious fumes or odors;
(11) Race tracks and courses for the conduct of seasonal or periodic
racing;
(12) Asphalt or concrete batch plant; and
(13) Commercial composting facilities.
TENTATIVE CONCLUSIONS BASED ON INITIAL STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT
Before recommending approval or denial of a special permit the Planning
Commission must develop findings of fact from which to draw its conclusions
based upon the criteria listed in PMC 25.86.060. The criteria are as follows:
1. The proposal is in accordance with the goals and policies of the
Comprehensive Plan.
The proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map and
several Plan policies and goals. Land Use Policy LU-3-B encourages "infill"
development while H-2-A suggests the City permit a full range of residential
environments. Housing Policy (H-B-A) encourages standards that control the
scale and density of accessory buildings and homes to maintain compatibility
with other residential uses.
2. The effect of the proposal on the immediate vicinity will not be materially
detrimental.
All properties surrounding the site are zoned for industrial development (T 1 or I-
3) with the exception of a small area to the northwest owned by the city which is
zoned C-3. Development on the site may be beneficial to surrounding properties
in that industrial support services may locate on these properties. Industrial
development in the Pasco Processing Center lead to ancillary developed on other
properties in the area.
3. There is merit and value in the proposal for the community as a whole.
6
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 is
consistent with the Plan's Land Use Map. Encouraging the development of more
industrial facilities in the community has merit as a whole for the increase in
employment opportunities it creates and increase in the tax base without a
corresponding increased need for public services as is the case with residential
development.
4. Conditions should be imposed in order to mitigate any significant
adverse impacts from the proposal.
The I-2 zone permits the location of salvage yards and wrecking yards. The
rezone could be conditioned to address concerns, over the development of
salvage yards and other activities listed as conditional uses. The current
property owners may not permit the development of salvage yards or bone
distillation facilities on their property but, future owners may not share the same
concern. The only sure way to prohibit the development of wrecking and salvage
yards and other uses that may be obnoxious to surrounding properties is to tie a
concomitant agreement to the property limiting uses like junkyards that may
have more of a negative impact on the neighborhood.
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.
The following are the permitted and conditional uses allowed in the 1-2 zoning
district.
25.54.020 PERMITTED USES. Uses permitted in the I-2 district shall be:
(1) All uses not otherwise prohibited by law, but no residential buildings
shall be permitted; and
(2) Junkyards, automobile wrecking yards, scrap iron, scrap paper, or
rag storage, sorting or bailing shall be permitted, provided:
(a) An eight-foot sight-obscuring fence must be constructed and
inspected prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for use of the
goods. The fence shall be of solid single neutral color.
(b) No automobile or parts thereof, junk or salvage materials or
parts thereof shall be visible from any public right-of-way. All materials or
parts shall be located within the fenced area.
(c) Fire lanes shall be provided as required in the International
Fire Code.
(d) A performance bond for one thousand dollars shall be required
prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit, to assure compliance with
provisions of this section. The bond shall remain in force as long as the use
exists.
(e) The permit shall be granted for a period not to exceed two years
and at the end of such period an inspection shall be made of the premises to
determine the advisability of renewing such permit.
7
25.54.040 PERMITTED CONDITIONAL USES. The following uses may be
permitted in the I-2 district upon approval of a special permit as provided in
Chapter 25.86.
(1) Slaughterhouses and stockyards;
(2) Acid manufacture or wholesale storage of acids;
(3) Cement, lime, gypsum, or plaster of paris manufacture;
(4) Distillation of bones;
(5) Manufacture of explosives or storage of explosives, including gases;
(6) Fat rendering, fertilizer, gas or glue manufacture;
(7) Garbage, offal, or dead-animal reduction or dumping;
(8) Petroleum or petroleum products refining;
(9) Smelting or reduction of ore or metallurgical products;
(10) Foundry casting of nonferrous metals or electric foundry causing
noxious fumes or odors;
(11) Race tracks and courses for the conduct of seasonal or periodic
racing;
(12) Asphalt or concrete batch plant; and
(13) Commercial composting facilities.
Many of the uses listed above would not be appropriate for the proposed rezone
site. To reduce or eliminate adverse impacts to surrounding properties a
concomitant agreement is needed. The concomitant agreement should prohibit
the following uses:
1) Slaughterhouses and stockyards;
2) Cement manufacturing;
3) Distillation of bones;
4) Fat rendering;
5) Garbage, offal, or dead animal reduction or dumping;
6) Race tracks and courses for the conduct of seasonal or
periodic racing;
7) Junk yards, automobile wrecking yards and scrap iron
yards;
8) Asphalt or concrete batch plant;
The concomitant agreement should also restrict the operation of certain scrap or
recycling businesses as follows:
1) Scrap paper and rag storage, sorting and bailing shall only be
permitted if such activity occurs within a building.
The proposed concomitant agreement is a part of the proposed rezone
ordinance attached to this report.
8
RECOMMENDATION
MOTION: I move to adopt findings of fact and conclusions therefrom as
contained in the October 16, 2014 staff report.
Motion: I move based on the findings of fact and conclusions as
adopted the Planning Commission recommend the City
Council approve the rezone for the Heritage Industrial Area
from I-1 to I-2 with a concomitant agreement prohibiting
junkyards and other uses as listed in the attached
agreement.
9
Item: Rezone from I- I to 1-2
Overview Applicant: CQ
Map File Z 2014-005
Mkt� � ' �" �~�■
p ��" � � �as��+ •,�»� � — ,/
D. N�
e��UZI
d�
I�
v MR MR
UM ISM
NNI
4iiik�ay rtEa er�
! „"„�`® :� Rin�L�Mrcea:rr q SY4aYGi4i7t�11'.SS: IIfR1�Cwai
` 'J� +.=;_ � Vii► � 11111!1
�,����-�i'■' ��Ih it 1� r1 1�
r-
• Item: Rezone from I- 1 to I-2
Vicinity Applicant: Columbia East et al. N
Map File #: Z 2014-005
7.7 L�
A.,ST Q _
a
DEED 00 Li
i
Ea EE EH
SITEN
IN
IN
NNNN
CQJ
fou
Land Use Item: Rezone from I- 1 to I-2
Applicant : Columbia East et al. x
Map File #: Z 2014-005
I I I
SFDUsLLA � �.- Lim- �lIJ A Pts.
er
a
Ind. Vac. Ind.
Canty \
SITE
LL
Industrial `' ' Vacant
h
e LL
Zoning Item: Rezone from I- 1 to I-2 Applicant: Columbia East et al. x
Map File #: Z 2014-005
R-1 - C3 € C-1 � RT ` R3 C-1 C3
Li
LL F
SITE
1=3 CO � I- 1
Looking North
6&"i .- _
,
Y _
.c
J,.f 11
Looking
- - -- _
AA
�y� �,k � rl'4 S+j a_„F', r, _ ,' r l-• I -i�,T w �, 1lJ t � ,R�I �' i r J ;, '- � x -- - 'c"��
-
a
-
a
Looking South
w
Looking Nest
r
'�e..� °s �.:r>t' .�:e, r-� - �• 1R7"'N a. - i }� � ,. .r.+xu�'�1YA� - - •A.=l - .` � �4
- -. - w• r - _ � - _ .etk n. ,�•:•. _. - .. � ��lY��'�)J.''�I r'��`:"�i 'i:5��;:. �� si -�
t- ?fir- �. � �• i - i- .. �' - - j �, ... ,,'_ __ S � `•��, a- - _ '' �.
ham"•��' � _ �, � � a�` ...: � `
_
r �
R•
a i
owl
A.
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF PASCO, WASHINGTON, AMENDING THE
ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE HERTITAGE
INSUDSTRIAL AREA SOUTH OF "A" STREET WEST OF ROAD 40 EAST FROM I-1
(LIGHT INDUSTRIAL) TO I-2 (MEDIUM INDUSTRIAL).
WHEREAS, a complete and adequate petition for change of zoning classification
has been received and an open record hearing having been conducted by the Pasco Planning
Commission upon such petition; and,
WHEREAS, that the effect of the requested change in zoning classification shall not
be materially detrimental to the immediate vicinity; and,
WHEREAS, based upon substantial evidence and demonstration of the Petitioner,
that: (A) the requested change for the zoning classification is consistent with the adopted
Comprehensive Plan; (B) the requested change in zoning classification is consistent with or
promotes the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan serving the general public interest
in the community; and (C) there has been a change in the neighborhood or community needs or
circumstances warranting the requested change of the zoning classification; NOW,
THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASCO, WASHINGTON DO
ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. That the Zoning Ordinance for the City of Pasco, Washington, and the
Zoning Map, accompanying and being part of said Ordinance shall be and hereby is
changed from I-1 (Light Industrial) to I-2 (Medium Industrial) for the real property as
shown in the Exhibit "I" attached hereto and described as follows:
The NE 1/4 of Section 33, T9N, R29E, WM except the northerly 330 feet thereof and Lot
4, Binding Site Plan 2010-02, together with the NE 1/4 of the SE 1/4 of Section 33, T9N,
R29E, WM lying northerly of the railroad right-of-way together with the SE 1/4 of the NW
1/4 of said Section 33, less that portion for the NPRR right-of-way, Except that portion
described in Auditors File #523713; and NW 1/4 of the SE 1/4 of said Section 33, Except
the SP & S right-of-way and the N 1/Z of the N %2 of the SW 1/4 of Section 34, T9N, R30E,
W.M.
(Parcel#'s 112540019,01 12470014, 112510060, 112430021, 112530053 & 112510079)
Section 2. This ordinance shall take full force and effect five (5) days after its
approval,passage and publication as required by law.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Pasco this I st day of December, 2014.
Matt Watkins, Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Debra L. Clark, City Clerk Leland B. Kerr, City Attorney IN
Exhibit Item: Rezone from I- I to 1-2
Applicant: Columbia East et al.#1 File #: Z 2014-005
N
man MEN
WIND
milli ROOM
11 MEN ON INS
ELM
INOW
LON
0114 INS,
"Exhibit # 2"
CONCOMITANT ZONING AGREEMENT
WHEREAS, the City of Pasco, Washington, a non-charter code city, under the laws
of the State of Washington (Chapter 35A.63 R.C.W. and Article 11, Section 11 of the
Washington State Constitution) has authority to enact laws and enter into agreements to
promote the health, safety and welfare of its citizens, and thereby control the use and
development of property within its jurisdiction; and
WHEREAS, the Owner(s) of certain property have applied for a rezone of such
property described below within the City's jurisdiction; and
WHEREAS, the City pursuant to R.C.W. 43.12(c), the State Environmental Policy
Act, should mitigate any adverse impacts which might result because of the proposed rezone;
and
WHEREAS, the City of Pasco and the Owner(s) are both interested in compliance
with the Pasco Municipal Code provisions relating to the use and development of property
situated in the City of Pasco, described as follows:
The NE 1/4 of Section 33, T9N, R29E, WM except the northerly 330 feet thereof
and Lot 4, Binding Site Plan 2010-02, together with the NE 1/4 of the SE 1/4 of
Section 33, T9N, R29E, WM lying northerly of the railroad right-of-way
together with the SE 1/4 of the NW 1/a of said Section 33, less that portion for the
NPRR right-of-way,Except that portion described in Auditors File#523713; and
NW 1/4 of the SE 1/4 of said Section 33, Except the SP & S right-of-way and the N
1/2 of the N % of the SW 1/4 of Section 34, T9N, R30E, W.M. (Parcel #
112540019, 112470014, 112510060, 112430021, 112530053 & 112510079)
WHEREAS, the Owner(s) have indicated willingness to cooperate with the City of
Pasco, its Planning Commission and Planning Department to insure compliance with the
Pasco Zoning Code, and all other local, state and federal laws relating to the use and
development of the above described property; and
WHEREAS, the City, in addition to civil and criminal sanctions available by law,
desires to enforce the rights and interests of the public by this concomitant agreement, NOW,
THEREFORE,
In the event the above-described property is rezoned by the City of Pasco from I-1
(Light Industrial) to I-2 (Medium Industrial) and in consideration of that event should it
occur, and subject to the terms and conditions hereinafter stated, the applicant does hereby
covenant and agree as follows:
1. The Owner(s) promise to comply with all of the terms of the agreement in the
event the City, as full consideration herein grants a rezone on the above-described property.
2. The Owner(s) agrees to perform the terms set forth in Section 4 of this agreement.
3. This agreement shall be binding on their heirs, assigns, grantees or successors in
interest of the Owner(s) of the property herein described.
4. Conditions:
A. The following Permitted and Conditional Uses in the Medium
Industrial District are prohibited:
1) Slaughterhouses and stockyards;
2) Cement manufacturing;
3) Distillation of bones;
4) Fat rendering;
5) Garbage, offal, or dead animal reduction or dumping;
6) Race tracks and courses for the conduct of seasonal or periodic
racing;
7) Junk yards, automobile wrecking yards and scrap iron yards;
8) Asphalt or concrete batch plant;
B. The following uses are permitted with restrictions as indicated:
1) Scrap paper and rag storage, sorting and bailing shall only be permitted
if such activity occurs within a building.
The person(s) whose names are subscribed herein do hereby certify that they are the
sole holders of fee simple interest in the above-described property:
Owner:
STATE OF WASHINGTON )
) ss.
County of Franklin )
On this day of , 2014, before me,
the undersigned, duly commissioned and sworn, personally appeared
to me known to be the
individual(s) described above and who executed the within and foregoing
instrument as an agent of the owner(s) of record, and acknowledged to me that
he/she/they signed the same as his/her/their free and voluntary act and deed,
for the uses and purposes therein mentioned, and on oath stated that
he/she/they is/are authorized to execute the said instrument.
GIVEN under by hand and official seal this day of
, 2014.
CONCOMITANT ZONING AGREEMENTPAGE 2 OF 3
Notary Public in and for the State
of Washington, residing at
Owner:
STATE OF WASHINGTON )
ss.
County of Franklin )
On this day of , 2014, before me,
the undersigned, duly commissioned and sworn, personally appeared
to me known to be the
individual(s) described above and who executed the within and foregoing
instrument as an agent of the owner(s) of record, and acknowledged to me that
he/she/they signed the same as his/her/their free and voluntary act and deed,
for the uses and purposes therein mentioned, and on oath stated that
he/she/they is/are authorized to execute the said instrument.
GIVEN under by hand and official seal this day of
2014.
Notary Public in and for the State
of Washington, residing at
Owner:
STATE OF WASHINGTON )
ss.
County of Franklin )
On this day of , 2014, before me,
the undersigned, duly commissioned and sworn, personally appeared
to me known to be the
individual(s) described above and who executed the within and foregoing
CONCOMITANT ZONING AGREEMENTPAGE 3 OF 3
instrument as an agent of the owner(s) of record, and acknowledged to me that
he/she/they signed the same as his/her/their free and voluntary act and deed,
for the uses and purposes therein mentioned, and on oath stated that
he/she/they is/are authorized to execute the said instrument.
GIVEN under by hand and official seal this day of
2014.
Notary Public in and for the State
of Washington, residing at
CONCOMITANT ZONING AGREEMENTPAGE 4 OF 3
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
MASTER FILE NO: Z 2014-006 APPLICANT: Charles Steltenpohl
HEARING DATE: 10/16/2014 3005 Road 56
ACTION DATE: 11/20/2014 Pasco, WA 99301
BACKGROUND
REQUEST: REZONE: Rezone from `O' (Office) to R-1 (Low-Density Residential)
1. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION:
Legal: Parcel # 112-131-158: Lot 29, Sylvester's Addition, except the
east 5 feet of the south 50 feet and the north 65 feet of Lots 30 to 32,
Block 7
General Location: 704 W. Margaret Street
Property Size: The parcel is 7,500 square feet or approximately 0.17
acres
2. ACCESS: The site is a corner lot fronting both W. Margaret Street and
51h Avenue; with secondary access from the adjacent alley to the south.
Alley access is obstructed by a detached accessory structure. There are
no driveways and therefore no off-street parking on-site.
3. UTILITIES: Municipal sewer and water currently serve the site from the
adjacent alley.
4. LAND USE AND ZONING: The site is currently zoned `O' (Office) and
contains a commercial building. Surrounding properties are zoned and
developed as follows:
NORTH: O - Commercial Office
SOUTH: R-1 - Single-Family Residences
EAST: C-1 - Commercial Offices
WEST: R-1 - Single-Family Residences
5. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The Comprehensive Plan designates the site
for Low Density Residential uses which allows for the assignment of
single-family residential zoning districts. ❑
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
Charles Steltenpohl has filed an application to change the zoning designation
of 704 W. Margaret Street from `O' (Office) to R-1 (Low-Density Residential)
which would allow the existing structure to be used as a single-family
residence. The site contains a single story brick building originally constructed
in 1957 as a duplex which was later converted into a medical office. Medical
offices operated in the building until 2010 with the benefit of a City of Pasco
business license (#2505).
The City's Comprehensive Plan designates this site for Low Density Residential
land uses which allows assignment of a variety of single-family zoning districts.
Of the allowable zones under the Low Density Residential designation, the R-1
zone permits the highest residential density at a rate of one dwelling unit for
every 7,200ft2 of land area or approximately 6 units per acre. Other zoning
districts allowed under the Low Density Residential land use designation are
suburban (RS-1, RS-12 and RS-20).
Although similar in terms of land use intensity, single-family residences are
generally considered to be a less intensive than commercial offices. Office
zoning and residential zoning are two zoning types that are frequently viewed
as harmonious and compatible with one another. It follows that this
application proposes to reduce the intensity of permitted uses on-site. For this
reason the proposal is not likely to have disruptive effects on surrounding
homes and offices.
Changing the zoning classification of the site will likely provide the owner the
opportunity to convert the building to a single-family home and allow the
property to be sold as such
Zoning Configuration:
The subject site together with the site directly to the north, represent a "spot"
of isolated office zoning amongst an otherwise uniform R-1 zoned
neighborhood. In this location 5th Avenue serves as the eastern boundary of the
Sylvester's Addition residential neighborhood. Despite their R-1 zoning, parcels
to the east are not residential land uses; they are offices, Lourdes hospital and
the courthouse. From an academic planning perspective there is merit in
increasing the uniformity of the R-1 zoning in this residential vicinity.
2
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 over 35-years ago.
2. The changed conditions, which are alleged to warrant other or additional
zoning:
For approximately 100-years the Sylvester's Addition neighborhood has been
developed largely with single-family homes. A small number of duplexes are
present in the vicinity. The subject site and the parcel directly to the north are
ones which at some point were converted to offices, they are the exception to the
intended character of the neighborhood. According to the current owner, the
sites' lack of off-street parking has been detrimental to the commercial viability of
the property as an office. The most recent change in conditions is the assignment
of Office zoning to the subject parcel. This zoning has ceased to be needed and
the owner requests to revert back to the original zoning.
3. Facts to justify the change on the basis of advancing the public health,
safety and general welfare:
There is merit in enhancing the predictability of the areas' zoning district
boundaries, a concept which would be promoted by approving this rezone
application. The lifestyles of adjacent residents may benefit from converting the
sites' use and zoning by way of enhancing the uniformity of conduct in the
neighborhood.
4. The effect it will have on the value and character of the adjacent property
and the Comprehensive Plan:
A change in zoning classification as requested will promote land use goals
illustrated in the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map. In the Comprehensive Plan
the surrounding vicinity has been assigned a "low-density residential" land use
designation which encourages the application of single-family residential zoning.
It is unlikely that converting the sites' zoning and use from office to residential
will affect the value of surrounding properties either positively or negatively.
5. The effect on the property owner or owners if the request is not granted:
Without transitioning the site to a residential zoning classification the site may
remain vacant for an extended period of time. Vacant sites are generally
considered a detriment to neighborhoods and run the risk of becoming blighted.
3
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 currently zoned Office (General Business).
2. The site is approximately 0.17 acres in area.
3. The site occupies a corner location; bordering West Margaret Street and
5th Avenue.
4. The site contains a commercial office building.
5. The structure on-site was originally constructed as a residential duplex.
6. The applicant is requesting R-1 (Low-Density Residential) zoning be
assigned to the site.
7. The Comprehensive Plan identifies the site and much of the vicinity for
Low-Density Residential uses which allows assignment of a range of
single-family residential zones including R-1 (Low-Density Residential).
8. The R-1 zone is the highest density allowed under the Low-Density
Residential land use designation, allowing 6 dwelling units for every One
(1) acre of land area.
9. Municipal water and sewer currently serve the site from the adjacent
alley.
10. The neighborhood to the west is zoned R-1 and contains primarily single-
family residences.
CONCLUSIONS BASED ON STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT
Before recommending approval or denial of a special permit the Planning
Commission must develop findings of fact from which to draw its conclusions
based upon the criteria listed in PMC 25.86.060. The criteria are as follows:
1. The proposal is in accordance with the goals and policies of the
Comprehensive Plan.
The proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map and
several Plan policies and goals. Land Use Policy LU-3-B encourages "infill"
development while H-2-A suggests the City permit a full range of residential
environments. Housing Policy (H-B-A) encourages standards that control the
scale and density of accessory buildings and homes to maintain compatibility
with other residential uses. Although development is not the proposed result of
4
this application, the change in zoning classification would enhance the
compatibility with land uses in the vicinity to the west.
2. The effect of the proposal on the immediate vicinity will not be materially
detrimental.
The proposed R-1 zoning will permit the site to be used residentially. The site
was originally developed for residential uses. Franklin County property value
research indicates that homes do not negatively affect the values of other
surrounding homes. Prospective home buyers are more likely to purchase a
home neighboring other homes than they would buy a home adjacent to a
commercial office.
3. There is merit and value in the proposal for the community as a whole.
Assignment of residential zoning will contribute to the residential character
matching much of the vicinity.
There is merit in enhancing the predictability of zoning district boundaries, a
concept which would be promoted by the proposed change in zoning
classification. The proposal is supported by land use goals and policies
contained in the Comprehensive Plan.
4. Conditions should be imposed in order to mitigate any significant
adverse impacts from the proposal.
No special conditions are proposed.
5. A Concomitant Agreement should be entered into between the City and
the petitioner, and if so, the terms and conditions of such an agreement.
A concomitant agreement is not needed.
RECOMMENDATION
MOTION for Findings of Fact: ❑
I move to adopt findings of fact and conclusions therefrom as contained in the
November 20, 2014 staff report.
MOTION for Recommendation:
I move based on the findings of fact and conclusions as adopted the Planning
Commission recommend the City Council approve the rezone from Office to R-1
for 704 W. Margaret Street.
5
Vicin
Item: Rezone - Office to R- 1
it
y
Applicant. Charles Steltenpohl N
Map
File #: Z 2014-006
rr+
r-
Ai
- Y S
Ali
SITWdil
MARCA
r
A ,+ i 0) 14
PARK ST
in
r� -
Land Use Item: Rezone - Office to R- 1
Applicant: Charles Steltenpohl N
Map File #: Z 2014-006
HENRY ST
Public/Government
Sin le-Family Residences
Office
MARGARET ST SIT
W
W
d
F7
.j
x SFR F �
Offices
Single-Family Residences
PARK ST
Parking Hospital
Zoning Item: Rezone - Office to R- 1
Applicant: Charles Steltenpohl N
Map File #: Z 2014-006
HENRY ST
R-1 R-1
(Low-Density Residential)-
SITE
MARGARET ST
W
C-1 �
..o.. x (Retail Business)
F
R-1
(Low-Density Residential)
PARK ST
R1
ter`„' .N� +,�,yam`r t '.}M �,, �s r °`"3�a���"'I+ ��h v ��y w•r�' �,y� :+
. - 'tit n�ti• - R�3.,C. i �. .�V.� ` !y.• - � , ,- § ..
q t
a
z.
w.
s
�Tly
•
-= �- �' fir' # '�a• �, -
kk
AX
pv it • �_ -
� i,�� 1�` 1 �+ � r S ��r',S Lei' , �� �il �� � �k✓. r'N
}VA
Ir
Looking North
- r
�w
a�
■ .4 r.Vajer
S G.r'' ♦ '� - .. N � `''�'•_ •` "°� ¢ ,a:.}.��`i eta: �� �J �•iW� �.,
.i. -— ` • r�^ ,w t14 lmr 'Ye
r -
ti
•�Y a '�� �cr �'. z � j, ,r, ..+4 `W�:''<`'
i
f i rM1
-
,
ti
f Y•:
vam
-APf.
Ift
fk"Ill
�6h ► y d
Looking South
,9is r .rte„ ," dl+'F'^'*' ;�'•'{.` .
IF Ur it
_ t
s ..
-�
T P
rn.
- - - �� �'� f •;±5 -, +� � .�' �.� ?a,T,,�+ ,�. k,��,��z'f�'��iP„ J + f `i`-'': -."d].'"�'e�*.:k'-e� s,�`:b,:.
- _. _ p__,...... t, 4 � �� � 1`$ 'J f* �T�`�r'�"4 f T/�Y.p °��x' !�' S'%.{,V r� `�� 4 f•.a
_ - ,. �`..-` �1,yf:; �}n�o�4'�., +y xr;.,.aF�,r��#,jp��,..� �. Ju w�;..., � t +".v�-1 ..��'_ ^�'sGi,7.r�,e+� �i+., `�'�"'"°'�r a�''�,�a"�.`n����"•.c.�;t�
• ��e...�-. - yC �,�. .e T { �C zY.r a.' �4 �,� x ��x '
a.
77 4���ti:'�� B,.A• _3� ,.Y+l {��,#S af. 9�F �`
� - 'ems.• ' `.t '� � I ,� � �•: ��44 ���,.a � '� � � ,� ..'!
1
Ap
}w� 1
Ilk ,
IN
�`w� Yw} ` ��'• ,,.�' 4 fi.'� - \y!R� mfr'/��!
w v `.' fly
IA
is
Ilk
► w r. 9..
1 I � NY"�, F�s�r r •; i
MEMORANDUM
DATE: November 20, 2014
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Jeff Adams, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: Urban Growth Area Expansion (MF# CPA14-002) (Farm 2005 LLC)
Farm 2005, LLC., the owner of 160 acres of farm land directly north of the City
limits, has applied for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment that would revise the
Urban Growth Area (UGA) to include 160 acres currently outside the Pasco
UGA. The property in question is located at the northeast corner of Road 52
and Powerline Road. The site is northeasterly of the new Rosalind Franklin
Elementary School. The following provides the historical background on Urban
Growth Areas and may help with arriving at a recommendation on this request.
The 1990 Growth Management Act (GMA) required the establishment of Urban
Growth Areas (UGA's) around urban centers throughout the State. Urban
Growth Areas have become a key component in managing urban growth within
Washington. Urban Growth Areas define the area in which a community is to
encourage higher density urban development and the area in which urban
services can be supported and promoted. Land located outside UGA's are to be
reserved for the promotion of rural density and functions. By directing growth
to UGA's natural resource lands such as farmlands and forest lands can be
conserved and the character of rural areas can be maintained for future needs.
Pasco's first Urban Growth Area was established in April of 1993 and has been
modified only four times since then. The designation of the Pasco UGA was not
only guided by the GMA Goals (see attachment #1), but also by the provisions
of RCW 36.70A.110 the most pertinent portions of which are as follows:
• Each county that is required or chooses to plan under RCW
36.70A.040 shall designate an urban growth area or areas within
which urban growth shall be encouraged and outside of which
growth can occur only if it is not urban in nature.
• Each city that is located in such a county shall be included within
an urban growth area.
• An urban growth area may include territory located outside of a
city only if such territory already is characterized by urban growth
whether or not the urban growth area includes a city, or is
adjacent to territory already characterized by urban growth, or is a
1
designated new fully contained community as defined by RCW
36.70A.350.
• Based upon the growth management population projection made
for the county by the Office of Financial Management, the county
and each city within the county shall include areas and densities
sufficient to permit the urban growth that is projected to occur in
the county or city for the succeeding twenty-year period, except for
those urban growth areas contained totally within a National
Historical Reserve.
• Each city must include areas sufficient to accommodate the broad
range of needs and uses that will accompany the projected urban
growth including, as appropriate, medical, governmental,
institutional, commercial, service, retail, and other non-residential
uses.
• Each urban growth area shall permit urban densities and shall
include greenbelt and open space areas.
• An urban growth area determination may include a reasonable
land market supply factor and shall permit a range of urban
densities and uses. In determining this market factor, cities and
counties may consider local circumstances.
• Urban growth should be located first in areas already characterized
by urban growth that have adequate existing public facility and
service capacities to serve such development, second in areas
already characterized by urban growth that will be served
adequately by a combination of both existing public facilities and
services and any additional needed public facilities and services
that are provided by either public or private sources, and third in
the remaining portions of the urban growth areas. Urban growth
may also be located in designated new fully contained communities
as defined by RCW36.70A.350.
• In general, cities are the units of local government most
appropriate to provide urban governmental services. In general, it
is not appropriate that urban governmental services be extended to
or expanded in rural areas except in those limited circumstances
shown to be necessary to protect basic public health and safety
and the environment and when such services are financially
supportable at rural densities and do not permit urban
development.
2
Based on State law, the Pasco UGA is to include all lands within the city and
may include lands outside the City if the lands are urban in nature or adjacent
to territory that is already characterized by urban growth. Development within
the UGA is to occur first on lands that currently have adequate public facility
and service capacities and secondly on lands that will be served adequately in
the future. The UGA needs to contain a sufficient amount of land to
accommodate expected growth for the 20 year planning horizon. The expected
growth is determined by county wide population projections prepared by the
State Office of Financial Management (OFM). In addition to the population
projections the city must also considered land needs for parks and open space,
school, retail businesses, offices, industrial buildings and other land uses. In
the determination for UGA land needs local market supply factors may also be
considered.
The local market supply factor is beginning to become an issue within the
UGA. The large remaining tracts of land that could be used for future
residential development are controlled by a few individuals or companies.
Additionally the remaining five major subdivisions available (228 acres of
buildable land) for new housing construction are likewise controlled by a
limited number of builders. As a result prices for raw land to develop
subdivisions are rising.
The last sale of land for a subdivision (Three Rivers West) was about 30 percent
higher than comparable sales in the recent past. The owner's that sold the 50
acres for Three Rivers West control another 450 acres of vacant land within the
UGA. Increasing land costs resulting from limitations created by the UGA
boundary are at odds with State and local housing goals to provide affordable
housing (RCW 36. 70A.210(3)e and County Policy # 6) for the community.
Twelve owners control 2,117 acres of raw land within the UGA designated for
residential development. Due to various constraints much of this land cannot
or will not be developed within the near future. Development constraints
include lack of utility service, land prices, gravel mining leases and contracts
and lack of development interest on the part of the owners.
The County donut hole areas contain approximately 300 acres of undeveloped
land that could be used for future housing development. Much of this vacant
land is occupied by hobby farms, pastures, horse corrals and gardens. It is
difficult to predict how soon these parcels will be available for development.
Some of the parcels have limited utility for residential developed due to poor
subdivision practices of the past. Many of these parcels are remnant lots with
odd shapes that lack access to public streets. If development occurs on these
parcels the densities will be very low.
With much of the large useable remaining vacant parcels under limited
ownership prices tend to rise impacting the affordability of housing. This is the
3
reason the Growth Management Act included a provision for adding additional
land to the UGA for a market supply factor so land prices are not driven
unreasonably high. As Linda Loviisa, First Place and Northwest Commons
continue to develop the market demand on the remaining vacant parcels will
continue to increase. Increasing the UGA slightly will help moderate that
market demand.
Another condition impacting the market factor of available residential
properties within the UGA is the fact that in 2012 Port of Pasco purchased 30
acres within Northwest Commons permanently removed 30 acres of land from
the residential inventory. The property was purchased for a future runway
protection area to enable future airport expansion. The airport protection
zones will also impact the property included in the proposed UGA boundary
amendment. Approximately 73 acres of the proposed site is located under an
approach/departure zone which limits residential density to two dwelling units
per acre. While the request is to include a total of 160 within the UGA
boundary the resulting increase to the buildable lands inventory will be
negligible.
One of the purposes of establishing UGA's is to preserve resource lands and
prevent them from being lost to urban development. The site in question is
currently being farmed but is not designated as farm land with long term
commercial significance. The land did not meet the test used by the County for
classifying the land for prime farm land. The soils on this land are not
considered prime agricultural soils. The land is located between an urbanizing
portion of the City and the Clark Addition which is urban in nature and
extensively developed. The site is also across Road 52 and to the northeast of
the new Rosalind Franklin Elementary School. These factors all impact the
long term viability of the site for commercial agriculture.
The population projections provided by the State Office of Financial
Management for Pasco's 20 year planning horizon (2007-2027) indicates
Pasco's UGA population could be about 87,300 by 2027. Adjusted for growth
since 2007 an additional 19,530 people need to be accommodated within the
UGA by 2027. The UGA will therefore need to include enough land area to
accommodate at least another 19,530 people by 2027. Between the tightly
controlled subdivisions, large vacant tracts and donut hole properties there are
about 2,600 acres of vacant land in the City's high growth area potentially
available for residential development. Realistically though because of gravel
mining, distance from utilities, past subdivision practices, high land prices and
lack of development interest only about a quarter of the vacant land could be
used for residential development. Based on our population projection the City
will need 1,222 acres of land to accommodate the housing needed to match the
population.
4
Population projections, land market factors, and preservation of resource lands
are not the only items to consider when determining the extent of the UGA.
Utility capacities should also be considered.
A new water filter plant was constructed on Court Street near Road 111
between 200 and 2010 to increase the cities capacity to provide potable water
to the community. In the near future (waiting for Army Corp of Engineer
approval) a new water intake structure and pump house will be built on West
Court Street near the new water plant to increase pumping capacity. Early
next year the main Butterfield water plant intake structure in the Columbia
River will be rebuilt in improve pumping capacity.
The Franklin County PUD and Big Bend Electric built a new substation north
of the Columbia Place subdivision (west of Road 68 north of Snoqualmie) in
2004. The PUD also enlarged and upgraded the Road 52 and Argent
substation last year to support future growth in the community. The PUD five
year capital plan calls for a new substation to be located north of Power Line
Road to the east of Convention Drive which will further add to the PUD's
capacity to serve the community with power needs.
This UGA expansion application was reviewed by the Planning Commission in
2010 and was not recommended for approval mainly because of concerns over
the capacity of the sewer system in the area. Since that time modeling studies
have shown previous studies on sewer capacity were overly conservative. As a
result the Northwest Commons subdivision that was previously approved partly
for septic tank usage has now been granted approval to be completely served
by the sewer system. A lift station will be constructed in Northwest Commons
a short distance from the subject property. The applicant has also been
considering the development of a force main to the east of the site to connect
with the sewer system in 41h Avenue. The biggest change however between the
current application and the 2010 is the fact that the new airport zoning
regulations will reduce the density on the site such that only about half of the
site will be able to accommodate urban densities matching existing
development on adjacent parcel to the south. This lowered density will cause
less of an impact on the City's sewer system. Airport Zone # 2 and #4 through
the center portion of the site will have severe density restrictions. The 33.5
acres within Zone # 2 will not be able to contain any homes and the 41 acres in
Zone 4 will limit development to two units per acre.
Findings of Fact
The following are initial findings drawn from the background and analysis
section of the staff report. The Planning Commission may add additional
5
findings to this listing as the result of factual testimony and evidence
submitted during the public hearing.
1. The GMA (RCW 36.70A.110) requires the establishment of Urban
Growth Areas.
2. The goals of the Growth Management Act related to UGA's include: i)
Encouraging development of urban areas where adequate public
facilities and services exist or can be provided in an efficient manner;
ii) Reducing the inappropriate conversion of undeveloped land into
sprawling low-density development; and, iii) Maintaining and enhance
natural resource based industries, including productive timber,
agriculture, and fisheries industries.
3. Each city located in Franklin County must be included within a UGA.
4. UGA's are to encompass lands within the City's recognized utility
service area.
S. UGA's may include portions of the County already characterized by
urban growth or adjacent to urban growth.
6. Designated Urban Growth Areas are to include enough undeveloped
land to adequately accommodate forecasted growth for a 20 year
planning period.
7. Forecasted growth is determined by population projections provided
by the State Office of Financial Management.
8. The GMA mid-range population projections for the County anticipate
Franklin County will grow to over 100,000 people during the 20 year
planning horizon.
9. For planning purposes during the development of the 2007
Comprehensive Plan update, City and County Planners assume 85
percent of future population growth in Franklin County would occur
in the Pasco UGA.
10. Pasco's UGA population is expected to be about 87,300 by 2027.
11. To reach the projected population the City will need to accommodate
another 19,530 people.
12. There are over 2,500 acres of raw undeveloped land within the Pasco
UGA designated for residential development. At least 1,222 acres are
needed to accommodate the projected growth.
6
13. Twelve owners control 2,117 acres of raw land within the UGA
designated for residential development. Due various constraints
much of this land cannot or will not be developed within the near
future. Development constraints include lack of utility service, land
prices, gravel mining leases and contracts, and lack of development
interest on the part of the owners.
14. The County donut hole areas contain approximately 300 acres of
undeveloped land that could be used for future housing development.
Much of this vacant land is occupied by hobby farms, pastures, horse
corrals and gardens. Some of the parcels have limited utility for
residential developed due to poor subdivision practices of the past.
Many of these parcels are remnant lots with odd shapes that lack
access to public streets.
15. The remaining five major subdivisions available (228 acres of
buildable land) for new housing construction are controlled by a
limited number of builders.
16. The large remaining tracts of land within the UGA are controlled by
twelve owners causing the local market supply factor to become an
issue.
17. The last land sale for a subdivision (Three Rivers West) was about 30
percent higher than comparable sales in the recent past. The owners
that sold the 50 acres for Three Rivers West control another 450 acres
of vacant land within the UGA boundary
18. State and local housing goals encourage the provision of affordable
housing (RCW 36. 70A.210(3)e and County Policy # 6) within the
community
19. Since 2010 the Port of Pasco purchased 30 acres of land in the
Northwest Commons subdivision for a runway protection zone. This
purchase removed 30 acres of residential land from the UGA
inventory.
20. Since 2010 the zoning code has been updated to include revisions to
the airport zoning regulation that will limit the densities on about half
of the site in question. Reducing the density will reduce the impact
on utility providers including the City's sewer utility.
21. The site in question is currently being farmed but is not designated as
farm land with long term commercial significance. The land did not
meet the test used by the County for classifying the land for prime
farm land. The soils on this land are not considered prime agricultural
soils.
7
22. In the past ten years the Franklin County PUD built one new
substation and completely rebuilt and significant expanded another to
ensure electrical needs will be met within the UGA. The five year
capital plan for the PUD calls for a another new substation to be
located north of Power Line Road to the east of Convention Drive
which will further add to the PUD's capacity to serve the community
with power needs.
23. The City recently built a new water filter plant on West Court Street
near Road 111 to increase capacity to provide potable water to current
and future residents.
24. In the near future (waiting for Army Corp of Engineer approval) a new
water intake structure and pump house will be built on West Court
Street near the new water plant to increase pumping capacity.
25. Early next year the main Butterfield water plant intake structure in
the Columbia River will be rebuilt in improve pumping capacity.
26. A recent analysis of the sewer system capacity in the area east of
Road 68 north of I-182 has indicated more capacity than previously
thought. As a result all of the Northwest Commons subdivision will be
able to be served by sewer.
27. A new lift station will be built in the Northwest Commons subdivision
a short distance from the subject site.
28. The applicant has been investigating the possibility of providing
additional sewer capacity to the area by constructing a force main
easterly to 4th Avenue.
29. The site is encumbered with Airport Use Zone #2 and Zone #4. Zone
# 2 prohibits residential development of any kind and Zone # 4 limits
residential development to two units per acre.
Conclusions
Based on the GMA population projections for Franklin County the City of Pasco
must plan for an additional population of about 19,530.
The project population for the City will require about 1,222 acres for the
development of dwelling units.
Most of the remaining (2117 acres) vacant acreage in the UGA is control by 12
property owners which could be impacting the market through higher land
prices. The most recent subdivision (Three Rivers West) purchase was about 30
percent higher than similar purchases in the past.
8
The limited subdivisions available for new housing are tightly controlled by a
few builders.
In recent years the Franklin County PUD has increased its capacity to provide
electrical service to the community by upgrading substations or building new
substations. The five year capital plan for the PUD includes the construction of
a new substation north of Power Line Road east of Convention Drive.
Since 2010 the City has increased its ability to provide potable water to the
community. Further increases will be shortly realized with the reconstruction
and improvement of the Butterfield plant intake structure and the construction
of a new pump house and intake structure for the West Pasco water plant.
Utility demands for development of the subject site has been greatly reduced
since 2010 due to development limitation now in place as a result of the
updated airport zoning regulations.
The new Airport Zoning regulations prohibit development on 33.5 acres of the
proposed site and limit another 41 acres to two dwelling units per acre.
Without the ability to develop the entire site at urban densities it may be
advisable to exclude most of the site from the Urban Growth Area.
Based on the findings and conclusion the Planning Commission should
consider only include about half of the site within the Urban Growth Area.
Recommendation
MOTION: I move to adopt findings of fact and conclusions therefrom as
contained in the November 20, 2014 staff report.
MOTION: I move based on the findings of fact and conclusions as
adopted the Planning Commission recommend the City
Council approve the proposed Comprehensive Plan
amendment expanding the Urban Growth Area as depicted
on Exhibit #1.
9
Item: UGB Amendment
Overview Applicant: FARM 200 Q
Map File CPA 2014-002
IRit!r11Y1Y11Y
Aok
IW
m
■ t
G . Mi •'
ry r
Y 'i f F •r
1 `Yi�kM1 LYLfIY rrr r�r -
-
�
. B p
IiY � RYY ��� �1■ S�� li w'�` � A,S
lulioll - ix ���I� �rY1PMii YY�Y�Y C♦ a�
V 3%1 ?1114111. e rY Gila rY i G® _
Y YlilAil Lryh 1111Y� a Sarkfrl r. '` _
e�,yY +i p C C YYtYkYrCr' ; s rrr r orrairrrrrl . IIISifIPii r /���F� \\4
ea b3 YYrY .�� - Yi IYY t Yiti t}. ,yi •aYr rrrR rY ® iiY'iiYiYiYYY 100
•YYY■ N k!i]Y S■1 Yt iY b t' YY all 1 IidiuY m F.arYi iif MrirP fi-
YIYl f .■ 11 Y 1■i YYL Y■ a - !ri ■kli. ■
!! YaYY YYi tik■■� � trt■\Y ■ ♦ � t w � M � m RaiiflPi iiil 9i1lrr P � •��Yy_t'
YfwaY/Y 1 i1Y.s � IfIp1t1111Yi11..,� � all IY� E "iC�'Cr`�a�e•k�iaY a •,�!
]Yaa L .a m YYWii YY ti - %� Yii+$; i f1i1i1'IM IM � Y rr rriais R%' - '
i/aY a ,Y�.ir r• � iFF!!L FiliFbr`�" YA II •r ■YY� � ��r YGP-iG �i.7[r�aa YYYGYi 4i� �
YFY YCYY - � IYIi Gii tti aY iilii YYFLL it r. Y r r YILliii fiilY rr r•ii trlrGiiR yy'
Y iYSY4 m _ iYY,k■".. iif/l'd Y 4ii Yiiit i■IY■riY . �P P^nl c.'L! CF°� iL'�W ■69� PM°•i%w 'fr WFG �. w.-L"�J
�j a El Y YIF YY Yt 9 ♦S y i - ea
k L YiiY A • aa ►^Y WYiY�+ifYGi4 FfYS �.+Y.�raY YYaIiY YYRM Ygfl Y i8G C -
ti 1 VA •o:il�c`YL ♦p+r: C G:.ar itl®CY YSLYG iY Cf�_ at, i
' � _. iWlll Yf rr'i■1 iiFSYFNli s . r r '11■iY10�y�arrrrrrY'l ■■YWYF%IYL� �+p� P C.
' � r■W r tiYHfir •UlY r tirY:itliYY YY:r:LiP
■rr iaakiY .. wn M:
�. F. r Y Ar iY krtii Ygrra rY ss16WxrYili4 '
:; _ iY■iaFi+r iRiiY F altl.i .`� �y tr/ rrrr Y:rG°� rr rGtSYFY 'm - _
Cir "rrik. i e 9
• ■t■rY lr■■Y lRII YYFltY ii!lYYIIPYY r r - . ,
- �' ILI IaiflYli Yfii3MYYtiIFi Si bsi:FMiF \fir i1 Y6q k r i tiRi W�� �®�v� � '
�� 1�lrf !I s� r k °t�4.lar �wa`w Yr�Y ifs Vi w■ Y.yti: .� _�,,
ARM-• ,�r..Y.a,d+arrRS rer + 0 Y:,oa�YiPFi%71�
lM1 G sc a Y_M_ rr s Yrr shF.
' I Wi]ki Y}wr r � �' ■i' r Jr#li r.P ahL• `' �
�.'• _ �P'a••'• Y: �r �+A L Y r rR brr u: y r.Y{a� ��� �'1L*'
�--- .. - w r v a■i1Y a r _ 'Y'b aYY�r a rcY�Y ►' yi !r rr yr, a v,.�
�, ,1 Lisa y 1::ii {■ r ti mr C+ri.�.aYlA.ri a a%r
r rrr raps Yr.-;,YaWarr ■ ra iY a a
._..- ^ $ l,e" Yr .,tb YGYni.0 rr Y:Sl. t ;ab ■r rrsarrll R lY7La91ais= # rra � . ' 1/
_ }y J Ygii rp
Yr
,� ,• _ � iiY1!!f r �Y r F��' ai1.Y� kraYrf. a .- _- �ii � � '�yr/
FO -
r
aA�+GR M Y• L _
�� 4 6 a ��cailY b:■ai ?:►s..�blrh
Vicinity Item: UGB Amendment Appli F 2005 LLC +cant:
Map File #. CPA 2014-002
—Q APB-R
9
-R!Dt5
c
-
-
K ^9
6
SITE
...........
CITY LIMITS
LEOPARD-
'ic\
i
J —rJ J
Q 111
Q o \
0 9=
Land Use Item: UGB Amendment
Applicant: FARM 2005 LLC x
Map File #: CPA 2014-002
SFDUs
� , I
(County)- Ag
Farming N I�E� rx
(County)
SITE
Vacant
(County)
oSFDUs School Farming Vacant
0 U
Zoning Item: UGB Amendment Map
Applicant: FARM 2005 LLC N
File #. CPA 2014-002
z QIJAI L_R
Z N
i
O
O
RR-1 =RTA_RD
(County)
AP-20 I EL.c Y-LN
(County)
SITE
AP-20
(County)
CIT-Y-L■4MIT-S-
�LEOP_ARD-D:R
R-1 a RS-11PUD RT
o
J W Z J
m � 44
o
,01 bb
mamNFw
4 / 16.90 ACRES
i
� I .. � / �, , RUNWA 12/3, ��
480r00 i��+UO 520+00 ,540+00 560+00 580+00 COG+00 RUNWAY I2 820+00
EXTENDED CENTERLINE
40.78 ACRES 32.66 ACRES
do
73.10 A ES J ° N o N
j1 160 ACRE4 z
FAR 2005 LLC \\� w w w J
NON-PRECISION PAR?77 + �\� �a
34:1 APPROACH SU 'ACE I PROPERTY — "♦ — —�
1000 FT. NSION / f
LEGEND AIRPORT SAFETY COMPATIBILITY ZONES
RPZ FUTURE 1850 FEET EXTENSION /
PART n APPROACH SURFACE ZONE COLOR ZONE# FARM 2005 LLC
AIRPORT PROPERTY LINE
ACREAGE l /•/\
--�
PASCO U ZONE 1 U
311.1 A6C0
_ ZONE 2 32.66
Fu RTUE N
Fu NRE NO ZONE 3 C 0 500 1,000
ZONE 4 40.76
SCALE IN FEET
y�PORTOF �;;TRFCITIES TRI-CITIES AIRPORT - RUNWAY 12 END SHEET
cj i::IPASCO 16 AIRPORT
1-U-R ENGINEERS,INC. PROPERTY ACQUISITION IMPACTS 1
1111■■11111111.G 1111111111.
�■■11111111�■1111111111■ -
=II='■■111111111■�'
■ ���IIIlllli ■ �
�■"C.�IIIIIIC ■'
■�■■111111 ��
Exhibit Item: UGB Amendment
#1 Applicant: FARM 2005 LLC N
File #: CPA 2014-002
MONEENNEENEN.-ON
\111■■11 '�� IIIIIIIIII,
\II■■ ' ■1111111111
MINIM
MEIIii1�11 1_
\ 1111
POWERLINE POWER -• . 1
ON
A IS
ON NO
1111111111/ ��°""'�"'• I
1 1111111114 �.auu■u■muq� � �. .� �:::
11111111/1 �■m.��C _C ••.�ii
IIn111111� :nu■�� =�C iii■ �i
I/I/ �- m :■11111111 II■11■�i i.u■n..o -
�I/�I�h►iiii% � _ �iiii:'I��: .�����111 ��► �11f_ �� ,�■
,���111�-. B :_iii.�:::: ■ -i��p♦,♦ I■1■ ♦.,�♦��, �,=
1111-IIIn111 /%::::_. �11. ♦O//■111111 111111/11 1\♦,♦.��,��_
-►uu c=_uunu _._ um►\'
I■::►m1_=mum ■i�'�:�••:u1uu::.;. �1111� �;/p■1111MINIM
1111 1\♦ ��=��_
II��11111111-=Illlrr� -p��� \I/iu.■■n■■■urlluu u■\\ � � �/►� e e III �
„■\� _ ��11� 1 1 uw�_ �
11\\i UIIIIII\%IIIIII�\ . .♦r-►\\IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII/��.�iiiiiii II\�.■■■■■■■■��■■■■■■■■■■■��I•11 1 �
1 �■■ 1111111/� \
uuuv�punnv� - .uuuw nu■u►\G_IIn1■nu.:�;;';::■nnuuuq�=q■1111111111 q■■■■■I�♦�1� �
■■■■■■■�.nn■u■_ MO: munuun/ i111;nuu unn\♦G,�unI11nQ: �uy�♦,♦♦,♦♦ ■i �Iiiii■iiu ummnu-
-=:n■nn■i 1111111■■■1■■■■r IIIII■■■i IIIIIIIn. ::: �,■
;.,■......■ r ::=:...♦.,♦♦♦. .�11111111111.■,........................
r noun■■■u■■uuuuu unmu■ uunu ,!O♦♦II■ nuunuu■n►/��u muu unmmu.Ilumum►
unu■ .■111111 ,.- Q\1 1111 IIrI%.�\n■nu mn■►�..�ii■nn V/ ♦♦♦♦�1\■ .■ ■
�u■■■■■■ mow■ :uuuu■�.: uuuu■■■■n. 1111111111111111. ■nuu■u■uuuuu■nnu■■■u■
'nngl► ,♦ ♦♦�♦'.■ ■ ■i♦ �/■� �
uunn:•noon:. •11111111111111111� �°.our► ,♦♦♦♦1./\��IIIIIIIIIIIIIIU�.unuun uuuuun■ �:'1.►r■■
unuu ■■■■■■■■• _:IIIllllu�:.I uso 1111m '....:�11111 ♦♦♦♦♦♦ i■■1111111111111111:uunuu nununu.�1.�♦
■■■■■■■��■■■■■■■■: -• iiiiiiiii■7 ilu�iiiIN iimiiiiiu: ':i►Q,��♦♦♦♦•♦♦♦�li�i■CI 11111111111111 iiiiiiiiii iiii 1111111 ii i,■i i�i�
mom..uunn' : ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦r
unnn::uuu■■: 1111111111.11 ummunuunuu■ ■�.�♦♦♦ i::i�r/1■����UIIIIIIIIIIO♦t .■ 1I 1t 1■.v v q■■■■q�-�
H
nom■:: °==- _ ��
logo ��.'In►♦O�:��■..■u■o
11111111..__-_-_ .-" _. %IU■D♦LII■■■■■■■■■■�►■/,`�I■■■■1■11■1■■IA/r\/r\/r\/r�Ii►1r\►O•■OOH►1■/�;
11111111 ullnrinviilllillr„I„ _ a == A►\�ouunm mmuumu on►i��►1.0►q�U IIPi
■- - 1 ■ .��p11/IIIIIIIII/ �1��■■1111■q■■.�::a■u■■u■p■d■■/i i■■■■\�
�� D.�uou■- ■■-pi�� ♦��.. �__.►I►�►I ► ■E/ ��a.■
_MIN, %r\�■■■■■■■ •�■■�i��1♦ ♦1♦♦,�i ii i=ii i i ii ii �// �� ♦f■■
■ �W■■.■11.11■-=��=■=► ♦♦♦♦♦ ♦♦�♦� ���♦ ♦�1��1�I
-� ,,♦ ■♦gnu- /If♦♦ ♦Q♦♦ /■■■■■■■■u■■■■ 11 f.I► I
,��-- ,,w■■■■■\■■■■■-... • �.♦ �i u o■■,�■vim■ ■.---
���♦,v■°111■■1111 C ■�Q�����■:is i►�►\►■rte■ ■■.u.
- .:.■ = :1i■11111 1■■■■1■■■■1111
In NINE
ON
::�;►
: _:1111111111 uunwmmn■umuu ■■�►��
�� .: ==_=:■■■■■■■■■■IIIIVI■■...■■■■■■■11111 �■Iltq,
nom■7: ■o■■■■■nuu■■■-•■■■■.■■■■■■■■■■ .■n
:111111111: - C.C��■uu■t•/1►':r■■uu 11.1111■■■ ��:■
I , -= � �■ 111111■uunu■ � ♦
.i �111111111:�...�_C� �i\��♦��/�■■■ 11�1�r
I ■ ■■■1111■1111111111 I
- ■■i■� ♦♦�II�/�i�--►r�111111�1/I////1�11�
. �\Ii/(♦♦1�\\III�11��I,��111►������`��t�����O�■
■I��� ��II�■I■■11 ��III■�■A�:���.�.� �1�i■
1 /� � -•■ I ■..■■■■ijij��jiiiiiiiii ii�♦���i�.i�
Looking North
a
� f-J
Looking East
r
-,k t
Looking South
_ ¢i
y J
L - - -
s
r
• p`�. � . � .�� it i '�� � J'riW". I ,�^ '
,
J -
Looking West
yLa
WAO
Ms.{,f ;p: ,'�r•� ,1 , 17-;,- +1,la r 1.,
J �* Fr'T t. .'T�. 1',i'i .;t �'�tp_^,r � :��,1 �,•u.y.� � +c4'� 1�,�/
7
a
R
��i�}�.6. � _ .._ � JN�.•. JN'r"\ •�� ,_ t.1 Y .. �. .� _ _ .ail
Site Lookin g Northeast
--1 P
A Brew
r�t � �-0 '�''Fy�p 4'- .��•w'rt � a ;n��g `i
Tfi 4
e �
fts-
rji r J k�v, d��rfa fld 'r•it e ,�. �' �� �•
t� � � L,?r er�y<�� -'v ^5' -. ' '�'r L � ��� C ..q• �'±kt � .� � +' Vii.
' o;.m '-' � !} •., ,�.T ;t a L� �� s � ,t•�{ � �d y'� `' � �'�,
1 � �.i. *, � ��'¢. ry ,e {�.i e � ��.- .� tom: `<' ;•v�r „,
' - C ,1.ti ♦
v� �" �* �u�� �a ,1 r'g4 � +r f � ♦,����M r�mty�vt o 'S
" ) > .y
F iW7rCy + +nr _ S M +° �' ri : hy ..• P �3 _ ~ l 4 e
'iot "
View of Elementary School
--
OR
_. _ ..
L•y.
' �� ",�.. •.. ',nY{11..=�•.:-�°''� � �;. '...��'..- .�__�y_.� '':ny+�.t',' �r."^.�.:S9+rijRO
Wit-
.w7m, h ,•
�¢y "��;-i. -�f#"�✓ '`fit„ 1 ''k ,?'-- '' -_. s.wv r •.�,ntr.:y - �: ;_ +, �.w s wc. > ...,�+ ,"tk .
pt.°s�'. � � '.�. •sg',a .�: --"irk' ..�. ve-�0'�_ '..w+-' I � ,� •.. �
-.`�.a a'N' ��'° .it ^� •� .�. 1 r:FL•� ��. ;a'-n +' Ic. ":l"..n �•-�„ �'rr4 i�•,
View of Northwest Commons
Irrigation On Site
Vw. - r
•, Yom'
,
n
11
MEMORANDUM
DATE: November 20, 2014
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Dave McDonald, City Planner
SUBJECT: Comprehensive Plan Amendment (Walker) (MF# CPA 2014-003)
Roger and Kay Walker have applied to amend the Comprehensive Plan land use
designation of their property on Crescent Drive from Low-Density Residential to
Mixed-Residential. The property contains 4 acres and is located at the far north
end of Crescent Drive (4600 Block). The FCID right-of-way is located on the north
side of the property and Crescent Drive and the Wilson farm field are located to
the east.
The Walker property was annexed as a part of the Road 100 Annexation Area in
2000. Upon annexation the property was zone RS-12. In the early 2000's the
orchard on the property was removed in anticipation of development. The property
owners then prepared a site plan and rough building plans for a residential
condominium project in the mid-2000's. The project was unable to move forward
due to the Comprehensive Plan designation.
Surrounding properties to the north and east are set aside in the Comprehensive
Plan for mixed residential or commercial land uses. Accordingly the property to
the north was zoned R-4 High Density Residential and the farm field to the east
was zoned C-1 Retail Business. The farm field has not developed but the
property to the north now contains the Broadmoor Villas Apartment complex.
There are also 4 acres of vacant land to the north that is zoned R-4 and is been
held by the Broadmoor Villas Apartments as a future apartment expansion area.
The properties to the south of the Walker property on the west side of Crescent
Drive are developed with low-density single-family homes and the east side of
Crescent Drive remains undeveloped except for a church located at the corner of
Crescent Drive and Road 108. The east side of Crescent Drive north of the church
to the FCID right-of-way can be developed with a variety of retail and office types
businesses.
The Walkers are requesting a Comprehensive Plan change to designate their
property as an area for mixed residential development. The mixed residential
classification allows low-density to medium-density residential development with
zoning ranging from RS-20 to R-3. Housing styles under the Mixed Residential
category would include single-family homes, patio homes, townhouses,
condominiums and apartments.
The following Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies are applicable to this
application:
LU-3-B Policy: Encourage infill and density including
planned unit developments to, protect open space and
critical areas, and provide recreational areas and
amenities in support of more intensive walkable
neighborhoods.
H-1. GOAL: ENCOURAGE HOUSING FOR ALL ECONOMIC
SEGMENTS OF THE CITY'S POPULATION.
H-1-A Policy: Medium and high density housing should be
located near arterials and neighborhood or community
shopping facilities and employment areas.
H-1-B Policy: Support dispersal of special needs housing
throughout the community.
H-1-C Policy: Avoid large concentrations of high-density
housing.
H-1-D Policy: Support or advance programs that encourage
home ownership.
H-2. GOAL: STRIVE TO MAINTAIN A VARIETY OF HOUSING
CONSISTENT WITH THE LOCAL AND REGIONAL MARKET.
H-2-A Policy: Allow for a full range of residential environments
including single family homes, townhouses, condominiums,
apartments, and manufactured housing.
H-4. GOAL: ENCOURAGE HOUSING DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION
THAT ENSURES LONG TERM SUSTAINABILITY AND VALUE.
H-4-A Policy: Encourage innovative techniques in the design of
residential neighborhoods and mixed use areas to provide
character and variety in the community.
H-4-B Policy: Maintain development regulations and
standards that control the scale and density of accessory
buildings and homes to maintain compatibility with other
residential uses.
2
CF-2-A Policy: Encourage growth in geographic areas
where services and utilities can be extended in an orderly,
progressive and efficient manner.
TR-1. GOAL: PROVIDE FOR AND MAINTAIN AN EFFECTIVE
TRANSPORATION SYSTEM CENTERED ON A CONVENIENT AND
INTEGRATED STREET NETWORK.
TR-3 Goal: Beautify the major streets of the City.
UT-1. GOAL: PROVIDE ADEQUATE UTILITY SERVICES TO THE URBAN
GROWTH AREA TO ASSURE THAT THE ANTICIPATED 20-YEAR GROWTH IS
ACCOMMODATED.
Changing the Comprehensive Plan on the Walker property would allow a gradation
in housing density between the high density apartment development to the north
and the lower density single-family development to the south. The land use
designation change would also provide a greater range of options for development
of the property. The odd shape of the property and the elevation problems with
Crescent Drive make it difficult to develop the property with single-family homes.
The expense associated with elevating Crescent Drive to properly connect with
Chapel Hill Boulevard would be cost prohibitive for single-family development.
Crescent Drive will need to be elevated 12 or more feet above its current elevation
to achieve the proper grade for connection to Chapel Hill Boulevard. One of the
benefits of connecting Crescent Drive to Chapel Hill Boulevard is that traffic to
and from the site will not need to travel past the homes to the south on a regular
basis. Chapel Hill Boulevard is identified in the Major Street Plan as minor
arterial that is planned to connect with Crescent Drive. This connection will
complete the general circulation system for the area west of Road 100. The travel
distance from addresses on Crescent Drive to the intersection with Road 100 and
Chapel Hill Boulevard will be shortened by 1.34 miles. This street connection has
been planned for many years.
The proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment will allow for a gradation in
housing densities as discussed above. This gradation in density will occur only
after a rezone is applied for. Permitting higher density development near or
adjacent to lower density development always raises the concerns over the impact
on property values in neighborhoods. Several single-family developments
(Columbia Place, Chapel Hill and Loviisa Farms) have been built adjacent to multi-
family developments in the past decade with no appreciable impact on property
values (per Franklin County Assessor records).
3
The Walker site contains two parcels of land both within Short Plat 2001-29. To
address perceived concerns about the possibility of higher density development
immediately adjacent to the existing lower density development the Planning
Commission may want to consider recommending changing the Comprehensive
Plan designation of the northern 3 acres only. Lot 1 would then serve as a buffer
between the single-family properties to the south and future mixed-residential
development to the north.
Findings of Fact
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 public hearing.
1. The site is located on in the 4600 block of Crescent Drive.
2. Crescent Drive is an unimproved gravel road.
3. Crescent Drive must be elevated 12 or more feet above its current
elevation to properly connect with the end of Chapel Hill Boulevard
when the property in question is developed.
4. The Comprehensive Plan designates the site for low-density
residential development.
5. The site is zoned RS-12.
6. The Comprehensive Plan designates the properties directly to the
north and east of the site for mixed residential and commercial land
uses.
7. The property to the north of the site is zoned R-4 High Density
Residential.
8. The property to the east of the site is zoned C-1 Retail Business.
9. The vacant area directly north of the site is zoned for development of
more apartment units and is a future expansion area for Broadmoor
Villas.
10. With the connection of Crescent Drive to Chapel Hill Boulevard access
to the site will be from the north eliminating the need for traffic to
travel past the homes to the south.
11. The connection of Crescent drive with Chapel Hill Boulevard has been
included in planning documents for many years.
12. Due to the odd shape of the property and the fact Crescent Road will
need extensive fill development of the property with single-family
dwellings may be cost prohibitive.
13. The location of a mixed-residential area on the site could lead to the
development of apartments, condominiums or similar higher density
development adjacent to a lower density residential area.
14. Mixed residential development permits less intense development than
the existing C-1 zoning along the east side of Crescent Drive.
4
15. The location of higher density residential development adjacent to
lower density in other part of the community has shown to create no
appreciable impact on the value of nearby single-family properties
according to Franklin County Assessor records.
16. The site contains two lots for a total of 4 acres.
Conclusions
The site is located between an area of more intense land uses and an area of
less intense land uses with apartments permitted to the north and retail
businesses and offices permitted to the east. Consequently the site is in an
area of transition between more intense and less intense uses.
Modifying the Comprehensive Plan to designate the site for mixed residential
uses will enable the site to serve as a transition area or buffer between the
more intense apartment development to the north and the less intense single-
family development to the south.
Additionally amending the Comprehensive Plan designation for the site would
support the land use policy and housing goals identified on pages two and
three of this memo.
The extension of Crescent Drive to the north may be cost prohibitive for a
single-family development on the property. The completion of Crescent Drive
may be more feasible with a mixed residential development.
Recommendation
MOTION: I move to adopt findings of fact and conclusions
therefrom as contained in the November 20, 2014 staff report.
MOTION: I move based on the findings of fact and conclusions
therefrom, the Planning Commission recommend the City Council amend
the Comprehensive Plan designation for Lot 2, Short Plat 2001-29 to
Mixed-Residential.
5
• Item: Land Use Amendment
Vicinity Applicant: Roger & Kay Walker N
Map File #. CPA 2014-003
gel
f
f
f
\v CHAPEL HILL BLVD
r
x 4 SITE
4 - Q
Q
' m
Land Use Item: Land Use Amendment
Applicant: Roger & Kay Walker N
Map File #: CPA 2014-003
Vacant
Broadmoor
Apartments Vacant
Vacant
ti
v^� CHAPEL HILL BLVD
SITE oo Comm. m
Ja SFDUs
0
a
0
Vacant m
�G
G
SFDUs
Zoning Item: Land Use Amendment
Applicant: Roger & Kay Walker x Map File #: CPA 2014-003
RT
R-4 C-1
CHAPEL HILL BLVD
�I
j' SITE � a
- 0
C- 1
RS- 12 �
Comp Plan Item• Land Use Amendment
Applicant: Roger & Kay Walker N
Map File #: CPA 2014-003
� Commercial
� Mixed
Residential/ Commercial
� Commercial
0
X v^ CHA EL HILL BLVD
� SITE
0
Commercial ea
a�
Low-Density
Residential �o Mixed
Residential/ �
Commercial X
Looking North
r
rt
{
hill. .�.�
�.� .. '+r.,s Y� "`„� sM.-, - -veM�•aik--_ F _ s ,-. "� �” k`'� /'�� _
f .I � ..�"1 d{-► � � ¢rte°' �` -� -- --- .,�;Y- °Xx.. `y.;..�?.° J°
_•; � _ _ s_� _ irk..
y
I � i .-4 oft 7y �._: ✓ �,'��� i
r
a`
# fir` •M � .� fi r � �� t '
--- -r.'� �C, .r - _ .ra �- I � Y t�L `" i•f, I Y''� -." w .o� � -
` 'A h�fi"a :.,,,cr.,K �},c,� _ .,. ., - *.d� e, r t.y r �, "; ae,��f j"r �, tr � m ' ♦ i"'� _-_
•t M 9`�r+: �e .y '��� 7�� / � �� t ,�4.
- ��`• -eti-- 'ter .�.._ .•.�5y,r1y���y."�:i„�.'.il..�.M^er.�.,,i�- .'.-Y/`-`-- c�+�1,'�t,.-.-;.'i," �f"!" 1•_�.'.,°4.i.'�:.�f t�''��d}.�., It`��` ` ;� "' •`z�f F'o.�:t y`•W u �t 1 ,a'x�°.�..w V.t'� ',
�, 4 �,S+ ��4'�•`��h� e 0����r�'1.v!��^,"A r+ y°a y�..r,;.��W ,•�, '�!'+y i�,��+s i i ��p•�•�',r r s r
-.
.+P•,t;.4+,q'.'3��:t• t �I�S".,�1' ti!..?.4 �...... .. � r ayl. ;w�-a`.'• _.._ •^�'
Looking; East
va
ir 11
IAN
•3� f-w✓u ro. � f
s
R
w "aim' � •- - ~� 4
a.
f
,r .r.' - � 9 � rah ��• fa• r �*- _
-.- � '� �•T F.yr' +' - .''. - .l.
Looking South
. �_.. .,::.��_ 1 _.> _ -�-.: s� --� m' msµ, :y � � -,e. r' � � °ter+.P _•�-.. �N,► '�-_ ..-
' r � -- '`_-�3 `' }' � - �"��J' a:r.-y::-.�. "�:. �.: y; -K.a�2.a'�+--? �,,. -»• - i, -�C
r _
sg� w
pry,
4 _
n�
Looking Nest
f;
a
r
7 •,}�t fw i S P " _ 3' ',y r°` r p^ -C} ,V'mJr, - 4- -k x
y
r � � kn`
F•
y;. _
L 'All
MEMORANDUM
DATE: November 14, 2014
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Jeffrey B. Adams, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: Shoreline Management Act - Continuation of SMP Regulatory
Components and Environment Designation Maps Discussion
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 continuation of the
discussion on the Anchor QEA Memo from last meeting.
SMP Regulatory Components
As mentioned in the last memo, the City of Pasco currently uses the updated
Franklin County Shoreline Management Master Program of 1974 to regulate
developments within its shorelines. The current SMP process will create a
separate SMP document for Pasco and implement the SMA consistent with the
Ecology guidelines. Once adopted, the SMP will be integrated as part of the
City's Comprehensive Plan and PMC and will be used to regulate development
specifically within the City's shoreline jurisdiction.
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.
Environment Designation Maps
Environment designation maps classify shoreline reaches to reflect local
shoreline conditions including ecological functions and shoreline development.
City shoreline policies and regulations will then be based on these
designations.
Shoreline environment designations must be based on Ecological
characteristics, shoreline reaches, land use patterns, community goals, and
shoreline management recommendations from the inventory and
characterization report. In order to conform to the State Guidelines, a purpose,
designation criteria and management policies must be established for each
environment designation.
A summary of these proposed designations is as follows:
Page 1 of 2
Aquatic: Protect, restore, and manage the unique characteristics and
resources of the areas waterward of the ordinary high water mark.
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. Two sub-designations under the High-Intensity designation include;
Public Flood Protection: This designation is specifically tailored for
leveed areas along the shoreline. These areas are recognized as having at
best minimal ecological function.
Recreation: Designation specifically tailored for parks and open space
along the shoreline.
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.
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.
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.
At the November 20, 2014 meeting Staff will focus on the preliminary
environment designation maps and ask the Planning Commission for
concurrence if the Commission agrees with the designations. Preparation of the
fleshed-out SMP will follow.
Page 2 of 2
M., i. t
~�%4 LEGEND
-
�i } l Reach Break
cn
. �rY
Q Incorporated City of Pasco
0 Urban Growth Area
x3 °fNr'
o County Boundary
y
SMA Jurisdiction
Environment Designation
s yv� Natural
Recreation
Rich and Shoreline Residential
} < r $
E '
{ Urban Conservancy
o d -
W C � ' �,� Cd A•
ro
°
N �
NOTES:
o { � ��, < < itl. w 1.This Information is to be used for planning
p purposes only. Data is displayed as is and
rye; h" - without any guarantee of accuracy or
completeness.
2.Aerial image courtesy of USDA NAIP
(2013).
tit
EL
o
Franklin
Pasco
BA Benton Walla
M t) Walla
?,
6
0
O
DRAFT
Map 1
ANCHOR Miles Subreach 1 a - Reach 2
OEA 0 0.5 1 City of Pasco Environment Designations
�v City of Pasco, WA
lkk° a +I re� y� =, LEGEND
Pit`
Reach Break
cn
W
. p?
N -' � Incorporated City of Pasco
Urban Growth Area
County Boundary
VOl
SMA Jurisdiction
Environment Designation
Vl
Natural
y Public Flood Protection
° Recreation
Shoreline Residential
C
Urban Conservancy
W _
y
M
NOTES:
1.This information is to be used for planning
o + purposes only. Data is displayed as is and
C
- °/4ry�b, without any guarantee of accuracy or
� v
: `?!. Cak° �a R/� completeness.
2.Aerial image courtesy of USDA NAIP
(2013).
U)
O? t
Franklin
a ennewick
Pasco
•-k _ ` as: �� B. Walla
Walla
DRAFT
Map 2
ANCHOR Miles Subreaches 3a - 4b
0 E A �`' 0 0.5 1 City of Pasco Environment Designations
�—' City of Pasco, WA
y 1�'t�'*y!�h j, �' `F'�`6 1t r t,� 'r"'�`�•S i�.j 7'1F +. 1
4# �t =�M•Ir•� .i'^' r a i•tia.aRw k� L.'fi'� = _ ;�' F�
�.
'� � ;.r, �� .�' x��.��= 5��� +�`r•r:�� *•,,,I� r� - - -.. �,[�r ��"` f n LEGEND
, n • .
Reach Break
n' .a„ S i ..r,.,v 7�'i►"��jj,,i aw• -.tlt�
r'.yEJt ' i. ,r C.
.4 9� '-"�� �` ;7 � �{ r~� r' �` Incorporated City of Pasco
°�TJ � �i'i �f'. �� it I{ r•.4`{i�'*` II 1`.+aQwd 4� � / l'� � c G k '�{
yUrti `r� '� Urban Growth Area
ter r � Pascoa Count Boundary
c 5y7 ,.. qtr: y FLL T t_l■ kr sf 7 "�ar'•1'•.3 !i'� ip.6 -.• Q Y y
s,y ,�' •rP -'f ¢�`• : ]T:..Yir2�5Zt-"..-'#`i 1 Ciy-dl ., a �., ! •�}"` n'� - Q SMA Jurisdiction
-° ' ¢'�4^��" .It s .�a•�a ,..r , :i 1 Pasco
c � fr• # tq "� ��� — Environment Designation
NR
�5 arN ► � : t �r t' r1" _ High Intensity
�' `tea
a
� �- Natural
° - 4 , ' s; %' *< Public Flood Protection Recreation
Sa
�.. "° a ,,.••s+r .''
,,..
E • aye. .t:.'3`r„ a •
ro
Lu
SRI I
Shoreline Residential
Urban Conservancy
'N NOTES:
1.This information is to be used for planning
purposes only. Data is displayed as is and
without any guarantee of accuracy or
• try
completeness.
r .
o"ry r , r..•1 �
c r ayt r, r - r Aerial image courtesy of USDA NAIP
m. (2013)
TkyR* 1.
.
to-� } �'� + '�- � � +� .- �1ef'�dkR�l ♦ '_ - _
Kennewick �
r p t+.a Co/ Franklin
a % s <ake byaR+�er� o
• ,+. Pasco
r
o t,,'4 dam,, 1 .f = H^ - R, tit �'
µ"TY y - C /�. x. Benton Walla
'lryd ," t�A y• +' ."' Y � .,k�. :{s Walla
M
d FCC .a=a - a..
DRAFT
Map 3
ANCHOR Miles Subreaches 5a - 6c
OEA 0 0.5 1 City of Pasco Environment Designations
��—' City of Pasco, WA
LEGEND
rI
Reach Break
In
M
Incorporated City of Pasco
Urban Growth Area
d rasp Q County Boundary
SMAJurisdiction
Environment Designation
`s y S, High Intensity
E
k` Natural
o »+
�y. Recreation
Urban Conservancy
LU
C Yp
CL
o ter
t '• J...'
a NOTES:
y
1.This information is to be used for planning
purposes only. Data is displayed as is and
Ewithout any guarantee of accuracy or
E completeness.
o 2.Aerial image courtesy of USDA NAIP
w � .`rs (2013).
y. Y .. -:.
'a x. s-, cO/4 'Burbank
Franklin
CL ►e , n Vie_ 0 LL
U ,Y Pasco
s
o ''` •.
� •1 t - •t_. Benton Wal
y - {
=LralkellW5111 ula
DRAFT
Map 4
ANCHOR Miles Reach 7 - Subreach 8b
OEA
0 0 0.5 1 City of Pasco Environment Designations
��—' City of Pasco, WA
MEMORANDUM
DATE: November 20, 2014
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Shane O'Neill, Planner I
SUBJECT: Automobile Rental and Leasing in the C-1 Zone Code Amendment (MF#
CA 2014-004)
Stemming from a recent land use request to allow automobile rentals in the C-1
(Retail Business) zoning district, staff is proposing to amend code language related
to the conditional uses and permitted uses of the C-1 zone. The proposal involves
lifting the requirement for special permit review for automobile rental/leasing
businesses in the C-1 zone, and to then relocate automobile rental/leasing to the
list of permitted use in the C-1 zone.
Pasco's special permit provisions for auto sales in the C-1 zone were added to the
code in the early 1980's. It was about that time when many of the old service
stations in town were closing. After closing, it was difficult for the old gas stations
to be reused because they were built for a single purpose related to servicing
vehicles.
In an effort to assist with the reuse of the old gas stations the zoning code was
amended with narrow locational requirements to ensure only the old service
stations would qualify for a special permit. Currently, the qualifying requirements
are listed in PMC 25.42.040(2) as follows:
(2) Retail automobile sales, including rental or lease, provided the property
is:
(a) Located east of Highway 395 and is;
(i) Adjacent the intersection of two arterial streets, or
adjacent a single arterial street, provided it is not adjacent to or across
a public street right-of-way from a residential district,
(ii) Not located closer than 300 feet to any existing car lot.
(b) Located west of Highway 395 and north of I-182 provided any
point of the property is within 1,000 feet of the I-182 WSDOT right-of-
way for a distance of 2,500 feet east and west of the center line of
Road 68 and Road 100/Broadmoor Boulevard, except properties zoned
for residential uses, and is:
(i) A new auto dealership.
The Commission may recognize the criteria listed above as being the subject of a
recent code amendment whereby locational requirements referencing specific
highways were added. The amendment at hand however, relates only to the
(MF#CA 2014-004) Page 1 of 3
underlined fragment that appears in subsection (2); which reads "including rental
or lease". Staff proposes to strike this language which was initially included when
Ordinance #2280 was adopted back in 1981. This would release the applicability
of special permit review and locational criteria from automobile rental/leasing
businesses only. In the opinion of staff, auto rental businesses are no more
intensive than some of the permitted uses listed in the C-1 zone.
By way of comparison, gas stations, grocery stores and restaurants, which are all
regularly permitted in the C-1 zone, generate more noise and traffic than a typical
car rental business. Furthermore, automotive sales lots commonly use impactful
business practices such as outdoor loudspeakers and lighting which may occur
late at night. Ancillary signs such as flags and inflatables are also used. The
inflatables and outdoor lighting are items which are sometimes powered by loud
generators, producing fumes and noise. These and other advertising techniques
which produce a high level of light, fumes and noise are disruptive when located
near residential neighborhoods. This is the reason auto sales businesses require
special permit review prior to locating in the Retail Business zone. Automobile
rental businesses however, do not use the same type of flashy advertising. Auto
rental/leasing is a retail service typically conducted in a fashion similar to retail
stores as they do not rely so heavily on right-of-way advertising.
For the reason of comparative or lesser impact intensity it may be appropriate to
eliminate the special permit requirement for automobile rental services and
transfer these businesses to the list of permitted uses in the Retail Business
zoning district. To assist the Planning Commission's discussion and decision staff
has included a city-wide zoning map which shows C-1 zoned properties and the
proximity of all other zoning districts. Additionally, the code amendment ordinance
is included.
If approved, under the current proposal retail automobile sales businesses would
continue to require special permit approval prior to their establishment in the C-1
zone. In the interest of retaining clarity of the code, staff also proposes to relocate
"automobile rental or leasing" to the list of permitted uses in the C-1 zone; thus
establishing said use as regularly permitted.
This matter was advertised and scheduled for a public hearing on November 20,
2014. Staff requests the Planning Commission conduct a public hearing and
develop a recommendation to City Council.
FINDINGS
1) In 1981, to help address an increasing number of vacant service stations the
city developed special permit provisions within the C-1 zoning regulations to
permit the adaptive reuse of the old service station as auto sales facilities
including automobile rental and leasing facilities.
2) Automobile rental and leasing is a type of retail service.
3) The purpose of the C-1 zone is to provide for the location of commercial
activities that meet the retail shopping and service needs of the community.
(MF#CA 2014-004) Page 2 of 3
4) In many areas of the City C-1 zoned properties located are adjacent to a
variety of residentially zoned properties.
5) Automobile sales businesses are known for business practices which are
disruptive to less intense land uses such as residences and offices.
6) It is uncommon for automobile rental and leasing businesses to use
advertising techniques which are disruptive to less intense land uses such
as residences and offices.
RECOMMENDATION
MOTION: I move the Planning Commission adopt the findings of
fact as contained in the November 20, 2014 staff memo on automobile
rental and leasing the in C-1 Zone.
MOTION: I move the Planning Commission recommend the City
Council adopt the proposed C-1 zoning code amendments as attached to
the November 20, 2014 staff memo to the Planning Commission.
(MF#CA 2014-004) Page 3 of 3
IN
IN
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING PMC TITLE 25 DEALING WITH AUTOMOBILE RENTAL
AND LEASING BUSINESSES IN THE C-1 ZONING DISTRICT.
WHEREAS, cities have the responsibility to regulate and control physical development
within their borders and to ensure public health, safety and welfare are maintained; and,
WHEREAS, the City of Pasco has zoning regulations that encourage orderly growth and
development of the City; and,
WHEREAS, the zoning regulations contain special permit provisions for certain uses
that require public review and city council approval prior to locating in the city; and,
WHEREAS, PMC 25.42 has contained special permit provisions for automobile rentals
and leasing in the C-1 District; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has developed a code amendment recognizing
automobile rental and leasing as a retail service which is compatible with the intent of the C-1
District; and,
WHEREAS, on November 20, 2014 the Planning Commission held a public hearing to
consider amending provisions for automobile rental and leasing uses in the C-1 District. Notice
of said hearing being provided in the Tri-City Herald and through the City's website; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that to further the purposes of maintaining
a quality community, it is necessary to amend PMC Title 25; NOW THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASCO, WASHINGTON, DOES
ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. That PMC Section 25.42.050 be and the same is hereby amended to read
as follows:
25.34.020 PERMITTED USES. The following uses shall be permitted in the C-1 district:
(1) All uses permitted in the `O' Office district;
(2) Automobile Detail detail Shops shops and automobile rental or leasing;
(3) Banks;
(4) Dancing schools;
(5) Hotels and motels;
(6) Printing shops;
(7) Restaurants;
(8) Stores and shops for the conduct of retail business;
(9) Stores and shops for repair and similar services such as:
(a) Bakeries, retail for distribution from the premises.
(b) Barbershops and beauty shops.
(c) Catering establishments.
M
IN
IN
IN
(d) Garage and filing stations,provided:
(i) All outdoor repair work is "minor" as defined by 25.12.311, and
(ii) The garage or filling station conducting outdoor repair work was in
existence and conducting outdoor auto repair prior to September 1, 2013 and
(iii) the number of vehicles undergoing outdoor repair does not exceed the
capacity of the existing outdoor repair facilities, or no more than two vehicles if
there are no existing outdoor repair facilities and
(iv) the number of vehicles stored outdoors and awaiting customer pick-up
cannot exceed the capacity of the indoor and outdoor auto repair facilities, and
further provided that all vehicles must be kept on the business premises, and
(v) Pumps, lubrication or other devices are located at least fifteen feet
from any street property line, and
(vi) All stored automobile parts and dismantled or inoperable
automobiles are contained within the building, except material on outdoor display
racks.
(e) Laundromats and dry-cleaning establishments employing not more than
five persons,
(f) Locksmith shops,
(g) Offices,
(h) Membership clubs,
(i) Photo shops,
0) Shoe repair shops;
(k) Upholstery shops.
(10) Sign shops, commercial (no outdoor storage of materials);
(11) Theaters;
(12) Veterinarian clinics for household pets (no boarding or outdoor treatment
facilities);
(13) Parking lots within 500 feet of a C-2 district boundary, provided such lots are
paved and half of the required landscape is live vegetation and,provided further, that any such
property adjacent a residential zoned parcel shall provide a site obscuring fence along the
common lot line(s) in accordance with residential fence height requirements; and
(14) Carwashes provided they are located more than 300 feet from a residential
district.
Section 2. That PMC Chapter 25.42.040 be and the same is hereby amended to read
as follows:
25.42.040 PERMITTED CONDITIONAL USES. The following uses are permitted
subject to the approval of a special permit:
(1) Dwelling units, provided the units are within the principal building, are all above
the ground floor of said building, and the ground floor of said building is designed or intended to
be used for a use permitted in Section 25.42.010. However, a building originally constructed on-
site for residential purposes may be utilized as a dwelling unit without a special permit provided:
(a) The structure does not have to be reconstructed, altered or converted from
an office/commercial use such that the cost of the alteration exceeds 25% of the assessed
value of the structure at the time of the alteration.
2M
IN
IN
(2) Retail automobile sales, ' , provided the property is:
(a) Located east of Highway 395 and is;
(i) Adjacent the intersection of two arterial streets or adjacent a single
arterial street; provided it is not adjacent to or across a public street right-of-way
from a residential district,
(ii) Not be located closer than 300 feet to any existing car lot;
(b) Located west of Highway 395 and north of I-182 provided any point of the
property is within 1,000 feet of the I-182 WSDOT right-of-way for a distance of
2,500 feet east and west of the center line of Road 68 and Road 100/Broadmoor
Boulevard, except properties zoned for residential uses, and is:
(i) A new auto dealership.
(3) Parking lots;
(4) Mini-storage facilities defined under 25.12.310;
(5) Wineries defined under 25.12.480; and
(6) Dance halls and nightclubs.
Section 4. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect five days after passage and
publication as required by law.
PASSED by the City Council of the City of Pasco, at its regular meeting of December
2014.
Matt Watkins
Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Debra L. Clark, City Clerk Leland B. Kerr, City Attorney
M
IN
Pasco Zoning Map
W1
\ \
■o■ —� - , 'N
IN
LIP
Legend .,, �.•.•
N, :• .';•,•�;�;�•.�, ,
0 -
CITY LIMITS
C-1 Retail Business 1` I I _J.
\ C-2
C-3 -��-= i-
go
CR
"i \ A N 1. N,
fit' •,\\ _f`_�"-;..Jr..l-Y'1°=f"-Ir�• \`�, <\�<• V.
me
R-1
\\� R-1-A
\\\ R-1-A2 '
R-1/PUD
R-2
R-3
R-4
\\� R-S-1
R-S-1/PUD
\\� RS-12
RS-20
_ RP
_ RT