HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-20-2015 Planning Commission Meeting PacketPLANNING COMMISSION - AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING
I. CALL TO ORDER:
11. ROLL CALL:
III. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
V. OLD BUSINESS:
A. Special Permit
7:00 P.M. August 20, 2015
Declaration of Quorum
July 16, 2015 and July 30, 2015
Redevelopment of Stevens Middle School (Pasco
School District) (MF# SP 2015-002)
B. Rezone Rezone from R-1 (Low Density Residential) to R-3
(Medium Density Residential) (Envision Homes)
(MF# Z 2015-002)
VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
A. Special Permit
B. Block Grant
C. Block Grant
D. Block Grant
VII. WORKSHOP:
VIII. OTHER BUSINESS:
A. Code Amendment
IX. ADJOURNMENT:
Location of a church in a C-1 (Retail Business) Zone
(Bethel Church) (MF# SP 2015-009)
2016 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)
Fund Allocations (MF# BGAP 2015-003)
2016 HOME Program Allocation & Annual Work
Plan (MF# BGAP 2015-004)
2016 Neighborhood Stabilization Plan (NSP) Fund
Allocations (MF# BGAP 2015-005)
Commercial Design Standards (MF# CA 2015-003)
This meeting is broadcast live on PSC -TV Channel 191 on Charter Cable and streamed at
www.pasco-wa.com/psctvlive.
Audio equipment available for the hearing impaired; contact staff for assistance.
REGULAR MEETING
PLANNING
CALL TO ORDER:
MEETING
The meeting was called to order at 7:OOpm by Chairman Cruz.
POSITION MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT
No.
1
No.
2
Tony Bachart
No.
3
No.
4
Alecia Greenaway
No.
5
Joe Cruz
No.
6
Loren Polk
No.
7
Zahra Khan
No.
8
No.
9
APPEARANCE OF FAIRNESS:
Tanya Bowers
Paul Mendez
VACANT
Gabriel Portugal
July 16, 2015
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 Khan moved, seconded by Commissioner Greenaway that the minutes
dated June 18, 2015 be approved as amended. The motion passed unanimously.
OLD BUSINESS:
A. Special Permit Location of a Community Solar System in a C-1
Zone (Franklin PUD) (MF# SP 2015-0061
Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff.
Dave McDonald, City Planner, discussed the special permit for the location of a
community solar system in a C-1 zone. There were no additional comments since the
previous meeting.
-1-
Commissioner Khan moved, seconded by Commissioner Polk, to adopt the findings of fact
and conclusions therefrom as contained in the July 16, 2015 staff report. The motion
passed unanimously.
Commissioner Khan moved, seconded by Commissioner Polk, based on the findings of fact
and conclusions as adopted the Planning Commission recommend the City Council grant
a special permit for a community solar system on tax parcel # 112-271-409 with
conditions as contained in the July 16, 2015 staff report. The motion passed
unanimously.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
A. Special Permit Redevelopment of Stevens Middle School (Pasco
School District) IMF# SP 2015-0021
Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff.
Dave McDonald, City Planner, discussed the special permit for the redevelopment of
Stevens Middle School located on 22nd Avenue. Mr. McDonald reviewed past history about
special permits and improvements related to the school. The current application is for the
rearrangement of the overall site which would include the closure of a portion of 24th
Avenue between Marie Street and Octave Street. This would allow the School District to
join the playfield with the main campus. The objective is to eliminate the need for 960
students from crossing 24th Avenue for PE classes. When the street closure was first
proposed, City Staff asked the School District to hire a traffic consultant to do a traffic
study. The report from the study indicated t there would be minimal impact on the traffic
throughout the neighborhood. The report also indicates that there would be less than one
additional vehicle trip per minute during most hours of the day on the new travel routes.
Randy Nunamaker, 1215 W. Lewis Street, spoke on behalf of the Pasco School District.
Redesign of the Stevens Middle School site was part of the 2013 School District Bond that
was approved by voters and as part of the redesign the School District is requesting the
abandonment of 24th Avenue between Marie Street and Octave Street. The purpose of this
road closure is for the safety of students and staff who cross this street for PE classes as
well as after hours for athletics. The School District is also making this request to provide
room for a track and baseball fields. The community around the school will also benefit
because they will get to, use those facilities after hours.
Commissioner Khan asked what the projected cost is of this redevelopment.
Mr. Nunamaker responded around $3 million, from funds passed in the 2013 bond.
Commissioner Khan asked if there were other options resolving safety issues.
Mr. Nunamaker stated the District worked with an architectural and engineering firm but
the only way to get the kids across safely was to close the road.
Richard Chastain, 2318 W. Court Street, Nine to Nine Auto Parts, spoke in opposition of
the road closure and stated that the traffic was not an issue as there isn't much traffic.
Mr. Chastain proposed moving the track to allow room for the road.
-2-
Chairman Cruz stated with the available space it would be difficult to move the track.
Richard Chastain responded that it is approximately 100 feet from where the track is now
to the end of the site. He is concerned with the costs of redeveloping this site.
Commissioner Bachart asked Mr. Chastain if his main concern was the money being
spent on the redevelopment or the road closure.
Mr. Chastain responded that both are of equal concern. He stated that if there was a
legitimate safety issue he wouldn't have a problem with the closure.
Mr. Nunamaker stated that the $3 million is merely a budget item, not the actual cost. .
Once the road abandonment goes through, if approved, then an architectural/ engineering
firm would lay out the field to maximize the space. Ochoa and McLaughlin Middle Schools
have four fields to play on. In the current design they only have two fields proposed but if
they can get more, they would like to build more. They will not have the flexibility to do so
if Road 24 is not closed. Once the design is completed a value engineering study will be to
potentially be cut down on the cost.
Commissioner Polk discussed the alley located near Building 100 appears to be turned
into a road for buses in the plan and she asked if that is a priority or just a circumstance
that would be a benefit of closing Road 24.
Mr. Nunamaker answered that it was part of the strategy because where the buses pick
up/ drop off currently is on Road 22 and is a difficult place to pick up/drop off.
Chairman Cruz responded that there are initially two safety issues; crossing the road to
get to the fields and pick up/drop off. He asked if the architect looked into whether or not
the track could fit without the street closure.
Mr. Nunamaker stated that he would have to check with the Capital Projects Department.
With no further comments the public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Khan asked where within the School District funds this comes from. In
light of dissatisfaction of teachers pay and where the teacher support might be for an
improvement like this.
Chairman Cruz responded that while it is an interesting question, it isn't in the interest of
the Planning Commission. How the applicant pays for the work isn't the concern of
Planning Commission.
Commissioner Khan wanted to register discontent on behalf of the teachers.
Commissioner Greenaway stated that she would like to see if they did have any other
ideas or plans without closing the road since the Planning Commission was only supplied
with one option.
-3-
Chairman Cruz responded that it would be possible if the hearing was continued a month
to give the School District the opportunity to provide the information.
Chairman Cruz reopened the public hearing to ask the applicant if that is something he
would be interested in doing.
Mr. Nunamaker stated that the architectural/ engineering firm that they have worked with
has looked at other options but he didn't have those with him so if needed, he would have
to come back with those options.
Kim Marsh, 1215 W. Lewis Street, Director of Capital Projects for the District responded
they did look at other options but they could not fit the circular track on the site. To
maximize the space the road closure is what architects came up with.
Chairman Cruz clarified that the comparative track that the other middle schools have will
not fit without the street closure.
Commissioner Greenaway asked the applicant if closing the street comes down to the
track, rather than the safety of the children.
Mr. Nunamaker responded that the School District looked at safety first and the safest
way for the kids to cross the street was to close the street. With 20-30 students crossing
the road in mass at any one time it is dangerous.
Chairman Cruz stated that there are three things the School District was looking to
improve; the crossing, the track and the bus loading. With all three of those considered,
closing the road is a good alternative.
Commissioner Bachart added that his kids go to Mcloughlin Middle School and there are
nearly three times the students that go to Stevens Middle School and the parent pick
up/drop off is horrible and he'd like to see that improved.
With no further questions or comments the public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Bachart moved, seconded by Commissioner Polk, to close the public
hearing on the proposed site redevelopment for the Stevens Middle School site and initiate
deliberations and schedule adoption of findings of fact, conclusions and a
recommendation to the City Council for the August 20, 2015 meeting. The motion passed
with Commissioner Khan and Commissioner Polk dissenting.
B. Special Permit Location of a Wireless Cellular Communications
Tower in an RS -1 (Suburban) Zone )Verizon Wireless)
IMF# SP 2015-0081
Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff.
Rick White, Community 8s Economic Development Director, discussed the special permit
for a wireless cellular communications tower in an RS -1 Zone at the northeast corner of
M
Desert Plateau and Horizon Drive. It is a City reservoir site roughly 11 acres in size.
Directly north of the site is McGhee Elementary School and to the west, east and south
are single-family residences. The applicant, Verizon Wireless, is requesting the special
permit to place a 49' high monopole on the property just east of the reservoir site. The
applicant has indicated that this monopole is an effort to fill a coverage gap between Road
36 and Road 44 and would increase Verizon's capability to support additional wireless
users in the area. The Pasco Municipal Code requires that wireless facilities receive
special permit approval under certain circumstances such as location in a zoning district
other than C-3, Industrial Zone or closer than 500 feet from a residential district. The
Pasco Municipal Code also identifies criteria that the Planning Commission is to consider
for locating wireless facilities, which are contained in the staff report. Additional
information was handed out on the Planning Commission bench for the evening.
Chairman Cruz asked Mr. White about the federal regulations regarding consideration of
electromagnetic radio waves in the permitting process.
Mr. White responded that there is some misunderstanding about the role of the FCC in
establishing criteria for radio waves. Establishing the criteria is not for debate, meaning
municipalities and agencies cannot argue the establishment of the criteria. It is
permissible to require the applicant to identify how they meet the FCC criteria.
Chairman Cruz clarified that if the applicant met the FCC regulations then the City does
not have a basis to deny the permit.
Ed Fournier of Land Services Northwest, PO Box 302, Bend, OR, spoke as an agent for
Verizon Wireless. The purpose of the new facility is to reach coverage and capacity needs.
Every cell tower has a capacity and once that is reached additional cellular sites are
necessary. The proposed pole would be built as short as possible, at 49' and has been
approved by the FAA. There will not be any blinking lights or striping of the pole. As was
mentioned, there is a hierarchy for siting preferences, the first one being buildings or
other tall structures - there are none in the immediate area. This will be a "stealth"
facility in the fact that there will not be any visible antennas. A standard monopole is
what it will look like, a good example of which is at the Columbia Pointe Golf Course. The
area around the equipment will be completely screened by landscaping. There will also be
additional fencing around the area. The only area that will not be landscaped is the gate
for the equipment access.
Mr. Fournier addressed two points of public comment received by City Planner, Dave
McDonald; (1) Health concerns which was addressed by staff and a 1996 Act that
addresses the FCC and (2) Perception of impact on real estate values which was discussed
in the staff report and other references handed to the Planning Commission on the bench.
All documents provided to the Planning Commission were done by independent appraisal
firms stating no adverse impacts determined based on properties.
Mr. Fournier commented on a couple of the conditions in the staff report. The color for
the pole structure has the color listed as matte grey, which would be the best color to
blend in, however, it is up to the City to determine the color. For the condition regarding
the landscaping plan and landscaping the land further to the east, the applicant would
like clarification prior to agreeing to the condition. Lastly he discussed the backup
generator that will have a fully enclosed sound shroud and landscaping - they will comply
with the City's noise ordinance but would like something other than an absolute wall to be
-5-
placed.
Chairman Cruz asked for clarification on the noise levels for nighttime.
Mr. White responded that for residential properties it is 45 DBA, which is extremely quiet.
Chairman Cruz responded that 45 DBA is a tough standard so he was accepting of
language to state meeting the noise levels for the Pasco Municipal Code. He asked staff
what the purpose of the additional landscaping.
Mr. White answered that the intent was to get some landscaping on that site while there
was construction activities underway. It would be through mutually agreed upon plan
and once that plan was agreed upon and Verizon installed it, the intent was for City to
take over the maintenance.
Chairman Cruz asked Mr. Fournier if that was something he could agree to.
Mr. Fournier responded that without knowing the exact plan he would have to say no at
this time.
Commissioner Bachart asked Mr. Fournier if they looked into constructing a camouflaged
tower, such as towers designed like pine trees or flag poles.
Mr. Fournier responded that with the type of structure they are proposing, the antennas
couldn't be disguised. Also, this design will have the least impact since it is smaller and
shorter.
Commissioner Bachart asked if there are any lights called for on this tower.
Mr. Fournier answered that there is not a requirement for a lighting.
Jeanette Smith, 4304 Sedona Drive, handed a letter of opposition to the clerk signed by
the residents in the neighborhood. The residents do not want the tower to be placed near
their homes. She stated that the Pasco Municipal Code calls for a 500' distance from
residential and this special permit would only be 100' across the street from many homes.
She expressed concern over the effects the structure would have on property values and
she found supporting documents online. Whether or not radiation emissions from cell
towers are harmful is irrelevant. The perceived threat alone would lower property values.
The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Guidelines categorize cell
towers as hazards and nuisances. HUD requires certified appraisers to take the presence
of nearby cell towers into consideration when determining the value of single-family
residential properties. From information she found online, studies have shown that the
proximity to a cell phone tower can lower the property values as much as 20%. Other
countries have banned cell phone towers within 1,500 feet of residents, schools or parks.
Rebecca Cooper, 3807 Santa Anna Loop, stated that she was amazed that they would
place a cell phone tower so close to residents, literally in their backyards. She would like
to see a picture of the proposed tower and stated that the use of the term "stealth" doesn't
hide the fact that it would be there. Anyone looking to buy a house is going to see it. In
so
terms of health concerns, all it has to be is a perception to reduce property values and the
fact remains that at this time we don't know if it isn't unhealthy. The overwhelming
research online shows that people are unwilling to say for sure because there are not
scientific studies. There may come a day when more needs to be added to this tower to
increase coverage for more customers. Ms. Cooper also asked if the City of Pasco will be
getting money for this project and would like to know if other options or locations were
looked at so that this tower isn't in the middle of a neighborhood near a school. It is at
the top of the hill, which gives them great reception, Desert Plateau has a beautiful view of
sunsets and this tower will obstruct the view. She added that if people feel strongly
enough against this project that she will have a sign-up sheet, form a human chain and
call the media to make Verizon Wireless uncomfortable if needed to stop this.
Bob Smith, 4304 Sedona Drive, stated that his is most concerned with declining property
values, health and mostly, how this process came about. The applicant knew much more
about this project than the residents do. He said that the residents were notified about
this project last Monday but the land was being prepped six months ago. He felt that the
residents should have had more time to dispute the applicant's arguments and that there
was some dishonesty from the City. Many of the residents are well within 100 feet of the
proposed tower. He asked if the property values decrease 20% if the City of Pasco would
reimburse the residents and if property taxes would go down. But he responded that
won't happen. Mr. Smith said he is a former firefighter and the International Association
of Firefighters have voted against these towers being placed on their buildings. Mr. Smith
reiterated that his main complaint was that the residents didn't have as much time to read
the applicants material.
Doug Garven, 4215 Sedona Drive, stated documents say the tower will be 49.5', practically
50'. All the vegetation and shrubs around the tower still won't hide a 50' tower. It is
nearly 4 stories, which is a huge structure. Nobody would want to look at that outside
their home.
Patricia Garven, 4215 Sedona Drive, questioned the future plans of the tower and if it
could be guaranteed that it won't be expanded.
Chairman Cruz responded that the special permit will state how tall and big the tower can
be and in order to make any changes, a new special permit application would have to be
submitted and go through the public hearing process again.
Chairman Cruz had staff bring up a photo of the site to clarify the height.
A member of the audience asked what the diameter of the pole would be.
Chairman Cruz responded that the diameter would be 3'.
Judy Donaldson, 4008 Desert Plateau Drive, stated that her home is at the crest of the hill
and her view is green with the water tower a little to the right. She stated that the City
made a preemptive lead and put the residents on the offensive. If the cell tower would be
disguised, such as a pine tree, it wouldn't be as noticeable. She stated that she doesn't
believe it won't be added to in the future. At Columbia Basin College there is a tower that
has been added to. The tower will be ugly in the neighborhood and shouldn't be there.
-7-
Margaret McCulloch, 4216 Sedona Drive, said that her property line is by the school and
she is concerned about the school. Research she found on the computer indicated that
cell phone towers are not safe for children. She expressed her fear of her grandchildren
coming to visit and would not want them playing outside. The residents feel they don't
have much choice since the government said that they can move forward with this
regardless of people's health concerns.
Chairman Cruz clarified that the Planning Commission is not allowed to consider health
effects if it meets the FCC standards, which is a rule that is given to them, not that they
developed. He also addressed the idea that several residents discussed about this project
being "ram -rodded". The process taken with this special permit is typical of other
applications that the Planning Commission receives. In certain situations, the Planning
Commission will continue a public hearing to allow for more time and information. The
Planning Commission will make that determination after this hearing.
Carolyn Pope, 4208 Sedona Drive, stated that her entire backyard would be looking at the
proposed tower. She is opposed to the tower for that reason as well as all of the other
reasons mentioned during the hearing.
Keith Maki, 4104 Santa Anna Loop, said Tin diameter is like a big chimney. He asked
the audience who was against the special permit. The majority of the audience members
raised their hands. Mr. Maki said this is in their backyard, they don't want this here and
please don't approve it.
Molly Harker, 4204 Sedona Drive, said that currently in her backyard she can see the
sunset but this will obstruct her view. She addressed the feeling that people had
discussed in the evening of being "ram -rodded". It is likely because several months ago
the land was cleared but the residents weren't aware of what was going on. She felt that
the City cleared it knowing what was coming. It is in her backyard and she is not in
favor of it. She asked if there are any pictures of what the tower would look like.
Chairman Cruz referred to a drawing in the staff report and on the screen.
Ms. Harker said that was a drawing but she wants to see a picture.
Chairman Cruz said he could ask the applicant to bring a picture but it can also be looked
up on the internet under "stealth installation".
Ms. Harker responded that she has and saw other towers but didn't see an example of the
tower proposed for this special permit. She asked if there are any of these types of towers
in any other existing neighborhoods, because this is a neighborhood.
Chairman Cruz answered that the Planning Commission has approved some, one off of
Court Street. He asked staff if they can remember others approved in residential
neighborhoods.
Dave McDonald, City Planner, answered that there was one approved on Road 68 south of
Court Street and one recently approved just south of Mediterranean Villas that is 100' tall.
Ms. Harker said she would like to see an example or photo of those and would like to
speak with someone who has one in their backyard. She wanted to know how this site
was determined. Also, since January this site has been a weed patch. She asked
everyone if they would want this in their backyard.
Evelyn Walkley, 4004 Desert Plateau Drive, stated that she recently purchased her home
in this neighborhood and is still in the process of moving in. One of the many
considerations as to where she was going to purchase a home was the fact that the
utilities were underground. It is an aesthetic value.
Mike Moritz, 4212 Sedona Drive, stated that this tower would be approximately 125-150'
from his home. There are roughly 30 people in attendance that oppose this application
with home values ranging from $275,000-$450,000. He stated that on January 6th -
January 8th the City was out clearing the lot. He recognized some of the individuals
because he used to work for him as a private contractor, and said that some of those
employees made claims that City Staff had solicited Verizon Wireless with the intent on
getting money for the rent. He asked Mr. White how much he was going to receive
monthly for this agreement and that it was public information.
Mr. White responded that it is not public information because those claims are untrue and
a deal was not done.
Chairman Cruz added that the claims were accusatory and he wanted to make sure the
meeting remained civil and move forward. He asked City Staff why the land was cleared in
January.
Mr. White answered that he was unsure at this time but that answer can be provided for
the Planning Commission after he asks the Water Department.
Mr. Moritz asked why the residents weren't notified when the property was being cleared.
Chairman Cruz responded that the City doesn't have to notify the public when they clear
up land.
Mr. Moritz stated that on January 8th he was on his cellphone with the speakerphone on
for other neighbors, Margaret and Molly to hear, and he called Ahmad Qayoumi's office.
Mr. Qayoumi wouldn't talk to him but he said the lady that answered the phone confirmed
that Verizon was going to take out a permit to put the tower up.
Chairman Cruz replied that he's not arguing if that is true or not but there are people who
come into the City asking for permit requirements prior to purchasing or seeking an
agreement.
Mr. Montz closed with saying that the neighborhood doesn't want this special permit.
Terri Hendrix, 8401 Tucker Drive, said that she feels for the residents in this
neighborhood. The City shouldn't be able to do anything without notifying the citizens
why they are doing it. Ms. Hendrix said at the time they purchased her home she was told
it would always be residential, no road on Powerline Road, that everything would be
underground and if the road was put it everything would have to be buried first. She
stated that did not happen and it is now ugly. She asked who at the City citizens go to for
these problems.
Chairman Cruz answered that it depends on the issue. The Planning Commission takes
information and public testimony on specific actions, whether it's zoning, special permit,
etc. In terms of service issues, those are best directed towards the appropriate City Staff.
If it is a policy issue on a specific action the City Council will rule on, the Council meetings
are the best place to address those issues.
Ms. Hendrix discussed an issue she had with the City when they put in a road near her.
Richard Grudt, 4310 Hilltop Drive, was disappointed that the applicant for Verizon wasn't
more specific as to the need for the tower. The applicant said it was to increase the
coverage and Mr. Grudt said he is aware that there are more and more instruments that
utilize towers but wanted to know if the service will deteriorate if the tower is not approved
or will the tower really increase the coverage. Currently the cell phone service or coverage
is not what it used to be so he would like to see more information on that.
Chairman Cruz held up a map for the audience that showed the current service level and
what Verizon would like to provide. Chairman Cruz asked for the audience to raise their
hands if they were Verizon Wireless customers and roughly 1/5 raised their hands. He
asked the applicant if there would be other cell phone providers using this tower or if it
was strictly for Verizon.
Mr. Fournier answered that potentially other providers would use the tower.
Members of the audience from their seats stated that they don't have problems with their
service currently.
Chairman Cruz clarified that there would only be a marginal 15 decibel signal strength
improvement.
Terri Hendrix, 8401 Tucker Drive, asked for clarification on the process, communication
problems, and who paid for the work that was being done to the property as it was being
cleared.
Chairman Cruz responded that they would have to research the answers.
Molly Harker, 4204 Sedona Drive, asked if in the future with the growth of the airport if a
light could be put on top of this tower at a later time due to FAA requirements.
Chairman Cruz said he would have to look at that more closely.
Bob Smith, 4304 Sedona Drive, discussed the appearance of the proposed tower and
referenced the similar tower at Columbia Pointe Golf Course. When he first saw it he
thought it was the craziest thing he has seen and said it does not look good. He said he
wrote a letter to the editor to the Tri -City Herald and will be giving literature out at McGee
Elementary to inform them of the health effects.
-10-
Keith Maki, 4104 Santa Anna Loop, said they do not want this tower that it's ugly and
looks like a huge smokestack.
Jeanette Smith, 4304 Sedona Drive, said the neighborhood will have to pay the price so
Verizon can have more customers and more money.
Doug Garven, 4215 Sedona Drive, asked if the tower currently meets FCC guidelines, how
often are those guidelines changed, how often will it be checked and who verifies that it is
continually meeting their current guidelines to ensure it isn't a health concern.
Chairman Cruz responded that the FCC is a regulatory body associated with these things.
Robert Delarm, 4308 Sedona Drive, said that he purchased his house recently and had he
known this would happen, he wouldn't take the house if it were given to him. He is
completely against having the tower in his backyard.
Patricia Garven, 4215 Sedona Drive, asked if there is a plan or any compensation from the
City if property values do decline from the tower.
Chairman Cruz said that there isn't any plan or process if that happens. It is very difficult
to find a specific action harming a specific property.
Ms. Garven asked if the City could provide feedback with what has happened in other
neighborhoods where cell phone towers have been located and how they have impacted
the property values because that is a big fear.
Chairman Cruz replied that it was a good question and that the Planning Commission will
come up with a list of questions and determine how they want to proceed with the hearing.
Rebecca Cooper, 3807 Santa Anna Loop, asked if the people are happy now that have
these towers located near them. She stated that she just got the notice in the mail from
the appraiser on how much her home is worth and she would not buy a home where there
is a cell phone tower. Ms. Cooper said she did Google "stealth monopoles" and there are
many different images, they are awful and they vary. None of them are attractive. She
addressed the 1996 FCC code that the applicant, Mr. Fournier, referenced in terms of FCC
standards and stated that was too outdated. She said at some point in time we will know
what damage they are doing to our health.
Chairman Cruz clarified that what Mr. Fournier was referencing was a ruling from 1996
from the FCC, not a code. The ruling or Act from 1996 states that the Planning
Commission or other local government bodies don't get to consider the emissions or health
if the FCC approves the standards. The FCC may still change the standards in response
to new health information or studies.
Ms. Cooper noticed that all of the priorities have nothing to do with residential concerns,
they were all industrial concerns. She added that all the people in the audience who
currently have Verizon and aren't happy might leave them since there are many other
options that don't require putting a cell tower in their backyard.
-11-
Chairman Cruz proposed continuing the public hearing to the next Planning Commission
meeting to allow for time to get many of the questions answered for the residents.
Commissioner Greenanway suggested the applicant meeting with the residents.
Chairman Cruz replied that was up to Verizon if they wanted to do so.
Commissioner Khan asked whether or not lighting could be added to the pole in the future
based on airport expansion.
Chairman Cruz replied that it is important to note light pollution standards for industrial
installations, even for schools near neighborhoods, to prevent light leakage from the
property.
Commissioner Khan stated that she was in favor of the continuation of the hearing but
wanted to ask about the 500' distance in a residential zone and if it applies.
Mr. White clarified that it is a requirement for the special permit process.
Chairman Cruz added that since the property is within 500' it has to go through the
special permit process.
Commissioner Bachart asked if there are any other cell phone towers in the Desert
Plateau area.
Mr. White answered that he couldn't remember offhand but in the staff report there is a
map that Verizon submitted showing existing towers in the larger area.
Chairman Cruz said that there is a tower at the TRAC, on Dent Road, and there are
somewhere around '/2 dozen in Pasco. And to clarify, the term "stealth" simply refers to
the fact that the antenna rays are collapsed into the pole.
Mike Moritz, 4212 Sedona Drive, said that he works on FAA projects every day for a local
firm and the FAA can change anything they want at any time, whether it is runway
lighting, striping, the width of a runway, so yes there could be a light put on the pole if
that is what they are supposed to do.
With no further questions or comments, the Planning Commission was ready to make a
motion.
Commissioner Khan moved, seconded by Commissioner Greenaway, to continue the
public hearing on Master File No. SP 2015-008 until the following month. The motion
passed unanimously.
C. Rezone Rezone from R-1 (Low Density Residential) to R-3
(Medium Density Residential) (Envision Homes)
(MF# Z 2015-002)
-12-
Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff.
Shane O'Neill, Planner I, discussed the rezone application from R-1 (Low Density
Residential) to R-3 (Medium Density Residential) explaining surrounding zoning and
development for the Commission. The Comprehensive Plan designates the site for mixed -
residential uses, which allows R-3. Envision Homes' stated intent was to build single-
family attached dwelling units, which would appear as duplexes from a street view. This
rezone is the first step for development of this site, however, if approved Envision Homes
would have to plat the land which would trigger another hearing where Envision Homes
would have to provide more specific development plans. The ITE traffic manual indicates
that multi -family developments generate fewer vehicle trips per day per unit than do
single-family homes. Concern is often expressed on the impacts to lower density property
values when nearby properties are considered for higher density residential. Research
into tax records does not support this concern, even so, neighbors are often concerned of
impact on the surrounding character of the neighborhood. To address those concerns, the
Planning Commission should consider an concomitant agreement setting a minimum lot
size, permitting only 1 dwelling unit per lot and perhaps also requiring architectural
features to give each dwelling a distinct identity.
Chairman Cruz clarified that the rezone would just increase the density by 7 more units.
Mr. O'Neill responded that was generally correct.
Chairman Cruz also clarified that a concomitant agreement would limit what the developer
can and can't do in order to preserve the character of the neighborhood.
Mr. O'Neill responded yes.
Austin Roupe, 2200 6th Avenue, Seattle, spoke on behalf of Envision Homes. He stated
Envision has owned the land for 8 years and adding the additional lots allows them to
economically complete the project. Envision built the existing homes in the neighborhood,
wrote the covenants. The exteriors will be stucco or hardy plank similar to the existing
homes. Other benefits include completion of Chapel Blvd. This may motivated to
developer to the north to finish his development.
Commissioner Bachart asked if the attached units were going to look like.
Mr. Roupe responded that they will look very similar Columbia Villas with two -car garages
with decent size side yards and backyards. There will be basements and small decks.
Chairman Cruz asked if there are any expectations on building height.
Mr. Roupe said they will basically be as tall as the current homes in the neighborhood.
Chairman Cruz clarified that they would be two-story or less.
Mr. Roupe added they would be two-story with a basement.
-13-
Jason McConville, 5506 Pimlico, stated their home was built by Envision Homes and it is
his dream home but Envision abandoned the neighborhood leaving empty lots, much of
which were sold off to other developers. He is concerned about how this project will turn
out. He is also concerned about the safety of their neighborhood changing the property to
R-3 to allow duplexes.
Ben Zelen, 5802 Belmont Drive, said he hasn't heard a compelling reason to rezone the
property other than the developer said they would economically benefit from it. Envision
didn't seem to have issues selling the other lots as R-1. There is already R-3 zoning near
them, the Villages at Chapel Hill, and the Crossings at Chapel Hill. He would like to see
more single-family. His biggest concern is that these properties will turn into rentals and
what that could do to home values. Mr. Zelen turned in a study that he found on the
impact rental properties have on owner occupied homes. He asked about conditions that
could be placed on this rezone.
Chairman Cruz stated the applicant is requesting R-3 "light", meaning there would be
duplex homes but there wouldn't be the ability to build apartments.
Mr. Zelen responded duplexes could still be rentals.
Chairman Cruz said that the Planning Commission looks at conditions that can protect
the character of the neighborhood.
Mr. Zelen added that it is currently zoned R-1 and the only argument he's heard for the
rezone is for the developer to make more money.
Mr. Zelen stated the rezone is necessary and would like it to remain R-1.
Tina Blakly, 5712 Belmont Drive, said that the homeowners would love to see the property
developed to get rid of the dirt. She loves her Envisions Home but is concerned with the
perception of duplexes. The perception is that a single-family home is more valuable. It
will likely be lower income families because if they could afford a single, stand-alone home
they would get one. It will hurt their property values and they all built their homes
believing it would be more single-family homes behind them, otherwise she might not have
purchased her home there.
Erin Manukure, 5801 Belmont Drive, said that the proposed site is in her backyard. She
would love to see the site developed to get rid of the dirt but is concerned and doesn't want
to see R-3 zoning. When looking for a home, Envision Homes painted a beautiful picture
of what the neighborhood would look like and that is what they bought into. Currently
they are a tightknit neighborhood where they all know each other and having renters will
change the closeness they have. The fact that Envision Homes hasn't finished the current
single-family development causes concern. She asked if the same restrictions and
conditions put on their homes could be place on the proposed homes to ensure they won't
look like the row homes. She and her husband are against this rezone.
Jim Lear, 2403 S. Scenic Boulevard, Spokane, spoke on behalf of Liberty Bankers Life
Insurance owners of the property to the north. He is in favor of this rezone because it
would make their lot more desirable to develop. His lot is already zoned multi -family and
their intent is to develop the property with apartments. For Envision Homes to build
-14-
duplexes will create a nice buffer and transition between the properties.
Alfonso Sanchez, 5715 Belmont Drive, replied that it's easy for Mr. Lear to say he supports
the rezone when he lives in Spokane and doesn't live in the neighborhood. When he
bought his home there were supposed to be single-family homes behind them. His biggest
concern is that Envision Homes hasn't finished Belmont Drive yet they want to start
another project. The second lot on Belmont is still vacant with a lot of weeds. He wanted
to see them finish the current neighborhood before starting a new one. He was opposed to
the rezone.
Melody Witherspoon, 5814 Belmont Drive, spoke as a representative for her daughter who
lives on Belmont. When her daughter purchased her property she was told there would be
a park and all the lots will have homes with stucco and it hasn't come to pass. She feels
hesitant in trusting Envision Homes again to live up to their promises since they didn't
deliver before.
Jairo Martin, 5809 Belmont Drive, stated that he opposes the rezone. The residents feel
abandoned by Envisions Homes. He also thought the City had codes to prevent the
eyesore that Envision Homes has left with the vacant lots. He is also concerned with the
two-story duplexes with possible renters. He is also concerned that the neighborhood still
doesn't have a park like they were told was going to be developed and wanted to know if
that was ever going to happen.
Erin Manukure, 5801 Belmont Drive, asked what happens after this public hearing and
what say do the residents have.
Chairman Cruz answered that the Planning Commission reads the staff report from the
City, listens to public comments during the hearing and looks at any other information
that comes up. Then the public hearing is closed and the following month the Planning
Commission debates one way or another on how they will decide on this application and
make a recommendation to City Council. The Council can take the recommendation,
reject it, kick it back to the Planning Commission or do whatever they decide.
Ms. Manukure asked if the public can weigh on what conditions they would like to see
added.
Chairman Cruz answered that the public hearing is where the Planning Commission takes
the comments into consideration for placement in the concomitant agreement.
Ms. Manukure asked if they would be sent another notice when it gets plotted.
Chairman Cruz responded that there will be a notification when the preliminary plat
application is received.
Ms. Manukure asked if they can change their plans when they come back with the
preliminary plat.
Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director, replied that zoning sets the
density and with the concomitant agreement there can be conditions that might say things
-15-
that would require one house for every so many feet, height requirements, and
architectural features.
Ms. Manukure asked if there could be a condition placed that only so many could be
rental units.
Chairman Cruz answered no that would not be possible. Many people have voiced
concern about density, character of the neighborhood and those are things the Planning
Commission can take into consideration.
Ms. Manukure responded that she is against the rezone but if it were to go through, she
would like to see those lots have to have the same rules and conditions that their homes
had. She would also like the City to monitor Envision Homes since they do not do a good
job at keeping the dust down.
Chairman Cruz stated that Code Enforcement is who she should call if there are issues of
dust and weeds.
Ms. Manukure said she does call Code Enforcement but it is still an issue.
Tyson Chapman, 5507 Pimlico Drive, stated that he is excited about it being duplexes at
first but not in 10 years. It will look nice at first but duplexes over time always look bad.
He understands that it will be nice to have it developed but doesn't want the neighborhood
to change the way it does when duplexes come in.
Ryan Cutsforth, 5617 Belmont Drive, asked if they can impose a condition to require the
developer to place a barrier or landscaping.
Chairman Cruz responded that they could but they don't usually.
Mr. O Neill added that it's uncommon but it was done recently for the Walker Rezone on
Crescent Drive but it was a unique situation.
Waylon Walchesky, 5711 Belmont Drive, said he is concerned with two-story duplexes
being built looking into his home and is concerned with the safety of his children. The
neighborhood is quiet and nice and they know their neighbors. With rentals they will not
always know their neighbors. And the developer from Spokane doesn't care about the
people who live here bringing in low income apartments.
Tina Blakley, 5712 Belmont, asked if once it is zoned R-3 if their concerns will mostly be
over if they get the conditions in now.
Chairman Cruz responded that there are actually more conditions placed during the
platting stages.
Commissioner Bachart stated that it might behoove the applicant to bring some pictures
of what these duplexes will look like since there is fear and animosity from the current
residents.
-16-
Chairman Cruz reminded that the Planning Commission cannot make the applicant to do
so. They did submit some examples of the duplexes, although not exact plans.
Jason McConville, 5506 Pimlico Drive, responded to a comment made earlier about people
not wanting an apartment next to a strip of dirt but why should the current homeowners
care. The homeowners have been dealing with the dirt and they have much larger
investments. They knew that there were going to be apartments developed across from
this proposed lot but at the time he purchased his home, this site was zoned R-1 and that
is what they expected to see developed. He added that perhaps Envision Homes should
sell the lots to Monogram or Olin Homes because they have been doing a great job in the
neighborhood with the lots the Envision Homes didn't want to finish.
Charles Madison, 5703 Belmont Drive, said his biggest concern is the impact on the
schools and opposes the rezone. He said there needs to be more schools before anything
is built.
Chairman Cruz responded that a few years ago the School Impact Fee was approved to
ensure they were provided for. Each new unit that is developed has an impact fee
associated with it that goes to the Pasco School District for their building fund.
Erin Manukure, 5801 Belmont Drive, stated that she wants to make sure the duplexes are
stucco because in the example they are not stucco.
Austin Roupe, Envision Homes, responded that the photos in the staff report and shown
during the meeting are not stucco but they were just an example. When developed they
will be stucco or hardy plank. He addressed the feeling the residents had of being
abandoned. He stated that Envision Homes couldn't operate only selling 1-2 homes per
year which is why they sold lots to Monogram and Olin. The last 2 lots are still
undeveloped because they have tried to sell them and Envision has contacted all
developers and nobody wants them. Envision Homes hopes to develop those final lots
with single-family homes once they get the financing.
Commissioner Polk briefly summed up some of the concerns received during the public
hearing, such as; decline in home values, vegetation barriers, rental properties, concern of
R-3 zoning and possible higher density than duplexes and style of the duplexes.
Chairman Cruz clarified that the applicant will keep the same aesthetics as the homes in
the neighborhood. He asked Mr. Roupe what the price point will be for these units.
Mr. Roupe responded that is still be determined.
Chairman Cruz asked for a rough estimate of the cost per duplex because that can make a
big difference on the property values in the neighborhood. He did like the idea of duplexes
because the adjacent property is zoned for apartments and this would provide a gradient
and transition of zones. He is sympathetic to the fact of having duplexes behind the
homes but it really depends on the price point and quality of those duplexes.
Mr. Roupe could not give a firm number since they haven't built them in the Tri -Cities.
NrFA
Chairman Cruz asked what the approximate square footage for each unit would be.
Mr. Roupe responded that they would be 1,550-2,200 square feet. He addressed that
people were concerned about the renters but the units will be 3-4 bedrooms with
basements are meant to be family homes.
Chairman Cruz said that even with duplexes, with that size they would at least be within
the $180,000 range.
Commissioner Bachart asked if the basements were going to be completed.
Mr. Roupe answered that they may or may not finish the basements.
Commissioner Bachart asked if every lot in this site will be a duplex or if there will be
single-family homes mixed in or if it would be a row of these duplexes.
Mr. Roupe answered that they will all be different elevations so they won't all be next to
each other. Their intent is to have all duplexes with a possibility with a few odd shaped
lots being built as single-family homes.
Erin Manukure, 5801 Belmont Drive, asked if it will be like the homeowners where they
picked their lot and developed it at different stages or if the duplexes will all be built at one
time.
Mr. Roupe said it will be built in stages based on demand.
Ms. Manukure asked if it is possible that there is not demand and several lots remain
vacant.
Chairman Cruz answered that it is possible for lots to be vacant for some time.
Commissioner Khan answered that based on what she knows about the rental market in
the Tri -Cities there is a 90% saturation so she highly doubts that it will sit undeveloped.
Ms. Manukure said there again she is concerned because they would be rentals rather
than homeowners.
Chairman Cruz added that at this price point they will likely move relatively quickly.
With no further questions or comments the public hearing closed.
Commissioner Polk asked if once the road was developed what would the likelihood of the
park being developed.
Mr. White answered that once the neighborhood has more homes the chance of a park
coming in is closer to reality. Staff can look at the 6 year Capital Improvement Plan and
bring that to the Commission to see if it is included.
Chairman Cruz said he would definitely want to know the answer to that at the next
meeting before they make a decision.
Commissioner Khan moved, seconded by Commissioner Greenaway, to close the public
hearing on the proposed rezone and initiate deliberations and schedule adoption of
findings of fact, conclusions and a recommendation to the City Council for the August 20,
2015 meeting. The motion passed unanimously.
COMMENTS:
With no further discussion or business, the Planning Commission was adjourned at
9:41 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
David McDonald, City Planner
NVE
REGULAR MEETING
PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING
CALL TO ORDER:
The meeting was called to order at 7:OOpm by Chairman Cruz.
POSITION MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT
No.
1
Tanya Bowers
No.
2
Tony Bachart
No.
3
Paul Mendez
No.
4
Alecia Greenaway
No.
5
Joe Cruz
No.
6
Loren Polk
No.
7
Zahra Khan
No.8
VACANT
No.
9
Gabriel Portugal
APPEARANCE OF FAIRNESS:
July 30, 2015
Chairman Cruz read a statement about the appearance of fairness for hearings on land
use matters. Chairman Cruz asked if any Commission member had anything to declare.
There were no declarations.
Chairman Cruz then asked the audience if there were any objections based on a conflict
of interest or appearance of fairness question regarding the items to be discussed this
evening. There were no objections.
ADMINISTERING THE OATH:
Chairman Cruz explained that state law requires testimony in quasi-judicial hearings
such as held by the Planning Commission be given under oath or affirmation. Chairman
Cruz swore in all those desiring to speak.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
There were no minutes to approve.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
A. Block Grant 2016 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)
Fund Allocations IMF# BGAP 2015-003)
Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff.
Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director, stated that this is an annual
process where citizens and groups can apply for funding through three sources: CDBG,
HOME and NSP.
Angie Pitman, Block Grant Administrator, discussed the Community Development Block
-1-
Grant program and history and gave a brief Power Point presentation. Pasco receives their
entitlement of funds by meeting standards set by HUD. During the presentation, Ms.
Pitman discussed the three goals that were updated in the updated Five Year Consolidated
Plan. In order to be funded, an activity must meet one of the three goals. The City can
carry out CDBG programs either as the recipient of the funds with house staff or
consultant and contractors or by selecting subrecipients to carry out these activities. All
activities that are funded have to meet specific criteria. The project has to benefit low to
moderate income persons in Pasco, it has to meet eligibility criteria, it has to be a goal or
objective in the Five Year Consolidated Plan, meet local needs as defined by the City of
Pasco's Resolution No. 1969 and the subrecipient has to be able to demonstrate capacity
and the project has to be feasible. In 1991, Council passed Resolution No. 1969 that
designated the Planning Commission as the advisory committee and Council set goals and
priorities. Ms. Pitman explained the types of activities that were and were not allowable.
Mr. White added that there are many activities allowable under CDBG but due to Council
policy and Resolution No. 1969 set the parameters for what the City will fund.
Ms. Pitman went on to explain that the request for proposals were advertised in local
papers in English and Spanish, and directly mailed to recipients who have received grant
funds in the past five years. Items recommended for funding will form the basis for the
2016 Annual Action Plan that is submitted to HUD for approval. The 2016 Work Plan will
represent the second year of the Consolidated Plan. Based on last years' entitlement, staff
estimates $665,000 will be available for funding. Program income if received and prior
year's activities that don't move forward will be reallocated for 2016 as they are received.
Commissioner Bowers asked how program income is generated.
Ms. Pitman answered that there are some funds that provide rehabilitation of housing and
as those old loans are repaid they come back to the City to be reused on CDBG eligible
activities.
Ms. Pitman continued discussing the request for proposals. Fourteen (14) applications
were received for a total of $1,552,500 which leaves a total deficit of ($887,500) from the
funds available. Activities are funded based on the priorities, goals and risk factors. With
no further comments that applicants can present their application in the public hearing.
Chairman Cruz reminded the Commissioners are to look for eligibility and viability.
Michael Goins, 403 W. Lewis Street, presented on behalf of the Downtown Pasco
Development Authority. They are requesting funds for the Fagade Improvement Program
to help revitalize the downtown. This year with the increased activity in downtown, there
is more interest in this program. He is requested $90,000 to tackle 5 projects at $15,000
per project and the remaining $15,000 would go towards a project manager and
consultant fees. He briefly discussed how he would carry out the program. Currently
there is 1 business owner going through the program right now. Vierra's Bakery was a
successful project that used this program.
Chairman Cruz asked how many businesses have used this program in the past.
Mr. Goins responded one facade every two years but it has been slow for various reasons
-2-
but he feels there is a much better system in place at this time.
Commissioner Bowers asked if he has received CDBG funds for this in the past and if it's
a renewal.
Mr. Goins replied yes.
Steve Howland, 1234 Columbia Park Trail, Richland, spoke on behalf of the YMCA of the
Greater Tri -Cities and he explained that he is requesting funds for the Martin Luther King
Center in Kurtzman Neighborhood of Pasco. Last year was the first year they started
receiving CDBG to assist with operational costs to keep their doors open after they lost
their funding from the United Way. Roughly 500 kids utilize this center, participating in
the after school programs and soccer programs. They YMCA matches CDBG funds with
their own funds as well as other grant funds. Most of the money helps with the staffing
and operations while the City has been taking care of the facility.
Chairman Cruz asked Mr. Howland to discuss the programs offered at the center.
Mr. Howland answered that the center opens every day after school hours during the
school year and the kids are free to drop in, they have a homework center, game lab,
computer room, weight room for some of the older kids and gymnasium. They also have
an after school program in cooperation with the City, basketball and indoor/outdoor
soccer leagues. The center is not just for the kids. Parents can utilize the computers and
fitness area as well. It is a safe place for the kids to come after school. In the summer
hours are a little limited but they are still open in the afternoons.
Commissioner Bowers asked how much for admission.
Mr. Howland responded that they pay an annual fee of $10 but they do daily passes as
well and if there are people who cannot pay the rate, the YMCA will waive the fee or work
with the families.
Marilou Shae, 110 S. 4th Avenue, spoke as a representative for the Pasco Specialty
Kitchen. She explained that the Specialty Kitchen has a couple of applications - one for
technical assistance, flooring and remodel of the facade. For technical assistance she is
requesting $85,000, not including leveraged funds. In the past few years they have
received $50,000 of CDBG funds which is roughly half of their income, with the other
income coming from the clients that utilize the kitchen. This year they have operated
Food Truck Friday and they have created 15-20 jobs, $70,000 in revenues for these small
businesses in the first 4 months of the program, which has had a multiplier effect
sourcing more local food, hiring local people. As it is, Michael Goins and herself are the
only two running Food Truck Friday so they are looking to pump up their resources. In
2016 there will be 14 new individuals, 9 new business entering the Food Truck Friday
program and the Specialty Kitchen has a mentoring and training program to assist these
businesses getting their start. The flooring application is to replace the 12 year old
flooring that has taken flood damage, is chipping and is not the most sanitary. The facade
application is to help energy efficiency and make the fapade more inviting. It is the only
organization on the block that doesn't have a facade.
Commissioner Bowers asked if it is a requirement to be a resident of Pasco to utilize the
-3-
Kitchen.
Ms. Shae said that it is not a requirement and there are clients from Richland, Kennewick
and Pasco.
Commissioner Bowers asked if the jobs created are just for people in Pasco or for all of the
Tri -Cities. She asked if there are any records or percentages of jobs created that stay in
Pasco.
Ms. Shae said the jobs created by these businesses since they are utilizing the Kitchen are
considered Pasco jobs.
Commissioner Bowers asked in a different way how many of the jobs created belong in
Pasco.
Ms. Shae responded that of the Kitchen clients, the percentage that are Pasco residents
are 45-50%.
Chairman Cruz added that it is more of a regional/ community asset because he knows of
people from outside of Pasco that benefit from the facility because there aren't many other
facilities like this.
Ms. Shae agreed that there are no other facilities like the Pasco Specialty Kitchen.
Spokane's kitchen closed years ago. There are people from Connell, Benton City, Walla
Walla and other places that utilize the kitchen.
Chairman Cruz asked Ms. Shae if she could give some examples of some of the products
people can find in the stores or in the area.
Ms. Shae replied that AC's BBQ Sauce, Swampy's BBQ Sauce, who because of Food Truck
Friday he has so much business he started catering. There are also jams, a tea catering
company, a gluten free baking company and Country Merchantile utilizes the kitchen to
make their own private label products. She was recently contacted by Brahms's House of
Chocolate because they want to bring in their processing lines for the next 6-8 months.
They also have many local caterer's that utilize the kitchen. Meals on Wheels would also
like to use the kitchen to package up and the elderly would eat the food at the kitchen.
Mr. Goins came back up to the podium to help answer a previous question on how many
jobs stay in Pasco. Last year it was a task of theirs to come up with an Incentive Program
to keep jobs in Pasco which will begin September 1, 2015 and they will begin tracking that
for staff to keep clients in Pasco. It is their goal to keep the jobs in Pasco and work on
restaurant recruitment.
Ms. Shae added that they are coming up with a strategic plan.
Commissioner Portugal asked if the taco trucks had challenges since they were not a part
of the Food Truck Friday.
Ms. Shae answered that between herself, Mr. Goins and the DPDA board, they approached
-4-
roughly 27 taco trucks, they would love to have taco trucks at Food Truck Friday. The
biggest challenge is that they don't want to give up their location, they have an existing
contract and many are not willing to go through the licensing and permit process to be a
part of the Specialty Kitchen. They made several attempts to have vendors attend board
meetings and they never showed up.
Commissioner Portugal asked how much the licensing fees.
Ms. Shae responded that the licensing fees vary on the type of business but generally
speaking $200-$300 to get started.
Commissioner Portugal asked if that included licensing for Food Truck Friday.
Ms. Shae answered that the Food Truck Friday is separate and it costs $25 per week for
the license each week.
Commissioner Bowers asked about the Specialty Kitchen serving low -moderate income
clients. She asked how the kitchen does that.
Chairman Cruz also asked how the Country Merchantile would fall within the low -
moderate income clients.
Mr. White answered that it is not a requirement that the kitchen serve low -moderate
people but low -moderate clients are required to receive the CDBG subsidized rate to use
the kitchen. Other people can utilize the kitchen but they will have to pay the full rate.
Chairman Cruz asked how many square feet is the Specialty Kitchen.
Ms. Shae responded that it is roughly 11,000 square feet.
Chairman Cruz asked if she had any estimates because $72,000 for the flooring seems
high.
Ms. Shae said that she got 3 estimates. The material they wish to install has a 15 year
warranty and is a vinyl plank instead of linoleum. She spoke with contractors about doing
cement but that was going to be even more expensive. They also don't know the condition
of the subflooring.
Chairman Cruz asked if $72,000 is the total figure or just a phase.
Ms. Shae answered that it would be done in phases in order to keep the kitchen open but
$72,000 is the total amount.
Commissioner Portugal asked how many taco trucks are participating in Food Truck
Friday.
Ms. Shae stated that there aren't any even though she and bilingual board members have
approached them, spoke to them and passed out flyers. She stated that she would love to
-5-
have taco trucks participating at the Food Truck Friday's.
Commissioner Portugal asked if she is the main recruiter for bringing in vendors to Food
Truck Friday.
Ms. Shae responded that she is but people can also talk to city staff, DPDA board
members and she would be happy to get people signed up.
Chairman Cruz asked Mr. White to run through the remaining applications.
Mr. White briefly discussed all City applications for funding:
• CDBG Program Income for $120,000 which includes all salaries for all of the staff
that works on CDBG, supplies and overhead;
• Civic Center Youth Recreation Specialist and Martin Luther King Jr. Center
Recreation Specialist are for funds to cover part of the salaries of staff to assist low -
moderate income youth in the community in census tracts 201-204;
• Senior Center Recreation Specialist covers partial salary for a staff person that
serves low -moderate income senior citizens in the community;
• Peanuts Park Restoration was a large request for $400,000 to make physical
improvements to the park. The City is working with a consultant and has had
public outreach to get a community sense of what they would like to see happen at
the park and this would be the first stage;
• Code Enforcement Officer would pay for partial salaries for an officer to handle code
enforcement issues in census tracts 201-204 to keep those neighborhoods on the
right track; and
• Downtown Sidewalk Improvements would make improvements to the sidewalks,
updating the signals where they would have audio to meet ADA standards in
census tracts 201-204.
Chairman Cruz reminded the Commission that in deciding what to fund, it is important to
look at the activities that can be partially funded and still move forward or activities that
need all of the funds to make the project happen. Some of the activities, such as some of
the City activities, might be able to be partially funded and when program income is
received, funding for the rest of the project could happen.
Commissioner Mendez asked how the Downtown Sidewalk Improvement application fits in
with the neighborhood revitalization effort.
Mr. White stated that the neighborhood revitalization effort is for Park Street between Stn
and 7th. That was funded in 2014 for the program year of 2015 so it is already funded.
On Park Street there is already a sidewalk but due to overgrowth of tree roots, the
sidewalk needs to be repaired for safety, where the Downtown Sidewalk Improvements are
for 2016 and putting in sidewalks and audio signals where they don't exist currently.
Commissioner Bowers said at looking at the CDBG fund summary there are over $1.5
million in requests but only $665,000 available so she asked if it is the Planning
Commission or Council that decides who gets what.
Mr. White answered that the Planning Commission makes a recommendation to Council
and then Council will have final approval.
Commissioner Mendez asked for clarification of the priority rankings and risk analysis.
Ms. Pitman answered that the priority ranking came from one of the pages the applicants
turned in on their application. For eligibility the projects have to meet national and local
criteria. In the City of Pasco, physical improvements are a high priority and local goal.
The physical improvement projects are a high priority, such as projects that reduce
barriers to physically impaired persons, acquisition and construction, improvements to
area facilities or neighborhood preservation and revitalization. These projects are ranked
at Al priorities. Economic Development opportunities are A2 priorities. The risk is based
on an annual form that staff uses to see if the applicants have ever had any monitoring
findings, if special skills are needed, if the staff is new to the program or experienced.
Commissioner Bowers said it would be helpful to see the ranking key. She asked if all of
the proposals take into account the three priorities.
Ms. Pitman said that is the first filter - if they don't meet one of the goals then they don't
even make it on the list.
Chairman Cruz asked if staff would like the Planning Commission to go down the list to
make decisions.
Mr. White responded that the typical process is to first hold the public hearing and then at
the following meeting staff will come back to the Commission with staff recommendations
after sorting through priorities and risks. Then the Planning Commission at that time can
deliberate and decide what they wish to recommend to Council.
Chairman Cruz said that process has worked in the past and is fine with him.
Commissioner Bowers asked if the staff takes into consideration their ranking or if the
Planning Commission takes into consideration the staffs rankings.
Chairman Cruz responded that it is a little bit of both and clarified the process.
Commssioner Bowers asked if they like everything if they could just give a percentage to
each application.
Chairman Cruz answered that doesn't typically work since some projects cannot happen if
they are only partially funded, however some projects can happen if a little money is cut.
Ms. Pitman added that those activities that cannot be funded can still be added as a
contingent later for when or if funds become available.
Mr. White said there will be a second public hearing in August.
With no further comments the public hearing was closed.
-7-
B. Block Grant 2016 HOME Program Allocation & Annual Work
Plan (MF# BGAP 2015-004)
Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff.
Angie Pitman, Block Grant Administrator, discussed the 2016 HOME Program Allocation
and Annual Work Plan. Pasco receives funds by forming a consortium with Richland and
Kennewick, to increase affordable housing units within the community. Based on
previous years, Pasco anticipates receiving $107,000 for 2016, this is after a requirement
that 15% of funds be reserved for CHDO projects, which are special housing projects such
as Habitat for Humanity. There are also funds that are reserved for the lead agency to
administer the program. As of now, the only activity the consortium is using is the Down
Payment Assistance Program and is what the proposed 2016 funds will go towards and a
CHDO project that the consortium agrees upon each year.
Rick White, Community 8s Economic Development Director, explained the Down Payment
Assistance Program and how the Planning Commission recommended that it would be the
sole project funded by HOME funds.
Chairman Cruz explained that with other housing projects, such as construction, there
were problems but the Down Payment Assistance Program had much less liabilities and in
many cases is a forgivable loan.
With no further comments the public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Bowers said she would like to see on the map the census tracts 201-204.
Mr. White said all census tracts 201-204 is everything east of Highway 395 to the end of
Pasco.
Commissioner Mendez asked how many families are helped under the Down Payment
Assistance Program.
Ms. Pitman replied that 10 families are proposed for program year 2016. Currently staff is
processing 6 applications that will close in August and since January there have been an
average of 6 per month.
Chairman Cruz stated that he would classify this program as very successful. He
reopened the public hearing for a member of the audience to speak.
David Ruiz, 409 N. 23rd Avenue, asked what qualified as a family, do they have to be
married or have kids.
Ms. Pitman said it is simply based just on household income, any person in the household
over the age of 18 is considered and their income qualified for the program and is based
on family sized.
Chairman Cruz asked what the income would have to be for a family of 4.
ff:0
Ms. Pitman said that for a family of 4 they could not earn more than $56,250 as that is
80% of the median income.
There were no further questions or comments and the public hearing was closed.
C. Block Grant 2016 Neighborhood Stabilization Plan (NSP) Fund
Allocations (MF# BGAP 2015-005)
Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff.
Angie Pitman, Block Grant Administrator, discussed the 2016 Neighborhood Stabilization
Plan (NSP) Fund Allocations. Years ago the City of Pasco received a pass-through grant
from HUD through the State of Washington for neighborhood stabilization. Those grant
funds were allowed to be used to recapture foreclosed properties in distressed
neighborhoods. Since receiving the grant the City has done a total of 12 down payment
assistance loans, recovered 5 properties (1 of which is on the market now) and as they sell
the City receives program income. The money that comes back can be used for more
down payment assistance of foreclosed properties and in some cases, also used for minor
rehabilitation the homes to bring to up to standard.
Commissioner Bowers said it sounded like a revolving fund.
Ms. Pitman replied that activities that generate program income are like that.
David Ruiz, 409 N. 23rd Avenue, asked what kind of minor rehabilitation programs the
City offers.
Ms. Pitman said through CDBG funds, there is money available that was awarded to
Community Action Connections (CAC) as a subrecipient for owner -occupied
rehabilitations. The NSP rehabilitation program would be in conjunction with the down
payment assistance of foreclosed properties and minor rehabilitation funds could be added
to get the home up to standards.
Rick White, Community 8s Economic Development Director, added that recently the City
provided down payment assistance for a foreclosed home that had a roof in disrepair, so
bundled with the down payment assistance the City was able to work with the homeowner
to repair the roof and add that into the down payment assistance loan.
With no further questions or comments the public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Bowers asked if the CAC is a CDC.
Ms. Pitman responded that unfortunately they were unable to attend the meeting.
Commissioner Bowers asked if there are other CDC's in the community.
Ms. Pitman clarified that they are called CAC for Community Action Connections.
®'
Mr. White clarified that CAC is not a CDC (Community Development Corporation). Pasco
does not have a CDC.
There were no further questions or comments.
COMMENTS:
With no further discussion or business, the Planning Commission was adjourned at
8:10 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
David McDonald, City Planner
-10-
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
MASTER FILE NO: SP 2015-02 APPLICANT: Pasco School District #1
HEARING DATE: 7/ 16/ 15 1215 W Lewis St
ACTION DATE: 8/20/15 Pasco, WA 99301
BACKGROUND
REQUEST: SPECIAL PERMIT: Stevens Middle School Site Improvements
1. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION:
Legal: A portion of the SW I/4 of the NE Quarter of NE '/4 of Section 25,
Township 9 North, Range 29 East, W.M. contained within Parcel
# 119332080 adjoining parcels and Hillhaven Addition.
General Location: 1120 22nd Avenue
Property Size: Approximately 16.18 acres
2. ACCESS: The site is accessible from 22nd Avenue and 2411, Avenue
3. UTILITIES: All municipal utilities serve the school site.
1. 4. LAND USE AND ZONING: The site is zoned R-2 and R-3 (Medium
Density Residential) and is developed with The Stevens Middle School
Campus. The zoning and land use of the surrounding properties are as
follows:
NORTH: C-1 - Commercial Businesses
SOUTH: R-2 & R-3 -Multi-Family Residences
EAST: R-1 - Single Family Residences
WEST: R-2- Single Family and Multi -family Residences
5. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The Comprehensive Plan designates the site
as public and quasi -public uses. Goal CF -5 suggests adequate
provisions should be made for educational facilities located throughout
the urban growth area. Policy CF -S-A encourages the appropriate
location and design of schools throughout the community.
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.
Stevens Middle School was constructed in 1960 and has been a part of the
surrounding neighborhood for the past 55 years. As the community has
grown Stevens Middle School and the school site have been modified to meet
increased enrollment. Since 2010 the School District has been working on
plans to improve vehicular and pedestrian safety around the school. In 2011
the Planning Commission reviewed plans for a new parking lot on the east side
of 22nd Avenue and new bus staging and unloading area for the parking lot to
the north of the school. The first phase of the plan was completed in 2014 with
the construction of the new parking lot across 22nd Avenue from the main
entrance of the school. The next phases of the plan called the construction of
the new bus staging area on the north side of the school with bus traffic being
re-routed from 22and Avenue to 24th Avenue. Additionally to improve traffic
safety at the new bus entrance on 24th Avenue and to eliminate safety concerns
of having 960 students a day across 24th Avenue (1,920 students crossing for
going over and back) to the sports field a portion of 24th Avenue is proposed to
be closed. Closing that portion of 24th Avenue between the sports fields and the
main school campus will enable the School District to enlarge the sports fields
to regulation size and eliminate the need for students crossing 24th Avenue for
PE activities or sports games.
Closing 241h Avenue will require the School District to reconstruct the
intersections at Octave and Marie Streets and modify street drainage facilities
and possibly relocate a fire hydrant. Coordination with the PUD will also be
required for undergrounding power lines.
Closing 2411, Avenue will undoubtedly impact traffic circulation around the
sports fields. Adjustments will have to be made to daily travel for residents of
the neighborhood. However these adjustments will involve an extra turn or two
and in a few cases require perhaps two blocks of additional travel. It is
anticipated people will adjust their travel to 26th Avenue and 22nd Avenue and
the east/west streets thought he neighborhood. The attached Traffic Report
indicates there would be less than one additional vehicle per minute during
most hours of the day on the new travel routes. The impact to traffic
circulation will be offset by the elimination of 960 students crossing 24th
Avenue to attend PE classes. This will be a significant safety improvement.
2
STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT
Findings of fact must be entered from the record. The following are initial
findings drawn from the background and analysis section of the staff report.
The Planning Commission may add additional findings to this listing as the
result of factual testimony and evidence submitted during the open record
hearing.
1. The site is located in an R-2 zone.
2. The Comprehensive Plan identifies the site for public and quasi -public
uses.
3. Comprehensive Plan Goal CF -5 suggests that adequate provisions should
be made for the location of educational facilities throughout the urban
growth area.
4. Schools are conditional land uses in the R -S-1 zone and require review
through the special permit process prior to permitting for construction.
5. Stevens Middle School has been located at the current site for the past
55 years.
6. The Planning Commission considered a Stevens Middle School re-
development plan during a Special Permit review in 2011. The
Development plan included a new parking lot on the east side of 22nd
Avenue a revised bus parking area on the north side of the school and
bus access from 24th Avenue rather the 22nd.
7. The Stevens School sports fields are separated from the main school
campus by North 24th Avenue.
8. Nine hundred and sixty Stevens Middle School students are required to
cross 24th Avenue to access the sports fields for PE classes on a
consistent basis during the school year.
9. The access gate from the main Stevens Campus for crossing 24th Avenue
is midway between Octave Street and Marie Streets. There is no cross
walk at this location.
10. A Traffic Study was prepared for the proposed street closure in July of
2014. The study indicated motorists will shift their travel to 22nd Avenue
and 261h Avenue. This would result in less than one additional vehicle
per minute on those streets during most hours of the day.
11. 22nd Avenue and 26th Avenue are connected to Court Street with a traffic
signal.
12. 24th Avenue is not connected to Court Street with a traffic signal.
3
CONCLUSIONS BASED ON STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT
Before recommending approval or denial of a special permit the Planning
Commission must draw its conclusion from the findings of fact based upon the
criteria listed in P.M.C. 25.86.060. The criteria and staff listed conclusions are
as follows:
1) Will the proposed use be in accordance with the goals, policies, objectives
and text of the Comprehensive Plan?
The proposed use supports the following plan policies or goals: CF -5
suggests adequate provisions be made for educational facilities
throughout the Urban Growth Area. The Comprehensive Plan land use
map indicated the site is to be developed with public and quasi -public
land uses. Schools are a public land use.
2) Will the proposed use adversely affect public infrastructure?
Stevens Middle School has been located on the site for over 50 years and
has not adversely impacted public infrastructure. The proposal will not
increase the need for municipal utilizes. The proposal will impact the
current configuration of the neighborhood street network by decreasing
vehicle trips on 24th avenue and cause a slight increase in traffic on 22nd
avenue and 26the Avenue.
3) Will the proposed use be constructed, maintained and operated to be in
harmony with existing or intended character of the general vicinity?
Stevens Middle School is part of the neighborhood character and has
been for 55 years. Schools are typically located in or near residential
neighborhoods and are an accepted part of the character of residential
areas.
4) Will the location and height of proposed structures and the site design
discourage the development of permitted uses on property in the general
vicinity or impair the value thereof
The construction and height of the school will not be altered as a part
of the site redevelopment. The neighborhood is fully developed as a
result there is no development to discourage. Past experience has
shown the location of schools within Pasco neighborhoods has not
impaired the value of residential development within those
neighborhoods.
EI
5) Will the operations in connection with the proposal be more objectionable
to nearby properties by reason of noise, fumes, vibrations, dust, traffic, or
flashing lights than would be the operation of any permitted uses within
the district?
Experience has shown that schools within Pasco generate few
complaints from neighbors. Schools typically are not a source of dust,
fumes, vibrations or flashing lights. During weekends, the summer
break, and other break periods very little activities occurs on school
sites.
6) Will the proposed use endanger the public health or safety if located and
developed where proposed, or in anyway will become a nuisance to uses
permitted in the district?
The proposal with the closure of 24th Avenue will enhance public safety
be eliminating the need for 960 students to cross a public street to
access fields for PE classes
Proposed Approval Conditions
1. The special permit shall apply to Parcel Nos. 119341114,
119332080, 119362333, 119362093 and 119362342 and any
subsequent parcel # use to consolidate the parcel numbers
referenced herein.
2. The school site shall be developed in substantial conformity with
the site plan submitted with the special permit application.
3. The School District sign a letter of agreement with the City prior to
beginning design work on the plans for closing 24f Avenue
between Marie Street and Octave Street.
4. The letter of agreement shall identify the steps necessary for
closure of 24th Avenue including a time line for street vacation.
5. The School District shall be responsible for all engineering, design
construction costs, and utility relocation costs associated with the
closure of 24th Avenue.
6. The special permit shall be null and void if a permit for site
redevelopment has not been obtained by December 31, 2017.
5
MOTION: MOTION for Findings of Fact: I move to adopt findings of
fact and conclusions therefrom as contained in the August 20, 2015 staff
report.
MOTION for Recommendation: I move based on the findings of fact
and conclusions as adopted the Planning Commission recommend the
City Council grant a special permit to the Pasco School District for the
redevelopment of the Stevens Middle School Campus with conditions as
contained in the August 20, 2015 staff report.
6
I I'd TT IA �
I
Ta�* 7� 1142
HAV. HJLOZ
17
Sip
f 711
I
AAV GNZZ
Jil
3AV 1H
a
a
` V I
116Z., 11
C)
I I'd TT IA �
I
Ta�* 7� 1142
HAV. HJLOZ
17
Sip
f 711
I
AAV GNZZ
Jil
3AV 1H
a
a
` V I
116Z., 11
rim
k
1
0
\ ( `\�� \»
\��� �.� :/� ..
4 \ \�
:1 - '� p -,
4p,�-
I
I
.yyz.
I 11—J ar IJ ux 1.,.,, -1 iw a �w , 0n 1=0 1 1 -• 1
n
TE,
J-U•B ENGINEERS, INC.
July 15, 2014
Mike Pawlak, P.E., City Engineer
City of Pasco
525 N. Third Avenue
Pasco, WA 99301
J -U -B COMPANIES THE
. ' I MAPPINE
CROUP NC
RE: STEVENS MIDDLE SCHOOL—TRAFFIC STUDY
FOR CLOSURE OF 24'" AVENUE BETWEEN MARIE STREET AND OCTAVE STREET
Dear Mike:
This letter has been prepared to address traffic questions associated with the Pasco School District
request to close a portion of 20 Avenue between Marie Street and Octave Street.
Background Information
In 2013 the Pasco School District passed a bond that would fund many improvements to school facilities
in the District. One of the improvements included is a reconfiguration of outdoor facilities at Stevens
Middle School that would include a combined full-size football and soccer field, comparable to the
facilities at other middle schools in the district. Currently the District owns property west of 24`h Avenue
that has ball fields that are used by the students at Stevens Middle School during Physical Education
classes throughout the school day during certain times of the year. In order to access these playfields
the -students must cross 24tb Avenue twice during each class period of the day. In order to accommodate
the proposed facilities additional length is required and the districts' plan is to close 24th Avenue
between Marie Street and Octave Street to utilize that space while relocating tennis courts and other
ball fields. The proposed Site Plan is attached.
In addition to the these outdoor facilities, the district proposes to move the bus parking on 22"d Avenue
to a new bus loading zone north of the school in a portion of the existing parking lot. The new bus
loading area would be accessed from 24th Avenue rather than 22nd Avenue. To accomplish this change
the district has also purchased property across the street from the main entry to provide replacement
parking for faculty and staff.
Existing Transportation Network
As with any potential road closure some impacts will result. In order to better understand the potential
impacts some description of the existing roadway network will be helpful and is provided below.
Stevens Middle School is situated between 22"d Avenue and 24th Avenue south of Court Street
and north of Henry Place. Primary access to the school is from 22nd Avenue. As mentioned, the
school also has PE classes that use district property west of 24`h Avenue which are accessed by
students on foot.
® A good grid system of local roadways exists in the vicinity of Steven Middle School that serves
the neighborhood. Court Street is to the north and Sylvester Street to the south and function as
— -J�U-B ENGINEERS, Inc.YEARS
3IL-13_a45.S193,$tCVPna M'tldle Cr6n01 Traffr C} h ]AS-94�nr ___
2810 W. Clearwater Avenue, Suite 201, Kennewick, WA 99336 p 509 783 2144 f 509 736 0790 w www.jub.com
Mike Pawlak, P.E.
July 15, 2014
Page 2
the east -west minor arterial streets in the vicinity along with 20"' Avenue to the east which is a
north -south principal arterial. To the west is US 395 which creates a barrier and prevents east -
west through traffic in the neighborhood. 22"' Avenue, 24" Avenue and 26th Avenue are all
designated as local roads on the Street Functional Classification System.
• All three streets currently provide north -south connections between Court Street and Sylvester
Street. 22"d Avenue is approximately 42' wide plus sidewalks on both sides, while 24th and 26"
Avenues are approximately 38' wide plus sidewalks on both sides. There are no pavement
markings for travel lanes and parking is generally allowed on both sides of each street.
• Cross walks are marked on 22"d Avenue at Henry Place and in front of the school; on 24"
Avenue at Park Street, Henry Street, Octave Street and Marie Street; and on 26th Avenue at
Brown Street, Park Street, Henry Street and Marie Street.
No speed limit signs exist on any of the three north -south local roads except for the school
zones on 22nd Avenue and 24th Avenue. A speed limit of 25 MPH is implied by Pasco City Code
(PMC 10.24) and the Revised Code of Washington (RCW 46.61.400). Stop signs are placed for
many of the street approaches at intersections in the neighborhood, as shown in the
accompanying figure, along with traffic signals at the intersections of 26th Avenue and 22nd
Avenue at Court Street.
Ben Franklin Transit operates a transit center on the east side of 22"' Avenue south of the
middle school.
Traffic Volumes
All -day traffic volumes were collected by City staff in May 2014, while school was still in session, to
contribute to the analysis at the following six locations:
• 220d Ave north of Henry St
• 24" Ave north of Octave St
• 2e Ave north of Octave St
• Marie St west of 24th Ave
• Octave St west of 24th Ave
• Henry Street west of 24th Ave
1UB Engineers collected turning movement volumes from 7:00 AM — 9:00 AM and from 2:00 PM — 6:00
PM on May 22. These hours were selected to ensure that both the AM and PM school arrival and
departure times were obtained along with the peak hours of the general roadway traffic. Traffic
volumes are summarized in the attached figure and table.
Some observations of the traffic volumes collected are summarized below:
• There are just under 6,000 vehicles that travel north -south on 22n0 Avenue, 24th Avenue and 26th
Avenue combined, with 45%, 33% and 22% on each street respectively.
www.jub.com J -U -B ENGINEERS, Inc.
Mike Pawlak, P.E.
July 15, 2014
Poge 4
• Trips westbound on Court Street with a destination south of the proposed closure would
either turn earlier and go south on 22nd Avenue and then west on Henry Place (if their
destination is on 24th Avenue), or they may turn later and go south on 26h Avenue and turn
back to the east on whatever street their destination is on. These latter trips will use the
western half of the block between 24th Avenue and 20 Avenue instead of the eastern half
that they use today.
• Eastbound trips on Court Street with a destination south of Marie Street likely have a
destination on 241h Avenue itself, or perhaps on Henry Place east of 24" Avenue, otherwise
they would use 26h Avenue anyway. These trips will likely be shifted to 26th Avenue and use
Octave Street, Henry Street and Margaret Street to access their destination. Those that
have a destination on Henry Place will probably use 22nd Avenue to go south.
• Westbound trips on Sylvester Street that have a destination on Marie Street (between 24th
and 26th Avenues), or the apartments on 24th Avenue north of Marie Street will likely turn on
26th Avenue instead of 24" Avenue. This route will not add any trips to other streets except
26'h Avenue and Marie Street and many of these trips are already using Marie Street
because their origin/destination is there. They will just be accessing the street from the
west instead of the east.
• Trips that are eastbound on Sylvester Street and have a destination on 24th Avenue north of
the proposed closure (most likely the apartment complex north of the school) will actually
have a similar adjustment as those westbound on Sylvester. They will just turn early on 26"
Avenue and head north to Marie Street where they can go east to their destination.
Each of the adjustments in travel routes discussed above is at most 2 blocks, and some of the new
routes are not any longer, butjust involve an extra turn or two.
The next question to answer, regarding how much traffic will be added to other streets in the
neighborhood, has already been discussed to some extent. The traffic volumes using the block of 24"
Avenue being discussed for closure is typically just under 2,000 vehicles per day, with the highest hourly
volume being about 160 vehicles. To put this in perspective, if all of these trips shifted to the same
street it would amount to less than 3 vehicles per minute during the busiest hour, and about half of that
volume during the average hour. It is likely that these trips will adjust their routes to both 26th Avenue
and 22nd Avenue spreading out the trips to reduce the overall impact. This would result in less than one
additional vehicle per minute during most hours of the day on the new routes of travel.
It should also be noted that additional trips will also be added to several of the east -west streets in the
neighborhood, but the vast majority of these trips are already using these streets and will only be going
in the opposite direction, accessing the block between 24th and 26th Avenues from the west instead of
the east.
Pedestrian Access
Typically schools generate significant pedestrian activity. With respect to Stevens Middle School there
are significant benefits to the closure of 24" Avenue. During the majority of days of the year there are
960 students that cross 24" Avenue going and returning to PE class activities.
www.Jubxom J -U -B ENGINEERS, Inc.
Mike Powlak, P.E.
July 15 2014
Page 5
It is also worthy of mention that Rowena Chess Elementary School is situated on 24th Avenue to the
south. Several students walk from the housing developments north of Marie Street to that elementary
school and must also cross 24th Avenue. With the proposed road closure these students could get to the
east side of the street without crossing vehicular traffic.
Conclusion
Our review of the traffic conditions surrounding the proposed 24th Avenue closure between Marie Street
and Octave Street indicates that most trips would need to alter their travel route requiring at most a
two block adjustment. Many rerouted trips will only require additional turns with no additional trip
length. The number of trips that would be displaced to other streets is less than 2,000 trips per day,
with 160 during the peak hour. Most hours of the day the number of new trips that would be added to
22"" Avenue and 26th Avenue would be less than 1 per minute.
There is a good grid network of roadways in the neighborhood surrounding Stevens Middle School. This
network is more than adequate to handle the redistribution of traffic if the proposed 24" Avenue road
closure is approved. The road closure will allow the school district to enhance the school and
neighborhood facilities associated with Stevens Middle School.
Sincerely,
J -U -B ENGINEERS, INC.
Sp ncer Montgome T Y
Transportation Planner
c: Kim Marsh, Pasco School District
Darral Moore, P.E.
Project Manager
wwwJub.conn 1-U-6 ENGINEERS, Inc.
e;.,��,;:.�.
`
.
w
)_
\TITFI
§§
%{.���-§
IT
§!!]
E;!!
§\!)`
(/���..�..\��\\\\\\\_}\\;���\
!�
-.-;�
(\}\.,`��;�;,�;==,«r;==l,«�:§
(
-,:.-
T,m
-_
!k
(§§k\§§\�§}§()��
=wa
=
`
.
w
)_
\TITFI
§§
%{.���-§
IT
§!!]
E;!!
(/���..�..\��\\\\\\\_}\\;���\
(\}\.,`��;�;,�;==,«r;==l,«�:§
(
T,m
!k
.
§§
IT
§!!]
(/���..�..\��\\\\\\\_}\\;���\
(\}\.,`��;�;,�;==,«r;==l,«�:§
T,m
(§§k\§§\�§}§()��
=wa
=
)
r§(§a§§§l;RIR
.
§§
§!!]
(\}\.,`��;�;,�;==,«r;==l,«�:§
T,m
(§§k\§§\�§}§()��
=wa
=
.
§§
(\}\.,`��;�;,�;==,«r;==l,«�:§
T,m
(§§k\§§\�§}§()��
=wa
=
)
r§(§a§§§l;RIR
.
§§
T,m
(§§k\§§\�§}§()��
)
r§(§a§§§l;RIR
sao®liyaie 3I LEA~V
0
NU1M1f816VM'ODBVd 311BAVPR6WOAt
I NOUD
SINSI OHdNd ONV NOISNVdX3 3115
..N
Nye BM Q�UM
e nniaauvx,bxva 3earo�xow Siol ON)WVd O3aam €
s7O®tel¢ 7��I� v U V o . r NOISNVdX3 101 ONI)IHVd 1SV3 NV-W A.US O3SOdOW
wane a steals
LEGEND
0
Study intersection
AM
PM
000
Peal; Hour Volumes 7:30 -8:30 AM 8.4:00 - 5:010 PM
67 . 1
School Peak Hour Volum" 7:30-8:30 AM & 2:00 - 3:00 PM
2 62 0
- milm
14 75 0
Kul M Ez 0 0
000
MU a I!
+
& I
+ @ 0 11
All Day TmWw Volume
DORMER
Left Thh, Right
Volume Turn Mmement
6+ ALk
0
M Ka
6 a 87
3 8 0
Lam Configuration
6. 6 6?
0 9 40 0
Stop Sign
Traffic Signal
l
W COURT ST,
-i-102
4
241�
�40
79. 136 1024 MIDOLE-
12"
W. WTAVr; fT.
i - _ _ SCHOOL
W. W. 711Ry is t.
w. MmW OL
AM
4F
1 2 Wt 4f
3 M NEW -.RlOw�r—CHESS
362
sa F �ENTARY
4 74
r
mom
4 4
Wr WLYESM ST.
--W� EXISTING FIGS REI TRAF
TRAFIC STEVENS IMPACT MIDDLE SCHOOL
FIC ANALYSIS
VOLUMFES 1 1
000
ti
TRAVEL ROUTES TO/FROM THE NORTHEAST IMPACTED BY PROPOSED CLOSURE
Origin I Destination
All Day Traffic Volume
,
Propoaed Cloauro
Current Route
Future Route
Slop Sign
Traffic Signal
W. COURT ST. 'B lw no in Sr, a R a i. =Ana am am a a - - -
-.. L
=--202
VOIg j 241-- 0
r'
sys
6 f
0'79_ MID LE
^ 1244 ,
SCH OL
W.
W. HEN" ST.
- r 460 -
HEEN Y i-
'�— lily• i to Aain
je
_-
- f
r
E 1,
ROWENAE CHESS
E4{I��NT R {
> SCHOOL
W. $Y 11UM 6T. _
STEVENS MIDDLE SCHOOL
-� TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
r ww.,.a ....®
TRAVEL ROUTES TO/FROM THE NORTHWEST IMPACTED BY PROPOSED CLOSURE
LEGEND .i. -I.--.. _ -
. : - ,.
Origin /Destination : t + � •1, I ♦' s-..' 1 � "I �
000 All Day Traffic volume r, _ -
ProposedClosun - - • r, .' 7.'
Current Route
i
Future Route
Stop Sign
Traffic Signal _
L I a
w•COURTST k3IE11�fKtlEIN M29aam0aa uwa 0ORa, EL in I
-102
W-MxRtEttT. - -
_4@ 241--8 a _
11§ 79-- 136iQ24=&,ts Eau
W- OCTi " >a : >Q_s eE •��• hA �L€ 1244
W IfaRYBL_- ,•_�� haat rr� W. ReRRvst:460
g` w.SYLYESTEHST. '
NUB E STEVENS MIDDLE SCHOOL
-� TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
TRAVEL ROUTES TO/FROM THE SOUTHWEST IMPACTED BY PROPOSED CLOSURE
LEGEND
Origin / Desgnation
i
000 All Day Treffic Volume
Proposed Closure
Current Route - - — ---
629 lu, Future Route _
Stop Sign - -
Traffic Signal
W. COURT ST. -
--2Q
w: ►CARIE ST. a.�
f 241 --- _
9 f
- R f 1 1445
- le 79 � � sfiEt/[� 6
# ': --- 136 024 n�EVEN- i 1244
W.02TAVESL ppp
W. HENRY ST.
09
Petr PL
a ROWENA CHESS
EYMENTARY
r
_r{
•S g STEVENS MIDDLE SCHOOL
l TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
TRAVEL ROUTES TO/FROM THE SOUTHEAST IMPACTED BY PROPOSED CLOSURE
LEGEND
Origin IDesSnagon x - k
®p® All Day Traffic Volum® _ -
Proposed Closure
Current Route
Ell E Future Route
Stop Sign
Traffic Signal
- W. COURT ST, ® ;
W. {CARIE
tGOV:241 V
STEVEN �5
79 -- 138 102
W. gCTAV9 sTX . DLE 1 1244
-
88-
SCHt
W,
.. , mHRY S7. _ _ - � � W HER" 'ST.
---
460
F i
W. WKKYr4 �y
t ,jj
i -RCW NA CHESS
` EIOU40TARY
3
a,
' W. SYLveswR ST. fi t"- L.: h_' t= lr G r--, lipw 6: -'fid � � E E it ill f oT ;
STEVENS MIDDLE SCHOOL
�.
TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
a
- ---------I L---------------- --I ---
Mh AVEM
I
I
I
I
I
I
2" AW"
0
Mh AVfMIE
00 0
F- n ckjt architects
' + oeAN e.rv.a� maw.
PROPOSED SITE PLAN
SITE EXPASTEM MME SOM
NSION AND PIM ROVEMENTS'
:
eum n
m n
1120 N MW AVME PASOD.WA81WfO—N
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
MASTER FILE NO: Z 2015-002 APPLICANT: Envision Homes
HEARING DATE: 7/16/2015 P.O. Box 3431
ACTION DATE: 8/20/2015 Pasco, WA 99301
BACKGROUND
REQUEST:. REZONE: Rezone from R-1 (Low -Density Residential) to R-3
(Medium -Density Residential)
Legal: Chapel Hill Phase 5, Tract B, less that portion dedicated for
Chapel Hill Boulevard right-of-way
General Location: The 5500 Block through the 5900 Block of Chapel Hill
Boulevard
Property Size: The site is approximately 4.25 acres
2. ACCESS: The site has unimproved access from Chapel Hill Boulevard.
3. UTILITIES: Municipal sewer and water lines are located in the future
extension of Chapel Hill Boulevard.
4. LAND USE AND ZONING: The site is currently zoned R-1 (Low -Density
Residential) and is vacant. Surrounding properties are zoned and
developed as follows:
NORTH:
R-3
- Vacant (Future Park & Multi -Family Residences)
SOUTH:
R-1
- Single -Family Residences
EAST:
R-1
- Single -Family Residences
WEST:
R-3
- Single -Family Residences
5. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The Comprehensive Plan designates the site
for Mixed Residential uses. Goal LU -3-13 encourages infill and (higher)
density to protect open space and critical areas in support of more
walkable neighborhoods. Goal LU -3-E encourages the city to designate
areas for higher density residential development where utilities and
transportation facilities enable efficient use of capital resources.
6. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The City of Pasco is the lead
agency for this project. Based on the SEPA checklist, the adopted City
Comprehensive Plan, City development regulations, and other
information, a threshold determination resulting in a Determination of
Non -Significance (DNS) has been issued for this project under WAC 197-
11-158.
1
ANALYSIS
Envision Homes has applied to change the zoning classification of one 4.25
acre parcel from R-1 (Low -Density Residential) to R-3 (Medium -Density
Residential) to allow for multi -family residential development. The subject site
is a linear shaped tract fronting Chapel Hill Boulevard beginning at the
intersection of Saratoga Lane; extending east to Pimlico Drive.
The end product desired by the applicant is similar to Columbia Villas on Road
76 at Sandifur Parkway where we see attached single-family dwellings divided
only by the property line along a common wall; leaving a single dwelling unit on
each parcel, but giving the. appearance of a duplex. This style of development is
commonly referred to as zero lot -line development. The Pasco's Municipal Code
does not offer a zero lot -line setback option. In the past accommodations have
been made to permit this type of development through the use of multi -family
zoning and platting. This allows the developer to take advantage of the smaller
minimum lot sizes offered by multi -family zones. The R-3 zone permits
minimum lot sizes of 5,500 W.
The City's Comprehensive Plan designates this site for Mixed Residential land
uses which allows for a variety of residential zones/densities ranging from RS -
20 (Suburban) through R-3. Of the zones allowed under the Mixed Residential
land use designation, R-3 zoning permits the highest residential density at a
rate of one dwelling unit for every 3,OOOft2 of land area or 14.5 units per acre.
For comparison, the single-family R-1 zone permits an approximate density of
6 -units per acre. Currently the site totals approximately 185,130 ft2 in area;
since the goal of the applicant is to create sellable units on individual parcels,
residential density would be confined to the minimum lot size of 5,500 ft2. After
the required right-of-way dedication the site area would total approximately
156,263 ft2, allowing up to 28 dwelling units. Under the parameters described
by the applicant the proposed change in zoning would gain the applicant seven
additional units compared to development permitted under the existing R-1
zoning.
The 4.25 -acre site is undeveloped vacant land. The adjacent roadway (Chapel
Hill Blvd.) is entirely unimproved. Curbs, gutters, sidewalks, utility lines and
other improvement extensions will be required before the building permits will
be issued.
The applicant indicates the expense associated with right-of-way improvements
required to extend Chapel Hill Boulevard with municipal sewer and water
would be cost prohibitive for single-family development. The applicant is only
able to utilize the street improvements along the south side of the street.
Chapel Hill Boulevard in this location is identified in the Major Street Plan as a
collector roadway. The site lies at the eastern terminus of Chapel Hill
2
Boulevard which is not planned to extend east of the site; rather Chapel Hill
Blvd. will connect to Pimlico Drive to create a loop.
It is common urban planning practice to assign higher -density residential
zones to transitional areas where they serve as buffers between higher and
lesser intense land uses such as we see here with the highway to the north and
single-family homes immediately to the south. The site is separated from
Highway I-182 only by a narrow parcel of vacant land zoned R-3. The site is
located 300 -feet south of Highway 1-182 and is adjacent to existing single-
family residential development to the south. Due to the sites' physical location
between the highway and existing homes, development on this site will
inevitably act as a physical buffer between the higher intensity highway and
lower intensity homes.
The site is visible from the highway. Bolstering development of vacant parcels
which are visible from the highway has an enhanced effect on the general
perception of the economic health of a community. Eliminating vacant land on
sites visible from the main thoroughfares is in the best interest of Pasco's
economic development.
Concern is often expressed about impacts to lower density property values
when nearby properties are being considered for higher density zoning. Past
searches of the Franklin County Auditor's records in areas of the community
where multi -family development is located adjacent to lower density
development have indicated there is no diminution in the value of the
surrounding single-family homes. Studies by the Urban Land Institute
(Higher -Density Development Myth and Fact, 2005, Urban Land Institute)
confirm this fact. Even so, neighbors are often concerned about the impact of
higher density development upon the character of the surrounding
neighborhood. To address those concerns the Planning Commission could
consider a concomitant agreement setting a minimum lot size, permitting only
one dwelling per lot, requiring several architectural features on each elevation
and requiring articulated front elevation to provide a distinct identity for each
unit.
On July 16, 2015, a public hearing on the proposed rezone was held before the
Planning Commission. Due to the nature of testimony received during the
public hearing, staff has prepared a secondary set of findings of fact to support
the optional motion recommending City Council to deny the rezone application.
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:
3
The current zoning classification was established 12 years ago prior to the
platting process in 2003.
2. The changed conditions, which are alleged to warrant other or additional
zoning:
The Mixed -Residential land use designation allows assignment of a variety of
residential zones/densities ranging from RS -20 (Suburban) through R-3. Of the
allowable zones under the Mixed Residential designation, the R-3 zone permits
the highest residential density at a rate of one dwelling unit for every 3, 000ft2 of
land area or 14.5 units per acre.
In 2003 the Chapel Hill was planned as a mixed use subdivision the assignment
of commercial, multi family and single-family zones. This mix of zoning
classification assignments set the tone for the subdivision to provide a variety of
land use opportunities. Since the establishment of the original zoning the
Crossings at Chapel and the Village at Chapel Hill have been constructed along
with several hundred single-family homes creating the mixed residential
component to the subdivision. The subdivision is basically built out except for the
parcels on either side of the undeveloped portion of Chapel Hill Boulevard.
3. Facts to justify the change on the basis of advancing the public health,
safety and general welfare:
Changing the zoning classification of the site will foster development of a largely
underdeveloped parcel of land within close proximity to the city's heaviest
travelled freeway. There is merit in the elimination of dusty, weed covered parcel
within an existing neighborhood to eliminate nuisance conditions. The
construction of buildings on the parcel will add a buffer between the existing
single-family dwellings to the south and the freeway to the north. Limiting
development of the parcel to one dwelling per lot will also provide a transition
area between the single-family dwellings to the south and future apartment
development to the north.
4. The effect it will have on the value and character of the adjacent property
and the Comprehensive Plan:
A change in zoning classification will have little impact on the R-3 property to the
north. The rezone may result in a benefit to the R-1 property to the south by
encouraging the elimination of nuisance conditions created by the dusty vacant
parcel in question. Conditioning the rezone to require additional architectural
features and ensuring only one dwelling will be permitted per lot will assist in
maintaining the value and character of the existing neighborhood. The rezone is
consistent with the intent of the Comprehensive encouraging a full range of
residential environments.
M
The easterly most portion of the parcel, at the intersection of Belmont Drive and
Pimlico Drive, lends itself to the creation of a triangular shaped corner lot. This
corner is not suited for the location of zero -lot -line home construction. For that
reason the rezone Ordinance will exclude said east corner. The intended result is
to permit only a single-family home on the corner adjacent to 5507 Pimlico Drive.
The proposal is supported by the Comprehensive Plan's Mixed -Residential Land
Use Designation which includes R-3 (Medium -Density Residential) as a
compatible zoning classification.
5. The effect on the property owner or owners if the request is not granted:
Without increasing the allowable residential density site development may not be
cost effective causing the developer to abandoned efforts to make further
improvements in the neighborhood.
STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT FOR APPROVAL
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 R-1 (Low -Density Residential).
2. The 4.25 -acre site is vacant.
3. The site location extends from the 5500 Block through the 5900 Block of
Chapel Hill Boulevard.
4. The applicant is requesting R-3 (Medium -Density Residential) zoning be
assigned to the site to allow zero lot -line single-family residential
development.
5. The property to the north of the site is a vacant parcel zoned R-3
(Medium -Density Residential without any restrictions).
6. Highway I-182 is located 400 feet north of the site.
7. The Comprehensive Plan identifies the site for Mixed -Residential uses
which allows assignment of a range of residential zones including R-3
(Medium -Density Residential).
8. The R-3 zone allows a maximum residential density rate of one dwelling
unit for every 3,000 square feet of land area.
9. The R-3 zone allows minimum lot sizes of 5,500 square feet.
5
10. Chapel Hill Boulevard adjacent to the site is undeveloped.
11. Right-of-way for the south half of Chapel Hill Blvd. must be dedicated to
the City at the time of platting.
12. The Chapel Hill subdivision contains a mix of single-family and multi-
family and commercial zoning.
13. Properties to the south of the site contain single-family dwellings.
14. The Villages at Chapel Hill is a development of four-plexes on property
zoned R-3 which is located 140 feet northwest of the subject site.
15. Franklin County tax records reveal no depreciation in value of the single-
family homes located directly across from The Villages at Chapel Hill.
16. Development of the site would eliminate the nuisances of dust and weeds
generated from the vacant parcel.
17. Site development would create a physical barrier between existing homes
to the south and the freeway to the north.
18. The applicant will be required to enter into an agreement with the City
requiring articulated facade design features to uniquely distinguish each
dwelling unit from the neighboring attached unit.
19. The applicant will be required to enter into an agreement with the City
limiting minimum lots sizes to 7,200 square feet; permitting only a single
dwelling unit on each parcel.
STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT FOR DENIAL
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.
20. The site is currently zoned R-1 (Low -Density Residential).
21. The 4.25 -acre site is vacant.
22. The site location extends from the 5500 Block through the 5900 Block of
Chapel Hill Boulevard.
23. The applicant is requesting R-3 (Medium -Density Residential) zoning be
assigned to the site to allow zero lot -line single-family residential
development.
24. The property to the north of the site is a vacant parcel zoned R-3
(Medium -Density Residential without any restrictions).
no
25. Highway I-182 is located 400 feet north of the site.
26. The Comprehensive Plan identifies the site for Mixed -Residential uses
which allows assignment of a range of residential zones including R-3
(Medium -Density Residential).
27. The R-3 zone allows a maximum residential density rate of one dwelling
unit for every 3,000 square feet of land area.
28. The R-3 zone allows minimum lot sizes of 5,500 square feet.
29. Chapel Hill Boulevard adjacent to the site is undeveloped.
30. Right-of-way for the south half of Chapel Hill Blvd. must be dedicated to
the City at the time of platting.
31. The Chapel Hill subdivision contains a mix of single-family and multi-
family and commercial zoning.
32. Properties to the south of the site contain single-family dwellings.
33. A public hearing on the proposed rezone was held before the Planning
Commission on July 16, 2015.
34. Testimony received by the City during the public hearing indicates
neighboring property owners generally oppose the proposed change in
zoning.
CONCLUSIONS BASED ON STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT
Before recommending approval or denial of a zoning amendment the Planning
Commission must develop findings of fact from which to draw its conclusions
based upon the criteria listed in PMC 25.88.060. 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. The effect of the proposal on the immediate vicinity
will not be materially detrimental if a concomitant agreement is established
requiring enhance building features and specifying a minimum lot size.
2. There is merit and value in the proposal for the community as a whole.
There is merit in providing an increased range of housing opportunities available
in those areas currently served by municipal utilities to enable efficient use of
capital resources. The proposal is supported by land use goals and policies
contained in the Comprehensive Plan.
7
Establishment of medium -density residential zoning will encourage development
thereby eliminating a dusty parcel adjacent to developed properties. Additionally
development of the site will provide a buffer from the freeway to the north and a
transition area between the R-3 properties to the north and the single-family
homes to the south.
3. Conditions should be imposed in order to mitigate any significant
adverse impacts from the proposal.
Because the properties to the south are developed with single-family homes
conditions should be imposed to limit development on the rezone site to one
dwelling per lot and said dwelling should contain articulated front elevations and
several additional architectural features on each evaluation. A minimum lot size
should also be established
4. 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 needed to incorporate the items discussed in
conclusion number 3 above into the rezone ordinance.
MOTIONS FOR APPROVAL:
MOTION for Findings of Fact: I move to adopt findings of fact and
conclusions therefrom as contained in the August 20, 2015 staff report.
MOTION for Recommendation: I move based on the findings of fact
and conclusions as adopted the Planning Commission recommend the
City Council grant a special permit to rezone parcel 117-470-153 from R-
1 to R-3 with restrictions contained in the concomitant agreement.
MOTION FOR DENIAL:
MOTION: I move the Planning Commission recommend the City
Council deny rezoning parcel 117-470-153 from R-1 to R-3.
E
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:
Chapel Hill Phase 5, Tract B, less that portion dedicated for Chapel
Hill Boulevard right-of-way and less that portion southerly of the
easterly projection of the north line of Lot 9, Chapel Hill Phase 5
(Parcel # 117470153)
WHEREAS, the Owner(s) have indicated willingness to cooperate with the City of
Pasco, its Planning Commission and Planning Department to ensure 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 to R-3
(Medium -Density Residential) 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) Newly created parcels shall be no less than 7,200 square feet in area;
b) A zero -foot side yard setback may only be applied to one side property line of
each parcel;
Page I of 2
(M F# Z2015-002)
c) No more than one dwelling unit shall be permitted on each newly created parcel;
d) The front wall of homes sharing a common wall shall be articulated from one
another to create visual depth and relief uniquely distinguishing each unit;
e) Zero lot line dwellings must contain at least three separate architectural features
on front and side elevations unique to each unit. Any three of the following will
satisfy the architectural features requirement of this Agreement; vertical siding,
accent materials, (stone, brick, stucco, shingles and horizontal siding), quoins,
dormers, cantilevers, pilasters, cornices, bay windows and other fenestration,
porches, and complementary contrasting paint colors.
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 , 2015, 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
, 2015.
Notary Public in and for the State of Washington,
residing at
Page 2 of 2
(MF# Z2015-002)
m
9
L
I
i
L
L
6
L
M
i+
O
• L
�
O
N
+
ct
C)
m
9
L
I
i
L
L
6
L
i+
• L
+
a ♦.
L � `I`ve,. `7'y ✓� �:� � ice' `
L
L
6
L
i+
a ♦.
L � `I`ve,. `7'y ✓� �:� � ice' `
0
p
N
'
�
O
N
�
�
�
w
O
ON
�;
N
�
N
�
U
Fil
ONO �
V
I
'I
I
II
a OWHIR�—imk a
s
�I
I.
t I Stl 0,4' j i 'afY)Art^7)
S t
U �{�
d{d I `�`,
S k ^'t J T� <i• i � �'
AIN
14
a
t
�) ' \ tis - �• 1� bJ '�„"a�
'EI
` € \I � �� � t1 i}• � teiy d � }aY �
h
, 7
n
II / R ,i✓i � ��� ? {. I I�F��T�rit� y�"y�,t, ��y]�Y{LfY�
,
b.0
r--4
0
0
�
.\\
\
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
MASTER FILE NO: SP2015-009 APPLICANT: Bethel Church
HEARING DATE: 8/20/2015 5202 Outlet Drive
ACTION DATE: 9/17/2015 Pasco, WA 99301
BACKGROUND
REQUEST FOR SPECIAL PERMIT: Location of a Church in a C-1 District
1. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION:
Legal: Parcel # 115-502-016: a portion of the South half of Section 8,
Township 9 North, Range 29 WM;
General Location: 5202 Outlet Dr.
Property Size: Approximately 11 acres
2. ACCESS: The site has access from Sandifur Parkway by way of Outlet
Drive.
3. UTILITIES: The site is served by municipal water and sewer.
4. LAND USE AND ZONING: The property is currently zoned C-1 (Retail
Business). Surrounding properties are zoned C-1 and CR and are
undeveloped.
NORTH:
C-1
-Vacant
SOUTH:
CR
- Vacant
EAST:
C-1
- Vacant
WEST:
CR
- Vacant
S. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The site is designated in the Plan for future
commercial uses. The Plan does not specifically address churches, but
elements of the Plan encourage the promotion of orderly development
including the development of zoning standards for off-street parking and
other development standards.
6. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The City of Pasco is the lead
agency for this project. Based on the SEPA checklist, the adopted City
Comprehensive Plan, City development regulations, and other
information, a threshold determination resulting in a Determination of
Non -Significance (DNS) has been issued for this project under WAC 197-
11-158.
ANALYSIS
The application involves the use of four suites in the Broadmoor Outlet Mall for
church activities. The suites in question have been occupied by Bethel Church
since 2012.
Bethel Church was issued Special Permit approval in 2012 under master file
number SP2012-012. The resolution of approval contained a validity horizon of
October 1, 2015. In 2014, Bethel Church was granted a Special Permit under
master file number SP2014-002 to add a preschool to church services not
subject to expiration.
The Outlet Mall contains over 103,000 square feet of floor space. The proposed
church location has parking to the north and south side of the building. Prior
to establishment of the church in 2012 the previous major tenant in the space
was the CO2 Furniture store. The proposed church leases 17,936 square feet
of floor area. The lease agreement requires the church to participate in all
common area charges shared by all lessees within the Mall.
The church site is located in the southeast corner of the Outlet Complex. The
church holds services on Sunday mornings at 9:00 am and 11:00 am. The
church also plans to have small group meetings Sunday evening and at various
times during the week. The church office will be open during regular business
hours.
The Outlet Mall was constructed to meet Building Code requirements for retail
activities. Places of religious worship are classified in the Building Code as "A"
occupancies. When a building is changed from one occupancy class to another
(from an "M" [Mercantile] to an "A" [Assembly] for example) the building is
required to meet life/safety standards required for the new occupancy
classification. The main sanctuary area is large enough to allow seating for at
least 450 people.
Building modifications required in order to meet the "A" occupancy
requirements include: proper exiting, exit signage, emergency lighting,
occupancy separation walls (between retail space and church space), additional
restroom facilities and fire sprinklers. These requirements are all based on the
occupant load of the building. The fore mentioned building modifications were
installed and inspected prior to establishment of the church in 2012; the
tenant space meets said life safety requirements.
The "A" occupancy requirements of the Building Code have been developed
from years of experience with places of assembly and have been enacted to
promote the life, safety, and protection of people occupying churches and other
gathering places.
2
The Outlet Mall, built in 1995 for retail commercial purposes, has been
marginally successful in attracting retail tenants. As the Outlet Mall business
model decreased in popularity, occupancy rates at the Broadmoor Outlet Mall
declined. About one third of the Broadmoor Mall is currently vacant and
another third of the Mall is occupied by institutional uses such as Charter
College and the Pasco Police Minim -Station. Without the institutional uses a
majority of the Mall would be vacant. While locating non -tax generating uses
in a commercial area with freeway visibility is generally not a good choice for
promoting additional retail activity it may be justified given the ongoing
vacancy issues at the Broadmoor Outlet Mall. It seems probable that once
commercial interest in the Outlet Mall increases, non -retail leases of mall space
will correspondingly decrease.
One concern with a church locating in a commercial area is the fact that some
retail establishments or restaurants sell or serve liquor. The issue is typically
addressed by placing a condition on the Special Permit approval restricting the
church's ability to object to a liquor license.
INITIAL FINDINGS OF FACT
Findings of fact must be entered from the record. The following are initial
findings drawn from the background and analysis section of the staff report.
The Planning Commission may add additional findings to this listing as the
result of factual testimony and evidence submitted during the open record
hearing.
1. Churches are unclassified uses requiring review through the special
permit process prior to locating or expanding in any zoning district.
2. The proposed church site is zoned C-1.
3. The proposed site is located at 5202 Outlet Drive.
4. The site was originally developed as the Broadmoor Outlet Mall.
5. The Outlet Mall contains over 103,000 square feet of floor area.
6. The Outlet Mall is occupied by other institutional uses such as Charter
College and Pasco Police Mini -Station.
7. The church has occupied the suites in the Outlet Mall for the past three
(3) years.
8. The church leases 17,936 square feet of floor space.
9. Churches are classified as an "A" occupancy under the International
Building Code.
3
10. "A" occupancy building design standards are different than the "M"
occupancy standards.
11. The Mall was designed and built for "M" occupancy loads.
12. The proposed sanctuary is large enough to hold at least 450 people.
13. The Municipal Code (PMC 25.78.170) requires one off-street parking
space for every 10 lineal feet of bench (pew) seating or one space for every
4 chairs in a church.
14. Based on the occupancy .loading of 450 people, 113 parking spaces
would be required.
15. Parking areas are located to the north and south of the proposed church
location with more than 113 parking spaces.
TENTATIVE CONCLUSIONS BASED ON THE INITIAL FINDINGS OF FACT
Before recommending approval or denial of a special permit the Planning
Commission must develop findings of fact from which to draw its conclusion
based upon the criteria listed in P.M.C. 25.86.060 and determine whether or
not the proposal:
(1) Will the proposed use be in accordance with the goals, policies, objectives
and text of the Comprehensive Plan?
The Plan does not specifically address churches, but elements of the Plan
encourage the promotion of orderly development including the
development of zoning standards for off-street parking and other
development standards.
(2) Will the proposed use adversely affect public infrastructure?
The Outlet Mall was designed to handle significant traffic with a large
parking lot and interior circulation. The proposed church will conduct
services at times when other Mall traffic is generally low and utility usage
is low.
(3) Will the proposed use be constructed, maintained and operated to be in
harmony with existing or intended character of the general vicinity?
The proposed church will be located in the Broadmoor Outlet Mall and
no exterior changes are planned to the building. The current store front
character will be maintained. The church will participate in common
area maintenance costs to maintain the common area of the Mall. The
intended character of the Outlet Mall is retail in nature.
4
(4) Will the location and height of proposed structures and the site design
discourage the development of permitted uses on property in the general
vicinity or impair the value thereof
The proposed church will be located in part of the existing Outlet Mall
and no structures will be built or added to the Mall. The site design will
remain unchanged. The church will be paying market rent and will be
responsible for common area charges like all tenants of the Mall. The
location of the church within the Outlet Mall will occupy space intended
for retail businesses. Allowing the church to be located in the Mall on a
long-term basis may discourage the development/ location of commercial
enterprises within the Mall. This concern could be addressed by limiting
the time period for allowing the church to remain in the Mall.
(5) Will the operations in connection with the proposal be more objectionable to
nearby properties by reason of noise, fumes vibrations, dust, traffic, or
flashing lights than would be the operation of any permitted uses within the
district?
The church will generate no more dust, vibrations, flashing lights or
fumes than would be expected by permitted retail uses of the zoning
district. Traffic generated by the church will occur mostly on Sunday
mornings when Mall traffic is minimal. Small weekly meetings will
generate minimal traffic on other days of the week.
(6) Will the proposed use endanger the public health or safety if located and
developed where proposed, or in anyway will become a nuisance to uses
permitted in the district?
Past history of church operations within the City has shown they do
not endanger public health or safety and are generally not nuisance
generators.
TENTATIVE APPROVAL CONDITION$
1) The special permit shall be personal to the applicant;
2) The space leased to the church must comply with all requirements of the
International Building Code for an "A" occupancy prior to occupancy by
the church;
3) The storefront appearance of the leased space cannot be altered except
as needed to comply with Building Code exiting requirements;
4) The building, including entrances and restrooms, must be
ADA/handicap-compliant prior to occupancy by the church;
5
5) The church shall not object to the transfer, renewal or issuance of a
liquor license for an existing or new establishment within 1,000 feet of
the property.
MOTION: I move to close the public hearing and schedule
deliberations, the adoption of findings of fact, and development of a
recommendation for City Council for the September 17, 2015 meeting.
0
�
§
2
/
§
\
\
\
)f
` \{■ ))��■ «§
»2<u400��<4<6&&fSk£m
)}® |)] 7\
\§\
)
}
r
}
\\\
\\\
�r2
)
)gA
\
ca
\%!
�
}
r
\\\
\\\
"`
)gA
}
r
NVld 1i001d AINNIW113Ud § i
gp $� tlMO'J6tld O k
fid[ GG 1N3W3AOLdWl 1NtlN31 OOSVd ¢p
E Ez. m_:—: 9., F—A- 6 6 1 HJt1fIH313H136 3 X g
NOlIom:J1SNOO 1:1O3 ION - M:lVNIWl'13'dd
Ll
4
I!
000
O
❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑
❑ o❑❑a❑❑❑❑❑❑❑
O� 000
❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑o❑
❑❑❑❑❑❑❑o❑a❑❑❑
000000
000❑❑❑❑❑❑❑a�°
❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑
p00000
000
❑a o❑❑❑❑❑❑❑
❑❑a❑❑❑❑❑❑o ❑❑
00000p
❑❑❑❑❑❑❑
�
❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑
❑OPP❑❑❑
0❑PPOQ❑❑PPPPQ
3
R
>=
I i
I
t
1
FA
•71
0
d I'
r
rl
41
(A
Cd
w
O
0
PA
MEMORANDUM
DATE: August 14, 2015
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Angela R. Pitman, Block Grant Administrator 6W
SUBJECT: 2016 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) PROGRAM
ALLOCATION (MF# BGAP2015-003)
Requests for Fundin¢
Attached for your review and consideration are the CDBG Fund and Proposal Summaries (Attachments 1
& 2) relating to our Community Development Block Grant Program for program year 2016. Fourteen
(14) requests for funds were submitted totaling $1,552,500.00. Applicants presented their proposals
before the Planning Commission on July 23, 2015.
Estimated Funds Available
It is estimated that the 2016 annual entitlement grant will be $665,000 based on the award for program
year 2015. There is always some question regarding actual funding levels approved by Congress. Actual
available funding for these FY 2016 activities will remain in question until the early part of the year when
the CDBG allocation is made by Congressional Resolution. If funding levels are lower than estimated,
activity funding may need to be reallocated accordingly.
Public Service Can
HUD regulations state that the amount of CDBG Funds obligated within a program year to support public
service activities may not exceed 15% of the combined total of the entitlement plus the prior year's
program income. For 2016, the estimated entitlement of $665,000 the maximum available for public
service activities is $99,750. Current requests for public services total $132,500. Staff recommends a
maximum of $90,000 for public services (13%).
Planning & Administration Cap
HUD regulations state that the amount of CDBG Funds obligated within a program year to support
planning and administration activities may not exceed 20% of the combined total of the entitlement plus
the current year's program income. For 2016, the estimated entitlement of $665,000 makes the maximum
available for planning and administration $133,000. Current requests for planning and administration
total $120,000. Staff recommends a maximum of $120,000 for planning and administration (18%).
Recommendation
After discussions and staff evaluation, it is recommended that the activities set forth in Attachments 1 and
2 would best meet the City's Consolidated Plan and be most effective in carrying out the objectives for
the City in 2016. Your review and consideration for recommendation to the City Council would be
appreciated.
The City Staff would like to thank the members of the Planning Commission for your time and assistance.
MOTION: I move the Planning Commission close the public hearing and recommend the City
Council approve the use of funds for the 2016 Community Development Block Grant Program as
set forth in the "2016 Fund Summary" as recommended by Staff (as amended).
Attachments: 1. 2016 CDBG Fund Summary
2. 2016 CDBG Proposal Summary
Y
Ln rl M M M M M M M V C M N O N N
1'
O Q m m m m Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q
a`
N N IN N M M IN IN M W N V w
m ry) IN
N N N M N N N N
l7 a+
N
C
a
a E
V
a
a
a o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
c o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
01 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O o 0 o O o
E o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Eo 0 0 0 0 o ui o Ni vi vi o0 0
h O N N N M N V N M
v N t/f LT N N L1 VI VT N VT .y M N
d Li h N
K
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
L, w 0 0 0 o O o 0 0 0 o O o o O 0
0 0 0 In O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O o
c� o In In In o o In In o 0 0 0 0 0 0
WW N M M M N Ol R d' I� l(1 to O V 1l1 V1
a' rl 1? to 't/) Vi V! VT N VT Vf VT V to N N
YA V! N N
O O O O O O O O O O O O
O OO O O O O O O O O O
m L O O O O O O O O O O O O
In In In O o 0 0 0 o In o 0
vi o 0 o vi o o m o 0 0 0
CO C R O O N N V1 1l1 V O O U1 V1
Z N W h
N N h N V! VT N N N In N to
� N N
C C
D E E
NN d ti a > >
'u V N O O
v d T oo a n
E E �. U w E E E c
T E wm o T T In m
0 0 j w E E 6
V u d E N N U N C O
7 `I E d a1 p N LL LL N C d C a V
C V m
u E Y n ww w v w
C d
RE s " c w E E c a`o O ^° w o
Q Oc-0� U Y Y Y Y U N «_ U
O Y d U,J Q Imh N N d m E > N
m m 0 w e c
0 01 5 0 o`¢`w w„w w u a `o `E
C J U O d 6 C O. O. pp 2 'd0 U N C 03 d Y
N w N vii °' u Ou
iu z In i �o'^a ua ma uO.a o7J in d v o E 'va-i
oil of o7$ v In
w w w w w w oil
> u a a a a a E ? oS N N
M m m.- O O O O O O i T y Y
w V V � d> d> d> d> —w> _ = w 3 3
a E E � w w w « o 0 0 0 0
U o Q v m v a w tT 0 0 o O o S m a 2 0 °
Vf Vf Vf m N m m a y O a
d a a a o_ a D. d
0 0 0 u 2' c c c c c c o Y o 0 0 0
In
a !' m 'c a c m c 3 T 3 T 3 T 3 T 3 T LL o m 'c m m m
o 3: O'= O'= O= O'= c E a w
0 0 o E 0 E 0 E a c `o c `o c `o c o c `o o w o E o 0 0 0
Z °2 0 0L 0 0505050505 w v}To g Y
u w u u u V u V T O Q D 0 0 0 0 Q 0 Q m D. u u u W u u
O 0 0 0 o O o 0 0 0 0 IN m ti
J
N N N N N M M M M M Ll1 Vf w I� n
0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
y o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w
0 0 C,
In In rl rl rl ri ei e. N c -I H
o O 0 0 0 o O o 0 0 0 0 0 0
N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
O
O
H
,1
CITY OF PASCO
2016 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT
PROPOSAL SUMMARY — AUGUST 20, 2015
CDBG Program Administration —
Requested: $120,000
Recommended: $120,000
CDBG funds provide for salary and benefits for the Block Grant Administrator to
plan, administer and provide for the successful delivery of housing, community
development and economic activities. The City receives funds for CDBG, HOME
and NSP activities. The Block Grant Administrator ensures compliance with local,
state and federal rules, regulations and laws for programs that primarily benefit low
to moderate income people in Pasco.
Planning and Administration is capped at no greater than 20%. CDBG funds pay
Block Grant Administrator wages,
Civic Center -Youth Recreation Specialist —
Requested: $37,500
Recommended: $20,000
CDBG funds provide a portion of the salary and benefits for recreation specialist at
the Youth Civic Center. This facility's program is to provide recreation programs for
youth at risk and families in low -to -moderate income Census Tract (202).
Public services are capped at no greater than 15% of current entitlement plus prior
year program income. Ongoing recreational activities continue to be funded at local
neighborhood community centers in low -mod census tracts.
3 Martin Luther King Community Center Recreation Specialist—
Requested: $37,500
Recommended: $20,000
CDBG funds provide a portion of the salary and benefits for recreation specialist at
the Martin Luther King Center. This facility's program is coordinated with the
YMCA, Salvation Army and Campfire USA, who all collaborate to provide
education and physical activities to school age children.
Public services are capped at no greater than 15% of current entitlement plus prior
year program income. Ongoing recreational activities continue to be funded at local
neighborhood community centers in low -mod census tracts.
4 Senior Citizen's Center Recreation Specialist —
Requested: $37,500
Recommended: $20,000
CDBG funds provide a portion of the salary and benefits for recreation specialist to
oversee and operate program at Pasco's senior center. This facility's program
provides supervision and leadership necessary for programs serving the elderly of
Pasco with support services, nutrition, health and living skills support.
CITY OF PASCO
2016 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT
PROPOSAL SUMMARY — AUGUST 20, 2015
Public services are capped at no greater than 15% current entitlement plus prior year
program income. Ongoing services continue to be funded at senior center.
5 YMCA Martin Luther King Community Center Recreation Program —
Requested: $20,000
Recommended: $20,000
CDBG funds provide YMCA recreation programs at the Martin Luther King Center.
This facility's program is coordinated with the YMCA, Salvation Army and
Campfire USA, who all collaborate to provide education and physical activities to
school age children.
Public services are capped at no greater than 15% current entitlement plus prior year
program income. Ongoing recreation activities continue to be provided at local
neighborhood community centers in low -mod census tracts.
6 Downtown Facade Improvement Program (Service Area) —
Requested: $90,000
Recommended: $40,000
CDBG funds support downtown businesses with fagade improvements (Census
Tract 202).
It is estimated that 3 business (reduced from 6 proposed) will be assisted with fagade
improvements.
7 Pasco Specialty Kitchen - Small Businesses (Job Creation/Service Area) —
Requested: $42,500
Recommended: $25,000
CDBG funds provide for continued operations of the Pasco Specialty Kitchen, a
certified commercial incubator kitchen. By providing technical support to small
food -related businesses the Pasco Specialty Kitchen improves their success rate by
helping them to establish and achieve their goals. In consideration for technical
assistance, the startup businesses agree to make jobs created available to low -to -
moderate income persons in Pasco (Census Tract 202).
Additional funds are needed to meet staffing requirements to continue existing
programs and establish new programs. By expanding programs and services, the
Kitchen is seeks to become self-sustaining.
Pasco Specialty Kitchen - Microenterprises (Businesses) —
Requested: $42,500
Recommended: $35,000
CDBG funds provide for continued operations of the Pasco Specialty Kitchen, a
certified commercial incubator kitchen. By providing technical support to small
food -related businesses the Pasco Specialty Kitchen improves their success rate by
2
CITY OF PASCO
2016 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT
PROPOSAL SUMMARY — AUGUST 20, 2015
helping them to establish and achieve their goals. In consideration for technical
assistance, the startup businesses agree to make jobs created available to low -to -
moderate income persons in Pasco (Census Tract 202).
Additional funds are needed to meet staffing requirements to continue existing
programs and establish new programs. By expanding programs and services, the
Kitchen is seeks to become self-sustaining.
9 Pasco Specialty Kitchen - Facility Improvements Flooring —
Requested: $72,000
Recommended: $72,000
CDBG funds are requested for facility improvements at the Pasco Specialty Kitchen.
Install flooring.
Facility improvements are needed to renovate the existing facility to meet current
and future needs, which includes flooring upgrade, facade improvement, and
conference room upgrade and new work station. Existing flooring is not up to health
regulations for a commercial incubator kitchen. It is recommended this project be
combined with facility and facade improvements below for the best contracting
value.
10 Pasco Specialty Kitchen - Facility Improvements & Facade —
Requested: $55,000
Recommended: $15,000
CDBG funds are requested for facade improvements at the Pasco Specialty Kitchen.
Install awnings, patch/paint/repair surface area, and replace signage.
Allocation toward facility improvements in 2015 ($23K) will be combined with
recommended 2016 funding ($15,000) for a total of $38,000 to be used for facility
improvements.
11 Second Chance Center (SCC) —
Requested: $50,000
Recommended: $ -0-
CDBG funds are requested for facilility improvements for homeless shelter.
HUD Notice CPD -13-06 , dated 8/22/13 notified jurisdictions of requirements for
reporting specific objectives for reducing and ending homelessness through outreach,
emergency shelter or transitional housing, case management, and prevention.
CITY OF PASCO
2016 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT
PROPOSAL SUMMARY — AUGUST 20, 2015
12 Peanuts Park Restoration —
Requested: $400,000
Recommended: $125,000
CDBG funds are requested for design and rehabilitation of Peanuts Park facility.
Capital improvements and block grant funded activities should be concentrated to
make the biggest physical improvement impact. The park is in close proximity to the
farmers market and the downtown fagade improvement target area. Combining park
physical improvements with the fapade improvement program and safety
improvements would meet these objectives.
13 Code Enforcement Officer — Requested: $48,000
Recommended: $48,000
CDBG funds provide a portion of the salary and benefits for one of four code
enforcement officers to help bring approximately 500 properies into compliance
with City codes. Code enforcement encourages property owners to maintain housing
units to minimum property standards and improves neighborhood appearance in
primarily low to moderate income neighborhoods (Census Tracts 201, 202, 203 and
204).
Ongoing code enforcement activities halt decline of property conditions in lower
income neighborhoods.
14 Downtown Revitalization and Safety Improvements —
Requested: $250,000
Recommended: $100,000
CDBG funds are requested to make area -wide safety improvements in the Pasco
downtown revitalization area including replacement of traffic signal lights and street
light retrofit, installation of audible pedestrian signals, replacement of damaged
sidewalks and non -conforming ramps.
Capital improvements and block grant funded activities should be concentrated to
make the biggest physical improvement impact. Safety improvements are needed in
the downtown revitalization area.
11
CITY OF PASCO
2016 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT
PROPOSAL SUMMARY — AUGUST 20, 2015
15 Sidewalk Construction —
Reauested: $250,000
Recommended: $ -0=
CDBG
0-
CDBG funds are requested to construct new sidewalks where they are missing to
provide a link to existing sidewalks, and allowing continuous safe pediestrian route,
eliminating barriers for all pedestrians.
Capital improvements and block grant funded activities should be concentrated to
make the biggest physical improvement impact.
MEMORANDUM
DATE: August 14, 2015
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Angela R. Pitman, Block Grant Administrator C
SUBJECT: 2016 HOME INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIPS (HOME) PROGRAM
ALLOCATION AND ANNUAL WORK PLAN (MF# BGAP2015-004)
Background
Pasco entered into a HOME Consortium Agreement with Richland and Kennewick in 1996 making the
City eligible for Federal HOME funds. The Agreement was renewed through 2016. Each year an annual
action plan is required to be prepared and submitted to HUD for use of estimated funds for the following
program year.
Estimated Funds Available
It is estimated that the 2016 annual entitlement grant to the HOME Consortium will be $430,000. Each
member city is allocated an equal share of the entitlement after 10% Set -Aside for Administration and
15% Set -Aside for Community Housing Development Organizations (CHDO). Pasco's share of the
entitlement is estimated to be $107,000 when the remaining funds are split equally between the three
cities. HOME Program income estimated in 2016 is $100,000 and may be used for Down Payment
Assistance or an Eligible CHDO Project depending on need. These estimates are based on the 2015
HOME Allocation.
There is always some question regarding actual funding levels approved by Congress. Actual available
funding for these FY 2016 activities will remain in question until the early part of the year when the
HOME allocation is made by Congressional Resolution and an amendment to the Annual Action Plan my
be necessary. If funding levels are lower than estimated, activity funding may need to be reallocated
accordingly. Any program income received may be allocated for eligible down payment assistance or
CHDO development projects.
Planning & Administration
HUD regulations state that the amount of HOME Funds obligated within a program year to support
planning and administration activities may not exceed 10% of the entitlement. This is awarded to
Richland annually as the Lead Agency of the HOME Consortium to manage all activities. Member cities
are provided funds for planning and administration from 10% of program income received from
completed projects within their jurisdiction.
CHDO Set -Aside
Each year a minimum of 15% of the entitlement grant must be set-aside to help Community Housing
Development Organizations (CHDO) add to the permanent affordable housing stock. The CHDO set-
aside funds may be combined with program income for a development project that will be selected
through a competitive RFP process.
Current Balances
The budget amount is approved by Council Resolution each year and includes HOME entitlement funds
and estimated program income anticipated from acquisition/infill projects. The current allocations are
shown below:
Proposed Activities
HOME funds are based on need and income eligibility and may be used anywhere within the city limits,
however, neighborhoods designated as priority by Pasco City Council receive first consideration. Funding
is first targeted in the Longfellow and Museum neighborhoods, then within low -moderate income census
tracts (201, 202, 203 and 204). If HOME funds cannot be applied to those areas, then they are used as
needed within the Pasco City limits for the benefit of eligible low -moderate income families.
Staff recommends that anticipated 2016 HOME entitlement funds be allocated to the First Time
Homebuyer Down Payment Assistance Program:
Activities
Budgeted Proposed
DPA - 2016 $ 107,000 10
Surplus/
Actual (Deficit)
0 (10)
$ 107,000 10 0 (10)
Recommendations
After discussions and staff evaluation, it is recommended that the activities set forth in above would best
meet the City's Consolidated Plan and be most effective in carrying out the objectives for the City in
2016. Your review and recommendation to the City Council would be appreciated.
Therefore, we propose the following Motions:
MOTION: I move the Planning Commission recommend the City Council approve the use of funds for
the 2016 HOME Investment Partnerships entitlement as set forth in the "2016 HOME Fund Summary" as
recommended by Staff.
MOTION: I move the Planning Commission recommend the City Council approve the use of funds for
the 2016 HOME Investment Partnerships as set forth in the "2016 HOME Fund Summary" as amended.
The City Staff would like to thank the members of the Planning Commission for your time and assistance.
/arp
Surplus/
Current Activities
Budgeted
Proposed
Actual
(Deficit)
PY 2014 Resolution #3499 - DPA $
145,236
13
25
12
PY 2015 Resolution #3577 - DPA $
116,000
11
20
9
$
261,236
24
45
21
Proposed Activities
HOME funds are based on need and income eligibility and may be used anywhere within the city limits,
however, neighborhoods designated as priority by Pasco City Council receive first consideration. Funding
is first targeted in the Longfellow and Museum neighborhoods, then within low -moderate income census
tracts (201, 202, 203 and 204). If HOME funds cannot be applied to those areas, then they are used as
needed within the Pasco City limits for the benefit of eligible low -moderate income families.
Staff recommends that anticipated 2016 HOME entitlement funds be allocated to the First Time
Homebuyer Down Payment Assistance Program:
Activities
Budgeted Proposed
DPA - 2016 $ 107,000 10
Surplus/
Actual (Deficit)
0 (10)
$ 107,000 10 0 (10)
Recommendations
After discussions and staff evaluation, it is recommended that the activities set forth in above would best
meet the City's Consolidated Plan and be most effective in carrying out the objectives for the City in
2016. Your review and recommendation to the City Council would be appreciated.
Therefore, we propose the following Motions:
MOTION: I move the Planning Commission recommend the City Council approve the use of funds for
the 2016 HOME Investment Partnerships entitlement as set forth in the "2016 HOME Fund Summary" as
recommended by Staff.
MOTION: I move the Planning Commission recommend the City Council approve the use of funds for
the 2016 HOME Investment Partnerships as set forth in the "2016 HOME Fund Summary" as amended.
The City Staff would like to thank the members of the Planning Commission for your time and assistance.
/arp
lu1ahsC13:"0111IMI
DATE: August 14, 2015
TO: Planning Commission �'�)
FROM: Angela R. Pitman, Block Grant Administrator C44
SUBJECT: 2016 NEIGHBORHOOD STABILIZATION PROGRAM (NSP) ALLOCATION
AND ANNUAL WORK PLAN (MF# BGAP2015-005)
Background
The City received a total of $426,343 in CDBG funding for the Neighborhood Stabilization Program
through 2010. The City has recovered 16 foreclosed properties to date, more than double the estimated
amount.
Down payment assistance has been provided to 12 homebuyers, three are below 50% of median income
which accounts for 43% of the funds used. The City has also purchased and rehabilitated four homes,
three of which have been sold to income eligible households. The last home is expected to be sold this
quarter.
Estimated Funds Available
Pasco's NSP unexpended grant balance as of June 30, 2015 is $41,688. Program income remaining from
the sale of three (3) homes purchased with NSP and rehabilitated with HOME funds has been fully
expended. Funds will be available for use in 2016 from the proceeds of the sale of 1132 W Margaret.
Proposed Activities
Staff proposes the funds be used to recover one to two foreclosed properties through acquisition and/or
rehabilitation activities.
PY 2016 Funding Sources
Budget Units
2015 Program Income from sale of 1132 W Margaret
$
120,000.00
$
120,000.00
2016 Proposed Activities
2015 PI Restricted for Administration
$
12,000.00
PY 2016 Down Payment Assistance/Minor Rehab
$
54,000.00 2
PY 2017 Down Payment Assistance/Minor Rehab
$
54,000.00 2
$
120,000.00 4
Recommendations
After discussions and staff evaluation, it is recommended that the activities set forth in above would best
meet the City's Consolidated Plan and be most effective in carrying out the objectives for the City in
2016. Your review and recommendation to the City Council would be appreciated.
Therefore, we propose the following Motions:
MOTION: I move the Planning Commission recommend the City Council approve the use of funds for
the 2016 Neighborhood Stabilization Program (NSP) entitlement set forth above, as recommended by
Staff.
MOTION: I move the Planning Commission recommend the City Council approve the use of funds for
the 2016 Neighborhood Stabilization Program (NSP) entitlement set forth above, as amended.
The City Staff would like to thank the members of the Planning Commission for your time and assistance.
/arp
MEMORANDUM
DATE: August 14, 2015
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Jeffrey B. Adams, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: Arterial Corridors Commercial Design Standards (MF# CA 2015-003)
At the June 18, 2015 Planning Commission workshop the Commission agreed
upon the following guidelines for arterial corridors commercial design
standards:
1) The proposed standards should apply only to new construction and only
when the value of that new construction meets or exceeds 50% of the
assessed value of the improvements on a given parcel.
2) The proposed standards should apply only to Office ("O") and Retail
Commercial (C-1) Zoning districts.
3) The proposed standards should apply only to the street -facing facades for
properties that are not adjoining residential properties and the sides and
rear for properties that adjoin residential properties.
4) The proposed standards should require certain baseline items as
"Mandatory" and a second tier of items where the property owner could
choose suggested standards at their discretion.
As a result Staff has crafted a draft ordinance for the Commission's
consideration (see attached).
DISCUSSION:
Staff requests further feedback to the attached draft ordinance.
y I
W ?5
dui PG1g�
e
.9 KEGON P �, • k
Vi SR39�1 �••'� y0
Us 395 ,• A Ap
'•• $�
e •••' N g_
• O o:
® �o
N
3
•� O � 6TH
� s
3
Y
y m d
o q L a `o n
Y� —JJ4Y -gyp O C
IIiU
U v c U
®~ 09 UVOlN d o Z u
r wry o Nm 0E
t VV N E
I�1tE E D
U O a U U
ROA®•68
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE CREATING PMC CHAPTER 25.59 DEALING WITH COMMERCIAL
CORRIDORS DESIGN STANDARDS ON SELECT PARCELS IN THE "O" AND C-1
ZONING DISTRICTS.
WHEREAS, cities have the responsibility to regulate and control physical development
within their borders and to ensure public health, safety and welfare are maintained; and,
WHEREAS, the City of Pasco has zoning regulations that encourage orderly growth and
development of the City; and,
WHEREAS, on (PC Hearing date) the Planning Commission held a public hearing to
consider creating design standards for properties along major corridors in the Office ("O") and
Retail Commercial (C-1) Zoning Districts; 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 Chapter 25.59 be added as follows:
CHAPTER 25.59 COMMERCIAL CORRIDORS DESIGN STANDARDS
Sections:
f��X.Y�11111 • �Z.`�
25.59.020 APPLICABILITY....
25.59.030 USE IN COMBINATION ..................
25.59.040 PLAN REQUIRED .............................
25.59.050 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL........
25.59.060 DESIGN STANDARDS .....................
25.59.140 RELIEF ...............................................
25.59.150 PENALTY AND ENFORCEMENT..
25.59.160 ADDITIONAL PENALTY -LIEN......
25.59.010 PURPOSE. The purpose of the Commercial Corridors Design Standards is to
provide additional development regulations to create aesthetically attractive buildings and
commercial development along the commercial corridors of the City.
1.59.20 APPLICABILITY.
1. The Development and Design Standards of this Overlay District will apply to all office ("O")
and Retail Commercial Zoning districts (C-1) located along the street corridors, as listed
below:
a. "A" Street
b. Argent Road
c. Columbia Street, between 1 st Avenue and 10th Avenue
d. Court Street
e. Lewis Street
f. Sylvester Street
g. West Clark Street
h. 3`a Avenue, north of "A" Street
i. 4'h Avenue, south of Highway 395
j. 5`h Avenue, between "A" Street and Court Street
k. 6h Avenue, between "A" Street and Court Street
1. 10`h Avenue
m. 14`h Avenue
n. 20'h Avenue
o. Road 28
p. Road 36
2. The Design Standards shall apply to all new commercial development and all remodels or
expansions where the cumulative cost of remodeling and/or expansion within the last 5 years
is equal to or exceeds 50% of the current assessed value of the structure as determined by the
City's building official.
25.59.030 USE IN COMBINATION. This chapter shall be used in addition to and in
combination with the districts identified in Section 25.59.020 and development regulations
contained in this Title as they apply to the lands described in Section 25.59.020. The
requirements of this chapter shall take precedence over any requirements of the underlying
district regulations.
25.59.040 PLAN REQUIRED. Prior to issuance of building permits, one full set of
building elevations shall be submitted to the Community Development Department for review
for consistency with the provisions of this chapter. The elevations must be drawn to scale.
25.59.050 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL. Upon receipt of a completed building permit
application the elevations shall be forwarded to the Planning Office for review and approval.
25.59.060 DESIGN STANDARDS. The following design standards shall apply to all
buildings in the Commercial Corridors Overlay District.
1) Mandatory standards:
a) Solid blank facades must be avoided on the front or street facing sides of the building.
They must be treated with windows, entrances, canopies, cornices, and by articulating the
fagade and/or screening with landscaping.
b) Screening of Electrical and Mechanical Equipment
i) Rooftop electrical and mechanical equipment shall be obscured from view (i.e. by use
of an architecturally integrated screen or parapet).
ii) Mechanical equipment when placed on the ground shall be obscured from view by
use of an architecturally integrated screen.
iii) Wall -mounted electrical and mechanical equipment shall be located on the less
visible side of the building and obscured from public view.
c) Rear of Building
i) Rear of the building and service areas must not be located facing a public street, as
identified in 25.59.020. In cases where there are no other options, the service areas
and rear located facing the street must be screened from public view with
landscaping, grading and/or fencing.
ii) Fencing shall be consistent with the building design, and rear of the building shall be
consistent with the front side of the building in terms of design style, building
material and architectural features.
2) In addition to mandatory building standards, buildings on parcels abutting residential zones
shall incorporate on the abutting elevation(s) at least one of the optional standards listed
below:
a) Elevations more than 50 feet long shall be treated with the following:
i) Change in the roof or wall plane (4 ft. minimum)
ii) Projecting or recessed elements
iii) Varying rooflines (4 ft. minimum)
b) Entrance to the building made visible and prominent by using large entry doors, porches,
protruding, or recessed entrances.
c) Light poles, signage and similar accessories which are coordinated so that the view and
accessibility to the entrance are not obstructed.
d) Windows which help create a visual connection between the indoor and outdoor
environment in order to make businesses more attractive.
e) Additional architectural features such as porches, canopies, and display windows.
25.59.140 RELIEF. Where relief is sought from the provisions of this chapter, application
shall be made in the form of a letter explaining the relief sought and the reasons therefore,
accompanied by a scaled site plan and a $100.00 dollar fee. The complete application shall be
filed with the Economic & Community Development Director. Within fifteen working days from
the date of receipt of a complete application, the Economic & Community Development Director
shall issue a written decision to approve, approve with modifications, or deny the request for
relief. Any decision of the Economic & Community Development Director may be appealed to
the City Council if written notice of appeal, which shall include all and exclusive reasons for said
appeal, is filed with the Economic & Community Development Director within ten working days
from the date of the decision. In the event a written decision is not issued by the Economic &
Community Development Director within the required time period, the application for relief
shall automatically constitute a qualified and properly filed notice of appeal and shall be
considered by the City Council in accordance with this section. The City Council, within thirty
calendar days from the date of filing of the appeal, shall consider the appeal at a regular meeting
thereof, but such consideration shall be limited to the reasons included in the written notice of
appeal and shall include the written decision of the Economic & Community Development
Director and the reasons therefore. The City Council may affirm, modify or reverse the decision
of the Economic & Community Development Director.
25.59.150 PENALTY AND ENFORCEMENT
Enforcement of the provisions of this Title will occur through the use of the Code
Enforcement Board procedures contained in Title 11.
Section 2.
This ordinance shall be in full force and effect five days after passage and publication as
required by law.
PASSED by the City Council of the City of Pasco, at its regular meeting of September
'2015.
Matt Watkins
Mayor
ATTEST:
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Debra L. Clark, City Clerk Leland B. Kerr, City Attorney