Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-17-2015 Planning Commission Meeting PacketPLANNING REGULAR MEETING I. CALL TO ORDER: II. ROLL CALL: III. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: V. OLD BUSINESS: VI VII. A. Special Permit PUBLIC HEARINGS: -AGENDA 7:00 P.M. September 17, 2015 Declaration of Quorum August 20, 2015 Location of a church in a C-1 (Retail Business) Zone (Bethel Church) (MF# SP 2019-009) A. Rezone Rezone from R-1 (Low Density Residential) to R-3 (Medium Density Residential) (Envision Homes) (MF# Z 2015-002) - Re -Opened B. Special Permit C. Preliminary Plat D. Preliminary Plat E. Preliminary Plat F. Code Amendment WORKSHOP: VIII. OTHER BUSINESS: IX. ADJOURNMENT: Location of a church in a C-3 (General Business) Zone (Tiempos de Poder Church) (MF# SP 2015-010) Preliminary Plat for Sunrise Estates, Division II (Juan Ochoa) (MF# PP 2015-002) Preliminary Plat for Ellie Estates (Llva Parkhotyuk) (MF# PP 2015-003) Preliminary Plat for Road 84 Estates (Mission Investments LLC) (MF# PP 2015-004) Arterial Corridors Commercial Design Standards (MF# CA 2015-003) This meeting is broadcast live on PSC -TV Channel 191 on Charter Cable and streamed at %c \v% . co-xca.com )s_ctvji%c. Audio equipment available for the hearing impaired; contact staff for assistance. REGULAR MEETING PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at 7:OOpm by Chairwoman Khan. POSITION MEMBERS PRESENT No. 1 Tanya Bowers No. 2 Tony Bachart No. 3 Paul Mendez No. 4 Alecia Greenaway No. 5 No. 6 Loren Polk No. 7 Zahra Khan No. 8 No. 9 Gabriel Portugal APPEARANCE OF FAIRNESS: MEMBERS ABSENT Joe Cruz VACANT August 20, 2015 Chairwoman Khan read a statement about the appearance of fairness for hearings on land use matters. Chairwoman Khan asked if any Commission member had anything to declare. Commissioner Greenaway stated that she was on the board for Community Action Connections and since they are one of the applicants for 2016 Community Development Block (CDBG) Grant Allocations the board may wish to have her abstain from that hearing. The board members were in agreement that they didn't have a problem with Commissioner Greenaway participating in the public hearing for 2016 Community Development Block Grant Allocations. Chairwoman Khan then asked the audience if there were any objections based on a conflict of interest or appearance of fairness question regarding the items to be discussed this evening. There were no objections. ADMINISTERING THE OATH: Chairwoman Khan explained that state law requires testimony in quasi-judicial hearings such as held by the Planning Commission be given under oath or affirmation. Chairwoman Khan swore in all those desiring to speak. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Polk noted that in the July 16, 2015 minutes for public hearing item MF# SP 2015-002) - Redevelopment of Stevens Middle School, that Commissioner Khan and Commissioner Greenaway dissented on the motion, however the minutes state that Commissioner Khan and Commissioner Polk dissented. Staff stated that they would make the correction reflecting Commissioner Khan and Commissioner Greenaway dissenting on the motion for MF# SP 2015-002. Commissioner Greenaway moved, seconded by Commissioner Portugal that the minutes dated July 16, 2015 and July 30, 2015 be approved as amended. The motion passed unanimously. -1- OLD BUSINESS: A. Special Permit Redevelopment of Stevens Middle School (Pasco School District) (MF# SP 2015-002) Chairwoman Khan 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. He clarified comments about traffic. It was indicated in the previous meeting that if 24th Avenue were closed there would be minimal impact to the streets in the neighborhood, particularly 26th Avenue and 28th Avenue. What staff meant was that the effects on nearby streets would be minimal, not that the impact on 24th Avenue itself is minimal. Traffic on 24th Avenue is still a concern for the School District which is one of the reasons they wish to close a portion of the road. Commissioner Bowers moved, seconded by Commissioner Bachart, to adopt findings of fact and conclusions therefrom as contained in the August 20, 2015 staff' report. The motion passed with Commissioner Greenaway dissenting. Commissioner Bowers moved, seconded by Commissioner Greenaway, 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. The motion passed with Commissioner Greenaway dissenting. B. Rezone Rezone from R-1 (Low Density Residentiall to R-3 (Medium Densitv Residential) (Envision Homesl MF# Z 2015-002 Chairwoman Khan read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Shane O'Neill, Planner I, discussed the application for a rezone from R-1 (Low Density Residential) to R-3 (Medium Density Residential). During the public hearing in the previous month substantial testimony was received. The staff report has since been modified slightly adding a paragraph relating to the testimony received. A second motion has been provided for denial of the rezone should the Planning Commission chose to do so with supporting findings of fact. Commissioner Bachart asked for clarification regarding the requirements for architectural for each unit described in the concomitant agreement and if that pertained to each unit or each building. Mr. O Neill responded that each unit means a dwelling unit. Commissioner Bachart asked if each building would have two units. Mr. O Neill answered that each parcel will have one unit but they will be adjoined so each building will have two units. He stated that the applicant has been reluctant to sign the agreement. W -a Commissioner Bachart responded that he doesn't have a problem in rezoning the property to R-3, especially since there will potentially be a larger apartment building across the street and this property likely won't get developed unless rezoned, however, the residents that gave testimony at the last meeting had concerns about property values and looking out their backyards and seeing potentially run down duplexes. He stated that he agreed with the architectural features in the concomitant agreement but would like to see requirements to the back of the properties, such as a nice fence to protect property owners behind them. Commissioner Greenaway responded that the problem with a fence is that the property is on a slope or hill. Commissioner Bachart replied that it wouldn't even have to be a fence but perhaps a landscaping buffer; just something to protect the property owners behind this development. Commissioner Polk stated that she was unsure a giant fence would be welcomed by some of the neighbors as they could feel closed in and that the landscape buffer might help but she was unsure what the parameters are and if that is handled during the rezone or during the platting stage. Mr. O'Neill answered that conditions can be placed in either stage but it would be best to get the most into the concomitant agreement at the zoning stage. He also pointed out most of the properties to rear already have fences on the rear property line so the suggested fencing requirement would be to have a fence on a fence. Mr. McDonald added that a lot of those properties face a steep slope and most of them already have a fence which is below the grade to the lots above, as Commissioner Greenaway pointed out. Another fence wouldn't block the view unless placed higher and then there would be a space between the two fences that somebody would have to maintain. Commissioner Bachart responded that he feels there should be a landscaping requirement in that case and should be put in by the developer to ensure it gets done because the property owners may not put in the landscaping. Commissioner Bowers asked if the public testimony received was from neighbors who lived on Belmont. Commissioner Greenway answered yes, and that their backyards face a grade up the hill to the proposed site. One of their concerns was people looking into their backyards, however even if a home is developed there it would look into their backyard. She felt it would be hard to force people to put in landscaping. They could rip it out if they don't like it so there shouldn't be the burden to place on the developer. Commissioner Bachart replied that you can place that requirement. He referenced a previous rezone application that was passed earlier in the year that included landscaping buffer requirements. With the history of the developer not finishing developments, as pointed out in public testimony at the previous meeting, without requirements such as landscaping, the homeowners behind this development might not be protected. Commissioner Greenaway responded that she understood but when this developer was building homes the first time in this neighborhood the recession happened and they took a hit and she didn't feel all of it was the developers fault. Commissioner Polk asked if the burden of finishing the sidewalk and street will fall on the developer if they develop prior to the possible apartments across the street. Mr. O'Neill answered that the developer will have to complete the street, curb, gutter and sidewalks on the south side of Chapel Hill Boulevard prior to an issuance of building permits. The north half will be the responsibility of the developer of the possible apartment complex. Chairwoman Khan asked if it is certain that the apartment complex is going to be developed. Mr. White answered that they know for certain that the developer wants to but they don't know if they are going to. Chairwoman Khan asked the Commissioners to each give their vote on this application. All of the Commissioners were in agreement to approve the rezone application if landscaping requirements were placed in the concomitant agreement. Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director, suggested continuing this item until the next meeting to allow staff to come back with a more detailed staff report and concomitant agreement to include landscape buffering and potentially a few more conditions regarding the appearance of the properties. Chairwoman Khan asked if the applicant is not interested in a concomitant agreement. Mr. White answered that he's not interested in a concomitant agreement at least where lot sizes are concerned. Commissioner Portugal moved, seconded by Commissioner Greenaway, to continue the rezone application to the September 17, 2015 meeting. The motion passed unanimously. Mr. White asked the Commissioners if they had any preferences on landscape buffering requirements, such as a row of arborvitae or a mixture of plants and trees. Commissioner Bachart answered that staff should look at the existing code and use a graded approach. There doesn't need to be a full buffer or screen but one or two trees for every lot would help with people looking down into the other properties. The other Commissioners were in agreement. Commissioner Bowers stated that she would like to see what happened in the previous rezone that was approved earlier this year on Crescent Drive that required a landscaping buffer. M3 Dave McDonald, City Planner, responded that it hasn't been developed yet but there is a 25' buffer strip required that would be landscaped with trees every 25'. Mr. White added that this will be a little more difficult than the previous rezone to enforce the landscaping requirements because there will be multiple owners opposed to one owner. This will be an enforcement issue. Commissioner Mendez asked if it was not something that could be placed in the covenants. Mr. White answered that the requirements can be placed in the concomitant agreement, however, it will still become an enforcement issue. Property owners will alter the landscaping on weekends when Code Enforcement isn't out and that will have to be dealt with through the Code Board. Commissioner Bachart asked if the landscaping is something that could be done during the development, such as putting in sidewalks. Mr. White responded that they can but after the property is developed, people will cut trees down, take out bushes, won't water, etc. Commissioner Bachart stated that is understandable and there is no control over what the homeowners do at a later time and will have to be dealt with then but it doesn't hurt to try. Commissioner Mendez agreed with Commissioner Bachart adding that he lives in the Desert Plateau area and his neighborhood has landscaping covenants. Commissioner Polk asked if there are parameters to take the elevation of neighboring parcels into consideration. Mr. White said for elevations no but for setback they are based on the height of the original building. There were no further comments. PUBLIC HEARINGS: A. Special Permit Location of a church in a C-1 (Retail Business) Zone (Bethel Church) (MF# SP 2015-0091 Chairwoman Khan read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Shane O Neill, Planner I, discussed the special permit application for the location of a church in a C-1 (Retail Business) Zone. The application is a renewal of a special permit that was issued in 2012 for the same activity. Since that original permit approval, the church has issued an additional special permit to operate a daycare. The church is currently operating in Broadmoor Outlet Mall, occupying four suites. The applicant has -5- already made all of the appropriate building modifications to meet occupancy code for an assembly use. The conditions are the same as they were in the originally approved special permit, however, there will not be a condition for the special permit to expire. The outlet mall has struggled holding tenants and is dominated by institutional uses at this time, including Charter College. Chairwoman Khan asked if one of the conditions is to change their classification from Mercantile "M" to Assembly "A". Mr. O'Neill responded that was in the previous special permit application but was left in for the renewal to maintain. The applicant has already met the requirements of an assembly. Tim Phillips, 4502 Desert drive, spoke on behalf of his special permit application. He stated that they have enjoyed being in the facility and being a part of Pasco. Commissioner Mendez asked if any of the surrounding businesses have expressed and issues or concerns. Mr. Phillips answered that he hasn't heard any complaints and stated that the church is looking for ways to reach out and bring more attention to the area, such as something at Christmas for people to gather. Commissioner Bowers if the church had any issues with one of the conditions pertaining to the location of alcohol sales near the location since there was a winery in a nearby unit at the outlet mall. Mr. Phillips said they do not have a problem and there haven't been any issues. They have already signed an agreement stating that they are ok with it. With no further comments the public hearing closed. Commissioner Greenaway moved, seconded by Commissioner Polk, to close the public hearing and schedule deliberations, the adoption of findings of fact, and development of a recommendation for City Council for the September 17, 2015 meeting. The motion passed unanimously. B. Block Grant 2016 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Fund Allocations IMF# BGAP 2015-0031 Chairwoman Khan read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Rick White, Community 8s Economic Development Director, discussed the 2016 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Fund Allocations. Commissioner Greenaway moved, seconded by Commissioner Bachart, to close the public hearing and recommend the City Council approve the use of funds for the 2016 Community Development Block Grant Program set forth in the "2016 Fund Summary" as amended. He stated that the Planning Commission is the advisory committee. A previous W public hearing was held at the previous meeting and staff has provided recommendations for funding. There is always a slight uncertainty of the exact amount the City will receive from HUD but based on a formula used since the City has been an entitlement City, $665,000 is the amount expected for 2016. The City received $1.13 million in requests, almost twice as what is available. Mr. White briefly discussed the 2016 Fund Summary included with the staff report with staff recommendations and the reason behind the funding: Activity Non CDBG Agency Staff Match Request Recommend CDBG Program Administration $ - $120,000.00 $120,000.00 Civic Center -Youth Recreation Specialist $ 45,500.00 $37,500.00 $20,000.00 Martin Luther King Community Center Recreation $ 100,500.00 $37,500.00 $20,000.00 Specialist Senior Citizen's Center Recreation Specialist $ 200,500.00 $37,500.00 $30,000.00 YMCA Martin Luther King Community Center $ 20,000.00 $20,000.00 $20,000.00 Recreation Program Downtown Facade Improvement Program (Service $ 25,000.00 $90,000.00 $40,000.00 Area) Pasco Specialty Kitchen - Small Businesses (Job $ 50,000.00 $42,500.00 $25,000.00 Creation) Pasco Specialty Kitchen - Microenterprises $ 50,000.00 $42,500.00 $30,000.00 (Businesses) Pasco Specialty Kitchen - Facility Improvements $ - $72,000.00 $72,000.00 Flooring Pasco Specialty Kitchen - Facility Improvements & $ $55,000.00 $15,000.00 Facade Second Chance Center (SCC) $ 143,000.00 $50,000.00 Peanuts Park Restoration $ 100,000.00 $400,000.00 $125,000.00 Code Enforcement Officer $ 200,500.00 $48,000.00 $48,000.00 Downtown Revitalization and Safety $ 150,000.00 $250,000.00 $100,000.00 Improvements - Contingent Sidewalk Construction - Contingent $ 50,000.00 $250,000.00 Proposals Received $1,135,000.00 $1,552,500.00 $665,000.00 The CDBG Program Administration application would cover all costs associated with administering the $665,000 that the City receives from HUD, including salaries, reporting, rule maintenance and supplies. Often the whole amount isn't used and whatever is leftover at the end of the year gets rolled over to the next year's fund. The Youth Recreations Specialist, Martin Luther King Recreation Specialist, Senior Center Specialist -7- and YMCA Martin Luther King Specialist are all recommended to be funding for staff salaries and these area community centers. For Downtown Facade Improvement Program staff is recommending $40,000 as they likely don't have the manpower to accommodate their request of $90,000. The amount of $40,000 could possibly fund 2-3 facades. The Pasco Specialty Kitchen requested funds for micro -enterprises and job creation. Typically they are funded each year with $50,000 for operating expenses, however this year staff is recommending an additional $5,000 since they have taken on significant projects, such as Food Truck Friday and Mobile Food Vending University. Both have been very successful and they will be able to put the money to good use. The Pasco Specialty Kitchen also applied for block grant funds to replace flooring in their facility and staff is recommending $72,000 to replace the flooring, as it is in bad shape and might last only one more year, but after that they could experience issues with the Health Department. They have also requested funds for facade improvements and staff is recommending $15,000 on top of $27,000 of funds that will be available from last year that are rolling over. Community Action Connections (CAC) requested funds for their Second Chance Center, however staff is not recommending funding for this project simply because there are not enough funds to allocate for every project. Also, the CAC has two other funds applicable for their homeless day center, such as funds from County recording fees (2060 Fund and 2163 Fund). Those funds were passed by the Washington State Legislature to provide money for homelessness. Staff is recommending $125,000 for the restoration of Peanuts Park, allowing the completion of the visioning effort to provide engineering designs so that when the rest of the funding is available the project will be ready to go. Staff is recommending $48,000 to fund the Code Enforcement Officer who benefits low -moderate income census tracts. The Public Works Department requested funds for signal improvements and while staff did not think the full amount requested could be justified, $100,000 could be. Staff didn't want to get too carried away with the funding since the Lewis Street Overpass Project and Peanuts Park are still in planning stages and the signals would possibly have to be changed. Public Works also requested funds for ADA Crosswalks but staff did not recommend any funds due to possible reconstruction and the street network is in a state of flux. Commissioner Portugal asked for clarification on the Code Enforcement Officer position. Mr. White responded that there are four Code Enforcement Officers but one is devoted specifically to the low -moderate census tracts. Kathy Merrill Holly, 720 W. Court Street, spoke on behalf of Community Action Connections (CAC). She stated that the Second Chance Center would provide outreach and emergency shelter during the day for families with children. In the calendar year from July 2014 -June 30, 2015 the CAC served 3,624 families with children. Of that, most of the families served were from Pasco. The CAC is requesting funds from Kennewick and Pasco for this shelter. Ms. Holly briefly described the services and activities the shelter would provide. Chairwoman Khan asked if the $50,000 is just the remainder of what it needed to finish the project. Ms. Holly answered that they have asked Kennewick for the same amount since they Kennewick and Pasco have the majority of that will use the services. The CAC has provided the rest of the funds. in Commissioner Polk asked Ms. Holly about additional funding sources. Ms. Holly said that she is aware of the additional funding sources and stated that the CAC applied for 2060 Fund. They were awarded $40,000 from Franklin County which will be used for Phase 2. Benton County turned them down for funding. For 2163 Funding, the CAC will be applying for and is the only fund that is available for staff salaries. Commissioner Portugal asked if there were any other shelters like the Second Chance Center in the Tri -Cities. Ms. Holly responded that the Union Gospel Mission is building a new shelter. She felt that they do a great job with what they do, dealing with homeless individuals. The problem is that they do not house families with a male head of household. They don't have the room to house them. As an example, if a male walks in with three children they cannot stay there. If a woman head of household walks in and there is space available they can stay but if the boy child is age 12 or older, he must be housed in the men's dorm. That as a mother is a safety issue. There is no other shelter like the Second Chance Center. Commissioner Mendez asked if families have a time limit that they can receive assistance and how does the CAC make sure the children attend school. Ms. Holly answered that each family will identify what they need to become stabilized working with a case manager. From there, goals will be set and they will be looking at the goals on a regular basis, doing follow-ups and referring them to other agencies for services they don't provide. The CAC will do everything they can on their end, including monitoring, to ensure that their success is moving forward. Commissioner Mendez asked if the $50,000 is for staff salaries. Ms. Holly replied that $40,000 is for the building and $10,000 is for salaries. Commissioner Mendez asked for clarification on the center being a day center. Ms. Holly responded that it is only a day center with showers but they will get the families stabilized and moved into housing as soon as possible. There are already roughly a dozen housing programs onsite. There will be services for job training, clothing for interviews, showers, daycare and many other services to help set them up for success. Steve Howland, 205 S. Wehe, spoke on behalf of his application for the YMCA of the Greater Tri -Cities. The YMCA has operated the Martin Luther King Center for over 30 years but a few years ago the United Way shifted funding to other programs and the YMCA approached the City for assistance. Chairwoman Khan asked if the United Way has shown any interest in re -funding their program. Mr. Howland answered that they operate under a two year funding cycle, it is now in the beginning of the second year. The YMCA will reapply for funding when the time comes .Q around but don't know if they will be successful as their fund raising campaigns have not been as large as they used to be. With no further questions or comments the public hearing closed. Commissioner Bowers suggested funding the Second Chance Center, even at a reduced amount, even though that will mean cutting some funding from other proposed projects. Chairman Khan asked the Commissioner's if they were in favor of funding the CAC for the Second Chance Center. The Commissioners were in agreement to look into funding the CAC. Chairwoman Khan asked staff if they had any recommendations on which activities could be trimmed in order to fund the CAC. Mr. White answered no. Commissioner Bachart stated that some money could be trimmed from the Fagade Improvement Programs from the DPDA since they don't have to manpower to carry out too many facades. He also felt that money could be cut from the Public Works Safety Improvements application since the plans are in flux. Chairwoman Khan added that money from the Peanuts Park Restoration could be trimmed since the proposed funding for now is just for consultation and planning. Commissioner Bowers said $10,000 can be taken off of that one. Commissioner Bachart responded that with Peanuts Park they need to be careful because if they are going out to a consulting firm it is a fee that is set and there isn't much wiggle room for cutting back on the budget. Chairwoman Khan asked staff for direction. Mr. White responded that he would be very cautious of trimming any of the recommended amounts but give each project some serious thought because many of the activities are tight on funding already. The Second Chance Center does have other funding sources besides CDBG funds. Commissioner Portugal suggested that the Planning Commission continue the hearing to allow staff to play with the numbers and come back to the Planning Commission with revised suggested funding amounts. Mr. White clarified that staff has already made their recommendations. It is now the opportunity and task of the Planning Commissioner to make their recommendation. It is up to the Planning Commission to decide what amounts they wish to fund for each project. The only caution is that cutting funds from certain projects can have a significant impact. -10- Commissioner Bowers asked how this process has been handled in the past. Chairwoman Khan replied that it has been done this way in the past where staff has their recommendations but the Planning Commission can discuss, make changes and make their recommendation to Council. Commissioner Greenaway added that in the past the Planning Commission has overruled or amended what staff has recommended. She was in agreement with Commissioner Bachart on trimming $10,000 from the Fagade Improvement Program. Also cutting $5,000 from the Pasco Specialty Kitchen Micro -Enterprises. Commissioner Bowers asked if Commissioner Greenaway would soon trim from the micro - enterprises more so than the flooring. Commissioner Greenaway responded that the flooring is probably set in stone. Commissioner Polk added that this isn't the first year they have applied for funds for the flooring and that it needs to be done. Commissioner Greenaway stated that she would trim from the Public Works Safety Improvements. Chairwoman Khan summed up that suggestions have been to trim $10,000 from the Fagade Improvement Program, $5,000 from the Pasco Specialty Kitchen Micro -Enterprises and $10,000 from the Public Works Safety Improvements. With this money, $25,000 would go to fund the CAC's Second Chance Center. Commissioner Polk asked for clarification on the street network that was in flux that could affect the Peanuts Park and Street Improvements projects. Mr. White responded that at this time he doesn't have more information. The proposed signals are for audible signals for vision impaired and safety improvements. They will only be installed on intersections not being reconfigured by the Lewis Street Overpass. Commissioner Polk asked if there would be any additional funding. Mr. White answered that it is possible. Commissioner Mendez asked if there was a specific amount to cut from the sidewalk improvements. Chairwoman Khan summed up again the revisions were to trim $10,000 from the Facade Improvement Program, $5,000 from the Pasco Specialty Kitchen Micro -Enterprises and $10,000 from the Public Works Safety Improvements. With this money, $25,000 would go to fund the CAC's Second Chance Center. The Planning Commissioners were in agreement of the revisions. -11- Commissioner Greenaway moved, seconded by Commissioner Bachart to close the public hearing and recommend the City Council approve the use of funds for the 2016 Community Development Block Grant Program set forth in the "2016 Fund Summary" as amended. The motion passed unanimously. C. Block Grant 2016 HOME Program Allocation & Annual Work Plan IMF# BGAP 2015-0041 Chairwoman Khan read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director, discussed the 2016 HOME Program Allocation & Annual Work Plan. He stated that there have been no changes since the previous meeting. The funds proposed are to be used for the Down Payment Assistance Program. With no further comments the public hearing closed. Commissioner Bachart moved, seconded by Commissioner Polk, the Planning Commission recommend the City Council approve the use of funds for the 2016 HOM Investment Partnerships entitlement as set forth in the "2016 HOME Fund Summary" as recommended by staff. The motion passed unanimously. D. Block Grant 2016 Neighborhood Stabilization Plan INSPI Fund Allocations IMF# BGAP 2015-0051 Chairwoman Khan read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director, discussed the 2016 Neighborhood Stabilization Plan (NSP) Fund Allocations. The funds are proposed to be used for down payment assistance and minor home rehabilitation as needed or necessary for those home buyers. With no further comments the public hearing closed. Commissioner Bowers moved, seconded by Commissioner Greenaway, 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. The motion passed unanimously. OTHER BUSINESS: A. Code Amendment Commercial Design Standards IMF# CA 2015-0031 Chairwoman Khan read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Rick White, Community & Economic Development, discussed the code amendment for Commercial Design Standards. He reminded that Commissioner that this item is returning for a third time for them to look at. He referenced a map that was in their staff -12- reports pointing out C-1 (Retail Business) zones and the "O° (Office) zones that are outside of the I-182 Overlay District that the proposed code amendment would apply to. The staff report also included a proposed ordinance that is in draft form but does three important thing: (1) Establishes the applicability for the design standards to new commercial development or remodeling/ expansion when it exceeds half the cost in a five year period, (2) Addresses mandatory standards along these corridors and (3) Addresses optional standards when the parcel is adjacent to a residential zone. He briefly went over the conditions. This item will come back to the Planning Commission as a public hearing. COMMENTS: Rick White, Community &, Economic Development Director, discussed an upcoming Short Course in Planning to be held in Walla Walla on October 5, 2015 if any Planning Commissioner wished to sign up for the course. With no further discussion or business, the Planning Commission was adjourned at 8:35 p.m. Respectfully submitted, David McDonald, City Planner -13- REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION MASTER FILE NO: SP2015-009 HEARING DATE: 8/20/2015 ACTION DATE: 9/17/2015 REQUEST FOR SPECIAL PERMIT: 1. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: APPLICANT: Bethel Church 5202 Outlet Drive Pasco, WA 99301 Location of a Church in a C-1 District 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 5. 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. K 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. 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. CONCLUSIONS BASED ON THE 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, fiumes 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. APPROVAL CONDITIONS 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 for Findings of Fact: I move to adopt Findings of Fact and Conclusions therefrom as contained in the September 17, 2015 staff report. MOTION for Recommendation: I move based on the Findings of Fact and Conclusions therefrom the Planning Commission recommend the City Council grant a special permit to Bethel Church for the location of a church in the Broadmoor Outlet Mall addressed 5202 Outlet Drive with the conditions as contained in the September 17, 2015 staff report. 6 k az ! WN a698' E mE _I- AS 986e m: ac f VLZE AS 6fOL Mg \ » �}! � ��� ��■■� \\ � )K� btouel�b4 §&{ ® \ \ &#]2k$j]/ r0 #�7� °() w3<o«,u���4«z&E)§k;= ¥ ri }k}))\§§)) az ! WN a698' E mE _I- AS 986e m: ac f VLZE AS 6fOL Mg � \ » �}! Q, � )K� §&{ ® � �{ � ® r0 �{ � rIN,,d 21001 A?JVNIWIl321d � y & tlMl),U §3N3A0'ddM 1Ntl 31 OOSVd4 H'JtlfIH'J 13H138 9 g NOIlonbiSNOO b03 ION AbdNliMl13bd DUCILIQU c 0.4O w .si U �.a M� W 9 y I I l - S moo° ❑❑o❑❑❑❑❑❑a❑ ❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑ I I I $ E ¢ I I h I I I I I I r 5 G E 0 ro Cd 0 Cd 44 ■ r P P k 0 0 071 I Mi v 0 ,a I �'r REPORT TO PLANNING MASTER FILE NO: Z 2015-002 APPLICANT: Envision Homes HEARING DATE: 7/16/2015 P.O. Box 3431 ACTION DATE: 9/17/2015 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 ft2. 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 W. 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 N 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. During the August 20, 2015 regular meeting the Planning Commission decided to table action on the rezone to provide staff additional time to further develop development conditions in the concomitant agreement. The Planning Commission explored methods aimed at lessening the impact of the site development on the existing homes to the south; eventually settling on requiring a vegetative buffer consisting of trees along the south property line(s) 3 of the site. A condition requiring the installation of two trees on the south property line of each newly created parcel has been added to the concomitant agreement. Additionally, the issue of steep lot slopes and soil retention needs to be addressed. The rear (south) portion of the site drops steeply to the south property line in a stepped terrace fashion. Staff has inserted language into the concomitant agreement requiring retaining walls to secure the slope from erosion. The design requirement incorporates the trees into the space between two retaining walls to save space and to enhance soil stability as the tree roots establish. Specifically, applicant will be required to enter into an agreement with the City limiting minimum lots sizes to 6,000 square feet and without provisions for zero -lot -line construction; thereby requiring construction to be detached single- family homes. Said agreement imposes the requirement for slope retention in the form of two retaining walls and a landscaping buffer consisting of trees between the retaining walls. 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. Site engineering as determined that it would be most appropriate for this corner to serve as stormwater retention facility to capture right-of-way run-off. For this reason the proposed ordinance and associated concomitant agreement exclude this portion of the site being rezoned. Staff report maps have been revised to more accurately reflect the affected area or "site" to exclude the easternmost corner of the parcel. In the event said corner is not used for stormwater management, excluding it from the rezone will not affect the development pattern because the concomitant agreement limits each subsequent parcel to contain a maximum of one single-family home. The corner is approximately 13,300 square feet in area which is sufficient size to be developed with a single-family home under the current R-1 zoning classification. The initial review criteria for considering a rezone application are explained in PMC. 25.88.030. The criteria are listed below as follows: 1. The date the existing zone became effective: The current zoning classification was established 12 years ago prior to the platting process in 2003. 2. The changed conditions, which are alleged to warrant other or additional zoning: 9 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. 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 comer lot. Site engineering as determined that it would be most appropriate for this corner to serve as stormwater retention facility to capture right-of-way run-off. For this reason the proposed ordinance and associated concomitant agreement exclude this portion of the site being rezoned. In the event said corner is not used for 5 stormwater management, excluding it from the rezone will not affect the development pattern because the concomitant agreement limits each subsequent parcel to contain a maximum of one single-family home. The comer is approximately 13,300 square feet in area which is sufficient size to be developed with a single-family home under the current R-1 zoning classification. 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 abandon efforts to make further improvements in the neighborhood. STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT Findings of fact must be entered from the record. The following are initial findings drawn from the background and analysis section of the staff report. The Planning Commission may add additional findings to this listing as the result of factual testimony and evidence submitted during the open record hearing. 1. The site is currently zoned R-1 (Low -Density Residential). 2. The 4.25 -acre site is vacant. 3. The site slopes sharply downward toward the south. 4. The site location extends from the 5500 Block through the 5900 Block of Chapel Hill Boulevard. 5. The applicant is requesting R-3 (Medium -Density Residential) zoning be assigned to the site to allow zero lot -line single-family residential development. 6. The property to the north of the site is a vacant parcel zoned R-3 (Medium -Density Residential without any restrictions). 7. Highway I-182 is located 400 feet north of the site. 8. 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). 9. The R-3 zone allows a maximum residential density rate of one dwelling unit for every 3,000 square feet of land area. C 10. The R-3 zone allows minimum lot sizes of 5,500 square feet. 11. Chapel Hill Boulevard adjacent to the site is undeveloped. 12. Right-of-way for the south half of Chapel Hill Blvd. must be dedicated to the City at the time of platting. 13. The Chapel Hill subdivision contains a mix of single-family and multi- family and commercial zoning. 14. Properties to the south of the site contain single-family dwellings. 15. 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. 16. Franklin County tax records reveal no depreciation in value of the single- family homes located directly across from The Villages at Chapel Hill. 17. Development of the site would eliminate the nuisances of dust and weeds generated from the vacant parcel. 18. Site development would create a physical barrier between existing homes to the south and the freeway to the north. 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 -BA) 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. 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 7 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. MOTION for Findings of Fact: I move to adopt findings of fact and conclusions therefrom as contained in the September 17, 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 rezone parcel 117-470-153 from R-1 to R-3 with restrictions contained in the concomitant agreement. ,;1 ri�j. _ l �Ap , Al, F e M� ® p N � � O � � N ri�j. _ l �Ap , Al, F e r ri�j. _ l �Ap , Al, F ,7 / J r 7 i i b I7 .. i t 0016. umu� "W' I All 4 C0 V L W • 5.4 1� 0 n • � � r C �� I fi'i 1 1 6 "to L• 9 l } � 1 rpp li hS a w"�� j:� 11 Irv., Ib<PY� w I M1 ITS I �'M1t�a' \ yqN d C i Y �tpG,fl '. I . a .ay ' •,, a x • pu' i'.. � 4 ^Q) 1� O `A' `JO Q . • —J SIN- � i O 4 j:� 11 Irv., Ib<PY� w I M1 ITS I �'M1t�a' \ yqN d C i Y �tpG,fl '. I . a .ay ' •,, a x • pu' i'.. � 4 }r � SIN- ;. 4 a j:� 11 Irv., Ib<PY� w I M1 ITS I �'M1t�a' \ yqN d C i Y �tpG,fl '. I . a .ay ' •,, a EXHIBIT #1 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 terns set forth in Section 5 of this agreement. 3. The terms set forth in Section 5 of this agreement shall appear as conditions on the both the preliminary plat and the subsequent final plat. 4. This agreement shall be binding on their heirs, assigns, grantees or successors in interest of the Owner(s) of the property herein described. Page 1 of 2 Concomitant Agreement (MF# Z2015-002) EXHIBIT #1 5. Conditions: a) Each lot shall be no less than 6,000 square feet in area; b) No more than one dwelling unit shall be permitted on each lot; c) Envision Homes LLC or successors shall install a landscaping buffer adjacent to the south property lines of each lot. At minimum the landscaping buffer on each lot shall contain two trees meeting the requirements of PMC 25.75.080 at the time of planting; d) Envision Homes LLC or successors shall secure the slope along the south property lines with a minimum of two retaining walls each three and one half feet in height. One wall shall adjoin the south property line and the second wall shall be approximately seven (7) feet inside of the southernmost wall. The area between the two walls shall be graded to be level; e) Trees required in (c) above shall be installed between the retaining walls required in (d) above. Said trees shall be subject to maintenance at a minimum mature tree height of approximately twenty (20) to thirty (30) feet by the property owner. 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 Concomitant Agreement (MF# Z2015-002) REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION MASTER FILE NO: SP 2015-010 HEARING DATE: 9/17/2015 ACTION DATE: 10/15/2015 REQUEST FOR SPECIAL PERMIT: 1. APPLICANT: Tiempos de Poder Church 2508 W Sylvester Ste. D Pasco, WA 99301 Location of a Church in a C-3 District Legal: Parcel # 119 461 100: A Portion of the W'/2 of the NEIA of the NW 1/4 of the SETA, of Section 25 Township 9 Range 29; General Location: 2508 W Sylvester Street, Suite D. Property Size: Approximately .82 acres (35,785 square feet) 2. ACCESS: The site has access from Sylvester Street. 3. UTILITIES: The site is served by municipal water and sewer. 4. LAND USE AND ZONING: The property is currently zoned C-3 (General Business). Surrounding properties are zoned C-1, C-3 and R-4 and are fully developed. NORTH: C-1 - Commercial SOUTH: C-3 - Storage EAST: R-4 - Apartments WEST: R-4 - Apartments S. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The site is designated in the Plan for 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 On July 17, 2015 Ministerio Apostolico Y Profetico Tiempos De Poder (Ministry of the Apostolic and Prophetic Time of Power) applied for an occupancy permit for a church in a C-3 Zoning district. The application was placed on hold with the notation that a Special Permit is required for all churches as per PMC 25.86. The church subsequently applied for a Special Permit on August 8, 2015. The application involves the use of one of six suites in the Ryder's West mini - mall for church activities. The mini -mall contains 5,800 square feet of floor space. The church has signed a lease for 940 square feet in Suite D near the middle of the mini -mall. The proposed church location has parking to the north, east, and west of the building. The mini -mall was built in 1972 for retail commercial purposes. The six suites are currently occupied with an accounting and tax firm, a Washington Unions office, a tax service and a Piano Service. The suite in question was previously occupied by the Teamsters Union local 839 up to 2007, and is currently vacant. The church plans to hold services for approximately 30 people for about 6 hour a week, on Sundays, Wednesdays, & Fridays, 2 hours per day. The maximum occupancy for the suite is 135 people, not counting restroom space and other ancillary uses. The mini -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. However, due to the size of the building no building modifications would be required in order to meet the "A" occupancy requirements. 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 2. The proposed church site is zoned C-3. 3. The proposed site is located at 2508 W Sylvester Street, Ste. D. 4. The property is currently occupied with office and retail uses. 5. The site was originally developed as a mini -mall. 6. The mini -mall contains 5,800 square feet of floor area. 7. The church has signed a lease for 940 square feet of floor space. 8. The maximum occupancy for 940 square feet (excluding restrooms) is 135 people. 9. Churches are classified as "A" occupancy under the International Building Code, which differs from the original occupancy of the structure. However no building modifications would be required for such a small space. 10. 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. 11. The church plans to hold services for approximately 30 people for about 6 hour a week, on Sundays, Wednesdays, & Fridays; 2 hours/day. 12. Based on 940 square feet (assuming no restroom space or ancillary uses) the maximum occupancy loading would be 135 people, requiring 34 parking spaces. 13. Parking areas are located to the north, east and west of the proposed church location with 48 shared parking spaces for the mini -mall. 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? 3 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 mini -mall was designed to handle retail commercial traffic with an adequate 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 (current uses on-site are also relatively low traffic). (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 mini -mall and no exterior changes are planned for the building. The current store front character will be maintained. The intended character of the mini -mall is retail in nature. (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 mini -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. The location of the church within the mini -mall will occupy space intended for retail businesses. Allowing the church to be located in the mini -mall on a long- term basis may discourage the development/location of commercial enterprises within the mini -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? a 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 CONDITIONS 1) The special permit shall be personal to the applicant; 2) If any tenant improvements occur in the space leased to the church, they will be required to 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 shall not 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) 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. RECOMMENDATION MOTION: I move to close the public hearing and schedule deliberations, the adoption of findings of fact, and development of a recommendation for City Council for the October 15, 2015 meeting. 5 �z o N � v� ° ^� 3/-b' H-1-bZ Q c a rz�u o �® HUS ZH-- c LUOBBJOIS FM to -iuiw sluaw:pedd o 0 3AV H19Z u cn CC! ,� o V and glLZ lelojewwoo z 7 N ` `..o 3nb H1--bZ L I V p O V LV M O ct '�' `� cnO Ct 3AV HAZ TOM L .� C� V o N 3A`d 43LZ M �1 V I. Own Q) .rrte^^ V1 All 1-1 �_ t l41 :li �S REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION MASTER FILE NO: PP 2015-002 APPLICANT: Juan Ochoa HEARING DATE: 9/17/2015 99809 E Michelle Drive ACTION DATE: 10/15/2015 Kennewick, WA 99338 BACKGROUND REQUEST: Preliminary Plat: Sunrise Estates Division II 1. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: Legal: The southeast quarter of the northwest quarter of the southeast quarter, Township 9 North, Range 30 East, Section 28, located westerly of Heritage Boulevard right-of-way and less Sunrise Estates Phase 1 General Location: The northwest corner of Heritage Blvd. and Helena Street Property Size: 8.67 Acres Number of Lot/ s Proposed: 31 single-family residential lots Square Footage Range of Lots: 7,335 W to 18,747 ft2 Average Lot Square Footage: 9,131 ft2 2. ACCESS: The property has access from Anaconda Avenue. 3. UTILITIES: Utilities exist in in Anaconda Avenue. 4. LAND USE AND ZONING: The site is zoned R -1-A. Surrounding properties are zoned and developed as follows: NORTH: R-2 - Vacant SOUTH: R -1-A - Single -Family Residences EAST: R -1-A - Vacant WEST: R -1-A - Single -Family Residences 5. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The Comprehensive Plan indicates the site is intended for both mixed -residential and mixed residential/ commercial development types. Policy H -1-E encourages the advancement of home ownership and Goal H-2 suggests the City strive to maintain a variety of housing options for residents of the community. Goal LU -2 encourages the maintenance of established neighborhoods and the creation of new neighborhoods that are safe and enjoyable places to live. 6. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The City of Pasco is the lead agency for this project. Based on the SEPA checklist, the adopted City 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 proposed plat encompasses 8.67 acres of land to be platted into 31 single- family residential lots. This property was annexed to the City in 1994. In 2004 Council rezoned the site to R -1-A (Low -Density Residential Alternate) and approved the original Sunrise Estates preliminary plat, containing 102 single-family residential lots. The rezone was approved without the use of a concomitant agreement. The Comprehensive Plan designates the site for mixed residential development which provides the option to develop single-family homes. The proposed plat is a functional continuation of the initial phases of Sunrise Estates having an overall density and average lot size similar to the initial phases of Sunrise Estates to the south. The Sunrise Estates preliminary plat was originally approved over 10 years ago; because development has not been completed the preliminary plat has expired. In order for development of the plat to continue the remaining portion of the plat must be reviewed and re -approved before a final plat may be accepted. Reviewing the plat now will help ensure current codes and standards will be met. LOT LAYOUT: The proposed plat contains 31 residential lots; with the lots varying in size from 7,335 to 18,747 square feet. The average lot size is 9,131 square feet. RIGHTS-OF-WAY: All lots have adequate frontage on streets which will be dedicated. UTILITIES: Currently, municipal sewer and water lines are located in Anaconda Avenue. The developer will be responsible for extending utilities into the plat. A utility easement will be needed along the first 10 feet of street frontage of all lots. The final location and width of the easements will be determined during the construction design phase of the platting process. The front yard setbacks for construction purposes are larger than the requested easements; therefore the front yard easements will not encroach upon buildable portions of the lots. The City Engineer will determine the specific placement of fire hydrants and streetlights when construction plans are submitted. As a general rule, fire hydrants are located at street intersections and with a maximum interval of 500 feet between hydrants on alternating sides of the street. Streetlights are located at street intersections, with a maximum interval of 300 feet on residential streets, and with a maximum interval of 150 feet on arterial streets. The intervals for street light placements are measure along the centerline of the road. Street lights are placed on alternating sides of the street. STREET NAMES: Streets continuing from surrounding subdivisions will carry the names from the other subdivisions and streets without names will all be named prior to final platting. IRRIGATION: The municipal code requires installation of irrigation lines as a part of infrastructure improvements. 2 WATER RIGHTS: The assignment of water rights is a requirement for subdivision approval per Pasco Municipal Code Section 26.04.115(B) and Section 3.07.160. If no water rights are available to transfer to the City the property owner/developer must pay a water right fee in lieu thereof. The Public Works Director may waive the fee if the developer mixes a soil additive in the ground that provides 30% retention of irrigation water. In this case there are no water rights to deed to the City as a result the current fee will be required before a final plat is approved. INITIAL FINDINGS OF FACT State law (RCW 58.17.110) and the Pasco Municipal Code require the Planning Commission to develop Findings of Fact as to how this proposed subdivision will protect and enhance the health, safety and general welfare of the community. The following is a listing of proposed "Findings of Fact": Prevent Overcrowding: With an average lot size of 9,131 square feet, the proposed development will address the overcrowding concern by providing manageable lots and usable open spaces. R -1-A zoning requires a 20 -foot front yard setback, five-foot side yard setbacks and a rear yard equal to or greater than the height of the house. Parks Opens Space/Schools: The proposed plat is located within a third of a mile from Vintage Park. Vintage Park is located directly south of Maya Angelou Elementary School. The developer will be required to pay the current park fee prior to receiving building permits. The developer will be required to pay the current school impact fee prior to receiving building permits. The City is required by RCW 58.17.110 to make a finding that adequate provisions are being made to ameliorate the impacts of the proposed subdivision on the School District. At the request of the School District the City enacted a school impact fee in 2012. The imposition of this impact fee addresses the requirement to ensure there are adequate provisions for schools. A school impact fee in the amount of $4,700 will be charged for each new home at the time of building permit issuance. Effective Land Use/Orderly Development: The plat is laid out for low-density residential development consistent with residential development of the initial phases of Sunrise Estates. The site is surrounded by several vacant parcels. Safe Travel & Walking Conditions: The Plat will connect to the community through the existing network of streets. Sidewalks are installed at the time homes are built on individual lots. The sidewalks will be constructed to current City standards and to the standards of the American's with Disabilities Act (ADA). The ADA ramps at the corners of each intersection will be installed with the construction of the road improvements. 7 Adequate Provision of Municipal Services: All lots within the plat will be provided with water, sewer and other utilities. Provision of Housing for State Residents: The proposed preliminary plat contains 31 building lots, providing opportunities for the construction of 31 new homes for Pasco residents. Adequate Air and Light: The maximum lot coverage limitation of 40 percent and building setbacks will assure adequate movement of air and light is available to each lot. Proper Access & Travel: The access streets will be paved and developed to City standards to assure that proper access is maintained to each lot. The discussion under safe travel above applies to this section also. Comprehensive Plan Policies & Maps: The Comprehensive Plan indicates the site is designated for single-family and mixed -residential development. Policies of the Comprehensive Plan suggest the City strive to maintain a variety of housing for residents. Other Findings: • The site is within the Pasco Urban Growth Area Boundary. • The State Growth Management Act requires urban growth and urban densities to occur within Urban Growth Boundaries. • The Comprehensive Plan identifies the site for single-family and mixed - residential development • The site is currently zoned R -1-A (Low -Density Residential Alternate). • The Housing Element of the Comprehensive Plan encourages the development of a variety of residential densities and housing types. • Per the ITE Trip Generation Manual 8th Addition the proposed subdivision, when fully developed, will generate approximately 380 vehicle trips per day. • RCW 58.17. 110 requires the City to make a finding that adequate provisions have been made for schools before any preliminary plat is approved. • The City of Pasco has adopted a school impact fee ordinance compelling new housing developments to provide the School District with mitigation fees. The fee was effective April 16, 2012. • Past correspondence from the Pasco School District indicates impact fees address the requirement to ensure adequate provisions are made for schools. • There are no water rights associated with this plat therefor a payment in lieu of dedication of water rights will be required to receive final plat approval. 4 TENTATIVE CONCLUSIONS BASED ON THE INITIAL FINDINGS OF FACT Before recommending approval or denial of the proposed Plat the Planning Commission must develop Findings of Fact from which to draw its conclusion (P.M.C. 26.24.070) therefrom as to whether or not: (1) Adequate provisions are made for the public health, safety and general welfare and for open spaces, drainage ways, streets, alleys, other public ways, water supplies, sanitary wastes, parks, playgrounds, transit stops, schools and school grounds, sidewalks for safe walking conditions for students and other public needs; The proposed plat will be required to develop under the standards of the Pasco Municipal Code and the standard specifications of the City Engineering Division. These standards for streets, sidewalks, and other infrastructure improvements were designed to ensure the public health; safety and general welfare of the community are secured. These standards include provisions for streets, drainage, water and sewer service and the provision for dedication of right-of-way. The preliminary plat was forwarded to the Franklin County PUD, the Pasco School District, Cascade Gas, Charter Cable and Ben -Franklin Transit Authority for review and comment. The PUD requested easements along the front of all lots for utility service. Based on the School Districts Capital Facilities Plan the City collects school mitigation fees for each new dwelling unit. The fee is paid at the time of building permit issuance. The school impact fee addresses the requirements of RCW 58.17.110. (2) The proposed subdivision contributes to the orderly development and land use patterns in the area; The proposed plat makes efficient use of vacant land and will provide for additional housing within the City. (3) The proposed subdivision conforms to the policies, maps and narrative text of the Comprehensive Plan; The Comprehensive Plan land use map designates much of the site for mixed - residential development. Single-family homes are identified as one of the permitted residential uses within the mixed residential designation. Plan Goal H-2 suggests the City strive to maintain a variety of housing options for residents of the community while Plan Policy H -1-B supports the protection and enhancement of the established character of viable residential neighborhoods. (4) The proposed subdivision conforms to the general purposes of any applicable policies or plans which have been adopted by the City Council; 5 Development plans and policies have been adopted by the City Council in the form of the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed subdivision conforms to the policies, maps and narrative text of the Plan as noted in number three above. (5) The proposed subdivision conforms to the general purposes of the subdivision regulations. The general purposes of the subdivision regulations have been enumerated and discussed in the staff analysis and Findings of Fact. The Findings of Fact indicate the subdivision is in conformance with the general purposes of the subdivision regulations provided certain mitigation measures (i.e. school impact fees, and park fees) are included in approval conditions. (6) The public use and interest will be served by approval of the proposed subdivision. If approved the proposed plat will be developed in accordance with all City standards designed to insure the health, safety and general welfare of the community are met. The Comprehensive Plan will be implemented through development of this Plat. These factors will insure the public use and interest are served. TENTATIVE PLAT APPROVAL CONDITIONS 1. At the time lots are developed, all abutting roads and utilities shall be installed to City standards as approved by the City Engineer. This includes, but is not limited to water, sewer and irrigation lines, streets, street lights and storm water retention. The handicapped accessible pedestrian ramps must be completed with the street and curb improvements prior to final plat approval. All proposed utilities must be installed underground by the developer at the developer's expense. Sidewalks within the Plat must be located adjacent to the right-of-way line and off -set from the curb. 2. All lot frontages must be wide enough to accommodate the placement of all utilities while maintaining the necessary separations between the various utility service lines. 3. The developer must comply with PMC 26.04.115(B) and PMC 3.07.160 dealing with water rights acquisition. 4. No utility vaults, pedestals, or other obstructions will be allowed at street intersections. 5. All corner lots and other lots that present difficulties for the placement of yard fencing shall be identified in the notes on the face of the final plat(s). 6. All storm water is to be disposed of per City and State codes and requirements. 0 7. The developer shall insure active and ongoing dust, weed and litter abatement activities occur during the construction of the subdivision and construction of dwellings thereon. 8. The developer shall prepare a dust, weed and erosion control plan to be approved by the City prior to approval of any construction drawings for the first phase of the subdivision. 9. The developer shall be responsible for the creation of record drawings. All record drawings shall be created in accordance with the requirements detailed in the Record Drawing Requirements and Procedure form provided by the Engineering Division. This form shall be signed by the developer prior to construction plan approval. 10. All engineering designs for infrastructure and final plat(s) drawings shall utilize the published City of Pasco Vertical Control Datum and shall be identified on each such submittal. 11. The final plat(s) shall contain a 10 -foot utility easement parallel to all streets unless otherwise required by the Franklin County PUD. 12. The final plat(s) shall contain the following Franklin County Public Utility District statement: "The individual or company making improvements on a lot or lots of this Plat is responsible for providing and installing all trench, conduit, primary vaults, secondary junction boxes, and backfill for the PUD's primary and secondary distribution system in accordance with PUD specifications; said individual or company will make full advance payment of line extension fees and will provide all necessary utility easements prior to PUD construction and/or connection of any electrical service to or within the plat". 13. Street lighting must be installed to the City of Pasco/Franklin County PUD standards and as directed by the City Engineer. Residential street lights are typically installed every 300 feet, and collector/ arterial type street lights are typically installed every 150 feet. Street light positioning is alternating and is measured along the centerline of the road. 14. Prior to the City of Pasco accepting construction plans for review the developer must enter into a Storm Water Maintenance Agreement with the City. The developer will be responsible for obtaining the signatures of all parties required on the agreement and to have the agreement recorded with the Franklin County Auditor. The original signed and recorded copy of the agreement must be presented to the City of Pasco at the intake meeting for construction plans. 15. The developer will be required to conform to all conditions set forth in the Storm Water Maintenance Agreement including, but not limited to, regular cleaning and maintenance of all streets, gutters, catch basins and catch basin protection systems. Cleaning shall occur on a regular basis to ensure that no excess buildup of sand, trash, grass clippings, weeds or other debris occurs in any portion of the streets, gutters, or storm water collection facilities. Cleaning and upkeep of the streets, gutters, and storm water collection facilities must be to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. The developer will be 7 responsible for operating and maintaining the storm drain system in accordance with the Storm Water Maintenance Agreement. 16. The developer will be required to comply with the City of Pasco Civil Plan Review process. 17. The developer/builder shall pay the City a "common area maintenance fee" of $275 per lot upon issuance of building permits for homes. These funds shall be placed in a fund and used to finance the maintenance of arterial boulevard strips. 18. The developer/ builder shall pay the "school impact fee" and "park fee" established by ordinance at the time of issuance of building permits for homes. RECOMMENDATION MOTION: I move to close the hearing on the proposed preliminary plat and initiate deliberations and schedule adoption of findings of fact, conclusions and a recommendation to the City Council for the October 15, 2015 meeting. 0 tJt r'1 ct r o cn ' 41 ,r- r I � 14 -- I I 1 'i rll>� - ETA ,r- r I � 14 -- I I 1 'i rll>� - M d IC avio W. 116 mIm ill F1111011 41 'lop" iu 'iikf 1 5 W 1 yy��Y Y -r 'rtli j" y n � 'f � P�1•. Y. 1 (y J+ Y r'1 r +: 1 1 9 •. i` _tip: zi'. Vi t skg (`TV[d WJ `� 1' �'aixu 141 s 1 � ` a A i 4 4-J C0 O UT u � a� •apt -a -P m kN3l3H 3�I:1 7F-"-7' �i z n a s° r+ a I s� &• � - 9 y. a s -,e � m I •e �s 4 �" o SII v Rr�°gb �bf ,' ,��• yl "i7m^cki � V ♦p " �. n �A,�+ R r �.v e 110-cgs-fP 'pl 99tlVtl %V1 i M''� uw[ LSSI-'J{-(y 'Z.y QL0�9S-[i . -OS' V3JtlYd %Va 9LI159� !v ,992 -JI -[0 '�3k tl=n9�V 03 D 4 � N D m Z ANO ,J z a zn n gill i 1111" 1 s O -q o Ao_ y i R°€ Bo $tli� 2 4 �r�$ FYId.R io rz jp z l$— $ iR• IR q tiomn oa Sd h7 K a $ > wee€ K N ti]'ns 0 3 € gd dd 4 s� �9' a �x#„d no`"oA Cq v iofzo Eby y �iZ Z Z -w a N 2s2�69 A994 999949'94949932222?22a2@n@nisnns°A e�agr 4a'a'; ��'i{4y�y$�i�4��5 a��eaeekaee4e�E4e �Yk aCa°@°a�44eCs�aeBaen�a¢aaeai¢'@i CN 33�B`q�CSA 3I9��I �:�5i 0'39 €, iyy 4i ig-g 4?a9g5gRg9pip 4w4Ggk®i NN 3'4C0 pp 6i, sis 9i9�#iy �H9¢: kyi p4e 4�: ig�gF PYe@d&�y4 i#444`v gA e:a=Yg®ICiY3'.BR64$'0.8i423Y5B7i4S & ��ag�§y�yy�$5#84@i3��t�Y�iE .4xv- 665?p33 Y=Y S'i 4iIY',�5tli� Y-yy is x'v @Em,YsC?qxX[CiCF8�45eC6i4H¢Sf@acM;@C@@�e"Rir@g yy@9?z+tl 6ii yy4� REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION MASTER FILE NO: PP 2015-003 HEARING DATE: 9/17/2015 ACTION DATE: 10/15/2015 REQUEST: Preliminary Plat: Ellie Estates 1. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: APPLICANT: Ilya Parkhotyuk 785 Canyon St. Apt #304 Richland, WA 99352 Lam: That portion of the northeast '/a of the southeast '/o of Section 17, Township 9 North, Range 29 East WM, Franklin County, Washington; lying southerly of the FCID canal and easterly of Sunset Manor and Chiawana Estates; northerly of the easterly extension of Sterling Road and less Lot 2 of Short Plat 2009-19. General Location: 3600 Block of Road 84 Property Size: 13.64 Acres Number of Lot/ s Proposed: 20 single-family residential lots Square Footage Range of Lots: 21,845 ft2 to 44,076 ft' Average Lot Square Footage: 26,704 ft' 2. ACCESS: The property is accessible from Road 84. 3. UTILITIES: A municipal water line currently extends the length of the property in Road 84. Municipal sewer lines currently terminate in Road 84 near the southeast corner of the site and another sewer line traverses Road 84 approximately 130 feet north of the irrigation canal. 4. LAND USE AND ZONING: The site is zoned RS -20 (Suburban). Surrounding properties are zoned and developed as follows: NORTH: RS -20 - Single -Family Residences SOUTH: RS -20 - Single -Family Residences and Church Educational Facility EAST: RS -20 - Mobile Home Park and High School WEST: RS -20 - Single -Family Residences 5. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The Comprehensive Plan indicates the site is intended for Low -Density Residential development. Policy H -1-E encourages the advancement of home ownership and Goal H-2 suggests the City strive to maintain a variety of housing options for residents of the community. Goal LU -2 encourages the maintenance of established neighborhoods and the creation of new neighborhoods that are safe and enjoyable places to live. 1 6. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The City of Pasco is the lead agency for this project. Based on the SEPA checklist, the adopted City Comprehensive Plan, City development regulations, and other information, a threshold determination resulting in a Determination of Non -Significance (DNS) has been issued for this project under WAC 197-11-158. ANALYSIS The proposed plat encompasses 13.64 acres of land and contains 20 single-family residential lots. This property was incorporated into the City in 2015 with the most recent "Road 80 Annexation". During the annexation process RS -20 (Suburban) zoning was applied to the subject site without any additional zoning restrictions. The RS -20 zone permits single-family homes on lots no less than 20,000 square feet in area. Minimum setbacks for homes are as follows: front = 25', sides = 10' and rear = 25'. The maximum permitted height of homes is thirty five (35) feet. The site is designated in the Comprehensive Plan for low-density residential development which provides the option to develop single-family homes. The overall density and average lot size between the proposed subdivision and Chiawana Estates residential subdivision to the west are similar. The site currently contains three single-family homes with a variety of accessory structures. For many years the homes have been accessed via the dirt FCID irrigation canal access road. Lots 1, 2 & 3 have each been designed to contain said homes. LOT LAYOUT: The proposed plat contains 20 residential lots; with the lots varying in size from 21,845 TO 44,076 square feet. The average lot size is 26,704 square feet. RIGHTS-OF-WAY: All lots have adequate frontage on streets which will be dedicated. Two new rights-of-way will be dedicated for roads. One cul-de-sac will extend west from Road 84 for an approximate distance of 480 feet. Ten lots will be accessed from this road. The second right-of-way to be dedicated will achieve the east -west connection of Sterling Road. A shallow cul-de-sac is proposed to extend north of Sterling Road for an approximate depth of 125 -feet. Five lots will be accessed from this road. In ideal circumstances Maple Drive would extend from the westerly edge of the proposed plat to Road 84. This extension would provide needed looping of the water system and improve traffic circulation in and through the neighborhood. This connection would also provide some benefits to the surrounding neighborhood by improving emergency vehicle access. Unfortunately the County allowed one of the property owners to build a large shop at the end of Maple Drive blocking the easterly extension of Maple Drive. The Planning Commission may want to discuss the possibility of some form of turnaround at the end of maple Drive 2 UTILITIES: Currently, a municipal water line is located in Road 84 extending the entire length of the parcel. The municipal sewer line located in Road 84 terminates near the south end of the site. The developer will be responsible for extending utilities into the plat. The plat application indicates the developer intends to install septic systems on each lot, however due to the proximity of the site to existing sewer lines it will be a requirement for municipal sewer to be extended into the site to service each lot. A utility easement will be needed along the first 10 feet of street frontage of all lots. The final location and width of the easements will be determined during the construction design phase of the platting process. The front yard setbacks for construction purposes are larger than the requested easements; therefore the front yard easements will not encroach upon buildable portions of the lots. The City Engineer will determine the specific placement of fire hydrants and streetlights when construction plans are submitted. As a general rule, fire hydrants are located at street intersections and with a maximum interval of 500 feet between hydrants on alternating sides of the street. Streetlights are not required in RS -20 zoning districts. STREET NAMES: Site development will connect Sterling Road along the south line of the plat. Sterling Road currently terminates into southwest corner of the site. One additional public road extending from Road 84 will be created in the form of a cul-de-sac approximately 480 -feet in length. A name for the court will be assigned during the final platting process. IRRIGATION: The municipal code requires installation of irrigation lines as a part of infrastructure improvements. Franklin County Irrigation District (FCID) provided comments on the plat related to the use of irrigation water from the canal to the north. FCID will require all new lots to have separate irrigation services and piping installed to each new lot, except lot 10 which will be served from the main in Maple Drive. Servicing the development will require the irrigation main in Road 84 to be tapped in three locations. Associated FCID easements will be required on the final plat. Upon completion of development and prior to final acceptance by FCID, all fees must be paid and all as -built drawings shall be presented to the District for acceptance. WATER RIGHTS: The assignment of water rights is a requirement for subdivision approval per Pasco Municipal Code Section 26.04.115(B) and Section 3.07.160. If no water rights are available to transfer to the City the property owner/developer must pay a water right fee in lieu thereof. The Public Works Director may waive the fee if the developer mixes a soil additive in the ground that provides 30% retention of irrigation water. In this case there are no water rights to deed to the City as a result the current fee will be required before a final plat is approved. 3 INITIAL FINDINGS OF FACT State law (RCW 58.17.110) and the Pasco Municipal Code require the Planning Commission to develop Findings of Fact as to how this proposed subdivision will protect and enhance the health, safety and general welfare of the community. The following is a listing of proposed "Findings of Fact": Prevent Overcrowding: With an average lot size of 26,704 square feet the proposed development will address the overcrowding concern by providing manageable lots and usable open spaces. RS -20 zoning requires a 25 -foot front yard setback, ten -foot side yard setbacks and a 25 -foot rear yard setback. Of all residential zones in Pasco the RS -20 zone provides for the most open space between homes and roads. Parks Opens Space/Schools: The proposed plat is located within a one mile from Chiawana Park on the Columbia River. The subject site lies within one half of one mile from Liberty Park in the Loviisa Farms residential subdivision. The developer will be required to pay the current park fee prior to receiving building permits. The developer will be required to pay the current school impact fee prior to receiving building permits. The City is required by RCW 58.17.110 to make a finding that adequate provisions are being made to ameliorate the impacts of the proposed subdivision on the School District. At the request of the School District the City enacted a school impact fee in 2012. The imposition of this impact fee addresses the requirement to ensure there are adequate provisions for schools. A school impact fee in the amount of $4,700 will be charged for each new home at the time of building permit issuance. Effective Land Use/Orderly Development: The plat is laid out for suburban low- density residential development consistent with surrounding residential development. Platting is configured around three existing homes to the north which create slight irregularities but development proposed within the plat area will be of a more orderly fashion; conforming to the City's current development standards to promote orderly growth. Safe Travel & Walking Conditions: The plat will connect to the community through the existing network of streets initially via Road 84. Sidewalks are not a required right-of-way development component in Pasco's suburban zones. Roadway improvements into the plat will consist of an asphalt driving surface and roadside stormwater collection/ diversion depressions. Adequate Provision of Municipal Services: All lots within the plat will be provided with water service. Due to the elevation of the property and the fact that the existing Road 84 sewer line servicing the Pathfinder Mobile Home Park connects to the Chiawana High lift station it will be difficult to sewer this property. The applicant has applied for a sewer service waiver to install onsite septic systems. 4 Provision of Housing for State Residents: The proposed preliminary plat contains 20 building lots, providing opportunities for the construction of 17 new homes for Pasco residents. Adequate Air and Light: The maximum lot coverage limitation of 40 percent and building setbacks will assure adequate movement of air and light is available to each lot. Proper Access & Travel: The access streets will be paved and developed to City standards to assure that proper access is maintained to each lot. The discussion under safe travel above applies to this section also. Comprehensive Plan Policies & Maps: The Comprehensive Plan indicates the site is designated for low-density single-family development. Policies of the Comprehensive Plan suggest the City strive to maintain a variety of housing for residents. Other Findings: • The site is within the Pasco Urban Growth Area Boundary. • The State Growth Management Act requires urban growth and urban densities to occur within Urban Growth Boundaries. • The Comprehensive Plan identifies the site for low-density residential development • The site is currently zoned RS -20. • The Housing Element of the Comprehensive Plan encourages the development of a variety of residential densities and housing types. • The current traffic impact fee is $709 per dwelling unit. The impact fees are collected at the time permits are issued and said fees are used to make traffic improvements and add traffic signals in the I-182 Corridor when warranted. • RCW 58.17. 110 requires the City to make a finding that adequate provisions have been made for schools before any preliminary plat is approved. • The City of Pasco has adopted a school impact fee ordinance compelling new housing developments to provide the School District with mitigation fees. The fee was effective April 16, 2012. • Past correspondence from the Pasco School District indicates impact fees address the requirement to ensure adequate provisions are made for schools. • There are no water rights associated with this plat therefor a payment in lieu of dedication of water rights will be required to receive final plat approval. 5 TENTATIVE CONCLUSIONS BASED ON THE INITIAL FINDINGS OF FACT Before recommending approval or denial of the proposed Plat the Planning Commission must develop Findings of Fact from which to draw its conclusion (P.M.C. 26.24.070) therefrom as to whether or not: (1) Adequate provisions are made for the public health, safety and general welfare and for open spaces, drainage ways, streets, alleys, other public ways, water supplies, sanitary wastes, parks, playgrounds, transit stops, schools and school grounds, sidewalks for safe walking conditions for students and other public needs; The proposed plat will be required to develop under the standards of the Pasco Municipal Code and the standard specifications of the City Engineering Division. These standards for streets and other infrastructure improvements were designed to ensure the public health; safety and general welfare of the community are secured. These standards include provisions for streets, drainage, water and sewer service and the provision for dedication of right-of-way. The preliminary plat was forwarded to the Franklin County PUD, the Pasco School District, Cascade Gas, Charter Cable and Ben -Franklin Transit Authority for review and comment. The PUD requested easements along the front of all lots for utility service. Based on the School Districts Capital Facilities Plan the City collects school mitigation fees for each new dwelling unit. The fee is paid at the time of building permit issuance. The school impact fee addresses the requirements of RCW 58.17.110. (2) The proposed subdivision contributes to the orderly development and land use patterns in the area; The proposed plat makes efficient use of vacant land and will provide for additional housing within the City. (3) The proposed subdivision conforms to the policies, maps and narrative text of the Comprehensive Plan; The Comprehensive Plan land use map designates much of the site low-density residential development. Single-family homes are identified as one of the permitted residential uses within the low-density residential designation. Plan Goal H-2 suggests the City strive to maintain a variety of housing options for residents of the community while Plan Policy H -1-B supports the protection and enhancement of the established character of viable residential neighborhoods. 0 (4) The proposed subdivision conforms to the general purposes of any applicable policies or plans which have been adopted by the City Council; Development plans and policies have been adopted by the City Council in the form of the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed subdivision conforms to the policies, maps and narrative text of the Plan as noted in number three above. (5) The proposed subdivision conforms to the general purposes of the subdivision regulations. The general purposes of the subdivision regulations have been enumerated and discussed in the staff analysis and Findings of Fact. The Findings of Fact indicate the subdivision is in conformance with the general purposes of the subdivision regulations provided certain mitigation measures (i.e. school impact fees and park development) are included in approval conditions. (6) The public use and interest will be served by approval of the proposed subdivision. If approved the proposed plat will be developed in accordance with all City standards designed to insure the health, safety and general welfare of the community are met. The Comprehensive Plan will be implemented through development of this Plat. These factors will insure the public use and interest are served. TENTATIVE PLAT APPROVAL CONDITIONS 1. At the time lots are developed, all abutting roads and utilities shall be installed and/or improved to City standards as approved by the City Engineer. This includes, but is not limited to water, sewer and irrigation lines, streets, street lights and storm water retention or management. Sidewalks and street lights within the plat are not required due to the RS -20 zoning. 2. The developer must comply with PMC 26.04.115(B) and PMC 3.07.160 dealing with water rights acquisition. 3. No utility vaults, pedestals, or other obstructions will be allowed at street intersections. 4. It shall be identified in the notes on the face of the final plat(s) that Lot 5 presents difficulties for the placement of yard fencing. 5. All storm water is to be disposed of per City and State codes and requirements. 6. The developer shall insure active and ongoing dust, weed and litter abatement activities occur during the construction of the subdivision and construction of dwellings thereon. 7 7. The developer shall prepare a dust, weed and erosion control plan to be approved by the City prior to approval of any construction drawings for the first phase of the subdivision. 8. The developer shall be responsible for the creation of record drawings. All record drawings shall be created in accordance with the requirements detailed in the Record Drawing Requirements and Procedure form provided by the Engineering Division. This form shall be signed by the developer prior to construction plan approval. 9. All engineering designs for infrastructure and final plat(s) drawings shall utilize the published City of Pasco Vertical Control Datum and shall be identified on each such submittal. 10. The final plat(s) shall contain a 10 -foot utility easement parallel to all streets unless otherwise required by the Franklin County PUD. 11. The final plat(s) shall contain the following Franklin County Public Utility District statement: "The individual or company making improvements on a lot or lots of this Plat is responsible for providing and installing all trench, conduit, primary vaults, secondary junction boxes, and backfill for the PUD's primary and secondary distribution system in accordance with PUD specifications; said individual or company will make full advance payment of line extension fees and will provide all necessary utility easements prior to PUD construction and/or connection of any electrical service to or within the plat". 12. Prior to the City of Pasco accepting construction plans for review the developer must enter into a Storm Water Maintenance Agreement with the City. The developer will be responsible for obtaining the signatures of all parties required on the agreement and to have the agreement recorded with the Franklin County Auditor. The original signed and recorded copy of the agreement must be presented to the City of Pasco at the intake meeting for construction plans. 13. The developer will be required to comply with the City of Pasco Civil Plan Review process. 14. The developer/ builder shall mitigate impacts to the Public School System by the "school impact fee" established by Ordinance at the time of issuance of building permits for homes. 15. The developer/ builder shall pay the "traffic impact fee" and "park fee" established by ordinance at the time of issuance of building permits for homes. RECOMMENDATION MOTION: I move to close the hearing on the proposed preliminary plat and initiate deliberations and schedule adoption of findings of fact, conclusions and a recommendation to the City Council for the October 15, 2015 meeting. 8 �,.,,� �-� r O � CC3 In"t A[111V� • r-+ rq �EryY�y%i /� � �� �� "� - - ��lT. ..^..'.. l ice+ A F+•1 ��,irr ct a ��` �l � � ('■`���/ �4r '+ �;Y.�,� `�F v1 � ,�i �`jY; V� � Irl-� � ��t r t � • � Y �~ ��i "( i f. 'i- _� � � moi.. �i 1•r'1��� r �1. j. ���-_ � � ��� � -'r �.1' � � -�.�,� -iRil 1 oat '4tl � ._fir • �� �� � �`' s .1. � � �.` 4�� � � �4�"�a`�"' . r� �! �/,'���i'�7��,.{�� x �(�$` j Y a` - � �4-r t,.Y L �'• Y I 1.' �,i' i, �.C� �.,L'!y7-+� � �{� d : m'it't[ ar' "�" � ���" � ,� � � �' S I { •� � Aw . tx 1 x Vf Cd W W • 5.4 0 0 DESCRIPTION PRWMM PLAT ELLIE ESTATES 17 OTT A CT LOT !llbbb a ,>. -i_13 xa .Lr�, mw,r na.w�or,. •' � — I OT 2 71 y it0i LOT wl.,cip�,� xir ; fi,Mw[s WT 9 /A— g F LOsmrt ♦ srmm, _ _� �/\ 8 _ \\ [ � I i. it .. oO,3M —.LOT 13 K ��o. a os�� .� � a R"'T a,a Ansa LOT 15 K / b j leo- We LOT lB - - '[LOT ,) OT LPO W,A �.1 Pa LOT 16 DEb£LWER ILYA PA4NHJTVN P0.5C WTTHIMRi WJE y o � 1 EEB LM9LX IW 9BJJ6 5 ,/=— r> 50 -581-6II6 =,. 4y vs[ Mvwclw xw Mxu mn u, e/f Y.ar wn mm rtw¢ u=s wtteo Yvmtr i A, ei. uu LOTS 14076 1p1 IL A.o� TOTAL MU M PROGJE[0 PWW/ WAY 5„N .1 S4EEl f.CE I REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION MASTER FILE NO: PP 2015-004 APPLICANT: Mission Investments LLC HEARING DATE: 9/ 17/2015 10217 Willow Way ACTION DATE: 10/15/2015 Pasco, WA 99301 BACKGROUND REQUEST: Preliminary Plat: Road 84 Estates 1. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: Lcgal: The south 1/2 of the south 1/2 of the southwest 1/4 of the northwest 1/4 of Section 21, Township 9 North, Range 29 East WM, Franklin County, Washington. General Location: 2300 Block of Road 84 Property 9.95 Acres Number of Lots: 16 single-family lots Square Footage Range of Lots: 21,085 ft2 to 21,117 ft2 Average Lot Square Footage: 2 1, 10 1 ft2 2. ACCESS: The property has access from Road 84 3. UTILITIES: Utilities exist in in Road 84. 4. LAND USE AND ZONING: The site is zoned RS -20. Surrounding properties are zoned and developed as follows: NORTH: RS -20 - Single-Family/Elementary School SOUTH: RS -20 - Single Family/Vacant EAST: RS -20 - Vacant/Single-Family WEST: RS -20 - Single -Family 5. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The Comprehensive Plan indicates the site is intended for low density residential development. Policy H -1-E encourages the advancement of home ownership and Goal H-2 suggests the City strive to maintain . a variety of housing options for residents of the community. Goal LU -2 encourages the maintenance of established neighborhoods and the creation of new neighborhoods that are safe and enjoyable places to live. 6. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The City of Pasco is the lead agency for this project. Based on the SEPA checklist, the adopted City 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 property was recently annexed to the City and zoned RS -20 as a part of the Road 80 Annexation. The proposed plat is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and RS -20 zoning. The proposal is a rather straight forward simple plat with one exception. The southern boundary of the property abuts a 20 -foot road easement and irrigation right-of-way aligned with Wernett Road. Under ideal circumstances the developer would be required to provide an additional 10 feet of right-of-way for Wernett Road and built the north half of the street. However, the telephone company was previously allowed to install telephone equipment on the center line of where the future Wernett Road should be located. The initial solution to this problem involved construction of an island around the telephone equipment splitting the future east and west bound lanes of Wernett Road. As the County never required right-of-way from the property owners to the south (two houses are located to the south) the utility island would extend onto private property. The island would create confusion for motorists in that the private driveway to the south would appear as the east bound lane for Wernett when in reality it is a private driveway dead ending on a private residential lot. After lengthy discussions on how to connect Wernett Road with Road 84 the applicant is proposing to shift Wernett Road 133 feet to the north and replace the 20 -foot easement/right-of-way with a full width (60 ft.) street with additional 10 foot easements all designed to City standards. Wernett would connect to the east with a short jog on Road 80. This proposal would eliminate difficulties in dealing with the telephone equipment and the private driveway where Wernett would ideally connect to Road 84. The Franklin County Irrigation District has indicated in written correspondence they are willing to relocating their easement and right- of-way to the north. LOT LAYOUT: The proposed plat contains 16 residential lots; with the lots varying in size from 21,085 to 21,117 square feet. The average lot size is 21,101 square feet. RIGHTS-OF-WAY: All lots have adequate frontage on streets which will be dedicated. UTILITIES: Currently, municipal sewer and water lines are located in Road 84. The developer will be responsible for extending utilities into the plat. A utility easement will be needed along the first 10 feet of street frontage of all lots. The final location and width of the easements will be determined during the construction design phase of the platting process. The front yard setbacks for construction purposes are larger than the requested easements; therefore the front yard easements will not encroach upon buildable portions of the lots. 2 The City Engineer will determine the specific placement of fire hydrants and streetlights when construction plans are submitted. As a general rule, fire hydrants are located at street intersections and with a maximum interval of 500 feet between hydrants on alternating sides of the street. Streetlights are not required in RS -20 zoning districts. STREET NAMES: Streets continuing from surrounding subdivisions will carry the names from the other subdivisions and streets without names will all be named prior to final platting. IRRIGATION: The municipal code requires installation of irrigation lines as a part of infrastructure improvements. WATER RIGHTS: The assignment of water rights is a requirement for subdivision approval per Pasco Municipal Code Section 26.04.115(B) and Section 3.07.160. If no water rights are available to transfer to the City the property owner/developer must pay a water right fee in lieu thereof. The Public Works Director may waive the fee if the developer mixes a soil additive in the ground that provides 30% retention of irrigation water. In this case there are no water rights to deed to the City as a result the current fee will be required before a final plat is approved. INITIAL FINDINGS OF FACT State law (RCW 58.17.110) and the Pasco Municipal Code require the Planning Commission to develop Findings of Fact as to how this proposed subdivision will protect and enhance the health, safety and general welfare of the community. The following is a listing of proposed "Findings of Fact": Prevent Overcrowding: With an average lot size of 21,101 square feet the proposed development will address the overcrowding concern by providing manageable lots and usable open spaces. RS -1 zoning requires a 25 -foot front yard setback, ten -foot side yard setbacks and a rear yard of 25 feet. Parks Opens Space/Schools: The proposed plat is located within a half of a mile from Chiawana Park. The developer will be required to pay the current park fee prior to receiving building permits. The developer will be required to pay the current school impact fee prior to receiving building permits. The City is required by RCW 58.17.110 to make a finding that adequate provisions are being made to ameliorate the impacts of the proposed subdivision on the School District. At the request of the School District the City enacted a school impact fee in 2012. The imposition of this impact fee addresses the requirement to ensure there are adequate provisions for schools. A school impact fee in the amount of $4,700 will be charged for each new home at the time of building permit issuance. 3 Effective Land Use/Orderly Development: The plat is laid out for low-density residential development consistent with surrounding residential developments. Safe Travel & Walking Conditions: The Plat will connect to the community through the existing network of streets. The proposed section of Wernett Road that will be built with this plat will provide a connection between Road 84 and Road 80 improving traffic circulation and improving options for the delivery of emergency services in the neighborhood. There is an existing sidewalk along Road 84 but due to the RS -20 zoning sidewalks are not required within the proposed plat. Adequate Provision of Municipal Services: All lots within the plat will be provided with water, sewer and other utilities. This plat will improve opportunities to provide water and fire protection services to the existing neighborhood on Road 80 to the north of the site. Provision of Housing for State Residents: The proposed preliminary plat contains 16 building lots, providing opportunities for the construction of 16 new homes for Pasco residents. Adequate Air and Light: The maximum lot coverage limitation of 40 percent and building setbacks will assure adequate movement of air and light is available to each lot. Proper Access & Travel: Access streets will be paved and developed to City standards to assure that proper access is maintained to each lot. The discussion under safe travel above applies to this section also. Comprehensive Plan Policies & Maps: The Comprehensive Plan indicates the site is designated for low-density single-family development. Policies of the Comprehensive Plan suggest the City strive to maintain a variety of housing for residents. Other Findings: • The site is within the Pasco Urban Growth Area Boundary. • The State Growth Management Act requires urban growth and urban densities to occur within Urban Growth Boundaries. • The Comprehensive Plan identifies the site for single-family development. • The site is currently zoned RS -20. • Per the ITE Trip Generation Manual 8th Addition the proposed subdivision, when fully developed, will generate approximately 160 vehicle trips per day. • The current traffic impact fee is $709 per dwelling unit. The impact fees are collected at the time permits are issued and said fees are used to make traffic improvements and add traffic signals in the I-182 Corridor when warranted. 4 • RCW 58.17. 110 requires the City to make a finding that adequate provisions have been made for schools before any preliminary plat is approved. • The City of Pasco has adopted a school impact fee ordinance compelling new housing developments to provide the School District with mitigation fees. The fee was effective April 16, 2012. • Past correspondence from the Pasco School District indicates impact fees address the requirement to ensure adequate provisions are made for schools. TENTATIVE CONCLUSIONS BASED ON THE INITIAL FINDINGS OF FACT Before recommending approval or denial of the proposed Plat the Planning Commission must develop Findings of Fact from which to draw its conclusion (P.M.C. 26.24.070) therefrom as to whether or not: (1) Adequate provisions are made for the public health, safety and general welfare and for open spaces, drainage ways, streets, alleys, other public ways, water supplies, sanitary wastes, parks, playgrounds, transit stops, schools and school grounds, sidewalks for safe walking conditions for students and other public needs; The proposed plat will be required to develop under the standards of the Pasco Municipal Code and the standard specifications of the City Engineering Division. These standards for streets, sidewalks, and other infrastructure improvements were designed to ensure the public health; safety and general welfare of the community are secured. These standards include provisions for streets, drainage, water and sewer service and the provision for dedication of right-of-way. The preliminary plat was forwarded to the Franklin County PUD, the Pasco School District, Cascade Gas, Charter Cable and Ben -Franklin Transit Authority for review and comment. The FCID will require a replacement easement as a part of the Wernett Street realignment. Based on the School Districts Capital Facilities Plan the City collects school mitigation fees for each new dwelling unit. The fee is paid at the time of building permit issuance. The school impact fee addresses the requirements of RCW 58.17.110. (2) The proposed subdivision contributes to the orderly development and land use patterns in the area; The proposed plat makes efficient use of vacant land and will provide for additional housing within the City. The plat also provides for improved traffic circulation in the neighborhood (3) The proposed subdivision conforms to the policies, maps and narrative text of the Comprehensive Plan; 5 The Comprehensive Plan land use map designates the site for low-density residential development. Plan Goal H-2 suggests the City strive to maintain a variety of housing options for residents of the community while Plan Policy H -1-B supports the protection and enhancement of the established character of viable residential neighborhoods. The proposed subdivision deviates slightly from the Major Street Plan that generally identifies Wernett Road connecting to Road 84 along quarter section lines. The proposal generally meets the overall intent of the Plan by connecting allowing Wernett Road to connect to Road 84 with a minor jog of 133 feet. (4) The proposed subdivision conforms to the general purposes of any applicable policies or plans which have been adopted by the City Council; Development plans and policies have been adopted by the City Council in the form of the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed subdivision conforms to the policies, maps and narrative text of the Plan as noted in number three above. (5) The proposed subdivision conforms to the general purposes of the subdivision regulations. The general purposes of the subdivision regulations have been enumerated and discussed in the staff analysis and Findings of Fact. The Findings of Fact indicate the subdivision is in conformance with the general purposes of the subdivision regulations provided certain mitigation measures (i.e. school impact fees, park fees, traffic fees) are included in approval conditions. (6) The public use and interest will be served by approval of the proposed subdivision. If approved the proposed plat will be developed in accordance with all City standards designed to insure the health, safety and general welfare of the community are met. The Comprehensive Plan will be implemented through development of this Plat. These factors will insure the public use and interest are served. TENTATIVE PLAT APPROVAL CONDITIONS 1. At the time lots are developed, all abutting roads and utilities shall be installed to City standards as approved by the City Engineer. This includes, but is not limited to water, sewer and irrigation lines, streets, and storm water retention or management. Sidewalks and street lights within the plat are not required due to the RS -20 zoning. 2. The developer must obtain the necessary easement and right-of-way relinquishment from the PUD for the southern 20 feet of the plat prior to submittal of construction drawings. Gi 3. The developer must comply with PMC 26.04.115(B) and PMC 3.07.160 dealing with water rights acquisition. 4. No utility vaults, pedestals, or other obstructions will be allowed at street intersections. 5. All corner lots and other lots that present difficulties for the placement of yard fencing shall be identified in the notes on the face of the final plat(s). 6. All storm water is to be disposed of per City and State codes and requirements. 7. The developer shall insure active and ongoing dust, weed and litter abatement activities occur during the construction of the subdivision and construction of dwellings thereon. 8. The developer shall prepare a dust, weed and erosion control plan to be approved by the City prior to approval of any construction drawings for the first phase of the subdivision. 9. The developer shall be responsible for the creation of record drawings. All record drawings shall be created in accordance with the requirements detailed in the Record Drawing Requirements and Procedure form provided by the Engineering Division. This form shall be signed by the developer prior to construction plan approval. 10. All engineering designs for infrastructure and final plat(s) drawings shall utilize the published City of Pasco Vertical Control Datum and shall be identified on each such submittal. 11. The final plat(s) shall contain a 10 -foot utility easement parallel to all streets unless otherwise required by the Franklin County PUD and an easement across Lot 1-8 as required by the FCID. 12. The final plat(s) shall contain the following Franklin County Public Utility District statement: "The individual or company making improvements on a lot or lots of this Plat is responsible for providing and installing all trench, conduit, primary vaults, secondary junction boxes, and backfill for the PUD's primary and secondary distribution system in accordance with PUD specifications; said individual or company will make full advance payment of line extension fees and will provide all necessary utility easements prior to PUD construction and/or connection of any electrical service to or within the plat". 13. Prior to the City of Pasco accepting construction plans for review the developer must enter into a Storm Water Maintenance Agreement with the City. The developer will be responsible for obtaining the signatures of all parties required on the agreement and to have the agreement recorded with the Franklin County Auditor. The original signed and recorded copy of the agreement must be presented to the City of Pasco at the intake meeting for construction plans. 14. The developer will be required to comply with the City of Pasco Civil Plan Review process. 7 15. The developer/ builder shall pay the "traffic impact fee" and "park fee" established by ordinance at the time of issuance of building permits for homes. MOTION: I move to close the hearing on the proposed preliminary plat and initiate deliberations and schedule adoption of findings of fact, conclusions and a recommendation to the City Council for the October 15, 2015 meeting. 8 • • ■■ I 4 8� z ems bs s 9 3's�A £ W d p J v2S�3 LL �g v3&sem a �— y, z WTI £"moi L 3�»{ - z at s A �P7 — 4 A I �r ,r rcd �-q F+i o O ,®^^ t V{ 0 .i MEMORANDUM DATE: September 4, 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). FINDINGS OF FACT 1) At the April 16, 2015 Planning Commission meeting the Planning Commission reviewed photos of a stark barn -like building recently constructed on Sylvester Street which dramatically contrasts with the adjacent bank and surrounding neighborhood. 2) While this kind of construction clearly does not conform to the character of the surrounding neighborhood, it is permitted under the current code. 3) The Planning Commission held workshops on May 29 and June 18, 2015 to consider changes to the code regarding design standards for commercial corridors. 4) The Planning Commission agreed to the following general guidelines: a. 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. b. The proposed standards should apply only to Office ("O") and Retail Commercial (C-1) Zoning districts. c. 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. d. 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. MOTION: I move the Planning Commission adopt the findings of fact as contained in the September 17, 2015 staff memo on Arterial Corridors Commercial Design Standards. MOTION: I move the Planning Commission recommend the City Council adopt the proposed code amendments for Arterial Corridors Commercial Design Standards as attached to the September 17, 2015 staff memo to the Planning Commission. z 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 September 17, 2015 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: 25.59.010 PURPOSE.................................................................................................1 25.59.020 APPLICABILITY.....................................................................................2 25.59.030 USE IN COMBINATION........................................................................2 25.59.040 PLAN REQUIRED...................................................................................3 25.59.050 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL..............................................................3 25.59.060 DESIGN STANDARDS...........................................................................3 25.59.140 RELIEF.....................................................................................................4 25.59.150 PENALTY AND ENFORCEMENT........................................................5 25.59.160 ADDITIONAL PENALTY-LIEN............................................................5 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`d Avenue, north of "A" Street i. 41h Avenue, south of Highway 395 j. 5ch Avenue, between "A" Street and Court Street k. 6th Avenue, between "A" Street and Court Street 1. 10`h Avenue in. 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