HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-15-2015 Planning Commission Meeting PacketPLANNING
REGULAR MEETING
I.
CALL TO ORDER:
II.
ROLL CALL:
III.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
IV.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
V.
OLD BUSINESS:
A. Special Permit
B. Preliminary Plat
C. Preliminary Plat
VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
A. Preliminary Plat
-AGENDA
7:00 P.M. October 15, 2015
Declaration of Quorum
September 17, 2015
Location of a church in a C-3 (General Business)
Zone (Tiempos de Roder Church) (MF# SP 2015-010)
Preliminary Plat for Sunrise Estates, Division II
(Juan Ochoa) (MF# PP 2015-002)
Preliminary Plat for Road 84 Estates (Mission
Investments LLC) (MF# PP 2015-004)
Preliminary Plat for Ellie Estates (Llya Parkhotyuk)
(MF# PP 2015-003) - Continued
B. Rezone Rezone from R-1 (Low Density Residential) to R-3
(Medium Density Residential) (Envision Homes)
(MF# Z 2015-002) - Continued
C. Plan
VII. WORKSHOP:
A. Code Amendment
VIII. OTHER BUSINESS:
IX. ADJOURNMENT:
Shoreline Master Program (MF# PLAN 2013-001)
Development Agreements Code Amendment (MF# CA
2015-005)
This meeting is broadcast live on PSC -TV Channel 191 on Charter Cable and streamed at
www.pasco-wa.com/psctvlive.
Audio equipment available for the hearing impaired; contact staff for assistance.
REGULAR MEETING
PLANNING
CALL TO ORDER:
MEETING
The meeting was called to order at 7:OOpm by Chairwoman Polk.
POSITION MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT
No. 1
Tanya Bowers
No. 2
Tony Bachart
No. 3
Paul Mendez
No. 4
Alecia Greenaway
No. 5
Joe Cruz
No. 6
Loren Polk
No. 7
Zahra Khan
No.8
VACANT
No. 9
Gabriel Portugal
APPEARANCE OF FAIRNESS:
September 17, 2015
Chairwoman Polk read a statement about the appearance of fairness for hearings on land
use matters. Chairwoman Polk asked if any Commission member had anything to
declare. Commissioner Mendez stated that he would need to abstain from MF# PP 2015-
003, Preliminary Plat for Ellie Estates.
Chairwoman Polk 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 Polk explained that state law requires testimony in quasi-judicial hearings
such as held by the Planning Commission be given under oath or affirmation.
Chairwoman Polk swore in all those desiring to speak.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Commissioner Bowers moved, seconded by Commissioner Greenaway that the minutes
dated August 20, 2015 be approved. The motion passed unanimously.
OLD BUSINESS:
A. Special Permit Location of a church in a C-1 (Retail Business) Zone
(Bethel Church) (MF# SP 2015-009)
Chairwoman Polk read the master file number and asked for comments from staff.
Shane O Neill, Planner I, discussed the special permit for the location of a church in a C-1
(Retail Business) Zone. There were no changes to the staff report since the previous
meeting.
-1-
Commissioner Bachart moved, seconded by Commissioner Khan, to adopt findings of fact
and conclusions therefrom as contained in the September 17, 2015 staff report. The
motion passed unanimously.
Commissioner Bachart moved, seconded by Commissioner Khan, based on the findings of
fact and conclusions therefrom the Planning Commissioner 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. The motion passed unanimously.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
A. Rezone Rezone from R-1 (Low Density Residential) to R-3
(Medium Density Residential) (Envision Homes)
(MF# Z 2015-002) - Re -Opened
Chairwoman Polk read the master file number and asked for comments from staff.
Shane O'Neill, Planner I, discussed the rezone application from R-1 (Low Density
Residential) to R-3 (Medium Density Residential). The application is to rezone the 4.25
acres fronting Chapel Hill Boulevard. Mr. O' Neill explained concomitant agreement had
been revised since the previous meeting. The revisions allow one single family detach
homes on a minimum lot size of 6,000 square feet. There is an added condition to install
a landscaping buffer on the south property line, amounting to 2 trees per lot. Lastly, there
is an added condition to include 2 retaining walls, 3 '/z' tall, to secure the slope with the
required trees planted between the walls.
Commissioner Bowers asked if the trees will be planted between the current fence of both
properties or will they be on the proposed properties.
Mr. O'Neill responded that the idea is that the first retaining wall would be adjacent to the
current fencing to secure the lower slope, then 7' away would be another retaining wall
with the trees in between to further stabilize the soil.
Commissioner Bachart clarified that they will now be individual homes rather than the
originally proposed duplexes and that's why the housing design standards were removed.
Commissioner Greenaway asked who would responsible for maintaining the trees between
the retaining walls.
Mr. O Neill answered that one of the conditions states, "... said trees shall be subject to
maintenance at a minimum of matured tree height of 20-30' by the property owner."
Jason Maddox, 6115 Burden Boulevard, of HDJ Design Group, represented Envision
Homes. Mr. Maddox explained that with the costs of the improvements necessary to
Chapel Hill Boulevard, increasing the amount of units was necessary to make the project
cost effective. The original proposal was to possibly allow for duplexes but at the first
public hearing there was feedback from the public that was not welcoming of the duplexes
and that they preferred to see single-family. Envision Homes went back with Staff and
was able to come to an agreement that if the number of lots could increase then single-
-2-
family homes could be built. The applicant has found the current proposed concomitant
agreement to be reasonable. The homes will be architectural consistent to the existing
homes. The applicant was also agreeable to the landscape buffer requirement as
described in condition "C". There were two additional conditions that came in late -
condition "D" and "E". Condition "E" is somewhat contradictory to Condition "C" because
"C" states that the trees are just required to meet the Pasco Municipal Code, where "E"
goes on to further state on top of the Pasco Municipal Code there must be a specific height
requirement and the trees need to be located between two retaining walls. The most
problematic for the developer is the requirement for two retaining walls. Mr. Maddox
stated that he understands why Staff has included these conditions and the slope does
need to be mitigated. It is more of an erosion problem, not a slope stability problem as the
slope was constructed by a contractor to meet the grades. Over time wind has blown sand
up the neighbors fencing but constructing retaining walls are not the only way to stop
slope erosion problems. The applicant would agree to secure the slope but they feel that
there are other means that would be done instead of retaining walls.
Mr. Maddox showed two aerial photos of property located one street down from the
proposed site and placed them on an overhead for the Commission to view. He pointed
out examples of slopes that have been controlled without retaining walls. These slopes
have been mitigated with either a rock treatment or planting vegetation to keep the slopes
stable and keep the wind from blowing the dust so the applicant doesn't feel that it is an
appropriate measure to condition the project to require the retaining walls be put in.
There are also problems in designing retaining walls in which the loading is above the
wall. The problem with the proposed two retaining walls and trees in between are
watering and maintenance of the trees. An engineer is going to have to come in and know
the loading above the wall and without knowing what home is built on each wall there is
no possible way to design the wall for every case scenario. The applicant requests the
Planning Commission revise condition "D" in which Envision Homes shall secure the slope
on the south side of the property line. The applicant has no issue with securing the slope,
as it is in their best interest, but the manner in which it is requested with two retaining
walls, is not an acceptable means to mitigate the erosion. It could be added in that the
applicant secure the slope in accordance with the IBC Appendix J, which already
addresses how slopes are to be constructed adjacent to homes. Also, if appropriate, the
slope could be evaluated by a professional engineer and a recommendation could be made
by a professional engineer on how to secure the slope. Planting trees between two
retaining walls are going to become an issue with maintenance.
Commissioner Bowers asked how the residents on the lower levels like the slope
remediation.
Mr. Maddox replied that he has not received any feedback from any of the residents.
Dave McDonald, City Planner, responded that he has not heard from any of the residents
regarding the slope remediation methods used on the adjacent neighborhood.
Commissioner Bowers asked if it was Envision Homes plan from the beginning to do the
tiered development.
Mr. Maddox answered that when they purchased the property the development had
already been started by another developer in which there was already a master grading
plan. The only way to make up the grade was by terracing the lots. Anyone that would
-3-
build a home on these lots should understand that there is a slope in the backyard and it
will need to be managed. Keeping in mind, Envision Homes will still have to complete
Chapel Hill Boulevard and at the time of completing there are means to continue to
control the erosion on the slope, such as silk fencing.
Commissioner Bachart asked if Envision Homes would landscape the backyards and
address the slope or if it will be left up to the homeowner.
Mr. Maddox said it would have to be up to the homeowner because it can't be done until a
home is established. Landscaping could not be controlled until there is irrigation and
water. Without landscaping there are means in which to control the erosion on the slope.
Commissioner Bachart asked if Envision Homes has reached out to the community to see
if this is what they want, such as an agreement.
Mr. Maddox answered that there haven't been any agreements but they have sold all of the
lots downhill. They have responded to the community by changing the proposal to single-
family homes as opposed to duplexes since it was not received well by the community.
Commissioner Portugal asked if Envisions Homes would hire a profession engineer or if
the City would hire an engineer to study the slope.
Mr. Maddox responded that it would likely be Envision Homes that would hire an engineer
since they are the property owner.
Chairwoman Polk asked if the applicant would secure the slope at the time the homes
were built and then turn the responsibility over to the homeowners after the homes are
sold.
Mr. Maddox responded that the builder of the homes are going in on a case by case basis
to secure the slope and it would likely continue in the same fashion.
Commissioner Khan asked if Envision Homes is certain that they will be developing all of
the lots themselves and not selling them to another building.
Mr. Maddox answered that it is his understanding that it is Envision Home's intent to
develop the lots themselves but it cannot be guaranteed.
Commissioner Mendez asked what the average lot size would be in the development even
though the minimum is 6,000 square feet and how many lots will be developed.
Mr. Maddox responded that it was originally determined that 19 lots could be developed
and the rezone would only push it up to 23 lots. The average lot size would likely be larger
than 6,000 square feet because there are many irregular shaped lots.
Alfonso Sanchez, 5715 Belmont Drive, stated that his biggest concern is securing the
slope and retaining walls. Mr. Sanchez also discussed the use of retaining walls on other
streets within the development.
Commissioner Khan asked Mr. Sanchez asked for clarification on the existing wall and
where it is located.
Mr. Sanchez answered referred to the aerial photograph on the overhead that Mr. Maddox
had presented to show the wall he was referring to and stated that it is a 3' concrete wall
to support the slope. He is concerned that new homeowners won't be able to afford
landscaping or a retaining wall right away and their property would blow onto his fence.
Tracie Russell, 5814 Belmont Drive, discussed her concerns with not committing to a
retaining wall. When she purchased her home they had a hill in their backyard similar to
the hill being discussed. She was told when she moved in that the sloping backyard was
secured but it was far from secured and had to spend $6,000 to build a retaining because
the backyard was being lost to the neighbor.
Mr. McDonald responded that could not happen with the concomitant agreement that will
be recorded with the rezone, even if the property changed ownership.
With no further questions or comments the public hearing closed.
Commissioner Portugal asked how one property could be "lost" to another property and if
the property lines move.
Mr. McDonald answered that the property line itself does not move, however, with erosion
the property line could be buried and the slope could drift downhill over the property line
into the neighboring property.
Commissioner Bachart stated that he understood that requiring a retaining wall places an
undue stress on the developer but the fact that there is a precedence on having to put in a
retaining wall and some of those rock screens will still slope off. It is a very steep
neighborhood and hard to keep up. It is hard for new homeowners to pay for the
additional costs of landscaping or retaining walls. The wall wouldn't need an engineer
unless it is over 4' in height according to code.
Mr. Maddox stated that the IBC states that an engineer is required for 3 '/z' in height of the
wall.
Commissioner Khan stated that she agreed with Commissioner Bachart. She asked Staff
what the reasoning was behind two retaining walls.
Mr. O'Neill responded that the soil is already terraced in a two-step fashion and the idea
was to provide a flat space for the planting of the trees.
Commissioner Khan asked for clarification on the purpose of the trees.
Mr. O Neill answered that the trees were added due to feedback from the property owners
at the previous public hearing. The homeowners were concerned because of the elevation
difference they didn't want to feel leered upon by the new homes.
Commissioner Bowers stated that with the terraced residents may not have a problem
-5-
with privacy.
Mr. McDonald responded that in the first public hearing there was quite a bit of public
concern over the privacy issue with people peering into their yards and living rooms.
Commissioner Bowers clarified that she remembered that response from the public but
wondered if that was from anyone in the lower tiers.
Commissioner Greenaway replied that the public feedback came from the neighbors along
the bordering fence of the proposed lots.
Commissioner Bowers asked if the elevation is steeper in the proposed street than it is on
the lower streets. She just wanted to see if the proposal Mr. Maddox presented to secure
the slope would be sufficient rather than building retaining walls.
Commissioner Khan responded that the concern was with the higher density zoning and
the potential for transient neighbors. The existing homeowners wanted more privacy. But
with the revised agreement there will be one dwelling per lot so they aren't as concerned.
They do still have the concern of sand blowing in their backyard.
Chairwoman Polk asked the Planning Commission if they would like to go down the line
and make a decision.
Commissioner Portugal stated that he was uncomfortable making a motion as he is not
sure if the two retaining walls are necessary.
Commissioner Greenaway stated that she is against two retaining walls as it doesn't make
much sense if you don't know what is going to be built there so you don't know what kind
of retaining wall is needed. Perhaps if it is placed in the agreement that a retaining wall
must be added at the time a home is built so it could be placed in the home loan.
Commissioner Khan responded that she is for the two retaining walls since there is no
guarantee that Envision Homes is going to be building these homes.
Commissioner Bowers stated it was unclear to her if the two retaining walls and the tree
buffering is necessary given the fact that there are going to be single-family homes above.
She wanted to know from the residents if that is something they still feel they need.
The public hearing was re -opened to allow for public comment.
Alfonso Sanchez, 5715 Belmont Drive, stated that his property would abut the new
development. He would like to see the retaining wall put in when the home is developed to
ensure it is done and secured - otherwise it might take too long before they can financially
do it. He doesn't want the sand to impede on his lot or up against his fence causing it
eventually to fall down.
Commissioner Khan asked Mr. Sanchez if his suggestion is for one retaining wall.
M
Mr. Sanchez answered that he would be happy with one retaining wall as long as it
controls the sand and does the job.
Commissioner Bachart asked if the tree requirement was still necessary now that the lots
would be developed with single-family homes. He stated that he is leaning towards the
retaining wall but not necessarily the landscaping requirement.
Mr. Sanchez stated they he feels they would all be comfortable with the retaining wall so
their fences don't come down but as for landscaping he could plant is own shrubs or build
his own buffer since the main concern was when duplexes were proposed but with single-
family homes the landscaping isn't as big of a concern.
Mr. Maddox suggested a condition could require Envision Homes to hire a professional to
evaluate the slope and make a recommendation for the best way to stabilize the slope.
That doesn't mean that a retaining wall wouldn't be built, but a professional would come
in first and evaluate the condition of the slope and determine the appropriate means to
stabilize that slope.
Commissioner Bachart asked who made the decision to build the existing retaining wall
that was shown in an aerial photo on the overhead projector.
Mr. Maddox responded that he was not aware of who built the existing retaining wall.
Jason McConville, 5506 Pimlico Drive, showed a picture of an existing retaining wall of his
neighbor's that has had so much push from this erosion that the wall is bowed. He stated
that an engineer would have been helpful in this case have prevented this problem. He
said that he is losing some of his yard due to erosion and had to an engineer to look at it
and it would cost $16,000 to put in a retaining wall. He discussed the process that will
have to done to fix this problem which is very costly for him after building a home. He
was told that they would stabilize the slope and they sprayed foam but it only lasted a few
months.
Commissioner Bowers asked Mr. McConville if his recommended option would be bringing
in an engineer to evaluate the slope and determine the appropriate action.
Mr. McConvilled responded yes and it really should have been done years ago.
Alfonso Sanchez, 5715 Belmont Drive, stated that he would be in favor of an engineer
evaluating the slope.
With no further questions or comments the public hearing closed.
Commissioner Portugal asked who would be hiring the engineers.
Mr. McDonald replied that the developer would hire the engineer and once their engineer
evaluates the slope and comes up with a mitigation plan addressing the slope
stabilization, the City would review their findings.
Commissioner Bachart stated that there could be recourse when using a hired engineer if
-7-
the wall or other means fails for not supplying an adequate resource to maintain and
stabilize the slope. He said he would be in favor of requiring an engineer to evaluate the
slope and each lot would be a case by case basis prior the completion of the home.
Commissioner Khan suggested continuing the public hearing and placing that condition
into the concomitant agreement.
Chairwoman Polk asked the Commissioner's for their preferred condition; no wall, one
wall, two walls or engineering review.
The Commissioners were all in agreement for the condition to require an engineering
review.
Commissioner Bowers moved, seconded by Commissioner Portugal, to continue this item
to the October 15, 2015 meeting. The motion passed unanimously.
B. Special Permit Location of a church in a C-3 (General Business)
Zone (Tiem»os de Poder Church) (MF# SP 2015-010)
Chairwoman Polk read the master file number and asked for comments from staff.
Jeff Adams, Associate Planner, discussed the special permit application for the location of
a church in a C-3 (General Business) Zone. The building is surrounded by an accounting
firm, a Union's Office, a piano service and tax service so there would be very low traffic
uses from the surrounding area. The applicant stated that they wish to have up to 30
people at this location. The suite has a maximum occupancy of 135 so their requested
use is well under the occupancy limit. They plan to meet Sunday's, Wednesday's and
Friday's for approximately 2 hours per session. Due to the size of the building there will
be no modifications required for the upgrade from an "M" occupancy to an "A" occupancy.
Mr. Adams briefly went over the conditions in the staff report.
Commissioner Portugal asked for clarification on a restroom facility.
Mr. Adams answered that there is a restroom facility onsite.
Francier Obando Pinillo, 2508 W. Sylvester, spoke on behalf of his special permit
application. Jose Montalvo, 2700 E. `A' Street translated for Mr. Pinillo. They stated that
they liked this location because it is between two apartment complexes and they were
borrowing another church. This will give them a chance to spread hope in this
community. Mr. Pinillo briefly discussed the types of activities and uses that they will use
in the facility.
Commissioner Greenway asked the applicant if he had problems with any of the
conditions.
Mr. Pinillo responded no.
Commissioner Bowers asked where the members currently meet.
IF -11
Dave McDonald, City Planner, replied that they are currently already meeting in the
building.
With no further questions or comments the public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Khan moved, seconded by Commissioner Greenaway, 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. The motion passed
unanimously.
C. Preliminary Plat Preliminary Plat for Sunrise Estates, Division II
(Juan Ochoa) (MF# PP 2015-0021
Chairwoman Polk read the master file number and asked for comments from staff.
Shane O'Neill, Planner I, discussed the application for a preliminary plat at Sunrise
Estates, Division II. This site is a remaining portion of Sunrise Estates which has already
been platted and approved, however, the current phases were not completed within the
last 10 years. The preliminary plat has expired for the remaining 31 lots. The zoning has
already been set as R -1-A (Low Density Residential). The minimum lot sizes are 7,200
square feet. The surrounding land uses are mostly vacant but there are a few residential
developments nearby to the west and in the existing portion of Sunrise Estates. Utilities
will need to be extended to the site. The sewer line has already been installed for a
portion. The conditions contained in the staff report are typical of most plats.
Juan Ochoa, 812 S. Myrtle Avenue, spoke on behalf of his preliminary plat application.
This plat was started years ago but the developer did not finish it and he purchased the
land a few months ago with the intent to finish it with the same plans as the original
developer.
Commissioner Greenaway asked if there was anything in the proposed conditions that
caused any problems.
Mr. Ochoa responded that he was fine with everything.
Commissioner Bachart asked the applicant if he was looking to build homes fairly quickly.
Mr. Ochoa answered that he is hoping to start developing the property within a year.
Jose Zepeda, 403 S. Cedar Avenue, stated that his property borders this proposed site and
wanted to know if there was going to be a cul-de-sac or a different way out that would go
past his property.
Staff pulled up the proposed preliminary plat on the overhead which showed that there
would be a cul-de-sac.
Mr. Zepeda was fine with the cul-de-sac. His only other concern was that when the
previous phase was built, the contractors used part of his property as a "dump" site for
leftover sod, rock and concrete that he has to go pick up and haul off of his property.
Chairwoman Polk responded that they are not supposed to do that so the Code
Enforcement Division could get involved if that becomes an issue.
Mr. Zepeda said that the issue with involving Code Enforcement is that he isn't always
aware of who is doing the dumping since he is away from home when it happens.
Commissioner Khan suggested Staff address that concern.
Dave McDonald, City Planner, responded that there is a condition that addresses blowing
dust and litter. Language could be added to include construction debris and when the
project is built they can emphasize with the builder to be aware and not dump.
Mr. Ochoa responded that every lot in the first phase has been completed.
Commissioner Greenaway clarified that Mr. Zepeda is just concerned that when the
builders are done with this next phase that when the contractors have leftover materials it
will be dumped onto his property. She asked Mr. Ochoa if this problem would be taken
care of and the builders will not leave their "garbage" in his backyard.
Mr. Ochoa agreed with Commissioner Greenaway.
Commissioner Bowers asked staff where Phase I is located and for clarification as to where
Mr. Zepeda's property is located.
Mr. McDonald responded that it is directly below the proposed plat. He referenced a map
on the overhead. Mr. Zepeda also pointed out where his property is located.
With no further questions or comments the public hearing closed.
Commissioner Khan moved, seconded by Commissioner Greenaway, 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. The motion passed unanimously.
D. Preliminary Plat Preliminary Plat for Ellie Estates (Llya Parkhotyuk)
IMF# PP 2015-0031
Chairwoman Polk read the master file number and asked for comments from staff.
Dave McDonald, City Planner, explained that the applicant wished to continue this
preliminary plat application to the October meeting to allow more time due to changes
from the FDIC and Engineering Department.
Commissioner Khan moved, seconded by Commissioner Greenaway, to continue this item
to the October 15, 2015 meeting. The motion passed unanimously.
E. Preliminary Plat Preliminary Plat for Road 84 Estates (Mission
-10-
Investments LLCI IMF# PP 2015-0041
Chairwoman Polk read the master file number and asked for comments from staff.
Dave McDonald, City Planner, discussed the application for a preliminary plat for Road 84
Estates. This is a rather straight -forward plat containing 16 lots, no slopes or retaining
walls to worry about. It is a 10 acre parcel recently annexed into the City and the
developers have purchased the property to develop it compatible with the current zoning of
RS -20 (Suburban). There was one minor complication relating to where Wemett Road
should extend to Road 84. Ideally, Wernett would continue in a straight line from the east
to the west but the County allowed the telephone company to place equipment dead center
of where the street was supposed to go. One of the solutions was to create a concrete
island around the equipment and build the street on either side of the equipment.
However, when the two homes to the south were built the County didn't obtain any right-
of-way for the south half of the street so that further complicates things. The developer
has spoken with the FCID who controls the road easement and right-of-way for irrigation,
along the south side of the property and the FCID has agreed to relinquish the easement
as long as they are provided an alternate easement. The developer is proposing to provide
an alternate easement and roadway down the center of his development.
Roger Wright, 10217 Willow Way, spoke on behalf of the applicant. He clarified that the
lot sizes will actually be a bit larger than what is required to justify bringing sewer to the
property. He also provided some history on the road easements, right-of-way and
confusion with the phone equipment. Some of the nearby residents have expressed that
they don't want Road 80 to be extended through, however, at some point in time it will go
from Argent down to Court Street. This development will build roughly 350 feet of the
road. He is happy with the conditions in the staff report.
With no further questions or comments the public hearing closed.
Commissioner Greenaway moved, seconded by Commissioner Bachart, 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. The motion passed unanimously.
F. Code Amendment Arterial Corridors Commercial Design Standards
IMF# CA 2015-0031
Chairwoman Polk read the master file number and asked for comments from staff.
Jeff Adams, Associate Planner, discussed the proposed code amendment to arterial
corridors and commercial design standards. This item has come before the Planning
Commission several times for input. A public notice was sent to owners of commercial
properties in question and on the back of the notice was the area map. The modified
language is that on parcels abutting or across a public way from residential zones, the
sides and rear of the building adjacent or across the public way from residential zones
shall be consistent with the street facing facades of the building in terms of design, style,
building materials and architectural themes. This goes along with a recommendation in
the memo to the Planning Commission stating that the proposed standards should apply
only to the street -facing facades for the properties that are not adjoining residential
properties and the sides and rear for properties that adjoin residential properties. All
-11-
other conditions are listed in the staff memo and proposed ordinance.
Dave McDonald, City Planner, stated for the benefit of the audience in attendance the
reason behind this code amendment. Late last year or early this year a building permit
was issued for a building on Sylvester Street. It has been completed and after it was built
there were questions raised as to how the City permitted a building that looks as it does.
As a result, the Staff and Planning Commission were charged with reviewing the zoning
code to see if there could be some small changes made to ensure that buildings built
within the main corridors along the arterial streets had some standards and appearance
so they don't stand out or look unattractive. This would be much like what has been done
in the I-182 Corridor. It would require any new building in the proposed area to meet the
new standards.
Commissioner Khan requested clarification for the "Applicability" in the proposed
ordinance that states, "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..."
Mr. Adams responded that the "last 5 years" was put in to prevent someone from
approaching the threshold with one building permit and then with upgrades later build
more upgrades reaching the threshold but bypass the standards. This would create a
timeline for these standards to apply.
Ford Lane, 2709 W. Sylvester Street, asked for clarification on the proposed changes and
how they would affect his mother's home that is on a commercially zoned lot.
Mr. Adams replied that the proposed code amendment would not apply to him as long as
the property is a home.
George Galloway, 221205 E. Bryson Brown, Kennewick, spoke on behalf of Gesa Credit
Union. He explained that they built the building that set off the code amendment. The
changes will be substantial. He stated that they did their best with the current building to
make it look nice and there is a nice visual barrier to block from the neighboring
properties and planted landscaping. He wanted to make sure that any substantial
improvements down the road won't be affected by this code amendment.
Alex Emig, 4902 S. Everett Court, asked for clarification on architectural features
pertaining to this code amendment.
Mr. Adams referenced PMC 25.59.060 as contained in the staff report that included
mandatory standards, electrical and mechanical standards and rear of building standards.
Commissioner Bowers added that at a prior meeting it was mentioned that in a previous
meeting the Lowe's store was a good example to meeting the design standards as they
have faux windows to make the exterior look nicer and not like a box.
Commissioner Greenaway asked for clarification for Mr. Galloway of Gesa.
Mr. McDonald answered that if they go in just to do electrical work that is handled by LW
-12-
so the City wouldn't be involved. If they remodel structurally or create offices or flooring,
building new walls, add bathrooms and it meets the 50% threshold then they would have
to bring the building to the new standards.
With no further questions or comments the public hearing closed.
Commissioner Bachart moved, seconded by Commissioner Portugal, the Planning
Commission adopt the findings of fact as contained in the September 17, 2015 staff memo
on Arterial Corridors Commercial Design Standards. The motion passed unanimously.
Commissioner Bachart moved, seconded by Commissioner Portugal, 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. The motion passed unanimously.
COMMENTS:
Jeff Adams, Associate Planner, reminded the Planning Commission that there will be a
public hearing for the Shoreline Master Program.
With no further discussion or business, the Planning Commission was adjourned at
9:20 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
David McDonald, City Planner
-13-
REPORT TO PLANNING
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 WI/2 of the NE'A of the NW
I/4 of the SEI/a, 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
5. 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.
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.
S. 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.
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?
4
Past history of church operations within the City has shown they do
not endanger public health or safety and are generally not nuisance
generators.
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.
MOTION for Findings of Fact: I move to adopt Findings of Fact and
Conclusions therefrom as contained in the October 15, 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 Ministerio
Apostolico Y Profetico Tiempos de Poder for the location of a church at
2508 W Sylvester Street, Suite D with the conditions as contained in
the October 15, 2015 staff report.
s
a
U ..
.. RAN H19Z
sn a�
.r and 4aLZ
�4•�41L4.._ t __ - V
AL
i..aw...cfa caa, care �jt;��
-
3,AV H-
1
\V
c^t�
Y
--
rA'O
Wit/
VJ
O
Yiy
�,
LU
gggg
gg
U ..
.. RAN H19Z
sn a�
.r and 4aLZ
�4•�41L4.._ t __ - V
AL
�z
N
�
F0
M
O
V
U
H--
E
0
c
CL
a
�V3
O
••N
ZN--
uj
W a6eaolS
-iuiw
sluaw:pedd
O
ant/ H19Z
,.�
O
� 1
V
3AV 43LZ
leloje
woo
N
z �
N
M
i
3nb'-H-1--bZ
V
Ct
r
�+ WW
� � M
O Ct
3AV H19Z
�� M
o
N ane 4uz M
V
f�
p'
�_
i ;..I
a
�
N
.�� �
I
REPORT TO PLANNING
MASTER FILE NO: PP 2015-002
HEARING DATE: 9/17/2015
ACTION DATE: 10/15/2015
APPLICANT: Juan Ochoa
99809 E Michelle Drive
Kennewick, WA 99338
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 Ranee of Lots: 7,335 ft2 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
S. 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.
1
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.
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 half of a mile
from Kurtzman Park and within approximately one mile from Highland 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.
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.
3
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 310 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
CONCLUSIONS BASED ON THE FINDINGS OF FACT
Before recommending approval or denial of the proposed Plat the Planning
Commission must develop Findings of Fact from which to draw its conclusion
(P.M.C. 26.24.070) therefrom as to whether or not:
(1) Adequate provisions are made for the public health, safety and general
welfare and for open spaces, drainage ways, streets, alleys, other public
ways, water supplies, sanitary wastes, parks, playgrounds, transit stops,
schools and school grounds, sidewalks for safe walking conditions for
students and other public needs;
The proposed plat will be required to develop under the standards of the Pasco
Municipal Code and the standard specifications of the City Engineering Division.
These standards for streets, sidewalks, and other infrastructure improvements
were designed to ensure the public health; safety and general welfare of the
community are secured. These standards include provisions for streets, drainage,
water and sewer service and the provision for dedication of right-of-way. The
preliminary plat was forwarded to the Franklin County PUD, the Pasco School
District, Cascade Gas, Charter Cable and Ben -Franklin Transit Authority for
review and comment. The PUD requested easements along the front of all lots for
utility service.
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.
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.
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. Lots 8, 10 8s 15 shall be identified in the notes on the face of the final plat(s)
as lots that present 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. The developer shall not place construction refuse upon
adjoining parcels.
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. 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.
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 conform to all conditions set forth in the
Storm Water Maintenance Agreement including, but not limited to, regular
cleaning and maintenance of all streets, gutters, catch basins and catch basin
protection systems. Cleaning shall occur on a regular basis to ensure that no
excess buildup of sand, trash, grass clippings, weeds or other debris occurs in
any portion of the streets, gutters, or storm water collection facilities.
Cleaning and upkeep of the streets, gutters, and storm water collection
facilities must be to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. The developer will be
responsible for operating and maintaining the storm drain system in
accordance with the Storm Water Maintenance Agreement.
15. The developer will be required to comply with the City of Pasco Civil Plan
Review process.
7
16. 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.
17. 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 adopt Findings of Fact and Conclusions therefrom as
contained in the October 15, 2015 staff report.
MOTION: I move based on the Findings of Fact and Conclusions, as adopted,
the Planning Commission recommend the City Council approve the
Preliminary Plat for Sunrise Estates Division II with conditions as
listed in the October 15, 2015 staff report.
M
.4ml)
1
s
�n• •
�
5 � .-
i
i.
i F.9 •rte
� F •n =
r
tw
}
.4ml)
1
r
0
Al
�F,, � C,e •
1 c:
-4-j
co
cd
4�
W
r-4
�
0
0
�
%
s
R".
��
9
,
o
n
h �g
•
n
-n
i
4-J
�t5
z
e
G
I
^-
'I
,
U Y',
t.
i
Auk
'�j
i --b-7 Lo
-
r_yF�L� '� 't % og,'`�Y ��6_I�vllitl &� x•p�l ����.`�� I
I
¢ oc 1I m i b
� �eH 9''tix e1� � I 91 AYk9
Ga61-M-'0 i"_ I
see153X •v
+ace-arco nae
SZZ.>9t/ 3tl
tlaSOW
X8$0
Ag9�Bg9®99@4A94'93189:::i9??levan
_p2 �qR
p
.
gg �o
R
8£!
a 'g
INI
INF gg
g6
D 1"
v
ev
S vF°
fl�$fl$
$
11
i --b-7 Lo
-
r_yF�L� '� 't % og,'`�Y ��6_I�vllitl &� x•p�l ����.`�� I
I
¢ oc 1I m i b
� �eH 9''tix e1� � I 91 AYk9
Ga61-M-'0 i"_ I
see153X •v
+ace-arco nae
SZZ.>9t/ 3tl
tlaSOW
q 3E8.SEi5.q
X8$0
Ag9�Bg9®99@4A94'93189:::i9??levan
_p2 �qR
p
m .i . fiif\pM1
gg �o
R
D 1"
v
ev
S vF°
fl�$fl$
$
11
INEH
III
11g
y4
EE
ee€s1affi
O
—
19I
E
p
eek
I.Ia1'�66€l,&,
Uf
F 2J
4�gt�$pR
p�Fb'F
E
I
zowoz
SOD
3
p5€^s5 Cio
Fe.4.4gi.545ig4
,;;
�rA
l E9�9
as
i 3
ii9gCi
m
Ix
19855$6
°¢
b
y
45§
_3E
4
z im
@n
iz
"FSi
.K
o
Rqq 9Y
�
� ti
yyp
fE
44.4".
�i
a�
61a(5F4c
it&i
Y445k'a.ECRisI,.4Y�449
x.y::GGCC
pp445i59p${
k{�Fi
d
Y�4
ka
F45�
yyyy�jy6
•Y
.G§v
jS;6644
q::
�i9
¢c
iCf,]LR:9£P�4q
:443v"
495.3
`JE4
qq
-
�Y'j44tl
iYY,s;pai
y
y,yiiyE
Y4
i$j
Se
Fi
45+
Y�YES°4Z4S�La
y+i�5ii.
YYEe��SaLeY'8
d
F�5+aYaEy^iiY4YYiCYB
y4Kip4
y4aQ
q 3E8.SEi5.q
X8$0
_p2 �qR
p
m .i . fiif\pM1
gg �o
R
D 1"
R
q 3E8.SEi5.q
_G. i6 k�
D 1"
Z y
NO
O
—
&
E
p
g;8' ~
NO�?nI
Uf
F 2J
4�gt�$pR
p�Fb'F
E
Il
R:�4vOmD
zowoz
SOD
3
p5€^s5 Cio
�rA
§3a,PD
8;x
ynmp0
y
m
v�i�"Fg
iofzo
b
y
Rte_
_3E
z im
@n
iz
"FSi
o
Rqq 9Y
�
� ti
d
tit
IUARE ANO GLAESER PRELIMINARY PLAT
URVEYING, INC. OF
303 BURDEN BLVD,. SUITE E
090544.78021 USE ESTATES DIVISION 2
SUBDIVISION IN A PORTION OF THE
SE 1/4 OF SECTION 28
-I TAX PARCEL T. 9 N., R 30 E., W. M.,
CITY OF PASCO
FRANKLIN COUNTY, WASHINGTON
APPLICANT:
TO 69
JOB N0: 15-313 AUGUST 10, 2015
JUAN OCHOA
MI TERRA REAL ESTATE
BASIS OF BEARING:
NORTH 8947'03' EAST HEIR ALONG
PO BOX 1327
ESTATE
ME NORTH UNE OF THE SOUTHEAST
PO BOX 1327
`-'-_
QUARTER OF SECTION 28 SEMEN
T
FALL 'i
MONUMENTS FOUND AS NOTED.
g
_
St
fpL1RT
� i--�--
509-727-5099
80 40 0 40 80 160
SCBE I MCH - 80 FEET
51JNRi E [SIA
U. PI
61 R}
t
'0°`9
PROJECT DATA
TOTAL PIAT AREA 8.67 ACRES, MORE OR LESS
N1 31
TOTAL RESIDENTIAL AREA (NET) 6.94 DEVELOPABLE ACRES
{I$ ,
ROAD RIGHT OF WAY 1.73 ACRES
J
4
TOTAL RESIDENTIAL LOTS 31
LARGEST RESIDENTIAL LOT 10747 Sr
---
— �Z
SMALLEST RESIDENTIAL LOT 7335 SF
AVERAGE RESIDENTIAL LOT 9131 SF
-----
nvvPONMAIE -
EXISTING ZONING R FAH -1
SAUITARY 2' n -
TOPOGRAPHY UNDUk TING
WATER PURVEYOR CITY OF PASCO
SEWER SERNCE CITY OF PASCO
ELECTRIC PURVEYOR FRANKLIN COUNTY PUD
\ \
LEGEND
R/W INDICATES MGHT—OF—WAY
SF INDICATES SQUARE FEET
PUO INDICATES PUBLIC UTIITY DISTRICT
26
- --_-_---
NOTE 1
60.00' RIGHT-OF-WAY DEDICATED TO ME CITY OF
_
PASCO WRH THIS PLAT,
NOTE 2
1000' PUBLIC UMTY EASEMENT DEDICATED WITH
=
THIS PLAT.
m
r
62
1TI
N
y WASHINCTI
RE
I� 11_
APPLICANT:
CONTACT PERSON:
JUAN OCNOA
JUAN OCHOA
MI TERRA REAL ESTATE
MI RERRA REAL
PO BOX 1327
ESTATE
PASCO, WA 99391
PO BOX 1327
509-727-5099
PASCO, WA 99301
509-727-5099
OWNER/ DEVELOPER:
MI TERRA REAL ESTATE
PO BOX 1327
PASCO. WA 99MI
509-727-5099
MINISTER AND GIAESER SURVEYING, INC. MARES NO WARRANTES AS TO MATTERS OF
UNWRITTEN TRE SUCH AS ADVERSE POSSESUM. ACQUIESCENCE, ESTOPPEL, ETC.
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:
Legal: 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 Size: 9.95 Acres
Number of Lots: 16 single-family lots
Square Footage Range of Lots: 21,085 ft' to 21,117 ft'
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.
1
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 build 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 relocate 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 -20 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 sewer, 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-1-13
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 FCID for the southern 20 feet of the plat prior to
submittal of construction drawings.
0
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.
U7
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 adopt Findings of Fact and Conclusions therefrom as
contained in the October 15, 2015 staff report.
MOTION: I move based on the Findings of Fact and Conclusions, as adopted,
the Planning Commission recommend the City Council approve the
Preliminary Plat for Road 84 Estates with conditions as listed in
the October 15, 2015 staff report.
V]
®moi )j
nil
MOM
as& --W
e
IfJ
...
Rt
• Poo
�
- • ,5
]
°_
3 r
...
•
/
I
�%
offl®r.ON
INN
..
INN
.
■o:
y
W
f
o i
0
i O
Y
5I-
Lj
H
w= „
: ,
"s
LLa�
�I
z
f�°,rz
z; Y
0
CO MM00
luO
LL
L
L 0
LL J
O Yoz�»I
xa
9
oz
A
V
OyG'k
b
O =..RroN�
F m�
e'
z
SW H Y O C F
Nml
O s ■ O mra,y, f ���i'�kst "rte-
�'A 5 & p RIS YF¢h Z R ASR€R�
j
$ @n $g as g mx p asg
OIl^ §'d A o€ 8 9 n�9 ml
S
1
5 3.
m x A
= - —
f
�s
Xy
r
ul
�I
4
A
= - —
f
�s
Xy
r
ul
5�
A
n
66_
or
ti
= - —
f
�s
Xy
r
ul
5�
= - —
f
w
5.4
ii
T
0
M
`.i
$:i
0
0
I
H
t{7
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
MASTER FILE NO: PP 2015-003
HEARING DATE: 10/15/2015
ACTION DATE: 11/19/2015
BACKGROUND
REQUEST: Preliminary Plat: Ellie Estates
1. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION:
APPLICANT: Ilya Parkhotyuk
785 Canyon St. Apt #304
Richland, WA 99352
Legal: That portion of the northeast 1/4 of the southeast 1/4 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: 22 single-family residential lots
Square Footage Range of Lots: 20,042 ft2 to 54,110 ft2
Average Lot Square Footage: 24,150 ft2
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.
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 22 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. In the proposed plat, Lot 1 will have road frontage on Maple Drive to the
west and Lots 2 & 3 will be accessible from the new, centrally located, cul-de-sac.
LOT LAYOUT: The proposed plat contains 22 residential lots; with the lots varying
in size from 20,042 to 54,110 square feet. The average lot size is 24,150 square
feet.
RIGHTS-OF-WAY: One new right-of-way in the form of a cul-de-sac will be
dedicated. The cul-de-sac will extend north from Sterling Road for an approximate
distance of 588 -feet. Sixteen (16) lots will be accessed from the cul-de-sac. The
second right-of-way to be dedicated will achieve the east -west connection of
Sterling 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 accessory
structure 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. 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. Lots 1, 2 8s 3 will not be required to connect to municipal sewer until such
time that existing septic systems fail.
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.
Additionally, Franklin County Public Utility District requires ten (10) foot wide
utility easements along the north property line of lots 5, 14 & 16.
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 north from Sterling Road will be created in
the form of a cul-de-sac approximately 588 -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 1 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 five 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 24,150 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
typically not a required right-of-way development component in Pasco's suburban
zones. However, it has been a long standing policy to ensure sidewalks are
included with developments near and around school. Road 84 is a school route
that connects the Linda Loviisa subdivision with Chiawana High and the two
schools south of Argent Road. The LDS Seminary Building on the west side of
Road 84 has already constructed 260 feet of sidewalk and installed the curb and
gutter across the frontage of the proposed plat. Sidewalks will need to be added
along the frontage of each lot as homes are built. The Roadway improvements into
the plat will consist of an asphalt driving surface and roadside stormwater
collection/ diversion depressions.
4
Adequate Provision of Municipal Services: All lots within the plat will be
provided with water service. All new lots will be served by sewer with the exception
of lots 1, 2 & 3 which will remain on their existing septic systems.
Provision of Housing for State Residents: The proposed preliminary plat
contains 22 building lots, providing opportunities for the construction of 19 new
homes for Pasco residents. Three homes exist on the site which will be contained
within three separate lots (Lots 1, 2 & 3).
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.
5
• 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.
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
(PMC 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
0
the community while Plan Policy H-1-13 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;
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. Because Road
84 is an arterial street and school route sidewalks will be required along the
frontage of Road 84. A note shall be placed on the final plat stating sidewalks
shall be required along the frontage of Lots 4-8 at the time permits are issued
for said lots.
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.
7
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. 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 a 10 -foot utility easement parallel to the north
property line of Lots 5, 14 and 16 as 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. 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.
15. 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.
16. 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
8
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 November 19, 2015 meeting.
0
LA'
d wL
� b8 Q�btJb j
px
6:.
7kT
W
w
OOy
Ct
�
ct
� a
O
o
$-+
Ct
A --d
a
U
••
I�
LA'
d wL
� b8 Q�btJb j
px
6:.
7kT
Vj GNOEI
[ ��2IO�IyW
ZJ o.LAI wqL
w
x
w�
A
0
� a
O
v �d�
(Z7
~'
N
Vj GNOEI
[ ��2IO�IyW
ZJ o.LAI wqL
x
A
0
v �d�
(Z7
Vj GNOEI
[ ��2IO�IyW
ZJ o.LAI wqL
In ;
I
r
7 '
t X111 A
1
I
X11
(yti� ✓
p MN
�
c
Y�
t
1
s 4
E
w
5.4
0
0
1
Ah
..... ... ELLIE ESTATES
A'
A
T"
A OTT,
OLT,
LOT.
A OL
"r w
0'
-A TT
A-11 -.4r A—
r�' A-
1.11 TO OTA
-110 A
OT wr
ss s
s
WT 1.
LOT 1 12
Im
- - - - - - - - - -- L - - - - - - - - - -
wro
LOT. L
.21 LOT 10
IR
mm�
ILL
LOL.
LOT,
LOT M
M
LOT F -1 __'L — IT
LLT� � OF� OF �QFT
ama ra. naa I �g3a
Iz3:xW �xn3W3W3 i 3�a�
s^nON
e
Yo-'" Rrr8�88
8 R �
a"an��mtivory �Se .� i
wxS~
W
--------------
g ^z LLJ
Z; t Wn tstaac___ / m
�W exg
J
x $
WPM
W�o°y�B�
` t AI
C h E
� GGGG
;Egk€' o�u � NNbNb
<
pup 33
s�6
-Y IkI N4 £ puff
e'8 N.W.~x �t
�'5$o�j�<
zx�xc�-
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
MASTER FILE NO: Z 2015-002 APPLICANT: Envision Homes
HEARING DATE: 7/16/2015 P.O. Box 3431
ACTION DATE: 10/15/2015 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 ft'.
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
FA
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:
El
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 corner lot. Site
engineering as determined that it would be appropriate for this corner to serve as
stormwater retention facility to capture right-of-way stormwater 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 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 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.
IN
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.
19. Topographic slope of the site drops sharply toward the south property
line.
20. Site soil consists mostly of silty sand which is quite loose and unstable.
The loose soil is highly susceptible to erosion.
21. Property owners of similarly graded lots in the vicinity provided
testimony related to the burden created by purchasing lots having
unsecured sandy slopes.
CONCLUSIONS BASED ON STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT
Before recommending approval or denial of a zoning amendment the Planning
Commission must develop findings of fact from which to draw its conclusions
based upon the criteria listed in PMC 25.88.060. The criteria are as follows:
1. The proposal is in accordance with the goals and policies of the
Comprehensive Plan.
The proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map and
several Plan policies and goals. Land Use Policy LU -3-B encourages "infill"
development while H -2-A suggests the City permit a full range of residential
environments. Housing Policy (H -B -A) encourages standards that control the
scale and density of accessory buildings and homes to maintain compatibility
with other residential uses. The effect of the proposal on the immediate vicinity
will not be materially detrimental if a concomitant agreement is established
requiring enhance building features and specifying a minimum lot size.
7
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
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. A minimum 6,000 square foot lot size should also be
established. Unstable, steeply sloped soil comprising the southern portion of the
site poses a burden on the future home owners and to the owners of adjacent
homes to the south. The sloped soil should be secured prior to home occupancy.
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 October 15, 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.
3
S..
R
r
9
//// Ait ;Im
I
a
�
r
W
M
O
�
�
O
�
�
N
c
U
tu✓
.�
1r �1r��
S..
R
r
9
//// Ait ;Im
I
IT-
' `.YI jlJe�es
a
t A J
a
�
r
IT-
' `.YI jlJe�es
a
t A J
I
I Intl
4 If L V
r
Illy
4, K
SiON,
1 1 IP t
,:
,i, �'
.•
y
� s,�}
i �. � �.
;�.
A
7�
I}
^'k ,
FV
f..
t...,
jt;'1
,1
J I
i�.�
A V,
� � }� �
1.
YI k
1�, �
g.'
l J
4i
1.
�
; �i
1f`�$c.
!yam
`�'
��
` � ;
li '.1 .I
1�
�
i
i
Y' „',.
i ) ;.
fi . .
! ' ��
'. �:
°;I. .
��
�.
}
'
'� � '3
c,,,, i , ?
I
� �
i a'
t�,,«;.e
_�
I 1.., '.; r ��
� �'` � �N��
��
I
��� � iyy
r
� '1
"�:
�..�.�
,:::1;..
s
Q
1� f
1
V
11
1'
'a
tr ''
J
Q
1� f
c
1
I[
i
t,,,ttt>pppinnn
AYY P C '
1 f
�
I
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 terms 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)
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 provide a geo-technical report prepared by a
professional engineer or licensed architect analyzing the slope stability of the site and
providing site-specific recommendations of appropriate methods for long-term slope
stabilization;
e) Envision Homes LLC or successors shall install soil retention features as
recommended in the geo-technical report referenced in condition (d) above prior to
receiving certificates of occupancy for homes constructed on the respective parcel;
f) Trees required in (c) above shall be installed within fifteen feet of the rear property
lines of each lot. 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)
MEMORANDUM
DATE: October 9, 2015
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Jeffrey B. Adams, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: Shoreline Master Program Public Hearin
Introduction
Pasco is updating its Shoreline Master Program (SMP) with project funding from
the Department of Ecology (Ecology).
Up to now the City of Pasco has used the updated Franklin County Shoreline
Management Master Program of 1974 to regulate developments within its
shorelines. The current SMP process creates a separate SMP document for Pasco
and implements the SMA consistent with Ecology guidelines. Once adopted, the
SMP will be integrated as part of the City's Comprehensive Plan and PMC and will
be used to regulate development specifically within the City's shoreline
jurisdiction.
Final Draft Shoreline Master Program
The final draft Shoreline Master Program is a compilation of all of the previous
work and contains all the elements specified by the State of Washington Shoreline
Management Act (SMA). Tasks undertaken by the City and its consultant are as
follows:
Task 1: Project Coordination (In-house by City Staff)
Task 2: Secure Consultant (In-house by City Staff)
Task 3: Public Participation (Shared Staff/ Consultant Task)
Task 4: Preliminary Assessment of the Shoreline Jurisdiction
Task 5: Shoreline Inventory, Analysis, and Characterization
Task 6: Draft Shoreline Master Program
Task 7: Prepare Preliminary Cumulative Impacts Analysis
Task 8: Restoration Plan
Task 9: Develop Final Draft SMP and Supporting Documents
Task 10: Local SMP Adoption Process
Current Status
Task 1 is ongoing until the completion and adoption of the SMP; Task 2 was
completed at the outset of the SMP process with the recruitment of Anchor QEA as
consultant; Task 3 is ongoing and contiguous with all other tasks of the SMP
process. Tasks 4, 5, and 6 have been completed and were presented to the
Commission in workshops.
Pagel of Z
Tasks 7, 8, and 9 have been developed in and are part of the current packet (see
attached) which taken together comprise Task 10(A) "Assemble complete Final
Draft SMP." They will be reviewed as part of the hearing.
Next Steps
Task 10 includes the following sub -tasks:
A. Assemble complete Final Draft SMP
B. Complete SEPA review and documentation
C. Provide GMA 60 -day notice of intent to adopt
D. Hold public hearing
E. Prepare a responsiveness summary
F. Adopt SMP and submit to ECOLOGY
G. Demonstrate how Task 10 complies with the Guidelines
Tasks 10-A and 10-B have been completed and documents are provided for this
hearing.
The 60 -day public notice was sent out to stakeholders and Ecology on July 31,
2015. The City received one comment from the US Army Corps of Engineers
(USACE) apparently intended to clarify the USACE ownership of certain shoreline
areas (see attached). While the comments are accurate, the City does not see a
contradiction with the SMP: Whereas the USACE refers to their "shorelines,"
presumably Corps land touching the water, they may not understand that the
SMP utilizes a definition incorporating a 200' landward buffer beginning at the
ordinary high water mark.
The Planning Commission hearing is the current October 15, 2015 meeting, and
the names and mailing addresses of all interested parties providing comment shall
be compiled in the minutes of this meeting and included in the final submittal to
Ecology.
As part of the Ecology submittal, any and all comments received to this point in
time will be summarized and responded to, discussing how the draft SMP
addresses the issues identified in each comment.
Once all comments have been addressed the Planning Commission will make a
recommendation and the final document will be presented to City Council, and if
adopted, submitted to Ecology for final approval.
Recommendation
Motion: I move the Planning Commission recommend the City Council
adopt the Shoreline Master Program by reference as part of the City's
Comprehensive Plan and adopt Title 29 -Shoreline Master Program" as
part of the Pasco Municipal Code.
Page 2 of 2
Shoreline of Reach 1 is owned by the Federal Government and managed by the US Army Corps of
Engineers. According to our records, none of the shoreline is private. Land upland may be, but the
actual shoreline is not.
Shoreline of Reach 2 is owned by the Federal Government and managed by the US Army Corps of
Engineers. According to our records, none of the shoreline is private. Land upland may be, but the
actual shoreline is not.
Shoreline of Reach 4 is owned by the Federal Government and managed by the US Army Corps of
Engineers. According to our records, none of the shoreline is private. Land upland may be, but the
actual shoreline is not.
With the exception of the portion of the shoreline lying under the US 395 bridge, the shoreline of Reach
5 is owned by the Federal Government and managed by the US Army Corps of Engineers. According to
our records, none of the shoreline is private. Land upland may be, but the actual shoreline is not.
The Port of Pasco owns the shoreline of 6c. The shoreline of 6a and 6c are owned by the Federal
Government and managed by the US Army Corps of Engineers. The Port of Pasco has reserved rights in
the Federal government acquisition deed for subreach 6a.
The majority of the acreage of Sacajawea State Park (+/-289 acres) in reach 7 and subreach 8a is owned
by the Federal Government and under the management of the US Army Corps of Engineers. The state
holds a lease for the portion they do not own. The only portion owned by the state is the tip.
With the exception of the shoreline under the US 12 bridge, the shoreline in reach 8 is owned by the
Federal government. The state owns no part of Sacajawea state park in this location.
MEMORANDUM
DATE: October 15, 2015
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Shane O'Neill, Planner I
SUBJECT: Development Agreements Code Amendment (MF# CA 2015-005)
To create certainty in the development process and to incentivize certain types
of development, the Planning Department has periodically entered into a type
of development agreement termed "concomitant agreement", with property
owners. Planning Commissioners may recall past land rezoning applications
whereby staff recommended requiring concomitant agreements be used to
impose certain limitations and development standards not set forth in the
Municipal Code.
Although not specifically authorized in state statute, concomitant agreements
were a form of development agreement regulation used by Washington
communities pre -Growth Management Act for the purpose of regulating
developments through the zoning process. In 1995 the state legislature
authorized development agreements in RCW36.7013 and consequently, the term
development agreement is now used instead of concomitant agreement. These
agreements are voluntary, but once made, they are binding on the parties and
their successors. Local jurisdictions must hold a public hearing prior to
approving a development agreement and may only impose impact fees,
dedications, mitigation measures, and standards as authorized by other laws.
Development agreements can be used to appease a variety of public concerns
which arise during public hearings such as: residential densities, minimum
building setbacks, building heights and landscaping requirements. Carefully
crafted development agreements can be mutually beneficial to both developers
and municipalities. For instance, they can be effective instruments in offsetting
construction costs of necessary public utilities and infrastructure.
The Revised Code of Washington authorizes cities to enter into development
agreements for the stated reason that:
"...lack of certainty in the approval of development projects can
result in a waste of public and private resources, escalate housing
costs for consumers and discourage the commitment to
comprehensive planning which would make maximum efficient use
of resources at the least economic cost to the public."
(MF# CA 2015-005) Page I of 2
Staff feels that it may be appropriate to repeal Pasco Municipal Code section
25.88.100, titled Concomitant Agreement, which contains regulations similar
to what is being proposed and to adopt new language into the Zoning Code
addressing the use of development agreements. Staff has prepared draft Code
language establishing a new section titled "Development Agreements" and is
reflective of State Law.
Staff requests the Planning Commission discuss the proposed Zoning Code
amendment and address any foreseeable concerns that may arise as a result of
approval. Staff would intend to bring this item back to the Planning
Commission in November to conduct the public hearing.
(MF# CA 2015-005) Page 2 of 2
25.88 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS
Sections:
25.88.100
PURPOSE
25.88.110
AUTHORITY
25.88.120
CONTENTS OF A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
25.88.130
ENFORCEMENT
25.88.140
RECORDING
25.88.150
APPROVAL
25.88.160
SEVERABILITY
25.88.100 PURPOSE. The lack of certainty in the approval of
development projects can result in a waste of public and private resources,
escalate housing costs for consumers and discourage the commitment to
comprehensive planning which would make maximum efficient use of
resources at the least economic cost to the public. Assurance to a development
project applicant that upon government approval the project may proceed in
accordance with existing policies and regulations, and subject to conditions of
approval, all as set forth in a development agreement, will strengthen the
public planning process, encourage private participation and comprehensive
planning, and reduce the economic costs of development. Further, the lack of
public facilities and services is a serious impediment to development of new
housing and commercial uses. Project applicants and the City may include
provisions and agreements whereby applicants are reimbursed over time for
financing public facilities.
25.88.110 AUTHORITY. (1) Pursuant to RCW 36.70B.170-.210, the City
may enter into a development agreement with a person having ownership or
control of real property within its jurisdiction.
(2) The City may enter into a development agreement for real property
outside its boundaries as part of a proposed annexation or a service agreement.
(3) Sections 25.88. 100 through 25.88.160 do not affect the validity of a
contract rezone, concomitant agreement, annexation agreement, or other
agreement in existence or adopted under separate authority, that includes
some or all of the development standards provided in Section 25.88.120 of this
section.
(4) The execution of a development agreement is a proper exercise of the
City's police power and contract authority.
(MF# CA 2015-005) Page 1 of 3
25.88.120 CONTENTS OF A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT. (1) A development
agreement must set forth the development standards and other provisions that
shall apply to and govern and vest the development, use, and mitigation of the
development of the real property for the duration specified in the agreement. A
development agreement shall not be inconsistent with the City's development
regulations or comprehensive plan.
(2) For the purposes of this section, "development standards" includes,
but is not limited to:
(a) Project elements such as permitted uses, residential
densities, and nonresidential densities and intensities or building
sizes;
(b) The amount and payment of impact fees imposed or agreed
to in accordance with any applicable provisions of state law, any
reimbursement provisions or other financial contributions by the
property owner, inspection fees, or dedications;
(c) Mitigation measures, development conditions, and other
requirements under RCW 43.21C;
(d) Design standards such as maximum heights, setbacks,
drainage and water quality requirements, landscaping, and other
development features;
(e) Affordable housing;
(1) Parks and open space preservation;
(g) Phasing;
(h) Review procedures and standards for implementing decisions;
(i) A build -out or vesting period for applicable standards; and
0) Any other appropriate development requirement or procedure.
(3) A development agreement may obligate a party to fund or provide
services, infrastructure, or other facilities. A development agreement shall
reserve authority to impose new or different regulations to the extent required
by a serious threat to public health and safety.
(MF# CA 2015-005) Page 2 of 3
(4) Development agreements within the City limits are limited to a ten
(10) year timeframe. An extension of one (1) to ten (10) years may be exercised
upon mutual approval of both the developer and the City. Development
agreements outside the City limits continue in effect at least until annexation.
25.88.130 ENFORCEMENT. (1) Unless amended or terminated, during the
term of the development agreement, the agreement is binding and enforceable
on the parties and their successors, including the City when it assumes
jurisdiction through incorporation or annexation of the area covering the
property covered by the development agreement. A development agreement and
the development standards in the agreement govern during the term of the
agreement, or for all or that part of the build -out period specified in the
agreement, and may not be subject to an amendment to a zoning ordinance or
development standard or regulation or a new zoning ordinance or development
standard or regulation adopted after the effective date of the agreement.
(2) A permit or approval issued by the City after the execution of the
development agreement must be consistent with the development agreement.
25.88.140 RECORDING. A development agreement shall be recorded with the
real property records of the county in which the property is located.
25.88.150 APPROVAL. The City shall only approve a development agreement by
resolution after a public hearing. The public hearing shall be held before the
Planning Commission whose recommendation and record shall be acted on by
the City Council.
25.88.160 SEVERABILITY. Should any section, paragraph, sentence, clause, or
phrase of this Ordinance be held invalid or unenforceable by a court of
competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unenforceability shall not affect the
validity or enforceability of any other section, sentence, clause, or phrase of
this Ordinance.
(MF# CA 2015-005) Page 3 of 3