HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-18-2016 Planning Commission Meeting PacketREGULAR MEETING
A
B
C
PLANNING
CALL TO ORDER:
ROLL CALL:
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
OLD BUSINESS:
-AGENDA
7:00 P.M.
Declaration of Quorum
January 21, 2016
February 18, 2016
Rezone Rezone from R-1 (Low Density Residential) to R-3
(Medium Density Residential) (Scott Lvbbert) (MF# Z
2015-006)
Preliminary Plat
Rezone
D. Rezone
VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
A. Special Permit
B. Special Permit
C. Special Permit
D. Special Permit
VII.
VIII.
1"
WORKSHOP:
A. Code Amendment
OTHER BUSINESS:
ADJOURNMENT:
Preliminary Plat for Columbia Villas, Phase 3 (Big Creek
Land Co.) (MF# PP 2015-006)
Rezone from R-4 (High Density Residential) to C-1 (Retail
Business) (FBA Land Holdings) (MF# Z 2015-0081
Rezone from C-1 (Retail Business) to C-3 (General
Business) (GESA) (MF# Z 2015-007)
Special Permit to locate a church (Bethel Church) (MF#
SP 2016-001)
Special Permit to locate a preschool in an existing home
(John Cooley) (MF# SP 2016-002)
Special Permit to locate a daycare center in an existing
home (Juan & Mariana Valdivia) (MF# SP 2016-003)
Special Permit to locate a temporary structure for senior
services (City of Pasco) (MF# SP 2016-004)
Home Occupations/ Client Present (MF# CA 2015-007)
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 COMMISSION MEETING
CALL TO ORDER:
The meeting was called to order at 7:OOpm by Chairwoman Polk.
POSITION MEMBERS PRESENT
No.
1
Tanya Bowers
No.
2
No.
3
Paul Mendez
No.
4
Alecia Greenaway
No.
5
No.
6
Loren Polk
No.
7
No.
8
No. 9 Gabriel Portugal
APPEARANCE OF FAIRNESS:
MEMBERS ABSENT
VACANT
Joe Cruz
Zahra Khan
VACANT
January 21, 2016
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 Bowers addressed the Commission with concerns for MF# Z 2015-
007, but the Board felt that she didn't need to abstain.
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 Greenaway moved, seconded by Commissioner Portugal that the minutes
dated December 17, 2015 be approved. The motion passed unanimously.
OLD BUSINESS:
A. Rezone Rezone from C-1 (Retail Business) to R-1 (Low
Density Residential) (Bardown Consulting LLCI (MF#
Z 2015-0041
Chairwoman Polk read the master file number and asked for comments from staff.
Dave McDonald, City Planner, discussed the rezone application from C-1 (Retail Business)
to R-1 (Low Density Residential). There were no additional comments.
-1-
Commissioner Bowers asked if senior housing was being developed on the R-3 site located
next to the proposed property.
Mr. McDonald responded that is correct.
Commissioner Bowers asked for clarification as to where Majestia Place is located.
Mr. McDonald indicated the location on the site map.
Commissioner Greenaway moved, seconded by Commissioner Portugal, to adopt findings
of fact and conclusions therefrom as contained in the January 21, 2016 staff report. The
motion passed unanimously.
Commissioner Greenaway moved, seconded by Commissioner Portugal, based on the
findings of fact and conclusions as adopted the Planning Commission recommend the City
Council approve the rezone of Lot 6, Coles Estates Road from C-1 to R-1. The motion
passed unanimously.
B. Preliminary Plat Preliminary Plat for Coles Estates, Lot 6 IBardown
Consulting LLC) IMF# PP 2015-0051
Chairwoman Polk read the master file number and asked for comments from staff.
Dave McDonald, City Planner, discussed the preliminary plat for Coles Estates, Lot 6.
There were no additional comments.
Commissioner Bowers moved, seconded by Commissioner Greenaway, to adopt findings of
fact and conclusions therefrom as contained in the January 21, 2016 staff report. The
motion passed unanimously.
Commissioner Bowers moved, seconded by Commissioner Greenaway, based on the
findings of fact and conclusions as adopted the Planning Commission recommend the City
Council approve the preliminary plat for Coles Estates with conditions as listed in the
January 21, 2016 staff report. The motion passed unanimously.
C. Rezone Rezone from "O" (Office) to R-3 (Medium Density
Residential) (Ruben Escalera) (MF# Z 2015-0051
Chairwoman Polk read the master file number and asked for comments from staff.
Dave McDonald, City Planner, discussed the rezone from "O" (Office) to R-3 (Medium
Density Residential). There were no additional comments.
Commissioner Portugal moved, seconded by Commissioner Greenaway, to adopt findings
of fact and conclusions therefrom as contained in the January 21, 2016 staff report. The
motion passed unanimously.
Commissioner Portugal moved, seconded by Commissioner Greenaway, based on the
-2-
findings of fact and conclusions as adopted the Planning Commission recommend the City
Council approve a rezone for the properties at 1804 8s 1808 N. 20th Avenue (parcels 119-
321-127 and 119-321-118) from "O" to R-3. The motion passed unanimously.
D. Special Permit Modification of a Special Permit issued under
adaptive reuse of Historic Places Provisions (Brad &
Debra Peck) IMF# SP 2015-0151
Chairwoman Polk read the master file number and asked for comments from staff.
Dave McDonald, City Planner, discussed the modification of a special permit issued under
adaptive reuse for Historic Places Provisions. There were no additional comments.
Commissioner Bowers asked when the carriage house was built.
Mr. McDonald stated that he was unsure of the exact date it was constructed but
somewhere around 1914.
Commissioner Bowers asked how many events per year are held at the mansion.
Mr. McDonald was not sure how many events were held per year but they are mostly held
in the spring and summer.
Commissioner Bowers asked where the carriage house was located on this property.
Mr. McDonald displayed on the site map where it is located.
Commissioner Greenaway moved, seconded by Commissioner Portugal, to adopt findings
of fact and conclusions therefrom as contained in the January 21, 2016 staff report. The
motion passed unanimously.
Commissioner Greenaway moved, seconded by Commissioner Portugal, based on the
findings of fact and conclusions therefrom the Planning Commission recommend the City
Council grant a special permit to Brad & Debra Peck for the modification of a special
permit issued under the City of Pasco Municipal Code Adaptive Reuse of Historic Places
Provisions at 200 Road 34, Paso, WA 99301 (Parcels 119-430-241, 119-430-205 and 119-
430-278) with the conditions as contained in the January 21, 2016 staff report. The
motion passed unanimously.
E. Special Permit Special Permit for the location of a vineyard frost
protection wind machine in an RS -12 (Residential
Suburban) Zone (Jerry Czebotar) (MF# SP 2015-016)
- WITHDRAWN
Chairwoman Polk read the master file number and explained that this application had
been withdrawn.
F. Special Permit Special Permit for the location of sports field
-3-
lighting in an R-1 (Low Density Residential) Zone
(City of Pasco) (MF# SP 2015-0171
Chairwoman Polk read the master file number and asked for comments from staff.
Dave McDonald, City Planner, discussed the special permit for the location of sports field
lighting in an R-1 (Low -Density Residential) Zone. There were no additional comments.
Commissioner Bowers asked about a map that could better illustrate where in the City
this site was located.
Mr. McDonald explained where the site was located.
Commissioner Bowers moved, seconded by Commissioner Greenaway, to adopt findings of
fact and conclusions therefrom as contained in the January 21, 2016 staff report. The
motion passed unanimously.
Commissioner Bowers 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 January 21, 2016 meeting.
G. Special Permit Special Permit to locate a farm and related
buildings (WSU Extension Office) (MF# SP 2015-018)
Chairwoman Polk read the master file number and asked for comments from staff.
Dave McDonald, City Planner, discussed the special permit to locate a farm and related
buildings for the WSU Extension Office. There were no additional comments.
Commissioner Mendez moved, seconded by Commissioner Greenaway, to adopt findings of
fact and conclusions therefrom as contained in the January 21, 2016 staff report. The
motion passed unanimously.
Commissioner Mendez moved, seconded by Commissioner Greenaway, based on the
findings of fact and conclusions therefrom the Planning Commission recommend the City
Council grant a special permit to Washington State University Extension Service for the
location of a farm on parcel # 118-180-180 with the conditions as contained in the
January 21, 2016 staff report. The motion passed unanimously.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
A. Rezone Rezone from R-1 (Low Density Residential) to R-3
(Medium Density Residential) (Scott Lybbertl (MF#
Z 2015-0061
Chairwoman Polk read the master file number and asked for comments from staff.
Dave McDonald, City Planner, discussed the rezone application from R-1 (Low Density
-4-
Residential) to R-3 (Medium Density Residential). The site is located just north of the fire
station on Road 68, south of Aintree Drive. In 2013 this property was the subject of a
rezone and preliminary plat application for a 15 lot subdivision. The Council approved the
development but because of the elevation of the property the developer, Hayden Homes,
was unable to make it work and moved on to other locations to develop. The current
applicant feels that if density is increased, he would be able to carry the cost of the
infrastructure which would include installing sewer under the irrigation canal and
connecting to a manhole on Road 68. The need for increased density is the reason for the
rezone to R-3. This site has been included in the Comprehensive Plan for over 36 years
as an area for mixed residential development which includes; single-family homes, patio
homes, townhouses, apartments and condominiums. The eligible zoning for mixed
residential includes; R-1, RS -12, RS -20. R-2 and R-3. The Chapel Development also
includes commercial zoning to the north of Chapel Hill and on Road 68, which is where
the Maverick Gas Station and strip center are located. When considering rezones the
Planning Commission must review changed conditions within the community that would
warrant other or additional zoning.
Some of the conditions include the number of single-family plats that have been approved
in the last 2 '/2 years. There is an abundance of single-family preliminary plats approved
with roughly over 2,000 single-family lots that are now available within inventory. In
addition, Franklin County has also approved a number of single-family plats, adding 242
single-family lots to the inventory. In 2014, the Department of Natural Resources who
owns several hundred acres to the west of Road 68, south of Highway 182, requested a
rezone which created another 180 acres for single-family development. Last year the City
tried to expand the urban growth boundary to include more land to allow opportunities for
development but that was denied by the County which will focus more development within
the UGA boundaries. Lastly, Hayden Homes did a complete study of this property in 2013
in an effort to develop it for single-family homes but were unable to do so because of the
cost of infrastructure. The 15 lots could not cover the costs.
The Commission must consider the effect on the nature and value of adjoining properties.
According to the Franklin County Assessor's records relating to taxes, when higher density
development is placed next to lower density there really is not impact on values. In fact,
the property values adjacent to the Columbia Villas Subdivision on Sandifur Parkway
where the townhomes were built, have increased in value. Mr. McDonald briefly went over
a few studies regarding tax assessments and impacts of higher density next to lower
density in which single-family home values were not impacted negatively as a result of
multi -family construction next door. He also discussed traffic studies that indicate multi-
family units generate less traffic than single-family homes. Typically an apartment unit
generates 6.72 vehicle trips per day and single-family home generates about 10 vehicle
trips per day. On the weekends, the Institute of Traffic Engineers indicates that multi-
family development has even fewer traffic generation numbers.
Commissioner Bowers asked what would happen to the single-family residence and small
barn currently on site.
Mr. McDonald responded the barn would be removed and the house would remain.
Chairwoman Polk asked if R-4 zoning districts are required to construct parameter walls.
Mr. McDonald answered that the request is for R-3 but there are no requirements in the
-5-
zoning regulations for a wall. That doesn't mean that through the course of the hearing
process one couldn't be required. Staff is recommending that a concomitant agreement be
established an enhanced landscape buffer along the eastern edge of the property.
Chairwoman Polk asked if the concomitant agreement would come with the next public
hearing.
Mr. McDonald responded that the applicant, Mr. Lybbert, is requesting that this
application is acted on this evening to meet a deadline of getting the sewer underground
before the water is put back in the canal.
Commissioner Portugal asked for clarification on who owns the land to connect Valley
View Road to Road 68 to allow for access.
Mr. McDonald stated the land is owned by the Thorne partnership. They have entered
into an agreement to sell the property to the applicant.
Scott Lybbert, 4307 S. Olson Street, Kennewick, WA spoke on behalf of his application.
He stated he approached this property for single-family homes originally but concluded
that the extensive costs of putting in the sewer system and the number of homes per road,
the economic value wouldn't work. Mr. Lybbert stated they are sensitive to the concerns
in the neighborhood. He has shared various concepts for plans but has not come to a
decision on what the product will look like. They intend to build an attractive product to
enhance the neighborhood. They also need to build homes at a price point the market
demands, which would suggest keeping the prices in the sub $200,000 range, which
would be townhomes. While in negotiations with the adjacent property, Mr. Lybbert
stated he has not acquired the property yet but the preference is to match Valley View
Drive with an entrance off Road 68 with modification to Road 68, such as a turn lane and
acceleration lane. If they cannot access Road 68, they would come off of Aintree Drive and
would have fewer townhomes. Traffic will not pass other single-family homes.
Chairwoman Polk asked for clarification about the adjacent property.
Mr. Lybbert stated the neighboring property owners had agreed to annexation as it would
be in their best interest.
Kalyn Karlberg, 6614 Aintree Drive, gave a brief presentation. She represented herself and
several neighbors. They feel the zoning change will alter the character of the
neighborhood. Nothing in the area matches the description of three story dwellings except
for the townhomes behind Wal-Mart. She questioned why the developer cannot rezone the
property to R-2 rather than R-3. They are concerned over traffic and overcrowding in the
schools. There is already R-3 land available for development in the Chapel Hill area so the
proposed site shouldn't be rezoned to R-3 until the current R-3 has been completed. She
discussed perceived impacts on property values. In terms of other multi -family
developments in Pasco near single-family, they are duplexes with driveways so they fit the
characteristics of the neighboring single-family homes. Another problem with 3 -story
townhomes is that they will block views. With single or even two-story duplexes, they
would still have a view. They would like the project to be like Columbia Villas, where there
is a mix of 1-2 story duplexes similar to single-family homes. Lastly, they would like to
see regular parking and not tucked under parking or parking garages. In terms of traffic,
they would like to see a traffic light installed to help with access onto Road 68 and do not
want access to Aintree Drive. They would also like the single-family home to remain R-1
on Aintree Drive. If possible, a land swap to have the park developed on this site and
multi -family where the park is scheduled to go would be welcomed.
Chairwoman Polk asked for clarification on the view and the drop in elevation on the
property.
Ms. Karlberg responded that they took the elevation into account.
Dave Richards, Clarkston, WA, spoke as a property owner in the Chapel Hill area. He
stated Aintree Drive is the primary entrance into Chapel Hill, Division 2. One of his
concerns is that the tall townhomes will have an impact on the homes. He also felt it
would be more appropriate to develop vacant R-3 sites first. He discussed the traffic
studies Mr. McDonald had referenced regarding multi -family units generating less traffic.
He asked Mr. McDonald whether property values were retail or assessed values.
Mr. McDonald responded assessed values from Franklin County.
Mr. Richards stated almost everyone had an increase in assessed values this year in West
Pasco. He asked if the assessed values were equal to the assessed values not located near
newly constructed multi -family units.
Mr. McDonald stated he couldn't answer at the moment because he only checked the
properties bordering the higher densities.
Sally Wright, 6412 Pimlico Drive, was concerned about traffic and overcrowded schools.
Nicole Prasch, 6312 Turf Paradise Drive, stated she paid extra for her view. As for access,
there are already many cars that park on the curve and the street isn't very wide.
Commissioner Portugal asked Ms. Prasch to could clarify what she means by paying extra
for a view.
Ms. Prasch responded they paid a lot premium for their home because it had a view.
Jeff Dahlman, 6619 Aintree Drive, stated his backyard borders the apartments on Chapel
Hill. To put more apartments on the other side of him would make them feel surrounded.
John Burns, 4320 Road 111, spoke for the Franklin County Irrigation District. The
Irrigation District is neither in favor or opposed to the application. At some point in time
they hope to have the whole canal piped and placed underground.
Chairwoman Polk asked about sewer and piping the canal and if this would create any
issues in the future.
Mr. Burns answered it would not because they would have to include the piping designs.
-7-
Sarui Camacho, 6709 Aintree Drive, discussed traffic concerns on Aintree Drive. She
stated that her family lives on the corner and has seen several near misses.
David Roskelley, 2907 N. 65th Place, stated he has lived in West Pasco for the past 15
years. He used to live on the north side of the highway but moved to the south side due to
traffic and development on the north and now it is moving south. He is frustrated with all
the construction, then it takes 10 years to fix the traffic.
Maria Prieto, 3208 Ladbroke Lane, stated her concerned about privacy and traffic. She
stated her neighborhood doesn't consist of entry-level homes.
Josue Morfin, 6302 Pimlico Drive, said his biggest concern was traffic. He discussed the
purpose of various zoning districts and stated R-2 zoning would be more appropriate.
Karen Weis, 6920 Valley View Place, explained her concerns with traffic. She stated she
works at Chiawanna High School and to get home she goes down Argent and up Road 68
and the people behind her have to wait for her to make a left-hand turn because there is
no left signal.
Bryan Cole, 7601 W. Clearwater Avenue, Kennewick, WA spoke on behalf of the applicant
as the project engineer. The project will bring the property into conformance with the
Comprehensive Plan. They want to design a project that is in tune with the surrounding
community. Road 68 is an important component to access to the property. If that access
is granted it will relieve a lot of traffic off Aintree Drive. They are required to do a traffic
study and road improvements. Preliminary studies show they will need a turn pocket on
Road 68 to allow for left-hand turns and acceleration and deceleration lanes so traffic isn't
impeded on Road 68. They will also provide sidewalks along the frontage. The current site
design is very preliminary. They will try to "stair step" the development to prevent
blocking views. With more density they will be providing more money for school and road
impact fees.
Commissioner Portugal asked if the applicant had any cost comparative estimates for
single-family versus multi -family.
Scott Lybbert, 4307 S. Olson Street, Kennewick, WA stated he originally did a single-
family analysis -a year ago- and the cost estimate did not work. They still have to acquire
the property, which the seller would like to get value out of his property. By the time they
acquire the property and apply development costs, it is near or greater than the market
and would leave no margin. When moving to a multi -family development there was a large
enough margin to work with and also pay for the property. They believe this project will
add to the neighborhood. He is sensitive to the concerns and nobody likes to see change.
Commissioner Bowers asked if R-2 zoning is something he has considered.
Mr. Lybbert replied that they hadn't. In order to get the economics to work they would
need the density of the R-3 zoning.
Commissioner Mendez asked if the plans were still to construct three-story, tucked -in
in
parking townhomes.
Mr. Lybbert stated plans are not locked in. They will build a product to attract buyers.
Commissioner Mendez asked if he was building for first-time homebuyers or upper -scale.
Mr. Lybbert responded it could be first-time buyers. There should be an even mix of
homes and prices among the community. He was open to selling the property to anyone
that wants it for greenspace.
Karyn Karlberg, 6614 Aintree Drive, stated she understood the price was $389,000.
Mr. Lybbert responded his offer to sell is at $250,000.
Scott Lybbert, 4307 S. Olson Street, Kennewick, addressed irrigation pump noise. There
are already two irrigation pumps on the canal. Their residents won't want a loud noise
either, so they will protect the pump and noise will not be a concern.
Karyn Karlberg, 6614 Aintree Drive, handed a signed 60 -resident petition to the clerk.
Dave Richards, Clarkston, WA stated he worked with the developer and builders that built
the neighborhood. Homes were required to meet higher standards which is why people
paid more. There are restrictive covenants in the neighborhood to protect the character.
He would encourage the new development to have congruent exteriors.
Ms. Prasch asked if it was the owner requesting the rezone or the developer.
Mr. McDonald responded that the developer was the applicant, however, the owner was
required to sign the application so together they are applying for the rezone.
With no further questions or comments the public hearing closed.
Chairwoman Polk asked staff to clarify that there are two motions for the evening; one to
close the hearing and one for a recommendation to Council.
Mr. McDonald responded that was correct but the Planning Commission does have the
option, since there was a lot of information and testimony provided, to close the hearing
and deliberate at the February meeting, which would allow time for staff to incorporate
many of the concerns into a concomitant agreement for the Planning Commission's review.
Commissioner Greenaway asked if Mr. McDonald could clarify the land swap that was
discussed as an option during public testimony.
Mr. McDonald stated that he wasn't quite sure what they were talking about but it might
involve the city park property on Chapel Hill Boulevard. Swapping the two sites will not
be likely as the site would be too difficult to develop for a neighborhood park due to the
topography and access.
In
Chairwoman Polk asked what the minimum square footage is for R-2 and R-3 zoning.
Mr. McDonald stated that for R-2 it is 5,000 square feet per unit and for R-3 it is 3,000
per unit.
Commissioner Polk asked for clarification on how many units the applicant will have in an
R-3 zoning.
Mr. McDonald said if the applicant drops the number of units to 40 he would have more
square footage.
Commissioner Polk asked if he could feasibly work with an R-2 zoning.
Mr. McDonald responded that he didn't believe so.
Chairman Polk asked the Commissioners how they felt about a concomitant agreement
and if they would like to postpone making a recommendation or if they are comfortable to
make a recommendation.
Commissioner Bowers stated that she was in support of closing the public hearing and
seeing a concomitant agreement at the next meeting.
The Commissioners were in agreement, except for Commissioner Greenaway who was
comfortable making a recommendation.
Commissioner Greenaway asked if the applicant could get a head start by working on the
sewer to meet their deadline prior to their approval or recommendation.
Mr. McDonald replied that isn't possible since this application could get denied either by
the Planning Commission or Council and it wouldn't make financial sense for the
developer to begin.
Commissioner Mendez stated that a concomitant agreement would be a good way to
mitigate many of the issues they heard from the public during the hearing.
Commissioner Portugal agreed and added that he was still interested in seeing a cost
comparison of single-family and multi -family.
Chairwoman Polk asked if there are any engineered estimates.
Mr. McDonald answered the City does not have that available.
Chairwoman Polk stated that she would also be in favor of a concomitant agreement.
Commissioner Bowers moved, seconded by Commissioner Portugal, to close the public
hearing and schedule deliberations, the adoption of findings of fact, and development of a
recommendation for City Council for the January 21, 2016 meeting.
-10-
B. Zoning Determination Zoning Determination for Unincorporated Property
OF ZD 2016-0011
Chairwoman Polk read the master file number and asked for comments from staff.
Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director, discussed the zoning
determination for the Thorne Annexation Area. The site contains over an acre, is zoned
RS -20 with a single-family home. The property is in the County but prior to annexation
the Planning Commission must determine the zoning. The property owners have
submitted an intent to annex that has been accepted by City Council. The Comprehensive
Plan indicates the site is within a transitional are between low-density and mixed -
residential land uses. The parcel to the northeast is zoned R-4 and the parcel to the east
is vacant and zoned R-1, however the Planning Commission is considering other zoning for
the property. The property has frontage on Road 68 and is located between the
commercial area to the north and the fire station to the south. Staff provided findings
about the property; basically the property is undergoing an annexation and is located on a
major high traffic volume street between two commercial properties.
Staff recommended the Planning Commission consider R-3 zoning for the property based
the findings and criteria discussed in the staff report. Staff suggested the Planning
commission make a recommendation to the Council at this meeting so the annexation
process can be completed by the end of February.
Scott Lybbert, 2839 W. Kennewick Avenue, spoke on behalf of this application. There
would be benefits for his overall project on the neighboring parcel if this property was
annexed and zoned R-3. This gives frontage to Road 68 with improvements that could
limit the risks for those turning left onto Valley View Lane.
Commissioner Bowers asked about ownership.
Mr. White responded that this property was owned by Mr. & Mrs. Thorne.
Phillip William Schmidt, 3417 Road 68, spoke on behalf of Mr. Thorne as his son-in-law.
He currently lives at the residence and has been cleaning up the property with the idea of
selling it. The house was built in 1969 is on a 253' well and has its own septic system.
Both systems are faltering so annexation would allow a tie into City sewer and water.
With no further comments the public hearing closed.
Chairwoman Polk asked what the current zoning of the property would be considered.
Mr. White responded RS -20 since it is a large house on 1 acre.
Chairwoman Polk asked what would happen if it were zoned RT (Residential Transition).
Mr. White answered that RT zoning is typically reserved for properties or locations that are
awaiting the availability of City services, which doesn't fit this lot.
Chairwoman Polk expressed concern over rezoning this property to R-3 when the
-11-
neighboring property has a rezone that is still being deliberated.
Mr. White responded that this parcel itself can be justified for R-3 zoning because of its
location on a major street and its adjacency to the commercial to the north and south.
And while the fire station isn't a commercial use it is a use that most would not want to
locate a single-family home due to the amount of sirens and fire trucks responding to
emergencies. The annexation and zoning hold more promise for working issues out with
the property to the east more than they do as they currently exist.
Commissioner Bowers asked if it is preliminary to grant this rezone before the
concomitant agreement is worked out for the adjacent property.
Mr. White answered that he didn't think so since they are two separate parcels and
anything in terms of a concomitant agreement are going to extend and certainly be
sensitive to the adjacent neighborhood and parcels to the east.
Commissioner Bowers asked if they should push this decision off until February.
Chairwoman Polk responded that since this is a different applicant and regardless of the
outcome of the adjacent property, this applicant will still wish to annex and have the
zoning determined to be R-3, she would be in favor of moving forward at this meeting.
Dave McDonald, City Planner, stated that it is a separate piece of property and if annexed
in the future, a recommendation would still be R-3. It is not an appropriate place to
develop R-1. In fact, in the future Road 68 will need to be improved and the RS -20 zoning
will not be able to foot the bill for curb, gutter and sidewalk. If the adjacent property never
moves forward, at least this property could still be improved and developed.
Chairwoman Polk asked if it would be cost prohibitive in the future if this site wants to
develop as commercial and it would need to get rezoned again.
Mr. White responded that he didn't know if it would be cost prohibitive but they would
have that opportunity. It might not be favorable to extend commercial zoning down the
Road 68 Corridor, which presents traffic problems.
Commissioner Bowers moved, seconded by Commissioner Greenaway, the Planning
Commission adopt the findings of fact as contained in the January 21, 2016 staff report.
The motion passed unanimously.
Commissioner Bowers moved, seconded by Commissioner Greenaway, based on the
findings of fact as adopted the Planning Commission recommend the City Council zone the
Thorne Annexation Area to R-3, as indicated on the zoning map identified as Exhibit #1
attached to the January 21, 2016 staff report. The motion passed unanimously.
C. Preliminary Plat Preliminary Plat for Columbia Villas, Phase 3 (Bie
Creek Land Co.) IMF# PP 2015-0061
Chairwoman Polk read the master file number and asked for comments from staff.
-12-
Dave McDonald, City Planner, discussed the preliminary plat for Columbia Villas, Ph 3.
The plat is a natural extension of Columbia Villas, Phases 1 and 2 located directly south of
Three Rivers Drive. Provided in the staff report are all of the necessary reviews that the
state and municipal code require related to lot layout, right-of-way, utilities, prevention of
overcrowding of properties and parks and schools. Also in the report are a list of findings
of fact and a recommendation with conditions applicable to this development.
Cliff Mort, 6812 E. Maplewood, Post Falls, ID spoke on behalf of his application. This
project will be a transition from Columbia Villas to the south, apartments to the north,
Columbia Place to the west and commercial on the southeast. One of the reasons for
rezoning a commercial piece is because the property owner had originally thought these
would be higher density apartments, however, he thought the duplex or townhomes would
be a better fit but the commercial piece would provide a buffer on Road 68. The homes
have been filling up as they are being built and they have a waiting list.
With no questions or comments the public hearing closed.
Commissioner Greenaway moved, seconded by Commissioner Mendez, to close the hearing
on the proposed subdivision and initiate deliberations and schedule adoption of findings of
fact, conclusions and a recommendation to the City Council for the February 18, 2016
meeting. The motion passed unanimously.
D. Rezone Rezone from R-4 (High Density Residential) to C-1
(Retail Business1JFBA Land Holdings) IMF# Z 2015-
0081
Chairwoman Polk read the master file number and asked for comments from staff.
Dave McDonald, City Planner, discussed the rezone application from R-4 (High Density
Residential) to C-1 (Retail Business). The site is located at the corner of Road 68 and
Three Rivers Drive. There is a 15 acre commercial site to the south and this rezone would
be a natural extension of that zoning. The Comprehensive Plan designates an area of
commercial zoning directly across Road 68 reaching up to this property creating a
commercial node at the corner of Road 68 and Sandifur Parkway. Because this property
is on Road 68 there is concern over driveways. It would be advisable to include driveway
restrictions in a concomitant agreement.
Preston Ramsey, 415 S. Alpine Drive, Liberty Lake, WA spoke on behalf of the application.
He explained that FBA Land Holdings is doing the rezone in coordination with the Big
Creek Land Company preliminary plat approval.
With no further questions or comments the public hearing closed.
Commissioner Greenaway moved, seconded by Commissioner Bowers, to close the hearing
on the proposed rezone and initiate deliberations and schedule adoption of findings of fact,
conclusions and a recommendation to the City Council for the February 18, 2016 meeting.
The motion passed unanimously.
E. Rezone Rezone from C-1 (Retail Business) to R-1 (Low
-13-
Density Residential) (MF# Z 2016-0011
Chairwoman Polk read the master file number and asked for comments from staff.
Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director, discussed the rezone from C-1
(Retail Business) to R-1 (Low Density Residential). This is a situation the Planning
Commission has seen before where existing C-1 property is being used for housing and
has been forever. The Comprehensive Plan for the property indicates a low density
designation. This section of Court Street was zoned for retail business over 35 years ago
but it has remained developed with housing. Prior to the early 80's it was common
practice to include single-family housing as a permitted use in commercial zones. That
has changed since the 80's and the banking industry itself has changed. They are
reluctant to refinance or sell if the property is a non -conforming use. Staff has provided
the required review of the criteria in the report for the benefit of the Planning Commission.
Chairwoman Polk asked if the property on the corner of 10th and Court Street was a multi-
family dwelling and if it will still be rezoned as R-1 and compliant with R-1 zoning.
Mr. White answered that it won't technically be compliant but it will be more in
conformance than it is now.
Bob Dahmen, 5001 N. Bristol Street, Tacoma, spoke on behalf of his mother's estate in
this proposed rezone. When the zoning was set as C-1 years ago, nobody cared because it
also allowed for single-family but now it does not, making the property a non -conforming
use. He his family is trying to sell the home but they have had a sale fall through because
the purchaser could not get insurance due to the non-conformance. They have another
offer currently pending on the home and hope to close within a couple of weeks. Mr.
Dahmen requested the rezone be expedited and moved to Council in order to meet the
timeliness of the pending offer.
Matthew Polk, 811 W. Margaret Street, stated he lives down the street. He voiced concern
for the lack of commercial zoning and doesn't feel the City is being wise by eliminating the
commercial zoning that exists. All of the surrounding properties to the north are
commercial and that needs to be looked at for commercial use. He stated he is
sympathetic to what the property owners go through but we need to be responsible in how
we maintain the neighborhood and develop those commercial pieces of land so the people
living nearby reap those benefits and have a quality of life that has availability of mixed-
use zoning. The reason he chose to live in this part of Pasco rather than West Pasco is
because there aren't miles and miles of residential. The older style of mixed-use land is
more in keeping with the kind of city we should be leaning towards. He encourage the
Planning Commission keep these properties zoned commercial and perhaps do things that
would make it easier to sell the properties to be utilized for the intended use.
Bob Dahmen, 5001 N. Bristol Street, Tacoma, addressed Mr. Polk stating that while he
understands his concerns but if he is interested in maintaining commercial uses, would
be willing to purchase his mother's estate to use it for commercial use. There are 6
houses on the block and not one of them has change to a commercial use in 35 years.
They have all been owned and maintained as owner -occupied residential. The only
commercial use that could really go into any of properties is a marijuana paraphernalia
shop or other small type of shop unless someone comes along and purchases all of the
properties but he hasn't been approached by any buyers for that use.
-14-
Mary Lynn Heinemann, 9413 W. Richardson Road, stated she is a broker for Advance
Realty. Pasco has a shortage of homes at this price and with the home next door that was
updated, there is pride of ownership on this block. With the interest that the Dahmen
family has had in this home, it shows that there is interest for homes in this price point.
With no further questions or comments the public hearing closed.
Commissioner Bowers asked staff if this is rezoned to R-1 if they could open a cafe.
Staff responded no.
Chairwoman Polk added that there are strict limits on in-home businesses.
Mr. White said there are two things to keep in mind: (1) This section of block is designated
by the Comprehensive Plan as low density residential so the zoning currently isn't in
conformance with the Comprehensive Plan and (2) The property owner made the point
that the residential setup of the properties with the minimum frontage and little depth
doesn't lend itself to commercial zoning. Unless someone owns the entire block, one
parcel cannot be used as commercial because you can't get any kind of parking.
Commissioner Polk asked if in the future if someone wanted to purchase all of those lots
and apply for a rezone if they could.
Mr. White said yes but he wouldn't anticipate that happening.
Dave McDonald addressed Mr. Dahmen's request to expedite this application and staff
doesn't see any reason why it can't.
Commissioner Portugal moved, seconded by Commissioner Bowers, to adopt the findings
of fact and conclusions therefore as contained in the January 21, 2016 staff report. The
motion passed unanimously.
Commissioner Portugal moved seconded by Commissioner Greenaway based on the
findings of fact and conclusions as adopted the Planning Commission recommend the City
Council approved the rezone of Lots 17-32 Block 10, Sylvester's 2nd Addition from C-1 to
R-1.
F. Rezone Rezone from C-1 (Retail Business) to C-3 (General
Businessi (GESAI (MF# Z 2015-007)
Chairwoman Polk read the master file number and asked for comments from staff.
Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director, discussed the rezone which
involves property near the corner of 20th Avenue and Sylvester Street. The Comprehensive
Plan designates the property for commercial use, which means a variety of commercial
districts would be applicable, such as: O, C-1, C-2, C-3, CR and BP. The GESA
Administrative Service building was recently built and operates as a data center providing
computer servers not only for GESA but other financial institutions. It is not frequented
-15-
by the public and is not frequented by employees unless there for maintenance. The
reason for the zone change is for the use itself, as it is more along the lines of a heavier
commercial use and because GESA has installed security fencing along the parameter of
the site. The fencing is not really visible from the front due to a block wall but it is visible
on the sides. It is a three -strand barbed wire security system that is important for GESA
and for their contract server clients. Barbed wire is not allowed in a C-1, at least not in
the configuration in which it has been installed. The solution as proposed by staff would
be to establish C-3 zoning where the barbed wire parameter fencing is allowed and pursue
a concomitant agreement that would rule out every other use in the C-3 zone except for
the data center. Staff recommend the Planning Commission approve a rezone to C-3
based upon delivery of a concomitant agreement.
Chairwoman Polk asked for clarification on the location of the fencing.
Mr. White responded that the fencing surrounds the entire building, however, the barbed
wire is really only apparent if driving down Sylvester Street and glancing at it in certain
spots.
Commissioner Mendez asked if it is a stand-alone building.
Mr. White said yes.
Commissioner Bowers asked if this was one of the buildings that has upset the Planning
Commission in the past.
Mr. White replied that this building was the impetus of the design standards in the C-1.
Commissioner Bowers asked if the barbed wire fencing and gates were put up.
Mr. White stated that the fencing, gates and wall are already in place.
Chairwoman Polk asked if GESA was aware that they were not compliant with the zoning.
Mr. White responded he didn't believe the contractor was aware of the restriction.
Rick Thompson, 1616 Young Court, Kennewick, WA spoke on behalf of GESA Credit
Union as the Vice President of Facilities. He stated it is a unique facility and was
originally proposed as a high security fence. As for the details of the fencing they used the
best practices that they knew of. The parameter fencing is a requirement for high
security. Without the barbed wire it isn't a secured fence. There is a solid fence around
two sides of the facility side by side; a wood fence on the property line near residential and
a 6' chain link fence with slats.
Chairwoman Polk asked if there were any other security measures other than the fencing.
Mr. Thompson responded they have cameras, floodlights and berms so even if someone
drives through the fence they can't get in. It is high security by federal standards. They
tried to hide the entire facility while doing so and fit into the community.
-16-
Chairwoman Polk asked if they had considered installing landscape buffers to obscure the
views of the barbed wire fence.
Mr. Thompson replied that they have a buffer along the back on the other side and grass
between the two buildings. They did construct the 8' block wall on Sylvester.
Matt Polk, 811 W. Margaret Street, spoke out against the GESA building and rezone. He
stated that he lives just a few blocks from this property and adamantly is against the
rezone of this property. The building is completely out of character with the neighborhood
and should never have been allowed in city limits outside of the Port of Pasco. This facility
is virtually a gargantuan shed, it's an eyesore for those who have to look at it and anyone
can agree that the design and construction of this building is a prime example of corporate
irresponsibility. He stated that it is a testament to the fact that the leaders at GESA
Credit Union have contempt for the working class people that live nearby that will have to
live with GESA's bad decision for years to come. If anything, this industrial barn should
be dismantled and not expanded. He added that he would like to go on record as an
official complainant of this property. The request for this rezone needs to be denied.
There is no justification to zone it General Business.
Mr. Thompson addressed the concerns voiced. He stated that the property was a vacant
lot before and didn't have any value to anybody. They spoke to the neighbors next door
and received no negative responses from them or the apartments that overlook it. He feels
that they are good corporate neighbors.
Mr. Polk replied that people value vacant land but what this is about is making a bad
decision worse. He requests that the Planning Commission make the responsible choice
to deny GESA more opportunities to encroach on the neighborhood to show them what
corporate responsibility looks like.
With no further questions or comments the public hearing closed.
Commissioner Mendez asked since the building is already constructed what would happen
to GESA if this application was denied.
Mr. White responded that they would be non-compliant and would either have to remove
the barbed wire, limit it to one strand which is allowed in C-1 zones or apply for a variance
which is a doubtful path to go down.
Chairwoman Polk asked why one strand of barbed wire not considered security fencing.
Mr. White stated that he can't answer that.
Dave McDonald, City Planner, stated that many years ago there was a concern about
having barbed wire in neighborhood commercial zones because of the perception. The
City proposed to eliminate it but some property owners wanted to keep it. The
compromise was one strand. The three strands were limited to C-3 zones.
Chairwoman Polk asked if one strand would put them into compliance.
-17-
Mr. McDonald responded their definitions and federal guidelines require more.
Chairwoman Polk asked if there were other security methods other and barbed wire.
Mr. White replied he didn't know in terms of being federal compliant.
Commissioner Portugal asked if other banks have such fences.
Mr. White answered that he can't think of one but this building isn't a bank.
Commissioner Portugal asked if there is anywhere else in the community where there is a
security fence such as the once GESA constructed.
Mr. White stated that the site on the corner of 20th Avenue and Sylvester Street that used
to be Enterprise was surrounded by a triple strand of barbed wire but he couldn't think of
any others off hand.
Commissioner Mendez stated that when looking at the zoning map there are other C-3
zones on 20th Avenue and they could potentially put up three strands of barbed wire.
Chairwoman Polk asked how that complies with the revisions to keep arterials up to
standards.
Mr. White responded that the revisions are silent on fencing.
Chairwoman Polk asked if they correspond with C-3 zones as well.
Mr. White answered that they are limited to C-1 zones only.
Commissioner Bowers moved, seconded by Commissioner Greenaway, to close the hearing
on the proposed rezone and initiate deliberations and schedule adoption of findings of fact,
conclusions and a recommendation to the City Council for the February 18, 2016 meeting.
The motion passed 3 to 2 with Commissioner Mendez and Commissioner Portugal
dissenting.
COMMENTS:
With no further discussion or business, the Planning Commission was adjourned at
10:09 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
David McDonald, City Planner
so
REPORT TO THE PLANNING
MASTER FILE NO. Z 2015-006
HEARING DATE: 1/21/16
ACTION DATE: 2/18/16
BACKGROUND
APPLICANT: Scott Lybbert
2839 W. Kennewick Ave.
PMB 396
Kennewick, WA 99336
REQUEST: REZONE Rezone from R-1 (Low- Density Residential) to R-3
(Medium -Density Residential)
1. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION:
Legal: That portion of the SW quarter of the SW quarter of Section 15,
Township 9 North, Range 29 East, WM. lying northerly of the FCID canal
except that portion platted as Chapel Hill Division 2 and that portion
platted as Short Plat 2010-14.
General Location: 6720 Aintree Drive
Property Size: The parcel is approximately 5 acres.
2. ACCESS: The property will have access from Aintree Drive along the
north property line.
3. UTILITIES: All utilities are available to the site. Utilities will need to be
extended into the site prior to development. (The topography of the site
presents some practical difficulties in providing sewer service to the site.
Sewer service will need to be extended under the FCID canal and
connected to a manhole in Road 68.)
4. LAND USE AND ZONING: The site is currently zoned R1 (Low- Density
Residential). The site contains a single-family residence with an
accessory structure. Surrounding properties are zoned and developed as
follows:
North R-1 & R-4 - SFDUs/Apartment Complex
South C-1 - Fire Station/ Commercial Business
East R-1 - SFDUs
West County RS -20 - In the process of being annexed and
zoned to R-3
1
5. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The Comprehensive Plan designates this area
for Mixed Residential uses. Land Use Policy LU -3-13 encourages "infill"
development. Other goals and policies suggest the City permit a full
range of residential environments including town houses, condominiums
and apartments (H -2-A). The Plan (County -Wide Policy # 1) also
encourages development of affordable housing for all segments of the
population a variety of densities. Policy H -1-E encourages the
advancement of home ownership.
6. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The City of Pasco is the lead
agency for this project. Based on the SEPA checklist, the adopted City
Comprehensive Plan, City development regulations, and other
information, a threshold determination resulting in a Determination of
Non -significance (DNS) has been issued for this project under WAC 197-
11-158.
ANALYSIS
The property in question was annexed to the City in 1982 and was a remnant
parcel of the original farm circle that occupied the area between the FCID canal
and I-182 east of Road 68. Because this 5 acre parcel was held under separate
ownership from the farm circle it was not developed as a part of the Chapel Hill
development. In 2003 the original farm circle was rezoned to R-1, R-3, R-4 and
C-1 and developed as the Chapel Hill Subdivision. The site has remained
minimally developed as the Chapel Hill subdivision has been built out. The
property owner applied for a rezone in 2013 in an effort to develop the parcel
with a 15 lot subdivision. Due to topographic variations of the parcel and the
cost of running the sewer line under the FCID canal it was not feasible to move
forward with the development. The fifteen lots could not carry the cost of all
the infrastructure improvements needed to serve the five acre parcel.
The City's land use plans for the past 36 years have indicated the property in
question should be utilized for Mixed Residential uses. The "Description and
Allocation of Land Uses" table in the Land Use Chapter of the Comprehensive
Plan indicates the Mixed Residential designation permits single-family through
multi -family zoning with densities ranging from 5 to 20 dwelling units per acre.
The applicable zoning classification for the mixed residential land use
designation includes low-density through medium -density zoning including R-3
zoning. The applicant is seeking R-3 zoning which is permitted under the
Comprehensive Plan.
The applicant is seeking a zone change from R-1 (Low -Residential) to R-3
(Medium -Density Residential) to match the multi -family zoning of the
apartment complexes in the Chapel Hill subdivision to the north and east. R-3
zoning would permit one dwelling unit per 3,000 square feet of land. The
developer is planning on providing around 5,019 square feet of land for each
dwelling unit or 8.7 units per acre. R-1 zone allows for up to one dwelling per
7,200 square feet or 6.05 units per acre.
2
The proposed rezone will facilitate a residential infill development that is
encouraged by the Comprehensive Plan (LU -3-13). The R-3 zoning will permit
the development of a medium -density development on a site that needs slightly
more density than R-1 zoning to cover the cost of required infrastructure.
This application is coupled with an annexation petition and rezone for the
property to the west along Road 68. The developer intends to provide primary
access off Road 68 consistent with Plan policy H-1-13 that encourages medium
density housing to have access from major streets to avoid access through
lower density areas.
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 changed conditions in the vicinity which warrant other or additional
zoning:
Adjacent residential development and growth within the City makes the zone
change appropriate, timely, and consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan.
Properties to the north and east have been zoned to R-1, R-3, R-4 and CA and
developed with apartments, commercial development and single-family
residences. Changed conditions in the community include: Completion of the
Maverik Commercial Center to the northwest of the site; approval of six new
preliminary plats with a total of 798 single-family lots; approval of 15 final plats
with a total of 492 single-family lots; 188 acres of Department of natural
Resources land west of Road 68 and south of I-182 was rezoned for single-
family development which will provide for another 880 single-family lots;
Franklin County approved five final plats (in the Urban Growth Boundary) with a
total of 242 single-family lots; the Sharma Annexation brought another 28 acres
of land into the City zoned for single-family development (96 lots); One thousand
three hundred and thirty-four acres of unincorporated Franklin County were
annexed to the City with most of the acreage zoned for low-density residential
development (a small portion was zoned C-1) increasing the potential for single-
family development in the annexation areas as a result of greater access to City
utilities primarily through lower connection fees; In 2015 Franklin County denied
the City's application to increase the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) there by
causing urban growth to be restricted to the current UGB; and in 2013 Hayden
Homes completed a utility and infrastructure study for the property and
determined the cost for the necessary infrastructure rendered a single-family
development on the property infeasible.
2. Facts to justify the change on the basis of advancing the public health,
safety and general welfare:
The rezone will facilitate an infill development and improvements along Road 68.
The rezone will also expand opportunities for additional housing options for
3
Pasco residents consistent with policies of the Comprehensive Plan that
encourage the provisions of housing for all segments of the population.
3. The effect it will have on the nature and value of adjoining property and
the Comprehensive Plan:
Based on past experience with rezoning vacant land adjacent to existing
subdivisions, and evidence provided by tax records of Franklin County, the
proposed rezone will not negatively impact adjoining properties. The
development of Columbia Villas, and Navigator Villas are examples of where
higher density development was placed adjacent to low-density with little impact
to property. Franklin County Assessor records clearly show the single-family
homes directly west of the Columbia Villas have increased in values since the
construction of the townhouses in Columbia Villas. Increases in value have been
up to almost 4 percent in one case. The value of the single-family homes to the
west of Navigator Villas, a 178 unit four Alex development, have also increased
since the four plexes were built. The development of the Chapel Hill subdivision
with two apartment complexes intermixed with single-family homes is another
example of where higher density development co -exists with lower density
development with no impact to property values. Rezoning the property will assist
with the implementation of the Comprehensive Plan.
4. The effect on the property owners if the request is not granted:
If the request is not granted it is probable the property will continue to remain
underdeveloped. Due to problems with topography and difficulties with serving
the site with sewer service development of the site for single-family homes is
highly unlikely.
5. The Comprehensive Plan land use designation for the property:
The Comprehensive Plan designates the site for Mixed Residential uses which
includes R-2 and R-3 zoning. The proposed rezone is consistent with the Plan.
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 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) and has
been zoned R-1 for approximately 3 years.
2. The site borders C-1 Zones to the north and south and is southwest of
The Crossing at Chapel Hill (apartments) which is zoned R-4.
3. The Comprehensive Plan designates the site for mixed residential
uses.
J
4. The Comprehensive Plan indicates densities for this site range from 5
to 20 units per acre.
5. The surrounding Chapel Hill subdivision was rezoned for multi -family,
single-family and commercial development in 2003.
6. A fully developed street (Aintree Dr.) now borders the northern
property line.
7. Aintree Drive and the other streets within the Chapel Hill subdivision
contain all municipal utilities required to serve residential
development however, the nearest available sewer to serve the site is
located on Road 68 near the Fire Station.
8. The site contains a single-family residence and a small barn.
9. The site was annexed by the City of Pasco in 1982.
10. Applicant is requesting a change of zoning from R-1 to R-3.
11. Property to the west is zoned RS -20 and is in the process of being
annexed and zone R-3.
12. The R-3 zone permits one dwelling unit per 3,000 square feet of land.
The applicant is proposing a density of one unit per 5,000 square feet
of land.
13. The rezone will facilitate an infill development which is encouraged by
the Comprehensive Plan.
14. Since 2013 provisions have been made for an additional 2,530 single-
family lots within the Pasco Urban Boundary. In the same period only
two rezones and one plat have been approved for multi -family
development.
CONCLUSIONS BASED ON INITIAL STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT
Before recommending approval or denial of a Rezone, the Planning Commission
must develop its conclusions from the Findings of Fact based upon the criteria
listed in P.M.C. 25.88.060 and determine whether or not:
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 including townhouses, condominiums and apartments.
2. There is merit and value in the proposal for the community as a whole.
Adjacent residential development and growth within the City makes the zone
change appropriate, timely and consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan.
The rezone will facilitate a residential infill project on a parcel that would
otherwise be difficult to develop.
3. Conditions should be imposed in order to mitigate any significant
adverse impacts from the proposal.
5
During the hearing testimony was presented about concerns over building
heights, building type (number of units per building) and other issues. These
questions and issues can be address through the use of a concomitant
agreement
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.
Conditions of Concomitant Agreement should include the following:
A. Only townhouse style attached homes with customary
accessory structures are permitted to be built; For the
purposes of this agreement "townhouse style" means a
building containing only four or fewer dwelling units;
B. Maximum building heights for the first tier of homes along the
northerly and easterly boundary of the property shall be
limited to the R-1 height standards of PMC 25.28.050 (5). No
special permits shall be authorized for increases in building
height over the allowable 25 feet;
C. Building designs must incorporate architectural features to
create visual interest. All building fronts must be articulated
and painted with complementary colors to create a separated
and distinctive look for each attached dwelling unit within the
two unit structures;
D. Each building elevation must contain at least two distinctive
architectural features;
E. Vinyl and metal siding is prohibited. Siding of all buildings
must include singularly or collectively cement fiber board
siding, stucco, brick, architectural stone and architectural
masonry block;
F. All soffits shall be boxed;
G. A 15 -foot landscaped buffer shall be installed along the
easterly and northeasterly property line. Said buffer shall
contain a mixture of deciduous and coniferous trees spaced no
more than 60 feet apart. The trees may be farther apart if
they are planted in groupings of three trees per group. The
site including all trees and landscaped areas must be
regularly maintain in a workmanship like manner;
H. In addition to the trees require in G. above the overall site
must contain at least two trees for every dwelling unit. The
site including all trees and landscaped areas must be
regularly maintain in a workmanship like manner;
Z Convents, Conditions and Restrictions must be recorded
against the property specifying among other things a Home
Owners Association is responsible for all site and landscape
maintenance, and;
Co
J. Exterior night lighting must be shielded to prevent light
spillage.
RECOMMENDATION
MOTION for Findings of Fact: I move to adopt findings of fact
and conclusions therefrom as contained in the February 18, 2016
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 117430147 from R-1 to
R-3 with conditions as specified in the February 18, 2016 staff
report.
7
r-
J�1At
tvAfli
b�
LLJ 1,
m
p r I b ��ZRb
® �� �' ^'1
17
NLL
«TA[✓R �'�'�.... RikR. ' { L � '.
ILIA
AINTREE 6R414 1
to
/ ..
r
et " g
t =;r J `
5 1AZI. OIL OVUM
LU
� c—A Q
y� '•,' I Q. ,.n ::' x � ye^c 9e r .-rt
�,.. elf s
"log
W
y
o
.-
J
J
®
UL
/u/m�
V/
0
v
V)
I
®
T n rel
O
AINTREE DR
�ct
..
WW03
W
y
I
®//��
/u/m�
V/
0
v
V)
1�
W
y
7
W
J
Q
160.
U.
I
®//��
/u/m�
V/
0
v
V)
7
W
J
Q
160.
U.
o� y�
Q Q�
w
�1
I.L
o °8a�1Nb° N
W Cco 0 0Z
N,1°°
0 °rb
°>y Q li
m
J
0bBOb%
J
W
CL
LU
O O U i
AINTREE DR r
ROPD 68
w N N
TOM
V0 0
0
0 PRO
C 0 w a s
N W
J
J
Q
mc
4=1
LM
a
z
Mo
0
0
�
� §
/
�
��
Nil
i
•11
_ 5 -
1
ala
a
i
/i
k�
{pia
dr, .
V
i
t S '
L�
i
•11
_ 5 -
1
/i
N
Kp' [
a
oil
0
•
I
0
\`
i �1
rNtF t'1�
Yif
^7_
P
T
C � k
f �
l
\`
i �1
rNtF t'1�
Yif
^7_
P
Joint Center for Housing Studies
Harvard University
Overcoming Opposition to Multifamily Rental Housing
Mark Obrinsky and Debra Stein
March 2007
RR07-14
Prepared for
Revisiting Rental Housing: A National Policy Summit
November 2006
C by Mark Obrinsky and Debra Stein. All rights reserved. Short sections of text, not to exceed two paragraphs may
be quoted without explicit permission provided that full credit, including ® notice, is given to the source.
Any opinions expressed are those of the author and not those of the Joint Center for Housing Studies of Harvard
University or of any of the persons or organizations providing support to the Joint Center for Housing Studies.
Traffic
Joint Center for Housing Studies
Harvard University
On average, apartment residents own fewer cars than single-family homeowners: the latter
average two cars per household compared with only one for the former. 12 Beyond that, single-
family housing generates more automobile trips per household, as evidenced in the table below.
Automobile Trips Per Housing Unit
Single-family detached
Apartment
Difference
Weekday
9.57
6.72
42%
peak AM hour
0.77
0.55
40%
peak PM hour
1.02
0.67
52%
Saturday
10.10
6.39
58%
peak hour
0.94
0.52
81%
Sunday
8.78
5.86
50%
peak hour
0.86
0.51
69%
Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation, 7"' Edition (Washington,
DC: 2003), Volume 2, pp. 268-332.
On weekdays, a single-family detached house generates 42 percent more trips than does a
unit in an apartment. The difference is even greater on the weekend: 58 percent more trips on
Saturdays, and 50 percent more trips on Sundays. This large difference is seen not only in the
® by Mark Obrinsky and Debra Stein. All rights reserved. Short sections of text, not to exceed two paragraphs may
be quoted without explicit permission provided that full credit, including C notice, is given to the source.
Any opinions expressed are those of the author and not those of the Joint Center for Housing Studies of Harvard
University or of any of the persons or organizations providing support to the Joint Center for Housing Studies.
Joint Center for Housing Studies
Harvard University
Researchers measured a variety of relevant characteristics,
including house price, price per square foot, house price appreciation, time on the market, and
the ratio of sales price to asking price in order to assess "the worst-case scenarios of multi -family
intrusion into a single-family neighborhood." Their conclusions:
"We find that large, dense, multi -family rental
.do not
adverse
p3jce r zcts_,a a init ized and sometimes carj_gdAvalue. In the one erm, su
cn
spa nt complexes probably raise the overall value of detached homes relative to their
absence."4
® by Mark Obrinsky and Debra Stein. All rights reserved. Short sections of text, not to exceed two paragraphs may
be quoted without explicit permission provided that full credit, including ® notice, is given to the source.
Any opinions expressed are those of the author and not those of the Joint Center for Housing Studies of Harvard
University or of any of the persons or organizations providing support to the Joint Center for Housing Studies.
" National Association of Home Builders, "Multifamily Market outlook," Washington, DC, November 2001, pp. 3-4.
e Henry O. Pollakowski, David Ritchay, and Zoe W einrobe, "Effects of Mixed -Income, Multi -family Housing
Developments on Single-family Housing Values," Cambridge, MA: MIT Center For Real Estate, April 2005, p. xiii.
19 Arthur C. Nelson and Mitch Moody, "Apartments and Detached Home Values," On Common Ground, National
Association of Realtors, 2003. See also: Nelson and Moody, "Price Effects of Apartments on Nearby Single-family
Detached Residential Homes," Virginia Tech University, 2003.
"Richard K. Green, Stephen Malpezzi, and Kiat-Ying Seah, "Low Income Housing Tax Credit Housing
Developments and Property Values," Madison, WI: The Center for Urban Land Economics Research: 2002, p, 4.
11
Joint Center for Housing Studies
Harvard University
between housing density and delinquency... The observed correlation coefficients between
housing density and the six criminological measures were all small in magnitude (very close to
"0"), statistically significant... and in some cases in the opposite direction predicted by the
hypothesis of a direct relationship between housing density and crime."30
The Multifamily Record. Conclusion 4000
Further research would certainly be welcome. Even so, we think the available research is
fairly strong that multifamily rental housing: (1) does not impose greater costs on local
governments; (2) does it increase traffic and parking problems; (3) when well-designed and
appropriate to the neighborhood, does not reduce (and may even enhance) property values; and
(4) does not inherently attract residents who are less neighborly or more apt to engage in (or
attract) criminal activi .
® by Mark Obrinsky and Debra Stein. All rights reserved. Short sections of text, not to exceed two paragraphs may
be quoted without explicit permission provided that full credit, including ® notice, is given to the source.
Any opinions expressed are those of the author and not those of the Joint Center for Housing Studies of Harvard
University or of any of the persons or organizations providing support to the Joint Center for Housing Studies.
30 University of Alaska Justice Center, "The Strength of Association: Housing Density and Delinquency,"
Anchorage Community Indicators, series 3A, No. 1, available at:
htjust,ce.uaa.alaska.edu/indicators/series03/aciO3a l .housing.pdf
3i "From Parking to Mixed -Use," Montgomery Gazette, September 28, 2005, at:
www.gazette.net/stories/092805/bethnew205622 31894.shtml
15
UW Today
RESEARCH
June 26, 2012
Research suggests denser development is good for
single-family home values
Catherine O'Donnell
How do denser neighborhoods affect property values? And whats the economic value of
walkable neighborhoods?
r=
7
Pedestrians stroll the area around Harbor Steps in downtown Seattle./an CrowfeatherI
Creative Commons
A study conducted by researchersat the University of Washington College of Built
Environments and a South Korean university that, contrary to popular belief,
theres a positive association between higher neighborhood density and the value of
single-family residential properties.
Researchers modeled the values of single-family homes, multifamily rental buildings,
commercial spaces and offices in King County, Wash., which includes Seattle. They
used property values as a measure of economic value, analyzing them in relation to
neighborhood characteristics that correlate with walking, including access to open
space and public transportation, mixed-use zoning and pedestrian infrastructure such
as sidewalks.
They learned that pedestrian aids, such as sidewalks and shorter street blocks, as well
as a mix of retail, commercial and residential properties significantly contributed to
increases in multifamily rental property values.
The researchers found that not only did the value of single-family residential
properties increase with density of surrounding development, but that the quality of
neighborhoods, as defined by access to other land uses including parks increased with
densit as s well.
But one of the lead researchers suggested some caution: "We should be careful to put
the research results in the context of King County, where high residential densities are
not those of Manhattan, and a relatively small proportion of the housing stock is in high-
rise development," said Anne Vernez Moudon, a UW professor of urban design and
planning who was one of the lead researchers.
"The results should not come as a complete surprise," Moudon said, "as it is well known
that property values in neighborhoods like Queen Anne, packed with dense, single-
family development and intermittent low-rise apartment buildings and condos near retail,
are substantially higher than in some of the countys sprawling subdivisions."
It was more surprising, Moudon said, "to find that proximity to retail has a positive effect
on multifamily rental properties, and that the value of retail properties benefited from
strong pedestrian infrastructure."
"The Economic Value of Walkable Neighborhoods" was published in the April issue of
Urban Design International. Dong Wook Sohn of Hongik University in Seoul, South
Korea, started the research as part of his UW doctoral dissertation. Jeasun Lee, a UW
graduate now at Yonsei University in Seoul, is a third author of the paper.
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF PASCO, WASHINGTON, REZONING A PARCEL
OF LAND IN THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF
SECTION 15, TOWNSHIP 9 NORTH, RANGE 29 EAST W.M., FROM R-1 (LOW-
DENSITY DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) TO R-3 (MEDIUM -DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) WITH
A CONCOMMITANT AGREEMENT.
WHEREAS, a complete and adequate petition for change of zoning classification
has been received and an open record hearing having been conducted by the Pasco Planning
Commission upon such petition; and,
WHEREAS, during the open record hearing process the Planning Commission
adopted findings supporting a change of zoning and that said findings contained within the
Planning Commission staff report under Master file # 2015-006 are hereby adopted by the Pasco
City Council; and,
WHEREAS, that the effect of the requested change in zoning classification shall not
be materially detrimental to the immediate vicinity; and,
WHEREAS, based upon substantial evidence and demonstration of the Petitioner,
that: (A) the requested change for the zoning classification is consistent with the adopted
Comprehensive Plan; (B) the requested change in zoning classification is consistent with or
promotes the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan serving the general public interest
in the community; and (C) there has been a change in the neighborhood or community needs or
circumstances warranting the requested change of the zoning classification; and, NOW,
THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASCO, WASHINGTON DO
ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. That the Zoning Ordinance for the City of Pasco, Washington, and the
Zoning Map, accompanying and being part of said Ordinance shall be and hereby is
changed from R -1 (Low -Density Residential) to R-3 (Medium Density Residential) for the
real property as shown in the Exhibit "1" attached hereto and described as follows:
That portion of the Southwest quarter of the Southwest quarter of Section 15, Township 9
North, Range 29 East, W.M., Franklin County, Washington, Lying Northerly of the
Franklin County Irrigation District Canal and lying Southwesterly of a fine described as
follows:
Beginning at the West quarter of Section 15; Thence South 010 27' 06" West along the West
line thereof, 147254 feet to the True Point of Beginning; Thence South 880 32' 54" East
277.16 feet; Thence South 310 12' 36" East 222.54 feet; Thence South 400 53' 34" East
229.96 feet; Thence South 010 27' 06" West 360.02 feet to the north right-of-way tine of
said canal and the terminus of said line. Except the northerly 110 feet of the easterly 170
feet as measured along the street ( Aintree Dr) right-of-way all within Parcel # 117430147
Section 2. That the change of the zoning classification as provided in Section 1 is
contingent, and conditioned upon the execution and compliance with a Concomitant
Agreement entered into between the Petitioner and the City which will attach to and ran
with the real property described in Section 1 above. Said Concomitant Agreement is
attached to this Ordinance as Exhibit No "2".
Section 3. This ordinance shall take full force and effect five (5) days after its
approval, passage and publication as required by law.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Pasco this " day of March, 2016.
Matt Watkins, Mayor
ATTEST:
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Debra L. Clark, City Clerk Leland B. Kerr, City Attorney
"Exhibit # 2"
CONCOMITANT ZONING AGREEMENT
WHEREAS, the City of Pasco, Washington, a non -charter code city, under the laws
of the State of Washington (Chapter 35A.63 R.C.W. and Article 11, Section 11 of the
Washington State Constitution) has authority to enact laws and enter into agreements to
promote the health, safety and welfare of its citizens, and thereby control the use and
development of property within its jurisdiction; and
WHEREAS, the Owner(s) of certain property have applied for a rezone of such
property described below within the City's jurisdiction; and
WHEREAS, the City pursuant to R.C.W. 43.12(c), the State Environmental Policy
Act, should mitigate any adverse impacts which might result because of the proposed rezone;
and
WHEREAS, the City of Pasco and the Owner(s) are both interested in compliance
with the Pasco Municipal Code provisions relating to the use and development of property
situated in the City of Pasco, described as follows:
That portion of the Southwest quarter of the Southwest quarter of Section 15,
Township 9 North, Range 29 East, W.M., Franklin County, Washington, Lying
Northerly of the Franklin County Irrigation District Canal and lying
Southwesterly of a line described as follows:
Beginning at the West quarter of Section 15; Thence South 010 27' 06" West
along the West line thereof, 147254 feet to the True Point of Beginning; Thence
South 880 32' 54" East 277.16 feet; Thence South 31012' 36" East 222.54 feet;
Thence South 400 53' 34" East 229.96 feet; Thence South 010 27' 06" West
360.02 feet to the north right-of-way line of said canal and the terminus of said
line. Except the northerly 110 feet of the easterly 170 feet as measured along the
street (Aintree Dr) right-of-way all within Parcel # 117430147
WHEREAS, the Owner(s) have indicated willingness to cooperate with the City of
Pasco, its Planning Commission and Planning Department to insure compliance with the
Pasco Zoning Code, and all other local, state and federal laws relating to the use and
development of the above described property; and
WHEREAS, the City, in addition to civil and criminal sanctions available by law,
desires to enforce the rights and interests of the public by this concomitant agreement, NOW,
THEREFORE,
In the event the above-described property is rezoned by the City of Pasco to R-3
(Medium Density Residential) and in consideration of that event should it occur, and
subject to the terms and conditions hereinafter stated, the applicant does hereby covenant and
agree as follows:
1. The Owner(s) promise to comply with all of the terms of the agreement in the
event the City, as full consideration herein grants a rezone on the above-described property.
2. The Owner(s) agrees to perform the terms set forth in Section 4 of this agreement.
3. This agreement shall be binding on their heirs, assigns, grantees or successors in
interest of the Owner(s) of the property herein described.
4. Conditions:
A. Only townhouse style attached homes with customary accessory
structures are permitted to be built; For the purposes of this agreement
"townhouse style" means a building containing only four or fewer
dwelling units;
B. Maximum building heights for the first tier of homes along the
northerly and easterly boundary of the property shall be limited to the
R-1 height standards of PMC 25.28.050 (5). No special permits shall
be authorized for increases in building height over the allowable 25
feet;
C. Building designs must incorporate architectural features to create
visual interest. All building fronts must be articulated and painted with
complementary colors to create a separated and distinctive look for
each attached dwelling unit;
D. Each building elevation must contain at least two distinctive
architectural features;
E. Vinyl and metal siding is prohibited. Siding of all buildings must
include, singularly or collectively, cement fiber board siding, stucco,
brick, architectural stone and architectural masonry block;
F. All soffits shall be boxed;
G. A 15 -foot landscaped buffer shall be installed along the easterly and
northeasterly property line. Said buffer shall contain a mixture of
deciduous and coniferous trees spaced no more than 60 feet apart. The
trees may be farther apart if they are planted in groupings of three trees
per group. The site including all trees and landscaped areas must be
regularly maintain in a workmanship like manner;
H. In addition to the trees require in G. above the overall site must contain
at least two trees for every dwelling unit. The site including all trees
and landscaped areas must be regularly maintain in a workmanship
like manner;
I. Convents, Conditions and Restrictions must be recorded against the
property specifying among other things a Home Owners Association
is responsible for all site and landscape maintenance, and;
J. Exterior night lighting must be shielded to prevent light spillage.
CONCOMITANT ZONING AGREEMENTPAGE 2 OF 3
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:
Owner:
STATE OF WASHINGTON)
) ss.
County of Franklin )
On this day of , 2016, 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
, 2016.
Notary Public in and for the State
of Washington, residing at
CONCOMITANT ZONING AGREEMENTPAGE 3 OF 3
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
MASTER FILE NO: PP 2015-006
HEARING DATE: 1/21/2016
ACTION DATE: 2/18/2016
APPLICANT: Big Creek Land Company
1950 W Bellerive Ln
Coeur d'Alene, ID 83814
REQUEST: Preliminary Plat: Columbia Villas Phase 3, 34 -Lots (Multi -Family]
& 1 Commercial lot
1. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION:
Legal: Lots 4, 5 and 6, Shot Plat 2003-21
General Location: The N/W corner of Road 68 and Three Rivers Drive.
Proper Size: 7.45 Acres
Number of Lots Proposed: 34 lots for zero lot line construction and one
commercial lot
Square Footage Range of Lots: 3,718 ft2 to 10,173 ft2
Average Lot Square Footage: 5,561 ft2
2. ACCESS: The property will have access from Three Rivers Drive.
3. UTILITIES: Municipal water and sewer service are available in Three
Rivers Drive.
4. LAND USE AND ZONING: The site is zoned R-4 (High Density
Residential) Surrounding properties are zoned and developed as follows:
NORTH: R-4 - Stone Gate Apartments
SOUTH: R-3 & C-1 - Duplexes & Vacant
EAST: R-4 - Vacant (Currently being rezoned to C-1)
WEST R-1 - Single Family Residences
S. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The Comprehensive Plan indicates the site is
intended for mixed residential development. According to the
Comprehensive Plan, mixed residential development means 5 to 20
dwelling units per acre. The criteria for allocation under the future land
use section of Volume II of the Comprehensive Plan (Vol. II, page 17)
encourages development of lands designated for mixed residential uses
when or where: sewer is available, the location is convenient to major
circulation routes, the site serves as a transition between more intense
uses and low density uses, and when there is a market demand. 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 project site is located immediately west of Road 60, south of the Stone Gate
Apartments and east of Columbia Place. The site is relatively flat and slopes
slightly from the north to the south. The site is vacant with a combination of
bare ground and native and non-native grasses and other vegetation. The site
is not considered a critical area a mineral resource area or a wet land.
The site was initially designated for mixed residential development under the
Comprehensive Plan in 1995. The R-4 (Medium Density Residential) zoning
was established in 2003 around the time Columbia Place (to the west) received
Preliminary Plat approval. The right-of-way for Three Rivers Drive was deeded
to the City in the fall of 2003.
The applicant is proposing to subdivide the site in question into 35 lots to allow
the construction of 17 duplexes. Each duplex would occupy two lots with the
common lot line dividing each unit. This proposal is identical to the process
that was used for the development of the Island Estates Row Homes in the
Island Estates subdivision (Phase 8), Mediterranean Villas and Columbia Villas
Phases 1 and 2. Each of these subdivisions was zoned for multi -family
development and platted into individual lots. The lots lines within these
subdivisions became the common boundary line separating the dwelling units.
The Navigator Villas development to the north of Stone Gate Apartments was
also developed in a similar manner as the current proposal for Phase 3 of
Columbia Villas. Navigator Villas was also zoned R-4 and then platted into lots
allowing each four-plex to be built it's individual lot independent of the other
four-plexes.
LOT LAYOUT: The proposed Plat contains 34 residential lots and one future
commercial lot. The lots vary in size from 3,718 square feet to 10,173 square
feet. The proposal is consistent with the density requirements of the R-4
zoning of the site. R-4 zoning permits the development of one dwelling unit per
1,500 square feet of lot area for multi -family type structures.
RIGHTS-OF-WAY: All lots have frontage on streets which will be dedicated.
z
UTILITIES: Municipal water and sewer lines are located in Three Rivers
Drive. 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 engineering design phase. The front yard setbacks for construction
purposes are larger than the requested easements; therefore the front yard
easements will not diminish the buildable area 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: The street name follows the river theme of the Columbia
Place subdivision to the west.
IRRIGATION: The municipal code requires the installation of irrigation lines
as a part of the 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.
In this case the City reached an agreement with a previous owner of the land
in 2004 and received an assignment of water rights covering all of the north
half of Section 9, Township 9 North, Range 29 East, WM. The proposed plat is
within the north half of said Section 9.
FINDINGS OF FACT
State law (RCW 58.17.010) 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":
3
Prevent Overcrowding: Density requirements of the R-4 zone are designed to
address overcrowding concerns. The Comprehensive Plan suggests the property
in question be developed with 5 to 20 dwelling units per acre. The proposed
Plat has a density of less than 7 units per acre. No more than 60 percent of
each lot is permitted to be covered with structures per the R-3 zoning
standards.
Parks Opens Space/Schools: City parks are located in Columbia Place and
Island Estates. 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 $4,525 will be charged for each new
dwelling unit at the time of building permit issuance.
Effective Land Use/Orderly Development: The Plat is laid out for multi-
family development as identified in the Comprehensive Plan. The maximum
density permitted under the Comprehensive Plan is 20 dwelling units per acre.
The developer is proposing a density of 6.47 units per acre. The proposed
development will extend Three Rivers Drive from Road 76 to Road 68 with
improvements to the north side of the right-of-way along with two full travel
lanes to Road 68.
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 all intersection will be installed
with the construction of the road improvements
Adequate Provision of Municipal Services: All lots within the Plat will be
provided with water, sewer and other utilities.
Provision of Housing for State Residents: This Preliminary Plat contains 34
residential building lots, providing an opportunity for the construction of 17
duplexes units containing a total of 34 new dwelling.
Adequate Air and Light: The maximum lot coverage limitations and building
setbacks will assure that adequate movement of air and light is available to
each lot.
Proper Access & Travel: The streets through and adjoining the Plat will be
paved and developed to City standards to assure proper access is maintained
to each lot. Connections to the community will be provided by Road 76 and
9
Three Rivers Drive. The Preliminary Plat was submitted to the Transit Authority
for review. (The discussion under "Safe Travel' above applies to this section
also.)
Comprehensive Plan Policies & Maps: The Comprehensive Plan designates
the Plat site for mixed residential development. Policies of the Comprehensive
Plan encourage the advancement of home ownership and suggest the City
strive to maintain a variety of housing for residents.
Other Findings:
• The site is within the Pasco Urban Growth Boundary.
• The State Growth Management Act requires urban growth and urban
densities to occur within the Urban Growth Boundaries.
• The site is relatively flat and slopes slightly from the north to the south.
• The site is vacant with a combination of bare ground and native and
non-native grasses and other vegetation.
• The site is not considered a critical area a mineral resource area or a wet
land.
• The Comprehensive Plan identifies the site for mixed residential
development.
• Mixed residential development is described in the Comprehensive Plan as
five to twenty dwelling units per acre.
• The site is zoned R-4 (Medium Density Residential).
• The site was zoned R-4 in 2003.
• The Housing Element of the Comprehensive Plan encourages the
advancement of programs that promote home ownership and
development of a variety of residential densities and housing types.
• The Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan encourages the
interconnection of neighborhood streets to provide for the disbursement
of traffic.
• The interconnection of neighborhood streets is necessary for utility
connections (looping) and the provision of emergency services.
• The right-of-way for Road 76 and Three Rivers Drive was deeded to the
City in 2003.
• Per the ITE Trip Generation Manual 8th Addition the proposed
subdivision, when fully developed, will generate approximately 200
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.
5
• 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 have been previously
deeded to the City as a part of the Columbia Place development.
• Plat improvements within the City of Pasco are required to comply with
the 2015 Standard Drawings and Specification as approved by the City
Engineer. These improvements include but are not limited to water,
sewer and irrigation lines, streets, street lights and storm water
retention. The handicapped accessible pedestrian ramps are completed
with the street and curb improvements prior to final plat approval.
Sidewalks are installed at the time permits are issued for new houses.
Except sidewalks along major streets, which are installed with the street
improvements.
• All engineering designs for infrastructure and final plat(s) drawings are
required to utilize the published City of Pasco Vertical Control Datum.
• All storm water generated from a developed plat is required to be
disposed of
• per City and State codes and requirements. Prior to the City of Pasco
accepting construction plans for review the developer is required to enter
into a Storm Water Maintenance Agreement with the City. The developer
is 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 is
presented to the City of Pasco at the intake meeting for construction
plans.
• The City has nuisance regulations (PMC 9.60) that require property
owners (including developers) to maintain their properties in a manner
that does not injure, annoy or endanger the comfort and repose of other
property owners. This includes controlling dust, weeds and litter during
times of construction for both subdivisions and buildings including
houses.
• Prior to acceptance of final plats developers are required to prepare and
submit 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 must be signed by the developer prior to construction plan
approval.
CONCLUSIONS BASED ON INITIAL STAFF 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.City parks are located in the subdivisions to the west and
southwest of the site. All new developments participate in establishing parks
through the payment of park fees at the time of permitting.
(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 the
looping of utilities and interconnectivity of streets as supported in the
Comprehensive Plan. The proposed subdivision will provide a paved travel lane
connecting Columbia Place to Road 68 and Road 76 enhancing accessibility to
and from Columbia Place.
(3) The proposed subdivision conforms to the policies, maps and
narrative text of the Comprehensive Plan;
The Comprehensive Plan land use map designates the site for mixed residential
development. Mixed residential development is described as 5 to 20 dwelling
units per acre in the text of the Comprehensive Plan. The Housing Element of
the Plan encourages the promotion of a variety of residential densities and
suggests the community should support the advancement of programs
encouraging home ownership. The Transportation Element of the Plan suggests
major streets should be beautified with trees and landscaping. The Plan also
encourages the interconnection of local streets for inter -neighborhood travel for
public safety as well as providing for traffic disbursement.
(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 are paid.)
(6) The public use and interest will be served by approval of the proposed
subdivision.
The proposed Plat, if approved, 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. No utility vaults, pedestals, or other obstructions will be allowed at street
intersections.
2. 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).
3. The developer shall install a common "Estate Type" fence six -feet in
height matching the fence in Columbia Villas Phase 1 and 2 along the
east and south line of the plat as a part of the infrastructure
improvements associated with the plat. The fence must be constructed
of masonry block. A fencing detail must be included on the subdivision
construction drawings. Consideration must be given to a reasonable
s
vision triangle at the intersection of streets. Maintenance and upkeep of
said fence is the responsibility of the subdivision Homeowners
Association. All final Plats shall include a note that clearly indicates the
maintenance responsibility for the estate fence is the responsibility of the
Homeowners Association.
4. The sidewalk along Three Rivers Drive, except for Lot 27, shall be offset
and a landscaped planting strip shall be provided between the curb and
the sidewalk. The Homeowners Association shall be responsible for
maintenance of the landscaped planting strip.
5. Driveways for Lot 27 will be restricted to one driveway on Three Rivers
Drive located at least 200 feet west of Road 68 and one driveway on Road
68 located at least 250 feet north of Three Rivers Drive.
6. The sidewalk for Lot 27 (the commercial lot) will not be required to be off-
set
7. The final plat(s) shall contain a 10 -foot utility easement parallel to all
streets unless otherwise required by the Franklin County PUD.
8. 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".
MOTION: I move to adopt Findings of Fact and Conclusions therefrom as
contained in the February 18, 2016 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 Columbia Villas Phase 3, with conditions as
listed in the February 18, 2016 staff report.
W
1111
ME
WI
9
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
MASTER FILE NO: Z 2015-008 APPLICANT: FBA Holdings LLC
HEARING DATE: 1/21/2016 3731 N. Ramsey Rd
ACTION DATE: 2/18/2016 Coeur d'Alene, ID 83815
BACKGROUND
REQUEST: REZONE: Rezone from R-4 (High -Density Residential) to C-1
(Retail Business)
1. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION:
Legal: Lots 5 and 6, Short Plat 2003-21, except the westerly 156 feet
thereof.
General Location: NW corner of Rd 68 and Three Rivers Dr.
Property Size: The site is approximately 18,900 square feet or 0.43 acres
2. ACCESS: The site has access from Road 68 and Three Rivers Dr.
3. UTILITIES: Municipal sewer and water lines currently serve the site.
4. LAND USE AND ZONING: The site is comprised of two parcels currently
zoned R-4 and is vacant. Surrounding properties are zoned and
developed as follows:
NORTH:
R-4
- Stone Gate Apartments
SOUTH:
C-1
- Vacant/GESA Credit Union
EAST:
R -T
- Vacant
WEST:
R-4
- Proposed Columbia Villas Phase 3
5. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The property is in an area of transition
between residential and commercial land use designations. In transition
areas properties can be zoned to match either of the identified land uses.
In this case the applicant is requesting C-1 (Retail Business) zoning. Plan
Policy ED -2-13 encourages the development of a wide range of commercial
uses strategically located to support local and regional needs. Policy LU -3
-D promotes the idea of mixed use development including neighborhood
scale shopping areas within walking distance of residential
developments. LU -1-C encourages the clustering of commercial
development at key locations.
6. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The City of Pasco is the lead
agency for this project. Based on the SEPA checklist, the adopted City
Comprehensive Plan, City development regulations, and other
information, a threshold determination resulting in a Determination of
Non -Significance (DNS) has been issued for this project under WAC 197-
11-158.
ANALYSIS
The property was originally subdivided and zoned in 2003. At that time
approximately 40 acres of land was zoned for multi -family development
between the Columbia East development and Road 68 north of Sandifur
Parkway. Over 500 dwelling units will be concentrated in this area once
Columbia Villas Phase 3 is built. Rather than building the last Phase of
Columbia Villas all the way out to Road 68 the developer is proposing to leave a
two acre site at the northwest corner of Three Rivers Drive and Road 68 for a
neighborhood commercial center. This would in a sense create a mixed use
development allowing a small neighborhood commercial area to be located
adjacent to a concentration of high density dwellings.
The City's Comprehensive Plan has encouraged the nodal concept of
commercial development for over 30 years. Road 68 is an example of an
enlarged commercial node where commercial development is center rather than
radiating east and west along Sandifur Parkway and other major streets in the
area. The proposed rezone would be a minor expansion of the commercial area
along Road 68.
The site is located at the intersection of an arterial street (Road 68) and a
collector street (Three Rivers Drive) more or less qualifying the site as a node on
two major streets.
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 (R-4) zoning was established in in 2003.
2. The changed conditions, which are alleged to warrant other or additional
zoning:
With the completion of Columbia Villas Phase 3 over 500 dwelling units will be
located within a quarter of a mile from the site. Three Rivers Drive will be built
out to Road 68 with the Columbia Villas project causing the site to be surrounded
by improved streets. All utilities have been extended past the site to serve the
nearby apartment complexes. Road 76 was connected to Three Rivers Drive last
year.
2
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 to C-1 will provide a buffer between
Road 68 and Columbia Villas to the west. The neighboring multi family
complexes will be benefited by future commercial services that will locate on the
site as will the residents of Columbia Place. Development on the site resulting
from the commercial rezone will contribute to the cost of operating and
maintaining the exiting utility services that are already serving the site.
4. The effect it will have on the value and character of the adjacent property
and the Comprehensive Plan:
Surrounding properties are zoned C-1 or R-4. Rezoning the property to C-1 may
have a beneficial impact on the surrounding properties in that it will complement
the c-1 zoning to the south and provide additional land for neighborhood
commercial services that would benefit the multi family complexes to the north
and southwest.
5. The effect on the property owner or owners if the request is not granted
The property is owned by a holding company that is responsible for liquidating
the old Metropolitan Mortgage properties for the benefit of the retirees that
invested in the Metropolitan Mortgage. If the rezone is not granted the retirees
will have to wait longer to recoup what is left of their investment.
STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT FOR APPROVAL
Findings of fact must be entered from the record. The following are initial
findings drawn from the background and analysis section of the staff report.
The Planning Commission may add additional findings to this listing as the
result of factual testimony and evidence submitted during the open record
hearing.
1. The site is currently zoned R-4 (Office).
2. The site is on road 68.
3. The 2.2 -acre site is located at the intersection of an arterial street and a
collector street.
4. The site is fully serviced by exiting utilities.
5. Surrounding properties are zoned C-1 and R-4.
3
6. Over 500 dwelling units will be located around the site after Columbia
Villas Phase 3 is completed
7. The Comprehensive Plan identifies the site to be in a land use
transitional zone bordering commercial and residential land use
designations.
8. The C-1 zone would permit the development of a neighborhood
commercial center to serve the surrounding high density residential
developments.
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 property is in an area of transition between residential and commercial land
use designations. In transition areas properties can be zoned to match either of
the identified land uses. Plan Policy ED -2-B encourages the development of a
wide range of commercial uses strategically located to support local and regional
needs. Policy LU -3 -D promotes the idea of mixed use development including
neighborhood scale shopping areas within walking distance of residential
developments. LU -1-C encourages the clustering of commercial development at
key locations.
2. There is merit and value in the proposal for the community as a whole.
There is merit in providing an area for neighborhood retail services near a
concentration of multi family housing. The proposal is supported by land use
goals and policies contained in the Comprehensive Plan.
3. Conditions should be imposed in order to mitigate any significant
adverse impacts from the proposal.
Changing the zoning on the property to C-1 may lead to additional requests for
driveways on Road 68. Given the nature of Road 68 no more than one driveway
should be permitted to Road 68. Additionally any driveways permitted on this
lot need to be located as far from the intersection of Road 68 and Three Rivers
Drive as possible. Conditioning the rezone with driveway restrictions will avoid
difficulties when the lot develops in the future.
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.
0
A concomitant agreement is needed to control future driveway locations at the
intersection of Three Rivers Drive and Road 68.
MOTION for Findings of Fact: I move to adopt findings of fact and
conclusions therefrom as contained in the February 18, 2016 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 from R-4 to C-1 with driveway location specified by
a concomitant agreement.
5
I.
0
• : /•
• """""'1'1"1'
�.. Imo, • �'�.�. �►
7�i
GA I3APARTMEN7S
\
STO NE
ORIGINAL LOT LINES Pf R LOT 6
R_4
SHORT PLAT No. 2003-2
EX 10'PUBLIC UTILITY
T P
\ \\
EASEMENT
\ \\
1 \\
pp3 2
T GE 592)
EX 5' WATER LINE
EASEMENT
\ \\
pLA A1SIPA
S�-{ 0 PL
---------
\ \\
I73
, SNORT
VDLUME
15'SANITARYSEWER
o 0
EASEMENT
\\ \\\
LOT 5
THREE RIVERS DRIVE o
PROPOSED
\ \\
LOT 4
C-1
\
156' — - _
2 02 ACRES
\\
R-0
\
ORIGINAL LOT LINES Pf R LOT 6
SHORT PLAT No. 2003-2
T P
\ \\
' -2
1 \\
---------
------- ---------
o 0
THREE RIVERS DRIVE o
COLOVAS
PHASE 11
o
pNpEVELOpFD
C-1
R-3-
I =n=11in
to
A O EXISTING R-4 HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
x
SCALE: 1*=60' D PROPOSED C-1 RETAIL BUSINESS
ZONE CHANGE EXHIBIT
COLUMBIA VILLAS PHASE///
PASCO, WASHINGTON
DECEMBER 21, 2015
11
*14
T!
14
k/
401
L
O
z
Mo
c
O
O
J
•ll
0
a
4
IA
U
a
I
$p\\\\°
..
\
7
\\\
\}�
I
•
1;
�l
"Exhibit # 2"
CONCOMITANT ZONING AGREEMENT
WHEREAS, the City of Pasco, Washington, a non -charter code city, under the laws
of the State of Washington (Chapter 35A.63 R.C.W. and Article 11, Section 11 of the
Washington State Constitution) has authority to enact laws and enter into agreements to
promote the health, safety and welfare of its citizens, and thereby control the use and
development of property within its jurisdiction; and
WHEREAS, the Owner(s) of certain property have applied for a rezone of such
property described below within the City's jurisdiction; and
WHEREAS, the City pursuant to R.C.W. 43.12(c), the State Environmental Policy
Act, should mitigate any adverse impacts which might result because of the proposed rezone;
and
WHEREAS, the City of Pasco and the Owner(s) are both interested in compliance
with the Pasco Municipal Code provisions relating to the use and development of property
situated in the City of Pasco, described as follows:
Lots 5 & 6, Short Plat 2003-21 except the westerly 156 feet thereof
WHEREAS, the Owner(s) have indicated willingness to cooperate with the City of
Pasco, its Planning Commission and Planning Department to insure compliance with the
Pasco Zoning Code, and all other local, state and federal laws relating to the use and
development of the above described property; and
WHEREAS, the City, in addition to civil and criminal sanctions available by law,
desires to enforce the rights and interests of the public by this concomitant agreement, NOW,
THEREFORE,
In the event the above-described property is rezoned by the City of Pasco to C-1
(Retail Business) and in consideration of that event should it occur, and subject to the terms
and conditions hereinafter stated, the applicant does hereby covenant and agree as follows:
1. The Owner(s) promise to comply with all of the terms of the agreement in the
event the City, as full consideration herein grants a rezone on the above-described property.
2. The Owner(s) agrees to perform the terms set forth in Section 4 of this agreement.
3. This agreement shall be binding on their heirs, assigns, grantees or successors in
interest of the Owner(s) of the property herein described.
4. Conditions:
A. Only one driveway is permitted on Three Rivers Drive. Said driveway
shall not be located closer than 210 feet from the Road 68 right-of-
way;
B. Only one driveway is permitted is permitted on Road 68. Said
driveway shall not be located closer than 250 feet from the Three
Rivers Drive right-of-way;
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 , 2016, 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
2016.
Notary Public in and for the State
of Washington, residing at
CONCOMITANT ZONING AGREEMENTPAGE 2 OF 3
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
MASTER FILE NO: Z 2015-007 APPLICANT: GESA Credit Union
HEARING DATE: 1/21/2016 2202 W. Sylvester Street
ACTION DATE: 2/18/2016 Pasco, WA 99301
BACKGROUND
REQUEST: REZONE: Rezone from C-1 (Office) to C-3 (General Business)
1. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION:
Legal: Block 2, O'Keefes 3rd Addition, including vacated streets and
alleys
General Location: 2200 block of W. Sylvester Street
Property Size: 3.3 acres
2. ACCESS: The site has access from Sylvester Street.
3. UTILITIES: Municipal sewer and water lines currently serve the site.
4. LAND USE AND ZONING: The site is currently zoned C-1 (Retail
Business) and contains a GESA Credit Union building and a GESA
Administrative Service Building. Surrounding properties are zoned and
developed as follows:
NORTH: C-1 - School Playground
SOUTH: R1 -A-2 - Manufactured Homes
EAST: C-1 -Vacant/Office
WEST: R-4 - Multi -Family Residences
5. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The Comprehensive Plan designates the
property for commercial uses. Those portions of the community
designated for commercial development by the Comprehensive Plan could
be zone "O", C-1, C-2, C-3 CR and BP. Land Use Goal ED -2 encourages
the appropriate location and design of commercial facilities within the
City. ED -2-13 encourages the development of a wide range of commercial
uses strategically located to support local and regional needs. LU -4-A
suggests commercial facilities should be located near major street
intersection to leverage the use of major infrastructure and to reduce
commercial sprawl.
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
1
Non -Significance (DNS) has been issued for this project under WAC 197-
11-158.
ANALYSIS
The GESA credit union is seeking to rezone their property at 2202 W Sylvester
Street from C-1 (Retail Business) to C-3 (General Business). Under the current
Comprehensive Plan land use designation of commercial property could be
zoned for "O", C-1, C-3, CR, and BP zoning. The specific zoning designation for
the site is to be determined through the hearing process taking into
consideration the site location, general purposes of each zoning district, street
network and surrounding uses. The foregoing considerations should be
factored into the rezone review criteria required by PMC 25.88.030.
GESA originally built a credit union office on the property in 2000. In 2014
GESA obtained a permit to construct an administrative services building
directly to the west of the credit union. The administrative services building is
essentially a small computer server building that provides services to all of the
GESA branches and small financial institutions that contract with GESA for
computer services.
The administrative services building is a secure building in the sense it is not
frequented by the public, contains no windows and is surrounded by fencing.
By contrast the adjacent credit union building is open and inviting in
appearance and design with no security fencing. When the administrative
services building was constructed a fence with three strands of barbed wire
was installed around the property. Three strand barbed wire fencing is not
permitted in the C-1 zone and as a result GESA was asked to remove the wire.
Heavy security fencing with barbed wire creates an industrial/ heavy
commercial look and as such is permitted only in C-3 and I zones. When the
zoning code was amended in 1999 barbed wire was prohibited in C-1 zones
except for one strand that may be place within 2 inches of the top rail of a
fence. GESA was given the opportunity to keep on strand of barbed wire but
that did not suit GESA's security needs.
Having been unsuccessful in obtaining a wavier or variance from the Hearing
Examiner to avoid installing a landscaped buffer along the south and west side
of their property GESA opted not to apply for a variance on the barbed wire
fencing. Because of serious concerns about their server equipment GESA feels
it is necessary to have secured fencing with barbed wire. As a result the C-3
rezone option is being pursued. C-3 zoning is a permitted zoning classification
on the comprehensive plan and it permits the installation of barbed wire
fencing.
2
The initial review criteria for considering a rezone application are explained in
PMC. 25.88.030. The criteria are listed below as follows:
1. The date the existing zone became effective:
The current (C-1) zoning classification was established around 1969.
2. The changed conditions, which are alleged to warrant other or additional
zoning:
The only significant change on the property is the recent construction of the GESA
administrative services building. The building requires a high degree of security
because of the contents of the building. Barbed wire fencing is need for that
security.
3. Facts to justify the change on the basis of advancing the public health,
safety and general welfare:
The construction of the new GESA building has created the need for a higher
level of security on the GESA property. For the safety and security of the contents
of the administrative services building a barbed wire fence is needed. C-3
zoning is the only commercial zone to permit security fencing with barbed wire.
Protection of the GESA administrative services building is critical for GESA, GESA
members and other banks that contract with GESA for computer service needs.
The importance of the administrative services building reaches far beyond 2202
W. Sylvester Street and in that sense there could be a wider general welfare
benefit to a rezone.
4. The effect it will have on the value and character of the adjacent property
and the Comprehensive Plan:
The only way the proposed rezone will not impact the value and charter of
neighboring properties is if the rezoned is conditioned to prohibit the heavy
commercial land uses allowed under C-3 zoning. Heavy equipment sales and
service, lumber yards and trucking firms are no appropriate at this location.
5. The effect on the property owner or owners if the request is not granted:
Under the current zoning GESA is unable to provide the type of security they feel
is necessary for the sensitive nature of the administrative services building at
2202 W Sylvester Street.
3
STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT FOR APPROVAL
Findings of fact must be entered from the record. The following are initial
findings drawn from the background and analysis section of the staff report.
The Planning Commission may add additional findings to this listing as the
result of factual testimony and evidence submitted during the open record
hearing.
1. The site is currently zoned C-1 (Retail Business).
2. The site contains a GESA credit union and an administrative services
building.
3. The site is located on W. Sylvester Street.
4. The Comprehensive Plan identifies the site for Commercial uses.
5. Commercial zoning falling under the commercial land use designation of
the Plan includes the following zones: "O°, C-1, C-2, C-3 CR and BP. C-2
zoning only applies to the Central Business District.
6. GESA has some critical security needs that are addressed by C-3 zoning
that are not available in C-1 zones. (C-3 zoning permits a higher level of
security fencing than C-1 zoning.)
7. C-3 zoning permits trucking operations, warehousing, heavy equipment
sales and service lumber yards and similar uses.
8. The properties to the south and west have been developed with housing.
CONCLUSIONS BASED ON STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT FOR APPROVAL
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 land use designation of the Comprehensive
Plan. The proposal is also supported by ED -2-B that encourages the
development of a wide range of commercial uses strategically located to support
local and regional needs. The building that is in need of the rezone provides
services locally and regionally.
2. There is merit and value in the proposal for the community as a whole.
The construction of the new GESA building has created the need for a higher
level of security on the GESA property. For the safety and security of the contents
of the administrative services building a barbed wire fence is needed. C-3
0
zoning is the only commercial zone to permit security fencing with barbed wire.
Protection of the GESA administrative services building is critical for GESA, GESA
members and other banks that contract with GESA for computer service needs.
The importance of the administrative services building reaches far beyond 2202
W. Sylvester Street and in that sense there could be merit and benefit to the
wider community.
3. Conditions should be imposed in order to mitigate any significant
adverse impacts from the proposal.
Many of the permitted uses within the C-3 zone would not be appropriate at this
location adjacent to residential uses and across the street from a school
playground. Conditions are therefore necessary to mitigate the adverse impacts
of trucking firms, warehousing, lumber yards and similar uses.
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 should be required with this rezone essentially limiting
the uses on the property to those currently existing (the credit union and the
administrative services building).
STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT FOR DENIAL
Findings of fact must be entered from the record. The following are initial
findings drawn from the background and analysis section of the staff report.
The Planning Commission may add additional findings to this listing as the
result of factual testimony and evidence submitted during the open record
hearing.
1. The site is currently zoned C-1 (Retail Business).
2. The site contains a GESA credit union and an administrative services
building.
3. The site is located on W. Sylvester Street.
4. The Comprehensive Plan identifies the site for Commercial uses.
5. Commercial zoning falling under the commercial land use designation of
the Plan includes the following zones: "O", C-1, C-2, C-3 CR and BP. C-2
zoning only applies to the Central Business District.
6. GESA has some security needs that the Credit Union can address by
surrounding the property with three strands of barbed wire. C-3 zoning
permits barbed wire and C-1 zoning does not.
7. The properties to the south and west have been developed with housing.
8. Barbed wire fencing is typically not found in or adjacent to residential
neighborhoods.
5
9. The placement of barbed wire adjacent to residential properties may not
support the security of home life or create a more favorable environment
for the neighborhood as identified in the purpose statement of the zoning
regulations.
10. Other properties on Sylvester Street that contain barbed wire are either
zoned C-3 or were developed before the zoning code was changed in the
1990's prohibiting three strands of barbed wire in C-1 zones.
11. One strand of barbed wire is permitted in C-1 zones providing an
alternate form of security from the three strands of barbed wire.
12. The GESA Administrative Services building is an industrial looking
building that was not built in harmony with the general character of the
neighborhood. Permitting barbed wire fencing around the building will
add to the industrial look of the property and further alienate the
property from the general character of the neighborhood.
13. The GESA Administrative Services building was the catalyst for the
recent code amendment that requires commercial buildings on major
streets in C-1 zones to contain design features to preserve and protect
property values by through the construction of aesthetically attractive
buildings. Adding or maintaining barbed wire in the site detracts from
the intent of the code amendment designed to foster an aesthetically
pleasing environment.
14. C-3 zoning permits trucking operations, warehousing, heavy equipment
sales and service lumber yards and similar uses that are not compatible
with surrounding residential uses.
CONCLUSIONS BASED ON STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT FOR DENIAL
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 land use designation of the Comprehensive
Plan. The proposal is also supported by ED -2-B that encourages the
development of a wide range of commercial uses strategically located to support
local and regional needs. The building that is in need of the rezone provides
services locally and regionally.
2. There is merit and value in the proposal for the community as a whole.
The construction of the new GESA building on Sylvester Street was the catalyst
for a code amendment requiring commercial buildings on major streets in C-1
zones to contain design features to preserve and protect property values through
the construction of aesthetically attractive buildings. There is no merit or value in
the proposal to rezone the property to C-3 to allow barbed wire fencing.
3. Conditions should be imposed in order to mitigate any significant
adverse impacts from the proposal.
Many of the permitted uses within the C-3 zone would not be appropriate at this
location adjacent to residential uses and across the street from a school
playground. Conditions are therefore necessary to mitigate the adverse impacts
of trucking firms, warehousing, lumber yards and similar uses.
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.
C-3 zoning is inconsistent with the surrounding residential zoning and the
nearby elementary school. Rezoning the property to C-3 would require conditions
to eliminate all heavy commercial uses and activities such as barbed wire
fencing that are not in harmony with the immediate neighborhood. This would
essentially create a C-3 zone limited to C-1 uses and activities. The property is
already zone C-1.
5. The effect on the property owner or owners if the request is not granted:
If the property is not rezoned GESA will need to remove two strands of barbed
wire from the existing fence and look for an alternate method for security.
Motions Torr Approval
MOTION for Findings of Fact: I move to adopt findings of fact
and conclusions therefrom as contained in the February 18, 2016
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 119451059 from C-1 to
C-3 with conditions limiting the uses to those permitted in the C-1
District.
Motions for Denial
MOTION for Findings of Fact: I move to adopt findings of fact
and conclusions therefrom as contained in the February 18, 2016
staff report.
7
MOTION for Denial: I move based on the findings of fact and
conclusions as adopted the Planning Commission recommend the
City Council deny the rezone request for Parcel 119451059.
0
I
no
_. ....
3AV Hit
44
e Poo
l
p • -tltl L
aZo
E ' F
�M
d/
• r�
and aNZZ
oma®
C�3N
I
no
_. ....
3AV Hit
44
e Poo
l
p • -tltl L
aZo
E ' F
z
3A`d HlOZ
L
ai ■
O o co
V
N
/ U)
O JAV GNZZ
W z
F U.
>
Co
W � .
and H-LVZ
ca
IL
U Q
x-21
3nb HlOZ
M M
co
M.� Q
ZZ adOb
3AV GNZZ
OW Z
..� /
O N w
a DAV Hit Z
N� � M
0
.To
I
S;f
. . . .......
40,
oil
a
row 7vte to-
0
•)s
low
I
` �
t
1
I
` �
1
� 4
•il
Sm"
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
MASTER FILE NO: SP2016-001 APPLICANT: Bethel Church
HEARING DATE: 2-18-16 600 Shockley Rd.
ACTION DATE: 3-17-16 Richland, WA 99352
BACKGROUND
REQUEST FOR SPECIAL PERMIT: Location of a Church in a C-1 District
1. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION:
Legal: Lot 1, Binding Site Plan 2007-07 & Lots 3 & 4, Binding Site Plan
2013-02
General Location: 6600 Block of Chapel Hill Boulevard
Proper Size: Approximately 7 acres
2. ACCESS: The site has access from Chapel Hill Boulevard
3. UTILITIES: The site is served by municipal water and sewer.
4. LAND USE AND ZONING: The property is currently zoned C-1 (Retail
Business). Surrounding properties are zoned as follows:
NORTH:
NA - I-182
SOUTH:
R-4 - Apartments
EAST:
R-3 - Apartments
WEST:
C-1- Vacant
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The site is designated in the Plan for future
commercial uses. The Plan does not specifically address churches, but
elements of the Plan encourage the promotion of orderly development
including the development of zoning standards for off-street parking and
other development standards.
5. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The City of Pasco is the lead
agency for this project. Based on the SEPA checklist, the adopted City
Comprehensive Plan, City development regulations, and other
information, a threshold determination resulting in a Determination of
Non -Significance (DNS) has been issued for this project under WAC 197-
11-158.
ANALYSIS
The application involves the construction of a new church with associated
parking and sports fields on a 7 acre site within the Chapel Hill Development.
The proposed church site is located in the 6600 block of Chapel Hill Boulevard
on C-1 property between Chapel Hill Boulevard and I-182. The church will
contain 18,000 square feet of floor area divided into an auditorium, multi-
purpose rooms, offices and support facilities. Bethel church is currently located
in the Broadmoor Square Mall.
The municipal code requires one parking space for every 10 linear feet of pews
or one space for every 4 seats where there are no pews. The proposed church
has an auditorium with approximately 4,000 square feet which will allow
seating for approximately 570 people. This seating will require a minimum of
143 parking spaces. The church is proposing to construct 227 parking spaces.
The proposed parking lot will incorporate landscaping and will contain
landscaped islands are require by the parking and landscape regulations.
Most of the traffic generated by the church will occur on Sunday mornings
(9:00 am to 11:00 am) and on a few weekday evenings when little other traffic
occurs on surrounding streets. If the property were to be developed with a
commercial enterprise there would be considerably more traffic on a weekly
basis than what the church will generate.
This property is located in the I-182 overlay zone. Said zone requires a higher
standard for design and construction than in other areas of the community.
All commercial and multi -family buildings with in this zone must comply with
the higher standards. Only single-family homes are exempt from the
standards. In as much as churches are similar to commercial buildings under
the International Building Code it would be appropriate for churches to follow
the I-182 overlay standards. The proposed church will have an exterior of
masonry block, stucco and glazing and will have at least three distinct
architectural features per elevation. The surround grounds and parking lot will
be heavily landscaped.
The elevations for the proposed church indicate the peak of the center roof will
be 41 feet high. Building heights by the code are measured from the mid -point
between the highest point of a roof and the eaves. In this case the mid -point is
close to 35 feet. The Planning Commission has reviewed application from
several churches in the past that have exceeded the height limitation in their
respective zones. At 35 feet the Bethel church is within the height limitation.
Churches are typically located in or near residential neighborhoods. Typically
locating a non -tax generating use in a commercial zone with freeway visibility
is generally not a good choice for promoting commercial development. Perhaps
the mitigating factor in this case the recent rezone on Road 68 from R-4 to C-1
and the large (145 acres) C-1 rezone two years ago at the corner of I-182 and
2
Broadmoor Boulevard. Another potential problem 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 limiting the church's ability to object to a liquor license
on nearby commercial lands.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Findings of fact must be entered from the record. The following are initial
findings drawn from the background and analysis section of the staff report.
The Planning Commission may add additional findings to this listing as the
result of factual testimony and evidence submitted during the open record
hearing.
1. Churches are unclassified uses requiring review through the special
permit process prior to locating or expanding in any zoning district.
2. The proposed church site is zoned C-1.
3. The proposed church will occupy seven acres of land that has been set
aside for future commercial development.
4. The City added 145 acres of land to the commercial zoning inventory in
2014 when a large portion of the vacant land at the northwest corner of
I-182 and Broadmoor Boulevard was rezoned to from RT to C-1.
5. The church floor plan indicates the church will contain an auditorium,
multi-purpose rooms, offices and support facilities.
6. The auditorium of the church contains about 4,000 square feet.
7. The Municipal Code (PMC 25.78.170) requires one off street parking
space for every four seats in a church.
8. The Municipal Code requires the proposed church to have a minimum of
127 parking spaces.
9. The church is providing 227 parking spaces.
10. The proposed church will have exterior finishes of brick, stucco and
glazing with at least three architectural features per elevation.
11. The church site will be fully landscaped.
CONCLUSIONS BASED ON THE FINDINGS OF FACT
Before recommending approval or denial of a special permit the Planning
Commission must develop findings of fact from which to draw its conclusion
based upon the criteria listed in P.M.C. 25.86.060 and determine whether or
not the proposal:
3
(1) Will the proposed use be in accordance with the goals, policies, objectives
and text of the Comprehensive Plan?
The Plan does not specifically address churches, but elements of the Plan
encourage the promotion of orderly development including the
development of zoning standards for off-street parking and other
development standards.
(2) Will the proposed use adversely affect public infrastructure?
The site for the proposed church is located in a commercial zoning
district adjacent to an arterial street. The proposed church will conduct
services at times when future commercial traffic is generally low and
utility usage is low.
(3) Will the proposed use be constructed, maintained and operated to be in
harmony with existing or intended character of the general vicinity?
The proposed church will be built to meet the I-182 design standards
helping the building to maintain the enhanced architectural standards
for the neighborhood. Some of the future commercial uses on the
property to the west may be objectionable to the church. For example
taverns, nightclubs and restaurant and other businesses selling liquor
will be permitted to locate beside the church. A church could impact the
sale of liquor on nearby properties. That however, can be remedied with
the approval conditions of the special permit.
(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 on a commercially zoned parcel
adjacent to apartment buildings. Churches typically do not impair the
value of nearby residential properties. Pasco has had little experience
with churches in commercial districts. However, there are several
churches in other communities within the Tri -Cities that are located in
commercially zoned areas that have not appeared to limit commercial
development on nearby properties.
(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?
4
The church will generate no more dust, vibrations, flashing lights or
fumes than would be expected by permitted retail uses of the C-1
zoning district. Traffic generated by the church will occur mostly on
Sunday mornings when future commercial traffic will be minimal.
Small weekly meetings will generate little additional traffic on other
days of the week.
(6) Will the proposed use endanger the public health or safety if located and
developed where proposed, or in anyway will become a nuisance to uses
permitted in the district?
Past history of church operations within the City has shown they do
not endanger public health or safety and are generally not nuisance
generators.
APPROVAL CONDITIONS
1) The special permit shall apply to parcels 117420161, 117420160
and 117420144;
2) The property shall be developed in substantial conformance with
the site plan submitted with the application;
3) 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;
4) This special permit shall be null and void if a building permit has
not been obtained by December 31, 2017.
MOTION: I move to close the public hearing and schedule
deliberations, the adoption of findings of fact, and development of a
recommendation for City Council for the March 17, 2016 meeting.
s
LrLtHFEftw rff[ a Iffi n
N�
4J
i
W
V
O
F
Al":
pop
f iFA
!r 11J1 LL HIE M B
14
L - JJl _ iii
W d
>
q
A art-K•n r-t:Aar a T- v {
-
�' AINTREE DR
r
C M me
i4
Nye
�j
F� Qwv
N�ON�M
0—
.M
cn V- _ °o
C nye
O U V
LU
CL
a
o
V1 / AINTREE M
P9
�Wwoo
FtOPO 6a
Bethel Pasco Site Plan
Interstate Igz
GRASS
SPORTS
FIELDS
OVERFLOW
GRAVEL
PARKING
r-' r- FUTURE
CO\STRUCTION j
j1J 1,
GRASS
SPORTS FIELD
C <�
I � <
f---T�'- 1ST PHASE
BUILDING Y `
j 18.500 SF C3I
� I I
55
e>
,-Jill I ITU111111 I kU� _-J 4,'_i
�a"Illlillla�lllllll�o�llllll I�A+�
-523'
`.i U 5:�. Wit' ,v. .*Wr '•'E✓
SIGN
Chapel Hill Blvd.
I
| [e
|§
M^
3
/
/ƒ
/.
aS
m
.m
�
4
�
§
all
|
.
-
`|
®
-
,
,
e
*
`}
�
1
LI�
t
,
a
(/
.
.
|
.
/
$ (
/
\ /
]
9
§
\
/ /{
§
z
\
-
LU
] �
�
/(
§
§
SNO11YA313 80INRX3
/
/R,
,
b n•HounHO
5
p4
(.
.
||DY.10
83SSOUd
13.138|®
„
!!•�
-
_
;
(
|
�
—
j
F
\ )
| \�t
k
: §
:
. >
a
T-T* ,
!
{
/
®
!
:|
--
�
}
x
/ƒ
LU
}
LU
k
I
�f
F
a
-4--)
CA
Ct
W
0
�ll
D
�L
f
,,
REPORT TO PLANNING
MASTER FILE NO: SP 2016-002
HEARING DATE: 2/18/16
ACTION DATE: 3/17/16
BACKGROUND
APPLICANT: John Cooley
4818 W Irving Street
Pasco WA 99301
REQUEST FOR SPECIAL PERMIT: Location of a preschool in an RS -20
District
1. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION:
Legal: Parcel # 119 581 034: Leeper Subdivision Lot 1;
General Location: 4818 W Irving Street
Property Size: Approximately .54 acres
2. ACCESS: The site has access from W. Irving Street via Sylvester Street
and Road 49
3. UTILITIES: The site is served by municipal water and sewer.
4. LAND USE AND ZONING: The property is currently zoned RS -20 (Low -
Density Residential). Surrounding properties are zoned and developed as
follows:
NORTH: RS -12 - Single family units
SOUTH: RS -20 - Single family units
EAST: RS -20 - Single family units
WEST: RS -20 - Single family units
S. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The site is designated in the Comprehensive
Plan for low-density residential uses. The Plan does not specifically
address preschools, but elements of the Plan encourage the promotion of
orderly development including the development of zoning standards for
off-street parking and other development.
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
Applicant is requesting to locate a Montessori Preschool in a residential zone.
The preschool would operate four days per week for four hours a day and
would serve up to 12 children per day. Home daycare/ preschool centers
serving up to 12 children are allowed in residential districts as a home
occupation without a Special Permit; however home occupations require the
business owner live in the home. Applicant does not wish to live in the home
while offering the service.
The site is located at the corner of and fronts Sylvester and Road 49 and faces
a cul-de-sac section of Irving. Sylvester is a minor arterial street. The
surrounding properties are all low-density residential, developed with single-
family units.
Pasco Municipal Code 25.78.170 requires one parking space for each employee
and one space per 6 children. Depending on the age of the children the DSHS
ratio of adults to children is one adult for every 4 children down to one per 15
children, (see table below).
WAC 170-295-2090:
2
Then the
And the
If the age of
Cum.
Cum.
the children
staff to
maximum
Children
Adults
Max
Max
child ratio
group
is:
is:
is:
Children
Adults
size
(a) One month,
through 11
1:4
8
8
2
8
2
months (infant)
(b) Twelve
months
through 29
1:7
14
14
2
22
4
months
(toddler)
(c) Thirty
months
1:10
20
20
2
42
6
through 5 years
(preschooler)
(d) Five years
through 12
1:15
30
8
1
50
7
years (school-
age child)
2
Thus, with the proposed 12 children the maximum parking requirement for
this site will be 1-2 stalls for employees (assuming the possibility of children
under the age of 5 attending) plus 2 stalls for children's parents/ guardians, for
a total of 3-4 stalls. There is sufficient room on-site for four parking stalls and
Applicant has proposed four stalls on their submitted site plan.
According to the 2003 ITE Trip Generation Manual, the estimated weekday trip
generation for 2 employees, 12 students and 1,440 square feet of preschool
floor would be between 18.7 and 29.2 trips per day, depending on whether the
calculation is based on number of employees, students, or facility square feet.
This averages to 24.43 trips per weekday (see table below).
Estimated
Estimated
Estimated
Estimate
Estimate
Estimate
Trips Per
Trips Per
Trips Per
Using 2
Using 12
Using
Average
Employee
Student
1,000 Sq.
Employees
Students
1,440
Estimate
Ft.
Sq. Ft.
14.6
1.6
18.1
29.2
18.7
25.4
24.43
PRELIMINARY 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. Applicant desires to locate a Montessori Preschool in a residential zone.
2. The preschool would operate four days per week for four hours a day
3. The preschool would serve up to 12 children per day.
4. Home daycare/preschool centers serving up to 12 children are allowed in
residential districts as a home occupation without a Special Permit;
however home occupations require the business owner live on-site.
5. Applicant does not wish to live on-site.
6. The site is located at the corner of Sylvester and Road 49 and faces
Irving.
7. Sylvester is a minor arterial street.
3
8. The surrounding properties are all low-density residential (RS -12 and
RS -20), and are developed with single-family units.
9. Pasco Municipal Code 25.78.170 requires one parking space for each
employee and one space per 6 children.
10. Depending on the age of the children the DSHS ratio of adults to children
is one adult for every 4 children down to one per 15 children,
11. The maximum parking requirement for this site based on 12 children will
be 1-2 stalls for employees plus 2 stalls for children's parents/ guardians,
for a total of 3-4 stalls.
12. Applicant has proposed four stalls on their submitted site plan.
13. According to the 2003 ITE Trip Generation Manual, the estimated
weekday trip generation averages to 24.43 trips per weekday
PRELIMINARY CONCLUSIONS BASED ON THE FINDINGS OF FACT
Before recommending approval or denial of a special permit the Planning
Commission must develop findings of fact from which to draw its conclusion
based upon the criteria listed in P.M.C. 25.86.060 and determine whether or
not the proposal:
(1) Will the proposed use be in accordance with the goals, policies, objectives
and text of the Comprehensive Plan?
The site is identified in the Comprehensive Plan for Low -Density
Residential uses. The proposed preschool supports Plan Goal LU -3-A
which encourages such facilities to be located in neighborhoods. The
Plan also encourages 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?
No infrastructure modifications would be required for the preschool. The
site is served by all municipal utilities and the local street network.
Sylvester Street was designed to handle more traffic than it currently
experiences. The proposed preschool will operate four hours per day four
days per week, plus one hour for arrival/ departure.
(3) Will the proposed use be constructed, maintained and operated to be in
harmony with existing or intended character of the general vicinity?
4
The intended character of the neighborhood is primarily residential.
Typically, schools and or pre-school facilities are located in or adjacent to
residential neighborhoods. Parking facilities would need to be expanded,
thus changing the character of the properties from residential to
institutional.
(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 existing structure proposed for preschool use is located in a fully
developed neighborhood. The County Assessor's records indicate the
value of the adjoining residential properties have increased over the past
four years.
(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 proposed preschool would generate more traffic than a single-
family dwelling; commercial preschool facilities may accommodate up
to 50 children and could have the potential of generating approximately
78 car trips; however the proposed facility would not exceed 12
students. A condition may be placed on the Special Permit to limit
enrollment to the proposed 12 students. Traffic generated by the
preschool as proposed will occur only on weekdays.
(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?
While a commercial preschool would increase the concentration of
small children in the neighborhood and automobile trips to and from
the location, increasing the likelihood of traffic safety hazards, past
history of preschool operations within the City has shown they do not
endanger public health or safety and are generally not nuisance
generators.
5
PROPOSED APPROVAL CONDITIONS
1) The special permit shall apply to 4818 W Irving Street (Parcel # 119 581
034; Leeper Subdivision Lot 1)
2) The hours of operation shall not extend beyond the hours of 6:00 a.m.
and 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday;
3) Only one sign, not exceeding six (6) square feet, shall be permitted upon
the property; Applicant shall secure a building permit from the City of
Pasco before erecting a Sign;
4) The special permit shall be null and void if a City of Pasco business
license for the additional authorized activities is not obtained by March 1,
2017.
MOTION: I move to close the public hearing and schedule
deliberations, the adoption of findings of fact, and development of a
recommendation for City Council for the March 17, 2016 meeting.
I
�/ � LC'�/�ClrSu bcZ vSio /7
f}FT,'�/zt7re/%P/res -2F
LDr/- Su /d3�c X30
Ae
-.fid 090
,leye�7
GCS /2 G/Iir il�e /
�C/
/1G5 OrJt ThuQr'ra/7c- cl'� r7/
/fnusc NX6,9
✓ems
z
N
� O
' CV
Cl)
L b a`d_O& I Vn
o W
N H
o cn
v�ccnn
FEw z
o � w ry
61?a`_MI
••0.0
00
I� U
• • co
CN
05 aMA '
cn
• PON
o
N
r�
SYLVESTER ST
aK,
s
ING ST
L
� J. ,
F-'Almo-A
1� , .1 � I
iL
, j
7w�
t P
m
POW,
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
MASTER FILE NO: SP 2016-003
HEARING DATE: 2/18/16
ACTION DATE: 3/17/16
REQUEST FOR SPECIAL PERMIT:
1. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION:
APPLICANT: Mariana & Juan Valdivia
3503 W Sylvester St
Pasco WA 99301
Location of a daycare center in an RS -12
District
Legal: Parcel # 119 392 099; SHORT PLAT 2015-01 LOT 2
General Location: 3503 W Sylvester Street
Property Size: Approximately .52 acres
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 RS -12 (Low -
Density Residential). Surrounding properties are also zoned RS -12 and
developed as follows:
NORTH: RS -12 - Single family units
SOUTH: RS -12 - Church
EAST: RS -12 - Single family units
WEST: RS -12 - Single family units
5. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The site is designated in the Comprehensive
Plan for low-density residential uses. The Plan does not specifically
address daycare centers, but elements of the Plan encourage the
promotion of orderly development including the development of zoning
standards for off-street parking and other development.
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
Applicant is requesting to locate a daycare center in a residential zone. The
daycare center would operate 5 days per week for 12.5 hours a day and would
serve up to 30 children per day. Home daycare/preschool centers serving over
12 children per day require review via the Special Permit process.
The site is located on Sylvester Street, which is a minor arterial street. The
surrounding properties are all low-density residential, developed with single-
family units.
Pasco Municipal Code 25.78.170 requires one parking space for each employee
and one space per 6 children. Depending on the age of the children the DSHS
ratio of adults to children is one adult for every 4 children down to one per 15
children, (see table below).
WAC 170-295-2090:
If the age of
Then the
And the
Cum.
Cum.
the children
staff to
maximum
Children
Adults
Max
Max
is:
child ratio
group
Children
Adults
is:
size is:
(a) One month,
through 11
1:4
8
8
2
8
2
months (infant)
(b) Twelve
months
through 29
1:7
14
14
2
22
4
months
(toddler)
(c) Thirty
months
1:10
20
20
2
42
6
through 5 years
(preschooler)
(d) Five years
through 12
1:15
30
8
1
50
7
years (school-
age child)
Thus, with the proposed 30 children the maximum on-site parking requirement
for this site will be 5 stalls for employees (assuming the possibility of children
under the age of 5 attending) plus 5 stalls for children's parents/ guardians, for
a total of 10 stalls. There is sufficient room on-site for 10 parking stalls and
Applicant has proposed 10 stalls on their submitted site plan.
2
According to the 2003 ITE Trip Generation Manual, the estimated weekday trip
generation for 7 employees, 30 children and 1,830 square feet of daycare center
floor would be between 33.2 and 102.2 trips per day, depending on whether the
calculation is based on number of employees, children, or facility square feet.
This averages to 60.72 trips per weekday (see table below).
Estimated
Estimated
Estimated
Estimate
Estimate
Estimate
Trips Per
Trips Per
Trips Per
Using 7
Using 30
Using
Average
Employee
Student
1,000 Sq.
Employees
Children
1,830
Estimate
Ft.
Sq. Ft.
14.6
1.6
18.1
102.2
46.8
33.2
60.72
PRELIMINARY 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. Applicant desires to locate a daycare center in a residential zone.
2. The daycare center would operate 6 days per week for 12.5 hours a day
3. The daycare center would serve up to 30 children per day.
4. Home daycare/ preschool centers serving over 12 children per day require
review via the Special Permit process.
5. The site is located on Sylvester Street.
6. Sylvester is a minor arterial street.
7. The surrounding properties are all low-density residential (RS -12), and
are developed with single-family units.
8. Pasco Municipal Code 25.78.170 requires one parking space for each
employee and one space per 6 children.
9. Depending on the age of the children the DSHS ratio of adults to children
is one adult for every 4 children down to one per 15 children,
10. The maximum parking requirement for this site based on 30 children will
be 5 stalls for employees plus 5 stalls for children's parents/ guardians,
for a total of 10 stalls.
3
11. Applicant has proposed 10 stalls on their submitted site plan.
12. According to the 2003 ITE Trip Generation Manual, the estimated
weekday trip generation averages to 60.72 trips per weekday
PRELIMINARY CONCLUSIONS BASED ON THE FINDINGS OF FACT
Before recommending approval or denial of a special permit the Planning
Commission must develop findings of fact from which to draw its conclusion
based upon the criteria listed in P.M.C. 25.86.060 and determine whether or
not the proposal:
(1) Will the proposed use be in accordance with the goals, policies, objectives
and text of the Comprehensive Plan?
The site is identified in the Comprehensive Plan for Low -Density
Residential uses. The proposed daycare center supports Plan Goal LU -3-
A which encourages such facilities to be located in neighborhoods. The
Plan also encourages 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?
No infrastructure modifications would be required for the daycare center.
The site is served by all municipal utilities and the local street network.
Sylvester Street was designed to handle more traffic than it currently
experiences. The proposed daycare center will operate 12.5 hours per day
5 days per week.
(3) Will the proposed use be constructed, maintained and operated to be in
harmony with existing or intended character of the general vicinity?
The intended character of the neighborhood is primarily residential.
Typically, schools and/or preschool/ daycare facilities are located in or
adjacent to residential neighborhoods. Parking facilities would need to be
expanded, thus changing the character of the properties from residential
to institutional.
(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 existing structure proposed for daycare center use is located in a
fully developed neighborhood. The County Assessor's records indicate the
4
value of the adjoining residential properties have increased over the past
four years.
(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 proposed daycare center would generate more traffic than a single-
family dwelling; commercial daycare facilities may accommodate up to
50 children and could have the potential of generating approximately
78 car trips; however the proposed facility would not exceed 30
children. A condition may be placed on the Special Permit to limit
enrollment to the proposed 30 children.
(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?
While a commercial daycare center would increase the concentration of
small children in the neighborhood and automobile trips to and from
the location, increasing the likelihood of traffic safety hazards; however
past history of daycare center operations within the City has shown
they do not endanger public health or safety and are generally not
nuisance generators.
PROPOSED APPROVAL CONDITIONS
1) The special permit shall apply to 3503 W Sylvester Street (Parcel #119
392 099; (Short Plat 2015-01 Lot 2)
2) The hours of operation shall not extend beyond the hours of 5:30 a.m.
and 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday;
3) Number of children shall not exceed 30.
4) 10 parking stalls shall be provided in substantial conformance with the
submitted site plan.
5) Only one sign, not exceeding six (6) square feet, shall be permitted upon
the property; Applicant shall secure a building permit from the City of
Pasco before erecting a sign;
6) The special permit shall be null and void if a City of Pasco business
license for the additional authorized activities is not obtained by March 1,
2017.
s
7) The special permit shall be null and void if a City of Pasco building
permit for the authorized improvements is not obtained by October 1,
2016.
MOTION: I move to close the public hearing and schedule
deliberations, the adoption of findings of fact, and development of a
recommendation for City Council for the March 17, 2016 meeting.
z
� LL um
p
Cl) Cl)
o� tpE ado W
N � I-
�� Cl)
• Oix,cy w v
cr
O W3BA >i -
U)
�C7
..�,k
-9c- _0 vleti
� p p
L
um
a
z
N N
r r
cn cn
oct JVc ado W
N� FM
Cl)
CA
. Oboe w
� •.N
r N
V
Site Pla
� � s
SITE
n Parking'
Sylvester St.'
,-::N
0
V X�
� wtt
11
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
MASTER FILE NO: SP 2016-004 APPLICANT: City of Pasco
HEARING DATE: 2/18/2016 PO Box 293
ACTION DATE: 2/18/2016 Pasco, WA 99301
BACKGROUND
REQUEST FOR SPECIAL PERMIT: Location of a Temporary Structure at 505
N. 1St Ave. (Senior Services)
1. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION:
Legal: Lots 5-8 Block 1, NP First Addition
General Location: 505 N. 1St Ave. (Northeast corner of 1st Ave 8v Sylvester
St.)
Property Size: 26,790 sq. ft.
2. ACCESS: The site has access from 2nd Ave. and W Sylvester St.
3. UTILITIES: The site is served by municipal water and sewer..
4. LAND USE AND ZONING: The property is zoned I-1 (light Industrial).
The zoning and land use of the surrounding properties are as follows:
NORTH: I-1 - Entrance to Multi -Modal Facility/vacant
SOUTH: I-1 - Single -Family dwellings/vacant
EAST: I-1 - Vacant/Single-Family Dwellings/Multi-Modal Facility
WEST: I-1 - City Hall/Single-Family Dwellings
S. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The site is designated in the Comprehensive
Plan for Industrial Uses. The Plan encourages the setting aside of
adequate lands for public facilities (Goal CF -3). Policy LU -2-B supports
the need for recreational, educational and cultural services in the
community.
6. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The City of Pasco is the lead
agency for this project. Based on the SEPA checklist, the adopted City
Comprehensive Plan, City development regulations, and other
information, a threshold determination resulting in a Determination of
Non -Significance (DNS) has been issued for this project under WAC 197-
11-158.
1
ANALYSIS
In April of this year the Planning Commission held a hearing to consider an
application to expand the administrative offices for the Fire Department that
involved relocating and refurbishing the old Metro Task Force Office building.
The cost for relocating the Metro building far exceeded the available funds and
the project was dropped.
The focus for reuse of the old Metro Task Force building has now shifted to
refurbishing it for various senior services including the meals on wheels
program. The Senior Center is being sold to the School District and the meals
on wheels program needs to relocate by July. The proposal involves moving the
portable building about 300 feet from the City Hall property to the Multi -Modal
property at the northeast corner of 1St Avenue and Sylvester Street. After being
relocated the building will be modified to meet the needs of the meals on
wheels program.
The Multi -Modal facility was originally granted a special permit in 1998. The
addition of the modular office for senior services on the site will require
additional special permit review and approval.
The Special Permit review process allows the Planning Commission to make a
determination on whether or not a proposed use will be or can be maintained
in harmony with the existing or intended character of the neighborhood. It is
through this process that the Planning Commission may develop approval
conditions that would ensure the proposal will support the character of the
neighborhood. The intended character of the neighborhood is a mix of
commercial/ industrial development along with residential development and
public facilities uses. Buildings in the neighborhood are typically site built on
permanent foundations. The existing Multi -Modal Facility, City Hall and the
new Police Station are attractive site built brick and stucco structures. These
public facilities are well landscaped. To achieve compatibility with the existing
Multi -Modal Facility, City Hall and Police Station the building should be pit set
(to avoid the temporary trailer house look) and painted to complement the
neighboring public buildings. The site should also be landscaped to
complement the other public buildings in the neighborhood.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Findings of fact must be entered from the record. The following are initial
findings drawn from the background and analysis section of the staff report.
The Planning Commission may add additional findings to this listing as the
result of factual testimony and evidence submitted during the open record
hearing.
`:
1. The site is located at the northeast corner of 1st Avenue and West
Sylvester Street.
2. The site has accessed from 18t Avenue and West Sylvester Street.
3. The Comprehensive Plan designates the site for industrial uses.
4. The Plan encourages the setting aside of adequate lands for public
facilities. Policy LU -2-13 supports the need for recreational, educational
and cultural services in the community.
5. The site is part of the City's Multi -Modal complex.
6. The site is zoned I-1 (Industrial).
7. The site has been owned by the City of Pasco since 1995.
8. The Multi -Modal Facility was granted a special Permit in 1998.
9. The site is directly east of the City Hall property located between 3rd
Avenue and 1st Avenue.
10. The intended character of the neighborhood is a mix of
commercial/ industrial development along with residential and public
facilities.
11. Buildings in the neighborhood are typically site built on permanent
foundations.
12. The existing Multi -Modal Facility, City Hall and the new Police Station
are attractive site built brick and stucco structures. These public
facilities are well landscaped.
CONCLUSIONS BASED ON THE FINDINGS OF FACT
Before recommending approval or denial of a special permit the Planning
Commission must develop findings of fact from which to draw its conclusion
based upon the criteria listed in P.M.C. 25.86.060 and determine whether or
not the proposal:
(1) Will the proposed use be in accordance with the goals, policies, objectives
and text of the Comprehensive Plan?
The proposal is supported by plan goals or policies that stress the need
to provide land for public services (Goal CF -3).
(2) Will the proposed use adversely affect public infrastructure?
Utility demands of the meals on wheels program are lower than many of
the infrastructure demands generated by permitted uses in the I-1 zone.
The addition of the proposed building on the site will have minimal
impact on utilities and surrounding streets.
(3) Will the proposed use be constructed, maintained and operated to be in
harmony with existing or intended character of the general vicinity?
3
By pit setting the building, painting it and landscaping the site the
proposed use will be constructed and operated in harmony with the
intended character of the neighborhood.
(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 site is one of the few remaining vacant parcels in the neighborhood.
The height and design of the proposed building will have no impact on
the surrounding neighborhood provided it is properly sited on a
foundation and landscaped.
(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 proposed building and use will not create more fumes, vibrations,
dust of traffic than any of the existing uses in the neighborhood.
Experience from the wheels on meals operation at the Senior Center
indicates there were no operational issues that created problems for the
neighborhood.
(6) Will the proposed use endanger the public health or safety if located and
developed where proposed, or in anyway will become a nuisance to uses
permitted in the district?
The proposed building and use will not negatively impact surrounding
development and will only support the ongoing public service nature of
the neighborhood.
APPROVAL CONDITIONS
1) The special permit shall apply to Parcel # 112028010;
2) The site shall be developed in substantial conformance with the
site plan submitted with the Special Permit application;
3) The modular office shall be pit set and installed per manufacturers
specification;
4) The modular office shall be painted to match or complement the
existing Public Facilities in the neighborhood;
5) The site must be landscaped consistent with the landscaping on
the other public properties in the neighborhood;
4
6) The Special Permit shall be null and void if a building permit has
not been obtained by March 1, 2017.
*The modular building needs to be moved off the City Hall property
as soon as possible due to construction needs of the Police Station.
Additionally, the building needs to be remodel in time for the meals
on wheels program to be relocated before July. As a result Staff is
recommending the matter be reviewed and forwarded to the
Council after the public hearing on February 18tb.
RECOMMENDATION
MOTION: I move to adopt findings of fact and conclusions
therefrom as contained in the February 18, 2016 staff
report.
MOTION: I move based on the findings of fact and conclusions as
adopted the Planning Commission recommend the City
Council grant a special permit for the location of a
modular building on parcel # 112104035 with conditions
as contained in the February 18, 2016 staff report.
E
0 10
,Z 00•100100
1010••P PSE
.• GoM �
1010• � P` '%
�, 1010••• V1
O • �
N �CL
�, 00 G o
C0 CL0
W
cn
a� ct _
Ua�
Cl)
.x 0)
Ct ..
o c
a
U 1010
.. L
/
I♦
Zi III
TOM
O -
N
. ° W
uct H
dao cn PVE
ct
N
N � �
���� a�\�
me-lu ca
d , o�sv�i' '40Mxzi� NOLLVGNno:iuvixm.,as"xze ,@
G1V
B
4
E-8
❑ 0
00000
f-
lFyy�
i
5
N
� � \
t i
P
Ute+f
n �
I! i
r
I
MEMORANDUM
DATE: February 5, 2016
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Jeffrey B. Adams, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: Home Occupations/Client Present (MF# CA 2015-007)
The City of Pasco prohibits any "occupation requiring the customer or client to
be present upon the premises while the profession, trade, skill or service is
performed . . . ." This has been interpreted to include hair dressers/beauty
salons. Recently the code has been amended to allow for "private tutoring or
instruction for 4 or fewer student per 24 -hour period;"
At its November 19, 2015 workshop The Planning Commission discussed two
possibilities of dealing with client -present home occupations as follows:
1) Allow client -present home occupations by Special Permit, with conditions
focused on mitigating the impacts of on-site client visits
2) Allow client -present home occupations outright as a Permitted Use.
Impact -mitigating provisions would need to be built into the code.
The cost to applicants to apply for a Special Permit is $480.00, and the Special
Permit approval process takes around 3 months, including notification of
neighboring property owners, drafting staff reports, holding the hearing and
subsequent recommendation meeting, and holding the City Council public
meeting. As well, after all the expense and time spent pursuing a Special
Permit the outcome is not guaranteed.
The cost to the city includes fees for legal ads to the local paper of general
circulation and the cost of direct mail -outs to surrounding property owners for
the public notice, as well as staff time creating legal notices, crafting staff
reports, creating maps and exhibits, and providing site photos for Planning
Commission reports and City Council agenda reports. Staff also dedicates time
to attend and present the staff reports at Planning Commission meetings. The
total cost to the city is close to $1,000 per Special Permit application. This does
not take into account opportunity costs lost for focusing on other planning
department tasks.
Between applicant cost and city costs, it might be more economical over time to
treat client -present home occupations as a permitted use with specified
conditions rather than require applicants and staff to divert time and energy to
the Special Permit process.
The Permitted Uses option would be more complex to initiate, anticipating all
possible scenarios, but simpler to use, and much faster for the applicant as it
bypasses the quasi-judicial process altogether.
Pagel of3
Currently the City requires home occupations to adhere to the following
standards:
(1) The Home Occupation must be clearly subordinate to the principal use of
the property for residential purposes;
(2) The Home Occupation must not involve modification of the property or
exterior of its structures that indicates other than residential uses of the
premises;
(3) The Home Occupation must be performed entirely within a permanent
structure upon the premises;
(4) There may not be signs, display or other advertisement upon the
property;
(5) There may not be media or other off -premises advertising shall give the
address or location of the home occupation;
(6) No outside storage of materials, supplies, products or by-products, or
equipment, except a single occupational vehicle not exceeding 14,000 pounds
Gross Vehicle Weight (GVW); Trailers are considered vehicles.
(7) The Home Occupation must be conducted solely by persons residing
within the dwelling unit upon the premises, subject to the definition of family;
(8) No merchandise, products, goods or wares may be displayed or offered
for sale upon the premises except for articles produced thereon.
(9) No occupation requiring the customer or client to be present upon the
premises while the profession, trade, skill or service is performed shall be
allowed, except for private tutoring or instruction for 4 or fewer student per 24
-hour period;
(10) No more than 6 customer vehicles may visit the dwelling in a given day;
(11) Noise generated by the home occupation, detectable at any property line,
shall not be in excess of 55 dba from 8:00 am. to 8:00 p.m. and 45 dba from
8:00 p.m. to 8:00 am.
(12) No material or substance which is explosive, highly flammable, corrosive,
radioactive or toxic shall be stored, created, utilized or discarded in any way
without prior knowledge of and written approval by the city; provided the
means or methods necessary for safety purposes do not conflict with other
standards established herein;
(13) The home occupation shall not generate light or glare, vibration, fumes
or odors, or permit other conditions to occur or be present, which annoys,
injures, or endangers the comfort, health, repose, decency or otherwise
comfortable enjoyment of life and property of neighboring or surrounding
residents, in accordance with the intent of this chapter and nuisances as
defined in Chapter 9.60 of the Municipal Code.
Page 2 of 3
(14) The home occupation shall not occupy more than twenty (20) percent of
the gross floor area of the residence. All of an attached or detached garage may
be used for a home occupation provided the area of the garage to be utilized
does not exceed six hundred (600) square feet.
Conditions which could be added to accommodate client -present home
occupations might include the following:
a) Client services by appointment only—no walk-in services.
b) Customer/client presence at the residence shall be limited to between the
hours of 7 a.m. and 9 p.m.
c) There shall be no more than one (1) customer/client on the premises at any
given time. For purposes of this Section, one (1) customer/client visit shall
be considered to include up to four (4) persons arriving in a single vehicle.
d) Unless otherwise required by law, the entrance to the home occupation
must be from within the residence;
e) In addition to parking required for the residents, there shall be no more
than one (1) vehicle parked on or in the vicinity of the property as a result of
the home occupation at any one time.
Examples of what surrounding jurisdictions require for home occupations are
attached as a matrix.
Staff requests Commission consideration and discussion of this issue.
Page 3 of 3
iy
0
m
a
a O
Z O
o T
L
3
o o_ v o
d C
Y)
a L c p '^
0
E v
L N a a w
c
M 0
C O
O T�
C A�
JO
9
m vai
m
N 6 L
y
Y)
+.. E a
a
a a
m a N>.
a
E o
y
Z
d 6
N
Z
2
Z
V 1] n a
N
A A a
01 o
c w 3 L c o N
..
o a o> 0 c 9
U
am
x m a o m
fa -p
0
N
6U
N r
J J p
m
C
O« O
VC
p >, C
A
N U
O C p c
` O Vim' o c
a a«
E a 3
o
a '"
O V U
x
Z V
C j LOp 9 •� a
a a
��
a
o�
O V a o aO
L
q
0 3 n m n
an
c
2 r m
c
M o i
a y
m
n
o O
n
0 ani
o a
x
ay E
J c>
a
d
a H
rva 0
n
en
$ q
° v
m
Na
° H O
— L
d a
m a
`o
a
3
o
A
>
> o.
d
C Q
m
c=
N a
z
C
z z
m
mo o
v
«°
N
o
n y
V C n c
C Y t
N 3
d
X
> 6 al C
m'O
OU
O
O
0 0 «'N
A 0 a
c
c
c c
3 0 E
D o
d n°
o N 0
E
v a
L
a c
r o
H
a
r a
U
Z
c o
a Q
a$
c n v
n 0 v u" o
_o
0
a
a
o`
—
c o
o `oma
cm t
o
c
vi O' S a a a
E 'm w«
oY
Z O o
O a— po
a
t
m
.v
u+
o
~H 'Z H oo c 0 m
a
d
J
N
L« J o
O
£
V
A
6 a l7
o C '6
y O
6 L
a
p
U a ° 'O d" N
a
m d
o
« a
m
>
O
O
G
C�o0 3 T n �.
° o
«
n
a«
m d 0
O a 3 L .J p. O J
N
C W
3
a
4
% O
E a
x m m L p a n
o
L
0
a
om
o
m
n
u
£x 0 0
o
E ctc
a
n
o
$'3E
v`xd0
y
..
E
o
NO
W
3>
'£
a o mm
E a!
a
a°o
mo
m
aw
V
a
O
Z Op
pac
ZO
>'d..
d
N
N
d O
C
c
C
m
d
E
m �'
J rr.
O
N
d
d
a m
E 0
O
c
'a
^
.�
m
>
>•
c
y
>
Y
h
0
m
a
Y
m
V
c 'Cc
N Q
V
aC
O !+
V
0 c
� C
10 Y
a�
V N
O
m 4
E
O
m
^
V
Y
ry L
0
W
f
m 0
d d y d
a w
o
0 o.
o
o a
c
o °0
.E
Y m
.-
n=
v A v o o
a° v
r 3
n ao$
v a a
a
a
0
E °'
E n
Q
v
ea
v 3
a o 0 N
E y c
c s m
c '� L
-
0 0 v
°
w a
a y .> m
u v
01 £ o
c
u v v
°' E o
a
0
o m E c o
a
,o v
v
c
°, E
3 D 0
E
a m r
= v
a m o
c Ev
v
m v o
0 E
« o £
is
a
m a
>.
E m
o
YE
H v
0
—
ro
O v
E O
`w n
E°
c n
c
c
v N
v c
_o
o
-E
c
o
m a o
v v 0
o
O a m
a
a c m
N
° v
n m«
o °1 m
w a° i E
z n"
'"` v
5 v
E o
5 v
u
06o E a
N v 3
cG o E n
vi $
m> 0 vvi °>
c 'o a
o
a
c v
a m E m
O
1O
_
£ «
o
E
c
v m
>
ov
v E c q.
m m
0 w
m? c
O
c
J
`°
c
o
m
? Q o
m r `v
m A
o a n 2
a
o E m 0$
o n
0 E E
5o
v
C.oo
'c° n E
o 0
c v
v
o c E
C ,v_i
O
,00
v E Y 0
u
O '^
O p
O 0
w
E m m a
3 a
E— 0 m c c
e
E
00--.2w=
M 0>
c Y
r1 O00 0
c N
s
v
im^ v E
v v
v m v� W. u v
m o 0 u, c
u o
E
m T
Ec
Lm
o o
J J
O
m e
v
E
a
W
W E
c
`
a
E
L m
o a o a c
F
v
o E E-
E o v J oL
01.
v
> c a n v m
a
c
`o
o
h o
v wa
a ai �
c
O
i vc
°a'
t
o m v
L m
N O
o�.Na
m O ry u
m
E
`0
°1 o c
m Q
c y
w v 3
m
v0i c a
d a
v
o v m o
v
m m Oo
o
a
=
u d L
L
v
n
y g
ff
3'a
E
n
uE
v
J
m m
I
E
o
c
> v
o �'
>
mE c
v
3
o• �t =
"v
oxv
oJc
o
cvmm>
O
o
o
.vv m
yo
o
Yro0E0
v x
o 0
o >
a;! o
'c
0
w
no"°
7
C
V t=
6
O
amo•
Tim z
'c
E
daJ
OO
L
z0m
o .m5_
Z v
0 Z
t0 6>>
h a O
W 6 vmi
Ot a N 6 N
a
C
W
6
m
N
W
6
m
so
;o
a
w
c
_
v
V
V
a
0
m
a
6
a
O
M
m
6
O
E
2
V
z
a
Y
c
0
E
O
u
O
h
0
u
u
w
E
=06
`y N w
c son c
a
w H
s c
c L c a s
c 'o
E Esw, w
o
n u
°£ 0
w
3
m °
E o
a
o
a
°= o
w z
o n
E
o= o
m
0 A c Y
c
w
v
m
oos `w
w
c= 3 a
n a 3
0 w
`w m$
-!o-Oo
L C
'§ 1°
w
wa
Ev_w
o
o
m o
°'ac
E «wa°$
cm
ow
'c
o N
`
E
o
cw
'o w o
o c `� «
a N
c E
�'
o 'r c '� v
S
`o
. > o 3
2 c' M
r� o
w o>$
g
o
O
m `o
m o
o
a s
v a a
a o a
_ o=
E p=
E o=
a N 3
v N 3
c N 3
e
a 0.2
w
w
w
>v
c 0
> c y
T
O V
O V
N O U
Em
E 'g a
E
E',�
VcL
L
d c
L
a p
O
L >
u p
L >
u
L
3 p
3 0 v
3 0
w
g00
.�
d V O
IQ
d V O
aw
o
,� n v
w a A
w a w
w m A
°
° y «
m �
y w
W
y w
MW v y
E
E
Z
E
z ° . y E
z .p y
E
z .o y E
m
m
o o.
d
z o o
'a a
0
m m a
U
o
m
'> w e
d o
o c L s
O
L a 0.
0
— c
o
T w
s T
a v
o r 3 u
w p 3
T N
y o c°° c
°
a
E
E
o
'.
awcocacaa
mcw %o
x
mcaw°N
Lpo
OAv—cwo
w0ep
o
LL O
VN
M
0 6
n 01 ,1°n
9
'o
3
o
a
S E 'v
c p
= 0
0 o
a w
w o y T c n
p 0 O
`w cc v
m a
L
E
a a w t c u
0 0 3
m
E E u w c m
a
w
em
EmMMM.L.
d a 0
o E r o cm
° T a
Iz o
o E v
Z
3 E Ow
z 3 t
F n 0 0° wo u g
m c 0
E
c
N N w
L L
o° o
w
m
m G a
O
2
m
z w
f
E
J �
LL
6
a
O
M
m
6
O
E
2
V
z
a
Y
c
0
E
O
u
O
h
0
u
u
t
\\
#§12!
\!\7§
{§\Z[/
F«
\\��
�\}\}\}
})f0
\J3
- !\!!)
2Eo
/)u2
\)\_
\\/
R�
!!
-
�{§2
)))
mE
}
-
®!
§r=
\\�
\/
0
)f
-
-�
\\)
\)0
\))
{)
»!!
a!\3
f /Z
°§-0ƒ�
-6
E
\\\\\\
f
z
}
$
r[Ql;3
\\