HomeMy WebLinkAbout2017.03.06 Council Meeting PacketRegular Meeting
AGENDA
PASCO CITY COUNCIL
7:00 p.m.
March 6, 2017
Page
1. CALL TO ORDER:
2. ROLL CALL:
(a) Pledge of Allegiance
3. CONSENT AGENDA: All items listed under the Consent Agenda are considered
to be routine by the City Council and will be enacted by roll call vote as one motion
(in the form listed below). There will be no separate discussion of these items. If
further discussion is desired by Council members or the public, the item may be
removed from the Consent Agenda to the Regular Agenda and considered
separately.
4 - 7 (a) Approval of Minutes
To approve the Minutes of the Pasco City Council Meeting dated February
21, 2017.
8 - 9 (b) Bills and Communications
To approve claims in the total amount of $2,007,313.97 ($1,345,150.38 in
Check Nos. 214656-214885; $662,163.59 in Electronic Transfer Nos.
814053-814123, 814128-814192, 814194-814207, 814210-814444);
$29,057.97 in Check Nos. 50213-50242; $630,861.81 in Electronic Transfer
Nos. 30104320-30104812; $0.00 in Electronic Transfer No. N/A.
10 - 14 (c) * Final Plat: Three Rivers West, Phase 4 (MF# FP 2017-002)
To approve the Final Plat for Three Rivers West, Phase 4.
(RC) MOTION: I move to approve the Consent Agenda as read.
4. PROCLAMATIONS AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS:
5. VISITORS - OTHER THAN AGENDA ITEMS: This item is provided to allow
citizens the opportunity to bring items to the attention of the City Council or to
express an opinion on an issue. Its purpose is not to provide a venue for debate or
for the posing of questions with the expectation of an immediate response. Some
questions require consideration by Council over time and after a deliberative
process with input from a number of different sources; some questions are best
Page 1 of 120
Regular Meeting March 6, 2017
directed to staff members who have access to specific information. Citizen
comments will normally be limited to three minutes each by the Mayor. Those with
lengthy messages are invited to summarize their comments and/or submit written
information for consideration by the Council outside of formal meetings.
6. REPORTS FROM COMMITTEES AND/OR OFFICERS:
(a) Verbal Reports from Councilmembers
7. HEARINGS AND COUNCIL ACTION ON ORDINANCES AND
RESOLUTIONS RELATING THERETO:
15 - 76 (a) Urban Growth Area Expansion (MF # CPA 2016-002) (Steve West)
Conduct a Hearing:
MOTION: I move to approve Resolution No. 3754, declaring the preferred
Urban Growth Boundary for the City of Pasco.
8. ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS NOT RELATING TO HEARINGS:
77 - 80 (a) * Resolution on Special Elections
MOTION: I move to approve Resolution No. 3755, calling for special
elections for all City Council seats for the 2017 Municipal Elections.
81 - 101 (b) Q* Special Permit: Location of Portable Classrooms at Chiawana High
School (MF# SP 2016-018)
MOTION: I move to approve Resolution No. 3756, accepting the
Planning Commission's recommendation and approving a special permit for
the location of portable classrooms at Chiawana High School.
102 - 120 (c) Q* Special Permit: Location of a Daycare Center in an R-1-A District
(MF# SP 2016-017)
MOTION: I move to approve Resolution No. 3757, accepting the
Planning Commission's recommendation and approving a special permit for
the location of a daycare center at 2411 E. George Street.
9. UNFINISHED BUSINESS:
10. NEW BUSINESS:
11. MISCELLANEOUS DISCUSSION:
Page 2 of 120
Regular Meeting March 6, 2017
(a) Water Rescue Program Status Report
Presented by Fire Chief Bob Gear
12. EXECUTIVE SESSION:
13. ADJOURNMENT.
(RC) Roll Call Vote Required
* Item not previously discussed
Q Quasi-Judicial Matter
MF# “Master File #....”
REMINDERS:
5:30 p.m., Monday, March 6, Pasco Red Lion - Washington Policy Center's "Farm to
Free Market" Reception. (COUNCILMEMBER CHI FLORES)
7:00 a.m., Thursday, March 9 - BFCG Tri-Mats Policy Advisory Committee Meeting.
(COUNCILMEMBER BOB HOFFMANN, Rep.; REBECCA FRANCIK, Alt.)
7:00 p.m., Thursday, March 9 - Ben-Franklin Transit Board Meeting. (MAYOR
MATT WATKINS, Rep.; COUNCILMEMBER CHI FLORES, Alt.)
This meeting is broadcast live on PSC-TV Channel 191 on Charter Cable and streamed
at www.pasco-wa.gov/psctvlive.
Audio equipment available for the hearing impaired; contact the Clerk for assistance.
Page 3 of 120
AGENDA REPORT
FOR: City Council February 28, 2017
TO: Dave Zabell, City Manager Regular Meeting: 3/6/17
FROM: Rick Terway, Director
Administrative & Community Services
SUBJECT: Approval of Minutes
I. REFERENCE(S):
Minutes 02.21.17
II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
To approve the Minutes of the Pasco City Council Meeting dated February 21, 2017.
III. FISCAL IMPACT:
IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF:
V. DISCUSSION:
Page 4 of 120
REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES
PASCO CITY COUNCIL FEBRUARY 21, 2017
CALL TO ORDER:
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Matt Watkins, Mayor.
ROLL CALL:
Councilmembers present: Chi Flores, Rebecca Francik, Robert Hoffmann, Tom
Larsen, Saul Martinez, Matt Watkins and Al Yenney.
Staff present: Dave Zabell, City Manager; Stan Strebel, Deputy City Manager;
Leland Kerr, City Attorney; Richard Terway, Administrative & Community
Services Director; Rick White, Community & Economic Development
Director; Richa Sigdel, Finance Director; Bob Metzger, Police Chief and Bob
Gear, Fire Chief.
The meeting was opened with the Pledge of Allegiance.
CONSENT AGENDA:
Approval of Minutes
To approve the Minutes of the Pasco City Council Meeting dated February 6,
2017.
Bills and Communications
To approve claims in the total amount of $1,979,717.25 ($1,232,669.13 in
Check Nos. 214377-214655; $747,048.12 in Electronic Transfer Nos. 814050-
814052, 814124-814127, 814193, 814208-814209); $32,959.87 in Check Nos.
50186-50212; $626,107.46 in Electronic Transfer Nos. 30103832-30104319;
$5,955.75 in Electronic Transfer No. 340-343.
To approve bad debt write-off for Utility Billing, Ambulance, Cemetery,
General Accounts, Miscellaneous Accounts, and Municipal Court (non-
criminal, criminal, and parking) accounts receivable in the total amount of
$74,569.09 and, of that amount, authorize $30,180.54 be turned over for
collection.
MOTION: Ms. Francik moved to approve the Consent Agenda as read. Mr.
Yenney seconded. Motion carried by unanimous Roll Call vote.
REPORTS FROM COMMITTEES AND/OR OFFICERS:
Mr. Flores and Mayor Watkins reported on the AWC Days in Olympia.
HEARINGS AND COUNCIL ACTION ON ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS
RELATING THERETO:
Rezone Appeal: C-1 to C-3 Rezone Under MF # Z 2016-005 (MF# APPL
2017-001)
Mr. White explained the details of the Rezone Appeal.
Mr. Kerr and Council reviewed the Quasi-Judicial process.
Page 1 of 3 Page 5 of 120
REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES
PASCO CITY COUNCIL FEBRUARY 21, 2017
Mayor Watkins opened the Closed Record Hearing.
Council and staff discussed the record.
Mayor Watkins declared the Closed Record Hearing closed.
MOTION: Ms. Francik moved to adopt findings of fact and conclusions
therefrom as contained in the Planning commission Report dated December 15,
2016. Mr. Watkins seconded. Motion failed by the following Roll Call vote:
Yes - Watkins, Francik, Martinez. No - Yenney, Flores, Hoffmann, Larsen.
MOTION: Mr. Yenney moved to remand this item back to the Planning
Commission for further discussion on parameters of the specific activities
proposed, aesthetics of the area and possible impact on the neighborhood to the
north. Seconded by Mr. Flores. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote:
Yes - Martinez, Yenney, Flores, Hoffmann, Larsen. No - Watkins, Francik.
ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS NOT RELATING TO HEARINGS:
Removal of Convenience/Payment Fees
MOTION: Ms. Francik moved to adopt Ordinance No. 4338, repealing Section
3.112.040 "Miscellaneous Payment Processing Charges" and amending Section
3.07.090 "Miscellaneous" and, further, authorize publication by summary only.
Mr. Yenney seconded. Motion carried unanimously.
Assigning Council Representation to Districts
Council and staff discussed the proposed resolution.
MOTION: Ms. Francik moved to approve Resolution No. 3752, assigning
Council representation to Districts and identifying position numbers. Mr.
Martinez seconded. Motion carried unanimously.
Land Sale to Direct Staffing, LLC, Becky Ochoa
Council and staff discussed the details of the proposed sale.
MOTION: Ms. Francik moved to approve Resolution No. 3753, approving the
sale of certain real property on Cedar Avenue, north of Lewis Street. Mr. Flores
seconded. Motion carried unanimously.
NEW BUSINESS:
Code Amendment: Mini-Pigs in Residential Zones (MF# CA 2016-005)
MOTION: Ms. Francik moved the City Council concur with the Planning
Commission and continue to classify all pigs as farm animals in the Pasco
Municipal Code. Mr. Yenney seconded. Motion carried unanimously.
MISCELLANEOUS DISCUSSION:
Council and staff discussed reconsidering the TNC/Taxi issue. Council
concurred to put the item on the next workshop meeting agenda.
Mr. Martinez thanked citizens for their patience during the recent winter
weather and cautioned citizens to watch out for potholes in the roadways.
Page 2 of 3 Page 6 of 120
REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES
PASCO CITY COUNCIL FEBRUARY 21, 2017
Mr. Zabell noted crews have begun filling the potholes.
EXECUTIVE SESSION:
Council adjourned to Executive Session at 8:18 p.m. for approximately 10
minutes to establish sale price or lease amount of real estate and discuss
litigation or potential litigation with the City Manager, Deputy City Manager
and City Attorney.
Mayor Watkins called the meeting back to order at 8:29 p.m.
ADJOURNMENT:
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:29 p.m.
APPROVED: ATTEST:
Matt Watkins, Mayor Sandy Kenworthy, Interim City Clerk
PASSED and APPROVED this 6th day of March, 2017
Page 3 of 3 Page 7 of 120
AGENDA REPORT
FOR: City Council March 2, 2017
TO: Dave Zabell, City Manager Regular Meeting: 3/6/17
FROM: Richa Sigdel, Director
Finance
SUBJECT: Bills and Communications
I. REFERENCE(S):
2017 Accounts Payable 03.06.17
II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
To approve claims in the total amount of $2,007,313.97 ($1,345,150.38 in Check Nos.
214656-214885; $662,163.59 in Electronic Transfer Nos. 814053-814123, 814128-
814192, 814194-814207, 814210-814444); $29,057.97 in Check Nos. 50213-50242;
$630,861.81 in Electronic Transfer Nos. 30104320-30104812; $0.00 in Electronic
Transfer No. N/A.
III. FISCAL IMPACT:
IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF:
V. DISCUSSION:
Page 8 of 120
March 6, 2017
Claims Bank Payroll Bank Gen'l Bank Electronic Bank Combined
Check Numbers 214656-214885 50213-50242
Total Check Amount $1,345,150.38 $29,057.97 Total Checks 1,374,208.35$
Electronic Transfer Numbers 814053-814123 30104320-30104812 n/a
814128-814192
814194-814207
814210-814444
Total EFT Amount $662,163.59 $630,861.81 $0.00 Total EFTs 1,293,025.40$
Grand Total 2,667,233.75$
Councilmember
612,452.37
24,360.26
0.00
0.00
12.45
10,000.00
0.00
2,030.16
28,764.21
1,509.45
4,399.67
22,014.69
2,312.60
1,753.65
172,007.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
82.00
0.00
0.00
23,473.28
10,548.52
0.00
120,278.89
484,617.23
7,381.49
3,638.80
0.00
0.00
234,620.40
12,730.42
888,246.21
GRAND TOTAL ALL FUNDS:2,667,233.75$
EQUIPMENT RENTAL - REPLACEMENT GOVERNMENTAL
EQUIPMENT RENTAL - REPLACEMENT BUSINESS
MEDICAL/DENTAL INSURANCE
FLEX
PAYROLL CLEARING
STADIUM/CONVENTION CENTER
LID
GENERAL CAP PROJECT CONSTRUCTION
UTILITY, WATER/SEWER
EQUIPMENT RENTAL - OPERATING GOVERNMENTAL
EQUIPMENT RENTAL - OPERATING BUSINESS
SPECIAL ASSESSMENT LODGING
LITTER ABATEMENT
REVOLVING ABATEMENT
TRAC DEVELOPMENT & OPERATING
PARKS
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
ATHLETIC PROGRAMS
GOLF COURSE
SENIOR CENTER OPERATING
MULTI-MODAL FACILITY
SCHOOL IMPACT FEES
RIVERSHORE TRAIL & MARINA MAIN
C.D. BLOCK GRANT
HOME CONSORTIUM GRANT
NSP GRANT
MARTIN LUTHER KING COMMUNITY CENTER
AMBULANCE SERVICE
CEMETERY
Councilmember
SUMMARY OF CLAIMS BY FUND:
GENERAL FUND
STREET
ARTERIAL STREET
STREET OVERLAY
City of Pasco, Franklin County, Washington
We, the undersigned, do hereby certify under penalty of perjury the materials have been furnished, the services rendered or the labor performed as
described herein and the claim is a just, due and unpaid obligation against the city and we are authorized to authenticate and certify to such claim.
Dave Zabell, City Manager Richa Sigdel, Finance Director
We, the undersigned City Councilmembers of the City Council of the City of Pasco, Franklin County, Washington, do hereby certify on this
6th day of March, 2017 that the merchandise or services hereinafter specified have been received and are approved for payment:
C I T Y O F P A S C O
Council Meeting of:
Accounts Payable Approved
The City Council
Page 9 of 120
AGENDA REPORT
FOR: City Council February 28, 2017
TO: Dave Zabell, City Manager
Rick White, Director
Community & Economic Development
Regular Meeting: 3/6/17
FROM: Dave McDonald, City Planner
Community & Economic Development
SUBJECT: Final Plat: Three Rivers West, Phase 4 (MF# FP 2017-002)
I. REFERENCE(S):
Overview Map
Vicinity Map
Final Plat
II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
MOTION: I move to approve the Final Plat for Three Rivers West, Phase 4.
III. FISCAL IMPACT:
None
IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF:
On April 7, 2014 the Council approved Resolution # 3542 approving a preliminary plat
for the Three Rivers West development. The developer is now seeking final plat
approval for Phase 3.
Three Rivers West subdivision is a single-family residential development located west
of Convention Drive and north of Sandifur Parkway. The development contains 188
single-family lots with an average lot size of 8,151 square feet. Phase 4 of the
subdivision contains 62 lots.
V. DISCUSSION:
Prior to the approval of a final plat, the developer is to either install all infrastructure or
post a bond or other instrument that secures the financing for the infrastructure
Page 10 of 120
improvements. In this case, the developer has completed some of the improvements
and provided the City with a bond in the amount of $1,480,110.00 to cover the costs of
the outstanding improvements. .
The final plat shows and contains information on primary control points, tract
boundaries, dimensions, bearings, lot numbers and other necessary survey data. In
addition, the plat contains the required descriptions, dedication and acknowledgment
and approval sections.
Page 11 of 120
It
e
m
:
T
h
r
e
e
R
i
v
e
r
s
W
e
s
t
P
h
a
s
e
4
Ap
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
:
S
t
r
a
t
t
o
n
S
u
r
v
e
y
i
n
g
Fi
l
e
#
:
F
P
2
0
1
7
-
0
0
2
O
v
e
r
v
i
e
w
M
a
p
SI
T
E
Page 12 of 120
It
e
m
:
T
h
r
e
e
R
i
v
e
r
s
W
e
s
t
P
h
a
s
e
4
Ap
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
:
S
t
r
a
t
t
o
n
S
u
r
v
e
y
i
n
g
Fi
l
e
#
:
F
P
2
0
1
7
-
0
0
2
SI
T
E
V
i
c
i
n
i
t
y
M
a
p
Page 13 of 120
?hqv—me»an?nzséadzHtluau:_~omnm4V63.<39:2N.6_.:.mN_\me\_o"windzxmnz_«E52.>258z...xz<E......285:B2u_nz_:8993runs.mam5.6<zoz<<m<azaoaomt:zoSx?wm.2:En.5:9:azoxmEoumxou28.:a.a:e...BEuaouzNE2mos.m::H:muuz:m_n9:mumxaoo:4=592.?m_5mH_oz:9.:6.6u:3o>z_SE08:5:if.8>355ad:2235zoSmém.£85:Eoxum<..«umxxmSmmum?SamvESE352.:<_oN.|,zQ.m2Son..N5595>...must.a2:ml»:5{EmuEu~_u_...zo8z_xm§?namE_5_EzzwxLo33-25Eouuz5..BE.3mi;U...z.¢o>u>m:moz:Smzuu:<.33...zE<<..u.CZ:Emfarommoi"NE9%§<\lE$N.€E<o:_EH._om.mo:o:<N._.<o_..:.EQ\<\\~.§.<\~.WEQKKE<&.m.uZ—._¢N.—ZmUE:_z3m>:_uaoEtcsum?..zu:um<m>:.=—Dzo=<oEx_Nzo_m_>auz?mazum?s:Hz..._ONum<:aGm:m?zzHz...uze?mBm_m<mu.m.o,m9.3..3am3:uan...E2652.9958ne...u0mom»<._n_._<zE.338x5:.26mmémnum<oEmau.<u_nz_99.3....9L339}zo=<Em.5:5:93ucm?auoz<zo\:zxmuz.o\nEmn0macExzcuao.zo_::w.22:azouumuuuzi<HE1=n..u§..__rm.Eu:mE>Emum...g3.an,8n._uiumL19mmxmmn_um<oozaoumo
3NV1 BGNVHDOIS
.3:5..NN..SNon.3EmuE:.919.TlimmS:.9u.oN.mN.8z_...aN.mnmnm.SN:.82.T33E.a.
9E2.9
hENN.ho
E5...8N
_m5..
arm VMOTIVM‘9.
x.aN.n~.._mm
Nod:
Fmnhnnmm
LuSN».88.
R5..
u.a..:.E..
.~o.«:
3NV'|VN33>1S
mszvmou
umSN»mu::
.t9'oZ|
u.mN.£.Sz
_
um93
.3N:nu.3
«I53.5:.9
m_|_c;o§.umumENN
R5..35..
m.aN.nnmaz
.~o.N:
3l\|HO NOILNEANOD
u.m~.nN.mmz
.8.N_
_
kmmove
«N5..mmSN»
3._o._
u.aN.nN.omz
.co.N:
M.l£‘.0Z.00N
kmSNN
3.9
u.aN.mN.Bz
.35::.uN.an.SW.8N:
San~88.honNN
Nn8..
M.|E.r§.|0N
u.aN.nN.Sz
.Oa.~
3NV'l BGNV85)0|}!
10'::
umomNNmm5..
u..aN.nN.mnz
._mSS
.sz*vcs M.|I.N.‘.|DN
u.mN.nwnnz
._mSNN
35..
u.mN.mN.Bz
‘
,:.mnNu.nN.2..%z.8N:
:58mu>EBxoozo?aw».
u.oN.m«.nmz
.65‘em
ms}am .2
3.90.2».mu
“.5wmémawn:oz=E
.mo
u.o~.2..onz
.<._o
uiumE52
_._o._.v_>._._z__>
S..5.NE
zo5z__._m<;.5238z_._xz<E
.oom<n_.6>.:o
.._2.3..H._mN.~_:28;.8Sm.._ow\_.H._.z2.:
mmsamIsm.§mm.§EMNQER
.._O._.<._n_.22:5.:
P
a
g
e
1
4
o
f
1
2
0
AGENDA REPORT
FOR: City Council February 28, 2017
TO: Dave Zabell, City Manager
Rick White, Director
Community & Economic Development
Regular Meeting: 3/6/17
FROM: Dave McDonald, City Planner
Community & Economic Development
SUBJECT: Urban Growth Area Expansion (MF # CPA 2016-002) (Steve West)
I. REFERENCE(S):
Overview Map
Proposed Resolution
Memo to the Planning Commission
Planning Commission Minutes Dated: 10/20/17, 11/17/16 & 12/21/16
Letter from Applicant's Attorney
Letter & Resolution from Port
Letter from WDOT Aviation Division
II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Conduct a Hearing:
MOTION: I move to approve Resolution No. ______, declaring the preferred Urban
Growth Boundary for the City of Pasco.
III. FISCAL IMPACT:
Eventually the property will be annexed and there will be an increase in the City's
assessed value. The City will also provide public safety and other City services after
development of the property
IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF:
The Growth Management Act (GMA) (RCW 36.70A.110) requires the establishment
of Urban Growth Areas (UGA) around urban centers. Pasco’s first UGA was
established in April of 1993 and has been modified only four times since then. The
Page 15 of 120
designation of the Pasco UGA was not only guided by the GMA Goals, but by the
specific provisions of RCW 36.70A.110.
The owner of 160 acres of farm land directly north of the City Limits, has applied for a
Comprehensive Plan Amendment that would revise the Urban Growth Area (UGA) to
include his 160 acres currently outside the Pasco UGA. The property in question is
located at the northeast corner of Road 52 and Burns Road.
Planning Commission held public hearings on October 20, 2016 and again on
November 17, 2016 to consider the UGA boundary amendment as requested by the
applicant. On December 21, 2016 the Planning Commission recommended all of the
160 acres be included within the City's UGA.
Following the Planning Commission recommendation a consultation meeting was held
between the City, Port, applicant, and other stake holders having an interest in aviation
and the Tri-Cities Airport. A consultation meeting is required by State Department of
Transportation regulations where land is impacted by airport compatibility zones. The
consultation meeting was completed on February 7, 2017.
Council discussed this item at the February 27, 2017 workshop meeting.
V. DISCUSSION:
The Planning Commission considered this proposed amendment in 2014 and
forwarded a favorable recommendation to the City Council to include portions of the
applicant’s property within the UGA. The City Council passed a resolution accepting
the Planning Commission recommendation and requested the County expand the
boundary. By law only the County Commissioners can change a UGA boundary.
On May 5, 2015 the County Planning Commission reviewed the City's request for the
UGA amendment and likewise recommended approval a UGA boundary change.
The County Commissioners disagreed with the County Planning Commission
recommendation and held their own hearing October 21, 2015 and denied the City’s
request for the UGA boundary amendment. The denial was based primarily over
concerns related to airport safety zones and the approach to the Tri-Cities Airport
runway 12.
The County Commission denial of the UGA Boundary amendment failed to consider
the cooperative work between the City, County and Port on the development of the
Airport Master Plan and Airport Zoning regulations that were adopted in 2012 by both
the City and County. The new updates to the Airport Overlay Districts were intended to
address issues related to land use around the airport and to provide protection for the
approaches to the airport. The County Commissioner's ignored the protective benefits
afforded to the airport by newly adopted Compatibility Zones.
Page 16 of 120
The property owner has reapplied and is seeking to have the property in question
included within the City's UGA.
The attached staff memo to the Planning Commission provides additional background
and justification for including the property within the UGA.
Page 17 of 120
It
e
m
:
U
r
b
a
n
G
r
o
w
t
h
B
o
u
n
d
a
r
y
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
Ap
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
:
S
t
e
v
e
W
e
s
t
Fi
l
e
#
:
C
P
A
2
0
1
6
-
0
0
2
SI
T
E
Vi
c
i
n
i
t
y
Ma
p
Page 18 of 120
Page 1 of 3
RESOLUTION NO. ______________
A RESOLUTION DECLARING THE PREFERRED URBAN GROWTH
BOUNDARY FOR THE CITY OF PASCO.
WHEREAS, the City of Pasco and Franklin County are planning under the State
Growth Management Act (GMA) of 1990 as amended; and
WHEREAS, The GMA (RCW 36.70A.110) requires the establishment of Urban
Growth Areas (UGA); and
WHEREAS, the goals of the Growth Management Act related to UGA’s include:
i) Encouraging development of urban areas where adequate public facilities
and services exist or can be provided in an efficient manner;
ii) Reducing the inappropriate conversion of undeveloped land into sprawling
low-density development; and,
iii) Maintaining and enhancing natural resource-based industries, including
productive timber, agriculture, and fisheries industries; and
WHEREAS, each city located in Franklin County mus t be included within a UGA;
and
WHEREAS, UGA’s are to encompass lands within the City’s recognized utility
service area; and
WHEREAS, UGA’s may include portions of the County already characterized by
urban growth or adjacent to urban growth; and
WHEREAS, proposed UGA amendment site is located between the City limits
and the urbanized Clark Addition; and
WHEREAS, the proposed UGA amendment site is located within 100 feet of the
new Franklin Elementary School property at the corner of Road 52 and Burns Road; and
WHEREAS, designated UGA’s are to include enough undeveloped land to
adequately accommodate forecasted growth for a 20 year planning period; and
WHEREAS, forecasted growth is determined by population projections provided
by the State Office of Financial Management (OFM); and
WHEREAS, OFM projections indicate Pasco’s UGA population will increase by
54,385 for a total population of 124,945 during the next 20 year planning horizon; and,
Page 19 of 120
Page 2 of 3
WHEREAS, the OFM projected population will require about 3,400 acres of land.
The current UGA has about 2,400 acres of vacant land designated for residential
development; and
WHEREAS, About 20 percent of the vacant lands within the UGA designated for
residential development are encumbered with gravel mining operations and leases which
significantly reduces the available buildable lands; and
WHEREAS, On December 31, 2012 the Port of Pasco purchased 30 acres of land
in the Northwest Commons subdivision for a runway protection zone. This purchase
removed 30 acres of residential land from the UGA inventory; and
WHEREAS, the current UGA is about 1,400 acres short of what is needed to
accommodate project future growth; and
WHEREAS, the local market supply factor has been an issue in Pasco for several
years now. As available residential land inside the current UGA has diminished land
prices have risen impacting the cost of housing; and
WHEREAS, State and local housing goals encourage the provision of affordable
housing (RCW 36.70A.210(3)e and County Policy #6) within the community; and
WHEREAS, in the recent past utility providers and the City have completed
master plans, capital facility plans and or have actually constructed new utility facilities,
to accommodate future growth within the current and expanded UGA; and
WHEREAS, in 2012, at the request of the Port, the City and County adopted new
Airport zoning regulations to protect the airport from incompatible land uses. The
regulations meet Federal Aviation Administration standards specifically designed to
protect airports from incompatible uses. The regulations were also designed to protect
the air space around the airport consistent with Federal Aviation Administration
requirements; and
WHEREAS, the proposed UGA site is encumbered by Airport Use Zones
providing land use protection to the runway approach to runway 12 and airspace
surrounding the airport; and
WHEREAS, County Commissioner’s denial of this UGA Boundary amendment in
October of 2015 failed to consider the cooperative work between the City, County and
Port on the development of the Airport Master Plan and Airport Zoning regulations that
were adopted by both the City and County; and
WHEREAS, The Pasco City Council has reviewed and accepted the Planning
Commission recommendation; and
WHEREAS, the Pasco City Council has determined the Pasco Urban Growth
Area boundary must be expanded to permitted the City to properly plan for future growth
as required by the Growth Management Act; NOW THEREFORE
Page 20 of 120
Page 3 of 3
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASCO:
Section 1. That the boundaries identified in Exhibit “1” are the preferred
boundary lines for the Pasco Urban Growth Area.
Section 2. That this resolution be forwarded to Franklin County for its due
consideration of the City Council’s request for desired the UGA boundary as identified in
Exhibit “1”.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Pasco this 6th day of March 2017.
__________________________
Matt Watkins, Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_________________________ _____________________________
Sandy Kenworthy Leland B. Kerr, City Attorney
City Clerk
Page 21 of 120
Ex
h
i
b
i
t
#1
It
e
m
:
U
G
B
A
d
j
u
s
t
m
e
n
t
Ap
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
:
S
t
e
v
e
W
e
s
t
/
F
A
R
M
2
0
0
5
L
L
C
Fi
l
e
#
:
C
P
A
2
0
1
6
-
0
0
2
SI
T
E
16
0
Ac
r
e
s
Page 22 of 120
1
M E M O R A N D U M
DATE: November17, 2016
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Dave McDonald, City Planner
SUBJECT: Urban Growth Area Expansion (MF# CPA16-002) (Steve West)
Steve West the owner of 160 acres of land directly north of the City limits, has
applied for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment that would revise the Urban
Growth Area (UGA) to include 160 acres currently outside the Pasco UGA. The
property in question is located at the northeast corner of Road 52 and Power
Line Road (now Burns Road). The site is northeasterly of the new Rosalind
Franklin Elementary School and is located between the Clark Addition and the
new Madison Park subdivision. The Clark Addition is an area of the County
characterized by urban growth. The Clark Addition contains a community
water system, fire station and approximately 200 homes.
The Planning Commission considered this proposed amendment in 2014 and
forwarded a favorable recommendation to the City Council to include half the
applicant’s property within the UGA. The City Council passed a resolution
accepting the Planning Commission recommendation and requested the
County expand the boundary (By law only the County Commissioners can
change a UGA boundary). On May 5, 2015 the County Planning Commission
found:
The request was consistent with the requirements of RCW 36.70A. 110
for UGA boundaries;
The proposed UGA boundaries were consistent with County Wide
Planning Policies found in County Resolution 93-015;
The UGA boundary amendment was consistent with the public
participation requirements of RCW 36.70A;
The proposal did not have a materially detrimental impact on the
immediate vicinity;
There was merit and value in the proposal as a whole;
Conditions were not needed to mitigate any significant adverse impacts
from the proposal; and,
Page 23 of 120
2
No conditions or agreements were required between the City and County
for the proposed UGA expansion.
The County Commissioners held a hearing on the County Planning
recommendation on October 21, 2015 and denied the City’s request for the
UGA boundary amendment. The denial was based primarily over concerns
related to airport safety zones and the approach to the Tri-Cities Airport
runway 12.
One of the property owners has reapplied again seeking to obtain approval for a
UGA boundary modification.
The following provides the historical background on Urban Growth Areas and
may help with arriving at a recommendation on this request.
The 1990 Growth Management Act (GMA) required the establishment of Urban
Growth Areas (UGA’s) around urban centers throughout the State. Urban
Growth Areas have become a key component in managing urban growth within
Washington. Urban Growth Areas define the area in which a community is to
encourage higher density urban development and the area in which urban
services can be supported and promoted. Land located outside UGA’s are to be
reserved for the promotion of rural densities and functions. By directing growth
to UGA’s natural resource lands such as farmlands and forest lands can be
conserved and the character of rural areas can be maintained for future needs.
Pasco’s first Urban Growth Area was established in April of 1993 and has been
modified only four times since then. The designation of the Pasco UGA was not
only guided by the GMA Goals (see attachment #1), but also by the provisions
of RCW 36.70A.110 the most pertinent portions of which are as follows:
Each county that is required or chooses to plan under RCW
36.70A.040 shall designate an urban growth area or areas within
which urban growth shall be encouraged and outside of which
growth can occur only if it is not urban in nature.
Each city that is located in such a county shall be included within
an urban growth area.
An urban growth area may include territory located outside of a
city only if such territory already is characterized by urban growth
whether or not the urban growth area includes a city, or is
adjacent to territory already characterized by urban growth, or is a
designated new fully contained community as defined by RCW
36.70A.350.
Based upon the growth management population projection made
for the county by the Office of Financial Management, the county
Page 24 of 120
3
and each city within the county shall include areas and densities
sufficient to permit the urban growth that is projected to occur in
the county or city for the succeeding twenty-year period, except for
those urban growth areas contained totally within a National
Historical Reserve.
Each city must include areas sufficient to accommodate the broad
range of needs and uses that will accompany the projected urban
growth including, as appropriate, medical, governmental,
institutional, commercial, service, retail, and other non-residential
uses.
Each urban growth area shall permit urban densities and shall
include greenbelt and open space areas.
An urban growth area determination may include a reasonable
land market supply factor and shall permit a range of urban
densities and uses. In determining this market factor, cities and
counties may consider local circumstances.
Urban growth should be located first in areas already characterized
by urban growth that have adequate existing public facility and
service capacities to serve such development, second in areas
already characterized by urban growth that will be served
adequately by a combination of both existing public facilities and
services and any additional needed public facilities and services
that are provided by either public or private sources, and third in
the remaining portions of the urban growth areas. Urban growth
may also be located in designated new fully contained communities
as defined by RCW36.70A.350.
In general, cities are the units of local government most
appropriate to provide urban governmental services. In general, it
is not appropriate that urban governmental services be extended to
or expanded in rural areas except in those limited circumstances
shown to be necessary to protect basic public health and safety
and the environment and when such services are financially
supportable at rural densities and do not permit urban
development.
Based on State law, the Pasco UGA is to include all lands within the City and
may include lands outside the City if the lands are urban in nature or adjacent
to territory that is already characterized by urban growth like the Clark
Addition. Development within the UGA is to occur first on lands that currently
have adequate public facility and service capacities and secondly on lands that
will be served adequately in the future. The UGA needs to contain a sufficient
Page 25 of 120
4
amount of land to accommodate expected growth for the 20 year planning
horizon. The expected growth is determined by County wide population
projections prepared by the State Office of Financial Management (OFM). In
addition to the population projections the City must also consider land needs
for parks and open space, schools, retail businesses, offices, industrial
buildings and other land uses. In the determination for UGA land needs local
market supply factors may also be considered to ensure land prices are not
artificially raised resulting from constraints placed on the market due to
limited availability of lands within the UGA.
The sale for the Three Rivers West subdivision was about 30 percent higher
than comparable sales in the recent past and the sale of land for Sanderson
Estates Phase Two was even beyond that. The local market supply factor has
been an issue in Pasco for several years now. As available residential land has
been diminished due to development, land prices have risen. This is creating a
conflict with the State goal (RCW 36. 70A.210(3)e) and local County wide policy
(#6) dealing with the need to provide affordable housing within the County and
City.
Another condition impacting the market factor of available residential
properties within the UGA is the fact that in 2012 Port of Pasco purchased 34
acres within the Madison Park subdivision permanently removing 34 acres of
approved residential lots from the buildable lands inventory.
One of the purposes of establishing UGA’s is to preserve resource lands and
prevent them from being lost to urban development. The site in question is
currently being farmed but is not designated as farm land with long term
commercial significance. The land did not meet the test used by the County for
being classifying as prime farm land. The soils on this land are not considered
prime agricultural soils. The land is located between a rapidly growing City and
the already developed Clark Addition with 200 houses and a fire station. The
site is also across Road 52 and northeast of the new Rosalind Franklin
Elementary School and immediately adjacent to the Madison Park residential
subdivision. These factors all impact the long term viability of the site for
commercial agriculture in a negative way.
The population projections provided by the State Office of Financial
Management (OFM) for Pasco’s next 20 year planning horizon indicates Pasco’s
UGA population could be about 124,945 by 2038. Therefore an additional
54,385 people need to be accommodated within the Pasco UGA by 2038.
Based upon information in Appendix III (Urban Growth Area Expansion) of the
current Comprehensive Plan 3,404 acres (5.31 square miles) of land will be
needed to house 54,385 people. (To understand the scale of the additional
land needed, Pasco occupied 23.3 square miles in 1985 with a population of
18,700 people.) The additional 3,404 acres needed for the latest OFM
projection does not include any acreage for additional commercial and service
Page 26 of 120
5
activities. The UGA currently contains about 2,500 acres of vacant land
available for residential development. However, certain areas like the Adams
and Wilson properties south of Burns Road west of Broadmoor Boulevard will
be unavailable for development until the gravel mining leases have expired.
The City needs 900 to 1,400 acres added to the current UGA Boundary to
accommodate project growth. Mr. West is asking to have 160 acres included at
this time.
Population projections, land market factors, and preservation of resource lands
are not the only items to consider when determining the extent of the UGA.
Utility capacities should also be considered.
In 2010 a new water treatment plant was constructed on Court Street near
Road 111 to increase the City’s capacity to provide potable water to the
community. Construction of a new raw water intake structure and pump house
adjacent to the Richland Bridge will begin in January 2017 and will increase
the treatment capacity of the new plant. The main Butterfield water treatment
plant intake structure in the Columbia River was also rebuilt in 2015 to
improve raw water pumping capacity and meet current environmental
regulations.
Over the past several years upgrades have been completed at the wastewater
treatment plant to increase the City’s capacity to accommodate residential and
commercial growth. In 2014 the City completed a new Comprehensive Sewer
Plan that identifies near and long term sewer collection/treatment system
needs to accommodate increased population. The projects identified within the
Plan were added to the City’s Capital Improvement Plan and are systematically
being constructed to enhance the City’s sewer utility.
The Franklin County PUD and Big Bend Electric built a new substation north
of the Columbia Place subdivision (west of Road 68 north of Snoqualmie) in
2004. The PUD also enlarged and upgraded the Road 52 and Argent
substation last year to support future growth in the community. The PUD five
year capital plan calls for a new substation to be located north of Power Line
Road to the east of Convention Drive which will further add to the PUD’s
capacity to serve the community with power needs.
The County Commissioner’s previous denial of this UGA Boundary amendment
failed to consider the cooperative work between the City, County and Port on
the development of the Airport Master Plan and Airport Zoning regulations that
were adopted in 2012 by both the City and County. The new updates to the
Airport Overlay Districts were intended to address issues related to land use
around the airport and to provide protection for the approaches to the airport.
The key components to the regulations were to maintain compatible land uses
around the airport and protect airspace consistent with Federal Aviation
Administration regulations. The new zoning regulations place the UGA
Page 27 of 120
6
amendment area in Compatibility Zones 2 and 4. Thirty-two acres of the
property falls within Zone 2 which prohibits most land uses including
residential dwellings. Forty-one acres fall under Zone 4 and this zone limits
development of homes to one per half acre. The new Airport protection
standards apply to the property whether the property is in the City or County
and those standards are what the Federal Aviation Administration deems
necessary to protect airports. The adopted standards are also consistent with
RCW 14.12.030. The proposed UGA Boundary amendment cannot change the
Airport Zoning regulations that are in place to protect the airport.
Findings of Fact
The following are initial findings drawn from the background and analysis
section of the staff report. The Planning Commission may add additional
findings to this listing as the result of factual testimony and evidence
submitted during the public hearing.
1. The GMA (RCW 36.70A.110) requires the establishment of Urban
Growth Areas.
2. The goals of the Growth Management Act related to UGA’s include: i)
Encouraging development of urban areas where adequate public
facilities and services exist or can be provided in an efficient manner;
ii) Reducing the inappropriate conversion of undeveloped land into
sprawling low-density development; and, iii) Maintaining and enhance
natural resource based industries, including productive timber,
agriculture, and fisheries industries.
3. Each city located in Franklin County must be included within a UGA.
4. UGA’s are to encompass lands within the City’s recognized utility
service area.
5. UGA’s may include portions of the County already characterized by
urban growth or adjacent to urban growth.
6. The proposed UGA amendment is consistent with RCW 36.70A.110
7. The Planning Commission considered the proposed UGA amendment
in 2014 and forwarded a favorable recommendation to the City
Council to include a portion of the applicant’s property within the
UGA. The City Council passed a Resolution 3607 accepting the
Planning Commission recommendation and requesting the County
expand the UGA Boundary (By law only the County Commissioners
can change a UGA boundary).
Page 28 of 120
7
8. On May 5, 2015 the County Planning Commission held a hearing on
the City’s request for a UGA Boundary amendment and found:
The request was consistent with the requirements of RCW
36.70A. 110 for UGA boundaries;
The proposed UGA boundaries were consistent with County
Wide Planning Policies found in County Resolution 93-015;
The UGA boundary amendment was consistent with the
public participation requirements of RCW 36.70A;
The proposal did not have a materially detrimental impact on
the immediate vicinity;
There was merit and value in the proposal as a whole;
Conditions were not needed to mitigate any significant
adverse impacts from the proposal; and,
No conditions or agreements were required between the City
and County for the proposed UGA expansion.
9. The County Commissioner’s denial of this UGA Boundary amendment
in October of 2015 failed to consider the cooperative work between the
City, County and Port on the development of the Airport Master Plan
and Airport Zoning regulations that were adopted by both the City
and County.
10. In 2012, at the request of the Port, the City and County adopted new
Airport zoning regulations to protect the airport from incompatible
land uses. The regulations meet Federal Aviation Administration
standards specifically designed to protect airports from incompatible
uses. The regulations were also designed to protect the air space
around the airport consistent with Federal Aviation Administration
requirements.
11. Clark Addition to the north of the proposed UGA Boundary
amendment is characterized by urban growth causing the proposed
UGA amendment area to be located between the City limits, a new
school and new subdivisions and the urbanized Clark addition. Clark
Addition contains about 200 dwellings, a community water system, a
fire station and almost as many out buildings as houses.
12. Designated Urban Growth Areas are to include enough undeveloped
land to adequately accommodate forecasted growth for a 20 year
planning period.
13. Forecasted growth is determined by population projections provided
by the State Office of Financial Management (OFM).
Page 29 of 120
8
14. The OFM mid-range population projection for the County anticipates
Pasco will grow to over 124,000 people by 2038, a 54,385 increase
over the current 70,560 Pasco residents.
15. The additional population projected (54,385) by OFM will require
about 3,400 acres of land. The current UGA has about 2,400 acres of
vacant land designated for residential development.
16. About 20 percent of the vacant lands within the UGA designated for
residential development are encumbered with gravel mining
operations and leases which reduces the available buildable lands by
about 500 acres.
17. The current UGA is about 900 to 1,400 acres short of what is needed
to accommodate future growth projected by OFM.
18. The cost of residential subdivision land is about 30 percent higher
than it was previously. The local market supply factor has been an
issue in Pasco for several years now. As available residential land
inside the current UGA has diminished due to land development
prices have risen.
19. State and local housing goals encourage the provision of affordable
housing (RCW 36. 70A.210(3)e and County Policy # 6) within the
community. The current UGA boundaries are creating market
demand factors that increase the cost of housing inconsistent with
RCW 36.70A. 210(3)e.
20. In 2012 the Port of Pasco purchased 34 acres of land in the Madison
Park subdivision for a runway protection zone. This purchase
removed 34 prime acres of residential land from the UGA inventory.
The referenced 34 acres were part of an approved preliminary plat
that was ready development.
21. The proposed UGA amendment area does not meet the test used by
the County for being classifying as prime farm land. The soils on this
site are not considered prime agricultural soils. The land is also
located between a rapidly growing City and the already developed
Clark Addition with 200 houses and a fire station
22. In the past ten years the Franklin County PUD built one new
substation and completely rebuilt and significant expanded another to
ensure electrical needs will be met within the UGA. The five year
capital plan for the PUD calls for a another new substation to be
located north of Power Line Road to the east of Convention Drive
which will further add to the PUD’s capacity to serve the community
with power needs.
Page 30 of 120
9
23. In 2010 A new water treatment plant was constructed on Court Street
near Road 111 to increase the City’s capacity to provide potable water
to the community.
24. Construction of a new raw water intake structure and pump house
adjacent to the Richland Bridge will begin in January 2017 and will
increase the treatment capacity of the new plant.
25. The main Butterfield water treatment plant intake structure in the
Columbia River was also rebuilt in 2015 to improve raw water
pumping capacity and meet current environmental regulations.
26. Over the past several years upgrades have been completed at the
wastewater treatment plant to increase the City’s capacity to
accommodate residential and commercial growth.
27. In 2014 the City completed a new Comprehensive Sewer Plan that
identifies near and long term sewer collection/treatment system needs
to accommodate increased population. The projects identified within
the Plan were added to the City’s Capital Improvement Plan and are
systematically being constructed to enhance the City’s sewer utility.
28. The In 2012 at the request of the Port the City and County adopted
new Airport Zoning regulations to protect the airspace around the
airport and to maintain compatible land use near the airport.
29. The Airport Zoning regulations adopted in 2012 by both the City and
County are consistent with the requirements of the Federal Aviation
Administration deemed necessary to protect airports from
incompatible land uses.
30. The UGA Boundary amendment cannot change the adopt airport
protection regulations.
31. The proposed UGA amendment area falls partially under Airport
Protection Zones 2 and 4. The regulations contained in these zones
apply to the property regardless of the location of the UGA Boundary.
Page 31 of 120
10
Conclusions
Based on OFM population projections for Franklin County the City of Pasco
must plan for an additional population of about 54,385 by 2038.
The project population for the City will require about 3,400 acres of land for the
development of dwelling units.
Based on the OFM projections and needed lands for development the City no
longer has enough vacant land within the UGA to accommodate future growth
to the year 2038. An additional 900 to 1,400 acres of vacant land is need
within the Pasco UGA to accommodate project growth.
The community has been preparing for growth by increasing utility capacity
through planning, budgeting and construction. These efforts have positioned
the City to accommodate future growth.
The City and County have addressed concerns about protecting air space
around the airport by adopting new airport zoning regulations prepared by the
Port of Pasco for the City and County.
Including the property within the UGA boundary will help the community
address the need to accommodate future growth as project by OFM.
Recommendation
The Planning Commission has the option of recommending modification of the
UGA as per the applicant’s request or some variation thereof. Exhibits 1, 2 and
three provide the Planning Commission with some options to consider.
MOTION: I move to adopt findings of fact and conclusions
therefrom as contained in the November 17, 2016 staff report.
MOTION: I move based on the findings of fact and conclusions
therefrom, the Planning Commission recommend the Pasco Urban
Growth Boundary be amended per Exhibit #_______ attached to the staff
memo of November 17, 2016.
Page 32 of 120
It
e
m
:
U
r
b
a
n
G
r
o
w
t
h
B
o
u
n
d
a
r
y
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
Ap
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
:
S
t
e
v
e
W
e
s
t
Fi
l
e
#
:
C
P
A
2
0
1
6
-
0
0
2
SI
T
E
Vi
c
i
n
i
t
y
Ma
p
Page 33 of 120
ROAD 60
C
O
N
V
E
N
T
I
O
N
D
R
R
O
A
D
5
2
B U R N S R O A D
It
e
m
:
U
r
b
a
n
G
r
o
w
t
h
B
o
u
n
d
a
r
y
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
Ap
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
:
S
t
e
v
e
W
e
s
t
Fi
l
e
#
:
C
P
A
2
0
1
6
-
0
0
2
SI
T
E
L
a
n
d
U
s
e
M
a
p
Fa
r
m
i
n
g
(
C
o
u
n
t
y
)
SF
D
U
s
(
C
o
u
n
t
y
)
SF
D
U
s
Sc
h
o
o
l
Fa
r
m
i
n
g
SF
D
U
s
Va
c
a
n
tVacant
(
C
o
u
n
t
y
)
SF
D
U
s
(C
o
u
n
t
y
)
Page 34 of 120
ROAD 60
C
O
N
V
E
N
T
I
O
N
D
R
R
O
A
D
5
2
B U R N S R O A D
It
e
m
:
U
r
b
a
n
G
r
o
w
t
h
B
o
u
n
d
a
r
y
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
Ap
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
:
S
t
e
v
e
W
e
s
t
Fi
l
e
#
:
C
P
A
2
0
1
6
-
0
0
2
SI
T
E
Z
o
n
i
n
g
M
a
p
AP
-
2
0
(
C
o
u
n
t
y
)
RR
-
1
(C
o
u
n
t
y
)
AP-20 (County)RT
RS
-
1
/
P
U
D
R-
1
RS
-
2
0
(C
o
u
n
t
y
)
Page 35 of 120
AIRPORT SAFETY COMPATIBILITY ZON
E
S
FUTURE 1850 FEET EXTENSIONZONE COLORZONE #FARM 2005 L
L
C
ACREAGE.#5672'& (+.' 6%#A4Y[A5JGGV>>UNEHKNGU>RWDNKE>2TQLGEVU>,7$>#KTRQTV>2QTVQH2CUEQ>Ä6%#)GPGTCN>Ä4WPYC[.CPF#ESWKUKVKQPCETGU>%#&>'ZJKDKVU>6%#A4Y[A5JGGVFYIJ-U-B ENGINEERS, INC.
5
0
0
0
1
,
0
0
0
S
C
A
L
E
I
N
F
E
E
T
LEGEND.#5672'& (+.' 6%#A4Y[A5JGGV>>UNEHKNGU>RWDNKE>2TQLGEVU>,7$>#KTRQTV>2QTVQH2CUEQ>Ä6%#)GPGTCN>Ä4WPYC[.CPF#ESWKUKVKQPCETGU>%#&>'ZJKDKVU>6%#A4Y[A5JGGVFYIJ-U-B ENGINEERS, INC.
T
R
I
-
C
I
T
I
E
S
A
I
R
P
O
R
T
-
R
U
N
W
A
Y
1
2
E
N
D
P
R
O
P
E
R
T
Y
A
C
Q
U
I
S
I
T
I
O
N
I
M
P
A
C
T
S
S
H
E
E
T
:
1
Page 36 of 120
AI
R
P
O
R
T
S
A
F
E
T
Y
C
O
M
P
A
T
I
B
I
L
I
T
Y
Z
O
N
E
S
FU
T
U
R
E
1
8
5
0
F
E
E
T
E
X
T
E
N
S
I
O
N
ZO
N
E
C
O
L
O
R
Z
O
N
E
#
FA
R
M
2
0
0
5
L
L
C
AC
R
E
A
G
E
J-
U
-
B
E
N
G
I
N
E
E
R
S
,
I
N
C
.
500 0 1,000 SCALE IN FEET
LE
G
E
N
D
J-
U
-
B
E
N
G
I
N
E
E
R
S
,
I
N
C
.
TR
I
-
C
I
T
I
E
S
A
I
R
P
O
R
T
-
R
U
N
W
A
Y
1
2
E
N
D
PR
O
P
E
R
T
Y
A
C
Q
U
I
S
I
T
I
O
N
I
M
P
A
C
T
S
SHEET:1
Page 37 of 120
AI
R
P
O
R
T
S
A
F
E
T
Y
C
O
M
P
A
T
I
B
I
L
I
T
Y
Z
O
N
E
S
FU
T
U
R
E
1
8
5
0
F
E
E
T
E
X
T
E
N
S
I
O
N
ZO
N
E
C
O
L
O
R
Z
O
N
E
#
FA
R
M
2
0
0
5
L
L
C
AC
R
E
A
G
E
J-
U
-
B
E
N
G
I
N
E
E
R
S
,
I
N
C
.
500 0 1,000 SCALE IN FEET
LE
G
E
N
D
J-
U
-
B
E
N
G
I
N
E
E
R
S
,
I
N
C
.
TR
I
-
C
I
T
I
E
S
A
I
R
P
O
R
T
-
R
U
N
W
A
Y
1
2
E
N
D
PR
O
P
E
R
T
Y
A
C
Q
U
I
S
I
T
I
O
N
I
M
P
A
C
T
S
SHEET:1
Page 38 of 120
AI
R
P
O
R
T
S
A
F
E
T
Y
C
O
M
P
A
T
I
B
I
L
I
T
Y
Z
O
N
E
S
FU
T
U
R
E
1
8
5
0
F
E
E
T
E
X
T
E
N
S
I
O
N
ZO
N
E
C
O
L
O
R
Z
O
N
E
#
FA
R
M
2
0
0
5
L
L
C
AC
R
E
A
G
E
J-
U
-
B
E
N
G
I
N
E
E
R
S
,
I
N
C
.
500 0 1,000 SCALE IN FEET
LE
G
E
N
D
J-
U
-
B
E
N
G
I
N
E
E
R
S
,
I
N
C
.
TR
I
-
C
I
T
I
E
S
A
I
R
P
O
R
T
-
R
U
N
W
A
Y
1
2
E
N
D
PR
O
P
E
R
T
Y
A
C
Q
U
I
S
I
T
I
O
N
I
M
P
A
C
T
S
SHEET:1
Page 39 of 120
AI
R
P
O
R
T
S
A
F
E
T
Y
C
O
M
P
A
T
I
B
I
L
I
T
Y
Z
O
N
E
S
FU
T
U
R
E
1
8
5
0
F
E
E
T
E
X
T
E
N
S
I
O
N
ZO
N
E
C
O
L
O
R
Z
O
N
E
#
FA
R
M
2
0
0
5
L
L
C
AC
R
E
A
G
E
J-
U
-
B
E
N
G
I
N
E
E
R
S
,
I
N
C
.
500 0 1,000 SCALE IN FEET
LE
G
E
N
D
J-
U
-
B
E
N
G
I
N
E
E
R
S
,
I
N
C
.
TR
I
-
C
I
T
I
E
S
A
I
R
P
O
R
T
-
R
U
N
W
A
Y
1
2
E
N
D
PR
O
P
E
R
T
Y
A
C
Q
U
I
S
I
T
I
O
N
I
M
P
A
C
T
S
SHEET:1
Page 40 of 120
Lo
o
k
i
n
g
N
o
r
t
h
Page 41 of 120
Lo
o
k
i
n
g
E
a
s
t
Page 42 of 120
Lo
o
k
i
n
g
S
o
u
t
h
Page 43 of 120
Lo
o
k
i
n
g
W
e
s
t
Page 44 of 120
Vi
e
w
o
f
E
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
r
y
S
c
h
o
o
l
Page 45 of 120
Planning Commission Minutes
10/20/16
C. Comp. Plan Amendment: Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan (West)
(MF# CPA 2016-002)
Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff.
Dave McDonald, City Planner, discussed the amendment to the Comprehensive Plan
for the West property. This item came before the Planning Commission in 2014 and
involves the modification of the urban growth boundary by including an additional
160 acres directly north of the Madison Park Subdivision. The Planning Commission
excluded the north half of the property but ended up with 70-80 acres. The
recommendation went to the City Council and City Council passed a resolution
granting the modification to the urban growth boundary. That configuration was sent
to the County and was modified again slightly by the County Planning Commission.
The County Commissioners then denied the proposed boundary change. This process
took a year and was completed in 2015. The property owners have again applied to
include the entire 160 acres to be included in the urban growth boundary. One of the
factors that have changed since the original application is the fact that there are
updated population projections from the Office of Fin ancial Management (OFM). OFM
is indicating the population for Pasco next could grow to 124,000 in the 20 years.
Today we are about 54,000 people short of that number so the urban growth
boundary needs to accommodate that projected growth. There needs to be additional
land for houses, parks schools and commercial development. Staff reviewed the
existing open land available for residential development inside the urban growth
boundary which is roughly 2,400-2,500 acres. A portion of that acreage is under
gravel contracts with American Rock (formerly Central Pre -Mix) so a portion of that
residential land cannot be used. The City of Pasco will need another 900 -1,400 acres
to accommodate future growth. Mr. West and his partners are only asking to bring
160 acres into the urban growth boundary. Population projections need to be
considered along with utility capacities. Mr. McDonald discussed utility plans in
regards to sewer plan, water plan and Franklin PUD. Another concern that the Growth
Management Act has is the preservation of farm land. This land is currently being
farmed but according to the County Comprehensive Plan this is not an area that has
long term commercial significance for farming; the soils don’t meet the specifications
for prime farmland designations. It is also against city limits and up against the Clark
Addition. This site is wedged between an urban area with a water system and a fire
station and new elementary school. One of the concerns brought up with the last
application had to do with the airport and the new airport protection zones. The City
of Pasco and Franklin County participated with the Port of Pasco in development of a
new airport master plan. New zoning regulations were adopted by the City and County
to support the plan. In this area there are two airport protection zones; Protection
Zone 2 where no homes can be built and Protection Zone 4 which allows 1 home for
every ½ acre. Those zones are to protect the airspace. Those zones removed a lot of
buildable acreage in the city limits. The staff report included findings of fact. Mr.
McDonald also discussed a letter submitted by an attorney represents the property
owners asking for a continuance of the public hearing to the November meeting.
Page 46 of 120
Commissioner Portugal asked for clarification as to the location of the proposed 160
acres to be included in the urban growth boundary.
Mr. McDonald indicated on the map the location of the property.
Commissioner Bowers asked about the airport protection zones that would not allow
develop on parts of the 160 acres, yet the applicant would still like to be included in
the urban growth boundary.
Mr. McDonald indicated on the map the 32 acres that could not be developed;
however, the rest of the 160 acres could be developed.
Chairman Cruz reminded the Commission that there was previous discussion on the
first time this application was presented. There will be a balance of lower density to
higher density and interesting streets.
Mr. McDonald added that either side of Protection Zone 2 can be developed. He went
on to discuss why this property meets the priorities to be include d in the urban
growth boundary.
Commissioner Portugal asked if this application will have to go to the County.
Mr. McDonald responded that it will. The Growth Management Act it doesn't give the
City the authority to enact its own urban growth boundary. The City can request and
recommend but the County is the official body that establishes the urban growth
boundary.
Mark Watson, 230 S. 2nd Street, Yakima, spoke on behalf of this item. He stated that
he was an attorney for the applicant and was filling in for Mr. Carmody, the attorney
who wrote the letter requesting the hearing be continued.
Tom Kidwell, 4320 Rivherhaven, spoke on behalf of the applicants for this property.
He stated that as the land surrounding this property is developing it seemed as
though they should try again to include this into the urban growth boundary as it will
match the character of the surrounding area. He's even had interest for the property
that can only have 1 house for every 12/acre.
Erik Weinheimer, 2220 SLI Road, Sunnyside, WA spoke on behalf of this application.
He feels all of the concerns have been addressed and thi s amendment should go
forward.
Ron Foraker, Manager of the Tri-Cities Airport, spoke on behalf of this application. He
stated they had a Port of Pasco Commissioners meeting and spent a lot of time
discussing this application. He stressed the importance of the approaches to the
runway for the airport. They have 4 approaches and this is the only approach in which
the runway could be extended. He said it was important to look at the needs for the
next 20-40 years for the area. In that time, more than likely, they will need to extend
that runway. He asked the Commission to keep the expansion a priority as this airport
serves over a million people in the area, not just the Tri-Cities. He read a letter into the
record that was prepared after the Port of Pasco Commissioners meeting.
Commissioner Lukins stated that he wasn't on the Commission when this came
forward in 2014 but asked if this came to the Planning Commission in 2010.
Mr. McDonald stated it did but the airport overlay didn't exist then. It was denied due
to sewer capacity at that time. The sewer issues have been addressed. He then
addressed some of the concerns that were read by Mr. Foraker of the County
Page 47 of 120
Commissioners findings of fact.
Commissioner Lukins moved, seconded by Commissioner Greenaway, to continue the
hearing to the November 17, 2016 meeting. The motion passed unanimously.
Page 48 of 120
Planning Commission Minutes
11/17/16
A. Comp Plan Amendment: Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan (West)
(MF# CPA 2016-002) Continued from 10/20/16
Chairwoman Roach read the master file number and asked for comments from staff.
Dave McDonald, City Planner, explained the application involved 160 acres at the
northeast corner of Rd 52 and Burns Rd. A hearing was continued from last month at
the request of the applicant.
Mr. McDonald explained the Growth Management Act, allows cities to apply a “market
factor” for UGA boundaries to ensure boundaries do not cause property sales to rise.
That is currently happening in Pasco because there are so few properties left within
the UGA. The Department of Natural Resources auction recently brought in $42,000-
$45,000 an acre for the DNR land. This illustrates there is need for expanding the
boundary based on the market factor. There is also justification to expand the
boundary based on population projections. The Department of Financial Management
estimates Pasco will need to do accommodate another 54,385 people in the next 20
years. To do that, there will need to be more land – anywhere from 900-1,400 acres.
Staff also indicated the City and utility providers have been planning for additional
growth through facility expansion. The PUD has added substations and the City has
updated Water and Sewer Plans. At the previous hearing significant discussion
centered on airport approach zones and the need to protect the airport. That
information was in the Planning Commission memo.
Mr. McDonald discussed various options to be considered and stated the applicant’s
letter addressing airport concerns was attached to the memo.
Commissioner Portugal asked for clarification if the County was a part of the process.
Mr. McDonald stated yes and explained the process.
Commissioner Polk asked if the area north is being considered for housing in the
County.
Mr. McDonald stated yes, it is the Clark Addition.
Commissioner Polk asked if there were any building height restrictions in the Clark
Addition.
Mr. McDonald responded he believes the height restriction to be 30’ in those areas.
Chairwoman Roach asked if that was a concern for building residential.
Page 49 of 120
Mr. McDonald answered that a typical two-story house is 24’-25’. At 30’ a two-story
home could still be built.
Commissioner Mendez asked if Option 1 was the most intrusive on the protective area
and Option 4 being the least intrusive.
Mr. McDonald stated that was correct.
Chairwoman Roach asked if only 75-80 acres of the 160 acres, could be built on.
Mr. McDonald said that was correct.
Chairwoman Roach asked about the portion of land south of the interstate auctioned
off by the Department of Natural Resources, if it helped the City offset the needs for
acreage.
Mr. McDonald said no, that land was already in the UGA.
Chairwoman Roach asked what the projected population would be of the 75-80 acres
if incorporated into the urban growth boundary.
Mr. McDonald said typically Pasco’s household population averages 3.3 individuals.
Commissioner Bykonon asked in staff’s opinion, how the different options on the
urban growth boundary affect the future potential annexations.
Mr. McDonald responded the shaped would have no effect.
Commissioner Bykonnen clarified that she was referring to the Clark Addition, if they
wanted to be annexed to the city.
Mr. McDonald stated that the Clark Addition wouldn’t be able to annex until they were
within the urban growth boundary.
James Carmody, 230 S. 2nd Street, Yakima, WA, spoke on behalf of the applicant as
the attorney. He stated they were requesting Option 1. He stated the staff report was
exceptional, detailed, accurate and consistent with the growth management
requirements. He briefly discussed the market factor and need for additional acreage
as projected by the OFM. He also addressed the airport concerns stating the
regulations are already in place to protect the airport and to alter the request
boundary to match the airport zones would be to disregard the adopted regulations.
There is no legal or policy basis to disregard the regulations.
Chairwoman Roach stated that she didn’t see four options in the staff report, only four
photos as exhibits.
Page 50 of 120
Mr. McDonald clarified Exhibits 1, 2, 3 or 4 are the options. He stated it would make
the most sense to have a neat, square boundary He added that condition #28 was
similar to #10 so when making the motion, it should be less condition #28.
Chairwoman Roach read condition #28 outload for the audience and Commissioners.
Ron Foracker, 3601 N. 20th Avenue, Manager of Tri-Cities Airport, spoke on behalf of
the Port of Pasco. With him was Spencer Montgomery of JUB Engineers. He
addressed the comments made by the applicant’s attorney.
Spencer Montgomery, 2810 W. Clearwater Avenue, stated he worked with the Port,
City and County in amending the overlay zones. Prior to that process, the County
ordinance and City ordinance were identical. Through the update process the
ordinances were identical until the end when minor differences occurred. He briefly
discussed those differences. Zone 4 has different zoning in the County. If the property
were to remain in the County there would only be 8 homes. If it’s brought into the
UGA and the City, there could be 80 homes. He stressed this neighborhood would be
off the end of a runway. He presented an option to stay out of Zone 2 and 4. He
added that when this item went forward a couple of years ago, the Department of
Commerce asked that this application be considered in the larger context of the
Comprehensive Plan Update in 2018.
Commissioner Bykonen asked if there was anything that would preclude the County
from increasing the density if they went through a Comprehensive Plan Update to
change to a higher density.
Mr. McDonald answered that they would have to change the zoning but the limiting
factor out in the County is the lack of sewer.
Chairwoman Roach asked what would be the first choice option for the airport.
Mr. Foracker answered they would like to keep all of that property out of the urban
growth boundary.
Chairwoman Roach asked how far they project the runway extending and if it would
be reasonable for the airport to purchase land further out.
Mr. Foreaker responded that it would come out 1,800 feet. In order to do that the
approach needs to be clear so they would have to remove part of the hillside on
property already owned by the airport.
Chairwoman Roach asked for clarification on Zone 4 and if it is where zero homes
could be built.
Mr. Montgomery answered that Zone 2 is where no residential homes could be built.
Zone 4 is 2 residences or lots per acre.
Page 51 of 120
Mr. Carmody addressed the comments from Mr. Foracker. He reiterated that the City
passed zoning ordinances and compatibility standards for urban level development
and the Port agreed with it. They also made a distinction between the County zoning
and City zoning. There is a reason for the difference under growth management you
can’t provide urban services outside of a growth area. So areas of the County are
going to be less dense because they can’t have the same services as the City. In order
to provide those services sufficiently and economically the density must increase.
Another thing the compatibility standards require an Avigation Easement; it requires
people who live there to acknowledge that they are within the airport flight areas, that
there will be noise and inconveniences.
With no further comments the public hearing closed.
Chairwoman Roach asked if Zone 4 could be kept to the County guidelines if they
voted to bring in the entire 160 acres.
Mr. McDonald said no, Zone 4 is 2 units per acre in the City.
Chairwoman Roach stated that in 2014 the Planning Commission approved this item
and sent it to the City Council where it was approved and sent to the County where it
was rejected.
Chairwoman Greenaway stated that she would keep it out of the urban growth
boundary because the airport eventually will bring the runway out. If it is brought
into the City there will still be areas where they cannot develop so it would be difficult
for installing utilities and the cost to bring utilities to that area would be high for land
unused.
Chairwoman Roach agreed that she would like to see it undeveloped for the airport
but she also feels it is unjust to the land owner who would like to do something with
that property and she didn’t want to see it rendered useless.
Commissioner Greenaway responded that it’s not useless. The land is in the County
and homes could still be developed.
Commissioner Roach added that then it would not serve the City.
Commissioner Greenaway responded that anything done on this property would not
serve the City well.
Commissioner Portugal asked what the advantage is for the City for this property to be
included in the urban growth boundary.
Mr. McDonald replied that there are a couple of things that bringing this property into
the urban growth boundary could do for the City. The City is required to have an
Page 52 of 120
urban growth boundary of sufficient size to meet the population projections that the
OFM has provided. Right now there isn’t enough room as the City needs 900-1,400
more acres. Also, as experienced with the sale of the DNR property, the urban growth
boundary is creating an artificial restriction on land, driving the cost of land up. The
attorney for the applicant mentioned the concern over affordable housing, which is
one of the goals of the growth management act, to provide affordable housing for
residents of the State. Bringing this in would help meet the needs for future growth
and to fulfil the obligation to provide for the projecte d 54,000 individuals.
Commissioner Polk added that if these houses would be added to the City they would
pay school impact fees but not if they are in the County.
Mr. McDonald stated that is correct as the County does not have a mechanism to
obtain those fees. In the City they would be paying school impact fees, park impact
fees and a traffic impact fee.
Commissioner Polk also added that it appears that the airport will be expanding but it
seems unfair to put limitations on properties that people currently own.
Chairwoman Roach was in agreement with Commissioner Polk and stated that the
City could use the additional 75-80 acres of residential development.
Commissioner Greenaway stated that she didn’t want it included into the City at all.
She is not willing to put people’s lives at risk.
Commissioner Polk responded that the land use already has limitations to ensure
safety. She also discussed other areas that were already developed in those zones and
felt if they were that dangerous it could exist.
Commissioner Greenaway discussed property the airport had to purchase due to
safety as well as airports in other cities that have had to relocate their airport for
safety reasons.
Chairwoman Roach stated that she shared Commissioner Greenaway’s concern for
safety but there are more car accidents than plane crashes.
Commissioner Bykonen agreed that expansion of the airport is a long ways off and it
may never happen. There is an overlay in place that restricts the number of homes
that could be built in a certain area so it would be protected. She is not in favor of
irregular boundaries and this is just the first step, including in the urban growth area.
After this an annexation would still have to occur along with zoning and platting. She
was in favor of Option 1.
Commissioner Mendez stated that there needs to be a balance of the property owner’s
rights and accommodate the needs of the expanding population and safety. He felt
that Option 4 was a good compromise.
Page 53 of 120
Commissioner Portugal stated that he was in favor of Option 4 but would like to take a
section out that was discussed by the Port of Pasco, so he wanted Option 5 which was
the same as Option 4 with the northwest section left out.
Chairwoman Roach stated that she is in favor of Option 1.
Commissioner Polk stated that she was in favor Option 1.
Commissioner Greenaway said that she was not in favor of any of the options and
pointed out that even Option 1 would not be an e ven line.
Commissioner Polk moved, seconded by Commissioner Bykonen, to adopt findings of
fact and conclusions therefrom as contained in the November 17, 2016 staff report,
exempting condition #28. The motion passed 5 to1 with Commissioner Greenaway
dissenting.
Commissioner Polk moved, seconded by Commissioner Bykonen, based on the
findings of fact and conclusions therefrom the Planning Commission recommend the
Pasco Urban Growth Boundary be amended per Exhibit # 1 attached to the staff
memo of November 17, 2016. The motion failed with Commissioner Portugal,
Commissioner Greenaway and Commissioner Mendez dissenting thus a tie vote.
Mr. McDonald stated that this item will go to City Council and they will have the
option of taking a look at the split vote or move it forward and approve it themselves
with one of the options and send it to the County.
Chairwoman Roach added that Council could look at Option 1 or Option 4 with an
amendment to the northwest corner of the property.
Commissioner Portugal asked to make another motion.
Commissioner Portugal moved, seconded by Commissioner Mendez, based on the
findings of fact and conclusions therefrom the Planning Commission recommend the
Pasco Urban Growth Boundary be amended per Exhibit #4 attached to the staff memo
of November 17, 2016. The motion failed with Chairwoman Roach, Commissioner
Polk and Commissioner Greenaway dissenting.
Mr. McDonald explained if the Planning Commission needed additional information it
could be provided at the next meeting and at that point a recommendation could be
made to Council.
Commissioner Polk asked if it was possible for City Council to send the
recommendation back to the Planning Commission for further review and another
recommendation.
Mr. McDonald responded it was possible.
Page 54 of 120
Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director, stated there could be
another Exhibit, Exhibit 5, added as an option to consider.
Chairwoman Roach asked what the motion would then be changed to.
Mr. White stated the motion would be to continue the deliberations to the next
meeting, although not the public hearing since it has been closed.
Commissioner Portugal moved, seconded by Commissioner Mendez, to continue
deliberations to the December 15, 2016 meeting. The motion passed 5 to 1 with
Commissioner Greenaway dissenting.
Page 55 of 120
Planning Commission Minutes
12/21/16
A. Comp Plan Amendment: Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan (West)
(MF# CPA 2016-002) (Continued from 11/17/16)
Chairwoman Roach read the master file number and asked for comments from staff.
Dave McDonald, City Planner, discussed the proposed amendment to the
Comprehensive Plan. He explained that the public hearing was closed at the previous
meeting but the item was continued for further discussion by the Commission. As a
result of the public hearings, staff made some modifications to the staff report. A
paragraph was added under the “Environmental Determination” section relating to the
Port of Pasco’s request for the Planning Commission to modify the applicant’s urban
growth boundary amendment to exclude Zones 2 & 4 of the Airport Safety Zones but
to do that that the Commission would be disregarding the code presently in place to
protect the airport. If the Planning Commission decides not to recommend bringing
the property into the UGA they will need additional findings of fact to support their
decision. Denying the application would shift the public burden of additional airport
protections onto the two property owners making it more difficult for them to develop
or use their property. After consultation with the City Attorney, there are two options
the Planning Commission could consider; accept the application for the amendment as
proposed by the applicant or recommend that none of the area be brought into the
urban growth boundary. To do the latter, the Planning Commission would have to
develop additional findings of fact to justify why it shouldn’t be brought in. Given
changes in the community and the new population estimate, it would be difficult to
come up with findings that would lead to a recommendation not to accept any of the
160 acres. Staff also added an Exhibit based on discussion at the previous hearing.
The City Council adopted the Airport Overlay Zones at the urging of the Port of Pasco
and those overlay zones were specifically designed to protect the integrity of the airport
and the airspace around the airport. Adding to the overlay zones by excluding this
area from the urban growth boundary doesn’t change anything – whether they are in
the boundary or not the regulations still provide protection to the airport. It does,
however, shift a public burden to the property owners if the area should not be
included in the boundary. Staff recommended Exhibit 1, bringing the entire property
into the UGA.
Commissioner Lukins moved, seconded by Commissioner Polk, to adopt findings of
fact and conclusions therefrom as contained in the November 17, 2016 staff report.
The motion passed 5 to 2 with Commissioner Greenaway and Commissioner Mendez
dissenting.
Commissioner Lukins moved, seconded by Commissioner Polk, based on the findings
of fact and conclusions therefrom, the Planning Commission recommend the Pasco
Urban Growth Boundary be amended per Exhibit #1 attached to the staff memo of
December 15, 2016. The motion passed 5 to 2 with Commissioner Greenaway and
Commissioner Mendez dissenting.
Page 56 of 120
|)|{NN|Sl.|'|.ll|.('i(i|-I
|{()ll|.R|'('IIINNI-ZY
l\/l/\l{K 1).\-\’/\'|SON‘
.ll-IR(')l\II|-f R.AlKliN*
.lt')|IN A.MAX Wl-Il.|..JR.
Pl-I'l'|iR M.Rl'l"C'l'l|l3**
*.-l/.\‘0tl£/IIllI/E’(/in Oregan
*“.-l/.m mirmueil in l'ir‘gi/tiu
November 10,20l 6
'|'Hl-‘|.A\\7 0|-‘I-‘tL"t-:8 ()|~
MEYER,FLUEGGE &TENNEY,PS.
330 South Second Street
PO.Box 22680
Yaltiina.Washington 98907-2680
.l*\l\’ll'i5 t‘(‘,r'\Rl\il()l)\‘
***ti/\RY oil..\lt)
l,Ul\'|-i .|-../\|()N
SI:/\N M xvom I Y
Itlilll/\.\\'|-l|RK.v'\l\/ll’
W o/'<m.,..i~i-/
carmody?binttlawxcotn
Dave I,McDonald.Planning Commission Secretary
City of Paseo Planning Commission
Community &Economic Development
P.O.Box 293
Pasco.WA 9930
tt1.L;<lstd’>v
Re:Steve West (Farm 2005,LLC)
MF#CPA 2016-002
Dear Mr.McDonald:
We represent Steve West and Farm 2005 (“Applicant"or "Farm 2005")with respect to the application to
amend the City of Pasco‘s Urban Growth Boundary (MG#CPA 2016-002).This letter is submitted as
supplemental comment with respect to written comment provided by Tri—CitiesAirport,Port of Pasco
("‘Port")dated October 20.2016.Afr:/c'}1menI /1.This letter supplements prior submissions and testimony
and also reserves the allowed comment to be provided at the Planning Commission Hearing on November
17.2016.‘
Project Application and Airport Objection.
Applicant is the owner ol‘160 acres ofland situated directly north ol‘the Pasco city limits.The property is
located at the northeast corner ol'Road 52 and Powe1'line Road (now Burns Road)?Applicant has proposed
an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan which would revise the Urban Growth Area (UGA)to include
the subject 160 acres.A portion otthe property is subject to the airport overlay zone and Airport Zoning.
There is no change proposed with respect to those rules and regulations.Planning Commission and City
'I want to thank the Planning Commission Forextending the courtesy otitiirther comment based upon my personal
circumstancesaround October 20.2016.The passing otimy father was dil'l'icu|t and the consideration of the Planning
Commission is very much appreciated by both me and my family.
3 The details ofproperty location.adjacent development and applicable zoning standards are set Forthin both the application
and Staft'Report.Planning Commission has received testimony on this application as well as a prior application for a similar
amendment to the Urban Growth Area (UGA).Those materials are in the tile and will not be set forth again in this
C0|'I'€SpOl'l(l3|1C@.
Telephone 509-575-8500 0 Fax 509-575-4676 0 www.mt‘tlaw.com
Page 57 of 120
Dave I.McDonald,Planning Commission Secretary
November I0.2016
Page 2
Council previously supported a similar application and passed resolutions requesting expansions of the
Urban Growth Area Boundary.The recommendation was ultimately denied by the Franklin County
Commissioners with such denial "...based primarily ovcr concerns related to airport safety zones and the
approach to the Tri—CitiesAirport runway 12."The grounds for denial were arbitrary and inconsistent with
applicable law.
A significant consideration with respect to the current application is the impact of the Airport Safety
Overlay zoning developed through the collective and cooperative elTortsofthe City.County and Port.The
“Airport 7.oning"was adopted by each of thejurisdictions with the following stated purpose as follows:
The purpose of the uirporl overlay clislricl is to protect the viability of the
Tri»Cities Airport as a significant resource to the community by
encouraging compatible land uses,densities and reducing hazards that may
endanger the lives and property ofthc public and aviation users.
FCC /7.76.010.The adopted airport overlay district set forth speci?c development standards.conditions
and restrictions depending on the location of the property and proximity to the airport.Applicants
property would be subject to all of the adopted regulations designed to encourage compatible land use.
Applicant has proposed no variances or adjustments to those standards and regulations.
The proposed expansion area totals 160 acres.There are two (2)areas which are subject to the airport
safety overlay:(l)approximately 32.00 acres which are within Zone 2;and (2)approximately 40.78
acres which are within Zone 4.The remaining portions of the property are outside of designated airport
safety overlay areas.3The Airport Overlay District zoning regulations were adopted in accordance with
a public process which included reference to the Tri—citiesAirport Master Plan;National Transportation
Safety Board (NTSB)and the Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR)Part 77 Imaginary Surfaces;and the
"Airport and Compatibility Land Use guidelines published by the Washington State Department of
Transportation Aviation Division.The regulations were further adopted in accordance with the Growth
Management Act and the provision OTRCW 36.70547.The regulations were adopted through a public
process and implemented withorrt appeal.The adopted regulations constitute the law as it relates to land
use compatibility and zoning of the proposed area.
‘The areas are designated on maps contained in both the Application and Staff Report.Zone 2 is tnost proxirnate to the
airport and subject to the most severe use restrictions.FCC |7.76.000 speci?c use restrictions "...in order to promote the
general safety and general welfare ofproperties surrounding the airport and the continued viability ofarrport."Zone 2
restrictions prohibit places of public assembly and limit residential development to four dwelling units per twenty (20)ac'*s.
Zone 4 is less restrictive with residential density limited to the RS-20 developmentstandards PMC 25.8l.090 (Airport Safety
Compatibility Zones).Property development within Zone 4 also requires a disclosure statement on plats.short plats and
binding site plans.
Page 58 of 120
Dave I.McDonald.Planning Commission Secretary
November I0.2016
Page 3
Tri-Cities Airport asks the Planning Commission to disregard the adopted regulations and arbitraril_\
prohibit any Lise within Zones 2 and 4.The objection is summarized as follows:
However.if the City chooses to move liorward.the Port strongly opposes
bringing either Zone 2 or Zone 4 into the City for the reason stated above
and the higher development densities that would be allowed under the
approach to the airport.To reduce the future likelihood ot‘UGA expansion
requests that include [one 4 to the northwest.we believe that an appropriate
message to property owners would be sent ifthe UGA were expanded along
a diagonal line on the boundary of Zones 2 and 4 on the southwest side of
the airport approach.
7i‘/—('i/iex /li/‘pr)rI /c//er »3.Tri—CitiesAirport requests.in effect.that the Planning Commission disregard
applicable development regulations and rules with respect to Zones 2 and 4.There is no legal or policy
basis for disregarding such rules.
The application must be considered in the context oliexisting and adopted rules and regulations.Applicant
is prepared to comply with all such rules and regulations and this is not the process in which to change or
modify those rules and regulations.
Response to Specific Comments and Issues.
We would like to take the opportunity to provide briet‘comment and response to arguments and issues
presented by Tri-Cities Airport in its letter ot‘Octobcr 20.2016.
l.Land Ccipacily Ami/y.s'1'.sxTri—CitiesAirport suggests that the land capacity analysis conducted
by the City of Paseo does not support or justify the expansion of the UGA.This assertion is simply
inconsistent with the record established for the application.Planning statifprovided exhaustive substantive
comment with respect to land capacity.market factors and loss ol‘available development land.Among
the comments provided by staff are the following:
0 The local market supply factor has been an issue in Pasco for several years now.As
available residential land has been diminished due to development.land prices have risen.
This is creating a conflict with the State goal (RCW 36.70A.2l0(3)e)and local County»
wide policy #6 dealing with the need to provide alifordable housing within the County and
City.
0 The city needs 900 to I400 acres added to the current UGA Boundary to accommodate
project growth.Mr.West is asking to have 160 acres included at this time.This addition
addresses only a small portion olithe documented need.
Page 59 of 120
Dave I.McDonald.Planning Commission Secretary
November I0.2016
Page 4
-The city has constructed a new water treatment plant as well as upgraded wastewater
treatment plant and systems.Capital facility planning is incorporated in the (‘ity‘s Capital
lmprovemcnt Plan and at'c systematically being constructed by the municipality.
Planning Commission has previously reviewed a similar application and concluded that the
application furthers both comprehensive planning and land LISC policies.Tri—Citiesairport ofters no
evidence to refute the land use capacity analysis or need for additional municipal properties.
2.C'oi7_/IiclBe/ween Re.s'ic/e/1ce.s'and /lircrz_i/i ()pe1'u/iom‘.Tri-Cities airport asserts that it
..would prefer that land to the northwest 01‘the airport remain in the County to reduce future eonllicts
between residences and aircraft operations,“It further strongly recommends “...that there be no
development allowed on the runway approaches to the airport.Zones 2 and 4."These issues have already
been resolved through the comprehensive planning process that resulted in the adoption oi‘the airport
safety overlay.
Planning StalTspecit"teally and properly addressed this argument:
The County Commissioners previous denial of this UGA Boundary
Amendment _/‘E/i/edI0 co/1.s'iu’crthe C()()]7L’I‘Ll/I'\r'(3work he/wewi /he Ci/J‘.
Cuu/7/_i'and P01‘!on [he ¢/e\'cIr)pmcn/of"!/we/lir/)o/‘/Mm‘/e1‘P/u/7 u/7d the
r'liI'[)()I‘/Zuni/1g Rcgz//L//im1.\Ihu/were m/op/ed in 2012 by /)0/h /he ('1'Iyui7a'
("oz/n/y.The nun-'lI])£/Cl/6.8‘Io /he Air/70/‘IOverlay Dis/ric/.r were in/em/ed /0
micIre.r.s'/'.s:sz.ie.s're/ct/ed /0 land use ciruzlml the ciirporl mm’/0 provide
pm/ec/ion /0 the app/‘oachex /0 /he uirjm/‘I.The key c<1mpariu27I.s'Io /he
regzi/u/iom‘were to 1mIz'm(ii17 ca/npulilv/u /and u.ve.s'(trot/ml /he uirporl uml
pro/cc!uiI'.s'pace con.s'i.s'/em wil/1 Federal ,~'l\'iu/ion /1¢/mini.s'Im/irm
Regu/u/irmy.The I1ei/i‘zom'I7gregz//u/1'0i1.\'/7/(Ice/he UG/I uniemhiiehl urea
in ("miipu/ibI'liIy Zones‘2 and 4.The new Airport protection standards
apply to the property whether the property is in the City or County and those
standards are what the Federal Aviation /\dministration deems necessary to
protect airports.The adopted standards are also consistent with RCW
14.l2.030.The prop0.s'ea’UG/l Baum/ury /lziiemhiiem ammo!c‘/vzrnge/he
Airporl Zoning Regu/arions lhcil are in place Io pro/eel /he uirpnrl.
(Italics added).The airport zoning regulations not only protect the airport but they recogni/.e legitimate
and permitted uses of the subject property.Property owners have the right to USC their property in
accordance with reasonable regulations and standards.Applicant will comply with those standards.What
is improper.however.is the restriction oflegitimate and authorized land uses in an arbitrary and capricious
manner as proposed in this case.There is no authority that allows either the City or County to deviate
from its adopted standards.rules and regulations.
Page 60 of 120
Dave I.McDonald.Planning Commission Secretary
November 10.ZOIG
Page 5
The Airport Zoning established specilie use and density restrictions with respect to Zones 2 and 4.
Those zoning restrictions were designed to ensure compatibility of land use and airport operations.By
deli nition.compliance with those rules and regulations makes a land use "compatible".'l'ri—CitiesAirport
recognizes the adopted regulations and acknowledges "...[t]he compromise reached was that Zone 4
would allow large lot residential development...."City adopted zoning provisions that established
development standards for Zones 2 and 4.Those ordinances were adopted pursuant to the Growth
Management Act (GMA).were not appealed and are now tinal and binding.
A refusal to follow adopted rules and regulations would be tantamount to an unconstitutional
regulatory taking.See.e.g.I’/'e.s/zylery Q/"Sc://Ile1'.King (.'ntm/y.114 Wn.2d 320 (1990)(a land Lise
regulation that too drastically curtails owners’use of their property can cause a constitutional taking or
denial olisubstantive due process).These rules and considerations have historically been applied in the
context of airport operations and procedures.There is no basis for denying a UG/\adjustment that is
otherwise compliant with applicable rttlcs and regulations.And more signilicantly.there is no basis for
denial of the application based on the determination that all land use should be denied within 7.ones 2 and
4.
3.Prior l.\'.s'z/exll/Ul‘L’/ié/Z/I'€.S‘.YEd l2_r/1ir'pu1'/Zoning.Tri—Cities/\irport argues that no development
should be allowed within Zones 2 and 4.One of the arguments is based upon prior circumstances and
conditions:
For safety purposes,the Port would strongly recommend that there be no
development allowed on the runway approaches to the airport.Zones 2 and
4.Stating the obvious.there will be low ?ying aircraft arriving and
departing above the subject property.Through the work completed to
amend the airport overlay district,it was agreed that no residential
development would be allowed in Zone 2.Because these restrictions were
not in place previously,the Port of Pasco was forced to purchase 34 acres
southeast of the subject property.situated in Zone 2.to retain future
protection from residential development and the growth oi‘the Tri—Cities
/\irport.
Port acknowledged that the concerns were addressed through the Airport Zoning process.That argument
is a red herring in this proceeding because the issues have been addressed and resolved through the
cooperative effort ofthe governmental entities.
4.Redt/c/fort Q/'1/GAEx/7a/1.s'im7/lrcu.Port suggests that the application should be reduced from
160 acres to 80 acres.There is simply no basis for this request.All of the property is appropriate for
eonsidcration and would be subject to applicable regulations.The regulations address matters and issues
olairport compatibility.
Page 61 of 120
Dave I.McDonald‘Planning Commission Sec1'em|‘y
Novclnhcr I0.20l6
Page 6
Conclusion
Applicaiit respectfully requests that this matter proceed in accordzinccwith the factual record and applicable
law governing the application.The application is consistent with all statutory and ordinance stanclards.is
subject to adopted regulations,and in furtlierance ofthc City‘s public interest.
Thank you for your consideration ofthcsc comments.
Very truly yours.
MEYER.FL EGGE &Tl-TNNEY.l’.S.
_6)at /.lgin:;C.C a1'i
.lCC:dg
lll.l)Cl7l1lC(i\l'1Ill1\2005.l.l('~WUSl lilllcrpiist:i\l\’|cl)mi:i|d lcllcrl tlm.'\
Page 62 of 120
ATTACHMENT A
Page 63 of 120
PORT COMMISSION:NRI.‘I |lES ;’:c"U‘:|‘\’/
E”D’::’E:rEo“:JAMES T.KLINDWORTH RONALDL FORAKERIDIRECTOROFAIRPORTS
BUCKTAFI'
RONALD P.REIMANN I
JEAN RVCKMAN I -—I A PORT or PASCO FACILITY
3601 NORTH 20"AVENUE "PASCO,WASHINGTON99301
DEPUTYDIRECTOR OF AIRPORTS
City of Pasco Planning Commission 7:00 pm October 20,2016
Comprehensive Plan Amendment to Modify the Urban Growth Boundary
(West)(MF#CPA 2016-002)
Thank you Planning Commission members.In 2012-2013,the Port of Pasco has worked with the
City of Pasco and Franklin County Commissions and planners to safeguard the existing and future
service capability of the Tri-Cities Airport and updated the Airport Overlay District,following
Guidelines provided by the Washington State Department of Transportation.
Ideally,for the long term protection of the airport and air services into the Tri-Cities,the Port
would prefer that land to the northwest of the airport remain in the County to reduce future
conflicts between residences and aircraft operations.For safety purposes,the Port would strongly
recommend that there be no development allowed on the runway approaches to the airport,
Zones 2 and 4.Stating the obvious,there will be low flying aircraft arriving and departing above
the subject parcel.Through the work completed to amend the Airport Overlay District,it was
agreed that no residential development would be allowed in Zone 2.Because these restrictions
were not in place previously,the Port of Pasco was forced to purchase 34 acres southeast of the
subject property,situated in Zone 2,to retain future protection from residential development and
the growth ofthe Tri-Cities Airport.
With respect to Zone 4,however,some modifications to the guidelines were needed because of
some existing development on other runway approaches.It should be understood that although
the current Airport Overlay District is an improvement on past regulations,the safest situation is
no residential development in Zone 4 and that which is allowed in the City and County is no longer
identical even though Airport Overlay District updates were prepared for both jurisdictions.The
compromise reached was that Zone 4 would allow large lot residential development,2 lots per
acre within the City.In the County the large lot development allows 4 units per 20 acres with
clustering preferred.Of the 160-acre parcel requested for inclusion in the Urban Growth Area,
nearly half or approximately 74 acres is in the approach zones,shown in the attached figure,with
32.66 acres permitting no residential in Zone 2 and 40.78 acres in Zone 4.Clearly the zoning
allowed in the County is much more conducive to compatible land uses on airport approaches with
respect to the 40+acres of the proposal that falls within Zone 4 —8 lots if it is in the county
whereas 80+lots if it is within the City.We understand that this hearing is not for zoning purposes,
but we ask that the zoning restrictions identified in the Airport Overlay District be considered.
Also,as a reminder,we want to reiterate that there are height restrictions on the entire 160-acre
parcel.
PHONE(509)547-6352 FAX (509)547-9040 tri—citiesair on ortof asco.or
Equal Opportunity Employer
Page 64 of 120
Page 2 of3
When accounting for the lower densities allowed by the Airport Overlay District the gross density
becomes only 2.25 lots per acre,which doesn't meet the intent of providing urban densities
identified in the Growth Management Act.The City Comprehensive Plan assumes that residential
development will average 3.6 lots per acre.Because of the density restrictions this particular
property does not appear to meet the goals of the City Comprehensive Plan and the Growth
Management Act for urban densities,and thus should not be included in the UGA.
We would also like to point out that when this UGA expansion proposal was brought forward 2
years ago it was reduced from the 160 acres to 80 acres through the City process,removing all of
Zone 2 and much of Zone 4 from the proposal in order to achieve urban densities consistent with
the intent of the Growth Management Act.The Franklin County Planning Commission further
reduced the recommendation to the County Commissioners to remove an additional 5 acres within
zone 4.
During the 60-day review period the County received comments from WSDOT Aviation as well as
the Washington State Department of Commerce.Commerce comments generally had 3 areas of
concern with the City proposal:
a)The land capacity analysis conducted by the City of Pasco did not justify the expansion of
the UGAB.
b)The proposed expansion must be accompanied by amendments to the City's Capital
Facilities and Transportation Elements of the Comprehensive Plan;and
c)Concern about the encroachment of incompatible land uses adjacent to the Tri—Cities
Airport.
Department of Commerce went on:“We strongly encourage you to reconsider this proposal within
the context of the 2018 periodic review required by RCW 36.70A.130(5)(d).This would allow you
to review and update population targets,assess areas of the Pasco UGA that should be removed
because they will not likely develop within the twenty-year planning horizon,reconsider densities
and zoning as a means of addressing growth and affordability,and evaluate alternative expansion
areas (if necessary)that do not encroach on the Tri—CitiesAirport.”
The Port of Pasco agrees with the Department of Commerce,and the action of denial taken by
County Commissioners a year ago,that the City of Pasco should evaluate its UGA Expansion in a
larger context during the 2018 update and not proceed with this Amendment request for 160
acres.
PHONE (509)547-6352 FAX[509)547-9040 -Iesair ort ortof asco.or
Equal Opportunity Employer
Page 65 of 120
Page 3 of3
However,if the City choses to move forward,the Port strongly opposes bringing either Zones 2 or
Zone 4 into the City for the reasons stated above and the higher development densities that would
be allowed under the approach to the airport.To reduce the future likelihood of UGA expansion
requests that include Zone 4 to the northwest,we believe that an appropriate message to property
owners would be sent if the UGA were expanded along a diagonal line on the boundary of Zones 2
and 4 on the southwest side of the airport approach.
The Port of Pasco requests that the Planning Commission appropriately consider the request
before you tonight.
Thank you for your consideration.
Q./_74..;.,c../._
Ron Foraker,Director
Tri—CitiesAirport,Port of Pasco
Exhibit Attached
PHONE (509)547-6352 FAX (509)547-9040 tri-citiesair9ort@gortafgasco.org
Equal Opportunity Employer
Page 66 of 120
w._.O<n_E_ZO_._._m_DO0<>._.mm&OKn_
ozmmw><>>z_..m-Eon_m_<wmEo-_Egt?g:H.G.W..1
?mzm
mm.ziam
5...vi
.8..3....3...:..5o..8.:....a|..|..|
.3.«re:9nmi5.5.Il'
§H<L.Eto.,inus
5..82.
“$5.__
u:...§s...E....
Li.[.[:
udsaxzzuz?K38wzo~
za_wzm..xu?wu52wx_....E
uh.I:I:I:I:I:I
mmzou>.:.__mEE_2oo>.Eu_«m.Eo..._m_<azwom._
txwaozn?mu:anzo3En<:3
3..38-21‘$3...§8w§.zo..
,k,,.fm¢u<=3,
,/,
zo?z
.
F.82
Page 67 of 120
‘zll‘RANDY HAVDENPORTCOMMISSION‘I RN.(I I l ExmmvsmmmJAMEST.KLINDWORTH RONALDL FORMERIDIRECTOROFAIRPORTS
BUCKTAl-‘I’
RONALD P.REIMANN I.JEAN RVCKMAN
.
A PORT OF PASCO FACILITY oswuwomacmk or AIRPORTS
3601 NORTH 20"‘AVENUE ‘PASCO,WASHINGTON 99301
City of Pasco Planning Commission 7200 pm October 20,2016
Comprehensive Plan Amendment to Modify the Urban Growth Boundary
(West)(MF#CPA 2016-002)
Thank you Planning Commission members.In 2012-2013,the Port of Pasco has worked with the
City of Pasco and Franklin County Commissions and planners to safeguard the existing and future
service capability of the Tri-Cities Airport and updated the Airport Overlay District,following
Guidelines provided by the Washington State Department of Transportation.
Ideally,for the long term protection of the airport and air services into the Tri-Cities,the Port
would prefer that land to the northwest of the airport remain in the County to reduce future
conflicts between residences and aircraft operations.For safety purposes,the Port would strongly
recommend that there be no development allowed on the runway approaches to the airport,
Zones 2 and 4.Stating the obvious,there will be low flying aircraft arriving and departing above
the subject parcel.Through the work completed to amend the Airport Overlay District,it was
agreed that no residential development would be allowed in Zone 2.Because these restrictions
were not in place previously,the Port of Pasco was forced to purchase 34 acres southeast of the
subject property,situated in Zone 2,to retain future protection from residential development and
the growth of the Tri-Cities Airport.
With respect to Zone 4,however,some modifications to the guidelines were needed because of
some existing development on other runway approaches.It should be understood that although
the current Airport Overlay District is an improvement on past regulations,the safest situation is
no residential development in Zone 4 and that which is allowed in the City and County is no longer
identical even though Airport Overlay District updates were prepared for both jurisdictions.The
compromise reached was that Zone 4 would allow large lot residential development,2 lots per
acre within the City.In the County the large lot development allows 4 units per 20 acres with
clustering preferred.Of the 160-acre parcel requested for inclusion in the Urban Growth Area,
nearly half or approximately 74 acres is in the approach zones,shown in the attached figure,with
32.66 acres permitting no residential in Zone 2 and 40.78 acres in Zone 4.Clearly the zoning
allowed in the County is much more conducive to compatible land uses on airport approaches with
respect to the 40+acres of the proposal that falls within Zone 4 —8 lots if it is in the county
whereas 80+lots if it is within the City.We understand that this hearing is not for zoning purposes,
but we ask that the zoning restrictions identified in the Airport Overlay District be considered.
Also,as a reminder,we want to reiterate that there are height restrictions on the entire 160-acre
parcel.
PHONE(509)5416352 FAX (509)547-9040 tri-cltlesair ort ortof asco.or
Equal Opportunity Employer
Page 68 of 120
Page 2 of 3
When accounting for the lower densities allowed by the Airport Overlay District the gross density
becomes only 2.25 lots per acre,which doesn't meet the intent of providing urban densities
identified in the Growth Management Act.The City Comprehensive Plan assumes that residential
development will average 3.6 lots per acre.Because of the density restrictions this particular
property does not appear to meet the goals of the City Comprehensive Plan and the Growth
Management Act for urban densities,and thus should not be included in the UGA.
We would also like to point out that when this UGA expansion proposal was brought forward 2
years ago it was reduced from the 160 acres to 80 acres through the City process,removing all of
Zone 2 and much of Zone 4 from the proposal in order to achieve urban densities consistent with
the intent of the Growth Management Act.The Franklin County Planning Commission further
reduced the recommendation to the County Commissioners to remove an additional 5 acres within
zone 4.
During the 60-day review period the County received comments from WSDOT Aviation as well as
the Washington State Department of Commerce.Commerce comments generally had 3 areas of
concern with the City proposal:
a)The land capacity analysis conducted by the City of Pasco did not justify the expansion of
the UGAB.
b)The proposed expansion must be accompanied by amendments to the City's Capital
Facilities and Transportation Elements of the Comprehensive Plan;and
c)Concern about the encroachment of incompatible land uses adjacent to the Tri—Cities
Airport.
Department of Commerce went on:"We strongly encourage you to reconsider this proposal within
the context ofthe 2018 periodic review required by RCW 36.70A.130(5)(d).This would allow you
to review and update population targets,assess areas of the Pasco UGA that should be removed
because they will not likely develop within the twenty—year planning horizon,reconsider densities
and zoning as a means of addressing growth and affordability,and evaluate alternative expansion
areas (if necessary)that do not encroach on the Tri—CitiesAirport.”
The Port of Pasco agrees with the Department of Commerce,and the action of denial taken by
County Commissioners a year ago,that the City of Pasco should evaluate its UGA Expansion in a
larger context during the 2018 update and not proceed with this Amendment request for 160
acres.
PHONE (509)547-6352 FAX (509)547-9040 tri-citiesairgort@gortofgasco.org
Equal Opportunity Employer
Page 69 of 120
Page 3 of 3
However,if the City choses to move forward,the Port strongly opposes bringing either Zones 2 or
Zone 4 into the City for the reasons stated above and the higher development densities that would
be allowed under the approach to the airport.To reduce the future likelihood of UGA expansion
requests that include Zone 4 to the northwest,we believe that an appropriate message to property
owners would be sent if the UGA were expanded along a diagonal line on the boundary of Zones 2
and 4 on the southwest side of the airport approach.
The Port of Pasco requests that the Planning Commission appropriately consider the request
before you tonight.
Thank you for your consideration.
04,9494
Ron Foraker,Director
Tri-Cities Airport,Port of Pasco
ExhibitAttached
j
PHONE (509)547-6352 FAX (509)547-9040 -ortof asco.or
Equal Opporlunltv Emniovev
Page 70 of 120
uumxw
m._.0(n=>:zo_._._w5oo<>Emn_oxn_
ozmNe><>>z:m_Eon_m_<mm_Eo-_Emagi@
u:uE.._uE3.is....i;!
Emuz.36»
3.:an...2:.us...nus"...=eBnZ§E|:|..|
3.3N2.3.53I2.SE:III
8.:35..7EBus
3..an:
mu?kz.mzou:28$3wxhibust:Kit
uu
ojsexzt
E!i,.!.!i.izoaxucaHER:mxEEmmzou>.:.__m..—<ms_oo>»wu_<mEonE_<nzmum._
.
ENE
0....min521$
Page 71 of 120
RESOLUTIONNO.1444
A RESOLUTIONOF THE PORT OF PASCO,
SUPPORTINGCOMPATIBLELAND USE PLANNING
TO ENABLE FUTUREGROWTH OF THE TR]-CITIES AIRPORT
WHEREAS,the Port of Pascc owns and operates the Tri-Cities Airport,the fourth largest
commercial airport in the State of Washington serving the Tri-Cities region along with a large
portion of southeast Washington and northemt Oregon;and
WHEREAS,the number of enplaned passengers,?equcy of ?ights,and size of aircra?
at the Tri-CitiesAirport has consistently increased and is expected to continue increasing into the
future;and
WHEREAS,runway 12/30 to the northwest of the airport is the only runway which can
be extended to accommodate larger aircra?;and
WHEREAS,the FAA encourages stmng land use protections to accommodatefuture
airport growth;and
WHEREAS,the Washington State Growth Management Act requires towns,cities,and
counties to discourage developmentof incompatibleland uses adjacent to public use airports
through adoptionof comprehensive plan policies and developmentregulations;and
WHEREAS,the current county zoning designation of agricultural is generally considered
compatible with the airport operations;and
WHEREAS,residentialdevelopmentis generally incompatiblenear airports because of
noise,safety,fumes,vibration,light and perception of low-?ying airera?;and
WHEREAS,there is currently a request to add an additional 160 acres to the City of
Pasco’s Urban Growth Area (UGA),potentially for new residentialdevelopment;and
WHEREAS,the modi?cation to residential could result in the airport being prevented
from an expansion that would accommodate larger aircra?and growth of the airport;and
WHEREAS,approximately 74 acres of the requested UGA expansion falls within airport
safety compatibility zones 2 and 4 as referenced in both the City of Pasco and Franklin County
Airport Overlay Zoning Codes.
Page 72 of 120
NOW,THEREFORE,the Port of Pasco Commissionwishw to express the following
reconunendationson the 160-acreUGA expansion request:
1)Under no circmnstancesshould that portion of the land falling within AixportSafety
Compatibility Zones 2 and 4 be added to the City of Pasoo UGA for residential
development;and
2)The Port would prefer that the entire 160-acres rmnain outside of the City UGA to
reduce ?xture con?icts between resicloes and airora?operations.
BE IT RESOLVED,that copies ofthis Resolutionbe immediatelytransmitted to the City
of Pasco,Fmnklin County,and the Washington State Department of Transportation Aviation
Division.
ADOPTEDthis 8"‘day of December,2016
PORT OF PASCO COMMISSIONERS
Ronald P.Reimann,President
/7 I’
’1,1 ,7 .
J Ryckman,ice President
James T.Klindworth,Secretary
Page 73 of 120
February 27, 2016
Dave McDonald, City Planner
Community & Economic Development Department
525 N. 3rd Avenue
Pasco, WA 99301
RE: Urban Growth Area (UGA) Boundary Amendment
Dear Mr. McDonald:
This correspondence is to confirm that the City of Pasco has formally consulted with
the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) Aviation Division
regarding a proposed amendment to the UGA boundary to add 160 acres. WSDOT
appreciates the City’s efforts and recognizes the substantial time and resources this
represents.
RCW 36.70.547 and 36.70A.510 requires local jurisdictions to formally consult with
airport owners, managers, private airport operators, general aviation pilots, ports, and
the Aviation Division of WSDOT prior to adoption of comprehensive plan policies or
development regulations that may affect property adjacent to public use airports. The
main goals of formal consultation are to avoid, minimize, and resolve potential land
use conflicts with airports through the comprehensive plan and development
regulations. WSDOT strongly recommends that formal consultation be initiated by
local jurisdictions as early as possible in the planning process. This is to assure that all
parties have an opportunity to work together to find comprehensive solutions of
mutual benefit that fulfill the intent of the legislation, consistent with local
jurisdictions’ land use planning authorities and obligations under law.
The following is a general summary of observations and recommendations discussed
during the formal consultation meeting:
WSDOT Aviation recommends that the project record be reopened, so
information about the airport and its operations can be included for decision
makers.
The subject property falls directly in the approach to Tri-Cities Airport’s
Page 74 of 120
Urban Growth Area Boundary Amendment
February 27, 2016
Page 2
primary runway 12.
Tri-Cities Airport anticipates extending runway 12 by 1800 feet.
The commercial service airport is home to over 120 based, jet, twin-engine
business aircraft, helicopter, single-engine and experimental aircraft.
In the past five years, the number of enplanements at the airport has increased
by nearly 100,000, which represents both the continued vibrancy of the region
and the growing flight service available at the airport.
Encroachment of incompatible development is cumulative and temporal in
nature. This slowly erodes the utility of the aviation facility and the public
investment made in it.
The City of Pasco should evaluate all proposed amendments to the UGA,
comprehensive plan and capital facilities plan that will increase incompatible
land uses or potential of incompatible development adjacent to the airport.
- WSDOT recommends that local jurisdictions practice a philosophy of “do no
more harm” in regards to aviation land-use compatibility planning. Existing
conditions should be maintained or improved to prevent future incompatible
development.
The current zoning designation of agricultural is generally considered
compatible with the airport operations.
Residential development is generally incompatible near airports because of
noise, safety, fumes, vibration, light and perception of low-flying aircraft.
WSDOT Aviation is available for further consultation.
The importance of Tri-Cities Airport to the region and state's transportation system
cannot be overstated. It is critical that every effort be made to discourage incompatible
land uses that impair the airport’s ability to operate as an essential public facility. We
thank you again for the opportunity to comment and remain available to provide
technical assistance. Please don’t hesitate to contact me at 360-709-6809 or
timmerc@wsdot.wa.gov if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Page 75 of 120
Urban Growth Area Boundary Amendment
February 27, 2016
Page 2
Carter Timmerman
Aviation Planner
cc: Warren Hendrickson, Northwest Mountain Regional Manager, AOPA
Jim Posner, Washington Pilots Association WPA
Page 76 of 120
AGENDA REPORT
FOR: City Council March 1, 2017
TO: Dave Zabell, City Manager Regular Meeting: 3/6/17
FROM: Stan Strebel, Deputy City Manager
Executive
SUBJECT: Resolution on Special Elections
I. REFERENCE(S):
Proposed Resolution
II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
MOTION: I move to approve Resolution No. _________, calling for special elections
for all City Council seats for the 2017 Municipal Elections.
III. FISCAL IMPACT:
There is anticipated to be a slightly higher cost to the City for holding elections for all
seats this year, as opposed to what a typical year (three or four seats) may cost.
IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF:
Implementation of the court order in the ACLU voting district case requires that all
Council seats be up for election in 2017. Because all seats will be up, the order of the
court specifies which seats will be elected to four-year terms and which seats elected to
two-year terms.
Additionally, the manner of holding district elections, in the case of the general
election, must be changed from that specified by current Washington State law (city-
wide voting) to that directed by the court (district-based for both primary and general
elections).
The attached, proposed resolution is intended to document the court's order and the
City's action in compliance therewith for the County Auditor who must conduct the
elections on behalf of the City.
V. DISCUSSION:
Page 77 of 120
Staff recommends approval of the Resolution.
Page 78 of 120
RESOLUTION NO. ________
A RESOLUTION of the City of Pasco, Washington, calling for special
elections for all City Council seats for the 2017 Municipal Elections.
WHEREAS, the City Council has, by Ordinance No. 4315, amended PMC Chapter 1.10
“Voting Districts” to create six (6) geographic voting districts, with one additional at-large
voting district for the purpose of electing members of the Pasco City Council; and
WHEREAS, by Order entered on January 27, 2017, the Honorable Judge Lonnie Suko,
Federal District Court for Eastern Washington, approved the six district/one at-large voting
system as provided in Ordinance No. 4315; and
WHEREAS, Judge Suko further ordered that for the immediate implementation of this
Order, every seat on the Pasco City Council be up for election in 2017, and specifically identify
the terms for each identified district; and
WHEREAS, RCW 29A.04.330 authorizes the Franklin County Auditor, upon requ est in
the form of a Resolution from the City Council of the City of Pasco, to call for special elections
in the City; and
WHEREAS, to accomplish the implementation of Judge Suko’s Order, special elections
are necessary. NOW, THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASCO, WASHINGTON, DO
RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Call for Special Elections.
A. Pursuant to the Mandate of the Court in Glatt vs. City of Pasco, Order filed January
27, 2017, and RCW 29A.04.330, the City Council calls for special elections for all
City Council positions for the 2017 municipal primary and general elections.
B. That four (4) District Positions, namely Position Nos. 1, 3, 4 and 6, shall be elected to
four-year terms, and three (3) District Positions, namely Position Nos. 2, 5 and 7 shall
be elected to two-year terms of office for this election only; and, thereafter, each
position shall be for a four-year term.
C. That, pursuant to the Partial Consent Decree entered on September 2, 2016 the
elections above shall be by district -based voting in the general election in that all but
Position 7 (at-large district) shall be limited to the voters residing within that district.
Section 2. The Franklin County Auditor, as ex officio supervisor of elections in
Franklin County, is hereby requested to hold special elections in the City of Pasco, Washington,
for the primary and general elections scheduled pursuant to RCW 29A.04.330 and RCW
29A.04.311 (primary election August 1, 2017; and general election November 7, 2017).
Page 79 of 120
Calling for Special Election of the Pasco City Council
Page 2
Section 3. The City Clerk shall present a copy of this Resolution to the Franklin
County Auditor immediately upon its passage.
PASSED by the City Council of the City of Pasco, Washington, as its regular meeting
dated this 6th day of March, 2017.
___________________________________
Matt Watkins, Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
___________________________________ ___________________________________
Sandy Kenworthy, Interim City Clerk Leland B. Kerr, City Attorney
Page 80 of 120
AGENDA REPORT
FOR: City Council February 28, 2017
TO: Dave Zabell, City Manager
Rick White, Director
Community & Economic Development
Regular Meeting: 3/6/17
FROM: Dave McDonald, City Planner
Community & Economic Development
SUBJECT: Special Permit: Location of Portable Classrooms at Chiawana High School
(MF# SP 2016-018)
I. REFERENCE(S):
Vicinity Map
Proposed Resolution
Report to Planning Commission
Planning Commission Minutes Dated: 1/19/17 & 2/16/17
II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
MOTION: I move to approve Resolution No._____, accepting the Planning
Commission's recommendation and approving a special permit for the location of
portable classrooms at Chiawana High School.
III. FISCAL IMPACT:
None
IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF:
On January 19, 2017 the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing to
determine whether or not to recommend a special permit be granted for the location of
portable classrooms at Chiawana High School.
Following the conduct of the public hearing, the Planning Commission reasoned that
with conditions, it would be appropriate to recommend approval of a special permit for
portable classrooms at Chiawana High School.
The recommended conditions are contained in the attached Resolution.
Page 81 of 120
No written appeal of the Planning Commission’s recommendation has been received.
V. DISCUSSION:
The current proposal involves the placement of eight portable classroom buildings in
the parking lot to the north of the high school. On most school days only about 60
percent of the parking lot is used for parking. If parking ever becomes a problem in the
future there is additional land to the north that could be used to expand the parking lot.
Page 82 of 120
Vi
c
i
n
i
t
y
Ma
p
It
e
m
:
S
p
e
c
i
a
l
P
e
r
m
i
t
-
C
h
i
a
w
a
n
a
H
i
g
h
S
c
h
o
o
l
P
o
r
t
a
b
l
e
s
Ap
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
:
P
a
s
c
o
S
c
h
o
o
l
D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
Fi
l
e
#
:
S
P
2
0
1
6
-
0
1
8
SI
T
E
Page 83 of 120
…
RESOLUTION NO._______
A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S
RECOMMENDATION AND APPROVING A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE LOCATION OF
PORTABLE CLASSROOMS AT CHIAWANA HIGH SCHOOL.
WHEREAS, the Pasco School District submitted an application for the location of
portable classrooms at Chiawana High School (Tax Parcel 117590010) at 8521 W Argent Road
(Tax Parcel 117590010); and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on January 19, 2017 to
review the special permit proposal; and,
WHEREAS, following deliberations on February 16, 2017 the Planning Commission
recommended approval of a special permit for the location of eight portable classrooms at
Chiawana High School;
NOW, THEREFORE,
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASCO:
1. That a Special Permit is hereby granted to the Pasco School District for the location
of portable class rooms at Chiawana High School under Master File # SP2016-018
with the following conditions:
a) The special permit shall apply to Parcels #117590010.
b) The property shall be developed in substantial conformity with the site plan submitted
with the special permit application.
c) The portable classrooms may be located on the Chiawana site as needed by the School
District.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Pasco this 6th day of March, 2017.
________________________________
Matt Watkins, Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
________________________________ _____________________________
Sandy Kenworthy, City Clerk Leland B. Kerr, City Attorney
Page 84 of 120
Vi
c
i
n
i
t
y
Ma
p
It
e
m
:
S
p
e
c
i
a
l
P
e
r
m
i
t
-
C
h
i
a
w
a
n
a
H
i
g
h
S
c
h
o
o
l
P
o
r
t
a
b
l
e
s
Ap
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
:
P
a
s
c
o
S
c
h
o
o
l
D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
Fi
l
e
#
:
S
P
2
0
1
6
-
0
1
8
SI
T
E
Page 85 of 120
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
MASTER FILE NO: MF# SP 2016-018 APPLICANT: Pasco School District #1
HEARING DATE: 1/19/17 1215 W Lewis St
ACTION DATE: 2/16/17 Pasco, WA 99301
BACKGROUND
REQUEST: SPECIAL PERMIT: Location of Portable Classrooms at Chiawana
High School (8125 W Argent Rd.)
1. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION:
Legal: A portion of the Southwest quarter of Section 16, Township 9,
North Range 29, east lying southerly of the FCID Irrigation Canal.
General Location: 8125 W Argent Rd (Chiawana High School)
Property Size: 77.5 acres
2. ACCESS: Access to the site is available from West Argent Rd & Rd 84.
3. UTILITIES: Chiawana High School is connected to municipal utilities.
4. LAND USE AND ZONING: The site is zoned RP (Residential Park). The
School District was granted a special permit prior to the construction of
Chiawana High School. Surrounding properties are zoned and developed
as follows:
NORTH: RP – Pathfinder Mobile Home Park
SOUTH: RS-20 – Single Family
EAST: RS-1 - Vacant
WEST: RS-20 - Single family
5. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The Comprehensive Plan designates the site
as Low-Density Residential. Goal CF-5 suggests adequate provisions
should be made for educational facilities located throughout the urban
growth area. Policy CF-5-A encourages the appropriate location and
design of schools throughout the community.
6. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The City of Pasco is the lead agency
for this project. An environmental determination will be made after the public
Page 86 of 120
2
hearing for this project. A Determination of Non-Significance or Mitigated
Determination of Non-Significance is likely for this application (WAC 197-11-
355).
DISCUSSION
Pasco’s population has more than doubled in the past 15 years growing from
32,066 to over 70,000 today. This population growth has also caused the
Pasco School District enrollment to almost double over the same time period.
Pasco’s K-12 enrollment is expected to be around 20,000 by 2019. To
accommodate continued increases in student enrollment the School District is
proposing to local at least eight new portable classrooms at Chiawana High
School.
The School District is proposing to locate eight portable classrooms in the
southeast corner of the northwest parking lot at Chiawana High School. The
parking lot contains close to 600 parking spaces. The portables will occupy
about 87 parking spaces reducing available parking to 511 spaces. The impact
on the parking lot will be minimal due to the fact this parking lot is mainly
used by students and only about 60 percent of the stalls are used during
school days. On most school days about 200 parking spaces remain vacant.
If loss of the parking spaces becomes a problem in the future there is enough
additional land on the Chiawana site that another parking lot could be built.
There are more than three acres of land east of the tennis courts and north of
the existing student parking lot that could be converted to additional parking if
needed.
Most of the schools in Pasco including the Pasco High School and Chiawana
High School are located in residential zoning districts. The addition of portable
classrooms to school properties has had little impact of the surrounding
neighborhoods. Portable classrooms are a common and accepted feature of
schools in Pasco and elsewhere.
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
and comments made at the public hearing. The Planning Commission may
add additional findings as deemed appropriate.
1. The site is located in an RP Residential Park.
Page 87 of 120
3
2. High schools are unclassified uses and require review through the
special permit process prior to permitting for construction.
3. The School District was granted a special permit for the construction of
Chiawana High School in 2012.
4. The Comprehensive Plan identifies the site for public uses such as
schools.
5. Comprehensive Plan Goal CF-5 suggests that adequate provisions should
be made for the location of educational facilities throughout the urban
growth area.
6. The Pasco School District plans to install at least eight portable
classrooms in the northwest parking lot of Chiawana High School.
7. The location of portable classrooms is a common occurrence on school
properties in many communities including Pasco.
8. Pasco’s population has more than doubled since 2000.
9. Pasco School District enrollment has doubled since 2000.
10. School district enrollment is expected to reach 20,000 by 2019.
CONCLUSIONS BASED ON STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT
Before recommending approval or denial of a special permit the Planning
Commission must draw its conclusion from the findings of fact based upon the
criteria listed in P.M.C. 25.86.060. The criteria and staff listed conclusions are
as follows:
1) Will the proposed use be in accordance with the goals, policies, objectives
and text of the Comprehensive Plan?
The proposed use is supported by Plan goal CF-5 which suggests
adequate provisions be made for educational facilities throughout the
Urban Growth Area.
2) Will the proposed use adversely affect public infrastructure?
Public streets and utilities are in place to serve the property. Utilities
surrounding the school site have been sized to accommodate moderate
growth in the student population at Chiawana High School.
3) Will the proposed use be constructed, maintained and operated to be in
harmony with existing or intended character of the general vicinity?
Chiawana High School is a major part of the general character of the
neighborhood. The addition of eight portable classrooms will not alter
the existing character of the neighborhood. The intended character of
Page 88 of 120
4
the neighborhood as identified in the Comprehensive Plan includes
public uses (Schools) on the 77 acre Chiawana High School site.
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 new portable classrooms will be significantly shorter and smaller
than the existing high school. Past experience in Pasco has shown the
location of portable classrooms on school sites within residential
neighborhoods has had no negative impact on surrounding residential
values. The community has a long history of accepting portable
classrooms on school 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?
Experience has shown that schools within Pasco generate few
complaints from neighbors. The operation of the high school will not
change as the result of the additional classrooms.
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 new portables will be built and installed to meet all fire and safety
codes and state regulations pertaining to school construction.
Portable classrooms have a long history of being accepted on Pasco
school properties in residential neighborhoods. Portable classrooms are
common features on school properties in many communities.
Proposed Approval Conditions
1. The special permit shall apply to Parcels #117590010.
2. The property shall be developed in substantial conformity with the site
plan submitted with the special permit application.
3. The portable classrooms may be located on the Chiawana site as needed
by the School District.
Page 89 of 120
5
RECOMMENDATION
MOTION for Findings of Fact: I move to adopt Findings of Fact and
Conclusions therefrom as contained in the February 16, 2017 staff
report.
MOTION for Recommendation: I move, based on the Findings of
Fact and Conclusions therefrom, the Planning Commission
recommend the City Council grant a special permit to the Pasco
School District for the location of portable classrooms at Chiawana
High School with the conditions as contained in the February 16,
2017 staff report.
Page 90 of 120
Vi
c
i
n
i
t
y
Ma
p
It
e
m
:
S
p
e
c
i
a
l
P
e
r
m
i
t
-
C
h
i
a
w
a
n
a
H
i
g
h
S
c
h
o
o
l
P
o
r
t
a
b
l
e
s
Ap
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
:
P
a
s
c
o
S
c
h
o
o
l
D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
Fi
l
e
#
:
S
P
2
0
1
6
-
0
1
8
SI
T
E
Page 91 of 120
It
e
m
:
S
p
e
c
i
a
l
P
e
r
m
i
t
-
C
h
i
a
w
a
n
a
H
i
g
h
S
c
h
o
o
l
P
o
r
t
a
b
l
e
s
Ap
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
:
P
a
s
c
o
S
c
h
o
o
l
D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
Fi
l
e
#
:
S
P
2
0
1
6
-
0
1
8
SI
T
E
La
n
d
U
s
e
Ma
p
Fa
r
m
i
n
g
SF
D
U
s
(
C
o
u
n
t
y
)
SF
D
U
s
SF
D
U
s
MF
H
s
Page 92 of 120
It
e
m
:
S
p
e
c
i
a
l
P
e
r
m
i
t
-
C
h
i
a
w
a
n
a
H
i
g
h
S
c
h
o
o
l
P
o
r
t
a
b
l
e
s
Ap
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
:
P
a
s
c
o
S
c
h
o
o
l
D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
Fi
l
e
#
:
S
P
2
0
1
6
-
0
1
8
SI
T
E
R-
1
RS
-
2
0
(
C
o
u
n
t
y
)
RS
-
2
0
RS
-
2
0
RP
Zo
n
i
n
g
Ma
p
RS-1
Page 93 of 120
P
a
g
e
9
4
o
f
1
2
0
Lo
o
k
i
n
g
N
o
r
t
h
Page 95 of 120
Lo
o
k
i
n
g
E
a
s
t
Page 96 of 120
Lo
o
k
i
n
g
S
o
u
t
h
Page 97 of 120
Lo
o
k
i
n
g
W
e
s
t
Page 98 of 120
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
1/19/17
B.Special Permit Location of portables at Chiawana High School
(Pasco School District) (MF# SP 2016-018)
Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff.
Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director, discussed the special
permit application to locate portables at Chiawana High School. The School District is
trying to catch up to the increased enrollment. The proposal is to locate at least 8
portables in the northwest corner of the parking lot at the western end of the site.
There is discussion in the staff report regarding the location itself and the fact that
currently the parking lot is underutilized. A conceptual photo was shown on the
overhead for the Commissioner’s of what the proposal will look like.
Randy Nunamaker, Executive Director of Operations for the Pasco School District,
1215 W. Lewis Street, spoke on behalf of the application. As mentioned, the 8
portables will help meet current pressure placed on Chiawana High School class sizes.
Enrollment is up to almost 2,500 students. There are teachers currently working off
of carts that don’t even have their own classroom space. These portables will allow
them to have their own space to utilize.
Chairman Cruz asked Mr. Nunamaker what the maximum capacity is for portables
before the parking to portable ratio becomes unfavorable.
Mr. Nunamker responded that he hadn’t looked at it but he could put those numbers
together. The idea is to keep the portables down to a minimum. The School District
and Board is putting together a Master Facilities Plan that will incorporate when to
move for another high school and hopefully the needs will be addressed for brick and
mortar as opposed through portables.
Commissioner Portugal asked if there would be water available in the portables.
Mr. Nunamaker answered that portables in secondary schools don’t have water
supplied to them, unlike all of the elementary schools which do have water and
restrooms. With secondary school students there is movement from classroom to
classroom leaving them ample movement to have time for water and restroom breaks.
Chairman Cruz suggested to Mr. Nunamaker to keep a lookout for mobile home parks
that may be unloading mobile homes.
Commissioner Portugal moved, seconded by Commissioner Greenaway, to close the
public hearing and schedule deliberations, the adoption of findings of fact and
Page 99 of 120
development of a recommendation for City Council for the February 16, 2017 Planning
Commission meeting. The motion passed unanimously.
Page 100 of 120
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
2/69/17
A.Special Permit Location of portables at Chiawana High School
(Pasco School District) (MF# SP 2016-018)
Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff.
Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director, discussed the special
permit to locate portables at Chiawana High School. He stated that there was nothing
to add to the staff report since the previous meeting.
Commissioner Bowers asked for clarification on the location of the proposed portables.
Commissioner Greenaway added that they would be located in the parking lot.
Commissioner Mendez asked when the Master Plan would be developed and
presented.
Mr. White answered that he did not know.
Commissioner Polk moved, seconded by Commissioner Bowers to adopt findings of
fact and conclusions therefrom as contained in the February 16, 2017 staff report.
The motion passed unanimously.
Commissioner Polk moved, seconded by Commissioner Bowers, based on the findings
of fact and conclusions therefrom the Planning Commission recommend the City
Council grant a special permit to the Pasco School District for the location of portable
classrooms at Chiawana High School with the conditions as contained in the February
16, 2017 staff report. The motion passed unanimously.
Page 101 of 120
AGENDA REPORT
FOR: City Council February 28, 2017
TO: Dave Zabell, City Manager
Rick White, Director
Community & Economic Development
Regular Meeting: 3/6/17
FROM: Dave McDonald, City Planner
Community & Economic Development
SUBJECT: Special Permit: Location of a Daycare Center in an R -1-A District (MF# SP
2016-017)
I. REFERENCE(S):
Vicinity Map
Proposed Resolution
Report to Planning Commission
Planning Commission Minutes Dated: 1/19/17 & 2/16/17
II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
MOTION: I move to approve Resolution No._____, accepting the Planning
Commission's recommendation and approving a special permit for the location of a
daycare center at 2411 E. George Street.
III. FISCAL IMPACT:
None
IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF:
On January 19, 2017 the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing to
determine whether or not to recommend a special permit be granted for the location of
a daycare center at 2411 E. George Street.
Following the conduct of the public hearing, the Planning Commission reasoned that
with conditions, it would be appropriate to recommend approval of a special permit for
the daycare center with conditions.
The recommended conditions are contained in the attached Resolution.
Page 102 of 120
No written appeal of the Planning Commission’s recommendation has been received.
V. DISCUSSION:
The applicant currently operates a family home daycare on the property and would like
to increase the number of children beyond the 12 that she currently cares for. With
limitations on parking the applicant will be able to care for an additional 6 children.
Page 103 of 120
Vi
c
i
n
i
t
y
Ma
p
It
e
m
:
S
p
e
c
i
a
l
P
e
r
m
i
t
-
D
a
y
c
a
r
e
i
n
a
n
R
-
1
-
A
Z
o
n
e
Ap
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
:
G
l
o
r
i
a
T
o
r
r
e
s
Fi
l
e
#
:
S
P
2
0
1
6
-
0
1
7
SI
T
E
Page 104 of 120
…
RESOLUTION NO._______
A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S
RECOMMENDATION AND APPROVING A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE LOCATION OF
A DAYCARE CENTER AT 2411 E GEOGRE STREET
WHEREAS, Gloria Torres submitted an application to locate a daycare center at 2411 E
George Street (Tax Parcel 113775070); and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on January 19, 2017 to
review the special permit proposal; and,
WHEREAS, following deliberations on February 16, 2017 the Planning Commission
recommended approval of a special permit for the location of a daycare center at 2411 E George
Street with the following conditions: NOW, THEREFORE,
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASCO:
1. That a Special Permit is hereby granted to Maria Torres for the location of a daycare
center under Master File # SP2016-017 with the following conditions:
a) The special permit shall apply to 2411 E George Street (Lot 61, Cindy’s Addition, Parcel
#113775070);
b) The hours of operation shall not extend beyond the hours of 5:30 a.m. and 6:00 p.m.,
Monday through Friday;
c) Number of children permitted on the site shall not exceed eighteen (18).
d) Only two additional parking spaces shall be permitted. Said parking must be hard
surfaced and located to the west of the existing driveway and to the west of the existing
garage.
e) Only one sign, not exceeding six (6) square feet, shall be permitted upon the property;
The Applicant shall secure a building permit from the City of Pasco before erecting a
sign;
f) A fenced outdoor play area shall be maintained in conformance with the requirements of
WAC 170-295-2130 and WAC 170-295-5090.
g) The special permit shall be null and void if a City of Pasco business license for the
additional authorized activities is not obtained by September 30, 2017.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Pasco this 6th day of March, 2017.
________________________________
Matt Watkins, Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
________________________________ _____________________________
Sandy Kenworthy, City Clerk Leland B. Kerr, City Attorney
Page 105 of 120
1
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
MASTER FILE NO: SP 2016-017 APPLICANT: Gloria Torres
HEARING DATE: 1/19/17 2411 E George St
ACTION DATE: 2/16/17 Pasco WA 99301
BACKGROUND
REQUEST FOR SPECIAL PERMIT: Location of a Daycare Center in an R-1-A
District
1. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION:
Legal: Lot 61, Cindy’s Addition
General Location: 2411 E. George Street
Property Size: 7,318 square feet.
2. ACCESS: The site has access from E George Street
3. UTILITIES: The site is served by municipal water and sewer.
4. LAND USE AND ZONING: The property is currently zoned R-1-A (Low-
Density Residential Alternate). Surrounding properties are also zoned
RS-12 and developed as follows:
NORTH: R-1-A - Single family
SOUTH: R-1-A - Single family
EAST: R-1-A - Single family
WEST: R-1-A - Single family
5. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The site is designated in the Comprehensive
Plan for low-density residential uses. Policy LU-3-A encourages the
location of daycare facilities in residential neighborhoods to reduce
vehicular traffic. The Plan also encourages 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. An environmental determination will be made after the public
hearing for this project. A Determination of Non-Significance or Mitigated
Determination of Non-Significance is likely for this application (WAC 197-11-
355).
Page 106 of 120
2
ANALYSIS
The Applicant has applied for a Special Permit to locate a daycare center in a
single-family residential zone at 2411 East George Street. The lot in question is
just over 7,300 square feet in size. Surrounding lots are equal in size. Street
frontages for each lot in the subdivision are typically 60 feet.
The daycare center would operate 5 days per week for 12.5 hours a day and
would serve up to 25 children per day. Home daycare/preschool centers
serving over 12 children per day require review via the Special Permit process.
The applicant currently operates a home daycare under the 12 child threshold.
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. The applicant plans on having a mix of children requiring two to
three caregivers.
With 25 children the on-site parking requirement for this proposal will be 3
stalls for employees plus 6 stalls for parents/guardians, for a total of 9 stalls.
With the limited street frontage and relatively small front yard there is not
enough room for seven additional parking spaces on the lot (The driveway
already has two stalls). If the Planning Commission determines, based on past
experience with similar daycare facilities, the number of parking spaces can be
reduced to about five at least eighty percent of the front yard would be needed
to accommodate the parking spaces. The largest driveway permitted in a
residential zone can only be 34 feet wide (PMC 12.04.100). The proposed
daycare facility would need a driveway 50 to 90 feet in width depending on the
parking required by the Planning Commission. The lot is only 60 feet wide.
Given the size of the applicant’s lot and surrounding lots and the compact
nature of the neighborhood it may not be appropriate for a daycare center to be
located on the proposed lot.
There is just enough room beside the west side of the garage for an additional
parking space as well as some room directly west of the driveway. If these
areas were hard surfaced two additional parking spaces could be created but,
they would be tandem spaces. Creating additional parking to the west of the
existing driveway would enable a few additional children to be cared for on the
site and would not alter the residential character of the property. With the
additional parking and applying credit for a parking (depending on direction
from the Commission) space in the garage there would be enough parking for
18 students and two care givers.
According to the ITE Trip Generation Manual, 8th Edition, the estimated
weekday trips generation by the proposed daycare center would be between 84
and 95 trips per day, depending on whether the calculation is based on
Page 107 of 120
3
number of employees, or facility square feet. However, experience with daycare
centers in Pasco indicates daily vehicle trips would be significantly lower,
perhaps under 40 vehicle trips per day. A typical single-family home will
generate almost 10 vehicle trips per day. A typical single-family home will not
have a front yard nearly covered with a parking lot. In the past there have been
some exceptions made for daycare centers that have been located on arterial
streets or across the street from commercial development. The lot under
consideration is not on an arterial street and is not located across the street
from commercial development.
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.
2. The Applicant desires to locate a daycare center in a residential zone.
3. The daycare center would operate 5 days per week for 12.5 hours a day
4. The Applicant proposes to serve up to 25 children per day.
5. Home daycare/preschool centers serving over 12 children per day require
review via the Special Permit process.
6. The site address is 2411 E George Street.
7. The building in question is a single-family dwelling.
8. The surrounding properties are all low-density residential (R-1-A)
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 25 children will
be 3 stalls for employees plus 6 stalls for children’s parents/guardians,
for a total of 9 stalls. Based on community experience the Planning
Commission has reduced the number of required parking space for
daycares in residential zoning districts. Even a reduction to 5 spaces
Page 108 of 120
4
would fill almost the whole front yard with parking unless tandem
parking was permitted.
12. Due to the limited depth of the front yard a driveway for 5 cars would
require about 50 feet of width. The largest driveway permitted by the
code is 34 feet (PMC 12.04.100).
13. A typical single-family home will not have a front yard nearly covered
with a parking lot. In the past there have been some exceptions made for
daycare centers that have been located on arterial streets or across the
street from commercial development. The lot under consideration is not
on an arterial street and is not located across the street from commercial
development.
14. Commercial daycares are often permitted in churches and locations that
are adjacent to arterial streets or across the street from commercial
properties. The proposed daycare is located in a fully developed single-
family neighborhood surrounded by single-family homes.
15. Applicant currently has a driveway large enough of 2 vehicles.
16. According to the ITE Trip Generation Manual, 8th Edition weekday trips
generation by the proposed daycare center would be between 84 and 95
trips per day. Generally the ITE rates are higher than what occurs in
Pasco.
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 Policy 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. However given the size of the property in
question and the need for parking the proposed daycare may not support
the general character of the neighborhood.
(2) Will the proposed use adversely affect public infrastructure?
Page 109 of 120
5
If the special permit were to be approved additional parking would be
needed and that would require modifications to portions of the curb,
gutter and sidewalk in front of the property. The site is served by all
municipal utilities and a local street rather than an arterial street.
(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 single-family residential.
Typically, schools and/or preschool/daycare facilities are located in or
adjacent to residential neighborhoods. However these facilities are
usually located on large to very large parcels of land or on arterial streets
along the periphery of residential neighborhoods. Eliminating most of the
front yard for additional parking will alter the general character of the
neighborhood and cause the property to not be in harmony with 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 design may need to be altered to accommodate additional
parking for employees and parents dropping off or picking up children.
As the neighborhood is fully developed the parking modifications will not
impact future development but may impact the general character of the
neighborhood. Impact to property values is unknown. Parking
modifications in the front yard of the proposed daycare site may
discourage some individuals from buying nearby homes which indirectly
impacts property values.
(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. The proposed daycare would also require some
modification to the existing driveway and parking to accommodate
employee and parent parking. Due to the compact nature of the
neighborhood the additional traffic and parking may be objectionable to
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?
Page 110 of 120
6
The proposed daycare with 25 children located on a 7,300 square foot
lot could create nuisance conditions for neighbors due to noise
additional traffic and the constant commotion associated with
managing 25 children on a small lot.
PROPOSED APPROVAL CONDITIONS
1) The special permit shall apply to 2411 E George Street (Lot 61, Cindy’s
Addition, Parcel #113775070);
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 permitted on the site shall not exceed eighteen (18).
4) Only two additional parking spaces shall be permitted. Said parking
must be hard surfaced and located to the west of the existing driveway
and to the west of the existing garage.
5) Only one sign, not exceeding six (6) square feet, shall be permitted upon
the property; The Applicant shall secure a building permit from the City
of Pasco before erecting a sign;
6) A fenced outdoor play area shall be maintained in conformance with the
requirements of WAC 170-295-2130 and WAC 170-295-5090.
7) The special permit shall be null and void if a City of Pasco business
license for the additional authorized activities is not obtained by
September 30, 2017.
RECOMMENDATION
MOTION for Findings of Fact: I move to adopt Findings of Fact and
Conclusions therefrom as contained in the February 16, 2017 staff
report.
MOTION for Recommendation: I move, based on the Findings of
Fact and Conclusions therefrom, the Planning Commission recommend
the City Council grant a special permit to the Gloria Torres for the
location of a day care center at 2411 E George Street with conditions as
contained in the February 16, 2017 staff report.
Page 111 of 120
Vi
c
i
n
i
t
y
Ma
p
It
e
m
:
S
p
e
c
i
a
l
P
e
r
m
i
t
-
D
a
y
c
a
r
e
i
n
a
n
R
-
1
-
A
Z
o
n
e
Ap
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
:
G
l
o
r
i
a
T
o
r
r
e
s
Fi
l
e
#
:
S
P
2
0
1
6
-
0
1
7
SI
T
E
Page 112 of 120
It
e
m
:
S
p
e
c
i
a
l
P
e
r
m
i
t
-
D
a
y
c
a
r
e
i
n
a
n
R
-
1
-
A
Z
o
n
e
Ap
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
:
G
l
o
r
i
a
T
o
r
r
e
s
Fi
l
e
#
:
S
P
2
0
1
6
-
0
1
7
SI
T
E
SF
D
U
s
SF
D
U
s
SF
D
U
s
C
h
u
r
c
h
La
n
d
U
s
e
Ma
p
Page 113 of 120
It
e
m
:
S
p
e
c
i
a
l
P
e
r
m
i
t
-
D
a
y
c
a
r
e
i
n
a
n
R
-
1
-
A
Z
o
n
e
Ap
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
:
G
l
o
r
i
a
T
o
r
r
e
s
Fi
l
e
#
:
S
P
2
0
1
6
-
0
1
7
SI
T
E
R-
1
-
A
R-
1
-
A
R-
1
-
A
R-
1
R-
2
Zo
n
i
n
g
Ma
p
Page 114 of 120
SITE
P
a
g
e
1
1
5
o
f
1
2
0
LOOKING EAST
P
a
g
e
1
1
6
o
f
1
2
0
LOOKING SOUTH
P
a
g
e
1
1
7
o
f
1
2
0
LOOKING WEST
P
a
g
e
1
1
8
o
f
1
2
0
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
1/19/17
A.Special Permit Location of a daycare center in an R-1-A Zone
(Gloria Torres) (MF# SP 2016-017)
Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff.
Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director, discussed the special
permit application for the location of a daycare center in an R-1-A Zoning District.
Daycare centers in all zones are subject to special permits but only if they exceed the
home daycare state limit of 12 children. This proposal is to locate as many as 25
students on the residential property. The property is at 2411 E. George Street just
north of Lewis Street and west of Heritage Boulevard. As indicated in the staff report,
the center would operate 5 days a week, roughly 12 hours per day. The parking ratio
for students, parents and teachers is not favorable to the layout of the lots in the area.
The lots are all identical in shape with 60’ of frontage. The applicant has been in
discussion with staff and a letter from the applicant was presented to the Commission.
It is recommended that the Planning Commission open the public hearing but
continue the hearing to the next meeting to allow the applicant to work with City Staff
on their options.
Commissioner Portugal asked if the area by the fence in the front yard could be used
for parking.
Mr. White was not sure of the solution at this time. As it is now with the number of
students proposed parking would be a problematic.
Chairman Cruz added that with residential lots there has to be a certain percentage of
landscaping that will need to be maintained so parking might not be possible where
the fence is located.
Gloria Torres and Esveida Uriostegui, 2411 E. George Street, spoke on the behalf of
their application. The said that they would be willing to move the fence to allow for
more parking.
Chairman Cruz responded that it might not be as easy as simply moving the fence and
that they will need to work with City Staff to come up with a solution.
Commissioner Greenaway moved, seconded by Commissioner Portugal, to continue
the public hearing to the February 16, 2017 Planning Commission meeting. The
motion passed unanimously.
Page 119 of 120
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
2/16/17
A.Special Permit Location of a daycare center in an R-1-A Zone
(Gloria Torres) (MF# SP 2016-017) Continued
from the January 18, 2016 meeting
Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff.
Dave McDonald, City Planner, discussed the special permit application for the location
of the proposed daycare center. During the previous hearing and there were several
issues expressed in terms of the number of students that would be in this home and
the impact of parking on the neighborhood. The lot is about 50-60 feet wide and the
parking required for the number of students proposed would take up the whole front
yard. That would detract from the residential character of the neighborhood and of
the home. Staff could not recommend the whole yard be paved to accommodate the
number of students in the house. As an alternate, there is a space near the fence to
the west for parking and also by the garage that would allow tandem parking. This
would allow for 18 students. Staff is not recommending the special permit be
approved for the full amount of students the applicant requested because of the
parking situation.
Commissioner Bowers asked staff if the applicants were interested in reducing the
amount of students.
Mr. McDonald replied that he did not believe they wished to reduce the number of
students.
Chairman Cruz asked the applicant if they were clear on the fact that if the special
permit were to be approved, it would not be for the full amount that they are
requesting.
Gloria Torres and Esveida Uriostegui, 2411 E. George Street, nodded that they
understood.
There were no further questions or comments the public hearing closed.
Commissioner Lukins moved, seconded by Commissioner Bykonen, to adopt the
findings of fact and conclusions therefrom in the February 16, 2017 staff report. The
motion passed unanimously.
Commissioner Lukins moved, seconded by Commissioner Bykonen, based on the
findings of fact and conclusions therefrom the Planning Commission recommend the
City Council grant a special permit Gloria Torres for the location of a daycare center at
2411 E. George Street with conditions as contained in the February 16, 2017 staff
report. The motion passed unanimously.
Page 120 of 120