HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-15-2017 Planning Commission Meeting PacketPLANNING
REGULAR MEETING
-AGENDA
June 15, 2017
I. CALL TO ORDER:
II. ROLL CALL: Declaration of Quorum
III. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: May 18, 2017
V. OLD BUSINESS:
A. Preliminary Plat Chiawana Heights, Lot Clarification (MF# PP 2017-
002)
B. Preliminary Plat Chiawana Place, Lot Clarification (MF# PP 2017-
0051
C. Preliminary Plat Riverhawk Estates, 199 -lots (Single -Family) (RP
Development) (MF# PP 2017-004)
VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
A. Block Grant Community Development Block Grant Substantial
Amendment to Annual Action Plan 2016 and 2017
(MF# BGAP 2017-006)
VII. WORKSHOP:
VIII. OTHER BUSINESS:
IX. ADJOURNMENT:
This meeting is broadcast live on PSC -TV Channel 191 on Charter Cable and streamed at
www.pasco-wa.com/psctvlive.
Audio equipment available for the hearing impaired; contact staff for assistance.
REGULAR MEETING
PLANNING
CALL TO ORDER:
MEETING
The meeting was called to order at 7:OOpm by Chairman Cruz.
POSITION MEMBERS PRESENT
No.
1
Tanya Bowers
No.
2
Joseph Campos
No.
3
Paul Mendez
No.
4
Alecia Greenaway
No.
5
Joe Cruz
No.
6
Loren Polk
No.
7
Zahra Roach
No.
8
Pam Bykonen
No.
9
Gabriel Portugal
APPEARANCE OF FAIRNESS:
MEMBERS ABSENT
May 18, 2017
Chairman Cruz read a statement about the appearance of fairness for hearings on land
use matters. There were no declarations.
Chairman Cruz then asked the audience if there were any objections based on a conflict
of interest or appearance of fairness question regarding the items to be discussed. There
were no objections.
ADMINISTERING THE OATH:
Chairman Cruz explained that state law requires testimony in quasi-judicial hearings
such as held by the Planning Commission be given under oath or affirmation. Chairman
Cruz swore in all those desiring to speak.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Commissioner Portugal moved, seconded by Commissioner Greenaway that the minutes
dated April 20, 2017 be approved. The motion passed unanimously.
OLD BUSINESS:
A. Special Permit Mini -Storage Facility (G2 Construction LLCI IMF#
SP 2017-006)
Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff.
Darcy Bourcier, Planner I, stated staff had no additional comments.
Commissioner Roach moved, seconded by Commissioner Greenaway, to close the hearing
on the on the proposed special permit and set May 18, 2017 as the date for deliberations
and the development of a recommendation for the City Council. The motion passed
-1-
unanimously.
Dave McDonald, City Planner, noted that the motion was incorrect and was from the prior
meeting and that an amended motion would need to be made.
Commissioner Roach moved, seconded by Commissioner Greenaway, adopt the findings of
facts and conclusions as contained in the May 18, 2017 staff report. The motion passed
unanimously.
Commissioner Roach moved, seconded by Commissioner Greenaway, based on the
findings of facts and conclusions therefrom, the Planning Commission recommend the
City Council grant a special permit for the location of a mini -storage facility in the 6600
block of Chapel Hill Boulevard (Parcel # 117-420-159) with conditions as listed in the May
18, 2017 staff report. The motion passed unanimously.
B. Preliminary Plat Ferrara Place. 17 -lots (Multi -Family) (RP
Development) (MF# PP 2017-003)
Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff.
Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director, stated staff had no additional
comments.
Commissioner Bowers moved, seconded by Commissioner Polk, to adopt findings of fact
and conclusions therefrom as contained in the May 18, 2017 staff report. The motion
passed unanimously.
Commissioner Bowers moved, seconded by Commissioner Polk, based on the findings of
fact and conclusions as adopted the Planning Commission recommend the City Council
approve the preliminary plat for Ferrara Place with conditions as listed in the May 18,
2017 staff report. The motion passed unanimously.
C. Preliminary Plat Chiawana Place. 78 -lots (Single -Family) (Derek
Alexander) (MF# PP 2017-0051
Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff.
Dave McDonald, City Planner, discussed the preliminary plat application for Chiawana
Place. He noted changes to the staff report and plat since the previous meeting and
referenced the revised plat layout that was handed out to the Commissioners prior to the
meeting. Prior issues discussed at the previous hearing regarding a smaller than
allowable lot size, lot frontage and a flag lot have been resolved. The developer redesigned
the plat without losing any lots and the plat meets city code.
Commissioner Roach asked if the redesigned plat takes the gas line into consideration.
Mr. McDonald responded that it does; the gas line easement remained in the same spot
and there are no homes infringing upon it.
-2-
Commissioner Bowers moved, seconded by Commissioner Mendez, to adopt findings of
fact and conclusions therefrom as contained in the May 8, 2017 staff report. The motion
passed unanimously.
Commissioner Bowers moved, seconded by Commissioner Greenaway, based on the
findings of fact and conclusions as adopted the Planning Commission recommend the City
Council approve the preliminary plat for Chiawana Place with conditions as listed in the
May 18, 2017 staff report. The motion passed unanimously.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
A. Preliminary Plat Riverhawk Estates, 199 -lots (Single -Family) (RP
Development) IMF# PP 2017-004)
Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff.
Dave McDonald, City Planner discussed the preliminary plat application for Riverhawk
Estates. He explained that this is the third parcel in the Department of Natural Resources
(DNR) property to come before the Planning Commission for approval. It is located at the
southeast corner of the future Chapel Hill Road extension and Road 84. It consists of 54
1/2 acres out of a larger parcel that is about 101 acres total. They will develop the north
half to start with and work their way south. The plat is located directly north of Chiawana
Heights, which was the first plat reviewed of the DNR property. There will be a total of 199
lots, ranging from 7,200-13,000 square feet with an average lot size of 7,800 square feet.
The staff report contained the items required by state law for review as well as findings of
fact, conclusions and tentative approval conditions.
Commissioner Mendez asked if the proposed density is within the guidelines.
Mr. McDonald responded that it was within the guidelines. In this zoning designation
under the Comprehensive Plan, density can range from 2-5 units per acre. This proposal
is under the 5 units per acre.
Chairman Cruz asked if the proposed development is consistent with the development
next to it.
Mr. McDonald stated that it was consistent with the AHO development to the west.
Chairman Cruz added that there is R-3 zoning directly to the north and R-1 so there will
be a good blend of density.
Ed McClellan, 4001 S. Kent Street, Kennewick, WA appeared at the podium and was
available to answer any questions on his proposed plat.
With no questions or comments the public hearing closed.
Commissioner Bowers noted in the staff report it mentioned an overpass at Road 76 and
asked for clarification.
-3-
Mr. McDonald showed on the overhead map where Road 76 would be aligned and that in
the long range it would connect from Argent to Burden but whether or not it will actually
happen is to be determine as an overpass would be very expensive; however, it is penciled
in. It has been surveyed but this site is several hundred feet to the west and doesn't abut
against it at all.
Commissioner Bowers asked if Road 76 north of the highway is the road by Walmart.
Mr. McDonald answered yes.
Commissioner Mendez asked if the City is collecting park fees.
Mr. McDonald replied that there is a $1,343 park fee assessed with each building permit.
The developer either pays that or they dedicate land for a park site and a small payment.
Staff still needs to discuss with the developer as the site is large enough for a park. Over
the next couple of phases, staff will be working with the developer on that.
Commissioner Roach asked if the developers would be the same as the other DNR sites
being develop.
Mr. McDonald answered that there are three developers. The largest developer controls
the 101 acres that this plat comes out of and they will also be developing a plat to the
east.
Commissioner Roach asked if Pasco has seen inflated home prices due to the limited
number of homes available.
Mr. McDonald responded that he couldn't speak for home prices but land prices are
higher. It could be due to the lack of developable land inside urban growth boundary for
housing subdivisions.
Commissioner Roach asked if the developers are developing at their own accord or if it's
being encouraged by the City.
Mr. McDonald said that the developers are acting on their own accord as fast as they can.
They have money in the land so they need to develop it to recoup their investments.
Commissioner Roach moved, seconded by Commissioner Polk, to close the hearing on the
proposed preliminary plat and set June 16, 2017 as the date for deliberations and the
development of a recommendation for the City Council. The motion passed unanimously.
WORKSHOP:
A. Code Amendment Planned -Unit Development (PUD) Open Space
Requirements (MF# CA 2017-0031
Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff.
ME
Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director, discussed the workshop item
for Planned -Unit Development (PUD) open space requirements. A PUD is a tool for
developers to exercise flexibility in a product. In order to incentivize that flexibility, you
trade design enhancement for a density increase. The current PUD provisions were
developed with the Sun Willows Golf Course community in mind because that is the only
time it has been used and the density increase of 20% is based on an open space provision
of 35%. In taking a closer look at the ordinance, Staff has suggested a few items for
Planning Commission discussion and hopefully some direction or consideration will be
provided. Staff would like to reduce the 35% to 15% for the open space requirement,
making it more in line with the open space requirements of the other local cities. And
Staff would like to clarify how to calculate open space by excluding the public roads and
by including common space used to calculate the net density. He stated that the closest
example of a neighborhood that looks like a PUD is Ivy Glades; private streets, smaller
streets, a lot of open space, smaller lots for the size of the homes but it is a good product.
Chairman Cruz said it could enable developers to create a "my yard development" instead
of an "our yard development". He asked if the open space would be required to be for
public or just accessible for the occupants of the neighborhood.
Mr. White responded that Staff will need to add language to the code regarding private
roadways. Private roadways are fine, however, the City is always asked in the future once
they start to decay to take them over. If they weren't built to city standards then it is too
expensive to do. Staff will try to clarify the provisions of public and private rights -of -ways
and probably make a baseline design determination. Private roadways might be
applicable or available if they meet a certain construction standard.
Commissioner Bowers asked where Sun Willows and Ivy Glades are located.
Mr. White responded that Sun Willows is on the golf course, east of Columbia Basin
College and Ivy Glades is on Road 76 south of Court Street.
Chairman Cruz stated that he understood the benefit for the developers or residents of the
private open spaces but what would the benefit be for the community. Sun Willows has a
publicly accessible golf course but the rest is mainly closed off. Not that he thought it was
a problem, he just wanted that to be clear.
Commissioner Polk agreed that should be a point of discussion whether the open space is
publicly available or solely for the residents.
Mr. White added that what he anticipates happening is that the open spaces will be owned
by an association, comprised of the owners in the subdivision. As an owner, they have the
ability to exclude others from the property. It would be difficult to fashion public open
space.
Commissioner Bowers stated that this would be a tool to make a space more attractive to
developers who are going to sell higher income housing.
Mr. White responded that the income levels would be based on a number of things out of
the City's control but the product itself would be different. The person interested in
developing the Broadmoor property west of Road 100 had a project in mind that resembled
-5-
a development outside of Gresham, OR where the homes were on very small lots but the
open space was designed so that each of the lots had access to walkways, nature trails or
different amenities.
Chairman Cruz used the example of a "tiny home village". He said that often times these
type of developments provide a better quality of living at the lower price points than some
of the upper price points. He just wanted to be clear that open space doesn't always mean
open to the public and that it could be open space for those specific residents.
Mr. White stated that he recalls that one of the parks in Ivy Glades that does state that the
park space if for use of the residents of Ivy Glades.
Chairman Cruz added that with the exclusivity there is an obligation to maintain so it's
not necessarily a loss for the City. And if it's not the City's park, the City doesn't have to
maintain it, the owners do.
Commissioner Bowers just wanted to figure out if moving from 35% to 15% would end up
depriving opportunities for more affordable housing.
Commissioner Greenaway said no.
Chairman Cruz added that it would likely be to the contrary.
Commissioner Polk discussed the concepts or ideas discussed by consultant, David
Hansen, at a previous meeting about the Broadmoor Area in terms of a possible Riverwalk
or outdoor water. She asked if that would fall into this parameter.
Mr. White responded that would be a good example where this concept could be used to
do something that the community doesn't have right now - a different type of housing
product.
Commissioner Portugal asked if the open space property owners could have a gated
community to only allow who they want in their development.
Mr. White said yes.
Commissioner Polk asked if there was any type of understanding of this open space and if
it would be available to the residents or if a resident would have to pay additional dues or
fees to have access to the common land.
Mr. White answered that it could be a possibility. It would likely be the homeowners
would pay a type of fee to maintain the open space and roads if they are private roads and
yes, it depends on how the homeowner's association is structured, but they could require
residents to pay extra for the amenities.
Commissioner Bowers was concerned of the perception of being exclusionary with private
roads and private parks. She didn't necessarily want the City to approve something that
would lead to being exclusionary.
M
Chairman Cruz responded that he didn't know how that could be stopped. This wouldn't
just benefit the upper -tiered home owners.
Commissioner Mendez added that Ivy Glades was discussed a lot and he wanted to state
that it is a good example of this concept working. It is a nice neighborhood with good
ownership and a strong homeowner's association.
B. Code Amendment Residential Design Standards Regarding False
Dormer & Flat Roofs (MF# CA 2017-004)
Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff.
Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director, discussed the workshop item
for residential design standards regarding false dormers and flat roofs. Years ago, the
State of Washington preempted local control regarding the placement of manufactured
housing. The tradeoff was that the housing standards for site -built and manufactured
homes would be able to be dictated by local jurisdictions as long as they both met the
same standards. Back then, there was a considerable concern that the design standards
that needed to be installed regarding preserving the housing value of single-family
neighborhoods need to include the standards listed in the staff report. The staff report
outlines the design standards, most of which are basic. One in particular spoke to false
dormers because manufactured housing doesn't typically have roof pitches greater than
3/12 or 4/12 at the most. Over the years, false dormers have gone away because the cost
benefit of buying a manufactured home is no longer there in that it is not inexpensive to
build or purchase a manufactured home. There are a number of builders in Pasco that
do use false dormers on roof pitches and since there hasn't been a concern in a while,
Staff would propose that the condition be changed to allow for false dormers once the roof
pitch exceeds 5/12 pitch. Mr. White also discussed the provision of flat roofs which have
come up about four times as of recently. They are fine looking homes, particularly where
it is important to preserve views, but they have flat roofs. They have had to go to the
Hearing Examiner to ask for variances, which is a very clumsy way to allow an
architecturally integrated home into the neighborhood. If the Planning Commission wants
to, they could allow for language that would allow that under certain circumstances along
with a dormer issue or Staff could leave things as they are.
Commissioner Bowers asked if there were any pictures available of the false dormers.
Mr. White responded not offhand but that could be obtained.
Commissioner Roach asked what the term "glazing" meant.
Chairman Cruz answered that it was windows. So it would be so much square footage of
windows.
Commissioner Roach asked if there was already a list of materials already prepared for
materials that will not deteriorate.
Mr. White said that there is a list.
IVA
Commissioner Roach asked if the manufactured homes comply with that list.
Mr. White responded that he didn't believe they did at the time years ago and he was
unsure if they do now.
Commissioner Roach wondered if it would become a micro -management problem.
Mr. White responded that it wouldn't be a problem because the building code provides a
very detailed discussion of the trim that is appropriate.
Commissioner Roach asked about driveways ending in a garage or carport and if it would
eliminate the pull through style driveways that didn't lead into a garage.
Mr. White answered that the curved driveway is still allowed but you can't run your
driveway directly perpendicular to the way the home faces the street and stop it without
having a carport or garage. Likewise, you cannot enclose or turn your garage or carport
into a part of your home unless you've made provisions to curve the driveway back to the
street or terminate in a carport or garage.
Commissioner Portugal asked if manufactured homes are allowed to add on extra rooms
and who enforces the additions.
Mr. White responded that you can make additions to a manufactured home, however, it is
very difficult to change the home once it is purchase because they are not made to be
added onto or have revisions made. But if you were to do so, the Department of Labor &
Industries for Washington State would oversee it.
Commissioner Roach asked if manufactured homes have concrete foundations.
Mr. White said they do not have concrete foundations.
Chairman Cruz clarified that they are not manufactured with concrete foundations but
they can be placed on concrete foundations. He gave an example of a home like this in the
donut -hole. He went into detail about that changes in manufactured homes over the
years.
Chairman Cruz discussed the flat roofs and how they are mainly located in the hilly areas
of the community. He mentioned concerns about flat roofs with the potential winter
weather in the area, however he was sure that a properly engineered flat roof would be ok
in this area.
Commissioner Roach stated that from an engineering perspective they should take into
account some degree of snow load for flat roofs - it may architectural appear flat but
actually be slightly angled for snow melt runoff.
Commissioner Greenaway said it is called a hip roof - it is not actually a flat roof.
Chairman Cruz said as of today he would be inclined to the latter options in the staff
IF -11
report.
Commissioner Roach said she would be partial to a flat roof because it is architecturally
different and there is an aesthetic appeal to it and she likes to see variety in the
community.
Chairman Cruz took a vote and the majority of the Commissioners were interested in flat
roofs and false dormers.
Commissioner Roach asked what the City's policy is on concrete foundations.
Mr. White stated that they have to have them.
Chairman Cruz said that is one of the reasons they are no longer cost effective to purchase
over a site built home.
There were no further questions or comments.
C. Code Amendment Revisions to the Central Business District Zonin¢
IMF# CA 2017-0051
Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff.
Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director, discussed the workshop item
for revisions to the Central Business District zoning code. This item has been discussed
by Staff and recently with the Downtown Pasco Development Authority (DPDA). This code
revision would clarify the permitted uses regarding antique stores. There has been a
misunderstanding that antique stores are not permitted downtown, however they are
allowed downtown. The consignment store issues that pertained to Goodwill a few years
ago, has been inserted into the proposed ordinance. They are allowed but it will now be
more clearly stated. Drug stores has been inserted as a permitted use. And Staff, with
the concurrence of the DPDA also inserted electronic sales and repairs as long as a
substantial portion of their stock was new equipment. Dwelling units, which were
previously permitted through the special use permit process, have been added as a
permitted use provided some parameters can be met, particularly parking, and that the
ground level is used as commercial. The idea would be to increase the population
downtown which would then increase the need for stores and services to be located
downtown, making the downtown more active and lively putting people on the street which
would ultimately lead to more security. There were provisions added for wineries,
distilleries and tasting rooms. The prohibition for commissaries was added because there
has been a problem with buildings being used for food preparation to be sold elsewhere
and the potential retail space is taken up and not used as it should be and it does not
contribute to the vitality of the downtown by taking their product and selling it elsewhere.
Staff requested input and discussion from the Planning Commission.
Commissioner Roach asked if the last item regarding commissaries would exclude the
Pasco Specialty Kitchen.
Mr. White said it wouldn't and would in fact, help the Specialty Kitchen because they are
an incubator use and the commissaries would now be able to use the Specialty Kitchen or
in
use an existing restaurant
Chairman Cruz asked what the difference was between all of the different adult uses that
were prohibited. He asked what an adult business facility would be if it's not an adult
theater, adult bookstore, etc.
Mr. White responded that it has to do with sexually -oriented merchandise. He couldn't
say offhand but the zoning code has all of these definitions, which was a throwback to a
different era when there was a time when certain locations lent themselves to those kinds
of uses. There were legal issues with these types of establishments years ago with all
three cities and attorneys were hired to define all of the terms.
Commissioner Bowers asked about the permitted use for electronic sales and repair in
which 50% of the stock must be devoted to the sales of new equipment. She asked if it
would preclude a vacuum repair store or a computer repair shop from existing.
Mr. White responded that it would allow for those items as long as 50% of the stock is new
merchandise as well as consignment stores.
Commissioner Bowers asked if there was less than 50% if they could exist in the
downtown, and if not, why.
Mr. White responded that they could not and that is because it is not good for the
downtown for a repair shop alone to exist where there should be retail activity. Downtown
should be retail oriented and you will get what you allow.
Chairman Cruz added that it's no different from a commissary from that aspect in that
you will not get the business culture that you desire.
Commissioner Roach asked about the prohibited use for taverns and felt that it was
inconsistent with the permitted uses of tasting rooms, microbreweries and distilleries -
that one is allowed and not the other. She asked if a tavern was the same thing as a
microbrewery.
Mr. White responded that they actually make their beer at a microbrewery. There is an
investment of their product fabrication and the ability to serve food. There is a tavern
downtown that attracts clients that are often problems with law enforcement and the
perception of downtown because they have no investment in their product despite the
sales of alcoholic beverages.
Chairman Cruz briefly discussed the history of taverns in Downtown Pasco. He
understood where Staff was going but did feel that it could be inconsistent.
Commissioner Roach said that part of the appeal of a downtown is the nightlife and this
would be limiting. She stated that she understood the problematic business that
currently exists but explained that Downtown Kennewick has many bars and while they
probably have their fair share of problems, it is also a center of business.
Chairman Cruz said he believed that Downtown Kennewick billed theirs as an
entertainment district not a business district, which may be the difference.
Commissioner Campos added that he is familiar with a distillery in Richland. They have
-10-
very limited hours for the purpose of tastings and selling of their product but close early to
not cause problems in the evenings. It would attract people to the area as well as the
surrounding area. There are other great opportunities that could come with a tasting
room as opposed to a tavern.
Commissioner Roach responded that she is not opposed to a tasting room or distillery but
felt it was a bit inhibiting to not allow bars or taverns.
Chairman Cruz addressed the density of these types of establishments and that could be
used as a tool to not oversaturate the downtown with taverns. He agreed with
Commissioner Roach that he didn't want to completely prohibit that kind of use.
However, a tavern isn't the same as a bar and grill and in the downtown, a bar and grill is
permitted.
Mr. White added that yes, bar and grills are allowed in the downtown under accessory
uses.
Chairman Cruz said that was a good way to mitigate it then.
Commissioner Roach agreed.
Chairman Cruz asked how much food had to be offered at a tavern
Mr. White answered that he wasn't sure but it was far less than a bar and grill.
Commissioner Roach said that helped and was a good distinction to make.
Commissioner Polk asked Chairman Cruz if he was suggesting that a tavern be moved
from prohibited to conditional.
Chairman Cruz said he wouldn't be opposed to it as long as there was a distance
requirement.
Commissioner Bowers asked about allowing billiards or pool halls and said that could be a
good recreational use.
Dave McDonald, City Planner, said that back in the late 1980's one of the worst place in
town was Marty's Pool Hall that served alcohol and minimal food and attracted all sorts of
problems. The drug task force actually rented the top floor of the bank to look across the
street to check the people going in and out of it. Every other tavern downtown had the
same type of problems; drugs, prostitution, murders and gangs. All of that cleared up
when the taverns were closed and prohibited. Marty's Pool Hall had to be shut down.
There was another place that had to be shut down as well. A Council meeting was held to
revoke the business license because the owner was selling drugs behind the counter along
with the beer. The whole zoning code was changed to address all of the problems.
Chairman Cruz said an amusement/game center came into question at one time.
Mr. McDonald said that there were problems there too.
Chairman Cruz responded that he was aware but he would like to readdress some of these
issues from the past because he would like to see more family friendly things to do in
-11-
Pasco. He said that he is inclined to revisit some of those items as a code amendment so
that someday there could be more youth -oriented places.
Commissioner Campos asked if there was anything that distinguished a pool hall or a bar
with a pool table.
Mr. McDonald responded that pool halls are allowed in other parts of town, just not in the
Central Business District. There was one over by Andy's Restaurant but is no longer
there. They didn't serve beer but they were strictly a pool hall.
Commissioner Polk wanted to add that she liked that the dwelling allowance has been
moved from conditional to permitted, as that could draw more traffic to the downtown and
add more of a mixed-use space.
Chairman Cruz agreed with Commissioner Polk
There were no further questions or comments.
With no further discussion or business, the Planning Commission was adjourned at
8:06 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
David McDonald, City Planner
-12-
MEMORANDUM
DATE: June 15, 2017
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Dave McDonald, City Planner
SUBJECT: Chiawana Heights, Lot Clarification (MF# PP 2017-002)
In April the Planning Commission completed a review on the proposed
Chiawana Heights subdivision. The plat was recommended for approval with
a set of conditions that were accepted by the City Council on May 1St. The
plat was approved with a total of 80 lots.
As the developer started his engineering work on the proposed plat it was
discovered that a portion of the plat could not get sewer without extensive
grading. An alternate option involves running a new sewer line south on
Road 84 to Massey Drive. To help cover the cost of the additional sewer line
and to accommodate a specific housing style the developer has asked staff for
approval of four additional lots.
PMC 26.24. 100 allows for administrative adjustments to approved
preliminary plats provided the adjustments do not affect the basic layout of
the streets or cause the plat to be in violation of any City code. Prior to
making a decision on the request for the four additional lots staff is seeking
the Planning Commission's input to make sure the increase in the number of
lots is in keeping with the original intent of the recommendation for
preliminary plat approval.
The overall street layout and lot orientation will not change with the
additional lots. Street frontages (width of the lots) of some of the existing lots
will be reduced by a few feet to make way for the additional lots. The plat
density will change from 3.7 lots per gross acre to 3.9 lots per gross acre. The
maximum density permitted is 5 units per acre.
Staff is not seeking a motion on this matter just a general consensus.
1
E
\�•aAE-g�bblkNo$gr�
A9 11'
b9 pp NIC
t�
§vA �
4� GCF
i 9 A
A — Eijgg
6�Q5gy
!; is
/ 9e
C
ti �31
R
I.
gg
AAAI
gp p .tel
p[� g j
yt iR�f � .i Q
[
O
N U
rc
Q a d
a�
z
s
u
tires axs
r a§
_ _
x 8
S
or 2
EEEEEE P9 r
g ^8A
A, 1 .
W �
E
�
'
g§
->d
8 §Q ni§� Q
§A 1 � S gP �♦4
2
�'
�
Z y n1e9
/ AYE _ 90'
-V"
J
t •5®dQiaM
Rz�M
E
\�•aAE-g�bblkNo$gr�
A9 11'
b9 pp NIC
t�
§vA �
4� GCF
i 9 A
A — Eijgg
6�Q5gy
!; is
/ 9e
C
ti �31
R
I.
m
ta+
I A
b
A
k
.^
§F
�gPg
§9
❑
p
Ab
9
9
aoat,
"SEq
§c
it
F
1
F ➢
��
I
� I
I
AP
pM
P
1p
E
\�•aAE-g�bblkNo$gr�
A9 11'
b9 pp NIC
t�
§vA �
4� GCF
i 9 A
A — Eijgg
6�Q5gy
!; is
/ 9e
C
ti �31
R
MEMORANDUM
DATE: June 15, 2017
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Dave McDonald, City Planner
SUBJECT: Chiawana Place, Lot Clarification (MF# PP 2017-005)
The Planning Commission considered the Chiawana Place plat last month
and forwarded a recommendation for approval to the City Council.
As a result of the Council review of the plat, the plat has been remanded back
to the Planning Commission with specific instructions to review the location
of the street connection from the plat to Argent Road. The proposed plat has
two access points; one access point is off Road 76 north of Argent Road and
the other is off Argent Road 152 feet west of the east line of the plat.
Concern was raised over the proximity of the new street to Road 72 on the
south side of Argent Road. From centerline to centerline the two streets are
only 152 feet apart. The municipal code requires a minimum separation of
125 feet for offset roads. However, in this case with the location of the plat
next to a high school and Argent being an arterial street there may be
justification for increasing the separation. In the early hours of the day and
in the afternoon when school lets out Argent becomes very congested.
Typically on arterials it is advisable to increase the distances between off -set
roads on arterial streets. The 125 foot spacing works well on local access
street but on arterial streets with higher traffic and high speeds offset streets
with the minimum space can create a point of conflict for the smooth flow of
traffic.
Options for relocating the connecting road are somewhat limited due to the
existence of BPA power poles along the north side of Argent Road and gas line
easement policies. The idea location for the connecting road would be in the
gas line easement however Williams Pipeline Company will not permit roads
to be built along the top of their pipe line. They permit roads to cross the
pipeline perpendicular only. The second issue with the gas line easement
location is the fact there is a large BPA power pole in that part of the
easement where the road would be located if it was permitted by Williams
Pipe Line.
1
There is another large power pole located about midway between the gas line
easement and the proposed road along the eastern portion of the plat making
it difficult to locate a road in that general location.
Other than the existing location of the connecting road on the east side of the
plat the remaining option would be to locate the road between the gas line
easement and the first power pole to the east of the easement. The original
plat submitted for review placed the connecting road in this location.
The original preliminary plat had one flag lot which caused the plat to be
redrawn which in turn resulted in the relocation of the connecting street to
the east within 152 feet of Road 72.
In the interest of improved traffic flow and safety on Argent Road staff is
recommending the original layout for Chiawana Place be approved as the
correct preliminary plat. The one flag lot would in essence be traded for
improved traffic safety on Argent Road.
MOTION: I move the Planning Commission recommend the City Council
approve the Preliminary Plat layout for Chiawana Place as shown
in Exhibit # 1.
2
n;
Yk
d33$�
r
� �
i4gyg
(l LLZty-
b @i yuj
��
oa
� S
E
F -
r —
SY
III
�
yi
s o o
¢g a+
pg5pg '�ipSpg�g
A
n;
--__—__ _— _---- g__ _— __—___—___
t .6. Rf of
sg s?
\ Ab 4rP
n A
3
= u✓xsw ;..wro mesas ms
____ --
��
oa
� S
E
F -
r —
ni
III
�
yi
I
I
A
I�
Gil
--__—__ _— _---- g__ _— __—___—___
t .6. Rf of
sg s?
\ Ab 4rP
n A
3
= u✓xsw ;..wro mesas ms
____ --
� S
E
ni
3
= u✓xsw ;..wro mesas ms
____ --
� S
E
-------
- ---§b---
------
----
F
IT
§E a §�
§.f+
3
= u✓xsw ;..wro mesas ms
____ --
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
MASTER FILE NO: PP 2017-004
HEARING DATE: 5/18/2017
ACTION DATE: 6/15/2017
BACKGROUND
APPLICANT: RP Development
6159 W Deschutes Ste 509
Kennewick, WA 99336
REQUEST: Preliminary Plat: Riverhawk Estates. (199 -Lot Single Family
Subdivision)
1. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION:
Legal: NW Quarter of Section 16, T9N, R29E, WM
General Location: The southeast corner of Road 84 and Chapel Hill
Property Size: 54.5 Acres
Number of Lots Proposed: 199 single-family lots
Square Footage Range of Lots: 7,200 ft2 to 13,031 ft2
Average Lot Square Footage: 7,814ft2
2. ACCESS: The property will have access from Chapel Hill Boulevard and
Road 84.
3. UTILITIES: Municipal sewer service is located in the eastern third of the
property. Water service is located at the intersection of Moline Lane and
Road 84.
4. LAND USE AND ZONING: The site is zoned RS -1 (Suburban Residential).
Surrounding properties are zoned and developed as follows:
NORTH: R-3 - Vacant
SOUTH: R-1 - Vacant (location of Chiawana Heights)
EAST: R-1- Vacant
WEST R-1 - Loviisa Farms
5. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The Comprehensive Plan indicates the site is
intended for low-density residential development. According to the
Comprehensive Plan, low-density residential development means 2 to 5
dwelling units per acre. The criteria for allocation under the future land
use section of Volume II of the Comprehensive Plan (Vol. II, page 17)
encourages development of lands designated for low-density residential
uses when or where sewer is available; the location is suitable for home
sites; and there is a market demand for new home sites. Policy H -1-E
encourages the advancement of home ownership, and Goal H-2 suggests
the City strive to maintain a variety of housing options for residents of
the community. Goal LU -2 encourages the maintenance of established
neighborhoods and the creation of new neighborhoods that are safe and
enjoyable places to live.
6. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The City of Pasco is the lead
agency for this project. Based on the SEPA checklist, the adopted City
Comprehensive Plan, City development regulations, and other information, a
threshold determination resulting in a Determination of Non -Significance
(DNS) has been issued for this project under WAC 197-11-158.
ANALYSIS
The project site is located immediately east of the Loviisa Farms subdivision
bordered on the north by the future extension of Chapel Hill Boulevard and on
the south by property that will be developed as the Chiawana Heights
subdivision. Chiawana Heights is an 80 -lot single-family development similar
to the proposed Riverhawk subdivision. This site was part of the Road 68 DNR
property that the Planning Commission was involved in determining zoning
and the general layout of major streets a few years ago. The applicant recently
purchased the site from the DNR and is now seeking preliminary plat approval
in preparation for development of a single-family subdivision.
The site was initially designated for low-density residential development under
the 1982 Comprehensive Plan and again under the 1995 Plan and the updated
Plan of 2008. The property is zoned R-1 (Low Density Residential).
The proposed plat will provide additional lots within the Urban Growth Area
(UGA) for single-family homes consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The old
DNR site is one of the few large remaining areas within the UGA to be
developed. The proposed plat can be considered an infill development on
property that was passed over during the time most of the I-182 Corridor was
developed.
The proposed plat is part of a larger parcel that extends easterly to the
alignment of Road 76 and southerly to the FCID irrigation canal. The applicant
will be developing the large parcels in phases. As such the developer will be
responsible for developing a portion of Road 76 and a portion of the canal
crossing for Road 76.
LOT LAYOUT: The proposed plat contains 199 residential lots. The lots vary in
size from 7,200 square feet to 13,031 square feet. The average lot size is 7,814
square feet. The proposal is consistent with the density requirements of the RS -
1 zoning on the site. The minimum lot size for the R-1 zone is 7,200 square
feet.
z
RIGHTS-OF-WAY: All lots have frontage on streets which will be dedicated. The
east half of Road 84 will be finished with this subdivision to match the
improvements that were installed on the west side of the street during the
development of Loviisa Farms. The south half of Chapel Hill Boulevard will also
be constructed along the northerly boundary of the Plat.
UTILITIES: Municipal water service runs north and south in Road 84.
Irrigation lines are stubbed across Road 84 at Moline Lane. There is a sewer
trunk line running through the eastern third of the site. Utility lines will be
extended through the plat.
A utility easement will be needed along the first 10 feet of street frontage of all
lots. The final location and width of the easements will be determined during
the engineering design phase. The front yard setbacks for construction
purposes are larger than the requested easements; therefore the front yard
easements will not diminish the buildable area of the lots.
The City Engineer will determine the specific placement of fire hydrants and
streetlights when construction plans are submitted. As a general rule, fire
hydrants are located at street intersections and with a maximum interval of
500 feet between hydrants on alternating sides of the street. Streetlights are
located at street intersections, with a maximum interval of less than 300 feet
on residential streets, and with a maximum interval of 150 feet on arterial
streets. The intervals for street light placements are measure along the
centerline of the road. Street lights are placed on alternating sides of the street.
STREET NAMES: The proposed street names will be added prior to final plat
approval.
IRRIGATION: The municipal code requires the installation of irrigation lines as
part of the infrastructure improvements.
WATER RIGHTS: The assignment of water rights is a requirement for
subdivision approval per Pasco Municipal Code Section 26.04.115(B) and
Section 3.07.160. If no water rights are available to transfer to the City the
property owner/developer must pay a water right fee in lieu thereof.
FINDINGS OF FACT
State law (RCW 58.17.010) and the Pasco Municipal Code require the Planning
Commission to develop Findings of Fact as to how this proposed subdivision
will protect and enhance the health, safety and general welfare of the
community. The following is a listing of proposed "Findings of Fact:"
R1
Prevent Overcrowding: Density requirements of the R-1 zone are designed to
address overcrowding concerns. The Comprehensive Plan suggests the property
in question be developed with 2 to 5 dwelling units per acre. The proposed Plat
has a density of approximately 3.6 units per acre. No more than 40 percent of
each lot is permitted to be covered with structures per the R-1 standards.
Parks Opens Space/Schools: City parks are located in Columbia Place and
Island Estates to the east and south. The City is required by RCW 58.17. 110 to
make a finding that adequate provisions are being made to ameliorate the
impacts of the proposed subdivision on the School District. At the request of
the School District the City enacted a school impact fee in 2012. The
imposition of this impact fee addresses the requirement to ensure there are
adequate provisions for schools. A school impact fee in the amount of $4,700
will be charged for each new dwelling unit at the time of building permit
issuance.
Effective Land Use/Orderly Development: The Plat is laid out for single-
family development as identified in the Comprehensive Plan. The maximum
density permitted under the Comprehensive Plan is 5 dwelling units per acre.
The developer is proposing a density of 4 units per acre. The proposed
development will include improvements to both Road 84 and Chapel Hill
Boulevard.
Safe Travel & Walking Conditions: The plat will connect to the community
through the existing network of streets. Sidewalks are installed at the time
homes are built on individual lots. The sidewalks will be constructed to current
City standards and to the standards of the American's with Disabilities Act
(ADA). The ADA ramps at the corners of all intersection will be installed with
the construction of the road improvements and the sidewalks along Chapel Hill
Boulevard and Road 84 will be installed with the infrastructure improvements.
Adequate Provision of Municipal Services: All lots within the Plat will be
provided with water, sewer and other utilities.
Provision of Housing for State Residents: This Preliminary Plat contains 199
residential building lots, providing an opportunity for the construction of 199
new dwelling units in Pasco.
Adequate Air and Light: The maximum lot coverage limitations, building
height restrictions and building setbacks will assure that adequate movement
of air and light is available to each lot.
Proper Access & Travel: The streets through and adjoining the Plat will be
paved and developed to City standards to assure proper access is maintained
to each lot. Connections to the community will be provided by Road 84 and
4
Chapel Hill Boulevard. The Preliminary Plat was submitted to the Transit
Authority for review (The discussion under "Safe Travel" above applies to this
section also).
Comprehensive Plan Policies & Maps: The Comprehensive Plan designates
the Plat site for low-density residential development. Policies of the
Comprehensive Plan encourage the advancement of home ownership and
suggest the City strive to maintain a variety of housing for residents.
Other Findings:
• The site is within the Pasco Urban Growth Boundary.
• The State Growth Management Act requires urban growth and urban
densities to occur within the Urban Growth Boundaries.
• The site is relatively flat with undulating hills and a slight slope to the
south.
• The site is currently vacant.
• The site is not considered a critical area, a mineral resource area or a
wetland.
• The Comprehensive Plan identifies the site for low-density residential
development.
• Low-density residential development is described in the Comprehensive
Plan as two to five dwelling units per acre.
• The site is zoned R -i (Low Density Residential).
• The developer is proposing 4 dwelling units per acre.
• The Housing Element of the Comprehensive Plan encourages the
advancement of programs that promote home ownership and
development of a variety of residential densities and housing types.
• The Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan encourages the
interconnection of neighborhood streets to provide for the disbursement
of traffic.
• The interconnection of neighborhood streets is necessary for utility
connections (looping) and the provision of emergency services.
• Per the ITE Trip Generation Manual 8th Addition the proposed
subdivision, when fully developed, will generate approximately 1,990
vehicle trips per day.
• The current traffic impact fee is $709 per dwelling unit. The impact fees
are collected at the time permits are issued and said fees are used to
make traffic improvements and add traffic signals in the I-182 Corridor
when warranted.
• The current park impact fee is $1,420 per dwelling unit. The fee can be
reduced by 58 percent if a developer dedicates a five acre park site to the
5
City. The dedication of a fully constructed park reduces the fee by 93
percent.
• RCW 58.17.110 requires the City to make a finding that adequate
provisions have been made for schools before any preliminary plat is
approved.
• The City of Pasco has adopted a school impact fee ordinance compelling
new housing developments to provide the School District with mitigation
fees. The fee was effective April 16, 2012.
• Past correspondence from the Pasco School District indicates impact fees
address the requirement to ensure adequate provisions are made for
schools.
• Plat improvements within the City of Pasco are required to comply with
the 2015 Standard Drawings and Specification as approved by the City
Engineer. These improvements include but are not limited to water,
sewer and irrigation lines, streets, street lights and storm water
retention. The handicapped -accessible pedestrian ramps are completed
with the street and curb improvements prior to final plat approval.
Sidewalks are installed at the time permits are issued for new houses,
except sidewalks along major streets, which are installed with the street
improvements.
• Water lines and fire hydrants are required to be looped.
• Per PMC 12.36.050 the developer must extend all utilities to and through
the subject parcel.
• All engineering designs for infrastructure and final plat(s) drawings are
required to utilize the published City of Pasco Vertical Control Datum.
• All storm water generated from a developed plat is required to be
disposed of per City and State codes and requirements. Prior to the City
of Pasco accepting construction plans for review the developer is required
to enter into a Storm Water Maintenance Agreement with the City. The
developer is responsible for obtaining the signatures of all parties
required on the agreement and to have the agreement recorded with the
Franklin County Auditor. The original signed and recorded copy of the
agreement is presented to the City of Pasco at the intake meeting for
construction plans.
• Storm water runoff and infiltration calculations must comply with the
Storm Water Management Manual for Easter Washington, they must be
provided for review and approval. Storm water calculations must be
prepared, stamped, signed and dated by a currently licensed Professional
Engineer registered in the State of Washington.
• The assignment of water rights is a requirement for subdivision approval
per Pasco Municipal Code Section 26.04.115(13) and Section 3.07.160.
• The developer is responsible for all costs associated with construction,
inspection, and plan review service expenses incurred by the City
Engineering Office.
0
• The developer is responsible for installing irrigation lines, which shall be
installed per City of Pasco Standard Detail 3-1. Irrigation mains shall be
required along Chapel Hill Boulevard and internal streets. Existing
irrigation lines are available for connection at Messara lane and Moline
lane. Provisions for future irrigation connection with existing 14"
irrigation pipe, located per Franchise agreement 50185, will be required.
• The City has nuisance regulations (PMC 9.60) that require property
owners (including developers) to maintain their properties in a manner
that does not injure, annoy, or endanger the comfort and repose of other
property owners. This includes controlling dust, weeds and litter during
times of construction for both subdivisions and buildings including
houses.
• Prior to acceptance of final plats developers are required to prepare and
submit record drawings. All record drawings shall be created in
accordance with the requirements detailed in the Record Drawing
Requirements and Procedure form provided by the Engineering Division.
This form must be signed by the developer prior to construction plan
approval.
• The final plat will contain 10 -foot utility easements parallel to all streets.
Additional easement will be provided as needed by utility providers.
• The proposed plat is part of a larger parcel that extends easterly to the
alignment of Road 76 and southerly to the FCID irrigation canal. The
applicant will be developing the large parcels in phases. As such the
developer will be responsible for developing a portion of Road 76 and a
portion of the canal crossing for Road 76.
CONCLUSIONS BASED ON INITIAL STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT
Before recommending approval or denial of the proposed Plat the Planning
Commission must develop findings of fact from which to draw its conclusion
(P.M.C. 26.24.070) therefrom as to whether or not:
(1) Adequate provisions are made for the public health, safety and
general welfare and for open spaces, drainage ways, streets, alleys,
other public ways, water supplies, sanitary wastes, parks,
playgrounds, transit stops, schools and school grounds, sidewalks for
safe walking conditions for students and other public needs;
The proposed plat will be required to develop under the standards of the Pasco
Municipal Code and the standard specifications of the City Engineering
Division. These standards for streets, sidewalks, and other infrastructure
improvements were designed to ensure the public health; safety and general
welfare of the community are secured. These standards include provisions for
streets, drainage, water and sewer service and the provision for dedication of
right-of-way. The preliminary plat was forwarded to the PUD, the Pasco School
District, Cascade Gas, Charter Cable, franklin County Irrigation District and
Ben -Franklin Transit Authority for review and comment.
Based on the School Districts Capital Facilities Plan the City collects school
mitigation fees for each new dwelling unit. The fee is paid at the time of
building permit issuance. The school impact fee addresses the requirements of
RCW 58.17.110. City parks are located in the subdivisions to the west and
southwest of the site. All new developments participate in establishing parks
through the payment of park fees at the time of permitting.
(2) The proposed subdivision contributes to the orderly development and
land use patterns in the area;
The proposed Plat makes efficient use of vacant land and will provide for the
looping of utilities and interconnectivity of streets as supported in the
Comprehensive Plan. The proposed subdivision will provide arterial street
improvements along Chapel Hill Boulevard and Road 84.
(3) The proposed subdivision conforms to the policies, maps and
narrative text of the Comprehensive Plan;
The Comprehensive Plan land use map designates the site for low-density
residential development. Low-density residential development is described as 2
to 5 dwelling units per acre in the Comprehensive Plan. The Housing Element
of the Plan encourages the promotion of a variety of residential densities and
suggests the community should support the advancement of programs
encouraging home ownership. The Transportation Element of the Plan suggests
major streets should be beautified with trees and landscaping. The Plan also
encourages the interconnection of local streets for inter -neighborhood travel for
public safety as well as providing for traffic disbursement.
(4) The proposed subdivision conforms to the general purposes of any
applicable policies or plans which have been adopted by the City
Council;
Development plans and policies have been adopted by the City Council in the
form of the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed subdivision conforms to the
policies, maps and narrative text of the Plan as noted in number three above.
(5) The proposed subdivision conforms to the general purposes of the
subdivision regulations.
s
The general purposes of the subdivision regulations have been enumerated and
discussed in the staff analysis and Findings of Fact. The Findings of Fact
indicate the subdivision is in conformance with the general purposes of the
subdivision regulations provided certain mitigation measures (i.e., school
impact fees are paid).
(6) The public use and interest will be served by approval of the proposed
subdivision.
The proposed Plat, if approved, will be developed in accordance with all City
standards designed to ensure the health, safety and general welfare of the
community are met. The Comprehensive Plan will be implemented through
development of this Plat. These factors will ensure the public use and interest
are served.
TENTATIVE PLAT APPROVAL CONDITIONS
1. No utility vaults, pedestals, or other obstructions will be allowed at street
intersections.
2. All corner lots and other lots that present difficulties for the placement of
yard fencing shall be identified in the notes on the face of the final
plat(s).
3. The developer shall install common "Estate" type fence six -feet in height
along the west and north line of the plat as a part of the infrastructure
improvements associated with the plat. The fence must be constructed of
masonry block. A fencing detail must be included on the subdivision
construction drawings. Consideration must be given to a reasonable
vision triangle at the intersection of streets. The City may make repairs
or replace the fencing as needed. Property owners adjoining said fence
shall be responsible for payment of all costs associated with maintenance
and upkeep. These fencing requirements shall be noted clearly on the
face of the final plat(s). A concrete mow strip shall be installed under any
common fence as directed by the City Parks Division and shall be
approved by the Parks Department prior to installation.
4. Excess right-of-way along Road 84 and Chapel Hill Boulevard must be
landscaped. Said landscaping shall include irrigation, turf, and trees.
Trees shall be planted at 50 foot intervals. The species of the trees will be
determined by the Parks Department. All landscaping and irrigation
plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Parks Department prior to
installation. Water usage for City right-of-way landscaping shall come
from a source by the City of Pasco with the connection and meter fees
paid for by the developer.
5. The sidewalks on Road 84 and Chapel Hill Boulevard shall be offset to
accommodate the plating strip required in Number 4 above.
4
funds shall be placed in a fund and used to finance the maintenance of
arterial boulevard strips. The City shall not accept maintenance
responsibility for the landscaping abutting said streets until such time as
all fees are collected for each phase that abut said streets.
7. Lots abutting Road 84 and Chapel Hill Boulevard shall not have direct
access to said streets. Access shall be prohibited by means of deed
restrictions or statements on the face of the final plat(s).
8. The final plat(s) shall contain a 10 -foot utility easement parallel to all
streets unless otherwise required by the Franklin County PUD.
9. The developer must contribute one quarter of the cost of installing the
Road 76 canal crossing. This contribution shall be in the form a cash
deposit to the City in an amount determined by the City Engineer to
ensure the completion of the canal crossing. Said deposit must be
accompanied by a signed development agreement ensuring the
developer's full proportionate share of the crossing is covered in the event
the initial deposit falls short of the final construction costs.
10. The developer must sign a non -protest agreement to the formation of an
LID for the construction of Chapel Hill Boulevard and Road 76 including
the canal crossing.
11. The final plat(s) shall contain the following Franklin County Public Utility
District statement: "The individual or company making improvements on
a lot or lots of this Plat is responsible for providing and installing all
trench, conduit, primary vaults, secondary junction boxes, and backfill
for the PUD's primary and secondary distribution system in accordance
with PUD specifications; said individual or company will make full
advance payment of line extension fees and will provide all necessary
utility easements prior to PUD construction and/or connection of any
electrical service to or within the plat."
RECOMMENDATION
MOTION: I move to adopt Findings of Fact and Conclusions therefrom as
contained in the June 15, 2017 staff report.
MOTION: I move based on the Findings of Fact and Conclusions, as adopted,
the Planning Commission recommend the City Council approve the
Preliminary Plat for Riverhawk Estates, with conditions as listed in
the June 15, 2017 staff report.
10
,54�I� d
..
_....
l,r. �
:.,.. ��,
i :.
�� �
.:__
°� ct .
�-
r
V �o
m"
s
a`�
U�� p
'��n""^
VM'O]IOd �a AlU BVI UI�Ji1pgV
q
�'
uoisinlPqnS )ImD4JOAi�
u
g
A
Jlld ONItl33M9N3
:p{ �Cb Amulwy&d
f�3
ti
a
MEMORANDUM
DATE: June 7, 2017
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Angela R. Pitman, Block Grant Administrator (.Etre
SUBJECT: Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Annual Work Plan and Allocation
Amendment 2016.1 (MF# BGAP2017-006)
Amendments and Citizen Participation
An "amendment" to the approved plan will occur when a revision is made to the priority needs, a change
in made in the method of distribution of funds, when an activity not previously identified in the plan is
added, or when the purpose, scope, location or beneficiaries of an activity are changed.
A "substantial amendment" to the plan will occur when the original purpose of the project is changed to a
new eligible category, or when a change in the allocation exceeds 10 percent of the individual City's
current year's CDBG or HOME allocation, including program income. A substantial amendment to the
plan will be forwarded to the respective City's advisory committee, and will be available for a period of at
least 30 days for public review and comment. Upon approval by the individual City's Council and the
expiration of the 30 -day review and comment period, the proposed change will be submitted to HUD for
final approval.
Council passed Resolution Nos. 3578, 3658, and 3731approving the federally -funded Community
Development Block Grant (CDBG) budgets for program years 2015-2017. These resolutions identified
projects such as Pasco Specialty Kitchen facility improvements, downtown revitalization, safety, and
sidewalk improvements in addition to unfunded and partially funded projects as contingencies. Close-out
of prior year projects in 2014 and 2015 and change in priority needs resulted in unobligated funds totaling
$33,367 from infrastructure projects for reprogramming. Program income has also been realized from
payoff of prior year CDBG rehabilitation loans. Per HUD rules, program income received exceeding
$25,000 must be reprogrammed. Thus, $40,000 of funding is available for new, previously approved
existing, or contingent.
Projects recommended for funding listed in the attached Fund Summary are currently approved as
contingencies per the annual action plans, except the Community Housing Improvement Program (CHIP)
for owner -occupied rehabilitations, which was not recommended at the time due to the 501(c)(3) status
pending of the non-profit applicant. The City has taken over responsibility for carrying out the program
from the previous subrecipient and the status has changed for Rebuilding Mid -Columbia. There are
currently four (4) rehabilitation projects in the review process which will require additional funding if
approved.
Recommendation
After discussions and staff evaluation, it is recommended that the activities set forth in the attached Fund
Summary would best meet the City's Consolidated Plan and be most effective in carrying out the
objectives for the City in 2017. Your review and consideration for recommendation to the City Council
would be appreciated.
The City Staff would like to thank the members of the Planning Commission for your time and assistance.
MOTION: I move the Planning Commission close the public hearing and recommend the City Council
approve the use of funds for the Community Development Block Grant Program as set forth in the
"2016.1 Fund Summary" as recommended by Staff (or "as amended").
CDBG Annual Work Plan and Allocation Amendment 2016.1 Fund Summary
Proposed Amendment
PY
IDIS#
PROJECTS AMENDED
2014
325
CATHOLIC FAMIIES VCS WHEELCHAIR RAMPS
2014
326
COMMUNITY HOUSING IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
2015
347
PSK FACADE IMPROVEMMENT - REALLOCATE TO #356
2015
342
CHIP REHABILITATION - REALLOCATE TO 326
2016
355
PSK FACADE IMPROVEMMENT - COMMERCIAL FLOORING
2016
356
PSK FACADE IMPROVEMMENT- FACADE IMPROVEMENT
2016
359
DOWNTOWN REVITALIZATION & SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS
2017
357
PEANUTS PARK RENOVATION
2017
368
SIDEWALK CONSTRUCTION SENIOR CENTER
2017
NEW
COMMUNITY HOUSING IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
SOURCES AND CONTINGENT USES OF FUNDS
CONTINGENCY PROJECTS APPROVED (FROM UNOBLIGATED)
2015 356 PSK FACILITY IMPROVEMENTS (RENOVATE/REMODEL)
2016 DOWNTOWN REVITALIZATION/SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS
2017 SIDEWALK CONSTRUCTION
ADD CHIP CONTINGENCY PROJECT FOR APPROVAL (FROM PROGRAM INCOME)
2017 NEW COMMUNITY HOUSING IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM - REHAB/REPAIR
(PROGRAM INCOME FROM CDBG REHABILITATIONS)
$ 33,367
$ 33,367
$ 40,100
$ 73,467
REVISED
STATUS
APPROVED
AMENDMENT
BUDGET
OPEN
$
3,159
$
5,000
$ 8,159
OPEN
$
40,000
$
50,000
$ 90,000
CANCELLED
$
25,031
$
(25,031)
$ -
CANCELLED
$
50,000
$
(50,000)
$ -
OPEN
$
72,000
$
50,000
$ 122,000
OPEN
$
20,436
$
108,398
$ 128,834
CANCELLED
$
100,000
$
(100,000)
$ -
OPEN
$
525,000
$
100,000
$ 625,000
CANCELLED
$
100,000
$
(100,000)
$ -
$
40,100
$ 40,100
$
932,467
$
73,467
$ 965,834
SOURCES AND CONTINGENT USES OF FUNDS
CONTINGENCY PROJECTS APPROVED (FROM UNOBLIGATED)
2015 356 PSK FACILITY IMPROVEMENTS (RENOVATE/REMODEL)
2016 DOWNTOWN REVITALIZATION/SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS
2017 SIDEWALK CONSTRUCTION
ADD CHIP CONTINGENCY PROJECT FOR APPROVAL (FROM PROGRAM INCOME)
2017 NEW COMMUNITY HOUSING IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM - REHAB/REPAIR
(PROGRAM INCOME FROM CDBG REHABILITATIONS)
$ 33,367
$ 33,367
$ 40,100
$ 73,467