HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-17-2017 Planning Commission Meeting PacketPLANNING
REGULAR MEETING
I.
CALL TO ORDER:
II.
ROLL CALL:
III.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
IV,
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
V.
OLD BUSINESS:
A. Preliminary Plat
B. Special Permit
C. Special Permit
D. Rezone
VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
A. Special Permit
B. Rezone
C. Zoning Determination
D. Block Grant
E. Block Grant
F. Code Amendment
-AGENDA
7:00 P.M. August 17, 2017
Declaration of Quorum
July 20, 2017
Iris Meadows. 34 -Lots (Sunbelt Properties LLCI (MF#
PP 2017-007)
Recreation Complex (JUB Engineers, Incl (MF# SP
2017-008)
Pronghorn Ready -Mix Plant (MF# SP 2017-009)
Quail Investment Rezone (Terry Blankenship)_(MF#
Z 2017-0011
Wireless Tower (PI Tower Development LLC with T -
Mobile) (MF# SP 2017-011)
Rezone from RS -12 (Suburban) to C-1 (Retail
Business) (D&D Enterprises) (MF# Z 2017-003)
Determination of Zoning in the D&D Annexation
Area (D&D Enterprises) (MF# ZD 2017-002)
2018 Community Development Block Grant
Allocations (MF# BGAP 2017-003)
2018 HOME Allocations and Work Plan (MF# BGAP
2017-004)
Revisions to PUD Open Space requirements (City of
Pasco) (MF# CA 2017-003) - Continued
G. Code Amendment Revisions to Residential Design Standards for False
Dormers & Flat Roofs fCity of Pasco) (MF# CA 2017-
004)
H. Code Amendment
VII. WORKSHOP:
VIII. OTHER BUSINESS:
IX. ADJOURNMENT:
Revisions to CBD Zoning (City of Pasco) (MF# CA
2017-005)
This meeting is broadcast live on PSC -TV Channel 191 on Charter Cable and streamed at
www.pasco-wa.com/psetvlive.
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
No.
2
Joseph Campos
No.
3
No.
4
Alecia Greenaway
No.
5
Joe Cruz
No.
6
Ruben Alvarado
No.
7
Zahra Roach
No.
8
No.
9
Gabriel Portugal
APPEARANCE OF FAIRNESS:
MEMBERS ABSENT
Tanya Bowers
Paul Mendez
Pam Bykonen
,duly 20, 2017
Chairman Cruz read a statement about the appearance of fairness for hearings on land
use matters. Commissioner Roach stated that she is on the board of the Children's
Development Center and didn't know if she should recuse herself from MF# SP 2017-010,
Head Start Early Learning Center. Chairman Cruz responded that he didn't see that as an
issue and the Commissioners were in agreement.
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 Greenaway moved, seconded by Commissioner Portugal that the minutes
dated June 15, 2017 be approved. The motion passed unanimously.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
A. Preliminary Plat Iris Meadows. 34 -Lots (Sunbelt Properties LLQ IMF#
PP 2017-0071
Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff.
Dave McDonald, City Planner, stated the proposal involved a 34 -lot subdivision located on
the east side of Road 100 north of Argent Road. The property has been included within
me
the City's Comprehensive Plan for many years as an area for low-density residential
development. Within the Comprehensive Plan, that zoning designation means anything
from 2 units per acre to 5 units per acre. The property is located within the Urban Growth
Boundary where urban growth is to occur. The property was annexed in and zoned RS -12
2000. The application at this time is to review the plat and not the zoning, as the zoning
has already been determined.
The plat contains 34 lots that are just under 1/3 of an acre in size. The plat is laid out so
that there will be one access point to Road 100 and the road along the northern portion of
the plat aligns with Merlot, which is in West Vineyard Estates and will eventually provide a
connection to Road 100 for the properties to the east. The lots are similar in size and
style to the lots in Wilson Meadow's developed around Road 105 and Road 108. Staff has
provided the review of the necessary findings of fact required by state law and per the
municipal code. On the bench, the Commissioners were provided comments from the
public that were received prior to the meeting. Most of the correspondence highlights
concerns related to traffic on Road 100 and traffic. The neighbor to the north was
concerned about fencing along the north property line. If there wasn't a common fence,
they could end up looking at multiple types of fencing along their property.
Mr. McDonald stated several years ago a major traffic study was completed for the I-182
Corridor — basically everything west of Road 36. That study looked at what the full
buildout for residential development would be and what improvements would be required
periodically to handle the population growth. From that study a $709 Traffic Impact Fee
was established for each single-family residential unit. Each lot in this subdivision will be
will contribute to that fund for traffic improvements. The City also has the widening of
Road 100 included in the Transportation Improvement Plan for 2022, and the City is also
planning to connect Crescent Drive to Chapel Hill Boulevard which will feed all of the
traffic west of Road 105 up Road 108 to Chapel Hill Boulevard. That will improve
circulation on Road 100. Mr. McDonald also discussed widening of Road 100 and other
improvements the developer will be required to do..
Commissioner Portugal asked for clarification on the traffic study since traffic seemed to
be the main concern in most of the letters submitted to the Planning Commission.
Mr. McDonald responded that traffic was the main concern as well as lot sizes. The traffic
study was completed by a Bellevue based company called, Transpo. They studied the
entire area west of Road 36 and determined what the full buildout was. Based on future
housing and commercial development they ran some models to determine impact fees to
cover future improvements.
Commissioner Alvarado asked if the ITE manual was generally accepted.
Mr. McDonald replied that it is used all over the country by traffic engineers.
Jason Maddox, PBS Engineering, 400 Bradley Boulevard, Richland, WA spoke on behalf of
this application. He addressed access to the project and referred to a map on the
overhead. On the plat, "Road B" is the road that would run through the plat and connect
with Merlot to the east. This project does not cut through any other development or
residential neighborhood, as it is a standalone development so traffic will not have to be
re-routed. He explained that they worked with City Staff to ensure that they had proper
-2-
intersection spacing from Willow Way. Road 100 would be widened with this project and
power poles relocated. The plat will have sewer provided by and water lines would be
extended to the easterly edge of the plat to allow for future connections to the east.
Irrigation water can be provided by Franklin County Irrigation District which is a benefit
to the City and doesn't take away any water being provided by the City. The project is
compliant with the current zoning of RS -12, which works out to 2.6 units per acre. The
neighborhood to the north is also an RS -12 zoning.
Commissioner Portugal asked if there was a road on the east of the property.
Mr. Maddox responded that there is no road to the east as it is currently a vineyard.
Chairman Cruz stated that he realized that RS -12 zoning was compliant but in the
immediate vicinity most of the lots are at least 1/2 an acre. He asked Mr. Maddox what
makes this proposed plat consistent with the surrounding area.
Mr. Maddox responded that the development to the north is already RS -12. A In terms of
compliance, it is compliant with the current zoning of the property and with the
Comprehensive Plan.
Chairman Cruz replied that the proposed site can be developed with 12,000 square foot
lots but he questioned if it should go to 12,000 square feet. Most of the other surrounding
properties are on much larger lots. He asked Mr. Maddox if the applicant would consider
larger lot sizes.
Mr. Maddox didn't believe that the applicant would support larger lot sizes as they are in
compliant with the current zoning. The applicant didn't ask for this zoning, it was already
in place when the preliminary plat application was turned in. The homes and
characteristic of the neighborhood will be similar to those surrounded by it.
Angela Grad, 3602 Road 100, stated that the entrance to proposed development is right in
her back yard. Her main concern was that most of the lots surrounding this proposal are
larger and they will impact her value. She felt the Planning Commission hadn't taken into
consideration the established neighborhood. She was also concerned about traffic. The
backside exit to the plat is a dead end and there is no telling when it would connect. She
would also like to see a park. The residents thought a school would be located nearby
which would have park. She requested the Planning Commission deny the preliminary
plat based on the traffic and lot sizes.
Chairman Cruz explained that the traffic study included what the engineers felt was safe.
Also, Road 100 is not nearly as busy of a road as Road 68 and there are a number of
properties on Road 68 similar to some of the homes on Road 100, and while it is not ideal,
it is not unsafe from a standards perspective. As for a park, at this size of a development
the developer is not required to put in a park.
Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director, added each home will pay a
park impact fee. The money goes into a fund to buy park property and to furnish parks
within the general area within 1/2 mile radius.
Ms. Grad asked if local residents have to share that cost of undergrounding power.
-3-
Mr. White shook his head no in response to residents sharing the costs.
Chairman Cruz responded that the developer will to pay the cost of utility and road
improvements which is why they are in a tight spot. Having 12,000 square foot lots will
help cover the costs of the improvements. This is why it could become unsustainable for a
developer if the lots were larger.
Ms. Grad discussed the petition with 180 signatures asking the Planning Commission to
deny this plat. They are stating the lots should be a minimum of 1/2 acre.
Frank Dubree, 3515 Road 100, stated his house was on Road 100. Sometimes he has
difficulties getting his mail due to traffic. This density of the housing is too high. He
stated that there would be at least 2 cars per house with a minimum of 2 trips per day
each, which is 136 extra trips on Road 100. His two concerns were: (1) Traffic, as it is
already hard to get in and out of his driveway and (2) Property value of his home once
these homes are developed. He asked how the road was going to be widened and what
was he going to lose from his property.
Mr. McDonald responded that this property provided right of way when it was platted in
1992. The additional right of way for Road 100 was already provided.
Mr. Dubree said that was correct but he did not recall the distance from the middle of the
road into his property. He wanted to know how much he was going to lose.
Mr. McDonald responded that from the center line of the road it is 40 feet into the
property.
Mr. Dubree asked if there was going to be a sidewalk from the development up to the
existing homes and if so, how would pay for it.
Mr. McDonald answered the developer would pay for the sidewalk along the frontage of
his parcel.
Mr. Dubree asked about the homes in between that don't have a sidewalk.
Mr. McDonald stated that would be part of the City project coming up in 2022.
Chairman Cruz asked when it is widened if it will look like the portion between the freeway
and Chapel Hill Boulevard.
Mr. McDonald answered that the landscape strip will not be that wide but they will do the
best to match it.
Chairman Cruz clarified that there will be a sidewalk and a little bit of a landscape strip
with three lanes of traffic width.
Jessie Grad, 3602 Road 100, stated that his property is adjacent to the proposed "Road B"
so he will see heavy traffic. His main concern is regarding property values. He asked if
there was a dollar amount that is proposed for the new homes in this development.
Chairman Cruz responded that the Planning Commission doesn't mandate the price of the
homes. The developers will have an investment and they set the price point so they can
recoup that investment and make a profit. It is easier on smaller lot sizes to recoup that
investment. At the point of '/2 acre lots, it pushes the price point up.
Mr. Grad said he understood but it was mentioned that this development would be similar
to the development to the north but that development is not similar to his property and
was concerned of the impact these lots would have on his. He also wanted to know what
would be done about dust control while these homes are being built.
Chairman Cruz said that dust control is handled through Code Enforcement. If there are
any issues, they should contact the City. The City would remediate the problem.
Mr. Grad asked what year the traffic study was completed.
Mr. McDonald replied that it was completed in 2009.
Chairman Cruz added that the traffic study assumes what is necessary when the City is
completely built out to the target density.
Mr. Grad said that the year 2022 has been brought up several times when they do the
road widening. He wanted to know what property would be lost on the west side of the
street.
Mr. McDonald replied that there would need to be 40 feet from the center line on that side
too. He may lose his arborvitaes.
Mr. Grad asked who would take them down and if they would be replaced.
Dave Zabell, City Manager, addressed Mr. Grad's concerns and stated that he would be
paid handsomely for the impacts that his property would incur.
Jack Towne, 10321 Willow Way, said that he has lived in West Pasco since 1976. His taxes
recently went up $18,000. He didn't want his neighborhood to be diluted with smaller
properties. The existing properties are $500,000-$600,000 homes and the proposed plat
is placing "outhouses" in the middle of all of the development. He understands the
developers have to make money or they can't afford to do it. He and his neighbors fought
to get '/2 acre lots in the area and they are comfortable lots. He sees the proposed plat as
diluting the neighborhood. He also felt it was ironic getting a company from the west
side of the state to complete the traffic study given their traffic problems.
Chairman Cruz quickly gaged the audience on the number of people there to support or
not support the plat. The majority were not in support of the plat. He asked if their main
concerns were traffic and lot size. They raised their hands, yes.
-5-
Jessie Grad, 3602 Road 100, stated that he and his wife went around to their neighbors
getting signatures and comments and all of them wanted to sign. He wanted to know how
far out the City mailed the notices.
Mr. McDonald responded 300 feet. Notification was also posted in the newspaper and on
the website.
Todd Rowell, 8111 W. 5th Avenue, Kennewick, WA with Sunbelt Properties LLC, spoke on
behalf of his application. He addressed the concerns regarding property values. Land
prices have currently skyrocketed and consequently the lot prices will be a premium. Lot
price roughly constitutes 20% of the home price and base on that, he doesn't see how
these homes could even start below $350,000. Most would likely start at $350,000 and
higher. He's pretty sure no one would purchase an "outhouse" for $350,000.
Chairman Cruz addressed the surrounding character of the neighborhood. He felt that
the other lots in the area were much larger and this would be noticeably smaller. He
asked Mr. Rowell what would happen if the Planning Commission recommended the lots
be 20,000 square feet rather than 12,000 square feet.
Mr. Rowell responded that he would have to look at everything again but it wouldn't be
good. He said that the sewer and water is there and if there isn't a guarantee that the
vacant property to the east wouldn't request a rezone to RS -12.
Chairman Cruz answered they might get it but the question would be is what the
Commission would allow from a plat application to protect the surrounding neighborhood.
He discussed Montgomery Estates and how there may be a lot of people in the audience
who were not in support of that subdivision but it turned out just fine. He was fine with it
but moving towards the river, properties get bigger and more rural. He had some
reservations on 12,000 square foot lot sizes.
Mr. Maddox, addressed traffic issues and access and then stated this application is not
about zoning was discussed at a previous meeting when the property was zoned.
Chairman Cruz stated that the minimum lot sizes are 12,000 square feet, however, the
lots don't have to be as small as the minimum and the Planning Commission is tasked
with ensuring this fits the character of the surrounding neighborhood within the zoning.
Mr. Maddox stated the applicant has met the zoning requirements.
Chairman Cruz replied that it's not a matter of compliance but a matter of if it fits the
character of the surrounding neighborhood.
Mr. Maddox stated policy H -I -E encourages homeownership and goal H-2 suggests the
City strive to maintain a variety of housing options. He felt the applicant met that. In
terms of the housing and characteristics he felt that the applicant has met that as well.
Commissioner Alvarado agreed with Mr. Maddox that there needs to be a mixture of
homes in the community. He stated that we have a housing shortage. His was concerned
about parks and where they would be located.
no
Commissioner Greenaway stated the proposed project is not large enough to require a
park.
Mr. White added a park site has not be chosen for this area yet, however, it is recognized
that one is needed. The City generally partners with the School District to make parks
adjacent to school properties.
Commissioner Campos asked if Mr. Maddox could clarify why the second access point to
this development would not work.
Mr. Maddox responded there is a municipal code requirement for intersection spacing and
the entrance near Willow Way was just too tight.
Chairman Cruz reminded the Commission that the neighbors to the east will be receiving
this through traffic in the future which happens from time to time and the integrity of
their neighborhood will need to be maintained. While one entrance isn't ideal, it is better
than having the second access point which would have created a 5 point intersection.
Dana Sandlin, 3505 Road 100, said she was the neighbor to the north and was concerned
about having 7 new homes in her backyard. She also has issues already getting onto
Road 100 from her house. The egress for the development is not far from her driveway.
Mr. Towne asked if there would be water pressure issues since they would be tapping into
their pressurized water system. He asked if the developer would pay for the upgrades.
Chairman Cruz said City Engineers would review all of that prior to connecting.
Mr. McDonald said that it was not connected to the City system but the FDIC and they
would require the developer to pay for any upgrades.
Mr. Dubree asked what happens after this meeting.
Chairman Cruz said that the Planning Commission will close the hearing and make a
motion to schedule deliberations and will then forward a recommendation to City Council.
Ms. Glad stated that some of her neighbors have been told that this was a done deal. She
said that she would hope that the 85 signatures and opinions of the neighbors count.
Chairman Cruz responded that if that were true then they would be wasting their time. It
is not a done deal and that is why the public hearing was being held.
With no further questions or comments the public hearing closed.
Commissioner Roach stated that she heard and understood the comments from the
neighbors. However, in the City of Pasco the Urban Growth Boundary has been growing
due to the needs for growth in Pasco for housing because there is a housing shortage and
land which has driven up costs. The prices of homes have been rising and the County
-7-
assessments have been rising. The Commission has to take into consideration a diversity
of housing and housing in general. The applicant has met the minimum requirements
and while that might not be ideal, this is not a zoning meeting. It is a preliminary plat
request.
Commissioner Portugal stated that he had concern about this plat developing prior to the
property to the east where there will only be one access point, will that prevent a problem
for emergency responders.
Mr. McDonald responded that this plat is a small subdivision in comparison to other
subdivisions. It was pointed out that many larger subdivisions have had only one access.
The Sun Willows Subdivision also only has one entrance so this is not that unusual to
have one entrance.
Mr. McDonald addressed the concerns for smaller lots locating near the larger lot sizes. In
the past citizens have been concerned with smaller homes affecting the property values of
the larger homes in the neighborhood. Pasco hasn't seen that to be true and the Franklin
County Assessor can confirm that. He gave examples of such in the Wilson Addition and
Wilson Meadows subdivisions. Ivy Glades is an example of homes on 10,000 square foot
lots that are much higher in value than the surrounding lots that sit on an acre. Lot size
does not necessarily dictate value and does not drive down the value of larger lots nearby.
Chairman Cruz discussed the development to the west near Road 108 where there is
decent infill and the traffic impacts were not that bad. He pointed out other examples,
however, this site he felt was a hot spot in the middle of all of the others and didn't think
it was large enough for the number of homes requested.
Commissioner Portugal moved, seconded by Commissioner Roach, to close the public
hearing on the proposed preliminary plat and set August 17, 2017 as the date for
deliberations and the development of a recommendation for the City Council. The motion
passed unanimously.
B. Special Permit Dwelling Unit on Second Floor of Existing Vacant
Building on a Commercially -Zoned Lot (Melesio
Aguilar) (MF# SP 2017-007) - Cancelled
Chairman Cruz read the master file number and explained that this application had been
cancelled.
C. Special Permit Recreation Complex (JUB Engineers, Incl (MF# SP
2017-008)
Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff.
Darcy Bourcier, Planner I, discussed the special permit application for a recreation
complex in an R -S-1 zoning district. The complex will be located on 22 acres in the
southwest portion of the 119 acre parcel. The site is part of the Barker property that was
annexed in 2016 and is currently used for agriculture. There aren't any existing
structures on the 22 acres. The applicant has indicated that the privately run recreation
In
complex will be used for soccer, lacrosse and other field sports. It will have 8 grass and 2
synthetic turf fields. The complex is intended for the general public but each field may be
rented either on an hourly or membership basis. The applicant also stated that some
fields will have lighting for evening use that will not extend past 10:00 p.m. Development
of the complex is set to be completed in three phases.
Unrelated to the project but important to note for context is the future implementation of
Pasco's Broadmoor Master Plan which delineates proposed uses starting from Broadmoor
Boulevard extending west to Shoreline Road. The Broadmoor Plan illustrates several low
density residential neighborhoods in the vicinity surrounding the proposed recreation
complex. Those residential neighborhoods may supply many of the complexes customers.
Adjacent to the proposed complex is land reserved for civic and other recreation facilities.
Land to the west has recently been purchased by the School District and are being
reserved for a future high school. A collector street will be needed running north from
Burns Road between the high school and the proposed recreation complex. Traffic
generated from the complex will vary greatly depending on the time of day and week.
Vehicle trips per typical weekday may range from 375-500, taking into account how many
practice sessions occur during that day. Traffic may increase to 700 vehicle trips per day
during weekend events. It will be on a high capacity arterial street when completed so it
will be easily accessible for visitors and there will be no thru traffic in surrounding
neighborhoods so it is unlikely that it will be disruptive for residents.
Chairman Cruz asked if the lighting standards that are typically applied to schools and
other recreation facilities to limit the amount of spill over to adjacent properties will be
used.
Ms. Bourcier replied yes.
Darrel Moore, of JUB Engineers, 2810 Clearwater Avenue, Kennewick, WA spoke on his
application. He stated that they are proposing a park. This complex would be mainly for
soccer. He represents Three Rivers Soccer Club and is the Vice -President of the Board.
They are in a transitional point were there aren't enough soccer fields available. Currently
they rent City of Pasco facilities and other school facilities but they are overcrowded and
uses are limited. The complex would be privately run because they have limitations on
the public fields.
Chairman Cruz asked if that referred to alcohol sales.
Mr. Moore responded no. It will be privately owned but the public could use it. There is a
large need for this use in Pasco and surrounding cities. With the prices of land going up,
park space is limited. The project will consist of grass and synthetic due to many of the
upper level soccer leagues play year round and need lighting. They would like to phase
this project with the first phase being grass to put the fields in as it is urgent. A few of the
approval condition concerns is the roadway. Parks don't generate revenue so adding in a
14 foot long roadway will be more expensive than the facility itself. He discussed the
characteristics of the road, access and needs for the area. He felt putting in roadways and
utilities is a bit premature given the nature of the surrounding properties that will soon
develop in the future. In terms of what the facilities will look like, it will be similar to the
complex on Road 36 except much larger and honey buckets for restroom facilities and
would be on a maintenance plan. They would possibly have a job trailer for
administration.
011
Chairman Cruz asked what could be done to assist the applicant with the road.
Dave McDonald, City Planner, said that somebody will have to build the road. Eventually
there will be a road north of the fields and the property to the north and to the east is
zoned R -S-1 for 10,000 square foot lot sizes. The west side of the road will be built by the
School District. There may be options to look at and possibly completed in phases or
completed with an LID.
Chairman Cruz stated that the applicant will need to work with the City to get the road
completed.
Mr. McDonald offered to meet with the applicant prior to the next meeting to work it out.
There were three members in the audience who did not wish to come forward but were in
support of the proposed recreation complex.
With no further questions or comments the public hearing closed.
Commissioner Roach said that she was excited to see something like this proposed.
Commissioner Roach moved, seconded by Commissioner Greenaway, to close the public
hearing on the proposed rezone and set August 17, 2017 as the date for deliberations and
the development of a recommendation for the City Council. The motion passed
unanimously.
D. Special Permit Pronghorn Ready -Mix Plant (MF# SP 2017-0091
Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff.
Dave McDonald, City Planner, discussed the special permit application for a concrete
ready -mix plant. The company, Pronghorn LLC, is based out of Wenatchee and desire to
place a concrete ready -mix batch plant in Pasco. The property is just south of the
convenience store near the Kahlotus Highway Interchange. Ready -mix plants are only
permitted in I-3 zones and there is only one 1-3 zone in town owned by the Port of Pasco.
In all other industrial zones, ready -mix plants require special permit reviews.
The developer is proposing to use the southern half of the site presently for the plant.
They will haul aggregate in from a pit they own to the south in the Wallula Area and they
have access from a pit north of Highway 395. This location has great access to the
freeway to bring their product in and it provides the same benefit for taking the finished
product out to the construction sites. Provided in the staff report were findings of fact and
the review of conditions and criteria required to be reviewed by the Planning Commission
along with approval conditions similar to what was required at the Central Pre -Mix site for
controlling dust and particular matter in the air.
Commissioner Roach asked if the applicant would be the one running the ready -mix
facility or if it would be rented out to a different company.
-10-
Mr. McDonald answered that the applicant is the owner of the company and will be
operating the company. They run industrial businesses all over the country. They feel
this is a good market to expand in. This is the third ready -mix facility in Pasco.
Chairman Cruz mentioned that the approval conditions included best available
management practices for dust control, managing activity during high winds, use of
coverage, etc. These are all things discussed during prior hearings for other similar uses
and activities.
Dean Gill of Pronghorn LLC, 1505 Miller Street, Wenatchee, WA spoke on behalf of his
application. They have done their research on the market place on a lot of properties.
They are primarily a North Dakota company, where the bulk of their operations take place.
They feel the market is growing and they have aggregate. This site gives them good easy
access to the highway and is non -evasive and doesn't go through any residential
neighborhoods and is all industrial in the area. All of their plants are regulated for air
quality and noise.
Chairman Cruz asked if he has heard any opposition to this from neighboring properties.
Mr. Gill stated that he has not heard any concerns.
Commissioner Roach asked if they were only planning to use the southern portion of the
site.
Mr. Gill said that is correct. He indicated on the overhead projector where this project
would take place on the site.
Commissioner Roach asked if there were any future plans to occupy the rest of the site.
Mr. Gill responded that would be at another meeting but would be a similar business.
Mr. McDonald added that there is a site plan included in the packets provided to the
Planning Commission.
Chairman Cruz asked if it was asphalt production he had in mind in the future on the
northern portion of the site.
Mr. Gill replied yes.
Chairman Cruz responded that this location is where an asphalt plant would belong.
There was concern years ago about locating an asphalt plant near the gravel pit and the
opposition wasn't because it was an asphalt plant but because the applicant was trying to
use the "mineral resource area" as a justification to place the asphalt there when they
simply could have put it where it belonged in the I-1 zone.
With no further questions or comments the public hearing closed.
Commissioner Campos moved, seconded by Commissioner Roach, to close the public
sfm
hearing on the proposed special permit and set August 17, 2017 as the date for
deliberations and the development of a recommendation for the City Council. The motion
passed unanimously.
E. Special Permit Head Start Early Learning Center (Benton Franklin
Head Start) (MF# SP 2017-0101
Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff.
Darcy Bourcier, Planner I, discussed the special permit application for a Head Start Early
Learning Center. Benton Franklin Head Start wishes to open their early learning center in
an existing structure located in a C-1 zone. The center will operate 5 days per week and
will initially have 13 full-time employees and 51 children, ages 3-5. The building can
potentially accommodate up to 102 students. The existing building on site was originally
constructed in 2009 to be used as a daycare/pre-school and the applicant at that time
had been granted a special permit for the operation of a daycare. The center was only in
business for a few years before closing and the building has been vacant since. Although
Benton Franklin Head Start is applying for an identical use special permit within the same
building, the special permit that was granted in 2009 was personal to the initial applicant
and cannot be transferred. The operation of Jig -Saw Pre -School (the original business) did
not create a nuisance to the nearby businesses. Traffic to and from this proposed center
will typically coincide with the morning peak traffic and slightly prior to the afternoon
peak. Staff estimates the center could generate up to 240 vehicle trips per day, however,
typically vehicle trips to daycare centers and pre-schools in Pasco don't reach the volumes
indicated in the ITE Trip Generation Manual. There are 40 parking spaces on this site
with additional parking directly to the west in the Times Square Commercial Center
parking lot. Because students have already been enrolled to start this program as early as
September, Staff is recommending this special permit be reviewed and forwarded to City
Council in one meeting.
Kathy Parson, of Benton Franklin Head Start, 1549 Georgia Avenue SE, Richland, WA
spoke on behalf of her application. She explained that their program has been in the Tri -
Cities since the 1960's. Their program is a pre-school readiness program for children
living in poverty. Recently they have been a 3 /2 hour per day program but recently their
federal regulations have changed and the new requirements require an all day program.
With the change they needed a new location with larger space. Based on the community
needs assessment, Pasco is where there is a great need for this program, slightly more so
than the other cities. They are ready to begin their program, renovations have been
completed with a federal grant and it looks beautiful.
Chairman Cruz asked if there has been any opposition for any of the neighbors.
Ms. Parson said not that she is aware of.
Commissioner Roach asked Ms. Parson if she was in agreement with the approval
conditions.
Ms. Parson responded yes.
With no further questions or comments the public hearing was closed.
-12-
Commissioner Roach moved, seconded by Commissioner Greenaway, to close the hearing
and adopt the findings of fact and conclusions therefrom as contained in the July 20,
2017 staff report. The motion passed unanimously.
Commissioner Roach moved, seconded by Commissioner Greenaway, based on the
findings of fact as adopted, the Planning Commission recommend the City Council grant a
special permit to Benton Franklin Head Start Early Learning Center at 6215 Burden
Boulevard with conditions as contained in the July 20, 2017 staff report. The motion
passed unanimously.
F. Rezone Quail Investment Rezone (Terry Blankenship) IMF#
Z 2017-0011
Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff.
Dave McDonald, City Planner, discussed the proposed rezone application from C-1 (Retail
Business) to C-3 (General Business). The applicant, Terry Blankenship, is a local Tri -
Cities real estate agent and developer interested in purchasing this property. Initially he
wanted to place a restaurant supply facility at this site that would do some minor tin
bending of steel for sinks and countertops but that project has fallen through. He is now
working on other endeavors that would require more intense zoning than C-1. This parcel
was annexed into the City over 42 years ago and has basically been skipped over by
development in that time. Other properties in the neighborhood have been rezoned to C-3
and I-1 over the years. Provided in the staff report were findings of fact, conclusions and
conditions for the Planning Commission to review. The only concern staff had with this
application, as with other applications in the past requesting C-3 zoning, is that it could
bring with it some uses that aren't appropriate for this site, such as, heavy equipment,
machinery sales and service and like uses. If this application were to be granted, staff
would recommend it be conditioned to eliminate those items that would create nuisance
situations for the neighborhood. This rezone would lead to an opportunity to develop this
property that has been a dusty, weedy nuisance to the neighborhood for many years. This
may be an opportunity to clean this site up and enable the City to recoup some of the
public investment that has been put in to some of the surrounding streets by generating
new buildings and property taxes.
Commissioner Roach asked Mr. McDonald to clarify some of the problematic uses that
staff felt could come from C-3, such as, mobile home and RV sales.
Mr. McDonald said those are outdoor functions and they don't always pave their parking
lots which would cause dust to blow through the neighborhood. Heavy equipment would
come in to drop it off. There could be a business much like Beaver Bark where they pile
up mounds of dirt and bark and again there would be dust blowing through the
neighborhood along with the heavy equipment dropping it off. These activities could also
cause noise to the surrounding neighborhoods.
Commissioner Roach asked why auto body shops would create a nuisance.
Mr. McDonald said auto body shops have hazards present with explosions, paint booths,
obnoxious odors, etc.
-13-
Chairman Cruz said this is a way to work with developers while protecting the
neighborhood.
Terry Blankenship, 8905 Gage Boulevard, Richland, WA spoke on behalf of his
application. He submitted a handout to show the Planning Commission the site and what
he had in mind in terms of layout of the property. The parking lot will all be paved and
what he anticipates are small businesses, such as contractors, who only need a 500
square foot office, bathroom and possibly a place to store their equipment and other type
service businesses. This area was originally C-1 for retail but this part of town is no
longer believed to be where retail is going to expand as was the thought in the past. When
Road 68 opened up retail moved to Road 68 and this area became more light industrial
and service based industry. He believes the zoning is why this site hasn't developed and
not the price of land because it wasn't that expensive. He explained similar uses in the
area next to R-3 zoning.
Chairman Cruz asked if this project would be similar to the development by Vista Field in
Kennewick.
Mr. Blankenship replied yes and that he owns that property.
Commissioner Campos added that he thought this was the perfect location for his
proposed development, that it was similar to other uses in the neighborhood and would
have a low impact.
With no further questions or comments the public hearing closed.
Commissioner Roach moved, seconded by Commissioner Greenaway, to close the public
hearing on the proposed rezone and set August 17, 2017 as the date for deliberations and
the development of a recommendation for the City Council. The motion passed
unanimously.
G. Special Permit Port of Pasco Rezone from RS -1 to I-1 (Port of
Pasco) (MF# Z 2017-002)
Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff.
Darcy Bourcier, Planner I, discussed the rezone application from RS -1 (Residential
Suburban) to I-1 (Light Industrial). The Port of Pasco and the Tri -Cities Airport are
seeking a rezone of three parcels that include portions of the Tri -Cities Airport Operations
Area and the Airport Business Center — combined it will be 20 acres. All three parcels lie
within either airport safety compatibility zones 1 or 2, which restrict certain uses in those
areas. The portion of the rezone area that is airport runway is a secure area not
accessible to the public while the remaining portion is served by Morasch Lane off of West
Argent Road. When the site was annexed in 1979, it was automatically zoned residential.
I-182 had not been constructed yet and the exact location of the airport's property lines
were still in dispute. This resulted in the inappropriate isolation of the site as the
interstate cut through in 1984. The Port adopted and updated its Airport Master Plan
several times in the past 30 years outlining the land uses that would be acceptable in and
around the airport. The City's Comprehensive Plan has also been updated several times
-14-
since 1985. The current RS -1 zoning for the property is not consistent with the City's
plan. The airport safety compatibility zones restrict residential uses in these areas but
there are few restrictions for industrial uses. Not only will rezoning to I-1 bring the
property into compliance with the Comprehensive Plan, it will enable the Port of Pasco and
the airport to utilize an otherwise unusable area of land. It should also be noted that the
City of Pasco has already been made aware of interests in developing this site already.
Staff is recommending this rezone be reviewed and forwarded to City Council in one
meeting.
Commissioner Roach asked what interests have been showed at this site.
Ms. Bourcier responded that there has been interest in the building of an auto auction
building, however it is only speculative at this time.
Gary Ballow with the Port of Pasco, 1110 Osprey Pointe Boulevard, spoke on behalf on
this item. He introduced the Executive Director for the Port of Pasco, Randy Hayden, and
the Director of the Airport, Buck Taft. They are in support of the rezone request. The Port
of Pasco owns and manages the Tri -Cities Airport and in that, they try to protect the
airport and land use as well as encourage development that would meet those uses. They
are currently working with a tenant of the Airport Business Center and this use is a
preferential use for being near an airport, meets the safety zones and meets the City's
Comprehensive Land Use. The Port was surprised to find that the zoning did not match
the airport or City's plan.
Chairman Cruz reminded that Commission about the lengthy process of the airport safety
zones.
Tom Kidwell, 4320 Riverhaven, spoke on behalf of this item. He does not believe this site
should be used for an auction site due to the amount of people that will be here on
auction days. They have plenty of land without placing it in this location. As to the
rezone, he did not have an issue with the zoning - the issue was with the proposed use.
Mr. Ballow addressed the location for the proposed auction site. Given the shape and
location of the site, they felt this use fit the best use of the site. He stated that it will be
landscaped to look very nice.
Commissioner Greenaway asked if this would be fenced off from the airport.
Mr. Ballew said yes.
With no further questions or comments the public hearing closed.
Commissioner Roach moved, seconded by Commissioner Greenaway, moved to close the
hearing and adopt the findings of fact and conclusions therefrom as contained in the July
20, 2017 staff report. The motion passed unanimously.
Commissioner Roach moved, seconded by Commissioner Greenaway, based on the
findings of fact as contained in the July 20, 2017 staff report and conclusions as adopted,
the Planning Commission recommend the City Council rezone the three parcels located at
-15-
the northeast corner of Road 36 and West Argent Road from RS -1 to I-1. The motion
passed unanimously.
H. Block Grant 2018 Community Development Block Grant
Allocations IMF# BGAP 2017-0031
Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff.
Rick White, Community &, Economic Development Director, discussed the 2018
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Allocations. The staff memo went over the
history of the Block Grant program and the authorizing legislation at the federal level. He
went over the programs used to divide up those funds. The block grant funds themselves
are allocated to cities. The City of Pasco is an entitlement city so Pasco received funds
every year for a certain amount automatically without having to apply or compete for it.
That amount is based on the population and the income levels of households within the
city limits. The Consolidated Plan is the Comprehensive Plan of the Block Grant Program
and provides guidance on the HOME program, the Neighborhood Stabilization Program
and the Block Grant Program. A couple of years ago, Council reduced the goals in the
Consolidated Plan to the three goals presented on the overhead and in the staff memo.
There is selection criteria that staff uses in order to provide recommendations to the
Commission and then City Council adopted a resolution, Resolution 1969, passed in 1999
that designates the Planning Commission as the official Block Grant Advisory Committee
of the City. It identified priorities for projects and concludes that social services are not
allowed as eligible uses of CDBG funds. While that seems tough, there is a social block
grant program at the state level that does provide for needs of health, education and
welfare that this program is not necessarily set up to provide.
For the program year of 2018, staff estimates we will receive $695,000 based on the
funding level of 2017. It is uncertain if that number will go up or down. However, the 8
proposals received (3 of which were non -city applicants) all come in under the funds we
estimate to receive. The breakdown of the 8 proposals are: Program Administration
(capped at 20%), Public Services (YMCA, MLK Center and Senior Center staff), Economic
Opportunities (DPDA for assistance with the Specialty Kitchen) and Affordable Housing
which will be carried out by city staff and Rebuilding Mid -Columbia to assist in housing
renovations and repairs for low to moderate income families.
Steve Howland of YMCA of the Greater Tri -Cities, 1234 Columbia Park Trail, discussed his
request for funds. He has received CDBG funds in previous years for the same project.
Their largest program is the soccer program but they also have a weight room, computer
lab and soon to have a STEM program. They are requesting the funding to help keep
these programs running.
Chairman Cruz pointed out that their program can assist over 2,000 people which is a lot
of people for the small amount of money they have requested from the City.
Commissioner Portugal asked how many kids visit the center on a daily basis.
Mr. Howland said it depends but in the summer it can range from 50-200 kids per day.
And by kids, they take young adults and teens as well as grade school age children.
-16-
With no further questions or comments the public hearing closed.
OTHER BUSINESS:
With no further discussion or business, the Planning Commission was adjourned at
9:31 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
David McDonald, City Planner
-17-
MEMORANDUM
DATE: August 17, 2017
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Dave McDonald, City Planner
SUBJECT: Iris Estates Zoning Question (MF# PP 2017-007)
There was some discussion during the public hearing on this preliminary plat
that the Planning Commission should consider requiring larger lot sizes as a
part of the plat recommendation process. Concern over maintaining the
character of the neighborhood was the reasoning behind the discussion to
increase the size of some of the lots. At this point the Planning Commission
does not have the option to compel the developer to increase lot sizes.
First, the minimum lot size for this plat was established in 2001 when the
Planning Commission recommended all properties east of Road 100 and
north of Argent Road and south of the FCID canal be zoned RS -12. As a part
of that zoning process the Planning Commission considered the character of
the adjacent property and the impact the RS -12 zoning would have on the
value of the whole area. In addition to the consideration given to surrounding
properties the Planning Commission also considered the zoning review
criteria in PMC 25.88.030 and 25 88.060 when recommending the RS -12
zoning.
The review criteria applicable to preliminary plats is directed toward
provisions of public health related to utilities, open space, parks, schools,
safe travel, free movement of light and air and related items. The preliminary
plat review process does not include the character of surrounding properties.
That consideration is completed through the rezone process prior to review of
a preliminary plat. The zoning process was completed 16 years ago. The
preliminary plat process is not to be used to reconsider zoning applicable to
the property. In fact a preliminary plat cannot be approved unless it is in
conformance with the underlying zoning (RCW 58.17.195).
Secondly, the Planning Commission is obligated per the State's Vesting
Doctrine to review the proposed plat under the established zoning applicable
to the property at the time the preliminary plat application was accepted. The
Washington vested rights doctrine provides developers with a degree of
certainty in the development process that land use regulations will not
change during their application and development process. In 1978 the
legislature made the Vesting Doctrine law by enacting RCW 58.17.033 (1)
which reads:
(1) A proposed division of land, as defined in RCW 58.17.020, shall
be considered under the subdivision or short subdivision
ordinance, and zoning or other land use control ordinances, in
effect on the land at the time a fully completed application for
preliminary plat approval of the subdivision, or short plat
approval of the short subdivision, has been submitted to the
appropriate county, city, or town official.
Ten years after the legislature codified the Vesting Doctrine the Courts in
Noble Manor vs Pierce County concluded a developer "has a right to have
that application considered under the zoning and land use laws existing at
the time the complete plat application is submitted"...
RS -12 zoning was in place at the time the City accepted Sun Belt properties
preliminary plat application for Iris Meadows. The developer now has the
right to have his preliminary plat considered under those regulations. The
RS -12 regulations permit 12,000 square foot lots. The different criteria for
reviewing and approving zoning verses subdivisions along with the State's
Vesting Doctrine preclude the Planning Commission from trying to change the
land use regulations by altering the lot sizes of the proposed plat. The
developer is vested and has the right to develop his plat with 12,000 square
foot lots.
2
REPORT TO PLANNING
MASTER FILE NO: PP 2017-007
HEARING DATE: 7/20/2017
ACTION DATE: 8/17/2017
APPLICANT: Sun Belt Properties
8202 Quinault Ave Ste. C
Kennewick, WA 99336
REQUEST: Preliminary Plat: Iris Meadows, (34 -Lot Single Family Subdivision).
1. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION:
Legal: NW Quarter of Section 16, T9N, R29E, WM
General Location: The 3300 block of Rd 100 (East side of Road 100)
Property Size: 12.88 Acres
Number of Lots Proposed: 34 single-family lots
Square Footage Range of Lots: 12,012 ft2 to 14,545 ft2
Average Lot Square Footage: 12,446ft2
2. ACCESS: The property will have access from Road 100 and eventually
connect to Rd 96.
3. UTILITIES: Municipal sewer services are located in Road 100.
4. LAND USE AND ZONING: The site is zoned RS -12 (Suburban
Residential). Surrounding properties are zoned and developed as follows:
NORTH: RS -12 - Short Plat 92-4 8v Montgomery Estates
SOUTH: R-1- Vacant & a Church
EAST: RS -20 - Vineyard
WEST RS -12 & RS -20 - Peppermint Terrace & Wilson Add
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. Il, 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: Based on the SEPA checklist, the
adopted City Comprehensive Plan, City development regulations,
testimony at the public hearing and other information, a Determination
of Non -Significance (DNS) has been issued for this project (WAC 197-11-
355).
ANALYSIS
The proposed subdivision is located immediately east of Road 100 and north of
the Desert Springs Church at the northeast corner of Road 100 and Argent
Road. From the mid -1940s to recent years the property was the Olsen farm.
Mrs. Olsen sold the property to Kingspoint Christian School in 2000. The
Kingspoint School was granted two special permits for development of a school
and sports fields over the years but was unable to follow through with
construction plans to build a school. The property was recently sold to a
developer who plans on developing 34 single-family lots on the property
consistent with the RS -12 zoning on the property. Per RCW 58.17.033 (1) this
plat application must be reviewed and considered under RS -12 zoning that
were in place at the time the application was accepted by the City.
The site has been designated for low-density residential development since
1982 and was zoned RS -12 when it was annexed in 2001. Properties to the
west are developed with single-family homes on lots zoned RS -12 (Wilson
Addition & part of Peppermint Terrace) and RS -20 (Peppermint Terrace).
Properties to the east and north of the site are also designated for low-density
residential development and zoned RS -20.
LOT LAYOUT: The proposed plat contains 34 residential lots. The lots vary in
size from 12,012 square feet to 14,545 square feet. The average lot size is
12,446 square feet. The proposal is consistent with the density requirements of
the RS -12 zoning on the site. The minimum lot size for the RS -12 zone is
12,000 square feet. The lot density is also consistent with the provisions of the
Comprehensive Plan that suggests 2 to 5 dwelling units per acre would be
appropriate for the location of the proposed plat.
RIGHTS-OF-WAY: All lots have frontage on streets which will be dedicated. The
east half of Road 100 will be finished with this subdivision to match the Road
100 improvements that were installed with Montgomery Estates to the north.
The street along the north portion of the plat lines up with Merlot Drive to the
east. Merlot Drive will eventually connect Road 100 to Road 96. The Merlot
connection will improve traffic circulation in the neighborhood and provide for
needed looping and redundancy in the utilities.
i]
UTILITIES: Municipal water service runs north and south in Road 100. A
sewer line also runs north in Road 100. The plat is within the FCID boundaries
and will be served by the Irrigation District. The power poles along Road 100
will need to be relocated out of the right-of-way. They are currently not in the
right-of-way but Road 100 needs to be widened and additional right-of-way
must be dedicated with this 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. The property is within the FCID
boundaries and will not be served by the City.
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:"
Prevent Overcrowding: Density requirements of the RS -12 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 2.6 units per acre. No more than
t3
40 percent of each lot is permitted to be covered with structures per the RS -12
standards. The general neighborhood around Road 100 south of the FCID
pipeline contains suburban residential lots of various sizes as follows: 9,278,
12,047, 14,984, 15,289, 17,641, 18,880, 19,998 and 44,344 square foot lots.
Most of the lots in this area are under a half acre in size but, they meet the 2 to
5 dwellings per acre provision of the Comprehensive Plan.
Parks Opens Space/Schools: The entrance to Chiawana Park is located about
1,800 feet to the southeast of the plat. 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. The City also includes a park impact fee ($1,420) with the permit for
each new house to address park needs in the community.
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 for low-density residential
areas is 5 dwelling units per acre. The developer is proposing a density of 2.6
units per acre. The proposed development will include improvements to
Road100 and the first segment of the Merlot Drive connection to Road 96.
Safe Travel & Walking Conditions: The plat will connect to the community
through the existing network of streets. Sidewalks will only be installed along
Road 100 as the interior lots within the RS -12 zone do not require sidewalks.
The sidewalk along Road 100 will be constructed to current City standards and
to the standards of the American's with Disabilities Act (ADA).
Adequate Provision of Municipal Services: All lots within the plat will be
provided with water, sewer and other utilities.
Provision of Housing for State Residents: This Preliminary Plat contains 34
residential building lots, providing an opportunity for the construction of 34
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 100. The
a
Preliminary Plat was submitted to the Transit Authority for review (The
discussion under "Safe Travel' above applies to this section also). Driveways
are typically limited on major streets such as Road 100. The plat has been
laid out to allow for a block wall along road 100 with access provided by
interior streets only.
The Transportation Improvement Plan includes two projects that enhance
traffic flow on Road 100 by 2022. The plan calls for Crescent Drive to be
connected to Chapel Hill Boulevard allowing all traffic west of Road 108 and
from Wilson Meadows to access Road 100 by going north to Chapel Hill
Boulevard. The second project involves the widening of Road 100 from court
Street to Chapel Hill Boulevard. These upgrades will improve traffic flow on
Road 100.
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 a slight slope to the south.
• The site is mostly vacant. (There is one vacant house and several old
farm buildings on the site. These will be removed to make way for the
plat.)
• 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 RS -12 (Suburban Residential).
• The site was zoned in 2001.
• RCW 58.17.033 requires the Planning Commission to only consider the
proposed plat under RS -12 zoning.
• The developer is proposing 2.6 dwelling units per acre.
• The general vicinity or neighborhood around Road 100 south of the FCID
pipeline is characterized by a variety of suburban single-family lots of
varying sizes including 9,278, 12,047, 14,984, 15,289, 17,641, 18,880,
19,998 and 44,344 square foot lots.
5
• A search (July 2017) of the Franklin County assessor records indicates a
mix of residential lot sizes within a neighborhood has no impact on
property values. The values of properties the 40,000 square foot lots in
the 9700 and 9800 block of Maple Drive have not decreased in value as
the result of being near the 9,200 square foot lots in Montgomery
Estates.
• Maple Drive west of Road 96 has a mix of lots, some being 40,000 square
feet or more and some being only 17,859 square feet. The smaller lots on
Maple Drive have not cause the values of the larger lots to decrease (July
search of Franklin County Assessor Records).
• 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.
• Merlot Drive along the northern portion of the plat has been position to
allow for the extension of merlot Drive from Road 96 to the east and
proved street interconnectivity encourage by the Comprehensive Plan.
• Per the ITE Trip Generation Manual 8th Addition the proposed
subdivision, when fully developed, will generate approximately 340
vehicle trips per day.
• The Transportation Improvement Plan calls for widening Road 100 from
Court Street to Chapel Hill Boulevard in 2022. The Plan also indicates
Crescent Drive will be extended to Chapel Hill Boulevard by the same
date. These improvements will improve the travel flow through the
neighborhood.
• 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
City. The dedication of a fully constructed park reduces the fee by 93
percent. In this case the developer will be paying the full fee.
• 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.
0
• 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, storm water retention
and sidewalks where required by zoning. Sidewalks will be required along
Road 100.
• 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(B) 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.
• The developer is responsible for installing irrigation lines meeting the
standards of the Franklin County Irrigation District.
• 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.
• Access to arterial streets such as Road 100 is restricted by plat notes
and the construction of a block wall separating all lots backing on the
arterial street.
• There is one long lot to the north of the proposed subdivision. Without
conditions the lot to the north could be subjected to the construction of
seven different fences from the seven different lots along the north
boundary of the plat. A fence condition could remedy this concern.
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. Chiawana Park is located to south of the subdivision. 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;
8
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 Road 100. The proposed plat follows in the land use
patterns for single-family development similar to the last two subdivisions
(Wilson Meadows and Montgomery Estates) built in the general vicinity.
Peppermint Terrace 18t Addition on the west side of Road 100 is developed with
lots that are well under a half acre in size.
(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.
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
4
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 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 100 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 100 shall be offset to accommodate the planting
strip required in Number 4 above.
6. The developer/ builder shall pay the City a "common area maintenance
fee" of $475 per lot upon issuance of building permits for homes. These
funds shall be placed in a fund and used to finance the maintenance of
arterial boulevard strips. 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 100 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.
10
9. The developer shall work directly with Franklin County PUD on the
relocation of the power poles in order to install the necessary roadway
infrastructure along Road 100, this shall include installation of the
necessary conduit and electrical vaults as determined by Franklin
County PUD so that when the PUD undergrounds the lines in the future
as part of larger project the infrastructure across the plat frontage will be
available. All power lines along the interior of the streets shall be placed
underground per City standard.
10. The developer shall install a common fence (ie all cedar, vinyl or block)
along the north line of the plat. Adjacent to Lot 2, short Plat 92-4. The
fence must be installed in conjunction with the construction of each
house on the lots abutting said Short Plat.
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 August 17, 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 Iris Meadows, with conditions as listed in the
August 17, 2017 staff report.
11
E
g
owl
O.VMI-nItNIA-1*01*A � AK
a
a r�T
li�z
-filt
SWAT"
7*11 A
0 pw IWF;w4;f
g
owl
O.VMI-nItNIA-1*01*A � AK
a
IS
ins, i
^� fi r'♦ B e ® r
F� tom\ 34-4
- s
h,
6
Q -Q
_ NOlONIHSVM'OOSVd JO A110 3H1 Ni 031VOOl NOISIA108NS tl g
4
SiBd E41 SM0av3W SR11
ate•. A. !UOd 1Vld A8VNIWIl3Ud Su tl
6
Qp�
2.0
1
iy
W�Y
as
a E
>
"ra
OVOU1N30UV
--- - ----- - _. 111�041
1;
m
XA
Rt
Wa3
a
-
All
f
0
F
�
�
-
�
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
MASTER FILE NO: SP 2017-008 APPLICANT: JUB Engineers, Inc.
HEARING DATE: 7/20/2017 2810 W Clearwater Ave, Ste. 201
ACTION DATE: 8/17/2017 Kennewick, WA 99336
BACKGROUND
REQUEST: SPECIAL PERMIT: Locate a recreation complex in an RS -1 zoning
district.
1.
Legal: Farm Unit 99, IRR Blk 1 EXC PTN for CO Rd R/W (1754579)
General Location: 10700 block of Burns Rd.
Property Size: 22 acres located in the southwest corner of a large 119
acre parcel.
2. ACCESS: The site is accessible from Burns Road
3. UTILITIES: City water is available to the site off Burns Road, but sewer
is not.
4. LAND USE AND ZONING: The site is currently zoned RS -1 (Suburban)
and is vacant. Surrounding properties are zoned and developed as
follows:
NORTH: County - Single-Family/Crop Fields
SOUTH: RT - Vacant
EAST: County, RS -1, R-3 - Crop Field/Vacant
WEST: County - Crop Field
5. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The Comprehensive Plan designates the site
for Low -Density Residential uses; however, Policy ED -1-13 encourages the
development of tourism and recreational opportunities within the City.
6. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Based on the SEPA checklist, the
adopted City Comprehensive Plan, City development regulations,
testimony at the public hearing and other information, a Mitigated
Determination of Non -Significance (MDNS) has been issued for this
project. Mitigation factors include the construction of streets and utilities
on the south and west side of the proposed soccer complex in accordance
with City standards.
1
ANALYSIS
The applicant has applied to construct a recreation complex in a RS -1 zoning
district. Pursuant to PMC 26.22.040(7), recreation complexes are considered
conditional uses in RS -1 zones and require Special Permits prior to
construction. The complex will be located on 22 acres in the southwest portion
of the 119 -acre parcel -2,100 linear feet west of the intersection of Broadmoor
Blvd. and Burns Rd. The site is part of the Barker property that was annexed
in 2016 and is currently used for agriculture; there are no existing structures
on the 22 -acre site in question.
The applicant has indicated that the privately -run recreation complex will be
used for soccer, lacrosse, and other field sports, boasting eight grass and two
synthetic turf fields. The complex is intended for the general public, but each
field may be rented on either an hourly or membership basis. The applicant
also stated that some fields will have lighting for evening use that will not
extend past 10 pm.
Development of the complex is set to be completed in phases. Phase 1 will take
place in the fall of 2017/spring of 2018; Phase 2 in the fall of 2018/spring of
2019; and Phase 3 in the fall of 2019/spring of 2020. There is also the
possibility for future development of a clubhouse for meetings and facilities
storage. Unrelated to the project but important to note for context is the future
implementation of Pasco's Broadmoor Master Plan, which delineates proposed
uses starting from Broadmoor Boulevard and extending west all the way to
Shoreline Road. The Broadmoor Plan illustrates several low-density residential
neighborhoods in the vicinity surrounding the proposed recreation complex,
which may supply many of the complex's customers. Adjacent to the proposed
complex is land reserved for civic and/or other recreation facilities. The
completed complex will use domestic and irrigation water from the City of
Pasco. Adjacent lands to the west have recently been purchased by the School
District and are being reserved for a future high school.
Traffic generated by the complex will vary greatly depending on the time of day
and week. According to the applicant as well as the Institute of Transportation
Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Volume 8, vehicle trips per typical weekday
may range from 375 to 500, taking into account how many practice sessions
occur during the day. Traffic may increase during weekend events, as it is
estimated that there could be as many as 700 vehicle trips per day. However,
considering its location on a high-capacity arterial street, the recreation
complex will be easily accessible for visitors and there will be no through -traffic
in surrounding neighborhoods. Therefore, despite increased vehicle trips to and
from the area, it is unlikely that it will be disruptive for residents.
The site is located about midway between Broadmoor Boulevard and Dent
Road. A collector street will be needed at this location running north from
2
Burns Road between the future High School site and the proposed recreation
facility. Adjoining property owners are responsible for designing and building
their respective half of all streets abutting their property. These street
improvements include utilities, street lighting, storm drainage, signage
sidewalks, right-of-way dedication and other features consistent with the City's
Standard Specification. The applicant's site has 600 feet of street frontage
along Burns Road and will have 1,452 feet of frontage along the west side of the
property. The applicant will be responsible for construction the necessary
infrastructure improvements as discussed above. The infrastructure could be
constructed in phases similar to how subdivisions are built with improvements
being completed with each phase. The proposed recreation complex will be
constructed in phases.
STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT
Findings of fact must be entered from the record. The following are initial
findings drawn from the background and analysis section of the staff report.
The Planning Commission may add additional findings to this listing as the
result of factual testimony and evidence submitted during the open record
hearing.
1. The parcel contains 119 acres but only 22 of those acres are designated
for development.
2. The site is zoned RS -1 (Suburban).
3. The site fronts Burns Road.
4. Pursuant to PMC 26.22.040(7), recreation complexes are considered
conditional uses in RS -1 zones that require Special Permits.
5. The site is currently used for agriculture.
6. The finished recreation complex will have eight grass/turf fields for the
use of soccer, lacrosse, and other field sports.
7. Some fields will have lighting that will not extend past 10 pm.
8. Development of the complex will be completed in three phases.
9. Vehicle trips per weekday to and from the site may range from 375 to
500 and up to 700 on a weekend day.
10. The site fronts an arterial street which will allow for easy access and no
through -traffic in surrounding neighborhoods.
11. The site in question will require the development of 2025 lineal feet of
street and utility improvements. Code Codes and Standard Specification
require property owners adjoining current and future right-of-way to
complete the street improvement at the time their property is developed.
3
12. The developer of the recreation fields will be responsible for development
of the adjoining streets per City Standards.
CONCLUSIONS BASED ON STAFF 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 conclusions
based upon the criteria listed in PMC 25.86.060. The criteria are as follows:
(1) Will the proposed use be in accordance with the goals, policies, objectives
and text of the Comprehensive Plan?
The Comprehensive Plan designates the site for Low -Density Residential uses;
however, Policy ED -1-D encourages the development of tourism and
recreational opportunities within the City.
(2) Will the proposed use adversely affect public infrastructure?
A recreation complex will generate traffic that will vary greatly depending on
the day of the week. However, its location on a high-capacity arterial street
(Burns Road when fully built will be a major arterial street.) will allow for the
extra traffic without resulting in congestion. Development of the proposed
recreation complex will require the development of adjoining streets and
utilities. Demands for potable water from this site will minimal.
(3) Will the proposed use be constructed, maintained and operated to be in
harmony with existing or intended character of the general vicinity?
The RS -1 District provides for low density residential environments permitting
single-family homes on large suburban lots. The applicant's immediate
neighborhood area is mostly vacant; however, Pasco's Broadmoor Master Plan
illustrates the planned development of several low-density residential
neighborhoods in close proximity to the proposed recreation complex. The
Broadmoor plan also shows strips of designated park areas lining Burns Road.
On the east side of Dent Road adjacent to said complex is land designated for
civic and/or other recreation facilities. Considering this, it can be said that the
proposed complex will be sited, constructed, and maintained in general
harmony with the character of the neighborhood. For comparison the City's
soccer complex is located adjacent to a large residential neighborhood without
and diminution of the surrounding character of the neighborhood.
(4) Will the location and height of proposed structures and the site design
discourage the development of permitted uses on property in the general
vicinity or impair the value thereof
0
Requirements of the Pasco Municipal Code will ensure the recreation complex
will be built to conform to all height and setback standards. Since the complex
consists mostly of flat fields, there will be little obstruction of view for residents
in the vicinity. Based on experience form the soccer complex near the TRAC
facility there should be no reason why the development of permitted uses on
property in the vicinity would be discouraged as a result of the development
and operation of the proposed recreation complex.
(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 Broadmoor Master Plan indicates land adjacent to the proposed complex is
reserved for civic and recreation facilities, therefore the area has already been
slated for development with non-residential uses. Disturbance to future single-
family dwellings that may locate near the complex is unlikely, given that any
light or noise that accompanies the use will cease by 10 pm. Again, the location
and operation of the soccer complex adjacent to the Linda Loviisa subdivision
has not created fumes, vibrations, or dust that have created objectionable
conditions in the neighborhood. Traffic is also unlikely to cause disruption, as
the complex will be located on an arterial street which discourages visitors from
cutting through neighborhoods.
(6) Will the proposed use endanger the public health or safety if located and
developed where proposed, or in any way become a nuisance to uses
permitted in the district?
Requirements of the Building Code and other City Codes will ensure the
recreation complex will be built to conform to all public health or safety
standards. The building code standards coupled with other codes and
requirements will ensure the complex will not be a nuisance to the
neighborhood.
APPROVAL CONDITIONS
1. The special permit shall apply to Franklin County tax parcel #
115180073;
2. The recreation complex must be developed in substantial conformance
with the site plan submitted with this special permit application;
3. The applicant is responsible for designing and building street
improvements for the north half of Burns Road and the east half of the
north/ south collector between the applicant's site and the School District
property to the west. The street improvements will be required for the
5
length of the applicant's property including a transition taper at each end
of the property if needed. The street improvements must be built to full
City Standards including the installation of utilities. Said street and
utility improvements can be built in phases corresponding to the phasing
of the soccer complex as follows
1) With Phase 1 the north/south collector street must be
improved from Burns Road to the south end of the first
phase fields constructed.
2) With Phase 2 the north/south collector street from shall
be improved from the south end of the first phase fields to
the center of the second phase fields.
3) With Phase 3 the north/south collector street shall be
improved completed to the north property line.
4) Burns Road improvements must be completed in
conjunction with the street improvements associated with
the property to the east (Parcel # 115180064) or west
(115180042). Burns Road improvements shall include an
off -set sidewalk and landscaping with lawn and trees at
50 -foot intervals as approved by the City Parks Division.
4. The site must maintain at least a 20 -foot landscaped setback area
between all streets, fields, and parking lots with 65 percent live
vegetation.
5. The parking lot improvements including hard surfacing and landscaping
must coincide with and be completed with each phase of the
development as follows:
1) One third of the parking lot improvements must be
completed with Phase 1.
2) Two thirds (One third for the Phase 1 and one third for
Phase 2) of the parking lot improvements must be
completed with Phase 2.
3) All parking lot improvements must be completed with
Phase 3.
6. Full right-of-way dedication for adjacent streets must occur with Phase
1.
7. No shipping containers or other related or similar temporary structures
will be permitted on the site except for during periods of construction
only.
8. Field lighting must be approved through an amendment to the special
permit considered by the Planning Commission.
9. The special shall be null and void if a building permit has not been
obtained by December 30, 2017.
6i
MOTION for Findings of Fact: I move to adopt Findings of Fact and
Conclusions therefrom as contained in the August 17, 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 Tri Cities
Soccer Association under MF# SP 2017-008 for the location of
soccer complex on Parcel # 115180073 with the conditions as
contained in the August 17, 2017 staff report.
7
UAIEJ
'HOOWOVOHB
•ij„ ly f,
e
e
t
R [
W
z w
D 0. o o F.
F-LLI'n
W
o
g a gy;
� g = o
i
I
o I
I -
_..t
-- y
UK•
tt
,
y
'i
1.
O
■
O
a
yF
t�irY� i. %1 ,•.V.
�SYh{�kw' �'Y.%f�'..aR .' . .
F
[��
I � p �
' � � _
,r. Q � `j"'.L.
w �?5�as
y'�' }w
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
MASTER FILE NO: SP 2017-009 APPLICANT: Pronghorn LLC
HEARING DATE: 7/20/2017 1505 N Miller St. Ste 260
ACTION DATE: 8/17/2017 Wenatchee, WA 98801
BACKGROUND
REQUEST: SPECIAL PERMIT: Ready -Mix Concrete Facility in an I-1 Zone
1.
Legal: Lot 4, BSP 2016-01
General Location: SW corner of Ventura Rd and the PK Highway
Property Size: 36 Acres
2. ACCESS: The site is accessible from Ventura Road, Kendall Drive and
the Pasco Kahlotus Road.
3. UTILITIES: Municipal utilities currently serve the site.
4. LAND USE AND ZONING: The site is currently zoned I-1 (Light
Industrial) and is vacant. Surrounding properties are zoned and
developed as follows:
NORTH: I-1 - Agriculture and Carrot Plant
SOUTH: I-1 -Trucking, Onion Processer, Truss Plant
EAST: I-1 - Agriculture
WEST: I-1 - Meat Cutting Facility and a "C" Store
5. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The plan encourages the concentration of
activities that are functionally and economically beneficial to each other.
The plan also encourages the development of a wide range of commercial
uses strategically located to support local and regional needs.
6. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Based on the SEPA checklist, the
adopted City Comprehensive Plan, City development regulations,
testimony at the public hearing and other information, a Mitigated
Determination of Non -Significance (MDNS) has been issued for this
project. Mitigation factors include using the best available management
practices to control dust generated by the ready -mix plant operation. Best
management practices may include:
1
• Using water or chemical dust suppressants on particulate matter (PM)
containing surfaces (i.e. haul roads) and/or materials prior to and during
activities that may release PM into the air;
• Managing activity during high winds, if the winds are likely to cause the
release of PM into the air;
• Using covered chutes and covered containers when handling, transferring,
and/or storing PM containing materials;
• Minimizing the free fall distance, i.e. drop height, of PM containing
materials at transfer points such as the end of conveyors, front end loader
buckets, etc.;
• Managing vehicle loads with potential of release of PM with appropriate
covers or freeboard;
• Minimizing exposed areas of PM containing materials such as storage
piles, graded surfaces, etc, and/or using tarps or chemical dust
suppressants to minimize releases to the air; and/or
• Limiting vehicle speed to less than 15 miles per hour on unpaved surfaces;
• Consolidating storage piles whenever possible;
• Managing stockpile loader and haul truck travel to control release of PM.
ANALYSIS
The applicant proposes to locate a concrete ready -mix facility on 36 acres of
land located in the 300 block of the Pasco Kahlotus Road. The ready -mix
facility will consist of a modular office, concrete batch plant, truck wash and an
aggregate stockpile. The sand and aggregate will be trucked to the site from an
off-site quarry. The sand and aggregate will be to make ready -mix concrete
that will be delivered from the batch plant to construction sites around the Tri -
Cities. The last ready -mix plant to locate in Pasco was Connell Sand and Gravel
which developed a similar facility on Burlington Street in 2000.
Ready -mix plants are a permitted use in the I-3 Heavy Industrial zone and a
conditional use in the I-2 Medium Industrial Zone. They are also listed as a
conditional use under the Natural Resource section of PMC 25.70.110.
The proposed ready -mix site has been identified in the Comprehensive Plan for
more intense industrial uses for over 35 years. The site has also been zoned
for industrial activities for about 35 years. The site was originally zoned I-1 in
the County prior to annexation in 2013. Noise is an issue that is often
associated with ready -mix plants. In many cases offending noise from a ready -
mix plant is generated by a rock crusher that prepares the aggregate that is
used in the concrete mixing process. In this case the aggregate will be mined
and prepared at an off-site location and then transported to the site by truck.
FA
Any noise associated with the proposed plant will come from the trucks and the
ready -mix plant itself. The adjoining truss plant, trucking firms and farm fields
are not particularly sensitive to noise. In that regard the proposed ready -mix
plant should not create objectionable noises or vibrations that would materially
impact the neighborhood. Permitted uses within the I-1 zone such as
manufacturing plants, metal fabrication shops, contractors plants and storage
yards, kennels and experimental laboratories can and do generate as much of
more noise than a ready -mix plant.
The site is located conveniently to the Lewis Street Interchange and Highway
12 which provides the main transportation link from the proposed plant to
construction sites in Benton, Franklin and Walla Walla Counties.
STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT
Findings of fact must be entered from the record. The following are initial
findings drawn from the background and analysis section of the staff report.
The Planning Commission may add additional findings to this listing as the
result of factual testimony and evidence submitted during the open record
hearing.
1. The parcel contains just over of 36 acre.
2. The site is zoned I-1 (Light Industrial).
3. Ready -mix plants require a special permit except in the I-3 zone.
4. The proposed ready -mix plant will be located in an industrial area that is
characterized by businesses that utilize large outdoor areas to conduct
business. These businesses include Fowler Supply, Oxarc and Basin
Disposal on Dietrich Road to the north and RE Powel, Northwest
Trucking (Formally Savage Trucking) and the other trucking facilities to
the south.
5. The site is located 1,100 feet from the Lewis Street interchange providing
convenient access to construction sites in a three county area.
6. The Truss Company (business that manufactures trusses) is located at
the southwesterly corner of the site. The Truss Company is also in the
construction material supply business serving many of the same
customers that will need the product produced by the ready -mix plant.
The Truss Company also benefits from close proximity to the Lewis Street
Interchange.
7. The proposed ready -mix plant will include the storage of trucks in the
yard around the plant similar to RE Powell, Northwest Trucking, Oxarc,
Basin Disposal and other businesses.
3
8. The carrot plant to the north of the site has a tank that extends to a
height that will be about equal to or taller than height of the ready -mix
plant.
9. Development of the site will support previous public investment that
brought water and sewer lines under Highway 12 to serve properties to
the east of the Highway. Added utility customers on the east side of the
Highway helps with recovering the community's investment in the water
and sewer system.
10. The operation of the proposed plant will involve the hauling and stock
piling of gravel and sand that will be used in the ready -mix process.
Without mitigating measures this operation could create dusty
conditions and air quality conditions that are undesirable.
CONCLUSIONS BASED ON STAFF 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 conclusions
based upon the criteria listed in PMC 25.86.060. The criteria are as follows:
(1) Will the proposed use be in accordance with the goals, policies, objectives
and text of the Comprehensive Plan?
The Comprehensive Plan has identified the site for industrial land uses for over
35 years. The property is zoned industrially and the proposed use is an
industrial business. The Plan also encourages a wide range of commercial
activities to be developed within the UGA.
(2) Will the proposed use adversely affect public infrastructure?
The site is located in an area that the community has planned for industrial
uses for over 35 years. Public infrastructure including sewer and water have
been stubbed under Highway 12 and have been sized for industrial needs. The
Lewis Street Interchange was designed for industrial traffic and is utilized by
the BDI fleet of trucks, the carrot plant trucks and other agricultural related
facilities nearby that have a heavy reliance on trucking. The Lewis Street
Interchange is the freeway connection to the Heritage Boulevard truck route
and a connection to the surrounding Counties.
(3) Will the proposed use be constructed, maintained and operated to be in
harmony with existing or intended character of the general vicinity?
The proposed ready -mix plant supports the intended industrial character of the
surrounding area that has a number of facilities and plants that rely heavily on
the Lewis Street Interchange and Highway 12. The proposed use is primarily
rd
an outdoor activity somewhat similar in nature to Fowler Supply Oxarc and
Basin Disposal on Dietrich Road to the north and RE Powel, Northwest
Trucking (Formally Savage Trucking) and the other trucking facilities to the
south. All of these facilities make extensive use of their lots for outdoor storage
of trucks, equipment, piping, petroleum tanks and chemical tanks and various
crates, containers and miscellaneous items.
(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
There is no height limitation or restrictions in the I-1 zone unless a parcel is
located within one of the Airport Safety Zones. The proposed site is not within
one of the Airport Safety Zones. The carrot plant to the north contains a large
tall tank used in to process carrots. The tank is approximately the height of the
proposed ready -mix plant. The carrot tank has not discouraged development
in the area or impacted the value of surrounding properties as a search of the
Franklin County Assessor's records will indicate.
(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?
Nearby agricultural storage sheds generate odors (fumes) that can be far more
obnoxious than the minimal odors that may be generated by a ready -mix plant.
The operation of nearby trucking firms create traffic, dust, vibrations, fumes
and noise similar to or more intense that the operation of the ready -mix trucks.
Nearby farming operations also impact the neighborhood with dust during
periods of the year. The operation of the ready -mix plant can also create a
different dust concern if the plant is not operated properly. Proper
management practices, similar to those being employed by the other two ready -
mix plants in the City, generally addresses the dust concern. Ready mix plants
are also heavily regulated by the State in this regard.
(6) Will the proposed use endanger the public health or safety if located and
developed where proposed, or in any way become a nuisance to uses
permitted in the district?
The proposed ready -mix plant will be built and operated to meet all city and
State regulations related to the construction and operation of a ready -mix
plant. These regulations address the health and safety concerns associated
with ready -mix plants.
5
APPROVAL CONDITIONS
1. The special permit shall apply to Franklin County Tax Parcel #
113720139, being Lot 4 Binding site Plan 2016-01;
2. The site shall not be used for gravel mining or rock crushing;
3. The site must be developed in substantial conformance with the site plan
submitted with this special permit application;
4. The applicant shall employ best available management practices to
control dust generated by the ready -mix plant operation. Best
management practices may include:
• Using water or chemical dust suppressants on particulate matter (PM)
containing surfaces (i.e. haul roads) and/or materials prior to and during
activities that may release PM into the air;
• Managing activity during high winds, if the winds are likely to cause the
release of PM into the air;
• Using covered chutes and covered containers when handling, transferring,
and/or storing PM containing materials;
• Minimizing the free fall distance, i.e. drop height, of PM containing
materials at transfer points such as the end of conveyors, front end loader
buckets, etc.;
• Managing vehicle loads with potential of release of PM with appropriate
covers or freeboard;
• Minimizing exposed areas of PM containing materials such as storage
piles, graded surfaces, etc, and/or using tarps or chemical dust
suppressants to minimize releases to the air; and/or
• Limiting vehicle speed to less than 15 miles per hour on unpaved surfaces;
• Consolidating storage piles whenever possible;
• Managing stockpile loader and haul truck travel to control release of PM.
5. All streets adjoining the site must be improved to City standards with the
requisite utility infrastructure.
6. The special shall be null and void if a building permit has not been
obtained by December 31, 2018.
MOTION for Findings of Fact: I move to adopt Findings of Fact and
Conclusions therefrom as contained in the August 17, 2017 staff report.
0
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 Pronghorn LLC for the location
of a Ready -Mix Concrete Facility on Lot 4, Binding Site Plan 2016-01
with conditions as contained in the August 17, 2017 staff report.
7
�zQ
(3)
V
T
•�
0
�-4
0-.4
P
5 PMO
U
O
O
o
�
�
N
Cz
+-
a
^
w^
JW
>41
T
•�
0
. pml5
P
5 PMO
�\
m
1 zQ
•.� .0-4
7D
CL
o
fs.r U
O V
a`�=V.enture®Rd
U
co 0—
O =
�., o
ct
UCIO..
U
— Qi
eu
y = > God
c�
a
r+z Q
Ct
f� U
� V
aVenture ®Rd
U
C:)
�
bA
�
W
0 Z3 Ira
a'' aCMD
cz-0
C4 u .. U J
• ,c
� GO�
5 POW
N
RIM
.9
m
lY
} _�
riY!
G,�1r37i ' , .. � '
#���� V -'
`y, GyI�L�Mty. � � � _
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
MASTER FILE NO: Z 2016-001 APPLICANT: Terry Blankenship
HEARING DATE: 7/20/2017 8905 Gage Blvd., Ste 209
ACTION DATE: 8/17/2017 Kennewick, WA 99336
BACKGROUND
REQUEST: REZONE: Rezone from C-1 (Retail Business) to C-3 (General
Business)
1. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION:
Legal: Lots 2, Short Plat 2006-06
General Location: 2300 Block of W. Lewis Street
Property Size: 1.47 acres.
2. ACCESS: The parcel is accessible from 24th Avenue. Access to Lewis
Street is limited due to the Lewis Street access policy per Resolution
1871. The applicant essentially has to purchase a driveway easement to
obtain access to Lewis Street based on the increase of valueto the
property due to direct access to Lewis Street.
3. UTILITIES: All municipal utilities are currently available to serve the
site.
4. LAND USE AND ZONING: The lot is currently zoned C-1 (Retail
Business) and is vacant. Surrounding properties are zoned and
developed as follows:
NORTH: C-1 — RV Storage
SOUTH: C-1 8v I-1 — Auto Sales and Furniture Store
EAST: R-4 — Apartments and Storage
WEST: C-1 & C-3 — Car wash and Mini -storage
5. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The Comprehensive Plan designates the site
for Commercial uses. Those portions of the community designated for
commercial development by the Comprehensive Plan could be zone "O",
C-1, C-2, C-3 CR and BP. Land Use Goal ED -2 encourages the
appropriate location and design of commercial facilities within the City.
ED -2-B encourages the development of a wide range of commercial uses
strategically located to support local and regional needs.
6. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Based on the SEPA checklist, the
adopted City Comprehensive Plan, City development regulations,
testimony at the public hearing and other information, a Determination of
1
Non -Significance (DNS) has been issued for this project (WAC 197-11-
355).
ANALYSIS
The site in question was annexed to the City in 1975 and has remained
undeveloped for 42 years. In the same period of time surrounding properties
have been rezoned and developed for a variety of uses including a used car
dealership, a car wash, mini -storage, distribution warehouse, contractors office
and yard, construction supply yard and apartments.
The Comprehensive Plan designates the property for commercial land uses but
does not identify what it should be zoned. The actual zoning of a parcel is
determined thought the hearing process zoning. Any one of the six commercial
zoning districts could be considered for the property. The applicant is specifically
request C-3 zoning because that is the only zoning district that will permit the
types of businesses (small distribution facilities, restaurant supply, small
contracting offices and shops and related activities).
The requested C-3 zone permits a number of uses that may not be appropriate
for the surrounding neighborhood. Uses such as heavy machinery sales and
service, mobile home and RV sales, landscape gardening and storage area for
equipment and materials, contractor storage and material yards, lumber yards,
auto body shops, trucking and express storage yards and others uses that may
not add to the value and character of the neighborhood. These uses could
become nuisances in the neighborhood due to loud noises, vibrations, dust and
other externalities associated therefrom. Because of these secondary effects it
would be necessary to condition a rezone to C-3 by prohibiting the types of
uses listed above.
The initial review criteria for considering a rezone application are explained in
PMC. 25.88.030. The criteria are listed below as follows:
1. The date the existing zone became effective:
The current zoning classification was established in 1975 when the property
was annexed to the City.
2. The changed conditions, which are alleged to warrant other or additional
zoning:
Many years ago Lewis Street was the main highway through Pasco and served
as a key corridor for commercial development. Most of the surrounding
4
businesses have developed on I-1 or C-3 property. The parcel in question has not
developed despite being in the City for the past 42 years. In the past 42 years
the surrounding streets and utility system has fully developed.
3. Facts to justify the change on the basis of advancing the public health,
safety and general welfare:
Rezoning the property may improve opportunities for development that would
lead to the elimination of a dusty weed filled lot. The elimination of an ongoing
nuisance will improve the general welfare the the neighborhood. Development
on the lot will support past public investment in infrastructure that has been in
place for many years.
4. The effect it will have on the value and character of the adjacent property
and the Comprehensive Plan:
The rezone is consistent with the designation of the Comprehensive Plan and will
eliminate a dusty and weedy lot that has been a nuisance to neighboring
properties for many years.
5. The effect on the property owner or owners if the request is not granted:
The proposed rezone may allow the property owner additional oppoutunities for
development that have not been available in the past. If the site is not rezone it
may continue to be a vacant dusty lot.
STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT
Findings of fact must be entered from the record. The following are initial
findings drawn from the background and analysis section of the staff report.
The Planning Commission may add additional findings to this listing as the
result of factual testimony and evidence submitted during the open record
hearing.
1. The site is located at the northeast corner of 24th Avenue and West Lewis
Street.
2. The site was annexed in 1975.
3. Lewis Street is no longer the main travel route through town.
4. 24th Avenue was fully contructed in 1991.
5. In the past 42 years surrounding properties have been rezoned and
developed for a variety of uses including a used car dealership, a car
t
wash, mini -storage, distribution warehouse, contractors office and yard,
construction supply yard and apartments.
6. The Comprehensive Plan designates the property for commercial land
uses.
7. There are six commercial zones that could be permitted under the
commercial land use designation. C-3 is one of those zones.
8. The site is currently zoned C-1 (Retail business).
9. Properties to the south are zoned C-1 and I-1.
10. Properties to the east are zoned C-1 and C-3.
11. The property directly north is zoned C-1 and is occupied by an RV
storage facility.
12. The property to the east is zoned R-4.
CONCLUSIONS BASED ON STAFF 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 conclusions
based upon the criteria listed in PMC 25.88.060. The criteria are as follows:
1. The proposal is in accordance with the goals and policies of the
Comprehensive Plan.
The proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map and
several Plan policies and goals. The Comprehensive Plan designates the site for
Commercial uses. Those portions of the community designated for commercial
development by the Comprehensive Plan could be zone "O", C-1, C-2, C-3 CR and
BP. Land Use Goal ED -2 encourages the appropriate location and design of
commercial facilities within the City. ED -2-B encourages the development of a
wide range of commercial uses strategically located to support local and regional
needs..
2. The effect of the proposal on the immediate vicinity will not be materially
detrimental.
The proposed C-3 zoning will permit additional commercial uses to locate on the
site which may make it possible for the property to develop and have less of a
detrimental impact on the surrounding neighborhood.
3. There is merit and value in the proposal for the community as a whole.
There is merit in providing an opportunity for a greater range of commercial uses
on the property which may lead to the development of a lot that has remained
vacant and in a poor state of repair of the past 42 years.
2
4. Conditions should be imposed in order to mitigate any significant
adverse impacts from the proposal.
Conditions should be imposed to preclude the location of heavy commercial uses
that would not be appropriate for this portion of Lewis Street.
5. A Concomitant Agreement should be entered into between the City and
the petitioner, and if so, the terms and conditions of such an agreement.
A concomitant agreement is needed to prohibit the location of heavy machinery
sales and service, mobile home and RV sales, landscape gardening and storage
area for equipment and materials, lumber yards, auto body shops, trucking
express storage yards and similar uses.
RECOMMENDATION
MOTION for Findings of Fact: I move to adopt findings of fact
and conclusions therefrom as contained in the August 17, 2017
staff report.
MOTION for Recommendation: I move based on the findings of
fact and conclusions as adopted the Planning Commission
recommend the City Council rezone Lots 2, Short Plat 2006-06
from C-1 to C-3 with conditions prohibiting the following uses: 1)
Trucking facilities and storage yards, 2) Heavy machinery sales
and service, 3) Landscape gardening and storage areas, 4)
Automobile sales and service, 5) Lumber sales businesses, 6)
Mobile home and trailer sales and services including RV sales, 7)
Auto Body shops and 8) Contractor storage yards.
M
1
O
�
GA
�
O
O
�
�
O
�
�
N
�
V
N
�
w
a
.PON
1. A
r
.44
I ;
Sf 24th A,ue
T- , ft
zQ
c
a�
ea
Q
V N LL
O Cl)
V ct
N
.�
S 24th Ave
� au
. —
ca m
G� •— cn
LM
E D
Ecn
c� �
zQ
DC
cn Q
r
V
N �
V cz Qj
� � O
N
cz N
" S 24th ve
Tommpmj
� w v
aA Q
M
� V
O
N
f
� '�' �, �,
-F` �,�,:
6 �
�'
z-�
��.
r.
1.
�. '�.�
�. ,j.. �:
�, �:
;;�
I'✓r '" y t {°r ��i
I 7 +:
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
MASTER FILE NO: SP 2017-011 APPLICANT: PI Tower Development LLC
HEARING DATE: 8/17/2017 with T -Mobile
ACTION DATE: 9/21/2017 PO Box 8436
Spokane, WA 99203
BACKGROUND
REQUEST: SPECIAL PERMIT: Location of Wireless Communication Facilities
at Columbia Basin College (R-1 Zone)
1. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION:
Legal: A portion of the northeast quarter of Section 24, Township 9
North, Range 29, East, WM. containing approximately 2,106 square feet
all within Parcel # 119 170 013.
General Location: Columbia Basin College at the southwest corner of the
campus - 2600 North 20th Avenue
Property Size: The parcel is approximately 133.8 acres; the lease area
contains approximately 2,106 square feet.
2. ACCESS: The site is accessed from W Argent Road and N 20th Ave.
3. UTILITIES: Electricity, water, and telephone are currently available to
the site.
4. LAND USE AND ZONING: The parcel is currently zoned R-1 (Low -
Density Residential) and contains Columbia Basin College as a result of a
special permit. There are no existing structures on the site itself within
the storage yard. Surrounding properties are zoned and developed as
follows:
NORTH: I-1 - Vacant; Tri -Cities Airport
EAST: C-1 -Vacant; Hotels; Offices
SOUTH: R -2/R-4 - Multi -Family Residences
WEST: RS -1/I-1 -Vacant
5. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The Comprehensive Plan designates the site
for government/ public uses. Goal OF -2 suggests the City ought to
maintain land use flexibility in regard to placement of infrastructure for
public and private utilities. Policy OF -2-A encourages the sound
1
management of all energy and communication utilities through
coordination and cooperation dealing with construction of such facilities.
Policy OF -2-13 encourages the placement of utility substations which are
necessary for the surrounding neighborhood.
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).
ANALYSIS
PI Tower Development LLC along with its tenant, T -Mobile, are requesting
special permit approval to locate an 80 -foot monopole antenna support
structure and associated ground-based equipment in a storage yard located at
the southwest corner of the Columbia Basin College campus, addressed 2600
North 20th Ave. By doing so, the applicant and its tenant intend to improve
coverage for students, staff, and visitors of the college as well as the airport and
surrounding businesses (see coverage maps). The proposed tower is located
adjacent to a highway intersection and 300 feet south of an existing tower
(similar in appearance) which hosts Sprint equipment. It will be placed in this
location so as to neither detract from the beauty of the campus nor interfere
with student activities; no views will be obstructed.
The PMC special permit review criteria for wireless facilities are written as
follows:
25.70.075 WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITIES.
Wireless Communication Facilities are permitted under the
following conditions:
(1) Such structures shall be permitted in all industrial or C-3
zoning districts provided the location is 500 feet or more from a
residential district. Any location closer than 500 feet requires
special permit approval.
(2) Such structures may be permitted by special permit in all
other zoning districts provided said structures are:
(a) Attached to or located on an existing or proposed
building or structure that is higher than thirty-five (35) feet;
or
(b) Located on or with a publicly owned facility such as a
water reservoir, fire station, police station, school, county or
portfacility.
(3) All wireless communication facilities shall comply with the
following standards
2
(a) Wireless facilities shall be screened or camouflaged by
employing the best available technology. This may be
accomplished by use of compatible materials, strategic location,
color, stealth technologies, and/or other measures to achieve
minimum visibility of the facility when viewed from public
rights-of-way, and adjoining properties such that a casual
observer cannot identify the Wireless Communication Facility.
(b) Wireless facilities shall be located in the City in the
following order of preference:
i) Attached to or located on buildings or structures
higher than 35 feet.
ii) Located on or with a publicly owned_facility
iii) Located on a site other than those listed in a) or b).
The equipment cabinets will be located within a fenced area surrounding the
base of a pole. The applicant has explained that the reason the facility will be
freestanding is because there are no buildings located in the vicinity that are of
appropriate height. Also, Columbia Basin College has indicated that it will no
longer accept the leasing of space to wireless carriers on campus buildings due
to the potential for roof damage. The monopole will be tall and strong enough to
support other wireless carriers in addition to T -Mobile.
Typical neighborhood concerns expressed over proposed cell towers in the past
have included fear of electromagnetic radio waves and the unsightliness of tall
towers within the neighborhood. Because the tower will be located within
public property the provisions for tower height do not apply to this application.
Furthermore, under Federal regulations cities are barred from considering
electromagnetic radio waves for equipment meeting FCC specifications in the
permitting process for cell towers. An application for a cell tower cannot be
denied based on concern over electromagnetic waves.
INITIAL STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT
Findings of fact must be entered from the record. The following are initial
findings drawn from the background and analysis section of the staff report.
The Planning Commission may add additional findings to this listing as the
result of factual testimony and evidence submitted during the open record
hearing.
1. The site is zoned R-1 (Low -Density Residential) and contains Columbia
Basin College as a result of a special permit.
2. The Comprehensive Plan identifies the site for government/ public uses.
3. The site is approximately 133.8 acres; the lease area contains
approximately 2,106 square feet.
3
4. The proposed tower is located adjacent to a highway interchange and 300
feet south of an existing tower.
5. The height of the elevated freeway interchange will help reduce the overall
visual height of the tower.
6. The tower location and height has been reviewed by the FAA and
determined to not create obstructions for airport operations.
7. A copy of the tower site plan and tower was provided to the Airport
Manager.
8. Electricity, water, and telephone are currently available to the site.
9. In the R-1 zone cellular facilities may be permitted by special permit
provided the tower is either:
i) Attached to or located on an existing or proposed building or
structure that is higher than thirty-five (35) feet; or
ii) Located on or with a publicly owned facility such as a water
reservoir, fire station, police station, school, county or port
facility.
10. The equipment cabinets will be located within a fenced area surrounding
the base of a pole.
11. The monopole will be tall and strong enough to support other wireless
carriers in addition to T -Mobile.
12. Federal regulations bar the City from considering electromagnetic radio
waves in the permitting process for cell towers or denying permits based
upon concerns over electromagnetic radio waves.
13. The Comprehensive Plan suggests the City should maintain land use
flexibility with regard to placement of infrastructure for public and
private utilities.
14. The Comprehensive Plan does not specifically address cellular
equipment.
15. Cellular equipment creates minimal demands on City infrastructure.
TENTATIVE CONCLUSIONS BASED ON INITIAL STAFF 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 conclusions
based upon the criteria listed in PMC 25.86.060. The criteria are as follows:
(1) Will the proposed use be in accordance with the goals, policies, objectives
and text of the Comprehensive Plan?
F1
The Comprehensive Plan does not specifically address cellular
equipment. The Comprehensive Plan goal OF -2 and policy OF -2-A
discuss the need for sound management and coordination in the
location of utilities and community facilities. Policy ED -1-C promotes
the need to support Pasco's urban area as a good business environment
by enhancing the infrastructure of the community. The applicability of
policy ED- 1-C is enhanced due to the fact that the new monopole and
accompanying equipment will provide more/better service primarily to
Columbia Basin College and the Tri -Cities Airport. Policy UT -1-C
encourages coordination of utility providers' functional plans with the
City's land use and utility plans to ensure long term service availability.
(2) Will the proposed use adversely affect public infrastructure?
The proposed use is a part of the communication network utilized by the
general public. The proposed equipment will be located in such a
manner so as not to impact other public utilities or services. The
proposed use does not require water and sewer. Only one service trip is
expected to be generated each month.
(3) Will the proposed use be constructed, maintained and operated to be in
harmony with existing or intended character of the general vicinity?
The tower will be located on the Columbia Basin campus in a storage
yard and far from the residential uses across I-182 to the south. As the
storage yard is fairly isolated from areas where students and visitors will
gather, the tower will neither interrupt students' daily activities nor
obstruct any views.
(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 area is almost fully developed with permitted uses. The tower will be
located in a storage yard on campus property nearby an existing tower
and a chain link fence will encase both it and the accompanying
equipment. The tower and equipment will likely not be noticeable from
any surrounding properties. Additional the tower tower location and
height has been reviewed by the FAA and determined to not create
obstructions for airport operations.
(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 cellular equipment will create no fumes, dust, or noise
during normal operations. Cellular facilities have been located
throughout the community in residential, commercial and industrial
zones without generating any complaints received by the City.
R
(6) Will the proposed use endanger the public health or safety if located and
developed where proposed, or in any way become a nuisance to uses
permitted in the district?
The proposal is required to be designed by a professional engineer to
withstand the forces of nature. The applicant is also required by law to
coordinate with the FAA and FCC prior to obtaining a building permit.
Radio waves at frequencies utilized by local cellular networks have not
been proven to be harmful to human health. Federal law prohibits the
City from considering the impacts of radio wave frequencies when
reviewing permits for cellular equipment meeting FCC standards.
TENTATIVE APPROVAL CONDITIONS
1) The special permit shall apply to parcel # 119 170 013;
2) The property shall be developed in substantial conformity with the
elevations and site plan submitted with the application except as
conditioned herein;
3) The proposed cellular facility must comply with all FCC and FAA
regulations;
4) The special permit shall be null and void if a City of Pasco building
permit is not obtained by December 30, 2018.
5) The wireless tower and all of its accessories must be removed within
90 days of discontinuation.
MOTION: I move to close the hearing on the proposed special
permit and set September 21, 2017 as the date for
deliberations and the development of a
recommendation for the City Council.
G1
Kill
IM
AW -1
iA
d&�
4-)
7F
F-�
00
�
TOM
N
a) o
�w
H
a Fo
U N
.~'
Q)
U • w
• • ".*
u
r
CIO (v
CO
P
.
r
'M4
'
a
N
v
U
mss
on OW .j
r�
JWI
1
t•
ti ••
. 1 1
1'
Irk
: YC T -
YC
e'
• r M.
r
rrM1
..:I
t
r
fi lit
� � y
t L
7
.p
v
?
)p
rrM1
..:I
t
r
E
t L
r
r�
)p
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
MASTER FILE NO: (MF# Z2017-003)
HEARING DATE: 8/17/2017
ACTION DATE: 9/21/2017
APPLICANT: Dan Aden
6200 W Brinkley Rd.
Kennewick, WA 99338
BACKGROUND
REQUEST: REQUEST: REZONE: Rezone from RS -12 to C-1 (Retail
Business)
1) PROPERTY DESCRIPTION:
Legal: That portion of the of the north half of the northwest quarter of
northwest quarter of the northwest quarter of Section 22, Township 9
North, Range 29 East, WM encompassed in parcel #s 118552022 and
118552081.
General Location: SW corner of Rd 68 & Argent Rd.
Property Size: Approximately 4.5 acres
2) ACCESS: The property has access from Road 68 and Argent Road.
3) UTILITIES: A City water line is located in Argent and along Road 68.
Sewer is located in Argent Road.
4) LAND USE AND ZONING: The proposed annexation area is currently
zoned RS -12 and is vacant. Surrounding properties are zoned and
developed as follows:
NORTH: C-1-Vacant/Office/Single-family
SOUTH: RS- 20- Vacant
EAST: RS- 12 Single -Family
WEST: C-1- Drive thru Coffee Stand
5) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The property is designated for Mixed
Residential/ Commercial uses. The property can be considered for either
multi -family or commercial zoning. Policy LU -1-C encourages the
clustering of commercial development to avoid strip development up and
down major streets. LU -4-A also supports the location of commercial
facilities at major intersections (like Rd 68 &, Argent) to avoid commercial
sprawl. ED -2-13 suggests a wide range of commercial development should
1
be strategically located to support local and regional needs in the
community. ED -3-A encourages the use of landscaping, screening and
superior building design to enhance compatibility between commercial
and residential 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 a Mitigated Determination of Non -Significance is likely for
this application (WAC 197-11-355).
ANALYSIS
The site contains almost 4.5 acres and is located at the southeast corner
of Road 68 and Argent Road. Properties surround the Road 68 and
Argent intersection contain commercial offices, a coffee drive-thru
facility, a restaurant, a City Fire Station and a commercial strip building
with various commercial businesses. The southwest corner of Road 68
and Argent Road is the only corner on this intersection that has not been
zone to C-1. When the property was annexed in 2001 there were two
houses on the property and the owner did not want to zone the parcel to
C-1 until after the houses were removed. The houses were demolished in
2009.
The Mixed Residential/ Commercial land use designation would permit a
variety of multi -family structures, including large apartment buildings,
and neighborhood shopping and specialty centers, business parks,
service businesses and commercial offices. R-3 zoning allowed under the
Mixed Residential/ Commercial designation would permit up to 20
dwelling units per acre or 90 units for the site in question. The
Description and Allocation Table on page 17 of the Comprehensive Plan
states mixed residential commercial areas should be located convenient
to major circulations routes such as Road 68 and Argent Road. The
referenced table also indicates in Mixed Residential/ Commercial
designated areas C-1 and Office zoning would be permitted.
Consideration needs to be given to the existing zoning and land uses
near and around the Road 68 and Argent intersection. The northeast,
northwest, and southwest corners of the Road 68 and Argent intersection
have already been zone C-1 and are partially developed with commercial
enterprises as noted above. The City has had a long history of
encouraging commercial development at or convenient to major street
intersections. The Planning Commission also needs to consider the
criteria in PMC 25.88.060 (as discussed below) in developing a rezone
recommendation.
2
The initial review criteria for considering a rezone application are
explained in PMC 25.88.030. The criteria are listed below as follows:
1. The changed conditions in the vicinity which warrant other or
additional zoning:
• The property is located within the Pasco Urban Growth
Boundary.
• The property in question may be annexed to the City of Pasco.
• The property is located along a major street within a convenient
distance of the Road 68/Argent Road intersection.
• The other corners of the Road 68/Argent intersection have been
zone C-1
• Properties surrounding the Road 68 and Argent intersection
contain commercial offices, a coffee drive-thru facility, a
restaurant, a City Fire Station and commercial strip building
with various commercial businesses.
• A traffic signal is now located at the intersection of Road 68 and
Argent Road.
• The City has installed major sewer and water lines in Argent
Road in anticipation of more intense development around and
near the Road 68 and Argent intersection.
• A major water line now extends down Road 68 past the
proposed annexation and rezone site.
• A City Fire Station is located on Road 68 340 feet north of
Argent Road.
• Road 68 and Argent Road are identified as major streets in the
Comprehensive Plan.
2. Facts to justify the change on the basis of advancing the public
health, safety and general welfare.
The property is located at a major signalized intersection and is served
by major water and sewer lines. The rezone will encourage commercial
infill development that will provide the surrounding neighborhood
with various commercial services thereby shortening commute times
and generally enhance the general welfare of the community.
3. The effect rezoning will have on the nature and value of adjoining
property and the Comprehensive Plan.
Zoning the site to C-1 (Retail Business) is supported by the
Comprehensive Plan land use map and land use policies and would
be considered a proper implementation of the Plan. The nature and
4.1
value of the adjoining properties have changed little as a result of the
commercial activity and traffic associated with the Road 68 and
Argent Road intersection. Rezoning the property to C-1 will have the
same impact as the current C-1 zoning in the neighborhood. The C-1
zoning regulations and landscape and screening regulations are
designed to enhance the compatibility of commercial development
with residential development. These regulations are in place to
ameliorate any impacts C-1 development may have on nearby
residential development. A review of County Assessor records were
commercial development and residential development adjoin each
other reveal the value of both types of property have continued to
increase over the years (August 2017 of the County Assessors
Records).
4. The effect on the property owners or owner if the request is not
granted.
If the property was not rezoned to C-1 the property owners would
have the opportunity to apply for R-3 zoning and construct 90
apartment units on the site. The height and bulk of a three story
apartment building may have a greater impact on the surrounding
neighborhood than single -story offices or commercial buildings.
5. The Comprehensive Plan land use designation for the property.
The Plan indicates the proposed annexation area can be zoned and
developed for retail and office uses. Policies of the Plan encourage the
location of commercial development near the intersections of major
streets such as Road 68 and Argent Road. Providing land for
neighborhood shopping will benefit the community and help
implement provision of the Comprehensive Plan.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Findings of fact must be entered from the record. The following are initial
findings drawn from the background and analysis section of the staff report.
The Planning Commission may add findings to this listing as the result of
factual testimony and evidence submitted during the open record hearing.
1) The site is within the Pasco Urban Growth Boundary.
2) The Urban Growth Boundary was established by Franklin County in
1994.
3) The property is located near the intersection of Road 68 and Argent
Road.
3
4) The road 68 and Argent road intersection is signalized and served by
major utility lines.
5) Policy LU -1-C encourages the clustering of commercial development to
avoid strip development up and down major streets.
6) LU -4-A also supports the location of commercial facilities at major
intersections (like Rd 68 8s Argent) to avoid commercial sprawl.
7) ED -3-A encourages the use of landscaping, screening and superior
building design to enhance compatibility between commercial and
residential development. The Pasco zoning regulations contain provision
requiring landscaping, screening and setbacks designed to implement
ED -3-A.
8) Properties around and near the northwest, northeast and southwest
corners of Road 68 and Argent Road are currently zoned C-1.
9) The Description and Allocation Table on page 17 of the Comprehensive
Plan states mixed residential or commercial areas should be located
convenient to major circulations routes such as Road 68 and Argent
Road.
10) A review of County Assessor records were commercial development
and residential development adjoin each other reveal the value of both
types of property have continued to increase over the years (August 2017
of the County Assessors Records).
CONCLUSIONS BASED ON STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT
Before recommending approval or denial of a rezone the Planning Commission
must develop its conclusions from the findings of fact based upon the criteria
listed in PMC 25.88.060 and determine whether or not:
(1) The proposal is in accord with the goals and policies of the
Comprehensive Plan.
Zoning the site to C-1 supports and is consistent with Plan Policies LU -1-
C, LU -4-A, ED -3-A and ED -2-B.
(2) The effect of the proposal on the immediate vicinity will not be materially
detrimental.
The rezone to C-1 will complement the C-1 zoning on the other corners of
the Road 68 and Argent intersection. Rezoning the property supports the
commercial clustering or nodal concept of zoning that the city has followed
for major intersections for the past 35 years. Standards in place within the
zoning regulations are designed to ensure C-1 areas do not become
detrimental to surrounding properties.
5
(3) There is merit and value in the proposal for the community as a whole.
There is merit and value in following the guidance of the Comprehensive
Plan when assigning zoning. The proposed zoning will secure the
commercial nature of the Road 68 and Argent intersection. Providing an
area for the grouping of similar neighborhood businesses enables the
businesses to fair better and will provide services to the community for a
longer period of time.
(4) Conditions should be imposed in order to mitigate any significant
adverse impacts from the proposal.
The proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and no mitigation
measures are needed. Standards within the zoning regulations for
setbacks, screening and landscaping provide mitigation measures.
(5) A concomitant agreement should be entered into between the City and
the petitioner, and if so, the terms and conditions of such an agreement.
A concomitant agreement is not needed.
The mixed residential/ commercial land use category was added to the
Comprehensive Plan in the early 1990's to provide some flexibility for zoning
property at key intersections and along major streets. Land uses envisioned for
this classification include higher density residential and neighborhood or
specialty shopping centers. Multi -family zoning is needed for higher density
residential development and C-1 zoning is needed for neighborhood commercial
development. Staff has prepared the report to support the applicant's petition
for C-1 zoning and that is the general direction staff is leaning on this case.
However an argument can be made for encouraging commercial development
on the three corners of Road 68 and Argent that are already zoned C-1 and
holding the southeast corner for higher -density residential. This would lessen
the commercial intensity of the intersection and provide additional housing to
support the commercial nature of the other properties. Staff needs direction
from the Planning Commission on this issue before the final report and
motions are prepared.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
MOTION: I move to close the hearing on the proposed zoning determination
and set September 21, 2017 as the date for deliberations and the
development of a recommendation for the City Council.
2
z �
Road�64
70
O
p
c
+-1
co
LL
J
Q
'^
V/
d
� z
U
CO
O EO
�
Comm
Q
w
o C)
d
LL
N N
D
t0
CO
CU
N
L
cc
.. .,.4UL
k
'—
�
cu
Road 68
au $:L4,�
-mow
•-
cn
CD
O
L
L
E
N
ca
c�
o
>
co
SFD.Us
'�S
=FD
Z Q Road-64
' o �
U N CMN
H
N � � cl), J
r-4
> V
•I M
O
Ct W N
N N
� U N
au Road$D.4 -o F
68
w7
F-
7
r _ J
O
N
-RS-1 2 RS�1,2
"
I
R
9
r
e•
e
4
;, M
4-j
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
MASTER FILE NO: (MF# Z2017-002) APPLICANT: City of Pasco
HEARING DATE: 8/17/2017 PO Box 293
ACTION DATE: 9/21/2017 Pasco, WA 99301
BACKGROUND
REQUEST: REQUEST: REZONE: Development of a zoning recommendation
for the D&D Annexation Area.
1) AREA ID: Area Size # of Dwellines Population
D&D Annexation 3.88 acres 0 0
2) UTILITIES: A City water line is located in Argent and along Road 68.
Sewer is located in Argent Road.
3) LAND USE AND ZONING: The proposed annexation area is currently
zoned RS -12 and is vacant. Surrounding properties are zoned and
developed as follows:
NORTH: C-1-Vacant/Office /Single-family
SOUTH: RS- 20- Vacant
EAST: RS- 12 Single -Family
WEST: C-1- Drive thru Coffee Stand
4) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The property is designated for Mixed
Residential/ Commercial uses. The property can be considered for either
multi -family or commercial zoning. Policy LU -1-C encourages the
clustering of commercial development to avoid strip development up and
down major streets. LU -4-A also supports the location of commercial
facilities at major intersections (like Rd 68 & Argent) to avoid commercial
sprawl. ED -2-13 suggests a wide range of commercial development should
be strategically located to support local and regional needs in the
community. ED -3-A encourages the use of landscaping, screening and
superior building design to enhance compatibility between commercial
and residential development.
5) 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 -
1
Significance or a Mitigated Determination of Non -Significance is likely for
this application (WAC 197-11-355).
ANALYSIS
The site contains almost 4 acres and is located about 300 feet south of
the Road 68 and Argent Road intersection. Properties surround the Road
68 and Argent intersection contain commercial offices, a coffee drive-thru
facility, a restaurant, a City Fire Station and a commercial strip building
with various commercial businesses. The uses mentioned above are
consistent with the provisions of the Comprehensive Plan.
The Mixed Residential/ Commercial land use designation would permit a
variety of multi -family structures, including large apartment buildings,
and neighborhood shopping and specialty centers, business parks,
service businesses and commercial offices. R-3 zoning allowed under the
Mixed Residential/ Commercial designation would permit up to 20
dwelling units per acre or 77 units for the site in question. The
Description and Allocation Table on page 17 of the Comprehensive Plan
states mixed residential commercial areas should be located convenient
to major circulations routes such as Road 68 and Argent Road. The
referenced table also indicates in Mixed Residential/ Commercial
designated areas C-1 and Office zoning would be permitted.
In determining zoning for the annexation area the Planning Commission
needs to consider the existing zoning and land uses near and around the
Road 68 and Argent intersection. The northeast, northwest, and
southwest corners of the Road 68 and Argent intersection have already
been zone C-1 and are partially developed with commercial enterprises
as noted above. The City has had a long history of encouraging
commercial development at or convenient to major street intersections.
The Planning Commission also needs to consider the criteria in PMC
25.88.060 (as discussed below) in developing a zoning recommendation.
The proposed annexation area is within the City's service area as
identified in the Comprehensive Water and Sewer Plans. Both of these
plans based future services need within the annexation area for more
intense land uses as identified in the land use map of the Comprehensive
Plan.
The initial review criteria for considering a rezone application are
explained in PMC 25.88.030. The criteria are listed below as follows:
1. The changed conditions in the vicinity which warrant other or
additional zoning:
2
• The property is located within the Pasco Urban Growth
Boundary.
• The property in question may be annexed to the City of Pasco.
• The property is located along a major street within a convenient
distance of the Road 68/Argent Road intersection.
• The other corners of the Road 68/Argent intersection have been
zone C-1
• Properties surrounding the Road 68 and Argent intersection
contain commercial offices, a coffee drive-thru facility, a
restaurant, a City Fire Station and commercial strip building
with various commercial businesses.
• A traffic signal is now located at the intersection of Road 68 and
Argent Road.
• The City has installed major sewer and water lines in Argent
Road in anticipation of more intense development around and
near the Road 68 and Argent intersection.
• A major water line now extends down Road 68 past the
proposed annexation and rezone site.
• A City Fire Station is located on Road 68 340 feet north of
Argent Road.
• Road 68 and Argent Road are identified as major streets in the
Comprehensive Plan.
2. Facts to justify the change on the basis of advancing the public
health, safety and general welfare.
The property may be annexed to the City and will need to be zoned.
The justification for the rezone is the fact that if a zoning designation
is not determined the property could become annexed without a
zoning. For the advancement of the general welfare of the community
the property needs to be zoned consistent with the Comprehensive
Plan following the development patterns occurring around the Road
68/Argent Road intersection.
3. The effect rezoning will have on the nature and value of adjoining
property and the Comprehensive Plan.
Zoning the proposed annexation area to C-1 (Retail Business) is
supported by the Comprehensive Plan land use map and land use
policies and would be considered a proper implementation of the Plan.
The nature and value of the adjoining properties have changed little
as a result of the commercial activity and traffic associated with the
Road 68 and Argent Road intersection. Rezoning the property to C-1
will have the same impact as the current C-1 zoning in the
3
neighborhood. The C-1 zoning regulations and landscape and
screening regulations are designed to enhance the compatibility of
commercial development with residential development. These
regulations are in place to ameliorate any impacts C-1 development
may have on nearby residential development. A review of County
Assessor records were commercial development and residential
development adjoin each other reveal the value of both types of
property have continued to increase over the years (August 2017 of
the County Assessors Records).
4. The effect on the property owners or owner if the request is not
granted.
Without the annexation area being assigned a specific zoning district,
the area will essentially be un -zoned upon annexation. The area
needs to be zoned for the benefit of the property owners and property
owners adjoining the proposed annexation area.
5. The Comprehensive Plan land use designation for the property.
The Plan indicates the proposed annexation area can be zoned and
developed for retail and office uses. Policies of the Plan encourage the
location of commercial development near the intersections of major
streets such as Road 68 and Argent Road. Providing land for
neighborhood shopping will benefit the community and help
implement provision of the Comprehensive Plan.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Findings of fact must be entered from the record. The following are initial
findings drawn from the background and analysis section of the staff report.
The Planning Commission may add findings to this listing as the result of
factual testimony and evidence submitted during the open record hearing.
1) The site is within the Pasco Urban Growth Boundary.
2) The Urban Growth Boundary was established by Franklin County in
1994.
3) The property is being proposed for annexation by the fall of 2017.
4) The property is located near the intersection of Road 68 and Argent
Road.
5) Policy LU -1-C encourages the clustering of commercial development to
avoid strip development up and down major streets.
6) LU -4-A also supports the location of commercial facilities at major
intersections (like Rd 68 & Argent) to avoid commercial sprawl.
4
7) ED -3-A encourages the use of landscaping, screening and superior
building design to enhance compatibility between commercial and
residential development. The Pasco zoning regulations contain
provision requiring landscaping, screening and setbacks designed to
implement ED -3-A.
8) Properties around and near the northwest, northeast and southwest
corners of Road 68 and Argent Road are currently zoned C-1.
9) The Description and Allocation Table on page 17 of the Comprehensive
Plan states mixed residential or commercial areas should be located
convenient to major circulations routes such as Road 68 and Argent
Road.
10) A review of County Assessor records were commercial development and
residential development adjoin each other reveal the value of both types
of property have continued to increase over the years (August 2017 of
the County Assessors Records).
CONCLUSIONS BASED ON STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT
Before recommending approval or denial of a rezone the Planning Commission
must develop its conclusions from the findings of fact based upon the criteria
listed in PMC 25.88.060 and determine whether or not:
(1) The proposal is in accord with the goals and policies of the
Comprehensive Plan.
Zoning the proposed annexation site to C-1 supports and is consistent with
Plan Policies LU -1-C, LU -4-A, ED -3-A and ED -2-B.
(2) The effect of the proposal on the immediate vicinity will not be materially
detrimental.
The rezone to C-1 will complement the C-1 zoning on or near the other
comers of the Road 68 and Argent intersection. Rezoning the property
supports the commercial clustering or nodal concept of zoning that the city
has followed for major intersections for the past 35 years. Standards in
place within the zoning regulations are designed to ensure C-1 areas do
not become detrimental to surrounding properties.
(3) There is merit and value in the proposal for the community as a whole.
There is merit and value in following the guidance of the Comprehensive
Plan when assigning zoning. The proposed zoning will secure the
commercial nature of the Road 68 and Argent intersection. Providing an
area for the grouping of similar neighborhood businesses enables the
5
businesses to fair better and will provide services to the community for a
longer period of time.
(4) Conditions should be imposed in order to mitigate any significant
adverse impacts from the proposal.
The proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and no mitigation
measures are needed. Standards within the zoning regulations for
setbacks, screening and landscaping provide mitigation measures.
(5) A concomitant agreement should be entered into between the City and
the petitioner, and if so, the terms and conditions of such an agreement.
A concomitant agreement is not needed.
The mixed residential/ commercial land use category was added to the
Comprehensive Plan in the early 1990's to provide some flexibility for zoning
property at key intersections and along major streets. Land uses envisioned for
this classification include higher density residential and neighborhood or
specialty shopping centers. Multi -family zoning is needed for higher density
residential development and C-1 zoning is needed for neighborhood commercial
development. Staff has prepared the report to support the applicant's petition
for C-1 zoning and that is the general direction staff is leaning on this case.
However an argument can be made for encouraging commercial development
on the three corners of Road 68 and Argent that are already zoned C-1 and
holding the southeast corner for higher -density residential. This would lessen
the commercial intensity of the intersection and provide additional housing to
support the commercial nature of the other properties. Staff needs direction
from the Planning Commission on this issue before the final report and
motions are prepared.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Typically zoning determinations are handled in one Planning Commission
hearing. However, because this zoning determination needs to be coupled with
the proposed rezone for the adjoin parcels along Argent Road action should
coincide with the adjoining rezone at the next regular Planning Commission
meeting.
MOTION: I move to close the hearing on the proposed zoning determination
and set September 21, 2017 as the date for deliberations and the
development of a recommendation for the City Council.
11
As
Z-.-.<
� Ro_ad 64
0
N O N 0)
aA a o
0
ch
0
0
N > .�
O
a) U N F N
Q V a
M N TOM
RoadLi
68
Li
.� V V
U
N
RS-12
�
�
M
V) C O
V
tz
r
■ PUME+
S
k
tz
r a
0
L
MEMORANDUM
DATE: August 8, 2017
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Angela R. Pitman, Block Grant Administrator CW
SUBJECT: 2018 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) PROGRAM
ALLOCATION (MF# BGAP2017-003)
Requests for Funding
Attached for your review and consideration are updated CDBG Fund and Proposal Summaries
(Attachments 1, 2 and 3) relating to Community Development Block Grant Program (CDBG) program
year 2018. Eight (8) requests for funds were previously reviewed totaling $519,500 which included a City
request for $100,000 for the CHIP minor rehabilitation program. Estimated entitlement funds exceeded
requested funds. It is recommended all surplus funds be allocated to the Peanuts Park Renovation project
for allocations totaling $695,500. Both projects are as contingencies by Council Resolution. Applicants
presented their proposals before the Planning Commission on July 20, 2017. No action was required at
that meeting..
Estimated Funds Available
It is estimated that the 2018 annual entitlement grant will be $695,000 based on the award for program
year 2017. There is always some question regarding actual funding levels approved by Congress. Actual
available funding for these FY 2018 activities will remain in question until the early part of the year when
the CDBG allocation is made by Congressional Resolution. If funding levels are lower than estimated or
eliminated the city will need to consider a number of options, including a proportionate reduction of
allocation or possible inclusions in the 2018 city general fund budget requests. If funding levels are
higher than estimated, activity funding will be allocated in accordance with the contingency plan
according to greatest priority need.
Public Service Cap
HUD regulations state that the amount of CDBG Funds obligated within a program year to support public
service activities may not exceed 15% of the combined total of the entitlement plus the prior year's
program income. Staff recommends a maximum of $90,000 for public services (12%) not to exceed 15%
of the entitlement.
Planning & Administration Cap
HUD regulations state that the amount of CDBG Funds obligated within a program year to support
planning and administration activities may not exceed 20% of the combined total of the entitlement plus
the current year's program income. Staff recommends the maximum of $139,000 for planning and
administration (20%) for additional administrative burden for CDBG, HOME and NSP grants and project
delivery, not to exceed 20% of the 2018 entitlement.
Recommendation
After discussions and staff evaluation, the activities set forth in Attachments 1, 2 and 3 would best meet
the City's Consolidated Plan and be most effective in carrying out the objectives for the City in 2018.
Planning Commission action includes, closing the public hearing and making recommendation to be
forwarded for Council review at the August 28, 2017 Workshop. 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 2018 Community Development Block Grant Program as set forth in the
"2018 Fund Summary" as recommended by Staff (or "as amended").
Attachments: 1 2018 CDBG Fund Summary
2 2018 CDBG Proposal Summary
3 2018 CDBG Projects and Proposal Recommended
Q
T
c
�
❑
m
0
m
m
¢
m
E
a`
o
c
v
vai
m
E
K
a E
m O
Q
M
M
M
M
N
ti
N M
a
c
O
E
o
c
v
vai
m
E
a E
v
¢
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
O
8
a
o
p
E
E
o
E
E
E
o
E
E
ci
m E
of
o
0
0
o
vi
o
06
1
O
H
a
N O
M
N
N
M
ry
n
O
V
O
N
Y
e1
N
iA
V!
t/1
h
rl
Y!
N
W
w
o
a z
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
p
v
E
w
m
c
m
a c
88
ci
C
E
O
0
vi
E
0
0
0
E
Q
�
�
1'
V1
Y
U
d❑ Z
N
V!
fr
Q
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
p
O
o
0 o O C
OM L
d
O
OIli
C
O
C C m
O
N
n
N N
LriO
LriO
�
u
b
n = d
U i'0
t�
�D
O
v1
vi
O
N
c o u
0
w
w
w.•n w
Im
N
W
c
o
y
vai
m
E
O
H
a
o
a�
i- Z
w
o
a z
G
v
E
w
m
c
a c
Q
�
�
c
Y
U
d❑ Z
Q
U
v
R
L
d
S
N
C
y
C C m
c o u
0
o
o
: a O
u
y
'u
v
v�
w
�n
w
a
.
y
u
v
« E a
v
o
v
a
v
o
o
v
N
Z
V
F
h
L
V
a
L
v
d
E
E
E
E
0
E
c
a
E
o
i
u°
uo
uo
u°
w
w
w
a'1
aC
0
L
C
C
dE
=
Et
C r
r
r
C
Q
0
U
E
s
v
v
°
o
o a
°-E' E
E
Ed'
E
u
u
u
a
= o
o
o
E 0
a
0
o
O
o
O-
0
0
o
c 0
0
0
o ar
W
W
0
_
o
m
m
m
3
m
m
a
y
am
W
a
a
m
00-
a.c
oo
`o
L
u
N
u u
N
uu
M
u
V
>
V1
❑
lD
u
I�
u
M
u
O1
W Q
Q
Q
LL 1
N
. LL
LL
❑
U
O
o
O
o
�
I
i
00
0
0
0
0
$
o
$
0
-'
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
a
o
Im
N
W
Attachment 2
CITY OF PASCO
2018 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT
PROPOSAL SUMMARY — AUGUST 17, 2017
CDBG Program Administration — Requested: $139,000
Recommended: $139,000
CDBG funds provide for salary and benefits for the Block Grant Administrator to
plan, administer and provide for the successful delivery of housing, community
development and economic activities. The City receives funds for CDBG, HOME
and NSP activities. The Block Grant Administrator ensures compliance with local,
state and federal rules, regulations and laws for programs that primarily benefit low
to moderate income people in Pasco.
Planning and Administration is capped at no greater than 20%.
Civic Center Recreation Specialist — Requested: $ 35,000
Recommended: $20,000
CDBG funds provide a portion of the salary and benefits for recreation specialist at
the Civic Center. This facility's program is to provide recreation programs for at risk
youth and families in the immediate service area.
Public services are capped at no greater than 15% of current entitlement plus prior
year program income.
3 Martin Luther King Center Recreation Specialist — Requested: $ 35,000
Recommended: $20,000
CDBG funds provide a portion of the salary and benefits for recreation specialist at
the Martin Luther King Center. This facility's program is coordinated with the
YMCA, Salvation Army and Campfire USA, who all collaborate to provide
education and physical activities to school age children and families in the
Kurtzman neighborhood service area.
Senior Citizen's Center Recreation Specialist — Requested: $ 37,500
Recommended: $30,000
CDBG funds provide a portion of the salary and benefits for recreation specialist to
oversee and operate program at Pasco's senior center. This facility's program
provides supervision and leadership necessary for programs serving the elderly of
Pasco with support services, nutrition, health and living skills support.
CITY OF PASCO
2018 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT
PROPOSAL SUMMARY — AUGUST 17, 2017
5 YMCA Martin Luther King Center Recreation Program — Requested: $ 20,000
Recommended: $20,000
CDBG funds provide YMCA recreation programs at the Martin Luther King Center.
This facility's program is coordinated with the YMCA, Salvation Army and
Campfire USA, who all collaborate to provide education and physical activities to
school age children and their families.
6 Pasco Specialty Kitchen Technical Assistance — Requested: $ 75,000
Recommended: $75,000
CDBG funds provide for wages, salaries and benefits for Technical Assistance at the
Pasco Specialty Kitchen, a certified commercial incubator kitchen. By providing
technical assistance to small startup food -related businesses the Pasco Specialty
Kitchen improves their success rate by helping them to establish and achieve their
goals. In consideration for technical assistance, the startup businesses agree to create
and/or make jobs available to low -to -moderate income persons.
Additional funds are needed to meet staffing requirements to continue existing
programs and establish new programs.
7 Community Housing Improvement Program — Requested: $100,000
Recommended: $100,000
CDBG funds provide minor rehabilitation, repairs and/or construction of wheelchair
ramps or bathroom accessibility for very low to low income households. This
population includes frail, elderly and disabled (City-wide).
It is estimated that 3-10 households, typically very low income, will be assisted
depending on the project.
Code Enforcement Officer — Requested: $ 48,000
Recommended: $48,000
CDBG funds provide a portion of the salary and benefits for one of four code
enforcement officers to help bring approximately 500 propenes into compliance
with City codes. Code enforcement encourages property owners to maintain housing
units to minimum property standards and improves neighborhood appearance in
primarily low to moderate income neighborhoods (Census Tracts 201, 202, 203 and
204).
2
N
E
u
Q
2
21,
i
O
N
r
_o
c
@
-8
_T
C
@
m
E
C L_
C3
Y
`rn
N
E 3
d
Z!
N
EO U
0
MOM .R
2
m
Om
y
Y @
m
N
0
N
mn
c
m
OU
N
J U
d
M
IL
N
a
y
M
H
o
L d
�
p
N
c EE m
o ,
N
p
�
rN
dm
O
O
�
a
N
�
O
R
m
d o
a
O
N
o
N OU
N p
U
N
NSA
�
van
T
=
Q
O
n
�
_
J Q C
3
T
-0
E
N C @
O
N
�
O
Y @ n
2
T
_
N
C
C T
LE
n
y
p
0
ox n
Ua
E
C
N
E m E
O
U
>
� O
O N C
U
Q
>-
y
c
U
N
C(/1N
@ N
r
y
r
(A
d > 0
�
O
N
T
NSE
O
Q'
T
C @ O
U 9
N @
N
a
U
c
-0�
J
N
_
U 3
@ Z
O
m
@
U
cmc
� d
C
O
00
V
@
N
N
C
C
oWa
o
N
O
U
N
n
N
Oo.0
@
O
n
m 7 E
N
Q
J
o
L
a
o
JO
C @
D
Eon
-y+
N
V
OU L_
O
c 2
4
Q 0 N
@
O
U
E
a @
O
N
C
N
xCc o
C
K
p
N
o a
z
Z
>
a
>
m.�-0
w
� N
N
N
O
O
y
O
9
o
=v
O N
N
N
0
O
m
c
C
g
ay
o
•r.
O
@
N
c
�
n @ m
v E
2
rn
amm
•'�"
o
H
U
Q
a Z
p
>O
y
@
@
N @ N
p
Q
d
�Em
V> O
N
E
o
° c
N O
V U
Q
m
a @
Q t
c )
N
>
2,T)
C
O
U} c
V o
rn
W
n@c
@
n
L N v
E
wad
N
� Orn
O J
O
m N J
O 3
2 E2_
Q
W
C) -0
d H
?
(9 2
E
C
Cm,
o¢
O
m
y
N
ry
Q
o
v]
E4
2
21,
i
O
N
r
_o
c
@
-8
N
C
@
m
E
p
O
2
Y
`rn
N
O
=
N
o
0
MOM .R
2
m
d
Y @
m
N
0
N
m
OU
N
d
M
IL
N
a
j C O
M
H
o
U m
p
N
c EE m
N
p
�
c
O
O
�
a
N
�
O
R
m
N
O
N
o
N p
U
O
@
c
N
T
=
Q
O
n
�
_
a
3
T
-0
E
n
O
N
�
O
n
2
Q
N
C
C T
LE
>
p
@
E
C
N
O
d
U
>
o
U
Q
>-
y
c
U
N
W
N O
y
r
(A
�
O
N
T
�
�
T
�
U 9
N @
N
a
U
U
N
�
N
_
VU
@
U
9
C
O
00
V
O
N
N
C
C
O
N
O
U
N
n
N
>
@
O
n
N
Q
J
o
L
J
JO
C @
D
O
@
L
V
O
c 2
4
E
@
O
U
d
v
N
C
N
O
m 3
p
N
m
3
v
>
a
r
w
E
.@
N
N
O
O
N
O
9
o
O N
N
N
0
O
m
c
C
g
ay
o
2
m
@
N
c
�
n @ m
v E
2
rn
-
> @
H
U
Q
3 � N
J T
m Y -
c
c
@
-8
n c
C
@
m
p
O
2
Y
N
O
=
N
o
G
w
MOM .R
2
m
d
Y @
m
N
N
m
OU
N
M
IL
N
j C O
M
Ipl
?
U m
c EE m
N
L
p
�
@
(L_
~ O
ti
O
Q00
yL
O
q
yy
iL)W
O
q�jj
N p
U
N
O
O
c
L
Y >
Q
r
d
L°
3
y
-0
E
n
r
a
O
O
7 N
J U
@
@
@
3 � N
J T
m Y -
c
w
C
N
0
O'
cg N
t
~
Ew
O
U
m
N
-
U U
C
N
U
N
L
p
�
@
(L_
~ O
T
O
@
yL
=
n
E
N p
U
N
O
O
c
L
Y >
Q
N
`o
d
L°
m
y
E
n
r
a
O
O
7 N
J U
@
@
@
C
C T
LE
>
p
@
@ m
J
O
y
N O
N V
T
N
J
a
U 9
N @
N
N
@
U
N
N
VU
O O
00
Q
O
(0 n
N
N
C
N
d O
O
N
9
@
d d
N
O
N
oa
n
o
@
O
J
y
J
W
C _U
�p
C
L
C
9 0
c
N
O
m 3
c
o
m
rQ
>
c
r
N
N
>
N
N
9
O N
N
N
O
O
o U
C
g
N
d
O
� �u
0oc
Q
@
N
c
C
n @ m
�n
O
2
rn
a
T R
d
C
a Z
p
>O
o
@
@
d
V> O
C N
O
y
9N
N O
V U
m
Q t
c )
U
2,T)
C
O
U} c
V o
M
W
U
@
C
4
3
F)
0
N
N
0
L11
T
V
N
E
E
a
Y
m
E
L
aQ
d E
TO
m
w V
�c Da
m
O
cU .
J
U n
m
a
T y
p
E
UU
o
m
LL
J �
> C
i
m a
Q E v
i
2 L m
dA
N
U)
U am d
�L)X
O
A
U
m
p
c
0
O C
q
E
V
l
y
r
CL
�
a
0
T
O
Oy
N
L11
T
V
N
12
E
E
a
nc m
L
E
O
m
«
U
m
c
J
c «%
S
T y
v
y�
o
0
> C
i
m a
i
2 L m
dA
N
U)
U am d
y
U
U
m
p
?
0
O C
E
Q
CL
N
_
0
T
O
Oy
N
m
O
?
y
4
V
a
m
>
12
N
O
m
C
m
0
S
v
y�
>
J
i
i
O
a
E
L
y
U
m
p
a'
E
�
N
_
0
T
O
Oy
N
m
O
m
a
m
>
w
m
w
E
a
m
9
N
ymj
V
U
p
y
T
E
m
E d
C
N
O
2 d
O O
O
n c
j
� m
S
U �
U
m
N U
r
O
m N
L
�
n
3 umi
o
0
2 3
E
O
�
rn
�
pcp
U
U
Cm
d
m > 2
LOU;
=
v
O
`o
n a a
Z
m
i
m
m m
O
N
m
MOO
cma
r
N
PC
O
" o
V
[,
m
y L
m
O'y
m p
t TL
5
0o
a
om
-
E
p
C
mm
�
LOQ
m �
E
m
m
m
m 0
>C
9 m
'> m
2 o2
Q
E
E
N
v
a,.=
E"
dU9
m c«
a J
C
?
O' m
zo�
U
.c
ooE
'm coi
U' m
Q
Un"
� 9
?
n
O
O
h
H
12
Mm
i
r
L C
�
ti
43
O
N
a
N
O
0 C
N
ry
U ry
J�
w
t
O
`C
LL
m
a
c
a
oa
o °
C
O
C
7
E
c E
G
E
m
T
UC
0
o
v
d L
�a
�
ad
o c
Y
�
E
21
O
N O
�
v 2
a
C N
v
y o
o
h
e
CL
Q
E
m
�
O
° N
W
O �
O
�
C
W u
O
N
o
U
a
d
T
d
d
O
L
�
Tj
O n
O
C
E
S
y
c
E
E
O1
c
m°o
E .-
O
O
o
6�a
�
o � m
O
90 O N
n0
$ro
j
C N
d
�
N
eco
ry
N
OU
O
O
C E U
O2Lo
O
h
dd�
W
'N
ti F
Q
U_
o
O
O3 V
U
0
d ° N
m
c TU
a
9
ady
N
O
=
°
0
C °
@ a 0
O
N
a
N
O
N 0 O
N
O
N
a
rno
CM
ma
N N L
v
r40O
N
0 O
' G
N OLM
Y V 0 C
v
yw]i
0
O m
C E
O d
i
0
T C
p
CO C 8
OO
C
Sr
K
a
°' Q+
O 0 N
�' 8 m
a
N �p
L
00
C
d C o
O°
D
N
p
> C
0
> I E
d
as
E
no$
U
O
0
C
3
O
C
Ec
p N
C
�aT
N U
pp
CSU 0
m
ya,
o
c
U) c
UUn
?
W
w
V
o
�
A
Mm
i
r
0
Y
N
a
C
a
O
O
L
d
d
d
d
M
0
M
0
4
4
o
�
ti
43
O
N
a
N
ci
O
N
O
O
U
J�
w
t
O
`C
LL
m
o
c
C
O
C
7
a
C
m
E
m
o
v
d L
�a
0'0
Y
E
a O
N
v 2
C N
v
y o
o
h
e
CL
Q
�
w
i
0
Y
N
a
C
a
O
O
L
d
d
d
d
M
0
M
0
4
4
lu 1 Ilu I17:Z101i1Ti l
DATE: August 7, 2017
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Angela R. Pitman, Block Grant Administrator 00
SUBJECT: 2018 HOME INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIPS (HOME) PROGRAM
ALLOCATION AND ANNUAL WORK PLAN (MF# BGAP2017-004)
Background
Pasco entered into a HOME Consortium Agreement with Richland and Kennewick in 1996 making the
City eligible for Federal HOME funds. The Agreement was renewed through 2017. Each year an annual
action plan is required to be prepared and submitted to HUD for use of estimated funds for the following
program year.
Estimated Funds Available
It is estimated that the 2018 annual entitlement grant to the HOME Consortium will be $430,000. Each
member city is allocated an equal share of the entitlement after 10% Set -Aside for Administration and
15% Set -Aside for Community Housing Development Organizations (CHDO). Pasco's share of the
entitlement is estimated to be $107,000 when the remaining funds are split equally between the three
cities. HOME Program income estimated in 2018 is $100,000 and may be used for Down Payment
Assistance or an Eligible CHDO Project depending on need. These estimates are based on the 2017
HOME Allocation.
There is always some question regarding actual funding levels approved by Congress. Actual available
funding for these FY 2018 activities will remain in question until the early part of the year when the
HOME allocation is made by Congressional Resolution and an amendment to the Annual Action Plan my
be necessary. If funding levels are lower than estimated, activity funding may need to be reallocated
accordingly. Any program income received may be allocated for eligible down payment assistance or
CHDO development projects.
Planning & Administration
HUD regulations state that the amount of HOME Funds obligated within a program year to support
planning and administration activities may not exceed 10% of the entitlement. This is awarded to
Richland annually as the Lead Agency of the HOME Consortium to manage all activities. Member cities
are provided funds for planning and administration from 10% of program income received from
completed projects within their jurisdiction.
CHDO Set -Aside
Each year a minimum of 15% of the entitlement grant must be set-aside to help Community Housing
Development Organizations (CHDO) add to the permanent affordable housing stock. The CHDO set-
aside funds may be combined with program income for a development project that will be selected
through a competitive RFP process.
Proposed Activities
HOME funds are based on need and income eligibility and may be used anywhere within the city limits,
however, neighborhoods designated as priority by Pasco City Council receive fust consideration. Funding
is first targeted in the Longfellow and Museum neighborhoods, then within low -moderate income census
tracts (201, 202, 203 and 204). If HOME funds cannot be applied to those areas, then they are used as
needed within the Pasco City limits for the benefit of eligible low -moderate income families.
Recommendations
After discussions and staff evaluation, it is recommended that anticipated 2018 HOME entitlement funds
be allocated to the First Time Homebuyer Down Payment Assistance Program. The activities set forth
above would best meet the City's Consolidated Plan and be most effective in carrying out the objectives
for the City in 2018. If conditions of the housing market make it difficult to use funds as down payment
assistant, Pasco might consider joining forces with Kennewick and Richland and allocate unused funds
CHDO'S for acquisition and/or infrastructure for low-income rental housing. Your review and
recommendation to the City Council would be appreciated.
Therefore, we propose the following Motion:
MOTION: I move the Planning Commission recommend the City Council approve the use of funds for
the 2018 HOME Investment Partnerships entitlement as recommended by Staff (or "as amended").
The City Staff would like to thank the members of the Planning Commission for your time and assistance
/arp
MEMORANDUM
DATE: July 11, 2017
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Jeffrey B. Adams, City Planner
SUBJECT: Planned -Unit Development (PUD) Open Space Requirements (CA
2017-003)
On April 19, 1999 Council passed Ordinance 3354, repealing Title 22 "The
Zoning Ordinance for the City of Pasco' and adopting Title 25 'Pasco Urban
Area Zoning Ordinance." This new Title included Chapter 25.26 Planned Unit
Development, its stated purpose being "to provide opportunities for innovation,
creativity and flexibility in land development .... to encourage the use of new
techniques and technology resulting in a more creative approach to
development of land that will realize economies of scale and permit flexibility
that provides for aesthetic diversification of site layout and spatial
arrangements between geographic features, structures, circulation patterns,
utilities and open space."
More simply put, the PUD process was created to offer density bonuses as
incentives to increase subdivision efficiency, to offer opportunities for innovative
design, and to preserve open space. Some of the methods of increasing density
include the following:
1) waiving Right -of -Way dedication and improvement requirements;
2) exempting the PUD from minimum lot size requirements;
3) exempting the PUD from minimum lot setback requirements;
4) increasing density up to 20% above the underlying zoning district;
5) allowing for negotiation on minimum lot areas, lot dimensions, maximum
building heights, and yard requirements;
6) reducing setback requirements to those minimums required by the
International Building and Fire Codes, as adopted by City Council;
In exchange for these incentives the Planned Unit Development was to provide
not less than 35% of the gross land area for common open space.
Unfortunately, the Title does not define "open space" vis-a-vis PUDs or how to
differentiate between gross and net open space. Furthermore, the open space
requirement has been seen by developers as overly burdensome in relation to
the incentives offered.
As such, Staff is proposing the following:
1) that open space be clearly defined as net, i.e., exclusive of Rights -of -Way
2) that the open space requirement be reduced to 15% of net land area.
Suggested wording for the definition of Open Space is as follows:
Open Space: For purposes of calculating densities, net residential acres
are defined as gross acres of the PUD site minus all public rights-of-way,
and less the area of all parcels or lots devoted to commercial, industrial,
or institutional uses not of a residential nature.
Common open space that is owned and maintained by a property owners'
association shall be included in calculating the net residential acres
available for all dwelling units that automatically belong to such an
association.
Required common open space may include pedestrian walkways,
parkland, open areas, bridle paths, landscaped drainage ways and
landscaped detention basins, swimming pools, clubhouses, tennis courts,
golf courses, parking areas for any of these, and other lands of essentially
open or undisturbed or improved character, exclusive of off-street parking
areas and street rights-of-way.
Findings
1. Council passed Ordinance 3354 on April 19, 1999, repealing Title 22
"The Zoning Ordinance for the City of Pasco" and adopting Title 25 "Pasco
Urban Area Zoning Ordinance."
2. Chapter 25.26 "Planned Unit Development," was crafted with the
following objectives:
a. Provide opportunities for innovation, creativity and flexibility in
land development
b. Encourage the use of new techniques and technology
c. Encourage a more creative approach to development of land
d. Realize economies of scale
e. Permit flexibility that provides for aesthetic diversification of site
layout and spatial arrangements between geographic features,
structures, circulation patterns, utilities and open space.
3. Methods of increasing density include the following:
a. waiving Right -of -Way dedication and improvement requirements;
z
b. exempting the PUD from minimum lot size requirements;
c. exempting the PUD from minimum lot setback requirements;
d. increasing density up to 20% above the underlying zoning district;
e. allowing for negotiation on minimum lot areas, lot dimensions,
maximum building heights, and yard requirements;
f. reducing setback requirements to those minimums required by the
International Building and Fire Codes, as adopted by City Council;
4. In exchange for these incentives the Planned Unit Development was to
provide not less than 35% of the gross land area for common open space.
5. Title 25 does not define "open space" or how to differentiate between
gross and net open space.
6. The open space requirement is perceived as overly burdensome in
relation to the incentives offered.
Staff recommends that open space be clearly defined as net, i.e., exclusive of
Rights -of -Way, and that the open space requirement be reduced to 15% of net
land area as specified in the attached proposed Code Amendment Ordinance.
RECOMMENDATION:
MOTION: I move to continue the public hearing to the September 21, 2017
meeting.
91
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING PMC TITLE 25 DEALING WITH PLANNED -UNIT
DEVELOPMENT (PUD) OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENTS AND ROAD STANDARDS (CA
2017-003).
WHEREAS, cities have the responsibility to regulate and control physical development
within their borders and to ensure public health, safety and welfare are maintained; and,
WHEREAS, the City of Pasco has zoning regulations that encourage orderly growth and
development of the City; and,
WHEREAS, within the zoning regulations PMC Chapter 25.26 contains provisions
regarding the establishment of Planned Unit Developments (PUDs) created to offer density
bonuses as incentives to increase subdivision efficiency and to preserve open space; and,
WHEREAS, some of the methods of increasing density include the following:
1) Waiving Right -of -Way dedication and improvement requirements;
2) Exempting the PUD from minimum lot size requirements;
3) Exempting the PUD from minimum lot setback requirements;
4) Increasing density up to 20% above the underlying zoning district;
5) Allowing for negotiation on minimum lot areas, lot dimensions, maximum
building heights, and yard requirements;
6) Reducing setback requirements to those minimums required by the International
Building and Fire Codes, as adopted by City Council; and,
WHEREAS, PMC 25.26 requires developers to dedicate not less than 35% of the gross
area in the PUD to open space; and
WHEREAS, as PMC 25.26 is currently written does not define "open space" vis-a-vis
PUDs or how to differentiate between gross and net open space; and,
WHEREAS, the open space requirement has been seen by developers as overly
burdensome in relation to the incentives offered; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that to further the purposes of maintaining
a quality community and to support orderly development within the City of Pasco, it is necessary
to amend PMC Title 25 and adopts by reference the Planning Commission's findings on this
matter; NOW THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASCO, WASHINGTON, DOES
ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. That PMC Section 25.62.010 be and the same is hereby amended to read
as follows:
25.62.010 PURPOSE. The purpose of this Chapter is to provide opportunities for innovation,
creativity and flexibility in land development within the City. It is intended to encourage the use
of new techniques and technology resulting in a more creative approach to development of land
that will realize economies of scale and permit flexibility that provides for aesthetic
diversification of site layout and spatial arrangements between geographic features, structures,
circulation patterns, utilities and open space. Furthermore, it is the purpose of this Chapter to:
(1) Encourage development that enhances the quality of life while protecting the health,
safety and welfare of residents;
(2) Encourage variety in housing opportunities;
(3) Encourage the development of a viable economic base;
(4) Encourage development of land uses that will be compatible with and complement
existing or proposed adjacent land uses; afid
Provide guidelines for development of planned unit developments;
(6) Promote open space and recreation areas, active and passive and encourage foot and
bicycle traffic;
(7) Encourage a pattern of development which preserves natural features, prevents soil
erosion, and protects water quality; and
(R8) Encourage an efficient use of land resulting in smaller networks of utilities and streets.
Section 2. That PMC Section 25.62.050 be and the same is hereby amended to read
as follows:
25.62.050 PHASED DEVELOPMENT. Development of a planned unit development may be
phased, in which case all the property anticipated for PUD development shall be submitted as a
preliminary PUD showing a conceptual depiction of the eventual development through all
phases. Subsequent to legislative approval of the preliminary PUD plan, portions of the
development may be submitted as a frral PUD for review and approval. All final PUDs shall be
in substantial conformity to the preliminary PUD.
Section 3. That PMC Section 25.62.080 be and the same is hereby amended to read
as follows:
25.62.080 DESIGN STANDARDS AND REQUIREMENTS. (1) SUBDIVISION
REQUIREMENTS. If land or structures within a proposed PUD are to be sold to more than one
person, partnership, firm or corporation, or are to include the dedication of land, then the
proposed PUD shall be subject to the short plat or long plat procedures of Title 26;
(2) RIGHT OF WAY REQUIREMENTS. City policy with regards to the dedication of right-
of-way and right-of-way improvements as established in Resolution No. 1372 and Section
12.04.100 of the Pasco Municipal Code are waived in a PUD; however, private roads/streets
shall be built to city construction standard regardless of width and whether they will be dedicated
to the City.
(3) ZONING REQUIREMENTS. A Planned Unit Development shall be exempt from the
minimum lot size and setback standards of this Title, except where on-site parking is located in
front of a structure that portion of the structure shall be set back 20 feet from the property line;
(4) DENSITY. The basic density in a planned unit development shall be established for each
land use as provided in the zoning districts of Title 25. The Planning Commission may
recommend and the City Council may authorize a density not more than twenty percent greater
than what is otherwise permitted following findings that the amenities or design features which
promote the purposes of this chapter are provided;
(5) LOT REQUIREMENTS. Minimum lot areas, lot dimensions, building heights, lot
coverage and yard requirements shall be as established on the approved development plan;
(6) OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENTS. The PUD shall provide not less than a.:a.�o (35)
fifteen (15) percent of the gross net land area for common open space; For purposes of
calculating densities, net residential acres are defined as gross acres of the PUD site minus all
public rights-of-way, and less the area of all parcels or lots devoted to commercial, industrial, or
institutional uses not of a residential nature. Common open space that is owned and maintained
by a property owners' association shall be included in calculating the net residential acres
available for all dwelling units that automatically belong to such an association. Where more
than one property owners' association is to be created, each common open space can only be
attributed to the lot or dwellings which have automatic membership for that specific common
tennis courts, golf courses, parking areas for any of these, and other lands of essentially open or
undisturbed or improved character, exclusive of off-street parking areas and public street rights-
of-way.
(7) SETBACKS BETWEEN BUILDINGS. A distance between all structures shall at a
minimum comply with the standards prescribed by the most current edition of the International
Building and Fire Codes as adopted by the City Council; and
(8) Residential Design Standards: See Chapter 25.70.085
Section 5. That PMC Section 25.62.090 be and the same is hereby amended to read
as follows:
25.62.090 PROCEDURE FOR APPROVAL OF PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENTS. The
approval of a planned unit development shall be by the City Council, upon recommendation of
the Planning Commission and shall be processed in accordance with the following procedures:
(1) Who may apply. Any owner or group of owners of contiguous property acting jointly
may submit an application for a PUD;
(2) Pre -application. Prior to the acceptance of an application for PUD approval a pre
application conference between representatives of the city and the potential applicant is required.
This conference shall be set by the Planning Department at the request of the potential applicant.
The purpose of the pre -application conference is to acquaint the applicant with various code
requirements affecting PUD districts;
(3) Application. The applicant shall file a PUD district application for preliminary plan
approval with the City Planner. All applications will be processed in accordance with the
provisions of Chapter 25.88. The application shall be accompanied by the following:
(a) A filing fee in an amount equal to the rezone fee.
(b) A completed SEPA checklist.
(c) A vicinity map.
(d) Twelve copies of maps and drawings comprising the preliminary plan.
(4) Preliminary Plan. The preliminary PUD district plan shall indicate or include the
following:
(a) Written documents including but not limited to:
(i) A legal description,
(ii) Statement of present ownership,
(iii) Statement of intent, including any plans for selling or renting the property,
(iv) A timetable of development, including a phasing schedule if project will
be developed in phases,
(v) Provisions to assure maintenance of all common areas, and
(vi) Proposed restrictive covenants, if any.
(b) Relationship of the property to the surrounding area including identification of
land use and zoning of both the site and vicinal properties.
(c) Names and dimensions of streets bounding, traversing or touching upon the site.
(d) Location and width of proposed streets and pedestrian ways, arrangement of
common off-street parking and recreational vehicle storage areas.
(e) Location, layout and conceptual landscape design of all common yards, open
space and recreational areas.
(f) Proposed method of street lighting and signing.
(g) Existing and proposed utility systems, including irrigation plan.
(h) Existing site conditions, showing contours at five foot intervals and location of
significant geographic features.
(i) Approximate building locations, buildable areas and building heights.
(5) Public Hearing Before the Planning Commission. Following a public hearing, the
Planning Commission may recommend approval or denial of the application and accompanying
PUD plans or may recommend imposition of such conditions of approval as are necessary to
ensure insure conformity to all applicable regulations and the purposes of the PUD district. A
PUD may be recommended for approval only when it has been determined that:
(a) The PUD district development will be compatible with nearby developments and
uses.
(b) Peripheral treatment ensures insures proper transition between PUD uses and
nearby external uses and developments.
(c) The development will be consistent with the comprehensive plan and the purposes
of the PUD district.
(d) The public health, safety and welfare have been served.
Section 6. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect five days after passage and
publication as required by law.
PASSED by the City Council of the City of Pasco, at its regular meeting of
2017.
Matt Watkins
Mayor
ATTEST:
Daniela Erickson
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Leland B. Kerr
City Attorney
MEMORANDUM
DATE: August 2, 2017
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Jeffrey B. Adams, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: Residential Design Standards Regarding False Dormers & Flat
Roofs (MF# CA 2017-004)
In July of 2005, The Washington State Legislature preempted the City's ability to
regulate the placement of new manufactured homes in the City through the
adoption of SB 6593, which precluded any city in the State of Washington from
enacting and/or enforcing any regulations not applicable to all housing types
(manufactured and site -built). The new State legislation allowed Cities to
regulate aesthetics as long as the standards apply to all housing and did not
specifically discriminate against manufactured housing units.
Many Pasco citizens opposed placement of manufactured homes in traditional,
"stick -build" or site -built neighborhoods for fear that these units would detract
from the aesthetic appeal of their neighborhoods and reduce their property
values.
As part of the campaign to push the bill through the Senate representatives from
the manufactured housing industry introduced images of aesthetically pleasing
high-end manufactured homes as examples of what the industry was willing to
do aesthetically to their units in order to overcome the "mobile home" stigma.
In response to the manufactured home industry's campaign, and as a result of
the State mandate, the City of Pasco (and Kennewick/Richland) crafted a set of
standards that require all homes in certain zoning districts to meet a specific
level of aesthetic values. These standards were crafted so as to reduce the
likelihood of homes which would clash with the surrounding architecture in any
given neighborhood.
These standards are as follows:
25.70.085 RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS.
(1) DESIGN STANDARDS. Except for multi -family structures the following
design standards shall apply to all newly constructed or newly placed dwellings
in RT, R -S-20, R -S-12, R -S-1, R-1, R-2, R-3 and the R-4 Districts:
(a) The main entry doors of all dwellings must face the street on which the
dwelling is addressed;
(b) A minimum of 30 (thirty) square feet of glazing must be on the portion
of the dwelling facing the street. Dwellings with less than 32 square feet of
glazing must contain covered porches with a minimum of a four -foot
overhang;
(c) All entry porches/landing areas must be constructed as an integral
part of the dwelling architecture;
(d) The main roof of all dwellings shall have a minimum 5/12 pitch; except
dwellings with less than a 5/12 pitch legally established as of the effective
date of this ordinance shall be permitted to be rebuilt, altered, enlarged or
remodeled without the roof being changed to a 5/12 pitch;
(e) Eave overhangs are required and shall be a minimum of 12 inches;
(f) Dwellings with 4/12 pitch roofs may be permitted provided the main
roof includes one or more secondary roofs intersecting the main roof at
right angles. The secondary roof must have a pitch of 5/12 or greater;
(g) No false or artificial dormers are permitted;
(h) All foundation walls must be poured concrete or masonry block;
(i) All dwellings must be permanently connected to foundations, and must
meet seismic and wind loading standards for Franklin County,
Washington;
0) No more than 12 inches of foundation wall can be exposed on the walls
facing a street;
(k) All siding must be durable materials, such as brick, masonry, stucco,
vinyl, exterior -grade wood, or exterior grade composites, each with a
lifespan of at least 20 years under normal conditions;
(1) All siding must extend below the top of the foundation 1 1/2 to 2 inches.
A bottom trim board does not qualify as siding and cannot be used to
cover the top of the foundation;
(m) All trim materials around windows, doors, corners, and other areas of
the dwelling, must be cedar or other City approved materials that are not
subject to deterioration;
(n) All electric meters must be securely attached to an exterior side wall of
the dwelling. Meters are not permitted to face the street upon which the
dwelling is addressed;
(o) All additions and/or other architectural features must be designed and
permanently connected to the dwelling so as to be an integral part of the
dwelling;
(p) Primary driveways shall terminate into an architecturally integrated
garage or carport. No parking pad is permitted in front of a dwelling
unless such pad leads to a garage or carport;
(q) At least one required off-street parking space must be located behind
the front building setback line of the dwelling.
(2) EXCEPTIONS. Exceptions to the design standards may be granted through
the special permit process based upon review of the criteria listed in PMC
25.86.060.
Many architectural features of manufactured homes, such as low -pitch roofs,
lack of integrated porches and landings, and so forth, were historically
associated with the transportation requirements of mobile homes, reducing
weight and allowing them to pass under low freeway underpasses.
Unfortunately, a few of these standards—namely items 'T' and "g" above, dealing
2
with roof pitch, and false dormers, respectively—technically preclude
architectural features which have been successfully utilized in stick -build
construction with an otherwise pleasing aesthetic outcome, and without
triggering the "mobile home" stigma.
For example, a handful of architects have petitioned to allow for flat roofs (roofs
with a pitch of 1/ 12 or less) and/or shed -style roofs with varying pitches under
5/ 12 pitch in the City of Pasco as part of their design strategy. While a flat roof
is technically less than the 5/12 specified in the code, it does not resemble the
squat -pitched mobile home roof designed to slide under low freeway bridges.
Similarly, false dormers with windows on a 6/12 roof present an aesthetically
pleasing fagade not resembling mobile home dormers.
Findings
1. SB 6593 preempts cities in the State of Washington from regulating the
placement of new manufactured homes.
2. SB 6593 precludes cities from enacting and/or enforcing any regulations
not applicable to all housing types (manufactured and site -built).
3. The City of Pasco adopted Title 25.70.085 "RESIDENTIAL DESIGN
STANDARDS" in response to the passage of SB 6593.
4. Title 25.70.085 requires all homes in certain zoning districts to meet a
specific level of aesthetic values.
5. Title 25.70.085 standards were designed to keep new home designs from
clashing with the surrounding architecture in any given neighborhood.
6. Many architectural features of manufactured homes were associated with
the transportation requirements; reducing weight and allowing homes to
clear low freeway underpasses.
7. The roof pitch and false dormers standards of Title 25.70.085 technically
preclude architecturally pleasing flat roofs (roofs with a pitch of 1 / 12 or
less) and/or shed -style roofs with varying pitches under 5/12 pitch, and
dormers which have been successfully utilized in stick -build construction
without triggering the "mobile home" stigma.
8. A handful of architects have periodically requested to allow for flat roofs
and/or shed -style roofs with varying pitches under 5/12 pitch in the City
of Pasco as part of their design strategy.
9. False dormers with windows on a 6/12 roof can present an aesthetically
pleasing facade not resembling mobile home dormers.
Staff recommends that the City allow flat roofs (roofs with a pitch of 1/12 or
3
less) and/or shed -style roofs with varying pitches under 5/12 pitch, and false
dormers as specified in the attached proposed Code Amendment Ordinance.
MOTION: I move to close the public hearing and schedule deliberations, the
adoption of findings of fact, and development of a recommendation for City
Council for the August 17, 2017 meeting.
4
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING PMC TITLE 25 DEALING WITH RESIDENTIAL DESIGN
STANDARDS REGARDING FALSE DORMERS & FLAT ROOFS (CA 2017-004).
WHEREAS, cities have the responsibility to regulate and control physical development
within their borders and to ensure public health, safety and welfare are maintained; and,
WHEREAS, the City of Pasco has zoning regulations that encourage orderly growth and
development of the City; and,
WHEREAS, within the zoning regulations PMC Chapter 25.70.085 contains provisions
regarding residential design standards; and,
WHEREAS, Many architectural features of manufactured homes, such as low -pitch
roofs, lack of integrated porches and landings, and so forth, were historically associated with the
transportation requirements of mobile homes, reducing weight and allowing them to pass under
low freeway underpasses; and,
WHEREAS, standards dealing with roof pitch, and false dormers, technically preclude
architectural features which have been successfully utilized in stick -build construction with an
otherwise pleasing aesthetic outcome, and without triggering the "mobile home" stigma; and,
WHEREAS, several architects have periodically requested to allow for flat roofs (roofs
with a pitch of 1/12 or less) and/or shed -style roofs with varying pitches under 5/12 pitch in the
City of Pasco as part of their design strategy; and,
WHEREAS, While flat roofs and shed -style roofs with pitches under 5/12 pitch are
technically in violation of the 6/12 pitch standard specified in the code, they often lend a pleasing
appearance when built as part of an architecturally integrated design, as contrasted to the squat -
pitched mobile home roof designed to slide under low freeway bridges; and,
WHEREAS, fenestrated false dormers placed on a 6/12 roof typically present an
aesthetically pleasing fagade not resembling mobile home dormers; and,
WHEREAS, The Planning Commission considers it appropriate to allow for flat roofs
(roofs with a pitch of 1/12 or less) and shed -style roofs with varying pitches under 5/12 pitch as
part of an architecturally integrated design; and,
WHEREAS, The Planning Commission considers it appropriate to allow false dormers
containing windows on roof pitches with at least a 5/12 pitch; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that to further the purposes of maintaining
a quality community and to support orderly development within the City of Pasco, it is necessary
to amend PMC Title 25.70.085 and adopts by reference the Planning Commission's findings on
this matter; NOW THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASCO, WASHINGTON, DOES
ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. That PMC Section 25.70.085 be and the same is hereby amended to read
as follows:
25.70.085 RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS. (1) DESIGN STANDARDS
Except for multi -family structures the following design standards shall apply to all newly
constructed or newly placed dwellings in RT, R -S-20, R -S-12, R -S-1, R-1, R-2, R-3 and the R-4
Districts:
(a) The main entry doors of all dwellings must face the street on which the dwelling is addressed;
(b) A minimum of 30 (thirty) square feet of glazing must be on the portion of the dwelling facing
the street. Dwellings with less than 32 square feet of glazing must contain covered porches with
a minimum of a four -foot overhang;
(c) All entry porches/landing areas must be constructed as an integral part of the dwelling
architecture;
(d) The main roof of all dwellings shall have a minimum 5/12 pitch; except dwellings with less
than a 5/12 pitch legally established as of the effective date of this ordinance shall be permitted
to be rebuilt, altered, enlarged or remodeled without the roof being changed to a 5/12 pitch; and
except for either flat -pitched roofs (roofs with a pitch of 1/12 or less) and/or shed -style roofs
with varying pitches under 5/12 pitch, which have been intentionally designed as part of an
overall architecturally integrated scheme.
(e) Eave overhangs are required and shall be a minimum of 12 inches;
(f) Dwellings with 4/12 pitch roofs may be permitted provided the main roof includes one or
more secondary roofs intersecting the main roof at right angles. The secondary roof must have a
pitch of 5/12 or greater;
(g) No false or artificial dormers are permitted except fenestrated false or artificial dormers on
roofs with at least a 6/12 pitch;
(h) All foundation walls must be poured concrete or masonry block;
(i) All dwellings must be permanently connected to foundations, and must meet seismic and
wind loading standards for Franklin County, Washington;
0) No more than 12 inches of foundation wall can be exposed on the walls facing a street;
(k) All siding must be durable materials, such as brick, masonry, stucco, vinyl, exterior -grade
wood, or exterior grade composites, each with a lifespan of at least 20 years under normal
conditions;
(1) All siding must extend below the top of the foundation 1 % to 2 inches. A bottom trim board
does not qualify as siding and cannot be used to cover the top of the foundation;
(m) All trim materials around windows, doors, corners, and other areas of the dwelling, must be
cedar or other City approved materials that are not subject to deterioration;
(n) All electric meters must be securely attached to an exterior side wall of the dwelling. Meters
are not permitted to face the street upon which the dwelling is addressed;
(o) All additions and/or other architectural features must be designed and permanently connected
to the dwelling so as to be an integral part of the dwelling;
(p) Primary driveways shall terminate into an architecturally integrated garage or carport. No
parking pad is permitted in front of a dwelling unless such pad leads to a garage or carport;
(q) At least one required off-street parking space must be located behind the front building
setback line of the dwelling.
(2) EXCEPTIONS. Exceptions to the design standards may be granted through the special permit
process based upon review of the criteria listed in PMC 25.86.060.
Section 2. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect five days after passage and
publication as required by law.
PASSED by the City Council of the City of Pasco, at its regular meeting of
2017.
Matt Watkins
Mayor
ATTEST:
Daniela Erickson
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Leland B. Kerr
City Attorney
k
■
6 r \
IN
13
4I mw
*I -
w
I
1.
NOIRMEM
-
�
<
� y
.
�
f��
.»2'w
lose
Rome
C
04
MEMORANDUM
DATE: August 10, 2017
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Rick White, Director
Community & Economic Development
SUBJECT: Revisions to the Central Business District Zoning
The Central Business District zoning requirements were adopted by the City in 1999. Since that time a
number of revisions have been suggested to establish additional flexibility in the zoning district or to clarify
existing regulations.
The proposed ordinance does the following:
• It more clearly indicates that "antique sales" are allowed as a permitted use and establishes a code
citation to reinforce the definition of an "antique';
• It provides flexibility for wine, beer and alcohol sales as an accessory use (e.g. tasting rooms);
• It allows dwelling units outright subject to several parameters;
• It restates the inclusion of consignment sales and thrift shops as a permitted use subject to
parameters identified under "Use Regulations" in PMC 25.70;
• It establishes "electronic sales and repairs" subject to similar parameters for consignment sales and
thrift shops; and,
• It prohibits commissaries (kitchens for the preparation of food to be sold elsewhere) outright.
The proposed ordinance has been discussed several times with the Downtown Pasco Development
Authority Board and various City staff. Their input is included in this final draft version for public comment
that is before the Commission.
The Commission should conduct the Public Hearing on the proposed ordinance
The Commission may find the following definitions contained in Title 25 helpful as these terms are
contained in the proposed ordinance:
25.12.070 ANTIQUE. "Antique" means a piece of furniture, glassware,
silverware, art work or other items that are at least sixty years old and are distinguished
from general secondhand personal property, and collectibles by educational value,
historic value, artistic value, ornamental character or intrinsic aesthetic merits. (Ord.
3354 Sec. 2, 1999
25.70.131 CONSIGNMENT STORES. (1) "Consignment stores" as the term is
defined in this chapter, may operate in the C-1 (Retail Business District) and C-2
(Central Business District) Zones; however no new consignment store may locate closer
than 1,000 feet from an existing consignment store, thrift store, or pawn shop; and,
(2) Consignment stores may operate in the C-3 (General Business District) and in
the I-1 (Light Industrial District) Zones; however no new consignment store may locate
closer than 1,000 feet from an existing consignment store, thrift store, or pawn shop;
and,
(3) All business activities of consignment stores located in the C-1 (Retail
Business District), C-2 (Central Business District), and C-3 (General Business District)
Zones shall be conducted entirely within an enclosed structure. (Ord. 4066, 2012.)
25.70.132 THRIFT SHOPS. (1) "Thrift shops" as the term is defined in this
chapter, may operate in the C-1 (Retail Business district) and C-2 (Central Business
District) Zones upon issuance of a Special Permit, as per the requirements found in PMC 25.86;
however no new thrift shop may locate closer than 1,000 feet from an existing
consignment store, thrift store, or pawn shop; and,
(2) Thrift shops may operate in the C-3 (General Business District) and in the I-1
(Light Industrial District) Zones; however no new consignment store may locate closer
than 1,000 feet from an existing consignment store, thrift store, or pawn shop; and,
(3) All business activities of thrift shops in the C-1 (Retail Business District), C-2
(Central Business District), and C-3 (General Business District) Zones shall be conducted
entirely within an enclosed structure. (Ord. 4066, 2012)
MOTION: I move to close the public hearing on the proposed amendments to the Central Business District
Zone and schedule deliberations and a recommendation to City Council for the September 2111, 2017
Planning Commission meeting.
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE of the City of Pasco, Washington, Amending Chapter 25.44 "Central
Business District' of the Pasco Municipal Code
WHEREAS, Section 25.44.010 of the Pasco Municipal Code reflects the purpose of the Central
Business District Zone; and
WHEREAS, Sections 25.44.020 and 25.44.030 reflect the permitted uses and accessory uses within the
District; and
WHEREAS, Section 25.44 reflects the prohibited uses within the District; and
WHEREAS, Administration of the regulations within these Sections of the Pasco Municipal Code have
suggested needed adjustments and clarity to the variety of such permitted, accessory and prohibited uses; and
WHEREAS, The proposed revisions have been considered by the Downtown Pasco Development
Authority; and
WHEREAS, The proposed revisions have been considered by the Pasco Planning Commission at a
public hearing and the Commission has recommended City Council approve the revisions; and
WHEREAS, The revisions reflect the best interests of the public for safety, welfare and betterment of
the economic environment in Downtown Pasco;
NOW THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASCO, WASHINGTON, DOES ORDAIN AS
FOLLOWS:
Section 1. That Section 25.44.010 of the Pasco Municipal Code, shall be and hereby is amended and shall
read as follows:
25.44.010 PURPOSE. The C-2 Central Business District is established to promote the
centralization of business and reinforce a positive public image and confidence in the Downtown core
eammereial revitalizatie , within a compact commercial area having primarily common -wall building
construction. Such construction offers the unique opportunity within the Pasco Urban Area to cluster
together types of retail business and retail services which functionally interact well together, and will
economically fare better, as a result of close proximity by cumulatively attracting more persons than as
individual destination points. It is intended that the commercial clustering concept be fostered by
emphasizing pedestrian access and circulation within the district, in a manner which is healthy, safe,
uninhibited and convenient for employees and visitors of all ages. Public and private off-street parking
shall be located to encourage pedestrian movement. On -street parking
should be shafed byyi.:..:t, w..s:_esses aftEl be oriented to short duration convenience parking for
customers in the vicinity. In order to preserve the public health, safety and welfare in central business
district redevelopment, protect public and private investment in property and infrastructure improvements
and improve stabilize deg property values, certain uses of the land may be restricted or prohibited.
Section 2. That Section 25.44.020 of the Pasco Municipal Code, shall be and hereby is amended and
shall read as follows:
25.44.020 PERMITTED USES. The following uses shall be permitted in the C-2 district:
(1) Antique stores as defined by 25.12.070 and 25.12.075
(2) Artist and office supplies;
(3) Bakeries;
(4) Banks and financial institutions;
(5) Barber and beauty shops;
(6) Bookstores, except adult bookstores;
(7) Clothing, shoes and accessories, and costume rentals (new/unused materials only);
(8) Consignment Stores (25.70.131) and Thrift Shops (25.70.132);
(9) Crafts, stationary and gift shops;
(10) Department and drug stores;
(11) Electronic sales and repair stores with at least 50% of the stock and floor space devoted to the
sale of new equipment;
(12) Fresh and frozen meats, including seafood;
(13) Florists;
(14) Furniture and home appliance stores;
(15) Galleries for art and restored or refinished antiques;
(16) Grocery stores with less than 10,500 square feet of gross floor area;
(17) Hardware and home improvement stores;
(18) Import shops;
(19) Jewelry and gem shops, including custom work;
(20) Offices for medical and professional services;
(21) Restaurants, sandwich shops, cafeterias and delicatessens;
(22) Sporting goods;
(23) Tailoring and seamstress shops;
(24) Theaters for movies and performances, except adult theaters;
(25) Public markets for fresh produce and craft work;
(26) Parking lots;
(27) Micro -breweries, and micro -wineries and associated tasting rooms;
(28) Research, development and assembly facilities for component devices and equipment of an
electrical, electronic or electromagnetic nature; and
(29) Home brewing and/or wine making equipment sales.
(30) Dwelling units, provided the units are within the principle building, are all above the ground floor
of said building, the ground floor of said building is designed or intended to be used for a use permitted in Section
25.44.020 and there is at least one dedicated and off-street parking space for each unit.
Section 3. That Section 25.44.030 of the Pasco Municipal Code shall be and hereby is amended and shall
read as follows:
25.44.030 PERMITTED ACCESSORY USES. The following accessory uses and buildings, as
respectively defined in Sections 25.12.020 and 25.12.115, shall be permitted in the C-2 district:
(1) Parking lots;
(2) Alcoholic beverage sales provided it is for on-site consumption and located within a restaurant;
(3) Other uses clearly incidental or secondary to a principal use;
(4) Beer/wine/alcohol beverage sales for on-site and off-site consumption provided the product is
produced in Franklin, Walla Walla, Yakima and/or Benton County or on-site in a micro-brewery/winery/distillery
axxaa.
,of-ariiiv..�ery>
(5) Sales of micro -brewery products and non -fortified wines for off-site consumption provided such
sales are in conjunction with an establishment selling predominately, based upon floor area, home brewing and/or
wine making equipment as permitted in Section 25.44.020.
(6) Storage buildings; excluding container storage, as defined in Section 25.12.430 are permitted.
Section 4. That Section 25.44.040 of the Pasco Municipal Code shall be and hereby is amended and shall
read as follows:
25.44.040 CONDITIONAL USES. The following uses are permitted subject to the approval of a special
permit:
0) Dwelling units, pfevided the units afe within the prineiple building, are all above t4e ground floof
ef said building, and the gf 1-4-4nd of said- hil-lding is desiped eF intended te be used for a tise pefmitted i
Seetion 25.44.020.
(1) Unclassified uses per Section 25.86.020.
Section 5. That Section 25.44.030 of the Pasco Municipal Code shall be and hereby is amended and shall
read as follows:
25.44.050 PROHIBITED USES. Evidence received by the Planning Commission and contained in
previous studies and Pasco Police Crime Reports demonstrates that certain uses make the Central Business District
less desirable or attractive to the public due to a demonstrated history of contribution to general public disorder,
loitering, nuisance and other acts detrimental to the public image of the area. Certain other uses provide entirely,
or predominately, automobile services and, thereby, do not foster the clustering concept intended to attract
pedestrian visitors. Other uses may, by their inherent nature, require a disproportionate amount of the limited
vicinal on -street parking, for an extended time, which is intended to be available and shared by all business for
the short duration convenience of customers.
The following listed businesses, for the reasons above, inhibit new business growth, contribute to business
loss and decline of property values, inhibit convenient access to vicinal businesses, do not foster the clustering
concept intended to orient the business environment to pedestrians, or perpetuate a public image which is
undesirable or unattractive and detrimental to public and private investment in revitalization efforts and, therefore,
are prohibited within the C-2 district:
(1) Gasoline and service stations, automobile services or repair, except tire stores;
(2) Outdoor storage of goods or materials;
(3) Membership clubs;
(4) Taverns;
(5) Billiard and pool halls;
(6) Amusement game centers;
(7) Pawn shops;
(8) Card rooms, bingo parlors, dance halls, nightclubs and similar places;
(9) Adult theaters, adult bookstores, tattoo parlors, bathhouses and massage parlors;
(10) Community service facilities level two;
(11) Secondhand dealers. Similar or like uses although not specifically listed are also prohibited; and
(12) Commissaries for the preparation of food to be served elsewhere; and
(123) Adult Business Facilities.
Section 6. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect five days after passage and publication as
required by law.
PASSED by the City Council of the City of Pasco, at its regular meeting of 2017.
Matt Watkins, Mayor
ATTEST:
Daniela Erickson, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Leland B. Kerr, City Attorney