HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-21-2017 Planning Commission Meeting PacketPLANNING COMMISSION - AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING
I. CALL TO ORDER:
II. ROLL CALL:
III. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
V. OLD BUSINESS:
A. Rezone
VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
7:00 P.M. December 21, 2017
Declaration of Quorum
November 16, 2017
Rezone from R-1 to R-4 (A.K. Sharma) (MF# Z 2017-
007)
A.
Special Permit
Location of a Solid Waste Facility (2022 Commercial
Avenue LLC) (MF# SP 2017-019) - Continued from
November 16, 2017 meeting
B.
Special Permit
Location of a Used Car Lot (Adriana Robledo) (MF#
SP 2017-020)
C.
Special Permit
Valdivia Daycare Center Expansion (Mariana
Hernandez & Juan Valdivia) (MF# SP 2017-021)
D.
Special Permit
Location of a Recreation Complex in an RS -1 Zoning
District (JUB EnEineers, Inc.) (MF# SP 2017-022)
E.
Special Permit
Location of a Vocational School (Construction
Industry '17aining Council of Washington) (MF# SP
2017-023)
F.
Block Grant
Section 108 Guaranteed Loan Program Application -
CDBG (MF# BGAP 2017-007)
VII. WORKSHOP:
VIII. OTHER BUSINESS:
IX. ADJOURNMENT:
This meeting is broadcast live on PSC -TV Channel 191 on Charter Cable and streamed at
www.pasco-wa.com/psctvlive,
Audio equipment available for the hearing impaired; contact staff for assistance.
REGULAR MEETING
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
CALL TO ORDER:
The meeting was called to order at 7:00pm by Chairman Cruz.
POSITION MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT
No.
1
Tanya Bowers
No.
2
Joseph Campos
No.
3
Paul Mendez
No.
4
Alecia Greenaway
No.
5
Joe Cruz
No.
6
Ruben Alvarado
No.
7
Zahra Roach
No.
8
Pam Bykonen
No.
9
Gabriel Portugal
November 16, 2017
Chairman Cruz read a statement about the appearance of fairness for hearings on
land use matters. There were no declarations.
Chairman Cruz then asked the audience if there were any objections based on a
conflict of interest or appearance of fairness question regarding the items to be
discussed. There were no objections.
ADMINISTERING THE OATH:
Chairman Cruz explained that state law requires testimony in quasi-judicial hearings
such as held by the Planning Commission be given under oath or affirmation.
Chairman Cruz swore in all those desiring to speak.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Commissioner Greenaway moved, seconded by Commissioner Mendez that the
minutes dated October 19, 2017 be approved. The motion passed unanimously.
OLD BUSINESS:
A. Special Permit Replacement of Stevens Middle School (Pasco
School Districtl (MF# SP 2017-0131
Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff.
Dave McDonald, City Planner, discussed the special permit application for the
replacement of Stevens Middle School. There were no additional comments since the
-1-
previous meeting.
Commissioner Greenaway moved, seconded by Commissioner Roach, to adopt findings
of fact and conclusions therefrom as contained in the November 16, 2017 staff report.
The motion passed unanimously.
Commissioner Greenaway moved, seconded by Commissioner Roach, based on the
findings of fact as adopted, the Planning Commission recommend the City Council
grant a special permit to the Pasco School District for the location of a new Stevens
Middle School at 1120 22nd Avenue with conditions as contained in the November 16,
2017 staff report. The motion passed unanimously.
B. Special Permit Location of Elementary School #17 (Pasco
School District) (MF# SP 2017-0141
Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff.
Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director, discussed the special
permit for the location of Elementary School #17. There were no additional comments
since the previous meeting.
Commissioner Roach asked for clarification about the approval conditions concerning
no mid -block crosswalks.
Mr. White replied that mid -block crosswalks have proven to be dangerous and it is
safer to have crosswalks at intersections instead.
Commissioner Roach asked if there would be crosswalks at the intersection of Road
90.
Mr. White said yes.
There were no further questions or comments.
Commissioner Greenaway moved, seconded by Commissioner Roach, to adopt findings
of fact and conclusions therefrom as contained in the November 16, 2017 staff report.
The motion passed unanimously.
Commissioner Greenaway moved, seconded by Commissioner Roach, based on the
findings of fact and conclusions therefrom, the Planning Commission recommend the
City Council grant a special permit to Pasco School District #I for the location of an
elementary school at the 9100 block of Burns Road with conditions as contained in
the November 16, 2017 staff report. The motion passed unanimously.
C. Special Permit Location of Middle School #4 (Pasco School
District) IMF# SP 2017-015)
-2-
Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff.
Dave McDonald, City Planner, discussed the special permit application for the location
of Middle School #4. There were no additional comments since the previous meeting.
Commissioner Greenaway moved, seconded by Commissioner Roach, to adopt findings
of fact and conclusions therefrom as contained in the November 16, 2017 staff report.
The motion passed unanimously.
Commissioner Greenaway moved, seconded by Commissioner Roach, based on the
findings of fact and conclusions therefrom, the Planning Commission recommend the
City Council grant a special permit for the location of a middle school at the 9300
block of Burns Road (Parcel 115170085 and the west approximately 21.1 acres of
parcel 115170068) with conditions as listed in the November 16, 2017 staff report.
The motion passed unanimously.
D. Special Permit Location of a Beauty School (Maria Avilal IMF#
SP 2017-0161
Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff.
Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director, discussed the special
permit application for the location of a beauty school. There were no additional
comments since the previous meeting.
Commissioner Bykonen asked staff if the applicant had obtained a parking agreement
with the adjacent business, Tri -Cities Community Health, to borrow some parking
spaces that they were lacking.
Mr. White responded that he was unsure.
There were no further questions or comments.
Commissioner Roach moved, seconded by Commissioner Greenaway, to adopt findings
of fact and conclusions therefrom as contained in the November 16, 2017 staff report.
The motion passed unanimously.
Commissioner Roach moved, seconded by Commissioner Greenaway, based on the
£codings of fact and conclusions therefrom, the Planning Commission recommend the
City Council grant a special permit to Maria Avila for the location of a beauty school at
746 West Court Street, Suite B, with conditions as contained in the November 16,
2017 staff report. The motion passed unanimously.
-3-
E. Rezone Rezone from RT (Residential Transition) to R-1
(Low Density Residential) (Pahlisch Homes LLCI
(MF# Z 2017-006)
Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff.
Dave McDonald, City Planner, discussed the rezone application rezoning the property
from RT (Residential Transition) to R-1 (Low Density Residential). There were no
additional comments since the previous meeting.
Commissioner Bowers moved, seconded by Commissioner Portugal, to adopt findings
of fact and conclusions therefrom as contained in the November 16, 2017 staff report.
The motion passed unanimously.
Commissioner Bowers moved, seconded by Commissioner Portugal, based on the
findings of fact and conclusions as adopted the Planning Commission recommend the
City Council rezone Farm Unit 84, Irrigation Block 1 from RT to R-1. The motion
passed unanimously.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
A. Special Permit Location of a Solid Waste Facility 12022
Commercial Avenue Inc) (MF# SP 2017-019)
Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff.
Dave McDonald, City Planner, stated staff was approached months ago by the
operator of Basin Disposal, who is the applicant, with questions about the possibility
of locating a new solid waste transfer station within the community. At that time,
there weren't many options or properties available that had access and utilities.
However, recently a piece of property has become available and happens to be
adjacent to the Basin Disposal main campus. The applicant recently approached the
City asking if a solid waste transfer station would be permitted on this property. The
applicant wasn't keen on purchasing the property if he couldn't some day in the future
use it for his intended use. Unfortunately, transfer stations and similar facilities
(garbage dumps) are unclassified uses so they are not permitted outright in any zone.
They require review through the special permit process. The applicant has submitted
his application to see if he could get an answer on whether or not that site would be
appropriate for a transfer station. All the Planning Commission needs to do is
consider a land use action. The applicant will still have to undergo further permitting
processes through various agencies, such as the Health District and Department of
Ecology in order to get a solid waste disposal license.
Mr. McDonald stated that the Planning Commission may hear discussion or testimony
related to competition between facilities. The competition issue is a business related
discussion and the Planning Commission should only be looking at the land use. The
Planning Commission is to gather information, facts and testimony as it relates to
land use decisions. He stated that there were 6 criteria that are found in the special
permit section of PMC 25.86 of the zoning code for the Commissioner's to focus on
when making their decision.
He also stated that they may hear testimony regarding the County Solid Waste Plan.
Like most plans, they are not set in stone but rather a guide and can be updated or
amended. The City does not wait until the end of the Comprehensive Plan period to
start thinking about what to do with necessary facilities. Planning is ongoing and
design work moves forward so when the end date arrives there will be facilities ready
to take care of the population.
Staff received a number of letters of correspondence which were passed out to the
Commissioner's prior to the meeting. He addressed a letter received from Miller
Mertens & Comfort PLLC, a law office in Kennewick dealing with the application.
Chairman Cruz commented that this application is much like that of an asphalt plant,
where the Planning Commission is there to solely determine land use but leave the
permitting to other agencies.
Mr. McDonald said that was correct. He also pointed out that transfer stations are
termed as an "essential public facility". They are grouped with uses such as, prisons.
The way the law and the Comprehensive Plan is structured, cities and counties cannot
create regulations that would prohibit the location of essential public facilities. The
City cannot have laws that would not allow these types of facilities.
The site is located on Commercial Avenue just directly west of the existing Basin
Disposal office and business campus where they store their trucks, service the trucks.
The site has been identified in the Comprehensive Plan for over 35 years for industrial
uses and zoned for industrial uses for about that same amount of time. This site is
quite different from the Waste Management transfer station in Kennewick. That
transfer station is located in a residential area. This site is totally located within an
industrial area with industrial businesses surrounding it.
Mr. McDonald briefly reviewed of the 6 special permit review criteria. He pointed out
that since the existing station was built in the 1990's, a number of businesses have
located in the vicinity. The transfer station didn't appear to discourage development of
those facilities.
Mr. McDonald recommended the Planning Commission hold the hearing and then
continue it to allow the Commission more time to process the testimony and items
submitted into the record.
Commissioner Bykonen asked staff about the County Solid Waste Plan and how much
impact does that plan have on the City of Pasco's planning decisions.
Mr. McDonald responded that the Solid Waste Plan is not a part of Pasco's
Comprehensive Plan. Pasco doesn't have anything in its Comprehensive Plan that
would prohibit another transfer station. It is not to the point yet where the Solid
-5-
Waste Plan would come into play because all the applicant is asking for is land use
approval. If or when he moves through the process with the Health District and the
State, it may come into play at that time. The applicant has the opportunity between
now and then to work with the County to update the plan. The plan is out of date and
the plan itself states that it should be updated every 5 years and it is 2 years beyond
that.
Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director, stated that it should be
noted that the County's Solid Waste Plan is used by the agencies that Mr. McDonald
referenced, such as the Benton Franklin Health District and the Department of
Ecology.
Chairman Cruz said the main thing for the Commissions to be concerned about
reviewing are the 6 criteria items in the staff report.
Commissioner Bowers asked how far the current BDI Transfer Station is from the
proposed transfer station.
Mr. McDonald said that it is directly east about a mile and a half.
Commissioner Mendez asked for clarification on the motion to continue the hearing
due to needing to collect more tonnage information and asked if staff was working
with the applicant.
Mr. McDonald replied that he was working with the applicant and likely those who
oppose the application. He has received some of the tonnage information from the
applicant that wasn't included in the staff report but will be made available to the
Commission, which is one of the reasons to continue the hearing.
Darrick Dietrich, of Basin Disposal, Inc., 2021 N. Commercial Avenue, spoke on behalf
of his application. He explained that his testimony and discussion was going to focus
on the demand for more transfer capacity in the community and integration into the
Solid Waste Plan Agreement. Basin Disposal has been contracted by the City for
many years and his job is to ensure efficient capacity for the future. The site on
Commercial Avenue has sizable investment in it and recently $1 million plus dollars'
worth of natural gas invested into it. He noted that it is not just for Pasco but for the
region. His business operates in many cities, several counties and the infrastructure
that is being proposed is integral in the operations of his company and control of that
is vital in order to be competitive.
Mr. Dietrich presented a Power Point presentation highlighting the proposed use for
the site, the need for a new transfer station, the site selection process, the contractual
provisions which he believed were key to this decision and an overview of his
company. He stressed that there was a demand for future capacity and while it can
be debated, but he felt that was a false debate. The growth has been great in the last
several years and now is the time to plan for this. Colocation of the transfer station
next to the existing BDI facility would increase efficiency. He clarified that Basin
in
Disposal does not own the current transfer station, which he felt was integral in
running a facility and collection operation to have control over transfer station. He
said that there were constraints at the current facility; it is bounded by a roadway, it's
bound to the north by a super fund site, it's bounded to the east by land that has
conditional restrictive covenants on it and land to the south was recently purchased
by the owners of the transfer station. There is also pipeline that runs through that
facility with a 50' easement which is why the facilities on that site are located the way
they are - not for easy expansion which will have to be to the south coming closer to
Grimmway Farms. The viability of that expansion cannot be assumed. He stated that
the current transfer station site will not be able to handle the growth. He went on to
discuss the contractual aspect and costs to the City.
Commissioner Bowers asked if the new facility were to be opened if Pasco residents
would have access to curbside recycling services.
Mr. Dietrich said that it wouldn't be excluded but in order to have equipment to
process recycling material, the minimum cost would be $300,000-$500,000 in
equipment plus a building. Land is needed to do that which is part of what this
proposal would be - to have a facility that could handle both solid waste and
recyclable material. The current facility is not viable - it was built in 1974 as is the
equipment and the current facility could not handle recycling. With the new facility,
the goal would be to have enough tonnage from solid waste to be able to spread the
cost out for the recycling.
Commissioner Bowers asked what would happen to the current facility once the new
facility opens.
Mr. Dietrich replied that he wanted to refrain from speculation since he doesn't own
that facility but he would only handle all of his commercial trucks that he owns and
operates. He is not soliciting for customers.
Chairman Cruz reminded the Commission that they are to look at the land use action.
The competitiveness and benefit to the City is important but not for the Planning
Commission. It is about whether it fits with the surrounding community.
Commissioner Portugal asked if this proposal was shared with any of the neighbors or
if he was planning to have a session or time to answer local questions.
Mr. Dietrich said he certainly could and would be willing to but prior to this public
hearing he had not since the City has a notification process and he felt this was the
correct form to bring this to the community.
Commissioner Portugal asked if he had been approached by any of the neighbors yet
on this matter with any concerns or support.
Mr. Dietrich replied that he had verbal with one neighbor who just wanted to know
what was going on and they felt comfortable with it. The rest of the communication
-7-
has come through the City through letters from neighbors, primarily in opposition.
Commissioner Alvarado discussed a comment Mr. Dietrich made pertaining to an
enclosed facility to mitigate possibly negative impacts and asked if smell was one of
those impacts.
Mr. Dietrich answered that the enclosed facility would certainly help with odor,
although he didn't believe it smelled all that bad in reality - but having it enclosed
certainly would help with the odor.
Chairman Cruz added that these are things the Planning Commission can consider;
standoff distance from surrounding properties, block wall, enclosed facility, etc. They
have a few tools at their disposal to ensure protecting the neighborhood.
Ken Miller, attorney with Miller Mertens & Comfort PLLC, 1020 N. Center Parkway,
Ste. B, Kennewick, WA, represented one of the opponents of the application, Columbia
Basin LLC. With him was Leonard Dietrich, the owner of the current waste transfer
station and Steve Wheatley, a manager of the station, as well as Chuck Anderson who
is also an employee who works regularly at the facility. When he first got involved in
this application he was given the project number of SP2017-018. He did a public
records request for any application that had been filed by Basin Disposal or by the
applicant. He received only one application that wasn't signed. He asked the City
when there was a signed application submitted to the City.
Mr. McDonald responded that it was submitted two days later.
Mr. Miller asked why it was not provided as a part of the public records request.
Mr. McDonald responded that he was not involved with that but the department
secretary said that she was unaware that there were two files. One was set up initially
and then two days later the person who set the second one up was not aware of the
first one.
Mr. Miller said concerned if the application was handled in a proper fashion by law.
He also asked who the applicant was.
Mr. McDonald said the current applicant is Commercial Avenue LLC.
Chairman Cruz pointed out to Mr. Miller's point that is different than what is on the
agenda.
Mr. Miller asked who signed the application.
Mr. McDonald said that property owner signed the application as well as Mr. Dietrich.
M
Mr. Miller asked who is indicated as the property owner.
Mr. McDonald responded, Mr. Tiegs.
Mr. Miller asked if it was Mr. Tiegs individually.
Mr. McDonald said he signed it individually.
Mr. Miller said the public record has the owner of the property is not Frank Tiegs
individually, it is an entity.
Mr. McDonald replied that he apparently signed it as a representative of that entity.
Mr. Miller asked which entity.
Mr. McDonald said he hadn't looked up the entity.
Mr. Miller responded that one of the findings that they are making is that the
application was executed by the owner of the land.
Mr. McDonald replied that is not one of the findings that is required.
Chairman Cruz added that there are often times purchasers that make applications
for the land use prior to buying the land.
Mr. Miller said that it is usually executed by the land owner at the same time.
Chairman Cruz replied that he didn't agree with that but asked the City Staff to
research that. He said the process questions could be looked into and addressed but
he would like to focus on the land use issues.
Mr. Miller asked at this point in time if the hearing going to be left open so they could
have the opportunity to get further testimony when it reconvenes.
Chairman Cruz said absolutely. First they will establish if this is a valid application
and that proper notification was made and then based on that they will have to chart
a new path forward. Something like this could be resolved with a resubmittal and re -
notification if there is that much incongruence.
Mr. Miller asked if the materials supplied for SP2017-018 could be submitted for
SP2017-019.
Mr. McDonald said they already were and that they were supplied to the Planning
Commission on the bench.
®'
Mr. Miller questioned whether or not the application could be conducted in harmony
with the character of the general vicinity of that particular area. He is aware that
there is already a Basin Disposal business and the current transfer facility but this
area is in a constant state of flux as to how it is developing. It is being developed and
proposed to be marketed by the City to be a new food processing area and also there
for another commercial avenue. This is now looking to be a regional facility for waste
and asked if that fit with the picture. He said there is currently already a waste
transfer station which is perfectly adequate and can take care of anything needed in
the near future without expanding. He noted to the Commission that the applicant is
requesting a special permit, meaning it is stepping out of the current permitted uses
and doing something special. So it needs to be looked at from the standpoint of need
and how it happens to be harmonized with what else is there. He provided the
Planning Commission with objections and briefly discussed those letters as well as a
petition. He said that he hasn't seen any voice of support other than Basin Disposal
and he has also seen no numbers showing that this new facility would provide savings
for Pasco residents. He further went on to discuss the lack of plans or information
and didn't feel the Commission could make a legal determination on what was
proposed and didn't even think the application should be continued but denied
instead.
Leonard Dietrich, 1721 Dietrich Road, spoke in opposition of this application. He
stated that he sat on the Planning Commission for 18 years and loved it. He said that
he took over the Basin Disposal business in the 1980's and sold part of it to Darrick
Dietrich about 7 years ago. A number of years ago the Pasco Sanitary Landfill was
classified as a super fund site. He made a determination along with the City of Pasco
to invest around $2.5 million in 1992 to expand their business. They now have 28
trailers and 15 trucks. They have been keeping up with the growth because he has a
responsibility to this community and every other community that he services. Just
this year he has invested almost $600,000 in new changing equipment to keep up
with the demand. They process around 650 tons per day/5 days a week and they can
handle far more. He asked the Planning Commission to consider whether or not they
want another solid waste transfer station within the city limits and if it fits in that
location. He suggested that it did not meet the character of the area. There is already
a station a mile away that meets and exceeds the needs so locating another station
right next to it is not the right location. Mr. Dietrich stated that he has spoken with
other property owners in that area and they don't want the increased traffic. He
addressed access for Mr. Darrick Dietrich's trucks into the transfer station and said
that they all have keys and have access 24 hours/day, 7 days/week. Just this year
they put in an automatic weighing system that kicks out a slip. He stated the Solid
Waste Plan says there should only be one transfer station. He also addressed other
concerns that Mr. Darrick Dietrich had discussed.
Commissioner Bowers asked what would happen to the current transfer facility if the
special permit is granted for Mr. Darrick Dietrich.
Mr. Leonard Dietrich responded that it could close its doors because there's not
enough volume for two transfer stations or they could stay in business but charge
residents more money when they come out with their garbage and lawn clippings. He
has tried to make the pricing credible. Mr. Darrick Dietrich had discussed the price
-10-
increase of garbage service during his presentation and he's right. He is able to
manage the pricing at his facility. Mr. Leonard Dietrich on the other hand asked for 5
years for a rate increase as he himself has received rate increases from the landfill.
Mr. Darrick Dietrich denied the rate increases and the transfer station was going
broke because of that for the purpose of driving it into the ground.
Steve Wheatley, 1 Marigold Loop, spoke in support of Mr. Leonard Dietrich and
opposed the application for the special permit. He stated that Leonard bought the 10
acres to the south of his current property and they allow Mr. Darrick Dietrich to use
roughly an acre of that property to store his drop boxes. They also have all of their
existing trucks and trailers on the 10 acres. Those trucks and trailers can be moved
without the pipeline issue and expand the facility on that site. He also discussed the
automated system that Mr. Leonard Dietrich had mentioned. He stated the current
transfer station can handle future growth.
Chairman Cruz summarized the testimony heard during the public hearing and
wanted to make sure the Mr. Miller's concerns were addressed. He asked Staff if there
was a limit to how many "essential" facilities were allowed in the City.
Mr. White responded no, there is no limit and that "essential" is a quantitative work
instead of quantity.
Commissioner Portugal asked if the two files that had been created for this application
would be reconciled into one for the next hearing.
Chairman Cruz said he wasn't sure but the City will ensure that the proper process
has been followed, complete and accurate.
Commissioner Campos moved, seconded by Commissioner Alvarado, to continue the
hearing on the proposed solid waste transfer station to the December 21, 2017
Planning Commission Meeting. The motion passed unanimously.
B. Rezone Rezone from R-1 to R-4 (A.K. Sharmal (MF# Z
2017-007)
Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff.
David McDonald, City Planner, discussed the rezone application from R-1 (Low
Density Residential) to R-4 (High Density Residential). Mr. McDonald explained this
item was before the Planning Commission last year in the form of a Comprehensive
Plan Amendment. That process was completed and Mr. Sharma assumed the rezone
was also completed because he had submitted a rezone application with the Plan
amendment. Mr. McDonald reviewed the location of the property and discussed
difficulties of developing such a small site with single-family dwellings with extensive
infrastructure improvements required. The site borders two major streets and as a
result would be required to build block walls and install landscaping along both
streets.
-11-
Commissioner Greenaway asked if this item could be fast tracked since this is really
just a follow-up item from the Comprehensive Plan Amendment the applicant did a
year ago.
Commissioner Roach said she would be in favor of fast -tracking.
Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director, said unfortunately due to
the SEPA process and the way it was advertised it cannot be done.
Mr. McDonald added that it would be a procedural problem.
With no further questions or comments the public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Roach moved, seconded by Commissioner Greenaway, to close the
hearing on the proposed rezone and set December 21, 2017 as the date for
deliberations and the development of a recommendation for the City Council. The
motion passed unanimously.
C. Code Amendment Creating a new Chapter 26.50 "GMA
Development Agreements" in the Pasco
Municipal Code IMF# CA 2017-0061
Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff.
Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director, discussed the proposed
code amendment creating a new Chapter 26.50 "GMA Development Agreements" in
the Pasco Municipal Code. This item involves a tool for land use and was established
by the State in 1995. A related this item to how concomitant agreements are used
when zone changes occur and said that the GMA development agreements would be
similar except they wouldn't require a rezone application to have a development
agreement. A development agreement is an agreement between a land owner and in
this case, the City, which would establish terms of development and expectations. It
would lock in development regulations for the period of time specified in the
agreement and then it would have the benefit of having a public hearing which is
proposed to be held by the Planning Commission. There would also be the ability to
offer an extension to the timeframe if appropriate. It is simply a contract to develop in
a certain way and lock in development regulations for a period of time. This tool is
used in both Kennewick and Richland. It would be particularly helpful in Pasco as we
are in the middle of working through a County plats that needs to have certain City
responsibilities. Currently it is being handled through an awkward SEPA process. It
would be particularly beneficial in instances where the City is able to extend water
and sewer services to County properties not yet incorporated but inside the Urban
Growth Area. Or, if a development is happening in a Master Plan Area, such as the
Broadmoor Area, where things become complex and you want to lay out the
expectations and the product you hope to achieve in a manner that's more formal than
just a zone change or guidance from the Comprehensive Plan.
-12-
Chairman Cruz asked if the Planning Commission could have very broad terms to the
contract.
Mr. White responded that the Planning Commission could request anything in the
contract that is not prohibited by law.
Commissioner Roach asked if it would vary based on what type of development it was.
Mr. White said that it would be very likely.
Commissioner Roach asked if they would see the details of that text prior to the
municipal code and asked for clarification on the timeframe to lock in the dates of the
agreements.
Mr. White said yes and they could be anything from 10 to 15 years or 5 years with the
option for an extension.
Commissioner Bowers asked if the advantage would be to be able to take more things
into account.
Mr. White replied yes. For a typical subdivision there may not be much difference but
it would help with more complex developments.
Commissioner Alvarado asked if the benefit for the developer would be them knowing
better how to plan and budget.
Mr. White responded that they would have that benefit as well as knowing that they
have that agreement for the given time and the criteria will not change for them in that
timeframe.
Chairman Cruz gave the example if someone had 1,000 acres and took 20 years to
develop, things could change with City requirements but those changes would not
impact the developer if they have an agreement. And the Planning Commission could
work out whatever deal needed to protect both the City and the developer.
Commissioner Mendez asked if the City wants a consistent vision why would this
agreement be voluntary and not a requirement and why hasn't this process been used
in the past or currently.
Mr. White said that it comes out of State law that it is not mandatory but provides the
option for municipalities to use in their code.
Commissioner Roach said she couldn't find the allotted timeframe in the proposed
code.
-13-
Chairman Cruz said it would vary for each agreement unless the Commission wanted
to place a cap.
Mr. White replied that there was language addressed in the proposed code for
timeframes and extensions.
Chairman Cruz added that it also addressed that it would be valid up to the time of
annexation so in the case it takes a long time for the City to annex, the agreement
would still be enforceable.
With no further questions or comments the public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Portugal moved, seconded by Commissioner Bowers, to close the public
hearing and recommend to City Council that a new Chapter in the Pasco Municipal
Code 26.50 titled "GMA Development Agreements", as contained in the November 16,
2017 staff report be adopted. The motion passed unanimously.
WORKSHOP:
A. Block Grant Section 108 Loan Program Application - CDBG
Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff.
Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director, discussed the Section 108
Loan Program Application for block grant funds. The Planning Commission is the
City's designated block grant advisory committee. Every year the Commission hears
the allocation process for CDBG (Community Development Block Grant) funds and
HOME funds — one is for physical improvements to the community and one is for
housing. The Section 108 Loan Program is a program available to entitlement
communities, such as Pasco. The City of Pasco is awarded annual block grant funds
without having to apply for them in a competitive environment. The Section 108 Loan
Program was formulated specifically for communities to take on large projects that
cannot be funded slowly over time. In the immediate case, over the past few years the
Planning Commission has made recommendations to City Council to invest into the
Pasco Downtown Core/Peanut Park area. The Section 108 Program allows a more
sizeable investment to occur and it is guaranteed through our annual entitlement,
meaning the City is able to borrow roughly 5 times our annual entitlement for the sum
of up to $3.5 million to be focused on a project that would improve an area that
benefits low -moderate income families, which is the case for Downtown
Pasco/Peanuts Park. The program would allow the payments to be made on that loan
from the annual entitlement so if the City chooses a project that may not return
revenue to the City, it can be paid back with general fund monies or the annual
entitlement. If the City chooses to invest in a program that provides revenue, the loan
can be paid back with revenue if applicable.
Staff has looked at this program very seriously as a way to fund Downtown Pasco
improvements, particularly in terms of timing as it relates to the Lewis Street
Overpass, the Farmer's Market and the whole streetscape and connection issue with
-14-
the new Lewis Street, Clark Street and even Columbia. The City has had a public
input process that has lasted two years and the contract for the park renovation is
out. The City is trying to get this underway but it is going to take some time.
Michael Morales, Economic Development Program Manager, spoke on behalf of this
workshop item. The Section 108 Loan is CDBG in terms of the rules and regulations
and as such, the flexibility of the projects it can be used for. Cities often use it to
build public facilities, community centers and streetscaping improvements. It cannot
be for the general conduct of government or build a new police station and things like
that, however, public facilities and infrastructure is eligible, as well as housing and
economic development loans. The ultimate guarantee for a Section 108 Loan
repayment is the City's entitlement revenue but that is only based upon the amount of
debt serviced, they won't sweep the whole account. Mr. Morales gave examples of
options that other cities have done. The intention is that the City would apply for a
loan pool, which would basically put a marker on an overall amount of money and
money could be borrowed as each individual project is underwritten. A benefit to that
is if the City is anticipating potential cuts to annual CDBG funding. It will probably
be spring or summer by the time the City gets a full award from HUD and the project
would likely be written by next fall and starting payments a year later. It starts at a
variable rate and then every year or two HUD has a public offering and take out a
fixed rate at that time because these are all a series of treasury notes. The City is
hopeful in that making these public improvements then we may have a couple of
catalytic projects that could be recruited and incentivized to locate in the downtown
that would likely include a real estate deal and some building revitalization and
perhaps provide some financing.
Chairman Cruz clarified that many things that are paid for with CDBG funds could be
paid for with other funds. There is a limit on administrative expenses but those could
be picked up by general funds. This loan could be used for some of the City's more
strategic investments that they have had to forgo in the past.
Mr. White added that if you look at the urban part of Downtown Pasco/Peanuts
Park/Farmer's Market, it looks exactly as it did in 1982.
Commissioner Bowers asked who would ultimately be the panel that decides how to
allocate these monies to.
Mr. Morales replied that at this point there won't be a panel because the City would be
establishing a loan pool. City's used to apply for a specific project but about 15 years
ago they started going through pools to get though the HUD process quicker and then
you are individually underwriting locally. But an initial project must be identified
when applying for the pool, so to identify it as a public facilities project in the
downtown makes it easier. In the future if business loans were to be considered they
would come through the City.
Commissioner Portugal asked if these funds would be restricted just to the Downtown
Area.
-15-
Mr. Morales said yes.
Commissioner Portugal asked about the improvements to the Lewis Street Overpass
and if the funds would be used for that project or just for projects that would go in
support of that project.
Mr. Morales replied that the monies would go towards projects that would go in
support of that project and for the Peanuts Park/Farmer's Market Renovation. The
Lewis Street Overpass has its own funding although it doesn't have all of its funding
yet.
There was no further discussion.
OTHER BUSINESS:
A. Other December 21, 2017 Meetin¢
Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff.
With no further discussion or business, the Planning Commission was adjourned at
9:02 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
David McDonald, City Planner
-16-
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
MASTER FILE NO: Z 2017-007 APPLICANT: Ashok &, Vijay Sharma
HEARING DATE: 11/16/2017 1201 Brentwood Ave
ACTION DATE: 12/21/2017 Richland, WA 99352
BACKGROUND
REQUEST: REZONE: Rezone from R-1 (Low -Density Residential) to R-4
(High -Density Residential)
1. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION:
Legal: the S '/2 of the SE '/4 of the ES '/4 of Section 6 Township 9 Range
29, Except a portion for County Road ROW (Tax Parcel #115180064)
General Location: At the northwest corner of Broadway Boulevard and
Burns Road.
Property Size: Approximately 17.34 acres.
2. ACCESS: The parcel is accessible from both Broadway Boulevard and
Burns Road.
3. UTILITIES: Municipal water service is available in Burns Road. The
Comprehensive Sewer Plan calls for the location of a trunk line running
north from Harris Road to Burns Road then east past the rezone site.
Construction on the line is to begin in the fall of 2018 and will be
extended from Court Street to a point on Harris Road about three
quarters of a mile south of the rezone site.
4. LAND USE AND ZONING: The lot is currently zoned RT (Residential
Transition) and is vacant. Surrounding properties are zoned and
developed as follows:
NORTH: RS -1 - Farming/Vacant
EAST: R-1 -Columbia Terrace (Under Development)
SOUTH: RT - Vacant
WEST: R -S-1 - Farming
5. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The Comprehensive Plan has recently been
amended to designate this property for high-density residential
1
development (Ordinance 4327, passed by City Council on December 5,
2016). Policies of the Plan suggest the City permit a full range of
residential environments including multi -family homes (H -2-A) and
standards that control the scale and density of accessory buildings and
homes to maintain compatibility with other residential uses (H -4-B). The
Plan encourages higher density development to be located near arterial
streets so as to avoid access through lower density neighborhoods (H -1-A
& H -1-B).
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 Mitigated Determination of
Non -Significance is likely for this application (WAC 197-11-355). The
MDNS would consider high-density residential development on the
rezone site allowing for multi -family units with a minimum of 3,000
square feet per unit. Some of the issues to be addressed are as follows:
a. The intersection at Burns and Broadmoor will require a traffic
signal in the near future given development in the area. Upon
project submittal/ approval additional land for intersection
improvements and a pro -rata share of the signal cost will be
required.
b. The City does not currently own the sanitary sewer main up
Broadmoor along the east side of the property; upon project
submittal the developer would need to pay a fair share to
compensate the builder of the main or provide the extension. The
Developer will be obligated to cover frontage along Burns Road and
for a pro -rata share of extending sewer from its current location of
the I-182 overpass at Court Street.
c. The 2018 City of Pasco budget contemplates the City extending
sewer from the 1-182 overpass at Court to a point on Harris Road
approximately three quarters of a mile south of the site.
ANALYSIS
The site was designated for low-density residential development up until
December of 2016 (Ordinance 4327), when it was reclassified for high-density
residential development. The high-density classification as described in the
Comprehensive Plan permits the development of "multiple -unit apartments or
condominiums at a density exceeding 20 units per acre." Criteria for allocation of
this High -Density Residential designation include sewer availability, being a
transition area between more intense uses and low density uses, market demand,
and location on or near circulation routes.
FA
The site has limited access to sewer along Broadmoor Boulevard but that line has
not been turned over to the City yet and as a result it is not part of the City
controlled sewer system. There may also be a question about cost sharing or
reimbursement to the developer who built the line. To fully build out the property
it will be necessary for the trunk line to be extended north from Harris Road to
Burns Road. The property in question is not located between more intense uses
and low density land use designations according to the Comprehensive Plan Land
Use Map, as surrounding properties are all designated for low-density residential
use; however the Broadmoor Area Plan will include some more intense uses to the
south. Although not yet completed, all iterations of the Broadmoor Master Plan
have reflected high density residential development in this area. The property is
located at the intersection of Broadmoor Boulevard and Burns Road, both
principal arterial streets, according to the Major Street Plan. Being located at the
intersection of two major streets traffic generated by future development on the
site will not need to travel through low-density neighborhoods to connect with the
remainder of the community.
Zoning options under the high-density designation include just R-4. The High
Density land use designation is unique in that it is the only land use designation
in the Comprehensive Plan that has only one zoning classification attached to it.
The applicant is seeking R-4 zoning.
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 June of 2015 (Ordinance
4224) when the property was annexed to the City. The Comprehensive Plan Map
was amended in December 2016 (Ordinance 432 7) to accommodate high-density
R-4 zoning.
2. The changed conditions, which are alleged to warrant other or additional
zoning:
The property was annexed in June of 2015 and the Comprehensive Plan has
been amended to permit high density zoning on the site. Burns Road was
constructed in the past few years and now connects the site to Broadmoor
Boulevard and Road 68. Broadmoor Boulevard had been extended north, past
the site connecting the City to County properties in the urban growth area. A 16
inch water line has been located in Burns Road and parallels the south
boundary of the proposed rezone site. A water line has also been extended north
From Burns Road north in Broadmoor Boulevard to the north end of Columbia
Terrace. The Comprehensive Sewer Plan was also updated in the past few years
to identify were the trunk sewer lines will generally be located to serve this
property and areas to the north of the City limits.
3
3. Facts to justify the change on the basis of advancing the public health,
safety and general welfare:
The proposed zoning request is fairly consistent with the Comprehensive Plan
which has been determined to be in the best interest of advancing public health,
safety and general welfare of the community. The rezone will lead to the creation
of a high-density residential neighborhood providing more affordable housing
opportunities for Pasco residents.
4. The effect it will have on the value and character of the adjacent property
and the Comprehensive Plan:
A change in zoning classification will ultimately result in the establishment of a
higher density residential neighborhood consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
The rezone may improve the value of commercial property near the Road 100
Interchange. Experience as shown that development of higher density
residential development in Pasco adjacent to lower density residential
neighborhoods has not impacted the value of single family homes. The Island
Estates Row Homes and Stone Gate apartments are both located adjacent to
single-family neighborhoods that have not seen a decrease in value as the result
of being located near apartments.
5. The effect on the property owner or owners if the request is not granted:
Future site planning cannot move forward without knowing what the zoning will
be. The site will require extensive grading and earth moving and arterial street
improvements that would be difficult to justify without a rezone to higher density.
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 vacant.
2. The site was annexed in 2015.
3. The site contains 17.34 acres.
4. The site is currently zoned R-1 (Low -Density Residential).
S. Properties to the north and west are zoned R -S-1;
6. Properties to the east are zoned R-1;
10
7. Properties to the south are zoned RT.
8. The site is located on the northwest corner of Broadmoor Boulevard and
Burns Road.
9. The applicant is requesting R-4 (High -Density Residential) zoning.
10. The Comprehensive Plan identifies the site for High -Density -Residential
uses which includes R-4 zoning.
11. A 16 -inch water line is located in Burns Road.
12. The Comprehensive Sewer Plan identifies generally how the site can be
served by municipal sewer system.
13. The site will require extensive grading and arterial street improvements
that will be difficult to accomplish for a single-family development.
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. 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. H -2-A suggests the City permit a full range of
residential environments. Housing Policy (H -BA) encourages standards that
control the scale and density of accessory buildings and homes to maintain
compatibility with other residential uses. The Plan also encourages higher
density development to be located near arterial streets so as to avoid access
through lower density neighborhoods (H -1-A & H -1-B). The site is located at the
intersection of two major streets.
2. The effect of the proposal on the immediate vicinity will not be materially
detrimental.
The immediate area is shown in the Comprehensive Plan and the proposed
Broadmoor Area Plan to contain a mix of residential densities including densities
permitted by R-4 zoning. The proposed rezone is consistent with the referenced
plans and will not be detrimental to future nearby developments that will need to
conform to the provision of the plans. The development of multi family housing
adjacent single-family neighborhoods has not diminished the value of homes in
single-family neighborhoods. This is verified by valuation records of the Franklin
County Assessor's office.
3. There is merit and value in the proposal for the community as a whole.
5
There is merit in developing vacant parcels within the City in accordance with the
goals and policies contained in the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed zoning is
consistent with the Plan's Land Use Map. Providing an increased range of
housing opportunities benefits the community as a whole. Additionally locating
housing in areas served by major streets and water lines and will enable
efficient use of capital resources. The proposal is supported by land use goals
and policies contained in the Comprehensive Plan.
4. Conditions should be imposed in order to mitigate any significant
adverse impacts from the proposal.
The intersection at Burns and Broadmoor will require a traffic signal in the near
future given development in the area. The developer will be required to provide
any necessary right-of-way and complete street improvements as a part of
development. These improvements will also include intersection improvements.
A traffic impact fee will also be assessed at the time of permitting that may cover
almost two/thirds of the cost of a traffic signal. These requirements are currently
part of the municipal code.
The current sewer line at the intersection of Burns and Broadmoor has not been
turned over to the City and is unavailable. When it does become part of the City
system it will only provide very limit capacity. To fully sewer the property in
question the developer will need to connect to the future trunk line to the south on
Harris Road. Developer will be obligated by code to extend needed utilities
along all frontages of his property.
S. A Concomitant Agreement should be entered into between the City and
the petitioner, and if so, the terms and conditions of such an agreement.
No concomitant agreement is needed.
MOTION for Findings of Fact: I move to adopt findings of fact and
conclusions therefrom as contained in the December 21, 2017 staff
report.
Ta! OTEOW for Recommendation: I move based on the findings of fact and
conclusions as adopted the Planning Commission recommend the
City Council rezone Tax Parcel #115180064 from R-1 to R-4.
R
W
Z N
w
J
OATS aoowavoas
Nl a313x3
LL
2
1104'-_
rj
38
0
Ln
ti
CD0
to
0
Lo
0
M
P
t�
O
�
�
�
�
O
I
O
�
O
N
U
N
OATS aoowavoas
Nl a313x3
LL
2
1104'-_
rj
38
0
Ln
ti
CD0
to
0
Lo
0
M
P
W
Nl 21313X3
Z N
(D i v)
?� E E J = 1� 3211
J E QeA+ L LL
U G> Z
V d
NI 2131S
Nl30aING WFINN
MIS MOOMMONG
cld
� c
cld oc
m
I
CIA
CD
._
O
LL0
O
M
O
r I
O
W rx
313X3
Z y
K
w o
3 E la 3211
r
U 0LL Z_
LL O �
Z O
Z N1 2131S
N-1 ISGINS W NN
aAlB 21OOWaVOUS
� o
W z
'm
O Ocn
O
NNU FM
N
Lo
r o
too
M.1 " V
CD
mu
d
LL
•� � M
O � O
N "
".
,a�
j
'�
V l �
�'•�;
�
1, P
II (
,�`
I � �.
l' i. . �...
��J...1�:
a
t
J
i '
�'
• 1�
I
s
r
F
��
1
��
a
��
��.
i
s
r
F
W=
4
q
F'�
MEMORANDUM
DATE: December 21, 2017
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Dave McDonald, City Planner
SUBJECT: 2022 Commercial Ave LLC Solid Waste Transfer Station (MF# SP
2017-019)
In July of 2016 staff met with representatives of Basin Disposal Inc. to
discuss the need to plan for a new and updated solid waste transfer station.
Staff was provided an explanation of how the proposed new transfer station
would be configured and operated. Staff understood the new transfer station
would be designed to improve operation efficiencies and enhance
opportunities for recycling. At the July meeting a number of sites were
reviewed and the special permit process was explained.
In October of this year Mr. Dietrich of Basin Disposal Inc. and his real estate
agent returned to the Planning Office to again discuss the need and plans for
a new solid waste transfer station. The property adjacent to the main office
and operations center for BDI was now available for sale. Mr. Dietrich
wanted to know if a solid waste transfer station would be a permitted use on
the adjacent parcel to his office. He was apprehensive about purchasing the
property without knowing if a transfer station would be permitted. Even
though the site is zoned I-1 (Light Industrial), is adjacent to a garbage
company and in an area that has a significant number of trucking firms staff
could not could not give Mr. Dietrich an answer. Solid waste transfer stations
are an unclassified use under PMC 25.86.010 and require review through the
special permit process before being located in the City. Not knowing whether
the City would permit a transfer station on the site in question Mr. Dietrich's
only option for obtaining an answer was to apply for a special permit.
A special permit application starts the process for conducting a land use
review only. A special permit does not authorize a building permit or right-of-
way permit for the construction of a solid waste facility. The special permit
does not and cannot grant Health District approval or the approval of a
permit from the Department of Ecology. All the applicant is attempting to do
at this point is obtain some form of assurance from a land use perspective
that if he purchases the site a transfer station could be located on it
sometime in the future. The applicant will still need to work through all the
other required permits at the state and local level. At this point the applicant
is not asking for a permit to operate a transfer station. He is only seeking
land use approval which is a non -project action.
The application is strictly a land use matter and the Planning Commission's
is charged with the responsibility of reviewing it as a land use matter. It is
not a business competition matter or a Department of Ecology permitting
matter. The criteria list in PMC 25.86.060 is what the Planning Commission
is to use as a guide for considering this land use issue.
Having control over the land is the first step in the applicant's long process of
obtaining the state and local permits necessary before building and operating
a solid waste transfer station.
A solid waste transfer station is defined as an essential public facility and by
the City's Comprehensive Plan (County -Wide Planning Policy #4 (B)) and GMA
law (RCW 36.70A.200 (5)). The City and the County cannot create or have
regulations that would preclude the location of essential public facilities
within the County. Essential public facilities include those facilities that are
typically difficult to site, such as airports, state education facilities and state
or regional transportation facilities as defined in RCW 47.06.140, regional
transit authority facilities as defined in RCW 81.112.020, state and local
correctional facilities, solid waste handling facilities, and inpatient facilities
including substance abuse facilities, mental health facilities, group homes,
and secure community transition facilities as defined in RCW 71.09.020.
The Comprehensive Plan contains a number of policy statements to guide the
location of essential public facilities within the community. They are as
follows:
CF -7 -A Policy: Review all reasonable alternatives for the location of
essential public facilities prior to granting necessary permits.
About eighty percent of Franklin County's population lives within the
Pasco Urban Growth Boundary. As more emphasis is placed on
encouraging population growth to occur within urban areas that
percentage rate may increase. The Office of Financial Management
population projections for Franklin County indicate Pasco may grow by
another 55,179 people by 2040 reaching a population of over 126,859.
Therefore the greatest need for most of the garbage service over the next
20 years will be generated in and around Pasco. Locating a transfer
station near a majority of the garbage customers and the main BDI
truck yard and fueling station will create efficiencies in the garbage
collection and disposal system generally benefiting the rate payers.
E
In 2016 Staff reviewed several potential sites for a new transfer station
in the Commercial Avenue area, the "A" Street/Road 40 East area, the
Industrial way area, the PK Highway area and near the Tri -cities Airport
prior to the current application being submitted. The applicant
reviewed the pros and cons of each site with City Staff.
Due to the lack of utilities, water lines for fire protection, gas lines for
truck fueling and conflicts with potential future uses the applicant was
unable locate a suitable site.
An offer was made on a site near the current Dietrich Road transfer
station, but after consultation with CFR foods, an adjoining property
owner, the offer was withdrawn. Several of the sites considered were
being reserved for food processing related businesses. The airport site
had issue related to airport protections zones.
The southern boundary of existing transfer station property, which
includes the 10 acres purchased earlier this year, is 150 feet from the
Dietrich Road site that had to be dropped because of concerns
expressed by CRF foods. Any expansion on the existing transfer station
property may face the same issues as the site on the west side of
Dietrich Road. The odd shape of the existing transfer station site, the
existence of a large gas line easement through the site, the location and
configuration of existing structures may also create some difficulties in
expanding the current transfer station.
The proposed site became available over a year after staff reviewed
other sites with the applicant. The proposed site is in an area
characterized by industrial development, utilities are nearby and easy
to extend. The site is adjacent to the existing BDI office, operations
center, fueling station and truck servicing and storage yard which will
create efficiency for the operation of a transfer station that cannot be
found at other locations.
CF -7-B Policy: Ensure all potential environmental impacts are considered
for each essential public facility including the cumulative impacts of multiple
facilities.
As with any special permit application a SEPA checklist was required
to be reviewed for possible environmental impacts related to the
location of the proposed transfer station. A MDNS will be issued for
this project including a number of mitigating measures designed to
address the operational concerns over the proposed solid waste
transfer station. An additional SEPA checklist will be submitted and
review at the project development stage.
Policy CF -7-13 was included in the Comprehensive Plan to address a
major community concerns about multiple essential facilities locating
K]
in and near Downtown Pasco. At that time the community was
confronted with various problems related to the mission, work release,
the Benton Franklin Alcohol Treatment Center and various group
homes. These facilities were impacting the community's tax base and
ability to provide police and social services. These facilities contributed
to general public disorder in the downtown area, loitering, vandalism
and other acts detrimental to the overall public image of the
community. A transfer Station, although defined as an essential
services does not rise to the same level of concern as inpatient
facilities, substance abuse facilities, mental health facilities, group
homes, secure community transition facilities and homeless shelters.
The social and financial impacts are completely different. With the
projected increases in population over the next 20 years the need for
garbage service will only increase. Whether the garbage is process at
one or two transfer station it will still have to be handled. The
proposed transfer station may create economies of scale by locating
adjacent to the main garbage company operations center and fueling
station that may be reflected in other benefits to the community.
Transfer stations are tax paying facilities that don't create the negative
external impacts that are associated with other essential services.
CF -7-C Policy: Ensure essential public facilities contribute to necessary
concurrency requirements for transportation and utilities.
To fulfill concurrency requirements the proposed transfer station will
be responsible for building Holland Street to the standard specification
of the City Engineer. These improvements will include a street base,
pavement, curb, gutter, sidewalk, street lighting, storm drainage and
all other appurtenances related to city streets. In addition water and
sewer lines and other utilities will be placed in Holland Street or in an
easement adjacent to the street. These improvements will be the
responsibility of the applicant not the public.
CF -7-D Policy; Adopt mitigating measures during the special permit review
process to address potential land use compatibility issues with surrounding
uses.
The special permit process is used to ensure land uses are compatible
and to avoid conflicts between properties. The Planning Commission
often accomplishes this by recommending various conditions related to
site development to protect the character of a neighborhood. The
proposed site is in an industrial neighborhood within a mile of the
existing transfer station. The existing transfer station is on a site that
is not landscaped or sight screened and is accessed by a street that
does not comply with the standard specification of the City. Staff has
a
included a list of conditions in the attached staff report that addresses
potential compatibility issues. These conditions include landscaping
along the street, a sight screening wall, probation on the outdoor
dumping or storage of garbage and litter and dust control measures.
During the hearing on November 16, 2017 a number of questions and
comments were present to the Planning Commission. The following are
responses to the main questions and comments:
Procedural Questions
Application: When staff met with applicant prior to submittal of an
application for the transfer station the applicant was asked to submit an
initial application to create a place hold for the November 16th Planning
Commission meeting. The place holder allows staff to tentatively prepare
an agenda, make assignments for report preparation and generally get an
idea of the work load for the next Planning Commission meeting. The
applicant submitted an application without signatures as a place holder
and the City Planner set up a file (SP2017-018) to get the process
started. Two days later the applicant returned with his completed
application materials and fees. The Administrative Assistant took in the
applicant and setup a new file (SP 2017-019). Two files were
inadvertently setup for the same project hence the confusion during the
hearing over the Master File numbers. Master File number SP 2017-018
has been voided.
Planning Commission Reviewed the Wrong Packet: It was very clear from
the packet the Planning Commission received that there was only one
location under consideration for a special permit. The maps included in
the staff report and discussion at the hearing provided unambiguous
information on where the applicant was proposing his new transfer
station. The hearing was held for the correct parcel.
Application Signatures: The application was signed by both the
applicant and the owner of the property. The owner of the property is
Frank Teigs LLC. Frank Tiegs (A governor of the LLC) signed the
application for the LLC as his free and voluntary act for the purposes
mentioned in the application. A special permit application is not a
petition and does not require the same level of owner verification as a
petition. For example, a separate signature affidavit is required when a
representative of a corporation signs an annexation petition. Mr. Tiegs
was signing a simple application form. Having previously agreed to sell
the land for a transfer station and freely signing the special permit
application for his LLC, Mr. Tiegs and his company are well aware of the
proposed use for his land.
E
Public Records Request: The attorney (Mr. Miller) representing the
group opposing the application claims he did not receive the correct
information from his public records request. Initially only the place
holder information was delivered to Mr. Miller due to the fact two files
were setup. Mr. Miller made a second public records request and now
has the information contained within the file.
Proiect Name: The applicants name is 2022 Commercial Avenue LLC
with Darrick Dietrich being the only governor for the LLC. The staff
report of 11 / 16/2017 incorrectly noted the applicant was 2011 (a typo)
Commercial Ave. LLC. There was no confusion at the hearing over the
fact that Darrick Dietrich of Basin Disposal Incorporated was the
proponent/owner through the LLC for the new solid waste transfer
station.
Character of the Area
The site of the proposed transfer station has been identified in the
Comprehensive Plan for industrial uses for over 35 years. The site has
also been zoned for industrial activities for about 35 years. The character
of the neighborhood is industrial in nature. The proposed use is
industrial in nature. Surrounding and nearby uses include numerous
trucking related businesses, farming, agricultural processing, and other
related industrial facilities. The existing transfer station is a part of the
character of the neighborhood and much of the neighborhood developed
well after the existing transfer station was built. The existing transfer
station on Dietrich Road has not discouraged the development of
surrounding properties. The use of the special permit process and the
application of City standards will ensure the proposed transfer station
site will be developed to a higher standard the current station on Dietrich
Road. Unlike the Waste Management transfer station at the corner of Ely
and 27th in Kennewick, which is located next to a residential
neighborhood, the proposed transfer station is adjacent to industrial
properties. Solid waste transfer stations are better suited for industrial
areas but can often be found in or near residential neighborhoods. The
North Transfer Station for example in Seattle was built directly across
the street from a residential neighborhood. The Shoreline recycling and
transfer station is also adjacent to a residential neighborhood as are
others in the Puget Sound area. If solid waste transfer stations can be
built adjacent to or across a street from a residential neighborhood there
should be little problem with a transfer station being located in an
industrial neighborhood that already contains a transfer station. Solid
waste transfer—stationsare Ya rt of the eharaeter-f the 5h t a
Petition in Opposition
0
Land use decisions are not based on popularity contests. Almost half
(46%) of the concerned citizens submitting the petition were residents of
Kennewick. Only 15 percent of the petitioners represented property
owners in the general area. In addition to the opposition petition two
trucking firms and an agricultural business submitted opposition letters.
The Ag business is located about 250 feet south of the garbage truck
storage area at BDI and one of the trucking firms is located about 110
feet north of the portable toilet portion of the BDI facility. The second
trucking firm was originally located on Dietrich Road about 700 feet
south of the current transfer station. This firm moved a few years ago to
a site that is about 300 feet from where the BDI garbage trucks are
stored. The firm's site on Dietrich Road was sold earlier this year for
almost $700,000 over the assessed value. This is a good indication that
the location of a transfer station within an industrial area has little
impact on the value of surrounding properties.
Traffic Counts/Traffic Studies etc.
None of the businesses located in the Columbia East Industrial Park
were required to provide traffic counts or undertake a traffic study to
obtain a permit. This includes the current transfer station on Dietrich
Road and large trucking firms like the Conway cross dock facility to the
north of the proposed transfer station. Traffic studies are not generally
required for small to mid-sized industrial projects. The Auto Zone
distribution center is an example of a project that rises to the level of
needing a traffic study.
Current City Code will ensure Holland Street is constructed eliminating
the current dead-end situation on Garland Street improving traffic
circulation for the three trucking firms at the end of Garland.
Transfer station traffic currently exists in the neighborhood. The
proposed transfer station may cause a dispersal of traffic. The same
amount of traffic will be present in the neighborhood but it will be split
between the two transfer stations. The proposed transfer station may
lessen the amount of garbage truck traffic on City streets due to the fact
that they will be able to drive directly from the proposed transfer station
to the storage and fueling area on the BDI property. This will occur
without the need to re-enter City streets. Currently garbage trucks
dumping at the current transfer station must re-enter City Streets to
return to the BDI yard for nightly storage or other reasons.
Solid Waste Management Plan
The current Franklin County Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan
(2010) recommends that no new transfer station "should" be built during
the planning period 2010 to 2030). The Solid Waste Management Plan
is almost eight years old and has not been updated as required by RCW
70.95. The Solid Waste Management Plan was based on a 2030
population projection of 94,324 people. The 2017 OFM estimate for
Franklin County is 90,330. The 2017 population has almost reached the
2030 projection used as the basis for the plan. The most recent
population projects for the County indicate the 2040 population could
reach 158,574. The Solid Waste Plan suggests there is capacity in the
current transfer station to handle a population of 94,324. The County is
about a year away from reaching that population milestone. The Solid
Waste Plan needs to include projections and estimates based on another
68,244 people.
The Solid Waste Plan is a general guide which appears out dated and
may no longer reflects true needs within the County. The use of the
word "should" in the recommendation section of the Plan is not a
compulsory term.
No Plans
Special permit applications typically do not include detailed construction
drawings. Applicants typically seek land use approval before incurring
costs related to building design. The Planning Commission is not
charged with the responsibility of completing plan reviews. The plan
reviews are the responsibility of the City's Plans Examiner. Special
permit applications require a neatly drawn site plan but no building
elevations. However, for special permit applications in the I-182 Overlay
District where there is a higher architectural standard for buildings, staff
will often ask for building elevations. Schools and churches proposed in
residential districts will also be asked to submit more than a site plan.
The proposed site is not in the I-182 Overlay District and it is not zoned
for residential uses so a simple site sketch will suffice.
E3
Beg Yr of Transfer Station 1992
Current Yr 2017
Total Years 25 yrs
Initial Annual Tons 52,000
Current Annual Tons 175,000
Percentage Growth
236.5%
Tonnage Report
25
Average Annual Growth in Tonnage
9.5%
Yr
Annual Tons
Daily Tons
Growth
2017
175,000
1
2018
191,558
737
9.5%
2
2019
209,682
806
9.5%
3
2020
229,521
883
9.5%
4
2021
251,237
966
9.5%
5
2022
275,008
1,058
9.5%
6
2023
301,028
1,158
9.5%
7
2024
329,510
1,267
9.5%
8
2025
360,687
1,387
9.5%
9
2026
394,813
1,519
9.5%
10
2027
432,169
1,662
9.5%
11
2028
473,059
1,819
9.5%
12
2029
517,817
1,992
9.5%
13
2030
566,811
2,180
9.5%
Beg Yr of Transfer Station 1992
Current Yr 2017
Total Years 25 yrs
Initial Annual Tons 52,000
Current Annual Tons 175,000
Percentage Growth
236.5%
Total Years
25
Average Annual Growth in Tonnage
9.5%
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
MASTER FILE NO: SP 2017-019
HEARING DATE: 11/16/2017
ACTION DATE: 12/21/2017
APPLICANT: 2022 Commercial Ave. LLC
2021 Commercial Ave
Pasco, WA 99301
BACKGROUND
REQUEST: SPECIAL PERMIT: Solid Waste Transfer Station in an I-1 Zone
1. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION:
Legal: Parcel 2 of Lot 11, Binding Site Plan 2011-03
General Location: SW corner of Ventura Rd and the PK Highway
Proper Size: 19.44 Acres
2. ACCESS: The site will have access from Holland Street which will be
built in conjunction with the transfer station. Holland will connect to
Commercial Avenue and Garland Street.
3. UTILITIES: Municipal utilities are currently located in Commercial
Avenue and Garland Street. They will be extended in Holland Street in
conjunction with construction of the transfer station.
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 Trucking
SOUTH: I-1 - Agriculture and Trucking
EAST: I-1 -Agriculture
WEST: I-1 - BDI Facilities and Offices and Trucking
5. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The plan includes County Planning Policy # 4
dealing with essential public facilities such as solid waste facilities.
County Planning Policy # 4 states that no local comprehensive plan or
development regulation shall preclude the siting of essential public
facilities. The proposed solid waste transfer station falls within the
definition of an essential facility. CF -7-A through CF -7-D provide
additional guidance for essential facilities. The County Integrated Solid
Waste Plan states the County has established a goal of safely and cost-
effectively transporting waste over a 20 year planning period. The Solid
Waste Plan also recommends no additional Transfer Station should be
built between 2010 and 2030.
1
6. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Based on the SEPA checklist, the
adopted City Comprehensive Plan, City development regulations,
testimony at the November 16, 2017 public hearing and other
information, a Mitigated Determination of Non -Significance (MDNS) has
been issued for this project. Mitigation factors include the following:
• The transfer building must be fully enclosed except for truck entrances
and exits.
• Best available management practices must be employed to control dust
and or litter generated by the operation of the transfer station.
• No outdoor dumping or storage of solid waste is permitted.
• All streets adjoining the site must be improved to City standards with the
requisite utility infrastructure in conjunction with the construction of the
transfer station.
• A masonry block wall of at least 6 feet in height shall be placed along the
northern, eastern and southern boundary of the site to be used for the
transfer station. The block wall shall continue down the shared west
property line with Lot 13, BSP 2011.
• The masonry wall along Holland Street must be setback to allow a
minimum of 10 feet of landscaping between the sidewalk and wall.
• The landscaping fronting Holland may contain shrubs and lawn with
lawn occupying at least 70 percent of the landscaped area. Street trees
must be placed at 50 foot intervals and said trees must match the
varieties planted in front of the BDI office on Commercial Avenue.
• All driveways to and from the transfer station from Holland Street and
the BDI facilities to the west must be hard surfaced.
• All truck maneuvering areas in and around the transfer station must be
hard surfaced.
• All necessary state and local permit must be obtained prior to
constructing the transfer station.
ANALYSIS
The current CBLLC Transfer Station (not operated by Basin Disposal Inc. [BDI])
at 1721 Dietrich Road opened in 1992. At the time the existing transfer station
was constructed Franklin County had a population of 39,200. Today the
County population is estimated to be 90,330. BDI not only serves communities
within Franklin County but, also provides solid waste collection service for
communities in surround counties including West Richland, Benton City, and
parts of Richland. The garbage collected by BDI is transported to the current
2
transfer station where it is packed into semi -trucks and hauled to the land fill
in Oregon. Except for the purchase of additional acreage (10) in April of this
year and some minor building improvements the existing Transfer Station has
remained essentially the same since it was constructed in the 1990's. Not only
has the population grown within the region but so have commercial and
industrial enterprises. In 1992 BDI delivered 52,000 tons of solid waste to the
current transfer station. Last year 168,000 tons of waste was delivered. The
Washington State Office of Financial Management estimated in 2017 Franklin
County's population could grow to 158,574 by 2040 creating the need for
additional garbage service.
Solid waste transfer stations play an important role in providing garbage
disposal within the community. There is no longer a traditional garbage dump
in Pasco. Refuse is collected from homes and businesses and then taken to the
transfer station where it is loaded into large semi -trailers and hauled to a
regional land fill near Boardman, Oregon. Transfer Stations are a critical
component in addressing health and hygiene within the City.
Seven or eight years ago the existing transfer station and two other functions of
BDI (container rentals and recycling) were spun off into a separate LLC.
Columbia Basin LLC now operates the transfer station and BDI operates the
garbage collection service. The two entities more or less serve the same
geographic area.
To address current and future garbage disposal needs BDI is planning on
constructing a new and larger transfer station adjacent to their main office and
operations center on Commercial Avenue. The new transfer station will include
a 25,600 square foot building to load garbage into semi -trailers for transport to
the regional land fill along with a trailer storage area and an equipment
laydown yard.
The proposed transfer station will create economies of scale and operational
efficiencies by being adjacent to the existing BDI truck storage areas, fueling
systems and repair and maintenance facilities. The proposed facility will enable
BDI to better control their hours of operation, flow of solid waste and manage
their own recycling system.
The proposed transfer station building will be an efficient drive through
building with walls along the east and west sides to better contain blowing
papers and debris. The new building may also be better suited for waste
separation for future recycling.
The site of the proposed transfer station has been identified in the
Comprehensive Plan for industrial uses for over 35 years. The site has also
been zoned for industrial activities for about 35 years. Surrounding and nearby
uses include numerous trucking related businesses, farming, agricultural
3
processing, the current transfer station an industrial pipe supplier, the Oxarc
facility and other related industrial facilities. Unlike the Waste Management
transfer station at the corner of Ely and 27th in Kennewick which is located
next to a residential neighborhood, the proposed station is adjacent to
industrial properties. The character of the neighborhood is industrial and the
proposed transfer station is an industrial use.
The site is located conveniently to the Lewis Street Interchange and Highway
12 which provides the main transportation link to and from communities in
Benton, Franklin and Walla Walla Counties.
The current Franklin County Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan (2010)
recommends that no new transfer station "should" be built during the planning
period 2010 to 2030). The Solid Waste Management Plan is almost eight years
old and has not been updated as required by RCW 70.95. The Solid Waste
Management Plan was based on a 2030 population projection of 94,324 people.
The 2017 OFM estimate for Franklin County is 90,330. The 2017 population
has almost reached the 2030 projection used as the basis for the plan. The
most recent population projects for the County indicate the 2040 population
could reach 158,574. The Solid Waste Plan suggests there is capacity in the
current transfer station to handle a population of 94,324. The County is about
a year away from reaching that population milestone. The Solid Waste Plan
needs to include projections and estimates based on another 68,244 people.
The Solid Waste Management Plan also recommends the County should
continue to export solid waste to the landfill in Morrow County, Oregon. To
continue to export solid waste to a regional landfill the community must rely on
solid waste transfer stations. As the City and County are in the process of
updating the required GMA plans to reflect updated population projections and
increased development it appears the County Solid Waste Plan also needs to be
updated.
STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT
Findings of fact must be entered from the record. The following are initial
findings drawn from the background and analysis section of the staff report
and staff memo. 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 19.44 acres.
2. The site is zoned I-1 (Light Industrial) allowing for the development of
more intense land uses that can create noise, odors and heavy traffic.
3. All surrounding properties are zone I-1 allowing for more intensive land
uses.
Cl
4. The City has been promoting the proposed site and general neighborhood
for more intense industrial land uses for over 35 years.
5. The general neighborhood is characterized as an industrial neighborhood
6. The proposed use is industrial in nature.
7. There is an existing solid waste transfer station located at 1721 Dietrich
Rd, 1.25 miles to the east of the proposed transfer station site.
8. The existing transfer station is zoned I-1 under County zoning. The
existing transfer station is part of the character of the neighborhood.
9. Many of the nearby businesses are truck and transfer type businesses.
10. BDI is essentially a trucking and transfer type business dealing in the
transportation of garbage and recyclables.
11. The proposed site is located adjacent to the main operational center of
BDI. The BDI operational center contains administrative offices, truck
fueling facilities, truck maintenance buildings, truck storage, slide off
dumpster storage, a portable toilet business and other features.
12. Locating the proposed solid waste transfer station adjacent to the
existing BDI operational center will enabled BDI to increase operational
efficiencies that may result in benefits to rate payers.
13. A solid waste transfer station is defined as an essential public facility and
by the City's Comprehensive Plan (County -Wide Planning Policy #4 (B))
and GMA law (RCW 36.70A.200 (5)) the City and the County cannot
create or have regulations that would preclude the location of essential
public facilities within the County.
14. The site is located near the Lewis Street interchange providing
convenient access to communities in Franklin County and surrounding
counties.
15. The addition of a second transfer station will help diffuse truck traffic
through the neighborhood. Additionally, some truck traffic on City
streets will be eliminated because the garbage collection trucks will be
able to return to nightly storage, maintenance facilities and the main
natural gas fueling facility without re-entering and traveling on City
streets.
16. Building plans and building elevations are not typically part of special
permit applications in industrial zones. The City's Plans Examiner
reviews and approves building plans not the Planning Commission.
17. The approval of a special permit is a non -project land use approval. A
special permit does not authorize the issuance of a building permit or a
Health District permit or approval of any kind from the Department of
Ecology.
5
18. The Franklin County Solid Waste Management Plan recommendations
are based on a population estimate of 94,324. The current County
population is 90,330 and the OFM projection for 2040 places the County
population at 158,574.
19. The Franklin County Solid Waste Management Plan is a general guide,
not a commandment, is seriously out dated and no longer reflects true
needs within the County.
20. The Franklin County Solid Waste Plan indicates the current transfer
station has a capacity of handling 1,200 tons of waste per day. BDI
reports current deliveries of 646 tons per day to the existing transfer
station. CBLLC reports during 2017 (January to October) BDI has
delivered an average of 501 tons of municipal garbage and 13.38 tons of
recyclable material per day.
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 is consistent with the GMA that states no local
regulation or comprehensive plan shall preclude the sitting of essential public
facilities such as a solid waste transfer station. Policies (CF -7-A through CF -7-
D) of the Plan suggest mitigation measure be included in the special permit
review along with an environmental review and concurrency for utilities and
streets and a review of alternate sites (a discussion about these policies has
been provided in the attached Staff memo.)
The County Solid Waste Plan recommends the community continue to export
solid waste to a regional landfill in Morrow County, Oregon. This will require
continued and heavier reliance on solid waste transfer stations. The County
Solid Waste Plan also states no new transfer stations "should" be but during
the 2010 to 2030 planning period. The plan however, is eight years old and
seriously out of date.
(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 and
streets are near the site and will be extended with construction of the facility.
The nearby Lewis Street Interchange was designed for industrial traffic and is
C
currently utilized by the BDI fleet of trucks, trucks transporting to the existing
transfer station, the carrot plant trucks and other agricultural related facilities.
(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 transfer station is similar to the solid waste facilities that
currently operate in the neighborhood. The proposed transfer station will be
constructed to current building codes and City standards related to street
improvements and landscaping which will enhance the character of the
neighborhood. The site is located adjacent to the main BDI operational center
where garbage trucks are stored, repaired and maintained and where roll off
garbage containers are stored. BDI also operates a portable toilet company
adjacent to the proposed transfer station site. The current BDI operations and
surrounding trucking firms make extensive use of their lots for outdoor storage
of trucks, equipment, 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
The existing transfer station on Dietrich Road has not discouraged the
development of surrounding properties that developed after the transfer station
was built. The existing transfer station also has not impacted the sale of
nearby properties for other uses. The old Leavitt trucking property (based on
2017 County Assessor records) on Dietrich Road near the existing transfer
station sold yearly this year for almost $700,000 more than the assessed value.
The presence of the exiting transfer station did not hinder the sale of the
property. The proposed transfer station building will be no taller than the
existing BDI shop building on the adjacent property.
(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 operations of the proposed transfer station will be similar to the activities
of the adjacent BDI operations center, the agricultural storage sheds that
generate odors and the operation of nearby trucking firms that create traffic,
dust, vibrations, and fumes. The operations of the facility will also be similar to
the existing transfer station.
(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?
VA
BDI is proposing to locate the solid waste transfer station directly to the east
and adjacent to their main offices and operations center. The design of the
proposed building may be more efficient in controlling odors and litter than the
design of the existing transfer station on Dietrich Road. The existing transfer
station has not become a nuisance to surrounding uses and has not
discouraged the development of surrounding properties.
APPROVAL CONDITIONS
1. The special permit shall apply to Franklin County Tax Parcel #
113720139, being Parcel 2 of Lotl 1, Binding Site Plan 2011-03.
2. The transfer building must be fully enclosed except for truck entrances
and exits.
3. The site must be developed in general conformance with the site plan
submitted with this special permit application.
4. The applicant must employ best available management practices to
control dust and or litter generated by the operation of the transfer
station.
5. No outdoor dumping or storage of solid waste is permitted.
6. All streets adjoining the site must be improved to City standards with the
requisite utility infrastructure in conjunction with the construction of the
transfer station.
7. A masonry block wall of at least 6 feet in height shall be placed along the
northern, eastern and southern boundary of the site to be used for the
transfer station. The block wall shall continue down the shared west
property line with Lot 13, BSP 2011.
8. The masonry wall along Holland Street must be setback to allow a
minimum of 10 feet of landscaping between the sidewalk and wall.
9. The landscaping fronting Holland may contain shrubs and lawn with
lawn occupying at least 70 percent of the landscaped area. Street trees
must be placed at 50 foot intervals and said trees must match the
varieties planted in front of the BDI office on Commercial Avenue.
10. All driveways to and from the transfer station from Holland Street and
the BDI facilities to the west must be hard surfaced.
11. All truck maneuvering areas in and around the transfer station must be
hard surfaced.
12. All necessary state and local permit must be obtained prior to
constructing the transfer station.
13. The special permit shall be null and void if a building permit has not
been obtained by December 31, 2019.
E
MOTION for Findings of Fact: I move to adopt Findings of Fact and
Conclusions therefrom as contained in the December 21, 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 2022 Commercial Ave. LLC for the
location of a solid waste transfer station Parcel 2 of Lot 11, Binding Site
Plan 2011-03 with conditions as contained in the December 21, 2017
staff report.
W
Vicinity
Map
Item: Waste Transfer Station
Applicant:2022 Commercial Ave
File #: Z 2017-019
I
LLQ e
S
0 75 150 225 300 375
Feet
Item: Waste Transfer Station
Land Use Applicant:2022 Commercial Ave LLQ E
Map File #: Z 2017-019 S
I GARLAND ST
Industrial
SITEN\
Farming
0 75 150 225 300 375
Feet
Item: Waste Transfer Station "
Zoning Applicant:2022 Commercial Ave LLQ E
Map File #: Z 2017-019 S
I GARLAND ST
1-1
'SITEN�
1-1
0 75 150 225 300 375
Feet
PROP. LINE (700.05')
SCMEDNG FENCE
TRAILER j (SPLIT FACE CMU)
SCREEING FENCE ENDS AND MEETS E%ISNNG STORAGE AREAL
FENCING ON NEIGHBORING PARCEL \
(SRR FACE CMU)
MAJORITY OF WESTERN PROPERTY
BOUNaARY OPEN TO NEIGHBORING PARCEL
FACBITY ENINANCE
TRANSFER STATION
'�.._�L_1%,.. SCREEING FENCE
(SRIF FACE CMU)
i
NEIGHBORING PARCEL
LAYDOWN AREA
I�! EQUIPMENT IAYDOWN
AREA DITRANCE
EQUIPMENT LAYDOWN
AREA EM
SCREEING FENCE ENDS AND MEETS EXISDNG SCRI7NG FENCE
FENCING ON NEIGHBORJNG PARCEL (SPUT FACE CMU)
(SPUR FACE CMU)
L 113-510-118
\\\A
NORTH
®CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN
SCALE: 1"=150'
s�nxo.. oATE nnnm BASIN DISPOSAL
By::::: z1 w a \►
A-101 cxxo DESIGN GROUP TRANSFER STATION
17
CONCEPTUAL jos x: nax
LOT O:
SITE PLAN sLx x:
so so: ARCHITECTS -PLANNERS
ADO, KENNEWICK, WA -509.737.1000 PASCO, WA 99301
13
FACIUTY EW —�,
10' LANDSCAPING
PARCEL 113.510-118
BUFFER W/GTMSS
19.44 ACRES
AND TREES 50' D.C.
i
NEIGHBORING PARCEL
LAYDOWN AREA
I�! EQUIPMENT IAYDOWN
AREA DITRANCE
EQUIPMENT LAYDOWN
AREA EM
SCREEING FENCE ENDS AND MEETS EXISDNG SCRI7NG FENCE
FENCING ON NEIGHBORJNG PARCEL (SPUT FACE CMU)
(SPUR FACE CMU)
L 113-510-118
\\\A
NORTH
®CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN
SCALE: 1"=150'
s�nxo.. oATE nnnm BASIN DISPOSAL
By::::: z1 w a \►
A-101 cxxo DESIGN GROUP TRANSFER STATION
17
CONCEPTUAL jos x: nax
LOT O:
SITE PLAN sLx x:
so so: ARCHITECTS -PLANNERS
ADO, KENNEWICK, WA -509.737.1000 PASCO, WA 99301
13
0
RN"I
"s Is
I
11.
Jy
I If
„c'
r,
r z ?.�
vi I
0
Item: Waste Transfer Station "
Proposed Applicant:2022 Commercial Ave LLW E
Layout File #: Z 2017-019
S
f to age
Area
Transfer
Station;
Equipment Laydown Area a
Dri
L
CO A
Facility Entrance - Driveway
Facility Exit - Driveway
Equipment Laydown Area
Ingress
Equipment Laydown Area
in/Out Driveway
0 50 100 150 200 250
Feet
P�'
r7
I
r ,'
q
�.'
J
%f
i1�/
l
��y..�n `, :`YG
_ rR
1 ;
''f, �� � 'F..
a -^
�ti.
� �'4 Fo 'dYer'
i' .r, o`YF� � 1 t' � �{e � f
�� '�'�� �
- , ..�
;i
'4 a:
. , ,r,.
n t 4
� .6 �. �Y.4. ..
r
i �
d
'L f ,y r f �� 1
1 T ��'i�,. � �" HH � A '� R/ '/�1 ffF
-. ti n. �o Nf1�
.�'?
NT
J
%f
i1�/
l
��y..�n `, :`YG
_ rR
1 ;
''f, �� � 'F..
a -^
�ti.
� �'4 Fo 'dYer'
i' .r, o`YF� � 1 t' � �{e � f
�� '�'�� �
- , ..�
;i
'4 a:
. , ,r,.
n t 4
� .6 �. �Y.4. ..
r
i �
d
'L f ,y r f �� 1
1 T ��'i�,. � �" HH � A '� R/ '/�1 ffF
-. ti n. �o Nf1�
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
MASTER FILE NO: SP 2017-020 APPLICANT: Adriana Robledo
HEARING DATE: 12/21/2017 1704 Marsh Rd.
ACTION DATE: 1/18/2018 Yakima, WA 98901
BACKGROUND
REQUEST: SPECIAL PERMIT: Location of an auto sales lot in a C-1 (Retail
Business) Zone
Legal: Ludwig Add Lot 1 8v Lot 2 EXC PTN to City of Pasco (45574 1)
General Location: 1424 North 4th Avenue
Property Size: The parcel is approximately 0.9 acres
2. ACCESS: The site is accessible from North 4th Avenue and Court Street.
3. UTILITIES: All municipal utilities are currently available to serve the site.
4. LAND USE AND ZONING: The site is currently zoned C-1 (Retail
Business). The site is fully paved with the exception of some landscaping
strips and contains an old retail building that is currently vacant.
Surrounding properties are zoned and developed as follows:
NORTH: C-1 — Minimart and gas station
SOUTH: C-1 — Tire store
EAST: C-1 — Commercial retail
WEST: C-1 — Restaurant
5. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The Comprehensive Plan designates the site for
Commercial uses. Although the Plan does not specifically address vehicle
sales, Policy LU -4-B encourages planning for commercial centers that
promote functional and economic marketing and operations. The Plan
encourages the concentration of businesses that are functionally and
economically beneficial to be located together.
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).
1
ANALYSIS
The applicant is seeking special permit approval to locate a retail vehicle sales
business in a C-1 (Retail Business) zone. The Pasco Municipal Code (PMC) lists
retail automotive sales as a permitted conditional use in the C-1 zone provided
the site meets the following additional criteria:
a) The site is adjacent the intersection of two arterial streets, or;
b) The site is adjacent a single arterial street; provided it is not adjacent to
or across a public street right-of-way from a residential district, and
would not be located closer than 300 feet to any existing car lot.
The site contains an old retail building and meets both criteria listed above.
The parcel was originally developed in the 1950's and has been occupied by
various retail businesses since that time.
In 2016 the applicant was granted a special permit to locate an identical
business at 609 W Lewis St in a C-1 zoning district but is seeking to relocate to
the new address. Based on the size of the existing retail building, the applicant
is required to provide at least seven off-street customer parking spaces.
The business will operate during normal business hours and is projected to
generate around 33 vehicle trips per day according to the ITE Trip Generation
Manual. It is unlikely that the use will result in an increased need for public
and transportation services.
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 C-1 (Retail Business).
2. The site is currently vacant
3. Car sales are a conditional use in C-1 zone.
4. For a C-1 property to qualify for special permit review for a car sales lot,
the property in question would have to either be located at the
intersection of two arterial streets or be located on one arterial street and
not adjacent to or across a public street right-of-way from residentially
zoned properties. A proposed site must also be more than 300 feet from
another auto sales business.
2
5. The building on the site was originally built for retail use.
6. In 2016 the applicant was granted a special permit to locate an identical
business at 609 W Lewis St in a C-1 zoning district.
7. At least seven off-street customer parking spaces are required.
8. All open code violations must be corrected before any business may
operate on the parcel.
9. It is estimated that the use will generate around 33 vehicle trips per day.
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 P.M.C. 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 this area for commercial
development. Policy LU -1-D encourages the clustering commercial
development at major intersections. Policy LU -4-13 encourages the
concentration of activities which are functionally and economically
beneficial to each other.
(2) Will the proposed use adversely affect public infrastructure?
The proposed use is located along a major arterial and places minimal
demands on the established infrastructure systems. Other permitted
uses such as restaurants and taverns would place a greater demand on
the public infrastructure than this proposed use.
(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 use will not alter the appearance of the existing structure.
Given that the property will be used for commercial purposes, it will not
conflict with the character of the area.
(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 proposal involves display of automobiles. Therefore location and
height of structures is not an issue. Staff is not aware of any plans to
alter the existing building.
3
(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 use will not create more traffic, flashing lights, fumes or
vibrations than many of the permitted uses, such as convenience stores
or fast food restaurants.
(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 use is less intense in terms of impact on public health and
safety than many of the permitted uses within the district. Some of the
nearby parking lots will contain as many cars as the proposed auto sales
lot.
APPROVAL CONDITIONS
1) The special permit shall apply to 1424 North 41' Avenue (Parcel
#112011019)
2) At least seven parking spaces must be maintained and available for
customer use at all times.
3) All open code violations must be corrected before any business may
operate on the parcel.
4) A 10 -foot landscaping strip of 100% live vegetation must be installed
along the north property line adjacent to Court Street. The landscaping
strip at the east property line adjacent to 4th Avenue must be maintained
at City standard with rock and shrubs.
5) The derelict sign at the northeast corner of the property must be removed
before any business may operate.
6) The special permit shall be null and void if a City of Pasco business
license has not been obtained by December 31, 2018.
MOTION: I move to close the hearing on the proposed special permit and set
January 18, 2018 as the date for deliberations and the
development of a recommendation for the City Council.
al
i
r
P
�7
�1
, O
'
P )
V 1
\vy
1
�
^�
C
1�1
i
r
P
0
�1
i
r
r
r
, O
'
E
76
E
E
O O
O
o N 4th Ave
am4
w
U N
O �
CIO
U E
C).4
O O O
U
y N 5th Ave
U)Office C
U) o O
� Z�
M
O �
Ct
�
C:) N 4th Ave
cz � O F
U
cn u .. U
� w
N 5th Ave
O
C
3 O
� � o
o '
N U U m
M
C)
■
V)
�V, > 91
I
Flo,,
14-
I
Flo,,
ff!
ff
ff
ff.
a, J.
4m,J
■
I
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
MASTER FILE NO: SP 2017-021
HEARING DATE: 12/21/17
ACTION DATE: 1/18/18
APPLICANT: Mariana 8v Juan Valdivia
3503 W Sylvester St
Pasco WA 99301
REQUEST FOR SPECIAL PERMIT: Expansion of a daycare center located in
an RS -12 District
1. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION:
Legal: Parcel # 119 392 099; SHORT PLAT 2015-01 LOT 2
General Location: 3503 W Sylvester Street
Property Size: Approximately .52 acres
2. ACCESS: The site has access from Sylvester Street
3. UTILITIES: The site is served by municipal water and sewer.
4. LAND USE AND ZONING: The property is currently zoned RS -12 (Low -
Density Residential). Surrounding properties are also zoned RS -12 and
developed as follows:
NORTH: RS -12 - Single family units
SOUTH: RS -12 - Church
EAST: RS -12 - Single family units
WEST: RS -12 - Single family units
5. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The site is designated in the Comprehensive
Plan for low-density residential uses. The Plan does not specifically
address daycare centers, but elements of the Plan encourage the
promotion of orderly development including the development of zoning
standards for off-street parking and other development.
6. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The City of Pasco is the lead
agency for this project. 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
Applicant is requesting to expand a daycare center currently located in a
residential zone. The daycare center operates 5 days per week, 12.5 hours a
1
day and is currently authorized to serve up to 30 children per day. Home
daycare/ preschool centers serving over 12 children per day require review via
the Special Permit process. Applicant wishes to expand the daycare center by
528 square feet (from the current 1,830 square feet to 2,358) to serve up to 50
children (20 additional children).
The site is located on Sylvester Street, which is a minor arterial street. The
surrounding properties are all low-density residential, developed with single-
family units.
Pasco Municipal Code 25.78.170 requires one parking space for each employee
and one space per 6 children. Depending on the age of the children the DSHS
ratio of adults to children is one adult for every 4 children down to one per 15
children, (see table below).
WAC 170-295-2090:
Thus, with the proposed 50 children the maximum on-site parking requirement
for this site would be 13 stalls for employees (assuming the possibility of all
infants attending) plus 9 stalls for children's parents/ guardians, for a total
maximum parking requirement of 22 stalls. There are currently 10 on-site
parking stalls and Applicant has secured a 1 -year renewable agreement for the
use of up to 5 parking stalls for employee parking across the street at the Pasco
Riverview Seventh -day Adventist Church, located at 605 N Road 36. This would
allow up to 50 children only if the children were age thirty months and up.
z
Child/
Parent
Staff
Total
Children Age:
Staff
Children
Adults
Packing
Parking
Parking
Ratio:
Required
(a) One month,
through 11
1:04
50
13
9.0
13.0
22.0
months (infant)
(b) Twelve months
through 29
1:07
50
7
9.0
8.0
17.0
months (toddler)
(c) Thirty months
through 5 years
1:10
50
5
9.0
5.0
14.0
(preschooler)
(d) Five years
through 12 years
1:15
50
3
9.0
4.0
13.0
(school-age child)
Thus, with the proposed 50 children the maximum on-site parking requirement
for this site would be 13 stalls for employees (assuming the possibility of all
infants attending) plus 9 stalls for children's parents/ guardians, for a total
maximum parking requirement of 22 stalls. There are currently 10 on-site
parking stalls and Applicant has secured a 1 -year renewable agreement for the
use of up to 5 parking stalls for employee parking across the street at the Pasco
Riverview Seventh -day Adventist Church, located at 605 N Road 36. This would
allow up to 50 children only if the children were age thirty months and up.
z
After the provision of adequate parking, Staffs primary concern is safe
conveyance from that parking across four lanes of traffic to the childcare
facility, especially during the late fall to early spring when visibility is low. The
closest marked and controlled crosswalk is located slightly over 2,300 feet
away on Road 28.
According to the 2003 ITE Trip Generation Manual, the estimated weekday trip
generation for 13 employees and 50 children and 2,358 square feet of daycare
center floor would be between 43 and 190 trips per day, depending on whether
the calculation is based on numbers of employees, children, or facility square
feet. This averages to 103.51 trips per weekday (see table below). Informal on-
site surveys have shown City of Pasco experience with daycare center traffic to
be lower than these estimates.
ITE Est.
ITE Est.
ITE Est.
Calculated
Calculated
Calculated
Trips Per
Trips Per
Trips Per
Estimate
Estimate
Estimate
Employee
Student
1,000 Sq.
Using 13
Using 50
Using
Average
Ft.
Employees
Children
2,358 Sq.
Estimate
Ft.
14.6
1.6
18.1
189.8
78
42.7
103.51
PRELIMINARY FINDINGS OF FACT
Findings of fact must be entered from the record. The following are initial
findings drawn from the background and analysis section of the staff report.
The Planning Commission may add additional findings to this listing as the
result of factual testimony and evidence submitted during the open record
hearing.
1. Applicant desires to expand an existing daycare center located in a
residential zone.
2. The daycare center currently operates 5 days per week for 12.5 hours a
day
3. The daycare center is currently permitted to serve up to 30 children per
day.
4. Home daycare/ preschool centers serving over 12 children per day require
review via the Special Permit process.
5. The site is located on Sylvester Street.
6. Sylvester is a minor arterial street.
3
7. The surrounding properties are all low-density residential (RS -12), and
are developed with single-family units; a church is located to the south.
8. Pasco Municipal Code 25.78.170 requires one parking space for each
employee and one space per 6 children.
9. Depending on the age of the children the DSHS ratio of adults to children
is one adult for every 4 children down to one per 15 children.
10. The maximum parking requirement for this site based on an increase
from 30 to 50 children would be from 9 stalls to between 13 and 22 stalls
for employees plus 9 stalls for children's parents/ guardians, for a total of
between 13 and 22 stalls.
11. Applicant currently has 10 stalls on-site and proposes to add 5 stalls
located across the street at the Pasco Riverview Seventh -day Adventist
Church, located at 605 N Road 36.
12. Applicant has secured a 1 -year renewable agreement for the use of up to
5 parking stalls for employee parking across the street at the Pasco
Riverview Seventh -day Adventist Church, located at 605 N Road 36.
13. According to the 2003 ITE Trip Generation Manual, the estimated
weekday trip generation averages to 103.51 trips per weekday.
PRELIMINARY CONCLUSIONS BASED ON THE FINDINGS OF FACT
Before recommending approval or denial of a special permit the Planning
Commission must develop findings of fact from which to draw its conclusion
based upon the criteria listed in P.M.C. 25.86.060 and determine whether or
not the proposal:
(1) Will the proposed use be in accordance with the goals, policies, objectives
and text of the Comprehensive Plan?
The site is identified in the Comprehensive Plan for Low -Density
Residential uses. The proposed daycare center expansion supports Plan
Goal LU -3-A which encourages such facilities to be located in
neighborhoods. The Plan also encourages the promotion of orderly
development including the development of zoning standards for off-street
parking and other development standards; however off-site parking does
not necessarily fit the character of a low-density residential
neighborhood.
(2) Will the proposed use adversely affect public infrastructure?
4
The site is served by all municipal utilities and the local street network.
Sylvester Street was designed to handle more traffic than it currently
experiences. However accommodation for pedestrian traffic across the 4 -
lane arterial street is not fully developed. The proposed daycare center
expansion will continue to operate 12.5 hours per day 5 days per week.
(3) Will the proposed use be constructed, maintained and operated to be in
harmony with existing or intended character of the general vicinity?
The intended character of the neighborhood is primarily residential.
Typically, schools and/or preschool/ daycare facilities are located in or
adjacent to residential neighborhoods. Parking facilities would not need
to be expanded, as the proposed parking is already located across the
street; however off-site parking does not fit the character of a low-density
residential neighborhood.
(4) Will the location and height of proposed structures and the site design
discourage the development of permitted uses on property in the general
vicinity or impair the value thereof?
The existing structure proposed for daycare center use is located in a
fully developed neighborhood. The County Assessor's records indicate the
value of the adjoining residential properties have increased over the past
four years.
(5) Will the operations in connection with the proposal be more objectionable to
nearby properties by reason of noise, fumes vibrations, dust, traffic, or
flashing lights than would be the operation of any permitted uses within the
district?
The proposed daycare center expansion would generate more traffic
than a single-family dwelling; commercial daycare facilities may
accommodate up to 50 children and could have the potential of
generating approximately 103.51 car trips.
(6) Will the proposed use endanger the public health or safety if located and
developed where proposed, or in anyway will become a nuisance to uses
permitted in the district?
Past history of daycare center operations within the City has shown
they do not endanger public health or safety and are generally not
nuisance generators. However expanding a commercial daycare center
would increase the concentration of small children in the neighborhood
and automobile trips to and from the location, increasing the likelihood
of traffic safety hazards; furthermore, some employees who park across
the street would need to cross Sylvester street, which is a four -lane
arterial street at least twice per day to access and egress the facility.
5
PROPOSED APPROVAL CONDITIONS
1) The special permit shall apply to 3503 W Sylvester Street (Parcel #119
392 099; Short Plat 2015-01 Lot 2) and 605 W ROAD 36 ST (Parcel #119
422 401: N 330' OF W2NW4NW4SW4 25-9-29)
2) The Special Permit shall be null and void if the parking agreement
between Applicant and the owner of 605 N Road 36 (Parcel 119 422 401)
is not renewed.
3) The hours of operation shall not extend beyond the hours of 5:30 a.m.
and 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday;
4) Number of children:
a. Option 1: Number of Children shall not exceed maximum based on
available on-site parking.
b. Option 2: Number of children shall not exceed 50.
5) Additional parking stalls shall be provided as per Pasco Municipal Code
25.78.170.
6) Parking:
a. Option 1: Applicant shall be required to supply any required
parking on site
b. Option 2: Applicant shall be responsible for any infrastructure
improvements required to access off-site parking, as per
Engineering, which may include any or all of the following:
i. Curb, gutter, and sidewalk on the south side of W. Sylvester
Street along the frontage of the property to the corner of
Road 36.
ii. ADA ramps on opposing corners of Road 36.
iii. Two additional streetlights.
iv. Signage and crosswalk striping in accordance with the
MUTCD for crosswalks on an arterial.
7) Only one sign, not exceeding six (6) square feet, shall be permitted upon
the property; Applicant shall secure a building permit from the City of
Pasco before erecting a sign;
8) The special permit shall be null and void if an amended City of Pasco
business license for the additional authorized activities is not obtained by
August 1, 2018.
Cl
9) The special permit shall be null and void if a City of Pasco building
permit for the authorized improvements is not obtained by October 1,
2018.
RECOMMENDATION
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 January 18, 2018 meeting.
W1 411-
C-4
=9 is�i
W
O
O
M
Z H
to
v
C143
=
o
CD
V/O
r d
LL
LL
C-4
LL
O
N
-p
O
vs avow
N 03
R3
i
a
P!
x
a
LUM
• � ti
SF�bO
Ct CZ
w
C)
IUBOBA
W
4-j
W
> p�
ct
Q U �+
—sE avow
�
LL
LL
U)
cs avoa
W
O
O
M
Z
V/
N
3
O
y
N
Q
T d
d
O LL
M
LL
r
®
O
LL
Q
N
O
vc avow
N cl:�
M
c
.�" °a
�Y
w
a
ct
m>
.I ct
C� C
F
w
wlU
OBA
LLJ
c�
�+
LWLI
C�
Q �+
In= —sE avow
N
N rz
� � w
0
0
LL
Ls avow
W
O
O
M
Z N a
N
3 N O
co w
�rd
d
� � LL
N cb N
�, OC O
co
o O
N vs avow
N ct c
x a
� w
~'
voo,
Ct
w•ct
O N ~
ui U)
ct CIAO
p� W
ct Q U �+ AFM —9c-(3 VON
w TOM
cn
bA
0 POO
cs avoa
N�
Parkin Item: Daycare Expansion E
g Applicant: Mariana & Juan Valdivia' -T'
Map File #:-FP-2017-021 S
Is
SITE x' _
�j
J •• r. �d� r r.
L��•at ,.• � � � _ _ 11.
� � r
SYLVESTER ST, p I—
i
p
=1 Expanded
Parking
^f Apo
At r
f
or P
S
0 25 50 75 100 125
x; c, IRVI T Feet
�i
� 5
I R"
-s
t
kme
r
-, .
s°:
j;.` }�
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
MASTER FILE NO: SP 2017-022
HEARING DATE: 12/21/2017
ACTION DATE: 1/18/2018
APPLICANT: JUB Engineers, Inc.
2810 W Clearwater Ave, Ste. 201
Kennewick, WA 99336
REQUEST: SPECIAL PERMIT: Locate a recreation complex in an RS -1 zoning
district.
1. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION:
Legal: Farm Unit 99, Irrigation Block 1 ( Parcel # 115180073)
General Location: 10700 block of Burns Rd.
Property Size: 22 acres located in the northwest corner of a larger 119
acre parcel.
2. ACCESS: The site is currently accessible from a private road off
Broadmoor Blvd.
3. UTILITIES: No City utilities are available at the site with the exception of
electricity.
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-D 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 west and north sides of the proposed soccer complex in accordance
with City standards.
ANALYSIS
The applicant has applied to construct a recreation complex in an 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. Earlier this year, the applicant had been granted a Special Permit
to locate the recreation complex on the property in question, but is seeking
another Special Permit as the site plan has been moved and altered
considerably. When the initial Special Permit was granted, the site plan
indicated the complex would be situated at the southwest corner of the parcel
along Burns Road; in the updated site plan, however, the complex has been
shifted northerly to the northwest corner of the property. The complex will be
located on 22 acres in the northwest portion of the 119 -acre parcel -4,586
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 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 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.
The site is located about midway between Broadmoor Boulevard and Dent
Road. A 40 -foot right-of-way dedication and collector street will be needed at
this location running north from Burns Road between the future High School
site and the proposed recreation facility which the applicant is hoping to
N
develop temporarily with gravel. The applicant is working with a residential
developer that is responsible for developing the surrounding neighborhood to
the south and east of the complex as seen in Concept Map #2. Concurrent with
said residential development, the developer will provide permanent roadway
and utility improvements along the north -south collector street.
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 approximately 1,085
feet of street frontage along the future north -south collector road and will have
1,064 feet of frontage along the north side of the property. The applicant will be
responsible for constructing the necessary infrastructure improvements along
the frontage as discussed above. The infrastructure could be constructed in
phases similar to how subdivisions are built with improvements being
completed with each phase of the soccer complex.
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 near 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.
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 this proposal.
2. The site is zoned RS -1 (Suburban).
3. The site is accessible from Broadmoor Boulevard by a dirt roadway only.
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.
7
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 will be accessible from 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 approximately 3,596
lineal feet of street and utility improvements. Codes and Standard
Specification require property owners adjoining current and future right-
of-way to complete the street and utility improvements at the time their
property is developed.
12. A 40 -foot right-of-way dedication and collector street will be needed
running north from Burns Road and west of the complex.
13. The developer of the complex will be responsible for constructing the
necessary infrastructure improvements along the rights-of-way that front
the complex. The infrastructure may be constructed in phases.
14. The developer of the complex is proposing to improve the north -south
collector street south of the proposed soccer complex temporarily with
gravel. City Standards call for paved streets.
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 off a high-capacity arterial street
(Burns Road) will allow for the extra traffic without resulting in congestion.
Development of the proposed recreation complex will require the development
8
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
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
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 from 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 portions of the area have
already been slated for development with non-residential uses. Disturbance to
future single-family dwellings that may locate near the complex is unknown at
this time but may be possible, given that the complex will generate non-
residential traffic. It can be compared to the location and operation of the
soccer complex adjacent to the Linda Loviisa subdivision, which has generated
non-residential traffic but has not created fumes, vibrations, or dust that have
created objectionable conditions in the neighborhood. However, since the
complex will be located on a collector arterial street, visitors will have no need
5
of cutting through neighborhoods. Any light or noise that accompanies the use
will cease by 10 pm.
(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. 40 -foot rights-of-way running along the west and north sides of the
property must be deeded to the City.
4. The applicant is responsible for designing and building street and utility
improvements for the east half of the future north -south collector street
that runs from Burns Road to the northwest corner of the complex and
the south half of the future street that fronts the north side of the
complex. The street and utility improvements must coincide with the
phasing of the soccer fields.
5. The soccer complex cannot be used until there is connecting street
access to Burns Road or Broadmoor Boulevard. The minimum
acceptable access will contained a 28 -foot wide paved roadway section.
6. The site must maintain at least a 20 -foot landscaped setback area
between all streets, fields, and parking lots with 65 percent live
vegetation.
7. Fencing must be installed along all street frontages.
8. All backstop structures used to prevent balls from entering the adjoining
streets must be constructed in a workman fashion and shall not be made
of scrap or discarded materials.
9. The parking lot improvements including hard surfacing and landscaping
must coincide with and be completed with each phase of the
development as follows:
0
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.
10. Full right-of-way dedication for adjacent streets must occur with Phase
1.
11. No shipping containers or other related or similar temporary structures
will be permitted on the site except for during periods of construction
only.
12. Field lighting must be approved through an amendment to the special
permit considered by the Planning Commission.
13. The special shall be null and void if a building permit has not been
obtained by December 30, 2019.
MOTION: I move to close the hearing on the proposed special
permit and set January 18, 2018 as the date for deliberations and the
development of a recommendation for the City Council.
7
n. -
LU
#ls�r'
FmFA
YIAMAN
VARIED
Hill
mgm all
ane IPA
■. FV mum oils
M ; son
ry, am
wa
e e e o o o a l l
•
•
C _
� m
0
-
•
00
®�! .. P� IIII1♦�
Y. A4
LAW,
Ll
Oki
0 P=4
ca
a
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
MASTER FILE # SP 2017-023 APPLICANT: Construction Industry
HEARING DATE: 12/21/2017 Training Council of WA
ACTION DATE: 1/18/2018 1930 116th Ave NE
Bellevue, WA 98004
BACKGROUND
REQUEST: SPECIAL PERMIT: Location of a Vocational School in a C-1
(Retail Business) Zoning District
1. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION:
Legal: Lot 10, Coles Estates
General Location: 5804 Road 90, Suites J, K, and L
Property 3 acres
2. ACCESS: The site is accessible from Road 90.
3. UTILITIES: All municipal utilities currently serve the site.
4. LAND USE AND ZONING: The site is zoned C-1 (Retail Business) and
contains an office structure. The zoning and land use of the surrounding
properties are as follows:
NORTH: R-3 - Multi -Family Development
SOUTH: C-1 - Vacant
EAST: C -1/R-1 - Vacant, SFDUs
WEST: C-1 - Vacant
5. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The Comprehensive Plan designates this area
for commercial uses but encourages fostering of adequate provisions for
educational facilities throughout the urban growth area.
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
Construction Industry Training Council (CITC) is a 501(c)(3) state -approved
apprenticeship program under RCW 49.04 and a State licensed vocational
1
school under RCW 28C.10. The applicant proposes to operate a construction -
oriented vocational school in three suites of an existing office structure located
in a C-1 zone. Per the PMC, all types of schools in Pasco require special permit
approval to locate anywhere in the City. The applicant has indicated that the
school will serve approximately 60 students who work in apprenticeships as
electricians and sheet metal workers. In the future the potential exists for
training in plumbing, HVAC, and carpentry. The 8 -hour classes will occur
primarily on Fridays and Saturdays from September through June with class
sizes ranging from 10 to 25 adult students. Students also meet for the
occasional evening class.
The site is located on the west side of Road 90, south of a multi -family
development. The proposed use is fairly low-volume and cannot be compared to
universities or other schools in which students attend classes daily. The
vocational school is essentially a part-time establishment for those already
employed as electricians and sheet metal workers to supplement what they
learn in the field and acquire a greater skill level. According to the applicant,
the use will generate approximately 45 vehicle trips a day.
The site contains a total of 158 parking stalls to be shared by businesses that
rent out the suites. Currently, 3 business rent out 4 of the 12 suites available.
The school will be renting out 3 suites equaling 9,600 square feet, thus
requiring 32 parking spaces for students.
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 5804 Road 90, Suites J, K, and L. L (Assessor's Tax
Parcel # 115392022).
2. The site is zoned C-1 (Retail Business).
3. The site is located on Road 90 approximately one block north of Sandifur
Parkway.
4. Construction Industry Training Council (CITC) is a not-for-profit 501(c)(3)
state -approved apprenticeship program under RCW 49.04 and a State
licensed vocational school under RCW 28C.10 dedicated to providing
apprenticeships for electricians and sheet metal workers.
5. Eight-hour classes will occur primarily on Fridays and Saturdays from
September through June with class sizes ranging from 10 to 25 adult
students. Students also meet for the occasional evening class.
2
6. CITC is classified as a vocational school in the Pasco zoning code.
7. Vocational schools are considered Unclassified Uses and thereby require
special permit review (PMC 25.86.020).
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?
Comprehensive Plan Goal CF -5 encourages the fostering of adequate provisions
for educational facilities throughout the urban growth area. CITC is a not-for-
profit 501(c)(3) state -approved apprenticeship program under RCW 49.04 and a
State licensed vocational school under RCW 28C.10 dedicated to providing
apprenticeships for electricians and sheet metal workers.
(2) Will the proposed use adversely affect public infrastructure?
The proposal will generate little demand for public utilities only being open to
serve students Eight -hours primarily on Fridays and Saturdays from
September through June with class sizes ranging from 10 to 25 adult students.
Students also meet for the occasional evening class. Water and sewer demands
of the proposed use will be negligible compared to permitted uses such as
restaurants. Traffic generation of the proposal will be minimal and easily
accommodated by the existing road system.
(3) Will the proposed use be constructed, maintained and operated to be in
harmony with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity?
The vocational school will be housed in an existing structure completed this
year. The intended character of the vicinity is commercial in nature. The
purpose of the C-1 zone, in part, is to promote a commercial clustering
concept. The proposed vocational school is a 501(c)(3) state -approved
apprenticeship program and its location will complement existing commercial
businesses.
(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?
3
The vocational school will be housed in an existing structure completed this
year. The facility will not be enlarged for the proposed use. The facility is two-
story whereas the C-1 zone permits structures up to 35 feet in height.
(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?
An educational center approximately 60 students per day may have similar
levels of activity to other permitted uses in this zone. The C-1 zone permits
uses with generally higher levels of adverse impacts than the proposed
education center and is not expected to create adverse impacts to other
permitted uses.
(6) Will the proposed use endanger the public health or safety if located and
developed where proposed, or in any way will become a nuisance to uses
permitted in the district?
It is expected that the proposed vocational training center will not cause harm
to public health and safety and that the associated activity will not become a
nuisance to permitted uses in the vicinity.
*The applicant was unaware of the need for a special permit and has been
preparing the office space to receive students. Therefore, staff is recommending
the matter be reviewed and forwarded to the Council after the public hearing
on December 21, 2017.
APPROVAL CONDITIONS
1. The Special Permit shall apply to Tax Parcel # 115392022 for the building
at 5804 Road 90, Suites J, K, and L.;
2. All training activities, including but not limited to electrical, sheet metal,
plumbing, HVAC, and carpentry, shall occur fully within the buildings;
no objectionable noise, fumes, vibrations, dust, traffic, or flashing lights
due to training activities shall be allowed outside the structure.
3. No outdoor storage of work vehicles, equipment, projects, or materials
shall be allowed;
4. The applicant shall comply with all building code requirements for the
occupancy class applicable to the use;
5. The Special Permit shall be null and void if a City of Pasco business
license has not been obtained by July 18, 2018.
RECOMMENDATION
1!
MOTION: I move to close the hearing on the proposed special
permit and adopt findings of fact and conclusions therefrom as
contained in the December 21, 2017 staff report.
MOTION: I move, based on the findings of fact as adopted, the
Planning Commission recommend the City Council grant a special
permit to Construction Industry Training Council (CITC) for the
location of a Vocational School at 5804 Road 90, Suites J, K, and L
with conditions as contained in the December 21, 2017 staff report.
5
P-4
U
O
bA
O �
O
Cn Fo
.-4
O N
U -O
O
.4-J
M
N
a � �
V J
W
4
7
W=n
ti
YY.
•.%
v y
i
R
t
e f �
0
co
0
0
r
n �
n
0
A
o
CIA
e
S
0
co
0
0
r
0
0
0
A
o
CIA
0
co
0
0
r
O
Q.
t
.t•
U�
y`
s-
cz
n
cz
o
Road
90
_
- r
O
\
O
A
C%
ct V
O
'
U
,
v
J
f
`
kti •alp
IF4._
L
a }
�I
^
y
r a
rr TU)
..
o U-
o
■�
O
O
■
5
r
'
N
...._-..
..�__...—.,....
O
O
V)
Mgt
.i
Q
O
V }, 5
0 v
p �� o
°o •� p COD v �
�, � (n p
v o
o C/)
ct
o Road 90
N cn r--- N
ct
v O p
�z� � LL C:
ct
v� u
4t t6
4-J ' ^"
w
a� Road 92
yoLL
E a)i >1M
}mCD
V l }+ N
�i L.L �L•U
O (a o
a LLLO
o
0
.r.
O
V
�
},
U
o :
c1
U
ct
Q
Z
O
U)
ct
Road
90
o
�
o
�
N
F
a �
�
ct V
O
N
cu 4-J
r."
M
.V
w
Road
92
ou-
J
�
o
co
0 PO4
Cl
co
N
N
0
0
g3i�ra���gB 1ps� NY'Id 1110AY13115 :ewuRs v +or.mrou vrro,vuwaae'eeuf .I O.
� p it �pA� VM'o]SVd IWMIe$!'{I9NaRaWS e
an'anoas ax3waoianaa snMnuun p � � N
1MWdO7aaCl06 UVOa �NIl133N��N ��a El .� �'�
5aiii -ia1 alallit
4 4
$ g gam
N � gkgIt tt
7A -
�- aan
'tE cru
w
I I\ I
I
p—
,�,
{{{ 1
� 'A
w
�
I
n
I I\ I
I
p—
,�,
{{{ 1
� 'A
0
1
I
1
1 -
i!
j1y(e`
1 /
r
1
11
/
ru
0
r" - , I
Ew I
k
tr,
i
c..'s
F
7
,r -::Sm
MEMORANDUM
DATE: December 14, 2017
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Angela R. Pitman, Block Grant Administrator 6W
SUBJECT: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) PROGRAM
SECTION 108 GUARANTEED LOAN PROGRAM APPLICATION
(MF# BGAP2017-007)
Reference: 1) Draft Section 108 Application
Background
The Department of Housing the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) has established
the Section 108 Loan Guarantee Program ("Program") in order to provide below-market rate loans for
qualified projects that serve the needs of low and moderate income persons. The City of Pasco meets the
criteria to participate in the Program as a Grantee, receiving funds through the HUD Community
Development Block Grant Program (CDBG). City Council approved participation in the Peanuts Park
Renovation project that is partially funded with CDBG funds. The project will substantial benefit low and
moderate income persons in east and central Pasco. Together with other improvements, the Peanuts Park
renovation project is expected stimulate economic growth in the Downtown Revitalization area, and
create jobs for low and moderate income persons.
Estimated Funds Available
Recipients may borrow up to five times their annual CDBG grant, enabling them to maximize the impact
of available public funds by leveraging grant resources into private loans. Section 108 is a loan guarantee
program, not a grant. It offers lower rates both variable and fixed, and flexible repayment terms to meet
project -specific needs and provides funding to finance a wide variety of eligible activities. The maximum
Section 108 loan capacity would be $3,475,000, based on the program year 2017 award of $695,000.
Citizen Participation
Application for Section 108 was included in the 2017 Annual Action Plan without the loan amount;
therefore, an amendment is needed to update the plan to reflect the requested Section 108 loan
application. A display advertisement was published in the local section of the Tri -City Herald on
December I and 10, and in Spanish in Tu Decides on December 1 and 9 notifying the public of this
Public Hearing before the Planning Commission on December 21, 2017. The publication also initiated the
public comment period beginning December 15, 2017 and ending January 16, 2018. A copy of the draft
Section 108 Application was made available at the Planning Department, public libraries and Housing
Authorities as well as on the city's website.
Application
The City of Pasco proposes to submit the draft application (Reference 1) for the Section 108 Guaranteed
Loan Program to HUD. The draft application proposes to establish an Economic & Community
Development Loan Pool to benefit the revitalization of Downtown Pasco and surrounding neighborhoods.
The loan pool may be used for area wide infrastructure improvements, as well as provide loans to
for-profit businesses. The application must include a repayment schedule and security (CDBG funds,
additional loan security) for loan repayment. If approved, HUD will issue a federal guarantee for the note
to an approved Lender/Investor upon approval which serves as loan commitment to the application.
Loan Amount
The requested loan amount for the City is as follows:
Pro am
HUD Allocation
Program Income
Total
Section 108 Loan
Guarantee
$3,475,000
Requested
To be determined
$3,475,000
Requested
Proiects
The City of Pasco will propose projects expected to be performed or completed with the loan and
estimated accomplishments upon completion of the projects. As projects are initiated, the City would
request advances or reimbursements (drawdowns from the line of credit). All program income received
will be used to make repayment to the line of credit. In the case of infrastructure projects where program
income is not received, the City will be using CDBG funding to repay the Section108 activities.
The first project proposed in the fund is the redevelopment of the Pasco Farmers Market, Peanuts Park
and related infrastructure. The projected loan amount for the first project is $2,500,000, subject to HUD
eligibility and underwriting.
EliLdbility and National Objective
Eligibility for the Section 108 program is the substantially the same as participation in CDBG. All
projects must meet Eligibility and National Objective requirements specified in 24 CFR 570. The first
project proposed meets eligibility requirements under HUD Matrix Code 03F Park, Recreational Facility
improvements [24 CFR 570.200 and 24 CFR 570.703(b)] and National Objectives under Low -Moderate
Area Benefit (24 CFR 570.208(a)(1)).
Examples of project National Objective beneficiaries:
• Low -mod Housing (LMH) - $1.5 million in guaranteed funds used for rehabilitation of housing
units (LMH). Units will be occupied by low -moderate households.
• Low -moderate Jobs (LMJ) - $1.3 million in guaranteed funds used to provide loans to small
businesses, and $220K to micro -borrowers; businesses expect to create or retain 44 full-time
equivalent jobs,
• Low -moderate Jobs (LMJ) - $15.1 million in guaranteed 3rd party loans to businesses (e.g. for-
profit business manufacturing cosmetics and skin care products, created 700 jobs, and leveraged
$17.2 million in private investment.
• Low -moderate Clientele (LMC) - $1.6 million in permanent financing to leverage $2.4 million
for construction of an education center, one of three built in a high poverty area of the city for to
low income clientele.
• Low -moderate Area (LMA) - $6 million in guaranteed loan funds for rehabilitation of an existing
public facility that is no longer adequate to meet community needs, construction of multi-purpose
recreation center located in an area serving population that is >60% LMI.
• Elimination of Slum & Blight — served as catalyst for redevelopment of entire neighborhood,
dilapidated, deteriorated buildings and structures, soil and groundwater contamination. Produced
227,000 sf of retail space and 27,000 sf of restaurant space. Slum & Blight must be designated by
Council.
Activities must primarily benefit low -moderate income (70% LMI Benefit), and meet applicable public
benefit standards (such as no more than $10,000 per job created for business providing services to low -
moderate income areas, or $35,000 per job created for business creating jobs available to or held by low -
moderate income persons).
Other regulatory requirements applicable to projects include Procurement, Environmental Review,
Uniform Administrative Requirements (2 CFR 200), Labor Compliance (Davis Bacon), Relocation
(URA), Fair Housing, and Lead Based Paint,
Loan Guarantee Financing Fee
In FY 2016, HUD regulations were changed to add a one time, upfront cost that is not annual and not
added into the interest rate of the loan. The fee may be financed as part of the guaranteed loan and paid
for with CDBG or another source of funding. The 2017 fee is 2.59% of the principal; for a loan of $2.5
million, this fee would be $64,750.
Discussion
The Planning Commission should evaluate the Section 108 Application and provide staff direction to
formulate a recommendation for City Council,
The Section 108 Program is a strong tool for economic revitalization. Proposed schedule for meeting
requirements to apply for HUD Section 108 Loan Guarantee is as follows:
1. Completion of a Citizen Participation Process — January 16, 2018
2. Council Approval of Section 108 Application —January 16, 2018
3. Submittal to HUD — January 18, 2018
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 Section 108 Loan Guarantee pre -application and proposed use of funds for the Peanuts Park
Renovation/Farmers Market Redevelopment and Infrastructure Project.
CITY OF PASCO
holm
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND
URBAN DEVELOPMENT
FOR AN
ECONOMIC AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT LOAN FUND
IN THE AMOUNT OF $3,475,000
December 2017
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT LOAN FUND
PASCO, WASHINGTON
Project Description
The purpose of this Section 108 application is to assist with economic and community
development activities in the City of Pasco. The guaranteed loan funds will be used to create a
loan pool targeted to projects that will have positive economic and community development
benefits within East Pasco's neighborhood business district. Individual projects will be
evaluated by City of Pasco's staff, as well as by consultant experts in financial
underwriting.
The City has identified two projects that will likely make use of this fund. The first of these,
the Pasco Plaza Mercado (Market Plaza), is located on 4th Avenue between Lewis and
Columbia Streets. The project includes renovation of the Pasco Farmers Market
Pavilion, as well Peanuts Park. The Pasco Farmers Market celebrates its 30th
Anniversary in 2018, and is a community resource and gathering place for a lower
income, predominately minority community. The second project is the replacement of
deteriorated sidewalks and installation of pedestrian amenities that connect the Market
Plaza to the surrounding neighborhoods. The Section 108 loans for both of these
projects will be debt serviced with CDBG funds.
Section 108 Submission Requirements
A. Community Development Objectives
The Section 108 loan fund will result in lending for economic and community
development in Pasco. This activity will further the City of Pasco's Economic
Development Goals as listed in the City's Consolidated Plan, all of which are
applicable.
Policies
B. Description of how the Proposal meets one of the Criteria in 24 CFR 570.200(a)(2) -
National Objectives.
Section 570.200(a)(2) lists the National Objectives that must be met by all Community
Development Block Grantsand therefore Section 108 projects. This section requiresthat
all funded activities meet one of three national objectives. These objectives are: 1)
benefit to low and moderate income families; 2) aid in the prevention orelimination of
slums or blight; and 3) meeting other community development needs having a particular
urgency because existing conditions pose a serious and immediate threat to the health or
welfare of the community where otherfinancial resources are not available. Section
570.208 defines the criteria under which an activity may meet the requirements of
Section 570.200(a)(2). Each project funded through the Section 108 loan fund will meet
one of the National Objectives listed in Section 570.200(a)(2) as detailed in Section
570.208.
The City of Pasco's Section 108 loan fund will create jobs for low and moderate
income persons, provide services to low income areas, provide infrastructure to create
housing opportunities for low income individuals, and/or eliminate conditions of blight as
defined in Section 570.208.
C. Community Development Block Grant Eligibility
In addition to furthering National Objectives, all Section 108 loans must also meet the
eligibility requirements of the Community Development Block Grant program. All
activities funded through the CityofPasco's Section 108 loan fund will meetthe
program eligibility requirements assetforth in Sections 570.201, .202, .203, or.204.
The two projects currently identified meet the eligibility requirements of Section
570.201(c). Under 570.201 (c), the City can undertake public facilities and improvements
through: "Acquisition, construction, reconstruction, rehabilitation or installation of public
facilities and improvements, except as provided in Section 570.207(a)."
Section 570.207(a) excludes "buildings or portions thereof, used for the general conduct
of government, general governmental expenses and political activities." None of the
projects to be assisted with Section 108 proceeds will include buildings used for the
general conduct ofgovernment, general governmental expenses, norforpolitical activity.
If the City identifies activities under Section 570.203, it will insure that those activities
additional complywith Section 570.209
Section 570.209 Guidelines
Guidelines and Objectives for Evsa, uating Project Costs and Financial
Requirements.
All activities eligible under Section 570.203 must meet the requirements of Section
570.209. This section outlines guidelines for ensuring that a proposed project carries out an
economic development objective in an appropriate manner. These guidelines under
570.209(a) are not mandatory but serve as a framework for financially underwriting
economic development projects.
In evaluating proposed projects eligible under Section 570.203 and to be funded from the
Section 108 Economic and Community Development Loan Fund, the City of Pasco will
use thefollowing criteria.
Project Management
The City of Pasco, Department of Community and Economic Development (DCED) will
administer the fund. DCED will underwrite all loans. Should a project to assist a for
profit business emerge as a candidate for loan funding, the city will use an
experienced consultant to advise on projectfeasibility.
Underwriting Standards for City of Pasco Section 108 Loan Fund
1. National Objective
All loans shall meet a national objective as specified in 24 CFR 570.208. No loan
shall be approved without verification of compliance with the national objective
requirements, specified in 24 CFR 570.208, by the Washington State Office of the
United States Department of Housing and Urban Development.
[Mg 5bility
In addition to meeting one of the program's National Objectives, all projects
assisted through the loan fund must fall within one of the eligible activities listed in
570.703.
Guidelines for evaluatinq and selecting economic development projects
For all activities eligible under 570.703(i), economic development activities, the
project will be required to meet the guidelines listed under 570.209: Guidelines for
evaluating and selecting economic development projects. No loan shall be
approved without verification of compliance with the public benefit standards as
specified in 24 CFR 570.209(b) by the Washington State Office of the United
States Department of Housing and Urban Development.
4. Financial Underwriting
In loan underwriting the City shall adhere to the following criteria.
a. Real Estate Loans
Real Estate Loans shall be evaluated based on:
Abilityto Repay
Collateral
Development Team Capacity and Experience
Developer Commitment
Character ofthe Developer
Ability to Repay:
Projects to be funded will have at least a 1.1 projected debt
coverage ratio. If the project includes more than a small
percentage of its rental income from start-up or financially weak
tenants then a higherdebt coverage ratio shall be required.
Collateral:
Projects to be funded should have a loan to value ratio of not
greater than 80 percent. This value must be supported by an
appraisal prior to funding. If greater than an 80 percent loan to
value ratio is proposed, outside collateral sufficient to provide an 80
percent loan to value shall be required. In certain cases outside
guarantees maysufficeforadditional collateral.
Development Team Capacity and Experience:
Projects funded shall have a development team that has both the
capacity and experience to complete the project as demonstrated by
past projects and financial strength.
Developer Commitment:
Developer commitment can take many forms. While each project is
b.
likely to be different, the forms of developer commitment that can
be expected include: adequate equity, guarantees of completion,
guarantees to fund shortfalls or guarantees of minimum cashflow.
Character:
Projects to be funded should have developers with good credit
histories, demonstrated integrity, and quality references.
Business Loans
Business Loans shall be evaluated based on:
Abilityto Repay
Collateral
Guarantees Financial
Strength
Management Experience
Character of the Principals
Ability to Repay:
All businesses funded with the program shall have existing cash
flow (profits after tax, plus depreciation, plus excess officers
income, plus rent savings if applicable) sufficient to repay the loan.
Projections must be supported by strong evidence that they will
materialize.
Collateral:
All business loans must be supported by collateral. Real Estate
must be supported by an appraisal and will be generally accepted up
to 80 percent of its value. Machinery and equipment, depending
on its nature, will be accepted from 40 percent to 60 percent of its
fair market value. Accounts receivable and inventory will normally be
used to secure operating debt and will generally not be taken as
collateral. Outside collateral, such as personal residences, shall
be valued up to 80 percent of their fair market value net of existing
debt.
Guarantees:
All principals with 20 percent or more or a controlling interest, if
less than 20 percent, shall provide personal guarantees.
Financial Strength:
Three years of financial statements on the business, plus a personal
financial statement on all principals of the business shall be
analyzed to determine if the company is well run and has the
ability to manage its accounts and pay its obligations.
Management Experience:
The management must have experience in the business or in a
similar business, be able to demonstrate an ability to manage, and
have the depth in management to withstand unforeseen transitions.
Character of the Principals:
The personal financial statements and credit history of the
principals must demonstrate honesty and trustworthiness.
D. Eligibility under 24 CFR 570.703
Each of the projectsto be assisted with Section 108 guaranteed loanfunds and Economic
Development Incentive grant funds must meet one of the eligibility requirements listed in
24 CFR 570.703. The initial two projects detailed in this application are eligible under
570.703(1): Acquisition, construction, reconstruction, rehabilitation, or installation of
publicfacilities (exceptforbuildingsforthe general conductof government), public
streets, sidewalks and other site improvements and public utilities. Other projects to be
funded under the program may also qualify under 570.703(a)(b)(c)(d)(e)(f)(h)&(I).
C. Substitution of CDBG funds for Private Sources
City staff assisted by consultants will review all projects to ensure that
each loan minimizes the use of CDBG funds. It is in the City ofPasco's
self interest to insure that there is no substitution of CDBG funding for
non-federal funding. Given the limited availability of federal funds, the
city staff will work diligently to maximize the use of private, non-federal
funding in all projects.
All projects will be reviewed to ensure that private sources of financing
have been maximized and that the rate of return on equity is reasonable
and within general standards.
E. A Description of the Pledge of CDBG Guarantee
The City of Pasco understands that ifthe participants in this Section 108 loan fund fail
to make timely payments and the City of Pasco therefore fails to make a required
payment on its notes, HUD will deduct that payment from the City of Pasco's CDBG
Letter of Credit. In accepting this loan guarantee, the City of Pasco has pledged its
CDBG funds and all other applicable grants assecurity fortheguarantee. (Pleasereferto
Attachment A - Certifications.)
In requesting approval ofth is loan guarantee fund the City of Pasco is requesting a
commitmentfora20-yearterm. The principal repayment term will be determined for
each loan at time of closing.
Certifications
The CityofPasco will complywith all certification required under 570.704.
Schedule for Repayment of the Loan
The applicant must provide the funding matrix shown below, listing each program or program component for which HUD funding is being requested
and submit this information with the application for federal financial assistance.
Grant Program'
HUD
Share
Matching
Funds
Other HUD
Funds
Other Federa
Share
State
Share
Local/Tribal
Share
Other
Funds
Program
Income
Total
Section 108 Economic
Development Loan Fund
City of Pasco $ 3,475,000.00
$ 3,475,000.00
Grand Totals
$ 3,475,000.00
$ 3,475,000.00