HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-18-2018 Planning Commission Meeting PacketPLANNING
REGULAR MEETING
I.
CALL TO ORDER:
II.
ROLL CALL:
III.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
IV.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
V.
OLD BUSINESS:
A. Special Permit
B. Special Permit
C. Special Permit
D. Special Permit
VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
A. Preliminary Plat
B. Comp Plan Amendment
VII. WORKSHOP:
VIII. OTHER BUSINESS:
IX. ADJOURNMENT:
-AGENDA
7:00 P.M. January 18, 2018
Declaration of Quorum
December 21, 2017
Location of a Solid Waste Facility (2022 Commercial
Avenue LLC) (MF# SP 2017-019)
Location of a Used Car Lot (Adriana Robledo) (MF#
SP 2017-020)
Valdivia Daycare Center Expansion (Mariana
Hernandez & Juan Valdivia) (MF# SP 2017-021)
Location of a Recreation Complex in an RS -1 Zoning
District (JUB Engineers. Inc.) (MF# SP 2017-022)
Northridge Estates, 72 -Lots (Sunbelt Homes. LLC)
(MF# PP 2017-010)
Public Participation Plan Regarding the 2018
Comprehensive Plan Update (MF# CPA 2017-001)
This meeting is broadcast live on PSC -TV Channel 191 on Charter Cable and streamed at
www.pasco-wa.com/ psetvlive.
Audio equipment available for the hearing impaired; contact staff for assistance.
REGULAR MEETING
PLANNING
CALL TO ORDER:
MEETING
The meeting was called to order at 7:OOpm by Chairman Cruz.
POSITION MEMBERS PRESENT
No.
1
Tanya Bowers
No.
2
Joseph Campos
No.
3
Paul Mendez
No.
4
No.
5
Joe Cruz
No.
6
No.
7
Zahra Roach
No.
8
Pam Bykonen
No.
9
Gabriel Portugal
APPEARANCE OF FAIRNESS:
MEMBERS ABSENT
Alecia Greenaway
Vacant Position
December 21, 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 Bowers moved, seconded by Commissioner Roach that the minutes
dated November 16, 2017 be approved. The motion passed unanimously.
OLD BUSINESS:
A. Rezone Rezone from R-1 to R-4 (A.K. Sharma) IMF# Z
2017-0071
Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff.
Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director, discussed the rezone
application from R-1 (Low Density Residential) to R-4 (High Density Residential). Mr.
-1-
White mentioned a correction to the staff report contained in the Environmental
Determination. There was a sentence mistakenly placed in that paragraph of the
report the will be cleared up and removed by staff. There were no further questions or
comments.
Commissioner Roach moved, seconded by Commissioner Bykonen, to adopt findings
of fact and conclusions therefrom as contained in the December 21, 2017 staff report.
The motion passed unanimously.
Commissioner Roach moved, seconded by Commissioner Bykonen, based on the
findings of fact and conclusions as adopted, the Planning Commission recommend the
City Council rezone tax parcel #115-180-064 from R-1 to R-4. The motion passed
unanimously.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
A. Special Permit Location of a Solid Waste Facility (2022
Commercial Avenue LLCI (MF# SP 2017-0191 -
Continued from November 16. 2017 meeting
Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff.
Rick White, Community 8v Economic Development Director, discussed the special
permit application for the location of a solid waste facility. This hearing is continued
from the November 16, 2017 due to a number of issues that came up at that meeting.
Staff prepared a supplemental memorandum explaining in much greater detail the
analysis and procedural issues or questions and the special permit's relationship to
the Franklin County Solid Waste Plan. Staff also provided a detailed analysis of the
Comprehensive Plan policies, the character of the neighborhood, the traffic impacts
and the proposed findings, conclusions and conditions that are required through the
Pasco Municipal Code regarding special permit applications. Fundamentally, this is a
land use application. The application seeks land use approval to locate a solid waste
handling facility. It does not grant a building permit. It does not grant approval from
the Health Department and it does not grant approval from the Washington State
Department of Ecology. As noted in the staff memorandum, each of those entities has
advised that inclusion or amendment of the Solid Waste Plan is necessary for them to
consider the application. Staff has concluded that this is an appropriate use of land
at this location. Staff would also encourage that if the Commission needs additional
time to consider the additional information from this meeting that they can deliberate
in the following month at the January Planning Commission Meeting.
Chairman Cruz asked the Planning Commission if there was any opposition to doing
what was suggested by Mr. White and holding the public hearing but then scheduling
the deliberations and a recommendation for the January meeting.
There was no opposition.
Darrick Deitrich, 2022 Commercial Avenue, spoke on behalf of his application. He
-2-
stated that the staff report accurately portrays the request and felt that it amply fits
within the use of the neighborhood and in the City's Comprehensive Plan. He
understands that this is not an immediate permit to start construction. This is a long
process with many regulatory layers at the State, County, City and Health Department
level. This is simply a gateway decision to get the process moving. He has a business
decision at the moment to purchase some land and he is asking the Planning
Commission if this is an appropriate use for the property.
Alan Wallace, 601 Union Street, Seattle, WA spoke on behalf of the applicant as his
legal representation. He addressed a letter he submitted into the record for the
Commission that hits some points of interest in support of this application. There
were some allegations made by opponents of this application and their attorney
stating that this is an "illegal action" by the Planning Commission to recommend an
approval to the City Council. He stated that at his firm they represent solid waste
companies around the state and he is a land use attorney and environment attorney
and he has been involved in the permitting of solid waste transfer stations. Because
of the many layers of the permitting process this is the first step that needs to go
through in order to move forward. The proponents are arguing that it is inappropriate
to recommend to Council because of what they perceive as a conflict with an out of
date County Solid Waste Management Plan. There are errors in that argument. The
County under State law and State Supreme Court decision, counties control the waste
stream within the borders of the county and as such they are solely responsible for
approving the Solid Waste Management Plan and is subject to review by the State
Department of Health and State Department of Ecology. But the City of Pasco is
simply a consultant party and the City never passed an ordinance incorporating the
County Solid Waste Plan into the City's Comprehensive Plan. The City has no role or
authority of enforcing the Solid Waste Plan.
Mr. Wallace addressed the minutes from the previous meeting and pointed out that
the Chairman tried to focus on if this application fits the character of this site of light
industrial zoning. He stated that this would be a fully enclosed drive-thru transfer
station. That directly impacts the issues of litter, noise and odors. In terms of truck
traffic, the trucks are already at this site so there is already a considerable amount of
traffic and there will be efficiency having the site next to the BDI parking yard. The
State Department of Ecology regulates the Clean Air Act so any complaints can be
addressed by them. This type of use would be highly regulated on the front end in
getting approved and on the back end once it is approved. He discussed one of the
letters submitted by an opponent of the application in which they addressed a
comment from the Megan Gilmore, Department of Ecology and a letter form the
County Health Department asserting that approval of the special permit would be
illegal. Mr. Wallace spoke with Ms. Gilmore, the Environmental Planner, and she
reaffirms that her email is only making the same point that the Department of Health
is making, that simply approval of an operating permit would have to come from the
Health Department in order to establish a solid waste transfer station and would
require conformance with the Solid Waste Management Plan. She went on to say the
Ecology has no role in local government zoning decisions or land use approval
decisions for solid waste facilities. And in fact, when filling out an application with the
Health District, they must check a box confirming that they have local zoning approval
which is why it makes sense to secure the zoning approval first before undertaking the
-3-
expensive process of County and State Health Department approvals and Ecology
approvals for a transfer station. He reminded the Planning Commission that market
share and need isn't particularly what they need to be considering and they should
not make zoning decisions based on individual businesses. The issue of need will be
resolved by the Franklin County Solid Waste Plan and Franklin County
Commissioners. The current Solid Waste Plan in 8 years old so it is out of date
demographically and in terms of State Law which requires it to be updated every 5
years.
Ken Miller, of Miller Mertens 8s Comfort PLLC, 1020 N. Center Pkwy. #B, Kennewick,
WA spoke on behalf of an opponent of the application. He clarified confusion from the
last meeting because there had been 2 files set up by City Staff and to avoid any
additional confusion he asked the Planning Commission if they had received all of the
documents he had submitted into the record, including letters and materials supplied
by Columbia Basin LLC as well as a letter from his office with supporting documents.
Chairman Cruz confirmed that they had received all of the documents submitted into
the record.
Mr. Miller provided 2 other documents to the Clerk and to the Planning
Commissioners to be submitted into the record that were of state statutes. He said
that it is important that this item requires a special permit because it is a land use
that is not outright permitted and is therefore not unusual for these type of hearings
to have controversy and for people to have opposition to what is occurring because it
is outside of the established zoning itself. Staff touched on the idea that this is an
essential public facility and is defined by that in the Comprehensive Plan. In the
Comprehensive Plan it states that the Basin Disposal Solid Waste Transfer Station, is
an essential public facility. It goes on to state that an essential public facility is a
capital facility that is difficult to site due to the potential adverse effects related to size,
bulk, hazardous characteristics, noise or public health and safety. In other words,
they are typically uses that people don't want near them. There is already a permitted
transfer station within eyesight of this proposal. What the Planning Commission is
being asked to do is to approve another facility within eyesight of one that is already
operating and permitted. And then the neighboring property owners will have to have
not just 1 but 2 transfer stations now. There may be some opposition to that. He
addressed the 6 findings of fact in the staff report that the Planning Commission is
supposed to consider prior to their approval. The one he wanted the Commission to
pay attention to is if this proposal is in accordance with the goals, policies, objectives,
maps and narrative text of the Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Miller referenced the statutes that he handed out, including RCW 36.70A.200
(Siting of essential public facilities - Limitation on Liability) and RCW 36.70A.210
(Countywide planning policies). They state that each comprehensive plan of any
County or City has to have a process for identifying and siting a central public facility,
such as the one being proposed. It is not the typical procedure of obtaining a special
permit but a different step in addition which is why he is objecting on a legal basis.
State law requires the City of Pasco to have a policy and procedure in place for siting
these types of facilities, which it does but it is not being followed. RCW 36.70A.200
states that, "(5) No local comprehensive plan or development regulation may preclude
ME
the siting of essential public facilities." That is because they don't allow "not in my
backyard" laws. The City can't say that they won't allow a public facility period. But
the policy for this is that when an appropriate issue arises, the County and City within
and along with public participation shall develop a cooperative regional process to site
an essential public facility - countywide. The City of Pasco is being asked to site this
use without any input from Franklin County, City of Eltopia or City of Mesa and they
are required to because under this RCW it is a regional process. The Pasco Municipal
Code states that zoning action cannot be made that violates state law. He said that
the process is happening backwards and that the applicant should first try to change
the Franklin County Solid Waste Plan prior to asking the Pasco Planning Commission
for a land use recommendation. The reason being that you would then have regional
input as to the proper siting for that facility. He added that it makes no sense to
locate a new facility within site of the current facility. He asked how that would serve
the entire region and spread the benefits within the entire County, which is what the
policy states.
Commissioner Portugal asked Mr. Miller asked if efficiency wasn't a part of the
equation to make a decision.
Mr. Miller responded asked whom the efficiency would be for, such as the County.
Commissioner Portugal answered the applicant who would be building the new
transfer station.
Mr. Miller said that isn't something for the Planning Commission to consider when
looking at a land use decision as that is an economic decision for the applicant.
Steve Wheatley, 1 Marigold Loop, spoke in opposition to the proposed application. He
said that he represents Columbia Basin LLC and submitted a packet to the Planning
Commission to be a part of the record. His packet included tonnage charts and other
information. He addressed some of the arguments brought up at the last meeting an
in the staff report, such as their facility not having landscaping but nobody else on
Deitrich Road has landscaping either. He discussed the road but it is a city road and
the owner of their business had the road rebuilt in front of their facility. He briefly
went over the 6 criteria items for the Commission to review. He said that the City only
has a Comprehensive Plan but not their own Solid Waste Management Plan because
they are participating and signed on to the County's integrated Solid Waste
Management Plan. Their plan still states that there shall be no new transfer station
and it also states that the County should consider building a dry box facility in North
Franklin County. The proponent states that the tonnage is growing at 9.5%. Mr.
Wheatley said that is incorrect and he referenced his tonnage charts. He addressed
future traffic that he felt would increase and effect the public infrastructure and litter
may become an issue. As for the character of the neighborhood, he doesn't know how
they can state it will be in harmony without plans in place. He discussed the
condition of the proposed activity effecting the development of permitted uses in the
general facility or their value and without the applicant submitting any kind of
conceptual drawings or information it is hard to tell if there will be any negative
effects. Despite the fact that the applicants wishes to have an enclosed facility, the
-5-
trucks will still have to drive to get there leaving litter along the way to get there.
Lastly in relation to public health or safety or becoming a nuisance, since they haven't
submitted drawings/ blueprints that it is unclear at this time that this would be
known. He finished by discussing the statues addressed by Mr. Miller.
Leonard Deitrich, 1721 Deitrich Road, spoke out as an opponent to this application.
He cautioned the Commission to be careful with the numbers put out there regarding
tonnage. Mr. Wheatley pointed them out but he clarified the numbers provided by Mr.
Darrick Deitrich. One of the reasons the numbers jumped up is because there was a
time that much of the garbage was going to the landfill and it is now going through his
facility. He briefly summarized out Franklin County came to their Solid Waste
Management Plan which involved too many garbage dumps in the 1960's. At that
time every city had one and Pasco had two. The State understood that this was a
problem and they wanted to eliminate all of the burning dumps that were out there.
They developed a plan and brought it to the counties, which was the correct place to
bring it to. The counties then created regional plans which worked because then there
was one central location to go to. Any city can produce their own plan but the City of
Pasco has decided to be a part of the Franklin County plan because they were working
on a regional concept. The next task is to decide where the next one regionally needs
to be located, not because it is convenient for the applicant.
Zenaido Martinez III, 5108 Laredo Drive, spoke as an opponent to this application. He
said that he was representing Martinez Trucking which is located on 2020 Garland
Street and 2202 Garland Street. He stated that they had a few concerns for the
proposed applicant at this site. He said that they are concerned about the property
value of their current location as well as litter and traffic. Although the proposal is for
a drive thru facility, he still believed there would be litter outside of their site due to
falling off of the trucks as they travelled to the site. Garland Street is already a busy
road and at times dangerous and he is worried that the increased traffic could make it
worse.
Commissioner Campos asked Mr. Martinez if he would feel more comfortable with the
proposed application if preliminary drawings for the facility and site were presented.
Mr. Martinez said possibly.
Alan Wallace, 601 Union Street, Seattle, WA spoke again as legal representation for
the applicant. He addressed the Growth Management Act RCW's that were handed
out to the Planning Commission by Mr. Miller, legal representative for the opponent.
RCW 36.70A.200 does speak to essential public facilities and does require that every
city planning under the Growth Management Act must have a process for and may not
preclude the siting of an essential public facility, which is what Pasco has done. The
special permit process is Pasco's process to enable an essential public facility to be
sited in this light industrial zone. Pasco's special permit process is in compliance with
RCW 36.70A.200 (5). Then RCW 36.70A.210 only concerns the enactment of county-
wide planning policies but what it says is that there must be a policy siting public
capital facilities of county -wide or state-wide nature. He said that the transfer station
is not a public essential facility, rather just an essential facility. Pasco cannot deny an
so
essential public facility. Nowhere do the RCW's state that there is some kind of a land
use process where the City of Pasco shares the approval authority with the County or
other cities in siting a transfer station. He stated that in the other cases he has
worked on he has always dealt with the local jurisdiction in obtaining land use
approval. This has been the same lawful process used in other jurisdictions. The
other agencies will be involved in approval when it is their time to do so. This is just
one step in the process.
Chairman Cruz if an example of a public capital facility would be an airport in the
RCW.
Mr. Wallace said yes, something regional. In this case, the solid waste transfer station
is not at a level of regional importance as there are other transfer stations.
Ken Miller, of Miller Mertens & Comfort PLLC, 1020 N. Center Pkwy. #B, Kennewick,
WA spoke again as legal representation on behalf of the opponent of the application.
He reminded that Planning Commission to look at how this application itself complies
with the Comprehensive Plan. This Comprehensive Plan defines the Solid Waste
Transfer Station as an essential public facility. He asked how it would address policy
#4 which is in every section of the Comprehensive Plan. If working on a regional
basis, input is required form the other jurisdictions. When the original location was
sited, it was agreed upon with all of the input. And now this application wishes to site
another location within a stone's throw of the original facility without all of the input.
Alan Wallace, 601 Union Street, Seattle, WA spoke again as legal representation for
the applicant. He addressed policy #4 from the Comprehensive Plan and stated that
there was a predicate of, "...when an issue arises." That is a judgement made by the
Planning Department, Planning Commission and ultimately City Council. When does
a use rise to a regional level of requiring interjurisdictional review and approval? The
Planning Department has given their professional planning judgement that this use as
proposed within an enclosed building is consistent with the industrial zone and
doesn't arise to the issue nor is it appropriate to ask other cities in the Tri -City Area or
County to give their opinion on the City of Pasco land use decision at this time.
Chairman Cruz asked if the City took into account the City Attorney's perspective on
this issue.
Mr. White replied that Staff takes the City Attorney's input greatly. The suggestion to
deliberate in the upcoming month is for another opportunity to review this hearings
record with the attorney to make sure the recommendation that comes to the Planning
Commission is defensible and solid.
Commissioner Mendez asked if they could get insight as to whether the RCW's
presented apply or not.
Chairman Cruz clarified Commissioner Mendez's request.
-7-
Mr. White said that is another reason to have deliberations in the next month to make
sure the findings are defensible and solid.
With no further question or comments the public hearing closed.
Commissioner Roach moved, seconded by Commissioner Portugal, to close the public
hearing and schedule the deliberations, adoption of findings of fact and conclusions
and recommendation for City Council for the January 18, 2018 Planning Commission
meeting. The motion passed unanimously.
B. Special Permit Location of a Used Car Lot (Adriana Robledol
(MF# SP 2017-020)
Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff.
Darcy Bourcier, Planner I, discussed the special permit application for the location of
a used car lot. The site is located in a C-1 zone and since the site meets criteria per
the Pasco Municipal Code in that it is adjacent to an arterial street and not adjacent to
or across from a residential district it is permitted as a conditional use as long as it is
approved through the special permit process. The site contains an old retail building
that has been vacant since 2013. In 2016, the applicant was granted a special permit
to locate an identical business at 609 W. Lewis Street in a C-1 zoning district but they
are wishing to relocate their business. Based on the size of the existing retail building
the applicant is required to provide at least 7 off street customer parking spaces. It is
unlikely that the use will result in an increased need for public transportation
services. The property is located at the corner of 4th Avenue and Court Street.
Commissioner Roach asked which street would be used for the proposed 7 customer
parking spaces.
Ms. Bourcier responded that no streets would be used as the parking would need to
be off street so located on the property.
The applicant did not wish to come forward to speak for the hearing.
With no further questions or comments the public hearing closed.
Commissioner Bowers asked what would happen to the applicant's current used car
lot.
Ms. Bourcier responded that it would just close down as they are just relocating, not
expanding their business.
Commissioner Campos moved, seconded by Commissioner Mendez, 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. The
motion passed unanimously.
ME
C. Special Permit Valdivia Daycare Center Expansion (Mariana
Hernandez & Juan Valdivial (MF# SP 2017-0211
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 Valdivia Daycare Center expansion. The Planning
Commission has seen this site before when the applicant had originally applied for
their special permit to locate a daycare center. The Planning Commission made a
recommendation to City Council to approve the special permit and City Council then
approved. It currently serves 30 children and they have made a number of physical
improvements to the home and property to accommodate the daycare center. They are
proposing to expand their 30 children limit to 50 children which in most
circumstances would be a rather benign land use application but in this case the
issue arises with the availability of parking. The daycare is located on the north side
of Sylvester Street but they have an agreement with the church across the street to
use some of their lot for additional parking that would be required for the additional
20 children. The current parking requirements are for 9 stalls. The State requires a
certain ratio for students to staff depending on the age of the children which affects
the number of parking stalls required so the parking requirements could go up
anywhere from 13-22 parking stalls to accommodate the additional staff. The problem
is that crossing Sylvester Street poses a number of safety issues. There would need to
be a transportation capacity analysis for safety safeguards that would require
construction of sidewalk improvements all the way on Sylvester Street to Road 37 so
that there are no mid -block crossings. The sidewalk improvements would also require
ADA accessible ramps on both sides of the street at Road 37. The staff report to the
Planning Commission addresses the issues related to traffic safety and staff suggests a
couple of options to be considered, such as; (1) The number of children can't exceed
the maximum of onsite available parking or (2) The number of children can't exceed
50, which is what the applicant applied for but with 50 children, they may be required
to provide the parking across the street.
Commissioner Bowers asked where staff parking is currently located.
Mr. White replied that all of the parking is currently located onsite. He believes that
the staff parks in the rear and the parents drop off in the front of the home.
Commissioner Bowers asked why they don't use additional parking from the vacant
site located next to the daycare.
Mr. White said that they don't own that site so perhaps the applicant can provide
additional information.
Commissioner Campos added that he felt 50 children seemed like a lot of students
given the size of the structure so it would be likely that the structure itself would need
to expand.
Juan & Mariana Valdivia, 1732 N. 18th Avenue, spoke on behalf of their application.
They are proposing to expand to the daycare, adding a room this year and another in
the future which is why they are asking for 50 students now. If they have to make
improvements to the sidewalk and safeguarding it would likely be too much money. If
they could just expand their parking lot towards the end of the yard in the back then
they could try to get more parking stalls that way since they have room to' do so.
Chairman Cruz stated that would be one of the options, mainly option 1 to see what
that lot expansion would look like and then how many additional students they could
add based on the additional parking stalls. He said that it gets complicated because
the additional children will require additional staff which means more parking. He did
not personally have an issue with the option of expanding their current parking lot on
their site.
Ms. Valdivia clarified from the staff report that they will not have just infants, which
require higher staff to child ratios. They will likely have more toddlers and pre -k
children which have lower ratios.
With no further questions or comments the public hearing closed.
Commissioner Campos moved, seconded by Commissioner Bowers, 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. The motion
passed unanimously.
D. Special Permit Location of a Recreation Complex in an RS -1
Zoning District IJUB Engineers, Incl IMF# SP
2017-0221
Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff.
Darcy Bourcier, Planner I, discussed the special permit for the location of a recreation
complex in an RS -1 zoning district. The applicant was granted a special permit for a
recreation complex earlier this year but because of substantial changes to the site
plan it is required to go through the special permit process again. When the initial
special permit was granted the site plan indicated the complex would be located at the
southwest corner of the parcel along Burns Road but in the updated site plan the
complex sits in the northwest corner of the property. It would still be located on 22
acres of the 119 acre parcel and used for soccer, lacrosse and other field sports.
There will be 8 grass and 2 synthetic turf fields. It is intended for the general public
but each field may be rented out on either an hourly or membership basis. The
applicant also stated that some fields will have lighting but that won't extend past
10:00 p.m. Development of the complex is set to be completed in phases. Adjacent
lands to the west have been purchased by the School District and are being reserved
for a future high school. It is important to note that the City anticipates several low-
density residential neighborhoods in the vicinity sometime in the future and while
those neighborhoods may supply many of the complexes visitors, the two uses have
the potential to be conflicting. The site is located about midway between Broadmoor
-10-
Boulevard and Dent Road. A 40' 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 facility. Staff is still unclear of the details but the
applicant proposes that the collector street be developed with gravel temporarily until
a residential developer comes in and fully improves it to City standards. The applicant
states that JUB Engineers is working with a residential developer that will be
responsible for developing the surrounding neighborhood. Staff is also unclear of the
timeline or who the residential developer is. There must be a paved surface going to
the complex prior to use by the public which Staff has stated in the approval
conditions. The applicant will still have about 1,000' of frontage along the future
collector street and 1,000' along the north side that must be fully developed but can
be developed in phases similar to how the complex is being developed. Traffic
generated might be substantial. Vehicle trips per typical weekday may range from
375-500 per day taking into account how many practice sessions occur during the
day. Traffic may increase during weekend events but considering its location near a
high capacity arterial street, the recreation complex will be easily accessible to visitors.
Although Staff doesn't anticipate through traffic in neighborhoods, there is always that
possibility. This area is likely to be very busy in the future with the high school and
other civic and recreational uses nearby so disruption to residential neighborhoods,
such as traffic, lighting or noise, can't be ruled out.
Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director, added that it is important
to reiterate that the applicant has an existing approved special permit for locating the
complex on what would be the intersection of this future road and Burns Road. The
staff report has tentative conditions of approval but it is fair to say the staff has a
significant amount of concerns over placing a complex essentially buried in a
residential subdivision that is going to experience anywhere from 0-700 cars per event
utilizing the complex. They have indicated that future lighting is definitely a
possibility. One of the conditions states that if that is the case then an amendment to
the special permit be brought back to the Planning Commission for consideration but
the Commission should keep in mind that the original location in the southwest
corner seemed to be a better compatibility fit for what is essentially a residential
neighborhood in spite of the fact of the future high school site to the west.
Commissioner Roach asked if Staff felt the southwest corner would be better due to
traffic.
Mr. White said yes, due to traffic in particular. This is not going to be an easy
complex to find if their new concept pans out. Perhaps there will need to be a pile on
sign to direct traffic northward. But it is a large recreational complex that is proposed
to be in the middle if a residential neighborhood.
Chairman Cruz asked how many fields are at the soccer complex next to GESA
Stadium.
Mr. White responded there may be more than 10 fields but he wasn't for sure.
Chairman Cruz said it is a concern and while this proposed complex will only be
-11-
roughly 1/3 of the size of the complex on Burden Boulevard but it is still large.
Commissioner Bowers asked if there has been noise or light concerns from the
residents near the existing fields new the TRAC.
Mr. White said he doesn't believe so.
Chairman Cruz said that Tri -Cities Prep was one of the most recent applications that
came in for lighting for their fields and there are rules in place for light pollution and
noise. It is a fairly common permit condition. If there are issues then it becomes a
Code Enforcement issues. Typically 10:00 p.m. is very typical and he doesn't see that
as being too much of an issue but the larger issue is placing these fields in the heart
of a residential neighborhood and dealing with traffic.
Commissioner Roach asked if the property to the southeast corner is the Sharma
property which was just rezoned for R-4 zoning.
Mr. White said yes.
Commissioner Roach asked what the plan is for entrances/exits to that site once it is
built out.
Mr. White responded that he hasn't seen a site layout yet.
Chairman Cruz said that based on the size the entrance/exit will likely be on Burns
Road.
Mr. White added that it would be typical for it to occur as far away from the
intersection as possible.
Darrell Moore, JUB Engineers, Inc., 2810 W. Clearwater Avenue, Kennewick, spoke on
behalf of his application. He stated that the change in location of the soccer fields
from the southwest corner to the northwest corner was due to meeting with the
potential development of the neighboring residential area. The residential developer
would prefer to have the soccer fields in the back due to building roads and they
would like to have rate of return on their investments. Building roads and homes up
front gives them a rate of return. This is why the facility has been proposed to be
moved. The biggest approval conditions the applicant opposes are: (1) The right of way
dedication on the north side as it seems premature as it is outside of the city limits as
wells as easements and other issues so having a road on the north side may look good
on paper in the future but not good for now, (2) Putting in a road from Burns Road all
the way to improvements on Broadway to the north and to the south is roughly 4,000'
of right of way to build out just for a grass soccer field. It would be almost $1,000,000
in improvements and that doesn't include the complex but just to get roads built.
With the residential piece, sewer isn't even available for this area so the City is
working on a plan to get sewer out to this area but to his understanding or knowledge
it is in the works but won't be constructed for another year or two out so putting a
-12-
road in now and then coming back in to do sewer and easements seems
counterproductive. And there are too many unknowns with how the school or
residential will be plan so putting in roads with sidewalks and lights seems premature.
A fix would be to phase the road as the residential piece develops. As far as being in a
residential area, he has seen soccer facilities all over the northwest and almost all of
them are within a residential area or behind large city parks. There are no pile on
signs to get to the fields. Soccer people will use Google Maps and they will find it and
show up. The applicant stated that they are proposing a gravel road at this time to
the fields and developing the road improvements when the residential piece comes into
play. At this time they don't need water or sewer service. They plan on using honey
buckets for restrooms until water is available to put in and many other soccer
complexes us them. Other cities, such as Redmond, have not required the soccer
clubs to make million dollar infrastructure improvements because they see the added
benefit of bringing these clubs to their communities. Another condition the applicant
was not in agreement with was the 25' landscape setback along the property
frontages. This is for grass fields which is already landscaped. They also were not
sure about the fencing requirements along the parameter of the property. They
intended on some type of fencing but the staff report didn't specify type. Also, one of
the conditions requires the parking lot be paved. They wish to pave the parking lot at
some point but again, would like to do it down the road. They are willing to work with
the City but would like the chance to phase many of these projects out over time.
Chairman Cruz asked the applicant when the last time he has spoken with City Staff
was.
Mr. Moore said he spoke with Dave McDonald, City Planner, after their initial special
permit was approved and at that time the understanding was that they could phase
these improvements. Then when they decided to move the location of the facility it
seemed that Staff now wanted it all built now. He said that if the conditions in the
special permit are as they are written in the staff report then the facility will not be
able to be built. There is a lack of playing fields for soccer and there is a lot of talent
in this area that leaves because the facilities aren't here.
Chairman Cruz said that he agreed in terms of costs that it is unlikely for this facility
to be built due to the infrastructure costs, however, from the Planning Commission's
perspective, they are going to expect certain improvements to be made. The placement
of this location has advantages and disadvantages and nothing is concrete. Being a
joint development with the residential developer makes their case a little stronger but
he would suggest that for this meeting have the public hearing then meet with Dave
McDonald prior to the next meeting.
Commissioner Roach asked the applicant if they were willing to move the location of
the proposed recreation complex to the original proposed location.
Mr. Moore said he would have to go back to the seller and work it out so he's unsure
at this time.
Commissioner Mendez asked if the applicant should first work things out with staff.
-13-
Chairman Cruz said they can hold the hearing and the applicant can work things out
with staff prior to the next meeting.
Commissioner Bowers asked if they would still take public testimony.
Chairman Cruz said yes.
Dave Richards, 1415 6th Street, Clarkston, WA spoke on behalf of this application. He
stated that he was the residential developer looking to develop the residential
neighborhood along with this site. From his perspective it makes sense to place the
soccer fields in the proposed site. This will have less streets running along the fields.
He said he is also a former soccer parent because it will likely be near athletic fields of
the high school which may have a better layout for kids chasing soccer balls and
traffic where the original location would have streets for them to run out into. This
will also help the development costs.
Commissioner Bykonen asked staffed what the meeting date was for the previous
special permit application that was approved.
Mr. White said it was June or July 2017.
Commissioner Bowers asked about the sports complex on Road 36 across from the
airport and if the surrounding residential area has responded or reacted to that
activity.
Mr. White said there isn't a lot of interaction with the residential area there. There is a
golf course and Big Cross cross-country facility buffering it.
With no further questions or comment the public hearing closed.
Commissioner Portugal moved, seconded by Commissioner Bowers, 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. The
motion passed unanimously.
E. Special Permit Location of a Vocational School (Construction
Industry Training Council of Washington) (MF#
SP 2017-023)
Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff.
Darcy Bourcier, Planner I, discussed the special permit application for the location of
a vocational school. CITC plans to open a construction oriented vocational school in
three suites of an existing office building located in a C-1 zone. The applicant has
indicated that the school will serve approximately 60 students or more who work in
-14-
apprenticeships as electricians and sheet metal workers and possibly plumbing, HVAC
and carpentry. They will be 8 hour classes, primarily on Fridays and Saturdays from
September through June following the typical school year timeline with class sizes of
10-20 adults with possibly some evening classes as well. Students will not be
attending daily so the use is fairly low volume. The students will be primarily already
employed as electricians and sheet metal workers and this would be supplemental
learning. It likely won't generate more than 45 vehicle trips per day. The site contains
158 parking stalls to be shared by businesses that rent out the suites. Three business
currently rent out four of the twelve suites and the school will be renting out three
suites. The school will need 32 parking stalls.
Since the applicant wasn't aware a special permit was required they have already been
preparing to have students so they are requesting this item be forwarded to City
Council after the public hearing closes.
Commissioner Bowers asked for clarification of the location of the existing building.
Ms. Bourcier explained that the aerial photos aren't current but provided a site photo
with the office building on the Power Point.
Halene Sigmund, 1930 116th Ave NE #201, Bellevue, WA, President of the
Construction Industry Training Council of Washington, spoke on behalf of the special
permit application. CITC is a statewide apprenticeship training program approved by
the WA State Apprenticeship and Training Council as well as a licensed vocational
school under WA State Workforce and Training Coordinating Board. There is a great
need for trained construction workers in the State of Washington. CITC currently has
training facilities in Spokane, Vancouver, Bellevue and Marysville. To continue their
mission in addition to local employer demand for skilled workers having a training
facility in Pasco will address these training needs.
Commissioner Campos asked how their training is different from locate JATC's (Joint
Apprenticeship Training Committee).
Ms. Sigmund replied that CITC services the open shop section of the industry. The
industry has two sides; union and open shop. Their program trains the open shop
side.
Commissioner Bowers asked if their program would be similar to the Center for Career
and Technical Education at Columbia Basin College (CBC).
Ms. Sigmund explained that it is not the same program. CITC is a state approved
apprenticeship training program. The employers who train their apprentices with
them train under the apprenticeship WAC's and RCW's.
Chairman Cruz added that this is more akin to businesses needing training for their
apprentices.
-15-
Ms. Sigmund replied that they service the non-union sector as well as continuing
education for union and non-union sectors.
Commissioner Bowers asked if the non-union students are trained by them if they
would be more likely to get a union job.
Ms. Sigmund answered that these are employees who have decided to work in the
non-union sector.
Commissioner Campos explained that he asked because he is a JATC trained
journeyman carpenter and noticed that there is a very union heavy area in the Tri -
Cities and this school would benefit and train those who aren't a part of that.
Commissioner Roach asked if the three units they will be occupying are all adjacent.
Ms. Sigmund said yes.
James Wade, 8927 W. Tucannon, Kennewick, WA of the Kenmore Team, spoke in
support on behalf of the owner of the building. The owners are excited to have CITC
occupying their building with the other tenants that they already have. This will help
create more living wage jobs for citizens and tax payers of Pasco.
With no further questions or comments the public hearing closed.
Commissioner Bowers moved, seconded by Commissioner Roach, 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. The motion passed unanimously.
Commissioner Bowers 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 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. The motion passed unanimously.
F. Block Grant Section 108 Loan Program Application - CDBG
Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff.
Michael Morales, Economic Development Program Manager, discussed the Section 108
Loan Program Application for block grant funds. Mr. Morales reminded the
Commission that this item had been discussed in a workshop during the previous
Planning Commission meeting. He explained that this will be the City's first effort in
pursuing this program as an entitlement community. It is a loan guarantee provision
of the Block Grant program and the Planning Commission is the advisory board for
that program with the city. The program is a tool that was developed as a way for
cities to leverage their CDBG funds. The City is eligible to borrow up to five times its
-16-
annual entitlement amount and at this time that number sits at approximately 3.3
million dollars.
These loan projects, Mr. Morales says, must meet all the rules, public benefit, and
national objectives as CDBG. CDBG is always the backstop as loan security for these
loans, first and foremost there are always typical real estate collateral personal
guarantees involved when one is dealing with the private sector. Where a city takes
out a public facilities project, there is still some negotiation with HUD that takes
account of what the cost benefit will be and what sort of collateral the city will be able
to provide. In this case, Pasco is fortunate that it has a number of properties around
the community, and HUD is typically flexible about being subordinate to senior loans.
Mr. Morales goes on to say that in the last decade, cities began establishing loan pools
as a way to put a marker on the amount of Section 108 dollars. Each project is
individually underwritten to take to HUD for future approval. In this particular case,
the City would be moving forward in establishing a 3.3 million dollar pool and then
pursuing a public facilities project in the downtown area as its first project. The City is
looking to make a number of improvements in the downtown core area to help it better
position itself as a place for regional events and tourism. Projects like the Lewis Street
overpass will help drive investment in downtown, so it could be timely for the City to
leverage those investments for additional grant dollars. The initial focus area is
between Clark Street and Columbia Street, north and south, and between 2nd Avenue
and 4th Avenue on the east and west. The goal is to make the downtown area more
pedestrian, tourist, and family friendly by offering different amenities. Repurposing
underutilized buildings and working with existing or new property owners gives Pasco
a little more flare. One of the first projects the City would be proposing is a market
plaza, which will build upon the repurposing and rebranding of Peanuts Park as well
as the North Promenade. Mr. Morales then discusses the design layout of the said
Market Plaza and the reimagination of Peanuts Park.
This item will be seen before the Planning Commission one last time on January 18 as
old business and then be sent to the Seattle office of HUD for underwriting and
approval of the application. The City will follow with a financing piece for the Plaza. It
is estimated that the Plaza will be budgeted in the 5 to 6 million dollar range.
Chairman Cruz asked the Commission if there were any questions.
Commissioner Portugal stated that in the past, locating electrical outlets was a
challenge and asked if that would be addressed.
Mr. Morales assured the Commission this would be addressed and also stated that
where and how they are utilized is important.
Commissioner Mendez asked where the rest of the funding is going to come from if the
project will cost 6 million dollars.
Mr. Morales responded that the City has submitted as capital budget request to the
-17-
State Legislature in the last two sessions and is also looking at additional grant
resources. The City is also considering naming rights as a possibility for the Famers
Market.
With no further questions or comments the public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Campos moved, seconded by Commissioner Bykonen, to close the
hearing on the Section 108 Loan Program Application and recommend the City
Council approve the Section 108 Loan Guarantee pre -application and proposed used
of funds for the Peanuts Park Renovation/ Farmers Market Redevelopment and
Infrastructure Project. The motion passed unanimously.
OTHER BUSINESS:
With no further discussion or business, the Planning Commission was adjourned at
9:40 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
David McDonald, City Planner
am
REPORT TO PLANNING
MASTER FILE NO: SP 2017-019 APPLICANT: 2022 Commercial Ave. LLC
HEARING DATE: 11/16/2017 2021 Commercial Ave
ACTION DATE: 1/18/2018 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
Property 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, the
Franklin County Integrated Solid Waste Plan, testimony at the November
16, and December 21, 2017 public hearings 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
0
parts of Richland. The garbage collected by BDI is transported to the current
transfer station where it is packed into semi -trucks and hauled to the land fill
in Oregon.
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 approval of solid waste Transfer Stations is guided in Franklin County by
the Franklin County Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan (2010). The
development of the plan was part of a regionally coordinated process between
jurisdictions in Franklin County in an effort to plan for essential public
facilities. The Franklin County Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan
recommends that no new transfer station "should" be built during the planning
period 2010 to 2030). Even though the Solid Waste Management Plan is
almost eight years it is still the guiding document for solid waste matters
within the County and City of Pasco. Although an argument can be made for
the need for an additional transfer station based on current population
projections there is weakness in approving a project through mitigation
measures or otherwise without updating the regional solid waste plan. The
GMA requires regional coordination and consistency among jurisdictions for
solid waste planning and moving ahead without that coordination would not
promote the consistency required by the planning process.
In addition to recommendation of transfer facilities the Solid Waste
Management Plan recommends the County should continue to export solid
waste to the landfill in Morrow County, Oregon.
3
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.
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. 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.
9. 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.
10. The County Solid Waste Plan recommends no additional Transfer
Stations should be built between 2010 and 2030.
11. The 2010 Franklin County Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan is
the most current plan available for guiding matters related to solid waste
collection and disposal in Franklin County.
12. 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.
13. The GMA requires regional coordination and consistency among
jurisdictions for planning essential public facilities. The current proposal
M
and application is not consistent with the existing Franklin County Solid
Waste Plan.
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
The County Solid Waste Plan recommends the community continue to export
solid waste to a regional landfill in Morrow County, Oregon. The County Solid
Waste Plan also states no new transfer stations "should" be but during the
2010 to 2030 planning period. The 2010 Franklin County Integrated Solid
Waste Management Plan is the most current plan available for guiding matters
related to solid waste collection and disposal in Franklin County. Approving a
special permit contrary to the existing plan does not promote regional
coordination, cooperation and consistency among local jurisdictions as
required by the GMA.
(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
currently utilized by the BDI fleet of trucks, trucks transporting to the existing
transfer station, the carrot plant trucks and other agricultural related facilities.
However, the proposal appears to conflict with the Regional Solid Waste Plan.
(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
5
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. However, the
proposal appears to conflict with the Regional Solid Waste Plan.
(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?
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. Additionally the
Regional Solid Waste Plan was in part develop to address public health issues
within the County and said plan does not recommend more than one solid
waste Transfer Station at this time.
M
During the continued hearing of December 21, 2017 staff indicated additional
advice and direction would be sought from the City Attorney before a final
recommendation was drafted for the Commission's consideration. Staff has
done that and as a result of discussions with the City Attorney and a land use
attorney for the City's insurance pool this report has been modified to
recommend denial of the proposed special permit. Promoting an additional
solid waste transfer station within the County prior to the adoption of a new
solid waste plan does not promote the regional coordination and consistency
required by the Growth Management Act. Not knowing what the future
regional plan may contain the attorneys are recommending denial of the
current application.
MOTION for Findings of Fact: I move to adopt Findings of Fact and
Conclusions therefrom as contained in the January 18, 2017 staff report.
MOTION for Recommendation: I move, based on the Findings of Fact
and Conclusions therefrom, the Planning Commission recommends the
City Council deny a special permit for the location of a solid waste
transfer station for 2022 Commercial Ave. LLC on Parcel 2 of Lot 11,
Binding Site Plan 2011-03.
7
i e _
L!
° � �Da�ts1`►�6s� rs�R
All
a ChB AMWI ru
,l�:w��: a911,It1 iib
- ® II�PIL'�1M�9 A113 i
6ilFlnt�1 �1�
�Qll�i F1�+f.Y911i ]it i
' ahl1il91 [9d
74311491 1t1
��tPt1143!'1 111
— b a 11ir6M 111
.„ 3E161t1111 zk�lllM i11
� t�iiil9 1 all if
Illiillill E6tfa�� Itt
Itlilittll 1tt1111�
!01
_� iltflllltl 11tt111� 111
� IIIIIP1111 111111: u
�71131911111a111a1l� 11111116 tlllll�i ii1
little bit
Item: Waste Transfer Station "
Vionfty Applicant:2022 Commercial Ave LLQ E
Map File #: Z 2017-019 S
a-;53'`
SITE ��
0 75 150 225 300 375
Feet
Item: Waste Transfer Station "
Land Use Applicant:2022 Commercial Ave LLQ IFE
Map File #: Z 2017-019 S
I GARLAND ST
Industrial
SITE �\
Farming
0 75 150 225 300 375
Feet
Item: Waste Transfer Station "
Zoning Applicant:2022 Commercial Ave LLQ E
Map IV
File #: Z 2017-019 S
I GARLAND ST
1-1
SITE N\
1-1
0 75 150 225 300 375
Feet
I Whi
AP t
1A
A,
Item: Waste Transfer Station "
Proposed Applicant:2022 Commercial Ave LLW E
Layout File #: Z 2017-019
S
Sto ar ge
Area
Transfer
�t�ation
Equipment Laydown Area
In/Out Driveway § � LM
rea
Facility Entrance - Driveway
Facility Exit - Driveway
Equipment Laydown Area
Ingress
Equipment Laydown Area
in/Out Driveway
0 50 100 150 200 250
Feet
PROP. LINE (]08 05')
SCNEONG FENCE
TRAILER (SPUF FACE CMU)
SCREONG FENCE ENDS AND MEETS IXISING STORAGE AREN
FENCING ON NEIGHBORING PMCFE
(SPLIT FACE CMU)
FACIUIY ENTRANCE
TRANSFER STATION
!
i
Jam' ti
SCREONG FENCE
(SPLIT FACE CMU)
MkORTY OF MESION PROPERTY
�;
;, 14
ISI
BOUNDARY OPEN TO NEIGHBORING PARCEL
! ' !
130'-0'
FACENY' EMR
I
i
z
PARCEL 113-510-118
BUFFER W/G R
19.44 ACRES
AND TREES W O.C.
'
K
_
I
NEIGHBORING PARCEL
I
I
!
LAYDOWN AREAE
j
EOIMPMENT LAYDOWN —
I
j
MFA ENTRANCE
..,.
EWIPMEM LAYDOWN
AREA EW
i
SCREEING FENCE ENDS AND MEETS OTSONG
FENCING ON NEIGHBORING PARCEL
- SCREFING FENCE
(SPLIT FACE CMU)
°
FACE CIMU)
I
i
I
i
i
Cb
I
I
i
I
\ PARCEL
113-510-118
j
NORTH
CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN
p
®
SCALE: 1'=150'
eI
D
SHEET NO, ,.
orale:
BASIN DISPOSAL
Stun.
��/n{�j/jI
CMR#:
I(\{�,yt�'
TRANSFER STATION
'�""""""°
A-101
CONCEPTUAL
Roe a: nam
. w
°'"'
DESIGN GROUP
SITE PLAN
SUNG.
SUED :
ARCHITECTS - PLANNERS
aoo.
KENNEWICK, WA -50973].1000
PASCO, WA 99301
•>N«2
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
MASTER FILE NO: SP 2017-020
HEARING DATE: 12/21/2017
ACTION DATE: 1/18/2018
APPLICANT: Adriana Robledo
1704 Marsh Rd.
Yakima, WA 98901
REQUEST: SPECIAL PERMIT: Location of an auto sales lot in a C-1 (Retail
Business) Zone
1. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION:
Legal: Ludwig Add Lot 1 & Lot 2 EXC PTN to City of Pasco (45574 1)
General Location: 1424 North 4, 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. Based on the SEPA checklist, the adopted City
Comprehensive Plan, City development regulations, and other
information, a threshold determination resulting in a Determination of
Non -Significance (DNS) has been issued for this project under WAC 197-
11-158.
I
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.
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 -1-1) 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 4th 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.
EI
RECOMMENDATION
MOTION for Findings of Fact: I move to adopt Findings of Fact and
Conclusions therefrom as contained in the January 18, 2018 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 Adriana Robledo for the
location of an auto sales lot at 1424 North 4+h Avenue with conditions as
contained in the January 18, 2018 staff report.
5
a
POO
s�
C�
,PM4
5�
V/
O
W
• r4
J
(t
r
ct
.�
cz
�✓ d
rV/
U
4
0
w
a
POO
s�
,PM4
5�
0pm(
r
Z-<
fz Cu
LL (6
4-j
qc:� 2 E
� � U
CZ
�
oN 4th Ave
Cz�o H ca
U N
U
cn E
. .,� 4tE 0
-0 r° o
U U
w
N 5th Ave
4-0
Office 0 a)
o D o O
U F,U)
0 m
V) z
M
i
� r
� � V
Cz
w F7-
N 4th Ave
0.4 '� r
o F
U
CA14
WC
-61o<
0-4
w
N 5th Ave
M �
0
41
ow
I
I
4
11
Nil
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
MASTER FILE NO: SP 2017-021
HEARING DATE: 12/21/17
ACTION DATE: 1/ 18/18
REQUEST FOR SPECIAL PERMIT:
1. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION:
APPLICANT: Mariana & Juan Valdivia
3503 W Sylvester St
Pasco WA 99301
Expansion of a daycare center located in
an RS -12 District
Legal: Parcel # 119 392 099; SHORT PLAT 2015-01 LOT 2
General Location: 3503 W Sylvester Street
Property Size: Approximately .52 acres
2. ACCESS: The site has access from Sylvester Street
3. UTILITIES: The site is served by municipal water and sewer.
4. LAND USE AND ZONING: The property is currently zoned RS -12 (Low -
Density Residential). Surrounding properties are also zoned RS -12 and
developed as follows:
NORTH: RS -12 - Single family units
SOUTH: RS -12 - Church
EAST: RS -12 - Single family units
WEST: RS -12 - Single family units
S. 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.
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
N
Child/
Parent
Staff
Total
Children Age:
Staff
Children
Adults
Parking
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.
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
N
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
R.
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.
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 10 stalls to between 13 and 22
3
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
onsite (See attached site plan).
12. 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.
(2) Will the proposed use adversely affect public infrastructure?
The site is served by all municipal utilities and the local street network.
Sylvester Street was designed to handle more traffic than it currently
experiences. The proposed daycare center 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 need to be
expanded.
(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?
a
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.
1) The special permit shall apply to 3503 W Sylvester Street (Parcel #119
392 099; Short Plat 2015-01 Lot 2)
2) The hours of operation shall not extend beyond the hours of 5:30 a.m.
and 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday;
3) Number of children shall not exceed 50.
4) Additional parking stalls shall be provided as per Pasco Municipal Code
25.78.170.
5) Applicant shall be required to supply any required parking on site.
6) 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;
7) 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.
5
8) 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 for Findings of Fact: I move to adopt Findings of Fact and
Conclusions therefrom as contained in the January 18, 2018 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 Mariana &
Juan Valdivia for the expansion of a commercial daycare center
located at 3503 W Sylvester Street, with conditions as contained in
the January 18, 2018 staff report.
ri
W
O
0
M
Z N
�/�
o
v
NCD
3
=
r
O
LL
LL
04
O
LO
N
Cl)
�s ado
ct
ctct
>
rl
ct
sWait-
7�
�
N
W
H
Cl)
U
LLI
c
ct a
D
cn
cn
W
O
O
M
Z y
�
N
3
N
T
�
d
d
N
�
/A
O
N
LL
N
CD
v£ adoa
ct
ct
ObO4,
N
ct
>
z
N
ULUct N
ct v
FM —9£-a vem
04
N
� � w
Cl)
r
b.�
L.£_a-v021
NL
Ti
Current Parking
Frs, re
par k;n F
Proposed Parking
Hoose
TV
-,:
0
F
[',
--4!Fl i Us ii
In
LA
L i
ki
r
i
Jr
! 4
MiL
r
,r �q
r
i
MEMORANDUM
DATE: January 18, 2018
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Darcy Bourcier, Planner I
SUBJECT: Special Permit: Recreation Complex (SP2017-022)
This special permit application came before the Planning Commission for a
hearing on December 21, 2017. Because of some uncertainty regarding how
and when the applicant proposed to improve the property's frontages and install
utilities, it was agreed that Staff would meet with the applicant to discuss these
issues in greater detail and provide those details to the Commission during the
January 18, 2018 meeting. At the time, Staff intended for the Planning
Commission to develop a recommendation to Council during the January 18
meeting based upon the Findings of Fact listed in the report any new findings
brought forth by Staff.
However, after meeting with the applicant, who presented a substantial
reorientation of the site layout, Staff has determined that further review by
affected City departments is still needed in order to present the Planning
Commission with accurate information on which to base a recommendation. As
such, Staff proposes that the Commission postpone forming a recommendation
on this item until the February 15, 2018 meeting, at which time the public
hearing will also be reopened.
Staff is proposing the following:
RECOMMENDATION:
MOTION: I move to postpone the development of a recommendation and set
February 15, 2018 as the date for a continuation of the public hearing and the
development of a recommendation for the City Council.
1
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
MASTER FILE NO: PP 2017-010
HEARING DATE: 1/ 18/2018
ACTION DATE: 2/15/2018
APPLICANT: Sunbelt Homes, LLC
601 W Kennewick Ave
Kennewick, WA 99336
REQUEST: Preliminary Plat: Northridge Estates, 72 -Lot Single -Family
Subdivision
1. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION:
Legal: Short Plat 2017-02 Lot 2
General Location: West of the intersection of Burns Road and Road 52
and west of Franklin Elementary
Property Size: 20.14 Acres
Number of Lots Proposed: 72 single-family lots
Square Footage Range of Lots: 7,280 ft2 to 18,817 ft2
Average Lot Square Footage: 9,589 ft2
2. ACCESS: The property will have access from Burns Road.
3. UTILITIES: Municipal water and sewer service will be made available to
the site.
4. LAND USE AND ZONING: The site is zoned R-1 (Low Density
Residential) Surrounding properties are zoned and developed as follows:
NORTH:
County - Agriculture
SOUTH:
County - Single Family
EAST:
R-1 - Franklin Elementary
WEST
R-1 - Single Family
5. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The Comprehensive Plan indicates the site is
intended for low-density residential development. According to the
Comprehensive Plan, low -residential development means 2 to 5 dwelling
units per acre. The criteria for allocation under the future land use
section of Volume II of the Comprehensive Plan (Vol. II, page 17)
encourages development of lands designated for low-density residential
uses when or where sewer is available; the location is suitable for home
sites; and there is a market demand for new home sites. Policy H -1-E
encourages the advancement of home ownership, and Goal H-2 suggests
the City strive to maintain a variety of housing options for residents of
the community. Goal LU -2 encourages the maintenance of established
neighborhoods and the creation of new neighborhoods that are safe and
enjoyable places to live.
6. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The City of Pasco is the lead
agency for this project. 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
The project site is located west of the intersection of Burns Road and Road 52
and east of the West Pasco Terrace Subdivision. Just to the east is Franklin
Elementary. The site is relatively flat and is vacant with a combination of bare
ground and native and non-native grasses and other vegetation.
The site was initially designated an RS -1 zoning district after being annexed as
a part of a larger area in 2006. The R-1 (Low Density Residential) zoning was
established in 2010 prior to the development of the West Pasco Terrace
subdivision and Franklin Elementary. In early 2017, a short plat was finalized
that separated the project site and the elementary school from each other.
The applicant is proposing to subdivide the site into 72 lots to allow the
construction of single-family homes consistent with the R-1 zoning on the
property. Properties to the west are developed with single-family homes on lots
zoned R-1 (West Pasco Terrace) and properties on the east side of the
elementary school are zoned RS -1 (Madison Park). The general vicinity is
conducive to the development of single-family homes.
The property site is located along the northernmost city limits.
LOT LAYOUT: The proposed Plat contains 72 residential lots. The lots vary in
size from 7,280 square feet to 18,817 square feet. The average lot size is 9,589
square feet. The proposal is consistent with the density requirements of the R-1
zoning of the site. The minimum lot size for the R-1 zone is 7,200 square feet.
RIGHTS-OF-WAY: All lots have frontage on streets which will be dedicated.
UTILITIES: Municipal water and sewer must be extended to and through the
parcel subject to development, including along Burns Road in coincidence with
the property frontage. A 20 -foot easement in lot 21 and lot 29 must be created
for maintenance purposes of the existing sewer line. This easement will be
treated like an alley. Currently this sewer line is owned and maintained by the
Pasco School District. It is currently under evaluation to be taken over by the
2
City of Pasco. If it is determined that the City will take over jurisdiction of the
sewer line, this easement will be dedicated to the City of Pasco.
The Engineering Division will determine the specific placement of fire hydrants
and streetlights when construction plans are submitted. As a general rule, fire
hydrants are located at street intersections and with a maximum interval of
500 feet between hydrants on alternating sides of the street. Streetlights are
located at street intersections, with a maximum interval of 300 feet on
residential streets, and with a maximum interval of 150 feet on arterial streets.
The intervals for street light placements are measure along the centerline of the
road. Street lights are placed on alternating sides of the street.
STREET NAMES: The proposed street names will be added prior to final plat
approval.
IRRIGATION: The municipal code requires the installation of irrigation lines
as a part of the infrastructure improvements.
WATER RIGHTS: The assignment of water rights is a requirement for
subdivision approval per Pasco Municipal Code Section 26.04.115 and Section
3.07.160. If no water rights are available to transfer to the City the property
owner/developer must pay a water right fee in lieu thereof as established in
PMC Chapter 3.07. The Public Works Director may waive the fee if the
developer mixes a soil additive in the ground that provides 30% retention of
irrigation water.
FINDINGS OF FACT
State law (RCW 58.17.010) and the Pasco Municipal Code require the Planning
Commission to develop Findings of Fact as to how this proposed subdivision
will protect and enhance the health, safety and general welfare of the
community. The following is a listing of proposed "Findings of Fact":
Prevent Overcrowding: Density requirements of the R-1 zone are designed to
address overcrowding concerns. The Comprehensive Plan suggests the property
in question be developed with 2 to 5 dwelling units per acre. The proposed Plat
has a density of approximately 3.7 units per acre. No more than 40 percent of
each lot is permitted to be covered with structures per the R-1 standards.
Parks Opens Space/Schools: The City is required by RCW 58.17.110 to make
a finding that adequate provisions are being made to ameliorate the impacts of
the proposed subdivision on the School District. At the request of the School
District the City enacted a school impact fee in 2012. The imposition of this
impact fee addresses the requirement to ensure there are adequate provisions
91
for schools. A school impact fee in the amount of $4,525 will be charged for
each new dwelling unit at the time of building permit issuance.
Effective Land Use/Orderly Development: The Plat is laid out for single-
family development as identified in the Comprehensive Plan. The maximum
density permitted under the Comprehensive Plan is 5 dwelling units per acre.
The developer is proposing a density of 3.6 units per acre.
Safe Travel & Walking Conditions: The plat will connect to the community
through the existing network of streets. Sidewalks are installed at the time
homes are built on individual lots. The sidewalks will be constructed to current
City standards and to the standards of the American's with Disabilities Act
(ADA). The ADA ramps at the corners of all intersection will be installed with
the construction of the road improvements
Adequate Provision of Municipal Services: All lots within the Plat will be
provided with water, sewer and other utilities.
Provision of Housing for State Residents: This Preliminary Plat contains 72
residential building lots, providing an opportunity for the construction of 72
new dwelling units in Pasco.
Adequate Air and Light: The maximum lot coverage limitations and building
setbacks will assure that adequate movement of air and light is available to
each lot.
Proper Access & Travel: The streets through and adjoining the Plat have been
or will be paved and developed to City standards to assure proper access is
maintained to each lot. Connections to the community will be provided by
Burns Road with emergency access on Curlew Lane. The Preliminary Plat was
submitted to the Transit Authority for review. (The discussion under "Safe
Travel" above applies to this section also.)
Comprehensive Plan Policies & Maps: The Comprehensive Plan designates
the Plat site for low-density residential development. Policies of the
Comprehensive Plan encourage the advancement of home ownership and
suggest the City strive to maintain a variety of housing for residents.
Other Findings:
• The site is within the Pasco Urban Growth Boundary.
• The State Growth Management Act requires urban growth and urban
densities to occur within the Urban Growth Boundaries.
4
• The site is vacant with a combination of bare ground and native and
non-native grasses and other vegetation.
• The site is not considered a critical area a mineral resource area or a wet
land.
• The Comprehensive Plan identifies the site for low-density residential
development.
• Low-density residential development is described in the Comprehensive
Plan as two to five dwelling units per acre.
• The developer is proposing a density of 3.6 units per acre.
• The site is zoned R-1 (Low Density Residential).
• The site was annexed in 2006 with an RS -1 zoning determination.
• The site was rezoned R-1 in 2010 and was part of a short plat in early
2017.
• The Housing Element of the Comprehensive Plan encourages the
development of a variety of residential densities and housing types.
• The Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan encourages the
interconnection of neighborhood streets to provide for the disbursement
of traffic.
• The interconnection of neighborhood streets is necessary for utility
connections (looping) and the provision of emergency services.
• The neighborhood is connected to the community by way of Burns Road
and Curlew lane.
• Per the ITE Trip Generation Manual 8th Addition the proposed
subdivision, when fully developed, will generate approximately 310
vehicle trips per day.
• RCW 58.17.110 requires the City to make a finding that adequate
provisions have been made for schools before any preliminary plat is
approved.
• The City of Pasco has adopted a school impact fee ordinance compelling
new housing developments to provide the School District with mitigation
fees. The fee was effective April 16, 2012.
• Past correspondence from the Pasco School District indicates impact fees
address the requirement to ensure adequate provisions are made for
schools.
• Plat improvements within the City of Pasco are required to comply with
the 2015 Standard Drawings and Specification as approved by the City
Engineer. These improvements include but are not limited to water,
sewer and irrigation lines, streets, street lights and storm water
retention. The handicapped accessible pedestrian ramps are completed
with the street and curb improvements prior to final plat approval.
Sidewalks are installed at the time permits are issued for new houses
5
except sidewalks along major streets, which are installed with the street
improvements.
• All engineering designs for infrastructure and final plat drawings are
required to utilize the published City of Pasco Vertical Control Datum.
• All storm water generated from a developed plat is required to be
disposed of per City and State codes and requirements. Prior to the City
of Pasco accepting construction plans for review the developer is required
to enter into a Storm Water Maintenance Agreement with the City. The
developer is responsible for obtaining the signatures of all parties
required on the agreement and to have the agreement recorded with the
Franklin County Auditor. The original signed and recorded copy of the
agreement is presented to the City of Pasco at the intake meeting for
construction plans.
• The City has nuisance regulations (PMC 9.60) that require property
owners (including developers) to maintain their properties in a manner
that does not injure, annoy or endanger the comfort and repose of other
property owners. This includes controlling dust, weeds and litter during
times of construction for both subdivisions and buildings including
houses.
• Prior to acceptance of final plats developers are required to prepare and
submit record drawings. All record drawings shall be created in
accordance with the requirements detailed in the Record Drawing
Requirements and Procedure form provided by the Engineering Division.
This form must be signed by the developer prior to construction plan
approval.
CONCLUSIONS BASED ON INITIAL STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT
Before recommending approval or denial of the proposed Plat the Planning
Commission must develop findings of fact from which to draw its conclusion
(P.M.C. 26.24.070) therefrom as to whether or not:
(1) Adequate provisions are made for the public health, safety and
general welfare and for open spaces, drainage ways, streets, alleys,
other public ways, water supplies, sanitary wastes, parks,
playgrounds, transit stops, schools and school grounds, sidewalks for
safe walking conditions for students and other public needs;
The proposed plat will be required to develop under the standards of the Pasco
Municipal Code and the standard specifications of the City Engineering
Division. These standards for streets, sidewalks, and other infrastructure
improvements were designed to ensure the public health; safety and general
welfare of the community are secured. These standards include provisions for
streets, drainage, water and sewer service and the provision for dedication of
right-of-way. The preliminary plat was forwarded to the Franklin County PUD,
0
the Pasco School District, Cascade Gas, Charter Cable and Ben -Franklin
Transit Authority for review and comment.
Based on the School Districts Capital Facilities Plan the City collects school
mitigation fees for each new dwelling unit. The fee is paid at the time of
building permit issuance. The school impact fee addresses the requirements of
RCW 58.17.110.
(2) The proposed subdivision contributes to the orderly development and
land use patterns in the area;
The proposed Plat makes efficient use of vacant land and will provide for the
looping of utilities and interconnectivity of streets as supported in the
Comprehensive Plan.
(3) The proposed subdivision conforms to the policies, maps and
narrative text of the Comprehensive Plan;
The Comprehensive Plan land use map designates the site for low-density
residential development. Low-density residential development is described as
two to five dwelling units per acre in the text of the Comprehensive Plan. The
Housing Element of the Plan encourages the promotion of a variety of
residential densities and suggests the community should support the
advancement of programs encouraging home ownership. The Plan also
encourages the interconnection of local streets for inter -neighborhood travel for
public safety as well as providing for traffic disbursement.
(4) The proposed subdivision conforms to the general purposes of any
applicable policies or plans which have been adopted by the City
Council;
Development plans and policies have been adopted by the City Council in the
form of the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed subdivision conforms to the
policies, maps and narrative text of the Plan as noted in number three above.
(5) The proposed subdivision conforms to the general purposes of the
subdivision regulations.
The general purposes of the subdivision regulations have been enumerated and
discussed in the staff analysis and Findings of Fact. The Findings of Fact
indicate the subdivision is in conformance with the general purposes of the
subdivision regulations provided certain mitigation measures (i.e.: school
impact fees are paid.)
(6) The public use and interest will be served by approval of the proposed
subdivision.
Irl
The proposed Plat, if approved, will be developed in accordance with all City
standards designed to insure the health, safety and general welfare of the
community are met. The Comprehensive Plan will be implemented through
development of this Plat. These factors will insure the public use and interest
are served.
TENTATIVE PLAT APPROVAL CONDITIONS
1. All work shall comply with City of Pasco Standards and Specifications.
2. No utility vaults, pedestals, or other obstructions will be allowed at street
intersections.
3. Curlew Lane shall be improved to County Standards from Overton to the
proposed plat.
4. Utilities shall be extended to and through the parcel subject to
development, including along Burns Road in coincidence with the
property frontage.
5. Water rights must be re -assigned to the City. If no water rights are
available, the property owner or developer will pay to the City a water
rights acquisition fee.
6. All corner lots and other lots that present difficulties for the placement of
yard fencing shall be identified in the notes on the face of the final
plat(s).
7. The developer shall install a common "estate type" masonry fence 6 feet
in height adjacent to the rear line of all lots backing Burns Road. The
wall details must be included on the subdivision construction drawings.
All final Plats shall include a note that clearly indicates the maintenance
responsibility for the estate wall is the responsibility of the property
owners adjoining the wall. A concrete mow strip shall be installed under
any common fence as directed by the City Parks Division and shall be
approved by the Parks Department prior to installation.
8. The final plat(s) shall contain a 10 -foot utility easement parallel to all
streets unless otherwise required by the Franklin County PUD.
9. Lots abutting Burns Road shall not have direct access to Burns Road.
Access shall be prohibited by means of deed restrictions or statements
on the face of the final plat(s).
10. The final plat(s) shall contain the following Franklin County Public Utility
District statement: "The individual or company making improvements on
a lot or lots of this Plat is responsible for providing and installing all
trench, conduit, primary vaults, secondary junction boxes, and backfill
for the PUD's primary and secondary distribution system in accordance
with PUD specifications; said individual or company will make full
advance payment of line extension fees and will provide all necessary
M
utility easements prior to PUD construction and/or connection of any
electrical service to or within the plat".
RECOMMENDATION
MOTION: I move to close the hearing on the proposed subdivision and
initiate deliberations and schedule adoption of Findings of Fact,
Conclusions and a Recommendation to the City Council for the
February 15, 2018 meeting.
0
Road 52
_ 'vm'a3SVd da,1133H1 Ni a31V301 NOISWaans v r @
$8d EN S3SdHd - S31d1S3 3JaRIH1210N Oil
:aod lvld ANVNIWII 3u fi
G im 88q o1' w
w w oFwY� �Q3� oorx `3� — J mRCR BAR Z Y< j
wpg�— 7 ,g < 3 s8o�"5
u§ m8x "da Sg N�k i ffi p E mb t
> o
V V
$9
F
VLJI5 1 a9r F¢r svv c I ..:sy
Q�n
V .7 el Raw 'B
Qi$ F9a 191 �'L-''F€a / s$a 19i cgl .aas i
PH
I 6 i
Q 3 i9 Res 19 a 191 F.a �Ea I$
9
Zi$ ^gs �I — 1 91 '�:s19
L.J CJZ,
-
n n n x
I
�05 $J" -
2� i% mn 'rte 1
¢ eY II °v YY
oz y.a '9
zo s.. i1 Fea
I 5 Dr
Zi
Q 3z
y
�jI��JJ�I�(JI/�I� s� _e9 "oa 7 fin' i8 Fes
J wo �9 F€a I$',% �, 91 s
I
v it eYy
0
i
i
:ayl
-
I
�-ssvFe c r '
iv pY Davoa {
efi �
I ^
O 4Fq $ €I gs s "R% a Ev
as
O i e
m-
-.L—�SIIWIIUIJ 38 CIVoaSrr 8 _
8y a
mc
L
O
z
Mo
c
O
O
m
W
0
•1l
•
4
•1@
•
MEMORANDUM
DATE: January 18, 2017
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Dave McDonald, City Planner
SUBJECT: 2018 Comprehensive Plan Update -Public Participation Plan
The City is required to review and update the Comprehensive Plan by the end
of June 2018. The law (RCW 36.70A.130 (2)(a)) also requires the City to
establish and "broadly disseminate to the public" a public participation plan or
program that identifies procedures and schedules for the Comprehensive Plan
update process. The Public Participation Plan is to allow for early and
continuous public participation in the process in the planning process.
The attached Public Participation Plan is an updated version from the 2008
plan reviewed by the Planning Commission. The proposed plan addresses the
mandate for explaining the public process to be used by the City in updating
the Comprehensive Plan. The Plan explains the scope of review, provides a
general work schedule, explains where public hearings and meetings will be
held, explains how residents can become involved, and provides contact
information for those seeking information.
The proposed Public Participation Plan reduces to writing what the City of
Pasco should and typically has done in the past to involve residents in land use
planning for the whole community.
The proposed plan has been scheduled for a public hearing at the January 18th
Planning Commission meeting.
Recommendation
Motion: I move the Planning Commission adopt Commission Resolution 2018-
01 establishing a public participation process to be used as part of the 2018
Comprehensive Plan update.
1
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION of the Pasco Planning Commission establishing a Public Participation Plan
for the 2018 Comprehensive Plan update.
WHEREAS, the City of Pasco is in the process of updating the City's Comprehensive
Plan as required by RCW 36.70a.130; and,
WHEREAS, the City of Pasco must complete the Comprehensive Plan update process
by the end of June 2018; and,
WHEREAS, RCW 36.70a.130 requires the City of Pasco establish a public participation
program or plan for involving the public in the planning process; and,
WHEREAS, the last public participation plan was prepared for the 2008 Comprehensive
Plan update; and,
WHEREAS, the Pasco Planning Commission held a public hearing on January 18, 2018
to review a public participation plan for the 2018 Comprehensive Plan update; and,
WHEREAS, having reviewed the Public Participation Plan to be used as guide for
updating the City of Pasco Comprehensive Plan and finding said plan establishes a clear public
involvement process including a process for the dissemination of information, the Planning
Commission hereby accepts said plan attached to this Resolution as the guide for the 2018 plan
update; and, NOW THEREFORE,
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PASCO PLANNING COMMISSION:
Section 1. That the Public Participation Plan attached hereto and labelled Exhibit # 1
and to be included as Appendix II of the 2018 Comprehensive Plan is hereby accepted
and adopted for the purposes of updating the City's Comprehensive Plan.
Passed by the Pasco Planning Commission this 18th day of January 2018.
Chairman
David McDonald, Secretary
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Leland B. Kerr, City Attorney
IrtoppVTOM
Parficipation
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PLAN
City of Pasco
2018 Comprehensive Plan
1. INTRODUCTION
In 2018 Pasco will update its Comprehensive Plan and Development Regulations to ensure
consistency with the State Growth Management Act (RCW 36.70A). Periodic review and update
of the City's Comprehensive Plan and Development Regulations is necessary to reflect current
law, local needs, new data, correct errors, and or clarify intent. The update is required to be
completed by June 30, 2018.
This document provides the procedural framewor
Urban Growth Boundary and the public in general
and Development Regulations as mandated by the
RCW 36.70A.130 (4).
This public participation plan is intended to:
k for involving residents within the Pasco
in efforts to update the Comprehensive Plan
State Growth Management Act (GMA) in
• Establish a clear public involvement process that provides information to the
public on the Comprehensive Plan update process;
• Include broad public participation from interested agencies, organizations,
groups and individuals;
• Establish public meetings for the purpose of sharing information on the
Comprehensive Plan update process and receiving comments, ideas, and
public suggestions related thereto;
• Establish a process, if needed, for public involvement for individuals or
groups that may have scheduling conflicts with established public meeting
times;
• Schedule public meetings in west, central and east Pasco to achieve
convenient opportunities for public involvement in the update process, and:
• Ensure public documents and information are available
1.10 What is the Comprehensive Plan?
Pasco's Comprehensive Plan is an expression of community goals and desires formalized
in a document adopted by the City Council. The Comprehensive Plan contains various
goals and policies along with supporting information necessary to guide decision making
related to the general health, welfare, safety and quality of life of current and future Pasco
residents. The fundamental purpose of the Plan is to manage urban growth and land use
within the Urban Growth Boundary.
1.20 What are development regulations?
Development Regulations include zoning and subdivision regulations, master shorelines
regulations, critical lands regulations and any other set of regulations designed to protect
the general health, safety and welfare of the community while regulating land use.
Development regulations are used to implement the goals and policies of the
Comprehensive Plan.
2. SCOPE OF REVIEW
The following vision statement that was included in the 2008 Comprehensive Plan will
continued to be used to guide the 2018 update process. The vision statement is highlighted
below.
Pasco Vision for 2038
Located along the north shore of the Columbia River, Pasco is the major service
center for the ever expanding agricultural industrial region of the Columbia Basin.
Our City contains tree lined streets with well-maintained and identifiable
neighborhoods interspersed with neighborhood parks and schools. The City's
infrastructure reflects good planning and public stewardship by being well
maintained and providing acceptable levels of services. Fire stations and police
mini -stations are optimally located throughout the community to provide
exceptional and proactive public safety.
City government activity participates with the Port of Pasco and regional
economic development agencies to expand employment opportunities as well as
the tax base necessary to support needed community services. Our retail and
commercial service centers are attractive and inviting areas clustered near
intersections of major arterial streets.
Pasco is the multi -modal hub of southeastern Washington with flourishing
industrial development along key transportation nodes including rail, air, barge,
truck and pipelines.
All residents of the city are afforded access to the Columbia River. Pasco is
oriented toward and connected with the River through parks, pathways, bikeways,
boats launches and docks.
The following Elements of the Comprehensive Plan, Background Information and Development
Regulations will be reviewed under the 2018 Comprehensive Plan Review and Update:
1. General and Administrative Goals
2. Land Use Element
3. Housing Element
4. Capital Facilities Element and Program
5. Utilities & Community Facilities Element
6. Transportation Element and Program
7. Open Space
8. Public Services
9. Critical Areas/Shorelines
10.OFM Population Projections
11. Urban Growth Boundary
12. Development regulations such as zoning and subdivision
13. Other items as may be required to meet the intent of the Growth Management Act
3. WORK PROGRAM FOR THE 2018 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
The Comprehensive Plan Compliance Review and Update Program will result in:
1. An update of the Comprehensive Plan for consistency with the GMA; and,
2. Revised development regulations as needed for compliance with GMA and to improve
their consistency with the Plan.
4. UPDATE SCHEDULE
The Compliance Review Update schedule will consist of phases generally following the outline
below:
PHASE
Date
Completed
1. Review GMA Regulations Comprehensive Plan and Development Regulations to
Jan -March 2018
identify inconsistencies
II. Review background and supporting information contained in the Comprehensive
Jan- March 2018
Plan
111. Review goals and policies of the various Plan Elements.
Jan - March
2018
IV. Draft any needed changes to the Plan Elements
April - May
2018
V. Draft any needed changes to the Development Regulations
April - May
2018
V. Review Land Use Map
April
2018
VI. Planning Commission Workshops & Public Hearings
Dec 2017 -May
2018
V. Final legislative action: City Council Ordinance adopting updates and revisions
June
as needed
2018
5. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
RCW 36.70A.130 (2) (a) requires local governments to establish a public participation program
for the review and update of comprehensive plans and development regulations. In establishing a
public participation program the City of Pasco must ensure the following:
1) That notice of the update process is broadly and effectively disseminated (RCW
36.70A.035).
2) That the notice identifies the procedures and schedules by which updates will be
considered.
3) That the program provides for early and continuous public participation (RCW
36.70A.140).
The goal of this public participation plan is to provide the public with timely information and
opportunities to review and comment on proposed updates and revisions to the plan and
regulations before they are made. To that end the City of Pasco will encourage contact and
involvement from and with the following groups:
• The general public
• Property owners
• The City Council and Planning Commission
• Franklin County Commission and Planning Commission
• Local, state and federal agencies with interest in Pasco
• Business organization and other non-governmental groups
• Tribes
• Utility and transportation providers
• Media
The City of Pasco will communicate with the public throughout the duration of the
Comprehensive Plan update process to ensure the broad groups listed above are provided
information and have opportunities to participate in the update process. Communications may
include the following:
Press Releases: The City's Communications Manager will issue periodic press
releases throughout the update process to inform the public of mile stones in the
update process.
4
Mailings and Public Notices: Notices of meetings and hearings and or other
events will be posted on the City's Website, posted on City's main Bulletin
Board at the City Hall and published in the Tri -City Herald. Notices will also be
mailed to each dwelling unit and business within the City's water service area
with the monthly utility bills. Efforts will be made to provide notices in English
and Spanish.
Website Postings: All notices of meetings and hearings and agendas' will be
posted on the City's Website (www.pasco-wa.gov). All maps, documents,
reports and update information will be available on the Website. Information on
the Website will be updated as information becomes available.
Comment Forms: Comment forms will be available at the City Hall and on the
Website.
Written Comments: The City will accept written comments throughout the
duration of the update process. Comments may be submitted by letter, in person
or by email. Email addresses for comments sent electronically can be found
under Section 9 below.
6. HOW CAN CITIZENS GET INVOLVED?
Opportunities for public involvement will be provided throughout the 2018 Comprehensive Plan
and Development Regulation update process. Residents are encouraged to actively participate in
the project by attending public meetings, workshops, and hearings of the Planning Commission
and City Council, visiting the City's website (www.pasco-wa.gov) or by contacting planning
staff.
The City will use a variety of methods to inform the public about public meetings, availability of
planning documents and reports, and important milestones related to the Update process
including, but not limited to the following:
6.1 City Council Meetings:
The Pasco City Council meets in regular session on the first and third Mondays of each
month. Council workshops are held on the second and fourth Mondays. All meetings are
held at 7:00 pm in the City Council Chambers at 525 North Third Ave. in Pasco
6.2 Planning Commission Meetings:
The Planning Commission is the responsible citizen board that advises the City Council on
Comprehensive Plan and land use issues. Accordingly, the Planning Commission will be
the primary source of public involvement in guiding the 2018 Review and Update Program.
The Planning Commission meets the third Thursday of every month at 7:00 pm in the City
Council Chambers at 525 North Third Avenue in Pasco.
g
6.3 Public Meetings:
In addition to the City Council and Planning Commission's meetings and hearings, the Planning Staff
will conduct public meetings around the community to receive public comment on Comprehensive Plan
issues. These public meetings will be scheduled for the following locations:
• West Pasco Mid -Columbia Library (Wrigley & Rd 76)
• Kurtzman Park Community Mini -Station (333 S Wehe Ave)
• City Hall (525 N 3`d Ave.)
6.4 Public Hearings:
All public hearings scheduled before the Planning Commission and City Council will be
held in the City Council Chambers following public notification. All such meetings will
be broadcast live on Public Access channel 191 through Charter Cable. Public notice of
all hearings will be published in the Tri -City Herald and on the City's Web page. The
notice shall give the date, time, location and purpose of the hearing.
6.5 Additional Public Involvement Methods:
In addition to the procedures described above, the City of Pasco may utilize one or more
of the following to increase public involvement in the update process:
Additional meetings: The City may elect to hold additional meetings as needed to
provide information and or to receive comments from the public.
Information Bulletins: The City may prepare short informational bulletins (fact
sheets) to disseminate information to the public.
Access to Planning Staff: City staff will be available to provide information and
answer questions throughout the update process. Planning Staff can be reach at
City Hall. Contact information is provided under Section 9 below.
WRITTEN COMMENTS
Written comments are welcome throughout the update process. Written comments may be
submitted by mail, fax or email to: Pasco Planning Department, P.O. Box 293, Pasco, WA
99301, Fax: (509) 545-3499, Email: mcdonalddnn.nasco-wa.gov oradamsi@pasco-wa.gov
8. NOTIFICATION AND DISSEMINATION OF INFORMATION
Proper notification of all meetings and hearings will be published in the Tri -City Herald. Additionally
news releases announcing public meeting and hearing times, dates and locations will be provided to the
local media including, but not limited to: Tri -City Herald, local television and radio stations, and those
who request to be notified. Notices will also be posted on the City's Website and on the main bulletin
Board at the City Hall. Meeting agendas will be available on the City's Website at www.pasco-wa.gov
9. WHO CAN I CONTACT FOR MORE INFORMATION?
For more information, please contact the Pasco Planning Office:
Dave McDonald, City Planner mcdonaldd@pasco-wa.gov
Jeff Adams, Associate Planner adamsjna pasco-wa.gov
509-545-3441
252 N. P Ave. Pasco WA, 99301