Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-17-2018 Planning Commission Meeting PacketPLANNING COMMISSION - AGENDA REGULAR MEETING I. CALL TO ORDER: II. ROLL CALL: III. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: V. OLD BUSINESS: A. Special Permit B. Preliminary Plat C. Preliminary Plat VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS: A. Preliminary Plat B. Preliminary Plat C. Preliminary Plat 7:00 P.M. May 17, 2018 Declaration of Quorum April 19, 2018 Barbershop with Dwelling Unit on 2nd Floor (Leticia Marin Arroyo) (MF# SP 2018-004) Havencourt Meadows. 27 -lots (Knutzen Engineering) (MF# PP 2018-002) Morehouse Addition, 20 -lots (Kevin Denhoed) (MF# PP 2018-003) Riverhawk Pointe II, 176 -lots (Hayden Homes LLC) (MF# PP 2018-001) - Continued The Parks at Riverbend. 322 lots (Pahlisch Homes) (MF# PP 2018-004) Duluth Estates. 21 lots (Knutzen Engineering (MF# PP 2018-005) D. Special Permit Mor-Stor Mini Storage Expansion (Melina Puckett Successor'h-ustee) (MF# SP 2018-005) E. Zoning Determination Development of a Zoning Recommendation for the Greeno Annexation Area (City of Pasco) (MF# ZD 2018-001) F. Comp. Plan Amendment Urban Growth Boundary (MF# CPA 2018-001) G. Code Amendment Minimum Lot Size (MF# CA 2017-009) H. Code Amendment Homeless Encampments (MF# CA 2018-001) VII, WORKSHOP: VIII. OTHER BUSINESS: IX. ADJOURNMENT: This meeting is broadcast live on PSC -TV Channel 191 on Charter Cable and streamed at www.pasco-wa.com/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 Chairwoman Roach. POSITION MEMBERS PRESENT No. 1 Tanya Bowers No. 2 Joseph Campos No. 3 No. 4 Alecia Greenaway No. 5 No. 6 Isaac Myhrum No. 7 Zahra Roach No. 8 Pam Bykonen No. 9 Gabriel Portugal STAFF PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT Paul Mendez Joe Cruz April 19, 2018 Rick White, Community 8v Economic Development Director Michael Morales, Deputy Community &, Economic Development Director David McDonald, City Planner Darcy Bourcier, Planner I Krystle Shanks, Administrative Assistant II MEETING VIDEO ON DEMAND: This meeting in its entirety has been posted and can be viewed on the City's webpage at https://psetv.viebit.com. APPEARANCE OF FAIRNESS: Chairwoman Roach read a statement about the appearance of fairness for hearings on land use matters. There were no declarations. Chairwoman Roach 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: Chairwoman Roach explained that state law requires testimony in quasi-judicial hearings such as held by the Planning Commission be given under oath or affirmation. Chairwoman Roach swore in all those desiring to speak. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Greenaway moved, seconded by Commissioner Bowers that the minutes -1- dated February 15, 2018 be approved. The motion passed unanimously. OLD BUSINESS: A. Rezone Rezone from R-2 (Medium Density Residential) to R-3 (Medium Density Residential) (Norman Family Cookies LLC) (MF# Z 2018-0011 Chairwoman Roach read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. There were no additional comments from staff on this item and no questions from Commissioners. Commissioner Bowers moved, seconded by Commissioner Greenaway, to adopt findings of fact and conclusions therefrom as contained in the April 19, 2018 staff report. The motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Bowers moved, seconded by Commissioner Greenaway, based on the findings of fact and conclusions as adopted the Planning Commission recommend the City Council rezone the two parcels at the southeast corner of E. Lewis Street and S. Cedar Avenue from R-2 to R-3 as recommended by the Planning Commission. The motion passed unanimously. PUBLIC HEARINGS: A. Special Permit Location of Short -Term Crisis/Emergency Housing (Benton Franklin Community Action Committee] (MF# SP 2018-003) - WITHDRAWN Chairwoman Roach read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director, stated that the applicant had withdrawn this application and it will not be moving forward. B. Special Permit Barbershop with Dwelling Unit on 2nd Floor (Leticia Marin Arroyo) (MF# SP 2018-0041 Chairwoman Roach 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 barbershop with a dwelling unit on the 2nd floor for mixed-use zoning. The site is currently vacant and undeveloped. The PMC allows dwelling units in C-1 zones on the 2nd floor of an active business through the special permit process. The surrounding the site contains residential and commercial lots so the use is congruent with the neighborhood and consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. There were no public comments and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Bykonen stated that she was happy to see new construction for mixed -2- use. Chairwoman Roach agreed with Commissioner Bykonen. Commissioner Greenaway moved, seconded by Commissioner Bowers, to close the public hearing on the proposed special permit and set May 17, 2018 as the date for deliberations and the development of a recommendation for the City Council. The motion passed unanimously. C. Preliminary Plat Riverhawk Pointe II. 176 -lots (Hayden Homes LLQ (MF# PP 2018-0011 Chairwoman Roach read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Dave McDonald, City Planner, discussed the preliminary plat application for Riverhawk Pointe II, 176 -lots to be located directly east of Elementary School #16 along Road 84. That school is actually in the process of being permitted at this time. The site is also located directly north of the FCID irrigation canal and Chiawana High School which is just below the canal. The Planning Commission has reviewed a preliminary plat to the northwest and to the west of this site and this proposal is a continuation of the other plats previously reviewed. This property was a part of the DNR property that was rezoned a few years ago and recently sold for the purpose of constructing homes. As with all plats within the community, the developer is required to build the adjoining streets and run utilities (water/sewer) to and through the site. The water line is on Road 84 — it will have to be extended but the School District will be completing part of that work. The developer of Chiawana Heights is also bringing the water over to Road 80. The major sewer line is on the south side of the property and was installed along the canal roughly 15 years ago, so the sewer will have to be extended from that point. Road 76 will have to be built on the developer's side of the plat. A concern in this case is a crossing over the irrigation canal. As the property develops in the area, all four corners will be required to cover the costs to go over the canal. Commissioner Bowers asked if Campbell Lane would go through the property to the site to the north. Mr. McDonald said that was correct although the name of the street has changed. Commissioner Bowers asked if Massey Drive would go through to something else. Mr. McDonald said that Massey Drive will connect to Road 84 and will connect with Road 76 and eventually connect with Valley View Drive/Valley View Place cul-de-sac. Once it is connected, people will be able to drive all the way through Road 68 to Road 84. Chairwoman Roach asked for clarification about a "vision triangle". Mr. McDonald replied that there are often problems with utility providers that like to place cabinets on the corner of streets and they block vision. t9l Brian Thoreson, Hayden Homes, 2464 SW Glacier Avenue, Redmond, OR, spoke on behalf of his application. He was in agreement with the tentative approval conditions except for two of them. They had concerns about 25% of the canal crossing as it is an open checkbook since there is not cost associated with the 25% at this time and no way to budget for this amount. They also need to know when this is to be built and by whom — the City or developer. He wanted a cost estimate to build the crossing over the canal. Chairwoman Roach asked if Staff could speak to those costs. Mr. McDonald stated that there wasn't a cost estimate but they could look at the crossing that AHO Construction put in at Road 84 with their subdivision to the northwest. AHO Construction paid 100% of that crossing which involved a culvert to go over the canal and the placement of a large pipe to be used to connect underground pipe. Hayden Homes could have their design engineer put together a cost estimate. Another option is to sign an LID agreement and have the City would complete the work but then the developer would be required to pay 25% of that cost, which could be more than if the developer does the work themselves. Mr. Thoreson addressed further concerns with costs and other unknown variables making it difficult to agree with the conditions in the staff report. Mr. McDonald advised that it may be best if the Planning Commission continued the public hearing to the next meeting in order to give the applicant and staff the opportunity to work out the issues. Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director, explained to the Commissioners about the issues involving the entire DNR property and discussed the process of the LID that the City has formed to address those issues. He also stated that the applicant would have another chance aside from the current platting process to protest fees associated with the LID. Chairwoman Roach asked the applicant if Mr. White's explanation helped. Mr. Thoreson said yes and that continuing the public hearing would allow for him to meet with staff. Jason Maddox, PBS Engineering & Environmental, 400 Bradley Blvd. Suite 106, Richland, WA spoke on this item as the engineer for the applicant. He briefly discussed the technical terms of this project and addressed the canal crossing. Commissioner Greenaway moved, seconded by Commissioner Bowers, to approve the amended recommendation and continue the public hearing until the May 17, 2018 Planning Commission Meeting. The motion passed unanimously. D. Preliminary Plat Havencourt Meadows. 27 -lots (Knutzen Eniineerin¢) (MF# PP 2018-002) Chairwoman Roach read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. U Darcy Bourcier, Planner I, discussed the preliminary plat application for Havencourt Meadows, 27 -lots. The site is zoned RS -20 and would require 20,000 sqft minimum lot sizes. The smallest proposed lot in this plat would be 23,000 sqft. This plat includes 18 acres located between Road 56 and Road 60. The area was annexed into the City in 2013 and has been used for agriculture. An estate fence will be required along Court Street but there will be no room for landscaping so only a sidewalk will be required. There is no sewer available so the homes will be on septic systems, however the Comprehensive Sewer Plan does indicate that there will eventually be a lift station on Road 56 sometime in the future. If that's the case and the homeowner's get a utility waiver, with a condition that they may have to participate in a future LID to install sewer if it's made available with that sewer station. Commissioner Bowers asked for clarification on some of the parcels on the plat. Ms. Bourcier provided clarification. Chairwoman Roach asked for clarification on the lift station nearby. Ms. Bourcier responded that there is not a lift station at this time but there is one proposed in the Comprehensive Sewer Plan but there is no indication on when that will be. Commissioner Myhrum asked why the density in the proposal is much less than what the Comprehensive Plan calls for and what ramifications would that have. Ms. Bourcier replied that he was correct and that the City would probably benefit from a greater density in that area due to its location off of Court Street, a major arterial. The Comprehensive Plan has the area as mixed -residential with 5-20 dwelling units per acre. The City would allow denser development and the area would likely benefit from that. Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director, added that there are several things going on. The Comprehensive Plan has this area as higher density, the existing zoning, however, is RS -20. That is because there aren't utility services - there isn't sewer available. This is a problem the City will be up against every time the former Riverview Area is platted. There will be many plats with 5-12 lots and will likely be zoned RS -20 because that was the commitment given to the citizens when it was annexed years ago to maintain the rural character. As time goes by, this will be something the Commissioners will have to keep an eye on because with the growth and projections estimated for the City, it will be hard to find room for 50,000 new citizens. The more people that can be placed in areas like this, right in the middle of town, the better off the City will be. It's particularly problematic that the density is only 1 1/2 units per aces for this particular plat. It is a problem and it will be repeated unless there is a wholesale zoning campaign to make denser zoning in the Riverview Island Area which is very unlikely. Michael Morales, Deputy Community & Economic Development Director, added on the topic of maintaining the "rural character". He stated that rural character is what is found in Benton City or West Richland - 1 to 3 acres. When there is a subdivision, that -5- is no longer rural character, it is an urban area and urban standards need apply. Otherwise you will have problems years down the road when future developers want to split up the parcels and develop and you may have flag lots or panhandle lots, etc. Nathan Machiela, 5453 Ridgeline Drive, Kennewick, WA spoke on his application. He was in agreement with the approval conditions. He addressed the issues brought up with the density. The previous owner of this projects had owned the property for over 10 years and was hoping to do some multi-family/commercial development in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan. Developers would love to maximize the amount of lots on a property but unfortunately, the City is not in the position to install the sanitary sewer all the way to the project, nor are they in a condition to install the sanitary sewer lift station that would be required to serve the property. If the City wants denser development in this area, there would have to be steps the City would have to take in order to prepare the infrastructure to serve the property. The cost would be too prohibitive for the developer to put in this infrastructure. Chairwoman Roach addressed the density issues and history of the Riverview Area. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Greenaway stated that the Planning Commission did make a promise to keep the Riverview Area as rural as possible. Commissioner Bowers moved, seconded by Commissioner Greenaway, to close the public hearing on the proposed preliminary plat and set May 17, 2018 as the date for deliberations and the development of a recommendation for the City Council. The motion passed unanimously. E. Preliminary Plat Morehouse Addition. 20 -lots (Kevin Denhoed) (MF# PP 2018-0031 Chairwoman Roach read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Dave McDonald, City Planner, discussed the preliminary plat application for Morehouse Addition, 20 -lots. This is a plat for a small 4.5 acre plat located at the southwest corner of Road 36 and West Pearl directly east of the Mark Twain Elementary School. This is an infill type of development within the whole "donut hole". In this case, however, sewer service is available. Sewer was put in with an LID back in the 1990's and because of that, the surrounding properties were zoned R-1, single-family residential with minimum lot sizes of 7,200 sqft. The developer plans to develop this into 20 lots. There isn't much they can do in respect to design so they plan to run a cul-de-sac down the middle which creates a row of double -frontage lots, which isn't ideal when it backs up to a local access street. In this case, Pearl is a local access street and it may look odd so there will need to be a fence. That could create some difficulties with sidewalk and landscaping. Staff is recommending the area behind the wall/fence be treated with a 7' sidewalk and the balance of the area with stamped concrete. The applicant was not present to speak on the proposed plat. 002 Barbara Hayne, 3621 W. Pearls Street, discussed her concerns about the proposed plat in regards to parking, traffic and tight spaces. She had questions for staff that Mr. McDonald answered. With no further questions or comments the public hearing closed. Commissioner Bowers voiced concern with parking and asked if there have been any complaints regarding parking in the neighborhood to the south that staff was aware of. Mr. McDonald replied none that he was aware of. Commissioner Portugal moved, seconded by Commissioner Bowers, to close the public hearing on the proposed preliminary plat and set May 17, 2018 as the date for deliberations and the development of a recommendation for the City Council. The motion passed unanimously. WORKSHOP: A. Comp. Plan Amendment Urban Growth Boundary Chairwoman Roach read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Dave McDonald, City Planner, discussed the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment pertaining to the Urban Growth Boundary. This year, the City is required to update the Comprehensive Plan and a major part of that update involves creating a new urban growth boundary and developing a land use map for the new urban growth boundary and then the existing boundary. The State Department of the Office of Financial Management (OFM) has provided a population estimate for the County that indicates Pasco could see 50,148 additional residents by 2038. In the State of Washington, local jurisdictions are required to use the OFM population projections for all planning purposes. The City can't chose to use their own projections. With that, if the household population of 3.728 persons per household, that translates into 15,298 new dwelling units. Because of the population projections given by the State, the City is required to plan for an additional 15,298 homes. To put that into perspective, the City of Richland is 55,000. To add nearly a city of 55,000 to Pasco, the city limits will need to expand roughly 11 square miles. Mr. McDonald discussed into further the details of meeting the growth and demand in Pasco, the Growth Management Act, the types of residential the City has and the ways the City can meet the demands. He explained how the proposed new boundary lines were developed, including land that wasn't included due to being undevelopable near the airport with restrictions in the Airport Overlay Zone. Since this proposed boundary has been viewed by the public, some property owners have contacted Staff stating they would like to be included in the urban growth boundary but there have also been request to not be included in the urban growth boundary. There have been requests to change land use and density in certain areas of the city as well. Mr. McDonald stated that this would come back as a public hearing at the next meeting -7- and then a recommendation would be forwarded to the Franklin County Commissioners as they are the authorized body that can establish urban boundaries per State law. Commissioner Greenaway stated that she was happy to see space near the airport left out of the proposed boundary as it will be important for growth of the airport. Chairwoman Roach asked if there was a priority as to what land gets designated, such as land for homes or commercial. Mr. McDonald responded that the bulk of the land needed will be for single-family. There are currently enough multi -family designated lots in the current urban growth boundary. Chairwoman Roach and Mr. McDonald had some discussion back and forth regarding the property adjacent to the airport. While this was a workshop item and not a public hearing, some members of the public were given a chance to speak: Paul Miles, Manager for Rio Del Sol Randy Mullen, Property Owner Gary Ballew, Port of Pasco Buck Taft, Tri -Cities Airport James Carmody, Meyer. Fluegge & Tenny P.S. Dave Wilson, Property Owner Eric Weinheimer, Ag Com Real Estate LLC There was discussion between the members of the public, staff and the Planning Commission. This item was scheduled to come back as a public hearing at the May Planning Commission Meeting. OTHER BUSINESS: Commissioner Greenaway made mention of the Short Course in Planning that she attended on April 16, 2018 and also welcomed new Commissioner, Isaac Myhrum. With no further discussion or business, the Planning Commission was adjourned at 9:04 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Krystle Shanks, Administrative Assistant II in REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION MASTER FILE NO: SP 2018-004 HEARING DATE: 4/19/2018 ACTION DATE: 5/17/2018 APPLICANT: Leticia Marin Arroyo 3324 W 1911, Ave TRL# 37 Kennewick, WA 99338 REQUEST: SPECIAL PERMIT: Location of a dwelling unit on the second floor of a barber shop in a C-1 zoning district. 1. Legal: Lots 25 & 26, Block 10, Gerry's Addition General Location: 613 W Clark St Property Size: 7,000 square feet 2. ACCESS: The site is accessible from W Clark St and an alley that connects 5th Ave and 6th Ave. 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) and does not contain any structures. Surrounding properties are zoned and developed as follows: NORTH: R-1 - SFDUs SOUTH: R-2 - Commercial EAST: C-1 - SFDU, commercial WEST: C-1 - SFDU, commercial 5. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The Comprehensive Plan designates this area as commercial. The plan does not specifically address the location of residences above the ground level in the commercial zones; however policies of the plan can be applied to this situation. Policy H -1-A encourages the location of medium density residential uses near shopping and employment centers. Policy H -2-A suggests a full range of housing environments should be provided. This plan also suggests that residential use should be in close proximity to the downtown area to support the service related business of the core. 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 1 Non -Significance (DNS) has been issued for this project under WAC 197- 11-158. ANALYSIS The applicant is seeking a special permit to allow a dwelling unit on the second floor of a proposed barber shop. The Pasco Municipal Code (PMC) 25.42.040 [1] contains a provision allowing dwelling units on the second floor of commercial buildings in C-1 zones with special permit approval. The PMC also requires that the main floor of the building be designed or intended for a use permitted within the C-1 zone. In the C-1 zone, a building may be used as a motel (short-term occupancy) or a commercial/ office building. Motel/hotel use requires a state license, which enables the State of Washington to collect taxes on transient rental income. According to the Washington Department of Revenue, "transient rental income is income received from any guest, resident, or other occupant to whom lodging and other services are furnished under a license to use real property for less than 30 continuous days." However, for long-term residential use the applicant must obtain a Special Permit, obtain a City of Pasco rental dwelling license, and residential units may not be located on the ground floor. The applicant plans on creating six parking spaces designated for the barber shop and the dwelling unit on the second floor. At its maximum, the barber shop may generate only approximately 5 vehicle trips at its peak hour on Saturdays. The first floor will contain the barber shop space, a break room, and a bathroom, and the upper floor dwelling unit will contain three bedrooms, two bathrooms, a kitchen, and a dining room. Considering that residentially - zoned lots are located in the general vicinity, this use conforms to the character of the neighborhood. 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. Office, retail, and motel uses may all be located in C-1 zones. 3. The site is currently an empty lot. P 4. The applicant intends to construct a barber shop with a dwelling unit on the second floor. 5. Residential uses other than short -duration hotel/motel occupancies are allowed in.commercial zones only with a Special Permit and only above the first floor 6. Six parking spaces will be created. 7. It is estimated that the use will generate around 5 vehicle trips at peak hour on Saturdays. 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 site is designated for commercial uses by the Comprehensive Plan. The plan does not specifically address the location of dwelling units within the C-1 zone, however policies of the plan suggest that residential use should be in close proximity to the downtown area to support the service related business of the core. (2) Will the proposed use adversely affect public infrastructure? The demands of this proposal on the public infrastructure are negligible in comparison to the demands of the allowed uses in the area. The required municipal utilities are sized to accommodate demands of a greater intensity than this proposal will place upon the systems. (3) Will the proposed use be constructed, maintained and operated to be in harmony with existing or intended character of the general vicinity? Barber shops are permitted uses in C-1 zones. The use will not disrupt the character of the vicinity. (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 constructing a building 24 feet tall, which is permitted according to the PMC. 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 proposal is less intensive than many of the uses permitted in the C-1 zoning district and would generate far less noise, light, glare and other permitted uses. (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? A residence located in this commercial area is much less intensive than most uses allowed in the C-1 district. There is little chance the use will become a nuisance. APPROVAL CONDITIONS 1) The special permit shall apply to 613 W Clark Street (Parcel #112054385) 2) A 10 -foot landscaping strip of 65% live vegetation must be installed along the front property line adjacent to W Clark Street. 3) A maximum of one (1) dwelling unit on the second floor shall be permitted; 4) The special permit shall be null and void if a City of Pasco building permit has not been obtained by December 31, 2019. MOTION for Findings of Fact: I move to adopt Findings of Fact and Conclusions therefrom as contained in the May 17, 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 Leticia Marin Arroyo for the location of a dwelling unit on the second floor of a barber shop in a C-1 zoning district at 613 W Clark St with conditions as contained in the May 17, 2018 staff report. E z Me o N 37 .� o v o o Mint �y v MF. thMe SFpv ct Q .ct O c9 W U F o CWIG a, M• ct L u Me • • .--� \v V O LL M U cn N Fay' LO N ��rPve to N N O 0 Z cu O C) N c, N —77 7i V � o Pve ti � � m c� Cto m w U -Z00 F_ ar--q Lon 0 �-+ N •U • --� oLL CU TOM P e U N (o v cv M Ln O N O � � N N N�tr Pve N O O T /-,7c;/7,6 " Qss-wd. /cam ;gip x v/o ¢ /� im ice..' ,h�•£� ,£�f7�`s! � i c i i f{" E! e� h x a 0 I i r � t 71f � all r./ f , f., �NL�wF � �� y� ✓ I. -�!':3 +tSEL°B�i .. 1"syL'FIC:'f. i (-- -r Fl I t f k FL F �9 REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION MASTER FILE NO: PP 2018-002 HEARING DATE: 4/19/2018 ACTION DATE: 5/17/2018 APPLICANT: Knutzen Engineering 5453 Ridgeline Dr, Ste 120 Kennewick, WA 99338 REQUEST: Preliminary Plat: Havencourt Meadows, (27 -Lot Single -Family Subdivision). 1. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: Legal: Portion of the South half of the Southwest quarter of the Southeast quarter of Section 22, Township 9 North, Range 29 East, W.M. General Location: Between Road 56 and Road 60 north of W Court St Property Size: 17.98 Acres Number of Lots Proposed: 27 single-family lots Square Footage Range of Lots: 22,974 ft2 to 30,230 ft2 Average Lot Square Footage: 24,087 ft2 2. ACCESS: The property will have access from Road 56 and Road 60. 3. UTILITIES: Water service is located in W Court St, Road 56, and Road 60. City sewer is not available in the area. 4. LAND USE AND ZONING: The site is zoned RS -20 (Suburban Residential). Surrounding properties are zoned and developed as follows: NORTH: RS -20 - SFDUs and Pastures SOUTH: RS -20 - SFDUs EAST: RS -20 - SFDUs and Pastures WEST RS -20 - SFDUs 5. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The Comprehensive Plan indicates the site is intended for mixed -residential and mixed -residential commercial development. According to the Comprehensive Plan, mixed -residential development means 5 to 20 dwelling units per acre, and mixed - residential commercial allows for commercial uses interspersed with residential. 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 residential uses in locations suitable for home sites, convenient to major circulation routes, and when 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. I Goal LU -2 encourages the maintenance of established neighborhoods and the creation of new neighborhoods that are safe and enjoyable places to live. 6. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Based on the SEPA checklist, the adopted City Comprehensive Plan, City development regulations, testimony at the public hearing and other information, a Determination of Non -Significance (DNS) has been issued for this project (WAC 197-11- 355). ANALYSIS The project site is located between Roads 56 and 60 just north of W Court St; it includes approximately 18 acres and, when finished, will create 27 new single- family lots zoned RS -20. All lots will be over 22,000 square feet in size. The applicant is seeking preliminary plat approval in preparation for the development of this single-family subdivision. The site was annexed into the City in 2013 when it was designated an RS -20 zoning district. Currently, there are six parcels making up the project site that have been previously used for agriculture. While there are no structures located on these six parcels, there is a single house in its own parcel located within the project site that has an address on W Court St. The preliminary plat will not include this parcel. The proposed plat will provide additional lots within the Urban Growth Area (UGA) for single-family homes consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. LOT LAYOUT: The proposed plat contains 27 residential lots. The lots vary in size from 22,974 square feet to 30,230 square feet. The average lot size is 24,087 square feet. The proposal is consistent with the density requirements of the RS -20 zoning on the site. The minimum lot size for the RS -20 zone is 20,000 square feet. However, given the proposed location on a major arterial road, a greater residential density may be more appropriate. RIGHTS-OF-WAY: All lots have frontage on streets which will be dedicated. This project includes the development of a road connecting Road 56 to Road 60 in addition to two cul-de-sacs. UTILITIES: Municipal water service will need to be extended through the site to connect to the water service in Roads 56 and 60. The nearest sewer line to the site is located 2,350 feet to the south in Sylvester Street. However, the Comprehensive Sewer Plan indicates eight inch sewer lines are to be installed in both Road 56 and Road 60. These lines will drain north (not south) to a 2 future lift station that will be located on Road 56 about 1,700 north of Court Street. The Benton -Franklin Health District is scheduled to test the site during the third week of April to determine septic tank conditions. The overall number of lots within the plat could change slightly but the street layout will remain the same. The developer will be required to obtain all Heath District's approval prior to construction on the plat similar to receive engineering department approval for sewer line extensions prior to construction activities. Ordinance 4229 establishing sewer wavier conditions found in PMC 16.040 recognized certain areas within the City do not readily have access to sewer service (Lines more than 200 feet away) or functioning lift station. In these situations home construction is permitted provide a waiver to the sewer connection requirement is granted. Waivers are typically granted under a list of conditions including participation in future sewer LID'S. The City Engineer will determine the specific placement of fire hydrants and streetlights when construction plans are submitted. As a general rule, fire hydrants are located at street intersections and with a maximum interval of 500 feet between hydrants on alternating sides of the street. Streetlights are located at street intersections, with a maximum interval of less than 300 feet on residential streets, and with a maximum interval of 150 feet on arterial streets. The intervals for street light placements are measure along the centerline of the road. Street lights are placed on alternating sides of the street. STREET NAMES: The proposed street names have been labeled on the plat. IRRIGATION: The municipal code requires the installation of irrigation lines as part of the infrastructure improvements. The owner/developer shall be required to comply with RCW 5817.310, including the installation of infrastructure for the delivery of irrigation water to each of the newly formed lots. WATER RIGHTS: The assignment of water rights is a requirement for subdivision approval per Pasco Municipal Code Section 26.04.115(B) and Section 3.07.160. If no water rights are available to transfer to the City the property owner/developer must pay a water right fee in lieu thereof. FINDINGS OF FACT State law (RCW 58.17.010) and the Pasco Municipal Code require the Planning Commission to develop Findings of Fact as to how this proposed subdivision will protect and enhance the health, safety and general welfare of the community. The following is a listing of proposed "Findings of Fact:" 3 Prevent Overcrowding: Density requirements of the RS -20 zone are designed to address overcrowding concerns. The Comprehensive Plan suggests the property in question be developed with 5 to 20 dwelling units per acre. The proposed Plat has a density of approximately 1.5 units per acre. Considering this, a greater residential density may be better suited for this location, especially since W Court St is a major arterial. No more than 40 percent of each lot is permitted to be covered with structures per the RS -20 standards. Parks Opens Space/Schools: There are no City parks in the immediate vicinity however. A park impact fee will be assessed at the time permits are issued for each house in the subdivision to help cover the cost of future parks. The City is required by RCW 58.17.110 to make a finding that adequate provisions are being made to ameliorate the impacts of the proposed subdivision on the School District. At the request of the School District the City enacted a school impact fee in 2012. The imposition of this impact fee addresses the requirement to ensure there are adequate provisions for schools. A school impact fee in the amount of $4,700 will be charged for each new dwelling unit at the time of building permit issuance. Effective Land Use/Orderly Development: The plat is laid out for single- family development which is permitted in the Comprehensive Plan. The maximum density permitted under the mixed -residential designation according to the Comprehensive Plan is 20 dwelling units per acre. The developer is proposing a density of 1.5 units per acre. This is well under the minimum number of dwelling units per acre, and Staff believes the site may be better utilized with a greater residential density. 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 a looped water system meeting City standards. However, the lift station and other infrastructure necessary to provide sewer to the property does not yet exists and is not included in the current Capital Improvement Plan. Ordinance 4229 recognized there were situations in recently annexed areas were sewer service was not readily available and provisions were made in said ordinance for waiver procedures. The developers will need to bind the property and future owners to participation in future LID'S for sewer line 4 construction in the neighborhood. A non -protest agreement will be needed prior to final plat approval. Provision of Housing for State Residents: This Preliminary Plat contains 27 residential building lots, providing an opportunity for the construction of 27 new dwelling units in Pasco. Adequate Air and Light: The maximum lot coverage limitations, building height restrictions and building setbacks will assure that adequate movement of air and light is available to each lot. Proper Access & Travel: The streets through and adjoining the Plat will be paved and developed to City standards to assure proper access is maintained to each lot. Connections to the community will be provided by Roads 56 and 60. 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 mixed -residential and mixed -residential commercial development. Policies of the Comprehensive Plan encourage the advancement of home ownership and suggest the City strive to maintain a variety of housing for residents. Other Findings: • The site is within the Pasco Urban Growth Boundary. • The State Growth Management Act requires urban growth and urban densities to occur within the Urban Growth Boundaries. • The site is relatively flat. • The site is currently vacant. • The site is not considered a critical area, a mineral resource area or a wetland. • The Comprehensive Plan identifies the site for mixed -residential and mixed -residential commercial development. • Mixed -residential development is described in the Comprehensive Plan as five to twenty dwelling units per acre. • The site is zoned RS -20 (Suburban Residential). • The developer is proposing 1.5 dwelling units per acre. • The minimum number of dwelling units per acre is 5 according to the Comprehensive Plan. • The Housing Element of the Comprehensive Plan encourages the advancement of programs that promote home ownership and development of a variety of residential densities and housing types. 5 • The Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan encourages the interconnection of neighborhood streets to provide for the disbursement of traffic. • The interconnection of neighborhood streets is necessary for utility connections (looping) and the provision of emergency services. • Per the ITE Trip Generation Manual 8th Addition the proposed subdivision, when fully developed, will generate approximately 270 vehicle trips per day. • The current traffic impact fee is $709 per dwelling unit. The impact fees are collected at the time permits are issued and said fees are used to make traffic improvements and add traffic signals in the I-182 Corridor when warranted. • The current park impact fee is $1,420 per dwelling unit. The fee can be reduced by 58 percent if a developer dedicates a five acre park site to the City. The dedication of a fully constructed park reduces the fee by 93 percent. • RCW 58.17.110 requires the City to make a finding that adequate provisions have been made for schools before any preliminary plat is approved. • The City of Pasco has adopted a school impact fee ordinance compelling new housing developments to provide the School District with mitigation fees. The fee was effective April 16, 2012. • Past correspondence from the Pasco School District indicates impact fees address the requirement to ensure adequate provisions are made for schools. • Plat improvements within the City of Pasco are required to comply with the 2015 Standard Drawings and Specification as approved by the City Engineer. These improvements include but are not limited to water, sewer and irrigation lines, streets, street lights and storm water retention. The handicapped -accessible pedestrian ramps are completed with the street and curb improvements prior to final plat approval. Sidewalks are installed at the time permits are issued for new houses, except sidewalks along major streets, which are installed with the street improvements. • Water lines and fire hydrants are required to be looped. • Per PMC 12.36.050 the developer must extend all utilities to and through the subject parcel or obtain a waiver for sewer line installation as provided in Ordinance 4229. In this case sewer service for the property must mostly flow to the north away from Court Street to a future lift station on Road 56. None of the necessary infrastructure to the north of property including the lift station exists. The Comprehensive Sewer Plan indicates eight inch sewer lines are to be installed in both Road 56 and Road 60 flowing north. These lines are to drain north (not south) to a z future lift station that will be located on Road 56 about 1,700 north of Court Street. • Ordinance 4229 establishing sewer wavier conditions found in PMC 16.040 recognized certain areas within the City do not readily have access to sewer service (Lines more than 200 feet away) or functioning lift station. In these situations home construction is permitted provide a waiver to the sewer connection requirement is granted. Waivers are typically granted under a list of conditions including participation in future sewer LID's. • The developer will be required to obtain all Heath District's approval prior to construction on the plat similar to receive engineering department approval for sewer line extensions prior to construction activities. • All engineering designs for infrastructure and final plat(s) drawings are required to utilize the published City of Pasco Vertical Control Datum. • All storm water generated from a developed plat is required to be disposed of per City and State codes and requirements. Prior to the City of Pasco accepting construction plans for review the developer is required to enter into a Storm Water Maintenance Agreement with the City. The developer is responsible for obtaining the signatures of all parties required on the agreement and to have the agreement recorded with the Franklin County Auditor. The original signed and recorded copy of the agreement is presented to the City of Pasco at the intake meeting for construction plans. • Storm water runoff and infiltration calculations must comply with the Storm Water Management Manual for Easter Washington, they must be provided for review and approval. Storm water calculations must be prepared, stamped, signed and dated by a currently licensed Professional Engineer registered in the State of Washington. • The assignment of water rights is a requirement for subdivision approval per Pasco Municipal Code Section 26.04.115(B) and Section 3.07.160. • The developer is responsible for all costs associated with construction, inspection, and plan review service expenses incurred by the City Engineering Office. • The developer is responsible for installing irrigation lines, which shall be installed per City of Pasco Standard Detail 3-1. • The City has nuisance regulations (PMC 9.60) that require property owners (including developers) to maintain their properties in a manner that does not injure, annoy, or endanger the comfort and repose of other property owners. This includes controlling dust, weeds and litter during times of construction for both subdivisions and buildings including houses. • Prior to acceptance of final plats developers are required to prepare and submit record drawings. All record drawings shall be created in accordance with the requirements detailed in the Record Drawing Requirements and Procedure form provided by the Engineering Division. This form must be signed by the developer prior to construction plan approval. • The Benton Franklin Health District has yet to approve this plat as submitted. City approval of the plat will be contingent upon Health District approval. • The final plat will contain 10 -foot utility easements parallel to all streets. Additional easement will be provided as needed by utility providers. • To properly serve the proposed subdivision one or more Pressure reducing valves may be needed. The design and installation of which is typically the responsibility of the developer. CONCLUSIONS BASED ON INITIAL STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT Before recommending approval or denial of the proposed Plat the Planning Commission must develop findings of fact from which to draw its conclusion (P.M.C. 26.24.070) therefrom as to whether or not: (1) Adequate provisions are made for the public health, safety and general welfare and for open spaces, drainage ways, streets, alleys, other public ways, water supplies, sanitary wastes, parks, playgrounds, transit stops, schools and school grounds, sidewalks for safe walking conditions for students and other public needs; The proposed plat will be required to develop under the standards of the Pasco Municipal Code and the standard specifications of the City Engineering Division. These standards for streets, sidewalks, and other infrastructure improvements were designed to ensure the public health; safety and general welfare of the community are secured. These standards include provisions for streets, drainage, water and sewer service and the provision for dedication of right-of-way. The preliminary plat was forwarded to the PUD, the Pasco School District, Cascade Gas, Charter Cable, franklin County Irrigation District and Ben -Franklin Transit Authority for review and comment. The property is located in an area of the City that was annexed in 2013 and currently lacks sewer service. The Comprehensive Sewer Plan indicates eight inch sewer lines are to be installed in both Road 56 and Road 60 flowing north. These lines will drain north (not south) to a future lift station that will be located on Road 56 about 1,700 north of Court Street. None of the sewer infrastructure is currently available. Ordinance 4229 recognized the fact that certain areas of the City do not have sewer service readily available. In this case connection to a sewer system is not physically or economically feasible. Ordinance 4229 contains a waiver process the anticipated development occurring in areas that cannot presently be served by the city's sewer system. 8 The wavier conditions require the property owners to agree to future LID's to construct sewer line through the neighborhood. Signing such an agreement will be a requirement of final plat approval. In addition to insure public health and safety are met the developer must comply with all conditions and requirements for the Benton Franklin Health District for the installation of septic systems. 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. All new developments participate in establishing parks through the payment of park fees at the time of permitting. (2) The proposed subdivision contributes to the orderly development and land use patterns in the area; The proposed Plat makes efficient use of vacant land and will provide for the looping of utilities and interconnectivity of streets as supported in the Comprehensive Plan. (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 mixed -residential and mixed -residential commercial development. Mixed -residential development is described as 5 to 20 dwelling units per acre in the Comprehensive Plan. However, the applicant proposes approximately 1.5 dwelling units per acre, which is well below the minimum. The Housing Element of the Plan encourages the promotion of a variety of residential densities and suggests the community should support the advancement of programs encouraging home ownership. The Transportation Element of the Plan suggests major streets should be beautified with trees and landscaping. The Plan also encourages the interconnection of local streets for inter -neighborhood travel for public safety as well as providing for traffic disbursement. (4) The proposed subdivision conforms to the general purposes of any applicable policies or plans which have been adopted by the City Council; Development plans and policies have been adopted by the City Council in the form of the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed subdivision conforms to the policies, maps and narrative text of the Plan as noted in number three above. (5) The proposed subdivision conforms to the general purposes of the subdivision regulations. E The general purposes of the subdivision regulations have been enumerated and discussed in the staff analysis and Findings of Fact. The Findings of Fact indicate the subdivision is in conformance with the general purposes of the subdivision regulations provided certain mitigation measures (i.e., school impact fees are paid). (6) The public use and interest will be served by approval of the proposed subdivision. The proposed Plat, if approved, will be developed in accordance with all City standards designed to ensure the health, safety and general welfare of the community are met. The Comprehensive Plan will be implemented through development of this Plat. These factors will ensure the public use and interest are served. PLAT APPROVAL CONDITIONS 1. All development activities are subject to the concurrency development standards established in PMC 12.36. 2. All right of way improvements and extensions of City maintained utilities shall conform to the standard specifications of the City of Pasco in place at time of development. 3. All work in the right of way must be designed by a professional engineer licensed in the State of Washington, and are reviewed on a first come first serve basis. 4. No utility vaults, pedestals, or other obstructions will be allowed at street intersections. 5. 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). 6. All utility lines serving the subdivision, including but not limited to power, telephone and television cables shall be installed underground. Adequate easements shall be provided for all such utility lines, which will not be located within the right-of-way. 7. No single driveway shall be wider than 34 feet or 50 percent of the lot frontage; whichever is smaller. (PMC 12.04.100 A.3) The frontage of lots 17, 18, 19, 23, 24, and 25 will be limited to 50 percent of the frontage of each lot. 8. The developer shall install a common "Estate" type fence/wall six -feet in height along W Court St as a part of the infrastructure improvements associated with the plat. The fence/wall must be constructed of masonry block. A fencing detail must be included on the subdivision construction drawings. Consideration must be given to a reasonable vision triangle at 10 the intersection of streets. Following construction of the masonry fence/wall the City may make repairs or replace the fencing as needed. Property owners adjoining said fence shall be responsible for payment of all costs associated with maintenance and upkeep of the fence/wall. These fencing requirements shall be noted clearly on the face of the final plat(s). A concrete mow strip shall be installed under any common fence as directed by the City Parks Division and shall be approved by the Parks Department prior to installation. 9. The sidewalk along Court Street shall be installed as part of the infrastructure improvements. 10. Lots abutting W. Court Street shall not have direct access to said streets. Access shall be prohibited by means of deed restrictions or statements on the face of the final plat(s). 11. The final plat(s) shall contain a 10 -foot utility easement parallel to all streets unless otherwise required by the Franklin County PUD. 12. The final plat(s) shall contain the following Franklin County Public Utility District statement: "The individual or company making improvements on a lot or lots of this Plat is responsible for providing and installing all trench, conduit, primary vaults, secondary junction boxes, and backfill for the PUD's primary and secondary distribution system in accordance with PUD specifications; said individual or company will make full advance payment of line extension fees and will provide all necessary utility easements prior to PUD construction and/or connection of any electrical service to or within the plat." 13. City approval of the plat will be contingent upon Health District approval. MOTION: I move to adopt Findings of Fact and Conclusions therefrom as contained in the May 17, 2018 staff report. MOTION: I move based on the Findings of Fact and Conclusions, as adopted, the Planning Commission recommend the City Council approve the Preliminary Plat for Havencourt Meadows, with conditions as listed in the May 17, 2018 staff report. 11 D)M M ■ •MI a$ of ON q 9-5 C it Gk� a@� nxA a 6¢ ¢ 1 14p1 8 Iia d IRs a c ° i i I I �I w a+ E- W l � i II i+—----————- _+0 a 0 % i i v 1 � R I e � i gg .S! I eg@�a I �i °ee I i I I I M� jar Iw. r pyp-em ww,eu gg q 9-5 C it Gk� a@� nxA a 6¢ ¢ 1 14p1 8 Iia d IRs SL b15] 15 M SMOl1V3W n gpgpg5ffl5gFpY ��8C51p I.. �Ii 1 i i I I �I w I W I I i � i II i+—----————- 14� ' i \ 1 � I e � i gg .S! I eg@�a I °ee I i I I I r Iw. r pyp-em ww,eu SL b15] 15 M SMOl1V3W n gpgpg5ffl5gFpY ��8C51p I.. �Ii 1 •u • 0 c 0 0 buo 0 0 REPORT TO PLANNING MASTER FILE NO: PP 2018-003 HEARING DATE: 4/19/2018 ACTION DATE: 5/17/2018 BACKGROUND APPLICANT: Kevin Denhoed 900nE Reata Rd Kennewick, WA 99338 REQUEST: Preliminary Plat: Morehouse Addition. (20 -Lot Single -Family Subdivision). 1. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: Legal: Portion of the SE Quarter of Section 123, T9N, R29E, WM General Location: SW corner of Road 36 and Pearl Street Property Size: 4.55 Acres Number of Lots Proposed: 20 single-family lots Square Footage Range of Lots: 7,216 ft2 to 9,810 W Average Lot Square Footage: 7,775ft2 2. ACCESS: The property will have access from Road 36. Due to the lot lay out access to Pearl Street will be restricted as the result of common fencing/wall. 3. UTILITIES: Municipal water and sewer service is both Road 36 and Pearl Street. 4. LAND USE AND ZONING: The site is zoned R-1 (Low -Density Residential). Surrounding properties are zoned and developed as follows: NORTH: R -S 12 -Single Family SOUTH: R-1 - Single -Family EAST: R-1 - Vacant WEST R-1 - Mark Twain Elementary School 5. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The Comprehensive Plan indicates the site is intended for low-density residential development. According to the Comprehensive Plan, low-density residential development means 2 to 5 dwelling units per acre. The criteria for allocation under the future land use section of Volume II of the Comprehensive Plan (Vol. II, page 17) encourages development of lands designated for low-density residential uses when or where sewer is available; the location is suitable for home sites; and there is a market demand for new home sites. Policy H -1-E encourages the advancement of home ownership, and Goal H-2 suggests the City strive to maintain a variety of housing options for residents of the community. Goal LU -2 encourages the maintenance of established neighborhoods and the creation of new neighborhoods that are safe and enjoyable places to live. 6. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The City of Pasco is the lead agency for this project. 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 preliminary plat site was annexed to the City in 1996 and was zoned R-1 as a result the zoning on the property was established 22 years ago. At the time of annexation the Planning Commission considered the character of the neighborhood and the impact R-1 zoning would have on the surrounding properties prior to recommending R-1 zoning. Per the State Vesting Doctrine (RCW 58.17.033 (1) the applicant is seeking preliminary plat review under the zoning regulations (R-1) that were in place at the time the application was submitted. The site was initially designated for low-density residential development under the 1982 Comprehensive Plan and again under the 1995 Plan and the updated Plan of 2008. The current zoning is consistent with those plans. The proposed plat will provide additional lots within the Urban Growth Area (UGA) for single-family homes consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed plat can be considered an infill development on property that was passed over during the time the surrounding neighborhood developed. The plat site is one of the few remaining undeveloped parcels in the neighborhood. The Parkhurst Addition to the south developed in the mid - 1960's and the Sun Acres West subdivision to the north developed in the late 1970's. As the result of past development in the area there are few good options for laying out lots on the proposed site. The proposal with one cul de sac down the middle of the property yields the maximum number of lots but creates a double front situation along Pearl Street. A block wall will be needed along Pearl Street with landscaping between the wall and sidewalk. Due to the limited size of the proposed subdivision and the minimal success of home owners association in the area the Planning Commission may want to consider requiring a wider sidewalk along the proposed wall. LOT LAYOUT: The proposed plat contains 20 residential lots. The lots vary in size from 7,216 square feet to 9,810 square feet. The average lot size is 7,775square feet. The proposal is consistent with the density requirements of 2 the R-1 zoning on 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. The south half of Pearl Street and the western portion of Road 36 will be finished with this subdivision. Because the proposed plat is zoned R-1 curb gutter and sidewalk are required. The Mark Twain school property contains curb gutter and sidewalk but the surrounding properties that developed in the 1960's and 1970' do not. UTILITIES: Municipal water and sewer line are located in surrounding streets and will be extended in Morehouse Place to serve the new lots. A utility easement will be needed along the first 10 feet of street frontage of all lots. The final location and width of the easements will be determined during the engineering design phase. The front yard setbacks for construction purposes are larger than the requested easements; therefore the front yard easements will not diminish the buildable area of the lots. The City Engineer will determine the specific placement of fire hydrants and streetlights when construction plans are submitted. As a general rule, fire hydrants are located at street intersections and with a maximum interval of 500 feet between hydrants on alternating sides of the street. Streetlights are located at street intersections, with a maximum interval of less than 300 feet on residential streets, and with a maximum interval of 150 feet on arterial streets. The intervals for street light placements are measure along the centerline of the road. Street lights are placed on alternating sides of the street. STREET NAMES: The proposed street reflects the name of the subdivision. IRRIGATION: The property is within the FCID service area. WATER RIGHTS: The assignment of water rights is a requirement for subdivision approval per Pasco Municipal Code Section 26.04.115(B) and Section 3.07.160. If no water rights are available to transfer to the City the property owner/ developer must pay a water right fee in lieu thereof. FINDINGS OF FACT State law (RCW 58.17.010) and the Pasco Municipal Code require the Planning Commission to develop Findings of Fact as to how this proposed subdivision will protect and enhance the health, safety and general welfare of the community. The following is a listing of proposed "Findings of Fact:" 3 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 4.3 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: There are no City parks in the immediate vicinity however; the adjoining Mark Twain School has large play fields available for public use. Park impact fees will be collected at the time of permitting to be used for park development including development of a large community park. The City is required by RCW 58.17.110 to make a finding that adequate provisions are being made to ameliorate the impacts of the proposed subdivision on the School District. At the request of the School District the City enacted a school impact fee in 2012. The imposition of this impact fee addresses the requirement to ensure there are adequate provisions for schools. A school impact fee in the amount of $4,700 will be charged for each new dwelling unit at the time of building permit issuance. Effective Land Use/Orderly Development: The Plat is laid out for single- family development as identified in the Comprehensive Plan. The maximum density permitted under the Comprehensive Plan is 5 dwelling units per acre. The developer is proposing a density of 3.6 units per acre. Safe Travel & Walking Conditions: The plat will connect to the community through the existing network of streets. Sidewalks are required in the R-1 zone and will be installed at the time homes are built on individual lots. The sidewalks will be constructed to current City standards and to the standards of the American's with Disabilities Act (ADA). The ADA ramps at the corners of all intersection will be installed with the construction of the road improvements and the sidewalks along Pearl Street will be installed with the infrastructure improvements. Adequate Provision of Municipal Services: All lots within the Plat will be provided with water, sewer and other utilities. Provision of Housing for State Residents: This Preliminary Plat contains 20 residential building lots, providing an opportunity for the construction of 20 new dwelling units in Pasco. Adequate Air and Light: The maximum lot coverage limitations, building height restrictions and building setbacks will assure that adequate movement of air and light is available to each lot. 4 Proper Access & Travel: Morehouse Place will be paved and developed to City standards to assure proper access is maintained to each lot. Connections to the community will be provided by Road 36 and Pearl Street. The Preliminary Plat was submitted to the Transit Authority for review (The discussion under "Safe Travel" above applies to this section also). Comprehensive Plan Policies & Maps: The Comprehensive Plan designates the Plat site for low-density residential development. Policies of the Comprehensive Plan encourage the advancement of home ownership and suggest the City strive to maintain a variety of housing for residents. Other Findings: • The site is within the Pasco Urban Growth Boundary. • The State Growth Management Act requires urban growth and urban densities to occur within the Urban Growth Boundaries. • The site is relatively flat and slopes slightly toward the south. • The site is currently contains one house and several out buildings that will all be removed prior to plat development. • The site is not considered a critical area, a mineral resource area or a wetland. • The Comprehensive Plan identifies the site for low-density residential development. • Low-density residential development is described in the Comprehensive Plan as two to five dwelling units per acre. • The site is zoned R-1 (Low Density Residential). • The developer is proposing 4.3 dwelling units per acre. • The Housing Element of the Comprehensive Plan encourages the advancement of programs that promote home ownership and development of a variety of residential densities and housing types. • The Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan encourages the interconnection of neighborhood streets to provide for the disbursement of traffic. • The interconnection of neighborhood streets is necessary for utility connections (looping) and the provision of emergency services. • Per the ITE Trip Generation Manual 8th Addition the proposed subdivision, when fully developed, will generate approximately 200 vehicle trips per day. • The current traffic impact fee is $709 per dwelling unit. The impact fees are collected at the time permits are issued and said fees are used to make traffic improvements and add traffic signals in the I-182 Corridor when warranted. 5 • The current park impact fee is $1,420 per dwelling unit. The fee can be reduced by 58 percent if a developer dedicates a five acre park site to the City. The dedication of a fully constructed park reduces the fee by 93 percent. • 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. • The plat is required to be development following all municipal codes relating to infrastructure improvements. • Plat improvements within the City of Pasco are required to comply with the 2015 Standard Drawings and Specification as approved by the City Engineer. These improvements include but are not limited to water, sewer and irrigation lines, streets, street lights and storm water retention. The handicapped -accessible pedestrian ramps are completed with the street and curb improvements prior to final plat approval. Sidewalks are installed at the time permits are issued for new houses, except sidewalks along major streets, which are installed with the street improvements. • Water lines and fire hydrants are required to be looped. An easement between two lots may be required to accomplish the looping • Per PMC 12.36.050 the developer must extend all utilities to and through the subject parcel. • All engineering designs for infrastructure and final plat(s) drawings are required to utilize the published City of Pasco Vertical Control Datum. • All storm water generated from a developed plat is required to be disposed of per City and State codes and requirements. Prior to the City of Pasco accepting construction plans for review the developer is required to enter into a Storm Water Maintenance Agreement with the City. The developer is responsible for obtaining the signatures of all parties required on the agreement and to have the agreement recorded with the Franklin County Auditor. The original signed and recorded copy of the agreement is presented to the City of Pasco at the intake meeting for construction plans. • Storm water runoff and infiltration calculations must comply with the Storm Water Management Manual for Easter Washington, they must be provided for review and approval. Storm water calculations must be prepared, stamped, signed and dated by a currently licensed Professional Engineer registered in the State of Washington. 0 • The assignment of water rights is a requirement for subdivision approval per Pasco Municipal Code Section 26.04.115(B) and Section 3.07.160. • The developer is responsible for all costs associated with construction, inspection, and plan review service expenses incurred by the City Engineering Office. • The site is adjacent to an elementary school and the future sidewalk north of the subdivision fence will continue to be a school travel route. A standard width sidewalk with a landscaped strip with rock or lawn may be difficult to maintain as a result of school aged children walking on the landscaped strip and dislodging landscape rock. The subdivision is rather small for a functioning Home Owners Association to maintain the street landscaping so the Planning Commission. A wider sidewalk along the northern side of the plat may revolve the referenced concerns. • The City has nuisance regulations (PMC 9.60) that require property owners (including developers) to maintain their properties in a manner that does not injure, annoy, or endanger the comfort and repose of other property owners. This includes controlling dust, weeds and litter during times of construction for both subdivisions and buildings including houses. • Prior to acceptance of final plats developers are required to prepare and submit record drawings. All record drawings shall be created in accordance with the requirements detailed in the Record Drawing Requirements and Procedure form provided by the Engineering Division. This form must be signed by the developer prior to construction plan approval. • The final plat will contain 10 -foot utility easements parallel to all streets. Additional easement will be provided as needed by utility providers. 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; 7 The proposed plat will be required to develop under the standards of the Pasco Municipal Code and the standard specifications of the City Engineering Division. These standards for streets, sidewalks, and other infrastructure improvements were designed to ensure the public health; safety and general welfare of the community are secured. These standards include provisions for streets, drainage, water and sewer service and the provision for dedication of right-of-way. The preliminary plat was forwarded to the PUD, the Pasco School District, Cascade Gas, Charter Cable, franklin County Irrigation District and Ben -Franklin Transit Authority for review and comment. Based on the School Districts Capital Facilities Plan the City collects school mitigation fees for each new dwelling unit. The fee is paid at the time of building permit issuance. The school impact fee addresses the requirements of RCW 58.17.110. All new developments participate in establishing parks through the payment of park fees at the time of permitting. (2) The proposed subdivision contributes to the orderly development and land use patterns in the area; The proposed Plat is an infill development that was passed over when the neighborhood developed in the 1960's and 1970's. The proposed plat is designed to make the most efficient use of a vacant land parcel of land. (3) The proposed subdivision conforms to the policies, maps and narrative text of the Comprehensive Plan; The Comprehensive Plan land use map designates the site for low-density residential development. Low-density residential development is described as 2 to 5 dwelling units per acre in the Comprehensive Plan. The Housing Element of the Plan encourages the promotion of a variety of residential densities and suggests the community should support the advancement of programs encouraging home ownership. The Plan also encourages the interconnection of local streets for inter -neighborhood travel for public safety as well as providing for traffic disbursement. (4) The proposed subdivision conforms to the general purposes of any applicable policies or plans which have been adopted by the City Council; Development plans and policies have been adopted by the City Council in the form of the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed subdivision conforms to the policies, maps and narrative text of the Plan as noted in number three above. (5) The proposed subdivision conforms to the general purposes of the subdivision regulations. s The general purposes of the subdivision regulations have been enumerated and discussed in the staff analysis and Findings of Fact. The Findings of Fact indicate the subdivision is in conformance with the general purposes of the subdivision regulations provided certain mitigation measures (i.e., school impact fees are paid). (6) The public use and interest will be served by approval of the proposed subdivision. The proposed Plat, if approved, will be developed in accordance with all City standards designed to ensure the health, safety and general welfare of the community are met. The Comprehensive Plan will be implemented through development of this Plat. These factors will ensure the public use and interest are served. TENTATIVE PLAT APPROVAL CONDITIONS 1. No utility vaults, pedestals, or other obstructions will be allowed at street intersections. 2. All corner lots and other lots that present difficulties for the placement of yard fencing shall be identified in the notes on the face of the final plat(s). 3. The developer shall install common "Estate" type fence/wall six -feet in height along Pearl Street as a part of the infrastructure improvements associated with the plat. The fence/wall must be constructed of masonry block. A fencing detail must be included on the subdivision construction drawings. Consideration must be given to a reasonable vision triangle at the intersection of streets and the School District driveway to the west. Following construction of the masonry fence/wall the City may make repairs or replace the fencing as needed. Property owners adjoining said fence shall be responsible for payment of all costs associated with maintenance and upkeep of the fence/wall. These fencing requirements shall be noted clearly on the face of the final plat(s). A concrete mow strip shall be installed under any common fence as directed by the City Parks Division and shall be approved by the Parks Department prior to installation. 4. A sidewalk shall be installed in the excess right-of-way along Pearl Street The sidewalk must be at least 7 feet in width along Pearl Street with any remaining right-of-way south of the curb being treated with stamped concrete creating a paver block look. 5. The final plat(s) shall contain a 10 -foot utility easement parallel to all streets unless otherwise required by the Franklin County PUD. 6. The final plat(s) shall contain the following Franklin County Public Utility District statement: "The individual or company making improvements on W a lot or lots of this Plat is responsible for providing and installing all trench, conduit, primary vaults, secondary junction boxes, and backfill for the PUD's primary and secondary distribution system in accordance with PUD specifications; said individual or company will make full advance payment of line extension fees and will provide all necessary utility easements prior to PUD construction and/or connection of any electrical service to or within the plat." RECOMMENDATION MOTION: I move to adopt Findings of Fact and Conclusions therefrom as contained in the May 17, 2018 staff report. MOTION: I move based on the Findings of Fact and Conclusions, as adopted, the Planning Commission recommend the City Council approve the Preliminary Plat for Moorehouse Addition, with conditions as listed in the May 17, 2018 staff report. 10 M3 .414x- A i A S< oil 8g ipy•i'ewaxFQ�4�agyp • a Y� Y&!n"4fE£`Y g4gZ lugs'.: g i a ii&111iiiv 4�-��'F�YHER$�I i .•Ile-.1^ocaepao'e -'tat aseeR� IIQQ®® ;,ia: Ri.A g= y e y5g e o Y' I rs°acs EY p 3n i . u.q cIN3 I I IT R,:'.g Iv685 .� F mi Iv • k z �1.z 1 4 O J IJ lv a F V CT6 I 0 a 0 �Gz HI ..._. v j � a S. 7 3 :s•2� �t as N 9� 0 1 �4r\n�RFV a YB_ n� I�Y dca •I a M1+R/ ..81 .a to "-a = 2 I I tis I I \ .p TI 1 I r. II I i F\ /s%and S'• a5[Sla y id aG 1 1 i §8 I 'yR p� q a4 6ii I � d 9 1 O gy} = �$a� y�4�gY�T 61�ai i;E• ,_�a � 9 . i. �-�\F ` e4; ��"'i S�S t{Y. Y L5q $aSs�9?'ag �� 0 buo 0 0 h N' t� i' =All � P� ko- 4 JL .. h N' t� i' =All � P� ko- 0 I REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION MASTER FILE NO: PP 2018-001 APPLICANT: Hayden Homes HEARING DATE: 4/19/2018 2464 SW Glacier Pl. Ste 110 ACTION DATE: 5/17/2018 Bend, OR 97756 BACKGROUND REQUEST: Preliminary Plat: Riverhawk Pointe II. (176 -Lot Single -Family Subdivision). 1. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: Legal: Portion of the NW Quarter of Section 16, T9N, R29E, WM General Location: Between Road 80 and Road 76 north of Massey Drive Proper Size: 48.17.5 Acres Number of Lots Proposed: 176 single-family lots Square Footage Range of Lots: 7,205 ft2 to 13,465 ft2 Average Lot Square Footage: 8,165ft2 2. ACCESS: The property will have access from Chapel Hill Boulevard, Road 76, Road 80 and Massey Drive. 3. UTILITIES: Municipal sewer service is located in future Massey Drive along the southern portion of the site. Water service is located in Road 84 and the new subdivision to the west (Chiawana Heights and Riverhawk Phase I). 4. LAND USE AND ZONING: The site is zoned RS -1 (Suburban Residential). Surrounding properties are zoned and developed as follows: NORTH: R-1 & C-1 — Vacant & future Phases of Riverhawk SOUTH: R-1 — FCID Canal & Single -Family EAST: R-1 — Vacant WEST R-1 — Site of Elementary School # 16 5. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The Comprehensive Plan indicates the site is intended for low-density residential development. According to the Comprehensive Plan, low-density residential development means 2 to 5 dwelling units per acre. The criteria for allocation under the future land use section of Volume II of the Comprehensive Plan (Vol. II, page 17) encourages development of lands designated for low-density residential uses when or where sewer is available; the location is suitable for home sites; and there is a market demand for new home sites. Policy H -1-E encourages the advancement of home ownership, and Goal H-2 suggests the City strive to maintain a variety of housing options for residents of 1 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 immediately east of proposed Elementary School # 16 and future phases of Chiawana Heights. Future phases of Riverhawk will be developed to the north of the proposed plat. This site was part of the Road 68 DNR property that the Planning Commission was involved in determining zoning and the general layout of major streets a few years ago. The applicant is seeking preliminary plat approval in preparation for the development of a single-family subdivision. The site was initially designated for low-density residential development under the 1982 Comprehensive Plan and again under the 1995 Plan and the updated Plan of 2008. The property is zoned R-1 (Low Density Residential). The proposed plat will provide additional lots within the Urban Growth Area (UGA) for single-family homes consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The old DNR site is one of the few large remaining areas within the UGA to be developed. The proposed plat can be considered an infill development on property that was passed over during the time most of the I-182 Corridor was developed. The proposed plat was originally part of a larger parcel that extended easterly from Road 84 to the west boundary of Valley View Addition. Improvement of portions of Chapel Hill Boulevard to the north will be the responsibility of the developer of the proposed plat along with improvements for Road76. Road 76 will become a collector arterial street that will connect south of the irrigation canal to Argent Road. As such the developer will be responsible for developing a a portion of the canal crossing for Road 76. LOT LAYOUT: The proposed plat contains 176 residential lots. The lots vary in size from 7,205 square feet to 13,465 square feet. The average lot size is 8,165 square feet. The proposal is consistent with the density requirements of the R-1 zoning on the site. The minimum lot size for the R-1 zone is 7,200 square feet. 2 RIGHTS-OF-WAY: All lots have frontage on streets which will be dedicated. The east half of Road 80 will be finished with this subdivision to match the improvements the School District will be construction on the west side of the street. Improvements with this plat will also include the easterly extension of Massey Drive and the northerly extension of Road 76. With Road 76 extending south to Argent Road the developer will need to participate in the construction of the canal crossing. UTILITIES: Municipal water service will need to be extended to the site from Road 84, the School site and or Chiawana Heights. All utility lines will be extended through the plat and must be guided by the Comprehensive Water, Sewer and Irrigation Plans. A sewer trunk line is located along the south portion of the site about 150 feet north of the FCID canal. A utility easement will be needed along the first 10 feet of street frontage of all lots. The final location and width of the easements will be determined during the engineering design phase. The front yard setbacks for construction purposes are larger than the requested easements; therefore the front yard easements will not diminish the buildable area of the lots. The City Engineer will determine the specific placement of fire hydrants and streetlights when construction plans are submitted. As a general rule, fire hydrants are located at street intersections and with a maximum interval of 500 feet between hydrants on alternating sides of the street. Streetlights are located at street intersections, with a maximum interval of less than 300 feet on residential streets, and with a maximum interval of 150 feet on arterial streets. The intervals for street light placements are measure along the centerline of the road. Street lights are placed on alternating sides of the street. STREET NAMES: The proposed street names following a river theme will be added prior to final plat approval. IRRIGATION: The municipal code requires the installation of irrigation lines as part of the infrastructure improvements. WATER RIGHTS: The assignment of water rights is a requirement for subdivision approval per Pasco Municipal Code Section 26.04.115(B) and Section 3.07.160. If no water rights are available to transfer to the City the property owner/developer must pay a water right fee in lieu thereof. FINDINGS OF FACT State law (RCW 58.17.010) and the Pasco Municipal Code require the Planning Commission to develop Findings of Fact as to how this proposed subdivision 3 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 3.6 units per acre. No more than 40 percent of each lot is permitted to be covered with structures per the R-1 standards. Parks Opens Space/Schools: There are no City parks in the immediate vicinity however; the School District has express a desire to work with the City on the development of a park on the school site west of Road 80. City parks have been collocated with McGee, Franklin, McClintock, Maya Angelo and Whitter schools. A park impact fee will be assessed at the time permits are issued for each house in the subdivision to help cover the cost of the future park. The City is required by RCW 58.17.110 to make a finding that adequate provisions are being made to ameliorate the impacts of the proposed subdivision on the School District. At the request of the School District the City enacted a school impact fee in 2012. The imposition of this impact fee addresses the requirement to ensure there are adequate provisions for schools. A school impact fee in the amount of $4,700 will be charged for each new dwelling unit at the time of building permit issuance. Effective Land Use/Orderly Development: The Plat is laid out for single- family development as identified in the Comprehensive Plan. The maximum density permitted under the Comprehensive Plan is 5 dwelling units per acre. The developer is proposing a density of 3.6 units per acre. The proposed development will include improvements to both Road 76 and Chapel Hill Boulevard. Safe Travel & Walking Conditions: The plat will connect to the community through the existing network of streets. Sidewalks are installed at the time homes are built on individual lots. The sidewalks will be constructed to current City standards and to the standards of the American's with Disabilities Act (ADA). The ADA ramps at the corners of all intersection will be installed with the construction of the road improvements and the sidewalks along Chapel Hill Boulevard and Road 76 will be installed with the infrastructure improvements. Adequate Provision of Municipal Services: All lots within the Plat will be provided with water, sewer and other utilities. H Provision of Housing for State Residents: This Preliminary Plat contains 176 residential building lots, providing an opportunity for the construction of 176 new dwelling units in Pasco. Adequate Air and Light: The maximum lot coverage limitations, building height restrictions and building setbacks will assure that adequate movement of air and light is available to each lot. Proper Access & Travel: The streets through and adjoining the Plat will be paved and developed to City standards to assure proper access is maintained to each lot. Connections to the community will be provided by Road 76 and Chapel Hill Boulevard and Massey Drive. The Preliminary Plat was submitted to the Transit Authority for review (The discussion under "Safe Travel' above applies to this section also). Comprehensive Plan Policies & Maps: The Comprehensive Plan designates the Plat site for low-density residential development. Policies of the Comprehensive Plan encourage the advancement of home ownership and suggest the City strive to maintain a variety of housing for residents. Other Findings: • The site is within the Pasco Urban Growth Boundary. • The State Growth Management Act requires urban growth and urban densities to occur within the Urban Growth Boundaries. • The site is relatively flat with undulations and slopes toward the south. • The site is currently vacant. • The site is not considered a critical area, a mineral resource area or a wetland. • The Comprehensive Plan identifies the site for low-density residential development. • Low-density residential development is described in the Comprehensive Plan as two to five dwelling units per acre. • The site is zoned R-1 (Low Density Residential). • The developer is proposing 3.6 dwelling units per acre. • The Housing Element of the Comprehensive Plan encourages the advancement of programs that promote home ownership and development of a variety of residential densities and housing types. • The Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan encourages the interconnection of neighborhood streets to provide for the disbursement of traffic. • The interconnection of neighborhood streets is necessary for utility connections (looping) and the provision of emergency services. 5 • Per the ITE Trip Generation Manual 8th Addition the proposed subdivision, when fully developed, will generate approximately 1,760 vehicle trips per day. • The current traffic impact fee is $709 per dwelling unit. The impact fees are collected at the time permits are issued and said fees are used to make traffic improvements and add traffic signals in the I-182 Corridor when warranted. • The current park impact fee is $1,420 per dwelling unit. The fee can be reduced by 58 percent if a developer dedicates a five acre park site to the City. The dedication of a fully constructed park reduces the fee by 93 percent. • RCW 58.17.110 requires the City to make a finding that adequate provisions have been made for schools before any preliminary plat is approved. • The City of Pasco has adopted a school impact fee ordinance compelling new housing developments to provide the School District with mitigation fees. The fee was effective April 16, 2012. • Past correspondence from the Pasco School District indicates impact fees address the requirement to ensure adequate provisions are made for schools. • Plat improvements within the City of Pasco are required to comply with the 2015 Standard Drawings and Specification as approved by the City Engineer. These improvements include but are not limited to water, sewer and irrigation lines, streets, street lights and storm water retention. The handicapped -accessible pedestrian ramps are completed with the street and curb improvements prior to final plat approval. Sidewalks are installed at the time permits are issued for new houses, except sidewalks along major streets, which are installed with the street improvements. • Water lines and fire hydrants are required to be looped. • Per PMC 12.36.050 the developer must extend all utilities to and through the subject parcel. • All engineering designs for infrastructure and final plat(s) drawings are required to utilize the published City of Pasco Vertical Control Datum. • All storm water generated from a developed plat is required to be disposed of per City and State codes and requirements. Prior to the City of Pasco accepting construction plans for review the developer is required to enter into a Storm Water Maintenance Agreement with the City. The developer is responsible for obtaining the signatures of all parties required on the agreement and to have the agreement recorded with the Franklin County Auditor. The original signed and recorded copy of the agreement is presented to the City of Pasco at the intake meeting for construction plans. • Storm water runoff and infiltration calculations must comply with the Storm Water Management Manual for Easter Washington, they must be 0 provided for review and approval. Storm water calculations must be prepared, stamped, signed and dated by a currently licensed Professional Engineer registered in the State of Washington. • The assignment of water rights is a requirement for subdivision approval per Pasco Municipal Code Section 26.04.115(B) and Section 3.07.160. • The developer is responsible for all costs associated with construction, inspection, and plan review service expenses incurred by the City Engineering Office. • The developer is responsible for installing irrigation lines, which shall be installed per City of Pasco Standard Detail 3-1. Irrigation mains shall be required along Chapel Hill Boulevard Road 76 and all internal streets. • The City has nuisance regulations (PMC 9.60) that require property owners (including developers) to maintain their properties in a manner that does not injure, annoy, or endanger the comfort and repose of other property owners. This includes controlling dust, weeds and litter during times of construction for both subdivisions and buildings including houses. • Prior to acceptance of final plats developers are required to prepare and submit record drawings. All record drawings shall be created in accordance with the requirements detailed in the Record Drawing Requirements and Procedure form provided by the Engineering Division. This form must be signed by the developer prior to construction plan approval. • The final plat will contain 10 -foot utility easements parallel to all streets. Additional easement will be provided as needed by utility providers. • Road 76 will become a collect arterial street connecting Chapel Hill Boulevard with Argent Road. This connection will require a crossing over the FCID canal. The developer will be responsible for a portion (one quarter) of the canal crossing. • The Comprehensive Water Plan calls for a12 inch line running north and south in Road 76 with a 12 inch connection west to Road 84. • The Irrigation Master Plan calls for a 12 inch line running north and south in Road 80. • To properly serve the proposed subdivision one or more Pressure reducing valves may be needed. The design and installation of which is typically the responsibility of the developer. 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: VA (1) Adequate provisions are made for the public health, safety and general welfare and for open spaces, drainage ways, streets, alleys, other public ways, water supplies, sanitary wastes, parks, playgrounds, transit stops, schools and school grounds, sidewalks for safe walking conditions for students and other public needs; The proposed plat will be required to develop under the standards of the Pasco Municipal Code and the standard specifications of the City Engineering Division. These standards for streets, sidewalks, and other infrastructure improvements were designed to ensure the public health; safety and general welfare of the community are secured. These standards include provisions for streets, drainage, water and sewer service and the provision for dedication of right-of-way. The preliminary plat was forwarded to the PUD, the Pasco School District, Cascade Gas, Charter Cable, Franklin County Irrigation District and Ben -Franklin Transit Authority for review and comment. Based on the School Districts Capital Facilities Plan the City collects school mitigation fees for each new dwelling unit. The fee is paid at the time of building permit issuance. The school impact fee addresses the requirements of RCW 58.17.110. City parks are located in the subdivisions to the west and southwest of the site. All new developments participate in establishing parks through the payment of park fees at the time of permitting. (2) The proposed subdivision contributes to the orderly development and land use patterns in the area; The proposed Plat makes efficient use of vacant land and will provide for the looping of utilities and interconnectivity of streets as supported in the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed subdivision will provide arterial street improvements along Chapel Hill Boulevard and Road 84. (3) The proposed subdivision conforms to the policies, maps and narrative text of the Comprehensive Plan; The Comprehensive Plan land use map designates the site for low-density residential development. Low-density residential development is described as 2 to 5 dwelling units per acre in the Comprehensive Plan. The Housing Element of the Plan encourages the promotion of a variety of residential densities and suggests the community should support the advancement of programs encouraging home ownership. The Transportation Element of the Plan suggests major streets should be beautified with trees and landscaping. The Plan also encourages the interconnection of local streets for inter -neighborhood travel for public safety as well as providing for traffic disbursement. s (4) The proposed subdivision conforms to the general purposes of any applicable policies or plans which have been adopted by the City Council; Development plans and policies have been adopted by the City Council in the form of the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed subdivision conforms to the policies, maps and narrative text of the Plan as noted in number three above. (5) The proposed subdivision conforms to the general purposes of the subdivision regulations. The general purposes of the subdivision regulations have been enumerated and discussed in the staff analysis and Findings of Fact. The Findings of Fact indicate the subdivision is in conformance with the general purposes of the subdivision regulations provided certain mitigation measures (i.e., school impact fees are paid). (6) The public use and interest will be served by approval of the proposed subdivision. The proposed Plat, if approved, will be developed in accordance with all City standards designed to ensure the health, safety and general welfare of the community are met. The Comprehensive Plan will be implemented through development of this Plat. These factors will ensure the public use and interest are served. TENTATIVE PLAT APPROVAL CONDITIONS 1. No utility vaults, pedestals, or other obstructions will be allowed at street intersections. 2. All corner lots and other lots that present difficulties for the placement of yard fencing shall be identified in the notes on the face of the final plat(s). 3. The developer shall install common "Estate" type fence/wall six -feet in height along Chapel Hill Boulevard and Road 76 as a part of the infrastructure improvements associated with the plat. The fence/wall must be constructed of masonry block. A fencing detail must be included on the subdivision construction drawings. Consideration must be given to a reasonable vision triangle at the intersection of streets. Following construction of the masonry fence/wall the City may make repairs or replace the fencing as needed. Property owners adjoining said fence shall be responsible for payment of all costs associated with maintenance and upkeep of the fence/wall. These fencing requirements shall .be noted clearly on the face of the final plat(s). A concrete mow strip shall be 0 installed under any common fence as directed by the City Parks Division and shall be approved by the Parks Department prior to installation. 4. Excess right-of-way along Road 76 and Chapel Hill Boulevard must be landscaped. Said landscaping shall include irrigation, turf, and trees. Trees shall be planted at 50 foot intervals. The species of the trees will be determined by the Parks Department. All landscaping and irrigation plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Parks Department prior to installation. Water usage for City right-of-way landscaping shall come from a source approved by the City of Pasco with the connection and meter fees paid for by the developer. 5. The sidewalks on Road 76 and Chapel Hill Boulevard shall be offset to accommodate the plating strip required in Number 4 above. 6. The developer/ builder shall pay the City a "common area maintenance fee" of $475 per lot upon issuance of building permits for homes. These funds shall be placed in a fund and used to finance the maintenance of arterial boulevard strips. The City shall not accept maintenance responsibility for the landscaping abutting said streets until such time as all fees are collected for each phase that abut said streets. 7. Lots abutting Road 76 and Chapel Hill Boulevard shall not have direct access to said streets. Access shall be prohibited by means of deed restrictions or statements on the face of the final plat(s). 8. The final plat(s) shall contain a 10 -foot utility easement parallel to all streets unless otherwise required by the Franklin County PUD. 9. The developer must contribute one quarter of the cost of installing the Road 76 canal crossing. This contribution shall be in the form a cash deposit to the City in an amount determined by the City Engineer to ensure the completion of the canal crossing. Said deposit must be accompanied by a signed development agreement ensuring the developer's full proportionate share of the crossing is covered in the event the initial deposit falls short of the final construction costs. Alternately the developer has the option of signing a non -protest document to the formation of an LID to cover the cost of his share of the canal crossing. Said non -protest agreement may also include the developer's share of the required Road 76 improvements. 10. The developer must sign a non -protest agreement to the formation of an LID for the construction of Chapel Hill Boulevard. 11. The developer shall prepare a traffic study to analyze and develop recommendations relative to the cumulative impact of the proposed subdivision on the capacity of the intersections of Road 76 and Argent Road, Massey Drive and road 84 and Chapel Hill Boulevard and Road 84. 12. 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 10 trench, conduit, primary vaults, secondary junction boxes, and backfill for the PUD's primary and secondary distribution system in accordance with PUD specifications; said individual or company will make full advance payment of line extension fees and will provide all necessary utility easements prior to PUD construction and/or connection of any electrical service to or within the plat." RECOMMENDATION MOTHON: I move to adopt Findings of Fact and Conclusions therefrom as contained in the May 17, 2018 staff report. MOTION: I move based on the Findings of Fact and Conclusions, as adopted, the Planning Commission recommend the City Council approve the Preliminary Plat for Riverhawk Pointe II, with conditions as listed in the May 17, 2018 staff report. 11 —LI EI� F �-A > Pod 5 PM9 Pmd �-A > 00 CD o �-A is tli I- t :: ` I6 t Iv a6 ,a � I is 6 ;: v a 1 I f a ;- i tla t in Ip I +° lr tln k � R. �f SCID CgNq; I t G ° I• i — I 1 u 8 1 I 1 I I i 1 I g II INN m N nwn., Ion tlll§'I f i. INI SIIm. 9.1—W PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR: RIVERHAWK POINTE II �' 8 A SUBDMSION LOCATED IN THE CITY OF PASCO, WA. �v as ar I I "�' Y; tli F tli I 1 Yi f 1 1 e i i6 1a tli �6 Y2 li t � �i SCID CgNq; I t G ° I• i — I 1 u 8 1 I 1 I I i 1 I g II INN m N nwn., Ion tlll§'I f i. INI SIIm. 9.1—W PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR: RIVERHAWK POINTE II �' 8 A SUBDMSION LOCATED IN THE CITY OF PASCO, WA. �v z 0 :'1 r O O m VI C7 • ( a k 1 • ■ » ( a k 1 • ■ REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION MASTER FILE NO: PP 2018-004 HEARING DATE: 5/17/2018 ACTION DATE: 6/21/2018 APPLICANT: Pahlisch Homes 210 SW Wilson Ave Ste 100 Bend, OR 97702 REQUEST: Preliminary Plat: The Parks at Riverbend, (322 -Lot Single-Familv Subdivision). 1. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: Legal: Farm Unit 84, Irrigation Block 1 General Location: 3291 Burns Road, south of Burns Road and west of Dent Road Property Size: 144 Acres Number of Lots Proposed: 322 single-family lots Square Footage Range of Lots: 8,088 ft2 to 25,770 ft2 Average Lot Square Footage: 11,343 ft2 2. ACCESS: The property will have access from Burns Road and the future southward extension of Dent Road. 3. UTILITIES: Municipal water service is located in Burns Road. Municipal sewer is not available at this time. 4. LAND USE AND ZONING: The site is zoned R-1 (Low -Density Residential). Surrounding properties are zoned and developed as follows: NORTH: County - Single -Family SOUTH: RT - Quarry EAST: RT - Quarry, Vacant WEST County - Vacant 5. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The Comprehensive Plan indicates the site is intended for low-density residential development. According to the Comprehensive Plan, low-density residential development means 2 to 5 dwelling units per acre. The criteria for allocation under the future land use section of Volume II of the Comprehensive Plan (Vol. II, page 17) encourages development of lands designated for low-density residential uses when or where sewer is available; the location is suitable for home sites; and there is a market demand for new home sites. Policy H -1-E encourages the advancement of home ownership, and Goal H-2 suggests the City strive to maintain a variety of housing options for residents of the community. Goal LU -2 encourages the maintenance of established neighborhoods and the creation of new neighborhoods that are safe and enjoyable places to live. 6. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The City of Pasco is the lead agency for this project. 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 at the northwest corner of the City limits south of Burns Road and west of Dent Road. To the north lies the County subdivision of Spencer Estates and Eagle Crest and to the south is the quarry. The project site was annexed into the City in 1998 and zoned RT (Residential Transition), but was later rezoned to R-1 (Low -Density Residential) in December of 2017 in anticipation of a housing development. The proposed plat lies within the greater Broadmoor area and thus has been considered under the City's Broadmoor Master Plan. The Plan includes the 671 -acre development site west of Broadmoor Blvd and illustrates the City's vision of a community that consists of mixed-use properties, retail complexes, single and multi -family residences, recreational opportunities, and open spaces. Consistent with the Broadmoor Master Plan, the plat lies within a designated low-density residential section and the offers varied lot sizes for a range of housing options. In addition, the plat shows an east/west street that spans the development area, connecting it to future developments on both Dale Adams' property to the east and Horrigan Farms to the west. The proposed plat will provide additional lots within the Urban Growth Area (UGA) for single-family homes consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The Broadmoor area is one of the few large remaining areas within the UGA to be developed. Municipal sewer is currently not available in the area and the City can give no definite timeline for future availability in the Broadmoor area. Given the size of the lots, septic systems are not an option. The developer has proposed a lift station in the southernmost portion of the plat to serve the development with sewer when it is made available. City engineers have been in correspondence with the developer regarding the placement of said lift station and whether or not providing sewer service to this development is feasible. That being said, the preliminary plat will be valid for a 5 year period following City Council approval. Municipal sewer must be extended to the site at the time the site is developed. z Improvement of portions of Burns Road to the north will be the responsibility of the developer of the proposed plat along with improvements for the extension of Dent Road. LOT LAYOUT: The proposed plat contains 322 residential lots. The lots vary in size from 8,088 ft2 to 25,770 W. The average lot size is 11,343 ft'. The proposal is consistent with the density requirements of the R-1 zoning on 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. The south half of Burns Road along the development area will be fully improved with this subdivision. Improvements with this plat will also include the southerly extension of Dent Road which will connect with the proposed east/West Street that spans the plat. UTILITIES: Future plans for development require the installation of a 12" water main extending from Burns Road south through this Parcel near the eastern border. Provisions shall be made to incorporate this feature of the water utility into the design. All utility lines will be extended through the plat and must be guided by the Comprehensive Water, Sewer and Irrigation Plans. A utility easement will be needed along the first 10 feet of street frontage of all lots. The final location and width of the easements will be determined during the engineering design phase. The front yard setbacks for construction purposes are larger than the requested easements; therefore the front yard easements will not diminish the buildable area of the lots. There has been no finalized sewer plan for this area. The shown location of the lift station is considered reference only. Approval of the preliminary plat does not constitute approval of the proposed lift station location. All costs associated with the review of the developer's proposal to relocate the regional lift station will be borne by the developer. The City Engineer will determine the specific placement of fire hydrants and streetlights when construction plans are submitted. As a general rule, fire hydrants are located at street intersections and with a maximum interval of 500 feet between hydrants on alternating sides of the street. Streetlights are located at street intersections, with a maximum interval of less than 300 feet on residential streets, and with a maximum interval of 150 feet on arterial streets. The intervals for street light placements are measure along the centerline of the road. Street lights are placed on alternating sides of the street. STREET NAMES: The proposed street names will be added to the face of the plat before it is recorded. 3 IRRIGATION: The municipal code requires the installation of irrigation lines as part of the infrastructure improvements. The nearest City irrigation lines are in the Broadmoor Estates subdivision along Broadmoor Boulevard. May of the subdivision in the I-182 Corridor built dry irrigations systems which were then latter connected to the City system. WATER RIGHTS: The assignment of water rights is a requirement for subdivision approval per Pasco Municipal Code Section 26.04.115(B) and Section 3.07.160. If no water rights are available to transfer to the City the property owner/ developer must pay a water right fee in lieu thereof. FINDINGS OF FACT State law (RCW 58.17.010) and the Pasco Municipal Code require the Planning Commission to develop Findings of Fact as to how this proposed subdivision will protect and enhance the health, safety and general welfare of the community. The following is a listing of proposed "Findings of Fact:" Prevent Overcrowding: Density requirements of the 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 2.2 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 developer proposes a total of 30.71 acres of open space associated with this plat. Approximately 23 acres of said open space is located at the southern end of the plat labeled as Tract O which will be undeveloped. The remaining open space consists of walking paths, a future clubhouse, and landscaped tracts. Park impact fee will be assessed at the time permits are issued for each house in the subdivision to help cover the cost of future parks. The City is required by RCW 58.17.110 to make a finding that adequate provisions are being made to ameliorate the impacts of the proposed subdivision on the School District. At the request of the School District the City enacted a school impact fee in 2012. The imposition of this impact fee addresses the requirement to ensure there are adequate provisions for schools. A school impact fee in the amount of $4,700 will be charged for each new dwelling unit at the time of building permit issuance. Effective Land Use/Orderly Development: The Plat is laid out for single- family development as identified in the Comprehensive Plan. The maximum density permitted under the Comprehensive Plan is 5 dwelling units per acre. The developer is proposing a density of 2.2 units per acre. The proposed 4 development will include improvements to Burns Road and the extension of Dent Road. 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 322 residential building lots, providing an opportunity for the construction of 322 new dwelling units in Pasco. Adequate Air and Light: The maximum lot coverage limitations, building height restrictions and building setbacks will assure that adequate movement of air and light is available to each lot. Proper Access & Travel: The streets through and adjoining the Plat will be paved and developed to City standards to assure proper access is maintained to each lot. Connections to the community will be provided by Burns Road and Dent Road. The Preliminary Plat was submitted to the Transit Authority for review (The discussion under "Safe Travel" above applies to this section also). Comprehensive Plan Policies & Maps: The Comprehensive Plan designates the Plat site for low-density residential development. Policies of the Comprehensive Plan encourage the advancement of home ownership and suggest the City strive to maintain a variety of housing for residents. Other Findings: • The site is within the Pasco Urban Growth Boundary. • The State Growth Management Act requires urban growth and urban densities to occur within the Urban Growth Boundaries. • The site has various elevations with the most dramatic slopes in the eastern portion of the development area. • There is currently one single family dwelling on the site. • The site is not considered a critical area, a mineral resource area or a wetland. • The Comprehensive Plan identifies the site for low-density residential development. E • The proposed development is consistent with the City's Broadmoor Master Plan. • Low-density residential development is described in the Comprehensive Plan as two to five dwelling units per acre. • The site is zoned R-1 (Low Density Residential). • The developer is proposing 2.2 dwelling units per acre. • The Housing Element of the Comprehensive Plan encourages the advancement of programs that promote home ownership and development of a variety of residential densities and housing types. • The Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan encourages the interconnection of neighborhood streets to provide for the disbursement of traffic. • The interconnection of neighborhood streets is necessary for utility connections (looping) and the provision of emergency services. • Per the ITE Trip Generation Manual 8th Addition the proposed subdivision, when fully developed, will generate approximately 3,220 vehicle trips per day. • The current traffic impact fee is $709 per dwelling unit. The impact fees are collected at the time permits are issued and said fees are used to make traffic improvements and add traffic signals in the 1-182 Corridor when warranted. • The current park impact fee is $1,420 per dwelling unit. The fee can be reduced by 58 percent if a developer dedicates a five acre park site to the City. The dedication of a fully constructed park reduces the fee by 93 percent. • RCW 58.17.110 requires the City to make a finding that adequate provisions have been made for schools before any preliminary plat is approved. • The City of Pasco has adopted a school impact fee ordinance compelling new housing developments to provide the School District with mitigation fees. The fee was effective April 16, 2012. • Past correspondence from the Pasco School District indicates impact fees address the requirement to ensure adequate provisions are made for schools. • Plat improvements within the City of Pasco are required to comply with the 2015 Standard Drawings and Specification as approved by the City Engineer. These improvements include but are not limited to water, sewer and irrigation lines, streets, street lights and storm water retention. The handicapped -accessible pedestrian ramps are completed with the street and curb improvements prior to final plat approval. Sidewalks are installed at the time permits are issued for new houses, except sidewalks along major streets, which are installed with the street improvements. • Water lines and fire hydrants are required to be looped. • Per PMC 12.36.050 the developer must extend all utilities to and through the subject parcel. • All engineering designs for infrastructure and final plat(s) drawings are required to utilize the published City of Pasco Vertical Control Datum. • All storm water generated from a developed plat is required to be disposed of per City and State codes and requirements. Prior to the City of Pasco accepting construction plans for review the developer is required to enter into a Storm Water Maintenance Agreement with the City. The developer is responsible for obtaining the signatures of all parties required on the agreement and to have the agreement recorded with the Franklin County Auditor. The original signed and recorded copy of the agreement is presented to the City of Pasco at the intake meeting for construction plans. • Storm water runoff and infiltration calculations must comply with the Storm Water Management Manual for Easter Washington, they must be provided for review and approval. Storm water calculations must be prepared, stamped, signed and dated by a currently licensed Professional Engineer registered in the State of Washington. • The assignment of water rights is a requirement for subdivision approval per Pasco Municipal Code Section 26.04.115(B) and Section 3.07.160. • The developer is responsible for all costs associated with construction, inspection, and plan review service expenses incurred by the City Engineering Office. • The developer is responsible for installing irrigation lines, which shall be installed per City of Pasco Standard Detail 3-1. • The City has nuisance regulations (PMC 9.60) that require property owners (including developers) to maintain their properties in a manner that does not injure, annoy, or endanger the comfort and repose of other property owners. This includes controlling dust, weeds and litter during times of construction for both subdivisions and buildings including houses. • Prior to acceptance of final plats developers are required to prepare and submit record drawings. All record drawings shall be created in accordance with the requirements detailed in the Record Drawing Requirements and Procedure form provided by the Engineering Division. This form must be signed by the developer prior to construction plan approval. • The final plat will contain 10 -foot utility easements parallel to all streets. Additional easement will be provided as needed by utility providers. • To properly serve the proposed subdivision one or more pressure reducing valves may be needed. The design and installation of which is typically the responsibility of the developer. CONCLUSIONS BASED ON INITIAL STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT Before recommending approval or denial of the proposed Plat the Planning Commission must develop findings of fact from which to draw its conclusion (P.M.C. 26.24.070) therefrom as to whether or not: (1) Adequate provisions are made for the public health, safety and general welfare and for open spaces, drainage ways, streets, alleys, other public ways, water supplies, sanitary wastes, parks, playgrounds, transit stops, schools and school grounds, sidewalks for safe walking conditions for students and other public needs; The proposed plat will be required to develop under the standards of the Pasco Municipal Code and the standard specifications of the City Engineering Division. These standards for streets, sidewalks, and other infrastructure improvements were designed to ensure the public health; safety and general welfare of the community are secured. These standards include provisions for streets, drainage, water and sewer service and the provision for dedication of right-of-way. The preliminary plat was forwarded to the PUD, the Pasco School District, Cascade Gas, Charter Cable, Franklin County Irrigation District and Ben -Franklin Transit Authority for review and comment. Based on the School Districts Capital Facilities Plan the City collects school mitigation fees for each new dwelling unit. The fee is paid at the time of building permit issuance. The school impact fee addresses the requirements of RCW 58.17.110. All new developments participate in establishing parks through the payment of park fees at the time of permitting. (2) The proposed subdivision contributes to the orderly development and land use patterns in the area; The proposed Plat makes efficient use of vacant land and will provide for the looping of utilities and interconnectivity of streets as supported in the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed subdivision will provide arterial street improvements along Burns Road and collector street improvements along Dent Road. (3) The proposed subdivision conforms to the policies, maps and narrative text of the Comprehensive Plan; The Comprehensive Plan land use map designates the site for low-density residential development. Low-density residential development is described as 2 to 5 dwelling units per acre in the Comprehensive Plan. The Housing Element of the Plan encourages the promotion of a variety of residential densities and suggests the community should support the advancement of programs s encouraging home ownership. The Transportation Element of the Plan suggests major streets should be beautified with trees and landscaping. The Plan also encourages the interconnection of local streets for inter -neighborhood travel for public safety as well as providing for traffic disbursement. (4) The proposed subdivision conforms to the general purposes of any applicable policies or plans which have been adopted by the City Council; Development plans and policies have been adopted by the City Council in the form of the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed subdivision conforms to the policies, maps and narrative text of the Plan as noted in number three above. The subdivision also conforms with the City's Broadmoor Master Plan. (5) The proposed subdivision conforms to the general purposes of the subdivision regulations. The general purposes of the subdivision regulations have been enumerated and discussed in the staff analysis and Findings of Fact. The Findings of Fact indicate the subdivision is in conformance with the general purposes of the subdivision regulations provided certain mitigation measures (i.e., school impact fees are paid). (6) The public use and interest will be served by approval of the proposed subdivision. The proposed Plat, if approved, will be developed in accordance with all City standards designed to ensure the health, safety and general welfare of the community are met. The Comprehensive Plan will be implemented through development of this Plat. These factors will ensure the public use and interest are served. TENTATIVE PLAT APPROVAL CONDITIONS 1. No utility vaults, pedestals, or other obstructions will be allowed at street intersections. 2. All corner lots and other lots that present difficulties for the placement of yard fencing shall be identified in the notes on the face of the final plat(s). 3. The developer shall install common "Estate" type fence/wall six -feet in height along Burns Road as a part of the infrastructure improvements associated with the plat. The fence/wall must be constructed of masonry block. A fencing detail must be included on the subdivision construction drawings. Consideration must be given to a reasonable vision triangle at the intersection of streets. Following construction of the masonry fence/wall the City may make repairs or replace the fencing as needed. 0 Property owners adjoining said fence shall be responsible for payment of all costs associated with maintenance and upkeep of the fence/wall. These fencing requirements shall be noted clearly on the face of the final plat(s). A concrete mow strip shall be installed under any common fence as directed by the City Parks Division and shall be approved by the Parks Department prior to installation. 4. Excess right-of-way along Burns Road and the extension of Dent Road must be landscaped. Said landscaping shall include irrigation, turf, and trees. Trees shall be planted at 50 foot intervals. The species of the trees will be determined by the Parks Department. All landscaping and irrigation plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Parks Department prior to installation. Water usage for City right-of-way landscaping shall come from a source approved by the City of Pasco with the connection and meter fees paid for by the developer. 5. The sidewalks on Burns Road and Dent Road shall be offset to accommodate the plating strip required in Number 4 above. 6. The developer/ builder shall pay the City a "common area maintenance fee" of $475 per lot upon issuance of building permits for homes. These funds shall be placed in a fund and used to finance the maintenance of arterial boulevard strips. The City shall not accept maintenance responsibility for the landscaping abutting said streets until such time as all fees are collected for each phase that abut said streets. 7. Lots abutting Burns Road and Dent Road shall not have direct access to said streets. Access shall be prohibited by means of deed restrictions or statements on the face of the final plat(s). 8. The final plat(s) shall contain a 10 -foot utility easement parallel to all streets unless otherwise required by the Franklin County PUD. 9. The final plat(s) shall contain the following Franklin County Public Utility District statement: "The individual or company making improvements on a lot or lots of this Plat is responsible for providing and installing all trench, conduit, primary vaults, secondary junction boxes, and backfill for the PUD's primary and secondary distribution system in accordance with PUD specifications; said individual or company will make full advance payment of line extension fees and will provide all necessary utility easements prior to PUD construction and/or connection of any electrical service to or within the plat." [to] RECOMMENDATION MOTION: I move to close the hearing on the proposed preliminary plat and set June 21, 2018 as the date for deliberations and the development of a recommendation for the City Council. 11 W�tJIIJ��J � 0 via 1Rrs�) 0, mow -ClOw �Kjjhjiloq" Rd �:dJ1JR:��Jt.i{aJt7�7 e � i No I- -. . � s • Shoreline -Rd • -1 1 zQ f� Dent=Rd a o a� x u o F >+ G/1 00 a, CZ Ct � a uKohler Rd -P" N i � c � CD LL O N N U LO LO .'"' rShoreline-Rd 0 N C) N O 'WI da AlYJ 3N1 N! anvom NaS81Naens tl d `- =� Slid S ON38a3 U LV S)f21Hd 3Hl ..... :tlai lvld AYVNIWf13Nd ! JIM12 gill I j o. � n S F gy Ig1= 3 R! a w E� �• ag D J =o sf RA OD e' — �QOi �S FLJ�Z>i SS dl LL �; w9 O oLL � p;S w Q CL -416 1 F Q e� Q 6; � E 0 +i el a11t a! . P .�' blo 0 0 • .i, i i q 4 , f A c Syr` t. Yff ��i r +a2 �i , 1 5( Q t 1 p 'wR f 1 t a t. t. t 4 'Y__ WO • L r, x. 1 1 1 ti �I T, 1 Y REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION MASTER FILE NO: PP 2018-005 APPLICANT: Knutzen Engineering HEARING DATE: 5/17/2018 5453 Ridgeline Dr. Ste 120 ACTION DATE: 6/21/2018 Kennewick, WA 99338 BACKGROUND REQUEST: Preliminary Plat: Duluth Estates, (21 -Lot Single -Family Subdivision). 1. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: Legal: Frey's Addition General Location: North of E Spokane St and east of N Utah Ave Property Size: 2.5 acres Number of Lots Proposed: 9 single-family homes and 12 single-family townhomes (21 dwellings total) Square Footage Range of Lots: 3,058 ft2 to 7,513 ft2 Average Lot Square Footage: 4,362 ft2 2. ACCESS: The property has access from N. Utah Ave and N. Wehe Ave and E. Spokane St.. 3. UTILITIES: Municipal water and sewer service is located in N Utah Ave and E Spokane St. 4. LAND USE AND ZONING: The site is zoned R-3 (Medium -Density Residential). Surrounding properties are zoned and developed as follows: NORTH: C-3 — Vacant SOUTH: R-3 — Apartments EAST: R -1A — Vacant WEST C-3 — Office/Vacant 5. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The Comprehensive Plan indicates the site is intended for mixed residential development. According to the Comprehensive Plan, mixed residential development means 5 to 20 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 mixed 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 1 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 site was annexed into the City in 1963 and zoned C-3 (General Business); however, it was rezoned to R-3 (Medium Residential) in 2014 to accommodate future multi -family development. Of the allowable zones under the Mixed Residential designation, the R-3 zone allows for the highest residential density at a rate of one dwelling unit for every 3,000 ft2 of land area or 14.5 units per acre. With a density increase based on enhance buildings standards the density could increase to just over 20 units per acre. In this case, the applicant proposes 9 single-family lots as well as 12 single-family townhomes with zero lot line construction for a total of 21 individual lots, or 8.4 units per acre. The site borders three existing roadways—N. Utah Avenue, E. Spokane Street, and N. Wehe Avenue. These roads are paved but lack frontage improvements such as curbs, gutters, sidewalks, street lights and landscaping. Construction of these improvements will be required as a part of the subdivision improvements and or building permit approvals. The property owner of the site petitioned for the vacation of Duluth Street located just to the north of the proposed plat. As of May 7, 2018, that portion of Duluth Street is no longer considered right-of-way. The applicant is proposing to create a mix of lots within the plat for construction of single-family homes and duplexed structures. In this respect the proposed plat is a multi -family plat designed to promote home ownership on lots with R-3 densities. This proposal is identical to the process that was used for the development of the Island Estates Row Homes in the Island Estates subdivision (Phase 8), Mediterranean Villas and Columbia Villas Phases 1, 2 and 3. Each of these subdivisions was zoned for multi -family development and platted into individual lots. The lots lines within these subdivisions became the common boundary line separating the multi -family dwelling units built therein. This enables the dwelling unit to be solid individually addressing one of the Comprehensive Plan goals dealing with affordable housing. The proposed plat will provide additional lots within the Urban Growth Area (UGA) for single-family homes consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed plat can be considered an infill development on property that has been vacant since it was platted in 1888. LOT LAYOUT: The proposed plat contains 21 residential lots. The lots vary in size from 3,058 square feet to 7,513 square feet. The average lot size is 4,362 square feet. The proposal is consistent with the density requirements of the R-3 zoning on the site. RIGHTS-OF-WAY: All lots have frontage on streets which will be dedicated. East Highland Street will be extended through the plat and N. Utah, E. Spokane and N. Wehe will all be improved to serve the lost within the proposed plat. UTILITIES: Municipal water and sewer line are located in surrounding streets and will be extended in Highland to serve the new lots. A utility easement will be needed along the first 10 feet of street frontage of all lots. The final location and width of the easements will be determined during the engineering design phase. The front yard setbacks for construction purposes are larger than the requested easements; therefore the front yard easements will not diminish the buildable area of the lots. The City Engineer will determine the specific placement of fire hydrants and streetlights when construction plans are submitted. As a general rule, fire hydrants are located at street intersections and with a maximum interval of 500 feet between hydrants on alternating sides of the street. Streetlights are located at street intersections, with a maximum interval of less than 300 feet on residential streets, and with a maximum interval of 150 feet on arterial streets. The intervals for street light placements are measure along the centerline of the road. Street lights are placed on alternating sides of the street. STREET NAMES: The street names were establish may years ago and will not change with this proposed plat. There is no irrigation service in this neighborhood. WATER RIGHTS: The assignment of water rights is a requirement for subdivision approval per Pasco Municipal Code Section 26.04.115(B) and Section 3.07.160. If no water rights are available to transfer to the City the property owner/ developer must pay a water right fee in lieu thereof. N 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, setback and parking requirements of the R-3 zone are designed to address overcrowding concerns. The Comprehensive Plan suggests the property in question could be developed with 5 to 20 dwelling units per acre. The proposed Plat has a density of approximately 8.4 units per acre. No more than 60 percent of each lot is permitted to be covered with structures per the R-3 standards. Parks Opens Space/Schools: highland Parks is located 1,000 to the south of the site across Broadway Blvd. from Whittier Elementary School. Park impact fees will be collected at the time of permitting to be used for park development including development of a large community park. The City is required by RCW 58.17.110 to make a finding that adequate provisions are being made to ameliorate the impacts of the proposed subdivision on the School District. At the request of the School District the City enacted a school impact fee in 2012. The imposition of this impact fee addresses the requirement to ensure there are adequate provisions for schools. A school impact fee in the amount of $4,700 per single-family unit and $4,525 per multi -family unit will be charged for each 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 20 dwelling units per acre. The developer is proposing a density of 8.4 units per acre. Safe Travel & Walking Conditions: The plat will connect to the community through the existing network of streets. Sidewalks are required in the R-3 zone and will be 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. 4 Provision of Housing for State Residents: This Preliminary Plat contains 21 residential building lots, providing an opportunity for the construction of 21 new dwelling units in Pasco. Adequate Air and Light: The maximum lot coverage limitations, building height restrictions and building setbacks will assure that adequate movement of air and light is available to each lot. Proper Access & Travel: The streets through and adjoining the Plat 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 N. Utah Avenue, E. Spokane Street, and N. Wehe Avenue. 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 mixed -residential development. Policies of the Comprehensive Plan encourage the advancement of home ownership and suggest the City strive to maintain a variety of housing for residents. Other Findings: • The site is within the Pasco Urban Growth Boundary. • The State Growth Management Act requires urban growth and urban densities to occur within the Urban Growth Boundaries. • The site is relatively flat and slopes slightly toward the south. • The site is not considered a critical area, a mineral resource area or a wetland. • The Comprehensive Plan identifies the site for Mixed -Residential development. • Mixed -Residential residential development is described in the Comprehensive Plan as five to twenty dwelling units per acre. • The site is zoned R-3 (Low Density Residential). • The developer is proposing 8.4 dwelling units per acre. • Duluth Street was vacated on May 7, 2018. • The Housing Element of the Comprehensive Plan encourages the advancement of programs that promote home ownership and development of a variety of residential densities and housing types. • The Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan encourages the interconnection of neighborhood streets to provide for the disbursement of traffic. • The interconnection of neighborhood streets is necessary for utility connections (looping) and the provision of emergency services. s • Per the ITE Trip Generation Manual 8th Addition the proposed subdivision, when fully developed, will generate approximately 210 vehicle trips per day. • The current traffic impact fee is $709 per dwelling unit. The impact fees are collected at the time permits are issued and said fees are used to make traffic improvements and add traffic signals in the I-182 Corridor when warranted. • The current park impact fee is $1,420 per dwelling unit. The fee can be reduced by 58 percent if a developer dedicates a five acre park site to the City. The dedication of a fully constructed park reduces the fee by 93 percent. • RCW 58.17.110 requires the City to make a finding that adequate provisions have been made for schools before any preliminary plat is approved. • The City of Pasco has adopted a school impact fee ordinance compelling new housing developments to provide the School District with mitigation fees. The fee was effective April 16, 2012. • Past correspondence from the Pasco School District indicates impact fees address the requirement to ensure adequate provisions are made for schools. • The plat is required to be development following all municipal codes relating to infrastructure improvements. • Plat improvements within the City of Pasco are required to comply with the 2015 Standard Drawings and Specification as approved by the City Engineer. These improvements include but are not limited to water, sewer and irrigation lines, streets, street lights and storm water retention. The handicapped -accessible pedestrian ramps are completed with the street and curb improvements prior to final plat approval. Sidewalks are installed at the time permits are issued for new houses, except sidewalks along major streets, which are installed with the street improvements. • Water lines and fire hydrants are required to be looped. An easement between two lots may be required to accomplish the looping • Per PMC 12.36.050 the developer must extend all utilities to and through the subject parcel. • All engineering designs for infrastructure and final plat(s) drawings are required to utilize the published City of Pasco Vertical Control Datum. • All storm water generated from a developed plat is required to be disposed of per City and State codes and requirements. Prior to the City of Pasco accepting construction plans for review the developer is required to enter into a Storm Water Maintenance Agreement with the City. The developer is responsible for obtaining the signatures of all parties required on the agreement and to have the agreement recorded with the Franklin County Auditor. The original signed and recorded copy of the 11 agreement is presented to the City of Pasco at the intake meeting for construction plans. • Storm water runoff and infiltration calculations must comply with the Storm Water Management Manual for Easter Washington, they must be provided for review and approval. Storm water calculations must be prepared, stamped, signed and dated by a currently licensed Professional Engineer registered in the State of Washington. • The assignment of water rights is a requirement for subdivision approval per Pasco Municipal Code Section 26.04.115(B) and Section 3.07.160. • The developer is responsible for all costs associated with construction, inspection, and plan review service expenses incurred by the City Engineering Office. • The City has nuisance regulations (PMC 9.60) that require property owners (including developers) to maintain their properties in a manner that does not injure, annoy, or endanger the comfort and repose of other property owners. This includes controlling dust, weeds and litter during times of construction for both subdivisions and buildings including houses. • Prior to acceptance of final plats developers are required to prepare and submit record drawings. All record drawings shall be created in accordance with the requirements detailed in the Record Drawing Requirements and Procedure form provided by the Engineering Division. This form must be signed by the developer prior to construction plan approval. • The final plat will contain 10 -foot utility easements parallel to all streets. Additional easement will be provided as needed by utility providers. CONCLUSIONS BASED ON INITIAL STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT Before recommending approval or denial of the proposed Plat the Planning Commission must develop findings of fact from which to draw its conclusion (P.M.C. 26.24.070) therefrom as to whether or not: (1) Adequate provisions are made for the public health, safety and general welfare and for open spaces, drainage ways, streets, alleys, other public ways, water supplies, sanitary wastes, parks, playgrounds, transit stops, schools and school grounds, sidewalks for safe walking conditions for students and other public needs; The proposed plat will be required to develop under the standards of the Pasco Municipal Code and the standard specifications of the City Engineering Division. These standards for streets, sidewalks, and other infrastructure improvements were designed to ensure the public health; safety and general welfare of the community are secured. These standards include provisions for streets, drainage, water and sewer service and the provision for dedication of right-of-way. The preliminary plat was forwarded to the PUD, the Pasco School District, Cascade Gas, Charter Cable, franklin County Irrigation District and Ben -Franklin Transit Authority for review and comment. Based on the School Districts Capital Facilities Plan the City collects school mitigation fees for each new dwelling unit. The fee is paid at the time of building permit issuance. The school impact fee addresses the requirements of RCW 58.17.110. All new developments participate in establishing parks through the payment of park fees at the time of permitting. (2) The proposed subdivision contributes to the orderly development and land use patterns in the area; The proposed Plat is an infill development that was passed over when the neighborhood was platted in 1891. The proposed plat is designed to make the most efficient use of a vacant parcel of land. (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 mixed residential development. Mixed residential development is described as 5 to 20 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 8 subdivision regulations provided certain mitigation measures (i.e., school impact fees are paid). (6) The public use and interest will be served by approval of the proposed subdivision. The proposed Plat, if approved, will be developed in accordance with all City standards designed to ensure the health, safety and general welfare of the community are met. The Comprehensive Plan will be implemented through development of this Plat. These factors will ensure the public use and interest are served. TENTATIVE PLAT APPROVAL CONDITIONS 1. No utility vaults, pedestals, or other obstructions will be allowed at street intersections. 2. All corner lots and other lots that present difficulties for the placement of yard fencing shall be identified in the notes on the face of the final plat(s). 3. The final plat(s) shall contain a 10 -foot utility easement parallel to all streets unless otherwise required by the Franklin County PUD. 4. The final plat(s) shall contain the following Franklin County Public Utility District statement: "The individual or company making improvements on a lot or lots of this Plat is responsible for providing and installing all trench, conduit, primary vaults, secondary junction boxes, and backfill for the PUD's primary and secondary distribution system in accordance with PUD specifications; said individual or company will make full advance payment of line extension fees and will provide all necessary utility easements prior to PUD construction and/or connection of any electrical service to or within the plat." RECOMMENDATION MOTION: I move to close the hearing on the proposed preliminary plat and set June 21, 2018 as the date for deliberations and the development of a recommendation for the City Council. E VE Mill 1 1111 mo MEN MEN som son 4=J =3 0 V) 0 0 M.j r Pp REPORT TO PLANNING MASTER FILE NO: SP 2018-005 APPLICANT: Melina Puckett HEARING DATE: 5/17/2018 (Successor Trustee) ACTION DATE: 6/21/2018 1420 Road 68 Pasco, WA 99301 BACKGROUND REQUEST: SPECIAL PERMIT: Mor-Stor Mini Storage Expansion in a C-1 Zone 1. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: Legal: Lots 2 and 3 of Short Plat 93-08 General Location: 1420 Road 68, Southwest corner of Road 68 and Court Street Property Size: 2.1 acres 2. ACCESS: The site is accessible from W Clark St and an alley that connects 5th Ave and 6th Ave. 3. UTILITIES: Power, municipal water and sewer are all available to the site. 4. LAND USE AND ZONING: The site is currently zoned C-1 (Retail Business) and is undeveloped. Surrounding properties are zoned and developed as follows: NORTH: County - SFDUs SOUTH: C-1 - Mini Storage EAST: C-1 - Vacant WEST: R-2 - Vacant 5. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The Comprehensive Plan designates this area for commercial uses. Policy LU -1-13 encourages enhancement of the physical appearance of development within the City. The Comprehensive Plan (LU -4-B) encourages the grouping of commercial uses to promote functional and economical marketing and operations to produce sustainable clusters of shopping and services. Policy LU -2-D requires all development to be landscaped. ED -3-E suggests the use of landscaping to provide a buffer between less intensive uses (such as residential) from commercial and industrial facilities. 6. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The City of Pasco is the lead agency for this project. An environmental determination will be made after 1 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 applicant is seeking Special Permit approval for the expansion of the Mor- Stor mini storage facility located at 1420 Road 68. The applicant had previously been granted a Special Permit for the expansion in 2011, but it has since expired. This proposal involves the development of eight buildings with a total of 42,000 square feet of storage space in 230 units on a vacant site in a C- 1 (Retail Business) zone. Access would be from an existing driveway to the mini -storage units to the south along Road 68. Mini -storage facilities are not a permitted use in the C-1 (Retail Business District). Mini -storage facilities are, however, a conditional use that may be permitted only by the granting of a Special Permit. Special Permit reviews and determinations are made based upon the criteria listed in P.M.C. 25.86.060 and itemized below under the "findings of fact" section. If it can be demonstrated that a mini -storage facility will be in accordance with the policies of the Comprehensive Plan, a Special Permit may be approved. The mini -storage expansion is being proposed for property on the corner of two major streets—Road 68 and Court St. Properties on major street corners are sometimes referred to as high impact sites because they are often occupied by businesses that need high visibility and traffic counts to succeed. A mini - storage facility does not rely on pass -by traffic for business. For this reason the last two mini -storage facilities (Road 60/Burden Blvd and 9335 Sandifur Pkwy) approved through the Special Permit process were required to reserve the front portion of their properties along the arterial streets for future development by uses specifically permitted in the C-1 district. Office and retail development has been very slow to occur at the intersection of Court Street and Road 68. It is unlikely further retail development will occur at this intersection until the residential development increases in the neighborhood. Much of the land available for future residential development is located north of Court Street in the County and lacks the services needed for development. As a result the proposed mini -storage expansion may be an appropriate use of the property until the area can support businesses that are permitted in the C-1 District. The intended character of the neighborhood includes future retail and office uses as well as residential uses. The neighborhood is not intended for storage and warehousing. Due to the site's high visibility, an understanding of the intent for future uses, and the nature of current uses, the Special Permit should not be approved without design standards to ameliorate the impacts of 2 an industrial appearance of the facility. The Planning Commission should consider requiring the face of the buildings fronting Court Street, Road 68, and properties to the west to be sided with stucco or architectural block and have the doors painted to match or complement the siding. An architectural masonry fence around the property may also be warranted. The Broadmoor Storage Solutions facility on Sandifur Parkway and the Express Storage facility on Court Street are good examples of mini -storage facilities that were constructed to complement future neighborhood uses. City staff has reviewed the proposed Special Permit against future improvements that may be needed at the intersection of Road 68 and Court Street. That review has resulted in a conclusion that the intersection will be signalized as opposed to installing other traffic calming measures, such as a roundabout. This conclusion is based on the high volumes of traffic, future lane configurations and commercial land use designations at each corner of the intersection. Consistent with City development regulations, the applicant will be required to dedicate right of way and construct street improvements as a condition of any project at this site. 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 project site is zoned C-1 and consists of two parcels. 2) The applicant owns three parcels of land at the southwest corner of Road 68 and Court Street. The southernmost parcel was developed with six mini -storage buildings in 1994. The storage buildings contain 36,000 square feet. 3) The applicant had been granted a Special Permit in 2011 for the expansion, but it expired before the project was started. 4) The original mini -storage buildings were constructed in the County and were built to County standards prior to annexation to the City, which occurred in 2002. 5) The original mini -storage buildings on the southern parcel were built without curb, gutter or sidewalk being installed along Road 68. The mini - storage buildings were also built without any landscaping or sight - screening. 3 6) Upon annexation in 2002 the City zoned all three parcels C-1 (Retail Business) which continued the commercial zoning that was previously established by the County. 7) C-1 (Retail Business) District permits the development of a variety of retail and office uses including restaurants. Mini -storage facilities are classified as a conditional use and are subject to Special Permit review. 8) The Comprehensive Plan identifies the area for commercial uses. 9) Access to the site is proposed through a driveway on Road 68 serving the existing mini -storage units to the south. 10) Traffic control upgrades are planned for the intersection at Road 68 and Court Street to safely and efficiently accommodate increased traffic flow through the intersection. Right-of-way will be required from property owners on all corners of the intersection. TENTATIVE CONCLUSIONS BASED ON INITIAL STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT Before recommending approval or denial of a special permit the Planning Commission must develop findings of fact from which to draw its conclusions based upon the criteria listed in P.M.C. 25.86.060. The criteria are as follows: (1) Will the proposed use be in accordance with the goals, policies, objectives and text of the Comprehensive Plan? A mini -storage facility can be compatible with several Comprehensive Plan policies. Policy LU -1-13 encourages enhancement of the physical appearance of development within the City. The proposal would replace a vacant lot with a well-developed facility containing perimeter landscaping. Policy LU -2-D requires all development to be landscaped. Development of the site including landscaping will support policies of the Comprehensive Plan (LU2-D). (2) Will the proposed use adversely affect public infrastructure? All municipal utilities are currently available to the site from surrounding streets. Commercial development standards require right- of-way improvements on all road frontages to bring the bordering roadways up to current standards. Road 68 would need to be fully improved, including street paving and the installation of curb, gutter, sidewalk, storm drainage and street lights to meet these standards. Water and sewer demands of the proposed use will be negligible compared to permitted uses such as restaurants and similar uses. Impacts to the adjoining streets will likewise be minimal. 2 (3) Will the proposed use be constructed, maintained and operated to be in harmony with existing or intended character of the general vicinity? Based on neighborhood zoning, neighborhood development and past rezone decisions for areas of the community west of Road 36 the existing and intended character of the neighborhood includes future retail and office uses as well as residential uses. The Comprehensive Plan encourages the grouping of commercial uses to promote functional and economical marketing and operations to produce sustainable clusters of shopping and services (LU -4-B). The proposed use may be less intensive from an activity standpoint than other permitted uses in the C-1 zone but does not necessarily support the commercial clustering of businesses permitted in the C-1 zone. From a visual and functional standpoint the proposal may have an industrial/warehouse appearance and will not support the commercial street appeal that is typical of neighborhood commercial centers. To support harmony in design with existing and intended neighborhood uses the elevations of the proposed mini -storage facility facing the street would need to include construction materials other than painted sheet metal. Landscaping can also be used to help create harmony with the surround neighborhood. (4) Will the location and height of proposed structures and the site design discourage the development of permitted uses on property in the general vicinity or impair the value thereof? The proposal currently has an industrial warehouse appearance (metal buildings surrounded with gravel) that may not encourage the development of retail, office and foods service uses permitted within the C-1 District. The C-1 District requires a six foot fence to setback at least 15 feet from the property line. The proposal includes a six foot fence at the property line. To avoid the industrial appearance of the proposed facility and to encourage compatibility with the neighborhood, landscaping and restrictions on the building design would be needed. (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? Traffic is not a significant factor in the operation of a mini -storage facility. The operation of the proposed facility will create less noise, fumes and vibration than permitted uses for this zone. Unlike retail or office developments the customer/client parking areas around the proposed mini -storage buildings will be gravel creating the potential for dust. Fencing the mini -storage yard with a block wall could aid in 5 combating blowing dust and would improve the appearance of the facility. (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? On most days of the week minimal activity will occur on the site. A mini storage complex of the size proposed can be considered a less intense commercial land use when compared to other uses permitted in the C-1 zone. TENTATIVE APPROVAL CONDITIONS 1. The Special Permit shall apply to Tax Parcels 119701412 and 119701421; 2. The applicant may choose one of the following design options for development of the site: 1. Transparent security fencing option: Fencing must consist of 6 -foot maximum height architectural block pillars spaced on 10 -foot centers with tubular metal/wrought iron between the pillars. All buildings must be sided with stucco or architectural block. All doors must be painted to complement the stucco or architectural block. The driveways and isle -ways around the buildings must be hard -surfaced. The west 10 feet of the site must be landscaped with trees and shrubs at a rate of one tree for every 20 linear feet and one shrub for every 8 linear feet. 2. Solid architectural block wall option: If the site contains an 8 foot architectural block wall or an 8 foot wall consisting of architectural block and stucco on the north, west and east, the buildings may be constructed of painted metal siding; no interior site pavement will be required except for the driveway entrance and no interior landscaping will be required. The landscaping requirement for the area along the west property line will be waived. 3. Stucco or architectural block building walls in lieu of an architectural block security wall: The building walls may back to Road 68, Court Street and the west property line and be used as site security, provided each of the building walls contain at least three architectural features and are constructed of architectural block and/or stucco. No interior paving other than at the driveway entrance will be required and no interior landscaping will be required. The landscaping requirement for the area along the west property line will be waived. 10 3. The area between the architectural block fence and/or wall of the buildings and the sidewalk must be landscaped with 60 percent live vegetation at the time of planting. Street trees as included on the City's approved street tree list must be planted at 30 foot intervals along Court Street and Road 68. The landscaping must continue south on Road 68 to the south end of Lot 1, Short Plat 93-08. 4. No equipment or other materials shall be stored outside of the buildings; 5. Street lights shall be installed along the frontages of Court Street and Road 68 per City and PUD standards. 6. Road 68 shall be improved along the frontage of Tax Parcel 119701412 to bring the west half of the roadway into compliance with the City of Pasco Local Access Street standard. These improvements must include street paving, curb, gutter, storm drainage and sidewalk improvements. The sidewalk may be offset from the curb. Street improvements along Tax parcel 119701403 must include pavement widening to match the pavement along Parcel 199701412 and a grass drainage swale to the south end of the parcel. 7. The driveway drops along Court Street must be removed and replaced as per the standard city sidewalk section; 8. Handicapped ramps meeting the current ADA standards must be installed at the intersection of Road 68 and Court Street; 9. The driveway entrances shall be upgraded to meet current ADA and City standards; 10. Night lighting including parking lot lighting must be shielded to prevent light encroachment on adjoining properties; 11. Right-of-way must be dedicated at the project level, as required. 12. The special permit shall be null and void if a building permit is not obtained by December 31, 2020. RECOMMENDATION MOTION: I move to close the hearing on the proposed special permit and set June 21, 2018 as the date for deliberations and the development of a recommendation for the City Council. 7 f�r%MT szl IN ca ca Cz 'v w a� E CO COCo O V J a 4-J � Road 68 .ate aD CD o w ,_, CM LL Fc L 0 N N > MCz �? U) Vacant .,..,. r., t' ¢. '� U Multi -Family 0 00 O LL v/ M LL V) N a 04 O 0 0 Z •� N � ct V1 �C U � � ct O U U C% Road 68 SZ a. LO cz o W �o 4--) 00 c _ fly U •~ . P-4 O CL) IM-4 C) O a N � w O Il O 00 V O " CD qgr N N O O O • I i� A All F f 41 Frll li A.k Jc: 4=J =3 0 V) � � � - � \ ::� • � \ ljj� -\\\ �\t � 3 - - � \ ::� • � \ M�11 i Y1 y r' X11 � ,�, C' i� a l Y '3 REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION MASTER FILE NO: (MF# ZD2018-001) APPLICANT: City of Pasco HEARING DATE: 5/17/2018 PO Box 293 ACTION DATE: 5/17/2017 Pasco, WA 99301 BACKGROUND REQUEST: REQUEST: REZONE: Development of a zoning recommendation for the Greeno Annexation Area. 1) AREA ID: Area Size # of Dwellings Population Greeno Annexation 39.88 acres 1 2 2) UTILITIES: City water and sewer lines are located at the southwest corner of Burns Road and Road 68. 3) LAND USE AND ZONING: The proposed annexation area is currently zoned AP -20 and is mostly vacant. A manufacture house and shop are located on a portion of the site. Surrounding properties are zoned and developed as follows: NORTH: AP 20 - Farm Field SOUTH: R-1 -Burns Rd & Single -Family EAST: RR -1 - Single -Family WEST: R-1 - Farm Field 4) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The Comprehensive Plan designates a portion of the site for Mixed Residential/ Commercial uses and a portion for Low - Density residential. Portions of the property can therefore be considered for multi -family or commercial zoning and a portion can be zoned for single-family dwellings. Goal H-2 suggests the City strive to maintain a variety of housing options for residents of the community including single-family housing. Policy LU -1-C encourages the clustering of commercial development to avoid strip development up and down major streets. LU -4-A also supports the location of commercial facilities at major intersections (Rd 68 & Burns) to avoid commercial sprawl. ED -2-13 suggests a wide range of commercial development should be strategically located to support local and regional needs in the community. ED -3-A encourages the use of landscaping, screening and superior building design to enhance compatibility between commercial and residential development. 1 5) ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The City of Pasco is the lead agency for this project. An environmental determination will be made after the public hearing for this project. A Determination of Non - Significance or a Mitigated Determination of Non -Significance is likely for this application (WAC 197-11-355). ANALYSIS The site contains almost 40 acres and is located at the northwest corner of Burns Road and Road 68. The property to the west was annexed to the City in May of 2016 and was zoned R-1. The Property on the south side of Burns Road is also in the City and developed with an apartment complex and single family homes. The adjacent forty acres to the north is within the UGA and currently being farmed. The former Shutz Gift and Produce shop is located to the east of the site on Road 68. The annexation petitioners are seeking to annex the site consistent with the low-density and mixed-residential/commercial land use designations. The site surrounds a three acre electrical substation (Big Bend Electric COOP) located about 1,000 feet west of Road 68. The location of the substation creates some practical difficulties in developing the site. To lessen the impact of the substation and buffer single-family development from the substation the annexation petitioners are planning on surrounding the substation on the north and west with a duplex development leaving a 16 acre parcel for single-family development to the west. Consistent with Comprehensive Plan policies properties between the substation and Road 68 are being proposed for C-1 development. The Mixed Residential/ Commercial land use designation permits a variety of multi -family structures, including duplexes and four-plexes and neighborhood shopping, service businesses and offices. The Description and Allocation Table on page 17 of the Comprehensive Plan states mixed residential commercial areas should be located convenient to major circulations routes such as Road 68 and Burns Road. The referenced table also indicates the Mixed Residential/ Commercial designated areas should be zoned C-1 and or Office. In addition to following the directions of the comprehensive Plan the Planning Commission also needs to consider the criteria in PMC 25.88.060 (as discussed below) in developing a zoning recommendation for the annexation area. The proposed annexation area is within the City's service area as identified in the Comprehensive Water and Sewer Plans. Both of these plans based future services need within the annexation area for more 2 intense land uses as identified in the land use map of the Comprehensive Plan. The initial review criteria for considering a rezone application are explained in PMC 25.88.030. The criteria are listed below as follows: 1. The changed conditions in the vicinity which warrant other or additional zoning: • The property is located within the Pasco Urban Growth Boundary. • The property in question may be annexed to the City of Pasco in the summer of 2018. • The property is located along two major streets at the northwest corner of Road 68 and Burns Road. • A Big Bend Electric substation separates the eastern half of the site from the western half of the site. • Burns Road now connects Road 68 to Road 100/Broadmoor Blvd to the west. • Burns Road is an arterial street. • The property on the north side of Burns Road to the west of the site was annexed to the City in 2016 and zoned R-1. • The Pasco School District purchased property about 1/3 of a mile west of the site for a future Elementary School and a Middle School. • Water and sewer service is located a short distance (150 ft.) distance down Road 84 from the site. • A sewer manhole is located at the northeast corner of Burns Road and Road 68 about 18 feet south of the proposed site. • Properties to the south are fully developed with apartment buildings and single-family dwellings. 2. Facts to justify the change on the basis of advancing the public health, safety and general welfare. The property may be annexed to the City and will need to be zoned. The justification for the rezone is the fact that if a zoning designation is not determined the property could become annexed without zoning. For the advancement of the general welfare of the community the property needs to be zoned consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed zoning would provide a graduated buffer from Road 68 and around the substation with commercial and higher density to the east and transitioning to lower density to the west. 3 3. The effect rezoning will have on the nature and value of adjoining property and the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed zoning will create a graduated land use buffer with commercial zoning at the major intersection of Road 68 and Burns stepping down to R-3 zoning around the substation to buffer the lower density proposed to the west adjacent to the proposed elementary school site. Full development of the Burns Road corridor with a wider right-of-way, estate fencing and boulevard landscaping will serve as a buffer for the apartments and single-family dwellings to the south. Zoning the proposed annexation area to C-1 (Retail Business), R-3 (Medium Density Residential) and R-1 (Single -Family Residential) is supported by the Comprehensive Plan and would be considered a proper implementation of the Plan. The nature and value of other properties near Road 68 adjacent to C-1 zoning has not be impacted as the result of proximity to said zoning. The C-1 zoning regulations and landscape and screening regulations are designed to enhance the compatibility of commercial development with adjoining residential development. These regulations are in place to ameliorate any impacts C-1 development may have on nearby residential development. A review of County Assessor records were commercial development and residential development adjoin each other reveal the value of both types of property have continued to increase over the years (May 2018 of the County Assessors Records). 4. The effect on the property owners or owner if the request is not granted. Without the annexation area being assigned a specific zoning district, the area will essentially be un -zoned upon annexation. The area needs to be zoned for the benefit of the property owners and property owners adjoining the proposed annexation area. 5. The Comprehensive Plan land use designation for the property. The Plan indicates the proposed annexation area can be zoned with three different zones starting with commercial zoning near Road 68 and transitioning to high-density residential and low-density residential to the west. Providing land for neighborhood shopping and a variety of housing types will benefit the community and help implement provision of the Comprehensive Plan. V. FINDINGS OF FACT Findings of fact must be entered from the record. The following are initial findings drawn from the background and analysis section of the staff report. The Planning Commission may add findings to this listing as the result of factual testimony and evidence submitted during the open record hearing. 1) The site is within the Pasco Urban Growth Boundary. 2) Properties to the west of the site were annexed to the City in May of 2016. 3) The property is being proposed for annexation by the summer of 2018. 4) The property is located near the intersection of Road 68 and Burns Road. 5) Policy LU -1-C encourages the clustering of commercial development to avoid strip development up and down major streets. 6) LU -4-A also supports the location of commercial facilities at major intersections (like Rd 68 & Argent) to avoid commercial sprawl. 7) ED -3-A encourages the use of landscaping, screening and superior building design to enhance compatibility between commercial and residential development. The Pasco zoning regulations contain provision requiring landscaping, screening and setbacks designed to implement ED -3-A. 8) Goal H-2 suggests the City strive to maintain a variety of housing options for residents of the community including multi and single- family housing. 9) An apartment complex and single-family homes are located to the south of Burns Road. 10) Burns Road is an arterial street that will be developed similar to Sandifur Parkway with street landscaping and estate fencing. 11) The site surrounds a three acre electrical substation effectively dividing the site in two sections. 12) The School District owns the property about 1/3rd of a mile west of the annexation site and plans to construct an elementary school and middle school on the property. 13) Properties around and near the northwest, northeast and southwest corners of Road 68 and Argent Road are currently zoned C-1. 14) The Description and Allocation Table on page 17 of the Comprehensive Plan states mixed residential or commercial areas should be located convenient to major circulations routes such as Road 68 and Burns Road. 15) A review of County Assessor records were commercial development and residential development adjoin each other reveal the value of both types of property have continued to increase over the years (August 2017 review of the County Assessors Records). 5 CONCLUSIONS BASED ON STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT Before recommending approval or denial of a rezone the Planning Commission must develop its conclusions from the findings of fact based upon the criteria listed in PMC 25.88.060 and determine whether or not: (1) The proposal is in accord with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. Zoning the proposed annexation site to R-11 R-3 and C-1 is consistent with Goals and Plan Policies H-2, LU -1-C, LU -4-A, ED -3-A and ED -2-B. (2) The effect of the proposal on the immediate vicinity will not be materially detrimental. The proposed zoning will provide a graduated buffer area around the Big Bend Electric Substation for less intensive uses as the distance from the major intersection of Road 68 and Burns Road increases. Burns Road itself provides an additional buffer between the proposed annexation site and the apartments and homes to the south. The C-1 zoning at the comer of Road 68 and Burns Road supports the commercial clustering or nodal concept for zoning that the City has followed for major intersections for the past 35 years. Application of the development standards within the zoning regulations will ensure the proposed zoning does not become detrimental to surrounding properties. (3) There is merit and value in the proposal for the community as a whole. There is merit and value in following the guidance of the Comprehensive Plan when assigning zoning. The proposal will provide areas for a variety of housing styles within close proximity to C-1 zoning that can provide for neighborhood commercial uses. (4) Conditions should be imposed in order to mitigate any significant adverse impacts from the proposal. The proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and no mitigation measures are needed. Standards within the zoning regulations for setbacks, screening and landscaping provide as well as the location of major streets in the area all provide mitigation measures. (5) A concomitant agreement should be entered into between the City and the petitioner, and if so, the terms and conditions of such an agreement. A concomitant agreement is not needed. STAFF RECOMMENDATION MOTION for Findings of Fact: I move to adopt findings of fact and conclusions therefrom as contained in the May 17, 2018 staff report. MOTION for Recommendation: I move, based on the findings of fact and conclusions as adopted, the Planning Commission recommend the City Council zone the Greeno Annexation Area to R-1, R-3 and C-1 as depicted on the proposed zoning map attached to the May 17, 2018 Planning Commission report. VA 35 4 't �� J i i 11 �S a s G�0 0000��o G E+ ori.._ `�','�v�'► • - ®T®���©�©tee v rim. no E1I ON caI mlI MON r3o an I ©© ne . ©'r©obi � �■3 ©� z' EON ® m,' ■, o vl MEMORANDUM DATE: May 17, 2018 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Dave McDonald, City Planner SUBJECT: Urban Growth Boundary (UGA) CPA 2018-001 The City of Pasco is required by the Growth Management Act (GMA) to update the Comprehensive Plan this year. The key component to the update is determining a new Urban Growth Area (UGA). Urban Growth Areas define the area in which a community is to encourage higher density urban development and the area in which urban services can be supported and promoted. Land located outside UGA's are to be reserved for the promotion of rural densities and functions. By directing growth to UGA's natural resource lands such as farmlands and forest lands can be conserved and the character of rural areas can be maintained for future needs. Pasco's first Urban Growth Area was established in April of 1993 and has been modified only four times since then. The designation of the Pasco UGA was guided by the provisions of RCW 36.70A.110 the most pertinent portions of which are as follows: • Each county that is required or chooses to plan under RCW 36.70A.040 shall designate an urban growth area or areas within which urban growth shall be encouraged and outside of which growth can occur only if it is not urban in nature. • Each city that is located in such a county shall be included within an urban growth area. • An urban growth area may include territory located outside of a city only if such territory already is characterized by urban growth whether or not the urban growth area includes a city, or is adjacent to territory already characterized by urban growth, or is a designated new fully contained community as defined by RCW 36.70A.350. 1 • Based upon the growth management population projection made for the county by the Office of Financial Management, the county and each city within the county shall include areas and densities sufficient to permit the urban growth that is projected to occur in the county or city for the succeeding twenty-year period, except for those urban growth areas contained totally within a National Historical Reserve. • Each city must include areas sufficient to accommodate the broad range of needs and uses that will accompany the projected urban growth including, as appropriate, medical, governmental, institutional, commercial, service, retail, and other non-residential uses. • Each urban growth area shall permit urban densities and shall include greenbelt and open space areas. • An urban growth area determination may include a reasonable land market supply factor and shall permit a range of urban densities and uses. In determining this market factor, cities and counties may consider local circumstances. • Urban growth should be located first in areas already characterized by urban growth that have adequate existing public facility and service capacities to serve such development, second in areas already characterized by urban growth that will be served adequately by a combination of both existing public facilities and services and any additional needed public facilities and services that are provided by either public or private sources, and third in the remaining portions of the urban growth areas. Urban growth may also be located in designated new fully contained communities as defined by RCW36.70A.350. • In general, cities are the units of local government most appropriate to provide urban governmental services. In general, it is not appropriate that urban governmental services be extended to or expanded in rural areas except in those limited circumstances shown to be necessary to protect basic public health and safety and the environment and when such services are financially supportable at rural densities and do not permit urban development. N Based on State law, the Pasco UGA is to include all lands within the City and may include lands outside the City if the lands are urban in nature or adjacent to territory that is already characterized by urban growth like the Byers Road area, the Clark Addition and the McDonald Road area. The UGA needs to contain a sufficient amount of land to accommodate expected population growth as determined by the Office of Financial Management (OFM). In addition to the population projections the City must also consider land needs for parks and open space, schools, retail businesses, churches, offices, industrial buildings and other land uses. OFM provides population estimates for each county in the state. The City and the County have previously determined that 80 percent of the County -wide estimate should be assigned to Pasco. The remaining 20 percent is divided between the County and the small communities within the County. The table below shows Pasco's portion of the overall County population projections. Pasco Population Projections Year Low Medium High 2020 70,114 79,770 93,109 2025 76,486 91,025 112,931 2030 82,466 101,954 132,493 2035 89,970 114,470 153,705 2038 94,306 121,828 166.052 2040 93,311 126,859 174,830 Based on the OFM projections Pasco could become a city of 121,828 residents during the next 20 years. This would be an increase of 50,148 over the current 71,680 population estimate. Using the current OFM household size of 3.278, 15,298, new housing units will be needed to accommodate the projected population growth. The need to accommodate additional dwelling units translates into the need for additional land within the UGA. At about four units per acre about 3,500 acres of land will be needed for just the new housing units. Some of the new dwellings can be accommodated within the current UGA boundaries but much of the new housing can only be accommodate by increasing the size of the UGA. In the determination for UGA land needs local market supply factors may also be considered to ensure land prices are not artificially raised resulting from constraints placed on the market due to limited availability of lands within the UGA. 3 The current lack of available land within the UGA is driving up the cost of land up. This is creating a conflict with the State goal (RCW 36. 70A.210(3)e) and local County wide policy (#6) dealing with the need to provide affordable housing within the County and City. Land prices have risen from about $32,000 an acre (181960 on 9/25/14) four years ago to about $50,000 an acre in 2017 (1869033 on 10/11/17) and over $60,000 (1876107 on 3/20/18) today. Population projections, land market factors, and preservation of resource lands are not the only items to consider when determining the extent of the UGA. Utility capacities should also be considered. The City updates the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) each year identifying various infrastructure projects necessary to support continued growth within the community. In addition the City maintains a Comprehensive Plan for Sewer, Water and Parks to address service needs for an increasing population and Traffic Improvement Plan to address traffic related needs. These Plans include capital facilities elements and address needs within the proposed UGA Area. General locations of water lines, water towers and sewer lines are identified in these plans. The new Water Plan being adopted in 2018 will include specific guidelines for the location and looping of water lines that will apply within the proposed UGA. In 2010 a new water treatment plant was constructed on Court Street near Road 111 to increase the City's capacity to provide potable water to the community. Construction of a new raw water intake structure and pump house adjacent to the Richland Bridge will be completed by June of 2018 increasing the treatment capacity of the new plant. The main Butterfield water treatment plant intake structure in the Columbia River was also rebuilt in 2015 to improve raw water pumping capacity. An annual budget amount is provide within the CIP to assist with line oversizing to address water line needs in developing areas. This program applies to the proposed UGA. Over the past several years upgrades have been completed at the wastewater treatment plant to increase the City's capacity to accommodate residential and commercial growth. Another 25,000,000 million dollars of upgrades have been scheduled in the Capital Improvement Plan to further increase the capacity of the sewer plant. Additionally, an annual CIP budget amount is provide to assist with sewer line oversizing to address water needs in developing areas. This program applies to the proposed UGA. 4 The Franklin County PUD and Big Bend Electric built a new substation north of the Columbia Place subdivision (west of Road 68 north of Snoqualmie) in 2004. The PUD also enlarged and upgraded the Road 52 and Argent substation about three years ago to support future growth in the community. The PUD five year capital plan calls for a new substation to be located north of Burns Road to the east of Convention Drive which will further add to the PUD's capacity to serve the community with power needs. Appendix III of the Comprehensive Plan (attached) provides a detailed explanation of the Urban Growth Area needs resulting from the new population estimates. Also attached is a draft land use map showing the possible extent of the UGA based on the new population and housing numbers. The proposed UGA boundary includes 160 plus acres of land at the northeast corner of Road 52 and Burns Road. This parcel was previously the subject of a UGA amendment in 2014 and 2016. Rather than amend the boundary to include the 160 acres in the UGA the County suggested the matter be held for the 2018 Comprehensive Plan update when new OFM population projections were available. The population projections, showing a sizeable increase (50,148), were made available to the City in January of this year. Based on those projections the proposed UGA includes the 160 acres from the 2014 and 1016 application to the County. During the early years of the 2018-2038 planning period the first development will occur adjacent to the existing city limits where utility and street connections are available. The 160 plus acres in question is located across a street from an elementary school and at the intersection of arterial and collector streets. The property owners previously install a 16 inch water line in Road 52 to serve the new school and their property to the north. Being located between the school, the Madison Park subdivision to the south and the Clark Addition to the north the 160 acres is in an area already developed and characteristic by urban growth thereby meeting a key qualifying factor to be included within an Urban Growth Boundary. Based on the City's current and past Comprehensive Plans residential development has been encouraged in the western reaches of the community and industrial development has be encouraged to the east around the port facilities, railyards and other industrial features. As a result the 160 acres in question is located in westerly and northerly path of future residential development. With the need to find room for another 15, 298 new dwelling units every additional acre within the UGA is important to fill the mandate to create a UGA with sufficient size to match the population projections. 5 During the 2014 and 2016 UGA amendment process the Port of Pasco expressed concern over including the 160 acre parcel in the UGA because part of the property falls under Airport Safety Zones 2 and 4. Including the property in the Pasco UGA will not change the fact the property will be burdened with the airport zones. The City and the County adopted the safety zone regulations at the request of the Port for the purpose of protecting the viability of the Tri -Cities Airport as a significant resource to the community by encouraging compatible land uses, densities and reducing hazards that may endanger the lives and property of the public and aviation users. These regulations are intended to address land use issues around the airport and to provide protection to the approaches to the airport. The UGA boundary amendment cannot change the Airport Zoning regulations that are in place to protect the airport. There is some difference between City and County zoning regulations for the Airport overlay zones in that the County limits development to 1 unit per five acre in Zone 4 and the City permits two units per acre. However, the Pasco regulations provide far less density and concentration of people than the recommended standards. The WSDOT Airports & Compatible Land Use Guidebook (M 3074.00) from which the Zoning overlays were modeled indicates there can be a different standard in the densities between Zone Four in rural areas verses urban areas. Table F-1 of the Guidebook indicates Zone Four inside UGA's can have higher densities and mixed use develop with 15 or more units per acre. Table F-2 states that mixed-use office/commercial/residential uses are permitted in Zone Four. Residential clusters with more than 40 percent open space, mobile home parks, boarding houses and residential infill are all permitted uses in Zone Four on limited basis. The airport protection regulations the City adopted are more restrictive than the State Guidebook in that mixed-use office/commercial/residential uses are not permitted. Mobile home parks and boarding houses are also not listed as permitted uses. The Pasco regulations will net 1.6 dwelling units per acre. Far less density or concentration of people than the State guidebook recommends with the allowance of mixed-use office/commercial/residential buildings. The Pasco regulations provide greater protection to the airport be drastically reducing the concentration of buildings and people than what is suggested by the WSDOT Guidebook. In addition to the adoption of protection overlay zones the City requires land developed within and near the airport safety Zone to have the following statement on all subdivision plats: "Property within this (plat/short plat or binding site plan) may be subject to varying noise levels and vibrations due to proximity 0 to the Tri -Cities Airport. Properties near the airport may be located within height and use restriction zones as described and illustrated by Federal standards and regulations and the City of Pasco Zoning Regulations. There is the potential that standard flight patterns will result in aircraft passing over the properties at low altitudes and during all hours of the day. Future airport expansion including runway extensions may impact the size and number of aircraft utilizing the airport. Developments near the airport should assume that at any given time there will be some impact from air traffic." The above statement becomes a notice of record when the plats are recorded and follows the titles of each lot placing property owner's on notice of nearby airport operations and airport zoning regulations. The City adopted Airport Zoning regulations provide a public benefit to the community by protecting the air space around the airport. These regulations will enable the airport to extend runway 12 in the future with or without the applicant's property being in the UGA. The Compatibility Zones imposed on property owners benefit the airport, airlines and the traveling public. Land owners within the Airport Safety Compatibility Zones provide that public benefit by involuntarily accepting a significantly lower or no development potential for their land as compared to similar properties not burdened by the Airport Compatibility Zones. The land owner's provide an additional benefit to protect airport operations by encumbering plats with a statement notifying future property owners of nearby airport operations. By excluding the 160 acres from the UGA the Port is asking the City to ignore or discount the adopted regulations that protect airport operations. The government is generally barred from forcing a few people to bear the burden of providing a public benefit which in all fairness and justice should be borne by the public as a whole. The owner of the 160 acres in question is already providing a public benefit by involuntarily accepting the restriction of Zone 2 prohibiting all development on 32 acres of land and very limited development (more limited than the Recommendation of the WSDOT Handbook) on 40 acres with Zone 4. Rather than having the general public cover the cost of that burden the City is being asked to shift the burden to the owner of the 160 acres. Findings of Fact The following are initial findings drawn from the background and analysis section of the staff report. The Planning Commission may add WJ additional findings to this listing as the result of factual testimony and evidence submitted during the public hearing. 1. The GMA (RCW 36.70A110) requires the establishment of Urban Growth Areas. 2. The goals of the Growth Management Act related to UGA's include: i) Encouraging development of urban areas where adequate public facilities and services exist or can be provided in an efficient manner; ii) Reducing the inappropriate conversion of undeveloped land into sprawling low-density development; and, iii) Maintaining and enhance natural resource based industries, including productive timber, agriculture, and fisheries industries. 3. Each city located in Franklin County must be included within a UGA. (RCW 36.70a.I10) 4. UGA's are to encompass lands within the City's recognized utility service area. (RCW 36.70a.110) 5. UGA's may include portions of the County already characterized by urban growth or adjacent to urban growth. The proposed UGA is adjacent to the northern boundary of the Pasco City limits and the Clark Addition. The Douglas Fruit facility, the Byers Road neighborhood and McDonald Road neighborhood are LAMRID developments within the proposed UGA that are urban in nature. (RCW 36.70a.110) 6. Designated Urban Growth Areas are to include enough undeveloped land to adequately accommodate forecasted growth for a 20 year planning period. (RCW 36.70a.110) 7. An urban growth area determination may include a reasonable land market supply factor and shall permit a range of urban densities and uses. (RCW 36.70a.110) 8. Urban Growth Areas must include areas sufficient to accommodate the broad range of needs and uses that will accompany the projected urban growth including, as appropriate, medical, governmental, institutional, commercial, service, retail, and other nonresidential uses. (RCW 36.70a.110) s 9. Forecasted growth is determined by population projections provided by the State Office of Financial Management (OFM). (RCW 36.70a.110) 10. OFM provided Franklin County with population estimates in at the end of December 2017. The low, medium and high projections to the year 2038 as follows: 117,882,152,285 and 207,565. 11. The Franklin County and the cities therein have used the medium range population projections for growth management planning purposes since the inception of the GMA. The mid- range. For the 2038 planning period Pasco has selected the mid-range projection. 12. Per a January 18, 2018 County memo eighty percent of the OFM population estimates were assigned to Pasco. 13. The Pasco mid-range population estimate is 121,828 for an increase of 50,148 over the 2017 population. 14. The current Pasco household size is 3.278 persons per house hold. 15. At 3.298 persons per household 15,298 new dwelling units will be need to accommodate 50,148 new residents in Pasco. The high projection results in the need for 28,789 new dwelling units. 16. Based on historic and current permitting trends approximately 2,447 of the projected new housing units will be multi -family units and 12,851 will single-family units. 17. Based on available land within the current UGA all of the estimated multi -family dwelling units and 2,643 single-family units can be absorbed within the current UGA boundaries. The remaining 10,208 single-family units will need to be located in an expanded UGA. 18. To meet Comprehensive Plan goals related to providing a wide variety or full range of housing options for all economic segments of the population there may be the need for some additional multi -family housing beyond the current UGA G] boundaries. Additional multi -family development within an expanded UGA will help provide needed buffer areas around commercial nodes. 19. Based on the housing estimates to accommodate the OFM population projections Pasco will need an additional 2,914 acres of land in the UGA for residential development, roads and a land market factor of about 10 percent. 20. To accommodate for a the broad range of needs and uses as required by RCW 36.70a.110 the Pasco UGA will need land for parks and open spaces, churches, schools, daycares, fire stations, other government and other non-residential uses. 21. The full range of land uses to serve and complement housing needs is estimated to be 2,275 acres. 22. The current UGA boundaries have restricted the availability of land for development such that it has impact the cost of land. Raw land price have risen from about $32,000 per acre in 2014 to over $60,000 an acre in 2018. 23. State and local housing goals encourage the provision of affordable housing (RCW 36. 70A.210(3)e and County Policy # 6) within the community. The current UGA boundaries are creating market demand factors that increase the cost of housing inconsistent with RCW 36.70A. 210(3)e. 24. A land market factor was added to the calculated land use needs to address escalating land values that impact housing affordability. 25. The City updates the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) each year identifying various infrastructure projects necessary to support continued growth within the community. 26. The City maintains a Comprehensive Plan for Sewer, Water and Parks to address service needs for an increasing population and Traffic Improvement Plan to address traffic related needs. These Plans include capital facilities elements and address needs within the proposed UGA Area. 10 27. The new Water Plan being adopted in 2018 include specific guidelines for the location and looping of water lines that will apply within the proposed UGA. 28. The CIP includes an annual project to assist with water line oversizing to address water line needs in developing areas. This program applies to the proposed UGA. 29. The CIP includes an annual project to assist with sewer line oversizing to address water line needs in developing areas. This program applies to the proposed UGA. 30. Over the past several years upgrades have been completed at the wastewater treatment plant to increase the City's capacity to accommodate residential and commercial growth. Another 25,000,000 million dollars of upgrades have been scheduled in the Capital Improvement Plan to further increase the capacity of the sewer plant. 31. The City has an adopted concurrency ordinance requiring all development—residential or commercial -to install the necessary infrastructure to serve said development. Developers and property owners are required to install and extend streets and utilities to and through their developments. 32. The proposed UGA amendment area does not meet the test used by the County for being classifying as prime farm land. The soils on this site are not considered prime agricultural soils. The land is also located between a rapidly growing City and the already developed Clark Addition with 200 houses and a fire station 33. The five year capital plan for the PUD calls for a another new substation to be located north of Burns to the east of Convention Drive which will further add to the PUD's capacity to serve the community with power needs. 34. In 2010 a new water treatment plant was constructed on Court Street near Road 111 to increase the City's capacity to provide potable water to the community. 35. Construction of a new raw water intake structure and pump house adjacent to the Richland Bridge will be completed in 11 June of 2018 and will increase the treatment capacity of the West Pasco water treatment plant. 36. The main Butterfield water treatment plant intake structure in the Columbia River was also rebuilt in 2015 to improve raw water pumping capacity. 37. In 2014 the City updated the Comprehensive Sewer Plan that identifies near and long term sewer collection/ treatment system needs to accommodate increased population. The update plan incorporated the proposed UGA area identifying the general location of future facilities to serve the area. 38. Per Municipal Code Sections 26.04.115(B) and Section 3.07.160 the assignment of water rights are a requirement of plat approval for new subdivisions and or for the issuance of building permits. Where no water rights are available to transfer to the City the property owner/ developer must pay a water right fee in lieu thereof which enables the City to purchase additional water rights. 39. Per the National Cooperative Soil Survey much of the proposed UGA area contains Quincy Loamy fine sand and is identified as Map Unit Symbol 89 or 90 with Irrigated Capability Class Ratings of 3 & 6. Class 3 soils have severe limitations that reduce the choice of plants or that require special conservation practices. Class 6 soils have severe limitations that make them generally unsuitable for cultivation. 40. The proposed UGA boundary was held out of all soil areas that are better suited for agricultural production and that have been designated as Ag Resource Fields or Prime Irrigated Land. 41. A portion (72.6 acres) of the proposed UGA area falls under Airport Protection Zones Two and Four. The 72.6 acres are part of a larger 160 plus acre parcel of land. The Airport zoning regulations contained in apply to the property regardless of the location of the UGA Boundary. 42. On May 8, 2018 a consultation per RCW 36.70a.510 meeting was held at the Tri -Cities Airport to review the proposed UGA boundaries with airport stakeholders. 12 43. The City and County adopted the safety zone regulations at the request of the Port for the purpose of protecting the viability of the Tri -Cities Airport as a significant resource to the community by encouraging compatible land uses, densities and reducing hazards that may endanger the lives and property of the public and aviation users. These regulations are intended to address land use issues around the airport and to provide protection to the approaches to the airport. 44. The UGA Boundary amendment cannot change the adopt airport protection regulations. 45. Airport safety Zone Two does not any residential development. Zone Four allows two units per raw acre in the City and one unit per five acres in the County. 46. The City's Zone Four regulations after allowing for roads permits about 1.6 units per acre which is far more restrictive and protective of the airport than the recommended conditions in the WSDOT Airports and Compatible Land Use Guidebook (M 3074.00) January 2011. The City regulations provide greater protection than the State guidelines. 47. The State handbook recommends Zone Four within UGA's permit mixed-use office/ commercial /residential development. The State handbook also suggests permitting residential infill, residential cluster development, mobile home parks and boarding homes within Zone Four. The City regulations will not permit any of this State recommended high density high population concentration uses in Zone Four. 48. The City further protects airport interests by requiring an airport operational notice on all plats located within airport safety zones permitting development and the practice has been to require the notice on plats adjacent to but not in the safety zones. 49. The airport plat notice becomes a notice of record when the plats are recorded. 50. Based on the State handbook with suggest/ recommended airport protection regulations and Pasco's adoption of stricter regulations areas outside the Airport Safety Zone can be fully developed to underlying zoning standards. 13 51. Approximately 94 acres of land within the 160 acre plus parcel that is partially burdened with the Airport Safety Zones can be developed without airport zoning restrictions. 52. By excluding the 160 acres from the UGA the Port is asking the City to ignore or discount the existing adopted regulations that protect airport operations. These special airport zoning regulations impact only a portion of the total 160 acres. 53. Further restricting the 160 acres in question from development by excluding it from the UGA because less than half of the land is development restricted adds an additional public burden that other property owners in the area with similar unrestricted land do not have to bear. 54. The government is generally barred from forcing one person or a few people to bear the burden of providing a public benefit which in all fairness and justice should be borne by the public as a whole. The owner of the 160 acres in question is already providing a public benefit by involuntarily accepting the restriction of Zone 2 prohibiting all development on 32 acres of land and very limited development (more limited than the Recommendation of the WSDOT Handbook) on an additional 40 acres with Zone 4. Recommendation MOTION: I move to adopt findings of fact and conclusions therefrom as contained in the staff report dated May 17, 2016. MOTION: I move based on the findings of fact and conclusions therefrom, the Planning Commission recommend the Pasco Urban Growth Boundary be amended per Exhibit #1 attached to the staff memo dated May 17, 2018. 14 _ =x m P i 9 m m m m a r A 2 2 4 � ou as y r n � s OBitzs as Co • '� Opp m •o <• •� • •�o�oa••a0000aoo:oboe:oo ati �: Appendix Iff - Urban Growth Area Expansion RCW 36.70A.110 (1) Mandatory GMA Provision Introduction Under the provisions of the GMA urban growth is to be principally contained within designated boundaries (Urban Growth Boundaries) around urban centers in all counties planning under the Act. The Urban Growth Boundary defines the location of the city's urban growth area (UGA). The UGA is where urban development is expected and where growth can be supported by urban services. The UGB is the demarcation line between where the community encourages urban growth and where rural activities are to be preserved. By directing growth to UGAs natural resource lands such as commercially significant farms lands can be conserved and the character of rural areas can be maintained for future needs. Each urban growth area including Pasco's is to contain sufficient land area to accommodate expected growth for a 20 year planning horizon. The expected growth is determined by population projections prepared by the State Office of Financial Management which are used by Franklin County and the cities therein to allocate urban and rural growth for each jurisdiction. The UGA defines the area in which the City must plan under GMA. The UGA establishes the boundaries for land use planning, transportation planning, and public service planning and utility planning. Under the GMA, cities are identified as the units of government most appropriate to provide urban governmental services. In general urban governmental services are to be confined within the UGA. Only in limited circumstances where it is necessary to protect public health and safety or the environment can these service extend beyond the UGA. Growth Management Mandate Development of the Urban Growth Boundary recommendation was guided in particular by the following GMA Planning Goals: Encourage development in urban areas where adequate public facilities and services exist or can be provided in an efficient manner. Reduce the inappropriate conversion of undeveloped land into sprawling, low- density development. Maintain and enhance natural resource-based industries, including productive timber, agriculture, and fisheries industries. Encourage the conservation of productive forest lands and productive agricultural lands, and discourage incompatible uses. The state goals, in turn, led to the following Countywide Planning Policies (CPP) that provide specific guidance for the establishment of Pasco's UGA. POLICY NO.2 Policies to Implement RCW 36.70A.110 relating to the establishment of Urban Growth Areas. A. Each City within Franklin County will be included within a designated urban growth area. B. Designated urban growth areas should include an amount of undeveloped area to adequately accommodate forecasted growth and development for the next 20 years. C Designated urban growth areas should include those portions of the county already characterized by urban growth and having existing public facilities and service capacities to serve existing and future growth. D. Designated urban growth areas should include those areas that are within the recognized utility service areas of each City. E. The size of urban growth areas will vary due to regional settings and should be adequate to promote viable economic development strategies promote choices in housing accommodations and insure adequate lands are available for associated open spaces and public purposes. G. Municipalities should limit the extension of water and sewer service to areas within each jurisdiction's urban growth boundary. Growth Projections The Washington State Office of Financial Management (OFM) is responsible for providing population estimates for all Counties and cities required to plan under the provisions of the 1990 Growth Management Act. OFM provides a low medium and high projection for each county. County population estimates are then assigned to the cities within the counties based local processes. The current low projection of 87,642 for 2020 is over 2,600 persons lower than the current 2017 estimate of 90,330 for the overall County population. It has been found that the low OFM series for population growth is constantly lower than actual population growth for Franklin County. The high series has been found to overestimate the population. As a result the County and jurisdictions there in rely 2 on the mid-range population estimates for planning purposes. The 2018 population projections for Franklin County are contained in Table No.1 TABLE # 1 OFM Population Projections for Franklin County Year Low Medium High 2020 87,642 99,712 116,386 2025 95,607 113,781 141,164 2030 103,082 127,443 165,616 2035 112,462 143,087 192,131 2038 117,882 152,285 207,565 2040 121,639 158,574 218,538 Allocation of Future Population Growth The current OFM population estimate for Pasco is approximately 71,680. Over the years the population of the Pasco has represented 80 percent or more of the total County population. As a result the County has always been assigned 80 percent of the OFM County population projections to Pasco for Comprehensive Planning purposes. Historically the 80 percent assignment has been based on the OFM mid-range projection. Within the planning horizon the City of Pasco will need to anticipate a growth scenario where the County population reaches about 152,285. With 80 percent of that population assigned to Pasco the City's population is expected to reach about 121,828 by 2038. This is an increase of 50,148 over the current City population. Urban Growth Area Needs Residential Needs The future Pasco Urban Growth Area will need to accommodate an additional 50,148 new residents based on the OFM mid-range population projections. Using the current OFM household size of 3.278, 15,298, new housing units will be needed to accommodate the projected population growth. By comparison the OFM high projection would generate the need for about 28,789 additional dwelling units. Additional housing to accommodate the projected population is the main contributor to the need for expanding the UGA. Over 80 percent of Pasco's housing stock consists of single-family homes. Over the past 18 years about 16 percent of new residential building permits have been issued for multi -family units. Prior to 2002 there were no multi -family units built for about 20 years. 3 Based on past trends the City expects to see another 2,447 multi -family units built by 2038. The single-family stock will increase by 12,851 units during the same period. Current multi -family development is split between R-2, R-3 and R-4 zoning with 41 percent being zone R-2, 43 percent being R-3 and 16 percent being R-4. Based on the multi -family densities prescribed by the zoning code around 251 acres will be needed. Streets and a land market factor will need to be added bring the total multi -family land needs to about 345 acres. The current UGA has 445 acres of land designated for multi -family development. It is anticipated much of the new multi -family development will occur in the current UGA however; to meet housing and land use goals and policies of the plan related to providing a full range of residential environments, buffers between commercial and residential areas and the opportunity for mixed use development some key locations in the UGA will need to be identified for future multi -family development. During the 2008 Comprehensive Plan update single-family densities were estimated to be about 9,600 square feet per dwelling unit. This was due to the significant areas in West Pasco that were zoned for large lots. The larger lots reflected that fact that large areas in unincorporated West Pasco were not served by sewer. For the 2018 plan update the overall density for single-family has been lowered to 8,200 square feet per lot. This higher -density is reflected in the fact that the larger West Pasco lots have been off -set by higher -density lots in the 1- 182 corridor. The 8,200 square foot lot size will enable the City to achieve about four (3.9) dwelling units per acre. Based on the available vacant land and lots within the current UGA boundary about 2,643 single-family dwelling units can be accommodated within the current UGA. The remaining 10,208 dwelling units needed for the projected population must be accommodated beyond the current UGA boundaries. With streets and a 10 percent land market factor the Pasco UGA will need to expand by 4.13 square miles (2,645 acres) to accommodate single-family land needs by 2038. Combine multi -family and single-family land needed to provide for a wide range of residential environments for all income levels will required an additional 2,914 acres. Park and Open Space Needs Based on the information in the "Summary of Park Land and Facilities Needs Table No. ?? of Chapter 7 " the City will need an additional 1,935 acres of new park land and 503 acres for specialty recreation features new during the 20 year planning period. The combined total park land and specialty feature needs equals 2,438. With roads and a land market factor the total need is 3,352 acres. Church Needs Based on the current population (71,680) and the number of church buildings (54) within the Pasco there is one church building for every 1,327 people. However there are more congregations that church buildings. In addition at least three church groups are renting commercial buildings and eleven congregations are sharing just three buildings. Based on the current number of church 4 congregations in the City, the church to population ratio drops to 1,156 people per congregation. If all church groups had their own building there would be 65 church buildings in the City. Based on the population to church building ratio of 1,327 people per church and additional 38 churches will be need by 2038. Based on congregation numbers there could be an additional 43 congregations in the city by 2038. All churches seek to grow and growth can be inhibited by sharing buildings or renting store fronts. It would not be unreasonable to consider some of the doubled up church groups and store front rentals will grow into additional church buildings within the city. Therefore future church land area needs will be calculated for an additional 40 church buildings. The average lot size (from a sample of 14 churches) for church buildings in Pasco is around five acres. However, some of the newer churches have larger lots. The new LDS Stake Center on Porto Lane has 8.2 acres and the Faith Assembly Church on Road 72 has 15 acres. These church properties include buildings, large parking lots and play fields or structures. Base on the five acres per church the community will another 200 acres of land for churches. With the addition of streets and a 10 percent land market factor total church land needs will be 275 acres. School Needs The Pasco School District indicates for future school planning purposes the District is anticipating and average of .72 students per dwelling unit. Based on the need for an additional 15,298 new dwellings by 2038 the School District will need to plan for another 11,015 students. The increased student population will be divided between new elementary, middle and high schools. Each elementary school will house about 750 students while middle schools typically are built for 1,100 students and high schools house 2,200 students. The School District currently has a high school site two elementary school sites and a middle school site for future school buildings. Construction on elementary school # 16 will begin in the spring of 2018 followed by elementary school # 17 and middle school # 4. In addition to these proposed schools the District will need an additional 9 elementary schools and one more middle school. Nine elementary schools will occupy about 180 acres and another one or two middle schools will require 40-80 more acres. The School District will also need to purchase an additional high school site before the end of the planning period to secure land for a future high school prior to full development of the UGA. This will require another 80 acres of land. With required roads the Scholl district will need about 425 acres for future schools. Daycare and Related Needs There are currently sixteen commercial daycare related facilities in Pasco. Commercial daycares do not include the numerous family home daycares that are operated out of private family homes. For every 4,480 people there is one commercial daycare. An additional 12 commercial daycare facilities will be needed by 2038. Each daycare occupies about an acre of land. As a result the E city will need about 15 acres of additional land for commercial daycares along with necessary roads and the land market factor. Fire Station Needs The National Fire Protection Association indicates for cities the size of Pasco there should be one firefighter for every 1,000 people. Pasco currently has .7 firefighters per 1,000 people. The projected population increase will generate a need for 35 to 50 new firefighters depending on what population to firefight ratio that is used. The Fire Department is working toward the NFPA standard. Fire stations in Pasco house between five to eight firemen per station. Potentially there is a need for another 10 fire station. The current plan for the fire Departments calls for another 4 fire station to be added to cover current needs and some future needs. One or two additional station may be needed beyond the four proposed to service the projected increase in residents. A typical fire station can function on 1.5 acres of land. Stations with ladder trucks and other specialized equipment function better with two acres. Six new fire stations would need a minimum of 9 acres. If two of the proposed stations housed additional equipment the acreage would increase to 10. Add the streets and a land market factor and the city will need about 14 acres for new fire station. Commercial Land Needs Most of the future commercial retail and office development in Pasco is anticipated to occur in the 1-182 Corridor. Heavy commercial development requiring storage yards, equipment yards (wholesale businesses, distribution services, heavy equipment ales contractors etc.) will continue to locate in the Oregon Avenue area and the Columbia East/King City neighborhood. Heavy commercial uses require C-3 zoning and there is no C-3 zoning west of Road 36. About 260 acres of land around the Road 68 and Road 100 Interchanges have been developed for commercial activity over the past 17 years. Another 490 acres of commercial property is still vacant in the 1-182 Corridor. Based on the number of years it took for the existing commercial areas to develop there should be ample land remaining in the UGA to accommodate commercial development for the next 20 years. The only question related to this matter is the location of the vacant commercial land in relation to where residential development will occur. With the Road 100 Interchange being more or less in the geographic center of the Tri -Cities the City will likely see the development of regional services near that interchange. For neighborhood services and walkable shopping it will be necessary to include some commercial land in the UGA at key intersections near residential development. Perhaps as little as 100 acres would be needed for neighborhood commercial development. Industrial Land Needs Pasco contains the Tri -Cities Airport, the Port of Pasco Marine Terminal and related lands, the Pasco Processing Center, a petroleum tank farm, about 70 percent of the Tri -City trucking firms, the BNSF classification yard and other Z industrial facilities. About 40 percent of the land area within Pasco is zoned for industrial development. There are over 900 acres of vacant industrial land south of "A" Street and over 1,500 acres of vacant industrial land east of SR 12 and along SR 395. Over 900 acres of the industrial land east of the highways and inside the UGA is tied up in DNR ownership. DNR owns 1,234 acres of industrial land in the King City and the Pasco Kahlotus Highway areas. DNR has no interest in allowing their property to be developed for anything other than farming. As a result these lands will remain in agricultural production through the duration of the planning period. Sixty-two percent of these lands are in the City limits and cannot be removed from the UGA. The balance of the land is outside the City limits and zoned for industrial uses by the Franklin County. The Port of Pasco has asked for these lands to remain in the UGA in the hopes an agreement can be reached with the DNR to transition these lands to industrial functions. The DNR lands have been given a land use classification of DNR Reserve. The DNR Reserve denotes lands that may be zoned for industrial use but unavailable for development presently due to DNR ownership. The DNR property impacts the market factor by reducing the available acreage for industrial development. Rearranging the UGA boundary to avoid DNR property south of the Pasco/Kahlotus Road will not help because the DNR also owns significant acreage outside the UGA in that area. The Port of Pasco has expressed concern about the impact of the DNR property on the community's ability to attract industrial development and has asked that the City consider a market factor adjustment to provide land for job creating industries. The Tri Cities Airport property also presents a unique challenge to the City in determining future land use needs. The Airport occupies 2.89 square miles of land not including the surround protection areas that are off the airport site proper. Much of the airport property is devoted to airport operations and is not generally available for industrial or commercial development. The exception being the East Business Park area which is more or less completely occupied and the Business Park between Runway 3L and West Argent Road. Certain areas of the airport property could be developed for specialized airport related activities. Based upon the airports development activities over the past forty years the prospect for airport related development between the runways is very unlikely. To address the market factor concern over the DNR land and the limited use options for airport lands there is a need to add several hundred acres of industrial lands to the UGA. The area between Highway 395 and Railroad Avenue north of the existing City Limits and UGA boundary is zoned for industrial development and is within a County Industrial LAMIRD. There are a total of 649 acres in this area. One hundred and six acres are occupied by Granite Northwest, 35.6 acres are owned by the Federal Government and Highway 395, the BNSF rail line occupy 90 acresand the PUD power plat contains 6 acres. The remaining 411 acres is undeveloped farmland. The 411 acres of undeveloped land would provide a 54 percent offset to the DNR Reserve lands. In addition to the need of offsetting the DNR lands there is also a community need for a future community soccer complex. The Park and Open Space Element (Chapter 7) indicates the community is significantly underserved by parks and recreational facilities. One 7 hundred and twenty acres (120 acres) of land for this purpose could be added to the east of Capitol Avenue. The additional recreational lands and replacement land for the DNR property total 769 acres. Miscellaneous Needs In addition to fire stations, school, parks and the other items discussed above communities also need libraries, lift stations, food banks, Public Works satellite yards, storm water facilities, Health District facilities, drug treatment homes and facilities, satellite police stations, cell tower sites, water tower/reservoir sites, booster station, substations and other facilities. 160 acres has been assigned to these needs. It is difficult to determine the total acreage needed for these facilities. The 100 acres is an estimate. The need could be greater or smaller. A senior center, which is not listed could use as much as 3 acres. A 2.5 million water tower usually occupies five acres Existing Vacant Lands Assessment The current UGA contains 1710 vacant single-family lots, 679 vacant low density parcels and 445 acres of vacant mixed residential parcels. There are also 604 acres of vacant commercial lands, 2,400 acres of vacant industrial lands and 603 acres of government and other types of vacant lands within the current UGA. Fifty-eight percent of the other lands consist of the American Rock gravel pit and related lands. The remaining 42 percent of the other category are vacant government owned properties and or properties occupied by irrigation ditches and ponds, or properties reserved for future churches and other non-residential development. Even though vacant land may be designated and zoned for certain uses there may be unknown reason why it has remained vacant or will continue to be vacant. The City has no means of compelling property owners to develop their vacant land and because land is vacant it does not necessarily mean it is available for immediate development. For example there are a number of lots in the Kutzman's Addition that have remained undeveloped since the plat was originally recorded in 1890. The same holds true for lots in the Terrance Heights (1911) subdivision and Gray's Amended Addition (1888). Likewise it is difficult to predict how and when vacant parcels and lots will develop in the West Pasco West. Pasco contains hobby farms, small pastures, truck farms and vineyards that have shaped the general character of the area for half a century. Pasco is an agricultural community and 4H activities will continue to persist in the West Pasco neighborhoods well into the future. As a result hobby farms will continue to characterize large portions of the West Pasco. A major problem with the vacant land within West Pasco is that fact that much of it consists of remnant parcels created from poor subdivision practices. The placement of houses in the path of future streets, the creation of very long narrow 0 lots and the surrounding of large parcels with houses with no future access points limits opportunities to further divide property for home construction. Changing the land use designation for a given area to allow higher density will not lead to more housing units. Sewer service is needed for the higher densities and currently the area between Argent Road and Court Street is parsley developed making it difficult for the area to finance the cost of sewer lines and lift stations necessary to serve the area. The combination of hobby farms, poor subdivision practices and the difficulty in providing sewer service to Riverview creates practical difficulties for encouraging higher density development within West Pasco. If the slight downward trend in household size continues an increasing number of housing units will be need to serve the projected population. This is another reason to ensure a market factor is calculated into the UGA needs. Table 2 Vacant Lands 2018 0 Low- Mixed- Area Comm. Ind. Gov. Other Density Residential 2008 UGA Area 197.58 11 25.68 Adams/Wilson 129 155 90.6 431.86 Harris Rd - Rd 67.69 7.83 90.6 25 1.58 100 Rd 100 - Rd 84 43.5 17.2 4.15 Rd 84 - Rd 68 63.55 2.35 12.08 10 Rd 68 DNR lands 18 103.45 Rd 68 - Rd 52 83.79 13.93 Rd 52 - 395 58.37 7.29 21 53.14 395-BNR 6 3.39 14.43 12.91 BNR - Hwy 12 8 18.84 900 East of Hwy 12 1500 36 - 100 N of 21.48 50 190.81 20 Fwy Total Acres 678.96 445.02 604.29 2,400 44.25 559.32 0 Designation of the Urban Growth Area The OFM population estimate applicable to Pasco for the planning period is 50,148. There are 257 cities in the State of Washington that have a population of less than 50,000. According to 2000 US Census data cities with a population of 50,000 can range in size from 11 square miles to over 40 square miles in size. For example Renton, Washington had a population of 50,052 in 2000 and occupied an area of 17 square miles. The same Census data indicates the average density of a city with a population of 50,000 is 2,647 persons per square mile. Pasco will need enough land within the UGA boundary to essentially accommodate a city with a population of 50,000 by 2038. To make another comparison illustrating the magnitude of the challenge in selecting an UGA the City of Richland, Washington currently has a population of about 55,000. Pasco's challenge then is to accommodate a planning area large enough to absorb a city almost the size of Richland. Based on the needs assessment discussed above Pasco will need 8,525 acres or 13.32 square miles of land to accommodate the OFM population projections. The calculated land area needs are at the lower end of the size for a typical 50,000 person city per the US Census Bureau. Most of the City's future land needs will be for residential development, park development and streets. A portion of the future residential land needs can be assigned to areas within the current UGA. There are currently 678 acres of available vacant land in the UGA for residential development and 1,710 vacant or proposed residential lots. As a result the current UGA can be used to absorb a portion of the projected population growth. This will reduce the amount of additional residential land needs for an expanded UGA from 3,598 acres to 2,914 acres. The park and opens space needs for the planning period were determined by applying the adopted standards identified in the 2016 Park, Recreation and Forestry Plan to the projected population. Based on those standards the City will need over 3,352 acres (including streets and a market factor) of park land and recreation facilities by 2038. The adopted park standards may not take into consideration that some of the standards could overlap with respect to level of service. A community park located conveniently to several subdivisions could serve to fulfill the neighborhood park needs for the subdivisions. Likewise a large urban park could also serve to fulfill community park needs in certain parts of the community. School playgrounds may also address some neighborhood park needs. The current inventory of park lands is equal to 54.5 percent of the adopted standards. If the current ratio of park land to standards continues through the planning period and parks are used for overlapping purposes the City will need around 1,826 acres for parks and recreation facilities. The park land needs can be further reduced by assigning all of the 2018 needs (952 acres) to the current UGA. Specialized recreation facilities such as tennis courts and ball field needs can also be satisfied by facilities located on public school grounds. By assigning half the specialized recreation needs (197 acres) to school sites the overall parks 10 and recreation needs for beyond the current UGA would then total 677 acres for the planning period. Based on the OFM population projections and the assumptions and needs discussed above the City will need to add another 4,804 acres to the UGA Boundary to accommodate project growth to 2018. Table 3 identifies the gross acres needed to accommodate projected growth verses the acreage that will need to be added to the UGA. Table 3 Land Area Needs by 2038 Land Use Gross Acres Future UGA Acres Residential 3,598 2,914 Commercial 100 100 Industrial 769 609 Parks & Open Space 3,352 677 Schools 425 425 Churches 275 275 Da cares & Related Uses 15 15 Fire Stations 14 14 Miscellaneous 160 160 Total 8,708 acres 13.60 sq. miles 5,189 acres 8.10 sq. miles Population growth is only one factor to consider in determining a UGA Boundary. Existing development patterns, major transportation corridors and utilities are all issues that must be considered. Pasco has developed over the years with industrial facilities locating on the eastern side of the City near the rail yards, airport, Port facilities, marine terminals, tank farms and highways. Residential development began in the central Pasco and grew toward the west and northwest. Commercial development followed major arterials in central Pasco and also located around the Road 68 and Road 100 Interchanges. These growth trends have been reinforced by the land use designation of the Comprehensive Plan that continues to encourage industrial development toward the east and residential toward the west. With industrial land uses being directed to the eastern portion of the City new residential growth will continue to follow the northwesterly pattern as encouraged by the Comprehensive Plan. The City's utility system has been extended to the west and north through a combination of City and developer driven projects. The City's concurrency standards require developers to install all utilities to and through the length of their developments. Utilities available for extension to serve residential and commercial development are primarily located along the Burns Road. Major water lines designed to extend well north of the City are located in Road 68, Road 60, Road 52, Broadmoor Boulevard and Kohler Road. These lines range in size from 24 inches to 12 inches. All other streets that will connect north of the City include 8 inch water lines. The Comprehensive Water System Plan includes projects to extend major water lines to the north in Dent Road, Road 68 and Broadmoor Boulevard. The plan also calls for the placement of three new water storage tanks/reservoirs primarily to serve pressure zone three. Pressure zone three will extend north of the City limits beyond Dent Road. One of the water towers will be located on Rd 68 midway between Dent Road and Burns Road. Another will be placed northerly of the airport and the third reservoir will be near the intersection of Foster Wells and Capitol Avenue. The Comprehensive Water Sewer Plans anticipate Pasco's future growth will occur mainly west of Road 36 and north of Burns Road. The current Comprehensive Sewer Plan indicates the proposed UGA expansion area is to be served by a 24 inch sewer trunk line running east and west in Dent Road connecting to a 21 inch line in Clark Road. Laterals will connect from the north and south long the alignment of Road 52, Convention Drive, Road 84, Broadmoor Boulevard and northerly along the future projection of the north/south section of Dent Road. The trunk line will connect back to the main system along the north/south portion of Dent Road. A lift station is proposed for the northerly end of Road 52 with a force main back to Clark Road. Both the Water and the Sewer Comprehensive Plans contain capital budgeting information related to the utility system. Additionally the City's concurrency standards require the installation of utilities to and through all developments and subdivisions. Permitting and site development approvals are not given until developers submit utility plans meeting the City's standards and receive approval of said plans. Where development precedes the installation of utility lines the City participates in a cost sharing program through the Capital Facility planning process. The developers are required to install the lines and the City pays for the oversizing. Given the significant population growth anticipated over the next 20 years, the location of utilities and the development patterns of the City the expansion of the UGA for residential purposes will need to occur to the north of Burns Road and west of the northerly alignment of Road 36. Expansion of the UGA for industrial purposes will occur east of the BNSF rail line. The attached map shows the extent of the proposed UGA that adds 7.54 square miles to the current UGA that will provide generally 6.44 square miles of land for new residential development. The proposed boundary will result in a population density of 6,651 persons, within the UGA area, per square miles verses 2,647 persons per square mile for the typical city of 50,000 people. 12 Airport Consultation Fleeting RCW 36.70a.510 Land Use Stakeholders Meeting Urban Growth Boundary May 8, 2018 Present: Patrick Wright, WSDOT AVN (PW) Marjy Leggett, AOPA ASN (ML) David McDonald, City of Pasco (DM) Roger Black, local pilot (RB) Bob Ransom, local pilot (BR) Don Faley, Port of Pasco (DF) Mitch Hooper, Mead & Hunt (MH) Buck Taft, Port of Pasco (BT) Elizabeth Tellessen, Winston & Cashatt(ET) Randy Hayden, Port of Pasco (RH) Nicole Stickney, Franklin County (NS) Tara White, Port of Pasco (TW) 1:45 pm DM reported that the population in the City of Pasco is projected to increase by 50,148 in the next 20 years. As a result of this increase, additional land is needed in the Urban Growth Boundary. The City is proposing adding approximately 6 square miles, including approximately 160 acres north of the airport, to accommodate the growth. He referenced the map that addresses the proposed areas to expand the Urban Growth Boundary. He noted that the gray area outlined in a maroon border (Hwy 395) is an industrial area currently in the county that is being proposed for the City UGA. He also pointed out the 160 acres north of the airport is being proposed as residential that would comply with the airport overlay zoning code as approved by the City and the Port. DM then asked for questions or comments. PW asked if there was any way to not include the area off of the end of the runway. DM discussed the lack of other options available for residential. Further north is prime farming land. The Clark Edition is mostly developed. ML expressed her support for reserving land to enable the extension of RWY 30 in the future. She mentioned that with increased population will come airport growth and that the airport needs to be protected. BT spoke about airport operations. The 2013 Master Plan references a peak day of 345 operations; or 61 operations per hour. PSC is on target to be the size of GEG (Spokane airport) in 50 years. Runway 30 is the only runway that can be expanded. He said the growth of PSC must be protected. Flights leave early and arrive late which are times when people are at home sleeping or eating meals. RWY 30 is used for 40% of the flights. NS asked DM if the city has done an analysis on what can occur on the land inside the Urban Growth Boundary already in terms of meeting this need. She specifically referenced the Broadmoor area. She also asked how the analysis was done. She also noted the population growth projections being used were the "medium" numbers. DM stated a gravel lease is currently in place for 350 acres near Broadmoor and no homes could be built on that land. Geomedia was used to complete the analysis. The population of Pasco grew about 50,000 in the last 23 years, so the projection of 50,000 more residents in the next 20 years is in line with historical growth. ML asked if the Urban Growth Boundary could be expanded to the EAST. DM mentioned that there may be some options to the east, but that it has been designated for industrial development due to the rail and marine facilities. Many lots have been left vacant since the 1880s as people have chosen not to develop in the east side. The utility system doesn't extend east and it would be easier to expand to the north. ML asked if there was space near the Ochoa school. DM said some lots are available but not enough land to meet the need. RH described the main concerns the port has is with zone 4. The city is proposing 2 houses per acre. The county zoned it as 1 house/5 acres and WSDOT and the Port prefer to keep the land in the county. The Port would like to keep residential development away from the airport if at all possible and have ag and other compatible uses on the 160 acres north of the airport. High density housing was discussed between RH and DM. There is enough land to absorb the high density projection requirements for the next 20 years, as it only makes up less than 20% of the residential growth. Not many large apartment complexes are being built due to high school impact and otherfees. PW and MH talked about the use of the WSDOT airport land use and compatibility guide. These guidelines need to be incorporated in the planning of the Urban Growth Boundary. NS mentioned there are guides for land use and also building height requirements. PW expressed WSDOT had concerns with zone 2 and zone 3. ML stated again how the airport needs to be protected. She referenced Paine Field as an example and how the pilots already have to make adjustments to avoid loud noise to homeowners. DM asked the question "who is responsible for protecting the airport?" "Is it the community or one property owner?" NS commented that the property owner has not lost anything at this time. If the property is allowed inside the Urban Growth Boundary, he will be given extra expansion rights, but as of now, he has not lost anything. She went on to speak about the process and how the county will work to determine the most appropriate answer to meet the needs of everyone. PW stated it is the city's and county's responsibility to protect the public and pilots and the airport through zoning and land use decisions. It is his job as an official to protect the public. It starts at the city and WSDOT provides guidance. BT asked if the city would indemnify the Port for possible future legal issues with regard to developing homes in the area near the airport. DM mentioned the city did what the Port wanted in 2012 with regard to zoning the areas near the airport. He said the city would not indemnify the port. RH stated that the city and the Port came to an agreement in 2012, but the end result was not what the Port had originally requested of the city. He mentioned in the GMA, airports are considered an important community asset and asked why the city doesn't take that into account in the same manner as the farmland resources that have intentionally been left out of the UGA expansion. He asked if there was some area north of Clark Road and to the west of the 160 acre parcel that might work instead. DM said that might be an option but needed some further research. He said the goal right now is to get a new Urban Growth Boundary in place to meet the population increase demands. DM listed the school impact fees as a barrier for multi -unit development. It is about $4,800/door, plus a $425 traffic impact fee and a $1,400 park fee. One developer left a project after finding out about the fees and the city has not had any more interest in a large unit facility since that time. Some duplexes are being developed. Reducing the fees is not an option at this time. MH discussed residential development near airports. PSC is a "spoke" airport meaning many flights leave early and arrive late. Residents living near airports complain about the noise, form groups and often request the airport to curtail flights during early morning and late evening hours. The FAA does not allow airports to curtail flight times, curtailing flights would put the federal grant dollars received over the past 20 years at risk. Santa Monica airport is being shut down because of this. Residential development near airports is not only difficult but leads to lawsuits and the possibility of losing a community asset. ET discussed the costs associated with the lawsuits. Lawyers paid by the port and the homeowners are an expensive cost. The airport is a public asset and it is in the public's interest to not allow development near the airport. The landowner is not losing anything at this time, and the argument is one sided. DM stated homeowners are made aware during a loan closing of the proximity of the property to the airport. However, he also stated most buyers do not pay attention to this notice. BT reported the airport has received 2-3 calls from folks looking at purchasing property to discuss the implications, noise and proximity to the airport. PW mentioned planes do have a noise impact on landing/take off (2,000-5,000 feet high). NS said the county's role in this process is to decide to accept the city's proposal to expand the Urban Growth Boundary or to modify it. The county establishes the Urban Growth Boundary. She stated when the city proposed adding 160 acres to the boundary in 2014, the county did not approve it. The county looks at the whole picture to make sure all proposals are justified and analyzed. The county also looks at other options. The Urban Growth Boundary can be changed once per year. She also mentioned that the current development being discussed is one of preference to the city because the infrastructure is in place and there is a developer ready to go. BT asked DM whether the city could decide to exclude the 160 acres next to the airport from its UGA request. DM acknowledge the city could exclude the area, but that it did not plan to. RH mentioned the plan made sense if there were not an airport. DM said the city is having a hearing on this on May 17`". Letters of comment can be taken to the hearing or sent in by this Friday (May 11). PW expressed appreciation that the city has taken into account the airport overlay map and that he has been working with other municipalities to do the same. He said he will compose a letter that recommends the best solution for everyone to protect the public, the pilots, the economy and the growth of the airport for the hearing on May 17. A decline at the airport would have a negative impact on the city's economy. Adjourned 2:42 pm. MEMORANDUM Date: May 11, 2018 To: City of Pasco — Planning Commission From: .tames C. Carmody Meyer, Fluegge & Tenney P.S. 230 South Second Street Yakima, WA 98907 Subject: Urban Growth Area Boundary Expansion (UGA) CPA 2018-001 — Farm 2005, LLC This memorandum is submitted by Farm 2005, LLC ("Farm 2005") with respect to City of Pasco's ("City" or "Pasco") expansion of its Urban Growth Area (UGA). Farm 2005 is the owner of a 160 acre parcel of land proposed to be included in the UGA expansion. Attachment A. We fully support Pasco Planning staff recommendations. The City of Pasco ("City" or "Pasco") is required by the Growth Management Act (GMA) to periodically review and update its Comprehensive Plan. RCW 36.70A.130. A key component in the review is evaluation, assessment and planning for the Urban Growth Area (UGA). Pasco Planning Department has conducted an exhaustive review of long-term planning issues and developed a thoughtful recommendation for UGA expansion. Planning Staff recommends that the UGA expansion include 160 acres of property owned by Farm 2005, LLC.' The property meets or exceeds all criteria for inclusion within the Pasco UGA. The inclusion is recomntended by Planning Staff and has twice been recommended by Pasco Planning Commission and approved by Pasco City Council. r Farm 2005, LLC has previously submitted applications for expansion of the UGA in order to accommodate 160 acres of property located adjacent to the northern IJGA boundary. The parcel is located at the intersection of Road 52 and Burns Road. Adjacent properties have been developed with single family residences, a new elementary school was recently constructed and till extension of public utilities including water and sewer are available to serve the property. A locational map is attached as Attachment A. The property is subject to the adopted airport safety overlay ordinance is adopted by Franklin County (FCC Ch. 17.75) and, with annexation, City of Pasco overlay ordinance (PMC Ch. 25.81). Farm 2005 has submitted two (2) prior applications for inclusion of this property within the growth boundary. In each instance, the application has been recommended and approved by Pasco Planning Commission and City COrrCll. Franklin County denied the application and "...strongly encouraged [City of Pasco] to reconsider the UGA Amendment within the context of the 2018 periodic review as required by RCW 36.70A.130(5)(d)." Franklin C nrnq. Resolvlion No. 1015-395. The property is now being considered and proposed for inclusion within the UGA as a part of the periodic review process. Page 2 Growth Management Mandate Development of the UGA area is to be guided by specific state-wide planning goals. The UGA is intended to establish a sufficient area to accommodate growth over a twenty (20) year planning horizon. City of Pasco is facing significant pressures to meet and satisfy growth projections.2 Even at the "medium" population projection, Pasco is projected to have an increase of 50,148 residents. Under the current OFM household size of 3.278, the city will need to plan on providing 15,298 new housing traits. The housing demand includes both single-family and nmiti-family residential properties. This projected growth requires the addition of approximately 3,500 acres of land to the current urban growth area (UGA).' The legislature has set forth a list of specific goals that must be considered and guide the development and adoption of comprehensive plans and development regulations. RC W 36.70A.020. The planning goals include the following: • Urhun Groti,lh. Encmu-age development in urban ureas where adequate public facilities and services exist or can be provided in an efficient manner. • Transportation. Encourage g1licienl nauhhnodal transportation systems that are based on regional priorities and coordinated with county and city comprehensive plans. • Housing. Encourage the availability ofclffordable housing to all economic segments oJ'the population ofdais state, promote a variely of residential densities and housing types, and encourage preservation of exisling housing stock. • Properly rights. Private properly shall not be lakes, for public use rvilhoul Just compensation having been made. The property rights of land owners shall be protected. from arbitrary and discriminatory oclions. • Public Facilities crrvd Services. Ensure that those public facilities and services necessary to support development shall be adequate to serve the development at the time the development is available./or occupancy and '- State of Washington Office of Financial Management (OFM) provides population estimates for each county in the state. OFM has provided population estimates for Franklin County, Washington. 'file City of Pasco and Franklin County have previously determined that 80% of the county -wide population estimate will be assigned to Pasco. The remaining 20% is divided between the County and the small conuttunitics within the County. Pasco has a current population of 71,680 people. The "medium" population estimate indicates that municipal growth over the next twenty years would be to 121,828 residents. This is an increase of 50,148 residents. ' Pasco Planning Staff has provided detailed analysis with respect to both the current available land inventory as well as appropriate population projections. The current UGA contains 702 vacant single-family lots and 82 multi- family lots. Additionally, there are 1,972 vacant acres of single-family land and 172 acres of vacant multi -family land within the current UGA. Of the 1,972 acres of vacant land in the UGA, roads will require 493 acres, schools an soccer complex will require 158 acres; American Rock pit occupies 330 acres; and 80 acres are unbuildable due to steep slopes, floodplain issues and past gravel mining. As a result, there are only 1,248 acres left within the UGA for residential development. Page 3 use wilhord decreasing current service levels below locally e.slabli.shed minimum standards. There are three important planning goals applicable to the Farm 2005 property: (1) development should be located where "adequate public services and facilities exist'; (2) the city must promote a variety of residential densities; and (3) that "private property may not be taken for public use without just compensation." Planning Staff recommendation is consistent with the statutory planning goals. Of critical importance in this case is the planting goal that "...private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation having been made...." The property rights of land owners is to be protected from arbitral), and discriminatory actions. ° The sole opposition to inclusion ofthe Farm 2005 property within the recommended UGA has come from Port of Pasco and Tri -Cities Airport. Stated in another way, Tri -Cities Airport asks that this private property owner sacrifice its property rights for an amorphous and unsubstantiated public benefit. To be clear, a denial of this application is a taking and contrary to the stated planning goal. "The talisman of a taking is government action which forces some private persons alone to shoulder affirmative public burdens, 'which, in all fairness and justice, should be borne by the public as a whole."'. Mission Springs, Inc. v. City of Spokane, 134 Wn.2d 947, 964, 954 P.2d 250 (1998) (quoting Armstrong v. United Stales, 364 US 40, 49 (1960)). It should be remembered that the Farm 2005 property is (1) subject to the adopted airport safety overlay ordinance which future 1800 foot expansion of Runway 12; (2) is located outside of any required air space protection areas; and (3) is not within an area of incompatible noise contours for residential development. Tri -Cities Airport is asking that the Farm 2005 property be sacrificed to the benefit of the airport and, theoretically the public. This exact action has been recognized by the courts as an unconstitutional exercise of governmental authority. DeCook v. Rochester Internalional Airport, 796 N. W.2d 299 (2011) (holding ordinance extending runway safety zone was unconstitutional taking); and McC'arran International Airport v. Sisolak, 122 Nev. 645, 137 P.3d 1 11.0 (2006) (holding ordinance imposing height restriction for airport was a per se taking). Farm 2005 Meets All Standards for Inclusion in the Pasco UGA. Pasco Planning has reviewed the OFM population projections., prepared a land capacity analysis, evaluated facility availability and concurrency, and recommended a significant 4 Planning Goal 6 also seeks to address "arbitrary and capricious" actions. Washington Courts have defined "arbitrary and capricious" to mean "willful and unreasonable action, without consideration and a disregard of facts or circumstances." Hood Canal.Sund & Gravel, UCv. Goldnmrk, 195 Wn. App. 284, 307, 381 P.3d 95 (2016). The denial of this application would be arbitrary and capricious. Page 4 expansion in the Urban Growth Area (UGA). The aggregate recommendation is for the addition of 4237 acres which will be necessary to accommodate 50,148 new residents. Farm 2005 property contributes 160 acres to the municipal need and requirements. Planning staff notes, however, that population projections are not the sole consideration in selecting properties for UGA expansion. Population growth is only one factor to consider in determining a UGA Boundary. Existing development patterns, major transportation corridors and utilities are all issues that must be considered. The Farm 2005 property meets all criteria for inclusion within the expanded UGA. Stated simply it is the most suitable parcel under the applicable standards. • Farm 2005 property is immediately adjacent to the existing Urban Growth Area Boundary. The property is served is adjacent to established transportation corridors — Road 52 and Burns Road. The property is suited for northerly arterial expansion (potentially serving Clark addition). The property is easily developed with flexibility for establishing arterial location, contours and grid layouts. • Farm 2005 property is adjacent to existing residential development and consistent with existing development patterns, includes designation for both single-family and multi -family residential land use. This designation meets GMA's planning goal to "...promote a variety of residential sites and housing types." RCW 36.70A.020(4) (Planning Goal 4). It also addresses the City's need to provide 345 acres of multi -family development land. • All public facilities and services are immediately available to the property. Water and sewer mainlines extend to the intersection of Road 52 and Burns Road and extension will be a developer responsibility at time of development. The presence of adequate existing public facilities and services meets GMA Planning Goal 1. RCW 36.70A.020(1). IS should be noted that the owners of the Farm 2005 property made a contribution of approximately $1,000,000 to the extension of water lines to serve the property. • The property is located immediately adjacent to Franklin STEM Elementary School. Attachment A. Development within the area allows for pedestrian access to the elementary school which would support family based occupancies. • The proposed land use designation and zoning promotes the planning goal to provide "...a variety of residential densities and housing types...." The multi -family designation represents the only significant commitment within the new UGA area multi -family density residences. Page 5 • Market demand for this property reflects the need and suitability of the property for residential development. The property is currently under contract for sale which is conditioned upon inclusion within the Pasco UGA. The purchase recognizes the immediate need for additional residential development properties and the priority of this particular parcel of property. Planning staff recommendation recognizes (1) development limitations established by the airport zoning for Zone 2 (no residential development) and Zone 4 (limited residential development). The property located outside of the airport safety zones is recommended for both single family and multi -family residential occupancies. The multi -family residential recommendation came as a result of a request from Tri -Cities airport. Farm 2005 agrees with this designation. Farm 2005 Property is Subject to Adopted Airport Safety Overlay Zones. In accordance with the Growth Management Act (GMA), City of Pasco and Franklin County engaged in a comprehensive planning process that specifically addressed and established standards for protection of the Tri-Citics Airport. City of Pasco adopted PMC Ch. 25.81 Airport Overlay District. Attachment B. The stated purpose for the Airport Overlay District was as follows: 25.81.010 PURPOSE. The purpose of the Airport Overlay District is to protect the viability of the Tri -Cities Airport as a significant resource to the community by encouraging compatible land uses, densities and reducing hazards that may endanger the lives and property of the public and aviation users. PMC 25.81.010. An overlay district establishes development criteria and standards to supplement the base zoning standards, Selinitaer West, LLC n. Cit), (#'Puyallup, _ Wn.2d (May 10, 2018). The Airport Overlay District was established through consultation with both Franklin County, Tri -Cities Airport, Washington State Department of Transportation — Aviation Division (WSDOT-Aviation) and Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). Each of the participants agreed that the adopted provision established protections with respect to Land use compatibility, permissible densities, hazard reduction and review standards. No appeals were tiled and the ordinance is now the law for the municipality. Farm 2005 property is subject to the specific overlay restrictions and requirements. No variances or exceptions have been requested with respect to the adopted rules. • The Airport Overlay District establishes specific safety standards within the airport influence area which was based upon aircraft accident data from the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), the Federal Page 6 Aviation Regulations (FAR) Part 77 Imaginary Surfaces, and the "Airports and Compatibility Land Use Guidebook" produced by the Washington State Department of Transportation Aviation Division. PMC 25.81.020. The uses proposed for the Farm 2005 property are consistent with those guidelines. • The "overlay" concept is summarized as follows: As the name implies, this classification is laid over the existing City of Pasco zoning district to ensure that densities and land use requirements of the underlying zoning districts are consistent with the NTSB standards and provide for maximum protection to the public, health, safety and general welfare of the community and for those citizens working and residing within the airport influence area. PMC 25.81.020.5 No further restrictions are necessary because the adopted ordinance provides the "maximum protection" for the public. • Airport Overlay District establishes specific height limitation zones based on FAR Part 77 Surfaces — Objects Affecting Navigable Air Space. PMC 25.81.060. This ordinance provides for protection of the airport and en route airspace. WSDOT Com atibility Guidebook—p_1-15, The restriction prevents a structure from penetrating the airspace surfaces. The limitations take into consideration precision instrument approach zones, non -precision instrument approach zones and visual approach zones. The Farm 2005 property is located within the extended approach arca for Runway 12. Runway 12 is a non -precision instrument approach zone. • Airport Safety District also establishes "Airport Safety Compatibility Zones". The airport safety compatibility zones were established following WSDOT Aviation guidelines in "Airport and Compatibility Land Use Guidebook." ("Compatibility Guidebook). Farm 2005 property is subject to limitations set forth in Zone 2 -Inner Approach Departure Zone and Zone 4 -Outer Approach/Departure Zone. PMC 25.81.090. S WSDOT Compatibility Guidebook recognizes that land use compatibility can be addressed through an overlay zone which addresses both the FAR Part 77 hncginary Sud% ices and compatibility zones. The best approach to promoting compatibility is using a combination of regulatory tools. For example, the use of zoning overlay's rely on and have a symbiotic relationship to the underlying zoning districts and regulations. Additionally, there are two types of zoning overlays that are designed to achieve di Trej -cnt purposes. One that is designed and shaped to address critical air space surfaces depicted in federal regulations FAR Part 77 /nmginarp Siftf ices and the other that addresses compatibility /ones or the general operating environment of the airport. (italics WSDOT Compatibility Guidebook - page 2-57.) City of Pasco has adopted both the surface protection and compatibility element in its overlay ordinance. Page 7 Residential development is prohibited in Zone 2. Residential development within Zone 4 is limited to RS -20 except south of 1- 182. This more restrictive than "compatibility criteria" for this zone in WSDOT Guidebook. Ap ea ndi, .h (allowing "high density and intensity mixed use development." — i.e. 15 or more d.u. per acre). All residential development within Zone 4 must include a disclosure statement required by PMC 25.81.1 10 on plats, shat plats and binding site plans. Id ')'here are no use restrictions outside ofZ.one 2 and Zone 4. Airport Safety District was adopted through a public process and compliant with Growth Management Act (GMA). No appeals were filed. The ordinance is binding on all land use decisions and planning. The adopted safety and compatibility determinations cannot be collaterally attacked through a subsequent but unrelated process. Woods v. Kiltilas County, 162 Wh.2d 597, 628, 174 P.3d 25 (2007). The court in Killitas Coun{)f v. Fastern Washinglon Growth Management Hearings Board, 172 Wn.2d 144, 174-175,256 P.3d 1193 (2011) address airport compatibility and stated that: ']-he County's regulation differs from W SDOT recommendations by allowing higher densities and not flatly prohibiting residential uses in certain safety zones. lCitation omittedl. The Board, is supposed to give deference to the County unless the County clearly erred. RCW 36.70A.320(3). The statutory scheme requires only that counties "discourage" incompatible uses. RCW 36.70.547. Discouragement is not the scone as prohibition. • Airport Safety District was designed to specifically consider and protect future expansion of the Tri -Cities Airport. The adopted Airport Safety Overlay accounts for future expansion of Runway 12. Zone 2 and Zone 4 were designed to accommodate a future 1800 foot extension of the northwest runway (Runway 12). Tri -Cities Airport acknowledged this fact in comments regarding the Farm 2005 property.: The Zones r•ver•e laid out according to our 20 -year Master Plan r•rhich includes a i Lure 1800./ rot eclension of our nor•lhsresl runri,ay. This had the effect of changing the area of the UGA expansion from 160 acres to 73 acres — a substantial reduction. The reduced UGA expansion also Jell outside any required air space protections and inconrpalible noise contoursfin- residential development. Page 8 Letter from Ron Foraker (Director of Airports) to Carter Timmerman (WSDOT — Aviation Planner) July 8, 2015.' The facts are as follows: The adopted Airport Overlay District accommodates future expansion of Runway 12 as contemplated in the Tri -Cities Airport Master Plan. r Any property located outside of Zone 2 and Zone 4 are not subject to "required airspace protections." This determination is consistent with the WSDOT land use compatibility guidelines. Areas outside of Zone 2 and Zone 4 are also consistent with established noise contours for residential development. That is. the anticipated noise levels from air traffic activities are less than the established 65 db standard set forth in the Tri -Cities Airport Master Plan. Tri -Cities Airport suggested to Pasco Planning Staff that areas outside of Zone 2 and Zone 4 be designated for multi -family residential occupancies. This request is consistent with the WSDOT compatibility guidelines. Conclusion. Farm 2005 supports the Planning Staff recommendation with regard to expansion of the Urban Growth Area (UGA). The Farm 2005 property is immediately adjacent to the current UGA boundary, consistent with adjacent development patterns, served by available public facilities (water and sewer) and located on established transportation corridors. The property is subject to the adopted Airport Overlay District zoning and consistent with the adopted Tri -Cities Airport Master Plan including expansion. There is no basis to exclude this property firom the UGA expansion. To do so would constitute an unconstitutional taking of property and be arbitrary and capricious conduct in violation of applicable planning goals. UADebhieGWarm 2005. LIX - Wim Fintwprises\NlenuxnnAain to Phmnin!! Conmiission.docs 'In 2015, Farm 2005 submitted its initial application for inclusion of the subject property within the Pasco UGA. Tri -Cities Airport provided comment on the proposed expansion. The comment letter recognized that approximately 73 acres of the total 160 acres was subject to Zone 2 and Zone 4 restrictions. This restriction effectively eliminated residential development within those areas. "rri-Cities Airport recognized this land use restriction to be a "substantial reduction" in the area. This significance of the letter, however, is the recognition that the areas outside of the overlay zone were not subject to any required air space protections and were not incompatible with noise contours for residential development. The final significant point was that recognition that the adopted overlay zone included protection for future expansion of the "northwest runway', i.e. Runway 12. ATTACHMENT A 'a r w I 1 ` I / r a•� orumm �_. � � IgCx 3lxd �' � Ltltll 3xNeli N - I e. O ^g4 O r w + O K UJ ♦ .t�Y.C} { r t \� ¢1i v 8 j✓ i c sa y t '9 a��r, .4✓��u�1 1 ��4�� , .�.ettt'. N� \ $ ,� <� ✓ F . S+ar \ ��� � � 11 �' J. I LL h�yo( SS a• v � � � 5 yr F� 4,gi49 l• Y t ' .1 :i fi ATTACHMENT B CHAPTER 25.81 AIRPORT OVERLAY DISTRICT Sections: 25.81.010 PURPOSE...................................................................................150 25.81.020 AIRPORT OVERLAY DISTRICT .....................................................150 25.81.030 AUTHORITY...............................................................................150 25.81.040 APPLICABILITY..........................................................................151 25.81.050 DEFINITIONS............................................................................151 25.81.060 HEIGHT LIMITATION ZONES ......................................................153 25.81.070 HEIGHT LIMITATIONS................................................................155 25.81.080 USE RESTRICTIONS...................................................................156 25.81.090 AIRPORT SAFETY COMPATIBILITY ZONES...................................156 25.81.110 GENERAL REVIEW PROCEDURES ................................................157 25.81.120 DISCLOSURE.............................................................................158 25.81.010 PURPOSE. The purpose of the Airport Overlay District is to protect the viability of the Tri -Cities Airport as a significant resource to the community by encouraging compatible land uses, densities and reducing hazards that may endanger the lives and property of the public and aviation users. 25.81.020 AIRPORT OVERLAY DISTRICT. There is hereby created an airport overlay district as identified in the map made a part hereof and labeled Tri -Cities Airport Future Part 77 Zones Map and the Airport Safety Compatibility Zones map, as established by the current Tri -Cities Airport Master Plan. All lands lying within the zones therein shown within the city limits of Pasco are subjected to the building and use restrictions within this chapter. This chapter shall be used in addition to and in combination with all other district and development regulations contained in this title. The Airport Authority shall be responsible for providing updated maps to the City coincident with 10 year updates to the Airport Master Plan. The Airport Overlay District classification identifies a series of imaginary surfaces and safety zones within the airport influence area that has historically been prone to hazards associated with aircraft and airports. This chapter is based on aircraft accident data from the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) and the Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) Part 77 Imaginary Surfaces and the "Airports and Compatibility Land Use Guidebook" produced by the Washington State Department of Transportation Aviation Division. As the name implies, this classification is laid over the existing City of Pasco zoning districts to ensure that densities and land use requirements of the underlying zoning districts are consistent with the NTSB standards and provide for maximum protection to the public, health, safety and general welfare of the community and for those citizens working and residing within the airport influence area. 25.81.030 AUTHORITY. The legislature of the State of Washington through RCW 14.12 the "Airport Zoning Act" has given authority to local governments to adopt regulations within its jurisdiction to promote the public health, safety, and general welfare of its citizenry regarding airport hazards. RCW 36.70.547 requires every county, city, and PMC Title 25 12/4/17 150 town in which there is located an airport to discourage the siting of incompatible uses adjacent to such aviation airport. 25.81.040 APPLICABILITY. The provisions of this chapter shall apply to all lands, buildings, structures, natural features or uses located within those areas that are defined by the Airport Overlay District and designated on the Tri -Cities Airport Part 77 Surfaces map which identifies areas of height limitations and the Airport Safety Compatibility Zones (ASCZ) map. 25.81.050 DEFINITIONS. The following terms shall have the meanings indicated, specific to this chapter only: AIRPORT AUTHORITY: means the Port of Pasco AIRPORT: The Tri -Cities Airport operated by the Port of Pasco including all property designated in the Tri -City Airport Master Plan as part of the airport. AIRPORT ELEVATION: The highest point of an airport's useable landing area measured in feet from sea level. The Tri -Cities Airport is four hundred ten feet (410 above mean sea level. AIRPORT INFLUENCE AREA: Includes airport property and all land within the Airport Safety Compatibility Zones 1 through 6 as described in PMC 25.81.090 and depicted in the Airport Safety Zones map adopted by PMC 25.81,020. APPROACH SURFACE: An imaginary surface longitudinally centered on the extended runway centerline, extending outward and upward from the end of the primary surface and at the same slope as the approach zone height limitation slope set forth in Chapter 25.81.060. The perimeter of the approach surface coincides with the perimeter of the approach zone. CONICAL SURFACE: An imaginary surface extending outward and upward from the periphery of the horizontal surface at a slope of twenty to one (20:1) for a horizontal distance of four thousand feet (4,000. DEED NOTICE: A formal statement provided in 25.81.110 as a note on the face of a short plat, major subdivision or binding site plan or recorded against the property notifying potential property owners that the property is located adjacent to an active airport and said property may be impacted by aircraft noise, odors, vibration, and low flying aircraft. FAA FORM 7460-1, NOTICE OF PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION OR ALTERATION: A form which the Federal Aviation Administration requires to be completed by anyone who is proposing to construct or alter an object that could affect airspace PMC Title 25 12/4/17 151 within the airport influence area and allows the FAA to conduct an airspace analysis to determine whether the object will adversely affect airspace or navigational aids. FAR PART 77 SURFACES: The Part of 49 CFR of the Federal Aviation Regulations that deals with objects affecting navigable airspace. FAR PART 77 ZONES: Imaginary airspace surfaces established with relation to each runway of an airport. There are five types of surfaces: (1) primary; (2) approach; (3) transitional; (4) horizontal; and (5) conical. t Approach '.ion Approach 1 HAZARD TO AIR NAVIGATION: An obstruction determined to have a substantial adverse effect on the safe and efficient utilization of the navigable airspace. HEIGHT: For the purpose of determining the height limits in all zones and as shown on the Tri -Cities Airport Future Part 77 Zones map, this datum shall be height above mean sea level elevation unless otherwise specified. HORIZONTAL SURFACE: A horizontal plane one hundred fifty feet (150 above the established airport elevation, the perimeter of which plane coincides with the PMC Title 25 12/4/17 152 inner perimeter of the conical surface. This is five hundred sixty feet (560') above mean sea level for the Tri -Cities Airport. INFILL: Development on scattered vacant parcels of land which have remained vacant after the majority of development has occurred in an area. OBSTRUCTION: Any object of natural growth, terrain, of permanent or temporary construction or alteration, including equipment or materials used therein which exceeds a limiting height set forth in Section 25.81.070. OBJECT OF NATURAL GROWTH: Means a tree, shrub or similar organic or vegetative matter. PRECISION APPROACH: A landing approach made without visual reference to the ground by the use of aircraft instruments and ground-based electronic or communications systems or devices. An aircraft making such an approach should be flying in accordance with an IFR (instrument flight rules) flight plan. PRIMARY SURFACE: A surface longitudinally centered on a runway with a width of one thousand feet (1,000 for instrument approaches and five -hundred feet (500 for visual approaches. When the runway has a specially prepared hard surface, the primary surface extends two hundred feet beyond each end of the runway. The elevation of any point on the primary surface is the same as the elevation of the nearest point on the runway centerline. The elevation of the Primary Surface at the Tri -Cities airport is four hundred ten feet (410) above mean sea level. RUNWAY: A defined area on an airport prepared for landing and take -off of aircraft along its length. TRANSITIONAL SURFACES: These imaginary surfaces extend outward at ninety - degree angles to the runway centerline, and runway centerline extended, at a slope of seven feet (7� horizontally for each foot vertically (7:1) from the sides of the primary and approach surfaces to where they intersect with the horizontal and conical surfaces. VISUAL RUNWAY: A runway intended solely for the operation of aircraft using visual approach procedures, with no straight -in instrument approach procedure and no instrument designation indicated on an FAA -approved airport layout plan. 25.81.060 HEIGHT LIMITATION ZONES. The height limitation zones are hereby established, consistent with the FAR Part 77 Surfaces — Objects Affecting Navigable Airspace, and are described below. PMC Title 25 12/4/17 153 (1) PRECISION INSTRUMENT APPROACH ZONE. Includes Runways 3L, 21R, 30. A precision instrument approach zone is established at each end of a precision instrument runway for instrument landings and takeoffs. The precision instrument approach zones shall have a width of one thousand feet (1,000') at a distance of two hundred feet (200 beyond each end of the runway, coinciding with the Primary Surface, widening thereafter uniformly to a width of sixteen thousand feet (16,000 at a distance of fifty thousand two hundred feet (50,200 beyond each end of the runway, its centerline being the continuation of the centerline of the runway. (2) NON -PRECISION INSTRUMENT APPROACH ZONE. Includes Runway 12. A Non -Precision instrument approach zone is established at each end of a Non -Precision instrument runway for improved landings and takeoffs. The non -precision instrument approach zones shall have a width of five hundred feet (500') at a distance of two hundred feet (200') beyond each end of the runway, thereafter widening uniformly to a width of three thousand five hundred feet (3,5001 at a distance of ten thousand two -hundred feet (10,200D beyond each end of the runway, it's centerline being the continuation of the centerline of the runway. (3) VISUAL APPROACH ZONE. Includes Runways 3R and 21L. A visual approach zone is established at each end of all visual runways for landings and takeoffs. The visual approach zones shall have a width of five hundred feet (500D at a distance of two hundred feet (200') beyond each end of the runway, widening thereafter uniformly to a width of one thousand five hundred (1,500) feet at a distance of five thousand two hundred feet (5,200') beyond each end of the runway, its centerline being the continuation of the centerline of the runway. (4) TRANSITION ZONES. Transition zones are hereby established adjacent to each instrument and non -instrument runway and approach zone as indicated on the Tri - Cities Airport Future Part 77 Zones map. Transition zones symmetrically located on either side of runways have variable widths as shown on the map. Transition zones extend outward from a line two hundred fifty feet (250') on either side of the centerline of the non -instrument runway, for the length of such runway plus two hundred feet (200D on each end; and five hundred feet (500') on either side of the centerline of the instrument runway, for the length of such runway plus two hundred feet (200') on each end, beginning at and are parallel and level with such runway centerlines. The transition zones along such runways slope upward and outward one foot vertically for each seven feet horizontally to the point where they intersect the surface of the horizontal zone. Further, transition zones are established adjacent to both instrument and non -instrument approach zones for the entire length of the approach zones. These transition zones have variable widths, as shown on the Tri -Cities Airport Future Part 77 Zones map. Such transition zones flare symmetrically with either side of the runway approach zones from the base of such zones and slope upward and outward at the rate of one foot vertically for each seven feet horizontally to the points where they intersect the horizontal and conical surfaces. Additionally, transition zones are established adjacent to the instrument approach zone where it projects through and beyond the limits of the conical zone, extending a distance of five thousand feet measured horizontally from the edge of the PMC Title 25 12/4/17 154 instrument approach zones at right angles to the continuation of the centerline of the runway. (5) HORIZONTAL ZONE. A horizontal zone is hereby established as the area within a horizontal plane one hundred fifty feet (150') above the established airport elevation or at a height of five hundred sixty feet (560) above mean sea level, the perimeter of which is constructed by swinging arcs of ten thousand feet radii from the center of each end of the primary surface of each runway of the airport and connecting the adjacent arcs by lines tangent to those arcs. The horizontal zone does not include the instrument and non -instrument approach zones and the transition zones. (6) CONICAL ZONE. A conical zone is hereby established as the area that commences at the periphery of the horizontal zone and extends outward therefrom a distance of four thousand feet. The conical zone does not include the instrument approach zones and transition zones. 25.81.070 HEIGHT LIMITATIONS. No building, pipe, chimney, tower, steeple, stand, platform, pole, wire or structure or erection or object of natural growth, or obstruction of any kind or nature whatsoever, shall be built, placed, hung, or permitted to grow or allowed to be built, placed or hung which shall at any point or part thereof exceed the heights as provided in the zones established herein. Where an area is covered by more than one height limitation, the more restrictive limitations shall prevail. The restrictions shall apply to the area surrounding all runways and approaches situated thereon. The owner of any existing nonconforming building, structure, or object of natural growth -shall be required to permit the installation, operation, and maintenance thereon of any markers and lights as deemed necessary by the airport authority or the FAA to indicate to operators of aircraft in the vicinity of the airport the presence of such airport obstruction. Such height limitations are hereby established for each zone as follows: (1) Precision Instrument Approach Zone. Beginning at the end of and at the same elevations as the Primary Surface, slopes one foot in height for each fifty feet (50:1) in horizontal distance and extending to a distance of ten thousand two hundred feet (10,200 from the end of the runway; thence one foot in height for each forty feet in horizontal distance to a point fifty thousand two hundred feet (50,2001 from the end of the runway; (2) Non -Precision Instrument Approach Zone. Beginning at the end of and at the same elevations as the Primary Surface, slopes one foot in height for each thirty-four feet (34:1) in horizontal distance and extending to a distance of ten thousand two hundred feet (10,200 from the end of the runway; (3) Visual Approach Zones. Beginning at the end of and at the same elevation as the Primary Surface, slopes one foot in height for each twenty feet (20:1) in horizontal distance and extending to a point ten thousand two hundred feet (10,200 from the end of the runway; (4) Transition Zones. Slopes outward one foot in height for each seven feet (7:1) in horizontal distance beginning at the Primary Surface, extend to a height of one hundred fifty feet (150) above the airport elevation which is four hundred ten feet (410 above mean sea level. In addition to the foregoing, there are established height limits of PMC Title 25 12/4/17 155 one foot vertical height for each seven feet horizontal (7:1) distance measured from the edges of all approach zones for the entire length of the approach zones and extending upward and outward to the points where they intersect the horizontal or conical surfaces. Further, where the instrument approach zone projects through and beyond the conical zone, a height limit of one foot for each seven feet of horizontal distance shall be maintained beginning at the edge of the instrument approach zone and extending a distance of five thousand feet (5,000') from the edge of the instrument approach zone measured normal to the centerline of the runway extended; (5) Horizontal Zone. One hundred fifty feet (150 above the airport elevation or a height of five hundred sixty feet (560 above mean sea level; (6) Conical Zone. Slopes outward one foot in height for each twenty feet (20:1) of horizontal distance beginning at the periphery of the horizontal zone, extend four thousand feet (4,000') to a height of three hundred fifty feet (350') above the airport elevation or a height of seven hundred sixty feet above mean sea level (760'). 25.81.080 USE RESTRICTIONS. (1) General Requirements: Notwithstanding any other provisions of this chapter, no use may be made of land or water within any zone established by this chapter in such a manner as to create electrical interference with navigational signals or radio communication between the airport and aircraft, make it difficult for operators of aircraft to distinguish between airport lights and others, result in glare in the eyes of operators of aircraft using the airport, impair visibility in the vicinity of the airport, create bird strike hazards or otherwise in any way endanger or interfere with the landing, taking off, or maneuvering of aircraft. (2) Lighting: No new or expanded industrial, commercial, recreational or residential use shall project lighting directly onto an existing runway, taxiway, or approach/departure surface except where necessary for safe air travel. Lighting for these uses shall incorporate shielding to reflect light away from the airport and shall not imitate airport lighting. (3) Communications Facilities: Approval of cellular and other communications or transmission towers located within any zone described within section 25.81.060 shall be conditioned to require their removal within 90 days of discontinuance of use. 25.81.090 AIRPORT SAFETY COMPATIBILITY ZONES. Zones described below are shown in the Airport Safety Compatibility Zones (ASCZ) map with the prohibited land uses listed below in order to promote the general safety and welfare of properties surrounding the airport and the continued viability of the airport. Zone 1 — Runway Protection Zone (RPZ): only airport uses and activities are allowed within the RPZ. Zone 2 — Inner Approach/Departure Zone: Prohibited land uses within this zone are: residences except residential infill development is permitted south of I-182, places of public assembly such as churches, schools (K-12), colleges, hospitals; high density office, retail or service buildings; shopping centers and other uses with similar concentrations of persons. Production of asphalt paving and roofing materials or rock PMC Title 25 12/4/17 156 crushing are also prohibited. Fuel storage facilities or the storage or use of significant amounts of materials which are explosive, flammable, toxic, corrosive, or otherwise exhibit hazardous characteristics shall not be located within the Inner Approach/Departure Zone. Hazardous wildlife attractants including waste disposal operations, water management and storm water facilities with above -ground water storage, and man-made wetlands shall not be allowed within the Inner Approach/Departure Zone. All new infill residential development must include the disclosure statement in Chapter 25.81.110 on plats, short plats and binding site plans. Zone 3 — Inner Turning Zone: Prohibited land uses within this zone are schools (K-12) and hospitals. New residential development is prohibited unless it is infill residential development. All new infill residential development must include the disclosure statement in Chapter 25.81.110 on plats short plats and binding site plans. Zone 4 — Outer Approach/Departure Zone: Prohibited land uses within this zone are: places of public assembly such as churches except existing churches shall be permitted to expand, schools (K-12), hospitals, shopping centers and other uses with similar concentrations of persons. Residential density is limited to RS -20 except south of I-182. All new residential development must include the disclosure statement in Chapter 25.81.110 on plats, short plat and binding site plans. Zone 5 — Sideline Zone: Prohibited land uses within this zone are residences, except residences that are constructed to replace existing residences, of like size and type, damaged by fire and other causes, places of public assembly such as churches, schools, hospitals, shopping centers and other uses with similar concentrations of persons. Mining, including sand and gravel pits are prohibited in the Sideline Zone. Zone 6 — Traffic Pattern Zone: Prohibited land uses within this zone are new schools (K-12), hospitals and other uses with similar concentrations of persons. Replacement or expansion of existing schools is permitted. All new residential developments must include the disclosure statement in Chapter 25.81.110 on plats, short plats and binding site plans. Use Interpretations — Appendix F of the January 2011 WSDOT Airport and Compatible Land Use Guidebook as amended may be used as a guide to determine uses with similar concentrations of persons as referenced in Compatibility Zones. 25.81.110 GENERAL REVIEW PROCEDURES. No use, building, structure, or development activity shall be permitted, established, altered or relocated by any person except as otherwise authorized by this chapter. All permit applications within the Airport Overlay District shall, in addition to being reviewed through the standard development review process, be subject to the following: A. All developments, permits or plats with proposed buildings and/or structures found to be within twenty feet (20) of any of the height limitation zone described in 25.81.070 and/or all buildings and structures over two hundred feet (200) in height must submit a site plan, building elevations and an FAA Form 7460-1 to the Port of Pasco Administrative Office for Port and FAA review and approval. Upon review, further documentation shall be required, if more PMC Title 25 12/4/17 157 accurate data is necessary for a determination of impact including detailed surveys by a licensed land surveyor. B. All developments, permits or plats falling within the ASCZs described in 25.81.090 associated with special use permits, variances or existing non- conforming uses must also submit a site plan to the Port of Pasco Administrative Office for Port review. C. All applications for Comprehensive Plan amendments and rezones falling within the ASCZs described in 25.81.090 shall be forwarded to the Port of Pasco Administrative Office for Port review prior to any required public hearing. 25.81.120 DISCLOSURE. To all extents possible, property owners and potential property buyers should be made aware of the following disclosure. The disclosure statement shall be listed on all approved subdivision plats, short plats and binding site plans within any of the identified zones in section 25.81.060 or 25.81.090. "Property within this (plat/short plat or binding site plan) may be subject to varying noise levels and vibrations due to proximity to the Tri -Cities Airport. Properties near the airport may be located within height and use restriction zones as described and illustrated by Federal standards and regulations and the City of Pasco Zoning Regulations. There is the potential that standard flight patterns will result in aircraft passing over the properties at low altitudes and during all hours of the day. Future airport expansion including runway extensions may impact the size and number of aircraft utilizing the airport. Developments near the airport should assume that at any given time there will be some impact from air traffic." (Ord. 4111, 2013.) PMC Title 25 12/4/17 158 Spokane Office Bank of America Financial Center 601 W. Riverside, Suite 1900 Spokane, Washington 99201-0695 Phone: (509) 838-6131 Fu: (509) 838-1416 website: vrmvwinsroncashatecom May 11, 2018 City of Pasco Planning Commission Attn: Dave McDonald, City Planner Second Floor 525 N. Third Ave. Pasco, WA 99301 Re: Pasco Urban Growth Area Amendment -2018 Dear Commissioners: L A W Y E R S A Profesrional Service Corporation 11 rnston,GCarhart her officer in Spokane, Washington and Coeur d'Akne, Idaho I represent the Port of Pasco and Tri -Cities Airport (collectively "Port"). As you likely recall, the Port has opposed the inclusion of 160 acres of property owned by Farm 2005 LLC, Parcel No. 114-250-016 ("Property") in Pasco's Urban Growth Area (UGA). Previous applications were made as site specific amendments to the UGA. The matter presently before you is the 2018 Comprehensive Plan Update — Urban Growth Boundary (MF# CPA 2017-001), which proposes significant expansion of Pasco's UGA, including the Property. The Port continues to oppose inclusion of the Property as such would permit incompatible land uses to be situated too near the airport and within the Airport Safety Compatibility Zones.' Washington law is clear: Every county, cam, and town in which there is located a general aviation airport that is operated for the benefit of the general public, whether publicly owned or privately owned public use, shall, through its comprehensive plan and development regulations, discourage the siting of incompatible uses adjacent to such general aviation airport. ' This letter provides a summary of some of the legal considerations the Commission is expected to face in regard to the Property as it relates to Pasco's UGA. This is not an exhaustive analysis and the Port reserves the right to supplement this letter and provide additional comment and analysis to the Planning Commission, and the other legislative bodies that will consider this matter. C. Matthew Andersen '° Scott A. Gingras Jefirey R. Ropp Of Counsel Carl E. Hucber Beverly L. Anderson Erika B. Grubbs '° Gabrielle C. Roth Courtney R. Beaudoin Nancy L. Isserlis Patrick ].Cronin " Natasha L. Hill O1 Kammi Menckc Smith °i Greg M. Devlin a' Fred C. Pllanz Kevin I Curtis Michael T. Howard '° Jenna M.K. Strohmeyer "' Stephen L. Farnell Richard W. Relyea Darren M. Digiacinto f° Collette C. Leland 'O Elizabeth A. Tellessen "' Kenneth B. [toward '° Lucinda S. Whaley Timothy R. Fischer 'b Lisa A. Mnlpass - Nicholas 11. Ulrich David P. Gardner - Benjamin H. Rascoff I" Molly M. Winston " All lawyers admitted lit WA (exceplfor Natasha Hill). Lmryeav admired in AZ, CA, FL, ID, MT, and PA as indicated. May 11, 2018 Page 2 RCW 36.70.547 (emphasis added). It is widely recognized that "[d]evelopment of incompatible land uses can degrade airport operations, impede airport expansion, and reduce quality of life for airport neighbors." WSDOT Airports and Compatible Land Use Guidebook, M3074.00, p. iii, January 2011. "Ultimately, incompatible development reduces opportunity for economic development, reduces transportation access, reduces the value of public investment in airport infrastructure, and reduces quality of life for communities." Id. at p. v. The Tri -Cities Airport is a general aviation airport and transportation facility of local, statewide and regional significance. Thus, it is the City's obligation, and the obligation of the Commission to discourage incompatible residential development from being sited near the airport. The proposed expansion of the UGA is contrary to the statutory obligation set out in RCW 36.70.547. The Port, Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT), and Department of Commerce agree—urban development on the Property is incompatible with the airport. The Port adopted Resolution No. 1444, finding residential development is incompatible with the airport. WSDOT previously submitted a letter advising against inclusion of the Property in the UGA, and recommended: Local jurisdictions practice a philosophy of "do no more harm" in regards [sic] to aviation land -use compatibility planning. Existing conditions should be maintained or improved to prevent future incompatible development. The current zoning designation of agricultural iseg nerally considered compatible with the airport operations. Residential development is generally incompatible near airports because of noise, safety, fumes, vibration, light and perception of low-flying aircraft. (Timmerman, February 27, 2017 (emphasis added)). Moreover, the Department of Commerce has stated that it has "serious concerns regarding encroachment and incompatible land uses adjacent to the Tri -Cities Airport." (Simpson, February 6, 2018). The City has recommended inclusion of the Property in the UGA under the guise that the City's Airport Overlay District, PMC Chapter 25.81 allows urban development near the airport. Make no mistake, PMC 25.81 does not make urban development compatible with the airport. The authorities agree that the urban development, which would be permitted on the Property if included within the UGA, is incompatible. Not only is it incompatible, but it is a detriment to the viability of the airport, and the public investment that has been made. When PMC 25.81 was adopted in 2012 it was applicable to land that was already developed, or entitled to be developed. In one instance, the adoption of PMC 25.81 resulted in a down zone of property entitled for development at a density in excess of what PMC 25.81 allowed. This adoption in essence resulted in a regulatory taking, causing the Port to have to purchase the May 11, 2018 Page 3 affected property. But, there is no taking in this instance. The private property interests of the owner do not include a right to have the Property included in the UGA. A regulatory taking does not exist unless a regulation deprives an owner of all economically viable uses of the property. Guimont v. Clarke, 121 Wn.2d 586, 602, 854 P.2d 1 (1993) (emphasis added). There is no taking where a landowner maintains the ability to make some economically viable use of the property. Id.; and see Jones v. King County, 74 Wn. App. 467, 874 P.2d 853 (1994). Further, there is no taking where the regulation safeguards the public interest. Guimont, 121 Wn.2d at 601. While the City may favor the owner's desire to develop the Property, such does not establish a vested right to develop an incompatible ]and use near the airport, particularly where the desired use is not presently allowed. Further, the City cannot place the owner's individual interest over the public's interest and ignore RC W 36.70.547's directive. The Commission has a substantial task before it, to plan for Pasco's future. There are a variety of considerations that must be weighed. However, as it relates to the Property and the incompatibility of urban development with the airport, the answer is simple, urban development of the Property is incompatible and must not be included in the UGA. Very truly yours, 6QO1h -f-lxwy� ELIZABETH A. TELLESSEN EAT:eat Enclosures cc: Randy Hayden, Port of Pasco Buck Taft, Tri Cities Airport Port of Pasco Patrick Wright, WSDOT Nicole Stickney, Franklin County RESOLUTION NO. 1444 A RESOLUTION OF THE PORT OF PASCO, SUPPORTING COMPATIBLE LAND USE PLANNING TO ENABLE FUTURE GROWTH OF THE TRI -CITIES AIRPORT WHEREAS, the Port of Pasco owns and operates the Tri -Cities Airport, the fourth largest commercial airport in the State of Washington serving the Tri -Cities region along with a large portion of southeast Washington and northeast Oregon; and WHEREAS, the number of enplaned passengers, frequency of flights, and size of aircraft at the Tri -Cities Airport has consistently increased and is expected to continue increasing into the future; and WHEREAS, runway 12130 to the northwest of the airport is the only runway which can be extended to accommodate larger aircraft; and WHEREAS, the FAA encourages strong land use protections to accommodate future airport growth; and WHEREAS, the Washington State Growth Management Act requires towns, cities, and counties to discourage development of incompatible land uses adjacent to public use airports through adoption of comprehensive plan policies and development regulations; and WHEREAS, the current county zoning designation of agricultural is generally considered compatible with the airport operations; and WHEREAS, residential development is generally incompatible near airports because of noise, safety, fumes, vibration, light and perception of low-flying aircraft; and WHEREAS, there is currently a request to add an additional 160 acres to the City of Pasco's Urban Growth Area (UGA), potentially for new residential development; and WHEREAS, the modification to residential could result in the airport being prevented from an expansion that would accommodate larger aircraft and growth of the airport; and WHEREAS, approximately 74 acres of the requested UGA expansion falls within airport safety compatibility zones 2 and 4 as referenced in both the City of Pasco and Franklin County Airport Overlay Zoning Codes. NOW, THEREFORE, the Port of Pasco Commission wishes to express the following recommendations on the 160 -acre UGA expansion request: 1) Under no circumstances should that portion of the land falling within Airport Safety Compatibility Zones 2 and 4 be added to the City of Pasco UGA for residential development; and 2) The Port would prefer that the entire 160 -acres remain outside of the City UGA to reduce future conflicts between residences and aircraft operations. BE IT RESOLVED, that copies of this Resolution be immediately transmitted to the City of Pasco, Franklin County, and the Washington State Department of Transportation Aviation Division. ADOPTED this 8th day of December, 2016 PORT OF PASCO Ronald P. Reimann, President Jq& Ryckman, Vice President James T. Klindworth, Secretary L February 27, 2016 Dave McDonald, City Planner Community & Economic Development Department 525 N. 3rd Avenue Pasco, WA 99301 RE: Urban Growth Area (UGA) Boundary Amendment Dear Mr. McDonald: mason Division 7702 Tc MAAi St SW 10n119ator, WA SMT 580-700-0013 MAX- 86'044 3009 'fol{ F+ . 1-800-552.0668 Til.. 1-800-833-G388 •.awv.u�fotiws.por Ctl�vyn'�','7^I � s:irf This correspondence is to confirm that the City of Pasco has formally consulted with the Washington State Deparmtent of Transportation (WSDOT) Aviation Division regarding a proposed amendment to the UGA boundary to add 160 acres. WSDOT appreciates the City's efforts and recognizes the substantial time and resources this represents. RCW 36.70.547 and 36.70A.510 requires local jurisdictions to formally consult with airport owners, managers, private airport operators, general aviation pilots, ports, and the Aviation Division of WSDOT prior to adoption of comprehensive plan policies or development regulations that may affect property adjacent to public use airports. The main goals of formal consultation are to avoid, minimize, and resolve potential land use conflicts with airports through the comprehensive plan and development regulations. WSDOT strongly recommends that formal consultation be initiated by local jurisdictions as early as possible in the planning process. This is to assure that all parties have an opportunity to work together to find comprehensive solutions of mutual benefit that fulfill the intent of the legislation, consistent with local jurisdictions' land use planning authorities and obligations under law. The following is a general summary of observations and recommendations discussed during the formal consultation meeting: — WSDOT Aviation recommends that the project record be reopened, so information about the airport and its operations can be included for decision makers. — The subject property falls directly in the approach to Tri -Cities Airport's Urban Growth Area Boundary Amendment February 27, 2016 Page 2 primary runway 12. Tri -Cities Airport anticipates extending runway 12 by 1800 feet. — The commercial service airport is home to over 120 based, jet, twin -engine business aircraft, helicopter, single-engine and experimental aircraft — In the past five years, the number of enplanements at the airport has increased by nearly 100,000, which represents both the continued vibrancy of the region and the growing flight service available at the airport. — Encroachment of incompatible development is cumulative and temporal in nature. This slowly erodes the utility of the aviation facility and the public investment made in it. — The City of Pasco should evaluate all proposed amendments to the UGA, comprehensive plan and capital facilities plan that will increase incompatible land uses or potential of incompatible development adjacent to the airport. WSDOT recommends that local jurisdictions practice a philosophy of "do no more harm" in regards to aviation land -use compatibility planning. Existing conditions should be maintained or improved to prevent future incompatible development. — The current zoning designation of agricultural is generally considered compatible with the airport operations. — Residential development is generally incompatible near airports because of noise, safety, fumes, vibration, light and perception of low-flying aircraft. WSDOT Aviation is available for further consultation The importance of Tri -Cities Airport to the region and state's transportation system cannot be overstated It is critical that every effort be made to discourage incompatible land uses that impair the airport's ability to operate as an essential public facility. We thank you again for the opportunity to comment and remain available to provide technical assistance. Please don't hesitate to contact me at 360-709-6809 or timmerc@wsdot,wa.gov if you have any questions. nnSincerely, C�d� Urban Growth Area Boundary Amendment February 27, 2016 Page 2 Carter Timmerman Aviation Planner cc: Warren Hendrickson, Northwest Mountain Regional Manager, AOPA Jim Posner, Washington Pilots Association WPA a STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 1011 Plum Street SE • PO Box 42525 • Olympia, Washington 98504-2525 • (360) 725-4000 www. commerce. wa.gov February 6, 2018 Mr. Loren Wiltse 1016 N. 0 Avenue Pasco, Washington 99301 RE: Proposed amendment to the City of Pasco's Urban Growth Area (UGA) boundary designated in the Franklin County Comprehensive Plan Dear Mr. Wiltse: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed amendment to the Franklin County Comprehensive Plan. We received materials associated with this proposal on December 22, 2017 and processed the proposal with Material ID # 24484. We appreciate the County's continued coordination with our agency regarding our recommendations for adjusting UGA boundaries. We provided a letter, dated December 11, 2017, which describes general recommendations for UGA amendments. We also submitted a letter to Franklin County on July 8, 2015 in which we recommended the City and County consider a similar proposal as part of the periodic update of your respective Comprehensive Plans. The City of Pasco's proposal requests an addition of 163 acres to the Pasco UGA for a Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation of Low -Density Residential. We have procedural and substantive concerns about the application. We encourage you to consider the following prior to making a final recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners. We continue to have serious concerns regarding encroachment and incompatible land uses adjacent to the Tri -Cities Airport. The Tri -Cities Airport represents a significant investment of public funds, and is a critical component of the local and regional economy. The cumulative impacts of residential development in the proposed UGA expansion area could have detrimental effects on a vital component of the region and state's transportation system. We encourage the Board of County Commissioners to, once again, review whether the proposal is in the best interest of the whole community. UGA expansions should only be considered after a review of alternative measures to accommodate projected growth. As we recommended in our previous letters to the County, the periodic review required by RCW 36.70A.130(Sxd) is the most appropriate time to consider these proposed amendments. The City's consultation on February 7, 2017 with the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT), the Port of Pasco, and other aviation stakeholders revealed concerns about how residential development in the proposed expansion area is incompatible because of concerns over noise, safety, fumes, vibration, light, and low-flying aircrafts. While the current, agricultural use of the property is likely the most compatible land use alternative for airport operations, we understand that the region is experiencing growth pressures. Should the City and County determine that future urban growth is necessary in this area, we strongly encourage closer coordination with the Port of Pasco, WSDOT aviation, and other aviation stakeholders. Additional Mr. Loren Wiltse February 6, 2018 Page 2 collaboration may reveal a use that meets the City's need to accommodate new urban growth, such as commercial or industrial, but is more compatible than new residential development. Our agency shares the City of Pasco's concerns about the need for affordable housing. The application, however, fails to clarify how adding a limited number of large -lot single family residences will actually impact housing affordability in the County. Of particular concern is the fact that, due to development constraints on the site, the site will only allow for 147 to 294 units of housing. This equates to development that ranges roughly between 1-2 units per acre. This does not appear to meet the requirements to ensure the UGA is developing at urban densities,' and provides additional support for considering other alternatives to including this particular site in the UGA for low-density development. The justification for the UGA expansion changed significantly during the review process. The City's original application, which was first transmitted formally to our agency prior to the WSDOT consultation meeting on February 7, 2017, used a 2038 population projection that the City selected without consulting the County. The City's revised application attempts to justify the need for an expansion based on existing growth figures and a horizon of 2008 to 2028. The fact that the City and County are currently reviewing new growth as part of the periodic update, raises concerns about how this proposal ties in to that �rocess and whether, if approved, this proposal meets the GMA's public participation requirements. • The City's Buildable Lands Analysis does not consider the entire Pasco UGA. A land capacity analysis should evaluate the existing city limits and unincorporated portions of the UGA. The application includes an analysis of the 1,132 acres added to the Pasco UGA during the 2008 Comprehensive Plan update. The GMA requires local governments to determine how much land should be included in the UGA to accommodate expected urban development based on the OFM population projection.' Local governments must then determine which lands in particular should be included within UGAs according to the locational criteria in RCW 36.70A.110(3). Growth should be located first in areas already characterized by urban growth with existing services and the capacity to serve new development. Growth should then be considered and located in areas with existing public facilities and services and any additional needed public facilities and services that are provided by either public or private sources. Growth should next be located in remaining portions of the existing UGA. In our letter to the County dated July 8, 2015 we described the requirements regarding changes to the UGA and the necessity for underlying amendments to capital facilities and transportation elements. The City's supplemental application does not include the requisite amendments and claims that an update to the Capital Facilities Plan is not required. We disagree. The Growth Management Act (GMA) requirements for capital facilities and transportation infrastructure are based on an understanding that infrastructure represents a significant investment and a long-term liability. Operation, maintenance, and future replacement costs of that infrastructure must be carefully considered in the planning process, and communities should attempt to build infrastructure that has a positive return on investment. The GMA requires that any proposed expansion must be accompanied by amendments to the capital facilities and transportation elements that show a financially realistic strategy to provide the proposed area with adequate public facilities.' These amendments must address, at a minimum, the required components of the capital facilities and transportation elements in RCW 36.70A.070. Updates to these plans, with the services needed for an expanded UGA, will ensure the City of Pasco maintains a healthy RCW 36.70A.110 and WAC 365-196-300 2 RCW 36.70A.140 ' RCW 36.70A.110(1) and RCW 36.70A.115(1) 4 WAC 365-196-320(3) Mr. Loren Wiltse February 6, 2018 Page 3 capital facilities budget and does not over -extend its fiscal capabilities for providing urban services with a financial plan that is acceptable to the community. Based on information in the City's application, concerns over residential land consumption are directly related to development for non-residential purposes. This includes purchases by the Port of Pasco to support economic development, and purchases by the Pasco School District for new schools and community facilities. As the City and County consider development capacity and potential amendments to the Pasco UGA in upcoming Comprehensive Plan reviews, we encourage planning for land beyond that needed for residential. The City and County should be proactively working with local school districts, fire districts, municipal departments, economic development associations, and other important institutional stakeholders to ensure the UGA has sufficient areas to accommodate the broad range of needs accompanying projected growth. This growth may include medical, governmental, institutional, commercial, service, retail, and other nonresidential uses.' The County is currently coordinating on updated growth projections and reviews UGAs as part of the 2018 periodic update required by RCW 36.70A. 130(5)(d). This is the appropriate process within which to consider changes to the UGA. However, given the site constraints and the potential impacts on the Tri -Cities Airport, we believe this should be one of the last alternatives you consider for residential development. We extend our continued support to Franklin County in achieving the goals of the GMA and the vision of your community. Thank you again for the opportunity to comment. If you have any questions or would like technical assistance on any land use issues, please feel free to contact me at william.simosone.commerce.wa.eov or 509-280-3602. Sincerely, William Simpson, AICP Senior Planner Growth Management Services WS:lw cc: Dave McDonald, City Planner, City of Pasco Rick White, Community and Economic Development Director, City of Pasco Randy Hayden, Executive Director, Port of Pasco Patrick Wright, Aviation Planner, WSDOT Mark McCaskill, AICP, Managing Director, Growth Management Services David Andersen, AICP, Eastern Region Manager, Growth Management Services Ike Nwankwo, Western Region Manager, Growth Management Services Enc: Letter from Commerce dated July 8, 2015 Letter from Commerce dated December 22, 2017 ' RCW 36.70A.110(2) Land Use Stakeholders Meeting Urban Growth Boundary May 8, 2018 Present: Patrick Wright, WSDOT AVN (PW) Marjy Leggett, AO PA ASN (ML) David McDonald, City of Pasco (DM) Roger Black, local pilot (RB) Bob Ransom, local pilot (BR) Don Faley, Port of Pasco (DF) Mitch Hooper, Mead & Hunt (MH) Buck Taft, Port of Pasco (BT) Elizabeth Tellessen, Winston & Cashatt(ET) Randy Hayden, Port of Pasco (RH) Nicole Stickney, Franklin County (NS) Tara White, Port of Pasco (TW) 1:45 pm DM reported that the population in the City of Pasco is projected to increase by 50,148 in the next 20 years. As a result of this increase, additional land is needed in the Urban Growth Boundary. The City is proposing adding approximately 6 square miles, including approximately 160 acres north of the airport, to accommodate the growth. He referenced the map that addresses the proposed areas to expand the Urban Growth Boundary. He noted that the gray area outlined in a maroon border (Hwy 395) is an industrial area currently in the county that is being proposed for the City UGA. He also pointed out the 160 acres north of the airport is being proposed as residential that would comply with the airport overlay zoning code as approved by the City and the Port. DM then asked for questions or comments. PW asked if there was any way to not include the area off of the end of the runway. DM discussed the lack of other options available for residential. Further north is prime farming land. The Clark Edition is mostly developed. ML expressed her support for reserving land to enable the extension of RWY 30 in the future. She mentioned that with increased population will come airport growth and that the airport needs to be protected. BT spoke about airport operations. The 2013 Master Plan references a peak day of 345 operations; or 61 operations per hour. PSC is on target to be the size of GEG (Spokane airport) in 50 years. Runway 30 is the only runway that can be expanded. He said the growth of PSC must be protected. Flights leave early and arrive late which are times when people are at home sleeping or eating meals. RWY 30 is used for 40%ofthe flights. NS asked DM if the city has done an analysis on what can occur on the land inside the Urban Growth Boundary already in terms of meeting this need. She specifically referenced the Broadmoor area. She also asked how the analysis was done. She also noted the population growth projections being used were the "medium" numbers. DM stated a gravel lease is currently in place for 350 acres near Broadmoor and no homes could be built on that land. Geomedia was used to complete the analysis. The population of Pasco grew about 50,000 in the last 23 years, so the projection of 50,000 more residents in the next 20 years is in line with historical growth. ML asked if the Urban Growth Boundary could be expanded to the EAST. DM mentioned that there may be some options to the east, but that it has been designated for industrial development due to the rail and marine facilities. Many lots have been left vacant since the 1880s as people have chosen not to develop in the east side. The utility system doesn't extend east and It would be easier to expand to the north. ML asked if there was space near the Ochoa school. DM said some lots are available but not enough land to meet the need. RH described the main concerns the port has is with zone 4. The city is proposing 2 houses per acre. The county zoned it as 1 house/5 acres and WSDOT and the Port prefer to keep the land in the county. The Port would like to keep residential development away from the airport if at all possible and have ag and other compatible uses on the 160 acres north of the airport. High density housing was discussed between RH and DM. There is enough land to absorb the high density projection requirements for the next 20 years, as it only makes up less than 20% of the residential growth. Not many large apartment complexes are being built due to high school impact and other fees. PW and MH talked about the use of the WSDOT airport land use and compatibility guide. These guidelines need to be incorporated in the planning of the Urban Growth Boundary. NS mentioned there are guides for land use and also building height requirements. PW expressed WSDOT had concerns with zone 2 and zone 3. ML stated again how the airport needs to be protected. She referenced Paine Field as an example and how the pilots already have to make adjustments to avoid loud noise to homeowners. DM asked the question "who is responsible for protecting the airport?" "Is it the community or one property owner?" NS commented that the property owner has not lost anything at this time. If the property is allowed inside the Urban Growth Boundary, he will be given extra expansion rights, but as of now, he has not lost anything. She went on to speak about the process and how the county will work to determine the most appropriate answer to meet the needs of everyone. PW stated it is the city's and county's responsibility to protect the public and pilots and the airport through zoning and land use decisions. It is his job as an official to protect the public. It starts at the city and WSDOT provides guidance. BT asked if the city would Indemnify the Port for possible future legal issues with regard to developing homes in the area near the airport. DM mentioned the city did what the Port wanted in 2012 with regard to zoning the areas near the airport. He said the city would not indemnify the port. RH stated that the city and the Port came to an agreement in 2012, but the end result was not what the Port had originally requested of the city. He mentioned in the GMA, airports are considered an important community asset and asked why the city doesn't take that into account in the same manner as the farm land resources that have intentionally been left out of the UGA expansion. He asked if there was some area north of Clark Road and to the west of the 160 acre parcel that might work instead. DM said that might be an option but needed some further research. He said the goal right now is to get a new Urban Growth Boundary in place to meet the population increase demands. DM listed the school impact fees as a barrier for multi -unit development. It is about $4,800/door, plus a $425 traffic impact fee and a $1,400 park fee. One developer left a project after finding out about the fees and the city has not had any more interest in a large unit facility since that time. Some duplexes are being developed. Reducing the fees is not an option at this time. MH discussed residential development near airports. PSC is a "spoke" airport meaning many flights leave early and arrive late. Residents living near airports complain about the noise, form groups and often request the airport to curtail flights during early morning and late evening hours. The FAA does not allow airports to curtail flight times, curtailing flights would put the federal grant dollars received over the past 20 years at risk. Santa Monica airport is being shut down because of this. Residential development near airports is not only difficult but leads to lawsuits and the possibility of losing a community asset. ET discussed the costs associated with the lawsuits. Lawyers paid by the port and the homeowners are an expensive cost. The airport Is a public asset and it is in the publics interest to not allow development near the airport. The landowner is not losing anything at this time, and the argument is one sided. DM stated homeowners are made aware during a loan closing of the proximity of the property to the airport. However, he also stated most buyers do not pay attention to this notice. BT reported the airport has received 2-3 calls from folks looking at purchasing property to discuss the implications, noise and proximity to the airport. PW mentioned planes do have a noise impact on landing/take off (2,000-5,000 feet high). NS said the county's role in this process is to decide to accept the city's proposal to expand the Urban Growth Boundary or to modify it. The county establishes the Urban Growth Boundary. She stated when the city proposed adding 160 acres to the boundary in 2014, the county did not approve it. The county looks at the whole picture to make sure all proposals are justified and analyzed. The county also looks at other options. The Urban Growth Boundary can be changed once per year. She also mentioned that the current development being discussed is one of preference to the city because the infrastructure is in place and there is a developer ready to go. BT asked DM whether the city could decide to exclude the 160 acres next to the airport from its UGA request. DM acknowledge the city could exclude the area, but that it did not plan to. RH mentioned the plan made sense if there were not an airport. DM said the city is having a hearing on this on May 17`h. Letters of comment can be taken to the hearing or sent in by this Friday (May 11). PW expressed appreciation that the city has taken into account the airport overlay map and that he has been working with other municipalities to do the same. He said he will compose a letter that recommends the best solution for everyone to protect the public, the pilots, the economy and the growth of the airport for the hearing on May 17. A decline at the airport would have a negative impact on the city s economy. Adjourned 2:42 pm. TRI -CITIES AIRPORT*PSC May 11, 2018 City of Pasco Planning Commission and Mr. Rick White, Community and Economic Development Director City of Pasco 525 N 3rd Pasco, WA 99301 Tri -Cities Airport Administrative Office Phone. 509.547.6352 Fax: 509.547.9040 In -cit iesairport@portotpasco. mg 3607 N. 20th Avenue Pasco, Washington U.S.A. 99301 Port Commissioners Jean Ryckman James T. Klindwofth Vicki Gordon Director of Airports Buck Taff Re: Comprehensive Plan Amendment to Modify the Urban Growth Boundary Near the Tri -Cities Airport Honorable Planning Commission, Thank you for the opportunity to comment on your proposed update to the City of Pasco Urban Growth Boundary (UGB). Overall, we are in agreement with the City's proposal for expanding the UGA to accommodate future growth planned for the City of Pasco. We are in a dynamic, thriving community and it is exciting to see plan for the changes ahead. However, for the long term protection of our regional airport and air services into the Tri -Cities, the Port would request that land to the northwest of the airport remain in the County to reduce future conflicts between residences and aircraft operations (see 160 -acre pink dashed area on attached figure). Stating the obvious, there will be low flying aircraft arriving and departing above the subject parcel which is incompatible with residential development. For safety purposes, the Port would strongly recommend that only compatible development be permitted under the runway approaches to the airport, shown as Zones 2 and 4 on the figure. These zones and others were added to the Pasco Zoning code in 2012-13 as an Airport Overlay District, based upon guidance provided by the Washington State Department of Transportation's (WSDOT) "Airports and Compatible Land -Use Guidebook." As part of the City's Airport Overlay District, it was agreed that no residential development would be allowed in Zone 2. With respect to Zone 4, however, some modifications to the WSDOT guidelines were agreed upon because of existing development already built out under other runway approaches. These modifications to the WSDOT guidelines should not be applied to undeveloped ground, however, particularly ground that is presently outside the current Urban Growth Boundary. In the County code, Zone 4 allows only 4 residential units per 20 acres with clustering preferred. This type of development conforms with the WSDOT compatibility guidelines. In the City code, Zone 4 allows up to 2 residential units per acre, which is much higher than WSDOT recommends. Clearly the zoning allowed in the County is more compatible and is in compliance with the WSDOT recommended guidelines. Leaving the property outside of the City UGB maintains the present compatible uses. Along with safety concerns, we are also concerned that adding the subject parcel to the UGA would introduce inherent conflicts between aircraft operations and residential quality of life, including effects of aircraft noise, vibration, fumes, etc. In prior applications to add this parcel to the UGA, WSDOT commented "do no more harm' with regard to adding higher residential development than permitted by the County. Similarly, the Department of Commerce expressed serious concerns regarding urban residential encroachment and incompatible land uses near the airport runway. We agree with these comments and request that the City promote thoughtful and well -reasoned planning by keeping the entire parcel outside of the UGA. We are in the fortunate position of having an existing use in the County that is entirely compatible with airport operations and future growth. The City would be wise to preserve this land use while it has the opportunity to do so. Thank you for your consideration. Buck Taft, Director Tri -Cities Airport Port of Pasco Exhibit Attached S W • \ � i � �6 N • � O f � 4 2 `pp GS'SfiE A313 Y O+ ' e MNt1Y `J1Yl&I1C3 � •` ...''. 1 a68E nn�l 1 8 ` ON3 aZ `AV . 1)I 4 wls.31( NOI3m3 nX • , � L'W]43MILLIIJLLI '1' 1 O �'6•��` Z I 1 ail r. s 's' Z 2 D z Of U U 1 � � Q Q Q0 o , I 38,0 a r $ i � 1 i — 40 N< w 8 =fie �li� II Ej QI 3i Washington State Aviation Division •, Department of Transportation 7702 Terminal St SW Tumwater, WA 98501 360-709-6015 7 FAX: 360-709-8009 Toll Free: 1-800-552-0666 TTY: 1-800.833-6386 www.wsdot.wa.gov May 10, 2018 Dave McDonald, City Planner Community and Economic Development Department 525 N. Third Ave. Pasco, WA 99301 RE: Pasco's Proposed Expansion of the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) 160 acres North West of the Tri -Cities Airport Dear Mr. McDonald, Thank you for the opportunity to conduct an official Land Use Consultation with representatives from the City of Pasco regarding the expansion of the UGB that is proposed North West (160 Acres Farm 2005 LLC — Attachment A) of the Tri -Cities Airport. The Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) is concerned that the proposed expansion, if approved in its current form, would allow incompatible development adjacent to the Airport and would impeded future development and extension of Runway 12/30. WSDOT's Airport Land Use Compatibility Program addresses elements of safety, airspace hazards, noise and land use in relation to public use airports. WSDOT is primarily concerned with the safety and compatibility of placing incompatible development adjacent to the airport and within the airport operating environment. WSDOT feels that the cumulative impacts of residential development in the proposed UGA expansion area could have detrimental effects on a vital component of the region and state's transportation system. UGA expansion in this area should only be considered after a review of alternative measures to accommodate projected growth. The Growth Management Act (GMA) recognizes public use general aviation airports as essential public facilities and requires cities and counties to discourage incompatible land uses adjacent to them through their comprehensive plan policies and development regulations (RCW 36.70.547 and RCW 36.70A.200). The encroachment of incompatible land uses upon Washington state airports diminishes their ability to function as essential public facilities and often leads to operational impacts and closures. As a condition of approval and after all other alternatives have been exhausted and deemed unachievable, WSDOT would recommend to the City of Pasco: 1) Adopt the Airport Compatibility Zoning structure and recommended development guidelines around the Tri -Cities Airport as outlined in the WSDOT Airports and Compatible Land Use Guide for inclusion into the city's comprehensive plan and development regulations. 2) Ensure all residential structures in the proposed 160 acres of the UGA are constructed as far away as possible from the extended runway centerline (Zone 2 and Zone 4). The majority of off -airport property aircraft accidents occur along the extended runway centerline. 3) All proposed stormwater facilities shall meet both the FAA's and WSDOT's best management practices for aviation related stormwater facilities. Wildlife strikes pose great threats to pilots and aircraft in the United States. 4) All structures built within the 160 acres will remain clear of man-made and naturally occurring objects that penetrate the FAA's FAR Part 77 `Imaginary Airspace Surfaces of Tri -Cities Airport. 5) A notice shall be placed on titles for all lots within the 160 acre UGA that states that "The subject property is located adjacent to Tri -Cities Airport and may be impacted from a variety of aviation activities. Such activities may include but are not limited to noise, vibration, odors, hours of operation, low overhead flights and other associated activities." Again, I appreciate the opportunity to offer written comments and am available for any questions or concerns you may have. Please don't hesitate to contact me at 360-709- 8019 or wrightp@wsdot.wa.gov. Sincerely, Aatrick. Wright WSDOT Aviation Division Attachment A: Tri -Cities Airport Map with WSDOT Airport Compatibility Zones Attachment A: WSDOT Airport Compatibility Zones For Reference Only: f' :z 'c N m z a 2 | ;m ) ! | __s - Rio Del Sol t a 119-5931-1295 1 593-1 10-. - e . o wl m D -• !P I 14-29 100.29' I 121.87' 10E 49.9 ' 1 36TH � - a VENUF-_ _ -- � � -il i J'9S 205 11',�a,1530-072 !i 309 - -313 _ ji is c o� 319=a30�081 i o 1 � I, L• � moo. Oy.a eenv 531 uA �g 3502 �� • �r 119-430-045 � i I j i 1305 jl _ 313 - 1 l 119-430-214. I o p, 'U a 119-430-152 v L � fi i u o a�.�, ➢ ¢ �i ➢ �, it o 0. o 1119-43p-170 - m.N314 ° ry I � a , r19 -43o-1 aN N j z o vl 0 v O Irl _ Q � � •% Sa _ � � 3 1 �9.J O NI A 55 yl •i Y U Hf � I I w 5 O I j I I J9 1 j 0 1 1 j bS i NtCI-lUyq � i o �. f N - ` Paul Miles - Rio Del Sol u - l 9 1_ Paul Miles - Rio Del Sol '3 g 44 5a$� O a 0��� as 6k3k, aaxk Is C) om '^ddY 41 SddY ".a S O 6` Vx SY "a m 0 0 O Z w _�111111!I U f l 1 l 11 l 1" H 11 F ; I --- U LM Paul Miles - Rio Del Sol CIOD 2 W O )V : LAM: \ ( : O :) ( _ : /cc § rl \ \ \co) } \ � m ) m ` G { ) CcJ / \ ) ƒ m 0 / \ G \ ) ) \ \ ) ) ) ) ) / i r � - LAJ � « C � o � � � W LAJ LAJ cn W = C \ 2 \ / o 0 c \ \ /§ C7, { \ _ § m ° / § E » { § t ) / [ \ \ \ \ @ .( R 4 = = m n » \ \ (1)/ 2 {ƒ 3 \ .a 0)2 e a / '& g \— / R ° * _ _ ± o w * CMM2( / ° mcc 2 2 / \ 2 \ co \ \ k % C=— o @ } r 2 § (n j{ m° S 2 o e=/ g 3 En 7ƒ t t[ o 'G .; n U2 \ / � wcm - ° o G = 2 e 0 0 0 k \ \ \ = u Q � 0)�) / /§ S E 0 2 f§ a q � cn � � :MR o cu cu o Y I0 3 -0 0 m M � M � cn c O O Y m 3 Yr N O N 0) coY c coi 0 tti OCOOID a O CU0 O Ct) En CUCOC O U O 0 .ti CU N N O _s J co U co O N CO (B 5m m ^ Y a .O W Y ca z O � N b Y O N U U Q � m m o m L o O E 3 O o. c yLa. a `w s ts 3 v o m m a fT O G C O O p d > y y 0 C m t O C p m C 6 p a L L« U p p H N U 3 y N O y d y 0 a � a G aP m s c m o f v N a a m a c R o c p a t i p ayi c _cmi E c 5 m m o o 7 m O. O a w d G C .LU N m c A U C O a Q a m R G c WLLI O m o O o CL O a 0 o.o o a w L y aYci E H W O m 0 E �pC O -2E W y Y c a aj N c w h Wo d c c Co m� W o 3 a N L ® T O O pi C W w W v c Z c J .E m m `EW.o0 Z c Q mo E CC E ® a L W d CS E O J EwE V 22 C' o = 0 L o � � MM v W M -)L i'. N W m LL yi C N 'iT RJ C U U CI N p aA N p• !p O p U U C ,O C � � Ql 52: ' p W a p 6 N O L PFJ C j ro O O C3 •. E :21 Ua rm�}} GNUB E y•� ir. � Y � > 'vs q•6 O G �'� e TttF` d L d y d to C d O D C J ✓ � F C U � ` L U a c U F, n R a � d r 3 a c N C R N U T l6 a T _ O_' R a d y� E y d .d Of d d d C E .� y Yo E E o d .- '." � O O d V C «. U d y_ T d p R U t (0 U L J O c w U n C 3 .E A L y m -E 0 d N R o C = � J y O C d U O lG0 T R .n y R C y N n� U y y C C R p d C V V N W CE p Y d O d d y y A yO U E O N3 0> n O y U r V C r n y R is Y y w o v m av i`o x rn o d in n c da n d R EcuL C L r d C R O c R L a 3 E N L C tq w d d N d O 3 3 E d a R R R T E E 0 ® R O O Y U y C a C R R r L L w ® d G v 0,C R d 0 U y y O y E y J Oi a vi y0 3 C C Y d c L w c Y m o a m an d 3 21 d L d 3 E m Y IP"1� a y R a y 7 R O n aU J T� d EL U O R U O a d N d£ L v U V• O E Q y tJii G H N N E C G d C LL S E,J C n U c d M R TttF` N d y U d a cUa y d a � y a R d s a o f n o d O n _ERE N ;oa v,Ed` cn� N y j U N n d d V C .o t5 X N t� cm 3 b po d c a c_ t E O O C L n R E 3.1 Iir V' o .. N U 0D d C O d i4 D• r R > R N L p_ u QI G N R d p .N p a N Y N v o c N .� A E'U C U O¢ y v v d v ~O M °� y ¢ >>> c — a ti `o vi t _ '> E E E_ y ._ a E n S E C y Lv O d >o R 2 Cc m E'o.�" a c v d w a W u U C C d W O d O] _T = m G. N ;5.E d H d V t a d F L N W y � d cc 0 N d /R V C O N 3 O 6D t �F N d1 a cc K W a 'y R cUa E 'o _ � Y A a R d s a o f n o d O n > N d v,Ed` cn� R O V C X N t� cm 3 b po d c a c_ t E O O C L n R E 3.1 Iir V' o .. N U 0D d C m y i4 (c > R N L K .N p a N Y N N .� A E'U .E c r C v d >, -o 03 M °� y ¢ >>> c — a ti `o vi t _ '> E E E_ y ._ n E y Lv O ,J O..d E 2 Cc m m 3 a 'y O a' N Y A �y a00 N � f.° d V C M t� cm 3 b a d N y M �..1 4�1 Iir V' .ti i4 (c 3 N 0 K .N p a N Y N N .� (T a) a) v C0 co a�y) i-1 N S". O cu N tc a� c N d O N U c G d s N t0 a O y = N U Q u 7 0 Q G L' d C tS ft3 N � (T a) a) v C0 co a�y) i-1 N S". O cu tc a� U L' d Q � a m t� sa Y Pq�FR C G 0° ca g cc L1 Q �D 1'4 �.s 40 o n y m v v C d d N n w Y n N ti u R N d C 2 w a Lm N G i y d y Lu c a rA y }a ' °N' N w O y � y .ti O w O w Y NE GL N d 0O =[0 N'N O t0 0 nr- O -O i� y a v� •«. a v ci m Ya G) r an m f6 N Si U N N t0 Y E w N N G 61 03 4 m a y eY0 tv E E m ttE�� Y] O! N Y � v v [� fYtl al 3 v y d -O C .N w W O` N 75.E d O .y S A O W ' C _ ,Ow. �J t0 c. a y c> j m O a N N C32 C a p v 'O Y a N U Ola G d C Q m >�4 d d Y � U � b N O Y � N .n y jA rA y }a ' E N w O y � y .ti O w O k y v O -O m c c v n n 3 eY0 tv O Y � �C [� fYtl al d d Y � U U N C G O jA v E a y t m y v w -O m c c v n n 3 y d -O LL 01 G d r O d w J O p a p v 'O C � O > GGi O E o A U AFI y O y d C H zi d U U �i a y N v N `° `° a � w 4"G_T c 4 O g�ggqyy E •� o a` N d E+ p F2 y ... ws E E �_ .- v ®p o R C p, S 6Y M N CJ t6 � Y iS itt U G a ►}}~�!� cl y N C:.E fJ Q .E _C N a m Ey ` ,5 E .c M- d 3 _ d C c a v a, E d N w E y d YO to C 'O N tC O O h N CA v p V d N U N C my o v v a �v d U y O N C N C L CO N L $ f9 Q G @ N y S N O> Y E d T U O O V O W 042 N 0 �1 ,U MI cu ca 0) A ca a) �1 U >1 m Ql 0 0 a.. 0 N N ca U cu v 0 x A as c6 it ti zi axi vi a N C m C m N � N O C N N 'O > O i .Ed d m.v 3 E m m ® L N L W W d U U A N O 3 v O U ` t d G U Y0 U N d m L n U A L c •- c y> o m 'v .� al U c N O s � N O>> a 0 3 � 0 L n - a0 _T E y R n o E S U v E E a y > w T R AU p O O T O'C O M O � •� w � Q U U C J m N F- 4nJ y Co .- c oa ami .°1- r a y Co .r L O R L O p a ice+ C E C c > U m U b C E y '� o m m d v •o v c to . w � a c w a s N m m N LU m U � N U O+ Oi =p 'X •� bO 0q i� aci O O.� O a) � J Z N v= O N L a .' S E R N Cl axi vi a N C m C m N � N O C N N 'O > a'N m.v 3 v m > a L x n Y d d U U A N O 3 v O U ` t d G U Y0 U N d m L n U A L c •- c y> o m 'v .� al U c N O s � N C N 3 3 � 0 o+ co o n - a0 _T E y R a y > w T R O O w � Q U U C J m N F- 4nJ y W i Vw LOU m v W cz cu H H N _co L) H fQ H (6 v 0 v 0 O fi N N C� O U i.� Q/ Gi ttS U H O y coU H cu H .v O U H a) O 0 0 1-I O 'd v co m .y �i N H ti b cu N cu cu N O 0 O O N H Z O 4 H O cu H cu F.' cts H Ni O cufE U y G) v co U O a W H O b O .a w H O (1) ca N h O a 0) cu w U f R oL E y R J O N C N C N Nw a Y Y O D U y o y .m aci w o" o y O N C U r U= L p y 0. R R Q•� U N O L l0 G! yO> C L N N N N U L N R 3 y y_ T.0 ceG y O a v oCL Q E C A 11 c �4jW�j d O N LU w E z .` � v m c c p1 rd E n G y: a <ii 3 mz I'LL n:° E 3 �v.E a m.E LL a > "C N C N A V O W 01t C 01 � N C R y .Y C N O U L w L > n y R > O L O d R R p C a C E U R C y R R GE R 7 L C 3 N C G C C .G T H N R R w .� N V®W+ N .� N R O L 3 U CO N O N C R N C r N o E OU r O U C R 'J W 0 CJ C H w Y .N W� > W W H y LL a i m y c_ a .°• v v vi o Lwo f011 C VOl W N N R T� O R C d O "O C O y NG O� C C tON .I:- O L 3 E s.E o.� C v, c ai m v m? y m v Y m w o y o E '^=EvN ap R C C O fyi) Y y L E45 N °� Ny M.G y0CD .01LT wN�rYQ R U N .Y r O O 0 0 0 0 >° E `O U N y Y R V N 'y O y H= 0... = R c m O. OI O R d F coi y Y oa T= o o E a N _n' N E ltJ N 63 C C s a C .d a,o o o 0 0 � � N Y L N 6J y O.Y j L •� � O� C N Y ¢ 'c m •3 v 3 � a 0 � _o � � ._ Ch y ® ® 0 Gl U n yi) y A N O j p y U O 6I 3 L N O O y C d y y 0 m 0 C Q w U p O 2 O C d LL Of d a i U n LL d y y O I o _ c C v y N O d W C Y N� N C C > a� CC U N a06 aYLh �Ow'O C Y S✓>' UO a CHN L C W 6) y T C d m c *' v H E pVi i+1 V .E X y .� � C p< � a y EE E m c O> L O E E .H CL N _n' N E ltJ N 63 C C s a C .d a,o o L N 6J y O.Y j L •� � O� C N Y ¢ 'c m •3 v 3 � a � _o � � ._ n A N O j p y U O 6I 3 L N O y C d y y 0 m 0 C Q w U p O 2 O C d LL Of d a i U n LL d y y o _ c v y N O W C Y N� C C S a� CC U N a06 aYLh �Ow'O C Y S✓>' UO a CHN L C W 6) y T C d Y O O x U (6 m y Q) y a a� o 0 yIE5m o y a m E o a a c N m a O 0 m m n m a1 > c a 0 O a y O C y r y C v 3 co r0 'J' N n a a a m - y O Y 7 � � C 3 N •• C o L m «>. p v $ a v 21 v O E v U c -2 a a'$ v a m U m N y O C C W d O m E a"i m a m o- $ a m y C G N A N nm.. Gi L � N C1 N _ � y C _ m N Gr O y C '+T+ L U m G y fC0 N O m w a U N C C O u Y O (4 a o c y 0003 ¢� NU a y °' c N n 15 E $ CC c m m A m N a > C m C yy ? > aJ C O L c m '` NC903 O m L cu � Y a) y O -TO m y aU. ai N y E N N O.21 C O. ^~,.." d m N � co F > r N N N y. . co E a C v 5 W cm ..�. m y x v N o o fO a+ w WO c a` a y c a 3 c E c c m r.E 2 E2 (6 O E c z io o 5 m v m x m z m > v > cc a 3 U U aa)i C*10, W O COOD W GC Q d N a d d C •O O- C A N Y N U R 72 G d N O m d a d O O m U m C W d L W N Q U d N d C n o o a o a N o y a o a w _ m N E EFL -2 E ay a v U U al O' O a! YO a O y a o t c n C y o E X N y> y C m S E v C O a O C C Y a a t0 .Si E C 2 C= d OF O N C E .o Y —2 N O Q O w v y c cv.0 o.2 C 2 a Q v W W 0- EC Ny 0 J Y n d a a1 LGO V7 a. p] U O Z y a C C �, _ O, ` G Q — J Q C r N J C N O O aX Z E E 7 a OC v a O L N N dp U O c W m CD ® L O 'G C U Q =~ Q d W N Y tmii E FOC O J N J W y n d aU+ O_ U J J Y O W d U °" T co LL N a o W E v 'm d E 0- Q c✓ a E !- E v N o+ E p ... c J u�. y. o w W ate`, > >: w y v. U E m Q E w a�N Q p o t ¢❑ y- '� J ��d.� [� m p .v g 0 n �, p E ® o O d Q w a z. g O o y J a J .7 Z w H m E d J «� J C""a o m m "vi w H v co R m' OLAI Z 3 g E pC = E g E J x U % O E a [7 cmi E 0. LLW.S z O� >m 0 FQ-Jw� SN W (n N m SS d DJ U V ■ ■ N Y t0 1�1 N v N t0 SQ R y A f.9 U d N Oi T N p N `l C 7 U L_ n2 E d O i- '+-LD W W .A J r 76 N V !a 218 N V N J m J m `p N E d a ry a O OC CT U N U r. Q a N w in � t O y a LL R LL .0 Z y r m� C O O U p O 4l W V% N x' Y vE ® M fO d C G N Z Vj N d C �a W21 W N S U C O-Rol c .L.. i m n .Y Q n a ` W v W C X 3 O j J a = m y a m J O m O # N a 2 L a+._ Q o m LL o 3 O X g a U c 02 a O O_ v m p m CC m Z G W U O W O ,d vn�Y Y c �do v MS.ac� .E5 C- O O N mw y 2'M W.E S O v E CL Z° 2 w m. Wo-a ` p ® Z 7 cW WW pQ G dZ U v .Yco0 Z a W N H O W y= Q_ N dW U y E y n o Q O LD L O C C S y ®> a 9 U W Za o W c✓ O L y 2 N p a. 6 0 0 0 m� U ae c v m Q CC E E = a = 2 ai m O `o ®. m � y p �.- �.w H e W R W O c o ? o m W .E 'Q 2 G LL °' 2 .v ai m CC c i' c C,,3v y pin ? y 'c ~ c Q w ami a `w oa OJ Z c .o CL Z Z> o f ® w OC F -CM =j `m vi ®- m y Q o c o a > U W .m N LL« LL .v-'� U o N > Q C U` .0 y N Y U o O a a c CO w a J E J J N a ¢ a = Q � w a C= p c Q 8 E Q o Q `o x N v W m d W N m o y c o R E Com' r m F- c o H a a O d y _ y d N Z c g d m h Q^ CL. Q y Q h H z r G N Q a s a = N o h t O H v c W o- M � y a v o+ m °' o+ o o+ c �° m E °C o, o a a ai }� _ -C N .� y G w .� m w e W c n Q c A W G 'm y G C p m X c y �KWy c c X c a C .�.. c L c p 6 c w Q c s x CIS U y H Ll 2 F 11 lL H lL N FW" tl LL. V LL -O CC ll d 6Q6 !1 O SF LL '� H �r W Z Q '�" C C N �. .� N o' m= x c J v m v .4 ° 3 3 x J °' o+ 0 3 c 9m O N v C> L m O O N m .N O« N O L .0 U d (0 ° °« C J (6 'O O y a 0 O d '� j � N n t0 6 O n m U L R (p T w ° 91 O°11 n j� d U C C N L a N O N m L .0 N E cn E o y o o v o w ''= L E aci w ci o Q E v o> .R o z v 'E c° c o L c' o> N x K m 3 .�' m o v c G v Z o y -— m m` c7 E a. in N O N C f0 J N .K N N T O d N o -0 Sa o y o y ami 3 `.4 v cf) c ma 3 .E o m L« y v« v vii c E v 3t J c f0 « 3 p= Y N y v L m y `J� v N t0 N N C O C O W C R 0 0 a, E N Ol C N y N m y E y Cp« L N j m C H J N N 3 m.0 1- M O CD J 'UO U1E o 3= U (.') « w 0 0« N Q O Of .a L LLL O O O.@.. 0. cn �W M� CY W N N N C C N o r- O '> > O > CO n O 4 Op N v v w v E o E> a o v v E .N C m p y @ U) @ U Q.OUv N N E a v @ E v N U> c OU m o c v c o o n v �- C N m N m Z r m U ° � m C'DL C U W L @ h w� A V v f0 CL > 0 0 U @ n c y0 N 3 •O C U y@ N N N C m@ C U C C m N n N m A • O v cm�y 1 • ot �. v v w E o E .N C m p y Q.OUv a v @ E v c m o c v �- C N m N � m CL > 0 0 c 3 N C m N n N m E N 0 1 y N m O L- 7 N 'p m L U O N N d U O m Z O v .c O w A i E Q y m@ U L j@cm @ N m 'o in v 0 o -mo U r E OU N E m E 0i Z U- .O v L yn U wo O O Q U m .0 ° 0) C° m @ w N� OI C L E 3 C c o A E o° v 5 o m -o -Q o o c v@ o n A • O v cm�y 1 • ot �. ?wroFv'.. h xvi 0 Y O y N W 3 H@ @ A E N t N G1 A U o Q d N N C r N @ J o ff> L 3 a rc o m o �e m o Q Y V @ O N N 3 @ � L J d t0 A A R N M � j o o @ @. E >vy N> > S J~@ y 0 E E L C .V ` N c O o c@ 's 0 E E y p N n J L O wE N L O p_ y @A 0 C 2 N L N N W E° y.- O J o > C M N o d N @ C EC C O h C H 0 N N L .a+ U N N o J L '_ 'O U n (0 v O' -!E V E v N N U N d m i o n N G @ 10 /L♦♦ JW 43 4 C C C C A C 2 i N C O N d EWN 3N C ryY O 6'? Cyp v t d G J U c c O Q � y ; N u o y� c C C ,` � o o w C " +• y m t N H 3=` w wo y ? ��TM N`oi a(Ej3 E"E inroQ E ECE 2 a C e C N E N V N a a L VEJ O d p R O1 N N a U O O o.oi v::o a 3V 3CoiC mQYa mac w'� E E ava `� ,t O o 3> CGip `m_ = Na N�`O REWT Oi0 O U RY % UU" LyO E CC=M WGN �Ap0 �O CC yW ` 'i `dN NRE mGj d CC �T E - �O QOL Y1000 cO SZ C NOO OOO rf ,y¢ d :C ¢ EO N m C r E d O OHO : d y 9 y U U V Cj O` V WO 'p ^ HJ L y -E m 'E 3 9 R cc vao LJ xw._d Ol p�lO a m N RO O wC oY oo VE Osc ¢ y w 5 y c ; m w— o E m E o- yarn TO T3 n C5 E' 'a c n 33 3 3 v c ay y OL O >+ O N R 9 R d O O E� d z ¢ v 5 r.m wz M aw 3a 3a min ci c C C N m (Oj C ZN y N N y C w L U m O O c o'o .aw s c 3 'a^ fO 3 :.' yi o E '4j otitai s o a 4' a -25 d E r 3 N S G N OM1 C m N 6 R r c n G N Jr' TCT O O(O Oy 00 O Z5 o¢Alcrn vooc owE a aw v eRo L6 d o v LCYv 3v yR vi iia atjN iri 2'`v,cE oe -w �`dM H dC._ o C TOf�� RC ydW� ma-2on CN uU�G vN G 0`+ E0O NHU N 4 y 6 E N n p O d H y d d d— W a�w N mo �¢ c�c o; roc >c m°•'.�� N ,� d� EU ai ��.i cm O w tTO p N aO. wvi L oI um c . 3 in a. w d Y v R 3 c ¢ Ewe^ v Z w N 9 c o c ,c ea `o v c o o E mS', m m= O o Ry aRRo Pd V W= W R y C T y> w y N y N C'�N E T G i V m d S C E Z AE"o moo E cd tCo aEm =z Rio v `° o m3 o c m c �°.R.pG a7R�m cER c R3 3a.- za9 Qi, mzyd.� goy m 'm3G f.!y'v E aw�c `9OaEu qa `O tiy> '^so� w�c ma y u.ov ve o o vi oa ocoi m�'� zco 'ca y co E3v >'mc Lv ... El rata E�nN v� V5 IP zc 2 "'Fa �vE m'c >E S f ov V1 C y O C Z ^ M U Y T C C r O O> c O 7 C C NSR O N O N ��- O R O O d (O U nS EC- N 2 N mY ¢ m m W 22 Z W DU N O d d T O O L.0 r N M d O _ s m e o w o O s ¢ R aoi c M,o o w- 'Op yNt � d� n3WU �a �O .�C RUdyE OfO cw^ `e\ ZifO > uj Z Z `UN�N .y1.N 'EO X ,w3,�z FNE�d > N�EYrRye E^ d o o cam' �ci N v o' mcN eE w R6.cyE `o _o EE 2y w E ci d N E C W rR. N R N d N N y' q N p U C w� a`o' E'3 E-> cg 30._Ro v Ov _ 00« H2. y—.�.� N T °1A EQ,%o+ _Now '�=m Om ooal.'ro Ly'� mm Yw me�cc EEa C [L w C G G N N\ (n Y d G m N Y 3o.y+ N 3 j 3 v 3 c oYyc Ec'G o Eo cy.�or 3 nd > y E � ZRyy c w°1 e_ pf U R O o O a`> O `N L7 C 70 VJ d' O O 1_ap 2G4! ��d y _ �� �N_ G OVNO QEC C f .. Oi mOV U dHO O �G y d Ejp =V�O�O TMN Lo�N Q..9 RNO�`NO Cm dV S >aRaO�� COfo�ER =O Uyo Ercd RwE mQ m'"' fd=`o G'R' mwE E_r dy23°' �wccR jd N O C% .' m E �. d i.0 V d O L O O O R Z d N U Q O O S p `� > L O V N OoQ UQwv �F-C OmMC6 OnN%g.- 'ym >iN �rUWU `n LL vi c Oi y Z m try A V O N C N WO wo T � a- 0 c 0 0 m � a v o c LL N L O H � N N � A a �n C -O R d U C O � J a U L O Q O .d G d N � CJ R d 0, — N d O y T N ' v R N N � a V d d « C C r � O c � o o a m a d R O � L N j E R d v o r v " a `o o v N R O U Y O J v R R i C Q O G � O V N d L 7 3 R d U' N C � O O � a 0 S y � N d T X L O a N Y O a O > R o a `oa c v R 3 0 � U O d R O U_ L y 3 C d O N � o c `o 0 U � N 'H O � da v U C L C dO 11 0 U MEMORANDUM DATE: May 17, 2018 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Darcy Bourcier, Planner I SUBJECT: Minimum Lot Size and Frontage in Residential Zones (MF# CA2017- 009 Introduction The PMC states that for lots 10,000 square feet in size or under, the minimum lot frontage is to be 60 feet. This provision includes zones R-1 (low density residential) through R-4 (high density residential), which each have their own designated minimum lot size requirement (see table 1). However, interest has been expressed to decrease the minimum lot frontage for zones R-2 through R-4. To illustrate, a property may be zoned R-1 which allows for a minimum lot area of 7,200 square feet and a minimum frontage of 60 feet. If one was to seek a rezone of the property from R-1 to R-2—which would decrease the minimum lot size to 6,000 square feet—the minimum frontage would remain 60 feet. In the interest of creating additional lots for new dwellings in Pasco, the City is proposing the amendment of the Zoning Code to decrease the minimum frontage from 60 feet to 50 feet for zones R-2 through R-4. By doing so, the resulting increase in lot density would allow for more homes to be constructed to help accommodate Pasco's growing population. Considering the above information, staff is also entertaining the idea of decreasing minimum lot size accordingly. Should the minimum frontage decrease while the minimum lot size remains unchanged, there is a concern regarding the possibility of disproportionately -sized lots. Therefore, staff proposes that the minimum area for a single-family lot zoned R-3 should be 5,000 square feet (down from 5,500) and the minimum area for a single- family lot zoned R-4 should be 4,500 square feet (down from 5,000). The minimum lot area for R-2 designations will remain as they are. Staff is seeking the Planning Commission's input on modifying the Zoning Code in order to accommodate builders and developers in their effort to offer diverse residential properties at affordable prices while avoiding facilitating the creation of impractical or awkward lots. The R-2, R-3 and R-4 zoning districts allow for the development of single- family dwellings and multiple family structures such as duplexes, fourplexes and apartment buildings. Although established to allow multiple dwelling units on a single lot, the multi -family zoning districts can be a source of single family homes on smaller lots. Below is a table detailing Pasco's current zoning standards regarding single family dwellings in low -to -high density residential zones. Table 1 Background The City of Pasco created the R-2 and R-3 zoning districts in 1965 in which no lot within those two districts could be smaller than 50 by 100 feet (5,000 square feet). This minimum lot size has been in the code in one form or another since 1965. Much of the original portions of Pasco were platted prior to the establishment of zoning. The general practice for platting in the early years was to divide blocks into 25 -foot wide lots. Builders would then buy two or more lots to build houses or commercial buildings. As a result it is not uncommon to find single-family lots close to or below 5,000 square feet in size in older areas of town. The smallest lots in central Pasco between the High school and Sylvester Park (zoned R-1) are 4,750 square feet. The smallest lots south of "A" Street are just over 4,600 square feet; some contain 5,250 square feet and others are slightly larger at 5,400 square feet. Zoning Comparisons Kennewick and Richland both permit individual lots in their version of the R- 2 and R-3 zones with a minimum of 4,000 square feet. The following tables show the minimum lot size and frontage standards for single family dwellings in Pasco's neighboring cities. 2 Pasco current standard Min Lot Size (sq. ft. Min Lot Frontage ft. Low Density R-1 7,200 60 Med Density R-2 6,000 60 Med Density R-3 5,500 60 High Density R-4 5,000 60 Background The City of Pasco created the R-2 and R-3 zoning districts in 1965 in which no lot within those two districts could be smaller than 50 by 100 feet (5,000 square feet). This minimum lot size has been in the code in one form or another since 1965. Much of the original portions of Pasco were platted prior to the establishment of zoning. The general practice for platting in the early years was to divide blocks into 25 -foot wide lots. Builders would then buy two or more lots to build houses or commercial buildings. As a result it is not uncommon to find single-family lots close to or below 5,000 square feet in size in older areas of town. The smallest lots in central Pasco between the High school and Sylvester Park (zoned R-1) are 4,750 square feet. The smallest lots south of "A" Street are just over 4,600 square feet; some contain 5,250 square feet and others are slightly larger at 5,400 square feet. Zoning Comparisons Kennewick and Richland both permit individual lots in their version of the R- 2 and R-3 zones with a minimum of 4,000 square feet. The following tables show the minimum lot size and frontage standards for single family dwellings in Pasco's neighboring cities. 2 Table 2 * Measured at front setback line Table 3 Richland Kennewick Min Lot Size Min Lot Frontage Min Lot Size Min Lot Frontage (sq. ft. ft. Min Lot Width* ft. Suburban RS 10,500 30 60 Low Density RL 7,500 30 60 Med Density RM 4,000 30 50 High Density RH 4,000 30 N/A * Measured at front setback line Table 3 Richland Min Lot Size Min Lot Frontage (sq. ft. ft. Single Family Res R-1-12 10,000 90 Single Family Res R-1-10 8,000 70 Med Density R-2 6,000 50 Med Density Small (R -2S) 4,000 42 Multi Family R-3 4,000 42 The cities listed above all have minimum lot standards for comparable districts with less square footage than what is currently required in Pasco. Previous Code Amendments In 2014 a developer applied for R-2 zoning with the intent of building only single-family homes. Although most of the lots in the proposed development were in excess of 6,000 square feet the potential was there for a development with numerous 5,000 square foot lots. The creation of 5,000 square foot single-family lots without forethought to building design and subdivision integration with existing and adjacent neighborhoods had the potential to impact those neighboring developments. As a result the Planning Commission was asked to provide some input on the matter as to whether or not the multi -family zoning districts should be reviewed as it related lot sizes. Later that year the City Council passed Ordinance 4173 to amend PMC Title 25 to increase the minimum lot size from 5,000 to 6,000 square feet in the R-2 zoning district and 5,000 to 5,500 square feet in the R-3 zoning district. It can be argued, then, that reverting back to smaller minimum lot sizes in the medium -to -high density residential zoning districts would essentially negate what Ordinance 4173 had accomplished. Once a developer goes t] through the process to obtain multi -family zoning he does not usually squander his potential return by building single-family homes. Considering this information, discussion regarding the potential repeal of this Ordinance is therefore necessary. Non -Conforming Ouestions Decreasing the minimum lot size in the R-3 and R-4 zoning districts will create some minor non -conforming issues for owners of existing lots that meet the current standards. It will mainly create confusion for insurance companies and real estate agents. This would only impact properties that needed to be short platted or re -platted. Options 1) Decrease the minimum lot frontage of residential lots zoned R-2, R-3, and R-4 to 50 feet and alter the minimum lot size as follows: R-3: 5,000 sq. ft. R-4: 4,500 sq. ft. Table 4 2) Some other variation of Option # 1. 3) Maintain the current standard. This item has been advertised for a public hearing. After considering the issue the Planning Commission should provide staff with direction as to whether or not a code amendment is necessary. If the Planning Commission feels an amendment is warranted, minimum lot sizes and frontage will need to be determined so a code amendment can be prepared for the June 21, 2018 Planning Commission meeting. 4 Pasco ro osed standard Min Lot Size Min Lot Frontage (sq. ft. ft. Low Density R-1 7,200 60 Med Density R-2 6,000 50 Med Density R-3 5,000 50 High Density R-4 4,500 50 2) Some other variation of Option # 1. 3) Maintain the current standard. This item has been advertised for a public hearing. After considering the issue the Planning Commission should provide staff with direction as to whether or not a code amendment is necessary. If the Planning Commission feels an amendment is warranted, minimum lot sizes and frontage will need to be determined so a code amendment can be prepared for the June 21, 2018 Planning Commission meeting. 4 Pasco's Current Standard R-2 R-3 6,000 sq ft min E 60' 1001* 5,500 sq ft min * Resulting depth of lot to satisfy minimum lot area R-2 6,000 sq ft min F 50' 60' —� 92'* 11 M 5,000 sq ft min E 60' Decrease Minimum Frontage Only 120' 11 pc 5,500 sq ft min F 50' * Resulting depth of lot to satisfy minimum lot area M 5,000 sq ft min E 50' 83'* 11 1001* Decrease Minimum Frontage & Lot Area R-2 R-3 6,000 sq ft Min (not to be decreased) 50' 120' 11 5,000 sq ft min E 50' * Resulting depth of lot to satisfy minimum lot area 1001* MI 4,500 sq ft min 50' MEMORANDUM DATE: May 11, 2018 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Jeffrey B. Adams, Associate Planner SUBJECT: Housing Resources (MF #CA 2018-001) After many years of decline, homelessness in Washington is growing despite significant investment and efforts to reduce it over the last decade. Factors contributing to this rise include escalating housing costs, inadequate mental health and chemical dependency treatment systems, the opioid crisis, inadequate coordination of prevention efforts and levels of funding on the local, state and federal government levels. Contributing Factors Around 15% of all homeless adults were identified as survivors of domestic violence in a 2014 survey of 25 US cities. Abuse often leads the victim to seek shelter away from the abuser. Victims of abuse frequently lack resources to support themselves and sometimes end up homeless. Between 20% and 25% of the homeless population in the United States suffers from some form of severe mental illness according to the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. Serious mental illnesses disrupt people's ability to carry out essential aspects of daily life, such as self-care and household management. Mental illnesses may also prevent people from forming and maintaining stable relationships or cause people to misinterpret others' guidance and react irrationally. This often results in pushing away caregivers, family, and friends who may be the force keeping that person from becoming homeless. Roughly 32% of individuals experiencing homelessness suffer from addiction to drugs and alcohol—a figure approximately 20% higher than reported abuse of alcohol and illicit drugs by the general population. Communities and Homelessness Homelessness is a regional issue that is not confined to any particular city or county and is an issue that presents complex difficulties. Solving this issue is next to impossible by any single provider of government services. The cost of homelessness to taxpayers is significant in terms of increased police calls, emergency room visits and locally -funded homeless services. There are also indirect costs resulting from homeless services on public perception when those services are provided in business districts. Legal Issues Here in Washington State - many communities have experienced land use conflicts with homeless services and revitalization efforts - including neighboring communities here in our area. In March of 2017, City Council adopted an ordinance prohibiting unauthorized camping subject to the availability of alternative accommodations -however this prohibition applies only to parks and other public locations. Both state and federal law allow discretion to religious organizations that provide services for the homeless (including homeless shelters) and the needy as part of their core mission on property that is owned or controlled by them. In effect - this establishes a limited "pre-emption" of full local control of land use issues involving establishing and conducting homeless facilities or services. Both legal and municipal authorities recommend that communities prepare ordinances that detail the requirements for religious organizations that wish to sponsor homeless shelters or encampments - before the community is faced with an immediate application for a shelter. Municipalities cannot necessarily deny religious organizations from establishing shelters or encampments, but they can be reasonably regulated. The regulations would be driven by conformance with state and local law that protect public interest, health and safety. Possible Solutions In researching municipalities that have established standards for regulating such facilities a potential land use ordinance could include at least the following provisions relating to such shelters or encampments: limiting the siting of such facilities on property owned or controlled by the religious organization; • requirement to meet appropriate setbacks, buffering and other standards; • limiting such facilities to specific zoning districts; • limiting the maximum number of residents; • requiring a minimum age for residents, e.g. eighteen; • establishing a code of conduct to include prohibitions on illegal drugs, alcohol, weapons, loitering and other behaviors; • conformance with state and local standards relating to drinking water, human and solid waste disposal, electric systems and fire systems; • the conduct of appropriate background and identification checks (ie; sex offenders and outstanding warrants) by the religious organization; • conformance to a minimum distance between other shelters or encampments; • conformance with a maximum time period for the duration of a shelter or encampment- including a separation period between such time periods; and • irrevocable permission for the City to abate the use and reimbursement for those costs if the shelter or encampment is noncompliant with conditions of the ordinance or permit. Preliminary Findings 1. Homelessness in Washington is growing. 2. Factors contributing to the rise in homelessness include but are not limited to the following: a. Escalating housing costs b. Inadequate mental health treatment systems c. Inadequate chemical dependency treatment systems d. The opioid crisis e. Inadequate coordination of prevention efforts, and f. Inadequate levels of funding on the local, state and federal government levels. 3. Around 15% of all homeless adults were identified as survivors of domestic violence. 4. Abuse often leads the victim to seek shelter away from the abuser. 5. Victims of abuse frequently lack resources to support themselves and sometimes end up homeless. 6. Between 20% and 25% of the homeless population in the United States suffers from some form of severe mental illness. 7. Serious mental illnesses disrupt people's ability to carry out essential aspects of daily life, such as self-care and household management. 8. Mental illnesses may also prevent people from forming and maintaining stable relationships or cause people to misinterpret others' guidance and react irrationally. This often results in pushing away caregivers, family, and friends who may be the force keeping that person from becoming homeless. 9. Roughly 32% of individuals experiencing homelessness suffer from addiction to drugs and alcohol. 10. The cost of homelessness to taxpayers is significant in terms of a. increased police calls, b. emergency room visits and c. locally -funded homeless services. 11. Homeless services provided in business districts affect public perception. 12. Many neighboring communities have experienced land use conflicts with homeless services and revitalization efforts 13. In March of 2017 City Council adopted an ordinance prohibiting unauthorized camping subject to the availability of alternative accommodations 14. The City of Pasco ordinance prohibiting unauthorized camping applies only to parks and other public locations. 15. Both state and federal law allow discretion to religious organizations that provide services for the homeless (including homeless shelters) and the needy as part of their core mission on property that is owned or controlled by them. 16. These state and federal laws establish a limited de facto "pre- emption" of full local control of land use issues involving establishing and conducting homeless facilities or services. 17. Legal and municipal authorities recommend that communities prepare ordinances that detail the requirements for religious organizations that wish to sponsor homeless shelters or encampments before the community is faced with an immediate application for a shelter. 18. Municipalities cannot necessarily deny religious organizations from establishing shelters or encampments, but they can be reasonably regulated. 19. The regulations must be driven by conformance with state and local law that protect public interest, health and safety. The Planning Commission has several options, as follows: 1) Recommend an ordinance permitting homeless uses via administrative review; 2) Recommend an ordinance permitting homeless uses via Hearing Examiner review; 3) Recommend an ordinance permitting homeless uses via Special Permit; Each option has pros and cons, as follows: 1) administrative review would be efficient and expedited, but would create increased liability issues for the City of Pasco and indirect costs to the taxpayer; 2) Hearing Examiner review would be fairly efficient and create a judicial review of applications outside the administrative or legislative process, thus decreasing liability and increasing fairness in decision-making; 3) Special Permit review would be lengthy and cumbersome for both applicant and city but would allow the Planning Commission/City Council to address site-specific issues. However it would also create liability issues with quasi-judicial review of applications. Given the complexity and partisan nature of the homelessness issue, avoidance of liability should be high on the priority list for the City. This information is transmitted to the Planning Commission to establish a process that will balance and serve the needs of all members of the community, regardless of their housing status. RECOMMENDATION: MOTION: I move to continue the public hearing so as to allow for adequate public input for findings of fact, and development of a recommendation for City Council. ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING PMC TITLE 25 ESTABLISHING PROVISIONS FOR TEMPORARY HOMELESS SHELTERS. WHEREAS, cities have the responsibility to regulate and control physical development within their borders and to ensure public health, safety and welfare are maintained; and, WHEREAS, the City of Pasco has zoning regulations that encourage orderly growth and development of the City; and, WHEREAS, homelessness in Washington and in the Tri -cities Region is growing despite significant investment and efforts to reduce it over the last decade; and, WHEREAS, escalating housing costs, inadequate mental health and chemical dependency treatment systems, the opioid crisis, inadequate coordination of prevention efforts and levels of funding on the local, state and federal government levels all contribute to this rise; and, WHEREAS, around 15% of all homeless adults were identified as survivors of domestic violence in a 2014 survey of 25 US cities; and, WHEREAS, abuse often leads the victim to seek shelter away from the abuser. Victims of abuse frequently lack resources to support themselves and sometimes end up homeless; and, WHEREAS, between 20% and 25% of the homeless population in the United States suffers from some form of severe mental illness according to the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration; and, WHEREAS, Serious mental illnesses disrupt people's ability to carry out essential aspects of daily life, such as self-care and household management; and, WHEREAS, Mental illnesses may also prevent people from forming and maintaining stable relationships or cause people to misinterpret others' guidance and react irrationally. This often results in pushing away caregivers, family, and friends who may be the force keeping that person from becoming homeless; and, WHEREAS, roughly 32% of individuals experiencing homelessness suffer from addiction to drugs and alcohol—a figure approximately 20% higher than reported abuse of alcohol and illicit drugs by the general population; and, WHEREAS, Homelessness is a complex and difficult regional issue that is not confined to any particular city or county; and, WHEREAS, homelessness costs taxpayers via increased police calls, emergency room visits and locally -funded homeless services; and, WHEREAS, many communities in Washington State, including neighboring jurisdictions, have experienced land use conflicts with homeless services and revitalization efforts; and, WHEREAS, public perception of homelessness affects private investment when homeless services are provided in business districts; and, Page 1 of 10 WHEREAS, in March of 2017, City Council adopted an ordinance prohibiting unauthorized camping subject to the availability of alternative accommodations— however this prohibition applies only to parks and other public locations; and, WHEREAS, both state and federal law allow discretion to religious organizations that provide services as part of their core mission for the homeless (including homeless shelters) and the needy on property that is owned or controlled by them; and, WHEREAS, State law establishes an effective limited "pre-emption" of full local control of land use issues involving establishing and conducting homeless facilities or services; and, WHEREAS, as per this state law municipalities cannot necessarily deny religious organizations from establishing shelters or encampments, but they can be reasonably regulated; and, WHEREAS, both legal and municipal authorities recommend that communities prepare ordinances that detail the requirements for religious organizations that wish to sponsor homeless shelters or encampments before the community is faced with an immediate application for a shelter; and, WHEREAS, the regulations must be driven by conformance with state and local law that protect public interest, health and safety; and, WHEREAS, in order to provide for the health, safety, and welfare of the community by regulating temporary homeless shelters (THSs) the City Council hereby approves the recommendation of the Planning Commission to add a chapter to the City of Pasco Municipal Code; NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASCO, WASHINGTON, DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That a new chapter shall be added to Title 25 of the Pasco Municipal Code as follows: Page 2 of 10 Chapter 25.99 HOMELESS PROVISIONS Sections: 25.99.010 PURPOSE.................................................................................... 25.99.020 DEFINITIONS................................................................................... 25.99.030 APPLICABILITY.............................................................................. 25.99.040 PROCEEDURES............................................................................... 25.99.050 REQUIREMENTS FOR APPROVAL .............................................. 25.99.060 HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION ............................................ 25.99.070 REQUIREMENTS UPON APPROVAL ........................................... 25.99.080 FIRE SAFETY AND HEALTH........................................................ 25.99.090 LIMITATIONS.................................................................................. 25.99.100 REVOCATION.................................................................................. Page 2 of 10 25.99.110 PROOF OF INSURANCE................................................................. 25.99.120 EMERGENCY SHELTERS.............................................................. 25.99.130 SEVERABILITY............................................................................... 25.99.010 PURPOSE. The purpose of this chapter is to establish specific use standards relating to provisions for temporary homeless uses which promote the public health, safety and welfare of the community. Recent research has found the following among homeless populations: Abuse: In a 2014 survey of 25 US cities, 15% of all homeless adults were identified as survivors of domestic violence. Abuse often leads the victim to seek shelter away from the abuser. Victims of abuse frequently lack resources to support themselves and sometimes end up homeless. Mental Illness: According to the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, 20 to 25% of the homeless population in the United States suffers from some form of severe mental illness. Serious mental illnesses disrupt people's ability to carry out essential aspects of daily life, such as self-care and household management. Mental illnesses may also prevent people from forming and maintaining stable relationships or cause people to misinterpret others' guidance and react irrationally. This often results in pushing away caregivers, family, and friends who may be the force keeping that person from becoming homeless. Substance abuse: Roughly 32% of individuals experiencing homelessness suffer from addiction to drugs and alcohol—a figure approximately 20% higher than reported abuse of alcohol and illicit drugs by the general population. The following is designed to mitigate the potential adverse effects of increased abuse, mental health, and chemical dependency issues being introduced into neighborhoods. 25.99.020 DEFINITIONS. 1) "Approved Shelter" shall mean a structure approved by the City of Pasco not on a permanent foundation that is less than 160 square feet in total floor area and has no kitchen or plumbing facilities, but may have electricity so long as the wiring has been inspected and approved by the appropriate governmental agency, and; a) Meets all current International Building Codes (IBC) as adopted by the City of Pasco; b) Is constructed in a manner consistent with adjacent structures; c) Meets City of Pasco aesthetics standards 2) "Permanent Housing" shall mean long term rental, lease or ownership of an approved dwelling unit. 3) "Director" shall mean the Community & Economic Department director 4) "Temporary Homeless Shelter (THS)" means a Site where Approved Shelters are provided for homeless individuals in compliance with the provisions of this Chapter. 5) "Host Agency" shall mean a religious organization that owns or controls the property upon which a THS is located. Page 3 of 10 6) "Occupancy Registration" shall mean a City of Pasco -issued permit for the operation of a noncommercial use not otherwise regulated by PMC Chapter 5.04. 7) "PMC" shall refer to the Pasco Municipal Code. 8) "Religious Organization" means the federally protected practice of a recognized religious assembly, school or institution that owns or controls the property upon which a THS is located. 25.99.030 APPLICABILITY. THSs shall be permitted only as an accommodation of religious exercise by a host agency. Each host agency shall apply for a permit under this section and shall certify compliance with all applicable requirements for approval and conditions of this chapter and the application. 25.99.040 PROCEDURES. A THS permit requires Hearing Examiner review administered through the City of Pasco Community & Economic Development Department. 1) Hearing Examiner Review: As part of the Hearing Examiner review the host agency shall submit an application containing the following information: a) Date. The date the THS intends to begin operation; b) Length. The length of time expected for operation (shall not exceed 180 days); c) Residents. The maximum number of residents proposed (maximum 1 person per 100/sq. ft. of housing space, and not more than 40 people total); d) Location. The host location; e) Host Name. The name of the host agency; and f) Site Plan. The location, dimensions, and layout of the THS on site. 2) Special conditions may be required of the THS as part of the Hearing Examiner review process. 3) In addition to the requirements for Hearing Examiner review, the following additional procedures apply: a) Occupancy Registration Required. Upon receipt of a Permit the host agency shall obtain an Occupancy Registration as per PMC 5.07 through the City of Pasco Customer Service Department a minimum of thirty days in advance of the proposed date of establishment for the THS. The Occupancy Registration shall be good for 3 months maximum. b) Pasco School District #1 Notified. Upon receipt of an application for Hearing Examiner review the Director shall send a copy of the application to the administrative offices of the Pasco School District #1 for its review and consideration. c) Public Meeting Required. Prior to the Public hearing required for the Hearing Examiner application, the host agency shall conduct at least one public information meeting within or as close as possible to the neighborhood where the proposed THS will be located. The meeting shall be held a minimum of fourteen days prior to the Public Hearing. The time and location of the meeting shall be agreed upon between the city and host agency. All property owners and all organizations, businesses, or persons that lease/rent property within three hundred feet of the proposed THS site shall be notified by the host agency a Page 4 of 10 minimum of fourteen days in advance of the meeting. Notification may be by mail, phone, or personal contact. d) Plan for Reporting Transition Results. Included in the application shall be a plan for reporting the results of transitioning occupants to permanent housing. The plan shall provide for a review of how long occupants needed to use the THS for housing and when residents graduated to permanent housing or left the THS for other temporary housing. The intent shall be to have this information to consider the success of the THS in handling occupants' housing needs on a temporary basis and providing a hand up for the purpose of finding more permanent housing opportunities. This information may be used by the council in considering the longevity and continuation of the homeless shelter ordinance. 25.99.050 REQUIREMENTS FOR APPROVAL. The City of Pasco may issue a temporary and revocable Permit for a THS subject to the following criteria and requirements: 1) Site Criteria. a) Ownership. The host agency shall submit documentation that it owns or has a leasehold interest in the subject property; b) Size. The property must be sufficient in size with a minimum of 10,000 sq. ft. of open area to accommodate the residents and, for outside THSs, must have necessary on-site facilities including but not limited to the following: i) Food tent or building and host tent or building; ii) Permanent Sanitary toilets in the number required to meet capacity guidelines per the current Uniform Plumbing Code; iii) Permanent Hand washing facilities by the toilets and by any food areas per the current Uniform Plumbing Code and Benton/Franklin Health District requirements; and iv) Refuse receptacles provided and sight -screened from all roads and neighboring properties. c) On -Site Water Source. The host agency shall provide an adequate on-site water source to the THS as approved by the city. d) Sensitive Areas. No THS shall be located within a sensitive or critical area or its buffer as defined under PMC Title 28. e) Permanent Structures. No new permanent structures shall be constructed for the THS. f) Limitation on Residents. No more than forty residents shall be allowed. The city may further limit the number of residents as site conditions dictate. g) Parking. Adequate on-site parking shall be provided for the THS. No off-site parking will be allowed. Parking space for the number of vehicles used by THS residents and staff shall be provided at one space per employee and one space per four THS occupants. If the THS is located on a site with another use, it shall be shown that the THS will not create an undue shortage of on-site parking for the other use(s) on the property. h) Public Transportation. The THS shall be located within a quarter mile of a bus stop with service seven days per week. If not located within a quarter mile of a bus stop, the host Page 5 of 10 agency must demonstrate the ability for residents to obtain access to the nearest public transportation stop (such as carpools or shuttle buses). i) Screening. The THS shall be adequately buffered and screened to be sight -obscured from adjacent rights-of-way and residential properties. Screening shall be six feet in height and may include, but is not limited to, a combination of fencing, landscaping, or the placement of the THS behind buildings. The type of screening shall be approved by the city and shall not create a hazard. j) Privacy for Sanitary Facilities. All sanitary toilets shall be screened from adjacent properties and rights-of-way. The type of screening shall be approved by the city and may include, but is not limited to, a combination of fencing and/or landscaping. k) Distance Requirements to Sensitive Land Uses. Because a THS is a non-traditional living arrangement and therefore provides less privacy and more complex living arrangements than traditional homes, a distance requirement that provides visual separation and buffering from other sensitive land use activities is considered appropriate. To satisfy this concern, no THS shall be permitted within one thousand feet of a licensed child daycare facility or any public or private pre-school or elementary, middle, or high school. However, in the event that a daycare or school is located within the property of a potential host agency, this requirement may be waived by provisions contained in the Permit if the owner of the daycare or school principal agrees to the waiving of the distance requirement. 2) Security. a) Operations and 24-hour Security Plan. An operations and 24-hour security plan for the THS shall be submitted to the city at the time of application for Permit. The host agency shall demonstrate the capacity to implement the Plan. b) Code of Conduct. The host agency shall ensure that the THS has an enforceable code of conduct which, at a minimum, prohibits alcohol, non -prescribed drugs, weapons, violence, and open fires. The code of conduct should also address any other issues related to THS and neighborhood safety. A copy of the code of conduct shall be submitted to the city at the time of Hearing Examiner application. The host agency shall demonstrate the capacity to enforce the code of conduct. c) In addition to the above standards, the host agency may adopt and enforce additional code of conduct conditions not otherwise inconsistent with this section. 3) Accommodating the THS Residents Indoors. In cases where the host agency and the THS residents determine it is practical or necessary to accommodate the THS inside existing church structures, the church shall have the option of making such a request to the city as part of the THS Permit Application. The THS Permit may allow for an indoor THS subject to the following criteria and requirements: a) Complete Compliance with Building Codes. An indoor/outdoor THS shall comply with the requirements of the city's building codes. However, pursuant to RCW 19.27.042, the Page 6 of 10 building official shall have the authority to exempt code deficiencies so long as such deficiencies pose no threat to human life, health, or safety. b) Building Criteria. The buildings proposed for use shall be of sufficient size to accommodate the residents and must have necessary on-site facilities including but not limited to the following: i) Adequate onsite water supply; ii) Permanent Sanitary toilets in the number required to meet capacity guidelines per the current Uniform Building Code as adopted by the City of Pasco; iii) Hand washing facilities by the toilets and food areas; iv) Refuse receptacles; and v) City of Pasco approved commercial Kitchen facilities for food preparation; vi) All applicable health standards for providing and using such facilities shall be satisfied as required by the health department. vii)Buildings must be provided with minimum egress and fire life safety requirements such as fire extinguishers, fire sprinklers, fire alarms, egress windows, egress doors, panic hardware, emergency lighting, emergency exits, etc. 25.99.060 HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION. The Hearing Examiner shall review the proposal for compliance with the provisions of this chapter and all other applicable law. Said review shall ensure that the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of the city are preserved, and shall provide an expedient and reasonable land use review process for decisions and interpretations of this chapter. The Director shall notify the host agency within 30 days of the Hearing Examiner's decision to approve or deny the application, but not prior to fourteen days after the hearing. 25.99.070 REQUIREMENTS UPON APPROVAL. 1. Signage. Host structure must maintain visible address with minimum 4" lettering. THS entrance must also be provided with signage indicating address, On -Call Committee contact information and nature of THS. 2. Sign Agreement. All THS residents must sign an agreement to abide by the code of conduct. Failure to do so shall result in the noncompliant resident's immediate and permanent expulsion from the property. The host agency shall be in charge of enforcing each agreement. 3. Log. The host agency shall keep a digital log of all people who stay overnight in the THS. The log shall include names, birth dates, dates of stay and shall be submitted on a weekly basis to the Code Enforcement Division. Logs shall be kept a minimum of six months, and shall be made available to the City of Pasco Police Chief and Community & Economic Development Director. 4. Identification. The host agency shall require verifiable photo ID of prospective and current THS residents. Acceptable forms of ID include a driver's license, government issued identification card, military identification, or passport. Replacement of lost ID can be facilitated through an appropriate advocacy center. Photo ID is necessary to verify one's Page 7 of 10 identity and to apply for services, housing, and employment. If verifiable photo ID cannot be obtained, the individual must agree to be fingerprinted or will not be admitted to the camp. 5. Warrant and Sex Offender Status Check. The host agency shall engage the Pasco police department to use the photo identification to check for outstanding in-state and out-of-state warrants and registered sex offender status. When necessary, the Pasco police department will provide fingerprinting services. The Pasco police department shall provide background checks and fingerprinting services to the host agency for a minimal fee. a) Outstanding Warrants. If said warrant check reveals an existing or outstanding warrant from any jurisdiction in the United States, the host agency will immediately report the finding to the Pasco police department for apprehension of the subject individual. b) Sex Offender Status. If the check reveals the applicant to be a registered sex offender, the individual shall not be admitted to the camp. 6. 24-hour Security. The host agency shall ensure the THS is secure and managed to strictly prohibit alcohol, drugs, weapons, fighting, abuse of any kind, littering, or disturbing the neighbors while located on the property. 7. Entrance/Host building. The host agency shall ensure there is an entrance/host building that is manned twenty-four hours a day seven days a week. The entrance may be staffed by a volunteer, THS resident, host agency committee member, or other responsible person. 8. On -Call Committee Member. The host agency will appoint an executive committee member to serve on-call and be available for the entrance person at all times. The on-call committee member shall be available to provide help and assistance to the person manning the entrance as may be necessary to ensure the THS functions properly. 9. Enforcement. The on -duty responsible person staffing the entrance or security shall notify the on-call committee member as necessary in the enforcement of THS rules and expectations, and/or the Pasco police department to remove an individual if cited with trespassing by on - duty staff. Said responsible person shall also serve as a point of contact for the Pasco police department, and will orient the department on how the entrance operates. The names of the on -duty responsible person(s) will be posted daily at the entrance. The city shall provide contact numbers of nonemergency personnel which shall be retained by the entrance host. Contact numbers for the on—call committee member shall be posted at the entrance. 10. The host agency shall agree to allow City of Pasco Police 24/7 on-site access as long as host agency holds the permit. 11. Visitors. Visitors to the THS are prohibited; 25.99.080 FIRE SAFETY AND HEALTH. THSs shall meet the following fire, safety, and health requirements: 12. Fire Safety. The THS shall conform to the following requirements: a. Open Fires. Open fires are prohibited regardless of location. b. Heating Appliances. Any and all heating appliances within the individual units shall comply with all International Building Code requirements as adopted by the City of Pasco. Page 8 of 10 c. Food Distribution. A common tent may provide community food distribution for the camp, but only if approved by the host agency and the health department. No cooking appliances are allowed within individual units of occupants; no on-site cooking will be allowed without a City of Pasco building department certified commercial kitchen and Benton -Franklin Health District certifications. d. Fire Extinguishers. An adequate number and appropriate rating of fire extinguishers shall be provided as approved by the Fire Marshal; e. Emergency Access. Adequate access for the fire and emergency medical apparatus shall be provided. This shall be determined by the Fire Marshal; f. Separation. Adequate separation between units, ROW, property lines, vehicles and other structures/obstructions shall be maintained as determined by the Fire Marshal; and g. Electrical Service. Electrical service shall be in accordance with International Building Code requirements as adopted by the City of Pasco. Electrical cords are not to be strung together and any cords used must be approved for exterior use. 13. Health. Temporary outhouses/port-a-potties and facilities for hand washing are prohibited. All applicable health standards for providing and using such Permanent facilities shall be satisfied as required by the Benton/Franklin Health District and Uniform Plumbing Code. 14. Access for Inspections. The host agency shall permit inspections by city staff and the Benton -Franklin Health District to ensure compliance with the conditions of this permit. Inspections shall occur at reasonable times, and may occur without prior notice. 25.99.090 LIMITATIONS. 1) Duration. Duration of the THS shall not exceed 90 days. 2) Parcel Limitation. No host agency shall host a THS more than one time in any twelve-month period, beginning on the date the THS locates on a parcel of property. 3) Number Limitation. No more than one THS may be located within city limits at any time. 25.99.100 REVOCATION. Upon determination that there has been a violation of any approval criteria or condition of the Hearing Examiner application or that the host agency has failed to take action against a resident who violates the terms and conditions of the Permit or has committed violence, the Director of Community & Economic Development may give written notice to the permit holder describing the alleged violation. Within fourteen days of the mailing of notice of violation, the permit holder shall show cause why the permit shall not be revoked. At the end of the fourteen -day period, the Director shall sustain or revoke the permit. When a THS permit is revoked, the Director shall notify the permit holder by certified mail of the revocation and the findings upon which the revocation is based. Appeals of decisions to revoke a THS permit shall be to Franklin County Superior Court. 25.99.110 PROOF OF INSURANCE. The host agency shall show proof of general liability insurance with minimum limits of one million dollars per occurrence. 25.99.120 EMERGENCY SHELTERS. The provisions of this chapter shall not apply to emergency or cold weather shelters where the screening of individuals to be temporarily Page 9 of 10 housed in such shelters is conducted by Community Action Connections or a religious organization providing the emergency shelter. 25.99.130 SEVERABILITY. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or other portion of this chapter, or its application to any person, is for any reason declared invalid in whole or in part by any court or agency of competent jurisdiction, said decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions hereof. Section 2. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect five days after passage and publication as required by law. PASSED by the City Council of the City of Pasco, at its regular meeting of NOMA Matt Watkins Mayor ATTEST: Daniela Erickson City Clerk Gly' ' 1TA N7:I$tl[swel.MU Leland B. Kerr City Attorney Page 10 of 10