HomeMy WebLinkAbout2018.09.04 Council Meeting PacketRegular Meeting
AGENDA
PASCO CITY COUNCIL
7:00 p.m.
September 4, 2018
Page
The Council meeting will take place on Tuesday, September 4, 2018.
City Hall will be closed on Monday, September 3, 2018, in honor of Labor Day.
1. CALL TO ORDER:
2. ROLL CALL:
(a) Pledge of Allegiance
3. CONSENT AGENDA: All items listed under the Consent Agenda are considered to
be routine by the City Council and will be enacted by roll call vote as one motion (in
the form listed below). There will be no separate discussion of these items. If further
discussion is desired by Council members or the public, the item may be removed
from the Consent Agenda to the Regular Agenda and considered separately.
5 - 9 (a) Approval of Minutes
To approve the minutes of the Pasco City Council Meeting dated August 20,
2018.
10 - 11 (b) Bills and Communications
To approve claims in the total amount of $2,970,362.59 ($1,707,362.33 in
Check Nos. 224189-224432; $416,850.28 in Electronic Transfer Nos.
821625-821647, 821657-821730, 821737-821777, 821782-821803, 821811-
821886, 821888-821927, 821929 and 821975-821976; $49,937.48 in Check
Nos. 52071-52127; $796,212.50 in Electronic Transfer Nos. 30124033-
30124583).
(RC) MOTION: I move to approve the Consent Agenda as read.
4. PROCLAMATIONS AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS:
12 (a) Presentation of Proclamation for "Back the Blue Day".
Council to present Proclamation to Pastor Thom Fields and Doug Thomas
with The Garden Tri Cities.
13 - 18 (b) Yard and Business of the Month Awards
Mayor Watkins to present Certificates of Appreciation for August 2018 "Yard
of the Month" and "Business Appearance of the Month" to:
Page 1 of 222
Regular Meeting September 4, 2018
• Angel & Xochitl Aguilar, 1136 Lincoln Drive
• Al & Mary Vierck, 811 N. Road 37
• Andrew & Heather Brickey, 4105 Palmyra Drive
• David & Sofia Gunlock, 9203 Wellington Drive
• Mueller's Greenlee Funeral Home, 1608 W. Court Street
5. VISITORS - OTHER THAN AGENDA ITEMS: This item is provided to allow
citizens the opportunity to bring items to the attention of the City Council or to express
an opinion on an issue. Its purpose is not to provide a venue for debate or for the
posing of questions with the expectation of an immediate response. Some questions
require consideration by Council over time and after a deliberative process with input
from a number of different sources; some questions are best directed to staff members
who have access to specific information. Citizen comments will normally be limited
to three minutes each by the Mayor. Those with lengthy messages are invited to
summarize their comments and/or submit written information for consideration by
the Council outside of formal meetings.
6. REPORTS FROM COMMITTEES AND/OR OFFICERS:
(a) Verbal Reports from Councilmembers
19 - 21 (b) General Fund Operating Statement
7. HEARINGS AND COUNCIL ACTION ON ORDINANCES AND
RESOLUTIONS RELATING THERETO:
22 - 83 (a) Q Special Permit Appeal: Mor-Stor Mini Storage Expansion in a C-1
Zone (MF# APPL 2018-002)
MOTION: I move to continue the Closed Record Hearing to the September
17, 2018 regular Council meeting.
84 - 88 (b) Q* Street Vacation: A portion of West Nixon Street (MF# VAC 2018-003)
CONDUCT PUBLIC HEARING
MOTION: I move to continue the public hearing for the proposed vacation
of a portion of West Nixon Street to a date to be determined with at least 20
days notice of the continuation date to affected owners as required by statute.
8. ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS NOT RELATING TO HEARINGS:
89 - 90 (a) Repealing PMC 12.20 Street Vacations
Page 2 of 222
Regular Meeting September 4, 2018
MOTION: I move to adopt Ordinance 4395, repealing Chapter 12.20 of the
Pasco Municipal Code, Street Vacations, and further, authorize publication by
summary only.
91 - 123 (b) *Rezone: I-1 (Light Industrial) to R-3 (Medium Density Residential)
(Rigo Rangel) (MF# Z 2018-004)
MOTION: I move to adopt Ordinance No. 4396, rezoning 2120 W. "A"
Street from I-1 (Light Industrial) to R-3 (Medium Density Residential), and
further, authorize publication by summary only.
124 - 171 (c) *Rezone: RT (Residential Transition) to C-3 (General Business) (Pati
Hull) (MF# Z 2018-005)
MOTION: I move to adopt Ordinance No. 4397, rezoning Short Plat 99-22,
Lot 2 (3004 E. George Street; Parcel # 113 780 104) from RT (Residential
Transition) to C-3 (General Commercial), and further, authorize publication
by summary only.
172 - 222 (d) *Preliminary Plat: Burgess Plat (MF# PP 2018-006)
MOTION: I move to approve Resolution No. 3858, approving the
Preliminary Plat for the Burgess Plat.
9. UNFINISHED BUSINESS:
10. NEW BUSINESS:
11. MISCELLANEOUS DISCUSSION:
12. EXECUTIVE SESSION:
13. ADJOURNMENT.
(RC) Roll Call Vote Required
* Item not previously discussed
Q Quasi-Judicial Matter
MF# “Master File #....”
This meeting is broadcast live on PSC-TV Channel 191 on Charter Cable and streamed
at www.pasco-wa.gov/psctvlive.
Page 3 of 222
Regular Meeting September 4, 2018
Audio equipment available for the hearing impaired; contact the Clerk for assistance.
Spanish language interpreter service may be provided upon request. Please provide
two business day's notice to the City Clerk to ensure availability. (Servicio de intérprete
puede estar disponible con aviso. Por favor avisa la Secretaria Municipal dos d ías antes
para garantizar la disponibilidad.)
Page 4 of 222
AGENDA REPORT
FOR: City Council August 14, 2018
TO: Dave Zabell, City Manager Regular Meeting: 9/4/18
FROM: Daniela Erickson, City Clerk
Administrative & Community Services
SUBJECT: Approval of Minutes
I. REFERENCE(S):
Minutes 08.20.18
II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
To approve the minutes of the Pasco City Council Meeting dated August 20, 2018.
III. FISCAL IMPACT:
IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF:
V. DISCUSSION:
Page 5 of 222
REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES
PASCO CITY COUNCIL AUGUST 20, 2018
CALL TO ORDER:
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Matt Watkins, Mayor.
ROLL CALL:
Councilmembers present: Ruben Alvarado, Blanche Barajas, Craig Maloney,
Saul Martinez, Pete Serrano, and Matt Watkins. Excused: David Milne.
Staff present: Dave Zabell, City Manager; Stan Strebel, Deputy City Manager;
Leland Kerr, City Attorney; Steve Worley, Public Works Director; Rick White,
Community & Economic Development Director; Richa Sigdel, Finance Director;
Dan Dotta, Interim Administrative & Community Services Director; Ken Roske,
Deputy Police Chief; Michael Morales, Deputy Community & Economic
Development Director and Mary Heather Ames, Sr. Engineer.
The meeting was opened with the Pledge of Allegiance.
CONSENT AGENDA:
Bills and Communications
To approve claims in the total amount of $3,261,708.82 ($1,896,944.20 in Check
Nos. 223937-224188; $571,448.88 in Electronic Transfer Nos. 821779-821781,
821804-821805; $46,089.05 in Check Nos.52008-52070; $741,179.55 in
Electronic Transfer Nos. 30123489-30124032; $6,047.14 in Electronic Transfer
Nos. 506-510).
To approve bad debt write-off for Utility Billing, Ambulance, Cemetery, General
Accounts, Miscellaneous Accounts, and Municipal Court (non-criminal,
criminal, and parking) accounts receivable in the total amount of $219,641.79
and, of that amount, authorize $160,351.16 to be turned over for collection.
Approval of Minutes
To approve the minutes of the Pasco City Council Regular Meeting dated August
6, 2017 and the Special Meeting dated August 11, 2018.
Dedication Deed: Right-of-Way for a Portion of Road 88 (MF# DEED 2018-
007)
To accept the deed from Betty Elaine Mathes for a portion of the Road 88 right-
of-way.
Dedication Deed: Right-of-Way for Massey Drive and Road 80 (MF# DEED
2018-011)
To accept the deed from the Pasco School District No. 1 for the Massey Drive
and Road 80 right-of-way.
Quad-Cities Agreement - Stormwater Education
To approve the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) for Stormwater Education,
and, further, authorize the City Manager to execute the agreement.
Page 6 of 222
REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES
PASCO CITY COUNCIL AUGUST 20, 2018
Appointment to Regional Hotel/Motel Commission
To reappoint Vijay Patel (Holiday Inn Express) to a two-year term on the Tri-
Cities Regional Hotel/Motel Commission; term to expire 8/31/20.
MOTION: Mr. Maloney moved to approve the Consent Agenda as read. Mr.
Alvarado seconded. Approved by unanimous Roll Call vote.
VISITORS - OTHER THAN AGENDA ITEMS:
Pastor Vladimir Savchuk sent the City a letter requesting volunteer opportunities
for their teen and college program groups.
Tyson Fellman buys distressed properties and is having some issues with the
City's rental license process.
REPORTS FROM COMMITTEES AND/OR OFFICERS:
Verbal Reports from Councilmembers
Mayor Watkins attended the Conference of Transit Agencies last week at the
Convention Center.
Mr. Maloney attended the Public Market Board Meeting last Tuesday.
Mr. Alvarado attended the Board of Health Meeting. It was a three-hour meeting
dealing with disbursement of funds. Also, attended the Good Roads Meeting.
They arranged a bus tour of five area projects. Also, inviting representatives here
to speak.
Ms. Barajas attended the new Planet Fitness ribbon cutting ceremony. They are
planning to partner with the Boys and Girls Club.
HEARINGS AND COUNCIL ACTION ON ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS
RELATING THERETO:
Special Permit Appeal: Mor-Stor Mini Storage Expansion in a C-1 Zone
(MF# APPL 2018-002)
Mr. Kerr explained the Quasi-Judicial process.
Mr. White explained the details of the Special Permit Appeal.
Mayor Watkins opened the Closed Record Hearing.
Attorney Mark Fickes, Attorney for the Appellant, 405 E. Lincoln, Yakima, WA
presented their testimony based on the record only.
Council and staff discussed the record.
MOTION NO. 1: Mr. Serrano moved to resolve this matter this evening. Mr.
Martinez seconded. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: Yes -
Serrano, Alvarado, Barajas, and Martinez. No - Watkins and Maloney.
MOTION NO. 2: Mr. Serrano moved to remove Condition No. 16 listed on the
June 21, 2018 Report to Planning Commission. Mr. Martinez seconded. (This
is a pending motion.)
Page 7 of 222
REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES
PASCO CITY COUNCIL AUGUST 20, 2018
MOTION NO. 3: Mr. Maloney moved to table and continue this item for two
weeks and act on the pending motion at that time. Ms. Barajas seconded. Motion
carried by unanimous Roll Call vote.
Mayor Watkins called an eight-minute recess at 8:02 p.m.
Mayor Watkins called the meeting back to order at 8:10 p.m.
ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS NOT RELATING TO HEARINGS:
Chapel Hill Boulevard LID Formation (Project No. 16-030)
MOTION: Mr. Maloney moved to adopt Ordinance No. 4393 relating to full
roadway improvements that includes road construction to three-lane and five-
lane design, curb, gutter, sidewalk, storm drain system, street lighting, and
landscaping (collectively, the “Improvements”); ordering the improvement of
Chapel Hill Boulevard from Road 68 to Road 84, including the intersection with
Road 76, all in accordance with Resolution No. 3829 of the City Council;
establishing Local Improvement District No. 150, and ordering the carrying out
of the proposed improvements; providing that payment for the improvements be
made by special assessments upon the property in the District, payable by the
mode of “payment by bonds;” and providing for the issuance and sale of local
improvement district warrants redeemable in cash or other short-term financing
and local improvement district bonds, and, further, authorize publication by
summary only. Mr. Serrano seconded. Motion carried by the following Roll Call
vote: Yes - Martinez, Serrano, Watkins, Alvarado, Barajas, and Maloney.
2019 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Annual Work Plan
and Allocations (MF# BGAP 2018-003)
MOTION: Mr. Maloney moved to approve Resolution No. 3854, approving the
Program Year 2019 Community Development Block Grant Allocations and
Annual Work Plan. Mr. Alvarado seconded. Motion carried unanimously.
CDBG Program Section 108 Guaranteed Loan Program (MF# BGAP 2018-
007)
MOTION: Mr. Maloney moved to approve Resolution No. 3855, amending
Resolution 3814 of the Pasco City Council authorizing the submission of
application and agreement to certifications to the US Department of Housing and
Urban Development for Section 108 Loan Guarantee Program. Ms. Barajas
seconded. Motion carried unanimously.
2019 Neighborhood Stabilization Program (NSP) Annual Work Plan
Allocation (MF# BGAP 2018-005)
MOTION: Mr. Maloney moved to approve Resolution No. 3856, approving the
2019 NSP Program Year Annual Work Plan and Allocation. Mr. Serrano
seconded. Motion carried unanimously.
2019 HOME Annual Work Plan and Allocation (MF# BGAP 2018-004)
MOTION: Mr. Maloney moved to approve Resolution No. 3857, approving
Federal 2019 HOME Annual Work Plan and Allocation. Mr. Martinez seconded.
Motion carried unanimously.
Page 8 of 222
REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES
PASCO CITY COUNCIL AUGUST 20, 2018
Providing for the Listing of Real Property on a Sale Procedural Alternative
MOTION: Mr. Maloney moved to adopt Ordinance No. 4394 Amending PMC
2.46 “Sale of City Property” Providing for the Listing of Real Property as a Sale
Procedural Alternative, further, to authorize publication by summary only. Ms.
Barajas seconded. Motion carried unanimously.
NEW BUSINESS:
Sale of Surplus Property Moore Holding Company LLC
MOTION: Mr. Maloney moved to approve the Purchase and Sale Agreement
with Moore Holding Company LLC, for approximately 6.78 acres on Sandifur
Blvd. east of Broadmoor Blvd. and, further, to authorize the City Manager to
execute the Agreement. Mr. Alvarado seconded. Motion carried unanimously.
ADJOURNMENT:
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:47 p.m.
PASSED AND APPROVED this 4th day of September 2018.
APPROVED: ATTEST:
Matt Watkins, Mayor Daniela Erickson, City Clerk
Page 9 of 222
AGENDA REPORT
FOR: City Council August 30, 2018
TO: Dave Zabell, City Manager Regular Meeting: 9/4/18
FROM: Richa Sigdel, Director
Finance
SUBJECT: Bills and Communications
I. REFERENCE(S):
Accounts Payable 09.04.18
II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
To approve claims in the total amount of $2,970,362.59 ($1,707,362.33 in Check Nos.
224189-224432; $416,850.28 in Electronic Transfer Nos. 821625-821647, 821657-
821730, 821737-821777, 821782-821803, 821811-821886, 821888-821927, 821929
and 821975-821976; $49,937.48 in Check Nos. 52071-52127; $796,212.50 in
Electronic Transfer Nos. 30124033-30124583).
III. FISCAL IMPACT:
IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF:
V. DISCUSSION:
Page 10 of 222
REPORTING PERIOD:
September 4, 2018
Claims Bank Payroll Bank Gen'l Bank Electronic Bank Combined
Check Numbers 224189-224432 52071-52127
Total Check Amount $1,707,362.33 $49,937.48 Total Checks 1,757,299.81$
Electronic Transfer Numbers 821625-821647 30124033-30124583
821657-821730
821737-821777
821782-821803
821811-821886
821888-821927
821929
821975-821976
Total EFT Amount $416,850.28 $796,212.50 $0.00 $0.00 Total EFTs 1,213,062.78$
Grand Total 2,970,362.59$
Councilmember
100 500,296.23
110 30,624.29
120 0.00
130 0.00
140 71.80
142 0.00
144 0.00
145 1,659.28
150 18,806.04
160 4,171.78
165 758.73
166 16,272.37
170 1,246.63
180 3,729.22
182 0.00
185 1,917.94
188 0.00
189 1,228.87
190 8,894.35
191 0.00
192 0.00
194 53,372.57
195 18,550.67
245 0.00
367 554,150.27
410 508,711.68
510 9,202.70
511 1,071.57
515 4,726.17
516 0.00
520 104,098.11
619 0.00
630 537.29
690 1,126,264.03
GRAND TOTAL ALL FUNDS:2,970,362.59$
The City Council
August 16-August 29, 2018
C I T Y O F P A S C O
Council Meeting of:
Accounts Payable Approved
STREET OVERLAY
City of Pasco, Franklin County, Washington
We, the undersigned, do hereby certify under penalty of perjury the materials have been furnished, the services rendered or the labor performed as
described herein and the claim is a just, due and unpaid obligation against the city and we are authorized to authenticate and certify to such claim.
Dave Zabell, City Manager Richa Sigdel, Finance Director
We, the undersigned City Councilmembers of the City Council of the City of Pasco, Franklin County, Washington, do hereby certify on this
4th day of September, 2018 that the merchandise or services hereinafter specified have been received and are approved for payment:
Councilmember
SUMMARY OF CLAIMS BY FUND:
GENERAL FUND
STREET
ARTERIAL STREET
RIVERSHORE TRAIL & MARINA MAIN
C.D. BLOCK GRANT
HOME CONSORTIUM GRANT
NSP GRANT
MARTIN LUTHER KING COMMUNITY CENTER
AMBULANCE SERVICE
CEMETERY
ATHLETIC PROGRAMS
GOLF COURSE
SENIOR CENTER OPERATING
MULTI-MODAL FACILITY
SCHOOL IMPACT FEES
EQUIPMENT RENTAL - OPERATING BUSINESS
SPECIAL ASSESSMENT LODGING
LITTER ABATEMENT
REVOLVING ABATEMENT
TRAC DEVELOPMENT & OPERATING
PARKS
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
STADIUM/CONVENTION CENTER
LID
GENERAL CAP PROJECT CONSTRUCTION
UTILITY, WATER/SEWER
EQUIPMENT RENTAL - OPERATING GOVERNMENTAL
EQUIPMENT RENTAL - REPLACEMENT GOVERNMENTAL
EQUIPMENT RENTAL - REPLACEMENT BUSINESS
MEDICAL/DENTAL INSURANCE
OLD FIRE OPEB
FLEX
PAYROLL CLEARING
Page 11 of 222
Proclamation
“Back the Blue Day”
September 15, 2018
WHEREAS, the officers of the Police Department of the City of Pasco along with law
enforcement officers of the region proudly partner with area residents to ensure safety in our
community; and
WHEREAS, these officers act in a selfless manner to protect and serve the residents of our
region on a daily basis; and
WHEREAS, the Garden of Kennewick is hosting a Law Enforcement Appreciation Day called
Back the Blue as a show of support for law enforcement officers, active and retired, and their
families; and
NOW, THEREFORE, I, Matt Watkins, Mayor of the City of Pasco, Washington, on behalf of
the entire City Council, do hereby proclaim September 15 as “Back the Blue Day” and urge all
citizens to celebrate Back the Blue Day, to support local and regional law enforcement and The
Garden’s sentiment that, “Together, we’re better!”
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the Official Seal of the
City of Pasco, State of Washington, to be affixed this 4th day of September 2018.
Matt Watkins, Mayor
City of Pasco
Page 12 of 222
AGENDA REPORT
FOR: City Council August 22, 2018
TO: Dave Zabell, City Manager Regular Meeting: 9/4/18
FROM: Dan Dotta, Interim Director
Administrative & Community Services
SUBJECT: Yard and Business of the Month Awards
I. REFERENCE(S):
II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Mayor Watkins to present Certificates of Appreciation for August 2018 "Yard of the
Month" and "Business Appearance of the Month" to:
• Angel & Xochitl Aguilar, 1136 Lincoln Drive
• Al & Mary Vierck, 811 N. Road 37
• Andrew & Heather Brickey, 4105 Palmyra Drive
• David & Sofia Gunlock, 9203 Wellington Drive
• Mueller's Greenlee Funeral Home, 1608 W. Court Street
III. FISCAL IMPACT:
IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF:
V. DISCUSSION:
Page 13 of 222
Given this 4th day of September,2018
Citgoé‘Pasco
Certi?catecfSzljajareciation
The City Council of the City of Pasco is proud to select
1136 LINCOLN DR
Home of
ANGEL 5’XOCHITL AGUILAR
“YARD OF THE MONTH”
We hereby express our gratitude for your contribution toward community
enrichment and quality of life by the improvements made to the natural beauty
of your surroundings and serving as a good example for others.
Matt Watkins,Mayor
Page 14 of 222
Citg015Cpasco
Certi?cateojfiljajoreciatio
nTheCityCounciloftheCity of Pasco is proud to select
811 N.ROAD 37
Home of
AL 8’MARY VIERCK
“YARD OF THE MONTH”
We hereby express our gratitude for your contribution toward community
enrichment and quality of life by the improvements made to the natural beauty
of your surroundings and serving as a good example for others.
Matt Watkins,Mayor
Page 15 of 222
Citg01$Cpagco
Certz?cateofilyjareciation
The City Council of the City of Pasco is proud to select
4105 PALMYRADR
Home of
ANDREW 8‘HEATHER BRICKEY
“YARD OF THE MONTH”
We hereby express our gratitude for your contribution toward community
enrichment and quality of life by the improvements made to the natural beauty
of your surroundings and serving as a good example for others.
M att Watkins,Mayor
Page 16 of 222
Citg05CPa9.co
Certz?catecfilljojoreciation
The City Council of the City of Pasco is proud to select
9203 WELLINGTON DRIVE
Home of
DAVID 8 SOFIA GuNLocK
“YARD OF THE MONTH”
We hereby express our gratitude for your contribution toward community
enrichment and quality of life by the improvements made to the natural beauty
of your surroundings and serving as a good example for others.
Given this 4th day of September,2018
,4 Matt Watkins,Mayor
Page 17 of 222
Citg01$Cpasco
Certi?catecfSzljojareciation
The City Council of the City of Pasco is proud to select
1608 W.COURT STREET
Home of
MtIELLER'S GREENLEE FUNERAL HOME
‘BUSINESSOFTHEMONTHAPPEARANCEAWARD’
We hereby express our gratitude for your contribution toward community
enrichment and quality of life by the improvements made to the natural beauty
of your surroundings and serving as a good example for others.Page 18 of 222
CommentsApril, May, Oct, Nov when taxes are receivedGENERAL FUND REVENUES OVER/UNDER EXPENDITURES: YTD revenue exceed expenditure by $4,078,428 compared to $2,233,650 in 2017 during the same period. Large part of this difference between the two years can be attributed to the sale of city property in 2018. The 2018 year-end projection is for expenditures to exceed revenue by $210,000, mostly due to one time investments being made by the City to move to SEACOMM. At this time, we expect the revenue and expenses to track with budget as planned by the end of the year. Fund Balance reserves help to stabilize operations for unexpected adverse fluctuations in revenue or expenditure actual amounts. $0$5,000$10,000$15,000$20,000$25,000$30,000$35,000$40,000$45,000$50,000JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DECThousands2018 CUMULATIVE GENERAL FUND REVENUE & EXPENDITURES2018 Cumulative Revenue2018 Cumulative Expenditures4‐Yr Average Rev4‐Yr Average ExpPage 19 of 222
GENERAL FUND END FUND BALANCE HISTORY: The City designates the fund balance into two categories, restricted and unrestricted. The unrestricted fund balance represents funds the City sets aside as a stabilization fund, the intent of which is to smooth over unexpected fluctuations in revenues and expenditures. The fund balance is normally built up when revenues exceed expenditures. The 2017 fund balance is lower than prior year due to accrual of an additional pay period as recommended by State Auditor's Office. This accural was not a standard practice for the City in prior years.2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Estimated 2018 BudgetedRestricted633424 598779 5369708 442300 600000 600000Unrestricted5611795 8784382 11919407 14190914 13214866 12900000 $- $2,000 $4,000 $6,000 $8,000 $10,000 $12,000 $14,000 $16,000 $18,000 $20,000$'s ThousandsGeneral Fund - Fund Balance Trend
Page 20 of 222
GENERAL FUNDYear to Date: July, 2018 Average Elapsed Time 57%REVENUE SOURCES2017 Budget2017 YTD Actual% of Annual Budget 2018 Budget2018 YTD Actual% of Annual Budget Variance CommentsTAXES: PROPERTY 7,825,655 4,566,912 58% 8,182,758 4,724,473 58% SALES 12,300,000 7,342,563 60% 12,675,000 7,890,745 62% PUBLIC SAFETY 1,400,000 830,699 59% 1,488,740 914,757 61% UTILITY 9,267,000 5,528,788 60% 9,498,808 5,530,677 58% OTHER 1,204,000 823,406 68% 1,215,170 673,977 55% Gambling and admissions taxes, revenue timing not predictableLICENSES & PERMITS 1,921,964 1,536,460 80% 2,054,200 1,834,883 89% Year around activity, currently expected to meet the budgeted targetINTERGOV'T REVENUE 2,118,837 1,501,152 71% 2,317,438 1,156,938 50% Timing of State PUD Priviledge tax. Not recv'd but expected soon.CHARGES FOR SERVICES 6,523,156 4,013,378 62% 7,093,604 4,275,734 60%FINES & FORFEITS 872,100 456,503 52% 853,100 582,338 68%Current year revenues are reflective of historic per capita activity levels. Traffic enforcement levels were down over the previous few years due to a high number of vacancies and planned/unplanned activities impacting the Police DepartmentMISC. REVENUE 498,760 315,256 63% 528,800 1,167,190 221% Sale of city propertyDEBT AND TRANSFERS IN 593,000 557,588 94% 227,600 132,773 58% Timing of internal fund transfersTOTAL 44,524,472 27,472,705 62% 46,135,218 28,884,485 63%EXPENDITURES2017 Budget2017 YTD Actual% of Annual Budget 2018 Budget2018 YTD Actual% of Annual Budget Variance CommentsCITY COUNCIL 111,975 63,104 56% 124,511 73,871 59%MUNICIPAL COURT 1,763,123 777,801 44% 1,464,406 766,382 52% Understaffed in 2017, fully staffed in 2018CITY MANAGER 1,593,838 1,010,832 63% 2,564,519 922,993 36% One-time costs not expensed yetPOLICE 15,483,731 8,857,416 57% 16,544,349 9,043,147 55%FIRE 7,055,942 4,172,624 59% 6,859,386 4,105,128 60%ADMIN & COMMUNITY SVCS 6,801,261 4,187,450 62% 7,533,004 4,220,724 56% Non-labor costs not expensed yetCOMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 1,592,376 994,169 62% 1,728,603 970,424 56%FINANCE 2,019,332 1,177,348 58% 2,231,311 1,143,949 51% Awaiting invoices for services receivedENGINEERING 1,798,269 923,094 51% 1,801,529 895,927 50%LIBRARY 1,330,220 888,517 67% 1,377,958 799,253 58% August invoice was paid early in 2017NON-DEPARTMENTAL 2,219,313 1,152,068 52% 2,173,513 1,221,208 56%DEBT AND TRANSFERS OUT 2,747,400 1,034,632 38% 1,941,700 643,051 33%TOTAL 44,516,780 25,239,055 57% 46,344,789 24,806,057 54%2017 20182017 2018
Page 21 of 222
AGENDA REPORT
FOR: City Council August 31, 2018
TO: Dave Zabell, City Manager
Rick White, Director
Community & Economic Development
Regular Meeting: 9/4/18
FROM: Darcy Bourcier, Planner I
Community & Economic Development
SUBJECT: Special Permit Appeal: Mor-Stor Mini Storage Expansion in a C-1 Zone (MF#
APPL 2018-002)
I. REFERENCE(S):
Overview Map
Special Permit Application
Mor-Stor Mini Storage Appeal
Halverson Northwest Law Group Letter to Council
Reports to Planning Commission
Transcript of Planning Commission Hearing Dated: 5/17/18
Link: http://psctv.viebit.com/player.php?hash=dCi8LgSaQoHB
Transcript of Planning Commission Deliberations Dated: 6/21/18
Link: https://psctv.viebit.com/player.php?hash=TG6J2DoDVlNc
II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
MOTION: I move to continue the Closed Record Hearing to the September 17, 2018
regular Council meeting.
III. FISCAL IMPACT:
IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF:
On May 17, 2018 the Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider an
application for the expansion of the Mor-Stor mini storage facility to be located at the
southwest corner of Road 68 and Court Street. After deliberations at the June 21, 2018
meeting, the Planning Commission recommended the special permit be approved with
the conditions listed in the Staff Report.
The applicant appealed the Planning Commission recommendation to approve the
special permit with the conditions listed, and the Council scheduled a Closed Record
Page 22 of 222
Hearing to consider the appeal at the August 20, 2018 meeting.
At the August 20, 2018 Closed Record Hearing, Council approved a motion to
continue this item to the September 4, 2018 Council Meeting.
Between the Closed Record Hearing on August 20, 2018 and now, staff and legal
counsel have discussed specific approval conditions with the applicant and their
attorney and are actively formulating a negotiated agreement for resolution of the
appeal.
V. DISCUSSION:
Staff and the owner/applicant have reached tentative agreement on several issues that
will enable the appeal to be withdrawn.
Staff will provide a written agreement to that effect to City Council at the September
17, 2018 regular meeting.
Thus, staff recommends the Closed Record Hearing be continued to that date.
Page 23 of 222
Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS,AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community
OverviewMap Special Permit: Mini-Storage ExpansionApplicant: Melina PuckettFile #: SP2018-005 ±
SITE
0 300 600 900 1,200150Feet
W Court St
Road 64Road 68Road 72Road 76CITY L IMITS
Page 24 of 222
Jim FEE:$500.00 +$50.00 (Public Notice Fee)+$75 (SEPA)=$625ill.
piafé 30
..mmllll|il{Williiillm.:
CITY or PASCO
APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL PERMIT
(FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY)FILE NO:59 9»@\Q,»OOC DATE:H /3/pg
The undersigned hereby apply for a special permit:
Applicant:Melina Puckett (Successor Trustee)
Applicant’s Address:1420 Road 68,Pasco WA 99301
Applicant’s Phone Numbers:509-528-2444
(home/work,cellular,fax)
App1icant’s E-mail address:RobPukett4@Gmail.co1n
Property Owners Name (if different than Applicant):mg?‘Q “Q/Ulbr
*Must have Property Owner’s notarized signature on page 3
General location of property (street address or other description):
Southwest corner of the intersect of W.Court Street and Road 68 in Pasco WA.
Legal description of property (attach separate sheet if necessary):
Short Plat 93-08 Lots 2 81,3,Map Number 092928-11-SH9308—O0O-030
Franklin county tax parcels ll970l42l &119701412
THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION IS REQUIRED TO PROVIDE THE
PLANNING COMMISSION WITH A COMPLETE APPLICATION TO REVIEW:
1.Present use of the land and structure(s)if any:
The land is currently vacant except for a 3000 sf area that is fenced and
leased for a cell tower.The two parcels are adjacent to an existing mini storage
facility owned by the applicant.
2.If vacant,check here:X
3.Please describe any existing violations of any portion of the zoning
ordinance upon the property:
None
Updated 7.18.2017 1
Page 25 of 222
FEE:$500.00 +$50.00 (Public Notice Fee)+$75 (SEPA)=$625
4.Give a detailed cescription of the proposed use that requires a special
permit {attach se oarate sheet if mpre soace is necessarvl:
A previously granted special use permit (3350)has expired for the
property.This application is to request the same use,an expansion of
the existing mini storage facility in a C-1 Zone.There are 8 buildings
totaling approximately 42,000 sf of additional storage units.
5.A site map]plan,drawn neatly and to scale,showing the following:
(a)Exterior property lines and any adjacent public street or alley rights-
of—way;
(b)Existing and proposed buildings and other structures;
(c)Existing and proposed points of ingress and egress,drives,driveways,
and circulation pattern;
(d)The location of existing and proposed parking areas with each parking
space shown;
(e)Existing and proposed open spaces and landscape areas.
NOTE:Provide a variance report giving a list and mailing address of owners of
all property within 300 feet of the applicant’s property,as shown by a local title
company E payment of $8§?O3fwhich shall be utilized by the City to obtain a
current list of property owners of all properties within 300 feet of the
applicant’s property.
Fee for Special Permit —$500.00
Environmental Checklist -$75.00
Radius Noti?cation -$50.00
(or provide Variance report in lieu of $50.00)$625.00
Updated 7.18.2017 2
Page 26 of 222
FEE:$500.00 +$50.00 (Public Notice Fee)+$75 (SEPA)=$625
$97/\r<4t//?“/\»«"\‘TE_E
Signh_t_u>reofApplicant
JCQVVK/—_Y‘TEE
*No zed Signature of Property Owner
State of Washington )
ss.
County of Franklin )
On this Q39 day of $4,yxgzé,M,before me the undersigned,a Notary
Public in and for the State of Washington,duly commissioned an sworn,
personally appeared r31,ay/3 /44£g_g¢_»-gr being duly sworn on
his /her oath that he /she has prepared and read the foregoing statements and
has acknowledged to me that the recitations contained therein are true,and
has signed this instrument as his/her free and voluntary act and deed for the
purposes therein mentioned.
“"’7l.,y/Z»$“\\‘a$“g2";:'2_f"9'IMa?gjrf '
$:‘€$_’,.c:5‘;;.]"£'.‘-r._:’-’4:¢'
«and for the Stat;of Washington
H O
'>
Updated 7.18.2017 3
Page 27 of 222
HALVERSONNORTHWEST rm?irsssrfi
J.Jay Carroll
Paul C.Dempsey“
James S.Elliott
Yuridla Equihua
Robert N.Faber
F.Joe Falk,Jr,+
June 28,2018 MarkE.Flckes
Carter L.F'eld
_
I
Brett N.Goodma
nviae-mall -bourc/erd@pasco-wagov Fredfrlckw.Hzlv?e/|
rs:>"rw+
awrence .a n*
Terry C.Schma|z+
Ll d A.8 ll.Mtlie.F.Shin’:DGTCYBourcler Juliana M.Van Wingerden
P|anner 1 Stephen R.Winfree+
Community &Economic Development Department wsooasarvemoer
“A/so State Bar of CAMember525N.3l”dAve.+o:
+c,gu;7se<
aCr
errPasco,WA 99301
RE:Our Client:Mor-Stor Mini Storage
Matter:Letter in Support of Appeal (Appeal No.APPL2018-002)
Master File No.:SP2018—0O5
Dear Ms.Bourcier:
Our office represents the owner and operator of the Mor-Stor Mini Storage facility in
Pasco,Washington who timely filed an appeal of a June 21,2018 Report adopted by the
Planning Commission (the Decision),on June 28,2018.Please consider this letter as
the narrative in support of the appeal.Our understanding is the City of Pasco does not
have its own appeal forms available for the owner and operator at the time the appeal
was filed.
The basis for Mor—Stor’sappeal in accordance with PMC 25.86080 of the June 21,2018
Decision includes the following:
1.The Decision was procedurally improper in violation of the Pasco Municipal
Code Chapter 25.86 et.seq.and Washington law because the record on the permit
already was closed,and the Planning Commission already had made a Recommendation
and Decision on May 17,2018,which was not appealed;
2.The new Decision made without notice or input from Mor-Stor,contains
Findings and Conclusions which are not supported by substantial evidence on the record
and/orwhich violate Washington law,including Approval Conditions 8,10,12,13 and 16,
and the Planning Commission cannot change or impose new conditions from its original
decision on May 17,2018;
3.New Approval Condition number 16 is ambiguous,illegal and is not directly
caused by the impacts of the applicant’s development,andit is not proportional to the
traffic impacts of the development;
ha1versonNW.com
HALVERSON I NORTHWEST LAW GROUP P.C.
Yakima Office:405 E.LincoI11Avenue |PO Box 22550 |Yakima,WA 98907 |p)509.248.6030|f)5o9_453,688o
Sunnyside Of?ce:910 Frank1i11Avenue,Suite1 |PO Box 210 I Su11nyside,WA98944 I p)509.837.5302|f)509.837.2465
Page 28 of 222
Darcy Bourcier
June 28,2018
Page 2
4.The Decision is based upon comments or input submitted after the record
was closed;and
6.Additional conditions and input from the City’s Traffic Department are not
part of the record and cannot be considered by the decision maker because the City or
its Traffic Department failed to appeal the initial Planning Commission Findings adopted
and approved on May 17,2018.
Mor-Stor and the Appellant reserves the right to supplement the reasons for its appeal as
set forth above upon obtaining the complete record from Master File No.SPZO18-005.
Please confirm receipt of this letter and perfection of the appeal consistent with PMC
25.86.080.Pursuant to discussions with the City Attorney,Mr.Leland Kerr,our office and
the applicant request that a closed record appeal be scheduled before the Pasco City
Council at a future date upon proper notice.Any action currently scheduled for the City
Council meeting on July 2,2018 on SP2018—O05should be postponed and stricken,
pending resolution of the pending appeal.
Very truly yours,
est L w Group P.C.
Mark E.Fickes
MEF/jk
cc:Leland Kerr —via e—mai|(lkerr kerrlaw rou .net)
Rick White —via e-mail (whiter asco-wa.ov)
Rob Puckett -via email
Page 29 of 222
Alan D.CampbelI++
HAl_\/ERSON NORTHW
J.Jay CarrollGUPPaulC.Dempsey“
James S.Elliott
Yuridia Equihua
Robert N.Faber
F.Joe Falk.Jr.-l-
July 27,2018 Marl<E.Flckes
Carter L.Fleld
Brett N.Goodman
FrederickN.Ha|verson+
Lawrence E.Martin‘
Terry C.Schmelz+
LindaA.Sellers
Pasco Council
Juliana MM\i/:na
\CIe\;:Ig::il::c/o Community &Economic Development Department StephenR.Winfree+
Attn:Darcy Bourcier and Rick White ,A,soORBa,Member
525 N_3rd AVe_"A/so stareBaror+c6
\fPasco,WA 99301 ++Rev'red
RE:Our Client:Mor—StorMini Storage
Matter:Memorandum in Support of Appeal (Appeal No.APPL2018—0O2)
Master File No.:SP2018—OO5
Dear Council Members:
Our office represents the owner and operators of the Mor—StorMiniStorage facility in Pasco,
Washington that has appealed a June 21,2018 Report prepared by your Planning
Department and adopted by the Planning Commission (the “Decision”).The Decision
conditionally approved a Special Use Permit for the expansion of an existing mini storage
facility at the intersection of Court Street and Road 68.As will be outlined below,the applicant
believes the procedure that resulted in the Decision was improper,and that one or more of
the new conditions imposed are illegal including new Approval Condition 16,which requires
the applicant to give (dedicate)a portion of its valuable commercial property for future
intersection improvements the need for which its project did not cause.This condition is
illegal under clear a line of state and federal case law which will be summarized below.
Under the relevant provisions of the Pasco Municipal Code (following a timely appeal of the
Planning Commission recommendation as Mor—Storhas done),the City Council at a closed
record hearing must decide whetherthe Planning Commission Decision was proper and may
approve the permit with or without conditions.PMC 25.86.090.Mor—Storrequests that the
City Council approve the permit,but only with conditions supported by substantial evidence
on the record and in line with the law,which would not include an open—ended condition to
remove improvements,enter into development agreement and give the City property anytime
it wants in the future to remedy what Planning Staff has admitted is an existing deficient
condition not caused by the traffic from the mini storage expansion.
Factual Background
The original open record hearing before the Planning Commission was held on May 17,2018.
Prior to the hearing,the senior planner in the Community &Economic Development
Department,Rick White,prepared a Report which included application background and 12
halversonNW.com
HALVERSON I NORTHWEST LAW GROUP P.C.
Yakima Office:405 E.Lincoln Avenue I PO Box 22550 I Yakima,WA 98907 I p)509.248.6030If)509.453.6880
Sunnyside O?ice:910 Franklin Avenue,Suiter I PO Box 210 I Sunnyside,WA 98944 I p)509.837.5302If)509.837.2465 Page 30 of 222
Pasco City Council
c/o Community &Economic Development Department
Attn:Darcy Bourcier and Rick White
July 27,2018
Page 2
recommended Approval Conditions,which did not include a condition to dedicate land for
future City intersection improvements.Other than the Planning Commission members,the
only persons present who spoke at the hearing were Planning Director,Rick White and
applicant representative,Rob Puckett.There was no opposition to the Special Use Permit to
expand the existing mini storage facility which is a much less intensive use in terms of traffic
than other allowed uses in the C-1 zone.Following testimony from the applicant and
comments from Planning Staff,the legal record was closed (which means no new evidence
or information could be submitted to or considered by the decision maker)and the Planning
Commission continued the matter until its next meeting to formally adopt the written
conditions of approval.After the close of the hearing,the applicant was told by Planning
Commission and Staff that they didn’t see any problems with the tentative Approval
Conditions.
Mor-Stor expected to receive confirmation on or about June 21,2018 that the Planning
Commission had adopted the tentative Approval Conditions submitted at the original open
record hearing.However,it was surprised to receive via e-mail from the Planning Department
on June 22,new Conditions of Approval dated June 21,2018.The new Conditions of
Approval were prepared by Planning Staff with additional input from the City Traffic
Department that was not part of the original record in violation of applicable law.New
Approval Conditions 8,10,12,13 and 16 were added without comment or input from the
applicant andwithout any evidence in the open record to support them.These new
recommended Approval Conditions include Condition 16 which purports to require the
applicant to give up land to the City for future unspecified intersection improvements.
After the appeal and through communications with Planning Staff,the applicant has learned
that the City wants to redesign the intersection of Court Street and Road 68 with a roundabout,
not because of additional traffic from the expanded mini-storage development (there were no
comments from the City Traffic Department or any traffic studies presented at the open record
hearing),but to remedy an existing deficient condition caused by traffic and accidents that
pre-dated the application.This condition would clearly be illegal under Washington and
federal law and could subject the City of Pasco to damage claim if it is not removed.
Legal Analysis
A.The New Conditions (Written by Planning Staff)in the Planning Commission
Decision Were Based on New Evidence That Was Not Part of the Record and Should
Be Removed.
While the original Approval Conditions of the Planning Commission were not formally adopted
at the initial open record hearing on May 17,2018,they were based on the record submitted
and were acceptable to the applicant.No written submittals or additional comments from the
City Traffic Department were presented relating to the impact of the mini—storage expansion
on the intersection of Court Street and Road 68.Planning Staff admitted to the applicant that
it received additional input from the City Traffic Department after the record was closed
requesting additional conditions,including the one requiring future dedication of land for as
Page 31 of 222
Pasco City Council
c/o Community &Economic Development Department
Attn:Darcy Bourcier and Rick White
July 27,2018
Page 3
yet an unidentified intersection improvement project.The applicant was unaware of the
additional communications and was not provided any opportunity to comment or rebut the
information provided.These additional communications between Planning Staff and the
decision maker after the record was closed violate the Pasco Municipal Code and Washington
law that allows only one open record hearing on quasi—judicialland use matters,and which
prohibits the consideration of additional information submitted after the record was closed.
See,e.g.PMC 25.86.05O and RCW 36.7OB.110
Because the new conditions were based on new evidence improperly presented after the
record was closed,they should be stricken and should not be included as approval conditions
of the applicant’s Special Use Permit.
B.The City Cannot Require Conditions,Especially Those Requiring it to Give Up
Valuable Land,Which Are Not Reasonably Necessary as a Direct Result of the
Proposed Mini Storage Expansion.
As the City Attorney and any land use attorney in Washington can attest,there has been an
explosion of recent land use cases in the State of Washington and in federal courts outlining
limitations on local government’s ability to require “exactions”from developers as a condition
of granting development approvals.Exactions which are subject to the legal limitations
described below,include legal requirements to dedicate land,convey easements,to construct
or pay for public improvements,or to limit the use of property in return for development
approval.The Planning Commission’s open—endedCondition No.16,that requires Mor—Stor
to remove improvements and give away land for an undefined future road improvement
project is the type of dedication that state and federal courts have consistently overturned.
In general terms,Washington and federal courts have consistently held that a city exceeds
its statutory and constitutional authority when it asks owners and developers to contribute
land or pay for public infrastructure improvements unless the city can demonstrate (1)the
exactions are reasonably necessary as a direct result of the proposed development,
and (2)the owner/developer cannot be asked to contribute through an exaction more than its
proportionate share of the cost of those improvements.This general rule is based on
fundamental state and federal constitutional protections,which entitle all property owners
“due process”or “equal protection”from land use regulations and conditions which may be
unduly burdensome,which (in case of a fee or charge)may be a “illegal tax”or which prohibit
a “taking"of private property withoutjust compensation.While the legal analysis particular to
each permit condition or exaction may be unique,a City simply cannot require an
owner/developer to pay directly through fees,or indirectly through dedications,conditions and
offsite improvements for public infrastructure (even infrastructure that aids the public health,
safety and welfare)unless the particular development caused the need and the contribution
is proportional.
The above summary was based on two landmark United States Supreme Court rulings in
No//an v.California Coastal Commission and Dolan v.City of Tigard.The No//an case stands
for the proposition that land use conditions constitute a taking in violation of the Fifth
Page 32 of 222
Pasco City Council
clo Community &Economic Development Department
Attn:Darcy Bourcier and Rick White
July 27,2018
Page 4
Amendment,unless there is an essential nexus between the legitimate state interest and the
condition.Nollan,483 U.S.825,837 (1987).The Court’s later Dolan ruling requires
municipal—imposedexactions or conditions to be roughly “proportional”to the impact of the
proposed development.Do/an,512 U.S.374,391 (1994).Washington courts applying the
Nolan and Do/an analysis have held that they are not limitedto conveyances of property,but
also apply when a municipality imposes conditions on a development.See,e.g.,Benchmark
Land Co.v.City of Battleground,94 Wn.App.537,548 (1999)(affirmed on other grounds by
Benchmark Land Co.v.City of Battleground,146 Wash.2d 685 (2002)).Similarly,the United
States Supreme Court confirmed the Nollan/Dolan analysis set forth above also applied to
attempts by cities to require payment of money for infrastructure improvements or risk denial
of a permit,and confirmed that conditions in’land use permits requesting owners to pay for
public infrastructure improvements are subject to heightened scrutiny.Koontz v.St.Johns
River Water Management District,133 S.Ct.2586,2603 (2013).
Washington courts have held a city cannot ask for a developer to pay for road,drainage or
intersection improvements through voluntary agreements or permit conditions where the
developer’s contributions are (1)designed to remedy or benefit future uses,(2)designed to
remedy existing deficient conditions,(3)caused by the cumulative effects of future
development,or (4)requested to mitigate offsite conditions on adjacent property not directly
affected by the development.See,e.g.,Cobb v.Snohomish County,64 Wn.App.451 (1992);
Luxembourg v.Snohomish County,72 Wn.App.502 (1995);Unlimited v.Kitsap County,51
Wn.App.723 (1988);Burton v.Clark County,91 Wn.App.505 (1998);Benchmark Land Co.
v.City of Battleground,103 Wn.App.721 (2000);and United Development Corp.v.City of
Mill Creek,106 Wn.App.681,698 (2001).Mor-Stor’s position is that most of the new
conditions imposed by the Planning Commission after its closed record hearing violates some
or all of the rules and principles cited in the above cases.Specifically,and most egregiously,
Condition No.16,requiring the future dedication of land whenever the City wants it would be
illegal.
In this case,City Planning Staff in consultation with its own traffic department is looking for
ways to improve the intersection of Court Street and Road 68 not as a result of specific traffic
to be generated by the minor expansion of the mini storage facility,but to remedy the
cumulative effects of existing traffic or to remedy an existing deficient condition.in
communications with the Planning Staff,they have admitted that they now want a roundabout
at the intersection as part of some future 6-year traffic improvement plan to control traffic and
reduce accidents caused by existing traffic and design flaws.The need for the roundabout
was not caused by Mor-Stor’s permit request,in fact Mor-Stor’s use of the property is
much less intensive from a traffic generation standpoint than other uses allowed outright.
While Staffs goals of improving the intersection may be appropriate and laudable,in this
case,the City cannot ask the property owner and developer Mor-Stor to pay for them simply
because it asked for a permit to expand an allowed commercial use.
After the hearing,City Planning Staff provided the applicant’s legal counsel an updated design
drawing purporting to show approximately 2,500 square feet of the applicant’s property
needed for a future,as yet unfunded,roundabout.Based on current market conditions on a
Page 33 of 222
Pasco City Council
c/o Community &Economic Development Department
Attn:Darcy Bourcier and Rick White
July 27,2018
Page 5
price per square foot basis,this portion of property is extremely valuable.In addition,the loss
of the corner would require the owner/applicant to redesign and redevelop its project which
would it would have to reduce by 12 units.The consequential loss of income from a
redesigned project and loss of the units would be significant.In other words,the potential
damage caused by the attempted illegal taking of property by the City would be substantial.
lfthe condition is not removed,Mor-Stor willhave no alternative but to seekjudicial ruling that
the condition is illegal,and make a claim for damages under 42 U.S.C.§1983.
Conclusion
The five new conditions imposed by the Planning Commission at Staff’s request (after the
record was closed)should be eliminated,and Mor—Stor’sspecial property use permit should
be granted without these Conditions.Specifically,Approval Condition No.16 should be
determined to be illegal and is not supported by the record.Under the facts of this case,Mor-
Stor cannot be required to give the City land (or commit to give land in the future)to fix existing
deficient conditions at the intersection of Court Street and Road 68.At some future point,if
the project is funded,the City will have to acquire right—of~wayfor its project from affected
property owners in accordance with standard eminent domain procedures.
Very truly yours,
Halversonw Group P.C.
Mark E.Fickes
MEF/jk
Page 34 of 222
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
MASTER FILE NO: SP 2018-005
HEARING DATE: 5/ 17 /2018
ACTION DATE: 6/21/2018
BACKGROUND
APPLICANT: Melina Puckett
(Successor Trustee)
1420 Road 68
Pasco, WA 99301
REQUEST: SPECIAL PERMIT: Mor-Stor Mini Storage Expansion m 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:
SOUTH:
EAST:
WEST:
County
C -1
C -1
R-2
-SFDUs
-Mini Storage
-Vacant
-Vacant
5. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The Comprehensive Plan designates this area
for commercial uses. Policy LU-1-B 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
Page 35 of 222
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 20 11 , but it has
since expired. This proposal involves the development of eight buildings with a
total of 42,000 squ are feet of storage space in 230 units on a vacant site in a C-
l (Retail Business) zone. Access would be from an existing driveway to the
mini-storage units to the south a long 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 li sted in P.M.C. 25.86.060
a nd 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 visibili ty 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 faci lities (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
t his 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 visibili ty, an understanding of the
intent for future uses, and the nature of current uses, the Special Permit
should not b e approved without design standards to ameliorate the impacts of
2
Page 36 of 222
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 e ntered 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 parce ls.
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-
screenmg.
3
Page 37 of 222
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 b e compatible with several Comprehensive
Plan policies. Policy LU-1-B 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 like wise be minimal.
4
Page 38 of 222
(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 n ecessarily 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 e levations 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 creat e harmony with the surround neighborhood.
(4) Will the location and height of proposed structures and the site d e sign
discourage the development of permitted uses on property in the general
vicinity or impair the valu e thereop
The proposal curre ntly 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 compatibili ty 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
faci li ty. 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. Fe ncing the mini-storage yard with a block wall could aid in
5
Page 39 of 222
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
r e quired. The landscaping requirement for the area along the west
property line will be waived.
6
Page 40 of 222
3. The a r ea between the architectural block fence and/ or wall of the
buildings and the sidewalk must b e 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 foo t intervals along Court
Street and Road 68 . The landsca ping must continue south on Ro ad 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 b e 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 11970141 2 to
bring the west half of the roadway into compliance with the City of Pasco
Lo cal Acce ss Street standard. These improvements must include street
paving, c urb, gutter, storm dra inage and sidewalk improvements. The
sidewalk may b e offset from the c urb. Street improvements along Tax
parce l 119701403 must include pavement widening to match the
pave m e nt along Pa r cel 19970141 2 a nd a grass dra inage swale to the
south e nd of the parce l.
7. The driveway drops a long Court Street must be r e moved and r eplaced as
per the standard city sidewalk section;
8. Handicapped ramps m eeting the c urre nt ADA standards must be
installed a t t he intersection of Ro a d 68 and Court Street;
9. The driveway e ntrances shall be upgraded to meet current ADA a nd City
standards;
10. Night lighting including parking lot lighting must b e shielded to prevent
light encroachment on adjoining prope rties;
11 . Right-of-way must be d e dicated at the project leve l , as r equired.
12. The special permit shall be null a nd void if a building permit 1s not
obtained b y Decemb er 3 1, 2 020.
RECOMMENDATION
MOTION: I move to close the hearing on the proposed special p ermit and set
June 21, 20 18 as t h e date for deliberations a nd the deve lopme nt of
a recommendation for the City Council.
7
Page 41 of 222
MOR-STOR FACILITY EXPANSION PLANS
PORTION OF NE Y4 SECTION 2~1 TOWNSHIP9 NORTH, RANGE 29 EAST, W .M.
PASCO, FRANKLIN COUNTY, WASHINGTON
-' INSTALL NEW 't£"\1D£NT1A1 • • I I •---::ir 1 \
_______ C----__ --_____ 52._'UET llett_,! ~1~ __ C~Y,.~},,.~T ______ ~--~ ." ''.
g~
~:
r~ cuu
W'lL
IJAl~
EKST
';;/~ ·0·1 N('# 6: ~o (Sl/l .. r,4 25498 •O'.t ~OT f'RO..CCT OCNCH\AAfiK BC'"' "'ONUV(N"' S~ :i Sol.)(\ll'AJC l:icsstl($Ac:AlK Ar i•2>1"J -•Al)( SlldEI N~lq-S(CflO'I O" COURT ST & ROAD 68 --~!!> CL•l'098
ACMO\'t 6c R(pt_~ O:STIJr.f. CURS A(fUfN & R.i.w>
r I ~~°8:,~r,~i~T NG UTIJTl[S o\S RE~O
~
EXS1 STOR4.C£ Bl.CC
rr·J~~ 79
"'
I [~l ST~.~-Bloc I
1
l l'Sf ::=J I rxs1 SJORAGE ~oc -~ _ I
J41 '. I 1 I'\ I NCW ,. S!OENAL<
...1.l.J~·10' UTILITY "5'ME'1 • I $' SET8"-CI<
~····~., .. ~,
ll I :
!J I
(0 I CX> •
J ~ I I N[W JO' 0R'\1:W.V. SE[ "'" 21/C2
"' "8ANOON [l0$1 NC WATER ME TER
il l! I H I "ffw rxn.. HATION TRCH<>t sec on. 34/CJ
1·
l;![LOCATE ()(tSTINC UT1UllES .AS R£0U IR£0
I N'iTAI t Nf N RESIOfNTIAl ~TRECT LIGHT ~ POL(
~\1 111 1' I I .... ""' l SC£ On. l2/C3
' I
I '
. --~----------------------::.:.:_;;;;;;,;;;;--:.:=:-----------.-----:==--J
I Pl.A I (lf Cll '1 ACMt.S ~BOIVSSION I
OAAC£L PAROCL '1'97010•• PA<C{L 111970106' PAOctL 1 119701056
f ll970108J
1
o ~ £" ~ "'~-.L. . ._,,. ~~-+~~-""'"""" I~,,~
~
SURVt:YOR
WORL[Y SU R'\1£Ylt1G Sf'R~Cr, l"IC (~) 5flli'-6715
121 S CLY, l<ENNE'MCK. WA
,__ ___ pATUM/B_ENCH,~M~~~R~K~---
OA."VY· O""V Of PA.SC.0
0£"'°01MAR< SI W C()JRT ST MIO ROAD 68. ORASS CAP !ti ~MEN I ll • ~60 9tf
I TOPOGRAPHIC.\l SURI/CY
~~1 s&:\t1~~o~~M~~~r~c~~~i~. w,.
•CP ,.
~-~r co
C()NC
C()N<
CONS!
COHl coo
C1'
"' OIL
[
CC
" '''" (XST
""' Fr re
'" fl
fl
::c.:~1
£/NV
~
l
tr .. , ., ... .,
•P
H
<X
ABBR
ASPHAL TIC c~nr
PA'•Ul [NT
ANQ.[ POINT
BENCH iA AR<
(:[NT[Ri.I'(
CUR'1:
~~-ACr[(j
lll!AlOMUM
•ANHO.£
l,IH.N.N
l.tfCHAMCA. ..(»fl -· ......
OH ctNTUt
PC ~11••1
"rt' .. • :rrt• .. .. ••• ~
~-· "'""' ''" ,,
SI.
"' •m w
TI!C 11!•
""'' TC TQP ()i CIJNCRl TE
T(l l(l(PHQ'll[
TG TOP Of Gfl.l.VCL
l'YP 1'n'!CAL
lV TClC'ASIOO/CAfl.( urt UJILllY Vl\ot:Rt •.urx:AL
"' \llCST ~ :!U:wcTER
OVER t..LL SITE PLAN
RCU>C-' re (XJStfNC UT unts
AS R(O.JllRCO THIS PLAN SET IS FOR ROAD
IMPROVEMENTS ONLY.
CONTRACTOR TO OBTAIN SEPARATE
"" 101 v .lU 60 ,....,.., SC•1r l•JO' BUILDING PERMIT FROM CITY OF PASCO r CALL 2 BUSIN£SS
BUILDING DEPARTMENT FOR BLOCK WALL 8ff0Rf YOU DIG ·
z
0 ~ ;; ..
"' ~ ~ ~~ Lz ~ ~.., ><:5 . "'-
"'" o ~ ~~I t;~~ ;;!!:~ i ~ ucn ... -' ._,~ ~ ... ~
~~~ ~~~
I) ~ .. :::>~ ~"'i ..... , o~ h ~ a :i:a
z :Ii i
I
l Page 42 of 222
Overview Special Permit: Mini-Storage Expansion
M Applicant: Melina Puckett
ap File#: SP2018-005
N ·
A Page 43 of 222
Vicinity
Map
Special Permit: Mini-Storage Expansion
Applicant: Melina Puckett
File#: SP2018-005
N
A Page 44 of 222
Land Use Special Permit: Mini-Storage Expansion
M Applicant: Melina Puckett
ap File#: SP2018-005
N
A
Agriculture SFDU Vacant
Commercial ...
SFDU I Vacant
I I I [ • W-G0urt St €1T-Y-L:IMITs ----L-....L...,.;~-lJ
~
~ \. I I
I
t----
U /Si:ous
s: c: -i---r+--· I .,,
A>
3 -· -
~
0
A> ~ I M .. ,... 1n1-
I l I Commercial
Vacant • 1
I--
,1,
'< Storage !:::O
I
1Q
, ' • m I I I la:• . ~i------__JI
~ ~~
--
0 60 120 240 360 480
• • Feet-
'
1
w_
1
Marij_st1
(j)
00 SFDUs
'--i----1 Page 45 of 222
Zoning
Map
Special Permit: Mini-Storage Expansion
Applicant: Melina Puckett
File#: SP2018-005
County L.-
·N
A
r--------------J~-w-c lu rt st f e1T-Y-1:1M1rs ------L-L....:.....~.....L1
-.-
~ \. I I-./ C-1 ----1
I---
lJ Rs~ 1· I ..I
;;,
~ ~?
R~2 -.... .....
:::o......-----'
' KRS~201 • , I I 1~1 R~-12
0 60 120 240 360 480
Feet
}' w Marie_S.tr--i ,--1 I I I Page 46 of 222
..c ......,
li.-
0 z
bO c ·-~
0
0
....J
Page 47 of 222
+-' V> /
.,,
ro
UJ f
tlO c ·-~
0
0 _.
Page 48 of 222
Page 49 of 222
·-~
0
0
~
1 : .\ .1
Page 50 of 222
1
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
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-B 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. Based on the SEPA checklist, the adopted City
Comprehensive Plan, City development regulations, and other
information, a threshold determination resulting in a Determination of
Page 51 of 222
2
Non-Significance (DNS) has been issued for this project under WAC 197-
11-158.
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. 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 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 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
Page 52 of 222
3
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.
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.
Page 53 of 222
4
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. Traffic mitigation may include the construction
of roundabout. 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-B 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.
(3) Will the proposed use be constructed, maintained and operated to be in
harmony with existing or intended character of the general vicinity?
Page 54 of 222
5
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. 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 existing storage currently has an industrial warehouse appearance
(metal buildings surrounded with gravel) that may not be compatible
with overall community aesthetics. 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
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?
Page 55 of 222
6
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.
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.
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.
Page 56 of 222
7
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. All improvements must comply with all provisions made by the City of
Pasco Standard Specifications and adhere to the Pasco Municipal Code;
7. 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;
8. All frontage improvements along Road 68 and Court Street must be made
prior to C/O being issued for any structure permitted in conjunction of
this special use permit. Any existing improvements found to be sub-
standard shall be removed and replaced;
9. The driveway drops along Court Street must be removed and replaced as
per the standard city sidewalk section;
10. An approved site triangle must be applied to the location of the CMU wall
at the corner of Road 68 and Court Street;
11. Handicapped ramps meeting the current ADA standards must be
installed at the intersection of Road 68 and Court Street;
12. All fire hydrant lines in the City of Pasco shall be public infrastructure
and maintained by the City of Pasco. Said fire lines on private property
shall be built current City standards, centered in a 20’ easement free of
other utilities or structures, and are required to be looped in a manner
approved by the City Engineer. Access for maintenance/emergency
repairs shall be provided to the Public Works Department at all times;
13. Fire hydrant spacing in the right-of-way shall comply with the
commercial standard and be spaced at no more than 300’ intervals;
14. The driveway entrances shall be upgraded to meet current ADA and City
standards;
15. Night lighting including parking lot lighting must be shielded to prevent
light encroachment on adjoining properties;
16. Consideration for future right of way dedication shall be made in the
form of a Developer’s Agreement. The developer shall be responsible for
the costs to relocate any features located in the newly dedicated right of
way that interfere with the installation of the chosen traffic control
method at the intersection of Road 68 and Court Street. Said Developer’s
Page 57 of 222
8
Agreement must be finalized prior to the issuance of any permits related
to the project.
17. The special permit shall be null and void if a building permit is not
obtained by December 31, 2020.
RECOMMENDATION
MOTION for Findings of Fact: I move to adopt Findings of Fact and
Conclusions therefrom as contained in the June 21, 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 Melina Puckett (Successor
Trustee) for the expansion of the Mor-Stor mini storage facility in a C-1
zoning district at 1420 Road 68 with conditions as contained in the June
21, 2018 staff report.
Page 58 of 222
Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS,AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community
OverviewMap Special Permit: Mini-Storage ExpansionApplicant: Melina PuckettFile #: SP2018-005 ±
SITE
0 300 600 900 1,200150Feet
W Court St
Road 64Road 68Road 72Road 76CITY L IMITS
Page 59 of 222
Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS,AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community
VicinityMap Special Permit: Mini-Storage ExpansionApplicant: Melina PuckettFile #: SP2018-005 ±
SITE
0 120 240 360 48060Feet
W C ourt St
Road 68CITY L IMITS
W Marie St
Ivy Ln
Page 60 of 222
Land UseMap Special Permit: Mini-Storage ExpansionApplicant: Melina PuckettFile #: SP2018-005 ±
SITE
0 120 240 360 48060Feet
W Court St
Road 68CITY LIMITS
W Marie St
Iv
y
L
n
Commercial
SFDUsMulti-FamilySFDUs VacantVacant
Agriculture
Vacant
VacantSFDU
Mini-Storage
Commercial
SFDU
Page 61 of 222
ZoningMap Special Permit: Mini-Storage ExpansionApplicant: Melina PuckettFile #: SP2018-005 ±
SITE
0 120 240 360 48060Feet
W C ourt St
Road 68CITY L IMITS
W Marie St
Ivy Ln
C-1
County
RS-12RS-20
R-2RS-1
Page 62 of 222
MOR-STOR FACILITY EXPANSION PLANS
PORTION OF NEY,. SECTION 2~1 TOWNSHIP 9 NORTH, RANGE 29 EAST, W.M.
PASCO, FRANl\LIN COUNTY, WASHINGTON
-' ' _l' I I INSlA.Ll N(W <:;:(SIOt:NTI AL --------.,----------S~En L1~~~~--~~T------i -~ ~ 2~ 2~
~ °i' 40':t NCW !: ~~o!~T A-'14 25 496 f 25A4 J •O'i h[W 1 f'RO~£CT B(NCINA/?K BC IN MOUUV[NT ·s j! ~ S(l(W~!..K f X$1 ~()(WALK fo. 14 SID(W"UI STR~E I IU~lRS{C110'4 Of COURT S T & RO•D 68
--~ i3 111 (L• ... 50.98
~E ~~
~
~
E'IO CMU
WA.Ll
M4.ICH
(XSl
~
r 1 -t'l'f
cl 100· 2s·: : 2c<f
:r ~ i C=:!5ii:::~:~~j
rn r uqE STORAGE BLDG
ff•J 56.JO
-\000 Sf
I TOP or WALL 36~.o·
I I 4° Go!,T(
w/#ff/ff///Nff/..9#~#.7~$$-$/Ji}),b-/},!!]vJ
I f!i~ f't.HUR( STORol CE'i\LOC
t F"-356.50
~t::;: l aooJSf"
~d'&.b'ff/.b'd'ff/~£0'.liW#~.&0'/#//#&Z'.##~
, To;:> o;; WALL J64 5'
G.R,._VELEO SL1RfA-8(,(TYP) 4' CAT(
f;r@#//V///#/////7ff//J/J%-3//;,}},,b-/~~~
1 FUTURE ''""'CE "-°" r.&W/d//A .,, ~;~s6s~ -50' r~ '4J
I 5//@////////////#///#///////1///#/////////11///, 50.7't ·r
st:WACC OISPOS.t..!.. AR(A ._________ , I !YSIQNAT(() L01 2 ON SITE I . ~
PrR SHORT PtA.l I ...1! W'.~,w~~ ... ,.. W.~/,7#7~..$'#..@W'~ t
-~·-FUIURE S TORAGf. 9lDC ~ I $~~-~;~;~~ ~~DG···;~-·;·-~ii~ •• •··
(@ r~Q666JO ~ r~"'2'o~~ J6~ o' z ~ ~//////////L"Az:'2Y///.U/////////h Wffeffe//#//#~b#//hWP~#/1"~ s;:; ~-... '•••'
O:ST STOR4.GC BlCC
rr-J~~ 79
(X5T STORAGE rlLOG
J17.2't. EXST f CNC£ ro sc:_~M O'f'EO
L EXSl S T°"•CE "-DG J f C•J::>5.9J
-.
""'
I £XS! STORASE BLDG I
'
I ""' STORAGr BLDG I '"' '10RAGF Bl DC I
' I I
--_ ___L------------------------:.~.:,;.;:--.=-==---------------:-==--~
I I Pl.A.T Of Ct.EN ACRES SUBOlVtSION )
PARC(L PAPCEL 1 '1970107' PAPCFL 111 9701065 P"C£L 1119701056
4'119 /0l08J I ~ I I
I
S::TB.i.D<
/NEW PA"NC. SE ( Oil J.l/c>
' I
I ~[W JO' DRllJ[WA.Y. S[[ OT:.. 2i/C2
A.HA"llX>'I [X ISm~ WA Tl R Ml.ER
,. N(YI [Xf"ll T~A ll()N TREN CH
SU DR J~/CJ
RH OC.AT[ f)(1SnNG U T<'.ITl(S 115 REOU RED
NS~.\ll NEW RESIOENl'Al S TREET UGr'l ON POI..£
ii ! II I' I I N[W SW ALE
I '
S[( OlL 32/CJ
RELOCATE E XIST!NC UTIUTI~S
AS ~[Ol.J IREO THIS PLAN SET IS FOR ROAD
IMPROVEMENTS ONLY.
~
r-----~R=EF~EREN CE MATER IALS
1 TOPOGRA~HICAL SU RVCY
~~1 sC~,-i~~c0~~~c~~~~~E~r~-iE~g w,.,
ABBREVIATIONS
.CP
AP
'" • c er co
CONC
CONN
COHSl
CON T
COR
"' ~
O'L ' cc
(L ---
LSI.IT [AS(M[Nl
(XSi C ~TING ro-. f OUNO ... TION
rF rlN!SH.!:O!'l~ re flN!5HW Cf':AOC
f H flFt. i"IDfo:ANl ~1 n~~ LIM:/fl ANGl:O
~a~on
IC/lNV
IR
I
II
WAX
"' "'" •J "" N oc
' IJ lN~l.IUIJ
A$PHALl
I/All~
1Jrcw.N1CAl JOINT
IJIOPOlNl
NORTH
ON CENTER
PROP{RlY UNr
PC POINT or C\JRYA II.IRE
P([) PEOCSTR!AN
~~T /PT I ~i(W"r~~~~~BtR
r;.f wP. ~:E~[R PQ:NT
R RIGHT
R/lh .O RADl\IS
Rt'OO R(WRCO ~ RADIVS f>QINl
RR R Ail.ROAi
RO'N
5 so
SOM H
" 511.0R
SHI
~
SL
STA STD S/w
TA
!EC
16•
""'' TC ToP O'" CONCRf: TE
T(L l(LU'liO"f:
TG TCP 0:-f .RA\f:L
TYP TYPICAi
TV TELCIJISION 1CAll.C
Ull. Ulll.IT Y
~Rl ~~rc=Al
:twTR ~~~rn M ET~R
08Al'l1NG INOO:X
Cl OVE~ALL snc PLAN. CIVEP SHEET
C2 RO,i.D 68 WOEMNG PlAN .A.NO PROflLE. O::T A'LS
C3 GRAOING PL A.N. CC"15 TRUCTlON NOT£S "-NO OET"-I LS
CtTY ENG1NEER ~
60 QV_ER A.LL SITE PLAN
PLAN SCAL(
CONTRACTOR TO OBTAIN SEPARATE
BUILDING PERMIT FROM CITY OF PASCO
BUILDING DEPARTMENT FOR BLOCK WALL
NOTE: ~LL 1J T1U TY LOCA 110N$ AR£
APP~Q)(11J A Tr. CONTRACiOR ~Al.I
\IER'F"Y EX.A.CT LOC~TIONS ~HH U l llff"
COMPANIE~ l"RIOR iO iR("CHl'IG
CAL L 2 BUSINESS DAYS
BEFORE YOU DIG: 81 1
z
~ 0 ;; ..
"' Z ~ Wf")
c( . Cl,;, "'z ~ ~.., ><:s · .,_ ~ ... oi g ~ ~w ~ ,.,,"',, ~=~ !~ ~ ..... ~ ~ti it ~~g ~~~
Cl ~ 1-:)~ ~~1 ~~, oO oz ~ ~ ~a
z ::i: i I J I i
c1OF3 Page 63 of 222
Looking North
Page 64 of 222
Looking East
Page 65 of 222
Looking South
Page 66 of 222
Looking West
Page 67 of 222
1
Krystle Shanks, Administrative Assistant II
City of Pasco – Community & Economic Development Department
1
STATE OF WASHINGTON 2
CITY OF PASCO 3
In Re: Special Permit for ) 4
Mor-Stor Mini Storage ) Master File # SP 2018-005 5
Expansion [Melina Pucket ) 6
(Successor Trustee)] ) 7
8
9
EXCERPT OF THE PASCO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 10
11
12
TIME: 7:00 p.m., Thursday, May 17, 2018 13
TAKEN AT: Pasco City Hall 14
Pasco, Washington 15
CALLED BY: City of Pasco 16
REPORTED BY: Krystle Shanks, Administrative Assistant II 17
City of Pasco 18
Community & Economic Development Department 19
Page 68 of 222
2
Krystle Shanks, Administrative Assistant II
City of Pasco – Community & Economic Development Department
1
APPEARANCES 2
FOR THE PASCO PLANNING COMMISSION: 3
POSITION 1 - COMMISSIONER TANYA BOWERS 4
POSITION 2 - COMMISSIONER JOSEPH CAMPOS 5
POSITION 3 - COMMISSIONER PAUL MENDEZ 6
POSITION 4 - COMMISSIONER ALECIA GREENAWAY 7
POSITION 5 – CHAIRMAN JOE CRUZ 8
POSITION 6 – COMMISSIONER ISAAC MYHRUM 9
POSITION 7 – COMMISSIONER ZAHRA ROACH 10
POSITION 8 – COMMISSIONER PAM BYKONEN 11
POSITION 9 - COMMISSIONER GABRIEL PORTUGAL 12
13
ALSO PRESENT: 14
MR. DAVE ZABELL 15
MR. RICK WHITE 16
MR. DAVID MCDONALD 17
MS. DARCY BOURCIER 18
MS. KRYSTLE SHANKS 19
20
Page 69 of 222
3
Krystle Shanks, Administrative Assistant II
City of Pasco – Community & Economic Development Department
1
BE IT REMEMBERED that on Thursday, May 17, 2018 at 7:00 p.m., at 2
Pasco City Hall, Pasco, Washington, the Pasco Planning Commission 3
Meeting was taken before Krystle Shanks, Administrative Assistant II 4
of the Community & Economic Development Department for the City of 5
Pasco. The following proceedings took place: 6
7
PROCEEDINGS 8
9
CHAIRMAN CRUZ: Item VI(D), special permit, Mor-Stor Mini Storage 10
Expansion, the applicant is Puckett, master file number SP 2018-005. 11
Darcy? 12
MS. BOURCIER: Thank you, Commissioner. The applicant is seeking 13
a special permit to expand Mor-Stor Mini Storage to the two parcels 14
just north of the facility. A special permit had been granted for 15
this expansion in 2011 but because no building permits were applied 16
for, the special permit expired. So, the proposal consists of 8 17
buildings, totally 42,000 square feet and 230 units. This expansion 18
will be on the southwest corner of Court and Road 68, which are high 19
traffic streets but a mini-storage facility doesn’t have to rely on 20
passerby traffic for business. Because of this, we typically make 21
applicants of mini-storage facilities reserve the front portion of the 22
Page 70 of 222
4
Krystle Shanks, Administrative Assistant II
City of Pasco – Community & Economic Development Department
property for commercial uses, however, this area has been slow to 1
develop because there aren’t utilities here to support that growth so 2
Staff believes that it is an appropriate use of the property. 3
There are design standards in the conditions that will help prevent 4
the facility from looking like an industrial warehouse. The 5
conditions have essentially just been transferred from the first 6
report that was done in 2011 to this one. Staff believes that the 7
buildings should be sided with stucco or architectural block, and/or, 8
there should be site obscuring masonry fence. There are a few 9
different options in the conditions if you read through them. Full 10
frontage improvements will be required for the west half of Road 68 11
adjacent to the property with the existing facility. And the existing 12
facility adjacent Road 68, that pavement will need to match the 13
pavement that is going to be put in to the north. Right-of-way will 14
probably be needed to be dedicated for a future signal at the 15
intersection right there. Staff isn’t sure at this point just how 16
much right-of-way will be needed. We may know more before the June 17
21st meeting when this comes back for a recommendation. 18
And that’s all I have for that. Questions? 19
COMMISSIONER BYKONEN: I just had a quick one. Has the applicant 20
applied for a building permit yet? I mean, that’s what made the 21
special use permit… 22
Page 71 of 222
5
Krystle Shanks, Administrative Assistant II
City of Pasco – Community & Economic Development Department
MS. BOURCIER: Um, I am not aware of that. I don’t know. 1
MR. WHITE: (Shook head.) 2
MS. BOURCIER: No? I’m hearing no. 3
MS. BYKONEN: Ok, thank you. 4
CHAIRMAN CRUZ: Ok, any questions on behalf of the Commission? 5
(Silence.) Ok, I will open up the public hearing at this time. I 6
would like to invite the applicant to come forward if they choose to 7
do so. (The applicant remained seated.) 8
Ok, anyone else? I mean you guys have all stuck it out for now, 3 9
hours, 36 minutes and 35 seconds. Going once, going twice, going 10
three times. The public hearing is now closed. Any further 11
questions, comments, etc. from the Planning Commission? 12
COMMISSIONER ROACH: Yes. In the past we have as a Planning 13
Commission kept the storage units back from a main frontage, 14
especially on a main arterial. Like, I think the last one was on 15
Sandifur Parkway. So we asked that they be set back from the road for 16
a different type of business. So I’m wondering why Staff is asking 17
for this to be on the corner of 68 and Court. 18
CHAIRMAN CRUZ: This one’s not Staff. The issue with this one at 19
2011 was we had asked for a substantial increase in aesthetic value of 20
the units and the wall. And so the applicant at the time was not 21
super happy about it and we said if you want to use this for a storage 22
Page 72 of 222
6
Krystle Shanks, Administrative Assistant II
City of Pasco – Community & Economic Development Department
unit then this is what it’s going to take. So the compromise is that 1
they have to develop it more residential in nature. Remember the, uh… 2
COMMISSIONER ROACH: Tree? 3
CHAIRMAN CRUZ: Yeah, the tree. Somebody asked me if that tree was 4
growing the other day…but the records building for Lourdes and one of 5
the sore spots from days past is GESA’s data center which looks like a 6
barn right next to kind of houses and apartments and stuff. So the 7
compromise here is, this is one of those, if we want it to develop, we 8
need to give them a reasonable path to make it harmonious but not 9
economically burdensome. 10
COMMISSIONER ROACH: I guess I would say, I don’t want it to 11
develop as a mini-storage, personally. That’s what…I understand 12
that’s what the person is trying to do but… 13
COMMISSIONER GREENAWAY: Well they already own the other half. 14
They’ve already got storage there so… 15
COMMISSIONER ROACH: Yeah, they could sell it. 16
CHAIRMAN CRUZ: Well, and so, and so this is one of the subtleties 17
and one of the reasons why this corner is still soft from a 18
development because utilities aren’t there. 19
COMMISSIONER ROACH: Right. 20
CHAIRMAN CRUZ: Unless these parcels were bigger, we might have a 21
chance to see new development come in and change it around. 22
Page 73 of 222
7
Krystle Shanks, Administrative Assistant II
City of Pasco – Community & Economic Development Department
Especially with the County parcel being right there. I think, you 1
know, if the developers, if the owners, are ought to develop this and 2
that corner continues increasing in value, then a mini-storage 3
wouldn’t be there forever. I just think, I don’t know. This is one 4
of those compromise ones. If…I would rather see it develop nicely 5
than stay as a vacant lot. I’m not happy about it as a mini-storage 6
but anyway. Other people chime in, please. 7
COMMISSIONER PORTUGAL: The place, it doesn’t look really 8
aesthetically pleasing so…there is another storage facility like 9
nearby and it’s really really awesome so I hope they can do the same. 10
CHAIRMAN CRUZ: Again, bigger piece of property, setbacks, fences 11
and stuff like that. I’m sure they weren’t super happy about that 12
either but it’s harmonious. 13
COMMISSIONER BOWERS: So, Joe, you know we just had this whole 14
conversation about how much space we need, how much space we need, and 15
I know this is a little too tiny to do residential. But it seems like 16
we just keep making these compromises right now and then opportunities 17
are lost. Talk me down. 18
CHAIRMAN CRUZ: But that’s not a residential site. That will 19
always be C- of some sort. And so, the R-2 next to it, realistically, 20
probably if it weren’t next to the RS-1 right before it that could be 21
multi-family if this were developed more optimally. That should and 22
Page 74 of 222
8
Krystle Shanks, Administrative Assistant II
City of Pasco – Community & Economic Development Department
always will be a commercial priority. I mean, think about the node 1
discussion. We had either all four of those corners that should be 2
commercial in one form or another. 3
COMMISSIONER BOWERS: Right. 4
CHAIRMAN CRUZ: This is a commercial use. It’s not an awesome 5
commercial use but it is a commercial use. And like I said, if you 6
look at it 25-30 years from now and that corner comes alive, you can 7
build mini-storage, cheap out somewhere else, not on a prime retail 8
corner. That’s what I think will happen with it. 9
Others? Ok, I would entertain a motion. 10
COMMISSIONER MYHRUM: I move to close the hearing on the proposed 11
special permit and set June 21, 2018 as the date for deliberations and 12
development of a recommendation for the City Council. 13
COMMISSIONER GREENAWAY: Second. 14
CHAIRMAN CRUZ: Ok, moved by Commissioner Myhrum, seconded by 15
Commissioner Greenaway. All those in favor say, aye. 16
COMMISSIONERS: Aye. 17
CHAIRMAN CRUZ: Ok, all opposed. 18
COMMISSIONER BOWERS & COMMISSIONER ROACH: Nay. 19
CHAIRMAN CRUZ: Alright, so the motion carries with Bower and Roach 20
dissenting. 21
COMMISSIONER BOWERS: Bowers. 22
Page 75 of 222
9
Krystle Shanks, Administrative Assistant II
City of Pasco – Community & Economic Development Department
CHAIRMAN CRUZ: Bowers, I’m sorry. Did I not say the ‘s’? Ok, I’m 1
getting there. 2
3
4
5
6
(CONCLUDED.) 7
8
Page 76 of 222
1
Krystle Shanks, Administrative Assistant II
City of Pasco – Community & Economic Development Department
1
STATE OF WASHINGTON 2
CITY OF PASCO 3
In Re: Special Permit for ) 4
Mor-Stor Mini Storage ) Master File # SP 2018-005 5
Expansion [Melina Pucket ) 6
(Successor Trustee)] ) 7
8
9
EXCERPT OF THE PASCO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 10
11
12
TIME: 7:00 p.m., Thursday, June 21, 2018 13
TAKEN AT: Pasco City Hall 14
Pasco, Washington 15
CALLED BY: City of Pasco 16
REPORTED BY: Krystle Shanks, Administrative Assistant II 17
City of Pasco 18
Community & Economic Development Department 19
Page 77 of 222
2
Krystle Shanks, Administrative Assistant II
City of Pasco – Community & Economic Development Department
1
APPEARANCES 2
FOR THE PASCO PLANNING COMMISSION: 3
POSITION 1 - COMMISSIONER TANYA BOWERS 4
POSITION 2 - COMMISSIONER JOSEPH CAMPOS 5
POSITION 3 - COMMISSIONER PAUL MENDEZ 6
POSITION 4 - COMMISSIONER ALECIA GREENAWAY 7
POSITION 5 – VACANT 8
POSITION 6 – COMMISSIONER ISAAC MYHRUM 9
POSITION 7 – CHAIRWOMAN ZAHRA ROACH 10
POSITION 8 – ABSENT 11
POSITION 9 - ABSENT 12
13
ALSO PRESENT: 14
15
MR. RICK WHITE 16
MS. DARCY BOURCIER 17
MS. KRYSTLE SHANKS 18
19
Page 78 of 222
3
Krystle Shanks, Administrative Assistant II
City of Pasco – Community & Economic Development Department
1
BE IT REMEMBERED that on Thursday, June 21, 2018 at 7:00 p.m., at 2
Pasco City Hall, Pasco, Washington, the Pasco Planning Commission 3
Meeting was taken before Krystle Shanks, Administrative Assistant II 4
of the Community & Economic Development Department for the City of 5
Pasco. The following proceedings took place: 6
7
PROCEEDINGS 8
9
CHAIRWOMAN ROACH: Now on to item C of Old Business, special 10
permit, Mor-Stor Mini Storage Expansion, master file SP 2018-005. 11
MS. BOURCIER: Thank you, Commission. Since the last meeting, 12
Staff has further discussed proposed traffic mitigations for Road 86 13
and Court Street that will require the property owner to dedicate 14
necessary amount of right-of-way for whatever the mitigation factors 15
will be. So, a roundabout is being considered at this intersection so 16
we’ve added a condition stating that the owners, developer and City 17
must develop and execute a GMA development agreement for the 18
dedication of right-of-way. And we’ve also added a few more 19
conditions in here related to fire hydrants and Road 68 and Court 20
Street site triangle per our Engineering Department. So just a few 21
adjustments to the conditions. 22
Page 79 of 222
4
Krystle Shanks, Administrative Assistant II
City of Pasco – Community & Economic Development Department
Any questions? 1
CHAIRWOMAN ROACH: Perhaps. Do any of the other Commissioners 2
have questions at this moment? (Silence.) 3
Can you specify again what number the condition is for the fire 4
hydrant, please? 5
CHAIRWOMAN ROACH: Oh, it’s on the handout. 6
MS. BOURCIER: Yeah, I handed out a new staff report. 7
CHAIRMWOMAN ROACH: That’s why I haven’t seen that. Ok, just 8
give us a moment because we haven’t seen this. It was at our bench as 9
we got here. We didn’t get this ahead of time. 10
MS. BOURCIER: It’s number 12 and 13 that talks about the fire 11
hydrants. 12
COMMISSIONER GREEANWAY: And the petitioner has no problem with 13
it? 14
MS. BOURCIER: Um…we haven’t heard anything. 15
COMMISSIONER GREENAWAY: Ok. 16
MS. BOURCIER: This is pretty standard. You know, Engineering 17
comments. 18
MR. WHITE: But I just want to make sure the Commission knows, the 19
condition for development agreement for the potential right-of-way is 20
not standard. As a matter of fact, we haven’t done a GMA developer 21
agreement yet. It was added to the Municipal Code maybe 6-8 months ago. 22
Page 80 of 222
5
Krystle Shanks, Administrative Assistant II
City of Pasco – Community & Economic Development Department
The Commission considered the code amendment but we haven’t had the 1
practical application yet. So, and that will be coming back to the 2
Commission at some point because the public hearing is held here and 3
then the recommendation is just like with a special permit or zone 4
change, goes to City Council from the Planning Commission. 5
COMMISSIONER GREENAWAY: Thank you. It’s just we added 5 more 6
different things for it and we had already zoned this once before and 7
this is a re-up. So I want to make sure they were aware of all these 8
changes. 9
MS. BOURCIER: Um, these… 10
MR. WHITE: These came about today. I do not think that they are 11
aware. 12
COMMISSIONER GREENAWAY: OK. Ok, thank you. 13
CHAIRWOMAN ROACH: So is there a need to give them notification 14
about this instead of moving this forward? 15
MR. WHITE: Um, I think what I would recommend is that we continue 16
on this path because you are going to get the chance…if we postpone it 17
we’re simply moving tonight’s decision ahead one month and we would 18
still likely have to enter into some kind of agreement for the right-of-19
way that’s going to require more process here. So I think we’ll be time 20
ahead if we just formulate a condition and they can have the opportunity 21
Page 81 of 222
6
Krystle Shanks, Administrative Assistant II
City of Pasco – Community & Economic Development Department
to address the Commission when it comes back to you with a development 1
agreement. 2
CHAIRWOMAN ROACH: Ok, any other questions? (Silence.) 3
I would entertain a motion. 4
COMMISSIONER CAMPOS: I move to adopt findings of fact and 5
conclusions, therefrom, as contained in the June 21, 2018 staff report. 6
COMMISSIONER GREENAWAY: I second it. 7
COMMISSIONER CAMPOS: I move based on the findings of fact… 8
CHAIRMWOMAN ROACH: Oh wait, sorry. I want to make sure I was on 9
the correct page. All those in favor of the first motion? 10
COMMISSIONERS: Aye. 11
CHAIRWOMAN ROACH: Any opposed? 12
COMMISSIONER BOWERS: Nay. 13
CHAIRWOMAN ROACH: Nay. We have one dissenting, Commissioner 14
Bowers. Go ahead. 15
COMMISSIONER CAMPOS: I move based on the findings of fact and 16
conclusions, therefrom, the Planning Commission recommend the City 17
Council grant a special permit to Melina Puckett (Successor Trustee) for 18
the expansion of the Mor-Stor Mini Storage Facility in a C-1 Zoning 19
District at 1420 Road 68 with conditions as contained in the June 21, 20
2018 staff report. 21
COMMISSIONER GREENAWAY: Seconded it. 22
Page 82 of 222
7
Krystle Shanks, Administrative Assistant II
City of Pasco – Community & Economic Development Department
CHAIRWOMAN ROACH: All those in favor? 1
COMMISSIONERS: Aye. 2
CHAIRWOMAN ROACH: Any opposed? 3
COMMISSIONER BOWERS: Nay. 4
CHAIRWOMAN ROACH: Ok. Let the record show that Commissioner…it 5
was moved by Commissioner Campos, seconded by Commissioner Greenaway and 6
there was one dissenting vote, Commissioner Bowers. 7
And what will…we’ll see this again next month? 8
MS. BOURCIER: Um, yes, this will be…oh, sorry. This goes to the 9
Council meeting. The first Council meeting in July. 10
CHAIRWOMAN ROACH: Alright, thank you. 11
12
13
14
15
(CONCLUDED.) 16
17
Page 83 of 222
AGENDA REPORT
FOR: City Council August 29, 2018
TO: Dave Zabell, City Manager
Rick White, Director
Community & Economic Development
Regular Meeting: 9/4/18
FROM: Darcy Bourcier, Planner I
Community & Economic Development
SUBJECT: Street Vacation: A portion of West Nixon Street (MF# VAC 2018-003)
I. REFERENCE(S):
Overview Map
Vicinity Map
II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
CONDUCT PUBLIC HEARING
MOTION: I move to continue the public hearing for the proposed vacation of a
portion of West Nixon Street to a date to be determined with at least 20 days notice of
the continuation date to affected owners as required by statute.
III. FISCAL IMPACT:
None
IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF:
Property owners near the northwest corner of W. Sylvester Street and Road 52 have
petitioned for the vacation of a portion of W. Nixon Street in the referenced area. The
W. Nixon Street right-of-way in question is undeveloped and is currently being used by
the adjoining property owners as an extension of their backyards.
An owner of the property to the north of and adjacent to the right-of-way plans to
submit a plat application to the City to divide his property lengthwise with private
access along the former public right of way - assuming the right-of-way is vacated.
As previously recommended, Council set September 4, 2018 as the date to consider the
Page 84 of 222
proposed vacation in a public hearing.
V. DISCUSSION:
The proposed vacation is typical of the dilemma facing densification of the County
platting pattern established prior to incorporation. The former Riverview County island
contains many lots with depths exceeding a typical frontage ratio - in other words - the
lots are deeper than the frontages allow for further subdividing.
Although the vacation request in itself is not particularly complicated, it would be
premature to take final action without understanding the ramifications of necessary
code revisions to allow lots served by private access easements. The issues include:
• If the right of way proposed for vacation becomes a private driveway or
access easement, the length would exceed 600 feet and the lots created
would not have public street frontage. This arrangement is not currently
permitted by our subdivision regulations;
• Criteria for allowing a platted lot or lots to use private access easements
should be developed and codified prior to review and decision of a short
plat application containing such an arrangement; and
• That codification process should occur through the staff and the Planning
Commission before proceeding to City Council - as that process will occur
with appropriate technical input from City Departments and a public
hearing(s).
Permitting some measure of private access to newly created lots with appropriate
development criteria would allow a more efficient use of properties within the
Urban Growth Area and a greater return on the public investment associated with
existing infrastructure improvements.
Staff recommends Council conduct the Public Hearing on the vacation as it has
been advertised and then continue the Hearing to a date to be determined.
Page 85 of 222
Page 86 of 222
City of Pasco, IS Division
OverviewMap Item : Vacation ROW for W Nixon StApplicant: Gabriel PortugalFile #: VAC2018-003 ±
SITE
0 250 500 750 1,000125Feet Road 52W Sylvester St Road 54Road 56W Nixon St
W Margaret StR
oad 50Page 87 of 222
VicinityMap Item : Vacation ROW for W Nixon StApplicant: Gabriel PortugalFile #: VAC2018-003 ±
SITE
0 80 160 240 32040Feet Road 52W Sylvester StRoad 54Page 88 of 222
AGENDA REPORT
FOR: City Council August 28, 2018
TO: Dave Zabell, City Manager Regular Meeting: 9/4/18
FROM: Rick White, Director
Community & Economic Development
SUBJECT: Repealing PMC 12.20 Street Vacations
I. REFERENCE(S):
Ordinance Repealing PMC 12.20
II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
MOTION: I move to adopt Ordinance _____, repealing Chapter 12.20 of the Pasco
Municipal Code, Street Vacations, and further, authorize publication by summary only.
III. FISCAL IMPACT:
IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF:
In May of 2016 City Council considered and approved Ordinance 4290 which revised
the process and criteria associated with vacation of streets and alleys within the City.
Street and alley vacations were and are processed with a $300 fee established in
Section 3.07.100 (10) of the Pasco Municipal Code.
Section 12.20 of the current PMC contains an obsolete discussion of fees for street
vacations which should have been repealed by passage of Ordinance 4290, left
unchanged the language is a source of confusion regarding the process.
Council considered this proposed ordinance at the August 27th, 2018 Workshop
Meeting.
V. DISCUSSION:
The proposed Ordinance does not change any existing fee or process but eliminates a
confusing reference to an incorrect fee for street vacations.
Page 89 of 222
Ordinance Repealing PMC Chapter 12.20
“Street Vacations” - 1
ORDINANCE NO.__________
AN ORDINANCE of the City of Pasco, Washington,
Repealing PMC Chapter 12.20 “Street Vacations”
WHEREAS, by Ordinance No. 4290 in 2016, the City of Pasco updated its Code
provisions regarding vacation of streets, alleys and access easements in PMC Chapter 12.40; and
WHEREAS, through that process, PMC Chapter 12.20 entitled “Street Vacations” is
now obsolete and no longer needed within the City’s Municipal Code. NOW, THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASCO, WASHINGTON, DO HEREBY
ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1.That Chapter 12.20 entitled “Street Vacations” of the Pasco Municipal
Code shall be and hereby is repealed in its entirety.
12.20.010 PETITION – FEE TO ACCOMPANY. Each petition requesting that a
street or alley in the City be vacated shall be accompanied by a fee of $200.00. (Ord. 3184 Sec.
3, 1996; Prior code Sec. 9-7.04.)
12.20.020 FEE CONDITION PRECEDENT TO HEARING. No application or
petition for vacation of streets or alleys will be entertained or heard by the Council unless the fee
required in Section 12.20.010 has been paid. (Ord. 3184 Sec. 3, 1996; Prior code Sec. 9-7-08.)
Section 2. This Ordinance shall take full force and effect five (5) days after its
approval, passage, and publication as required by law.
PASSED by the City Council of the City of Pasco, Washington, and approved as
provided by law this _____ day of __________________, 2018.
_________________________________
Matt Watkins, Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_________________________________ __________________________________
Daniela Erickson, City Clerk Leland B. Kerr, City Attorney
Page 90 of 222
AGENDA REPORT
FOR: City Council August 28, 2018
TO: Dave Zabell, City Manager
Rick White, Director
Community & Economic Development
Regular Meeting: 9/4/18
FROM: Darcy Bourcier, Planner I
Community & Economic Development
SUBJECT: Rezone: I-1 (Light Industrial) to R-3 (Medium Density Residential) (Rigo
Rangel) (MF# Z 2018-004)
I. REFERENCE(S):
Proposed Rezone Ordinance
Vicinity Map
Report to Planning Commission 7/19/18
Report to Planning Commission 8/16/18
Planning Commission Minutes Dated: 7/19/18 & 8/16/18
II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
MOTION: I move to adopt Ordinance No. _____, rezoning 2120 W. "A" Street from
I-1 (Light Industrial) to R-3 (Medium Density Residential), and further, authorize
publication by summary only.
III. FISCAL IMPACT:
None
IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF:
On July 19, 2018 the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing to develop a
recommendation for the City Council on the possible rezone of a parcel located at 2120
W. "A" Street. The applicant requested a rezone from I-1 (Light Industrial) to R-3
(Medium-Density Residential) in order to develop the site with an apartment complex.
Following conduct of the hearing, the Planning Commission recommended the
property in question be rezoned from I-1 to R-3.
No written appeal of the Planning Commission’s recommendation has been received.
Page 91 of 222
V. DISCUSSION:
Following the rezone, the applicant intends to construct an apartment complex
consisting of as many as 200 residential units. The R-3 zoning designation will allow
only approximately 122 units, so the applicant will develop the site in phases, possibly
seeking a rezone to R-4 (High Density) at a later date.
The R-4 designation is not currently an option, as the Comprehensive Plan does not
include the R-4 zone under "Mixed Residential." The cyclical revisions to the
Comprehensive Plan in process include a text amendment to add the R-4 zone under
"Mixed Residential" as one of the implementing zoning designations which will enable
the applicant to pursue a rezone, should he choose to construct the remaining units.
Page 92 of 222
ORDINANCE NO. ________
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF PASCO, WASHINGTON REZONING 2120 WEST
“A” STREET FROM I-1 (LIGHT INDUSTRIAL) TO R-3 MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL).
WHEREAS, a complete and adequate petition for change of zoning classification has
been received and an open record hearing having been conducted by the Pasco Planning Commission
upon such petition; and,
WHEREAS, that the effect of the requested change in zoning classification shall not be
materially detrimental to the immediate vicinity; and,
WHEREAS, based upon substantial evidence and demonstration of the Petitioner, that:
(A) the requested change for the zoning classification is consistent with the adopted Comprehensive
Plan; (B) the requested change in zoning classification is consistent with or promotes the goals and
objectives of the Comprehensive Plan serving the general public interest in the community; and (C)
there has been a change in the neighborhood or community needs or circumstances warranting the
requested change of the zoning classification; and (D) the Planning Commission developed findings
which are hereby adopted by the City Council; NOW, THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASCO, WASHINGTON DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. That the Zoning Ordinance for the City of Pasco, Washington, and the Zoning
Map, accompanying and being part of said Ordinance shall be and hereby is changed from I-
1 (Light Industrial) to R-3 (Medium-Density Residential) for the real property as shown in the
Exhibit “1” attached hereto and described as follows:
Binding Site Plan 2008-03 Lot 3
Section 2. This ordinance shall take full force and effect five (5) days after its approval,
passage and publication as required by law.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Pasco this 4th day of September, 2018.
Matt Watkins, Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Daniela Erickson, City Clerk Leland B. Kerr, City Attorney
Page 93 of 222
City of Pasco, IS Division
VicinityMap Item : Rezone I-1 to R-3Applicant: Rigo RangelFile #: Z2018-004 ±
SITE
0 150 300 450 60075Feet
W A StS 20th AveS 23rd AveS 22nd AvePage 94 of 222
1
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
MASTER FILE NO: Z 2018-004 APPLICANT: Rigo Rangel
HEARING DATE: 7/19/2018 2101 W A St
ACTION DATE: 8/16/2018 Pasco, WA 99301
BACKGROUND
REQUEST: REZONE: Rezone one parcel from I-1 (Light Industrial) to R-3
(Medium-Density Residential)
1. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION:
Legal: Binding Site Plan 2008-03 Lot 3
General Location: Southwest corner of W A St and S 20th Ave
Property Size: Approximately 8.4 acres.
2. ACCESS: The parcel is accessible from W A St and S 20th Ave
3. UTILITIES: All municipal utilities are available to serve the site.
4. LAND USE AND ZONING: The lot is currently zoned I-1 (Light
Industrial) and is vacant. Surrounding properties are zoned and
developed as follows:
NORTH: I-1/R-1-A2 – Industrial/Manufactured homes
SOUTH: N/A – Columbia River
EAST: I-1 – Shop
WEST: I-1 – Shop
5. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The Comprehensive Plan designates the site
for Mixed-Residential uses. Goal LU-3-E encourages the City to designate
areas for higher density residential development where utilities and other
facilities enable efficient use of capital resources. Other goals and
policies suggest the City permit a full range of residential environments
including multi-family homes (H-2-A) and standards that control the
scale and density of accessory buildings and homes to maintain
compatibility with other residential uses (H-4-B).
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).
Page 95 of 222
2
ANALYSIS
The rezone site was annexed into the City in 1962 and zoned for industrial
uses. Later—it is unknown when exactly—the property was designated as
“Open Space/Nature” due to its proximity to the Columbia River. Then, in
1996, a Comprehensive Plan Amendment passed which resulted in a
designation change to “Mixed Residential”, which is the current designation.
Mixed Residential allows for zoning districts RS-20, RS-12, RS-1, and R-1
through R-3. The applicant is seeking to rezone the property to the highest
allowed density, R-4, in order to construct a middle to high income apartment
complex consisting of as many as 200 residential units. The R-3 zoning
designation will allow only approximately 122 units, so the applicant intends to
develop the site with as many units as he is able under the permitted density
and later rezone the property to R-4. A rezone to R-4 is not currently an option,
as the “Mixed Residential” designation will not permit this zoning district; for
this reason, as part of the Comprehensive Plan Update, the City will be
proposing a change in the “Mixed Residential” designation to a “High Density”
designation for this property. If the proposal is approved, the applicant may
later rezone the property to the highest residential density of R-4 and construct
the remaining units.
The R-3 zoning district permits a density at a rate of one multi-family dwelling
unit for every 3,000 ft² of land area or 14.5 units per acre. Currently the site
totals 367,830 ft² in area; barring any required right-of-way dedications R-3
zoning will allow up to 122 dwelling units as was stated previously. However,
this number doesn’t take into account parking, setback, and landscaping
requirements.
This property provides the opportunity for development which will benefit from the
proximity and/or access to the Columbia River. In the event of approval of the
rezone, the applicant intends to develop the site with as many as three apartment
buildings that will have riverfront views and bike path access. During the time of
development, the City also requires full improvement of right-of-way including
curb, gutter, and sidewalk. The site is located on an arterial street which is
favorable for future residents and visitors of the proposed development.
The initial review criteria for considering a rezone application are explained in
PMC. 25.88.030. The criteria are listed below as follows:
1. The date the existing zone became effective:
The date that the current zoning classification of I-1 (Light Industrial) became
effective is unknown. It was established sometime after the property was
annexed into the City in 1962.
Page 96 of 222
3
2. The changed conditions, which are alleged to warrant other or additional
zoning:
The property was designated “Mixed Residential” in 1996, which allows the
property to be zoned RS-20, RS-12, RS-1, R-1, R-2, and R-3. By rezoning the
property from industrial, the applicant is bringing the property into accordance
with the Comprehensive Plan.
3. Facts to justify the change on the basis of advancing the public health,
safety and general welfare:
The proposed zoning request is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan which
has been determined to be in the best interest of advancing public health, safety
and general welfare of the community. The rezone will lead to the creation of a
multi-family residential apartment complex providing housing and job
opportunities for Pasco residents.
4. The effect it will have on the value and character of the adjacent property
and the Comprehensive Plan:
A change in zoning classification may ultimately result in the establishment of a
multi-family residential apartment complex consistent with the Comprehensive
Plan. The rezone may improve the value of surrounding properties on A Street
and will mostly likely have a positive impact on current and future residential
development in the area.
5. The effect on the property owner or owners if the request is not granted:
The property owner may choose to develop the property under the current I-1
zoning designation.
STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT
Findings of fact must be entered from the record. The following are initial
findings drawn from the background and analysis section of the staff report.
The Planning Commission may add additional findings to this listing as the
result of factual testimony and evidence submitted during the open record
hearing.
1. The site is vacant and zoned I-1 (Light Industrial).
2. The site was annexed in 1962.
3. The site is approximately 8.4 acres.
Page 97 of 222
4
4. The Comprehensive Plan identifies the site for Mixed Residential uses
which includes R-3 zoning. The Mixed Residential designation includes
zones RS-20, RS-12, RS-1, R-1, R-2, and R-3.
5. By rezoning the property from I-1, the applicant will be bringing the
property into conformance with the Comprehensive Plan.
6. The site is located at the southwest corner of W A Street and S 20th Ave.
7. The applicant is requesting R-3 (Medium-Density Residential) zoning.
8. R-3 zoning permits 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.
9. In the event of a rezone, the applicant would like to develop the property
with a new middle to high income apartment complex.
10. The R-3 zoning designation will allow only approximately 122 units. The
applicant intends to develop the site with as many units as he is able
under the permitted density and later rezone the property to R-4.
11. As part of the ongoing Comprehensive Plan Update, the City will be
proposing a change in the “Mixed Residential” designation to a “High
Density” designation for this property in order for the applicant to rezone
the property to R-4 in the future.
CONCLUSIONS BASED ON STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT
Before recommending approval or denial of a special permit the Planning
Commission must develop findings of fact from which to draw its conclusions
based upon the criteria listed in PMC 25.86.060. The criteria are as follows:
1. The proposal is in accordance with the goals and policies of the
Comprehensive Plan.
The proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map and
several Plan policies and goals. H-2-A suggests the City permit a full range of
residential environments. Housing Policy (H-B-A) encourages standards that
control the scale and density of accessory buildings and homes to maintain
compatibility with other residential uses.
2. The effect of the proposal on the immediate vicinity will not be materially
detrimental.
The immediate area is shown in the Comprehensive Plan for Mixed Residential
zoning as well as Commercial zoning. Mixed Residential zoning permits the R-3
(Medium-Density) zoning district. The proposed rezone is consistent with the
referenced plans and will not be detrimental to future nearby developments that
will need to conform to the provision of the plans.
Page 98 of 222
5
3. There is merit and value in the proposal for the community as a whole.
There is merit in developing parcels within the City in accordance with the goals
and policies contained in the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed zoning is
consistent with the Plan’s Land Use Map. Providing an increased range of
housing opportunities available in those areas currently served by municipal
utilities and public transportation benefits the community as a whole and will
enable efficient use of capital resources. The proposal is supported by land use
goals and policies contained in the Comprehensive Plan.
4. Conditions should be imposed in order to mitigate any significant
adverse impacts from the proposal.
The Pasco Municipal Code includes design standards for residential and
commercial development. If or when the applicant pursues the development of
this property, he will be required to conform to design standards established by
the PMC. No special conditions are proposed.
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 considered necessary for this application;
however, design standards for the proposed units would be an appropriate use
of a Concomitant Agreement.
RECOMMENDATION
MOTION: I move to close the hearing on the proposed rezone and set August
16, 2018 as the date for deliberations and the development of a
recommendation for the City Council.
Page 99 of 222
City of Pasco, IS Division
OverviewMap Item : Rezone I-1 to R-3Applicant: Rigo RangelFile #: Z2018-004 ±
SITE
0 375 750 1,125 1,500187.5 Feet
W A StS 20th AveW Lewis StS 25th AveW Bonneville St
Page 100 of 222
City of Pasco, IS Division
VicinityMap Item : Rezone I-1 to R-3Applicant: Rigo RangelFile #: Z2018-004 ±
SITE
0 150 300 450 60075Feet
W A StS 20th AveS 23rd AveS 22nd AvePage 101 of 222
Land UseMap Item : Rezone I-1 to R-3Applicant: Rigo RangelFile #: Z2018-004 ±
SITE
0 150 300 450 60075Feet
W A StS 20th AveS 23rd AveS 22nd AveVacantManufacturedHomes IndustrialOfficeManufac
turedHomesIndustrial
Vacant
Industrial
Vacant
Page 102 of 222
ZoningMap Item : Rezone I-1 to R-3Applicant: Rigo RangelFile #: Z2018-004 ±
SITE
0 150 300 450 60075Feet
W A StS 20th AveS 23rd AveS 22nd AveI-1
I-1R-1-A2C-3 R-1-A2C-3I-1
Page 103 of 222
Looking NorthPage 104 of 222
Looking EastPage 105 of 222
Looking SouthPage 106 of 222
Looking WestPage 107 of 222
1
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
MASTER FILE NO: Z 2018-004 APPLICANT: Rigo Rangel
HEARING DATE: 7/19/2018 2101 W A St
ACTION DATE: 8/16/2018 Pasco, WA 99301
BACKGROUND
REQUEST: REZONE: Rezone one parcel from I-1 (Light Industrial) to R-3
(Medium-Density Residential)
1. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION:
Legal: Binding Site Plan 2008-03 Lot 3
General Location: Southwest corner of W A St and S 20th Ave
Property Size: Approximately 8.4 acres.
2. ACCESS: The parcel is accessible from W A St and S 20th Ave
3. UTILITIES: All municipal utilities are available to serve the site.
4. LAND USE AND ZONING: The lot is currently zoned I-1 (Light
Industrial) and is vacant. Surrounding properties are zoned and
developed as follows:
NORTH: I-1/R-1-A2 – Industrial/Manufactured homes
SOUTH: N/A – Columbia River
EAST: I-1 – Shop
WEST: I-1 – Shop
5. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The Comprehensive Plan designates the site
for Mixed-Residential uses. Goal LU-3-E encourages the City to designate
areas for higher density residential development where utilities and other
facilities enable efficient use of capital resources. Other goals and
policies suggest the City permit a full range of residential environments
including multi-family homes (H-2-A) and standards that control the
scale and density of accessory buildings and homes to maintain
compatibility with other residential uses (H-4-B).
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.
Page 108 of 222
2
ANALYSIS
The rezone site was annexed into the City in 1962 and zoned for industrial
uses. Later—it is unknown when exactly—the property was designated as
“Open Space/Nature” due to its proximity to the Columbia River. Then, in
1996, a Comprehensive Plan Amendment passed which resulted in a
designation change to “Mixed Residential”, which is the current designation.
Mixed Residential allows for zoning districts RS-20, RS-12, RS-1, and R-1
through R-3. The applicant is seeking to rezone the property to the highest
allowed density, R-4, in order to construct a middle to high income apartment
complex consisting of as many as 200 residential units. The R-3 zoning
designation will allow only approximately 122 units, so the applicant intends to
develop the site with as many units as he is able under the permitted density
and later rezone the property to R-4. A rezone to R-4 is not currently an option,
as the “Mixed Residential” designation will not permit this zoning district; for
this reason, as part of the Comprehensive Plan Update, the City will be
proposing a change in the “Mixed Residential” designation to include high
density zoning. If the proposal is approved, the applicant may later rezone the
property to the highest residential density of R-4 and construct the remaining
units.
The R-3 zoning district permits a density at a rate of one multi-family dwelling
unit for every 3,000 ft² of land area or 14.5 units per acre. Currently the site
totals 367,830 ft² in area; barring any required right-of-way dedications R-3
zoning will allow up to 122 dwelling units as was stated previously. However,
this number doesn’t take into account parking, setback, and landscaping
requirements.
This property provides the opportunity for development which will benefit from the
proximity and/or access to the Columbia River. In the event of approval of the
rezone, the applicant intends to develop the site with as many as three apartment
buildings that will have riverfront views and bike path access. During the time of
development, the City also requires full improvement of right-of-way including
curb, gutter, and sidewalk. The site is located on an arterial street which is
favorable for future residents and visitors of the proposed development.
The initial review criteria for considering a rezone application are explained in
PMC. 25.88.030. The criteria are listed below as follows:
1. The date the existing zone became effective:
The date that the current zoning classification of I-1 (Light Industrial) became
effective is unknown. It was established sometime after the property was
annexed into the City in 1962.
Page 109 of 222
3
2. The changed conditions, which are alleged to warrant other or additional
zoning:
The property was designated “Mixed Residential” in 1996, which allows the
property to be zoned RS-20, RS-12, RS-1, R-1, R-2, and R-3. By rezoning the
property from industrial, the applicant is bringing the property into accordance
with the Comprehensive Plan.
3. Facts to justify the change on the basis of advancing the public health,
safety and general welfare:
The proposed zoning request is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan which
has been determined to be in the best interest of advancing public health, safety
and general welfare of the community. The rezone will lead to the creation of a
multi-family residential apartment complex providing housing and job
opportunities for Pasco residents.
4. The effect it will have on the value and character of the adjacent property
and the Comprehensive Plan:
A change in zoning classification may ultimately result in the establishment of a
multi-family residential apartment complex consistent with the Comprehensive
Plan. The rezone may improve the value of surrounding properties on A Street
and will mostly likely have a positive impact on current and future residential
development in the area.
5. The effect on the property owner or owners if the request is not granted:
The property owner may choose to develop the property under the current I-1
zoning designation.
STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT
Findings of fact must be entered from the record. The following are initial
findings drawn from the background and analysis section of the staff report.
The Planning Commission may add additional findings to this listing as the
result of factual testimony and evidence submitted during the open record
hearing.
1. The site is vacant and zoned I-1 (Light Industrial).
2. The site was annexed in 1962.
3. The site is approximately 8.4 acres.
Page 110 of 222
4
4. The Comprehensive Plan identifies the site for Mixed Residential uses
which includes R-3 zoning. The Mixed Residential designation includes
zones RS-20, RS-12, RS-1, R-1, R-2, and R-3.
5. By rezoning the property from I-1, the applicant will be bringing the
property into conformance with the Comprehensive Plan.
6. The site is located at the southwest corner of W A Street and S 20th Ave.
7. The applicant is requesting R-3 (Medium-Density Residential) zoning.
8. R-3 zoning permits 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.
9. In the event of a rezone, the applicant would like to develop the property
with a new middle to high income apartment complex.
10. The R-3 zoning designation will allow only approximately 122 units. The
applicant intends to develop the site with as many units as he is able
under the permitted density and later rezone the property to R-4.
11. The City will be proposing a change in the “Mixed Residential”
designation to include high density residential zoning in order for the
applicant to rezone the property to R-4 in the future.
CONCLUSIONS BASED ON STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT
Before recommending approval or denial of a special permit the Planning
Commission must develop findings of fact from which to draw its conclusions
based upon the criteria listed in PMC 25.86.060. The criteria are as follows:
1. The proposal is in accordance with the goals and policies of the
Comprehensive Plan.
The proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map and
several Plan policies and goals. H-2-A suggests the City permit a full range of
residential environments. Housing Policy (H-B-A) encourages standards that
control the scale and density of accessory buildings and homes to maintain
compatibility with other residential uses.
2. The effect of the proposal on the immediate vicinity will not be materially
detrimental.
The immediate area is shown in the Comprehensive Plan for Mixed Residential
zoning as well as Commercial zoning. Mixed Residential zoning permits the R-3
(Medium-Density) zoning district. The proposed rezone is consistent with the
referenced plans and will not be detrimental to future nearby developments that
will need to conform to the provision of the plans.
3. There is merit and value in the proposal for the community as a whole.
Page 111 of 222
5
There is merit in developing parcels within the City in accordance with the goals
and policies contained in the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed zoning is
consistent with the Plan’s Land Use Map. Providing an increased range of
housing opportunities available in those areas currently served by municipal
utilities and public transportation benefits the community as a whole and will
enable efficient use of capital resources. The proposal is supported by land use
goals and policies contained in the Comprehensive Plan.
4. Conditions should be imposed in order to mitigate any significant
adverse impacts from the proposal.
The Pasco Municipal Code includes design standards for residential and
commercial development. If or when the applicant pursues the development of
this property, he will be required to conform to design standards established by
the PMC. No special conditions are proposed.
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 considered necessary for this application;
however, design standards for the proposed units would be an appropriate use
of a Concomitant Agreement.
RECOMMENDATION
MOTION for Findings of Fact: I move to adopt findings of fact
and conclusions therefrom as contained in the August 16, 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 rezone the parcel at the southwest
corner of West A Street and South 20th Avenue from I-1 to R-3.
Page 112 of 222
City of Pasco, IS Division
OverviewMap Item : Rezone I-1 to R-3Applicant: Rigo RangelFile #: Z2018-004 ±
SITE
0 375 750 1,125 1,500187.5 Feet
W A StS 20th AveW Lewis StS 25th AveW Bonneville St
Page 113 of 222
City of Pasco, IS Division
VicinityMap Item : Rezone I-1 to R-3Applicant: Rigo RangelFile #: Z2018-004 ±
SITE
0 150 300 450 60075Feet
W A StS 20th AveS 23rd AveS 22nd AvePage 114 of 222
Land UseMap Item : Rezone I-1 to R-3Applicant: Rigo RangelFile #: Z2018-004 ±
SITE
0 150 300 450 60075Feet
W A StS 20th AveS 23rd AveS 22nd AveVacantManufacturedHomes IndustrialOfficeManufac
turedHomesIndustrial
Vacant
Industrial
Vacant
Page 115 of 222
ZoningMap Item : Rezone I-1 to R-3Applicant: Rigo RangelFile #: Z2018-004 ±
SITE
0 150 300 450 60075Feet
W A StS 20th AveS 23rd AveS 22nd AveI-1
I-1R-1-A2C-3 R-1-A2C-3I-1
Page 116 of 222
Looking NorthPage 117 of 222
Looking EastPage 118 of 222
Looking SouthPage 119 of 222
Looking WestPage 120 of 222
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
7/19/2018
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
E. Rezone Rezone from I-1 (Light Industrial) to R-3 (High
Density Residential) (Rigo Rangel) (MF# Z 2018-
004)
Chairwoman Roach read the master file number and asked for comments from staff.
Darcy Bourcier, Planner I, discussed the rezone application from I-1 to R-3. The site
is designated for mixed residential which allows zoning districts RS-20, RS-12, RS-1
and R-1 through R-3. The applicant intends to zone the property R-3 at this time for
apartments that would have access to the river and bike path. The R-3 zone will allow
for approximately 123 units. At a later time the applicant would like to rezone the
property to R-4 in order to construct more units. The mixed use zoning designation
does not allow for R-4 zoning so staff will propose a land use designation change to
high density during the Comprehensive Plan Update. Once that happens, the
applicant can rezone to R-4 and finish development. This is an ideal use for the site
given the arterial streets, riverfront views and could improve property values.
Chairwoman Roach asked what the prohibition is from going straight from mixed
residential to R-4.
Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director, stated that at this time
there isn’t an identifiable reason but explain zoning designations from the previous
Comprehensive Plan Amendment. The recommendation from staff would be to amend
the Comprehensive Plan to include mixed use residential to allow high density
residential. Without high density, there will not be a successful residential-
commercial project.
Chairwoman Roach asked when the amended Comprehensive Plan will be approved.
Mr. White responded that it would be likely sometime in November.
Rigo Rangel, 2120 W. ‘A’ Street, spoke on behalf of his rezone application and
described what the development would look like.
Commissioner A. Campos asked how many rooms there would be per unit.
Mr. Rangel said between 1-3 bedrooms, with most being 2 bedrooms.
Commissioner Mendez asked if this project would be done in phases.
Mr. Rangel said yes, they will begin the first phase while it is zoned R-3 and complete
the project when they can apply for R-4 zoning.
Page 121 of 222
With no further questions or comments the public hearing closed.
Commissioner Bykonen asked if the application moves forward and the
Comprehensive Plan is amended if the application would have to come back to rezone
R-4.
Mr. White said yes.
Commissioner Mendez asked if it was common to rezone industrial to residential.
Mr. White said no but times have changed and this would be a good property for
residential.
Chairwoman Roach asked if they would pay school impact fees.
Mr. White answered yes, they would pay the fees per unit.
Commissioner Greenaway moved, seconded by Commissioner Myhrum, to close the
public hearing on the proposed rezone and set August 16, 2018 as the date for
deliberations and the development of a recommendation for the City Council. The
motion passed unanimously.
Page 122 of 222
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
8/16/2018
OLD BUSINESS:
B. Rezone Rezone from I-1 (Light Industrial) to R-3 (High
Density Residential) (Rigo Rangel) (MF# Z 2018-
004)
Chairman Myhrum read the master file number and asked for comments from staff.
Darcy Bourcier, Planner I, discussed the rezone application from I-1 (Light Industrial)
to R-3 (High Density Residential). She stated that there were no further comments to
add since the previous meeting.
Commissioner Greenaway moved, seconded by Commissioner Bykonen, to adopt
findings of fact and conclusions, therefrom, as contained in the August 16, 2018 staff
report. The motion passed unanimously with Commissioner Bowers recused.
Commissioner Greenaway moved, seconded by Commissioner Bykonen, based on the
findings of fact and conclusions as adopted, the Planning Commission recommend the
City Council rezone the parcel at the southwest corner of West A Street and South 20th
Avenue from I-1 to R-3. The motion passed unanimously with Commissioner Bowers
recused.
Page 123 of 222
AGENDA REPORT
FOR: City Council August 29, 2018
TO: Dave Zabell, City Manager
Rick White, Director
Community & Economic Development
Regular Meeting: 9/4/18
FROM: Jeff Adams, Associate Planner
Community & Economic Development
SUBJECT: Rezone: RT (Residential Transition) to C-3 (General Business) (Pati Hull)
(MF# Z 2018-005)
I. REFERENCE(S):
Vicinity Map
Proposed Ordinance
Reports to Planning Commission Dated: 7/19/2018 and 8/16/2018
Planning Commission Minutes Dated: 7/19/2018 and 8/16/2018
II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
MOTION: I move to adopt Ordinance No. ______, rezoning Short Plat 99-22, Lot 2
(3004 E. George Street; Parcel # 113 780 104) from RT (Residential Transition) to C-3
(General Commercial), and further, authorize publication by summary only.
III. FISCAL IMPACT:
None
IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF:
On July 19, 2018 the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing to consider a
request to rezone parcel #113780104 from RT to C-3.
Following the conduct of a public hearing, the Planning Commission reasoned it would
be appropriate to rezone the property to C-3 and is recommending approval of the
requested rezone.
No written appeal of the Planning Commission's recommendation was received.
V. DISCUSSION:
Page 124 of 222
The applicants are seeking to rezone the property at 3004 E George Street from RT
(Residential Transition) to C-3 (General Business) consistent with the Comprehensive
Plan designation for the property. The current RT zoning designation does not lend
itself well to either sale or development of the property. Under the current
Comprehensive Plan land use designation of Commercial - the property could be zoned
for “O”, C-1, C-2, C-3, CR, and BP zoning.
The site was originally annexed into the City in 1979 and assigned the Residential
Transition zoning designation. The RT zone is typically used as a holding zone for
areas that lack utility services. As utilities and infrastructure are planned or become
available, RT zoned properties are then typically zoned to match the land use
designations of the Comprehensive Plan.
Page 125 of 222
VicinityMapItem: Rada Rezone - RT to C-3Applicant: Pati J. HullFile #: Z 2018-005SITE0 150 300 450 600 750FeetPage 126 of 222
ORDINANCE NO. ________
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF PASCO, WASHINGTON REZONING SHORT
PLAT 99-22, LOT 2 (3004 E. GEORGE STREET; PARCEL # 113 780 104) FROM RT
(RESIDENTIAL TRANSITION) TO C-3 (GENERAL COMMERCIAL).
WHEREAS, a complete and adequate petition for change of zoning classification has
been received and an open record hearing having been conducted by the Pasco Planning Commission
upon such petition; and,
WHEREAS, that the effect of the requested change in zoning classification shall not be
materially detrimental to the immediate vicinity; and,
WHEREAS, based upon substantial evidence and demonstration of the Petitioner, that:
(A) the requested change for the zoning classification is consistent with the adopted Comprehensive
Plan; (B) the requested change in zoning classification is consistent with or promotes the goals and
objectives of the Comprehensive Plan serving the general public interest in the community; and (C)
there has been a change in the neighborhood or community needs or circumstances warranting the
requested change of the zoning classification; and (D) the Planning Commission developed findings
which are hereby adopted by the City Council; NOW, THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASCO, WASHINGTON DO ORDAIN
AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. That the Zoning Ordinance for the City of Pasco, Washington, and the Zoning
Map, accompanying and being part of said Ordinance shall be and hereby is changed from
RT (Residential Transition) to C-3 (General Commercial) for the real property as shown in the
Exhibit “1” attached hereto and described as follows:
Short Plat 99-22 Lot 2 (3004 E George Street; Parcel #113 780 104)
Section 2. This ordinance shall take full force and effect five (5) days after its approval,
passage and publication as required by law.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Pasco this _____ day of ________________,
2018.
Matt Watkins, Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Daniela Erickson, City Clerk Leland B. Kerr, City Attorney
Page 127 of 222
1
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
MASTER FILE NO: Z 2018-005 APPLICANT: Pati J. Hull
HEARING DATE: 7/19/2018 495 Edith St
ACTION DATE: 8/16/2018 Burbank WA 99323
BACKGROUND
REQUEST: REZONE: Rezone one parcel from RT (Residential Transition) to
C-3 (General Commercial)
1. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION:
Legal: Short Plat 99-22 Lots 2 and 3
General Location: 3004 and 3012 E George Street (the Northeast corner
of East Lewis Street and Heritage Boulevard Ave).
Property Size: Approximately 7.43 acres (2.66 and 4.77 acres each).
2. ACCESS: The parcels are accessible from East Lewis St via a private
road (Avery Avenue; formerly part of the Pasco Kahlotus highway).
3. UTILITIES: The sites are currently serviced by a well and on-site septic.
Water is available via a 12” line roughly 400 feet to the west running
along the Avery Avenue centerline, and a 6” line approximately 600 feet
to the south on East Lewis Street; there is an 8” sewer line approximately
1,000 feet to the southwest at the corner of Heritage Boulevard and East
Lewis Street.
4. LAND USE AND ZONING: The lot is currently zoned RT (Residential
Transition) and contains one single family unit, one manufactured home,
a garage, and three outbuildings. Surrounding properties are zoned and
developed as follows:
NORTH: N/A US Highway 12
EAST: C-3 Vacant
SOUTH: I-1/C-1 Industrial
WEST: I-1 Industrial
5. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The Comprehensive Plan designates the site
for Commercial uses. Those portions of the community designated for
commercial development by the Comprehensive Plan could be zone “O”,
C-1, C-2, C-3 CR and BP. Land Use Goal ED-2 encourages the
appropriate location and design of commercial facilities within the City.
ED-2-B encourages the development of a wide range of commercial uses
strategically located to support local and regional needs.
6. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: 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-
Page 128 of 222
2
Significance or Mitigated Determination of Non-Significance is likely for
this application (WAC 197-11-355).
ANALYSIS
The applicants are seeking to rezone the property at 3004 E George Street from
RT (Residential Transition) to C-3 (General Business) consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan designation for the property. The parcel to the north
(Addressed 3012 East George Street) is also zoned RT and should be included
in the rezone process. The current RT zoning designation does not lend itself
well to either sales or development of the properties. Under the current
Comprehensive Plan land use designation of commercial the properties could
be zoned for “O”, C-1, C-2, C-3, CR, and BP zoning (C-2 zoning is only for the
Central Business District).
The sites were originally annexed into the City in 1979 (Ordinance 2016) as
part of what was called the “Columbia East Annexation Area,” and assigned the
Residential Transition zoning designation (Resolution 1202). The RT zone is
typically used as a holding zone for areas that lack utility services. As utilities
and infrastructure become available RT zoned properties are then zoned to
match the land use designations of the Comprehensive Plan.
The Rada family has owned the properties at the end of the old Kahlotus
Highway (north of the 2700 block of E Lewis) for over 50 years. At one time 6
homes were located on the properties. With the construction of the Lewis Street
interchange 3 of the homes were moved. During that time period Heritage
Boulevard was realigned and some industrial uses have been developed to the
west of the site. The south property now contains one site-built single-family
dwelling unit and one later model manufactured home, which replaced a 1967
model mobile home. The north property contains a manufactured home and
several commercial/industrial outbuildings.
The sites are currently accessed by a private road (Avery Avenue) which at one
time was part of the old Pasco Kahlotus Highway. An undeveloped City of Pasco
right-of-way is located along the west border of the two parcels, running south
to East Lewis Street, and will likely need to be developed prior to or in
conjunction with any commercial development on the site.
The initial review criteria for considering a rezone application are explained in
PMC. 25.88.030. The criteria are listed below as follows:
1. The date the existing zone became effective:
The current zoning classification of RT (Residential Transition) became effective
on 2 January, 1979, upon annexation into the City.
2. The changed conditions, which are alleged to warrant other or additional
zoning:
Heritage Boulevard has been upgraded and realigned, and some industrial uses
have been developed to the west of the sites. The owner of the south parcel has
Page 129 of 222
3
passed on and the family is in the process of settling the estate; rezoning the
properties could facilitate development of the sites.
3. Facts to justify the change on the basis of advancing the public health,
safety and general welfare:
The proposed zoning request is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan which
has been determined to be in the best interest of advancing public health, safety
and general welfare of the community. The rezone will allow for development of
commercial enterprises in the area, providing job opportunities for Pasco
residents.
4. The effect it will have on the value and character of the adjacent
properties and the Comprehensive Plan:
A change in zoning classification may ultimately result in the establishment of
commercial services consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Any development
will require developers to install/upgrade street, utilities and landscaping in the
area, thus improving the value of surrounding properties on Lewis Street.
5. The effect on the property owner or owners if the request is not granted:
Because the RT zoning permits single family homes on a minimum of 5 acres for
development, and the properties comprise approximately 4.7 acres and 2.66
acres each, any current residential uses are by default legally nonconforming.
The property owners will be severely limited by the constraints of the RT zoning
designation in their ability to either develop or to sell the properties.
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 south site is developed with one site-built single-family dwelling unit
and one manufactured home, and is zoned RT (Residential Transition).
The RT zone is typically used as a holding zoning for areas that lack
utility services.
2. The north site contains one manufactured home and several
commercial/industrial outbuildings and is also zoned RT (Residential
Transition).
3. The sites were originally annexed into the City in 1979 as part of what
was called the “Columbia East Annexation Area,” and assigned the RT
(Residential Transition) zoning designation in 1979.
4. The sites comprise approximately 2.66 and 4.7 acres each, totaling
around 7.43 acres.
Page 130 of 222
4
5. The Comprehensive Plan identifies the site for Commercial uses which
includes the desired C-3 zoning. The Commercial designation includes
zones for “O”, C-1, C-2, C-3, CR, and BP zoning (C-2 zoning is only for
the Central Business District).
6. By rezoning the properties from RT to C-3, the applicants will be bringing
the properties into conformance with the Comprehensive Plan.
7. The sites are located approximately 1,000 feet northeast of the corner of
Heritage Avenue and East Lewis Street.
8. The applicant is requesting C-3 (General Commercial) zoning.
9. As utilities and infrastructure become available RT zoned properties are
rezoned to match the land use designations of the comprehensive Plan.
10. The Rada family has owned properties at the end of the old Kahlotus
Highway (north of the 2700 block of E Lewis) for over 50 years.
11. At one time 6 homes were located on the properties.
12. With the construction of the Lewis Street interchange 3 of the homes
were moved.
13. Changes in the vicinity include realignment of Heritage Boulevard and
development of industrial uses to the west of the sites.
14. The south site now contains one site-built single-family dwelling unit and
one later model manufactured home; the north site has one
manufactured home and various commercial/industrial outbuildings.
15. The current Manufactured home replaced a 1967 model mobile home.
16. The sites are currently accessed by Avery Avenue (private road)
17. Avery Avenue was originally a section of the old Pasco Kahlotus highway.
18. An undeveloped City of Pasco right-of-way runs north from East Lewis
Street along the west property lines to the sites.
CONCLUSIONS BASED ON STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT
Before recommending approval or denial of a special permit the Planning
Commission must develop findings of fact from which to draw its conclusions
based upon the criteria listed in PMC 25.86.060. The criteria are as follows:
1. The proposal is in accordance with the goals and policies of the
Comprehensive Plan.
The proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map and
Comprehensive Plan Policy LU-4-A, which recommends the City “Locate
commercial facilities at major street intersections to avoid commercial sprawl and
avoid disruptions of residential neighborhoods, and leverage major infrastructure
Page 131 of 222
5
availability.” The sites are within 1,000 feet of the intersection of two arterial
streets; Heritage Boulevard, a major truck route, and East Lewis Street.
2. The effect of the proposal on the immediate vicinity will not be materially
detrimental.
The immediate area is shown in the Comprehensive Plan for Commercial zoning.
Commercial zoning permits the C-3 (General Commercial Medium) zoning district.
The proposed rezone is consistent with the referenced plans and will not be
detrimental to future nearby developments that will need to conform to the
provision of the plans.
3. There is merit and value in the proposal for the community as a whole.
The proposed zoning is consistent with the Plan’s Land Use Map. The sites are
located within 1,000 feet of a major truck route (Heritage Boulevard);
Comprehensive Plan Policy LU-4-A requires the City to “Locate commercial
facilities at major street intersections to avoid commercial sprawl and avoid
disruptions of residential neighborhoods, and leverage major infrastructure
availability.” The proposal is supported by land use goals and policies contained
in the Comprehensive Plan.
4. Conditions should be imposed in order to mitigate any significant
adverse impacts from the proposal.
The Pasco Municipal Code includes design standards for commercial
development. If or when applicants pursue the development of these properties,
they will be required to conform to design standards established by the PMC. No
special conditions are proposed.
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 considered necessary for this application.
RECOMMENDATION
MOTION: I move to close the hearing on the proposed rezone and set August
16, 2018 as the date for deliberations and the development of a
recommendation for the City Council.
Page 132 of 222
OverviewMapItem: Rada Rezone - RT to C-3Applicant: Pati J. HullFile #: Z 2018-005SITE0 500 1000 1500 2000FeetPage 133 of 222
VicinityMapItem: Rada Rezone - RT to C-3Applicant: Pati J. HullFile #: Z 2018-005SITE0 150 300 450 600 750FeetPage 134 of 222
Land UseMapItem: Rada Rezone - RT to C-3Applicant: Pati J. HullFile #: Z 2018-005SITE0 150 300 450 600 750FeetSFDUsVacantComm./Ind.VacantMixed Res.VacantIndustrialFlea MarketVacantVacantPage 135 of 222
ZoningMapItem: Rada Rezone - RT to C-3Applicant: Pati J. HullFile #: Z 2018-005SITE0 150 300 450 600 750FeetR-1-AI-1C-1RTI-1I-1C-1C-1C-3C-3R-2Page 136 of 222
RMH-.2..
HIGH L AND
PARK H OME5
ADDI TIOl'-J
I
I C-3
I
I
I
-@ ---------
!
AVERY'S
A..DDIT ION
~\._ __ _
I
Page 137 of 222
Looking NorthPage 138 of 222
Looking EastPage 139 of 222
Looking SouthPage 140 of 222
Looking WestPage 141 of 222
Main House On SitePage 142 of 222
Outbuildings On SitePage 143 of 222
Garage On SitePage 144 of 222
Manufactured Home On SitePage 145 of 222
1
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
MASTER FILE NO: Z 2018-005 APPLICANT: Pati J. Hull
HEARING DATE: 7/19/2018 495 Edith St
ACTION DATE: 8/16/2018 Burbank WA 99323
BACKGROUND
REQUEST: REZONE: Rezone one parcel from RT (Residential Transition) to
C-3 (General Commercial)
1. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION:
Legal: Short Plat 99-22 Lots 2 and 3
General Location: 3004 and 3012 E George Street (the Northeast corner
of East Lewis Street and Heritage Boulevard Ave; Parcels #113 780 104
and #113 780 113).
Property Size: Approximately 7.43 acres (2.66 and 4.77 acres each).
2. ACCESS: The parcels are accessible from East Lewis St via a private
road (Avery Avenue; formerly part of the Pasco Kahlotus highway).
3. UTILITIES: The sites are currently serviced by a well and on-site septic.
Water is available via a 12” line roughly 400 feet to the west running
along the Avery Avenue centerline, and a 6” line approximately 600 feet
to the south on East Lewis Street; there is an 8” sewer line approximately
1,000 feet to the southwest at the corner of Heritage Boulevard and East
Lewis Street.
4. LAND USE AND ZONING: The lot is currently zoned RT (Residential
Transition) and contains one single family unit, one manufactured home,
a garage, and three outbuildings. Surrounding properties are zoned and
developed as follows:
NORTH: N/A US Highway 12
EAST: C-3 Vacant
SOUTH: I-1/C-1 Industrial
WEST: I-1 Industrial
5. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The Comprehensive Plan designates the site
for Commercial uses. Those portions of the community designated for
commercial development by the Comprehensive Plan could be zone “O”,
C-1, C-2, C-3 CR and BP. Land Use Goal ED-2 encourages the
appropriate location and design of commercial facilities within the City.
ED-2-B encourages the development of a wide range of commercial uses
strategically located to support local and regional needs.
6. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: 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-
Page 146 of 222
2
Significance or Mitigated Determination of Non-Significance is likely for
this application (WAC 197-11-355).
ANALYSIS
The applicants are seeking to rezone the property at 3004 E George Street from
RT (Residential Transition) to C-3 (General Business) consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan designation for the property. The parcel to the north
(Addressed 3012 East George Street) is also zoned RT and should be included
in the rezone process. The current RT zoning designation does not lend itself
well to either sales or development of the properties. Under the current
Comprehensive Plan land use designation of commercial the properties could
be zoned for “O”, C-1, C-2, C-3, CR, and BP zoning (C-2 zoning is only for the
Central Business District).
The sites were originally annexed into the City in 1979 (Ordinance 2016) as
part of what was called the “Columbia East Annexation Area,” and assigned the
Residential Transition zoning designation (Resolution 1202). The RT zone is
typically used as a holding zone for areas that lack utility services. As utilities
and infrastructure become available RT zoned properties are then zoned to
match the land use designations of the Comprehensive Plan.
The Rada family has owned the properties at the end of the old Kahlotus
Highway (north of the 2700 block of E Lewis) for over 50 years. At one time 6
homes were located on the properties. With the construction of the Lewis Street
interchange 3 of the homes were moved. During that time period Heritage
Boulevard was realigned and some industrial uses have been developed to the
west of the site. The south property now contains one site-built single-family
dwelling unit and one later model manufactured home, which replaced a 1967
model mobile home. The north property contains a manufactured home and
several commercial/industrial outbuildings.
The sites are currently accessed by a private road (Avery Avenue) which at one
time was part of the old Pasco Kahlotus Highway. An undeveloped City of Pasco
right-of-way is located along the west border of the two parcels, running south
to East Lewis Street, and will likely need to be developed prior to or in
conjunction with any commercial development on the site.
After the hearing the owners of the property to the north approached the City
to object to their property being included in the rezone process. Staff made
contact later to request an e-mail or something in writing stating their
objection and to explain that either way their property is a legal nonconforming
use and cannot be expended with either the RT or the C-3 zoning, and that the
proposed rezone would bring the property’s zoning into conformance with the
City’s Comprehensive Plan. To date staff has not received anything in writing.
The initial review criteria for considering a rezone application are explained in
PMC. 25.88.030. The criteria are listed below as follows:
1. The date the existing zone became effective:
Page 147 of 222
3
The current zoning classification of RT (Residential Transition) became effective
on 2 January, 1979, upon annexation into the City.
2. The changed conditions, which are alleged to warrant other or additional
zoning:
Heritage Boulevard has been upgraded and realigned, and some industrial uses
have been developed to the west of the sites. The owner of the south parcel has
passed on and the family is in the process of settling the estate; rezoning the
properties could facilitate development of the sites.
3. Facts to justify the change on the basis of advancing the public health,
safety and general welfare:
The proposed zoning request is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan which
has been determined to be in the best interest of advancing public health, safety
and general welfare of the community. The rezone will allow for development of
commercial enterprises in the area, providing job opportunities for Pasco
residents.
4. The effect it will have on the value and character of the adjacent
properties and the Comprehensive Plan:
A change in zoning classification may ultimately result in the establishment of
commercial services consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Any development
will require developers to install/upgrade street, utilities and landscaping in the
area, thus improving the value of surrounding properties on Lewis Street.
5. The effect on the property owner or owners if the request is not granted:
Because the RT zoning permits single family homes on a minimum of 5 acres for
development, and the properties comprise approximately 4.7 acres and 2.66
acres each, any current residential uses are by default legally nonconforming.
The property owners will be severely limited by the constraints of the RT zoning
designation in their ability to either develop or to sell the properties.
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 south site is developed with one site-built single-family dwelling unit
and one manufactured home, and is zoned RT (Residential Transition).
The RT zone is typically used as a holding zoning for areas that lack
utility services.
Page 148 of 222
4
2. The north site contains one manufactured home and several
commercial/industrial outbuildings and is also zoned RT (Residential
Transition).
3. The sites were originally annexed into the City in 1979 as part of what
was called the “Columbia East Annexation Area,” and assigned the RT
(Residential Transition) zoning designation in 1979.
4. The sites comprise approximately 2.66 and 4.7 acres each, totaling
around 7.43 acres.
5. The Comprehensive Plan identifies the site for Commercial uses which
includes the desired C-3 zoning. The Commercial designation includes
zones for “O”, C-1, C-2, C-3, CR, and BP zoning (C-2 zoning is only for
the Central Business District).
6. By rezoning the properties from RT to C-3, the applicants will be bringing
the properties into conformance with the Comprehensive Plan.
7. The sites are located approximately 1,000 feet northeast of the corner of
Heritage Avenue and East Lewis Street.
8. The applicant is requesting C-3 (General Commercial) zoning.
9. As utilities and infrastructure become available RT zoned properties are
rezoned to match the land use designations of the comprehensive Plan.
10. The Rada family has owned properties at the end of the old Kahlotus
Highway (north of the 2700 block of E Lewis) for over 50 years.
11. At one time 6 homes were located on the properties.
12. With the construction of the Lewis Street interchange 3 of the homes
were moved.
13. Changes in the vicinity include realignment of Heritage Boulevard and
development of industrial uses to the west of the sites.
14. The south site now contains one site-built single-family dwelling unit and
one later model manufactured home; the north site has one
manufactured home and various commercial/industrial outbuildings.
15. The current Manufactured home replaced a 1967 model mobile home.
16. The sites are currently accessed by Avery Avenue (private road)
17. Avery Avenue was originally a section of the old Pasco Kahlotus highway.
18. An undeveloped City of Pasco right-of-way runs north from East Lewis
Street along the west property lines to the sites.
Page 149 of 222
5
CONCLUSIONS BASED ON STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT
Before recommending approval or denial of a special permit the Planning
Commission must develop findings of fact from which to draw its conclusions
based upon the criteria listed in PMC 25.86.060. The criteria are as follows:
1. The proposal is in accordance with the goals and policies of the
Comprehensive Plan.
The proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map and
Comprehensive Plan Policy LU-4-A, which recommends the City “Locate
commercial facilities at major street intersections to avoid commercial sprawl and
avoid disruptions of residential neighborhoods, and leverage major infrastructure
availability.” The sites are within 1,000 feet of the intersection of two arterial
streets; Heritage Boulevard, a major truck route, and East Lewis Street.
2. The effect of the proposal on the immediate vicinity will not be materially
detrimental.
The immediate area is shown in the Comprehensive Plan for Commercial zoning.
Commercial zoning permits the C-3 (General Commercial Medium) zoning district.
The proposed rezone is consistent with the referenced plans and will not be
detrimental to future nearby developments that will need to conform to the
provision of the plans. The current structures are legally nonconforming and will
remain that way regardless of whether the zoning remains RT or changes to C-3.
3. There is merit and value in the proposal for the community as a whole.
The proposed zoning is consistent with the Plan’s Land Use Map. The sites are
located within 1,000 feet of a major truck route (Heritage Boulevard);
Comprehensive Plan Policy LU-4-A requires the City to “Locate commercial
facilities at major street intersections to avoid commercial sprawl and avoid
disruptions of residential neighborhoods, and leverage major infrastructure
availability.” The proposal is supported by land use goals and policies contained
in the Comprehensive Plan.
4. Conditions should be imposed in order to mitigate any significant
adverse impacts from the proposal.
The Pasco Municipal Code includes design standards for commercial
development. If or when applicants pursue the development of these properties,
they will be required to conform to design standards established by the PMC. No
special conditions are proposed.
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 considered necessary for this application.
Page 150 of 222
6
RECOMMENDATION
MOTION for Findings of Fact: I move to adopt findings of fact and
conclusions therefrom as contained in the August 16, 2018 staff
report.
Option #1: Both Parcels:
MOTION for Recommendation: I move based on the findings of fact and
conclusions as adopted the Planning Commission recommend the
City Council rezone Short Plat 99-22 Lots 2 and 3 (3004 and 3012
E George Street; Parcels #113 780 104 and #113 780 113) from RT
to C-3 as recommended by the Planning Commission.
Option #2: South Parcel Only:
MOTION for Recommendation: I move based on the findings of fact and
conclusions as adopted the Planning Commission recommend the
City Council rezone Short Plat 99-22 Lot 2 (3004 E George Street;
Parcel #113 780 104) from RT to C-3 as recommended by the
Planning Commission.
Page 151 of 222
1
Jeff Adams
From:Joe Rada <joeradaconstruction@hotmail.com>
Sent:Friday, August 10, 2018 10:01 AM
To:Jeff Adams
Subject:3012 E George residence
Good morning, Jeff
Here is the email outlining the reasons for not changing the current status of residential on our property in Pasco.
First, we were NOT notified, written or verbally, of this request, nor was the public. We found out about this request at
the July city counsel meeting. Also, we did not request this change from residential to commercial, as we have a
residence on our property. Lastly, we would appreciate not being included in someone else’s request.
Thank you for your time,
Joe and Deanne Rada
Sent from my iPad
Page 152 of 222
OverviewMapItem: Rada Rezone - RT to C-3Applicant: Pati J. HullFile #: Z 2018-005SITE0 500 1000 1500 2000FeetPage 153 of 222
VicinityMapItem: Rada Rezone - RT to C-3Applicant: Pati J. HullFile #: Z 2018-005SITE0 150 300 450 600 750FeetPage 154 of 222
Land UseMapItem: Rada Rezone - RT to C-3Applicant: Pati J. HullFile #: Z 2018-005SITE0 150 300 450 600 750FeetSFDUsVacantComm./Ind.VacantMixed Res.VacantIndustrialFlea MarketVacantVacantPage 155 of 222
ZoningMapItem: Rada Rezone - RT to C-3Applicant: Pati J. HullFile #: Z 2018-005SITE0 150 300 450 600 750FeetR-1-AI-1C-1RTI-1I-1C-1C-1C-3C-3R-2Page 156 of 222
RMH-.2..
HIGH L AND
PARK H OME5
ADDI TIOl'-J
I
I C-3
I
I
I
-@ ---------
!
AVERY'S
A..DDIT ION
~\._ __ _
I
Page 157 of 222
Looking NorthPage 158 of 222
Looking EastPage 159 of 222
Looking SouthPage 160 of 222
Looking WestPage 161 of 222
Main House On SitePage 162 of 222
Outbuildings On SitePage 163 of 222
Garage On SitePage 164 of 222
Manufactured Home On SitePage 165 of 222
OverviewMapItem: Rada Rezone - RT to C-3Applicant: Pati J. HullFile #: Z 2018-005SITE0 500 1000 1500 2000FeetPage 166 of 222
VicinityMapItem: Rada Rezone - RT to C-3Applicant: Pati J. HullFile #: Z 2018-005SITE0 150 300 450 600 750FeetPage 167 of 222
Land UseMapItem: Rada Rezone - RT to C-3Applicant: Pati J. HullFile #: Z 2018-005SITE0 150 300 450 600 750FeetSFDUsVacantComm./Ind.VacantMixed Res.VacantIndustrialFlea MarketSFDUVacantVacantPage 168 of 222
ZoningMapItem: Rada Rezone - RT to C-3Applicant: Pati J. HullFile #: Z 2018-005SITE0 150 300 450 600 750FeetR-1-AI-1C-1RTI-1I-1C-1C-1C-3C-3R-2Page 169 of 222
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
7/19/2018
F. Rezone Rezone from RT (Residential Transition) to C-3
(General Business) (Pati Hull) MF# Z 2018-005)
Chairwoman Roach read the master file number and asked for comments from staff.
Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director, discussed the rezone
application from RT to C-3. The RT is a holding zone pending development and
infrastructure and C-3 is general commercial. The application applies to two parcels
making up almost 7.5 acres. The rezone is in conformance with the Comprehensive
Plan and an appropriate rezone request.
Pati Hull, 3004 E. George Street, spoke on behalf of her rezone application.
John Rada, 2501 E. Lewis Street, spoke on behalf of his rezone application.
With no further questions or comments the public hearing closed.
Commissioner A. Campos moved, seconded by Commissioner Bykonen, to close the
public hearing on the proposed rezone and set August 16, 018 as the date for
deliberations and the development of a recommendation for City Council. The motion
passed unanimously.
Page 170 of 222
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
8/16/2018
C. Rezone Rezone from RT (Residential Transition) to C-3
(General Business) (Pati Hull) (MF# Z 2018-005)
Chairman Myhrum read the master file number and asked for comments from staff.
Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director, discussed the rezone
application from RT (Residential Transition) to C-3 (General Business). He stated that
since the public hearing, property owners of the neighboring parcel that was included
with this rezone wished to be left out of the rezone so staff has offered a motion to only
rezone the applicant’s parcel.
Commissioner Bowers moved, seconded by Commissioner Bykonen to adopt findings of
fact and conclusions therefrom as contained in the August 16, 2018 staff report. The
motion passed unanimously.
Commissioner Bowers moved, seconded by Commissioner Bykonen, based on the
findings of fact and conclusions as adopted the Planning Commission recommend the
City Council rezone Short Plat 99-22, Lot 2 (3004 E. George Street; parcel # 113-780-
104) from RT to C-3, as recommended by the Planning Commission. The motion passed
unanimously.
Page 171 of 222
AGENDA REPORT
FOR: City Council August 28, 2018
TO: Dave Zabell, City Manager
Rick White, Director
Community & Economic Development
Regular Meeting: 9/4/18
FROM: Darcy Bourcier, Planner I
Community & Economic Development
SUBJECT: Preliminary Plat: Burgess Plat (MF# PP 2018-006)
I. REFERENCE(S):
Proposed Resolution
Overview Map
Vicinity Map
Preliminary Plat
Report to Planning Commission 7/19/18
Report to Planning Commission 8/16/18
Planning Commission Minutes Dated: 7/19/18 & 8/16/18
II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
MOTION: I move to approve Resolution No.______, approving the Preliminary Plat
for the Burgess Plat.
III. FISCAL IMPACT:
None
IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF:
On July 19, 2018 the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing to develop a
recommendation for the City Council on the preliminary plat for the Burgess Plat. The
proposed plat is located at the northwest corner of Road 68 and Burns Road.
Following the hearing, the Planning Commission determined that with conditions, the
preliminary plat should be recommended for approval. The recommended conditions
are contained in the attached resolution.
Page 172 of 222
No written appeal of the Planning Commission’s recommendation has been received.
V. DISCUSSION:
The proposed plat contains approximately 28 acres with 67 single-family lots and 103
multi-family lots for zero lot line construction. The eastern portion of the site will be
reserved for the multi-family lots which will surround the existing Big Bend Electric
COOP substation, and the western portion of the site will be reserved for the single-
family lots.
Parcels between the substation and Road 68 are slated for C-1 commercial
development. The residential development will include developer installed fencing to
buffer the development from the future commercial uses.
A traffic impact analysis to determine the impacts of the additional residential units
that result from this subdivision and any mitigation to negate said impacts in
accordance with standard practices shall be conducted. The developer shall bear the
costs and the Public Works Department shall oversee the traffic analysis.
Recommendations of the analysis will be conditions of plat approval.
Page 173 of 222
RESOLUTION NO.______
A RESOLUTION APPROVING A PRELIMINARY PLAT
FOR THE BURGESS PLAT.
WHEREAS, RCW 58.17 enables the City to uniformly administer the process of subdividing property
for the overall welfare of the community; and,
WHEREAS, owners and developers of property situated in a portion of the south half of the south half
of the southwest quarter of Section 4, Township 9 North, Range 29 East, W.M., have requested approval of a
preliminary plat; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the proposed Burgess Plat and
developed findings related thereto and said findings are hereby adopted by the City Council; and,
WHEREAS, following a public hearing, the Planning Commission found the proposed plat promoted
the general welfare of the community and recommended said preliminary plat be approved with conditions;
NOW THEREFORE,
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASCO:
That the preliminary plat for the Burgess Plat located in a portion of the south half of the south half of the
southwest quarter of Section 4, Township 9 North, Range 29 East, W.M., is hereby approved with the
following conditions:
1. All development activities are subject to the concurrency development standards established
in PMC 12.36.
2. Improvements shall comply with all City of Pasco Comprehensive Plans. If upsize
participation is sought, the Developer shall apply at time of subdivision improvement plan
submission.
3. A traffic impact analysis to determine the impacts of the additional residential units that
result from this subdivision and any mitigation to negate said impacts in accordance with
standard practices shall be conducted. The developer shall bear the costs and the Public
Works Department shall oversee said traffic analysis. Recommendations of the analysis will
be conditions of plat approval.
4. 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. All existing non-City
maintained utility lines must be relocated outside the right of way.
5. Change Utility Statement on face of plat to reflect that the City of Pasco will be the source
for domestic and irrigation water and the method of sewage disposal. Connection points
will be evaluated when subdivision improvements are submitted.
6. Sewer shall flow to the assigned basin identified in the Comprehensive Sewer Plan or any
amendments to it. If any alternative connections are sought they shall be on a temporary
basis. Alternate connection points shall require a study conducted by the City’s consultant
who developed the Comprehensive plan to determine the viability of said connection. The
Developer shall bear all costs associated with any studies to determine if an alternate
Page 174 of 222
connection point is viable. The Developer shall be responsible for installing all sewer main
identified in the Comprehensive plan to and through the parcel as if the permanent
connection point were available.
7. The face of the plat shall include this statement: “As a condition of approval of this
preliminary plat the owner has waived the right to protest the formation of a Local
Improvement District for sewer/water/road/sidewalk improvements to the full extent as
permitted by RCW 35.43.182.”
8. Any existing water rights shall be transferred to the City as a condition of approval. If no
water rights are available then the property owner shall pay to the City, in lieu thereof, a
water rights acquisition fee as established in the City Fee Summary Ordinance located in
PMC 3.07. (PMC 26.04.115). These requirements can be complied with during the
preliminary plat process or at Final Plat. If these requirements are fulfilled at final plat the
Developer shall adhere to the water rights policy in place at time of final platting.
9. No utility vaults, pedestals, or other obstructions will be allowed at street intersections.
10. 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).
11. The developer shall install a common "Estate” type fence six feet in height along the
property lines abutting Burns Road, Road 84, Road 68, and along the rear property lines of
the proposed lots abutting the commercial parcels as a part of the infrastructure
improvements associated with the plat. Fencing material must be approved by the
Community & Economic Development Director. 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.
12. 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.
13. Excess right-of-way along Burns Road, Road 84, and Road 68 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
and Planning Division 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.
14. Driveways shall not have direct access onto Burns Road, Road 84, or Road 68.
15. The final plat(s) shall contain a 10-foot utility easement parallel to all streets unless
otherwise required by the Franklin County PUD.
16. 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
Page 175 of 222
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”.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Pasco this 4th day of September, 2018.
__________________________
Matt Watkins, Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_________________________ _____________________________
Daniela Erickson, City Clerk Leland B. Kerr, City Attorney
Page 176 of 222
City of Pasco, IS Division
OverviewMap Item : Preliminary Plat - BurgessApplicant: Big Sky Developers, LLCFile #: PP2018-006 ±
SITE
0 600 1,200 1,800 2,400300Feet
Burns Road
Road 84Road 68CITY LIMITS
Page 177 of 222
City of Pasco, IS Division
VicinityMap Item : Preliminary Plat - BurgessApplicant: Big Sky Developers, LLCFile #: PP2018-006 ±
SITE
0 300 600 900 1,200150Feet
Burns Road
Road 84Road 68CITY LIMITS
Page 178 of 222
ha
>k‘2~::W2k
35;
??él?
.2:
>z<z__2_.:E
na._I.m:;§
5.2.N
3._m.mmod>wn5;ca
9a
LSEwmmuzan
I.!....I{?llElli
sixils..l5av...i
HEwsi.Eta»5.3:amaa
Z,:25:am1a=<u:5::euxuE<xu5....._.§.95....
A2_§.a..§
:.:..S352;3:3
A3Ja§§
ea:33
S
E:.=§.m§.:..953%:.a;;:_2._§§5e§
S2.3>.:u
§qg
mmu_>mmm2mm.
1..52.25:;am3
2:.3uzm;mzc:<>$wmac2
£6Eis3:E;.3.
n
ézu?z
::..E.%5.5)am:2
_2:._.<n._<o_._.xw>
23$:5es;
2.55;1
;§,:55
1Eu3
9
ant:E2
s
nzszvzsaazags
azm_um._MH
Nvz,
,.as:S2..
_
7.a:2.~,
7S.5:55IEIS
_
:=1axi:‘;:xsi:71&xi1x
uzo>m>x:
ȤA.x;:ms:
35.95533.$8
5:.<m5.
1E;5
__
D5
2.,$2
Nzmmz?zm»=>_0
985.33:58
.3
ma.2:E.5
593mm...D25
zc:..__zummn._<Um:_
20.502220«S.E230022.~22S<..2
.22.NamU02:2m§.22_k.3UMM..20V225NthE0N2MMILK0202.5201<
h<:_n_>~_<z_s__._m_mn_-mmm_w~_:m
Page 179 of 222
1
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
MASTER FILE NO: PP 2018-006
HEARING DATE: 7/19/2018
ACTION DATE: 8/16/2018
APPLICANT: Big Sky Developers, LLC
12406 Eagle Reach Ct
Pasco, WA 99301
BACKGROUND
REQUEST: Preliminary Plat: Burgess Plat, 67 Single-Family and 103 Multi-
Family Lots (Zero Lot Line)
1. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION:
Legal: The South Half of the South Half of the Southwest Quarter of
Section 4, Township 29, Range 9, except the South 430 feet of the East
1320 feet thereof and except Road 68
General Location: The northwest corner of Road 68 and Burns Road.
Property Size: 28.07 Acres
Number of Lots Proposed: 67 single-family lots and 103 multi-family lots
for zero lot line construction
Square Footage Range of Lots: 3,006 ft² to 11,050 ft²
Average Lot Square Footage: 5,172 ft²
2. ACCESS: The property will have access from Road 84, Burns Road, and
Road 68.
3. UTILITIES: Municipal water and sewer service are available in Three
Rivers Drive.
4. LAND USE AND ZONING: The site is zoned R-3 (Medium Density
Residential) and R-1 (Low Density Residential). Surrounding properties
are zoned and developed as follows:
NORTH: County – Agriculture
SOUTH: R-1 – Single family dwellings
EAST: County – Agriculture & single family dwellings
WEST R-1 – Agriculture
5. 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. 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
Page 180 of 222
2
lands designated for mixed residential uses when or where: sewer is
available, the location is convenient to major circulation routes, the site
serves as a transition between more intense uses and low density uses,
and when there is a market demand. 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. ED-3-A encourages the use of landscaping, screening and
superior building design to enhance compatibility between commercial
and residential development.
6. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The City of Pasco is the lead
agency for this project. An environmental determination will be made
after the public hearing for this project. A Determination of Non-
Significance or a Mitigated Determination of Non-Significance is likely for
this application (WAC 197-11-355).
ANALYSIS
The 28-acre project site was very recently annexed into the City in June along
with approximately 12 acres of land immediately to the southeast that was
zoned for commercial uses. The site surrounds a 3-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, so to lessen the impact and buffer single-family development from the
substation, the developer is proposing to surround the substation on the north
and west with a zero lot line duplex development leaving a 16 acre section 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 single-family development at the west half of the site is zoned R-1 which
permits a minimum lot size of 7,200 square feet. Per the allowed density, the
developer proposes to construct 67 new single-family homes. The zero lot line
duplex development in the east half is zoned R-3 with minimum 3,000 square
foot lots, resulting in 103 multi-family dwelling units. Each duplex would
occupy two lots with the common lot line dividing each unit.
This proposal for the multi-family development 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 and 2. Each of these subdivisions was zoned for multi-family
Page 181 of 222
3
development and platted into individual lots. The lots lines within these
subdivisions became the common boundary line separating the dwelling units.
LOT LAYOUT: The proposed plat contains 67 single-family residential lots and
103 multi-family residential for a total of 170 dwelling units. The lots vary in
size from 3,006 to 11,050 square feet. The proposal is consistent with the
density requirements of both the R-1 and R-3 zoning of the site. R-1 zoning
permits the development of one dwelling unit per 7,200 square feet of lot area
and R-3 zoning permits one dwelling unit per 3,000 square feet of lot area for
multi-family type structures.
RIGHTS-OF-WAY: All lots have frontage on streets which will be dedicated.
UTILITIES: Municipal water and sewer lines are located in Road 68. The
developer will be responsible for extending utilities into the plat. A utility
easement will be needed along the first 10 feet of street frontage of all lots. The
final location and width of the easements will be determined during the
engineering design phase. The front yard setbacks for construction purposes
are larger than the requested easements; therefore the front yard easements
will not diminish the buildable area of the lots.
The City Engineer will determine the specific placement of fire hydrants and
streetlights when construction plans are submitted. As a general rule, fire
hydrants are located at street intersections and with a maximum interval of
500 feet between hydrants on alternating sides of the street. Streetlights are
located at street intersections, with a maximum interval of 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 will be shown on the face of the final plat
before it is recorded.
IRRIGATION: The municipal code requires the installation of irrigation lines as
a part of the infrastructure improvements.
WATER RIGHTS: The assignment of water rights is a requirement for
subdivision approval per Pasco Municipal Code Section 26.04.115(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. The Public
Works Director may waive the fee if the developer mixes a soil additive in the
ground that provides 30% retention of irrigation water.
Page 182 of 222
4
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 and R-3 zones 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 more than 6 units per acre. No more than 40
percent of each lot is permitted to be covered with structures per the R-1
zoning standards, and no more than 60 percent per the R-3 zoning standards.
Parks Opens Space/Schools: Vintage Park is located to the south of the plat
area next to Maya Angelou Elementary. Further, the School District has
recently purchased two parcels on Burns Road to the west and is planning to
construct a new elementary and middle school. 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 $4,525
will be charged for each new dwelling unit at the time of building permit
issuance.
Effective Land Use/Orderly Development: The plat is laid out for single and
multi-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 6 units per acre. The
proposed development will require the extension of Road 84 to the northwest
corner of the plat and full right-of-way improvements for the north side of
Burns Road and the west side of Road 68 along the development area. 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 duplexes and
single-family dwellings to the south. 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).
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
Page 183 of 222
5
(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 170
residential building lots, providing an opportunity for the construction of 67
single family homes and 103 duplex units.
Adequate Air and Light: The maximum lot coverage limitations and building
setbacks will assure that adequate movement of air and light is available to
each lot.
Proper Access & Travel: The streets through and adjoining the plat will be
paved and developed to City standards to assure proper access is maintained
to each lot. Connections to the community will be provided by Road 84, Burns
Road, and Road 68. A traffic impact analysis to determine the impacts of the
additional residential units shall be conducted for the intersections of Burns
Road/Road 84, Burns Road/Road D, and Road 68/Road E. 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 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 mostly vacant with portions of an existing barn on site.
• The site is not considered a critical area a mineral resource area or a wet
land.
• The Comprehensive Plan identifies the site for low density residential and
mixed residential commercial development.
• Low density residential development is described as 2 to 5 dwelling units
per acre, and mixed residential commercial development is described as
5 to 20 dwelling units per acre.
• The site is zoned R-1 (Low Density Residential) and R-3 (Medium Density
Residential).
Page 184 of 222
6
• The site was annexed into the City in 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.
• Per the ITE Trip Generation Manual 8th Addition the proposed
subdivision, when fully developed, will generate approximately 1,237
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.
• 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.
• 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
Page 185 of 222
7
signed and recorded copy of the agreement is presented to the City of
Pasco at the intake meeting for construction plans.
• The City has nuisance regulations (PMC 9.60) that require property
owners (including developers) to maintain their properties in a manner
that does not injure, annoy or endanger the comfort and repose of other
property owners. This includes controlling dust, weeds and litter during
times of construction for both subdivisions and buildings including
houses.
• Prior to acceptance of final plats developers are required to prepare and
submit record drawings. All record drawings shall be created in
accordance with the requirements detailed in the Record Drawing
Requirements and Procedure form provided by the Engineering Division.
This form must be signed by the developer prior to construction plan
approval.
CONCLUSIONS BASED ON INITIAL STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT
Before recommending approval or denial of the proposed Plat the Planning
Commission must develop findings of fact from which to draw its conclusion
(P.M.C. 26.24.070) therefrom as to whether or not:
(1) Adequate provisions are made for the public health, safety and
general welfare and for open spaces, drainage ways, streets, alleys,
other public ways, water supplies, sanitary wastes, parks,
playgrounds, transit stops, schools and school grounds, sidewalks for
safe walking conditions for students and other public needs;
The proposed plat will be required to develop under the standards of the Pasco
Municipal Code and the standard specifications of the City Engineering
Division. These standards for streets, sidewalks, and other infrastructure
improvements were designed to ensure the public health, safety, and general
welfare of the community. These standards include provisions for streets,
drainage, water and sewer service and the provision for dedication of right-of-
way. The preliminary plat was forwarded to the Franklin County PUD, the
Pasco School District, Cascade Gas, Charter Cable and Ben-Franklin Transit
Authority for review and comment. The PUD requested easements along the
front of all lots for utility service.
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. A City park is located to the south of the development next to
Maya Angelou Elementary. All new developments participate in establishing
parks through the payment of park fees at the time of permitting.
Page 186 of 222
8
(2) The proposed subdivision contributes to the orderly development and
land use patterns in the area;
The proposed plat makes efficient use of vacant land and will provide for the
looping of utilities and interconnectivity of streets as supported in the
Comprehensive Plan.
(3) The proposed subdivision conforms to the policies, maps and
narrative text of the Comprehensive Plan;
The Comprehensive Plan land use map designates the site for low density
residential development (2 to 5 dwelling units per acre) and mixed residential
commercial development (5 to 20 dwelling units per acre). The Housing
Element of the Plan encourages the promotion of a variety of residential
densities and suggests the community should support the advancement of
programs encouraging home ownership. The Transportation Element of the
Plan suggests major streets should be beautified with trees and landscaping.
The Plan also encourages the interconnection of local streets for inter-
neighborhood travel for public safety as well as providing for traffic
disbursement.
(4) The proposed subdivision conforms to the general purposes of any
applicable policies or plans which have been adopted by the City
Council;
Development plans and policies have been adopted by the City Council in the
form of the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed subdivision conforms to the
policies, maps and narrative text of the Plan as noted in number three above.
(5) The proposed subdivision conforms to the general purposes of the
subdivision regulations.
The general purposes of the subdivision regulations have been enumerated and
discussed in the staff analysis and Findings of Fact. The Findings of Fact
indicate the subdivision is in conformance with the general purposes of the
subdivision regulations provided certain mitigation measures (i.e.: school
impact fees are paid.)
(6) The public use and interest will be served by approval of the proposed
subdivision.
The proposed Plat, if approved, will be developed in accordance with all City
standards designed to insure the health, safety and general welfare of the
community are met. The Comprehensive Plan will be implemented through
development of this plat. These factors will ensure the public use and interest
are served.
Page 187 of 222
9
TENTATIVE 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. Utilities must be extended to and through the parcel subject to
development, per PMC 12.36.050.
4. 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.
5. Improvements shall comply with all City of Pasco Comprehensive Plans.
If upsize participation is sought, the Developer shall apply at time of
subdivision improvement plan submission.
6. A traffic impact analysis to determine the impacts of the additional
residential units that result from this subdivision and any mitigation to
negate said impacts in accordance with standard practices shall be
conducted. The Developer shall bear the costs of said analysis.
7. Water mains are required to be looped. A 20-foot wide waterline
easement is required for all waterlines not located in the right of way.
8. 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. All existing non-City maintained
utility lines must be relocated outside the right of way.
9. No driveway shall be wider than 34 feet or 50 percent of the lot frontage;
whichever is smaller. (PMC 12.04.100 A.3)
10. Change Utility Statement on face of plat to reflect that the City of Pasco
will be the source of water and the method of sewage disposal.
Connection points will be evaluated when subdivision improvements are
submitted.
11. Sewer shall flow to the assigned basin identified in the Comprehensive
Sewer Plan or any amendments to it. If any alternative connections are
sought they shall be on a temporary basis. Alternate connection points
shall require a study conducted by the City’s consultant who developed
the Comprehensive plan to determine the viability of said connection.
The Developer shall bear all costs associated with any studies to
determine if an alternate connection point is viable. Once a permanent
connection point becomes available the Developer shall immediately
disconnect from any temporary connections points and connect to the
permanent connection point. The Developer shall be responsible for
Page 188 of 222
10
installing all sewer main identified in the Comprehensive plan to and
through the parcel as if the permanent connection point were available.
12. The face of the plat shall include this statement: “As a condition of
approval of this preliminary plat the owner has waived the right to
protest the formation of a Local Improvement District for
sewer/water/road/sidewalk improvements to the full extent as permitted
by RCW 35.43.182.”
13. Any existing water rights shall be transferred to the City as a condition of
approval. If no water rights are available then the property owner shall
pay to the City, in lieu thereof, a water rights acquisition fee as
established in the City Fee Summary Ordinance located in PMC 3.07.
(PMC 26.04.115). These requirements can be complied with during the
preliminary plat process or at Final Plat. If these requirements are
fulfilled at final plat the Developer shall adhere to the water rights policy
in place at time of final platting.
14. No utility vaults, pedestals, or other obstructions will be allowed at street
intersections.
15. 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).
16. The developer shall install a common "Estate” type fence six feet in
height along the property lines abutting Burns Road, Road 84, Road 68,
and along the rear property lines of the proposed lots abutting the
commercial parcels as a part of the infrastructure improvements
associated with the plat. The fence must be constructed of masonry
block. A fencing detail must be included on the subdivision construction
drawings. Consideration must be given to a reasonable vision triangle at
the intersection of streets.
17. 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.
18. Excess right-of-way along Burns Road, Road 84, and Road 68 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 and
Planning Division 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.
19. Driveways shall not have direct access onto Burns Road, Road 84, or
Road 68.
Page 189 of 222
11
20. The final plat(s) shall contain a 10-foot utility easement parallel to all
streets unless otherwise required by the Franklin County PUD.
21. 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 subdivision and
initiate deliberations and schedule adoption of Findings of Fact,
Conclusions and a Recommendation to the City Council for the
July 19, 2018 meeting.
Page 190 of 222
City of Pasco, IS Division
OverviewMap Item : Preliminary Plat - BurgessApplicant: Big Sky Developers, LLCFile #: PP2018-006 ±
SITE
0 600 1,200 1,800 2,400300Feet
Burns Road
Road 84Road 68CITY LIMITS
Page 191 of 222
City of Pasco, IS Division
VicinityMap Item : Preliminary Plat - BurgessApplicant: Big Sky Developers, LLCFile #: PP2018-006 ±
SITE
0 300 600 900 1,200150Feet
Burns Road
Road 84Road 68CITY LIMITS
Page 192 of 222
Land UseMap Item : Preliminary Plat - BurgessApplicant: Big Sky Developers, LLCFile #: PP2018-006 ±
SITE
0 300 600 900 1,200150Feet
Burns Road
Road 84Road 68CITY LIMITS Agriculture SFDUs/Pasture
SFDUs Multi-Family
Vacant
VacantSub-Station
Agriculture
Page 193 of 222
ZoningMap Item : Preliminary Plat - BurgessApplicant: Big Sky Developers, LLCFile #: PP2018-006 ±
SITE
0 300 600 900 1,200150Feet
Burns Road
Road 84Road 68CITY LIMITS County
R-1
R-4
RT
C-1
R-1Page 194 of 222
Page 195 of 222
Looking North
Page 196 of 222
Looking East
Page 197 of 222
Looking South
Page 198 of 222
Looking West
Page 199 of 222
1
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
MASTER FILE NO: PP 2018-006
HEARING DATE: 7/19/2018
ACTION DATE: 8/16/2018
APPLICANT: Big Sky Developers, LLC
12406 Eagle Reach Ct
Pasco, WA 99301
BACKGROUND
REQUEST: Preliminary Plat: Burgess Plat, 67 Single-Family and 103 Multi-
Family Lots (Zero Lot Line)
1. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION:
Legal: The South Half of the South Half of the Southwest Quarter of
Section 4, Township 29, Range 9, except the South 430 feet of the East
1320 feet thereof and except Road 68
General Location: The northwest corner of Road 68 and Burns Road.
Property Size: 28.07 Acres
Number of Lots Proposed: 67 single-family lots and 103 multi-family lots
for zero lot line construction
Square Footage Range of Lots: 3,006 ft² to 11,050 ft²
Average Lot Square Footage: 5,172 ft²
2. ACCESS: The property will have access from Road 84, Burns Road, and
Road 68.
3. UTILITIES: Municipal water and sewer service are available in Three
Rivers Drive.
4. LAND USE AND ZONING: The site is zoned R-3 (Medium Density
Residential) and R-1 (Low Density Residential). Surrounding properties
are zoned and developed as follows:
NORTH: County – Agriculture
SOUTH: R-1 – Single family dwellings
EAST: County – Agriculture & single family dwellings
WEST R-1 – Agriculture
5. 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. 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
Page 200 of 222
2
lands designated for mixed residential uses when or where: sewer is
available, the location is convenient to major circulation routes, the site
serves as a transition between more intense uses and low density uses,
and when there is a market demand. 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. ED-3-A encourages the use of landscaping, screening and
superior building design to enhance compatibility between commercial
and residential development.
6. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The City of Pasco is the lead
agency for this project. An environmental determination will be made
after the public hearing for this project. A Determination of Non-
Significance or a Mitigated Determination of Non-Significance is likely for
this application (WAC 197-11-355).
ANALYSIS
The 28-acre project site was very recently annexed into the City in June along
with approximately 12 acres of land immediately to the southeast that was
zoned for commercial uses. The site surrounds a 3-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, so to lessen the impact and buffer single-family development from the
substation, the developer is proposing to surround the substation on the north
and west with a zero lot line duplex development leaving a 16 acre section 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 single-family development at the west half of the site is zoned R-1 which
permits a minimum lot size of 7,200 square feet. Per the allowed density, the
developer proposes to construct 67 new single-family homes. The zero lot line
duplex development in the east half is zoned R-3 with minimum 3,000 square
foot lots, resulting in 103 multi-family dwelling units. Each duplex would
occupy two lots with the common lot line dividing each unit.
This proposal for the multi-family development 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 and 2. Each of these subdivisions was zoned for multi-family
Page 201 of 222
3
development and platted into individual lots. The lots lines within these
subdivisions became the common boundary line separating the dwelling units.
LOT LAYOUT: The proposed plat contains 67 single-family residential lots and
103 multi-family residential for a total of 170 dwelling units. The lots vary in
size from 3,006 to 11,050 square feet. The proposal is consistent with the
density requirements of both the R-1 and R-3 zoning of the site. R-1 zoning
permits the development of one dwelling unit per 7,200 square feet of lot area
and R-3 zoning permits one dwelling unit per 3,000 square feet of lot area for
multi-family type structures.
RIGHTS-OF-WAY: All lots have frontage on streets which will be dedicated.
UTILITIES: Municipal water and sewer lines are located in Road 68. The
developer will be responsible for extending utilities into the plat. A utility
easement will be needed along the first 10 feet of street frontage of all lots. The
final location and width of the easements will be determined during the
engineering design phase. The front yard setbacks for construction purposes
are larger than the requested easements; therefore the front yard easements
will not diminish the buildable area of the lots.
The City Engineer will determine the specific placement of fire hydrants and
streetlights when construction plans are submitted. As a general rule, fire
hydrants are located at street intersections and with a maximum interval of
500 feet between hydrants on alternating sides of the street. Streetlights are
located at street intersections, with a maximum interval of 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 will be shown on the face of the final plat
before it is recorded.
IRRIGATION: The municipal code requires the installation of irrigation lines as
a part of the infrastructure improvements.
WATER RIGHTS: The assignment of water rights is a requirement for
subdivision approval per Pasco Municipal Code Section 26.04.115(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. The Public
Works Director may waive the fee if the developer mixes a soil additive in the
ground that provides 30% retention of irrigation water.
Page 202 of 222
4
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 and R-3 zones 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 more than 6 units per acre. No more than 40
percent of each lot is permitted to be covered with structures per the R-1
zoning standards, and no more than 60 percent per the R-3 zoning standards.
Parks Opens Space/Schools: Vintage Park is located to the south of the plat
area next to Maya Angelou Elementary. Further, the School District has
recently purchased two parcels on Burns Road to the west and is planning to
construct a new elementary and middle school. 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 $4,525
will be charged for each new dwelling unit at the time of building permit
issuance.
Effective Land Use/Orderly Development: The plat is laid out for single and
multi-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 6 units per acre. The
proposed development will require the extension of Road 84 to the northwest
corner of the plat and full right-of-way improvements for the north side of
Burns Road and the west side of Road 68 along the development area. 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 duplexes and
single-family dwellings to the south. 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).
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
Page 203 of 222
5
(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 170
residential building lots, providing an opportunity for the construction of 67
single family homes and 103 duplex units.
Adequate Air and Light: The maximum lot coverage limitations and building
setbacks will assure that adequate movement of air and light is available to
each lot.
Proper Access & Travel: The streets through and adjoining the plat will be
paved and developed to City standards to assure proper access is maintained
to each lot. Connections to the community will be provided by Road 84, Burns
Road, and Road 68. A traffic impact analysis to determine the impacts of the
additional residential units shall be conducted for the intersections of Burns
Road/Road 84, Burns Road/Road D, and Road 68/Road E. 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 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 mostly vacant with portions of an existing barn on site.
• The site is not considered a critical area a mineral resource area or a wet
land.
• The Comprehensive Plan identifies the site for low density residential and
mixed residential commercial development.
• Low density residential development is described as 2 to 5 dwelling units
per acre, and mixed residential commercial development is described as
5 to 20 dwelling units per acre.
• The site is zoned R-1 (Low Density Residential) and R-3 (Medium Density
Residential).
Page 204 of 222
6
• The site was annexed into the City in 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.
• Per the ITE Trip Generation Manual 8th Addition the proposed
subdivision, when fully developed, will generate approximately 1,237
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.
• 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.
• 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
Page 205 of 222
7
signed and recorded copy of the agreement is presented to the City of
Pasco at the intake meeting for construction plans.
• The City has nuisance regulations (PMC 9.60) that require property
owners (including developers) to maintain their properties in a manner
that does not injure, annoy or endanger the comfort and repose of other
property owners. This includes controlling dust, weeds and litter during
times of construction for both subdivisions and buildings including
houses.
• Prior to acceptance of final plats developers are required to prepare and
submit record drawings. All record drawings shall be created in
accordance with the requirements detailed in the Record Drawing
Requirements and Procedure form provided by the Engineering Division.
This form must be signed by the developer prior to construction plan
approval.
CONCLUSIONS BASED ON INITIAL STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT
Before recommending approval or denial of the proposed Plat the Planning
Commission must develop findings of fact from which to draw its conclusion
(P.M.C. 26.24.070) therefrom as to whether or not:
(1) Adequate provisions are made for the public health, safety and
general welfare and for open spaces, drainage ways, streets, alleys,
other public ways, water supplies, sanitary wastes, parks,
playgrounds, transit stops, schools and school grounds, sidewalks for
safe walking conditions for students and other public needs;
The proposed plat will be required to develop under the standards of the Pasco
Municipal Code and the standard specifications of the City Engineering
Division. These standards for streets, sidewalks, and other infrastructure
improvements were designed to ensure the public health, safety, and general
welfare of the community. These standards include provisions for streets,
drainage, water and sewer service and the provision for dedication of right-of-
way. The preliminary plat was forwarded to the Franklin County PUD, the
Pasco School District, Cascade Gas, Charter Cable and Ben-Franklin Transit
Authority for review and comment. The PUD requested easements along the
front of all lots for utility service.
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. A City park is located to the south of the development next to
Maya Angelou Elementary. All new developments participate in establishing
parks through the payment of park fees at the time of permitting.
Page 206 of 222
8
(2) The proposed subdivision contributes to the orderly development and
land use patterns in the area;
The proposed plat makes efficient use of vacant land and will provide for the
looping of utilities and interconnectivity of streets as supported in the
Comprehensive Plan.
(3) The proposed subdivision conforms to the policies, maps and
narrative text of the Comprehensive Plan;
The Comprehensive Plan land use map designates the site for low density
residential development (2 to 5 dwelling units per acre) and mixed residential
commercial development (5 to 20 dwelling units per acre). The Housing
Element of the Plan encourages the promotion of a variety of residential
densities and suggests the community should support the advancement of
programs encouraging home ownership. The Transportation Element of the
Plan suggests major streets should be beautified with trees and landscaping.
The Plan also encourages the interconnection of local streets for inter-
neighborhood travel for public safety as well as providing for traffic
disbursement.
(4) The proposed subdivision conforms to the general purposes of any
applicable policies or plans which have been adopted by the City
Council;
Development plans and policies have been adopted by the City Council in the
form of the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed subdivision conforms to the
policies, maps and narrative text of the Plan as noted in number three above.
(5) The proposed subdivision conforms to the general purposes of the
subdivision regulations.
The general purposes of the subdivision regulations have been enumerated and
discussed in the staff analysis and Findings of Fact. The Findings of Fact
indicate the subdivision is in conformance with the general purposes of the
subdivision regulations provided certain mitigation measures (i.e.: school
impact fees are paid.)
(6) The public use and interest will be served by approval of the proposed
subdivision.
The proposed Plat, if approved, will be developed in accordance with all City
standards designed to insure the health, safety and general welfare of the
community are met. The Comprehensive Plan will be implemented through
development of this plat. These factors will ensure the public use and interest
are served.
Page 207 of 222
9
PLAT APPROVAL CONDITIONS
1. All development activities are subject to the concurrency development
standards established in PMC 12.36.
2. Improvements shall comply with all City of Pasco Comprehensive Plans.
If upsize participation is sought, the Developer shall apply at time of
subdivision improvement plan submission.
3. A traffic impact analysis to determine the impacts of the additional
residential units that result from this subdivision and any mitigation to
negate said impacts in accordance with standard practices shall be
conducted. The developer shall bear the costs and the Public Works
Department shall oversee said traffic analysis. Recommendations of the
analysis will be conditions of plat approval.
4. 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. All existing non-City maintained
utility lines must be relocated outside the right of way.
5. Change Utility Statement on face of plat to reflect that the City of Pasco
will be the source for domestic and irrigation water and the method of
sewage disposal. Connection points will be evaluated when subdivision
improvements are submitted.
6. Sewer shall flow to the assigned basin identified in the Comprehensive
Sewer Plan or any amendments to it. If any alternative connections are
sought they shall be on a temporary basis. Alternate connection points
shall require a study conducted by the City’s consultant who developed
the Comprehensive plan to determine the viability of said connection.
The Developer shall bear all costs associated with any studies to
determine if an alternate connection point is viable. The Developer shall
be responsible for installing all sewer main identified in the
Comprehensive plan to and through the parcel as if the permanent
connection point were available.
7. The face of the plat shall include this statement: “As a condition of
approval of this preliminary plat the owner has waived the right to
protest the formation of a Local Improvement District for
sewer/water/road/sidewalk improvements to the full extent as permitted
by RCW 35.43.182.”
8. Any existing water rights shall be transferred to the City as a condition of
approval. If no water rights are available then the property owner shall
pay to the City, in lieu thereof, a water rights acquisition fee as
established in the City Fee Summary Ordinance located in PMC 3.07.
(PMC 26.04.115). These requirements can be complied with during the
preliminary plat process or at Final Plat. If these requirements are
Page 208 of 222
10
fulfilled at final plat the Developer shall adhere to the water rights policy
in place at time of final platting.
9. No utility vaults, pedestals, or other obstructions will be allowed at street
intersections.
10. 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).
11. The developer shall install a common "Estate” type fence six feet in
height along the property lines abutting Burns Road, Road 84, Road 68,
and along the rear property lines of the proposed lots abutting the
commercial parcels as a part of the infrastructure improvements
associated with the plat. Fencing material must be approved by the
Community & Economic Development Director. 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.
12. 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.
13. Excess right-of-way along Burns Road, Road 84, and Road 68 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 and
Planning Division 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.
14. Driveways shall not have direct access onto Burns Road, Road 84, or
Road 68.
15. The final plat(s) shall contain a 10-foot utility easement parallel to all
streets unless otherwise required by the Franklin County PUD.
16. 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”.
Page 209 of 222
11
RECOMMENDATION
MOTION: I move to close the hearing on the proposed Preliminary Plat and
initiate deliberations to form a recommendation to the City
Council.
MOTION: I move to adopt Findings of Fact and Conclusions therefrom as
contained in the August 16, 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 the Burgess Plat with conditions as listed in
the August 16, 2018 staff report.
Page 210 of 222
City of Pasco, IS Division
OverviewMap Item : Preliminary Plat - BurgessApplicant: Big Sky Developers, LLCFile #: PP2018-006 ±
SITE
0 600 1,200 1,800 2,400300Feet
Burns Road
Road 84Road 68CITY LIMITS
Page 211 of 222
City of Pasco, IS Division
VicinityMap Item : Preliminary Plat - BurgessApplicant: Big Sky Developers, LLCFile #: PP2018-006 ±
SITE
0 300 600 900 1,200150Feet
Burns Road
Road 84Road 68CITY LIMITS
Page 212 of 222
Land UseMap Item : Preliminary Plat - BurgessApplicant: Big Sky Developers, LLCFile #: PP2018-006 ±
SITE
0 300 600 900 1,200150Feet
Burns Road
Road 84Road 68CITY LIMITS Agriculture SFDUs/Pasture
SFDUs Multi-Family
Vacant
VacantSub-Station
Agriculture
Page 213 of 222
ZoningMap Item : Preliminary Plat - BurgessApplicant: Big Sky Developers, LLCFile #: PP2018-006 ±
SITE
0 300 600 900 1,200150Feet
Burns Road
Road 84Road 68CITY LIMITS County
R-1
R-4
RT
C-1
R-1Page 214 of 222
Page 215 of 222
Looking North
Page 216 of 222
Looking East
Page 217 of 222
Looking South
Page 218 of 222
Looking West
Page 219 of 222
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
7/19/2018
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
B. Preliminary Plat Burgess Plat, 170-lots (Jerry Burgess) (MF# PP
2018-006)
Chairwoman Roach read the master file number and asked for comments from staff.
Darcy Bourcier, Planner I, discussed the preliminary plat application for the Burgess
Plat, 170-lots. The proposed site was annexed into the City in June 2018 and zoned
R-1 and R-3. The development will include single family homes to the west and
duplexes to the east. The parcels to the southeast were zoned for commercial. There
is a substation to the south of the plat creating difficulties in developing the site. To
buffer the single family development from the substation the developer is proposing to
surround the substation with zero lot line duplexes. The development will create 67
new single family homes and 103 multi-family dwelling units. Development standards
and conditions were briefly discussed. The conditions may change for the next
meeting due to working with the applicant and awaiting Engineering comments.
Chairwoman Roach asked if the hearing should be continued since there may be
changes to the approval conditions.
Ms. Bourcier said no.
Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director, added that staff had
handed out a letter received from an engineering firm to the Commissioners. That
letter was received recently prior to the meeting so it needs to be reviewed in more
depth and conditions, if appropriate, revised.
Commissioner Myhrum asked if there are any logistical or engineering problems with
this site since it borders the city limits.
Ms. Bourcier said no – utilities were available to the site.
Commissioner Greenaway asked if there could be other options aside from block wall
fencing.
Ms. Bourcier replied that they are working with the developer on fencing alternatives
but estate fencing will be required.
Commissioner Greenaway said that she was concerned that all of Pasco is becoming
blocked in developments.
Ms. Bourcier said that the block walls are to screen arterial streets since none of the
homes will face Road 68 or Burns Road.
Page 220 of 222
Mr. White gave a brief history on block wall fencing requirements. Concerns have
been expressed and staff will be looking at some options in the Comprehensive Plan
Update.
Caleb Stromstad, 5804 Road 90, spoke on his application. He voiced concerns over
some of the conditions, one of which being the block wall fencing, and discussed the
letter submitted by his engineer. He requested the Planning Commission close the
hearing and approve the plat with his revised conditions.
Chairwoman Roach asked for clarification on what he wanted changed in the fencing
requirement.
Mr. Stromstad replied to remove the block wall requirement for the properties abutting
commercial and the substation.
Chairwoman Roach asked for clarification on home #135 on the plat that will be
removed.
Mr. Stromstad stated that it was an existing shop on the property that will be
removed. There is an agreement with the property owner for the removal of the shop.
He added as clarification to an earlier question, the developer has every intention to
screen every backyard which will help sell the properties, but they felt this would be
more appropriate than doing a block wall fence.
Chairwoman Roach asked if the hearing could be continued.
Mr. White said that staff had no issue with continuing the hearing but not
recommending their motion.
Commissioner Greenaway moved, seconded by Commissioner Mendez, to continue the
public hearing to the August 16, 2018 Planning Commission Meeting. The motion
passed unanimously.
Page 221 of 222
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
8/16/2018
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
A. Preliminary Plat Burgess Plat, 170 lots (Big Sky Developers) (MF#
PP 2018-006) – Continued from July 19, 2018
Meeting
Chairman Myhrum read the master file number and asked for comments from staff.
Darcy Bourcier, discussed the preliminary plat application for Burgess Plat, 170 lots.
She discussed changes to the plat approval conditions, in particular to the sewer,
since the public hearing that included comments from a letter that was received by the
developer and per the City Engineer, the changes have been approved.
Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director, added that estate fencing
will still be required along arterial roads and abutting the commercial property but
alternatives may be considered.
Commissioner A. Campos moved, seconded by Commissioner Greenaway, to close the
hearing on the proposed preliminary plat and initiate deliberations to form a
recommendation to the City Council. The motion passed unanimously.
Commissioner A. Campos moved, seconded by Commissioner Greenaway, to adopt
findings of fact and conclusions, therefrom, as contained in the August 16, 2018 staff
report. The motion passed unanimously.
Commissioner A. Campos moved, seconded by Commissioner Greenaway, based on
the findings of fact and conclusions, as adopted, the Planning Commission
recommend the City Council approve the preliminary plat for the Burgess Plat with
conditions as listed in the August 16, 2018 staff report. The motion passed
unanimously.
Page 222 of 222