HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-18-2018 Planning Commission Meeting Packet PLANNING COMMISSION - AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING 7:00 P.M. October 18, 2018
I. CALL TO ORDER:
II. ROLL CALL: Declaration of Quorum
III. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
M APPROVAL OF MINUTES: September 20, 2018
V. OLD BUSINESS:
VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
A. Preliminary Plat Black Belle Estates, 22 lots J&J Kelly Construction)
IMF# PP 2018-008) - Continued from September
20, 2018 Meeting
B. Special Permit Location of Elementary School #17 IPasco School
District] IMF# SP 2017-0141
C. Special Permit Location of Middle School #4 ,Pasco School Districts
IMF# SP 2017-0151
VII. WORKSHOP:
A. Code Amendment Single Room Occupancy Housing_-(MF# CA 2018-
0041
VIII. OTHER BUSINESS:
A. Other Hearing Examiner Report to Cily Council
IX. ADJOURNMENT:
This meeting is broadcast live on PSC-TV Channel 191 on Charter Cable and streamed at
wkvw.pasco-wa.com/psctvlive,
Audio equipment available for the hearing impaired; contact staff for assistance.
REGULAR MEETING September 20, 2018
CITY OF PASCO
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
CALL TO ORDER:
The meeting was called to order at 7:00pm by Chairperson Roach.
POSITION MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT
No. 1 Tanya Bowers
No. 2 Joseph Campos
No. 3 Paul Mendez
No. 4 Alecia Greenaway
No. 5 Abel Campos
No. 6 Isaac Myhrum
No. 7 Zahra Roach
No. 8 Pam Bykonen
No. 9 Gabriel Portugal
STAFF PRESENT:
Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director
Michael Morales, Community & Economic Development Deputy Director
Steve Worley, Public Works Director
Jacob B. Gonzalez, Senior Planner
Darcy Bourcier, Planner I
Krystle Shanks, Administrative Assistant II
MEETING VIDEO ON DEMAND:
This meeting in its entirety may be viewed on the City's webpage at
.lit.t.Zs:2-Z Lsctv.viebit.com.
APPEARANCE OF FAIRNESS:
Chairperson Roach read a statement about the appearance of fairness for hearings on
land use matters. Commissioner Abel Campos declared that he worked for the Pasco
School District which was related to Other Business {Site Plan Memo Regarding
Chairperson Roach then asked the audience and the Planning Commission if there were
any objections based on a conflict of interest or appearance of fairness question
regarding the items to be discussed. There were no objections.
ADMINISTERING THE OATH:
Chairperson Roach explained that state law requires testimony in quasi-judicial
hearings such as held by the Planning Commission be given under oath or affirmation.
1
Chairperson Roach swore in all those desiring to speak.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Commissioner Myhrum moved, seconded by Comissioner Greenaway that the minutes
dated August 16, 2018 be approved. The motion passed unanimously.
OLD BUSINESS:
A. Special Permit Location of Wireless Communication Facilities in
an R-4 Zone (Sprint Spectrum LP) (MF# SP 2018-
0071
Chairperson Roach read the master file number and asked for comments from staff.
Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director, discussed the special permit
application f'or the location of wireless communication facilities in an R-4 zone.
Commissioner Portugal moved, seconded by Commissioner Greenaway, to adopt findings
of fact and conclusions therefrom as contained in the September 20, 2018 staff report.
The motion passed unanimously.
Commissioner Portugal moved, seconded by Commissioner Greenaway, based on the
findings of fact and conclusions therefrom, the Planning Commission recommend the
City Council grant a special permit to Sprint Spectrum LP for the location of a concealed
rooftop cell phone antenna array and its associated ground equipment at 6626 chapel
Hill Boulevard, Building #E, with conditions as contained in the September 20, 2018
staff report. The motion passed unanimously.
B. Special Permit Location of Wireless Communication Facilities in
a C-1 Zone LSprint Spectrum LP) (MF# SP 2018-
008)
Chairperson Roach read the master file number and asked for comments from staff.
Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director, discussed the special permit
application for the location of wireless communication facilities in a C-1 zone, pointing
out one change in the design of the equipment since the previous hearing. The
equipment will include a microwave dish rather than the originally proposed cell array
and will be less visible than the original design that was submitted.
There was dialogue between Chairperson Roach, Commissioner Portugal and staff on the
design of the array and then special permitting process moving forward pertaining to the
memo that was included in the staff report.
Mr. White replied that the array will be smaller and less visible and that there is an
option to reopen the public hearing for the new design although that was not
recommended by staff.
2
Commissioner Bowers moved, seconded by Commissioner Greenaway, to adopt findings
of fact and conclusions therefrom as contained in the September 20, 2018 staff report.
The motion passed unanimously.
Commissioner Bowers moved, seconded by Commissioner Greenaway, based on the
findings of fact and conclusions therefrom, the Planning Commission recommend the
City Council grant a special permit to Sprint Spectrum LP for the location of a rooftop
cell phone antenna array and its associated ground equipment at 115 South IOth Avenue
(Parcel # 112-253-124) with conditions as contained in the September 20, 2018 staff
report. The motion passed unanimously.
C. Special Permit Location of Wireless Communication Facilities in
an R-S-1 Zone LS rint Sy_ectrum LP) (MF# SP 2018-
0091
Chairperson Roach read the master file number and asked for comments from staff.
Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director, discussed the special permit
application for the location of wireless communication facilities in an R-S-1 zone.
There was dialogue between Commissioner Bowers, Chairperson Roach and staff
regarding other locations of cell antennas concealed inside church steeples and if there
had been any issues.
Mr. White stated that there was one permitted recently inside a church steeple on Argent
Road and that there have been no issues brought to the City's attention.
Commissioner Bowers moved, seconded by Commissioner Mendez, to adopt findings of
fact and conclusions therefrom as contained in the September 20, 2018 staff report. The
motion passed unanimously.
Commissioner Bowers moved, seconded by Commissioner Mendez, based on the findings
of fact and conclusions therefrom, the Planning Commission recommend the City
Council grant a special permit to the Sprint Spectrum LP for the location of a concealed
rooftop cell phone antenna array and its associated ground equipment located at 5304
Burden Boulevard with conditions has contained in the September 20, 2018 staff report.
The motion passed unanimously.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
A. Rezone Rezone from RS-20 to RS-1 (Colette Steinwert)
(MF# Z 2018-0061 - Withdrawn
Chairperson Roach read the master file number and asked for comments from staff.
Darcy Bourcier, Planner I, discussed the withdrawn rezone application from RS-20 to
RS-1 and stated that no further action was necessary from the Planning Commission.
3
Per Ordinance 4221 passed in 2015, there is a zoning prohibition on the property for the
next 5 years. The site at this time can only be developed as RS-20 or the developer can
wait until 2020 to apply for a rezone at that time.
Chairperson Roach asked if the applicant has indicated if they wish to wait until 2020 to
rezone or to develop now as RS-20.
Ms. Bourcier said that applicant has indicated they wish to wait until 2020.
No further action was necessary.
B. Preliminary Plat Serrano Heights, 109 lots (RP Developments MF#
PP 2018-0071 - Continued Lrom August 16. 2018
Meeting
Chairperson Roach read the master file number and asked for comments from staff.
Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director, discussed the continued
preliminary plat application for Serrano Heights. This item has been before the Planning
Commission numerous times. The plat consists of 38 acres, divided into 109 lots. The
applicant had issues with a number of the conditions discussed at the previous hearing
and it was concerning that the applicant was not present at the current meeting,
however, they were notified. The biggest factor was the LID for the Chapel Hill Boulevard
Extension. At the time of the previous hearing, the LID was formed by City Council but
there was a 30 day protest period. Since the hearing, the protest period expired and the
there was only roughly 1% opposition so the LID has been approved. Some of the
conditions in the staff report have been changed to reflect the LID and those changes
were discussed. Staff is recommending adoption of the recommendations.
There was dialogue between Chairwoman Roach, Commissioner Bowers, Commissioner
J. Campos and staff pertaining to the updated conditions and the connection of Valley
View Drive.
Mr. White responded to the conditions and addressed the design of the revised plat and
that eliminates Valley View Drive from becoming a thru street to Road 68 due to traffic
safety. The applicant may appeal if they choose.
With no applicant present the public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Myhrum moved, seconded by Commissioner Greenaway, to close the
hearing on the proposed preliminary plat and to adopt findings of fact and conclusions
therefrom as contained in the September 20, 2018 staff report. The motion passed
unanimously.
Commissioner Myhrum 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 Serrano Heights with conditions as listed in
the September 20, 2018 staff report. The motion passed unanimously.
4
Commissioner Portugal acknowledged that the applicant had mentioned at the previous
hearing changing the spelling of the plat.
Commissioner Campos and Rick White stated that it doesn't pertain to the approval of
the plat and that it is common for developers to make those changes at the time of the
final plat process.
C. Preliminary Plat Black Belle Estates., 22 lots JJ&J Kelly
Construction] JMF# PP 2018-0081 - Continued
_Lrom August 161 2018 Meeting
Chairperson Roach read the master file number and asked for comments from staff.
Darcy Bourcier, Planner I, discussed the preliminary plat application for Black Belle
Estates. This item has been before the Planning Commission numerous times. It was
explained that the applicant is still working with the city on a cost sharing agreement for
the sewer extension. Staff recommended extended the public hearing once more.
Commissioner Myhrum asked about financing options for the city in terms of a cost
sharing agreement.
Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director, said the city would
participate in some degree from the sewer utility fund.
Commissioner Greenaway moved, seconded by Commissioner Bowers, to continue the
public hearing the proposed preliminary plat to October 18, 2018 Planning Commission
Meeting. The motion passed unanimously.
WORKSHOP:
A. Code Amendment Single Room Occupancy Housing_(MF# CA 2018-
0041
Chairperson Roach read the master file number and asked for comments from staff.
Darcy Bourcier, Planner I, discussed the proposed code amendment I-or single room
occupancy (SRO) in residential and commercial zones. An email was received and
handed out to the Commissioners from Travis Vendgroff, a property manager of many
SRO's in Florida who is the main proponent of this zone change for a property in Pasco
they are interested in turning into an SRO.
There was in depth dialogue between the commissioners and staff regarding the pros and
cons of SRO's and where they should or should not be allowed in Pasco. Chairwoman
Roach suggested more time and information from staff prior to going to a public hearing
for this code amendment to allow for staff to incorporate some of the comments made by
the commissioners. The commissioners were all in agreement.
5
OTHER BUSINESS:
A. Other Site Plan Memo Regarding Middle School #4 and
Elementary School #17
Chairperson Roach read the master file number and asked for comments from staff.
Darcy Bourcier, Planner I, discussed the revised site plan that was submitted by the
Pasco School District and explained the differences between the original site plan and the
revised site plan.
There was dialogue between the commissioners and staff. Commissioner Mendez
suggested bringing this item back as a special permit hearing since there were
substantial changes. The Commissioners were in agreement.
ANNOUNCEMENTS:
Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director, introduced Jacob Gonzalez
as the new Senior Planner for the City of Pasco. He also introduced Steve Worley, Public
Works Director for the City of Pasco.
Mr. White gave an update on the Comprehensive Plan Update process and there was in
depth discussion between the commissioners and staff.
ADJOURNMENT:
With no further discussion or business, the Planning Commission was adjourned at
8:18 PM.
Respectfully submitted,
A AQ
Kiystle TShanks, Administrative Assistant II
Community & Economic Development
Department
6
MEMORANDUM
DATE: October 18, 2018
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Darcy Bourcier, Planner I
SUBJECT: Black Belle Estates Preliminary Plat IPP2018-0081
During the previous Planning Commission meeting held on September 20, 2018,
the Planning Commission recommended this item be continued to the October
18, 2018 meeting in order to give the applicant and Public Works the opportunity
to hash out a cost-sharing agreement for the northward extension of the sewer
from W Sylvester Street.
Staff has been informed that the applicant and his engineer have put together a
rough cost estimate and will be meeting with the Public Works Director to
formulate an agreement. As a reminder, the proposed subdivision is located
between Road 52 and Road 54 south of Court Street and north of W Sylvester
Street. The area is zoned RS-20 (Suburban) which permits a minimum of 20,000
square foot lots; however, as the closest sewer line is over 600 feet away in W
Sylvester Street, each lot would need to be sized at over 22,000 square feet to
accommodate septic systems.
A rezone of the plat area will eventually be necessary to change the zoning from
RS-20 to either RS-12 or RS-1; however, the proposal timeline is uncertain at
this point. It is proper to continue items on the agenda provided the applicant is
in approval of the action. Thus, Staff recommends the Planning Commission
continue the public hearing on this item to the November 15, 2018 meeting.
RECOMMENDATION
MOTION: I move to continue the hearing on the proposed Preliminary Plat to
the November 15, 2018 Planning Commission meeting.
E
MEMORANDUM
DATE: October 18, 2018
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Darcy Bourcier, Planner I
Community & Economic Development
SUBJECT: Elementary School #17 Revised Site Plan (MF# SP2017-014J
The Pasco School District has provided C&ED Staff with revised site plans for both
Elementary School #17 and Middle School #4, which were approved through the Special
Pen-nit process in December of 2017. According to the resolutions for both schools, the
schools "[...] shall be developed in substantial conformity with the site plan[s] and building
elevations submitted with the Special Permit application[s]." However, the revised site
plans are significantly different from the site plans that were approved by the Planning
Commission and Council last year, as the PSD had hired a design team to rework the site
plans to optimize the use of the area. Staff has put together a list of the major changes
between the old Elementary School #17 site plan and new:
1. The north portion of the site is now vacant in the new plan;
2. Two separate bus lanes have become one bus lane which connects the schools;
3. The playing fields have been relocated to the Middle School site;
4. Visitor and employee parking lots have generally changed shape and size and have
shifted; however, the amount of parking stalls remains largely the same.
All access points onto the properties have remained relatively unchanged. The PSD has
also recently submitted a short plat application to section off the vacant north portion of
the bite in order to either sell that portion or install a City park.
During the September 20, 2018 Planning Commission meeting, Commissioners requested
that these site plans return as public hearings in order to fully address the proposed changes.
Below are the Findings of Fact and Conclusions taken from the November 16, 2017
Planning Commission meeting which have been updated to consider the new site plan
proposed. The November 16, 2017 Staff Report has also been included for review.
STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT
Findings of fact must be entered from the record. The following are initial findings drawn
from the background and analysis section of the staff report and comments made at the
public hearing. The Planning Commission may add additional findings as deemed
appropriate.
I. The site is located in an R-I zone.
2. Under the current zoning approximately 202 single-family dwellings could be
constructed on the site.
3. Schools are conditional land uses in the R-1 zone and require review through the
special permit process prior to permitting for construction.
4. The site is at the northern edge of the Pasco Urban Growth Boundary.
5. The site is within the City limits of Pasco annexed in 2016.
6. The Comprehensive Plan identifies the site for low-density residential uses.
7. Comprehensive Plan Goal CF-5 suggests that adequate provisions should be made
for the location of educational facilities throughout the urban growth area.
8. The site is currently being farmed.
9. The west 38.97 acres of the site are owned by the Pasco School District and the
remaining approximately 21.1 acres are under contract.
10. Sewer and water utilities will be stubbed to the site.
11. The site is located at the 9100 block Burns Road.
12. Burns Road is not fully improved.
13. All existing elementary schools in Pasco have at least two access routes to and from
the schools.
14. City development standards require street and utility (sewer, water, irrigation)
improvements to be constructed or installed concurrently with site development.
15. Off-site street improvements include but are not limited to street construction and
paving, installation of curb gutter and sidewalk (7-foot wide), street lights,
handicapped ramps, signage, lane striping, street drainage, traffic signals, speed-
reduction modifications, and fire hydrants.
16. According to the Institute of Traffic Engineers Trip Generation Manual (8th Ed) a
750-student elementary school will generate about 967.5 vehicle trips per day.
17. If developed with single family homes the site would generate about 1,236.9 vehicle
trips per day.
18. A Mitigated Determination of Non-Significance based on the provision of a traffic
study for necessary street improvements has been issued.
19. Pasco's population has more than doubled since 1997.
20. The Pasco School District enrollment has grown from 8,048 in 1997 to 17,878 in
2016.
21. No sports fielding lighting will be constructed with the proposed elementary school.
22. The applicant submitted a revised site plan for the school site; proper notice of this
submittal has been transmitted.
CONCLUSIONS BASED ON STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT
Before recommending approval or denial of a special pen-nit the Planning Commission
must draw its conclusion from the findings of fact based upon the criteria listed in P.M.C.
25.86.060. The criteria and staff listed conclusions are as follows:
1) Will the proposed use be in accordance with the goals, policies, objectives and
text of the Comprehensive Plan?
The proposed use supports the following plan policies or goals: CF-5 suggests
adequate provisions be made for educational facilities throughout the Urban Growth
Area. Transportation and Utility policies support city standards that require the
extension of streets and utilities in conjunction with development. To be in accord
with the Comprehensive Plan the proposed elementary school development would
also need to include the development of adjoining streets and utilities.
2) Will the proposed use adversely affect public infrastructure?
The location of an elementary school on the proposed site may encourage the
development of residential homes to the north of the school site leading to pressure
to expand the UGA into areas the School District will help pay for the sewer trunk
line in Burns Road. The School District will thereby be helping the City implement
the Sewer Comprehensive Plan. The area north of this proposed school is in the
Sewer Comprehensive Plan which the City will be servicing. The revised site plan
will not negatively impact public infrastructure.
3) Will the proposed use be constructed, maintained and operated to be in harmony
with existing or intended character of the general vicinity?
The proposed elementary school has been designed to complement the existing and
future neighborhood by providing generous yard setbacks, landscaping, screening
of mechanical equipment and a pitched roof line to moderate the school's height in
keeping with typical pitched roofs of residential homes. Elementary schools are
typically located in or near residential neighborhoods and are an accepted part of
the character of residential areas. The revised site plan will not disrupt the character
of the neighborhood.
4) Will the location and height of proposed structures and the site design discourage
the development of permitted uses on property in the general vicinity or impair
the value thereof?
The construction of schools in residential neighborhoods often encourages
development of nearby properties. For example, residential development around
the Franklin STEM Elementary School located at 6010 Road 52 progressed after
the school was in place. An on-line search of the Franklin County Assessors
records (2017) revealed that values of all residential properties located near the
existing Franklin STEM Elementary School have increased since the school was
built.
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?
Experience has shown that schools within Pasco generate few complaints from
neighbors. Elementary schools typically are not a source of dust, fumes, vibrations
or flashing lights. The proposed school could generate up to 967.5 vehicle trips per
day. During weekends, the summer break, and other break periods very little traffic
will be generated. Schools have a long history of being accepted in residential
neighborhoods. In most communities, schools are located in or near residential
neighborhoods. A Mitigated Determination of Non-Significance based on the
provision of a traffic study for necessary street improvements has been issued. The
revised site plan will not affect the environmental determination.
6) Will the proposed use endanger the public health or safety if located and
developed where proposed, or in any way become a nuisance to uses permitted in
the district?
The elementary school will be constructed to meet all requirements of the
International Building Code, the Fire Code, the Plumbing Code, all other
construction codes and state regulations pertaining to elementary school
construction. The building will be required to have fire-rated corridors, area
separation walls, sufficient exiting and fire sprinkler systems to ensure the safety
of the public. The construction of sidewalks and street improvements will address
traffic safety issues. The revised site plan will not create any public safety hazards.
RECOMMENDATION
MOTION: I move to close the public hearing and adopt Findings of Fact
and Conclusions therefrom as contained in the October 18, 2018
memorandum.
MOTION: I move, based on the Findings of Fact and Conclusions
therefrom, the Planning Commission recommend the City Council
approve the special permit for Elementary School #17 at the 9100 Block
of Burns Road as amended in the October 18, 2018 memorandum.
Revised Site Plan
Elementary
F I ! R 9 10
NORTH _ -sc:h - I w-yNo
1 I I I
ACCESS ROAD
s TT
-- �Li—.ai_i_ ...r..i 1i.�i"i M.,1 i i • • I 1 4311F. [��� �I(�
,at`1 - d � 1•'s ,o ,rm,�Isc rt-w,rr S•
e n eamT Ssmc T.a
CHECKED Or
.5 VOW
Et
cc
D
'"_ I � � ....■ee-. _ e i.-�� - 1�.t' _I fI , ,� n [ r s.t/SmmR as.f
W ` .wlr til- L ' � REN<pna
,111 lR,4M'W W Y[N tYM lbi W Af
_— II 1..tn.".N MTI• ;� a3 rue n■[
• — 3
L e _ I u i� a waRowm �
p i:3 0'•Z..O''.0.0 s .e.n L ume' / =
TMAIMMAM,
_
-�.►�u,w ! ,� e o e,s 'JI I I LEGEND
•S I e w .t ;.- w. .i ... -,.�1' i � .e. o.c,na ar.q neo.u. � � �
e
e 4 4- .«L o` _ •a �'. y I §I � I 1 t w° 0 0 0 o e e
NOTES rtl 3
e,, � _ ° LLyil I � r t �5J�s"wouo S,Y,y).f Mr CLZ275eC 5,41.5.rp,u 3 w n
1 B IMlAN[53 WF6 f•� Sr41i rto1.xo,m 5+415
p _ e�_ e - 0 leerae+wacl � � __r�•.,ocrs ---v
LL •e, ^ls- J i
- .. . . ... e•} ( e ® e 'e C I I *c a r9e. uei 261201 R
_ -__�-�-_ - y-'�. •.I E SHEFTN.ME
_ __ 071
38e4 O y 70.Rr oxERe9l
SITE MAN
08
A��OVERALL STTF ALAN ���, -,
Middle School Revised Overview
F 7
I � i
1 1
I •� i
i
1,396.496 sf — 566,786 sf
- 30.0 ac 13.0 ac
Elementary School
544,502 sf {
w. 12,5 ac
5nLEOFFFR
- _
1 0 j -
BURNS ROAD -----_-- - -
�- PAkO' SCHOOL DISTRICT-'CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN
M I
-_--•� ^J—••--- \ \ AR HITECTURE•INTERIOR$ 1
site
Old SitePlans "cre
Mirlrllo Qrhnni Elementary_
1ti.1ult. .J�.� �vv � Schoul '
{ -T
-- L--J -
1
RE ROADLj
IiUTUM
II �
'MaiII
PLAYAREAII
MDMLEsc++ook
LzF
ELEMENTARY SCHM .� 51
DROP-OFF
I �
,
cam I
VISITOR ARKkJG
�' � � �
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
MASTER FILE NO: SP 2017-014 APPLICANT:Pasco School District #1
HEARING DATE: 10/ 19/ 17 1215 W Lewis St
ACTION DATE: 11/ 16/ 17 Pasco, WA 99301
BACKGROUND
REQUEST: SPECIAL PERMIT: Location of an Elementary School in an R-1
District. (9 100 Block of Burns Road)
1. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION:
Legal:_ That portion of the S 1/2 of the SW 1/a of section 5, township 9
north, range 29 east, W.M., Franklin County, WA being described
as follows: beginning at the SE corner of above said SW '/o;
thence S 89°37'55" W 1,269.48 feet; thence N 01'01'10" E
1,336.68 feet to a point on the northerly line of above said S 1/2;
thence N 89°32'38" E along said line 1,269.53 feet to the NE
corner of said S 1/2; thence S 01'01'10" W along the easterly line
of said SW 1/4 1,338.63 feet to the point of beginning. Together
with and subject to easements, reservations, covenants and
restrictions of record and in view.
General Location: 9100 Block of Burns Road
Property Size:. Approximately 12.5 acres on a 60-acre parcel
2. ACCESS:_ The site is adjacent Burns Road at approximately the 9100
block.
3. UTILITIES: Water and sewer lines will be stubbed into School District
property at the southeast corner along Burns Road. The School District
will also be responsible for running water and sewer the length of their
frontage to Burns Road.
4. .LAND USE AND ZONING:_ The site is zoned R-1 (Low Density Residential)
and is being farmed. The property to the north is zoned A-P (Agricultural
Production) in the County and is currently being farmed. The property to
the west is zoned R-1 and is being developed with the Columbia Terrace
subdivision. The property to the east is zoned R-1 and is being farmed.
The properties to the south are zoned R-1 and are developed with single-
family homes in the Broadmoor Estates subdivision.
5. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN:. The Comprehensive Plan designates the site
as Low-Density Residential. Goal CF-5 suggests adequate provisions
should be made for educational facilities located throughout the urban
growth area. Policy CF-S-A encourages the appropriate location and
design of schools throughout the community.
6. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:. Based on the SEPA checklist, the
adopted City Comprehensive Plan, City development regulations,
testimony at the public hearing and other information, a Mitigated
Determination of Non-Significance (MDNS) has been issued for this
project. Mitigation factors include the provision of a traffic study for
necessary street improvements in accordance with City standards.
DISCUSSION
The Pasco School District proposes to build an elementary school on a portion
of a 60-acre site composed of one 38.9-acre parcel owned by the School District
and approximately 21.1 acres of another parcel to the east now under contract.
The eastern lot and a portion of the western lot are designated f'or the
elementary school. Most of the site to the west is being proposed fbr a middle
school.
Pasco currently has fifteen elementary schools, which have been growing in
enrollment by an average of over 5% annually since 2000. The fifteen
elementary schools have the capacity to serve 7,735 students, but as of August
2017, there were 8,539 students enrolled. The District has had to adjust
enrollment by moving students around to different schools and re-assigning
grades to different schools in order to accommodate the growth. Mobile
classrooms have also been added to virtually every PSD campus even at or near
the completion of new schools in order to accommodate growth. With the
ongoing growth in population (Pasco's population has more than doubled in
size since 2000, at an average annual increase of over 5%) and student
enrollment, the School District needs to construct several schools. Elementary
school enrollment in Pasco has increased by an average of about 28 new
students per school per year for the last two decades. This continued growth in
school enrollment will create the need 1br additional elementary schools.
To address part of the need for additional school space the District is proposing
to develop the site in question with a 72,000-square-foot elementary school.
The building will have classroom space for 750 students. The site will contain
sports fields, public parking, and bus loading off Burns Road.
2
The proposed site is farmland developed with crop circles located along the
north side of Burns (formerly Powerline) Road. Burns Road is improved with
pavement only. The School District will be responsible for completing all of the
street improvements in Burns Road and installing roads along the east and
west borders of the site.
A signal warrant test may be needed to determine when a signal should be
installed at Broadmoor Boulevard and Burns Road. The Regional
Transportation Analysis model used by the Regional Council does not include
elementary schools in the data used to identify future traffic impacts because
elementary schools do not impact the peak hour traffic conditions the way
other land uses do. Based on the Institute of Traffic Engineers Trip Generation
Manual (8th Ed) an elementary school with 750 students on average can be
expected to generate about 967.5 vehicle trips per day. That would amount to
$41,602 in traffic impact fees (trips multiplied by $43.00/trip). By comparison,
if the site were to develop with single family homes about 1,236.9 daily vehicle
trips could be expected.
Most of the schools in Pasco including the Pasco High School and Chiawana
High School are located in residential zoning districts. An on-line search of the
Franklin County Assessors records (2017) revealed that all of the residential
properties directly adjacent the existing Franklin STEM Elementary School
located at 6010 Road 52 have increased in valued since the school was built by
an average of over $55,000 between 2014-2017 (range $27,000-$135,800). The
neighborhood has yet to be completed and plans are already underway to
further develop the unoccupied land around the school. This provides a good
indication that elementary schools do not discourage the development of
permitted uses on property in the general vicinity of a school or impair the
value thereof.
Access to the site will be from a proposed road to be constructed along the east
property line of the site and from Burns Road to the south. Both Broadmoor
Boulevard and Road 90 feed into Burns Road for local access. School sites
typically have at least two means of access for safety reasons and to help
diffuse traffic and reduce the impacts of traffic on surrounding residential uses.
STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT
Findings of fact must be entered from the record. The following are initial
findings drawn from the background and analysis section of the staff report
and comments made at the public hearing. The Planning Commission may
add additional findings as deemed appropriate.
3
1. The site is located in an R-1 zone.
2. Under the current zoning approximately 202 single-family dwellings
could be constructed on the site.
3. Schools are conditional land uses in the R-1 zone and require review
through the special permit process prior to permitting for construction.
4. The site is at the northern edge of the Pasco Urban Growth Boundary.
5. The site is within the City limits of Pasco annexed in 2016.
6. The Comprehensive Plan identifies the site for low-density residential
uses.
7. Comprehensive Plan Goal CF-5 suggests that adequate provisions should
be made for the location of educational facilities throughout the urban
growth area.
8. The site is currently being farmed.
9. The west 38.97 acres of the site are owned by the Pasco School District
and the remaining approximately 2 1.1 acres are under contract.
10. Sewer and water utilities will be stubbed to the site.
11. The site is located at the 9100 block Burns Road.
12. Burns Road is not fully improved.
13. All existing elementary schools in Pasco have at least two access routes
to and from the schools.
14. City development standards require street and utility (sewer, water,
irrigation) improvements to be constructed or installed concurrently with
site development.
15. Off-site street improvements include but are not limited to street
construction and paving, installation of curb gutter and sidewalk (7'
wide), street lights, handicapped ramps, signage, lane striping, street
drainage, traffic signals, speed-reduction modifications, and fire
hydrants.
16. According to the Institute of Traffic Engineers Trip Generation Manual
(8th Ed) a 750-student middle school will generate about 967.5 vehicle
trips per day.
17. If developed with single family homes the site would generate about
1,236.9 vehicle trips per day.
18. A Mitigated Determination of Non-Significance based on the provision of
a traffic study for necessary street improvements is likely for this
application.
19. Pasco's population has more than doubled since 1997.
20. The Pasco School District enrollment has grown from 8,048 in 1997 to
17,878 in 2016.
21. No sports fielding lighting will be constructed with the proposed
elementary school.
4
CONCLUSIONS BASED ON STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT
Before recommending approval or denial of a special permit the Planning
Commission must draw its conclusion from the findings of fact based upon the
criteria listed in P.M.C. 25.86.060. The criteria and staff listed conclusions are
as follows:
1) Will the proposed use be in accordance with the goals, policies, objectives
and text of the Comprehensive Plan?
The proposed use supports the following plan policies or goals: CF-5
suggests adequate provisions be made for educational facilities
throughout the Urban Growth Area. Transportation and Utility policies
support city standards that require the extension of streets and utilities
in conjunction with development. To be in accord with the
Comprehensive Plan the proposed elementary school development would
also need to include the development of adjoining streets and utilities.
2) Will the proposed use adversely affect public infrastructure?
The location of an elementary school on the proposed site may encourage
the development of residential homes to the north of the school site
leading to pressure to expand the UGA into areas the School District will
help pay for the sewer trunk line in Burns Road. The School District will
thereby be helping the City implement the Sewer Comprehensive Plan.
The area north of this proposed school is in the Sewer Comprehensive
Plan which the City will be servicing.
3) Will the proposed use be constructed, maintained and operated to be in
harmony with existing or intended character of the general vicinity?
The proposed elementary school has been designed to complement the
existing and future neighborhood by providing generous yard setbacks,
landscaping, screening of mechanical equipment and a pitched roof line
to moderate the school's height in keeping with typical pitched roofs of
residential homes. Elementary schools are typically located in or near
residential neighborhoods and are an accepted part of the character of
residential areas.
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?
5
The construction of schools in residential neighborhoods often
encourages development of nearby properties. For example, residential
development around the Franklin STEM Elementary School located at
6010 Road 52 progressed after the school was in place. An on-line
search of the Franklin County Assessors records (2017) revealed that
values of all residential properties located near the existing Franklin
STEM Elementary School have increased since the school was built.
5J 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?
Experience has shown that schools within Pasco generate few
complaints from neighbors. Elementary schools typically are not a
source of dust, fumes, vibrations or flashing lights. The proposed school
could generate up to 967.5 vehicle trips per day. During weekends, the
summer break, and other break periods very little traffic will be
generated. Schools have a long history of being accepted in residential
neighborhoods. In most communities schools are located in or near
residential neighborhoods. A Mitigated Determination of Non-
Significance based on the provision of a traffic study for necessary street
improvements is likely for this application and any approval should be
conditioned upon meeting or accomplishing the recommendations
contained within the study.
6) Will the proposed use endanger the public health or safety if located and
developed where proposed, or in anyway will become a nuisance to uses
permitted in the district?
The elementary school will be constructed to meet all requirements of
the International Building Code, the Fire Code, the Plumbing Code, all
other construction codes and state regulations pertaining to elementary
school construction. The building will be required to have fire-rated
corridors, area separation walls, sufficient exiting and fire sprinkler
systems to ensure the safety of the public. The construction of sidewalks
and street improvements will address traffic safety issues.
6
Approval Conditions
1. The special permit shall apply to Franklin County Assessor's Parcel
No. 115170085, approximately 21.1 acres of parcel 115170068,
and any subdivisions thereof.
2. The elementary school site shall be developed in substantial
conformity with the site plan and building elevations submitted
with the special permit application. Nothing herein prohibits the
School District from adding four additional classrooms to the
school building or placing portable classrooms on the site.
3. Burns Road abutting the School District property and the property
currently under contract (Franklin County Assessor's Parcel No.
115170085 and approximately 21.1 acres of parcel 115170068
existing as of September 25, 2017) shall be improved to arterial
street standards meeting construction standards of the City.
Improvements shall include but not be limited to curb, gutter,
sidewalk and street lighting along the school side of the street.
4. Sidewalks in the Burns Road right-of-way shall be 5 feet wide and
located along the property line rather than the curb line.
5. The planting strip between the Burns Road curb and the offset
sidewalk must be planted in lawn and trees planted at 50-foot
intervals. The landscape and irrigation plan must be approved by
the Administrative and Community Services Department prior to
installation.
6. No on-street parking or bus staging will be permitted on or
adjacent to Burns Road or the proposed road along the western
property line.
7. All costs associated with speed reduction/modification including
but not limited to flashing lights, signage, pedestrian sensors,
safety and crosswalks shall be paid for by the School District.
S. All street/roadway signage abutting the property is to be provided
by the School District and must conform to the most current
MUTCD 8s City of Pasco Construction Standards.
9. A Mitigated Determination of Non-Significance based on the
provision of a traffic study for necessary street improvements has
been issued for this project.
10. The School District shall construct all necessary improvements
and accommodations for pedestrian school routes along Burns
Road and the proposed road along the western property line as
required and identified in the traffic study.
11. No mid-block crosswalks will be permitted on Burns Road or the
proposed road along the western property line.
7
12. The School District shall prepare a dust control mitigation plan to
be submitted with the building permit application.
13. The School District shall install a 16 inch irrigation line along the
length of the school site in Burns Road.
14. The School District shall dedicate the south 40 feet of the site for
the Burns Road right-of-way.
15. The School District shall dedicate the west 60 feet of the site for
future road right-of-way.
16. No sports field light shall be permitted.
17. Water rights associated with site must be dedicated to the City
prior to the issuance of a building permit.
18. The special permit shall be null and void if a building permit has
not been obtained by December 2020.
.RECOMMENDATION
MOTION for Findings of Fact: I move to adopt Findings of Fact and
Conclusions therefrom as contained in the November 16, 2017 staff
report.
MOTION for Recommendation: I move, based on the Findings of
Fact and Conclusions therefrom, the Planning Commission recommend
the City Council grant a special permit to Pasco School District #1 for the
location of an elementary school at the 9100 block of Burns Road with
conditions as contained in the November 16, 2017 staff report.
8
Overview
Item: Pasco School District Elementary School # 17 " -
Applicant: Pasco School District W E
Map File #: SP 2017-014
rowS
3F
X SITE YI
�9 II
77,17, 771-7
I 1
E.L . i
- _
I 1-
3R-H,--
ja
r
Vicinity
Item: Pasco School District Elementary School #17
Applicant: Pasco School District w E
Map File #: SP 2017-014
5_
Proposed, Proposed
Middle �Elernenta
A v.
School School ;
Site Site
e,.� A. a -
SOL K nR. , 7kQBX]R.' t +5
"Ll,r _ ;� � ., ..t' - DURF14(�!I'C'T QlII�Ii7�IM�_ G,�-- L.LEAr
Jf
� 'j
�. •,,.•� .. a ! ., ' _ # �:'... 'iiT. fI I Icy, - fi• o fn
T .'� .
tit q�n apt W rMW LINT_K a e� {� Q`, — z p
Land Use
Item: Pasco School District Elementary School :, 17 "
Applicant: Pasco School District W
Map File #: SP 2017-014
S
Farming (County)
City Limits
Proposed Proposed
Columbia Middle Elementa
Terrace School School Farming
Site Site
RFOLK DR CADBORO DR DURHAM D LASALLE DR
DURHAM CT
z LU ca
~ 3 z 4 �
D s
rn .FT-1
M DR ww 5 WELLINGTON DR O ZEPH
� _ ���. f-T-1 ( T T T T 1
Zoning Item: Pasco School District Elementary School # 17 "Applicant: Pasco School District w E
Map File #: SP 2017-014 r I
S
AP-20 (County)
City Limits
Proposed Proposed
R-1 Middle Elementa R-1
School School
Site Site
RFOLlK DR CADBQRO DR DURHAM CTDURHAM D LASALLE DR
x
---- Ui z o 3 a R-1 g +—+—+ +--+—�a ; —�cn
CJ ; z p Q� I !�� a ��� �3
�" ^`+�",D g i� m WELLINGTON DR tn�;OHAO ZEPH
nwr..ym�rt 9
i 2 3 4 5 fi 7 8 9 1a
F r E 6
60 Acre Site
oil tj
aru"By
I I !
cNEc�D6Y
-
JOB NUMBER E
T
� REVISIONS
1
FNTI/REAO�O I I I"1 � —. —
1
o -
F- ft*Low
'
LM
_
1C
_ ; E I✓-I a+ur uM.t
MIOOLE SCHOOL
_ I I
OROP-0FF— j 41.EM4N'fJNiYSCHOOL
ow
c l -n- iz
ORM
_?4 i
07/18/2017
SHEET NWE
SITE
A STUDY
T 2 f 3 1 e 1 5 15 r s s +a
Proposed
rElementary School #17
Iii
y. Burns Road,Pasco,WA
........
. Approx.730 Students
Approx. 73,000 SF
M
5b M
Composite Floor Plan
-
First Floor
� aaa
---------- ---------
PASCO SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 1
1215 W.LEWIS
PASCO,WA 99301
Ph:(5 9)5436095
17t
W. D
PROJECT ]PP�Cp� 71K WEST T
NORTH JC"00. 1STWIL1t,at A R C W 1 7 E C T 5
Elementary School #17
...... • Burns Road Pasco,WA
j-
81 Approx.730 Students
'T
11 M
Approx.73,000 SF
1U
L
A- I
Composite Floor Plan
Second Floor
0
PASCO SCHOOL DISTRICT No. I
1215 W.LEWIS
PASCO,WA 99301
Ph:(509)543-6095
PROJECT NV. DESM
NORTH K
MCI#, ;qK vvwr
(XILDimiasi ARCHITECTS
Looking North
eT= v'•= ���.�,�r �'� ` pyx •'' = �- i' :� a•y�4fii' �,-.._
' 'x�-• `'',�{.� � �. t.�..F. w'�-',ems�
�{ -•� t -� _�,•�, Y+Y � '�r,}�.,�f�`���C�; ����{� :i �,LaiY.Fr.. k yit �-. ..K�e�� }`.
17
•� t�'i. � f��l ?�+�e�(v r aA� �+[�y ��r�y:l'�{' !�= sf �' �;`'° - .�[ S�' � _ .q+"' c"^'
�' �! r4_ J = r.� �1� •�a� S'� .-t {l r ::? ''S'l/ r� '."r''� ' "� r ��--:_ r i k�fFi•a �,r� r
k t.� 'Iq - � is +„] K;' r h � rb '-�,�.� r 1�, .� ,yj 7."".S ` -•..rr - 'k....'t' :�
T ti�_.. Wi� }}, '� -.h ,; �:�R" � ;..�_ ��( i 4!'1y t Tl r •�♦ a1^ 4` r ' °�°Z i� �� V e 4+� �.
• �[l _moi 4 _ � �w}Y *. 4P -�c411'. �a� a i 1 • 1 , f�, t'rM'�� �-• I-„� -.
�.- .�16 r ;._.X...+ A iaN Ao„{� '. ` Y• �,+ifT +u .� r + ' t +�_ y .` M1. •..r-. -J ' .�xr � fi,�x v` .-' } ��
a Vt jf N }
-f �.. � A it
L'5,
•yr�.t V C,��: r- 'L i!� ,,,/ 'r., _�.r44y T d� ,.r r z 1 : NS'�.v!,�r.4 � aT rt
��{yf,', ,.j.i• ', v .-,-7Rr' f '!i � �. uy' 1'• ,c+�i � �� �{ t�.� 4 x_- ,cr ��:
�� 3r•���rf rr M ,T; ^.3T. � Y Z,-k� ! .rJ 4� �' _5`r 1},y.'i, t �� "•�
4•ray '��„ � •e
Looking East
Looking South
' �y�, i�. .. ,Y► S =,a`�� f�§ � � ��
04
i --`w, . ►�' �- � h yriS �3 4-1�� lac �'.i„r�':�'J' i1 � - ' y,r � •��- • r�'��r� .i -
IZ
iyii
� der-. i+` *��S.r �� •r�l.J. •'� S {.: . .. '���- ,� . `� w� { "-i' SLis 5!'� +�.-f`i. - 'A' r ,� }} '
;,� 1 ° '��SJ1' 7 ,i' �. : •ti+ �_�,y x "
PT ,�.+ ,', � i'#; `� i�ti 'y�•?�"S'' � t�' ' .� �''. '+r`
SF
i1+. },•= Va *� '�S •�'' -'�K � -F 1r ��� �-` �� �• _ -1 ;��s�< ��� '2�, t i '!Y��.'�'�,�`#'.,}�`, �+.r'. �i.r,
a .KJ-?"T'� T 1 ��{• ��i�1.1' J �r" �� �R ^y"��•��IV; Yyy�,,� x`'�i�� �, jT'*i 1-
ti 3 i
-1�a >
.. '��7, - tea'
Looking West
It
- ' � * .tom. �' - ;, 1 �r" '� � •aa _,r ° � ,. ����
..4r• - ,fie. T ,. - a.
MEMORANDUM
DATE: October 18, 2018
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Darcy Bourcier, Planner I
Community & Economic Development
SUBJECT: Middle School #4 Revised Site Plan (SP2017-015)
The Pasco School District has provided C&ED Staff with revised site plans for both
Elementary School #17 and Middle School #4, which were approved through the Special
Permit process in December of 2017. According to the resolutions for both schools, the
schools"[...] shall be developed in substantial conformity with the site plan[s] and building
elevations submitted with the Special Permit application[s]." However, the revised site
plans are significantly different from the site plans that were approved by the Planning
Commission and Council last year, as the PSD had hired a design team to rework the site
plans to optimize the use of the area. Staff has put together a list of the major changes
between the old Middle School #4 site plan and new:
1. The middle school's layout has changed considerably; however, the change in
square footage is negligible;
2. Two separate bus lanes have become one bus lane which connects the schools;
3. The playing fields have been relocated from the elementary school site to just north
of the middle school.
4. The track is now located adjacent Burns Road between the two schools;
5. Two soccer fields have been removed and four tennis courts have been added;
6. An access road has been added to connect the four baseball diamonds to the
westernmost driveway on Burns;
7. Visitor and employee parking lots have generally changed shape and size and have
shifted; however, the amount of parking stalls remains largely the same.
All access points onto the properties have remained relatively unchanged.
During the September 20, 2018 Planning Commission meeting, Commissioners requested
that these site plans return as public hearings in order to fully address the proposed changes.
Below are the Findings of Fact and Conclusions taken from the November 16, 2017
Planning Commission meeting which have been updated to consider the new site plan
proposed. The November 16, 2017 Staff Report has also been included for review.
STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT
Findings of fact must be entered from the record. The following are initial findings drawn
from the background and analysis section of the staff report and comments made at the
public hearing. The Planning Commission may add additional findings as deemed
appropriate.
1. The site is located in an R-1 zone.
2. Under the current zoning approximately 202 single-family dwellings could be
constructed on the site.
3. Schools are conditional land uses in the R-1 zone and require review through the
special permit process prior to permitting for construction.
4. The site is at the northern edge of the Pasco Urban Growth Boundary.
5. The site was annexed into the City in 2016 (Ordinance 4238) and is now within the
City limits of Pasco.
6. The Comprehensive Plan identifies the site for low-density residential uses.
7. Comprehensive Plan Goal CF-5 suggests that adequate provisions should be made
for the location of educational facilities throughout the urban growth area.
8. The site is currently being farmed.
9. The west 38.97 acres of the site are owned by the Pasco School District and the
remaining approximately 21.1 acres are under contract.
10. Sewer and water utilities will be stubbed to the site.
11. The site is located at the 9300 block Burns Road.
12. Burns Road is not fiilly improved.
13. All existing middle schools in Pasco have at least two access routes to and from the
schools.
14. City development standards require street and utility (sewer, water, irrigation)
improvements to be constructed or installed concurrently with site development.
15. Off-site street improvements include but are not limited to street construction and
paving, installation of curb gutter and sidewalk (7-foot wide), street lights,
handicapped ramps, signage, lane striping, street drainage, traffic signals, speed-
reduction modifications, and fire hydrants.
16. According to the Institute of Traffic Engineers Trip Generation Manual (8t'' Ed) a
1,100-student middle school will generate about 1,782 vehicle trips per day.
17. If developed with single family homes the site would generate about 1,236.9 vehicle
trips per day.
18. A Mitigated Determination of Non-Significance was issued for this project
requiring a traffic study for necessary street improvements.
19. Pasco's population has more than doubled since 1997.
20. The Pasco School District enrollment has grown from 8,048 in 1997 to 17,878 in
2016.
21. Residential development near the existing Ellen Ochoa Middle School indicates
middle schools do not negatively impact the value of surrounding homes or the
intended development of residential neighborhoods.
22. No sports fielding lighting will be constructed with the proposed middle school.
23. The applicant submitted a revised site plan f'or the school site; proper notice of this
submittal has been transmitted.
CONCLUSIONS BASED ON STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT.
Before recommending approval or denial of a special permit the Planning Commission
must draw its conclusion from the findings of fact based upon the criteria listed in P.M.C.
25.86.060. The criteria and staff listed conclusions are as follows:
1) Will the proposed use be in accordance with the goals, policies, objectives and
text of the Comprehensive Plan?
The proposed use supports the following plan policies or goals: CF-5 suggests
adequate provisions be made f'or educational facilities throughout the Urban Growth
Area. Transportation and Utility policies support city standards that require the
extension of streets and utilities in conjunction with development. To be in accord
with the Comprehensive Plan the proposed middle school development would also
need to include the development of adjoining streets and utilities.
2) Will the proposed use adversely affect public infi-astructure?
The location of a middle school on the proposed site may encourage the
development of residential homes to the north of the school site leading to pressure
to expand the UGA into areas the School District will help pay f'or the sewer trunk
line in Burns Road. The School District will thereby be helping the City implement
the Sewer Comprehensive Plan. The area north of this proposed school is in the
Sewer Comprehensive Plan which the City will be servicing. The revised site plan
will not negatively impact public infrastructure.
3) Will the proposed use be constructed, maintained and operated to be in harmony
with existing or intended character of the general vicinity?
The proposed middle school has been designed to complement the existing and
future neighborhood by providing generous yard setbacks, landscaping, screening
of mechanical equipment and a pitched roof line to moderate the school's height in
keeping with typical pitched roofs of residential homes. Middle schools are
typically located in or near residential neighborhoods and are an accepted part of
the character of residential areas. The revised site plan will not disrupt the character
of the neighborhood.
4) Will the location and height ofproposed structures and the site design discourage
the development of permitted uses on property in the general vicinity or impair
the value thereof?
The construction of schools in residential neighborhoods often encourages
development of nearby properties. Residential development around the Ellen
Ochoa School located north of Lewis Street in east Pasco was not completed until
after the school was in place. An on-line search of the Franklin County Assessors
records (2017) revealed that values of all residential properties located near the
existing Ellen Ochoa Middle School have increased since the school was built.
S) Will the operations in connection with the proposal be more objectionable to
nearby properties by reason of noise, filmes, vibrations, dust, traffic, or flashing
lights than would be the operation of any permitted uses within the district?
Experience has shown that schools within Pasco generate few complaints from
neighbors. Schools have a long history of being accepted in residential
neighborhoods. In most communities, schools, including middle schools, are
located in or near residential neighborhoods.
Middle schools typically are not a source of dust, fumes, vibrations or flashing
lights. The proposed school could generate up to 1,782 vehicle trips per day. During
weekends, the summer break, and other break periods very little traffic will be
generated. A Mitigated Determination of Non-Significance based on the provision
of a traffic study for necessary street improvements has been issued. The revised
site plan will not affect the environmental determination
6) Will the proposed use endanger the public health or safety if located and
developed where proposed, or in any way will become a nuisance to uses
permitted in the district?
The middle school will be constructed to meet all requirements of the International
Building Code, the Fire Code, the Plumbing Code, all other construction codes and
state regulations pertaining to middle school construction. The building will be
required to have fire-rated corridors, area separation walls, sufficient exiting and
fire sprinkler systems to ensure the safety of the public. The construction of
sidewalks and street improvements will address traffic safety issues. The revised
site plan will not create any public safety hazards.
RECOMMENDATION,
MOTION: I move to close the public hearing and adopt Findings of Fact
and Conclusions therefrom as contained in the October 18, 2018
memorandum.
MOTION: I move, based on the Findings of Fact and Conclusions
therefrom, the Planning Commission recommend the City Council
approve the special permit for Middle School #4 at the 9300 Block of
Burns Road as amended in the October 18, 2018 memorandum.
Revised P � an
:Ja)r cmc— ti ll�--—_- --—- KEY NOTES
do
/ate I ] �CCFS�aIE wlw
1/F'\-'JI}I.-/-/\i S ACCf98LC eUnmG _
L
Sth'pol gLM�x
`} 6 q+alLw
1 , I I f 1 a «uw uwKt
r: , �..1 n arafmun uaw.r
P i t I ,e aXlsa[X055 wHx -..e{5�
^" i , --- iu +li --- I- +I i I li 1%VEIf 3'r�G GIE, •�WF��.0
I,5
r- � Is au srew n
MLL—L
I 1 ti p l /I
Fk1 i O
L__4_- 2
I
yam- _ w
ACCESS ROAD —
a
Q Z
r p
LU 0 -a
d b
ran
aND
�� � ...-. .. +a.cowur,r..ti to�Ice+„a.
I ..
"all i
771
{I p I r NOTES
sXcn coat rw�u uons AND
lI
FF��0 T?J rN 9N18MIA SI1lL5.S MCS'JOCL3S6lE JTk.LS,afR4t f
45
11 '`' i Z tf
gg 1 c m }
Ic�sral-I.s
91
-as-
— JI II ..Ls. I I e 1 1 i'� oe its
—___-- --"_----_—_`
ATI OVERALL SITE PLANIwra —
,,, xrnlfavaum
Middle, School Revised Overview
j c;
_�j
r
t'J
1 J. -- - f
- 1,396,406 Sf i 566,786 sf I
- 30.0 ac 13.0 ac
Elementary School a
0 544,502 sf _
12.5 ac o
�� CCS C�� � • �
fes, i
icr
f - �
BURNS ROAD —
Sitean �0Acre site
Old
it ^ : ,J ,41r. C �.hwA Elementary
rr— IVIIUUIC .3
-do -- -;�-
I I
RE ROADLj
_ I � I
I � ► ��---ice '� � ;`'
i
AT—AFF eAl
4j 1Z
c; I
/cam BOgL�` \
PLAY AREA
MIDDLE SCHOOL t 1
OROP-OFF— ELEMEWAFcv SCJf
14. it
IILJ I�T
"URE ROAD I,
1, V151,OR—ARKfNG V 1, _ # �. J
VtrOR PARKMYd i
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
MASTER FILE NO: SP 2017-015 APPLICANT:Pasco School District #1
HEARING DATE: 10/ 19/ 17 1215 W Lewis St
ACTION DATE: 11/ 16/ 17 Pasco, WA 99301
BACKGROUND
REQUEST: SPECIAL PERMIT: Location of a Middle School in an R-1 District.
(9300 Block of Burns Road)
1. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION:
Legal:_ That portion of the S 1/2 of the SW 1/4 of section 5, township 9
north, range 29 east, W.M., Franklin County, WA being described
as follows: beginning at the SE corner of above said SW 1/4;
thence S 89°37'55" W 1,269.48 feet; thence N O1°01'10" E
1,336.68 feet to a point on the northerly line of above said S 1/2;
thence N 89°32'38" E along said line 1,269.53 feet to the NE
corner of said S 1/2; thence S O1°01'10" W along the easterly line
of said SW 1/4 1,338.63 feet to the point of beginning. Together
with and subject to easements, reservations, covenants and
restrictions of record and in view.
General Location: 9300 Block of Burns Road
Property Size: Approximately 60 acres
2. ACCESS:. The site is adjacent Burns Road at approximately the 9300
block.
3. UTILITIES: Water and sewer lines will be stubbed into School District
property at the southeast corner along Burns Road. The School District
will also be responsible for running water and sewer the length of their
frontage of Burns Road.
4. LAND USE AND ZONING: The site is zoned R-1 (Low Density Residential)
and is being farmed. The property to the north is zoned A-P (Agricultural
Production) in the County and is currently being farmed. The property to
the west is zoned R-1 and is being developed with the Columbia Terrace
subdivision. The property to the east is zoned R-1 and is being farmed.
The properties to the south are zoned R-1 and are developed with single-
family homes in the Broadmoor Estates subdivision.
5. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The Comprehensive Plan designates the site
as Low-Density Residential. Goal CF-5 suggests adequate provisions
should be made f'or educational facilities located throughout the urban
growth area. Policy CF-S-A encourages the appropriate location and
design of schools throughout the community.
6. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The City of Pasco is the lead
agency for this project. A Mitigated Determination of Non-Significance
was issued requiring a traffic study f'or necessary street improvements
(WAC 197-11-355).
DISCUSSION
The Pasco School District proposes to build a middle school on a site recently
annexed into the City (2016: Ordinance 4238), composed of one 38.9-acre
parcel owned by the School District and approximately 21.1 acres of another
parcel to the east now under contract, all totaling 60 acres. The western lot and
a portion of the eastern lot are designated for the middle school. An elementary
school is being proposed for the remaining portion of the site to the east.
Pasco currently has three middle schools, which have been growing in
enrollment by an average of over 4% annually since 2000. The district has had
to adjust enrollment by moving students around to different schools and re-
assigning grades to different schools in order to accommodate the growth.
Mobile classrooms have also been added to virtually every PSD campus—in
some cases right upon completion of new schools—in order to accommodate
growth. With the ongoing growth in population (Pasco's population has more
than doubled in size since 2000, at an average annual increase of over 5%) and
student enrollment, the School District needs to construct several schools.
Middle school enrollment in Pasco has increased by an average of about 125
new students per year f'or the last two decades. This continued growth in
school enrollment will create the need for additional middle schools.
To address part of the need for additional school space the District is proposing
to develop the site in question with a 115,000-square-foot middle school
similar to Ellen Ochoa Middle School. The building will have classroom space
f'or 1,100 students. The site will contain sports fields, public parking, and bus
loading off a future road to be built west of the site.
The proposed site is farmland developed with crop circles located along the
north side of Burns (formerly Powerline) Road. Burns Road is improved with
pavement only. The School District will be responsible for completing all of the
street improvements in Burns Road and installing roads along the east and
west borders of the site.
2
A signal warrant test may be needed to determine when a signal should be
installed at Broadmoor Boulevard and Burns Road. The Regional
Transportation Analysis model used by the Regional Council does not include
middle schools in the data used to identify future traffic impacts because
middle schools do not impact the peak hour traffic conditions the way other
land uses do. Based on the Institute of Traffic Engineers Trip Generation
Manual (8111, Ed) a middle school with 1,100 students on average can be
expected to generate about 1,782 vehicle trips per day. That would amount to
$76,626 in traffic impact fees (trips multiplied by $43.00/trip). By comparison,
if the site were to develop with single family homes about 1,236.9 daily vehicle
trips could be expected.
Most of the schools in Pasco including Pasco and Chiawana High Schools are
located in residential zoning districts. An on-line search of the Franklin County
Assessors records (2017) revealed that all of the residential properties directly
adjacent the existing Ellen Ochoa Middle School have increased in valued since
the school was built by an average of over $24,000 between 2014-2017 (range
$8,100-$35,600). The Ellen Ochoa neighborhood was not fully developed until
after the school was built. This provides a good indication that middle schools
do not discourage the development of permitted uses on property in the general
vicinity of a school or impair the value thereof.
Access to the site will be from a proposed road to be constructed along the west
property line of the site and from Burns Road to the south. Both Broadmoor
Boulevard and Road 90 feed into Burns Road for local access. School sites
typically have at least two means of access for safety reasons and to help
diffuse traffic and reduce the impacts of traffic on surrounding residential uses.
STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT
Findings of fact must be entered from the record. The following are initial
findings drawn from the background and analysis section of the staff report
and comments made at the public hearing. The Planning Commission may
add additional findings as deemed appropriate.
1. The site is located in an R-1 zone.
2. Under the current zoning approximately 202 single-family dwellings
could be constructed on the site.
3. Schools are conditional land uses in the R-1 zone and require review
through the special permit process prior to permitting for construction.
4. The site is at the northern edge of the Pasco Urban Growth Boundary.
3
5. The site was annexed into the City in 2016 (Ordinance 4238) and is now
within the City limits of Pasco.
6. The Comprehensive Plan identifies the site for low-density residential
uses.
7. Comprehensive Plan Goal CF-5 suggests that adequate provisions should
be made for the location of educational facilities throughout the urban
growth area.
8. The site is currently being farmed.
9. The west 38.97 acres of the site are owned by the Pasco School District
and the remaining approximately 2 1.1 acres are under contract.
10. Sewer and water utilities will be stubbed to the site.
11. The site is located at the 9300 block Burns Road.
12. Burns Road is not fully improved.
13. All existing middle schools in Pasco have at least two access routes to
and from the schools.
14. City development standards require street and utility (sewer, water,
irrigation) improvements to be constructed or installed concurrently with
site development.
15. Off-site street improvements include but are not limited to street
construction and paving, installation of curb gutter and sidewalk (7'
wide), street lights, handicapped ramps, signage, lane striping, street
drainage, traffic signals, speed-reduction modifications, and fire
hydrants.
16. According to the Institute of Traffic Engineers Trip Generation Manual
(8th Ed) a 1,100-student middle school will generate about 1,782 vehicle
trips per day.
17. If developed with single family homes the site would generate about
1,236.9 vehicle trips per day.
18. A Mitigated Determination of Non-Significance was issued for this project
requiring a traffic study for necessary street improvements.
19. Pasco's population has more than doubled since 1997.
20. The Pasco School District enrollment has grown from 8,048 in 1997 to
17,878 in 2016.
21. Residential development near the existing Ellen Ochoa Middle School
indicates middle schools do not negatively impact the value of
surrounding homes or the intended development of residential
neighborhoods.
22. No sports fielding lighting will be constructed with the proposed middle
school.
4
CONCLUSIONS BASED ON STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT
Before recommending approval or denial of a special permit the Planning
Commission must draw its conclusion from the findings of fact based upon the
criteria listed in P.M.C. 25.86.060. The criteria and staff listed conclusions are
as follows:
1) Will the proposed use be in accordance urith the goals, policies, objectives
and text of the Comprehensive Plan?
The proposed use supports the following plan policies or goals: CF-5
suggests adequate provisions be made for educational facilities
throughout the Urban Growth Area. Transportation and Utility policies
support city standards that require the extension of streets and utilities
in conjunction with development. To be in accord with the
Comprehensive Plan the proposed middle school development would also
need to include the development of adjoining streets and utilities.
2) Will the proposed use adversely affect public infrastructure?
The location of a middle school on the proposed site may encourage the
development of residential homes to the north of the school site leading
to pressure to expand the UGA into areas the School District will help
pay for the sewer trunk line in Burns Road. The School District will
thereby be helping the City implement the Sewer Comprehensive Plan.
The area north of this proposed school is in the Sewer Comprehensive
Plan which the City will be servicing.
3) Will the proposed use be constructed, maintained and operated to be in
harmony urith existing or intended character of the general vicinity?
The proposed middle school has been designed to complement the
existing and future neighborhood by providing generous yard setbacks,
landscaping, screening of mechanical equipment and a pitched roof line
to moderate the school's height in keeping with typical pitched roofs of
residential homes. Middle schools are typically located in or near
residential neighborhoods and are an accepted part of the character of
residential areas.
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?
5
The construction of schools in residential neighborhoods often
encourages development of nearby properties. Residential development
around the Ellen Ochoa School located north of Lewis Street in east
Pasco was not completed until after the school was in place. An on-line
search of the Franklin County Assessors records (2017) revealed that
values of all residential properties located near the existing Ellen Ochoa
Middle School have increased since the school was built.
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?
Experience has shown that schools within Pasco generate few
complaints from neighbors. Schools have a long history of being
accepted in residential neighborhoods. In most communities schools,
including middle schools, are located in or near residential
neighborhoods.
Middle schools typically are not a source of dust, fumes, vibrations or
flashing lights. The proposed school could generate up to 1,782 vehicle
trips per day. During weekends, the summer break, and other break
periods very little traffic will be generated. A Mitigated Determination of
Non-Significance based on the provision of a traffic study for necessary
street improvements is likely for this application, and any approval
should be conditioned upon meeting or accomplishing the
recommendations contained within the study.
6) Will the proposed use endanger the public health or safety if located and
developed where proposed, or in anyway will become a nuisance to uses
permitted in the district?
The middle school will be constructed to meet all requirements of the
International Building Code, the Fire Code, the Plumbing Code, all other
construction codes and state regulations pertaining to middle school
construction. The building will be required to have fire-rated corridors,
area separation walls, sufficient exiting and fire sprinkler systems to
ensure the safety of the public. The construction of sidewalks and street
improvements will address traffic safety issues.
6
Proposed Approval Conditions
1. The special permit shall apply to Franklin County Assessor's Parcel
No. 115170085, approximately the west 21. 1 acres of parcel
115170068, and any future consolidations or subdivisions thereof.
2. The middle school site shall be developed in substantial conformity
with the site plan and building elevations submitted with the
special permit application. Nothing herein prohibits the School
District from adding four additional classrooms to the school
building or placing portable classrooms on the site.
3. Burns Road abutting the School District property and the property
currently under contract (Franklin County Assessor's Parcel No.
115170085 and approximately the west 21. 1 acres of parcel
115170068 existing as of September 25, 2017) shall be improved
to arterial street standards meeting construction standards of the
City. Improvements shall include but not be limited to curb, gutter,
sidewalk and street lighting along the school side of the street.
4. Sidewalks in the Burns Road right-of-way shall be 5 feet wide and
located along the property line rather than the curb line.
5. The planting strip between the Burns Road curb and the offset
sidewalk must be planted in lawn and trees planted at 5O46ot
intervals. The landscape and irrigation plan must be approved by
the Administrative and Community Services Department prior to
installation.
6. No on-street parking or bus staging will be permitted on or
adjacent to Burns Road or the proposed road along the western
property line.
7. All costs associated with speed reduction/mod if-ication including
but not limited to flashing lights, signage, pedestrian sensors,
safety and crosswalks shall be paid f'or by the School District.
8. A traffic study shall be conducted for necessary street
improvements, and any approval shall be conditioned upon
meeting or accomplishing the recommendations contained within
the study, as per the MDNS.
9. All street/roadway signage abutting the property is to be provided
by the School District and must conform to the most current
MUTCD & City of Pasco Construction Standards.
10. The School District shall construct all necessary improvements
and accommodations for pedestrian school routes along Burns
Road and the proposed road along the western property line.
11. No mid-block crosswalks will be permitted on Burns Road or the
proposed road along the western property line.
7
12. The School District shall prepare a dust control mitigation plan to
be submitted with the building permit application.
13. The School District shall install a 16 inch irrigation line along the
length of the school site in Burns Road.
14. The School District shall dedicate the south 40 feet of the site for
the Burns Road right-of-way.
15. The School District shall dedicate the west 60 feet of the site for
future road right-of-way.
15. No sports field light shall be permitted.
17. Water rights associated with site must be dedicated to the City
prior to the issuance of a building permit.
18. The special permit shall be null and void if a building permit has
not been obtained by December 2020.
RECOMMENDATION
MOTION: I move to adopt findings of fact and conclusions
therefrom as contained in the November 16, 2017 staff report.
MOTION: I move, based on the findings of fact and conclusions
therefrom, the Planning Commission recommend the City
Council grant a special permit for the location of a Middle School
at the 9300 Block of Burns Road (Parcel 115170085 and the
west approximately 21.1 acres of parcel 1 1 5 1 70068) with
conditions as listed in the November 16, 2017 staff report.
8
Overview
Item: Pasco School District Middle School #4 "
Applicant: Pasco School District W
Map File #: SP 2017-015
_ _ S
I
-l
t"y
ITE
A-
.'710'
it -
.r'!'-�"c�'� -
Vicinity
Item: Pasco School District Middle School #4 "
Applicant: Pasco School District W E
Map File #: SP 2017-015
S
c
— s' . X I
INN
Proposed Proposed t
Middle NElementa
School School
f
Site Site
,.�;. M —Y-- erE :!�{< }q a�• -�• ��'`�^. �:.^:� ..F� ,�"•... �---� � --til r•' _-.�'''="r'`-�r;�_" C��"` --_,ate^�..�. �' -� t• -
7,4
. lkc
a , DLlRF1APVf C:T� GEt3R1}AA�
RFOL'K DLd s `: � Ou
tINGRAM
WELLINGTON'DR J.
� `cin � O � - ZEP
Land Use
Item: Pasco School District Middle School #4
Applicant: Pasco School District w E
Map File #: SP 2017-015
S
Farming (County)
City Limits
Proposed Proposed
Columbia Middle Elementa
TerraceIN School School Farming
Site Site
IRFOLK OR CADBORO DR "ate DURHAM CT DURHAM D LASALLE DR
SF®Us -T
+ w odl— l- 0
;
LGHAM DR g y WELLINGTON DR� O
Zoning
Item: Pasco School District Middle School #4
Applicant: Pasco School District W E
Map File #: SP 2017-015
S
AP-20 (County)
City Limits
Proposed Proposed
R-1 Middle Elementa R-1
School School
Site Site
FT77IRFOLK DR CADBORO DR
- � V � DURHAM CT DURHAM LASALLET_
U z x J p _ �Ch y ��
UC O z p h 1 a l� # �O m IN'
1
NGHAM DR > 0 j m\ WELLINGTON DR a m 2-C P
Item: Pasco School District Middle School #4
Concept `
Applicant: Pasco School District W E
Map �
File #: SP 2017-015 S
..1 ..I
bit.
I ,
a eu►uwe t- ����
LL
•.�......._s..•� ._. -r•.m.Lt.J
sour
�1 -- , ''I I +
" r
Io---- 1-•f,��---- ---- ,
- -- - - BURNSADD
4 DU,RM .CT DU.RH�►iVI 0 �` ,�
Conceptual : New Middle School # 4
CLASSROOM HANG CLASSROOM ENING
COMMONS
CLASSROOM WING
LIBRARY KITCHEN
ADMIN
ARTS
ATHLETICS
CONCEPTUAL BUILDING LAYOUT
� .
Pasco School District 'mM4rel � ° "" ES
Looking North
"�.��.�'�� ..� .�...•x .. � �„rte -
.7. F �1�,
A, , i• - _ _r
` •'i .. �',, �F - h -R Ot ,fid► _ �° _
t
4"r4',�i+ " tJlr •s.�' �'y'-. '4 -w... +�” r k7+'"5
`- �ti _• y tf-!,
�1 �+ ij� �« _ �•wi. k � �Gt �.� �- 1 '.�7�R r ti� -� -re� �'"-..�'rsy' -
'
"4 " '� , �`tr � � -- -+ .��" . � 1� ,�♦ ��rs� „'� ;i`kyr♦ Y.� xi �.f��T � L11 '�! �v'' -.�6"'-i' "'A�
isx�y�s.+ ,:�I ,_ n` �t- rC, •j ti..l 1 .�''- W�' a �' • -'g'"� ►.7;•-
*.`AfliR� f i1t;' te-
4 "�1F�iw a
�`?� `� �• d ±t - +rA y �,,, �ff _ r�'- t c�1^RF-. i #. � "'�,'A� i�C� `'
C.
IS ,r} - lc° •�jy'_ ('�� rl�,�i �_� -�.• � ~fit`.
'ys� �
��• r�'' s-. is,i�'- 9
Looking East
i
n s -
�.(:.W[+-N r- J �T- '�`,•:. � ` •�- �s♦ - s'�.R — �'�''�. ray.
—2'
-
'er_
n-
Fb'• fib: ,�.,
�'•T "r r rV -t•i ti �ti 1 a.,�pb•�l �p,r�n1',�� � (p r v �x� .�.� Fy i/'r.j' r'
ft�� a Vis.. .t.. � r e - p �� �..-.L � �r•' fF a S � i r��.,�Jy,(f� N ,y},�r y wi
t• x Se. L� I`},y��M y '�4`1} [Jinl,1' � rr,
i� •�yr -fir a rS� �� y F 1 si 11 t r { � +a,.; t ��f�l'F '( �. �k ti���- y�,IF'
Looking West
w Aw
Al
dr
G
�.1.rrs' •ivd� -. �Y �ti�" *�;� ;s i d'-�,.T� -!.i"'., ��.. Y.t y�,�a
..
v s•
MEMORANDUM
DATE: October 18, 2018
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Darcy Bourcier, Planner I
SUBJECT: Single Room Occupancy in Residential and Commercial Zoning_
Districts tCA2018-0041
Interest has been expressed to introduce single room occupancy (SRO) housing
to Pasco—a form of affordable housing that the City does not currently practice
or permit. SROs consist of multiple single room dwelling units with kitchens,
bathrooms, and laundry facilities provided either within each unit or in a
common area. Typically, this form of housing is rent only and directed at low-
income residents, students, single tenants, or seasonal/traveling workers due
to their smaller size and limited amenities. SROs are more common in larger
cities near central business districts and are often converted from
hotels/motels. Municipalities may determine the allowable minimum and
maximum square footage for SRO units, but typically they range in size from
150 to 500 square feet based upon the amenities provided in each unit. Like
hotels and apartments, SRO facilities have either an on-site manager or a
management office.
The City of Pasco has no provision in the Zoning Code to allow for this form of
housing. In other cities, SRO housing is often more dense than what is typically
permitted in even high-density residential districts and is also often permitted
in commercial zones. In comparison, the most dense residential development
the PMC permits is in the R-4 (High Density Residential) zoning district, which
requires 1,500 square feet per dwelling unit. Furthermore, residential units are
not permitted in commercial zones unless the units are above the ground floor
of a commercial building and the residential use has been approved through
the Special Permit process.
SROs can benefit a city in various ways. These smaller, more affordable units
can be one solution to a city's homelessness issues, as they are a suitable
option for physically and mentally disabled residents or for those on fixed
incomes. Additionally, since SROs commonly originate from existing hotels,
developers have the opportunity to purchase and convert these hotels into
SROs, therefore helping to bring nuisance properties up to city code.
Conversely, SROs can concentrate lower income households in one area or
facility, which can cause adverse impacts to overall neighborhood welfare.
I
Commissioners inquired about potential HUD involvement in assisting SRO
facilities; however, the City does not anticipate allocating HUD money for SRO
units.
Staff is seeking direction as to whether SRO housing in residential and
commercial zoning districts should be further explored and included in the
Pasco Zoning Code by way of a text amendment. A proposed text amendment
has been included for review and discussion—various components of the
amendment have yet to be defined and there are several questions Staff would
like the Commission to consider:
1. In which zoning districts should SRO housing be permitted via Special
Permit?
2. What should be the maximum density standards for SRO housing in
each zoning district in which SRO housing is permitted? Should SRO
housing comply with density standards?
3. Should an SRO facility be restricted to a minimum and maximum
number of units?
An example of unit layouts has been attached to illustrate the relative size of
the units as well as the placement of amenities, should they be included within
each unit.
In order to provide the Planning Commission with further information in regard
to other jurisdictions' SRO housing practices, Staff has included in this packet
a memo originating from the City of San Jose Planning Department. The memo
details some history of SRO housing in the city, explains certain SRO
provisions as they currently read in the city's zoning code, and then defines
improvements that should be made to the SRO code in response to difficulties
experienced with converting hotels/motels into SRO facilities. Staff believes the
memo provides appropriate guidelines to follow when considering the feasibility
of converting existing buildings into SRO facilities. A copy of the SRO chapter of
San Jose's zoning code has also been included for reference.
With the Commission's input, Staff can revise the proposed amendment
accordingly and present it again at the next Planning Commission meeting on
November 15, 2018, at which the item may be advertised as a hearing if the
Commission thinks it appropriate.
2
CHAPTER 25.XX SINGLE ROOM OCCUPANCY
Sections:
25.XX.XXX PURPOSE
25.XX.XXX DEFINITION
25.XX.XXX PERMITTED ZONES
25.XX.XXX DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
25.XX.XXX PURPOSE. The purpose of these regulations is to allow single room occupancy
(SRO) dwelling units within the City limits which provide high-density housing typically
consisting of no more than two rooms per dwelling unit.
25.XX.XXX DEFINITION. "Single room occupancy" shall be defined as a facility providing
downsized dwelling units consisting of one to two rooms with restricted occupancy of no more
than two individuals per dwelling unit. Kitchens/kitchenettes and/or bathrooms may be located
in the units or be located centrally for communal use.
In zoning districts which allow SRO housing via Conditional Use Permit, the regulations
contained herein shall be considered additional to those of the underlying zoning district. The
provisions of this Chapter shall prevail in the event of conflicting standards presented in the
underlying zoning district regulations. SRO housing must meet all building and zoning standards
as dictated by the PMC.
25.XX.XXX PERMITTED ZONES. An SRO housing facility may be approved via Conditional
Use Permit in the following zones at the given densities:
R-4 (High Density Residential): [Min and max number of units?]
C-1 (Retail Business): tMin and max number of units?]
C-2 (Central Business District): [Min and max number of units?] (Permitted in Downtown
Core only)
C-3 (General Business District): [Min and max number of units?]
25.XX.XXX DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS. Each SRO facility shall comply with all
development standards for the applicable zoning district and the standards contained below.
(1) For single-occupancy units, the minimum unit size is 150 square feet;
(2) For double-occupancy units,the minimum unit size is 250 square feet;
(3) Both single and double occupancy units may not exceed 1,000 square feet in
size;
(4) Each unit shall have a maximum of two tenants;
(5) Occupancy shall be offered on a monthly basis or longer;
(6) At least one (1) off-street parking space per two (2) units is required;
(7) SRO facilities with 70 or more units shall include 24-hour on-site management. A
dwelling unit shall be designated for the manager;
(8) Bathroom and kitchen/kitchenette facilities must be provided either within each
dwelling unit or in a central location for common use with one full bathroom per
every three units on a floor and one full kitchen per floor;
(9) At least one handicapped accessible unit shall be required for every twenty (20)
units;
(10) One washer and dryer must be provided for every 25 units;
(11) Mailboxes shall be provided for each unit;
(12) When able to be reasonably accommodated, each SRO facility with [X units] or
more shall have a minimum of 400 square feet of common indoor and/or
outdoor recreational space;
a. For SRO facilities exceeding 30 units, an additional 10 square feet of
recreational space per unit is required;
b. Landscaped areas less than eight (8) feet in width shall not be considered
recreational space;
C. All common areas shall comply with all applicable ADA accessibility and
adaptability requirements.
C W a 0 -
ADA
BATh ,
i
a
EFF CIENCY EFFIICIENCY
I
EFFIC.IENCY
EXISTING TYP. UNIT 03
PLAN
ire'•+•a ADA DISABLE UNIT
OTYP. UNIT PLAN O PLAN
® NORTfi1
PRELIMINARY DRAWINGS
PRDJECT;� nr+cs.ve aeoa» REVISIONS pRO.JEGT Np,: pATE: 05.12.1Y
INTE RICIR RENOVATION
nVINGt D 5. �lOwl04 3x375
�o c Mcrwo alai e�vo we@cONCPASi.w 9MI
se�3�+a+Ts A-161
CED AGENDA: 3/25/2013
ITEM: D(4)
CITY OF
S)WJQSE Memorandum
CAPITAL OF SIT.ICON VALLEY
TO: COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC FROM: Leslye Corsiglia
DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE Joseph Horwedel
SUBJECT: SEE BELOW DATE: March 13, 2013
Approved Date
�`•'tet l��f 4 tL 3 3
SUBJECT: MOTEL CONVERSION AND SINGLE ROOM OCCUPANCY (SRO)
ORDINANCE CHANGES
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Community and Economic Development Committee (CEDC)review
and provide comments on the status update on proposed amendments to the San Jose Municipal
Code provisions for Single Room Occupancy (SRO) facilities, hotel conversions, and the
potential of utilizing hotels/motels to serve the homeless population.
BACKGROUND
On October 9, 2012, the Mayor and City Council approved additions to the City Council's 2012-
2013 Work Plan,wbichprioritized the projects andordinances staff is to reviewand modify, if
needed, before the completion of the Work Plan period. One of the policy areas the Mayor and
City Council directed staff to work on was a modification of the City's SRO ordinance and
policies governing motel conversions. This item was not included within the City Council's top
ten-priority list for ordinance updates;however,staff was asked to research the potential
opportunity to house homeless individuals in either motels and/or SROs and to provide the
CEDC with a recommendation on potential opportunities.
ANALYSIS
In the past, a traditional SRO was typically a multiple-tenant building housing residents in
individual rooms and utilizing common areas to provide certain amenities such as bathrooms
and/or kitchens. Because the units are smaller in size and tenants share amenities, it was
To; Community&Economic Development Committee
March 15,2013
Subject: Hotel/Motel and Single Room Occupancy Ordinance Changes
Page 2
common for affordable housing developers to use SRO development as a cost-effective approach
to providing affordable housing. While some SRO developments are newly constructed, there
are a variety of property reuse examples, including former hotels, public service facilities (such
as YMCA buildings and/or schools) and even single-family properties.
Typically, developers of SRO projects fall into one of two groups: program-based supportive
housing providers, who see social service delivery as their primary mission; or housing-based
supportive housing providers, who place emphasis on property management and follow more of
a referral-based method for services, when needed. However, some SRO developers have built
projects that do not have any special services attached.
SROs are an important housing type for the City to consider as it works to respond to
homelessness, particularly for the chronically homeless. SROs have also been a key housing
type for the disabled,particularly the developmentally disabled. Smaller units with lower rents
are more feasible for individuals on fixed incomes.
In recent years, developers have moved more to a studio style of SRO unit, where bathroom and
kitchen facilities are not shared. Some cities are promoting"micro units,"which are similar to
studios and SROs,but often smaller in size. San Francisco recently approved a development
with 220-square foot market rate rental units.
San Jose's SRO Ordinance
Over the years, the Housing Department has partnered with developers to complete 14 SRO
projects with 894 units. The majority of these developments were newly constructed,with a
couple that were acquisition/rehabilitation or reuse.
San Jose's Zoning Code Section 20.80.1300 establishes the requirements for SROs, breaking
them down into two types--SRO Living Unit Facilities and SRO Residential Hotels. The former
restricts the size to no smaller than 150 square feet and no larger than 400 square feet, with an
average size of 275 square feet, and the latter restricts the size to between 70 to 219 square feet.
According to the Code, SRO living units may be permitted through a Condifional Use Permit on
properties zoned R-M (multi-family residential), and SRO living units and SRO hotels may be
permitted through a Conditional Use Permit on properties zoned CN, CP or CG (commercial
zoning districts).
The ordinance further defines the amount of common area to be provided, occupancy thresholds,
and other health and safety related items. For SRO Residential Hotels, units can only be provided
on a daily, weekly, or monthly basis. This requirement can make financing the development of
an affordable SRO difficult or impossible, as most funding sources require a longer-term lease.
Additionally, as the City looks to house its chronically homeless population, we want to provide
permanent supportive housing to provide a stable base for those we house;this model envisions
long-term housing.
To: Community&Economic Development Committee
March 15,2013
Subject: Hote!/Motel and Single Room Occupancy Ordinance Changes
Page 3
Given the differences between the City's Zoning Code requirements for SROs and current
practice, staff is recommending an update to the Code to enable more SRO development and the
potential for conversion of existing hotels to SROs in places where the long term residential use
does not conflict with the City's General Plan. To accomplish this task, Housing and PBCE will
partner to-identify possible modifications to the existing Zoning Code and will report these
potential modifications to the CEDC in June.
Motel and Hotel Conversions
Concerns have been raised about hotels and motels that have low occupancy rates, particularly
those where the City has seen a rise in criminal activity such as prostitution, drug dealing, and
other crimes along Monterey Road,North 1St Street, North 13th Street, and the Alameda. There
may be an opportunity for a developer to purchase and convert a hotel or motel into an apartment
or SRO use to meet multiple City objectives.
There are a number of factors that need to be addressed when hotel/motel conversions are
considered. These include:
1. Location--depending on the location of a particular motel, converting the motel to a
residential use or to an alternative commercial use may require, at minimum, a Use
Permit since most hotels and motels are commercially zoned. Depending upon the
location, a General Plan amendment and/or zoning change may also be required. As a
"jobs first" General Plan, General Plan amendments proposing to change commercially
designated land to facilitate hotel/motel conversions to residential use may raise
challenging policy questions for the City Council.
2. Cost—acquiring and rehabilitating existing buildings can be costly especially if the
building is in poor shape. Additionally, adding kitchen facilities, if not included in an
individual unit, and making building upgrades to meet Building Codes to convert from a
hotel/motel to residential use (e.g., fire walls, metering, etc.) adds additional cost. The
City converted one motel to an SRO development in 1995, located on Monterey Highway
and known as Markham Terrace. We have since had to tear down the building and are
awaiting funding to rebuild. The building construction of the former motel, even-after
rehabilitation, was not of a good enough quality to last.
3. Current SRO Ordinance Requirements-- Due to the requirements for compliance with the
City's Zoning and Building codes, the number of properties eligible to be converted into
SRO use is limited.
4. Timing—As a long-term solution to providing affordable housing, including housing for
the chronically homeless,motel/hotel conversions may be a desirable option. However,
the process for acquiring,planning and permitting, financing, and rehabilitating a former
hotel/motel can take several years.
As mentioned earlier,the SRO model is evolving and developers are opting to build efficiency or
small studio units to serve vulnerable populations. As a result of this shift, and because the City
has a supply of older hotels/motels where conversion may be an option,it would be prudent to
To: Community&Economic Development Committee
March 15,2013
Subject: Hotel/Motel and Single Room Occupancy Ordinance Changes
Page 4
draft flexible SRO policies and ordinances that account for the new efficiency units as well as the
traditional SRO model where tenants share some amenities.
It is anticipated that the work to update provisions in the San Jose Municipal Code related to
SROs may be a significant portion of the City's broader efforts to facilitate the conversion of
motels to SROs or other uses. Housing and Planning staff will partner and embark on both
analyses concurrently and will return to the CEDC in June to present key findings.
Update on Using,Hotels/Motels to House the Homeless
In November 2012,the Housing Department began initial research to determine if the City's
stock of hotels/motels could be used as an affordable housing resource. As a first step, staff
contacted and met with five hotel owners and discussed the possibility of using some of their
units for affordable housing. While meeting with hotel owners and researching best practices
across the City, we determined that there are a variety of ways hotels/motels could be used to
house vulnerable populations. Options identified for further research included purchasing,
rehabilitating, and converting existing hotels into SROs or apartments, and master leasing a
block of rooms in an existing motel.
As mentioned above, there are challenges associated with acquiring and rehabilitating existing
hotels and motels. There is interest,however, from nonprofit developers, so we will continue to
pursue these opportunities. While the master leasing model is also of interest, there may be
zoning and building considerations the owner would have to undertake prior to moving forward
which may limit the number of owners interested in participating. We will continue to explore
this option.
NEXT STEPS
The following are anticipated next steps for enabling motel/hotel conversions and updating the
City's Single Room Occupancy(SRO) Ordinance:
• Prepare a detailed project scope and work program for the update of applicable sections
of the San Jose Municipal Code, including, but not limited to the Zoning Code (Title 20).
• Identify potential funding sources for rental subsidies that could be used to house
homeless individuals in a hotel and/or motel.
• Present key findings to the CEDC at the June meeting.
• Conduct Public Outreach on proposed recommendations for Code changes.
• Present recommendations to the City Council in October 2013.
/s/ /s/
LESLYE CORSIGLIA JOSEPH HORWEDEL
Director of Housing Planning Director
For questions please contact Leslye Corsiglia, Director of Housing, at 408-535-3851.
Part 14
Seasonal Sales
20.80.1200 Seasonal Sales
Notwithstanding anything in this Title to the contrary, seasonal sales,including the sale of
Halloween pumpkins and Christmas trees may be held on lots in the CO,CP,CN,CG, IP,LI,and
HI Zoning Districts, as well as on lots zoned Planned Development where the permitted uses align
with the permitted uses in the aforementioned lots. Such seasonal sales may also be held on
property in any zoning district if such property is designated Public/Quasi-Public on the Land
Use/Transportation Diagram of the General Plan and the property is currently being used for uses
consistent with that designation.
20.80.1210 Regulation of Use
The following regulations shall apply to all seasonal outdoor Halloween pumpkin and Christmas
Tree sales lots:
1. Seasonal outdoor Halloween pumpkin sales are allowed between October 1 and
November 5,inclusive;
2. Seasonal outdoor Christmas tree sales are allowed between November 6 and
December 30,inclusive;
3. Temporary Structures and buildings 120 square feet or less in floor area are allowed
if they are located at least 20 feet from any property line;
4. Activity associated with seasonal outdoor Halloween pumpkin and Christmas tree
sales may not be conducted on any portion of a lot which is closer than one hundred
(100)feet to any residentially used lot.
5. Seasonal outdoor Halloween pumpkin and Christmas tree sales must occur in an
area designated for such sale as set forth in any development permit issued for the
site.
Part 15
Single Room Occupancy Facilities
20.80.1300 Single Room Occupancy (SRO) Facilities Criteria for Approval
A. No Conditional Use Permit may be issued for an SRO Living Unit Facility or SRO
Residential Hotel unless the following criteria are met:
132
City of San Jose—Department of Planning,Building and Code Enforcement
Inclusive of ordinances amending Title 20,the Zoning Ordinance,effective as of December 10,2010
B. SRO Living Unit Facility
1. Excluding the closet and the bathroom area,an SRO Living Unit must be a
minimum of one hundred fifty(150) square feet in floor area. The average unit size
in a Living Unit Facility shall be no greater than two hundred seventy-five(275)
square feet and no individual living unit may exceed four hundred (400)square feet.
2. Each SRO Living Unit shall be designed to accommodate a maximum of two(2)
persons.
3. An SRO Living Unit is not required to but may contain partial or complete kitchen
and bath facilities. If individual bath facilities are not provided,common bath
facilities must be provided in accordance with Subsection B of Section 17.20.290 of
Title 17 of the San Jose Municipal Code. If individual kitchen facilities are not
provided,common kitchen facilities must be provided that adequately serve the
residents of the SRO Living Unit Facility. Additional requirements may be imposed
by the Planning Commission.
4. Individual SRO Living Units may not have separate external entryways.
5. The SRO Living Unit Facility must have a management plan approved by the
Department of Housing.
6. Laundry facilities must be provided in a separate room at the ratio of one(1)washer
and one(1)dryer for every twenty(20)units or fractional number thereof.
7. A cleaning supply storeroom and/or utility closet with at least one(1)laundry tub
with hot and cold running water must be provided on each floor of the Living Unit
building.
8. The SRO Living Unit Facility shall provide interior common space based on the unit
size as follows:
For a Living Unit size: Common area to be provided:
Less than 160 sq. ft. 4.5 sq. ft.of common space
160-169 sq. ft. 4.0 sq. ft.
170-179 sq. ft. 3.5 sq. ft.
180+sq. ft. 3.0 sq.ft.
An SRO Living Unit Facility must provide at least two hundred(200) square feet in
area of interior common space,excluding janitorial storage,laundry facilities and
common hallways.
133
City of San Jose—Department of Planning,Building and Code Enforcement
Inclusive of ordinances amending Title 20,the Zoning Ordinance, effective as of December 10,2010
C. SRO Residential Hotel
1. Excluding the closet and bathroom space,an SRO Residential Hotel unit must be at
least seventy(70)square feet in floor area,and may have a maximum of two
hundred nineteen(219)square feet in floor area.
2. An SRO Residential Hotel room between seventy(70)and one hundred nineteen
(119) square feet in floor area shall be designed to accommodate a maximum of one
(1)person, and an SRO Residential Hotel room between one hundred twenty(120)
and two hundred nineteen(219)square feet in floor area shall be designed to
accommodate a maximum of two(2)persons.
3. An SRO Residential Hotel unit may contain partial kitchen and bath facilities. If
individual bath facilities are not provided,common bath facilities must be provided
in accordance with Subsection B of Section 17.20.290 of Title 17 of the San Jose
Municipal Code.
4. Individual SRO Residential Hotel units may not have separate external entryways.
5. The SRO Residential Hotel must have a management plan approved by the
Department of Housing.
6. A closet and designated storage space is required in every SRO Residential Hotel
room.
7. A cleaning supply storeroom and/or utility closet with at least one(1)laundry tub
with hot and cold running water must be provided on each floor of the Residential
Hotel room.
8. The SRO Residential Hotel shall provide a minimum two hundred(200)square feet
of interior common area.
D. Kitchen and Bathroom Facilities:
1. For purposes of this section, a partial bathroom contains a water closet and sink
which may be utilized for both hygiene and cooking purposes.
2. A hall kitchen contains all of the following: a sink,a refrigerator and a stove,range
top or oven. A partial kitchen is missing at least one of these facilities.
3. The Planning Commission or the City Council shall deny the application where the
information submitted by the applicant and/or presented at the public hearing fails to
satisfactorily substantiate that the project will comply with these criteria.
134
City of San Jose—Department of Planning,Building and Code Enforcement
Inclusive of ordinances amending Title 20,the Zoning Ordinance, effective as of December 10,2010
AGENDA REPORT
FOR: City Council October 2, 2018
TO: Dave Zabel], City Manager Workshop Meeting: 10/8/18
FROM: Rick White, Director
Community &Economic Development
SUBJECT: Hearing Examiner System for Land Use Permits
I. REFERENCE(S):
RCW 35A.63.170 - Hearing Examiner System
Washington Cities Insurance Authority(WCIA) Memorandum
IL ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Discussion
III. FISCAL IMPACT:
IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF:
Cities in Washington State have statutory authority to establish a hearing examiner
system for land use permits and other matters. Under a hearing examiner system for
land use permits, a municipality contracts with a examiner to conduct open record
and/or quasi-judicial hearings in place of the Planning Commission. City Council has
discretion in establishing how the hearing examiner system operates. Depending on
Council sentiment - the examiner could also render final decisions in place of the City
Council.
In recent years, municipalities have trended towards establishing a hearing examiner
system f'or land use permits, as the permit process has become increasingly
complicated from a legal and procedural standpoint. The hearing examiner system is
considered superior to appointed or legislative bodies rendering recommended and
final land use decisions from a liability perspective.
The existing Pasco Municipal Code already contains roles for a hearing examiner.
Currently, PMC Chapter 2.19 prescribes the appointment of a hearing examiner, the
examiner's qualifications, the rules f'or an examiner and a description of the powers of
the examiner. These powers include the ability of a hearing examiner to hear and
decide:
• Variances, review of administrative actions, waiver of violations, extension on
use of borders of zoning districts and administrative exceptions;
• Appeals of administrative decisions;
• SEPA appeals;
• Vehicle impounds; and,
• Appeals of decisions of the Poundmaster and Business license revocations,
appeals and reinstatement.
V. DISCUSSION:
The basic purpose of having a hearing examiner is to have a professionally trained
individual with expertise in land use law, usually an attorney, make objective
recommendations and/or quasi-judicial decisions or recommendations that are
supported by an adequate record and that are free from popular emotion or political
influences.
Using a hearing examiner system could allow the City Council and Planning
Commission to better concentrate on policymaking. It can also reduce the City's
liability exposure through more consistent and legally sustainable quasi-judicial
decisions.
Typically, a hearing examiner would conduct hearings and render recommendations or
final decisions on quasi-judicial land use permits and applications which include
special/conditional use permits and preliminary plats. Again, typically City Councils
reserve legislative issues f'or their own consideration (Comprehensive Plan
amendments, rezones, code amendments...).
There are several options for the City to expand the role of a hearing examiner and
include:
• Conduct applicable land use hearings and forward recommendations to City
Council f'or final decisions;
• Conduct applicable land use hearings and forward recommendations to Council
on certain issues and render final decisions on other issues;
• Conduct applicable land use hearings and render final decisions on land use
issues appealable to Superior Court; or
• Conduct applicable land use hearings, render final decisions appealable to the
City Council.
Either of the above options would reserve f'or the Planning Commission the advisory
role in legislative matters of:
• Comprehensive Plan development and review;
• Master Plans/special planning projects or design standard developments;
• Shoreline Management Plan development and review;
• Rezone requests;
• Annexation Zoning;
• Development Agreements;
• Code Amendments; and
• Block Grant and HOME Advisory Committee recommendations.
Our neighboring cities of Kennewick, Richland and Walla Walla use the hearing
examiner system for a variety of recommended and final land use decisions.
Although there is a degree of risk as noted in the WCIA Memorandum - staff requests
Council particularly examine the use of a Hearing Examiner system to render final
decisions with the ability of an applicant to make an appeal to City Council. This
process would take full advantage of the Examiner system but reserve the ability for an
appellant to seek redress locally prior to an appeal to the court system.
Staff requests Council discussion and direction on this matter
RCW 35A.63.170
Hearing examiner system—Adoption authorized—Alternative—Functions—Procedures.
(1) As an alternative to those provisions of this chapter relating to powers or duties of the planning
commission to hear and report on any proposal to amend a zoning ordinance, the legislative body of a
city may adopt a hearing examiner system under which a hearing examiner or hearing examiners may
hear and decide applications for amending the zoning ordinance when the amendment which is applied
for is not of general applicability. In addition, the legislative body may vest in a hearing examiner the
power to hear and decide those issues it believes should be reviewed and decided by a hearing
examiner, including but not limited to:
(a) Applications for conditional uses, variances, subdivisions, shoreline permits,or any other class of
applications for or pertaining to development of land or land use;
(b)Appeals of administrative decisions or determinations; and
(c) Appeals of administrative decisions or determinations pursuant to chapter 43.21C RCW.
The legislative body shall prescribe procedures to be followed by a hearing examiner. If the legislative
authority vests in a hearing examiner the authority to hear and decide variances, then the provisions of
RCW 35A.63.110 shall not apply to the city.
(2) Each city legislative body electing to use a hearing examiner pursuant to this section shall by
ordinance specify the legal effect of the decisions made bythe examiner.The legal effect of such
decisions may vary for the different classes of applications decided by the examiner but shall include
one of the following:
(a)The decision may be given the effect of a recommendation to the legislative body;
(b)The decision may be given the effect of an administrative decision appealable within a specified time
limit to the legislative body; or
(c) Except in the case of a rezone, the decision may be given the effect of a final decision of the
legislative body.
(3) Each final decision of a hearing examiner shall be in writing and shall include findings and
conclusions, based on the record,to support the decision.Such findings and conclusions shall also set
forth the manner in which the decision would carry out and conform to the city's comprehensive plan
and the city's development regulations.Each final decision of a hearing examiner, unless a longer period
is mutually agreed to in writing by the applicant and the hearing examiner, shall be rendered within ten
working days following conclusion of all testimony and hearings.
JOHN L.MCCORMACK KBM BRENDA L.BANNON
MARK R.BUCKLINK MARY ANN MCCONAUGHY
.�
STEVEN L.THORSRUD ��7\ZP SHANNON M,RAGONESI
MICHAEL C.WALTER KIMBERLY J.WALDBAUM
ANDREW G.COOLEY KEATING,BUCKLIN&MCCORMACK JEREMY W.CULUMBER
SIEWART A.ESTES ADAM L.ROSENBERG
JAYNE L.FREEMAN ATTORNEYS AT LAN' AMANDA G.BUTLER
STEPHANIE E.CROLL Seattle,Washington98104-3275BRIAN C.AUGENTHALER
e
RICHARD B.JOLLEY as9
Phone:2.o6.623.8861 ROBERT C.KEATING 0915-2001)
Fax:2o6.223.9423
www.kbmlawyel3.com
mwalter@kbmlawyers.com
August 15, 2014
Heather D. Kintzley
City Attorney
City of Richland
975 George Washington Way
Richland, WA 99352-3548
RE: Use of a Hearing Examiner for Land Use Decision-Making
Dear Ms. Kintzley:
It is my understanding that in a recent land use audit of all member cities conducted by
Washington Cities Insurance Authority ("WCIA"), the use of a hearing examiner for land use
decision-making came up, and that the City of Richland may be considering adoption of a
hearing examiner system for land use decision-making. In this regard, WCIA suggested I write
regarding my opinions and experiences on the use of a hearing examiner for land use decision-
making. Accordingly, 1 am providing this letter to you, which you are encouraged to forward to
the City Manager, Mayor, City Council and staff, providing my strong recommendation for the
use of a hearing examiner f'or land use decision-making.
As I explain in this letter, I believe the use of a land use hearing examiner to make final
quasi-judicial decisions on land use permits (as well as f'or deciding administrative appeals) is
invaluable and should be utilized to the fullest extent by the City of Richland. It is the trend of
most local governments to use a land use hearing examiner to adjudicate quasi-judicial and
administrative land use permitting.
By way of background, I am a partner and director at Keating, Bucklin & McCormack,
Inc., P.S., a law firm emphasizing representation of local government in a wide variety of
municipal matters, civil lawsuits and administrative and other legal claims. For over 25 years,
my practice has emphasized a broad range of municipal, land use, regulatory, environmental,
civil rights and tort-related issues in defense of government entities, elected officials and their
employees. I represent cities, special purpose districts and other government entities in land use,
permitting, environmental matters, civil rights and other claims, and have written numerous
1002-719I115813.docx
Heather D. Kintzley
August 15, 2014
Page 2
articles on land use law, municipal and local government legislation and regulation, permitting
and environmental issues, as well as risk management on various topics of interest to local
government and land use agencies. As part of my practice, I also provide municipal, land use,
environmental and risk management training to elected officials and government agencies
throughout the State. A significant part of my practice involves defending land use claims
arising out of quasi-judicial land use decisions, made by citizen and elected bodies as well as
professional hearing examiners.' A copy of my professional resume is attached. You can also
get more information on my law firm and my land use practice through our website at
www.kbmIaMers.com.
I provide the foregoing summary of my background as context for my strong,
unqualified, recommendation to all cities, towns and local government entities in the use of a
hearing examiner to adjudicate quasi-judicial land use matters. Being "in the trenches," as it
were defending land use decisions— and frequently land use mistakes--by local government has
given me first-hand experience in seeing the procedural, timeliness and significant liability risk
differences in land use decisions made by planning commissions, boards of adjustment and city
councils versus those decisions made by professional hearing examiners. This first-hand
experience in defending literally thousands of these decisions over the past 25 years has made
one thing crystal clear: there is no substitute for local government's use of a professional hearing
examiner in deciding quasi-judicial land use matters. For this reason, I write to encourage the
City of Richland — as I do with all of the local government entities I work with or speak to — to
take full advantage of a professional land use hearing examiner.
General Authority of Hearing Examiners
I recommend to cities I work for to utilize, to the fullest extent possible, a hearing
examiner to (1) make final decisions on all quasi-judicial land use permits and decisions, and (2)
to act as the administrative appeal body for review of routine administrative/ministerial permits
(such as right-of-way permits, clearing and grading permits, tree cutting permits, building
permits, etc.) and of administrative/code interpretations. The adoption of a hearing examiner
position is expressly authorized in RCW 35A.63.170. A hearing examiner may hear:
(a) Applications for conditional uses, variances, subdivisions,
shoreline permits, or any other class of applications for or
pertaining to development of land or land use;
(b) Appeals of administrative decisions or determinations; and
(c) Appeals of administrative decisions or determinations pursuant
to RCW ch. 43.21 C.
I am not a hearing examiner, and do not derive any income as a hearing examiner.
Heather D. Kintzley
August 15, 2014
Page 3
RCW 35A.63.170(l)(a)-(c).2 These are identical to the duties a board of adjustment would
otherwise perform. Compare RCW 35A.63.110(1)-(4). The City must explain the nature and
scope of the hearing examiner's duties if the position is created. See RCW 35A.63.170.
The Legislature has also authorized local government to establish the procedures to be
followed by the hearing examiner.
(2) Each city or county legislative body electing to use a hearing examiner
pursuant to this section shall by ordinance specify the legal effect of the decisions
made by the examiner. The legal effect of such decisions may vary for the
different classes of applications decided by the examiner but shall include one of
the following:
(a) The decision may be given the effect of a recommendation to
the legislative body;
(b) The decision may be given the effect of an administrative
decision appealable within a specified time limit to the legislative
body; or
(c) Except in the case of a rezone, the decision may be given the
effect of a final decision of the legislative body.
RCW 35A.63.170(2).
Thus, as an alternative to using a planning commission or city council to decide quasi-
judicial land use applications and permits, the council has express statutory authority to adopt a
hearing examiner system and vest in a hearing examiner with broad authority to conduct open
record hearings on and decide applications for virtually all types of permits and land use
approvals, including such things as site plans, frill and short plats, conditional or special use
permits, variances, reasonable use exemptions and waivers, shoreline permits, "or any other class
of applications for or pertaining to development of land or land use." A hearing examiner can
also be vested with authority to hear appeals of administrative or quasi-judicial permit decisions
as well as appeals of determinations under SEPA. Hearing examiners also have other authorities
set forth in RCW 35.63.130 and RCW 35A.63.170.
2 The scope of authority of hearing examiners is best described in the case of Chausee v. Snohomish County
Council,38 Wn. App.630,689 P.2d 1084(1984). In that case,the court described hearing examiners as"creatures
of the legislature without inherent or common-law powers and may exercise only those powers conferred either
expressly or by necessary implication." Id.,at 38 Wn.App.636.
3 In any case, the city council must specifically adopt a hearing examiner system and through an ordinance or code
amendment vest the hearing examiner with authority to hear and decide the specific types of land use applications or
permits, or other administrative decisions, that he or she can make.
Heather D. Kintzley
August 15, 2014
Page 4
There are only two instances in which the State Legislature has mandated that legislative
bodies (city councils) make decisions on land use permits and approvals: (1) decisions on final
plats (subdivisions) (see, RCW 58.17.100); and (2) area-wide/general applicability zoning
decisions/rezones. (RCW 35.63.130(1), RCW 35.63.130(2)(c), RCW 36.70.870(2)(c), and RCW
36.70.970(1). Aside from these two limited instances, hearing examiners can hear and decide
virtually all other land use permits, approvals or appeals, as long as the city code expressly
authorizes an examiner to hear those matters.
The Advantages of Using a Hearing Examiner for Land Use Decision-Making
The following are some of the many advantages and benefits to using a hearing examiner
for quasi-judicial land use decision-making and administrative appeals of permit decisions:
• Avoids political influence or pressure (which is forbidden in quasi-judicial decision-
making);
• They are professional, specially trained individuals;
• They have experience with many different jurisdictions and regulations and can carry that
experience and knowledge over to your jurisdiction, helping to improve your land use
code and process;
• They are technically adept, and have knowledge of physical land development and
technical feasibility of land development and permitting;
• A hearing examiner is more cost effective(reduces appeals and judicial challenges);
• Allows for a more efficient process (faster decisions, fewer mistakes and far fewer
appeals);
• Substantial reduction in judicial (court) reversal of decisions;
• Substantial reduction in potential damages claims against the city (I can attest to this, and
most municipal attorneys and land use professionals would agree);
• Eliminates the risk of lawsuits and legal claims against citizen-decision makers — like
Planning Commission and City Council members—personally;
• Instills public confidence in the decision-making process;
• Helps ensure constitutional protection of due process of law and equal protection;
• Helps ensure predictability and consistency in the process and decision-making;
• Hearing examiners are skilled in understanding, interpreting and applying nuances of
your municipal code, state and federal laws, and general legal principles;
Heather D. Kintzley
August 15, 2014
Page 5
• Use of a hearing examiner helps satisfy State Iaw requirements fbr streamlining the
regulatory process and administrative review and appeals (1995 Regulatory Refbrm Act,
RCW Chapter 36.70B);
• Use of a hearing examiner segregates and clearly delineates quasi-judicial decision
making functions from legislative (law-making) and long-term planning functions (which
are the functions of planning commissions and city councils);
• Provides the opportunity for feedback and correction of code ambiguities and conflicts;
• Use of a hearing examiner frees up city council and planning commission time fbr other,
important planning, goal setting and law-making functions; and,
• Provides good customer service.
The fbllowing is a quote from a state Supreme Court justice endorsing Pierce County's
rationale for creating a hearing examiner position:
A. The need to separate the County's land use regulatory function
from its land use planning function;
B. The need to ensure and expand the principles of fairness and
due process in public hearings; and
C. The need to provide an efficient and effective land use
regulatory system which integrates the public hearing and
decision-making processes for land use matters; it is the purpose of
this chapter to provide an administrative land use regulatory
system which will best satisfy these needs.
GAJ land use hearing examiner system will be very beneficial to
all concerned or involved with land use decisions, and said
system will (1) provide a more efficient and effective land use
decision procedure; (2) provide the Planning Commission more
time to devote towards studying and recommending land use
policy changes to the Board, (3)provide an experienced expert to
hear and decide land use cases based upon policy adopted by the
Board, and (d) provide the Board of County Commissioners
more time to spend on other County concerns by relieving them
from hearing land use cases,except any appeals... 1.1
Heather D. Kintzley
August 15, 2014
Page 6
Weyerhaeuser v. Pierce County, 124 Wn.2d 26, 51, 873 P.2d 498 (1994) (Madsen, J.,dissenting)
(citing Pierce County Resolution 20489 (1978)) (emphasis added).
Risks and Pitfalls in Not Using a Hearing Examiner for Land Use Decision-Making
Based on the broad authority of hearing examiners to adjudicate a wide range of land use
permits, decisions and appeals, the significant reduction in land use lawsuit liability exposure by
using a hearing examiner, and my experience defending both planning commission/city
council/board of adjustment land use decisions versus those made by hearing examiners, there is,
in my experience and opinion, no good reason to not use a hearing examiner for land use
decision-making.
The few reasons offered against the use of a hearing examiner (and, by implication for
retention of elected official or citizen body land use decision-making) are neither justified nor
legally supportable. One such claim is that use of a hearing examiner system is too costly, or the
jurisdiction can't afford to use a hearing examiner. My first response to this claim is that local
governments can't afford not to use a hearing examiner for land use decision-making. Please
refer to the many advantages discussed above. Second, in my experience the costs of using a
hearing examiner are minimal, and, in many cases, can be passed on to permit applicants or land
use appellants, either directly or included as part of carefully crafted permit or administrative
fees associated with land use permits or appeals heard by hearing examiners. Additionally, many
jurisdictions share in the cost of a hearing examiner or pay into a "pool" to use a hearing
examiner who essentially "rides the circuit" between several geographically close jurisdictions.
If the potential cost of using a hearing examiner is of concern to the City of Richland, I urge you
to talk to other jurisdictions — including Pasco and Kennewick, your neighbors — to learn about
how they handle costs and their experiences.
A second reason sometimes offered against the use of a hearing examiner is the lack of
representative control over constituent demands for land use policy-making. Regarding this
claimed loss of "citizen control" over the land use permitting process, this is actually a key
reason that a hearing examiner should be used. Land use planning and policy decisions are
made by the elected officials (city or town councils) through comprehensive planning and
comprehensive plan updates, long range strategic planning, area-wide Zoning and development
regulations, and adoption of other area-wide development criteria. As noted above, land use
planning should be reserved to and used by both planning commissions and city or town
councils.
However, that is not the case with site- or property-specific land use permits or land use
actions. Property- or site-specific land use approvals and decision-making should not be done
based on citizen comment, policy criteria, planning criteria or constituent desires. Such
permitting and decision-making decisions — whether at the administrative or quasi-judicial level
— should be entirely, 100% free of citizen control and politics. For this reason, use of a
Heather D. Kintzley
August 15, 2014
Page 7
professional hearing examiner to make decisions on such site-specific or permit-specific land use
applications is the best, safest and most appropriate method of decision-making.
In short, planning commissions and city councils, should not be involved in making final
decisions on quasi-judicial land use permits; nor should they hear appeals of permit decisions or
code interpretations. Rather, such decisions should be delegated to a professional hearing
examiner. As State law makes clear, planning commissions and city councils have far more
important tasks to do with their limited time: responding to their citizen constituencies; crafting,
reviewing and amending comprehensive plans; crafting, reviewing, amending and updating
zoning ordinances; crafting and updating shoreline plans; doing long range land use planning;
doing utility and infrastructure planning; budgeting; contracting; completing ongoing and time-
sensitive planning and regulatory obligations; and handling the many day-to-day affairs of local
government.
A third reason sometimes given to not use a hearing examiner is that the local jurisdiction
wants to be independent, retain its autonomy, and not be "pressured" to use one just because
other jurisdictions do. Yet, neither the State nor any other jurisdiction can dictate the use of a
hearing examiner. But it is noteworthy—and significant—that(a) the overwhelming majority of
cities, towns, counties and other land use permitting jurisdictions use hearing examiners for land
use decision-making, (b) virtually all land use and government attorneys agree on the use of
hearing examiners, and (c) virtually all planning professionals agree that the use of a hearing
examiner for land use decision making is not only good risk management, it is more efficient,
more cost effective, instills public confidence in the process, avoids arbitrary and capricious
decision-making, and limits improper political influence.
Fourth, I have heard one hearing examiner opponent claim "there is no evidence that
supports such a proposition [that decisions made by a hearing examiner will hold up better in
court]." Even a cursory review of trial court flings and appellate court decisions will readily
confirm that not only are there far fewer judicial challenges to land use decisions made by
hearing examiners, those few legal challenges that are made to examiner decisions are far more
frequently upheld by the appellate courts than are decisions made by elected officials or citizen
groups or bodies.
Indeed, the most egregious land use decisions in this State and in the federal courts arise
from elected official or citizen-body decision-making on land use permits and applications—not
hearing examiner decisions. For a sampling of such decisions, see: Mission Springs v. City of
Spokane, 134 Wn.2d 947, 954 P.2d 250 (1998) (a good case to review; Supreme Court chastises
the Spokane City Council f'or arbitrarily denying a grading permit for a contentious development
project,and imposes sanctions and attorney fees on individual council members; numerous other
bad land use decisions arising from city council or planning commission actions—but no hearing
examiner case—referenced); Sintra, Inc. v. City of Seattle, 131 Wn.2d 640, 935 P.2d 555 (1997);
Hayes v. City of Seattle, 131 Wn.2d 706, 934 P.2d 1179 (1997); Robinson v. City of Seattle, 119
Wn.2d 34, 830 P.2d 318 (1992); West Main Assoc., Inc. v. City of Bellevue, 106 Wn.2d 47, 720
Heather D. Kintzley
August 15, 2014
Page 8
P.2d 782 (1986); Pleas v. City of Seattle, 112 Wn.2d 794, 744 P.2d 1158 (1989); King v. City of
Seattle, 84 Wn.2d 239, 525 P.2d 228 (1974); Baleson v. Geisse, 857 F.2d 1300 (9`h Cir. 1988);
Westmark v. City of Burien, 140 Wn. App. 540, 166 P.3d 813 (2007); Saben v. Skagit County,
136 Wn. App. 869, 152 P.3d 1034 (2006); Cox v. City of Lynnwood, 72 Wn, App. 1, 863 P.2d
578 (1993); Anderson v. City oflssaquah, 70 Wn. App.64, 851 P.2 744(1993).
Finally, I have also heard the comment that "hearing examiners tend to favor
development interests more than local citizen bodies such as planning commissions." There is
no evidence to support this; in fact, it is contrary to my experience and the decisions of hearing
examiners in the communities I do work for.
Conclusion and Summary
In summary, I urge the City of Richland to consider modifying its land use code to
eliminate Planning Commission, Board of Adjustment or City Council for hearing and deciding
final land use decisions (but not comprehensive or long range planning or area-wide regulations)
and, instead, use a hearing examiner to make final land use decisions and administrative appeal
decisions for the City.
I hope the foregoing is of benefit to the City of Richland as it looks to updating its land
use code and decision-making process. If I can be of any assistance to the City or answer other
questions regarding the use of a hearing examiner, do not hesitate to call or write.
Very truly yours,
Sart &d"M
Michael C. Walter
MC W/ch
cc: Bill King, Deputy City Manager and
Community Development Services Director
Cathleen Koch,Administrative Services Director
Ms. Ann Bennett,Executive Director
Washington Cities Insurance Authority
Ms. Tanya Crites, Risk Management,
Washington Cities Insurance Authority