Loading...
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