The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About03-21-2019 Planning Commission Meeting Packet Cityaf AGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING COCity Hall—525 North Third Avenue—Council Chambers THURSDAY, MARCH 21,2019 7:00 PM I. CALL TO ORDER: II. ROLL CALL: Declaration of Quorum III. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: February 21, 2019 V. OLD BUSINESS: A. Special Permit Location of New Fire Station #83 (TCA Architecture) (MF# SP 2019-001 VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS: A. Rezone Rezone from RT (Residential Transition) to R-1 (Low Density Residential) (Enrique Salas) (MF#Z 2019-001) B. Rezone Rezone from RT (Residential Transition) to C-1 (Retail Business) (ABHL) (MF#Z 2019-002) C. Rezone Rezone from RS-20 to RS-12 (J&J Kelly Construction) (MF# Z 2019-003 D. Zoning Determination Zoning Determination of unincorporated property (City of Pasco) (MF#ZD 2019-001) E. Code Amendment Shared Street Frontages (MF# CA 2018-008) — Continued from February 21, 2019 Meeting F. Code Amendment Minimum Lot Size and Frontage in Residential Zones (MF# CA 2017-009)—Continued from February 21, 2019 Meeting VII. WORKSHOP: VIII. OTHER BUSINESS: IX. ADJOURNMENT: This meeting is broadcast live on PSC-TV Channel 191 on Charter Cable and streamed at www.pasco-wa.com/psctvlive. Audio equipment available for the hearing impaired;contact staff for assistance. MINUTES coPLANNING COMMISSION MEETING City Hall—525 North Third Avenue—Council Chambers THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 21, 2019 7:00 PM CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at 7:00 pm by Chairperson Myhrum. ATTENDANCE: Commissioners Present: Isaac Myhrum, Zahra Roach, Tanya Bowers, Joseph Campos, Paul Mendez, Alecia Greenaway, Pam Bykonen Staff Present: Rick White (Community& Economic Development Director), Darcy Bourcier(Planner 1) MEETING VIDEO ON DEMAND: This meeting in its entirety has been posted and can be viewed on the City's webpage at https://Psctv.viebit.com. APPEARANCE OF FAIRNESS: Chairperson Myhrum read a statement about the appearance of fairness for hearings on land use matters. There were no declarations. Chairperson Myhrum 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 Myhrum explained that state law requires testimony in quasi-judicial hearings such as held by the Planning Commission be given under oath or affirmation. Chairperson Myhrum swore in all those desiring to speak. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Greenaway moved, seconded by Commissioner J. Campos that the minutes dated January 17, 2019. The motion passed unanimously. OLD BUSINESS: A. Code Amendment Temporary Shelters (MF#CA 2018-001) Chairperson Myhrum read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director, discussed the proposed code amendment regarding temporary shelters. Staff had no further comments to add since the previous meeting. Planning Commission Meeting Page 1 February 21,2019 Commissioner Bowers asked about homeless populations that were victims of domestic violence and if there was anything included in the proposed code that addressed the domestic violence population. Mr. White replied that there was not. Commissioner Roach stated that she appreciated the work done by staff who had addressed any concerns and comments discussed previously by the Commission. She asked for clarification regarding site criteria and the adequate number of parking spaces. She wanted to know how that number would be calculated. Mr. White answered that most of the proposed ordinance is strategically vague because many matters, such as parking, would need to be done by a case by case determination. Many conditions would be based on the number of people as well as clarification from the managing entity. Commissioner Roach added that there are many churches that operate preschools so those would likely need to be looked at on individually. Commissioner Mendez noted that the proposed ordinance appears to be driven by the state RCW, but in that it specifically mentions religious organizations. He asked if it would apply to all non-profits or just religious organizations. Mr. White said it would apply to all non-profits and would be able to apply for a special permit. Commissioner Greenaway asked about adding in wording for non-profits to the ordinance. Mr. White said it wasn't necessary. Chairperson Myhrum stated that he appreciated the thorough process and the language is very thorough. Commissioner Roach appreciated the code of conduct and the examples provided. She asked what the process would be for the City if the organization breaks their code of conduct and if it would be penalized. Mr. White said the managing entity will have to manage their code of conduct and they will be the responsible party. If there is a problem it will likely be handled much like Code Enforcement handles chronic nuisance properties. Commissioner Roach moved, seconded by Commissioner Greenaway, the Planning Commission adopt the findings of fact as contained in the February 21, 2019 staff memo regarding temporary shelters. The motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Roach moved, seconded by Commissioner Greenaway, the Planning Commission recommend the City Council adopt the proposed code amendments regarding temporary shelters as attached to the February 21, 2019 staff memo to the Planning Commission. The motion passed unanimously. Planning Commission Meeting Page 2 February 21,2019 PUBLIC HEARINGS: A. Special Permit Location of New Fire Station #83 (TCA Architecture) (MF# SP 2019-001 Chairperson Myhrum read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Darcy Bourcier, Planner I, discussed the special permit application for the location of new Fire Station #83. The proposed site is located at the southeast corner of Sandifur Parkway and Road 76. The building will be 12,000 square feet in size and include sleeping and living quarters, apparatus space and other space for equipment. The Fire Department anticipates 6 staff members when it is complete. The building will be subject to the 1-182 Corridor design regulations to complement the appearance of the surrounding neighborhoods and commercial development. The layout of the site may change when this item comes back to the Planning Commission due to comments from the Engineering Department. Pasco Fire Chief Bob Gear provided additional input on the proposed fire station to the Planning Commission. He stated that this project is a relocation —the current fire station is located at the corner of Road 68 and Argent Road built 25 years ago. The majority of the call volume is north of the interstate so the relocation will assist in response times. He added that in the future the Planning Commission will see a special permit application for construction of Fire Station #4 that will be located on Court Street to fill in any areas that need service. Commissioner Bowers asked for clarification on a map in the staff report regarding fire response times. Fire Chief Gear explained that it showed all of the different fire stations in the various districts and how the new station would shift the response times on the map. Commissioner Bowers asked what would happen to the existing fire station located on Road 68 and Argent Road. Fire Chief Gear answered that at this time it appears the Public Works Department will purchase the existing fire station and utilize it for a shop for them to have sand, de-ice and equipment. Chairperson Myhrum asked if a third water tower were to be constructed if it would locate at this same site with the other water towers near the proposed new fire station or elsewhere in the city. Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director, stated that it would be located north and west at a different site. Chairperson Myhrum expressed that this was a good location for a fire station with the city already owning the property. Commissioner Mendez agreed that this was a good location for the fire station, however, he asked if anything would be done to alleviate some of the traffic getting onto Sandifur Parkway from Road 76. Planning Commission Meeting Page 3 February 21,2019 Fire Chief Gear said there has been discussion regarding a light or perhaps a warning light on the free right turn. The current fire apparatus has a light changing system that they will be able to control at Road 68 so traffic might be manageable without the addition of a light. With no further comments the public hearing closed. Commissioner Bowers moved, seconded by Commissioner Mendez, to close the public hearing on the proposed Fire Station #83 and schedule deliberations and adoptions of findings of fact and conclusions and a recommendation for City Council for the March 21, 2019 Planning Commission Meeting. The motion passed unanimously. B. Code Amendment Shared Street Frontages(MF#CA 2018-008) Chairperson Myhrum read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director, stated that this item was advertised as a public hearing but at this time staff would like the Planning Commission to continue the public hearing to ensure a complete an accurate assessment. Jim Dirks, 70405 E. 713-PRNE, Richland, WA spoke on behalf of Habitat for Humanity in favor of shared street frontages and minimum lot size and frontage changes. Commissioner J. Campos moved, seconded by Commissioner Bowers, to continue the hearing to the March 21, 2019 Planning Commission Meeting. The motion passed unanimously. C. Code Amendment Minimum Lot Size and Frontage in Residential Zones (MF# CA 2017-009 Chairperson Myhrum read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director, stated that this item was advertised as a public hearing but at this time staff would like the Planning Commission to continue the public hearing to ensure a complete and accurate assessment. Commissioner Mendez asked if the minimum lot size requirements would impact planned unit developments. Mr. White explained how that was a factor. Commissioner J. Campos moved, seconded by Commissioner Greenaway, to continue the hearing to the March 21, 2019 Planning Commission Meeting. The motion passed unanimously. D. Code Amendment Expansion of Non-Conforming Uses (MF# CA 2018-006) - Withdrawn Planning Commission Meeting Page 4 February 21,2019 Chairperson Myhrum read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director, explained that the code amendment application for the expansion of non-conforming uses was withdrawn by the applicant. OTHER BUSINESS: Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director, reminded the Commission that they will be seeing Comprehensive Plan Amendment work in the upcoming months. He thanked Commissioner Bowers, Commissioner Roach and Commissioner Bykonen for attending the recent City Council Workshop where the consultants gave a presentation and discussed upcoming plans. Commissioner J. Campos asked if there would be upcoming training for the Planning Commissioner's to attend. Mr. White stated that he was working with the Department of Commerce to host a Short Course in Land Use Planning. ADJOURNMENT: With no further discussion or business, the Planning Commission was adjourned at 7:41 PM. Respectfully submitted, Krystle Shanks,Administrative Assistant II Community& Economic Development Department Planning Commission Meeting Page 5 February 21,2019 �4i REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION �� PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING I P City Hall—525 North Third Avenue—Council Chambers THURSDAY, MARCH 21, 2019 7:00 PM MASTER FILE#: SP 2019-001 APPLICANT: TCA Architecture 6211 Roosevelt Way NE Seattle, WA 98115 REQUEST: SPECIAL PERMIT: Fire Station#83 BACKGROUND 1. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: Legal: PTN NWSE 9-9-29 DAF: BEG AT CTR 4 COR SD SEC; TH N89D59'E ALG N LN THEREOF, 40.01'; TH LEAV SD N LN S01D04'E, 50.01' TO INT OF SLY MARG OF SANDIFUR PKWY & ELY MARG ROAD 76 & TPOB; TH ALG SD SLY MARG, N89D 59'E, 280.74'; TH S01D04'W, 130'; TH N89D59'E, 179.35'; TH S01D04'E, 324.13'; TH S17D05'E, 48.07'; TH S89D59'W, 473.35' TO ELY MARG RD 76 TH ALG SD ELY MARG, N01D04'W, 500.09'TO TPOB. General Location: 5427 Road 76 Property Size: 4.75 acres 2. ACCESS: The property has access from Road 76 and Sandifur Parkway. 3. UTILITIES: Municipal water and sewer service are available to the property. 4. LAND USE AND ZONING: The site is zoned C-1 (Retail Business). Surrounding properties are zoned and developed as follows: NORTH: C-1 Retail EAST: C-1 Retail SOUTH: C-1 Vacant, Library WEST: R-1 SFDUs 5. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The Comprehensive Plan indicates the site is intended for commercial development. Volume II of the Comprehensive Plan, specifically pages 30-32 pertain to Capital Facilities and their placement. The Plan encourages the setting aside of adequate lands for public facilities (Goal CF-3) and the maintenance of a fire protection service that is effective and cost efficient (Goal CF-6). Policy CF-7-C suggests public facilities should contribute to necessary 1 concurrency requirements for transportation and utilities. The plan also stresses the importance of siting necessary facilities in appropriate locations. 6. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:The City of Pasco is the lead agency for this project. Based on the SEPA checklist, the adopted City Comprehensive Plan, City development regulations, and other information, a threshold determination resulting in a Determination of Non-Significance (DNS) has been issued for this project under WAC 197-11-158. ANALYSIS The applicant, TCA Architecture, has submitted a Special Permit proposal for Fire Station #83 to be located on the southeast corner of Sandifur Parkway and Road 76 on the same property as the two municipal water towers. It is estimated the project will be complete in 12 months and is scheduled to being in the last quarter of 2019. The new 12,500 square-foot fire station will consist of sleeping and living areas for employees, apparatus bays, and supporting spaces for the apparatus and firefighting equipment. At completion, the project will accommodate 6 staff. The exterior of the building will be composed of metal siding, fiber composite boards, and accent materials as seen in the attached elevation exhibit. The highest proposed structure is 35 feet. Because the new fire station will be located within the 1-182 Overlay District, the building will be subject to additional site and elevation design regulations to promote an aesthetically pleasing environment that will complement the appearance of the residential and commercial development in the area. As seen in the "Fire Station Distribution and Response Zones" map, much of West Pasco north of 1-182 is not adequately served by emergency services if each fire station has a 6-minute response distance (each circle is a 3-mile radius, or approximately 6 minutes). Considering the rate at which West Pasco is growing, it is necessary to ensure the timely provision of new services, like fire stations, to support existing and future development. Fire stations are outlined as capital facilities in the Comprehensive Plan and are approved in the capital budget based upon the needs of the community. A primary consideration is benefit to the environment and public health.The Plan stresses the importance of siting necessary facilities in appropriate locations and the protection of life and property. The proposed use will follow requirements of the City of Pasco noise ordinance to prevent nuisance situations. INITIAL STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT Findings of Fact must be entered from the record. The following are initial findings drawn from the background and analysis section of the staff report. The Planning Commission may add additional findings to this listing as the result of factual testimony and evidence submitted during the open record hearing. 1. The site is located at 5427 Road 76 on the property at which the municipal water towers are sited. 2. The site is zoned C-1 (Retail Business). 3. The site is located immediately north of the two water towers. 4. The fire station will be 12,500 square-feet in size and will consist of sleeping and living areas for employees, apparatus bays, and supporting spaces for the apparatus and firefighting equipment. 5. The maximum height of the fire station is 35 feet. 2 6. The exterior of the building will be composed of metal siding, fiber composite boards, and accent materials. 7. The proposed site is within the 1-182 Overlay District. 8. Fire stations are capital facilities as described in the Comprehensive Plan. CONCLUSIONS BASED ON INITIAL STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT Before recommending approval or denial of the proposed plat the Planning Commission must develop findings of fact from which to draw its conclusion (P.M.C. 26.24.070)therefrom as to whether or not: 1. Will the proposed use be in accordance with the goals, policies, objectives and text of the Comprehensive Plan? a. The Plan stresses the importance of siting necessary facilities in appropriate locations and the protection of life and property. The site is located within a developed and growing portion of the community and on a major arterial, which provides excellent access to the surrounding neighborhoods and those properties along the 1-182 corridor. 2. Will the proposed use adversely affect public infrastructure? a. The proposal will generate little demand for public utilities such as water and sewer.Traffic generation of the proposal will be minimal and easily accommodated by the existing road system. The utility demands of the Fire Station are lower than many of the infrastructure demands generated by uses permitted in the C-1 zone.The activity does involve the intermittent dispatching of emergency service vehicles,yet the direct access to Sandifur Parkway will not negatively impact traffic circulation. 3. Will the proposed use be constructed, maintained and operated to be in harmony with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity? a. The general vicinity is commercial and residential in nature. Because the new fire station will be located within the 1-182 Overlay District,the building will be subject to additional site and elevation design regulations to promote an aesthetically pleasing environment that will complement the appearance of the residential and commercial development in the area. 4. Will the location and height of proposed structures and the site design discourage the development of permitted uses on property in the general vicinity or impair the value thereof? a. This proposal will complement the appearance of the surrounding properties and is not expected to discourage future residential and commercial development. The highest structure is proposed at 35 feet—comparable to the neighboring commercial buildings. 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? a. Emergency vehicles will be leaving the site with lights and sirens activated and may be more objectionable than permitted uses. However, the use of sirens at night and in the early mornings will be limited,which is a measure to minimized the potential audio impact of this activity. 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? 3 a. It is expected that the proposed fire station will not cause harm to public health and safety and that the associated activity will not become a nuisance to permitted uses in the vicinity. The proposal will locate an emergency service facility in a rapidly-growing area of Pasco that has an increasing need for emergency services. APPROVAL CONDITIONS 1. The Special Permit shall apply to tax parcel # 116-140-015; 2. No outdoor storage of equipment or materials shall be allowed; 3. The site shall be developed in substantial conformity to the site plan and building plans submitted; 4. The Special Permit shall be null and void if all necessary building permits have not been obtained by December 31, 2020. RECOMMENDATION MOTION for Findings of Fact: I move to adopt Findings of Fact and Conclusions therefrom as contained in the March 21, 2019 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 TCA Architecture/Pasco Fire Department for the location of Fire Station #83 5427 Road 76 with conditions as contained in the March 21, 2019 staff report. 4 Road Overview Item: Applicant: TCA Architecture/City of Pasco W+E # File r / -001 la.. ..��r. • ~ --� 4 - .ice! _ -.: S. s M1 - w . 7 . - � •?*r�� ",t �} � j ` _.i kms— ■ r '._.� n ..J� _. .5� ry `-' Gam- - �- r ♦ _—_-i - -,-- X91� .�.�` .L I d - `- � '� '�. �_-- _ i ..�(� :q � :i Ivry fti[� _ , � 1� � r I• [y 1 . _ �r� - �- '•- iL .Y L'�. Y L LIP IV � �� r-, :.� t - a? - �.. I� j��.� .a••1 "�,.-� .:�;.i--Sr•i...—'�r - -_ --- - _ Y•- 1 Ulkr:-- BF MAW Win MLM 'ry il r. -l+t•rte .Ol: y � A�r1 � � Mrs ry v. .I `'1 - ' .� '... - -- - _�• .- - _ - lama-a Feet Road 76 Fire Station ` i Vidn'ty Applicant: TCA Architecture/City of Pasco VV+E Map - #: SP 2019-00 � ■ ti� �� till` RAN 'M IP Er . ` M. ■ Af ■V 1d ■ %A � I Lr' ,... .'� ■fid �� . � r �,: 4'.11 + 11 110 210 420 ■ 1 i+ f w -1 L -1Feet Land Use Item: Road 76 Fire Station #83 Applicant: TCA Architecture/City of Pasco W E Map File #: SP 2019-001 S Multi-Fam WHITE BLUFFS C _ z SFDU Commercial Vacant SFDU p W �¢ Multi-Fam SFDU Agriculture U DESCHUTES DR Office Vacant SFDUMulti-Fam I SANDIFUR PKWY SFDU Commercial VENDDVI DR Commercial sFDu P% SITE °C Commercial Commercial PENDER DR Agriculture z SFDU �'o y Vacant J Commercial W 1 -I L-ja a DR c v LU Commercial Commercial g SFDU SFDU GALIANO DR 7-7-1 SFDU Recreational office Restaurant 110 210 420 630 84 Feet Vacant WRIGLEY DR Office Zonin Item: Road 76 Fire Station #83 N Applicant: TCA Architecture/City of Pasco W+E Map File #: SP 2019-001 S LL WHITE BLUFFS ray z - C - Q w C-1 U DESCHUTES DR SANDIFUR PKWY R-1 VENDOVI DR n SITE 0 PENDER DR �o C-1 z y —Li LY J ❑ —SAVARY DR Q C-1 a � z f ILU ~ GALIAND DR 110 210 420 530 84 Feet WRIGLEY DR C-1 Satellite Fire Station 83 01 /18/19 OPTION 1 - SCHEMATIC DESIGN SANDIFUR PKWY • TWO LARGE, INTERSECTING VOLUMES ALLOW FOR SIMPLE, CONTRASTING DESIGN 17'mr • HORIZONTAL ORIENTATION PROVIDES COHESIVE STREET PRESENCE r OPTION 1 :: DIAGRAM O 3D VIEW-TOWARDS NORTHEAST CORNER @ SANDIFUR pQ�C�O �OG�C STATION 83 NORTH ELEVATION � ia�A�aTn_ori a 20 3D VIEW-TOWARDS NORTHWEST CORNER @ SANDIFUR L ALTERNATE :: SLOPED ROOF ullp Y� - WEST ELEVATION 30 3D VIEW-TOWARDS SOUTHWEST CORNER @ RD 76 OPTION 1 T A ARCHITECTURE+PLANNING+DESIGN Satellite Fire Station 83 02/07/19 SCHEMATIC DESIGN - DRAFT NORTH ELEVATION - SANDIFUR PKWY 3D VIEW-TOWARDS NORTHWEST CORNER @ SANDIFUR EXTERIOR T A ARCHITECTURE+PLANNING+DESIGN Satellite Fire Station 83 01 /18/19 PROJECT INFORMATION PROPOSED STRUCTURE PROJECT NAME: SATTELITE FIRE STATION 83 OWNER: CITY OF PASCO SITE ADDRESS: 5427 ROAD 76 PASCO,WA 99301 SAND/FUR PWKY PARCEL NUMBER: 116140015 ZONING: C-1 RETAIL BUSINESS _ -_ _ ___ Satellite Fire Station 83 01/18/19 5427 ROAD 76, PASCO WA SANDIFUR PARKWAY SITE PLAN LEGEND 50'-0" aPROPOSED FIRE STATION FOOTPRINT XERISCAPING m - a N PROPERTY LINE o SANDIFUR PARKWAY LANDSCAPING Q z a SIDEWALK FR N YARDS SETBACK PUBLIC �PUBLICENTRANCE z LOBBY >- � DRIVE AISLE AND PARKING I VISITOR Of uj 5 PARKING I o I � la Lu APPARATUS BAY CREW PATIO CREW LIVING AREA I PRIVACY SCREEN o I CD I J SCREENING EW ENTRANCE FENCE MODIFIED DRAINAGE 2 BASIN AND PERIMETER (E)DRAINAGE BASIN WITH CREW PARKING \ FENCE PERIMETER FENCE--; EXTENT OF(E) BASIN TO BE FILLED L 10 4-0" 5 20 50 REQ'q BUFFER (E)SERVICE �(E)WATER TOWER SITE BUILDING T A ARCHITECTURE+PLANNING+DESIGN t CITY OF .. . -. PASCO I11� ��III l _ z �111f 4 E �:�� .�� - •ter � ■ :.:_ ��. ,;,`�_� j�r_�r—mil L�=_ r �� t f X �� + � • /! ■ ►rte ji - vp _ lEgNag Ilii'i �-�irw-:,It wwwtl I9; - A: rr n �■ k �Cll 1 wk•P .wt. *1111111119` �� ... �; . �:.� 11111i�11,� •� i� ��.�G�,: �-=�rt��C� ,li�� .�'-.3�` ��y►��tiy •R„Illi Hill! 1:t- iia r�i ..w ""� ,Ai I� `I�■y ':;s1��1� �+lili.i i will a SPIN. wmqAll NIN: KEW- 111.10 Mm INN � amitam VF i - — y � +�1 it j • l' �� r. �� a rlii. � �i�"�'7.��I►If� �f r>Iy Fur_ `„� �'� �: All OIL - 1 4,�SP is ag0-0 v o I F.Ni 1k, r4l .0 ow 01 T O wrl, 1or .2j. if f04, jor J dE AN AM Looking East r Jlk l r ti r Z NEL ■ d till - � .•.-..d.. - .�, `,� - i 4j w 4 "1 A � ' .s� tiA.k. :AVk 'fit Looking South 5 � Looking West ' � -�� . . �1• Mw,� ' CITY OF PASCO 11111 , rr �� c 'IIuI�1� IIII�III� 11111p ' f't " � r WAS -I WCO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING City Hall—525 North Third Avenue—Council Chambers Iq THURSDAY, MARCH 21, 2019 7:00 PM MASTER FILE#: Z 2019-001 APPLICANT: Enrique Salas 4616 Ivy Rd Pasco WA 99301 REQUEST: REZONE: Rezone 3 parcels from RT (Residential Transition) to R-1 (Low-Density Residential) BACKGROUND 1. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: Legals: Lot 1: Washington Addition Block 4 (APN #113881015) Lot 2: Washington Addition Block 3; Lots 3 to 22 (APN #113882023) Lot 3: Washington Addition Block 2 (APN #113883013) General Location: East of Heritage Boulevard, roughly aligned with East Helena Street Property Size: The site consists of three parcels comprising approximately 4.13 Acres, as follows: Lot# Sq. Ft. Acres Lot 1 61,342 1.41 Lot 2 57,119 1.31 Lot 3 61,389 1.41 Total 179,850 4.13 2. ACCESS: The parcels are currently landlocked; East Helena Drive would need to extend east from Heritage Boulevard,along the south of the lots and through to what is now called Primavera Drive in the Tierra Vida subdivision to the east. A road extending from between lots 2 and 3 may be required to extend south to East "A" Street. 3. UTILITIES: Both water and sewer would need to be extended from either Primavera Drive to the east and/or at the intersection of Heritage Boulevard and East Helena Drive to the west. 1 4. LAND USE AND ZONING: The lots are currently vacant and are zoned RT(Residential Transition). Surrounding properties are zoned and developed as follows: NORTH: C-3 Salvaged Auto Storage EAST: R-1 Vacant SOUTH: RT; C-3 Vacant WEST: RT Vacant S. Comprehensive Plan: Underthe current Comprehensive Plan land use designation of Low-Density Residential,the land could be zoned R-S-20, R-S-12, R-S-1, R-1, and/or R-1-A. Land Use Goal H-1 Encourages housing for all economic segments of the city's population. Housing in east Pasco is typically more affordable than the rest of the Tri-cities area. Land Use Policy H-1- D Policy further encourages avoiding large concentrations of high-density housing. The land is close to two Tierra Vida apartment developments. Goal H-2 encourages the City to "strive to maintain a variety of housing consistent with the local and regional market." Policy H-2-A Advocates for a full range of residential environments including single family homes. 6. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The City of Pasco is the lead agency for this project. An environmental determination will be made after the public hearing for this project. A Determination of Non-Significance or Mitigated Determination of Non-Significance is likely for this application (WAC 197-11-355). ANALYSIS Applicant is seeking to rezone three tax parcels located east of Heritage Boulevard, roughly aligned with East Helena Street from RT (Residential Transition) to R-1 (Low-Density Residential), consistent with the Comprehensive Plan designation for the property. The site, platted in 1913 as the Washington Addition to Pasco, was originally designed as a residential neighborhood but was never developed. The site is vacant. The site was annexed into the City in 1994 (Ordinance 3033)and assigned the Residential Transition zoning designation.The RT zone is typically used as a holding zone for areas that lack utility services. As utilities and infrastructure become available RT zoned properties are then zoned to match the land use designations of the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan designates the site for Low-Density Residential uses.The area identified as low- density residential development by the Comprehensive Plan is described as Residential development at a density of 2 to 5 dwelling units per acre and could be zoned R-S-20, R-S-12, R-S-1, R-1, and/or R-1-A. Rezone Criteria The initial review criteria for considering a rezone application are explained in PMC.25.88.030.The criteria are listed below as follows: 1. The date the existing zone became effective: The current zoning classification of RT (Residential Transition) became effective on July 23, 1994 (Ordinance 3033), upon annexation into the City. 2. The changed conditions,which are alleged to warrant other or additional zoning: Heritage Boulevard has been upgraded and realigned to accommodate heavy truck traffic originating from the industrially zoned properties to the south, and some industrial uses have been developed to the 2 southeast of the site. High-density housing has been developed to the east(Tierra Vida Apartments). West of Heritage Boulevard, low-density residential has been developed as the Sunrise Estates neighborhood. 3. Facts to justify the change on the basis of advancing the public health,safety and general welfare: The proposed zoning request is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan which has been determined to be in the best interest of advancing public health, safety and general welfare of the community. The rezone will allow for development of single-family homes for Pasco residents. 4. The effect it will have on the value and character of the adjacent property and the Comprehensive Plan: A change in zoning classification may ultimately result in the establishment of single-family residential development consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Any development will require developers to install/upgrade street, utilities and landscaping in the area, thus improving the value of surrounding properties on Heritage Boulevard, East "A"Street, and in the Tierra Vida subdivision. 5. The effect on the property owner or owners if the request is not granted: Because the RT zoning permits single family homes on a minimum of 5 acres for development, and the property zoned RT comprises approximately 4.13 acres, the property owners will be severely limited by the constraints of the RT zoning designation in their ability to either develop or to sell the property. STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT Findings of fact must be entered from the record. The following are initial findings drawn from the background and analysis section of the staff report.The Planning Commission may add additional findings to this listing as the result of factual testimony and evidence submitted during the open record hearing. 1. Applicant has applied to rezone three tax parcels from RT (Residential Transition) to R-1 (Low- Density Residential), 2. The proposed rezone is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan designation for the property. 3. The parcels are located east of Heritage Boulevard, roughly aligned with East Helena Street. 4. The site was platted in 1913 as the Washington Addition to Pasco. 5. The site was originally designed as a residential neighborhood. 6. The site is vacant. 7. The site was annexed into the City in 1994 (Ordinance 3033). 8. The site is zoned RT(Residential Transition). 9. The RT zone is typically used as a holding zone for areas that lack utility services. 10. RT zoned properties are rezoned consistent with the land use designations of the Comprehensive Plan as utilities and infrastructure become available. 11. The current Comprehensive Plan land use designation is Low-Density Residential. 12. Under the Comprehensive Plan Low-Density Residential designation,the property could be zoned R-S-20, R-S-12, R-S-1, R-1, and/or R-1-A. 13. The current zoning classification of RT (Residential Transition) became effective on July 23, 1994 (Ordinance 3033), upon annexation into the City. 3 14. Heritage Boulevard has been upgraded and realigned to accommodate heavy truck traffic originating from the industrially zoned properties to the south. 15. Some industrial uses have been developed to the southeast of the site. 16. High-density housing(Tierra Vida Apartments) has been developed to the east. 17. Low-density housing (Sunrise Estates) has been developed to the west of Heritage Boulevard. 18. The proposed zoning request is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 19. The rezone would allow for development of single-family homes. 20. Any development will require developers to install/upgrade street, utilities and landscaping in the area, including extending Helena from the site west to connect to Heritage Boulevard and/or east towards the Tierra Vida neighborhood. A connection southward to East "A" Street may also be required. 21. The current RT zoning requires a minimum of 5 acres per single family home. 22. The property zoned RT comprises approximately 4.13 acres. 23. The RT zoning designation severely limits the property owner's ability to either develop or sell the property. No concomitant agreement would be required. TENTATIVE CONCLUSIONS BASED ON INITIAL STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT Before recommending approval or denial of a special permit the Planning Commission must develop findings of fact from which to draw its conclusions based upon the criteria listed in PMC 25.86.060. The criteria are as follows: 1. The proposal is in accordance with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. The proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map and Comprehensive Plan Policy Land Use Goals; H-1 Encourages housing for all economic segments of the city's population. Housing in east Pasco is typically more affordable than the rest of the Tri-cities area. Land Use Policy H-1-D Policy encourages avoiding large concentrations of high-density housing (The land is close to two Tierra Vida apartment developments). Goal H-2 encourages the City to "strive to maintain a variety of housing consistent with the local and regional market." Policy H-2-A Advocates for a full range of residential environments, including single-family homes. 2. The effect of the proposal on the immediate vicinity will not be materially detrimental. The immediate area is shown in the Comprehensive Plan for Low-Density Residential zoning. The Low- Density Residential designation allows for R-S-20, R-S-12, R-S-1, R-1, and/or R-1-A zoning district. The proposed rezone is consistent with the referenced plan; As such, this proposal will not be materially detrimental to future nearby developments that will need to conform to the provision of the plans 3. There is merit and value in the proposal for the community as a whole. The proposed zoning is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map. The site is located between two residential zoning districts to the east and west, and is proximal to Heritage Boulevard and East "A" Street; Comprehensive Plan Policy Land Use Goals; H-1 Encourages housing for all economic segments of the city's population. Housing in east Pasco is typically more affordable than the rest of the 4 Tri-cities area. Land Use Policy H-1-D Policy encourages avoiding large concentrations of high-density housing (The land is close to two Tierra Vida apartment developments). Goal H-2 encourages the City to "strive to maintain a variety of housing consistent with the local and regional market." Policy H-2-A Advocates for a full range of residential environments including single family homes. The proposal is supported by land use goals and policies contained in the Comprehensive Plan. 4. Conditions should be imposed in order to mitigate any significant adverse impacts from the proposal. The Pasco Municipal Code includes design standards for residential development. Furthermore, with a rezone the area would need to be re-platted to meet current City subdivision standards.The Preliminary Platting process requires review through the Planning Commission and City Council. If or when applicants pursue the development of this property, they will be required to conform to subdivision and design standards established by the PMC. No special conditions are proposed. 5. A Concomitant Agreement should be entered into between the City and the petitioner, and if so, the terms and conditions of such an agreement. If or when applicants pursue the development of this property, they will be required to conform to subdivision and design standards established by the PMC. No Concomitant Agreement is considered necessary for this application. RECOMMENDATION MOTION: I move to close the hearing on the proposed rezone and set April 18, 2019 as the date for deliberations and the development of a recommendation for the City Council. 5 Overview Item: Salas Rezone - RT to R-I N Applicant: Enrique Salas W+E Map File #: Z 2019-001 7 -71111111 ��w w O � 1 � mill� _irli 1; 187350 700 1,100 1,40 Feet VicinItem: Salas Rezone - RT to R--1 N Applicant: Enrique Salas W+E Map File #: Z 2019-001V . 1P, S . �. 's r•--rk=�lFF�Effi��".(xrr�.rrrMR.�H► •�., , 11I" cr ,T�•,. A' ttr�f.F.�.f. �.Ip. r• �.77 r IF, -k A [P: C;F..T k=P�rr Eikl{f 1 kk ld�alN�F R� �� .,��fkR�r�'elF�'.��rF��'� .r• �- ;.Clef ^" r- ^�r r fir.,..... F ' r � T - � l �SITE� FWLEMAsST- ' Z . z CUSTER U C PAZ CT d N f Uj ESTRELLA OR Lu 110 210 420 630 84 . Feet Land Use Item: Sal as Rezone -- RT to R-1 N Applicant: Enrique Salas W+E Map File #: Z 2019-001 S Vacant SFDU Industrial Commercial Industrial Commercial Vacant SFDU Vacant SFDU SFDU Vacant y�� n SITE oVacant Vacant Vacant �+ SFDU E HELENA ST SFDU �4Lfi 9z W a ? SFDU a SFDU a o OUSTER SFDU 4 Vacant Vacant Vacant PAZ CT N sFDv u Q u u N w ESTRELLA DR w 110 210 420 630 84 SFDU Multi-Fam Feet Multi-Fam Item: Salas Rezone - RT to R- I N Zoning Applicant: Enrique Salas W+E Map File Z 2019-001 MEN OWNS P VAR '.lipao/M 0, 11,10400 MOM 11 110 210 420 630 841 1 M M I I I Feet Looking North ky STT L ` ill Looking JA j _ N a .� { �� iia'` �,{,�y�,� �'-• �- ��I �$- s � ii •1� � L > ° 15j �Yr �7 !411 •i Looking South 4 l Looking West ,Lir +-• _ o .. j i iX MEMORANDUM TO PLANNING COMMISSION Gty�1 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 1�IPsko City Hall—525 North Third Avenue—Council Chambers DATE: THURSDAY, March 21St, 2019 7:00 PM MASTER FILE #: Z2019-009 APPLICANT: AHBL, Inc 5804 Road 90, Suite H Pasco, Washington 99301 REQUEST: REZONE: Rezone of 6.1 acres from RT (Residential Transition) to C-1 (Retail Business) BACKGROUND 1. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: Legal: Township 09 North, Range 29 East, Section 09 General Location: Northeast corner of Sandifur Parkway and Road 68 Property Size: 6.1 acres 2. ACCESS: The property has access from Road 68 and Sandifur Parkway 3. UTILITIES: Municipal water and sewer service are located at Road 68 and Sandifur Parkway 4. LAND USE AND ZONING: The site is currently zoned RT (Residential Transition). Surrounding properties are zoned as followed: NORTH: RT Agriculture/Vacant EAST: R-2 SFDU's SOUTH: C-1 Commercial (Gas Station, Auto Service) WEST: C-1 Commercial (Bank, Grocery, Retail) 5. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The Comprehensive Plan indicates that this site is intended for commercial development. The commercial land use classification is described as providing neighborhood, community and regional shopping which can also include specialty centers, business parks, service and office uses. Criteria for allocation under the commercial classification is included in the Land Use section of the Comprehensive Plan (Volume II, page 18) include sewer availability, market demand and proximity along major circulation routes. 1 Policies of the Comprehensive Plan that apply include: LU-3-D, encourages mixed-use development including neighborhood scale shopping areas; LU-4-A, promotes the location of commercial facilities at major street intersection and ED-2-B, development of a wide range of commercial uses strategically located to support local and regional needs. 6. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The adopted City Comprehensive Plan, current development regulations and the SEPA checklist determine that a Mitigated Determination of Non-Significance (M DNS) has been issued for this project (WAC 197-11- 355). ANALYSIS This site consists of 6.1 acres that had historically been used as working farmland. No structures currently exist on the site. A tax parcel segregation was completed in October 2018 that split the original parcel (#116020011 retired) of 79.3 acres into two parcels of 73.2 acres and 6.1 acres. The site was annexed into the City in August of 1982 via Ordinance 2388. The site is currently zoned as RT (Residential Transition) and the adopted City Comprehensive Plan has designated the site as Commercial. The Commercial classification allows for the following zoning districts: Office, C-1, C-2, C-3, CR and BP (Business Park).The applicant is seeking to rezone the site from RT to C-1 and then subsequently create four lots for commercial and retail uses. Current C-1 development standards state that the minimum lot area is not required and lot coverages are dictated by parking, setback and landscaping requirements.The maximum building height is 35 feet; however, a greater height may be approved by special permit. Frontage improvements along Road 68 and Sandifur Parkway are anticipated. The review criteria for considering a rezone application are identified in 25.210.030 "Requirements for zoning petition" from the Pasco Municipal Code. The petition for a change of classification must show the following: 1. The date the existing zone became effective: The site of the rezone was zoned RT in 1982 when it was annexed into the City. 2. The changed conditions which are alleged to warrant other or additional zoning: The vicinity of the rezone site has rapidly grown and is surrounded by various housing developments, commercial and offices uses and retail services. Rezoning the site will allow for more a more compatible land use to be in place that will address the business services needed by the growing household populations. 2 3. Facts to justify the change on the basis of advancing the public health, safety and general welfare: The proposed zoning request is consistent with the adopted City Comprehensive Plan which has been determined to be in the best interest of advancing public health, safety and the general welfare of the community. This rezone will allow for the development of additional commercial property addressing the growing needs to serve the population. 4. The effect it will have on the value and character of the adjacent property and the Comprehensive Plan: The rezone will complement existing properties adjacent to the site.A change in the rezone classification will allow for the development of commercial uses offering retrial services that is compatible with the character of the surrounding area. 5. The effect on the property owner or owners if the request is not granted: The property owner would be allowed to develop the site for retail and commercial services as allowed through the C-1 zoning classification. INITIAL STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT Findings of Fact must be entered from the record. The following are initial findings drawn from the background and analysis section of the staff report. The Planning Commission may add additional findings to this listing as the result of the factual testimony and evidence submitted during the open record hearing. 1. The site consists of 6.1 acres and is zoned RT (Residential Transition) 2. The site was annexed in 1982. 3. The adopted City Comprehensive Plan land use classification for the site is Commercial and includes zones: Office, C-1, C-2, C-3, CR and BP (Business Park). 4. The applicant is seeking to rezone the site from RT to C-1. 5. The applicant is proposing to develop the site with space for approximately four businesses. 6. The adopted City Comprehensive Plan indicates that properties classified as Commercial should be developed for neighborhood, community and regional shopping including specialty centers, business parks, services and offices uses. 3 7. The C-1 zone was established to provide for the location of commercial activities outside the central business district that meet the retail shopping and service needs of the community. 8. Minimum lot area is not required under the Development Standards for the C-1 zone 9. Lot coverages are dictated by the parking, setback and landscaping requirements 10. The height of a building is not to exceed 35 feet, except when approved by a special permit. 11. The proposal is in compliance with the adopted City Comprehensive Plan's land use and zoning maps. CONCLUSIONS BASED ON INITIAL STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT Before recommending approval or denial, the Planning Commission must develop Findings of Fact from which to draw its conclusions based upon the criteria listed in Pasco Municipal Code 25.210.060. The criteria are as follows: 1. The proposal is in accord with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan; a) The proposal is consistent with the adopted City Comprehensive Land Use Map and several policies and goals. Policy LU-3-D, encourages mixed-use development including neighborhood scale shopping areas;LU-4-A,promotes the location of commercial facilities at major street intersection and ED-2-B, development of a wide range of commercial uses strategically located to support local and regional needs. 2. The effect of the proposal on the immediate vicinity will be materially detrimental; b) The adopted City Comprehensive Plan designates the immediate areas for commercial and high density residential. The commercial classification permits the C-1 (Retail Business District) and is consistent with referenced plans. The proposal will not be detrimental to existing and future developments within the vicinity. 3. There is merit and value in the proposal for the community as a whole; a) There is merit in developing sites within the City in accordance with the goals and policies contained in the City Comprehensive Plan. The proposed zoning is consistent with the Plan's Land Use Map and will provide additional retail shopping and services for the community. The site is located along a travel corridor that also includes nearby service from the regional public transportation service provider. 4 4. Conditions should be imposed in order to mitigate any significant adverse impacts from the proposal; a) The Pasco Municipal Code provides information on design standards for commercial development. If, or when the applicant pursues the development of this property, they will be required to confirm and meet the requirements of the designed standards as established in the PMC. No special conditions are proposed. 5. A concomitant agreement should be entered into between the City and the petitioner, and if so, the terms and conditions of such an agreement. a). A Concomitant Agreement is not considered necessary for this application. RECOMMENDATION MOTION: I move to close the hearing on the proposed rezone and set April 18, 2019 as the date for deliberation and the development of a recommendation for the City Council. 5 Overview Item: Rezone - Eickmeyer RT - C-1 N Applicant: AHBL, Inc. W+E Map File #: Z 2019-002 S e TEKOA DR TI 1REE RkVER8 DR THREE RIVERS DR � J T06TLE CT r w j + t ry--• _ co - ❑ Z e - �r ti .O � J e I CP 1 J - C ❑ ! r SANDIFUR PKWY 0 300 600 Feet Land Use Item: Rezone - EickmeyerRT - C-1 N Applicant: AHBL, Inc. W+E Map File It: Z 2019-002 5 U Y�toW Y U TEKOA DR THREE RIVERS UR Us TREE MRIVERS DR 2 POWDER DR z z TOUTLE-CT Lu z 103 Z —O Z ff, {7 ? J � LL Q w w Com im I o W D J PALOUSE DR m I - LATAH CT SANDIFUR PKWY a 300 soa am ercial Commercial Feet Zoning Item: Rezone - Eickmeyer RT - C-1 N Applicant: AHBL, Inc. '"+ Map File #: Z 2019-002 s YQLowsrso Y R-1 TEKOA'DR ``------7HREE RIVERS DR THREE RIVERS DR- POWDER DR O Z z LLI R-1 TOUTLE'CT) LL, z O o a ¢ v J 1 J CA Q Q J ¢ O 1 J 11J Q� C-1 y O U W J PALOUSE❑R ❑ R-2 Q R 9 LATAH CT �01J SANDIFUR PKWY 0 300 600 C-1 C-1 { Feet Looking r tzt NI r. -� -cam' � �_=�-• - -caeT✓ _ - Yr L.�j�r iL_— _ .� '--� _ j — �.►L� —= v _._ _ rY�: �kms. ,- - �..• �.-- � Looking i F r n AI _ a STT+ F- • ,� - - -'� _ � _ �'� - - ��"`� _ �_- :�•�r . __ -:�� _ - � `� �r�'� :•, •"-�� ,_mss � Looking _y I p 7 . 5 J i -=RPM= _ WOO 71 M�ZiO t West Looking ago, IL -� - - _ - e'^^t�" -_ _ _ `r•�'.F- .wia ter. �4i REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION �� PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING I P City Hall—525 North Third Avenue—Council Chambers THURSDAY, MARCH 21, 2019 7:00 PM MASTER FILE#: Z 2019-003 APPLICANT: J&J Kelly Construction, Inc. 1006 Christopher Ln Pasco WA 99301 REQUEST: REZONE: Rezone 3 parcels from RS-20 (Suburban) to RS-12 (Suburban) BACKGROUND 1. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: Legals: Lot 1: Short Plat 79-28 Lot 4 Except for future road R/W (APN # 119611082) Lot 2: Short Plat 79-28 Lot 3 (APN # 119611094) Lot 3: Portion of the NE Quarter of the SE Quarter of the NE Quarter of Section 27, Township 9 North, Range 29 East, W.M General Location: Between Roads 52 and 54 south of W Court Street Property Size: The site consists of three parcels comprising approximately 15.3 acres 2. ACCESS: The property has access from Road 52 and Road 54 3. UTILITIES: Municipal water is available in both Road 52 and Road 54. Municipal sewer is not available but is planned for the near future 4. LAND USE AND ZONING: The lots are currently vacant and are zoned RS-20 (Suburban). Surrounding properties are zoned and developed as follows: NORTH: RS-20 New single-family development EAST: RS-12 SFDUs SOUTH: RS-20 SFDUs WEST: RS-20 SFDUs 5. Comprehensive Plan: The Comprehensive Plan indicates the site is intended for low-density residential development. According to the Comprehensive Plan, low-density residential development means 2 to 5 dwelling units per acre. The criteria for allocation under the future land use section of Volume II of the Comprehensive Plan (Vol. II, page 17) encourages development of lands designated for low-density residential uses when or where sewer is available; the location is suitable for home sites; and there is a market demand for new home sites. Policy H-1-E encourages the advancement of home ownership, and Goal H-2 suggests the City strive to maintain a variety of housing options for residents of the community. Goal LU-2 1 encourages the maintenance of established neighborhoods and the creation of new neighborhoods that are safe and enjoyable places to live. 6. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The City of Pasco is the lead agency for this project. An environmental determination will be made after the public hearing for this project. A Determination of Non-Significance or Mitigated Determination of Non-Significance is likely for this application (WAC 197-11-355). ANALYSIS In July of 2018 the Planning Commission discussed a proposed 22-lot preliminary plat by the name of Black Belle Estates in this location. However,the City suggested that—to avoid the use of septic systems within the incorporated areas—the City should assist the developer in extending municipal sewer facilities up from W Sylvester Street. Lots connected to City sewer are permitted at much smaller sizes because they do not support septic systems.The hearing for the plat was continued numerous times while negotiations occurred until finally the item was tabled until an agreement could be made. At this time,the developer seeks to rezone the site from RS-20 to RS-12 to prepare for his eventual submittal of the revised preliminary plat, which will accommodate the density standards of the RS-12 zoning district. Under these standards, one single-family house is permitted for each 12,000 square feet at the minimum; in contrast, RS-20 density standards permit only one single-family house every 20,000 square feet. Further,the previous version of the Black Belle Estates plat proposed a density of approximately 1.4 dwelling units per acre—well below the Comprehensive Plan's suggestion of 2 to 5 units per acre for areas designated Low Density. Considering this, staff believes the land would be most effectively utilized with a more dense development to better serve Pasco's growing community. An agreement has since been entered into between the City and the developer to extend the necessary sewer facilities to the rezone/future plat area. Thus, the developer intends to submit a new 34-lot preliminary plat within the next month or two. The rezone site was annexed into the City in 2013 and was zoned RS-20. At the time of annexation, the Planning Commission considered the character of the neighborhood and the lack of sanitary sewer service prior to recommending RS-20 zoning. Now,the City must take into account the rate at which Pasco is growing in population and how Pasco will accommodate such rapid growth. Rezone Criteria The initial review criteria for considering a rezone application are explained in PMC. 25.88.030. The criteria are listed below as follows: 1. The date the existing zone became effective: The current zoning classification of RS-20(Suburban)became effective on January 1, 2013 (Ordinance 4077), upon annexation into the City. 2. The changed conditions,which are alleged to warrant other or additional zoning: The City of Pasco is growing at a rate in which a population of 121,828 is expected by the year 2038. Over 15,000 new residential dwelling units will need to be constructed in Pasco over the next 20 years. Infill developments are crucial to mitigating the effects of such a rapid population increase, and a rezone of the property to a denser zoning district will facilitate its development. 3. Facts to justify the change on the basis of advancing the public health, safety and general welfare: 2 The proposed zoning request is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan which has been determined to be in the best interest of advancing public health, safety and general welfare of the community. The rezone will allow for development of more single-family homes for Pasco residents. 4. The effect it will have on the value and character of the adjacent property and the Comprehensive Plan: A change in zoning classification may ultimately result in the establishment of single-family residential development consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Any development will require developers to install/upgrade street, utilities and landscaping in the area, thus improving the value of surrounding properties. 5. The effect on the property owner or owners if the request is not granted: The property owner may develop the site at the allowed RS-20 density requirements. STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT Findings of fact must be entered from the record. The following are initial findings drawn from the background and analysis section of the staff report.The Planning Commission may add additional findings to this listing as the result of factual testimony and evidence submitted during the open record hearing. 1. The applicant has applied to rezone three tax parcels from RS-20 (Suburban)to RS-12 (Suburban). 2. The applicant is seeking to rezone in order to plat the site with a more dense development. 3. The site is within the Pasco Urban Growth Boundary. 4. The State Growth Management Act requires urban growth and urban densities to occur within the Urban Growth Boundaries. S. The site is relatively flat. 6. The site currently contains two houses. 7. The site is not considered a critical area, a mineral resource area, or a wetland. 8. The Comprehensive Plan identifies the site for low-density residential development, which permits the following zones: RS-20, RS-12, RS-1, and R-1. 9. Low-density residential development is described in the Comprehensive Plan as two to five dwelling units per acre. 10. The minimum lot area in the RS-20 zone is 20,000 square feet. 11. The minimum lot area in the RS-12 zone is 12,000 square feet. 12. The site currently does not have access to sewer; however,the City and developer have entered into an agreement to extend a sewer line northward from W Sylvester Street to the site. No concomitant agreement will be required. 3 TENTATIVE CONCLUSIONS BASED ON INITIAL STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT Before recommending approval or denial of a rezone the Planning Commission must develop findings of fact from which to draw its conclusions based upon the criteria listed in PMC 25.86.060. The criteria are as follows: 1. The proposal is in accordance with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. The proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map and Comprehensive Plan Policy Land Use Goals. Low-Density Residential development suggests 2 to 5 dwelling units per acre. The criteria for allocation under the future land use section of Volume II of the Comprehensive Plan (Vol. II, page 17) encourages development of lands designated for low-density residential uses when or where sewer is available; the location is suitable for home sites; and there is a market demand for new home sites. 2. The effect of the proposal on the immediate vicinity will not be materially detrimental. The immediate area is shown in the Comprehensive Plan for Low-Density Residential zoning, which permits zones RS-20, RS-12, RS-1, and R-1. The proposed rezone is consistent with the referenced Plan; as such, this proposal will not be materially detrimental to future nearby developments that will need to conform to the provision of the Plan. 3. There is merit and value in the proposal for the community as a whole. The proposed zoning is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map. Further, Pasco's rapidly growing population will be better served with denser residential developments. Creating housing to accommodate the City's growth is crucial and valuable for the community as a whole. The proposal is supported by land use goals and policies contained in the Comprehensive Plan. 4. Conditions should be imposed in order to mitigate any significant adverse impacts from the proposal. The Pasco Municipal Code includes design standards for residential development. The Preliminary Platting process requires review through the Planning Commission and City Council. If or when applicant pursues the development of this property, he will be required to conform to subdivision and design standards established by the PMC. No special conditions are proposed. 5. A Concomitant Agreement should be entered into between the City and the petitioner, and if so,the terms and conditions of such an agreement. If or when applicant pursues the development of this property, he will be required to conform to subdivision and design standards established by the PMC. No Concomitant Agreement is considered necessary for this application. RECOMMENDATION MOTION: I move to close the hearing on the proposed rezone and set April 18, 2019 as the date for deliberations and the development of a recommendation for the City Council. 4 Rezone 1 Black Belle Overview Applicant: i 1 Map - - : Z2019-00 N V�/�Al V .,rte *I ss + o * ' Am mow" r Tr, w r 3 f ! 41 Y � #4I Y ' * Ar riv ••� T iT Jr 4 W4 tip r 0,0' . OP dp. PS IL du Avg 425 850 1,700 Feet rp! TIL im 4 - - ViCiriit Item: Rezone - RS-20 to RS-12 Black Belle Estates N y Applicant: J&J Kelly Construction, Inc. W E Map File #: Z2019-003 S O - . COO a rga ret St f p ;t ti 0 180 360 720 Fee t Land Use Item: Rezone - RS-20 to RS-12 Black Belle Estates N Applicant: J&J Kelly Construction, Inc. W+E Map File #: Z2019-003 S Agriculture SFD-U-s W He ry_St o 70 � � o N Margaret St S F D-Us o SFs 1 180 360 720 Fee 1� 1..11. ...................11..............11....... ............1..1111..1111..1111..1111..1111 1..11. ...................11..............11....... ............1..1111..1111..1111..1111..1111 1■■■■■ ...................11..............11....... ............■■■■■■■■■1■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■1 1■■■■■ ...................11..............11....... ............■■■■■■■■■1■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■1 1■■■■■ ...................11..............11....... ............■■■■■■■■■1■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■1 1■■■■■ ...................11..............11....... ............■■■■■■■■■1■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■1 FES, 1..... ................... 1..............11....... ............1..1111..1111..1111..1111..1111 1..... ...u.�..................■■■■ ...MENEM......MENEM.......111...111..1111..1111..1111 i ■■■■■ ............111111111111111111111111■■■■■■■ -------------'\\■■\\\\\\\\\' 1■■■■■ ............111111111111111111111111■■■■■■■ \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\►�\.\\\\\■■\\\\\\\OI • / 1■■■■■ ............111111111111..1111..111.■■■■■■■ 1O.1e.1\►1-e\``\\\■-O\\\\\\►\■\\\\\■■\\\\\\y 1..... ............1111111.1111..1111..111■■■■■... 1-0.\e.o\O\-a\`\\\\\\\\\\\\►\\\\`\\\\\\\\\\� 1..... ............1111111............■■■......... ..\\\\\\\\\\\\\`\\\\\\\\\\\\\\.\\`\\\\\\\\\� 1..... ............11111111111111111111111■■■■■■■. _ ■\\`\\\■-i\\\\\\\►�\.\\\\\■■\\\ ....� ............111111111111111111111111■■■■■■. �\►.\\\\\\\.I►\■\\`\\►■■\\\\\\\►�\.\\\\►■■\ 1 ............111111111111..111111 1■■ 1111■■■■■■. \\\.\■\\\\limo■■\\\\\■■\\\\\\\►\■\\\\\■\� / ........ .............111111.1111..1■■■■■..........� \\��\\\`\\\\\\\\\ !\\\\\\\`\\\\\\\\\\\\►\\\\`\\\.i 1..... .........n............■■■.1111..1111..1111. O\.\\`\\\' / 1■■■■. 1111...■■11........■111111111■■1111..■■■■■■. 1■■■■. ........■11........■111111 m11mommommomm■■■■. 1■■■■. ....1111■11111111111111111111■........■■■■■. 1■■■■. 11111111■111111111..111111111■1111111111111. ►\\\\\\\\\\.'I\\\\\\\\\\\\`\e\\\\\\\\\\\\\\� 1..11. .11111111111111111..11111111111111111111111. 1\\eO\-a\`\eOl i\\\\\\\\O\\\\`\\\\\\\\\\\\►.- 1..11. 111111111111111111..11111111111111111111111. � I 1■■■■. .■■1111■■111111■■■.■■■■111111■1111111111111. ►\\\--\--\\`\it\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\`\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ 1■■■■. ■■■■■■■■■II■■■■■■■.■■■■■■■■11■11111111■■■■■. -"----'-'-"'le\\\\\-\\\\\\-\\`\\\\\\\\\\\\\\�._ 1■■■■. \■■■■■■■■II■■■■■■.m........�1■11..1111■■■■■. ►\\\\-\\\\\\-\\`\\memo\-\\\\\\-\\`\\\\\\\\\\\\\\. -- I 11111■■■■■. \\\\► \\\\\ 111. ...��• \\\\\►\-\\`\\O\-e\``\\\\\\\\\\\\O\-\\`\\\\-\\\\\\\ 111. - ►\\\\\O\-em`\.O\-1:111\-0\-e\oe0\-em`\eO\-O\me\■ 1111 \\\eO\-O\-e\\e0\-OC\e\\\\\\\\\\\\-\\`\\\\-\\\\\ 1■■. 1111111■■■■..■■■■■..■1111111 ••.■.■1■■-1■■1■■-1■■1■■-1■■1■■-1■■.■■-.■■.■■-.■■1■■-1■■1■■-1■■1■■-1■■1■■-1■■...-....■■..■■1111.■■1111.■■1111.■■1111.■■1111.■■1111■■■1111■■I 111111 111111111■'111■■11■EMU: ■■1 ••\.\\0\\\O\\.►\\`\\\-\\-\\a-\\\\■\\-\-e\\\ \\\-\\\ 11111111111■■■■ \ \\O\\-O\\\\\\\\\\\\a\\e►\\\m\\\\`\\-\\\\\eO\\-\\\►\\\ \ 100 000 0 1111..1111..11111111 1111111.1111111 11111111■111■■■ \\\\■-\ \ \\ \- \e \- \-■\\-\OMON - \\Oe\0\\\ \-ON1111■ ■ ■■. \-\\1111■ ■ ■ 1 \ O\\\\\\\- \-\•\►\ \ 1/�■ ■ ■■ ■ 1111 �/ 1 ■ 11111 IEEE ■ . 11 ■111111.1■ 1 MENEM // 1001 1111..1111..1111..1 1111111111111111 O \O\. �\\►\-\\`\e0\-\ \\\\\\\\ / 1..1 1111..11111.111m..� .1111111111111111 \O \\O\\\\`\e0\- ■■■■■■■■■■.■■■■■■II■\_ I■�\■■1111111111111 'a ,\\\\O\ / / • - ■■■■■■■■■■.■■■■■I■■■■II■■■\-■1111111111■■■ _ _ r • • ■■■■■■■■■■.■■■■■.■■■■I■■■■■\�■11111....■■■. \\\ \\\ �\\\\\\\\. \\\'\ � 1111 111111..1111.11L11..111...1111\x.11111111111 \\ �\\\\\\� \\■ 1■m1 111111■■■■■1.1R.■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■\■11■11111111 \\`\. \ \\\\\ \\ 1■11 1111111111111■'I■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■\\11111111111 110 1.11 111111111111111E■■■■■■■.■■■■■■■■■\11111111111 \- 1.11 111111111111.■ D ■ ■■ 0,11111111111 0-��\. 1111 =====��1'i� ■■ ni��n u.�-e�\. -� / • 1■11 Eiiiiiiii:::: 1111 11111111111111 ........... 1111..-.\`:. , / • - 1.11 11111111111111 . ........... 1.11 11111111111111■ . 11■■ . ............ .-..oe\\-..\. 1111 . 1111 111111111111111111.1111111111111111111111111 ..-..\e0\-.\ \e\r. / 1111 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 -0\-e.\e0\-e\`\. .-..\\O\. 1...1 11111111111111111111111■■1111111111111111111 \...-1111..-.\`\. ..-11\11. / , 111■1 11111111111111111111111■■1111111111111111111 .-e\`\� \\\\O / 1.... 11111111111111111111111■.11111111111111111111111..-11\11.-.\`\. �... Full 111111 .111111111111111111111■.1111111111-.1111111 111111 11111111111111111111111��!��!�• \`\eO\\O\\e\\e0\-\\`\. \e\ - 111111 111111..1111..1111..11111..1111..11111111111 \\`\em\\O\-em \ \\em\. \`\eO.\\\. 1■■ul 111■■■_■_■_■_■_■■■■■■■■■■■u■■■■■■■■■■■■111111111 -'-`------�-�--�--- ��mm. vmem � . p M I■■111 ....................11■■1111111111111111111 11■■■■■■■■■■■I \\\`\� -O\\� ■■■■■■■■1�1 % / , I■■111 1111111111111111111111.11■■1111111111111111111 11■■■■■■■■■■■I��.\\-e\`\e\ ■■■■■■■■111 , I■■111 1111111111111111111111111■■1111111111111111111 11■■■■■■■■■■■1 \\\\-e\\e ■■■■■■■■■■1 / 1..111 1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 1111..1111..11 \\e0\-e\`\, 11111..1111 1..111 1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 1111111111..11 a\\e0\-eC\em\11111..1111 I■■111 1111111111111111111111111■■1111111111111111111 11■■■■■■■■■■■1 '-a\\\\\-eC\e ■■■■■■■■■■I I■■111 11111■■■■■■■.111111111■II■■■111111111111111111 I■■■■■■■■■■■11 \e\\\\\-\\`\ ■■■■■■■■■■I I 1■.111 11111.■■■■■■1111111111111■■■.1111..1111..11111 ■■■■■■■■■■■11 \\\\-e\` ■■■■■■■■■■I 1■■1 I■■■■■■■......11111111■II■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■1 I■■■■■■■■■■■■' ��\\\\-e� 1■■■■■■■■■I '% 1..1 - ....1....................■■11111..1111..1 \\e0\-► 1..1 1.111111111111111111111111111111111111111111..11111..1111..1 m..��..a........... .......�...�., / ■1 1■ 11■■■111111■11111■111111■■111■■1111111111111.■lie...........r....................■■■■■■��■�I 1■■1 11■■■111111■11111■111111■■111■■1111111111111.■11■11■■.111..1111..1111..1111..1111..1111..1■■I 1■■1 1.■■■111111■1111..111111■■111.■1111111111111.■11■111111111111111111111111111111111111111111■I , 1■■1 I.■■■111111■1111..111111■■111.■1111111111111.■11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 1..1 1.1111..11111..1111..11111..1111..1111..1111..11111..1111111111111111111111111111111111111111 / 1■■..1111111111111...11....11.mmmlmm■■I Lookingrt MI e ri'�}'ti=YRS .F Y � c . v 77777 I JII li 111�f iii l J �r I I � i i,i IIII i If Ihp I�illll' 1 -. ' .-_,:,«,�"•'^:>-.-.._._ . +�� r I� - � 1 �7: . '"�1� �.�'"( �. s. ';` a i• ,%. 014-rs- 1, .S I. IL. rrl1, , e.fruaA �.. d >� -Ta::. :..3hf`;`4 #Sbi, - `.•IIl'a5�-i. I I ��. 1 :�, f �-�r =:� ,',e�'.� y{ -��:,1:,♦. :.£,' �v-'fist Syi 11. H �-r� i'> r ..1 �ate ,. -`�': .,a. •+5-. ^a'>2 3c t �• ,, ,,.�.,. .. •� ,: ;. . , �. ,- . . -a,:„I► , ..1. �, ,fir I I I ,� � :�• �.. M7 MR. - 't q , _ __ o:,. rI � •A.- ,. ..; +,. I r .. :.,. ...4..1 li. i I! V. Lh' ?,� a:t,- - �.Y�+n M � Y.�aw+. y- - �a k^ - :r•' �'. 3a,.I I �Y��,�r r 2 :�:' �vX. �^-Y._� i�- t o,. ” ' -� ...a f - r.. ,} ,:}` � -.w � � -_{� •�+�..q. W' �, i tti;�ll =,i-� r�F�,.e i y :;.�' r, MR.3: .j,C ,na�•1. la,�-. � '.e- .I."�r&7 �. ��''' I lI, '�� .r..i h�. w r Y , r- ,t'�! •i l 7' 9 �i: I I 1 m Cr_ ,q _r�`' G`+'. �y� -� .,. Y, 'll. I';�: - .r 4 ��j% •-�. �M1 ire 1 �� c .�- �y 1w1_ -' Rol ,t-�:: a' �-.7.'S.. o;� � as - =�.u` �.,z�e"'t>•_b. z- i :�'"s1, -�' �.. ,�- 'SY.'.. r: East Ile .41 4, i1 1-= IRAv - - - _ � _x y .c f" ti I`S'�`:5�•ti,,`.,�F:2-szz +. =�'a'�.a."��,�>` ��.M uS<+rµ a. ,F:;� .: Y py i �' � M a�Y'"�" _ ,�I i I.. �—^�_` -- � �i��s �' - -- - _ •,SIU k - �'` -f.. `�a• a 5r{ .LM _ Y 50. Hftv ��,Ihc,C�"�ua�,� �,�c" aF7z^ '�' - �': �{{"�� 3�`f'"�l�,y��.,l. :��'f°yy'�4�s�i�1.+'-�,�y�p"'Yi�.Jf�4��,R''�'�"�.._ 7`� � a S t r �� 44 k°„t•7x '�! , �qE - - e' YJ4 h�:V�4✓f� �� ` �.�' �� qf( $. � �e-��.� � `'awl_. �,�,: � rf�,�c�rr, {�"�".L� ��,.,�'" � .°�.":�� a'Y�;1 v-{��,�'r�'�y•�� y t1 ��''r� �' - F, n :y1z� fi ::! t ,�+�`� t� �.� n a .e,. _.fuL ..c vs.h. ..:�k. .'�f'... , •4JIi ][� r ,i`�i.y - ��'S�.' �'-.'. Looking . WONr il k ;; . _ p "Z,'.+ ?� Ilhfi♦,�' rVq��_'115� r 'V , V r e't b 5 br i x^ �� ' � �"3i63d 'I�.r, N�� •�� „i § � 4 "�? �k1 �,� T '� n� ,�� l ill ��.., 1J �4�, ,a, f .. F _ ,: �� ,`:r.,'Im F`".1 .r:.� 3�r,, ��k:. I � 5 ��-��3 ,. moi, �I�• i.!U ;, 1 :k''d F k4 ��} {` �" (�r��ir`Ei/,a, '��::: i ys, N �:5 rE �� 1�) Ir„ ,,,5 t. � •';> r y .1 S 7 fir. a a r 1`'.o-i i:' 1h':i 1; ;. 9k'.�. ] 1 A ��I• i `Q" 1' ,)'1 Y �: I�' , t;!` i f1 Ir ii' � 'h '(. a. 'i;y• ( ;, �T 4�`a .1,jr .�{ luIg a9I�11, 1 ..i-'.�� .�� _ .�. _�.*< r" Y_. I' ,f -1, i '�. •, a d. VI t Y" t ?'I$.' n'• ;�.. y,�!� i.•�I X I': I 'S^h, .I rg ,h ';� , 1.1' i_ _�,�'^':�! vp�1� "�'� J , �l ,�'. -5. '��' .s`:' �•::11t .w �`.,l,. �':,{5.1' '',U91, .;,ri; 'Ij- .I�'k�_ t � -lr, i �,. r• -r 5, "�. .l r u I 11 � _r.+r,.I�r, +r. C;' yy .r 1 °:', •{ , 1 V^ .,I a.:'.,. r 4,1,, i ,-•:b ly,,,i ,y j, -� c. ' 3..1 Y l ri ILtl"41ti 4ce,L 1.gqyyM - •.A 2 2 :M.' x ,. rl ,.i, , �' .�.- f!I t J ',' 4 "rn .' $II •� Y 6 i' I I,.":;� lfli-f.4s. �r � .I. $,JI I .i I , y I ,.�.. '.,`. •-Vi• r. _4 Ik! a�Er 9 'Rk i7� �I �f•' I -"�' W k Y. ��a' �i� �. 51 I ,Agl°A 6�r R"I�'1'r*: a, � : ...,..q, .. I;_:, 3v ,. .Ye ,..D,..�. ... ., �.,,,.?... :,r:. y ,. � .. ... .r; �.`i'N• 4 7.,, :�i.' I�., ,.�f' 11 .1..i::q z.. i•i'.'�i:- 1 _ .,.. ... •, ,. .11} ,.,, r.�f, r ,,� , F r, ,. _ ' ' ,. '� I,. r a I '#'r, :,t+'.E ,..r -,. x r, a .. ... v ��,�;.....�.x.a,• �,..., .., +,6: .-.. :;:. y,.,k��?$�.....',.. 6.¢�. .� �5, n1 e.�,. ��. i IivV. ;y,.�.,.. a :t:,14 .,�1�. .6. .,.. ... .. :: ., �.... ... F..6. . ,..+�. ..i.Lk,- ,. �., -..z .,: ,,..;.,:,,. ... , d- :i, I'j .,•v. ,i. �:c C., ac .ti-^i','..� `"1...... � .. ,.. Fea�N: _"„c• :. :: a 4 �':.. .. I ::.,- :... ,rli'.. e. - :. :.L S if: .,C.. �t -a 9... ..I .l ti, S,. , 1:... ,L,. r,, d ,e.A ��.:,t., Et A�• ,.... -,'i'r§. 'L. •;, �. ':;:, ,, � ..., ..:.: �: . H. ,r l Z f-'.;:� : : P ..i)- � r; :Y�1 I .T.; ,.i � ..[,. h,' �k :, ,” Sf .N. � .ek ,�y.�r ..1. y 1 y 1: -i; '.`F* 1w;,., 41• Tra.� '4' + "Z 'y,' •,•.; 'i MI, .n.', : •is ._.., .:.;yr ,y S,.k"t r.l:,, I ,' w. y� .,i:,,a� M r4 ti 9. N. t;,. r ... L' ,y"F ♦ s: .laa t. „ry:. j,; : � c ::.. •-:- :, •,. ,.:., +r'," .z ..hrR+ _.,. fit., ,: :-... :.�. ,..,_. ,.:,::r 7 t,i .'t v ' la:: a �[�''� ;�, -t.R. . 9�.. •Vial .,t. ,� .• -„P,-.,.., _,.n'' ..Y -�. i; 1 Y :x'> f•�; -�\..I•%rs�o : ' h j 1 eFr1- :�r �.:. ,k. ✓ero s' ei, :JI j�1r-"rpt:r'� .. � ;;. ::,.;, ;.:.r. -: . _r,,,�.r 1� I. I � 11- .4.•.ova w' di"# h� v. -"2 .✓. eTiLr.r. 'jai, r- aiAI' g'� IA � I s^'Ia :l�,�jq k IY -s,_,i,l}•.-n.�il�f ,�;l,• ,� ;.83J� ,Yi. ',31.�d,r� r'• S.- Ila 'r�n ,¢ ��V r :,S-..1 q :f. }�, ,c: ,;.,_ 1, _,r�.:.��, �.��". aa4�'''-.i$A',d>i., ,'mgr Ir;,. .u,�r. ,I�� ,:; .• . .ry:_"_8^>.,�.,_-- s--_.. ___ :—F4 `"x°14,4.._ ,e .,ao-_1,_�!,^ �'k � I .,,,.. >,s•, o,i ,'I ,: WCO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING City Hall—525 North Third Avenue—Council Chambers Iq THURSDAY, MARCH 21, 2019 7:00 PM MASTER FILE#: ZD 2019-001 APPLICANT: City of Pasco PO Box 293 Pasco WA 99301 REQUEST: Zoning Determination: Determine Zoning for parcels 119-111- 050, 119-111-069, and 119-112-031, located along West Agate Street between Roads 48 and 52 and north of West Court Street for municipal purpose. BACKGROUND 1. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: Leg Lot 1:The Northwest% of the Southwest %of the Southwest% of Section 23, Township 29 East, Range 9 North, W.M., EXCEPT county roads and EXCEPT the North 150' of the West 150' thereof and less a perpetual easement to the United States of America of.60 acres. Lot 2:The Northeast % of the Southwest N of the Southwest % of Section 23, Township 29 East, Range 9 North,W.M., EXCEPTthe north 132'thereof,and EXCEPT county roads and Less perpetual easement 3702 to the United States of America. Lot 3:The Southeast % of the Southwest N of the Southwest N of Section 23, Township 29 East, Range 9 North, W.M., LESS the South 344' and EXCEPT county roads. General Location: In the area of West Agate Street between Roads 48 and 52 and north of West Court Street (Parcels# 119-111-050, 119-111-069, and 119-112-031). Property Size: Number APN Sq. Ft. Acres 1 119111050 391,897.63 9.00 2 119111069 318,786.94 7.32 3 119112031 211,627.07 4.86 TOTAL 922,311.63 21.17 2. ACCESS:The site is accessed from Roads 48 & 52 and West Pearl Street 3. UTILITIES: Water is available via 8' lines at the corners of Road 52 & West Agate, and Road 48 & West Pearl, and a 6" line in Road 48 at the SW corner of Parcel 119-112-031. 1 4. LAND USE AND ZONING: The site is located in the County and is currently zoned RS-20(Suburban District) and is vacant, with the exception of a soccer field on Parcel 119-112-031.A 50-foot wide by 3,500-foot long Federal floodplain parcel runs diagonally from the northwest corner of Parcel 119-111-050 to the middle of the east property line of Parcel 119-111-069. Surrounding properties are zoned and developed as follows: NORTH: RS-20 SFDUs EAST: RS-20 SFDUs SOUTH: C-1; "O"; RS-20 SFDUs; Nursery WEST: RS-20 SFDUs 5. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN:The Comprehensive Plan designates the site for Low-Density Residential and Open Space/Parks. Capital Facilities Goal CF-3 directs the City to "provide adequate lands for public facilities; Policy CF-3-A "Assure land development proposals provide land and/or facilities or other mitigation for impacts on parks,schools, pedestrian and bicycle trails."Goal CF-4 advises the City to"provide parks,greenways,trails,and recreation facilities throughout the urban growth area; Policy CF-4-13, "Encourage use of existing natural features, open spaces and appropriate excess right-of-way as an integral part of the community-wide park system." Policy CF-6 Directs the City to"maintain within the city a level of fire protection service that is very effective and cost efficient. Encourage that same level of service in the unincorporated portion of the urban growth area" and Policy CF-6-A encourages the city to "Strive to provide a sufficient number of fire stations in appropriate locations throughout the community." Policy CF-1-13, "Encourage public participation in defining the need for,the proposed location of, and the design of public facilities such as parks, ball fields, pedestrian and bicycle corridors, and street and utility extensions and improvements." Land Use goal LU-2 directs the City to "maintain established neighborhoods and ensure new neighborhoods are safe and enjoyable places to live,and Policy LU-2-A,"Design major streets, schools, parks, and other public facilities that will encourage the individual identities of neighborhoods." 6. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The City of Pasco is the lead agency for this project. An environmental determination will be made after the public hearing for this project. A Determination of Non-Significance is likely for this application (WAC 197-11-355). ANALYSIS The City is in the process of annexing three parcels into the City through the Municipal Purposes annexation method in order to build a new fire station and a City park. The annexation petitioners are seeking to rezone the site consistent with the Low-density Residential land use designation. The site contains approximately 21 acres and is located in the area of West Agate Street between Roads 48 and 52 and north of West Court Street.Surrounding properties not contiguous to the site were annexed in a series of annexations between 1989 and 2012. While not contiguous with current City boundaries, the site is within a street's width of the city at the southwest corner of the site. A 50' Federally owned flood control right-of-way bisects the site beginning from a point about midway along the east property line of the northeasterly parcel and westward to the northwest corner of the site, continuing on for a total of 3,500 feet. 2 The parcels are located within the Urban Growth Area (UGA). Parcels 119111050 and 119111069, both located to the north of the site, are designated by the Comprehensive Plan map for Low Density Residential; Parcel 119112031, located to the southeast, is designated for Parks/Open Space. The Description and Allocation Table on page 17 of the Comprehensive Plan specifies that Low-Density Residential areas allow for RS-20, RS-12, R-S-1, R-1, and R-1-A zoning, with residential development at a density of 2 to 5 dwelling units per acre. Criteria for annexation in these areas include sewer availability, land suitable for home sites, market demand, and sites approved by the Benton-Franklin Health District when sewer is not available. The closest sewer is south of Court Street along Road 48, nearly 600 feet from the southernmost corner of the site. Currently the City is exploring options for providing the site and sewer basin with sanitary sewer service. The proposed annexation area is within the City's service area as identified in the Comprehensive Water and Sewer Plans. Both of these plans based future services need within the annexation area for more intense land uses as identified in the land use map of the Comprehensive Plan. Water is available via 8' lines at the corners of Road 52 & West Agate, and Road 48 & West Pearl, and a 6" line in Road 48 at the SW corner of Parcel 119-112-031. Land annexed within the Riverview area typically adopts the current County zoning designation for that parcel,which is RS-20(Suburban)for all three parcels. Both public facilities,such as parks and fire stations are site specifically located in residential zones, including the RS-20 zone,through the Conditional/Special Permit process. The initial review criteria for considering a rezone application are explained in PMC 25.88.030. The criteria are listed below as follows: 1. The changed conditions in the vicinity which warrant other or additional zoning: • The site in question is in process of being annexed via Municipal Purposes Annexation. • The site is located within the Pasco Urban Growth Boundary. • The site is located within one of the County islands surrounded by City-annexed lands. • Surrounding properties not contiguous to the site have been annexed over time between 1989 and 2012. • Surrounding properties are mostly developed with single-family dwellings, and a nursery to the south. 2. Facts to justify the change on the basis of advancing the public health,safety and general welfare. The property in process of being annexed via Municipal Purposes Annexation and needs to be zoned. The justification for the rezone is the fact that if a zoning designation is not determined the property could become annexed without zoning. For the advancement of the general welfare of the community the property needs to be zoned consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed zoning would incorporate the same zoning currently existing in the County. 3. The effect rezoning will have on the nature and value of adjoining property and the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed zoning will be the same as the existing County zoning for the property. RS-20 (Low-density Residential) zoning is supported by the Comprehensive Plan and would be considered a proper implementation of the Plan. The nature and value of surrounding properties will not be impacted as the result of proximity to said zoning. 3 4. The effect on the property owners or owner if the request is not granted. Without the annexation area being assigned a specific zoning district,the area will essentially be un-zoned upon annexation. The area needs to be zoned for the benefit of the property owners and property owners adjoining the proposed annexation area. 5. The Comprehensive Plan land use designation for the property. The Plan indicates the proposed annexation area can be zoned RS-20, RS-12, R-S-1, R-1, or R-1-A. The proposed zoning, RS-20 falls within the accepted range and is compatible with surrounding zoning. INITIAL STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT Findings of fact must be entered from the record. The following are initial findings drawn from the background and analysis section of the staff report.The Planning Commission may add additional findings to this listing as the result of factual testimony and evidence submitted during the open record hearing. 1. The City is in the process of annexing three parcels into the City through the Municipal Purposes annexation method 2. The City wishes to construct a new fire station and a City park. 3. The City is seeking to rezone the site consistent with the Comprehensive Plan Low-density Residential land use designation. 4. The site contains approximately 21 acres 5. The site is located in the area of West Agate Street between Roads 48 and 52 and north of West Court Street. 6. The site is not contiguous to the City limits. 7. Surrounding properties not contiguous to the site were annexed over time between 1989 and 2012. 8. The site is within a street's width of the City Limits at the southwest corner of the site. 9. A 50' Federally owned flood control right-of-way bisects the site 10. The parcels are located within the Urban Growth Area (UGA). 11. Parcels 119111050 and 119111069, both located to the north of the site, are designated by the Comprehensive Plan map for Low Density Residential; 12. Parcel 119112031, located to the southeast, is designated for Parks/Open Space. 13. The Comprehensive Plan specifies that Low-Density Residential areas allow for RS-20, RS-12, R-S-1, R-1, and R-1-A zoning, 14. The Comprehensive Plan recommends that Low-density Residential areas allow development at a density of 2 to 5 dwelling units per acre. 15. Criteria for annexation in these areas include the following: a. Sewer availability, b. land suitable for home sites, c. market demand, and 4 d. sites approved by the Benton-Franklin Health District when sewer is not available. 16. The closest sewer is south of Court Street along Road 48, nearly 600 feet from the southernmost corner of the site. 17. The proposed annexation area is within the City's service area 18. The site is identified in the Comprehensive Water and Sewer Plans. 19. The Comprehensive Water and Sewer Plans based future services need within the annexation area for more intense land uses as identified in the land use map of the Comprehensive Plan. 20. Water is available at the corners of Road 52 &West Agate, Road 48 & West Pearl, and Road 48 at the SW corner of Parcel 119-112-031. 21. Land annexed within the Riverview area typically adopts the current County zoning designation for that parcel. 22. County zoning for the site is RS-20 (Suburban). TENTATIVE CONCLUSIONS BASED ON INITIAL STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT Before recommending approval or denial of a special permit the Planning Commission must develop findings of fact from which to draw its conclusions based upon the criteria listed in PMC 25.86.060. The criteria are as follows: 1. Will the proposed use be in accordance with the goals, policies, objectives and text of the Comprehensive Plan? a. The Comprehensive Plan designates the site for Low-Density Residential and Open Space/Parks. b. Capital Facilities Goal CF-3 directs the City to "provide adequate lands for public facilities; c. Policy CF-3-A "Assure land development proposals provide land and/or facilities or other mitigation for impacts on parks, schools, pedestrian and bicycle trails." d. Goal CF-4 advises the City to "provide parks, greenways, trails, and recreation facilities throughout the urban growth area; e. Policy CF-4-B, "Encourage use of existing natural features, open spaces and appropriate excess right-of-way as an integral part of the community-wide park system." f. Policy CF-6 Directs the City to "maintain within the city a level of fire protection service that is very effective and cost efficient. Encourage that same level of service in the unincorporated portion of the urban growth area." g. Policy CF-6-A encourages the city to "Strive to provide a sufficient number of fire stations in appropriate locations throughout the community." h. Policy CF-1-B, "Encourage public participation in defining the need for, the proposed location of, and the design of public facilities such as parks, ball fields, pedestrian and bicycle corridors, and street and utility extensions and improvements." i. Land Use goal LU-2 directs the City to "maintain established neighborhoods and ensure new neighborhoods are safe and enjoyable places to live j. Policy LU-2-A, "Design major streets, schools, parks, and other public facilities that will encourage the individual identities of neighborhoods." 2. Will the proposed use adversely affect public infrastructure? 5 a. The proposed use includes a fire station and a City park. Neither use would place more strain on infrastructure than uses currently allowed in the zoning districts. 3. Will the proposed use be constructed,maintained and operated to be in harmony with existing or intended character of the general vicinity? a. The character of the vicinity is dominated by single-family dwelling units on all sides except for a nursery operation located to the southeast, along West Court Street. 4. Will the location and height of proposed structures and the site design discourage the development of permitted uses on property in the general vicinity or impair the value thereof? a. The areas on all sides are mostly developed with single-family dwelling units.A fire station will not exceed the height allowance for the RS-20 zoning district. b. A proposed city park would be a benefit to the neighborhood. c. Fire stations and parks require review through the Special Permit process. Conditions to mitigate negative impacts on surrounding properties may be placed on both as part of that review process. S. 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? a. The proposed fire station would bring added noise,fumes,vibrations,dust,traffic,and/or flashing lights to the neighborhood. b. Fire stations also add to the security and safety of neighborhoods. 6. Will the proposed use endanger the public health or safety if located and developed where proposed, or in any way become a nuisance to uses permitted in the district? a. While a Fire station may add safety risks to proximal neighbors due to increased emergency traffic, they generally benefit the public health and safety by reducing response times for fire and health-related crises. RECOMMENDATION MOTION for Findings of Fact: I move to adopt findings of fact and conclusions therefrom as contained in the March 21,2019 staff report. MOTION for Recommendation: I move, based on the findings of fact and conclusions as adopted, the Planning Commission recommend the City Council zone the Road 52 Annexation Area to RS-20 as depicted on the proposed zoning map ("Exhibit 1") attached to the March 21, 2019 Planning Commission report. 6 Pasco ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF PASCO,WASHINGTON, ASSIGNING ZONING TO THE ROAD 52 FIRE STATION ANNEXATION AREA AS RECOMMENDED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION. WHEREAS, on March 21, 2019, the Planning Commission of the City of Pasco conducted a public hearing to develop a recommendation for the assignment of zoning to certain property; in the event the property was incorporated within the City; and WHEREAS, on March 21, 2019, Ordinance No. effectively annexed certain real property to the City of Pasco; NOW,THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASCO,WASHINGTON DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That the following described area, situated in Franklin County, Washington to-wit: Lot 1:The Northwest N of the Southwest% of the Southwest X of Section 23, Township 29 East, Range 9 North, W.M., EXCEPT county roads and EXCEPT the North 150' of the West 150' thereof and less a perpetual easement to the United States of America of.60 acres. Lot 2:The Northeast X of the Southwest N of the Southwest X of Section 23, Township 29 East, Range 9 North,W.M., EXCEPT the north 132'thereof,and EXCEPT county roads and Less perpetual easement 3702 to the United States of America. Lot 3:The Southeast N of the Southwest N of the Southwest N of Section 23, Township 29 East, Range 9 North, W.M., LESS the South 344' and EXCEPT county roads. as depicted in the map attached hereto and labeled "Exhibit 1" be and the same is hereby assigned RS-20 Low-Density) zoning; and Section 2. That any and all zoning maps be and the same are hereby amended to conform to the aforesaid assignment of zoning. Section 3. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect 5 days after passage thereof. PASSED by the City Council of the City of Pasco this day of_ 12019. Matt Watkins, Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Clerk City Attorney 1 Overview Item: Road 52 Fire Station & Park Annexation N Applicant: City of Pasco 1— ' p File i i !0 �+ .fie s � ,� � •�-- limb lip tom.J •/7G�� 1 ` 6 S �. n x-r: G ;sem. � I !! .L•� r r�`"ReR.� �� y. �.' � �. _.�-"1.�..r all i Mis A ' J IM ..'i r _ �t;_- t � �. I tri' :� J.- q.'+'--4R ■• �.J. �. � �' !+ r..A1 210 430 850 1,300 1,7011.= Feety fir\ �- 8 •. .- r - 'P'' . VicinItem: Road 52 Fire Station & Park Annexation Applicant: City of Pasco W+E Map File #: ZD 2019-001 S if L ti T •IR — -- _• --A- _� �=_ � - � _ PE-ARL ST - • .� ,� _-. '-_ -- SITE � �,� - .� � � W ATE-ST - �ITY AM Ton P - - - rte•• _ � ,s F r� F. f r r; • S �'�~r r lip 110 210 420 630 840, Feet W COURT ST • Land Use Item: Road 52 Fire Station & Park Annexation N Applicant: City of Pasco W+E Map File #: ZIP 2019-001 VACANT -- -J SFDUs O — SFDUs 5 DU a VACANT VA CAN SFD Js SFDUs v - v SITE -- w - - - CITY LIMITS SFD SFD Is SFDUs VACANT - S DUs -- ACAN Ag/Nursery 110 210 420 630 84 �, VACANT Feet W COURT 5T - - -�---- -- Road FireStation ■ Park Annexation Applicant: of Pasco Map 1 2019-001 c E> ■ ■ i#I� rrrrrNrrra ■ rlrr#rr[fir � rr rrrrrNiir rlrfsrrrirN rrrNrrru ■lrf rrlirlrrllrrr � �� I riINrrrrrrrrlrrf rrll#rf rfrrfrr.rq 1[rrr rrlrrn 7r rrfrlrrrir lir f ■ rfirlrrrrr N ��iiarrrra rrrrariro i�HUMoi� rf rrrram IMMUrrrrrr in�i1XIMMUMN faf[eflrrrrrfr# rrrrrrf rlruffrrfrrtrr rar r rrsrNrllrrNrflr[erf rrarr irr MM County ■ rrr■rrrrrrrrlrNrrrir[[rNrarrrrr r!r R##irRrrll#rf#f i#f[[f!f is##ip rrrrrrrrfrfrlrfrrrrlrllrf rrrrrrrr ■ ' rarfrrwfsrralffrrrfArrafrratrfrrr 0 . r#rarrarrrralrrrrrrrr[errrr#rarrr .11 110 210 420 630 84f #fNwprllrirrrrrr[irarrmrrrr _Co. Exhibit Item: Road 52 Fire Station & Park Annexation Applicant: City of Pasco W+E #1 File #: ZD 2019-001 5 1 PEA 0 0 a t RS-20 W AGATE 5T CITY LIMITS ` ------------------- 110 210 420 630 84 Feet W COURT 5T Looking J z: Looking East A Looking South TrI - Jl - Looking West AIL AL I MEMORANDUM TO PLANNING COMMISSION City-f PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING IPasco City Hall—525 North Third Avenue—Council Chambers DATE: THURSDAY, March 21St, 2019 7:00 PM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Jacob B. Gonzalez, Senior Planner SUBJECT: Shared Street Frontages (Lots) (MF#CA 2018-008) Background The purpose of this memorandum is to provide an update to the ongoing discussion regarding shared street frontages. This item was continued at the February 2019 meeting of the Planning Commission so that staff could appropriately address important components of the ordinances for review. The discussions originate from the growing need to accommodate housing needs in our city and the increasing interest shared to the Planning Department and Planning Commission including comments from property owners, community organizations and residential housing developers. Staff has coordinated the details of the ordinances for review including the impacts and relationship to housing, safety (fire) and transportation. The following ordinances were proposed: Ordinance: Residential Lots without Public Street Frontage (new) Ordinance: Planned Unit Developments (amendments) Staff have updated the ordinances upon comments received from the Planning Commission and impacted City departments. RECOMMENDATION MOTION Option #1: 1 move to postpone this proposal to a later date. 1 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE of the City of Pasco, Washington Amending Section 21.20 "Lots and Blocks" to Allow the creation of Residential Lots without Public Street Frontage WHEREAS, the City has pursuant to PMC 21.05.020 identified that regulating the division of land within the Pasco Urban Growth Area to promote the health, safety, convenience,comfort, prosperity and general welfare of the present and future inhabitants of the Pasco Urban Growth Area; and WHEREAS, the City has existing isolated lots where the width exceeds the depth, creating constraints for efficient use of underutilized properties; and WHEREAS, the requirement for public street frontage for each lot in isolated instances can prevent development and the efficient use of land; and WHEREAS,the City Comprehensive Plan identifies the encouragement of infill and density development to protect open space and critical areas, accommodate population increases and provide support for more walkable neighborhoods (LU-3-B); and WHEREAS, the City recognizes that removing the requirement for public (street) frontage for residential lots may assist in meeting the goals of the City Comprehensive Plan, The Washington State Growth Management Act and City Council Goals. NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASCO, WASHINGTON, DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That Section 21.20.060 of the Pasco Municipal Code, shall be and hereby is created and shall read as follows: 21.20.060 LOTS WITHOUT PUBLIC STREET FRONTAGE (1) Characteristics Residential developments may be approved on a lot without public street frontage, to which a street access is provided by an approved access strip. (Vehicle access to the buildable portion may be located on the easement on an adjacent lot. Creation of residential lots without public street frontage may be restricted by the City of Pasco Planning Department if alternative means of access are deemed more appropriate. (2) Restrictions and Standards The City's preferred standard for lot configuration are defined in Section 21.20.050. Creation of residential lots without public street frontage may be approved only under the limited circumstances listed below: a) Allowed in residential zones where construction of a public cul-de-sac street would prevent the achievement of the minimum residential density of the underlying zone designation; b) Only permitted in locations where due to geometric, topographic, or other physical features in proportion to the size of the development, would be impractical to extend or build a publically dedicated street; c) Must be approved through Subdivision process identified in Title 21 of the Pasco Municipal Code; d) Must meet the density requirements of the underlying residential zone; e) There shall be no more than three adjoining lots created without public street frontage; f) Emergency Access: When the furthest point of a proposed structure is greater than 150 feet in distance from the public right-of-way, as measured along an accessible route, fire vehicle turnaround is required as defined by the International Fire Code g) Parking: No parking is permitted along the access (shared driveway) portion of the lot. The installation of No Parking signage may be required as a condition of approval; h) Utilities: Fire hydrants shall be located to meet the requirements of the International Fire Code. Extension of sanitary sewer, storm sewer, water or other utility lines that results from the creation of lot(s), will be at the expense of the property owners and subject to approval by the City Public Works, Building and Fire departments; i)Signage with addresses shall be posted on the public street side for all properties that are adjacent to any private shared driveway or access; j) Structural setbacks on lots without public street frontage shall conform to the requirements of the applicable zone; k) Access, maintenance and utility easements necessary to accommodate and maintain proposed driveway / shared access improvements and utilizes shall be approved through the Subdivision process in Title 21 and included on the face of the final plat; 1) Pavement sections for non-public street frontage driveway improvements are subject to approval by the Pasco Public Works and Fire Department; m) The shared driveway / access must be maintained by the Homeowners Association or by the adjoining property owners. A maintenance agreement must be recorded prior to the issuance of the certificate of occupancy and signage on the plat and must include provisions for snow removal, garbage pickup and any other necessary provisions as determined by the City; n) Access shared/common driveways for lots without public street frontage shall be provided at the widths shown in the table below: Lot Configuration Minimum Lot Minimum Pavement Minimum Easement Frontage (Flag Width Width Width) Single Family Detached,One Dwelling Unit per Lot 1 Lot 12 10 12 2 lots with adjacent flags 9 15 17 3 lots with adjacent flags 8 20 22 Multiple Dwellings Duplex on 1 lot(2 Units on 1 lot) 12 15 17 Up to four-plex(4 units on 1 lot) 10 15 17 Section 2. That Section 21.20.050 of the Pasco Municipal Code (Lot Requirements), shall be and hereby is amended and shall read as follows: Every lot shall abut on a street. (1) Lots with double frontage shall be avoided when possible. (2) Corner lots in residential districts shall be designed to allow for appropriate setbacks of a building from both streets. (3) Side lines of lots shall be approximately at right angles to the street line or radial to curved street lines. (4) A plat containing lots adjacent to an arterial street shall not be approved unless the plat recites a waiver of the right of direct access to the arterial. Exceptions to this requirement may be permitted due to pre-existing development patterns that create practical difficulties for limiting arterial access. [Ord. 3398 § 2, 1999; Code 1970 § 26.16.050.] (5) Lots without public frontage may be only be approved in residential zones where due to geometric, topographic, or other physical features in proportion to the size of the development, would be impractical to extend or build a publically dedicated street. Regulations can be found in Section 21.20.060 of the PMC; Section 3. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect five days after passage and publication as required by the law. PASSED by the City Council of the City of Pasco, and approved as provided by law this day of 12019. Matt Watkins, Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Clerk City Attorney ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE of the City of Pasco, Washington Amending Section 25.140 "PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT" WHEREAS, the City has pursuant to PMC 25.140.010 identified a Planned Unit Development to provide opportunities for innovation, creativity and flexibility in land development within the city; and WHEREAS, the Planned Unit Development regulations in place should reflect current planning practices that will promote positive utilization for future growth; WHEREAS, the current minimum site area required for a PUD is ten acres as identified in 25.140.030 of the PMC WHEREAS, the City has underdeveloped and underutilized land that may accommodate future housing to accommodate population increases; and WHEREAS, the current minimum site area required of a PUD limits the opportunity for the development of creative and innovative housing techniques as promoted by the PUD; and WHEREAS, amending 25.140.030 to adjust the minimum site area from the current requirement of ten acres would encourage the infill of land for housing within the City WHEREAS, as identified in 25.140.080(4) that the basic density in planned unit development shall be established for each land use as provided in the zoning districts of Title 25 "Zoning"; and WHEREAS, establishing a base minimum of units per land use classification may promote a balanced development residential pattern; and WHEREAS, the infill of underdeveloped and underutilized land will assist the City in meetings its goals from the Comprehensive Plan. NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASCO, WASHINGTON, DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That Section 25.140 of the Pasco Municipal Code, shall be and hereby is amended and shall read as follows: Chapter 25.140 PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT Sections: 25.140.010 Purpose. 25.140.020 Permitted uses. 25.140.030 Minimum site area. 25.140.040 Relationship to adjacent areas. 25.140.050 Phased development. 25.140.060 Combined preliminary and final PUD. 25.140.070 Concurrent platting. 25.140.080 Design standards and requirements. 25.140.090 Procedure for approval of planned unit developments. 25.140.100 Effective preliminary planned unit development approval. 25.140.110 Preliminary PUD approval expiration. 25.140.120 Final PUD application. 25.140.130 Expiration of time limits. 25.140.140 Changes and modifications. 25.140.150 Building permits. 25.140.010 Purpose. The purpose of this chapter is to provide opportunities for innovation, creativity and flexibility in land development within the City. It is intended to encourage the creation of planned environments that are equal or better than that resulting from traditional lot-by-lot development through the application of flexible standards such as zero-lot-lines, narrower streets, and other innovative planning practices.4- is +^ ^n,.,,,,r-ge the use „f R^.., teehRiques and- terchnelegy resulting ii. creative appFeaeh te develepmeRt ef 1-and th-at, A-f -apd- permit flexibility that previder fer aesthetic diversifleatieR of pact FRS „... .. .- 11- ^p^nspace. Furthermore, it is the purpose of this chapter to: (1) Encourage development that enhances the quality of life while protecting the health, safety and welfare of residents; (2) Encourage variety OR h^„S;^^ ^ ar+„n;+;^S, the efficient use of land; (3) Encourage the develepm^^+ ^f a via-ble ^^^^^mir ba preservation of existing landscape features and amenities through the use of a planning procedure that can relate the type and design of development to a particular site, (4) Encourage develepment of land uses that will be cernpatible with and cernplernent e)454Rg er prepesed adjae^^+ 'and uses development that recognizes the relationship between buildings, their use, open space, and access ways, and thereby maximizes the potential for innovative and diversified living environments; and (5) Provide guidelines for development of planned unit developments. [Ord. 3354 § 2, 1999; Code 1970 § 25.62.010.] 25.140.020 Permitted uses. The planned unit development district may be approved for any use or combination of uses permitted by this title except combinations of residential and industrial uses. Uses permitted in any specific PUD district shall be enumerated in the ordinance establishing such a district. [Ord. 3354 § 2, 1999; Code 1970 § 25.62.020.] 25.140.030 Minimum site area. The MiRiRqUm Site a fer a DUD is 10 aeFes. [Ord. 3354 § 2, 1999; Code 1970 § 25.62.030.] The minimum site area for residential development shall be as follows: Land Use Classification Minimum Size (Acres) Low Density Residential 1 Mixed Residential None High Density Residential None Mixed Residential/Commercial None Additional requirements for site development are identified in 25.140.080 25.140.040 Relationship to adjacent areas. The design and layout of a PUD shall take into account the relationship of the site to the surrounding areas. (1) The perimeter of the PUD shall be so designed as to minimize any undesirable impact on adjacent properties; and (2) Setbacks from the property line of a PUD shall be comparable to those of the existing development of adjacent properties or to the type of development which may be permitted on adjacent properties. [Ord. 3354 § 2, 1999; Code 1970 § 25.62.040.] 25.140.050 Phased development. Development of a planned unit development may be phased, in which case all the property anticipated for PUD development shall be submitted as a preliminary PUD showing a conceptual depiction of the eventual development through all phases. Subsequent to legislative approval of the preliminary PUD plan, portions of the development may be submitted as a final PUD for review and approval. [Ord. 3354 § 2, 1999; Code 1970 § 25.62.050.] 25.140.060 Combined preliminary and final PUD. In all cases, the preliminary PUD and final PUD may be combined and processed as a final PUD. [Ord. 3354 § 2, 1999; Code 1970 § 25.62.060.] 25.140.070 Concurrent platting. Plats for PUDs requiring platting may be processed concurrently with the PUD approval procedures. [Ord. 3354 § 2, 1999; Code 1970 § 25.62.070.] 25.140.080 Design standards and requirements. (1) Subdivision Requirements. If land or structures within a proposed PUD are to be sold to more than one person, partnership, firm or corporation, or are to include the dedication of land, then the proposed PUD shall be subject to the short plat or long plat procedures of PMC Title 21; (2) Right-of-Way Requirements. City policy with regards to the dedication of right-of-way and right-of-way improvements as established in Resolution No. 1372 and PMC 12.04.100 are waived in a PUD; (3) Zoning Requirements. A planned unit development shall be exempt from the minimum lot size and setback standards of this title except, where on-site parking is located in front of a structure, that portion of the structure shall be set back 2-0-10 feet from the property line; (4) Density and Lot Requirements Density. The basic density in a planned unit development shall be established for each land use as provided in the zoning districts of PMC Title 25. The Planning Commission may recommend and the City Council may authorize a density bonus as identified in the table below. Lot Requirements. Maximum lot areas (size) shall be established for each land use and as identified in the table below. Lot dimensions, building heights, lot coverage and yard requirements shall be as established on the approved development plan. Land Use Classification Minimum Units Max Lot Size (SQFT) Density Bonus Low Density Residential 6 7,300 20% Mixed Residential 12 3,600 20% High Density Residential 20 2,200 30% Mixed Residential/Commercial 20 2,200 30% use as pFev Fecommend and the City Cewneffil may authorize a density net mere than 20 percent greater than what is etheFwise permitted fellewing findings that the amenities er design features whiGI4 pr.,y.- ete puFpeses of this ch-,pteF a pFevide J. plan;(5) Let Requirements. Minimum let aFeas, let dimenSOEWS, building heights, lat ceveFage and yaFd FequiFernents shall be as established en the appFaved development (6) Open Space Requirements. The PUD shall provide not less than X10 percent of the gross land area for common open space; (7) Setbacks between Buildings. A distance between all structures shall at a minimum comply with the standards prescribed by the most current edition of the International Building and Fire Codes as adopted by the City Council; and (8) Residential design standards: See PMC 25.165.100. [Ord. 3731 §§ 20 & 21, 2005; Ord. 3354 § 2, 1999; Code 1970 § 25.62.080.] 25.140.090 Procedure for approval of planned unit developments. The approval of a planned unit development shall be by the City Council, upon recommendation of the Planning Commission, and shall be processed in accordance with the following procedures: (1) Who May Apply. Any owner or group of owners of contiguous property acting jointly may submit an application for a PUD. (2) Pre-application. Prior to the acceptance of an application for PUD approval a pre- application conference between representatives of the City and the potential applicant is required. This conference shall be set by the Planning Department at the request of the potential applicant. The purpose of the pre-application conference is to acquaint the applicant with various code requirements affecting PUD districts. (3) Application. The applicant shall file a PUD district application for preliminary plan approval with the City Planning Division C# D aPne+. All applications will be processed in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 25.210 PMC. The application shall be accompanied by the following: (a) A filing fee in an amount equal to the rezone fee; (b) A completed SEPA checklist; (c) A vicinity map; (d) Twelve copies of maps and drawings comprising the preliminary plan. (4) Preliminary Plan. The preliminary PUD district plan shall indicate or include the following: (a) Written documents, including but not limited to: (i) A legal description; (ii) Statement of present ownership; (iii) Statement of intent, including any plans for selling or renting the property; (iv) A timetable of development, including a phasing schedule if project will be developed in phases; (v) Provisions to assure maintenance of all common areas; and (vi) Proposed restrictive covenants, if any. (b) Relationship of the property to the surrounding area, including identification of land use and zoning of both the site and vicinal properties. (c) Names and dimensions of streets bounding, traversing or touching upon the site. (d) Location and width of proposed streets and pedestrian ways, arrangement of common off-street parking and recreational vehicle storage areas. (e) Location, layout and conceptual landscape design of all common yards, open space and recreational areas. (f) Proposed method of street lighting and signing. (g) Existing and proposed utility systems, including irrigation plan. (h) Existing site conditions, showing contours at five-foot intervals and location of significant geographic features. (i) Approximate building locations, buildable areas and building heights. (5) Public Hearing Before the Planning Commission. Following a public hearing, the Planning Commission may recommend approval or denial of the application and accompanying PUD plans or may recommend imposition of such conditions of approval as are necessary to insure conformity to all applicable regulations and the purposes of the PUD district. A PUD may be recommended for approval only when it has been determined that: (a) The PUD district development will be compatible with nearby developments and uses. (b) Peripheral treatment insures proper transition between PUD uses and nearby external uses and developments. (c) The development will be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the purposes of the PUD district. (d) The public health, safety and welfare have been served. [Ord. 3354 § 2, 1999; Code 1970 § 25.62.090.] 25.140.100 Effective preliminary planned unit development approval. Legislative approval of a preliminary PUD shall constitute a zone change of the subject property from the former zoning designation to a planned unit development zone. The ordinance establishing a PUD zone will enumerate the uses permitted and the district. [Ord. 3354 § 2, 1999; Code 1970 § 25.62.100.1 25.140.110 Preliminary PUD approval expiration. Preliminary PUD approval shall be effective for five years from the date of approval by the City Council, during which time a final PUD or the first phase of a staged PUD shall be submitted for approval. If the final PUD or initial phase is not submitted within the five-year approval period, the preliminary PUD shall be null and void, unless the City Council grants an extension not to exceed a one-year period. A one-year extension of the preliminary PUD approval does not require a public hearing. In a phased PUD, successive phases are to be approved and constructed within five years of the previously approved phase. [Ord. 3354 § 2, 1999; Code 1970 § 25.62.110.] 25.140.120 Final PUD application. After receiving preliminary approval, the applicant may submit a detailed final development plan in conformity to the approved preliminary PUD. The procedures for final PUD approval shall be as those prescribed for preliminary PUD approval in PMC 25.140.090, except the Planning Commission review is not required for final PUD approval under this section. Detailed development plans shall contain the following information: (1) Vicinity map; (2) A detailed site plan in conformance with the approved preliminary plan showing land uses and vehicular and pedestrian circulation; (3) Boundary survey of the entire property or the development phase; (4) Construction specification for streets and pedestrian ways, including a typical roadway section showing location of all utilities; (5) Location and height of all buildings indicating either the dimensions or the limits within which buildings will be constructed; (6) Preliminary engineering plans for water, sewer, storm drainage, electric power, telephone and gas; (7) Preliminary subdivision plat if the property is to be subdivided; (8) Landscape plans for open space, common areas, streets, pedestrian ways and recreational facilities; (9) Location, arrangement and dimensions of parking facilities and loading areas; (10) Preliminary architectural plans and elevations of typical buildings and structures; and (11) Covenants, property owner agreements or other provisions that will govern the use, maintenance and perpetual care of the PUD and all of its open space and property held in common. [Ord. 3354 § 2, 1999; Code 1970 § 25.62.120.1 25.140.130 Expiration of time limits. Construction of improvements in a PUD shall begin within one year from the date of final PUD approval by the City Council. An extension of time for improvements (streets and utilities) may be requested in writing by the applicant, and such request shall be granted by the City Council for a period of one year. If construction does not occur within five years from the legislative approval, the PUD district designation shall be dropped from the official zoning map and zoning shall revert to the former district designation. [Ord. 3354 § 2, 1999; Code 1970 § 25.62.130.] 25.140.140 Changes and modifications. (1) Major changes in the approved final development plan shall be considered as a new application for preliminary approval. Major changes include: (a) Change in use; (b) Major realignment of vehicular circulation patterns; (c) Increase in density or relocation of density pattern; (d) Reduction of open space; (e) Change in exterior boundaries, except survey adjustments; (f) Increase in building height. (2) The City Planning Division # D crape-r may approve changes in the development plan that are minor in nature and are consistent with the approved plan. [Ord. 3354 § 2, 1999; Code 1970 § 25.62.140.1 25.140.150 Building permits. No building permits shall be issued until final PUD or phase approval has been granted by the City Council. The construction and development of all common areas and open space of each project phase shall be completed to coincide with the completion of structures. For example, when 25 percent of the structures are completed, 25 percent of the common areas are required to be completed. [Ord. 3354 § 2, 1999; Code 1970 § 25.62.150.1 Section 2. That Section 25.140 of the Pasco Municipal Code shall be and hereby is amended and shall be consistent with the standards provided in Section 1 above. Section 3. This Ordinance shall take full force and effect five days after passage and publication as required by law. PASSED by the City Council of the City of Pasco, and approved as provided by law this day of 12019. Matt Watkins, Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Clerk City Attorney �4i MEMO TO PLANNING COMMISSION �� PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING I P City Hall–525 North Third Avenue–Council Chambers THURSDAY, MARCH 21, 2019 7:00 PM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Darcy Bourcier, Planner I SUBJECT: Minimum Lot Size and Frontage in Residential Zones (MF#CA 2017-009) Introduction In May of 2018, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider amending the PMC Zoning Code to decrease the minimum lot frontage and lot size of certain residential zones. Due to the substantial influx of hearing items during the remainder of that year, this particular code amendment was tabled until further notice.At this time, staff wishes to present this item once again to receive Planning Commission direction on the proposal. The PMC states that for lots under 10,000 square feet in size, the minimum lot frontage is to be 60 feet. This provision includes zones R-1 (Low Density Residential) through R-4 (High Density Residential), which each have their own designated minimum lot size requirement (see table 1). However, interest has been expressed to decrease the minimum lot frontage for these residential zones. To illustrate, a property may be zoned R-1 which allows for a minimum lot area of 7,200 square feet and a minimum frontage of 60 feet. If one was to seek a rezone of the property from R- 1 to R-2—which would decrease the minimum lot size to 6,000 square feet—the minimum frontage would remain 60 feet. In the interest of creating additional lots for new dwellings in Pasco, the City is proposing the amendment of the Zoning Code to decrease the minimum frontage from 60 feet to 50 feet for zones R-1 through R-4. By doing so, the resulting increase in lot density would allow for more homes to be constructed to help accommodate Pasco's growing population. Considering the above information, staff is also entertaining the idea of decreasing minimum lot size accordingly. Should the minimum frontage decrease while the minimum lot size remains unchanged, there is a concern regarding the possibility of disproportionately-sized lots. Therefore, staff proposes revisions to minimum lot size in zoning districts R-2, R-3, and R-4, and seeks the Planning Commission's input on modifying the Zoning Code in order to accommodate builders and developers in their effort to offer diverse residential properties at affordable prices while avoiding facilitating the creation of impractical or awkward lots. The R-2, R-3 and R-4 zoning districts allow for the development of single-family dwellings and multiple family structures such as duplexes, fourplexes and apartment buildings. Although established to allow multiple dwelling units on a single lot, the multi-family zoning districts can be a source of single family homes on smaller lots. Below is a table detailing Pasco's current zoning standards regarding single family dwellings in low-to-high density residential zones. 1 Table 1 Pasco (current standard) Min Lot Size Min Lot Frontage (sq. ft.) (ft.) Low Density (R-1) 7,200 60 Med Density (R-2) 6,000 60 Med Density (R-3) 5,500 60 High Density (R-4) 5,000 60 Background The City of Pasco created the R-2 and R-3 zoning districts in 1965 in which no lot within those two districts could be smaller than 50 by 100 feet (5,000 square feet). This minimum lot size has been in the code in one form or another since 1965. Much of the original portions of Pasco were platted prior to the establishment of zoning.The general practice for platting in the early years was to divide blocks into 25-foot wide lots. Builders would then buy two or more lots to build houses or commercial buildings. As a result it is not uncommon to find single-family lots close to or below 5,000 square feet in size in older areas of town. The smallest lots in central Pasco between the High school and Sylvester Park (zoned R-1) are 4,750 square feet.The smallest lots south of"A" Street are just over 4,600 square feet; some contain 5,250 square feet and others are slightly larger at 5,400 square feet. Zoning Comparisons Kennewick and Richland both permit individual lots in their version of the R-2 and R-3 zones with a minimum of 4,000 square feet. The following tables show the minimum lot size and frontage standards for single family dwellings in Pasco's neighboring cities. Table 2 Kennewick Min Lot Size Min Lot Frontage Min Lot Width* (sq. ft.) (ft.) (ft.) Suburban (RS) 10,500 30 60 Low Density (RL) 7,500 30 60 Med Density (RM) 4,000 30 50 High Density (RH) 4,000 30 N/A * Measured at front setback line 2 Table 3 Richland Min Lot Size Min Lot Frontage (sq. ft.) (ft.) Single Family Res (R-1-12) 10,000 90 Single Family Res (R-1-10) 8,000 70 Med Density (R-2) 6,000 50 Med Density Small (R-2S) 4,000 42 Multi Family (R-3) 4,000 42 The cities listed above all have minimum lot standards for comparable districts with less square footage than what is currently required in Pasco. Note that the City of Kennewick also practices a minimum lot width, which is measured at the front setback line. This could be a useful addition to Pasco's own Zoning Code. Previous Code Amendments In 2014 a developer applied for R-2 zoning with the intent of building only single-family homes. Although most of the lots in the proposed development were in excess of 6,000 square feet the potential was there for a development with numerous 5,000 square foot lots. The creation of 5,000 square foot single-family lots without forethought to building design and subdivision integration with existing and adjacent neighborhoods had the potential to impact those neighboring developments.As a result,the Planning Commission was asked to provide some input on the matter as to whether or not the multi-family zoning districts should be reviewed as it related lot sizes. Later that year the City Council passed Ordinance 4173 to amend PMC Title 25 to increase the minimum lot size from 5,000 to 6,000 square feet in the R-2 zoning district and 5,000 to 5,500 square feet in the R-3 zoning district. It can be argued, then, that reverting back to smaller minimum lot sizes in the medium-to-high density residential zoning districts would essentially negate what Ordinance 4173 had accomplished. Once a developer goes through the process to obtain multi-family zoning he does not usually diminish his potential return by building single-family homes. Options 1) Decrease the minimum lot frontage of residential lots zoned R-1, R-2, R-3, and R-4 to 50 feet and alter the minimum lot size as follows: 3 Table 4 Pasco (proposed standard) Min Lot Size Min Lot Frontage (sq. ft.) (ft.) Low Density (R-1) 7,20L, 50 Med Density (R-2) 5,000 50 Med Density (R-3) 4,500 50 High Density (R-4) 4,000 50 2) Some other variation of Option #1. 3) Maintain the current standard. It should be noted that, in Chapter 21.20.040 in the PMC, a provision under (1) Width and Depth states "Lot depth exceeding two and one-half times the lot width shall be avoided." This provision specifically conflicts with staff's recommendation to decrease the minimum lot frontage requirement from 60 feet to 50 feet for lots zoned R-1 under 10,000 square feet in size. Platting land with a lot size requirement of at least 7,200 square feet but only a 50 foot frontage results in a lot that must be at least 144 feet in length—well beyond two and a half times the lot width. See below for example configurations. R-1 zone: Decrease frontage/lot size (not to scale): CURRENT OPTION OPTION 7,200 sq ft 144 ft 7,000 sq ft 140 ft 6,500 sq ft 50 ft 50 ft 50 ft All of the above configurations consist of a lot depth exceeding two and a half times the lot frontage. For a more accurate representation, please see the image below of an existing lot in Pasco which has a frontage of 100 feet and a depth of 300 feet, which is 50 feet beyond two and a half times the frontage. (Bear in mind the lot below is zoned RS-20, but it is visually comparable to what some R-1 lots could resemble if the above is permitted.) 4 11 192 `tib.•- `�. ,�... '�� '.. 1 1qg 2 S<� } r. 1 Thus, staff asks the Planning Commission's direction on whether this type of lot configuration is acceptable for new R-1 developments in the City. If so, is it also appropriate that the minimum lot size requirements in R-1 zones decrease as well—and by how much? Also note that the proposed revisions to minimum lot size/frontage widths in zones R-2, R-3, and R- 4 do not have the same potential to create this type of lot configuration issue. Staff recommends holding the hearing on the proposed revisions and subsequently continuing the hearing to a later date, as details regarding lot sizes and frontage will need to be analyzed further. MOTION: I move to continue the hearing on the proposed code amendment to a later date to be determined. 5 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING PMC CHAPTER 21 (SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS) AND 25 (ZONING) TO REDUCE THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE AND FROTANGE REQUIREMENTS IN CERTAIN ZONING DISTRICTS. WHEREAS, the development and approval of plats within the State of Washington are governed by RCW 58.17; and, WHEREAS, local subdivision regulations including the City of Pasco subdivision regulations within Title 21 of the Pasco Municipal must conform to RCW 58.17; and, WHEREAS, the PMC currently states that parcels under 10,000 square feet in size must have at least 60 feet of street right-of-way frontage; and, WHEREAS, interest has been expressed to decrease the minimum lot size and frontage requirements in certain residential zones; and, WHEREAS, decreasing the minimum lot size and frontage in certain residential zones would increase housing density to allow for more homes to be constructed to help accommodate Pasco's growing population; and, WHEREAS, the proposed revisions have been considered by the Pasco Planning Commission at a public hearing and the Commission has recommended City Council approve the revisions; NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASCO, WASHINGTON, DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That section 21.20.040 of the Pasco Municipal Code shall be and hereby is amended and shall read as follows: 21.20.040 MINIMUM LOT DIMENSIONS. Lot areas shall conform to the requirements of PMC Title 25. (1) Width and Depth. (a) Lot depth exceeding two and one-half times the lot width shall be avoided. (2) Frontage. A minimum frontage area for each lot shall be required as follows: (a) Lots with less than 10,000 square feet in area shall have a minimum frontage of 69 50 feet except lots fronting on cul-de-sacs,which shall have a minimum frontage of 35 feet and a width of 50 feet or more at the setback line; and except lots that are part of zero-lot-line developments, which shall have a minimum frontage of 30 feet; (b) Lots with more than 10,000 square feet in area shall have a minimum frontage of 90 feet except lots fronting on cul-de-sacs,which shall have a minimum frontage of 35 feet and a width of 50 feet or more at the setback line. (3) In no case shall a residential lot contain less than 54,A00-4,000 square feet of lot area unless the lot is approved by the City through the planned unit development or planned density development process..., or if the lot is part of a zero-lot-line development. (4) In subdivisions where septic tanks or other individual sewage disposal devices are to be installed, the size of lots shall be subject to the approval of the Benton/Franklin Health District, but by no means shall be smaller in size than the applicable zoning district in which the lot is located. [Ord. 3398 § 2, 1999; Code 1970 § 26.16.040.] Section 2. That section 25.60.050 of the Pasco Municipal Code (R-2 Medium Density Residential) shall be and hereby is amended and shall read as follows: 25.60.050 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS. (1) Minimum lot area: 6000 5,000 square feet; (2) One single-family dwelling shall be permitted per lot. Multiple dwellings shall be permitted based on the density standards in PMC 25.60.050(3); (3) Density: One dwelling per 6-,NO 5,000 square feet of lot area for single-family dwellings and 5-,009 4,000 square feet of lot area for multiple-family dwellings except as provided in PMC 25.60.030(8); (4) Maximum lot coverage: 40 percent; (5) Minimum Yard Setbacks. (a) Front: 20 feet; (b) Side: five feet; (c) Rear: Principal building: Equal to the height of the dwelling; Accessory structures:Accessory structures adjacent an alley may be placed on the alley line provided there are no openings in the wall parallel to the alley. Garages with vehicle doors parallel to an alley shall be set back from the alley 20 feet. Where there is no alley the setback shall be five feet. Structures related to rabbits and/or chicken hens, such as rabbit hutches and/or chicken coops, must be at least 10 feet from any property line, may not exceed six feet in height and 30 square feet in size, and must be located behind the rear line of the dwelling. Rabbit hutches and/or chicken coops adjacent an alley may be placed within five feet of the alley line provided there are no openings in the wall parallel to the alley. Property owners shall not allow such structures to become a nuisance due to noise or odor. (6) Maximum Building Height. (a) Principal building: 25 feet, except a greater height may be approved by special permit; (b) Accessory buildings: 15 feet; (7) Fences and hedges: See Chapter 25.180 PMC; (8) Parking: See Chapter 25.185 PMC; (9) Landscaping: See Chapter 25.180 PMC; and (10) Residential design standards: See PMC 25.165.100. [Ord. 4110 § 14, 2013; Ord. 4040 § 7, 2012; Ord. 4036 § 15, 2011; Ord. 3731 § 14, 2005; Ord. 3354 § 2, 1999; Code 1970 § 25.34.050.] Section 3. That section 25.65.050 of the Pasco Municipal Code (R-3 Medium Density Residential) shall be and hereby is amended and shall read as follows: 25.65.050 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS. (1) Minimum lot area: 5—,:500 4,500 square feet; (2) One single-family dwelling shall be permitted per lot. Multiple dwellings shall be permitted based on the density standards in PMC 25.65.050(3); One dwelling unit per 5300 4,500 square feet of lot area for single-family dwellings and 3,000 square feet of lot area for multiple-family dwellings and dwellings part of zero-lot- line developments except as provided in PMC 25.60.030(8); (4) Maximum lot coverage: 60 percent; (5) Minimum Yard Setbacks. (a) Front: 20 feet; (b) Side: Five feet;, except in zero-lot-line developments in which case no side setback is required from the common lot line(s),provided the remainingside is at least 10 feet; (c) Rear. Principal building: Equal to the height of the dwelling; Accessory structures:Accessory structures adjacent an alley may be placed on the alley line provided there are no openings in the wall parallel to the alley. Garages with vehicle doors parallel to an alley shall be set back from the alley 20 feet. Where there is no alley, the setback shall be five feet. Structures related to rabbits and/or chicken hens, such as rabbit hutches and/or chicken coops, must be at least 10 feet from any property line, may not exceed six feet in height and 30 square feet in size, and must be located behind the rear line of the dwelling. Rabbit hutches and/or chicken coops adjacent an alley may be placed within five feet of the alley line provided there are no openings in the wall parallel to the alley. Property owners shall not allow such structures to become a nuisance due to noise or odor. (6) Maximum Building Height. (a) Principal building: 35 feet, except a greater height may be approved by special permit; (b) Accessory buildings: 15 feet; (7) Fences and hedges: See Chapter 25.180 PMC; (8) Parking: See Chapter 25.185 PMC; and (9) Landscaping: See Chapter 25.180 PMC; (10) Residential design standards: See PMC 25.165.100. [Ord. 4110 § 15, 2013; Ord. 4040 § 8, 2012; Ord. 4036 § 17, 2011; Ord. 3731 § 16, 2005; Ord. 3354 § 2, 1999; Code 1970 § 25.36.050.] Section 4. That section 25.70.050 of the Pasco Municipal Code (R-4 High Density Residential) shall be and hereby is amended and shall read as follows: 25.70.050 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS. (1) Minimum lot area: 5-,000 4,000 square feet; (2) One single-family dwelling shall be permitted per lot. Multiple dwellings shall be permitted based on the density standards in PMC 25.70.050(3); (3) Density: One dwelling unit per 5-,000 4,000 square feet of lot area for single-family dwellings and 1,500 square feet of lot area for multiple-family dwellings and dwellings part of zero-lot-line developments; (4) Lot coverage: 60 percent; (5) Minimum Yard Setbacks. (a) Front: 20 feet; (b) Side: Five feet;, except in zero-lot-line developments in which case no side setback is required from the common lot line(s),provided the remainingside ide yard is at least 10 feet; (c) Rear: Principal building: Equal to the height of the dwelling; Accessory structures:Accessory structures adjacent an alley may be placed on the alley line provided there are no openings in the wall parallel to the alley. Garages with vehicle doors parallel to an alley shall be set back from the alley 20 feet. Where there is no alley, the setback shall be five feet. Structures related to rabbits and/or chicken hens, such as rabbit hutches and/or chicken coops, must be at least 10 feet from any property line, may not exceed six feet in height and 30 square feet in size, and must be located behind the rear line of the dwelling. Rabbit hutches and/or chicken coops adjacent an alley may be placed within five feet of the alley line provided there are no openings in the wall parallel to the alley. Property owners shall not allow such structures to become a nuisance due to noise or odor. (6) Maximum Building Height. (a) Principal building: 35 feet, except a greater height may be approved by special permit; (b) Accessory buildings: 15 feet; (7) Fences and hedges: See Chapter 25.180 PMC; (8) Parking: See Chapter 25.185 PMC; (9) Landscaping: See Chapter 25.180 PMC; and (10) Residential design standards: See PMC 25.165.100. [Ord. 4110 § 16, 2013; Ord. 4040 § 9, 2012; Ord. 4036 § 19, 2011; Ord. 3731 § 18, 2005; Ord. 3354 § 2, 1999; Code 1970 § 25.38.050.] Section 5. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect five days after passage and publication as required by law. PASSED by the City Council of the City of Pasco, Washington, and approved as provided by law this day of 52019. Matt Watkins Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Clerk Leland B. Kerr City Attorney MEMORANDUM TO PLANNING COMMISSION City-f PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING IPasco City Hall—525 North Third Avenue—Council Chambers DATE: THURSDAY, March 21St, 2019 7:00 PM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Jacob B. Gonzalez, Senior Planner SUBJECT: State Level Planning Updates The 2019-2020 Legislative Session for the state of Washington began on January 14th of this year. This session includes numerous topics that are aimed at increasing housing affordability and supply through various House and Senate Bills. The purpose of this memorandum is to update the Planning Commission on discussions at the State level and how they may impact local planning policies in Pasco. House Bill 1797—Concerning local governments planning and zoning for accessory dwelling units ADUs . Bill Summary: Requires cities with a population of 2,500 or larger to adopt regulations that limit parking, height allowances, setbacks, entry ways, and other development regulations. House Bill 1923— Increasing urban residential building capacity in cities of certain sizes. Bill Summary: Two-part bill that including required options for cities geared to increasing supply of housing through land use and regulatory changes. Senate Bill 5008—Concerning short subdivisions Bill Summary: Would change short subdivisions from currently 4 with an option for 9 to a required 9 with an option up to 30 In addition to those bills being discussed in Washington, similar conversations are underway in the State of Oregon. Senate Bill 10 would establish density requirements within urban growth areas (boundaries) of cities with a population of 10,000 or more. Various examples across our region and the country are increasing in popularity with aimed at housing challenges and promoting more walkable communities through infill and zoning ordinance amendments. Staff will continue to monitor discussions and inform the Planning Commission as developments occur. 1