No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2020.01.27 Council Workshop PacketWorkshop Meeting AGENDA PASCO CITY COUNCIL 7:00 p.m. January 27, 2020 Page 1. CALL TO ORDER: 2. ROLL CALL: (a) Pledge of Allegiance 3. VERBAL REPORTS FROM COUNCILMEMBERS: 4. ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION: 3 - 45 (a) PSD Update of the 2019 Capital Facility Plan 46 - 76 (b) Code Amendment: Planned Unit Developments (MF# CA2019-010) 5. MISCELLANEOUS COUNCIL DISCUSSION: 6. EXECUTIVE SESSION: 7. ADJOURNMENT: (a) REMINDERS: • Monday, January 27, 4:00 PM: Hanford Area Economic Investment Fund Advisory Committee Meeting – Ben Franklin Transit Main Conference Room (COUNCILMEMBER PETE SERRANO, Rep.) • Tuesday, January 28 and Wednesday, January 29: Association of Washington Cities (AWC) City Action Days - Olympia, WA (COUNCILMEMBER DAVID MILNE, COUNCILMEMBER ZARHA ROACH) • Monday, February 3, 1:30 PM: Emergency Medical Services Board Meeting – Fire Training Center, 1811 S. Ely, Kennewick (MAYOR PRO TEM BLANCHE BARAJAS, Rep.; COUNCILMEMBER DAVID MILNE, Alt.) Page 1 of 76 Workshop Meeting January 27, 2020 This meeting is broadcast live on PSC-TV Channel 191 on Charter/Spectrum Cable in Pasco and Richland and streamed at www.pasco-wa.gov/psctvlive. Audio equipment available for the hearing impaired; contact the Clerk for assistance. Servicio de intérprete puede estar disponible con aviso. Por favor avisa la Secretaria Municipal dos días antes para garantizar la disponibilidad. (Spanish language interpreter service may be provided upon request. Please provide two business day's notice to the City Clerk to ensure availability.) Page 2 of 76 AGENDA REPORT FOR: City Council January 22, 2020 TO: Dave Zabell, City Manager Workshop Meeting: 1/27/20 FROM: Rick White, Director Community & Economic Development SUBJECT: PSD Update of the 2019 Capital Facility Plan I. REFERENCE(S): 2019 PSD Capital Plan Update Mitigation Fee Spreadsheet PowerPoint Presentation Proposed Resolution II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Discussion III. FISCAL IMPACT: IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF: In March of 2012, City Council adopted Ordinance No. 4046, which established school impact fees. An Interlocal Agreement for implementation and processing of those fees was also approved by both the Pasco School District (District) and the City. The current impact fees established by Council through Ordinance No. 4046 are $4,700 (of this amount, $17 is retained by the City for offsetting administrative costs) per single family unit and $4,525 per multi-family unit. The terms of the Interlocal Agreement between the District and the City require the City to review and consider biennial updates of the District’s CFP and if appropriate, incorporate the updated CFP into the City's own capital facilities element of the Comprehensive Plan. City Council considered the District's 2018 CFP update at the Workshop Meeting of May 14, 2018, a Regular Council meeting of May 21, 2018 and a Workshop Meeting of June 10, 2019. At the June 2019 Workshop, there was discussion relating to County - issued building permits and the relationship to the School Impact Fee. Pending Page 3 of 76 confirmation on receipt of the school impact fees from County - issued building permits - that version of the District's most recent Capital Plan was not incorporated into the City's Comprehensive Plan. In addition to the PSD's efforts for consistent implementation of the school impact fee - City staff have established conditions relating to use and extension of City water that include payment of applicable impact fees and conformance with City development regulations in a variety of circumstances. V. DISCUSSION: Since the initial Capital Facility update in May of 2018 has not yet resulted in incorporation into the City Comprehensive Plan, the District prepared a 2019 update to the Capital Plan (adopted by the School Board in August of 2019) and requests Council consider its incorporation into the City's Comprehensive Plan for the years 2020 and 2021. The District would also like to take the opportunity to brief Council on the calculation of the fee formula and the details of the District's legal strategy for obtaining school impact fees outside of Pasco through the SEPA process. The District is precluded from using school impact fees for projects that are not included as a part of the capital facilities element of an adopted Comprehensive Plan. In this case, the District’s 2019 CFP includes several growth-related projects that the District will use impact fee revenue for. The District's protocol for seeking school mitigation fees under SEPA outside the City limits has been tested on several County subdivisions and City staff believe that the District’s strategic use of SEPA and the current process of conditioning extension of City utilities guarantee that applicable mitigation fees will be paid for residential development within the District. The District will provide Council an updated presentation and be available for questions. Page 4 of 76 Pasco School District Capital Facilities Plan Update Page 1 of 23 July 2019 BOARD OF DIRECTORS Steve Christensen, President Amy Phillips, Vice President Sherry Lancon, Member Scott Lehrman, Member Aaron Richardson, Member PASCO SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1 2019 UPDATE TO THE CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN SUPERINTENDENT Michelle Whitney Proposed CFP Scheduled for Adoption by the Pasco School Board on August 27, 2019 Page 5 of 76 Pasco School District Capital Facilities Plan Update Page 2 of 23 July 2019 TABLE OF CONTENTS Section 1 Introduction ............................................... 3 Section 2 Program Standards ................................... 6 Section 3 Capital Facilities Inventory ....................... 8 Section 4 Enrollment Projections & Capacity ........ 10 Section 5 Capital Facilities Needs…………………..11 Section 6 Financing Plan ........................................ 12 Section 7 School Impact or Mitigation Fees .......... 13 Appendices Appendix A—Charts & Supporting Data… ....... 15 Building Capacity .................................... 16 Building Condition Scores… .................. 17 Projected Enrollments ............................ 18 Needed Capacity ..................................... 19 Necessary Improvements & Costs… ..... 20 Capital Facilities Financing Plan ........... 21 Appendix B—Impact Fee Calculations ............. 22 2019 Impact Fee… ................................... 23 Page 6 of 76 Pasco School District Capital Facilities Plan Update Page 3 of 23 July 2019 SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION A. Purpose of the 2019 Update to the Capital Facilities Plan The Pasco School District (the “District”) in 2011 first adopted a Capital Facilities Plan (the “2011 CFP”) in compliance with the Washington State Growth Management Act, Chapter 36.70A RCW (the “GMA”), and City of Pasco Ordinance 4046 (the “School Impact Fee Ordinance”). The City of Pasco adopted the 2011 CFP on April 16, 2012, and adopted updates to the CFP in 2014 and 2016. Section 3.133.025 of the School Impact Fee Ordinance describes the elements that must be addressed in the CFP. They include “the District’s standard of service, an inventory of facilities, capacity by grade span, a six year enrollment forecast, facility needs and costs, a finance plan and calculation of the school impact fees.” Once the CFP with these elements is adopted, the Ordinance says “[t]he District shall file an update to its capital facility plan at least once every two years.” And, “[a]t least once every two years, commencing on April 15, 2014, the City Council shall review and consider the District submitted capital facilities plan update.” The District adopted an updated CFP in April 2018 and forwarded the 2018 CFP update to the City of Pasco and Franklin County shortly thereafter. To date, neither jurisdiction has acted on the update though the City Council has reviewed the document. The District intends for this 2019 CFP update to replace the 2018 CFP for all purposes, including the District’s compliance with the above requirements in the School Impact Fee Ordinance. The 2019 CFP update supplements and updates the core information in the 2011 CFP. The 2019 update also includes an updated calculation for the District’s school impact fees. B. Changes in the Pasco School District The District now serves 18,432 students (OSPI Report 1051, October 1, 2018), an increase of 1,818 students since 2013. Steady residential development within the District’s boundaries continues. The latest demographics study (MGT of America, 2017, Chart 3 herein) projects that residential growth will continue at a moderate rate over the six-year planning period and beyond. Since 2012, the City of Pasco has approved the construction of 2,599 single family units and 271 multi-family units (through July 2019). There is also continuing plat activity in the District’s boundaries within unincorporated Franklin County. Since early 2018, the District has reviewed SEPA notices identifying at least 77 single family units in the current pipeline. Additional SEPA-exempt residential development activity may also exist in Franklin County. To construct all the improvements that are required to serve existing needs (including those from recent residential growth) and forecasted growth, the District asked its voters in November 2017 to approve a $99.5 million bond measure. The District’s voters passed the 2017 bond with a 60.07% yes vote (approval of a bond requires 60% yes votes). Previously, the last bond to pass was November 2013. This bond was developed with several strategies to significantly reduce the cost of the bond projects after the previous bond failed with a 48% yes vote in April 2011. The most significant measure was to reconfigure grade level groupings to delay the construction of a more expensive per-pupil middle school. District facilities planning to provide capacity to serve students has since been based upon this and other measures taken after the April 2011 bond election failure. Page 7 of 76 Pasco School District Capital Facilities Plan Update Page 4 of 23 July 2019  A community task force was engaged to provide recommendations to the board of directors regarding strategies for handling enrollment growth. The task force considered multi-track/year-round options, and recommended another less expensive bond be submitted to voters as soon as possible.  Based on the task force recommendations, the next bond in February 2013 was developed with the direction that an additional elementary school would be built because it was less expensive than a middle school, and the District would use the additional elementary capacity to house 6th grade students at the elementary level instead of the middle level.  The three elementary schools approved in the 2013 bond opened in the 2014-2015 school year (one school) and the 2015-2016 school year (two schools). The added capacity allowed the District to complete the plan to transition to a K-6 and 7-8 grade configuration in 2015-2016. The November 2017 bond will fund additional capacity at the elementary level with two new schools and at the middle level with funding to construct Middle School #4 and replace and expand Stevens Middle School. In June 2017 the District’s Community Builders Group recommended these projects for the bond, with the understanding that the additional middle level capacity would cause the district to transition 6th grade back to the middle school. The District has continued to engage in cost-saving measures in facilities planning, and will continue to use cost-reduction strategies and District construction standards to save taxpayer dollars. Pasco School District’s construction costs have normally been lower than other school construction costs around the State of Washington. Examples of cost- reduction strategies includes the following:  Use property already owned by the district for school sites;  Use the updated Pasco design that has been built multiple times for Pasco schools, thereby saving A/E, construction and maintenance costs;  Curie and Whittier Elementary Schools share one playground, reducing the amount of land to be purchased;  Build larger elementary schools to reduce the total number needed and create efficiencies in operations;  Build schools to serve at least 50 years;  Maintain school buildings well to ensure they last several decades; and  Since middle school student enrollment was reduced in 2015 by keeping 6th grade at the elementary school, and elementary enrollments increased, unused portable classrooms on middle school campuses have been moved to provide temporary capacity at the elementary level. The voters of Washington State passed Initiative 1351 in 2014. The initiative imposes class size values as recommended by the Legislature’s Quality Education Council (QEC). The class size requirements have been implemented in part and delayed in part. Under the Supreme Court’s McCleary decision, the Legislature is under court order to fully fund basic K-12 education, including the K-3 class size reductions. Initiative 1351 class sizes are reflected in Chart 1 and position the District for full legislative implementation. Page 8 of 76 Pasco School District Capital Facilities Plan Update Page 5 of 23 July 2019 The District implemented All-Day Kindergarten (ADK) in every elementary school in the 2015- 2016 school year. The District added portable classrooms to meet this requirement. In Chart 2 in the Appendix, State scoring matrices show that Pasco School District is effectively maintaining its schools as a community investment and asset, according to a third party review. The schools’ adjusted maintenance score is significantly above its expected score for the facility’s age, demonstrating effective maintenance by the district. These data mean that they will last longer and be able to serve more students before needing to be replaced. Page 9 of 76 Pasco School District Capital Facilities Plan Update Page 6 of 23 July 2019 SECTION 2 DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL PROGRAM STANDARDS The District’s core and special program needs, which are used to define the standard of service, are addressed in the 2011-2017 Capital Facilities Plan. The District has implemented K-3 class size reduction and All Day Kindergarten and is positioned to implement I-1351’s targets for grades 4-12. Below is the District’s adopted educational program standards (or standard of service). A. Elementary Educational Program Standards The state is required to provide funding for a student-to-teacher ratio of 17-1 in grades K-3 (15-1 for high poverty schools), consistent with QEC recommendations, Initiative 1351, and McCleary. The class size of 15 will impact eleven elementary schools which qualify as high poverty. The remaining four elementary schools will be impacted by the class size of 17. Elementary Class Size Requirements-Initiative 1351 Grades K-3 Enacted by the Legislature Grades 4-12 Implementation Delayed Grade Levels Initiative 1351 Class Sizes District Contract Class Sizes High-Poverty Schools Non-High Poverty Schools K-1 15 17 24 2-3 15 17 27 4-6 25 28 4 22 5-6 23 Capt. Gray Markham Whittier McClintock Robinson Livingston Longfellow Angelou Chess Emerson Frost Twain Curie Franklin McGee B. Middle and High School Program Standards Secondary (Middle and High) school class size standards also are projected to be reduced to levels set by Initiative 1351 with recommendations to be mandated under McCleary as noted below. Page 10 of 76 Pasco School District Capital Facilities Plan Update Page 7 of 23 July 2019 Secondary Class Size Requirements-Initiative 1351 Grades K-3 Enacted by the Legislature Grades 4-12 Implementation Delayed Grade Levels Initiative 1351 Class Size District Contract Class Size High-Poverty Schools Non-High Poverty Schools 7-8 23 25 *30 9-12 23 25 *30 *Max Stevens MS 155/day Ochoa MS McLoughlin MS Pasco HS Chiawana HS New Horizons HS Page 11 of 76 Pasco School District Capital Facilities Plan Update Page 8 of 23 July 2019 SECTION 3 CAPITAL FACILITIES INVENTORY As described in the 2011-2017 CFP, the District’s facilities inventory establishes a baseline for determining the facilities necessary to accommodate future demand (student enrollment) at acceptable levels of service. Three schools have been added since the 2014 update to the CFP, resulting in an increase to the permanent capacity calculation. New elementary school and middle school permanent capacity will be added through 2024 planning period. The District will also move portables between schools and grade levels as additional capacity is needed. A. Capacity Calculation and Standard of Service The District’s Board of Directors directed staff to conduct a comprehensive review of school building capacity in 2017. The purpose of the review was to ensure consistent, reasonable measures were being used to determine the capacity of each school building, and to provide a safe and equitable standard of service for students throughout the school system. Student safety has been a critical consideration for the District in determining this standard of service. In 2014 and again in 2018, the District conducted a comprehensive safety review of schools, including brick and mortar buildings and portable classrooms. It is the District’s goal to house students in permanent facilities with controlled points of access, which can be best accomplished by housing students in one contained brick and mortar building. Portable classrooms will continue to be used as a temporary solution to provide student housing. However, to achieve the desired standard of service to enhance student and staff safety, portable classrooms should not be counted in the District’s permanent classroom inventory. The state does not count portable classrooms when calculating a school district’s classroom inventory for purposes of eligibility for state assistance for construction. In the 2011-2017 CFP, the District counted some portables into the permanent capacity calculation after consultation with the City of Pasco. Based on the above considerations, however, the 2017 CFP update does not include portable classrooms in calculating permanent capacity but still recognizes the capacity purpose. The 2019 CFP update carries forward the 2017 CFP methodology. B. Elementary Schools The District currently has fifteen (15) elementary schools. Thirteen (13) of these schools serve grades K-6, one (1) serves grades K-2, and one (1) serves grades 3-6. The fifteen (15) elementary schools provide capacity to serve 7,167 students in permanent capacity. As of October 1, 2018, there were 10,215 elementary students enrolled. As of the 2018 school year, there were 139 portable classrooms at the elementary schools providing additional capacity to house 2,489 students. Since 2014, the District has added 33 new portable classrooms as temporary capacity. This includes the modification of septic and water service at Markham elementary to allow expansion through the addition of portables which was completed in 2015. In 2019, the District added 4 portable classrooms at the elementary school level. Two new elementary schools, providing additional capacity for 1,240 elementary students, will be constructed by the 2019 and 2020 school years, respectively. Page 12 of 76 Pasco School District Capital Facilities Plan Update Page 9 of 23 July 2019 The District purchased the former Pasco Senior Center and an adjacent vacant lot from the City in 2016 for the purpose of the converting the building into an early learning facility. The District pursued, and was granted, two capital appropriations from the state totaling $1.3 million dollars to help offset the costs. The Early Learning Center opened in January 2018, with designated programs transitioned to the Center by September 2018. In addition, the District has leased the former Kids World daycare facility on North 20th Avenue in Pasco to provide additional classrooms for early learning. These projects have allowed the District to provide additional capacity for K-6 students in elementary buildings by relocating early learning classes from the elementary buildings to the new facilities. C. Middle Schools The District has three middle schools serving grades 7-8. The middle schools provide permanent capacity to serve approximately 2,457 students. As of October 1, 2018, there were 2,837 students enrolled in those schools. As of the 2018 school year, there are 46 portable classrooms at the middle schools providing additional capacity to house 874 students. Since 2011, the District added sixteen (16) new portable classrooms as temporary capacity at the middle school level. Middle School #4 and the replacement and expansion of Stevens Middle School will add permanent capacity for approximately 995 students by 2020 and 2021. The District also plans to add portable capacity at the middle school level during the six years of this CFP (either newly purchased or relocated from the elementary grade level). D. High Schools As detailed more fully in the 2011-2017 CFP, there are two traditional high schools serving grades 9-12. There is permanent capacity to serve 3,716 students in the high schools. As of October 1, 2018 there were 5,357 students enrolled. Pasco High School has additional capacity to serve students in (25) portable classrooms and Chiawana High School has additional capacity to serves students in 16 portable classrooms added to the campus in 2017. New Horizons High School moved into a leased brick and mortar building on the Columbia Basin College campus in 2017. The building capacity is 206. The District is currently planning, subject to future bond approval, for a third comprehensive high school. E. Support Facilities Bus parking has been expanded into the District’s maintenance lay-down yard at the Port of Pasco property (Building 210). The District leased additional space from the Port to replace the lost lay-down yard capacity, and is also leasing additional warehouse space. The November 2017 bond provided funding for expansion of transportation and maintenance facilities. F. Land Inventory The District currently owns nine unimproved parcels, totaling approximately 146 acres. Two sites are being developed for new schools funded in the 2017 bond, bringing the District’s total available unimproved property to 82 acres. The District plans to acquire additional property for future schools. Page 13 of 76 Pasco School District Capital Facilities Plan Update Page 10 of 23 July 2019 SECTION 4 STUDENT ENROLLMENT PROJECTIONS AND CAPACITY BY GRADE SPAN A. Projected Student Enrollment Since 2016, the District received and reviewed four enrollment forecasts. For purposes of the 2019 CFP Update, the District is relying on the comprehensive forecast provided by MGT of America. See Appendix, Chart 3. In October 2011, there were 15,707 students enrolled in grades K-12. In October 2018, there were 18,432 students enrolled, which is an increase of 2,725 students. By 2024, the forecast predicts there will be 21,380 students enrolled in grades K-12, which is an additional 2,948 students over 2018. The District will need to add permanent and temporary capacity at the elementary and secondary levels to serve the growth. B. Capacity by Grade Span Current enrollment at each grade level is identified in Chart 1, which provides the actual enrollment in District facilities as of October 1, 2018. Projected available student capacity was derived by subtracting projected student 2024 enrollment (Chart 3) from total existing October 2018 school capacity (Chart 1). Enrollment in grades K-8 is expected to grow by approximately 1,927 students by 2024. At the same time, class size standards have been reduced by the state, and further implementation of reduced class sizes is expected. Based on the forecast enrollment increase, and without considering planned projects (which will add a total of 2,235 new permanent K-8 seats), the District will need to add capacity at the K-8 level for 2,008 students. Enrollment in grades 9-12 is currently 5,364. High school enrollment is forecasted for continued growth, adding more than 1,020 students by 2024. The District has added capacity for additional students at New Horizons and Pasco High School. However, the District will need to add capacity for 1,899 students at the high school level. The current capacity in the existing schools and the capacity that is needed to serve forecast growth through 2024 was revised based on class size reduction targets and construction projects completed through the date of this CFP. Please see Chart 4 in the Appendix. Chart 4 does not consider capacity additions planned through 2024 and beyond. Page 14 of 76 Pasco School District Capital Facilities Plan Update Page 11 of 23 July 2019 SECTION 5 CAPITAL FACILITIES NEEDS To determine future facility needs, existing school program capacity was compared to projected enrollment throughout the six-year forecast period. See Section 4. In November 2017, the District’s voters passed a $99.5 million bond measure to help fund the construction of two new elementary schools, a new middle school, the expansion and replacement of Stevens Middle School, safety and health improvements at various schools, and improvements to the District’s transportation and maintenance facilities. See Chart 5, Appendix. The District expects that all of the new capacity projects will be complete no later than the 2022 school year. Portable classrooms will be used to provide temporary facilities while funding is secured to construct brick and mortar facilities. The new schools and portable classrooms will provide the needed capacity identified in Section 4 above. In addition to building schools that add capacity for growth, the District will make other improvements to serve students. The improvements will be constructed in phases and cannot occur until bonds are approved by the voters. The District will continue with long term facilities planning efforts using community recommendations to identify which projects should be prioritized. The District will continue to plan for needs beyond 2024. Chart 5 includes estimated permanent improvements and capacity conditioned on future funding. Future updates to this CFP will provide more specific information as to the District’s updated planning beyond the 2017 Bond projects. Page 15 of 76 Pasco School District Capital Facilities Plan Update Page 12 of 23 July 2019 SECTION 6 CAPITAL FACILITIES FINANCING PLAN The District's ability to fund the planned improvements that will add capacity is dependent upon the passage of bond elections at a 60% supermajority and receipt of State Construction Assistance Program (SCAP) funds, also known as “state match” funds. Costs for improvements that add capacity are used to calculate school impact fees. School impact fees, or SEPA mitigation fees collected from some new development projects in unincorporated Franklin County, will be used to pay for a portion of the improvements that add capacity. The majority of the costs to construct the capacity improvements will be paid for with bonds and state match funds. See Section 6 of the 2011 CFP for a complete discussion regarding the framework for financing planned improvements. The District was not awarded a K-3 class size reduction grant as referenced in the 2016 update to the Capital Facilities Plan. Therefore, to serve growth and address class size reduction, the District plans to construct new schools and expand additional schools consistent with the funding identified in this CFP. In addition to construction of facilities to add capacity, the District also needs to acquire school sites for future construction, and must make a variety of improvements that are needed at existing facilities. A key Community Builders Group recommendation was to address capital facilities needs related to safety and health. The Capital Facilities Financing Plan in Chart 6 demonstrates how the District intends to fund new construction and improvements to school facilities during the six year planning period. Page 16 of 76 Pasco School District Capital Facilities Plan Update Page 13 of 23 July 2019 SECTION 7 SCHOOL IMPACT OR MITIGATION FEES The District’s ability to fund the improvements that are needed to serve forecast growth depends on new development contributing to the cost to build the schools that will serve the students that live in new housing. The District is collecting school impact fees from development in the City and will continue to seek mitigation fees from developers in Franklin County (and continue to request that Franklin County adopt a GMA-based school impact fee ordinance). The District’s desire and intent is that school mitigation is collected from all residential development within the District in an equitable and comprehensive manner. The District files annual reports with the City regarding the use of the school impact fees. The District has calculated school impact fees using a standard school impact fee formula, adopted by the City of Pasco and many other Washington cities and counties, that complies with the Growth Management Act. The resulting figures are based on the District’s cost per dwelling unit to construct schools needed to serve new development. A student factor (or student generation rate) is used to identify the average cost per dwelling unit by measuring the average number of students generated by each housing type (single-family dwellings and multi- family dwellings). The District hires a consultant to update the student factor methodology based upon the last six years of residential development data within the District, as required by the City of Pasco School Impact Fee Ordinance. As required under the GMA, credits are applied in the formula to account for State School Construction Assistance funds to be reimbursed to the District and projected future property taxes to be paid by the dwelling unit. The costs of projects that do not add capacity are not included in the impact fee calculations. Furthermore, impact fees will not be used to address existing deficiencies. The following projects are included in the impact fee calculation:  New Elementary School (based on the average cost of Elementary 16 and 17); and  New Middle School. Please see Chart 6. Elementary #16, Elementary #17, Middle School #4, and the expanded capacity at Stevens Middle School are eligible for impact fee funding as growth related projects. In addition, High School #3 is eligible for impact fee funding for pre-bond planning work. The calculated impact fee amounts (reduced by 25%), in Appendix B, are $6,214 for each single family residence and $9,942 for each multi-family residence. However, the District is requesting the City continue collecting the current amounts which are: Single Family: $4,700 Multi Family: $4,525 The District began receiving impact fees from the City in 2012. Through December 2017, the District has received approximately $9,426,689 in impact fee revenue. Of that amount, $1,250,000 was used to reduce the principal of the 2013 bond, $2,208,772 was used to pay for a portion of the 2015-2016 portable classrooms, and $1,164,955 was spent to acquire land in 2017. The District plans to use remaining revenue for portables to accommodate enrollment, land acquisition, and reducing the cost of the 2017 Bond projects. The District will use future impact fees as allowed by law for growth-related impacts identified in the CFP. Page 17 of 76 Pasco School District Capital Facilities Plan Update Page 14 of 23 July 2019 CONCLUSION The District continues to use a variety of strategies to plan, reduce costs, and mitigate the effects of student enrollment growth. Receipt of impact fees remains critical to ensuring the District can manage growth by providing sufficient student facilities. The forecast of steady enrollment growth over the next six years underscores the need to use a variety of financing measures, including the passage of bonds, expenditure from the General Fund, and impact fees/SEPA mitigation fees to meet the needs of the community. Page 18 of 76 Pasco School District Capital Facilities Plan Update Appendix A Page 15 of 23 July 2019 APPENDIX A Charts with Supporting Data Page 19 of 76 Pasco School District Capital Facilities Plan Update Appendix A Page 16 of 23 July 2019 Chart 1 Building Capacity October 2018 Elementary Schools Grades Served Building Classrooms Building Capacity Temp Portable Classrooms Temp Portable Capacity Total Classrooms Total Capacity Oct 1, 2018 Enrollment Gray K-6 25 449 10 180 35 629 575 Markham K-6 14 251 10 180 24 431 389 McGee K-6 22 388 14 251 36 639 660 Twain K-6 27 463 15 262 42 725 737 Angelou K-6 32 567 12 215 44 782 892 Livingston K-6 22 395 17 305 39 700 820 Whittier K-2 26 452 12 215 38 667 600 Robinson K-6 33 578 12 215 45 793 754 Emerson K-6 26 452 7 126 33 578 620 Longfellow K-6 24 416 4 72 28 488 460 Frost K-6 26 445 9 162 35 607 651 Chess K-6 27 477 9 162 36 639 509 Franklin K-6 35 614 6 108 41 722 835 McClintock K-6 34 596 2 36 36 632 876 Curie 3-6 36 624 0 0 36 624 837 Totals 409 7,167 139 2,489 548 9,656 10215 Middle Schools Grades Served Building Classrooms Building Capacity Temp Portable Classrooms Temp Portable Capacity Total Classrooms Total Capacity Oct 1,2018 Enrollment McLoughlin 7-8 46 863 28 532 74 1,395 1,362 Stevens 7-8 38 740 12 228 50 968 730 Ochoa 7-8 44 854 6 114 50 968 745 Totals 128 2,457 46 874 174 3,331 2,837 High Schools Grades Served Building Classrooms Building Capacity Temp Portable Classrooms Temp Portable Capacity Total Classrooms Total Capacity Oct 1, 2018 Enrollment Chiawana 9-12 109 1,984 16 300 125 2,284 2,803 Pasco 9-12 82 1,526 25 469 107 1,995 2,301 New Horizons 9-12 11 206 0 0 11 206 253 Totals 202 3,716 41 769 243 4,485 5,357 District Total 739 13,340 226 4,132 965 17,472 18,409 *Building Capacity is the number of classrooms multiplied by the weighted average I-1351 class size for non-high poverty schools, multiplied by a utilization factor to allow for planning time and other uses. **2019 portable adjustments: Two portables added at McClintock Elementary School and two portables added at Emerson Elementary School; two portables each removed from McLoughlin Middle School and Stevens Middle School. Page 20 of 76 Pasco School District Capital Facilities Plan Update Appendix A Page 17 of 23 July 2019 Chart 2 Pasco School District Asset Preservation Program 2017 Building Condition Scores OSPI 2015 2016 2017 Building Age in Years Current Draft Score by Age Adjusted B.C.E. Adjusted B.C.E. Adjusted B.C.E. Emerson 21 74 87.94 86.96 85.69 Frost 21 74 86.44 84.09 82.98 Franklin 4 95 100 100 99.06 McClintock 3 97 NA 98.52 97.69 Curie 3 97 NA 100 99.90 Chiawana High School 9 90 95.30 95.30 94.49 Delta High School 3 97 NA 95.56 96.10 “B.C.E.” is the Building Condition Evaluation score given by OSPI for those facilities in which State School Construction Assistance Program (state match) dollars were used. The Current Draft Score” is OSPI’s expected score for the age of the facility, given average use and maintenance. Pasco High School is no longer assigned a B.C.E. score for purposes of state reporting because of the age of the facility. However, the district continues to monitor and score Pasco High School for internal monitoring purposes. Page 21 of 76 Pasco School District Capital Facilities Plan Update Appendix A Page 18 of 23 July 2018 Chart 3 MGT of America Projected Enrollments Grade 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 K 1,480 1,491 1,530 1,520 1,528 1,521 1,539 1,552 1,558 1 1,519 1,502 1,585 1,617 1,646 1,664 1,682 1,693 1,726 2 1,437 1,463 1,581 1,644 1,674 1,694 1,703 1,736 1,754 3 1,449 1,458 1,579 1,616 1,656 1,668 1,689 1,701 1,731 4 1,524 1,587 1,687 1,741 1,781 1,809 1,820 1,847 1,869 5 1,568 1,565 1,709 1,748 1,782 1,810 1,837 1,856 1,880 6 1,506 1,538 1,565 1,674 1,716 1,713 1,774 1,792 1,822 7 1,524 1,491 1,540 1,515 1,574 1,600 1,620 1,672 1,715 8 1,299 1,436 1,415 1,469 1,489 1,516 1,557 1,596 1,619 9 1,520 1,498 1,581 1,613 1,484 1,455 1,492 1,478 1,555 10 1,316 1,458 1,509 1,513 1,526 1,536 1,512 1,574 1,618 11 1,426 1,430 1,441 1,526 1,608 1,631 1,681 1,718 1,783 12 1,286 1,411 1,474 1,592 1,707 1,762 1,790 1,819 1,824 TOTAL 18,854 19,328 20,195 20,788 21,170 21,380 21,697 22,034 22,454 Page 22 of 76 Pasco School District Capital Facilities Plan Update Appendix A Page 19 of 23 July 2019 Chart 4 2024 Student Capacity and Future Need Building Capacity 2018 Total Capacity (Permanent/Portable) 2018 Forecast Enrollment 2024 Needed Capacity 2024 Elementary/Middle (K-8) 9,624 12,987 14,995 2,008 High (9-12) 3,638 4,485 6,384 1,899 “Building Capacity” is the number of classrooms multiplied by the weighted average I-1351 class size for non-high poverty schools, multiplied by a utilization factor to allow for planning time and other uses. “Forecast Enrollment 2024” is based on the enrollment forecast provided by MGT of America. “Needed Capacity” includes total (permanent/portable) capacity but does not include new capacity planned for completion through 2024, portable additions/relocations, or grade reconfiguration. Page 23 of 76 Pasco School District Capital Facilities Plan Update Appendix A Page 20 of 23 July 2019 Chart 5 Necessary Facility Improvements, Added Capacity and Costs 2019 Update 2017 BOND PROJECT ESTIMATES New Elementary School #16 620 $27,300,000 New Elementary School #17 620 $28,500,000 Stevens Middle School Replacement and Expansion 75 $42,700,000 New Middle School #4 920 $46,500,000 Land Acquisition 0 $2,000,000 Support Services Capital Improvements 0 $3,000,000 Health and Safety Capital Improvements 0 $1,700,000 Total 2017 Bond Project Estimates 2,235 $151,700,000 ESTIMATED PERMANENT IMPROVEMENTS & CAPACITY CONDITIONED ON FUTURE BOND AND STATE ASSISTANCE New High School #3 2,000 $135,000,000 New Innovative High School TBD $38,000,000 Replace Livingston Elem. 200 $34,000,000 Replace McGee Elem. 200 $35,300,000 New Elementary School #18 600 $38,900,000 New Middle School #5 1,100 $56,800,000 Curie ES Expansion 80 $1,800,000 Land Acquisition (160 acres) 0 $12,160,000 Total Permanent Capacity 4,180 $351,960,000 TEMPORARY CAPACITY IMPROVEMENTS Portable Classrooms 460 $3,250,000 Total 460 $3,250,000 TOTALS 6,875 $506,910,000 Page 24 of 76 Appendix A Page 21 of 23 July 2018 Chart 6 Capital Facilities Financing Plan Project Estimates Project Added Capacity Est. Cost Source of Funding Bonds State Match Impact/ Mitigation Fees General Fund Approved November 2017 Bond Projects and Other Improvements Elementary #16 620 $27,300,000 $18,700,000 $8,600,000 Portion TBD Elementary #17 620 $28,500,000 $19,900,000 $8,600,000 Portion TBD Stevens Middle School Replacement 75 $42,700,000 $24,100,000* $18,600,000 Portion TBD Middle School #4 920 $46,500,000 $37,800,000 $8,700,000 Portion TBD Safety & Health Improvements $1,700,000 $1,700,000 Transportation & Maintenance Improvements $3,000,000 $3,000,000 Portable Classrooms 460 $3,250,000 Portion TBD Land Acquisition $2,000,000 $2,000,000 Portion TBD Future Bond Projects (Subject to Future Planning & Board Approval) New High School #3 2,000 $135,000,000 $80,000,000 $50,000,000 Portion TBD New Innovative High School TBD $38,000,000 $23,900,000 $14,100,000 Replace Livingston Elem. 200 $34,000,000 $13,600,000 $20,400,000 Portion TBD Replace McGee Elem. 200 $35,300,000 $14,100,000 $21,200,000 Portion TBD New Elementary School #18 600 $38,900,000 $38,900,000 Portion TBD New Middle School #5 1,100 $56,800,000 $56,800,000 Portion TBD Curie ES Expansion 80 $1,800,000 1,800,000 Portion TBD Land Acquisition NA $12,160,000 Portion TBD Portable Classrooms 460 $3,250,000 Portion TBD “State Match” refers to funds allocated by the State of Washington through the School Construction Assistance Program administered by OSPI. This number is an estimate of state matching funds and is subject to verification by OSPI. *The cost of bonds being used to finance the replacement of Stevens Middle School includes $3 million held over from 2013 bond which had been designated for Stevens Middle School Improvements. *The “portion TBD” of impact fee revenue used to fund the growth-related capacity projects included in the 2017 Bond Projects will be determined based upon impact fee revenue received from new development. Impact fee revenue may be able to offset debt service on the bonds and result in tax savings to the existing community. In particular, the District plans to use at least $2 million in school impact fees to reduce the cost of the 2017 Bond projects. These estimates will be adjusted accordingly in future updates to this CFP. Pasco School District Capital Facilities Plan Update Page 25 of 76 Pasco School District Capital Facilities Plan Update Appendix B, Page 22 of 23 July 2018 APPENDIX B IMPACT FEE CALCULATIONS Page 26 of 76 Pasco School District Capital Facilities Plan Update Appendix B, Page 23 of 23 July 2018 Page 27 of 76 Mitigation Fees Permits Issued and Action Developer Parcel Number Building Permit Issued Building Permit Number Developer Invoiced Payment Received Other Information Misc Information Situs Big Sky Developers 115110014 1.10.19 B18-2953 Grading - Retired Undeveloped Land Big Sky Developers 115110015 1.10.19 B18-2953 Grading - Retired Undeveloped Land Big Sky Developers 126152228 10.30.19 19-294 12.4.19 AR011765 New Home $383,426 12415 Clark Fork Rd Big Sky Developers 126152233 10.30.19 19-295 12.4.19 AR011766 New Home $376,763 12516 Clark Ford Rd Big Sky Developers 126152236 7.30.19 19-162 New Home $451,576 12413 Blackfoot Dr Hammerstrom Construction 126152208 11.12.19 19-293 12.19.19 AR011776 New Home $344,436 6524 Gallatin Rd Hammerstrom Construction 126152209 11.12.19 19-306 12.19.19 AR011776 New Home $364,106 6536 Gallatin Rd Hammerstrom Construction 126152227 11.19.19 19-291 12.19.19 AR011776 New Home $344,436 12505 Clark Fork Rd Monogram Homes LLC 119031097 11.12.19 19-311 12.11.19 1.13.20 ck# unknown New Home $340,812 4025 Melville Rd Monogram Homes LLC 119031106 9.3.19 19-250 10.24.19 10.30.19 Ck # 7837 New Home $320,199 2325 Road 41 Model Home - No Water Hook up Updated 1/22/2020Page 28 of 76 Pasco School District Capital Facilities Plan Update Presentation to the Pasco City Council January 27, 2020 Page 29 of 76 Purpose & Background •Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) provides a basis for school impact fees •GMA requires that, to collect school impact fees, the local jurisdiction must adopt the District’s CFP by reference into the jurisdiction’s Comprehensive Plan •PSD first adopted a CFP in 2011 following a recommendation from community summit •City of Pasco in 2012 adopted a school impact fee ordinance •CFP is updated every two years •2016 Update —no change to fee amount •2018 Update (presented in May 2018) —no requested change to fee amount •2019 Update—no requested change to fee amountPage 30 of 76 Components of District CFP Educational Program Standards Capital Facilities Inventory Enrollment Projections & Capacity Analysis Financing Plan School Impact or Mitigation FeesPage 31 of 76 Enrollment Projections and Capacity •Enrollment has grown by more than 2,100 students (or nearly 8%) since 2012 •Enrollment forecast projects student enrollment will grow by almost 3,000 students by 2023 •Enrollment has grown on average over 400 students each year during the last 5 years •Growth is occurring at all grade levels Page 32 of 76 •Two New Elementary Schools •New Middle School & Stevens MS Expansion •High School* •Portable adjustments •Land acquisition *Subject to future bond Capacity Planning to Serve Growth Page 33 of 76 School Impact Fee Parameters •One time charge on new residential development to address capacity needs created by new residential growth •May only be used to fund capacity projects included within the CFP adopted as a part of a jurisdiction’s Comprehensive Plan •Cannot be the sole source of funding •Must be expended within 10 years •Fees calculated based on a recognized formula developed consistent with GMA requirements Page 34 of 76 School Impact Fee Formula •Uses growth-related facilities needs and costs identified in the CFP •Identifies a “per dwelling unit” share to ensure that only a portion of the cost to build schools is allocated to new housing –A “student generation rate,” which is an actual measure of the number of new students residing in new units, identifies the proportionate impact of a new dwelling unit on school facilities •Include a credit for state funds that the District anticipates receiving toward the capacity project •Includes a credit for the taxes that the new homeowner will pay in the future toward the same capacity improvement •Automatic discount of the calculated fee, after credits are applied, of 25% per the City of Pasco Ordinance –Additional District-discretionary discount reduces the fee furtherPage 35 of 76 Page 36 of 76 2019 CFP and School Impact Fees Proposed Impact Fees $4,700 for single homes $4,525 for multi-family units Page 37 of 76 2019 CFP Update •City ordinance requires District to submit an updated CFP at least once every two years •District submitted the 2018 CFP in May 2018 •District adopted board policy and prepared 2019 CFP update, requesting consideration by the City Page 38 of 76 Board Policy 9223 •School mitigation will be sought from all residential development within the District in an equitable and comprehensive manner •District shall use all legally available efforts to secure school mitigation from new residential development •Recognizes City of Pasco GMA impact fee ordinance •District shall continue to request adoption of a GMA school impact fee ordinance from Franklin County Page 39 of 76 School Impact Fees vs. Mitigation Fees Impact Fees Mitigation Fees Authority Growth Management Act State Environmental Policy Act PSD Jurisdictions (in control of jurisdiction) City of Pasco Franklin County Applicability All residential units Only non-SEPA exempt developments for which a condition is secured through the SEPA process Page 40 of 76 Efforts to Collect Mitigation Fees in Unincorporated Area •Franklin County did not agree to the District’s renewed request to collect GMA school impact fees in 2016 •District’s only avenue for seeking school mitigation for residential development in the County is through the State Environmental Policy Act •District efforts to collect SEPA mitigation fees prior to 2016 were unsuccessful •2017: District revised its procedures related to seeking SEPA mitigation Page 41 of 76 Efforts to Collect Mitigation Fees in Unincorporated Area •Revised process has resulted in successful collection of mitigation fees in 2019 •District monitors SEPA notices from Franklin County and provides comments/appeals •Meeting with Franklin County on January 28, 2020 •All non-exempt residential projects since that time subject to recorded School Mitigation Agreements –SEPA-exempt development: District has no avenue for seeking school mitigation •City provides additional support through City’s water connection requirements Page 42 of 76 Page 43 of 76 Resolution - 1 RESOLUTION NO. ________ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASCO INCORPORATING THE PASCO SCHOOL DISTRICT’S 2019 UPDATE OF THE CAPITAL FACILITES PLAN INTO THE CITY OF PASCO COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN. WHEREAS, the City of Pasco, is required by State law, to determine that adequate provisions are made in each subdivision, short plat, and other division of property used for residential purposes, including the adequacy of schools and playgrounds; and WHEREAS, the Pasco School District No. 1, by letter of January 11, 2011, placed the City on notice that due to escalating student population, it is unable to accommodate additional students that are incident to new developments of residential housing, and has by Resolution No. 809, adopted its Pasco School District Capital Facilities Plan, demonstrating the need for additional classrooms to meet the anticipated demand of students residing within the new development areas of the City; and WHEREAS, in February 2012, the City amended the Comprehensive Land Use Plan of Pasco by incorporating the Pasco School District’s 2011-2017 Capital Facilities Plan into it; and WHEREAS, in March 2012, the City adopted School Impact Fees through Ordinance No. 4046, reflective of the cost per student for new facilities as described in the District’s 2011-2017 Capital Facilities Plan; and WHEREAS, the City and the Pasco School District have adopted an Interlocal Agreement that requires the District to submit an update of the Capital Facilities Plan every two years; and WHEREAS, the Interlocal Agreement requires the City to consider the update of the District’s Capital Facility Plan and if appropriate, incorporate the update into the City’s Comprehensive Land Use Plan; and WHEREAS, the City has reviewed the revised information contained in the 2019 update of the District’s Capital Facilities Plan; and WHEREAS, the City Council after due consideration of the District’s request that the City continue to collect School Impact Fees as calculated by the 2011-2017 School District Capital Facilities Plan and as approved by Ordinance No. 4046; NOW THEREFORE, Page 44 of 76 Resolution - 2 BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASCO, WASHINGTON: That the City of Pasco incorporates the 2019 Update of the Pasco School District’s Capital Facilities Plan into the City of Pasco’s Comprehensive Land Use Plan. PASSED by the City Council of the City of Pasco, Washington this ___ day of ______________, 2020. ________________________ Saul Martinez Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: _____________________________ ___________________________ Debra Barham, CMC Kerr Ferguson Law, PLLC City Clerk City Attorney Page 45 of 76 AGENDA REPORT FOR: City Council January 24, 2020 TO: Dave Zabell, City Manager Rick White, Director Community & Economic Development Workshop Meeting: 1/27/20 FROM: Jacob Gonzalez, Senior Planner Community & Economic Development SUBJECT: Code Amendment: Planned Unit Developments (MF# CA2019-010) I. REFERENCE(S): Proposed Ordinance Report to Planning Commission Dated:12/19/2019 Planning Commission Minutes Dated:12/19/2019 Presentation II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Discussion III. FISCAL IMPACT: N/A IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF: A Planned Unit Development (PUD) is both a type of development and a regulatory process. The Pasco Municipal Code (PMC) identifies PUDs in Chapter 25.140 and provides opportunities for creativity and flexibility for land development within the City. PUDs can include a variety of housing types and are often maintained by a homeowner’s association. In addition to the housing types, a benefit of PUDs is that they provide additional community amenities such as open space, parks and gathering spaces for the homeowners within the development. PUDs are exempt from certain design standards, including the minimum lot size and setbacks. While the PMC currently permits design flexibility, the minimum site area requirement of ten acres (PMC 25.140.030) is prohibitive of where the PUD ordinance can actually be applied. Page 46 of 76 An effort to amend the PUD ordinance began in 2017 with revisions to the open space criteria. In 2019, staff identified additional revisions that included a reduction to the minimum site area, minimum density requirements, parking and the use of private streets. This item was discussed with the Planning Commission in July and October of 2019. A public hearing was held in November, and the Planning Commission voted unanimously for recommendation of approval to the City Council in December 2019. V. DISCUSSION: Staff have prepared revisions to the PUD ordinance and provided information on each for Council's review and discussion. Minimum Site Area The current minimum site area required is ten acres. With continued residential growth and to enhance opportunities for infill development, staff is proposing a reduction to the minimum site area based on the applicable Comprehensive Plan Land Use Classification. • Low Density Residential: 2 • Mixed Residential: None • High Density Residential: None • Mixed Residential / Commercial: None Currently, 77% of residential land in the Urban Growth Area is classified as Low Density Residential. Reducing the site requirement may increase land opportunities for PUDs. City staff conducted a Land Capacity Analysis in 2018 that identified vacant residential land within the City Limits. Of the vacant land identified, less than 5% was available for Mixed and High Density Residential development. Minimum Density Staff have proposed reinforcing this portion of the PMC by aligning it with the range of densities identified by the Land Use Classifications in the Comprehensive Plan. • Low Density Residential: 6 du / acre • Mixed Residential: 12 du / acre • High Density Residential: 21 du / acre • Mixed Residential / Commercial: 17 du / acre The establishment of minimum densities ensures that although PUDs may be permitted in smaller areas, the underlying density will remain constant with existing designations. Bonus Criteria for Density Bonus Staff have refined this portion of the PMC to include additional clarity as to what the amenities may include and how they can meet the intent of the bonus criteria. Page 47 of 76 Open Space and Amenities The existing requirement of 35% has limited the opportunity for the development of a PUD and after comparisons with other jurisdictions, the requirement was found to be much larger. Staff has proposed to reduce the open space from 35% to 15%. Guest Parking Guest parking is not addressed in the existing ordinance. Staff has proposed requiring a minimum of 1 guest parking stall per ten dwelling units, and maximum of one per six dwelling units. Guest parking is in addition to the existing off-street parking requirements identified in PMC 25.185.170, which require two parking spaces per residential unit. Transportation (Private Streets and Connectivity) It is the intent that PUDs connect with existing, proposed and/or planned streets adjacent to the site. This includes connections to the surrounding City street network. It will ensure that PUDs with larger footprints do not remove the opportunity for street connections to continue facilitating the movement of travelers and reducing potential congestion points. Private streets are currently permitted within PUDs; however, there is not a City standard. After discussion between Planning and Public Works, criteria for private streets is now clearly identified along with the standards. The use of private streets shall only be permitted if the applicant can demonstrate that the minimum density cannot be achieved without modifications to the public street standards. Staff requests Council consideration of the proposed PMC amendments. Page 48 of 76 Ordinance – PMC 25.140 - 1 ORDINANCE NO. _______ AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF PASCO, WASHINGTON AMENDING SECTION 25.140 “PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT” WHEREAS, pursuant to PMC 21.05.020, the City has 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, Title 25 “Zoning” of the Pasco Municipal Code states that the City must encourage and facilitate the orderly growth and development of the Pasco Urban Area; and WHEREAS, the purpose of a Planned Unit Development is to provide opportunities for innovation, creativity and flexibility in land development within the City; and WHEREAS, the Planned Unit Development is intended to encourage the use of new techniques and technology resulting in a more creative approach to development of land that will realize economies of scale and permit flexibility that provides for aesthetic diversification of site layout and spatial arrangements as identified in PMC 25.140.010; and WHEREAS, the regulations of the Planned Unit Development were last updated in April, 1999 through Ordinance No 3354; and WHEREAS, the population of Pasco has increased by 133% from the year 2000 through 2018; and WHEREAS, the Washington State Office of Financial Management (OFM) population estimates expect a 63% increase to a total of 121,828 in Pasco by the year 2038; and WHEREAS, the minimum site area requirement of ten acres has been a limiting factor in the application of a planned unit development in Pasco; and WHEREAS, the minimum density requirement will ensure that a proposed Planned Unit Development will meet the intent of the Land Use Classifications identified in the Comprehensive Plan; and WHEREAS, the Bonus Criteria for Density and Open Space for a Planned Unit Development is now established; and WHEREAS, the use of private streets is now clearly defined with approved standards as provided by the City of Pasco Public Works Department; and WHEREAS, Policy LU-3-B of the City’s Comprehensive Plan identified the encouragement of infill and density development to protect open space and critical areas, and to accommodate population increases and provide support for more walkable neighborhood; and Page 49 of 76 Ordinance – PMC 25.140 - 2 WHEREAS, Goal H-2 of the City Comprehensive Plan states that Pasco strive to maintain a variety of housing consistent with the local and regional market; and WHEREAS, City Council Goals from 2018-2019 include growth management strategies of infill and consideration of affordable housing needs. NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASCO, WASHINGTON, DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That Chapter 25.140 of the Pasco Municipal Code shall be 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 use of new techniques and technology resulting in a more creative approach to development of land that will realize economies of scale and permit flexibility that provides for aesthetic diversification of site layout and spatial arrangements between geographic features, structures, circulation patterns, utilities and open space. It is intended to encourage the development of efficient, high quality development through flexibility in building controls, including density, lot sizes, setbacks and heights, The result must preserve and enhance the public health, safety, welfare and access of the community and must be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Furthermore, it is the purpose of this chapter to: Page 50 of 76 Ordinance – PMC 25.140 - 3 (1) Encourage development that enhances the quality of life while protecting the health, safety, welfare and access and welfare of residents; (2) Encourage variety in housing opportunitiesIncrease housing supply and the choice of housing styles available in the community; (3) Preserve to the greatest extent possible the existing land forms and natural vegetation and minimize adverse effect on sensitive environmental areas; (4) Encourage the development of a viable economic basePromote high-quality design and aesthetics; (54) Encourage development of land uses that will be compatible with and complement existing or proposed adjacent land uses; andLessen development impacts on adjacent areas through site design and necessary mitigation measures; and (65) Provide guidelines for development of planned unit developments. [Ord. 3354 § 2, 1999; Code 1970 § 25.62.010.] 25.150.020 – 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 minimum site area for a Planned Unit Development within a proposed development application, including the area of public and/or private streets, shall be as follows: Comprehensive Plan Land Use Classification Minimum Site Area (Acres) Low Density Residential 2 Mixed Residential None High-Density Residential None Mixed Residential / Commercial None The minimum site area for a PUD is 10 acres. [Ord. 3354 § 2, 1999; Code 1970 § 25.62.030.] 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 street system of a proposed Planned Unit Development shall be designed to connect with existing, proposed, and planned streets outside of the proposed site; (2) Planned streets shall connect with surrounding streets to permit the convenient movement of vehicles and to facilitate emergency access and evacuation; and Page 51 of 76 Ordinance – PMC 25.140 - 4 (3) The perimeter of the PUD shall be so designed as to minimize any adverse impact on adjacent properties. 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 20 10 feet from the property line; (4) Density Requirements. A minimum density requirement shall be established for each land-use identified in the Comprehensive Plan. The minimum density requirements are provided in the table below: Page 52 of 76 Ordinance – PMC 25.140 - 5 Land Use Classification Minimum Units / Acre Low Density Residential 6 du / acre Mixed Residential 12 du / acre High Density Residential 21 du / acre Mixed Residential / Commercial 17 du / acre (54) Density Bonus. 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 not more than 20 percent greater than what is otherwise permitted, following findings that the amenities or design features which promote the purposes of this chapter are provided; (6) Amenities and Open Space Requirements. The PUD shall provide not less than 3510 percent of the gross land area for common open space. Common open space shall be accessible to all owners or tenants of the development at the time of final approval. Open space shall be provided for active or passive recreational activities and for the preservation of existing natural site amenities whenever possible. Maintenance and operation of the open space shall be the responsibility of the property(s) owner or homeowners association. (a) Open space shall not include: i. Streets, alleys, and other rights-of-way; ii. Vehicle drives, parking, loading and storage areas; ; (b) Examples of amenities and open space can include but not limited to: i. Pedestrian pathways and bike trails; ii. Open lawn areas, playgrounds, recreation fields; iii. Community gardens; iv. Community club area (75) Lot Requirements. Minimum lot areas, lot dimensions, building heights, lot coverage and yard requirements shall be as established on the approved development plan; (6) Open Space Requirements. The PUD shall provide not less than 35 percent of the gross land area for common open space; (78) 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 (9) Public Street Standards. Public street standards, as identified in PMC 21.15.020 shall apply; (10) Private Street Standards. Private streets may be approved if the applicant can demonstrate that the minimum density as identified in PMC 25.140.080(4) cannot be achieved without a modification to the public street standards. Private street improvements for a PUD shall meet the standards for Local Access Roads, at a minimum, with the exception being that sidewalk must be present on at least one side and on-street parking Page 53 of 76 Ordinance – PMC 25.140 - 6 must be present on one side. This will result in a roadway section, with curb and gutter, that measures 31’ back-to-back of curb. Storm water facilities must be able to treat and retain all storm water on-site without any runoff enter City of Pasco right-of-way.; A PUD improvement will not be allowed where the property owner does not control both sides of the proposed roadway; (11) Utility improvements. Water, sewer and irrigation (if applicable) improvements shall be required at the time the property is developed and shall be required for all properties. Water and sewer utilities shall be extended through the length of the property being developed. The design and construction of water and sewer utilities shall conform to the construction standards as prepared by the City Engineer. To the fullest extent, possible City utilities shall be located in the roadway prism. Adequate easements must be provided for all utilities as determined by the City Engineer.; (12) Guest Parking. Guest parking shall be provided when on-street parking is not constructed. A minimum of one guest parking stall per ten dwelling units, and a maximum of one per six dwelling units is required. All guest parking shall be clearly identified with signage and striping.; and (138) 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 Hearing Examiner, 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 Planning Division. 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; and (d) Twelve copies of maps and drawings comprising the preliminary plan. Page 54 of 76 Ordinance – PMC 25.140 - 7 (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 Hearing Examiner. Following a public hearing, the Hearing Examiner 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 ensure 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 ensures proper transition between PUD uses and nearby external uses and developments. Page 55 of 76 Ordinance – PMC 25.140 - 8 (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. 4433 § 1, 2019; 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.] 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 Hearing Examiner 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. 4433 § 2, 2019; 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 Hearing Examiner 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 circulationaccess and 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; Page 56 of 76 Ordinance – PMC 25.140 - 9 (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. 4433 § 3, 2019; Ord. 3354 § 2, 1999; Code 1970 § 25.62.120.] 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 Planning Division may approve changes in the development plan that are minor in nature and are consistent with the approved plan. [Ord. 4433 § 4, 2019; Ord. 3354 § 2, 1999; Code 1970 § 25.62.140.] 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.] Section 2. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect five days after passage and publication as required by the law. Page 57 of 76 Ordinance – PMC 25.140 - 10 PASSED by the City Council of the City of Pasco, Washington and approved as provided by law this ________ day of ____________________, 2020. _____________________________ Saul Martinez Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: ________________________ __________________________ Debra Barham, CMC Kerr Ferguson Law, PLLC City Clerk City Attorney Page 58 of 76 MEMORANDUM TO PLANNING COMMISSION PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING City Hall – 525 North Third Avenue – Council Chambers DATE: THURSDAY, December 19th, 2019 7:00 PM 1 TO:Planning Commission FROM:Jacob B. Gonzalez, Senior Planner SUBJECT:MF # CA2019-010 – Planned Unit Development Revisions A Planned Unit Development (PUD) is both a type of development and a regulatory process. PUDs are identified in the Pasco Municipal Code (PMC) in Title 25.140 with the purpose of providing opportunities for innovation, creativity and flexibility for land development within the city. PUDs can include a variety of housing types and are often maintained by a homeowner’s association. In addition to the housing types, the benefit of PUDs is that they can offer amenities such as open space, parks and gathering spaces for the homeowners within the development. As identified in the PMC, PUDs are exempt from certain design standards and requirements including: minimum lot size and setbacks. While the code currently allows for flexibility, the minimum site area requirement of ten acres (PMC 25.140.030) is prohibitive of where the PUD ordinance can actually be applied. An effort to amend the Planned Unit Development ordinance began in 2017 with revisions to the open space criteria. In 2018, additional revisions were identified to include a reduction to the minimum site area and density requirements. This item was continued at the July 2019 Planning Commission meeting to allow for more staff coordination. Staff has provided the following analysis and proposed code amendments to the Planned Unit Development requirements for your review. Analysis – Minimum Site Area Requirement The table below includes the minimum site area required by jurisdictions of varying sizes. Jurisdiction Minimum Site Area City of Kennewick (WA)5 Acres City of Olympia (WA)None City of Vancouver (WA)None City of Spokane (WA)None City of Yakima (WA)2 Acres Table 1- Minimum Site Area Comparison The City of Pasco requirement of a minimum of ten acres is twice the size of our neighboring jurisdiction (Kennewick). Because of the continued residential growth, staff believes the city Page 59 of 76 2 requirement for site area should be reduced to align more closely between other large cities in Washington. The City Comprehensive Plan identifies four land-use classifications that permit residential development. Aligning the site requirement to correlate with the intended goals and uses of each land use classification would allow a PUD to be utilized while remaining consistent with the underlying residential zoning district. The current PMC exempts a PUD from various design standards and requirements, intended to promote its utilization however additional parameters should be included to ensure that the PUD is developed to meet the goals and policies of each land-use classification. The table below provides the minimum density (units) for each land-use classification of the Pasco Comprehensive Plan. Land Use Classification Minimum Units / Acre Low Density Residential 6 du / acre Mixed Residential 12 du / acre High Density Residential 21 du / acre Mixed Residential / Commercial 17 du / acre Table 2 - Proposed Minimum Density Requirements for PUDs Analysis – Open Space Requirement The PUD ordinance is a tool provided to allow for flexibility in the land development code. In exchange for this flexibility, the PUD was to provide a minimum percentage of open space for those residing within the development. The current requirement of 35% can create a challenge for the utilization of the PUD ordinance. Jurisdiction Open Space Requirement City of Kennewick (WA)15 % City of Vancouver (WA)10% City of Spokane (WA)10% Table 3 - Open Space Requirement Comparison Staff is proposing to clearly define Open Space and reduce the requirement from 35% to 15%. Suggested wording for the definition of Open Space is as follows: The PUD shall provide not less than 15 percent of the gross land area for common open space. Common open space shall be accessible to all owners or tenants of the development at the time of final approval. Open space shall be provided for active or passive recreational activities and for the preservation of existing natural site amenities whenever possible. Maintenance and operation of the open space shall be the responsibility of the property(s) owner or homeowners association. (a) Open space shall not include: Page 60 of 76 3 i. Streets, alleys, and other rights-of-way; ii. Vehicle drives, parking, loading and storage areas; (b) Examples of amenities and open space can include but not limited to: i. Pedestrian pathways and bike trails; ii. Open lawn areas, playgrounds, recreation fields; iii. Community gardens; iv. Community club area Analysis – Private Streets and Connectivity The current PUD allows for the use of private streets; however, a clear and consistent standard for private streets does not exist in the Pasco Municipal Code. Planning and Public Works staff coordinated to identify an appropriate standard that can be used by applicants when necessary to meet the density requirements of a proposed PUD. Additionally, language was added to the revised PMC to ensure new PUDs will have street and pedestrian connectivity to existing, planned or proposed streets to adjacent neighborhoods. Updates from October 2019 Planning Commission Meeting Following the October 2019 Planning Commission meeting, staff have addressed comments and questions raised by commission members relating to guest parking, PUD ownership and minimum densities required by other jurisdictions. Revisions were also made to the density bonus criteria to include diversity of housing options. Guest Parking: Guest parking was revised from what was included in the October 2019 staff report to align with a more appropriate ratio of larger jurisdictions. Examples: Jurisdiction Guest Parking Requirements Kenmore, WA 1 : 5du Bothell, WA 1 : 5du Kennewick, WA + 5% for guests Staff recommends the following: Minimum Maximum 1: 6 du 1: 10 du The guest parking is in addition to each proposed PUD meeting the requirements for off- street parking in PMC 25.185. An example of a proposed PUD and parking requirements is identified below: Guest Requirement Total DU PMC Requirement Total Guest Parking Total Parking (All) 1: 6 DU 10 20 3.33 23.33 1: 6 DU 45 90 15.00 105.00 Page 61 of 76 4 1: 10:DU 10 20 2.00 22.00 1: 10 DU 45 90 9.00 99.00 PUD Ownership: A question on the approval of a PUD improvement based on ownership was raised, and is now clarified within the proposed code amendment. In the case a private street is part of the development, a PUD will not be permitted where the property owner does not control both sides of the proposed private street. Minimum Densities: Minimum densities are included in most Planned Unit Development ordinances to comply with the underlying land use requirements. Staff feels that including a clear requirement in addition will benefit users of the PMC. Bonus Criteria: Criteria for meeting the bonus density requirement are expanded from the PUD code, as it currently exists to include open space and amenities. In addition, staff recommend including developments that comprise two or more housing types such as duplexes or triplexes in combination with single-family detached dwelling units. RECOMMENDATION MOTION: I move the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council the adoption of the proposed code amendments for Planned Unit Developments as contained in the December 19th, 2019 Planning Commission staff report. Page 62 of 76 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING City Hall - Council Chambers 525 North Third Avenue Pasco, Washington THURSDAY, DECEMBER 19, 2019 7:00 PM Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Page 1 of 3 December 19, 2019 CALL TO ORDER City of Pasco Planning Commission meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m., by Vice-Chair Isaac Myhrum. ROLL CALL Commissioners Present: Tanya Bowers, Joseph Campos, Anne Jordan, Abel Campos, Isaac Myhrum, Pamela Ransier, Jerry Cochran and a quorum was declared. Commissioners Absent: Paul Mendez Staff Present: Community & Economic Development Director Rick White, Senior Planner Jacob Gonzalez, and Administrative Assistant II Kristin Webb. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Vice-Chair Myhrum led the Pledge of Allegiance. WELCOME AND ANNOUNCEMENTS Vice-Chair Myhrum explained the Planning Commission is an advisory board made up of volunteers appointed by City Council. He further explained the purpose of the Planning Commission was to provide recommendations to City Council regarding changes to the City’s Comprehensive Plan, Land Use Updates, Block Grant Allocations and Zoning Code. The Planning Commission is tasked with considering the long-term growth and development of the community, the impact of land use decisions on community, livability, economic opportunity, housing affordability, public services and the environment. Vice-Chair Myhrum reminded the audience tonight’s proceedings were being broadcast live on City of Pasco’s Facebook page and on Charter Cable PSC Channel 191 and will be rebroadcast several times during the next month. He stated the meeting was also being recorded and could be watched on City of Pasco’s website, which is Pasco-wa.gov. Click on the VIDEO ON DEMAND link and make your selection there. Vice-Chair Myhrum stated copies of the meeting agenda were available on the back table. He then asked that everyone silence cell phones to prevent interruptions during the meeting. For those present this evening, when you are given the opportunity to address the Commission, please come to the podium, speak clearly into the microphone and state your name and city of address for the record. Vice-Chair Myhrum reminded the audience and the Planning Commission that Washington State law requires public meetings like the one being held this evening not only be fair, but also appear to be fair. In addition, Washington State Law prohibits Planning Commission members from participating in discussions or decisions in which the member may have a direct interest or may be either benefited or harmed by the Planning Commission’s decision. An objection to any Planning Commission member hearing any matter on tonight’s agenda needs to be aired at this time or it will be waived. Page 63 of 76 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 3 December 19, 2019 He asked if there were any Planning Commission members who have a declaration at this time regarding any of the items on the agenda. There were no declarations. Vice-Chair Myhrum asked if anyone in the audience objected to any Planning Commission member hearing any of the items on the agenda. There were no declarations. Vice-Chair Myhrum stated the Planning Commission needed and valued public input explaining it helped the Commission understand the issues more clearly and allowed for better recommendations to City Council. Furthermore, in many cases, this could be the only forum for the public to get facts and opinions placed into the official record and City Council will use to make the Commission’s decision. He encouraged those present to take full advantage of this opportunity. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Commissioner Bowers moved to approve the Planning Commission meeting Minutes of November 21, 2019. Commissioner Cochran seconded and the motion carried. OLD BUSINESS Code Amendment (CA2019-010) Planned-Unit Development Revision: Senior Planner Jacob Gonzalez added that there was one change swimming pools was added to list of option for open space and amenities that was a comment made at the last planning commission meeting. Vice-Chair Myhrum added that this is a continued hearing there is an opportunity for additional public comments. Senior Planner Jacob Gonzalez added that this is up for motion and Vice-Chair Myhrum added the hearing ended last month. Commissioner Campos moved, seconded by Commissioner Jordan, the Planning Commission recommend to City Council the adoption of the proposed amendment for Planned Unit Developments as contained in the December 19, 2019 Planning Commission staff report. The motion passed unanimously. This item will go to the City Council workshop in January. WORKSHOP Code Amendment: Sign Code Introduction : Community and Economic Development Director Rick White explained how staff has been working with an attorney that was chosen from several that responded to the request for qualifications and that there should be an initial outline approximately the beginning of February 2020. Mr. White explained how this will be a two phase process. Currently the Pasco Sign Code treats all signs the same. He suggested to the Planning Commission that they might want to work with a planning sign code committee. Page 64 of 76 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Page 3 of 3 December 19, 2019 Code Amendment: House Bill 1923: Senior Planner Jacob Gonzalez explained how the Washington State Legislature passed E2SHB 1923 (House Bill 1923) during the 2018-2019 session. House Bill 1923 was the result of their conversations on how to identify solutions for cities to accommodate the coming growth while providing a greater variety of housing styles. The City of Pasco applied for the grant funding in September 2019, and was notified of the $40,872.00 award in November. The funds will be used to analyze research and move forward with the proposed intention of adopting the following actions: Authorize at least one duplex, triplex or courtyard apartment on each parcel in one more zoning districts that permit single-family residences; Authorize cluster zoning or lot size averaging in all zoning districts that permit single-family residences; Authorize accessory dwelling units (ADU’s) on all residential parcels containing single- family homes Code Amendment: Lots and Blocks Street Layout (CA 2019-013): Senior Planner Jacob Gonzalez explained this gives the City the opportunity to take a refined look at our street patterns, layouts of the City. Our developments of the transportation system has a significant impact on how users are able to travel within our community. The next steps will be data collection and analysis on existing lots and blocks pattern, Identify best practices, propose code amendment, and Comprehensive Plan update (Implementation). This will be a collaboration with planning staff, fire and public works. OTHER BUSINESS Comprehensive Plan Update: Community and Economic Development Director Rick White stated that he will be sending a link to the FTP site and it has the draft Comprehensive Plan elements in it, the transportation elements still has a little more work to do so that might not be up yet but it will be shortly. Mr. White stated he would encourage the commission to access the site, and start reviewing the elements. The City’s target is spring of 2020 to have in front of the commission for formal recommendation to City Council. Election of Chair: After some discussion Commissioner Ransier suggested a slate and nominated Tanya Bowers as the Chair and Joseph Campos as Vice-Chair. Abel Campos seconded and after a roll call vote passed unanimously. ADJOURNMENT With no further business to bring before the Planning Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 8:06 pm. Respectfully submitted, Kristin Webb, Administrative Assistant II Community & Economic Development Department Page 65 of 76 CA: 2019-010 CA: 2019-010 | Planned Unit Developments PMC 25.140 •“..provide opportunities for innovation, creativity and flexibility in land development within the City.” •Housing variety •Consideration of circulation patterns, utilities and open space Page 66 of 76 CA: 2019-010 CA: 2019-010 | Planned Unit Developments ◦Permitted in any residential district and/or combination of uses ◦No combinations of industrial and residential uses shall be permitted ◦Design Flexibility ◦Minimum lot size ◦Setback requirements ◦Density Page 67 of 76 CA: 2019-010 Planned Unit Developments –Examples Sun Willows -135 Acres -169 Units -Average Lot Size: 7,530 sqft -Features: Golf Course, pathways and community gathering areas Page 68 of 76 CA: 2019-010 Planned Unit Developments –Examples Ivy Glades -66 Acres -177 Units -Average Lot Size: 12,288 sqft -Features: pathways, trails and access to Columbia River Page 69 of 76 CA: 2019-010 Planned Unit Developments –Examples Hansen Park (Kennewick) -~ 120 Acres -Features: pathways, trails, public park Page 70 of 76 CA: 2019-010 Planned Unit Developments –Examples The Summit (Bothell, WA) -~ 5 Acres -Features: large gathering spaces, tennis/recreation court Page 71 of 76 CA: 2019-010 Planned Unit Developments –Examples (Infill/Smaller)Page 72 of 76 CA: 2019-010 CA: 2019-010 | Planned Unit Developments (Existing PMC) ◦Minimum Site Area: 10 Acres ◦Open Space Requirement: 35% of land area ◦Private Streets: No Criteria/Standards ◦Density Bonus:Not defined ◦Open Space:Not defined Page 73 of 76 CA: 2019-010 Proposed Revisions ◦Minimum Site Area & Density: ◦*Minimum Densities are aligned with the Comprehensive Plans intended ranges Land Use Classification Minimum Site Area Minimum Density Low Density Residential 2 Acres 6 du / acre Mixed Residential None 12 du / acre High Density Residential None 21 du / acre Mixed Residential / Commercial None 17 du / acre Page 74 of 76 CA: 2019-010 Proposed Revisions ◦Transportation: ◦Additional language to ensure community access ◦Connection with planned/intended transportation system ◦Bonus Density: ◦Additional language for criteria / qualification ◦Open Space/Amenities: ◦Additional language for criteria / qualifications ◦Reduction from 35% to 15% ◦Guest Parking: ◦Minimum / Maximum guest parking ranges established Page 75 of 76 CA: 2019-010 Additional Discussion Items: •Maximum Densities (to align with Comprehensive Plan) •PUD’s in Future Urban Growth Area (North of Burns Road)Page 76 of 76