Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
Pasco council weighs waiving frontage requirements in Riverview to lower development costs
Loading...
Summary
Council and staff debated restoring a pre‑2019 exemption for curb, gutter, sidewalks and streetlights in Riverview RS12/RS20 zones to reduce upfront developer costs, against staff warnings about future retrofit costs, loss of grant competitiveness and right‑of‑way impacts; council signaled interest in alternatives (ROW dedication, fee‑in‑lieu, LID no‑protest).
Planning staff presented options for frontage improvement requirements in the low‑density Riverview area, describing the trade‑offs between reducing developer costs now and preserving long‑term city options for a connected transportation network and grant eligibility. Staff explained that frontage improvements (curb, gutter, sidewalk, streetlighting) add substantial cost at the permit stage but are the least‑cost way to secure right‑of‑way, utilities and infrastructure necessary for future densification.
"If you do nothing and you go to the state or whatever grantee you're seeking and say, 'we've done nothing,' I don't think we have an easier time getting the grants," the planning manager told council, noting that piecemeal sidewalk segments reduce competitiveness for future grant funding. The staff report offered three practical alternatives: (1) combined fee‑in‑lieu plus right‑of‑way dedication, (2) require right‑of‑way dedication only, or (3) restore a full exemption for the zones. Staff recommended retaining the current code (i.e., require frontage improvements) and prioritizing right‑of‑way dedication if any changes are made.
Council members and public commenters from Riverview and developers outlined both perspectives. Some council members said the rural character and long time horizon for full urbanization made a full exemption appealing; others emphasized safety, continuity of sidewalks, and the burden on future taxpayers if infrastructure is deferred. Developers and residents urged a right‑of‑way dedication-only approach or possibility of a fee‑in‑lieu, and some suggested local improvement districts with a no‑protest letter as a compromise. Multiple council members expressed support for Alternative 2 (right‑of‑way dedication only) as the middle ground and asked staff to explore legal mechanisms such as LID no‑protest agreements and selective exemptions on arterials.
Staff will incorporate council direction into the comprehensive plan/code work and return with more detailed language and options including fee‑in‑lieu formulas and LID/no‑protest procedures.
