Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-15-2010 Planning Commission Meeting Packet PLANNING COMMISSION — AGENDA REGULAR MEETING 7:00 P.M. April 15, 2010 I. CALL TO ORDER: II. ROLL CALL: Declaration of Quorum III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: March 18, 2010 IV. OLD BUSINESS: A. Rezone Rezone C-2 to C-1 (Ziobro) (117 S. 5th Avenue) (MF# Z 10-001 B. Special Permit Location of an Auto Body Shop in a C-3 Zone (Action Auto Services) (1900 block of N. 4th Avenue) (MF# SP 10-007 C. Special Permit Location of a Community Health Clinic in a C-1 Zone (La Clinica Rural Health) (715 W. Court Street) (MF# SP 10-009) D. Preliminary Plat Preliminary Plat for West Pasco Terrace (Farm 2005, LLC) (Road 60 & Power Line Road) (MF# PP 10-001) E. Special Permit Location of a Temporary Structure for sandblasting and painting in a I-1 Zone (Hancock Sandblasting and Painting) (900 N. Avery Avenue) (MF# SP 10-010) F. Special Permit Location of a Church in an R-1 Zone (Iglesia Bautista el Calvario) (1341 W. Sylvester Street) (MF# SP 10-008) V. PUBLIC HEARINGS: A. Special Permit Location of a Church in a R-3 Zone (Iglesia Evangelica Cristiana) (1215 W. Court Street) (MF# SP 10-011) B. Special Permit Dwelling units on the second floor of a commercial building in a C-1 Zone (Maria Victoria Galindo) (720 W. Lewis Street) (MF# SP 10-012) C. Special Permit Operate a truck/trailer and car sales lot in a C-3 Zone (Mike Young Equipment Locators) (114 N. Oregon Avenue) (MF# SP 10-014) D. Special Permit Operate a private bus terminal in a C-3 Zone (Griselda Lopez) (205 S. 4th Avenue) (MF# SP 10-0 15) VI. WORKSHOP: Pasco's Lighting Ordinance VII. OTHER BUSINESS: VIII. ADJOURNMENT: REGULAR MEETING March 18, 2010 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at 7:00 P.M. by Chairman Todd Samuel. POSITION MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT No. 1 Todd Samuel, Chairman No. 2 James Hay No. 3 Andy Anderson No. 4 David Little No. 5 Joe Cruz No. e Vacant No. 7 Vacant No. 8 Jana Kempf No. 9 Carlos Perez APPEARANCE OF FAIRNESS: Chairman Samuel read a statement about the appearance of fairness for hearings on land use matters. Chairman Samuel asked if any Commission member had anything to declare. No declarations were made. Chairman Samuel then asked the audience if there were any objections based on a conflict of interest or appearance of fairness questions regarding the items to be discussed this evening. There were no objections. Chairman Samuel asked the audience if there were objections to any Commissioner hearing any matter. There were no objections. ADMINISTERING THE OATH: Chairman Samuel explained that State law requires testimony in quasi-judicial hearings such as held by the Planning Commission be given under oath or affirmation. Chairman Samuel swore in all those desiring to speak. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Little moved, seconded by Commissioner Anderson, that the minutes dated February 18, 2010 be approved as mailed. The motion carried unanimously. OLD BUSINESS: -1 - A. SPECIAL PERMIT Renewal/Expansion of Gravel Mining operation in a R-T Zone (Rocky Hills Management, LP) (3921 Dent Road) (MF# SP 10-001 Chairman Samuel read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Staff had no additional comments. Commissioner Hay moved, seconded by Commissioner Anderson, to adopt the findings of fact and conclusions therefrom as contained in the March 18, 2010 staff report. Commissioner Hay further moved, seconded by Commissioner Anderson, based on the findings of fact and conclusions as adopted the Planning Commission recommend the City Council grant a special permit to Rocky Hills Management for the location and operation on Farm Unit #84 with conditions as listed in the March 18, 2010 staff report. The motion passed unanimously. B. SPECIAL PERMIT Location of an Elementary School in a R-1 Zone (Pasco School District) (Sandifur Parkway & Road 60) (MF# SP 10-002) Chairman Samuel read the master- file number and asked for comments from staff. Staff had no further comments. Chairman Samuel questioned staff if there would be lighting in the parking lot. Staff stated all schools in the district have lit parking lots. During the plan review process they would submit information that lights have the cutoff feature where the illumination would be directed down towards the parking lots. Chairman Samuel clarified that it is not a special condition however, staff would address during the permit review process. Chairman Samuel questioned if there were any special conditions regarding fences. Staff stated the school district puts up a secondary fence parallel to the abutting property owners. Chairman Samuel questioned if there were any complaints from residents regarding balls flying over the fence, etc. -2 - Staff stated no they had not been notified of any complaints. Staff mentioned the special case with Maya Angelou where the parking lot abutted to a row of homes and that section was required to have a solid masonry type fence. Commissioner Anderson moved, seconded by Commissioner Little, to adopt findings of fact and conclusions therefrom as contained in the March 18, 2010 staff report. Commissioner Anderson further moved, seconded by Commissioner Little, based on the findings of fact and conclusions as adopted the Planning Commission recommend the City Council grant a special permit to the Pasco School District for the location of an elementary school at the northwest corner of Sandifur Parkway and Road 60 (parcels #'s 116-240-072 & 116-240-067) with conditions as listed in the March 18, 2010 staff report. The motion passed unanimously. C. SPECIAL PERMIT Location of a Sikh Temple in an R-S-20 Zone (Gurdwara Guru Nanak Par. WA) (7505 W. Court Street) (MF# SP 10-005) Chairman Samuel read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director stated there was nothing to add other than the conditions 4, 7, 8, and 9 address the Commissioners discussion and public testimony received at the public hearing. Commissioner Cruz clarified the approval condition #4 should state 35 inches instead of the listed 35 feet. Mr. White stated that is correct it should state 35 inches. Commissioner Little questioned if the applicant was aware of the conditions. Mr. White stated he has not personally discussed the conditions however he is aware of the sewer and water connections were present in the staff report. Commissioner Little questioned if the applicant was aware they were not to occupy the building until the modifications were made. Mr. White stated ,yes they were aware. Chairman Samuel questioned if the condition #4 regarding the pole height and whether it may be lit. Mr. White stated it is not unique and is unaware of any symbols that are lit. Mr. McDonald, City Planner mentioned the cross at Faith Assembly is lit. Chairman Samuel questioned staff on the restriction for lighting the pole. -3 - Mr. White stated the condition was designed to maintain the residential character of the neighborhood. Chairman Samuel questioned condition #8 referencing the City approved barricade to be installed for the east entrance and wanted to know if it would be an eyesore. Mr. White stated it could be a cable with reflective symbols and does not need to be a permanent barricade. Commissioner Cruz moved, seconded by Commissioner Anderson, to adopt the findings of fact and conclusions therefrom as contained in the March 18, 2010 staff report. Commissioner Cruz further moved, seconded by Commissioner Anderson, based on the findings of fact and conclusions therefrom, the Planning Commission recommend the City Council approve a special permit for the location of a Church (Sikh Temple) and parsonage with a pole-mounted religious symbol at 7505 W. Court Street, with the conditions as listed in the March 18, 2010 staff report. The motion passed unanimously. D. SPECIAL PERMIT Location of a Caretaker's Residence in a I-1 zone (Ty Gemmell) (505 S. 26th Avenue) (MF# SP 10-006) Chairman Samuel read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Staff stated the findings of fact and conclusions have been modified to reflect the items of concern addressed during the public hearing, such as the mention of police reports and fencing. Chairman Samuel questioned staff if they had investigated any police reports for the neighborhood. Staff stated they did not investigate since the tenants of the referenced "little red house", who were the source of police calls, were being evicted; therefore staff felt the issue had been addressed. Commissioner Cruz moved, seconded by Commissioner Anderson, to adopt findings of fact and conclusions therefrom as contained in the February 15, 2010 staff report. Commissioner Cruz further- moved, seconded by Commissioner Anderson, based on the findings of fact and conclusions therefrom the Planning Commission recommend the City Council deny a special permit to Ty Gemmell for the location of a caretaker residence at 505 S. 26th Avenue. The motion passed unanimously. -4 - PUBLIC HEARINGS: A. REZONE Rezone C-2 to C-1 (Ziobro) (117 S. 5th Avenue) (MF# Z 10-001) Chairman Samuel read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director, stated the property is located on the northeast corner of Columbia and 5th Avenue. The site is approximately 6/10's of an acre and the building on the site is approximately 18,000 sq. feet in size. The history and purpose of the C-2 zone is explained in detail in the staff report. The zone was developed in the late 1980's to combat a "bad public image" in the downtown Pasco area. The zone focuses on uses which resulted in large amount of pedestrian movement, short duration parking and uses that were ranged to be complimentary to other uses located in the zone, similar to other downtown districts. The C-2 zone does not have a parking requirement and is a major factor in the analysis of this zone change request. The uses allowed in the C-1 zone cause the need for significant parking depending on the building size. It is estimated that a building this size (18,000 sq. feet) would generate the need for 180 parking stalls. PMC 25.88 mentions the conditions in the vicinity are changed in order to warrant this zoning. Staff cannot determine that there were change conditions in the neighborhood that would warrant this particular zone change request. Criteria #2 establishes the facts to justify the change on the basis of advancing the public health, safety and general welfare. The discussion and history of the C-2 zone in this particular part of the downtown area led staff to the conclusion that there are no facts to justify a change in zone based on advancing the public welfare. Criteria #3 establishes the effect the zone change will have on the nature and value of adjoining property on the Comprehensive Plan. Relying on the significant work that was done in establishing the C-2 zoning district in the late 1980's, staff is of the conclusion that the regulations demonstrate that certain land uses are in fact an inhibiting factor to business growth in the area which is in turn the reason for the C-2 zone. Criteria #4 is the effect on the property owners if the request is not granted; the conclusion is that the property owners would still be able to enjoy the uses that are currently available in the C-2 zoning district which was the zoning at the time of purchase. Criteria #5 speaks to the Comprehensive Plan designation for the property which is an overriding designation of commercial. John Ziobro, 1333 Columbia Park Trail, Suite 110, Richland, WA 99352, represents the applicant and introduced Ms. Hernandez. Dalia Hernandez, 407 E. 4th Avenue, Kennewick, WA stated she is requesting to change the zone, but does not want to include the whole building. She only wants to change the back part of the building. She has a license for a reception hall and in the front of the business she owns a check cashing store. She mentioned a restaurant supply store existed in the space before she purchased -5 - the building. She stated there was little traffic coming to downtown until she moved into this location which her business generated more traffic. She is a single mother of a 2 children (24 and 22 ,years old) and they want to go dancing, but she stated there is not a goad place for goad people to ga. She would like to offer snow canes in this new facility. She awns multiple businesses in the downtown area and does not serve alcohol. She has owned this building for 5 ,years and was making her payments without making money and she would came to the city and they would change her rules. She stated the city made her install fire sprinklers and spent more than $100,000.00 to do so. She stated Mitch Nickolds told her that if she had more than 50 people in the hall she would need to install fire sprinklers. So she took out a loan and separated the building and installed the fire sprinklers as Mitch requested. A month ago she came to the City and Mitch Nickolds told her if she had a place that could hold less than 300 people then she would not need to install fire sprinklers. She was very mad because she didn't understand why she had to spend that much money. She could divide the building in two and save more than $150,000.00. She stated she left crying because the City told her she could do this to hold her parties and then they changed their mind. She continued to work even with the frustration she has experienced with the City. She got signatures from neighboring businesses to support her request to change the zoning so she can open a dance hall for ,youth to attend. She has 4 security officers to monitor her business. She has not had any problems with the police. She stated she is an example for the neighborhood. Chairman Samuel questioned Ms. Hernandez on the number of people that would attend dances and where would they park. Ms. Hernandez stated there is a lot of street parking available and she awns the building directly across the street and she has parking available there. She also has permission from the neighboring business at the corner of Columbia and Lewis Street. Chairman Samuel questioned if she felt they had sufficient parking. Ms. Hernandez stated yes. Chairman Samuel questioned on haw often she would hold dances. Ms. Hernandez stated once a week. Chairman Samuel questioned which day of the week the dances would be held. Ms. Hernandez stated Saturdays. Chairman Samuel questioned the time frame for the dances. Ms. Hernandez stated 8:00 pm until 1 am. -6 - Chairman Samuel stated the staff report stated there are similar facilities in the surrounding area that have a lot of police calls and questioned Ms. Hernandez on what would make her facility different. Ms. Hernandez stated she will not be serving alcohol like the place on 1St Avenue which is designated for ,youth and they serve alcohol next door, so people can go drink and then come back and see always sees problems at that place. Chairman Samuel questioned if she felt alcohol was the primary reason why there is so much trouble at other places. Ms. Hernandez stated ,yes. Commissioner Little questioned if they approved the special permit with a condition to not serve alcohol would she be ok with that. Ms. Hernandez stated no problem. Commissioner Little asked Ms. Hernandez to speak on security and how would they would deal with people who had too much alcohol or other substances. Ms. Hernandez stated at her reception hall she has 4 security officers and she also monitors the business. If she notices people who have been drinking she asks them to leave. She is willing to follow any rules set by the City. Chairman Samuel questioned on how many parking spaces they have now. Ms. Hernandez stated more than 80 are available. John Ziobro stated Ms. Hernandez embodies the spirit of the small business owner and entrepreneur. He stated by the time she came to him for services she had already made numerous, impressive and expensive changes to make this property work. He applicant has spent $200,000 making improvements to the building which includes the installation of the fire wall, the reinstallation of the water line, electrical work and has made a large investment as a first step to have a reception hall business which has been approved. They have not had any police calls related to her business. He stated there is a fine line of C-1 and C-2 and they are bordering on the line which they would like to be a C-1. He mentioned the Golden Nugget and their parking area; as well as the Out-N- About nightclub. The difference between the exercise of the zoning authority and site plan approval where you are going to address issues such as parking, lighting and security. He believes some deference can be given to staff if they make it past the first step and they get to the point where they are talking about submitting an application and getting it approved. The Comprehensive Plan policies he focused on the policy where they are striving to stimulate business development. The applicant has a large building and is trying to stimulate business. The proposed site is 8,000 square feet for the dance hall. The parking calculation was based on 18,000 square feet. The staff report lists 180 for 18,000 and now they have cut that down by more than half. The applicant owns -7 - a neighboring building with a lot available for parking as well as many neighboring businesses with parking. He suggested a development agreement with a condition stating no alcohol being served. The applicants' reception hall has customers who hold receptions and obtain liquor licenses for their individual event. The applicant is committed to having a non-alcohol dance club; therefore, general public disorder would be eliminated. He stated he does not feel it would be a fair comparison to say an under 21 dance club or an alcohol free dance club presents the same evils as a night club. He feels that is an unfair comparison. He mentioned the evidence that is in the record; calls for police service related to the Golden Nugget and due to their experience the applicant is going to present the same perils. He pointed out a FTSID (Fail to stop and ID) which is an accident, not a night club related incident. A MALMISCH (Malicious mischief or destruction of property) which was related to an auto incident and some are just field contacts. He stated in looking at the staff report and the Planning Commission might deny the application due to the list staff has created with the calls for services which just have codes and don't tell you what happened and if the Planning Commission is going to be held against the applicant the police record should be entered into the record for the Planning Commission to review. He requested to remand this item to staff to present the police reports for everyone's benefit of full disclosure and understanding if the night club was the problem. And then make an analogy that the problem is applicable to the applicants' situation. He also mentioned the Comprehensive Plan's Policies and changes in circumstances or the community and then goes back to the staff report which states they are relying on zoning input from the 1980's. 2:15 He described it as a finding against the applicant and would like the benefit of having recent solid data prior to determining the applicant's request. He stated the applicant has approximately 40 on-site parking spaces and 15 more across the street. He also stated they would be able to get permission from neighboring businesses to use their parking spaces. He suggested this report is refined to state the minimum parking for 8,000 square feet and allow the applicant to identify parking. The reception hall has not created any problems with noise, parking, alcohol or disturbances and references this applicant as a responsible business owner. Chairman Samuel questioned Mr. Ziobro to restate his argument on the zoning. He called for clarification if the applicant is granted the zoning change and later on decides to sell the property what prevents other uses of the facility to not create problems. Mr. Ziobro suggested a development agreement would address the issue. He stated they are valid for a certain period of time and are also renewable. Which would be an agreement between the applicant and the City which states the conditions under a dance hall can be operated in exchange for the benefit of a favorable zoning designation that allows some uses that may otherwise not be desirable. The applicant intends to stay in business however there is no way to calculate if she will be the owner in 5, 10 or 20 ,years. He mentioned having the development agreement recorded which in the event the property changes -8 - ownership there would be a recorded agreement on file which would carry with the land. Chairman Samuel questioned the applicants plan on managing public safety, such as fights or public nuisances. Mr. Ziobro stated they do not have that level of detail and could be a condition of her business license or permitting. There have been no problems to date. He mentioned the focus is to provide a non-alcohol club where teens can go and feel safe. There applicant has security. The applicant also has a restaurant across the street which is a non-alcoholic restaurant. Chairman Samuel questioned staff on the issues brought up with the applicant. Mr. White stated the comment on the site specific conditions of approval which may apply if the property had a C-1 zoning designation right now. The request is to change the zoning not site approval. The history of the C-2 zone suggests that the City has been down this road before. There was no mention of concern from the applicant on the effect of setting a precedent. A zone change won't necessarily help assuming you want to change the zone in the first place which might create a domino effect as you go up 5th Avenue. Mr. Ziobro does not disagree with Mr. White's comments however his suggestion is more A-typical. The City of Richland has granted zoning changes along with development agreements due to the exact same concerns of the City. Chairman Samuel opened the public hearing. Josie Lopez, 2114 Van Giesen, Richland, WA stated she is in favor of the applicant providing a place where ,youth can get together. She lived in Seattle and has been a resident in the area for the past S ,years and stated there are not many places for children to go in the Tri-Cities. She takes her children to Spokane and Seattle to do things. Mr. White stated the hearing may be continued for staff to explore additional evidence and meet with the applicant. Chairman Samuel closed the public Bearing. Commissioner Anderson is torn on this proposal due to his experience with the Police Department in the past. He mentioned there are teen aged clubs with no alcohol being served and the Police were still called to break up fights and disagreements. He understands the applicants desire to provide a safe place however this is not the right location due to the proximity to alcohol serving businesses in the neighborhood. Commissioner Cruz stated they have an obligation to look into this. He is not in favor of the close of business at lam. He would like to remand this to staff to -9 - address the issues. He stated the staff report did not represent the applicants intended plans were. He felt it was referenced as the Golden Nugget part II. Commissioner Little stated he would like to remand this to work it out with the applicant. Commissioner Hay mentioned the history of the location and would like to remand this to staff. Commissioner Anderson further stated once the door is open it is hard to close it and costs a lot of money and time which puts them back where they started. Chairman Samuel stated he has been a Tri-City resident since 1982 and Pasco is a very different place than it was back then. He mentioned the hard work and rezoning which was created to encourage the type of development that would create a downtown which we can be proud of and safe and to discourage the kind of development that led to a lot of the problems in the downtown area back in the 1980's. He is very hesitant to make a change in zoning. C'otrmissioncr Little moved, seconded by Commissioner Hay, to continue the bearirg Oil Me pmposed rezone and inithate deliberatiolis Hine) :schedule s'1do131ioii of finding of fact. C:anclf. lions aild a rtcarimitilild.don to Lhe City Council for [lie April 15, 2010 meeting. The niation passed with one appo ng voLe from Con-Lmissicner Andcrson. B. SPECIAL PERMIT Location of an Auto Body Shop in a C-3 Zone (Action Auto Services) (1900 block of N. 4th Avenue) (MF# SP 10-007) Chairman Samuel read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Dave McDonald, City Planner stated the applicant has applied for a special permit to locate an auto body shop on their property on North 4th Avenue. A number of years ago, Action Towing had applied for the same request and the request was granted with a list of conditions. At the time, the owners complied but did not fulfill the request for an operational spray booth in the building. They currently are in the process to enhance the property with a new building, destruction of an old office building and replacing it with a new building to the rear of the old office building. Within the new building they propose to have an auto body shop and paint booth. Condition #2 references the landscaping along 4th Avenue. They currently have a building permit to build the building but do not have a permit to build the spray booth or auto body part of the shop. Conditions were placed on the building permit related to the landscaping along 4th Avenue which is reflected in Condition #2. Condition #3 references the sound wall which was previously built by the applicant on the west side of the property along 5th Avenue. There is a water meter located in line of the sound wall and therefore the applicant did not continue the wall past that water meter. The -10 - Engineering Department is requesting the water meter is relocated to the west of the wall into the right of way area behind the curb which will allow the wall to continue as requested. The wall will provide protection from the house located on the site. Chairman Samuel questioned Mr. McDonald if they have received any complaints on this location. Mr. McDonald stated not to his knowledge. He mentioned the previous business on this property was a heavy construction company which serviced big equipment such as trucks, earth moving equipment, etc and the site has always been used for automotive, heavy equipment type of activity. Chairman Samuel questioned if the landscaping requirement is consistent with the Corridor Beautification Plans for 4th Avenue. Mr. McDonald stated no; if the City does not get that Plan done by the end of the year this condition and permit condition would require the applicant to put in the landscaping in no later than next April. The rock would need to be removed and replaced with some trees which would be reviewed and approved with the Parks Department to make sure and comply with the Plan for that area, whereas the applicant has agreed to. Chairman Samuel questioned Condition #4, requirement of the sound block wall and questioned the height of the wall. Mr. McDonald stated it would be 6 feet high and would continue around 80 feet on to the other site to cover the house. Ken Flone, 1948 N. 4th Avenue, Pasco, WA presented and read the letter from Tri-City Battery. He stated they are very excited to expand and increase the tax base with the addition of more employees. Chairman Samuel questioned Mr. Flone if lie has reviewed the tentative conditions and was agreeable to the conditions. Mr. Flone stated yes. Chairman Samuel opened the public hearing. Ramona Castro, 5120 Robert Wayne Drive, Pasco, WA stated she is a proud Pasco resident and knows the family. She is excited to see the development even though the nation is experiencing economy issues. She mentioned another lady in the audience, present for another item, was in her pre-natal classes and she encourages her clients to succeed and grow and she is very proud to see her clients' success. Commissioner Little moved, seconded by Commissioner Hay, to close the hearing on the proposed special permit and initiate deliberations and schedule -11 - adoption of findings of fact, conclusions and a recommendation to the City Council for the April 15, 2010 meeting. The motion passed unanimously. C. SPECIAL PERMIT Location of a Community Health Clinic in a C-1 Zone [La Clinica Rural Health] [715 W. Court Street] [MF# SP 10-009] Chairman Samuel read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Mr. McDonald stated the applicant has applied for a new community health center. The PMC states community health clinics are defined as a community service facility level one which require review by the Planning Commission through the special permit process prior to receiving a building permit and locating anywhere in the community. This is the 3rd community health clinic application in the past few ,years that has been presented. The applicant proposes to build a new 3-story, 30,000 square foot building on a vacant lot on Court Street to the west of the Garibaldi's Restaurant. Several ,years ago the applicant built a parking lot for overflow parking at their facility across 5th Avenue. The facility was built in the 1980's with Block Grant funds and has been renovated since. They currently offer dental services, WIC and First Steps/Start Program, as well as mental health services. The Dental Clinic, WIC and First Steps/Start Program and mental health services would relocate to the new building. The existing building would hold Administration and health care services. The current parking spaces allow for more than enough as required. Parking was a concern of the past and pictures were presented displaying the parking lots activity which showed there were plenty of empty parking spaces. The site plan displayed a proposed driveway on the eastside of the new building in between the new building and Garibaldi's Restaurant which would only be used for in-only deliveries. In discussions with the Engineering Staff it was mentioned that no driveway should be allowed due to the adjacent driveway at Garibaldi's which would cause conflict in traffic movement in both driveways. The main entrance is on the north side and traffic will come in from 5th Avenue. The applicants concern was for delivery trucks to back up to the loading dock which is immediately west of Garibaldi's Restaurant. The proposed building is an attractive 3-story building with a basement and landscaping along Court Street which overall will be a tremendous enhancement to that corner. Aaron Maxey, 7803 W. Deschutes Avenue, Kennewick, WA stated they are committed to enhancing the community in a positive way. They propose to expand their clinical services. The parking lot across 5th Avenue was developed with a future building in mind back in 2003. A federal grant is funding this project. The dental services, WIC/First Steps and behavioral health services will be housed in the new facility which will eliminate foot traffic from crossing the street. The current building is leased and they intend to relocate services to save money on the leased facility. -12 - Commissioner Hay questioned Mr. Maxey on the typical size of delivery trucks that frequent their facility. Mr. Maxey stated the maximum would be similar to the FedEx box shaped trucks. The proposed driveway is intended to be a one-way driveway for delivery trucks instead of trucks coming in from 5th Avenue and backing into the loading docks. In order to eliminate any danger for pedestrians, it would be safer for clients and employees to come in off of 5th Avenue and delivery trucks to come in through the one-way driveway. Commissioner Little questioned what type of deliveries would occur. Mr. Maxey stated they anticipate two deliveries for office supplies would come to the new facility and the remaining deliveries will go to the main facility where medical services are housed. Chairman Samuel questioned if they intention was to place signage stating "Delivery Entrance Only" and general customers would not use the driveway. Mr. Maxey stated ,yes signs would be posted. Mr. McDonald mentioned there was a letter submitted and is listed as Exhibit #1 which is a letter from the neighboring owners of the mobile home park. Chairman Samuel opened the public hearing. Maurice Devers, 1531 N. 4th Avenue, Pasco, WA stated he owns the Mobile Home Park and has been there for the past 20 ,years. He stated he has witnessed foot traffic and jaywalking across 5th Avenue and has never seen 55 vacant parking spaces. He mentioned Garibaldi's Restaurant has semi-trucks that come in for deliveries which pull into La Clinica's driveway and back into their parking lot and block traffic. He also mentioned semi-trucks that park in the middle of the street to make their deliveries as well. Emergency vehicles come and go and block Ruby Street. Chairman Samuel questioned Mr. Devers on the nuisance and blockage from delivery and emergency trucks. Mr. Devers stated it is a nuisance. Chairman Samuel questioned Mr. Devers if he had any suggestions on how to avoid or mitigate the nuisance. Mr. Devers stated the jaywalking could be prevented if the employees use the crosswalk on Court Street. He also mentioned the "hat-rodders" that run through the neighborhood and is not only a nuisance but a safety factor as well. Chairman Samuel questioned Mr. Devers on his observation of the parking situation. -13 - Mr. Devers stated they do not Have adequate parking. Chairman Samuel questioned Mr. Devers when the parking spaces are full where they would park. Mr. Devers stated it is not that bad right now, but in the past there were cars parked on both sides of 5th Avenue from Ruby Street to Agate Street. They would also park in their residents' parking spaces and if they would leave to go to the store their parking spaces would be taken from a La Clinica client. Charlotte Devers, 1531 N. 4th Avenue read the letter they submitted (Exhibit # 1). She further described the parking situations. Mr. Devers stated he is in favor of La Clinica but is concerned with the parking. Mrs. Devers agreed. Ramona Castro, 5120 Robert Wayne Drive, Pasco, WA stated she has worked with La Clinica for 28 ,years and is very excited for La Clinica's success. She publically apologized for the anguish expressed by the Dever's on the jaywalking and parking. She stated they are mandated by their supervisors not to park on 5th Avenue. Their parking lot is supervised. Mr. Maxey stated they share the concerns of jaywalking and parking want to make this a community venture. 1:11 In 2003 the parking lot did not exist and they did have employees parking on 5th Avenue. The parking lot was built to eliminate parking off of 5th Avenue and a company policy was developed to address employee parking. If a violation occurred, a photo would be taken and sent to their immediate supervisor and would be addressed accordingly. Two- thirds of their patients will go to the new building and eliminate the jaywalking. Commissioner Little questioned the number of employees at their facility. Mr. Maxey stated approximately 200 employees within the main facility and 3 off-site clinics; one clinic is located in Kennewick, as well as a Detoxification Center and a Behavioral Health Clinic off site in Pasco. Commissioner Little questioned how many providers are on staff daily. Mr. Maxey stated 5-6 providers. Commissioner Little questioned if they generated 20-25 patients a day or more. Mr. Maxey stated yes. Commissioner Little questioned Mr. Maxey if he was going to make sure Ms. Castro a nice raise. -14 - Mr. Maxey stated he is not her immediate supervisor but would certainly recommend a raise. Chairman Samuel mentioned the emergency vehicles blocking the road and asked Mr. Maxey for comments. Mr. Maxey stated they do have designated parking established and a route for deliveries. Mr. Devers questioned the number of parking spaces their employee parking lot contains. Mr. McDonald stated there are 132 parking spaces. He submitted aerial photos of the parking lot at different intervals (Exhibit #2) for the record. He mentioned it is not uncommon for emergency vehicles to stop on streets all over town. Chairman Samuel questioned what was the Engineering Department's opinion on the proposed one-way driveway. Mr. McDonald stated it is a concern since it is within 100 feet of 5th Avenue and Court Street as well as the conflict with the Garibaldi driveway. He suggested having a joint driveway; but that would eliminate the angled parking in the Garibaldi parking lot. The other issue with the driveway is the proposed width of 2 4 feet. Chairman Samuel questioned if the Engineering Department understood the applicants position on only a few deliveries a day which would use the proposed driveway. Mr. McDonald stated it is his understanding there would only be a few deliveries daily however was not sure if that was the Engineering Department's understanding. He also mentioned even though they propose to label the driveway with "deliveries only" signs there wouldn't be a way to police that. Chairman Samuel clarified staff was looking for direction from staff on this item. Mr. McDonald stated yes. Commissioner Cruz is reluctant on the driveway on Court Street. Chairman Samuel mentioned the public hearing is not closed at this time and asked the applicant if the driveway was not approved would that stop production. Mr. Maxey stated they do have an alternate plan. He further stated they only have a few deliveries a week not daily. Renata Presby, 209 Broadmoor, Richland, WA stated she is the architect for this project and the one-way entrance was discussed and an alternate route for -15 - deliveries would hinder the pedestrian traffic. She displayed an actual route with the delivery truck coming in to the parking lot and having to back up to the loading dock. She stated it would be a life safety hazard for pedestrians versus vehicles on Court Street. Commissioner Anderson questioned Ms. Presby on how they propose to stop traffic from driving through the delivery driveway and commented the safety for the public on the street outweighs the twice a week deliveries. Ms. Presbyy stated signage would be in place and adding a curb in the middle lane would prevent traffic from coming in from another direction. Commissioner Anderson stated he was not concerned of traffic turning left into the driveway; he is concerned with the traffic turning right off of Court Street from westbound. He stated the driveway would only be used a few times a week and people will use the driveway with or without the signage. Ms. Presbyy stated the signage would prevent that. Commissioner Anderson stated it is private property and there is nothing they can do to stop them from driving through the driveway. Ms. Presbyy stated the majority of their patients are used to driving up 5th Avenue to access La Clinica and does not think they would change their direction. Commissioner Anderson questioned if an alternative requiring a spotter for a delivery truck would be appropriate. Ms. Presbyy stated that would need to be addressed by La Clinica but would be a safer way for deliveries. Mr. Maxey they would be agreeable to the recommendation to requiring a spotter and would go with the alternative option and add landscaping in the proposed driveway area. Chairman Samuel called for comments from Commissioners on the driveway. All Commissioners stated they would not be in favor of a driveway from Court Street. Commissioner Cruz moved, seconded by Commissioner Little, to close the hearing on the proposed special permit for the La Clinica site and initiate deliberations and schedule adoption of findings of fact, conclusions and a recommendation to the City Council for the April 15, 2010 meeting. The motion passed unanimously. D. PRELIMINARY PLAT Preliminary Plat for West Pasco Terrace (Farm 2005, LLC) (Road 60 & Power Line Road) (MF# PP 10-001) -lb - Chairman Samuel read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Mr. McDonald stated a few months ago the applicant was before the Planning Commission with a request to rezone this site to R-1 and a rezone was granted with a concomitant agreement restricting the minimum lot size to be 8,500 square feet. The proposal contains a plat with 139 single family lots with lot sizes between 8,500 square feet and 17,000 square feet with an average of 9,000 square feet which is consistent with the approved zoning and consistent with the subdivision being developed directly to the west, as well as the subdivisions to the south (Sunny Meadows and the Village at Pasco Heights). A list of 30 recommended conditions were developed together with the Engineering D epartment. Chairman Samuel questioned where the nearest park is proposed to be located. Mr. McDonald stated it would be directly north of the proposed elementary school which will not be built until the Three Rivers Development is built with homes and may be built simultaneously with the elementary school. The developer is required to pay a park fee of $644 per lot; that money is deposited into the park fee pool which is available to improve parks in the neighborhood. Chairman Samuel questioned where estate type fencing or Nvall is required. Mr. McDonald stated it is located all the way up Road b0 on the west side and all along the north side. Chairman Samuel questioned that 2 sides of the 4 sides Nvould contain a block wall. Mr. McDonald stated ,yes. Chairman Samuel questioned if this development would contain an entrance Mr. McDonald stated the City does not maintain those type of improvements and are often located on a private lot where the responsibility falls with the developer and/or the homeowners association. In this particular case the developer does not propose to install an entry way sign with this project. Chairman Samuel stated they have been approached in the past when developers are finished with building they abandon the entry way and it develops into a nuisance. John Fetterhoff, HDJ Design Group, 6115 Burden Boulevard, Pasco, WA stated he represents Farm 2005, LLC; as well as R. C. Olin Homes. The project directly to the south of this site has been very successful. The applicant agrees with the majority of the conditions presented. In reference to the question of a monument sign, they do not have plans to put a monument sign on this site. On page 9 of the staff report, Item #14 states Road 60 be constructed from Sandifur Parkway -17 - to Powerline Road during the first phase of development. He would agree to a half width street from Sandifur to Three Rivers in the southwest corner of the property. However, once they get up to the property they would ask to modify the conditions to read similar to item #15 for Powerline Road which states it would be completed with each abutting said street. Item #18 references a 12 inch irrigation mainline should be extended from Sandifur Parkway to Powerline Road. With the history of the projects developed in this area, in December 2008, the Three Rivers Crossing to the west was required to install a 10 inch irrigation mainline on Road 60 (Exhibit #1 - Resolution 3124). He would like clarification from the Engineering Department on what size that line is supposed to be. He would also propose that item be a shared cost between the two developers for a fair and equitable situation. Chairman Samuel called for clarification on his request. Mr. Fetterhoff stated he is agreeable to the requirement to install irrigation to provide service to the project from Sandifur to Three Rivers. He suggests north of Three Rivers should be a shared cost for the installation of the irrigation main or if the cost for the southern piece of this project then the northern piece should be burdened on the Three Rivers project to even out the cost. Chairman Samuel questioned what the timeframe for this project is. Mr. Fetterhoff stated ,yesterday. His intent is to pave the project and have lots available by the end of the ,year. Chairman Samuel questioned how many lots are proposed for phase one. Mr. Fetterhoff stated 30 or 40 lots. Chairman Samuel opened the public hearing. Mr. McDonald stated he would meet with the Engineering department in reference to condition #18. The School District has a condition to install a 12 inch mainline to the School Districts north property line. If they were all built together, they could split the cost three ways, but development doesn't happen that way. Condition #14 would also be addressed. The phasing questions would be addressed with the applicant and the Engineering department. Chairman Samuel questioned if staff provides developers flexibility with their phasing or do they come back to the Planning Commission. Mr. McDonald stated in the past they have had draft phasing schedules which was not finalized with the Resolution City Council approves. That allows the developer flexibility to create phases larger when the market was swinging up and when it slowed down they would create a smaller phase. Commissioner Anderson moved, seconded by Commissioner Hay, to close the hearing on the proposed preliminary plat and initiate deliberations and schedule -18 - adoption of findings of fact, conclusions and a recommendation to the City Council for the April 15, 2010 meeting. E. SPECIAL PERMIT Location of a Temporary Structure for sandblasting and painting in a I-1 Zone (Hancock Sandblasting and Painting) (900 N. Avery Avenue) (MF# SP 10-010) Chairman Samuel read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Shane O'Neill, Planner I, stated the applicant has requested a special permit to locate a temporary membrane structure at 900 N. Avery Avenue for the purposes of sandblasting. The site consists of approximately 2 acres and has access off a non-dedicated road called North Avery Avenue and access of East Lewis Street. The site does not have City sewer access. The special permit is a request to allow a previously constructed temporary membrane structure, which is approximately 3,000 square feet in size. The PMC does have provisions for special permit review for temporary uses provided they are clearly of a temporary nature and do not involve the erection of a permanent structure. Sandblasting is an allowable use in the I-1 zone and is commonly done in other areas of the city in I-1 zones. The applicant is requesting a special permit for two years to provide time to generate sufficient revenue to allow for construction of a permanent structure for the same use. This special permit application is in result of a Code Enforcement recommendation by the Inspection Services Manager to legalize the structure through this process. Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director, stated the Planning Commission was handed a revised approval sheet for your consideration. Chairman Samuel questioned if there had been complaints received on the operation at this facility. Mr. O Neill stated no. Don Gammell, 32923 W. Spearman Road, Hermiston, OR stated they are an industrial paint contractor based in Boardman, Oregon and decided to move to this location due to their employees and work are based in this area. They do sandblasting and coat work for the VIT project and dams in the area. The temporary structure is for sandblasting as well as paint. They did not get a permit prior to operations and recognized they had made a mistake and therefore have applied for the special permit. The building is classified as an automotive spray booth and is completely different and it is hard to calculate since an automotive spray booth is a very small area and fits an automobile. The larger the area, the smaller chance of a fire. Many of these structures are built along the dams and in the Hanford area as well as across the United States and have not had any issues with fire or flame. They are a very environmentally conscious business and the different locations they work in, they are very _19 - knowledgeable about their structures and how they are to be maintained. They spend a lot of time and money pertaining to that issue. They do not own the property and they have made a 3-,year agreement and if they owner does not go through with his project they would like to purchase the property. Chairman Samuel questioned what the current structure looks like. Mr. Gammell stated it is a tan building that they purchased from back east Farm Tech which is a quant style building. Has 3 inch pipe set on ecology blocks for wind. Chairman Samuel questioned the reason on the 2-,year special pennit request. Mr. Gammell stated it would allow for time for the property owner to determine if they would sell the land to him. The shop painting and sandblasting is a small portion of the business; the majority of their work is done in the field. They have a great demand locally. Chairman Samuel questioned how much of an employment impact lie is talking about. Mr. Gammell stated they have 4 men locally in Pasco that work at the site in Pasco. Chairman Samuel questioned Mr. Gammell if he was aware of the requirement to have a special permit to operate the business. Mr. Gammell stated ,yes. They had numerous requests from contractors in this area instead of locating in the Boardman area. Commissioner Cruz questioned if they were going to be painting. Mr. Gammell stated ,yes they intend to paint. Commissioner Cruz stated they need feedback from City staff because the report is all about sandblasting. Chairman Samuel clarified they applicant is applying for sandblasting and painting in this facility. Mr. Gammell stated yes. Mr. O'Neill stated the conditions were recently modified by the Inspection Services Manager to restrict painting from this facility primarily for the purposes of fire safety. The applicant indicated a 12,000 cubic foot per minute ventilation system currently exists on the site but staff is unable to determine if the site is nonvolatile. -20 - Mr. White stated there is another factor to keep in mind. The building can't be sprinkled. Chairman Samuel questioned if typically sprinklers exist on facilities like this. Mr. White stated ,yes. Mr. Gammell stated that is where the confusion comes in because it is not an automotive spray booth; it has to do with the dilution and air changes per hour when you have a spray gun you can figure that the volume of quantity from the spray gun and how much voltage you put in there. The 12,000 CFM dust collector will exchange that air that meet federal requirements. These types of facilities do not contain fire sprinkler systems. Commissioner Cruz stated he understands that the City is giving him a different standard than what he is typically being asked to comply to. He is sympathetic to the applicants' situation however; he must be accountable for the intended use due to safety issues. The challenge goes to staff if this is really an automotive spray booth or for other things. He mentioned Matheson Painting did not have an automotive spray booth and they painted items for him. He stated the applicant has a valid point where this is not a production line auto body shop but a different type of deal and does not know how to permit or code this. He mentioned the air changes per hour, state permits, etc still need to be addressed. Chairman Samuel stated the biggest concern is the proposal from the applicant is to do sandblasting and painting and the staff report talks about sandblasting. This item should be remanded back to staff to get on the same page with the applicant. Commissioner Cruz stated the appropriate application of code should be addressed. Mr. Gammell stated that is where the temporary structure is in question due to the fact it is not an automotive spray booth; however a large sandblasting and paint shop is more appropriate. Commissioner Anderson questioned if they remanded this back to staff to reformulate would the applicant be willing to work with staff to develop appropriate findings. Mr. Gammell stated ,yes. Chairman Samuel opened the public hearing. Robert Hancock, 309 N.E. Marshall Loop, Boardman, OR 97818 stated he is a partner with Hancock and is in charge of safety. This facility is just a small part of the business. They use this facility as a distribution center. They have 4-20 -21 - employees that work from this facility as well as a full time bookkeeper. Their intent is to locate here in Pasco due to the neighboring union and hall. Chairman Samuel questioned staff if they had adequate input to develop findings appropriate to the applicants request. Mr. White stated they would clarify the applicants request, staff understood it would be for sandblasting, as well as clarify the conditions that apply for sandblasting and painting for the Planning Commission's review. Chairman Samuel stated a motion to continue the hearing to next month to present findings of fact. Commissioner Anderson moved, seconded by Commissioner Hay, to continue the hearing on the proposed temporary sandblasting structure to the April 15, 2010 Planning Commission meeting. The motion passed unanimously. F. SPECIAL PERMIT Location of a Church in a R-1 Zone (Iglesia Bautista el Calvario) (1341 W. Sylvester Street) (MF# SP 10-008) Chairman Samuel read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Staff stated Joe Franco has applied on behalf of Iglesia Bautista el Calvario for a special permit to locate a church at the northeast corner of 14th Avenue and Sylvester Street. The site currently contains a church and the site only has access from the alley. There is a gravel parking lot currently which would accommodate less than 20 vehicles. Staff is recommending the parking lot be resurfaced with a hard surface and install landscaping along Sylvester Street. The first 10 feet of the parking lot must be irrigated and landscaped as well as meeting the commercial landscaping standards. Commissioner Little questioned if there was enough room to accommodate the request for landscaping along Sylvester Street. Staff stated there is an area available for landscaping however staff heeds to determine the parking lot requirements for this site. Chairman Samuel questioned Mr. Dave McDonald if there had been any problems reported with the previous church using the next door apartment parking lot. He stated the building has been renovated however his concern is the parking spaces available. Mr. McDonald stated there is a small parking lot on the proposed site with neighboring 8-plexes. He is unaware of any issues with parking from any surrounding property owners. -22 - Joe Franco, 3909 W. 47th Avenue, Kennewick, WA 99337 stated the building is in good condition and the parking lot consists of compacted gravel. In reference to the recommendation for landscaping on Sylvester Street, he stated the neighboring apartment building has b ft of sidewalk...They currently have 20 members who attend their Church. 18 months ago he had applied for the location of a Church at a different site and the requirements were more than he could bear. This site is a stepping stone for his Church. He requested the parking lot requirement be extended for 2 ,years to allow for him to find the resources to comply. Commissioner Little called for clarification on the applicants request to extend the paving of the parking lot. Mr. Franco stated yes, the recommendation in the report states June 20, 2011 and he would prefer to extend that by one ,year. Commissioner Little questioned if they would occupy the building and then comply with the parking requirement. Mr. Franco stated yes. Chairman Samuel questioned if they currently occupy the building. Mr. Franco stated yes. Chairman Samuel questioned if he has reviewed the special conditions and if he agreed with the proposed conditions. Mr. Franco stated yes. Chairman Samuel opened the public hearing, after three calls there was no response. Chairman Samuel questioned staff if they would accommodate the applicants request for the parking lot requirement to extend one ,year. Mr. McDonald stated he would be agreeable to the one year extension for the parking lot. Commissioner Cruz questioned staff on the landscaping requirement. Mr. McDonald stated typically when churches exist in residential areas the church must match the residential setback which in this case is 20 feet, but in this case due to the limited parking they proposed to landscape a small portion to improve the streetscape and allow for more parking. Chairman Samuel stated he drove by the facility and noticed the only access to the church is through the alley, as well as the neighboring 8-plexes. -23 - Mr. McDonald stated that is correct and the alley consists of a hard surface. Chairman Samuel questioned if there have been any complaints. Mr. McDonald stated no. At the time when the S-plexes were built the apartment owners were required to access through the alley instead of driveways on Sylvester Street. Chairman Samuel questioned the Commissioners if they had any other special conditions to add. Commissioner Cruz was in favor of extending the parking lot requirement to be extended the extra ,year. Commissioner Little moved, seconded by Commissioner Cruz, to close the hearing on the proposed Church and initiate deliberations and schedule adoption of findings of fact, conclusions and a recommendation to the City Council for the April 15, 2010 meeting. The motion passed unanimously. OTHER BUSINESS: Chairman Samuel questioned if City Council was in process of appointing new Planning Commissioners. Mr. White stated the City Council will interview on April 12 at their workshop. With no further business, the Planning Commission was adjourned at 10:15 pm. David McDonald, Secretary -24 - REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION MASTER FILE NO: Z 10-001 APPLICANT: John Ziobro HEARING DATE: 03/18/2010 1333 Columbia Park Trail ACTION DATE: 04/15/2010 Richland, WA 99352 BACKGROUND REQUEST: REZONE: Rezone from C-2 to C-1 to allow for dance hall use. 1. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: Legal: Gerry's Add Lots 15 to 22, Blk. 17 General Location: 117 S. 5th Avenue Property Size: Approximately .64 acres 2. ACCESS: The property has access from both N. 50, Avenue and W. Columbia Street. 3. UTILITIES: All utilities are available at the site. 4. LAND USE AND ZONING: The site is currently zoned C-2 (Central Business District [CBD]) and is within the Central Business Overlay District. This district was designed to reduce "general public disorder, loitering, nuisance and other acts detrimental to the public image of the area." The site is occupied by a building. Surrounding properties are zoned and developed as follows: NORTH: C-2 - (Central Business District) SOUTH: I-1 - (Light Industrial District) EAST: C-2 - (Central Business District) WEST: C-1 - (Retail Business District) 5. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The Comprehensive Plan designates this area for commercial uses. 6. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The City of Pasco has been the lead agency in issuing a Determination of Non-Significance (DNS) in accordance with review under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), Chapter 43.21(c) RCW. 1 ANALYSIS The property in question is located on the northeast corner of 5th Avenue and Columbia Street in the Gerry's Addition Subdivision which was platted in 1906. The subject property is zoned C-2 and within the Central Business Overlay District. A building on the property has been used as a car dealership, a commercial kitchen appliance retailer, and recently carved into small stalls to function as a type of mini-mall. The current owner has applied for and received a business license to hold small, private events such as birthday parties, quinceaneras, and receptions. The applicant would like to change the use to a public dance hall. Dance halls are prohibited by the code in both the C-2 zone and the Central Business Overlay District. The purpose of the C-2 zone (PMC 25.44.010) is to promote a business atmosphere that reinforces a positive public image of the downtown area. The development of the C-2 zoning regulations in the late 1980's was part of a concerted community effort to combat the deleterious effects of certain businesses on the vitality of the CBD. Prior to the adoption of the C-2 zoning regulations there was a concentration of businesses (dance halls, pool halls, taverns, etc) that fostered an environment that encouraged public loitering, public disorder, public nuisance and other acts that created a poor public image of downtown Pasco. The current C-2 regulations have been responsible for the reversal of the conditions that previously created detrimental conditions for encouraging businesses to locate in the Central Business Overlay District. Several ,years after the City Council adopted the C-2 regulations, the City Council added zoning regulation specifically for the downtown area in the form of the Central Business Overlay District (PMC 25.45). The Central Business Overlay District was enacted for the express purpose of eliminating "general public disorder, loitering, nuisance and other acts detrimental to the public image of the area." Rezoning the site to C-1 would open the door to various businesses to locate in the downtown area that could again foster the environment that leads to general public disorder. Dance halls, taverns and night clubs are all permitted uses in the C-1 zone. The concern over dance halls is apparently well-founded. A Pasco Police report (attached) shows 17 calls for Police assistance at the neighboring Golden Nugget dance hall since January 1, 2009. Anecdotally, a deadly assault occurred recently at a dance hall/nightclub several blocks away in a C-1 zone. The C-2 area is unique in the city in that buildings are often built to property lines without setbacks, and on-site parking is virtually nonexistent. For this reason the district is not conducive to large facilities for public assembly like auditoriums and dance halls. The subject building is about 18,000 square feet in size with very limited parking. An 18,000 square foot building used for public assembly would require 180 parking spaces. The attorney for the applicant has crafted a Concomitant Zoning Agreement with the following two conditions: a) The owner shall be restricted or otherwise precluded from operating a night club as defined by the Pasco Municipal Code. b) As a condition of issuance of a permit to operate a dance hall, the owner agrees to a restriction prohibiting serving alcohol during dance hall hours of operation. However, the proposed conditions do not negate the fact that the proposed use is a dance hall, and that, according to the aforementioned research, dance halls are listed as one of the uses that foster "general public disorder, loitering, nuisance and other acts detrimental to the public image of the area." The initial review criteria for considering a rezone application are explained in PMC. 25.88.030. The criteria are listed below as follows: 1) The changed conditions in the vicinity which xua rra nt other- or additional zoning: No changes have occurred in the neighborhood that would warrant a zoning change. As a result of implementation of the C-2 zoning regulations and other efforts the CBD is substantially a better neighborhood than it was in the mid- 1980's. Conditions and businesses that contributed to public disorder, loitering, nuisances and other acts detrimental to the public image of the area have largely been reduced. A change from C-2 to C-1 would allow the opportunity for increased "general public disorder, loitering, nuisance and other acts detrimental to the public image of the area." Although the applicant has agreed to operate a dance hall without serving alcoholic beverages, there is a high potential for loitering and its attendant adverse impact on the public image of the area. 2) Facts to justify the change on the basis of advancing the public hearth, safety and general rueifare: The facts indicate that a rezone from C-2 to C-1 would likely be detrimental to supporting "public health, safety and general welfare" by allowing uses that, according to evidence reviewed by the Planning Commission in 2001, contribute "to general public disorder, loitering, nuisance and other acts detrimental to the public image of the area." 3) The effect it xuill have on the nature and value of adjoining property and the Comprehensive Fran: 3 Evidence received by the Planning Commission during Bearings that led to the enactment of the C-2 zoning regulations in 1999 demonstrated that certain land uses inhibit new business growth, contribute to business loss and decline of property values, and/or perpetuate a public image which is undesirable or unattractive and detrimental to public and private investment in business property within the CBD. 4) The effect on the property oiuners if the request is riot gr-orzted: The property owners would still be able to enjoy all uses currently available in the C-2 District/Central Business Overlay District, which was the zoning at the time of purchase. The C-2 zoning regulations were enacted in 1999. 5) The Co mprehensive Pla n Zo nd a se desig no Lion fo r- the property: The Comprehensive Plan designates the site for commercial uses, and refers to the C-2 zoning regulations enacted in 1999. STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT Findings of fact must be entered from the record. The following are initial findings drawn from the background and analysis section of the staff report. The Planning Commission may add findings to this listing as the result of factual testimony and evidence submitted during the open record hearing. 1) The Comprehensive Plan designates the site for commercial uses. 2) The site is developed with a commercial building. 3) The site is zoned C-2 (Central Business District), and permits the following uses: a. Artist and office supplies; b. Bakeries; c. Banks and financial institutions; d. Barber and beauty shops; e. Bookstores, except adult bookstores; f. Clothing, shoes and accessories, and costume rentals; g. Crafts, stationary and gift shops; h. Department stores; L Fresh and frozen meats, including seafood; j. Florists; k. Furniture and home appliance stores; 1. Galleries for art and restored or refinished antiques; m. Hardware and home improvement stores; n. Import shops; 4 o. Jewelry and gem shops, including custom work; p. Offices for medical and professional services; q. Restaurants, sandwich shops, cafeterias and delicatessens; r. Sporting goods; s. Tailoring and seamstress shops; t. Theaters for movies and performances, except adult theaters; u. Public markets for fresh produce and craft work; v. Parking lots; w. Micro-breweries and micro-wineries; x. Research, development and assembly facilities for component devices and equipment of an electrical, electronic or electromagnetic nature; and y. Home brewing and/or wine making equipment sales. (Ord. 3354 Sec. 2, 1999.) 4) When the applicant purchased the property in January of 2006 the site was zoned C-2. 5) The purpose of the C-2 zone, among other things, is to promote a business atmosphere that reinforces a positive public image of the downtown area. 6) To meet the purposes of the C-2 zone the district regulations specifically prohibit these uses: a. Gasoline and service stations, automobile services or repair, except tire stores; b. Outdoor storage of goods or materials; c. Membership clubs; d. Taverns; e. Billiard and pool halls; E Amusement game centers; g. Pawn shops; h. Card rooms, bingo parlors, dance halls and similar places; L Adult theaters, adult bookstores, tattoo parlors, bathhouses and massage parlors; j. Community service facilities level two k. Secondhand dealers. Similar or like uses although not specifically listed are also prohibited; and 1. Adult Business Facilities. (Ord. 3514 Sec. 6, 2 00 1; Ord. 3354 Sec. 2, 1999.) 7) The site is in the Central Business Overlay District. 8) The Central Business Overlay District was originally designed to address "general public disorder, loitering, nuisance and other acts detrimental to the public image of the area." CONCLUSIONS BASED ON INITIAL STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT 5 Before recommending approval or denial of a rezone, the Planning Commission must develop its conclusions from the findings of fact based upon the criteria listed in P.M.C. 25.88.060 and determine whether-or- not: 1) The proposal is in accordance i.uith the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. Introduction of a dance hall in the C-2 Zoning District would not be in accordance with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. The goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan include a requirement to reduce "public disorder, loitering, nuisance and other acts detrimental to the public image of the downtown area" (Vol. II, pp. 15-16, Comprehensive Plan). This provision has been translated into PMC Section 25.44.050, as follows: "Evidence received by the Planning Commission and contained in previous studies and Pasco Police Crime Reports demonstrate that certain uses make the Central Business District less desirable or attractive to the public due to a demonstrated history of contribution to general public disorder, loitering, nuisance and other acts detrimental to the public image of the area [including] dance halls and similar places." 2) The effect of the proposal on the immediate vicinity iuill not be mo to Ha lly detrimental. Expanding the C-1 District into the established central core of the city would not further the purposes for the establishment of the C-2 District. Expansion of the C-1 District even as conditioned by the owner, would allow the introduction of a dance hall which have been determined by the community to be materially detrimental to the downtown area, according to "Evidence received by the Planning Commission and contained in previous studies and Pasco Police Crime Reports" and itemized in PMC Section 25.44.050. 3) There is merit and i,alue in thepr-oposal for- the community as a tuhole. "Dance halls and similar places" have a "demonstrated history [of contributing to] general public disorder, loitering, nuisance and other acts detrimental to the public image of the area (PMC 25.44.050)." To introduce that which has been found detrimental to the downtown area would be counterproductive to instilling "merit and value" for the community as a whole. 4) Conditions should be imposed in order to mitigate any significant adverse impacts from the proposal. The proposed rezone is not appropriate for the site. Conditions necessary or as proposed by the owner do not change the fundamental nature of dance halls. 6 Dance halls still generate large attendance at specific times and have a high potential to encourage loitering. 5) A concomitant agreement should be entered into between the City and the petitioner, and if so, the terms and conditions of such an agreement. A concomitant agreement is not necessary because the rezone is not warranted. RECOMMENDATION MOTION for Findings of Fact: I move the Planning Commission adopt the Findings of Fact as contained in the March 18, 2010 staff report. MOTION for Recommendation: I move, based on the Findings of Fact as adopted, the Planning Commission recommend the City Council deny a rezone of the property at 117 South 5th Avenue from C-2 to C-1 to allow for dance hall use. 7 Vicinity Item: Rezone C-2 to C- 1 Map Applicant: John Ziobro N File #: Z 10-001 poop SA WP On go A- r SO a �kl Aw- SITE r G r. - Land Item: Rezone C-2 to C- I Use Applicant: John Ziobro D Map File #: Z 10-001 lop LINES ITE 19 r10 Vacant m Zoning Item: Rezone C-2 to C- I Map Applicant: John Ziobro D File #: Z 10-001 I� . r CBOD Item: Rezone C-2 to G I Map Applicant: John Ziobro N File #: Z 10-001 POP III SEEN Central Business WA Overlay District UK 6?4 V;1 &I WA Telquist Ziobro McMillen Attorneys at Law April 1, 2010 Rick White City of Pasco Planning Department 2nd Floor 525 North 3rd Avenue Pasco, WA 99301 Re: Change of Zone Application Owner: Delia Hernandez Property Location: 117 South 5th Avenue City File No.: Z 10-001 Our File No.: 09-203 Dear Rick: I am following up the Planning Commission meeting and your call related to the above- referenced Application. You indicated that you were looking for follow-up on the representations made before the Planning Commission. I am enclosing a draft Concomitant Zoning Agreement, following the form used by the City of Pasco, which places specific restrictions on the property. The City is welcome to propose additional restrictions to go within that Agreement. With regard to specific commitments Ms. Hernandez is willing to make, these include: I. Limited days of week of operation to Fridays and Saturdays. 2. Hours of operation: 8:00 p.m. to 1:00 p.m. 3. No alcohol will be served at the dance hall. 4. Ms. Hernandez will agree to a Concomitant Zoning Agreement that prohibits the conversion of the dance hall to a night club. 5. Her business will refuse admission to any person under the influence of alcohol. 6. She has a verbal agreement from neighboring property owner identified on the map I have attached. We will try to secure a written agreement prior to the next hearing. 7. She will maintain a minimum of four security people, one at each door. This would be her minimum staffing. She anticipates having as many as six people for security. George E. Telquist • John S. Ziobro • Robert G. McMillen 1333 Columbia Park Trail, Suite 110 • Richland,WA 99352 (509) 737-8500 • Toll Free (877)789-LAW1 • Fax(509) 737-9500 • www.tzmlaw.com Page 2 of 2 To:Rick White Our File No.09-203 Date:April 1,2010 Ms. Hernandez has During the Planning Commission meeting or during staff comments, some concern was expressed with regard to changes in ownership of the building. Ms. Hernandez has three children between the age of 19 and 24 that may become involved in the business or succeed her in operation of the business. She may form a limited liability company for purposes of managing her various business entities. If she did so, she would name her children as members. At the present time, however, she is a sole proprietor. She would like some recognition from the City that in the event she became incapacitated, her children could take over the business without any changes in restrictions that would be imposed if her change of zone is approved. ' If you need any additional information,please let me know. Sincerely, TELQUIST, ZIOBRO & MCMILLEN, PLLC I OHN S. 710BRO j Enclosures JS7Jjr cc. Delia Hernandez(w/enc,) George E. Telquist ' John S. Ziobro • Robert G. McMillen 1333 Columbia Park Trail, Suite 110 • Richland,WA 99352 (509)737-8500 ' Toll Free (877)789-LAW1 • Fax(509) 737-9500 • www.tzmlaw.com CONCOMITANT ZONING AGREEMENT The City of Pasco, Washington, a non-charter City, under the laws of the State of Washington (Chapter 35A.63,RCW and Article 11, Section 11 of the Washington State Constitution) has authority to enact laws and enter into agreements to promote the health, safety, and welfare of its citizens, and thereby control the use and development of property within its jurisdiction; and WHEREAS, the owner of certain property has applied for a rezone of such property described below within the City's jurisdiction; and WHEREAS, the City,pursuant to RCW 43.12(c), the State Environmental Act, should mitigate any adverse impacts which might result because of the proposed rezone; and WHEREAS, the City of Pasco and the owners are both interested in compliance with the Pasco Municipal Code provisions relating to the use and development of property situated in the City of Pasco, described as follows: GERRY'S ADD.,LOTS 15-22, BLOCK 17 WHEREAS, the owner has indicated a willingness to cooperate with the City of Pasco, its Planning Commission and Planning Department to ensure compliance with the Pasco Zoning Code, and all other local, state, and federal laws relating to the use and development of the above-described property; WHEREAS, local governmental may enter into a development agreement with a person having ownership or control of real property within its jurisdiction pursuant to RCW 36.70B.170, and WHEREAS, the City, in addition to civil and criminal sanctions available by law, desires to enforce the rights and interests of the public by this Concomitant Zoning Agreement; NOW, THEREFORE, In the event the above-described property if rezoned by the City of Pasco from C-2 to C- 1, and in consideration if that event should occur, and subject to the terms and conditions hereinafter stated, the applicant does hereby covenant and agree as follows: 1. The owner promises to comply with all of the terms of the Agreement in the event the City, as full consideration herein, grants a rezone on the above-described property. '. The owner agrees to perform the terms set forth in Section 4 of this Agreement. Concomitant Zoning Agreement Page I of 2 This Agreement shall be binding on the heirs, assigns, grantees, or successors in interest of the owner of the property herein described. 4. Conditions: a) The owner shall be restricted or otherwise precluded from operating a night club as defined by the Pasco Municipal Code. b] As a condition of issuance of a permit to operate a dance hall, the owner agrees to a restriction prohibiting serving alcohol during dance hall hours of operation. 5. Legal Description. GERRY'S ADD.,LOTS 15-22, BLOCK 17. The person whose names are subscribed herein do hereby certify that they are the sole holders of fee simple interest in the above-described property: OWNER: DEL IA HE RNANDE Z SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this_--day of-------_, 2010. ---------------------- NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the State of Washington, residing at: ------------_ My Commission Expires: ------------_. Concomitant Zoning Agreement Page 2 of 2 REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION MASTER FILE NO: SP 10-007 APPLICANT: Action Towing HEARING DATE: 3/18/10 1943 N. 4th Avenue ACTION DATE: 4/15/10 Pasco, WA 99301 BACKGROUND REQUEST: SPECIAL PERMIT: Auto Body Shop in a C-3 (General Business) Zone 1. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: Legal: Lots 9-13, Buck's Subdivision General Location: 1948 N. 4th Avenue Property Size: 19,166 ft.= 2. ACCESS: The property has access from N. 4th Avenue. 3. UTILITIES: All municipal utilities are available to the site. 4. LAND USE AND ZONING: The property is zoned C-3 (General Business) and contains a vehicle storage ,yard, a towing business and a commercial building used for automotive repair work. Surrounding properties are zoned and developed as follows: NORTH: C-3 & C-1- RV Park and automotive repair SOUTH: C-3 & C-1 - Auto storage and a Veterinarian Clinic EAST: C-1 & I-1 - Convenience store, laundry and construction trailer rentals WEST: R-1 - Residential 5. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The Comprehensive Plan designates the property for commercial uses while the east side of N. 4th Avenue is set aside for industrial uses. The properties to the north are designated for commercial and residential uses. Properties west of the site are designated for low density residential uses. 6. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The City of Pasco is the lead agency for this project. Based on the State Environmental Policy Act checklist, the adopted City Comprehensive Plan, City development regulations, and other information, a threshold determination resulting in a Determination of Nan-Significance has been issued for this project under WAC 197-11-158. ANAYLSIS The property in question has been zoned C-3 for more than 35 ,years and has been used by a variety of construction related businesses. The construction companies used the site for many ,years to service and repair heavy equipment. In 2004 the City Council approved a special permit to allow the location of an auto body shop on the property. The applicant complied with most of the special permit conditions but never fully installed an approved paint booth. For the past six ,years the property has been used for a towing ,yard, auto sales and auto repair. The applicant is in the process of constructing a new office and shop building on the site for automotive repair including a new auto body shop. According to the definition of an "Auto Body Shop" in Pasco Municipal Code said use includes improvement and restoration of automobiles by sanding, priming, painting, straightening and other like repair and restoration. Effects of this use often include noise and emissions. Auto Body Shops are listed as Permitted Conditional Uses in C-3 zones and are thereby required to obtain a special permit prior to establishment. The special permit process provides an opportunity to review proposed land uses to determine whether or not conditions can be applied that will ameliorate any possible negative impacts to surrounding uses. In the case of an Auto Body Shop, sight screening, sound walls and the proper use of spray booths and ventilation equipment can all be used to lessen negative impacts to adjoining properties. The proposed site is located in a C-3 zone just south of the Green Tree Mobile Home and RV Park. The site is also located just to the east (across N. 5th Avenue) of the View Terrace and Kirchner Hill Additions. These subdivisions are developed with single family dwellings. The Washington State Department of Transportation maintenance ,yard and shops are located approximately 400 feet to the south of the site in question. To address the concerns associated with auto body shop noise generation, fumes and other impacts, the previously approved special permit included conditions prohibiting outdoor grinding, priming or painting. A code approved spray booth and ventilation equipment were also required. Due to the location of nearby residential properties a sound wall was also a requirement. Auto body shops are considerably more hazardous than most business activities with respect to fire safety. That is one of the reasons auto body shops are generally directed to industrial zoning districts. The location of the proposed site is half a block off of N. 4th Avenue (the primary access) and hidden more or less behind another building. On site stored vehicles and fencing all create fire safety concerns. FINDINGS OF FACT Findings of fact must be entered from the record. The following are initial findings drawn from the background and analysis section of the staff report. The Planning Commission may add additional findings as deemed appropriate. 1. The site is zoned C-3. 2. The property is located at 1948 N. 4th Avenue. 3. Heavy equipment service and repair occurred on the site for many years. 4. Vehicle towing, storage, repair and sales activities presently occur on the site. 5. Automotive repair facilities are located to the north of the site. 6. The applicant was granted a special permit to operate an auto body shop on the site in 2004. 7. The Green Tree RV Park is located to the north. 8. Residential uses are located on the west side of 5th Avenue. 9. The Washington State Department of Transportation maintenance yard and shops are located 380 feet to the south of the site. 10. Noise and odors are often associated with the operation of auto body shops. 11. Fourth Avenue is included in the City's Gateways and Corridors Plan. CONCLUSIONS BASED ON THE FINDINGS OF FACT Before recommending approval or denial of a special permit the Planning Commission must develop findings of fact from which to draw its conclusions based upon the criteria listed in P.M.C. 25.86.060. The criteria are as follows: I) Will the proposed use be in occordonce tuith the goers, policies, objectives and text of the Comprehensive PlonP The Comprehensive Plan designates this area for commercial development. The Plan encourages the development of a wide range of commercial land uses. The proposed use is a heavy commercial land use. 2) Will the proposed use adversely affect pu bric infra str-uctur-e? The proposed use will not create a significant impact on infrastructure. Sewer and water usage for an auto body shop is minimal. 3 31 Will the proposed use be constructed, maintained and operated to be in harmony tuith existing or intended character-of the general vicinity? The neighborhood between N. 4th Avenue and N. 5th Avenue, north of Agate Street is generally characterized by a mix of heavy (high intensity) commercial activities. The Washington State Department of Transportation shops and heavy equipment yard are located just north of Agate Street about 380 feet south of the site in question. Automotive related businesses are located adjacent to the proposed body shop. The general character of the immediate neighborhood will not change. The larger neighborhood including the residential dwellings to the west could be impacted by the proposal unless mitigation measures (screening, sound walls & ventilation) are implemented. A screening and sound wall was previously installed on the property to comply with the approval of a special permit in 2004. 41 Will the location and height of proposers structures and the site design discourage the development of permitted uses on property in the general vicinity or impair- the value thereof? Structures already exist on the property. The main structure has been used for vehicle repair and equipment maintenance. The surrounding property to the south and east are being used for automotive sales and vehicle storage. The proposed use of the site will have little impact on surrounding automotive business activities. Without the construction of screening and sound walls along with the use of regulation paint booths and ventilation equipment, adjoining residential uses could be impacted. The proposed auto body shop will be housed in a new building that will be located 60 feet farther west and 40 feet farther south than the previously approved auto body shop. 51 Will the operations in connection tuith the proposal be more objectionable to nearby properties by reason of noise, fumes, vibrations, dust, traffic, or flashing lights than xuould be the operation of any permitted uses xuithin the district? The operations of the proposed auto body shop will be in a fully enclosed building on the property with a perimeter concrete block wall. The auto body shop will also include a regulation paint booth with fire suppression equipment and ventilation filters. The operation of the body shop should not be objectionable to surrounding automotive related businesses. Implementation of mitigation measures, including the concrete wall and paint booth, will address the operational aspects of the proposed auto body shop that may be objectionable to properties west of N. 5th Avenue and in the Green Tree RV Park. 4 6) Will the proposed use endanger- the public hearth or- safety if located and developed where proposed, or in any ruay become a nuisance to uses permitted in the dish ict? The use of a code approved paint booth and the existence of a concrete wall along 5th Avenue and the north property line will address the potential nuisance and safety aspects of the proposed body shop. RECOMMENDED APPROVAL CONDITIONS 1) The special permit is personal to the applicant. 2) The landscaping along N. 4th Avenue on the applicant's property and in the right-of-way shall be improved to meet the Gateway and Corridor Plan. This condition will be considered fulfilled if the City carries out the N. 4th Avenue Gateway and Corridor improvements prior to 11/1/2010. If the improvement project is not completed by 11/1/2010 the landscape requirements along N. 4th Avenue will become an obligation of the property owner and must be completed by April 1, 2011. 3) The water meter at the south end of the sound/screening wall on 5th Avenue must be moved outside of the sound/screening wall. The wall must be completed to the corner of the property abutting Lot 20, Bucks Addition. 4) A solid block wall 6 feet in height shall be installed along the north line of Lot 20, Bucks Addition for a distance of 80 feet east of the 5t1i Avenue sound wall. 5) The first five (5) feet of the property adjacent to North 5th Avenue shall be landscaped. All landscaping plans shall be approved by the City prior to construction. 6) An approved spray booth, spray equipment and paint ventilation equipment must be installed in the building permitted under building permit # B 10-0171. 7) The applicant shall be responsible for obtaining all required Department of Ecology air quality permits for the paint booth. 8) No painting, metal bending, fabrication, priming or grinding shall occur outside of an approved building. 9) The special permit shall be null and void if a building permit for required paint booth improvements has not been obtained by May 31, 2011. 5 RECOMMENDATION MOTION for Findings of Fact: I move to adopt findings of fact and conclusions therefrom as contained in the April 15, 2010 staff report. MOTION for Recommendation: I move based on the findings of fact and conclusions as adopted the Planning Commission recommend the City Council grant a special permit to Action Automotive Services for the location and operation of an auto body shop at 1948 N. 4th Avenue with conditions as listed in the April 15, 2010 staff report. 6 • Item: Special Permit - Auto Body Shop Vicinity . . Applicant: Action Auto Services N Map File # : SP 10-007 -Jar SST A4* w -. r ► _• T - _t ° a i * d k' eta z—; ;IsmXnErm9w TZ- P ", •1 f _f 4j? N ST SITE , . IL Ar'-- La i Art . Sd t 11p11r+ , -- r Land Item : Special Permit - Auto Body Shop Use Applicant: Action Auto Services (NJ- Map File # : SP 10 -007 I JAY ST 5TTTT� SFDU's � MFH Industrial �JAN ST I I JAN ST �- SIFDU'sJI I�J SITE I _ L1Jw � ; Comm ; = LEOLA ST = a u o Cq Park PEARLST = Mixed Res Industrial Vacant Zonin Item: Special Permit - Auto Body Shop g Applicant: Action Auto Services N Map File #: SP 10-007 JAY ST C-3 C-1 JAN ST JAN ST R-1 SITE Cmi I -1 = LEOLA ST 4 = 0 C-1 C-1 PEARL ST - C-3 J R-3 Exhibit 1 - Letter from Kevin Goodsel presented at the 3/18110 PH TRI-CITIES BATTERYINC. AND AUTO REPAIR ----------------------------------------- KEVIN GOODSEL, MANAGER IN REFERENCE TO SPECIAL PERMIT REQUEST # SP 10-007. ACTION AUTO SERVICES HAVE BEEN GOOD NEIGHBORS IN THE YEARS THAT THEY HAVE BEEN LOCATED AT 1948 N FOURTH AV. THEY HAVE MAINTAINED THE PROPERTY IN VERY GOOD ORDER AND HAVE BEEN HELPFUL AND CONSCIENTIOUS IN THEIR DEALINGS WITH US. I BELIEVE ACTION AUTO WILL CONTINUO THESE PRACTICES IN THERE OPERATION OF THEIR PROPOSED NEW BODY SHOP. I HAVE NO OBJECTIONS TO THE EXPANSION OF ACTION AUTO AND BELIEVE IT WILL HELP INCREASE THE VALUE OF BOTH OUR OPERATIONS AND THE CITIES TAX BASE. ANY COMPANY WILLING TO EXPAND IN THE CURRANT ECONOMY SHOULD BE HELPED AND ENCOURAGED TO DO SO. PASCO,WA 99301 KENNEWICK.WA 99336 RICHLAND,WA 99352 TEL(509)545-1473 TEL(509)783-9000 TEL(509)946-2500 FAX(509)547-8399 FAX(509)783-9955 FAX(509)943-9984 REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION MASTER FILE NO: SP 10-009 APPLICANT: La Clinica HEARING DATE: 3/18/2010 P.U. Box 1452 ACTION DATE: 4/15/2010 Pasco, WA 99302 BACKGROUND REQUEST: SPECIAL PERMIT: Location of a Community Service Facility Level One (non-profit community health clinic) in a C-1 Zone 1. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: Legal: Lot 3, Henderson's Addition together with the N 129.5 ft. of the S 330 ft. except the W 183.3 ft. of the N 1/2 of the SE 1/4 of the SE 1/4 of the SE 1/4 of Sec 19 T9N R30E and together with Tract 5A described as the S 50 ft. of the N 280 ft. of the E 165 ft. of the E 1/2 of SE 1/4 of the SE 1/4 of the SE 1/4 of Sec 19 T9N R30E less roads and right-of-way and other lands under parcel # 113-394-202 General Location: 715 W. Court Street Property Size: 1.7 acres 2. ACCESS: The site is accessible from Court Street and 5th Avenue. 3. UTILITIES: All municipal utilities are available to the site from surrounding rights-of-way. 4. LAND USE AND ZONING: The site is zoned C-1 (Retail Business) and R- 3 (Medium Density Residential) and contains a parking lot and vacant land. Surrounding properties are zoned and developed as follows: NORTH: R-3 - Residential SOUTH: C-1 - CAC Office Building EAST: C-1 - Restaurant WEST: R-3 - Apartments 5. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The Comprehensive Plan designates the site for Commercial uses. The Plan does not specifically address health clinics, but various elements of the plan encourage locating businesses in appropriate locations for their anticipated uses. 6. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The City of Pasco is the lead agency for this project. This proposal has been issued a Determination of Non-Significance (DNS) in accordance with review under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), Chapter 43.21(c) RCW. ANALYSIS The applicant is proposing to construct a 30,791 square foot non-profit community health clinic at 715 W. Court Street. The proposed facility will house a dental clinic, a behavioral health clinic and a WIC (Women with Infant Children) and First Steps office. The dental facility will be housed on the main floor; the other offices will occupy the second and third floors. The basement will be used for record storage. The site is located on the north side of W. Court Street; 100 feet west of 5th Avenue. Court Street is an arterial street and a bus route. Court Street and 5th Avenue are fully developed and would require no additional infrastructure improvements. There is a traffic signal at the intersection of 5th Avenue and Court Street. The site contains an existing parking lot with 132 off-street parking spaces. These parking spaces are all located directly to the north of where the proposed new office building will be built. The existing parking lot was previously reviewed and approved through the special permit process in 2000. The Pasco Municipal Code requires a minimum of 93 spaces to accommodate the clinic. Approximately 12-14 existing parking spaces will be eliminated by the building construction leaving 118 spaces available far use by the clinic. However, six of the spaces in the parking lot need to be reserved for the existing facility on the east side of 5th Avenue. La Clinica's original office was located at 513 W. Court Street. In the mid- 1980's the City provided La Clinica with a small amount of funding to expand that original building. That original building was expanded several times to include the two buildings to the west. The new building being considered for a special permit will be used to house services that are currently located in the existing facilities on the east side of 5th Avenue. When the dental clinic and other activities move to the new building, the administrative offices (purchasing, accounting, record keeping etc.) and medical services will expand into the vacated space. The existing facility has a parking lot with 50 spaces. La Clinica also leases another 40 spaces from an adjoining property owner. Non-profit community clinics are defined as Community Service Facilities (Level One) and as such are required to obtain a special permit before locating anywhere within the city. The existing La Clinica facility at Court Street and 5th Avenue, the Yakima Valley Farm Workers Clinic (Mir Mar) on Road 44 and the Planned Parenthood Clinic are examples of other non-profit clinics that were reviewed in the past through the special permit process. These types of clinics, as well as other medical offices are located in "O" (Office) or "C-1" (Retail Business) zoning districts. FINDINGS OF FACT Findings of fact must be entered from the record. The following are initial findings drawn from the background and analysis section of the staff report. The Planning Commission may add additional findings to this listing as the result of factual testimony and evidence submitted during the open record hearing. 1. The site is located within the Pasco Urban Growth Boundary. 2. The Comprehensive Plan identifies the site for Commercial uses. 3. The site is zoned C-1 (Retail Business) and R-3 (Medium Density Residential). 4. Non-profit health centers are defined by the zoning regulations (PMC 25.12.155) as Community Service Facilities (Level One) which require review by the special permit process prior to locating or expanding in any zone. 5. Other non-profit community health clinics in the community are located in "C-1" (La Clinica & Planned Parenthood) or "O" (Yakima Valley Farm Workers Health Clinic) zones. 6. For-profit medical offices & clinics are permitted uses in C-1 zones. 7. The site proposed for the La Clinica building is currently partially developed with a parking lot that was previously approved through the special permit process. 8. The parking lot on the site is accessed from N. 5th Avenue only. 9. The proposed driveway accessing Court Street is for UPS and FedEx type delivery trucks only. 10. Delivery trucks are expected at the site twice a week. 11. The proposed Court Street driveway is approximately 5 feet west of the existing Garibaldi Restaurant driveway. 12. The proposed Court Street Driveway is about 100 feet west of the 5th Avenue/Court Street traffic signal. 13. A survey of the La Clinica parking lots at 2:30 pm on March 16, 2010 revealed there were 91 unused spaces. 14. A survey of the La Clinica parking lots at 10:30 am revealed there were 56 unused parking spaces. 15. Services currently being provided in the La Clinica building on the east side of 5th Avenue will be relocated to the proposed building. 16. La Clinica has been located near the corner of 5th Avenue and Court Street since the early to mid-1980's. 3 17. The Benton Franklin CAC building is located on the south side of Court Street directly opposite the proposed La Clinica building. 18. The proposed building will be open for business Monday-Friday from 8:00 am to 5:00 pm. 19. Business hours for restaurants, taverns, membership clubs and retail stores which are permitted in the C-1 zoning district often extend to 9:00 pm or later. 20. PMC 28.86.060 requires the Planning Commission to make and enter findings and conclusions from the record as to whether or not: a) The proposal is in accordance with the goals, policies, objectives, maps and/or narrative text of the Comprehensive Plan; b) The proposal will adversely affect public infrastructure; c) The proposal will be constructed, maintained and operated to be ui harmony with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity; d) The location and height of proposed structures and the site design will discourage the development of permitted uses on property in the general vicinity or impair the value thereof; e) The operations in connection with the proposal will be more objectionable to nearby properties by reason of noise, fumes, vibrations, dust, traffic, or flashing lights than would be the operation of any permitted uses within the district; and fl The proposal will endanger the public health, or safety if located and developed where proposed, or in any way will become a nuisance to uses permitted in the district. CONCLUSIONS BASED ON THE FINDINGS OF FACT Before recommending approval or denial of a special permit, the Planning Commission must develop findings of fact from which to draw its conclusions based upon the criteria listed in P.M.C. 25.86.060. The criteria are as follows: 1) Will the proposed use be in accordance with the goals, policies, objectives anti text of the Comprehensive plan? The site is identified in the Comprehensive Plan for commercial uses. The proposed medical clinic is an office use typically found in commercial areas. The Comprehensive Plan encourages the development of a wide range of commercial uses located to support local and regional needs. The proposed use is located near other related medical facilities on Court Street (La Clinica main office) and the Hospital and medical offices on 41h Avenue. The proposed facility 4 is located near the intersection of two major arterial streets (4th Avenue & Court Street) 2) Will the proposed use adversely affect public infrastructu re? All municipal utilities are currently available to the proposed site from adjoining right-of-way. Most of the daily client base is currently being provided services in the existing La Clinica building on the east side of 5th Avenue. The proposed facility will not generate a greater demand on infrastructure than uses permitted in the C-1 zoning district. The location of the proposed driveway on Court Street could impede the flow of traffic on Court Street. Restricting access to the existing driveway on N. 5th Avenue would resolve any adverse traffic impacts on Court Street resulting from an extra driveway on Court Street. 3) Will the proposed use be constructed, maintained and operated to be ill harmony ruith the existing or intended character-of the general vicinity? The general area surrounding the intersection of 5th Avenue and Court Street contains office buildings and restaurants. The proposed use is an office building housing services similar to those currently being provided in surrounding offices. The proposed building will enhance the character of the general area by eliminating an unsightly vacant lot. The proposed use will be less intense than other permitted uses within the C-1 District such as restaurants, nightclubs and certain types of stores. A medical/dental clinic/office will be operated and maintained in harmony with the intended character of the general vicinity. 4) Will the location and height of proposed structul-es coml the site design discourage the development of permitted uses on property iii. the general vicinity or impair- the value thereof? The proposed office building will be located on one of the remaining vacant parcels near the corner of 5th Avenue and Court Street. The construction of a new office building will likely have a positive impact on the neighborhood. The elimination of a vacant lot will also have a positive impact on the surrounding area. A search of commercial property tax records (3/3/2010) for properties adjacent to the existing La Clinica building on Court Street revealed that values have increased over the past several ,years. Some property values have almost doubled since 2005. 5) Will the operations in connection ruith theproposal be more objectionable to nearby properties by reason of noise, fumes, vibrations, dust, traffic, or flashing lights tha n ruou Id be the opera do n of a ny permitted uses ruithin the dis trict? 5 Health clinics are generally less intense land uses than general retail uses. This use will not generate vibrations, noise or fumes that often accompany permitted uses such as car washes, shops, restaurants and taverns. A medical clinic/office may be less disruptive to the adjacent residences than other permitted uses due to the fact the clinic will be closed on weekends and during evening hours when people tend to be home. The current La Clinica facilities on the east side of 5th Avenue have not generated nuisance complaints about noise, dust or other activities. 6) Will the proposed use endanger- the public health or safety if located and developed where proposed, or in any tuay become a nuisance to uses permitted in the disb-ict? Health clinics and medical offices are typically located within commercial zoning districts and have not been found to create health or safety concerns for neighboring businesses. The Planned Parenthood facility that was located on 20th Avenue several ,years ago was not a nuisance to other nearby uses on 20th Avenue. Other uses permitted in the C-1 zone such as car-washes, taverns, nightclubs and restaurants are more likely to be disruptive than the proposed clinic. The proposed site layout with a driveway on Court Street could become a nuisance to the adjoining restaurant due to the lack of separation between the driveways. The narrowness of the proposed driveway and short distance from the 5th Avenue traffic signal could potentially create safety concerns for traffic on Court Street. These concerns can be addressed by eliminating the driveway on Court Street. RECOMMENDED APPROVAL CONDITIONS 1) The special permit shall be personal to the applicant; 2) The clinic shall be developed in substantial conformance with the site plan submitted with the application; 3) No driveway shall be permitted on Court Street; 4) The special permit shall be null and void if a building permit has not been obtained by May 31, 2012. RECOMMENDATION MOTION for Findings of Fact: I move to adopt findings of fact and conclusions therefrom as contained in the April 15, 2010 staff report. 6 MOTION for Recommendation: I move based on the findings of fact and conclusions as adopted the Planning Commission recommend the City Council grant a special permit to La Clinica for the location and operation of a Level-One Community Service Facility at 715 West Court Street with conditions as listed in the April 15, 2010 staff report. 7 Vicini Item: Special Permit - Health Clinic t� Applicant: La Clinica N Map Fi e #: SP 10-009 _4 — r RUB-YTes..�• , ` - - SITE .Its. [A a �~ . WR _ COURT ST, _ - - _, _ �► IL Land Item: Special Permit - Health Clinic 1 Use Applicant: La Clinica N - Map File #: SP 10-009 AGATE ST I I MF - Mobile SFDU Homes I Vac aUe. s, RUBY ST M F MF SITE < � — Lu Commercial Office k Office COURTST I Office FSFDU Office Commercial 11 I 1 -1 1 1 � Zoning Item: Special Permit - Health Clinic Applicant: La Clinica rr Map File #: SP 10-009 .GRATE -3 RP ' R '1 J R-4 aUe. s, R-3 � RUBY R-3 SITE Lu Lu C=1 C-1 k „OT COURTST C- 1 COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTER, LaClinica T101 TITLE SHEET ..e.�� 8697 Gage Boulewfd Kennericla WA 99335 NEW CLINICAL SERVICES BUILDING � 509.735.1589 F, 504.723.5075 COO GENERAL NOTES AND LEGEND C011 DEMOLITION PLAN vrrw.mafednc.aem COURT ST PASCO VILA ARC 51C FLAN g ARCHITECTURAL � f� 0 A100 BASEMENT FLOOR PLAN Y A101 FIRST FLOOR PLAN A102 SECOND FLOOR PLAN A103 THIRD FLOOR PLAN A� I. A104 ROOF PLAN 1:3 A201 AZ01 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS G 1 1 �, � A202 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS A301 BUILDING SECTIONS SCHEMATIC DESIGN 02-05-2010 DRAWING LIST 1 HR FIRE AFFRCNAL BARRIER 2 HR FIRE B DpAwN EJM 1/6/1 G 1. ALL WORK SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE YITT}i THE 2006 INTERNATIONAL 2006 IBC, CRY OF PASCO MUNICIPAL CODE BARRIER DESIGN BUILDING CODE (IBC). NATONAL ELECTRIC CODE, INTERNATIONAL PLUMBING CHEMD RAG 1/6/1C CODE AND LOCAL JURISDICTION REQUIREMENTS. ZONING: C-1 IPPRGyEO RAG SETBACKS: FRONT 15 nort h 2. CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR VERIFICATION OF SITE CONDITIONS, SIDES NONE INSTALLATION STANDARDS AND CONSTRUCTION CONDITIONS. FIELD VERIFY ALL REAR NONE NECESSARY DIMENSIONS. DISCREPANCIES BETWEEN SITE CONDITIONS AND THE PARKING REQUIRED: 93 CONSTRUCTION DRAWINGS SHALL BE CALLED TO THE ATTENTION OF THE ARCHITECT. WORK DONE WITHOUT THE ARCHITECTS APPROVAL IS THE PARKING DESIGNATED TO NEW BUILDING: (INCLUDING 4 ADA}12 m�hen RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR. 'Q Z Jr.. PARKING DESIGNATED TO EXIST BUILDING 6 (� ie �� PROJECT 3. ALL DIMENSIONS TO FACE OF STUD. CENTER OF COUJMN OR AS NOTED. TOTAL EXIST PARKING ON ADJACENT PROPERTY: 115 � J SITE 4. DRAMNG'S. MAY BE REDUCED,VERIFY SCALE MAX BUILDING HEIGHT: 2 HR FIRE 2 HR FIRE C.D m 5. THE CONTRACTOR ALONE SHALL RESPONSIBLE FOR SAFETY. THE i CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE ADEQUATE PROPOSED BUILDING HEIGHT: 46'—C" BARRIER BARRIER SAFEGUARDS, SAFETY DEVICES AND CONSTRUCTION TYPE: IIB ® PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT. AND TAKE ANY OTHER NEEDED ACTIONS NECESSARY OCCUPANCY TYPE B, S1 1 HR FIRE �+ TO PROTECT THE LIFE, HEALTH AND SAFETY OF THE PUBLIC AND TO PROTECT BARRIER 04 Lv PROPERTY IN CONNECTDN WITH THE WORK COVERED BY THE CONTRACT. MAX OCCUPANCY LOAD: OFFICE (B) 29,641/100 - 299 W H- U STORAGE (S-1) e.c.w4% 2n 2 S. DEFERRED SUBMITTAL: PRCVOE A COMPLETE OPERATING FIRE ALARM SYSTEM, ''�— Lil a „ DESIGNED AND INSTALLED IN ACCORDANCE WITH IFC SECTION 907 AND NFPA TOTAL OCCUPANCY: 319 U 72. ALARM SYSTEM MON70RING SHALL BE PROADED THROUGH A UL 19T. 2ND. 3RD FLOOR Lv Ca CERTIFIED MONRORING AGENCY. FIRE ALARM CONTROL UNIT SWILL TRANSMIT FIRE PROTECTON: FIRE ALARM, SPRINKLED K_ (1r) CS I AN ALARM TO A CONSTANTLY ATTENDED OFF—SITE UL CERTIFIED OR FM SPRINKLER SYSTEM INCREASE: 23,000 x 200% = 46,000 APPROVED MON70RING STATION AS DETERMINE BY THE OWNER. PLANS SHALL TABULAR NUMBER STORIES: 4 BARRIERRE j5 J rz BE DESIGNED BY A DUALIFE RE D PERSON, AND SEALED BY A WASHINGTON STATE ti i REGISTERED FIRE PROTECTION ENGINEER AND/OR ELECTRICAL ENGINEER. PROPOSED STORIES: 3 BARRIER x C) FIRE ALARM CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENT SJBMITTAL SHALL INCLUDE ALL ITEMS AREA MODIFICATIONS SPEC,MEO IN IFC SECTION 907.1.1. TWO COMPLETE SETS DF DRAWINGS, MODIFICATIONS SFEDFICATIONS. AND REVIEW COMMENTS SHALL BE SUBMTITED TO THE TABULAR AREA: At - 23,000 SF ARCHITECT AND THE CITY OF KENNEWICK, U FRONTAGE INCREASE: If = 10x z 23.000 = 2.300 SF 1 7, DEFERRED SUBMITTAL: PRCVOE A COMPLETE FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEM, 11E SPRINKLER PROTECTION �OOX x 23,000 = 46,000 SF O SPRINKLER SYSTEM SHALL BE DESIGNED, INSTALLED AND TESTED IN p ACCORDANCE WITH IBC CHAPTER 9, IFC SECTION 9C3 AND NFPA 13. PLANS ALLOWABLE AREA A. = 71,3DD SIF U SHALL BE DESIGNED BY A WASHINGTON STATE CERTIFIED DESIGNER AND BEAR LIJ THE STAMP OF THE DESIGNER, TWO COMPLETE SETS OF DRAWINGS, PROPOSED FLOOR AREA (GROSS): Z SPECIFICATIONS. AND CALCULATIONS SWILL BE SUBMTFIFD TO THE ARCHITECT BASEMENT 9,950 SF g COLUMBIA AND THE CITY CF KENNEWICK. 157 FLOOR 10.091 5F RIVER 8, ALL PENETRATION THROUGH FIRE RATED ASSEMBLIES SHALL COMPLY WITH 2NO FLOOR 9,675 SF SECTION 712 OF INTERNATIONAL BUILDING CODE (IBC). 3110 FLOOR 9,875 SF 1 HR FIRE 2 HR FIRE 2 HR FIRE DNS•we• z TOTAL 39,791 5F BARRIER BARRIER BARRIER EXIT ACCESS TRAVEL DISTANCE: <300 FT COMMON PATH OF EGRESS TRAVEL: <100 FT T101 SCALE NOTED e�nE,Ee 6217OCT1 D1 BASEMENT FLOOR VICINITY MAP 1475 NOTES CODE INFORMATION FIRE RATED ASSEMBLY 62+� d RT I- LZ9 o—,L .E?/L NOUVA3� 3 HAON V u 'A3*d 'ON GOr 6 L OZVOOL L Z9 :311-40VO !DNIZV-19 00-L 7vm (1310N :31VOS ,10—.96 SJ13— NiviHno 5313 AM] DNIGVOI 3AdON00 CD C) jj .0—,00 L 7 v. -4 e 5Z I . I ;�. . . I ozv LON111VU A r 'ON 'f)MCI 0 ---:7 0 16 AdONVO r X_ v 90 N' R" C)•C) '3­X A C: r rQ raZv,-�_- m CID y. > rri r— �A' ;w.; Lf) 0 CD r9 rri % -4 FTJ m U41 C) CL 4C) ;V: A A 4 00 -L3d"Vd C) &113 Cp C) Z SA3--] (o "0—,gz .0—,*z .0—,2z ,O—,Z L CMAMIddV C3>133HO NOIS30 cr NM` 1VAMJddV 0-j = .IRIL NOUVA333 1Sd3 Doi ONIZY19 dV4V8 iV MIT"— dV4V6 iV DNI-llVd 5313 "0—.96 llvm ———————_-------------- 33 �333N3,6, N1VDjno---] Mr U5 .... ........ I I a Irl rut Y. r se AcJONVO I T -jA SA3 ....... ......... 0 z J. LL 010 iX3 S 310 N '%' .0-,9zt a fart , .;.f ii 'i;i - :_ r - , - , :�:.t�; �}. t r �r _T1vm Jo doi > '10 jcL 1 1,1 1 1,1 I,tj47,j Ire 4 m z O 0 010 IX3 X ............. • • 777`� ""'u- m rat C) 13dV?AVd Z IWZ—9t L S313 SA13_j dvo �3,dVN`Vid IiM G3HS1N1J-3Hd 19L 0G'C2/_'609 'J 0—,9z ,O—,9z ,O—,9z a0—,9Z .o—.9z .0-1,0C L 92266 VM IMDrmauuGPX PJDA91noj3 GibD0 /_69V 7 LOZ V Fa31C1 Iu 00W 33S '(IN3031 ONV SMON 2 0-d ' L 1301-01 1. FOR NOTES AND LEGE34D, SEE AIOO 28'--D* 28--V 26'—W 2W—V E627 Cogs Boulevard Kannsim;ck,WA 99138 P: 509.735.15d9 F: IC9.783ACM E—FINISHED WTL FS %PAPAPET CAP I I I www.mv%Wdnc.*=wmr Flo ER NVW I -511'Nl ®R IV NOTESkr JV 1. h. is rti hrf I v! Ll o� M1 Mr REA 1 M 1 DO'—W ry LEFS ---MFS "URTAN FS W&L GLAZI40 SCHEMATIC DESIGN WEST ELEVATION I/a' — V--a 02-05-2010 ARRVOL maw no am 5 24'-0- 23.-0. 12p--0w d CK LLI Jj I j Lu > La Q1ln. Ile. _j 7, 3r- Q LLI 100' A202 WALL FS CK VENEER KAM NOTED QAZlW MnM 621700A201 46 NO. -SOUTH ELEVATION ITS--- V--O 6217 0 @) O a E O I. FOR NOTES AND LETeETNO, SEE TOD1. 0 29'-0' ­0-- 2a'-0' 26'-0' 26'_0, 6697 Cage 3oulevrW P 1►A46IW-ET MECIYWGL UMRJ/ KennePr:;ck, WA 99356 S 07,35,l5d9 F: SC9.7915075 .—.melminc,c J� NOTES NE]CH SHAFT 0 Y 120' a NUT Pq 121'-0- Tp0 SAM METAL CONCRETE ECK OVER b ALL FRLOORB 114� 107'-0' 1 HR bRE 100'-0• - / SAM CONCRETE FLOOR CONCRETE FLOOR is T SCHEMATIC LZALL BMW DESIGN 02-05-2010 SECTION A ,,�• . I-0 �PPRW►l 0 0 0 0 mum 24'-0• 25'-0' DES" CmEem ELEN 3FfAFT MEC MICAL UNIT manau'm VENT J m O t, =Fr FF xAIV\1.1/-llVVVM \V-)P\j\A:1 J 4 low— LLJ z � .. tar-o• — z � m � 0 E c �� �. 3 CONCRETE FLOOR A &-FF A301 VERIFY ' W/MANUF CONCRETE 9C4.E NOTED ELEVATOR PIT tNNW 62170OA301 SECTION C 6217 NEW EXISTING i AD 0 AREA DRAN BOLLARD 5597 Gage Boulm-d OAP L CAP Karro*i"'NA 59776 o 0 CB A* CATCH BASIN CO CLEAN OUT TO GRADE F: 5W.735.159e v CONCRETE THRUST BLACK F:609.783.5075 ?� DS DOWN SPOUT +O7 DIN+O i DRiWELI_ w�melerinc com EM/GW 5 E UMTRICAL/NATURAL GAS METER A EV ❑ ELECTRICAL VAULT FDC FIRE L]EPARTLENT CONNECTION i FH FIRE HYDRANT c� FUG •O LP LIGHT POLE MH �7Qy MANHOLE ■ PED PEDESTAL @ ca PIV v POST INDICATOR VALVE f PP POWER POLE r F POWER POLE GUY • p REDUCER i SB 0 STORM BUBBLER ° w--XlSLo-"STREET LIGHT �y TRAFFIC SIGN M TRANSFORMER i WMAME�l WATER/IRRIGATON METER BV/IV oa WATER/IRRWON VALVE WORK POINT n WP 5 TREE VAM AM A PAVEMENT MARKING HANQrAP MARKING z AEAND ABANDONED 6W BOTTOM OF WALL ELEVATION C/C CENTER TO CENTER m COM COMMUNICATIONS CONT CONTINUOUS DS DOWN SPOUT EW EACH WAY (E) EXISTING FBER FIBER OPTICS LINE FF FINISH FLOOR FG FINISH GRADE FR FIRE RISER FW FIRE WATER L7. GUTTER LINE iE INVERT ELEVATION R LMDSTTON GH EMATI L5 LANDSCAPE MON MONUMENT NG NATURAL GAS DESIGN NIC NOT IN CONTRACT NTS NOT TO SCALE 02-05-2131D CHP OVERHEAD POWER P POWER POP PERFORATED DRAIN PIPE PE POLYETHYLENE PS PARE SEVIER APPRM"L R RADIUS RWL PAIN WATER LEADER cum SS SANITARY SEWER SLV PIPE SLEEVE oERM -X== SPOT ELEVATION CNELNEa SD STORM DRAIN TEL TELEPHONE TV TELEVISION T&S TOP AND BOTTOM TA TOP OF ASPHALT ELEVATION TC TOP OF CONCRETE ELEVATION Tc TOP OF GRAVEL TYP TYPICAL W ELEVATION ELEVATION 6 Q L W WATER j9 -----100---- EXISTING CONTOUR —100— NEW CONTOUR -o-x-a--+- EXISTING FENCE -+-«-» +- NEW FENCE m +•�-+-•r•4•- RQIOVE FENCE ----•--- REMOVE SURFACE FEATURE (� Q - REMOVE UNDERGROUND UTILITY c� LLI ABANDONED UNDERGROUND UTILITY EXISTING UNDERGROUND UTILITY --------- NEW UNOERGROUND UTILITY > 3 RAIL ROAD TRACKS (,� cr O ® EXISTING ASPHALT '' (W F- y EXISTING CONCRETE E,,� J �. EXISTING GRAVEL F NLIY ASPHALT r-• Z ® NEW HEAVY ASPHALT m ® NEW CONCRETE ASPHALT NEW CONCRETE O e Q W NEW GRAVEL Z NLIY LAWN t NEW LANDSCAPE RE]aOVE ASPHALT coo RE IXNE CONCRETE 1 REIXWE GRAVEL L•' -1 REMOVE LAM wmr NOTED cAOf LE 621700000, 4 GENERAL NOTES LEGEND 6217 I I I north I IY I 8697 Cage Boul.1 ^^'I I II Kannawick,YfA 99�3fi m7 7 r} �— Y 0��99yy99 � ®(E)CB �(E)SOMH �(E) F:50099.7833.50075 75 I r oil I 1 Oil ----------------_ fill (E)CB ._(E)SD0 mn (E}C9 `- (E)CB I I ------------ (E)SDMH 11 (E)LP- 1 WEST RUBY STREET �� , � � E}LP i •� tlu?� � I I G i f II MSDMH I \�\< ` P ip . + SANClf LINE 7 W SCHEMATIC (E)LF3 (E, m RE)IOVE PAINT STRIPE YACAIE PROPERTY LINE DESIGN v/ �(E)C9 YI I 4 REMOVE ASPIRAL7 AND GRAVEL EASE Q2-O5-2016 0 III( �(E)C6 T y I 1�„li = I MOVE„ate H REMOVE FMCE AND POST nvv9aA- �� I ; , ( MOMS CONCRETE CURB AND/OR SIDEWALK C � I I •„1; I I I I I I I I I I;» ' ;I � I � REMOVE AND ,tELDG7E LIGHT PoIF oEacYl &�; __ _ �__ Cr'd1�J_m1m_L-1_J—m1m_L_1—�— .G_ _ __ _ (E) li I CNECkED o - ,YP ,6 RT 5 ,,, ` ' r E TEL z I FLAG NOTES 1 1 I 6 1� R r I MAUX I I •� I I C ------------- J I cT W 4 z � a s � 3 0 a I 11 II��jj// I I � �II[ I I I 01F7.Me. I I I ta _ C01 1 — — - --------------- {E30HP -- ---------- 4NG- ••—iE^�HP�--- -------- ------EOHP y,.:., •„ - -y.i ; r .N✓i - -74'; ,. YI aD 49 68 �•3-N��.:; __—________—J�'`,.T'"s:�- I y 1. SEE L'OO� FOR GENERAL NOTES AND LEGEND. 9CAlE: NOW .. .. .. m..mm..m . ------------- l///lT7/� CNURT STREET' l/l/T---- --== ---- :: ,. ----------- �/T/lj/�l/ I CAWLE017D0000,Ift DEMOLITION PLAN - NOTES 62 7 /• �jJ �l n_ I ARpl.i[FEC7l#FlE• .IJ l31N £RINO CM i ' I I, ©I 1 north I I,� `I I 2006 IBC, CITY OF PASCO MUNICIPAL CODE. �' II 8697 Gage Boulevard ;� Kennewick, WA 99336 BASEMENT FLOOR: 9,950 SF / 500 = P: 509.735.1589 ._ I I , (E)C13 - I _ I � (E)C13 (C)SIJMH ( ) °M5 ,....•,,,.III I 1ST FLOOR: 10091 SF / 300 - 23 F: 509.783.5075 , ,rti I tl I I 2ND iFLOOR: 9,875 SF / 500 = (D www.meierinc.com I err 3RD FLOOR: 9.875 SF / 500 20 PARKING REQUIRED: n _ r = I II PARKING DESIGNATED TO NEW BUILDING: (INCLUDING 4 ADA)11 a I -- - ' PARKING DESIGNATED TO EXIST BUILDING oil — x TOTAL EXIST PARKING ON ADJACENT PROPERTY: 1 o y x — - - - - - - - - - - - - - Oil ,E)CO _(E)SDbIH I ,; PARKING COUNT ,,1(L)SDMH �« , • C� o �(E)I P O (E)LPI . Of /7 WEST RUBY STREET , I ,70 I I ICS' CD � I rn (E)CIa — - - - — 1 C IG -- rlti` I I o II �5 F SDMH Ik 1 • • / r o ' it I ASPHALT o {. \ .: i '' ,t-� I I`�•' I � CONCRETE �• 16.0 1 I p � ' 24.0' DRIVEWAY X� ,i► r -_ J/ I ,/ 8.0 ACCESSIBLE PARKING WITH SIGNS SEE DETAIL ON EET C501 R11 III/ I '` �� (' y co 4 4 W I WHEEL STOP, TYP OF 6 SEE DETAIL ON SHEET' C501 (E)LP (E)LP _ rl z I DROPPED CONCRETE WALK AND CURB THIS AREA SEE S .GTION { 07//7-777 1 ON SHEET C501 W t�' o ®(E)CB ,r �! I LOADING DOCK RAMP 34.8' REF 8.0' 8.0' 8.0' 8A' 8.0' 8.0' 'i Q I I 8 CONCRETE CURB SEE SECTION ON SHEET C501 E N CR II I CONCRETE WALL APPROVAL 0 I ° =_ I I 10 STAIRS DRAWN N 5 r /`I� I = I 1 1 DOCK DESIGN CD LO 8 �.r a ' i''``' L I _ I CHECKED 1 �1_ _ _ _ �� _ LANDSCAPE 2 LA CAPE AREA p N L.` 4 —� —°"�- `. APP / ROVED 6 REF 14.0' !✓'r' . %//F (t )TF I f f ,I Z -8 4.0 1.3 III I FLAG NOTES (E)BLDG REF � III 12 __ ► i, r U Z ll� ,(E)SSMH — — -- — — — C 7 ! I ��/ J C • �°. I t P E2 9 W .CO 1 la Cn ( J (E)BLDG �I I ° 10 T ''I I w V I I LU 2 NEW CLINICAL 1'1 EM •, ' '+ p I I @ I o SERVICES BUILDING __ __ __ .__ __ I I W U N `6 FOOTPRINT ow 10.320 SF GM I I Fes- W / III � Q 1 f I I Q J Q' CD NEW FENCE SEE SECTION 12 x f q I I = Q ov CD ON SHEET C501 12 ti I I v I I II _ N 8 I ILir I, NEW FENCE SEE SECTION IrI :7) J oI 1 ON SHEET C501 r v II 0 I c I I I p z o 12 8 . ' I FDC � I II i DWG. No. 5.0' :.. ' I I z I 12 0 12 TRAN t I II A C'1 W co 2 C 10 1 o CIM II� - 0 20 40 60 1. SEE C001 FOR GENERAL NOTES AND LEGEND. _ _ _ SCALE: NOTED pU - - - - - - - - - fI� - - - - T� �7'T� - - _ _ _ _ - _ _ - T! I /::'.T COURT STREET � ��1� 24. , r CADFILE: 6217000001 0: 2.0 JOB No. REV. SITE PLAN 1" = 20'-0 NOTES 6217 0 north n ° I' .�.1 I I 8697 Cage Boulliwrd w"1 I r Kannawick,YfA 99"a 11 �* ®(E)CE 1 lE)SDMH �(E)CB I I P: 509.736.1565 I I I I F:509.763.5075 � I j I �.+..mslsrino.com �u ry II I O i l (F)CH ,(E)SDMH (E)C3 . �(E)CB II 1 ----------- (E}SOMH 1� (� ' S toLP WEST RUBY STREET •-------- (E)CE3 ------ l� I rr(qqd II I I � �,1t r��r 4• �I it ' r/ I RELOCATED LKW POLE (E)LP CH EMATI DESIGN � a(E)ce ♦ � it � I Ds-a�zolo- II Appall II '9 '9'9 '9 I I OR►N'N OEM e e - - - - - (E) l AI d' I cPEpfED a II E TEL PED FLAG NOTES � I I I V I I 1 C Fs my FS Cumm -----_-----_--J a o F- soty BULI ING I III I m T F007MINIT M 1AM SF I I j' ail J U I I Z i r � I ail I ora.Ilo. r ^ 12 1 IEJP r I PI yyi (v-_ TI1 I ---_--°— °--_--°-- --------- --=——=—===— _ ____°------- n RD 99 ISO 1. SEE C001 FOR GENERAL NqM AND LEGEND. SCAN, NOTED s COURT STREET I C"V--0217 OM I UTILITY PLAN - �'-� NOTES 6217 A Exhibit #1 RECEIVED 3-17-10 Letter from Maurice Devers MAR 17 2Q10 NORTHSIDE MOBILE HOME PARK CMft +1rTY&ECOMUCDEVEIOPMENT 1531 N. 4th Lot #4 Pasco, WA 99301 ( 509 ) 302-1384 03-17-10 Dave McDonald Planning Commision Secretary City of Pasco 525 N. Third Ave. Regarding Special Permit for a New Health Clinic Service Building at 715 W. Court St. Pasco. WA. As a close neighbor of La Clinica Community Health Center present & future building site, we are concerned regarding traffic both foot & vehicle traffic. At present we observe that most all your parking areas are full most of the time during your regular business hours including your parking area in the chinese gardens parking lot. Regarding Employees parking area Northeast of present building which is located across the street from your present building or across street commonly known as 5th Street we observe foot traffic,J-walking to and from your employees parking lot to your main building. plus patients also J-walking across the street. We also at time have observed emergency vehicle blocking Ruby Street and 5th to enter your building. With 4th St. & Court St. being a couple of the busier Streets in Pasco and also to the population increase double to tripler in the past few years we feel there would be too much congestion in one area. From our understdndin6 of your site plan whom we discussed with Mr. Adams at City Hall on 3-15-10 we don't feel you will have adequate parking for medical personnels, employees and patients. In the past before you made more parking that you have at present, you made it very difficult for us. your patients medical personnel and and employees would park in our tenants patwking areain front of their rental. When we would contact LA Clinica by phone to get this vehicle removed the majority of the time this vehicle would not be moved until 5:00 p.m. .We would have to leave a note on vehicle if it park here that we would have it towed off our property. How frustrating it was because the vehicle we warned about being towed off wouldn' t be parked there again. but the next day there would be different vehicle parked on the same spot.whom was associated with La Clinica. Also during this period of time both sides of 5th Street from Ruby St. To Agate Stt. would have vehicles parked on both sides which made it more difficult to enter or going out the Trailer Park. We feel with the downturn of the economy and raising health costs you have a good idea to expand to whereas there is more competition in the health field which would benefit the public but irregardless we being our tenants and ourselves wish not to go back to problems of the past. Also just for information approximately 17 years ago we applied for a RMH3 permit to become a mobile & RV park and was denied by Pasco City council bec. their reason was they thought it would create to much traffic in the area of 4th & court ST. and this was before the population boom of Pasco. Sicerely Yours �Northside "Mobile Park Janet/Maurice Uevers Exhibit 2 -Aerial photos from Dave McDonald presented at the 3118/10 PH (1 of 4) r W Ccw�St - Z 411 CO(Ut St f _ r W Rub y St � •� .�� _ r ,4116A �� +r1 t-a T 1� VAes��'r s.�x►c ES 16 ►�1.�{ Lv~r Af An Exhibit 2 -Aerial photos from Dave McDonald presented at the 3118110 PH (2 of 4) T w i N 5th Ave ' ' ' N 5th Ave RPM - �: h - f Exhibit 2 -Aerial photos from Dave McDonald presented at the 3/18/10 PH (3 of 4) i S 1 - W Rub y 4 JL IBM r rte► .�..�..� r_ a _ lip.- -- - "fit♦ W Court St W Cautl St iorr [ry Bir0z;E%e rarg01r i k;rlsl� Exhibit photos fr• McDonald presented 1 of -Lro N 5th Ave N 5th Ave On r - •;•. :> REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION MASTER FILE NO: PP 10-001 APPLICANT: Farm 2005 LLC HEARING DATE: 3/ 18/10 2420 W. Court Street ACTION DATE: 4/15/10 Pasco, WA 99301 BACKGROUND REQUEST: PRELIMINARY PLAT: West Pasco Terrace, 139-Lots 1. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: Legal: The northwest 1/4 of the northeast 1/4 of Section 10, Township 9 North, Range 29 East W.M. General Location: Southeast corner of the future extension of Road 60 and Power Line Road Property Size: Approximately 40 Acres Number of Lots Proposed: 139 single-family lots Square Footage Range of Lots: 8,500 ft= to 17,723 ft= Average Lot Square Footage: 9,083 ft= 2. ACCESS: The property has access from Road 56 and Road 60. 3. UTILITIES: Municipal sewer is located along the southern portion of the proposed plat in alignment with the future extension of Three Rivers Drive. Water service will need to be extended to the site from the south and west. 4. LAND USE AND ZONING: The site is zoned R-1 (Low Density Residential) with a concomitant agreement mandating a minimum lot size of 8,500 square feet. Surrounding properties are zoned and developed as follows: NORTH: Franklin County - Ag, Farm Land SOUTH: Franklin County - R-S-20, Single Family Residences EAST: R-1 - Single Family Residences WEST R-S-1 - Farm Land 5. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The Comprehensive Plan indicates the site is intended for low density residential development. According to the Comprehensive Plan low density residential means 2 to 5 dwelling units per acre. The criteria for allocation under the future land use section of Volume II of the Comprehensive Plan (page 17) encourages development of lands designated for residential uses when or where; sewer is available, land is suitable for home sites, and when there is a market demand. Policy H-1-E encourages the advancement of home ownership I and Goal H-2 suggests the City strive to maintain a variety of Housing options for residents of the community. Goal LU-2 encourages the maintenance of established neighborhoods and the creation of new neighborhoods that are safe and enjoyable places to live. 6. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The City of Pasco is the lead agency for this project. Based on the State Environmental Policy Act checklist, the adopted City Comprehensive Plan, City development regulations, and other information, a threshold determination resulting in a Determination of Nan-Significance Has been issued for this project under WAC 197-11-158. ANALYSIS At the time the Comprehensive Plan was originally developed there was no development in the I-182 corridor, except for the Desert Plateau/Riverview Heights neighborhood. The plan envisioned development would occur radially from the major interchange nodes of Road 68 and Road 100 and fill back toward the main part of the city. Through the implementation of land use regulations, development is expanding as planned from the interchange nodes. The proposed plat is a continuation of the current subdivision development that Has been occurring east of Convention Drive. The City's land use plans for the last 25 ,years Have indicated the property in question should be utilized for low-density residential development. Following the direction of the land use plan most of the community's low density residential development over the last two decades has occurred in the I-182 corridor. The property in question was annexed to the City in 2006 and recently rezoned R-1(Low Density Residential) with a concomitant agreement setting the minimum lot size at 8,500 square feet. The applicant is proposing to subdivide the site into 139 single-family lots. The proposal calls for the development of single-family lots that are similar in size to the subdivision to the west and similar to lots in the Sunny Meadows and Village at Pasco Heights. LOT LAYOUT: The proposed plat contains 139 lots; with the lots varying ui size from 8,500 square feet to over 17,000 square feet consistent with the rezone that was approved by the City Council in February of this ,year. RIGHTS-OF-WAY: All lots Have adequate frontage on streets that will be dedicated. The Comprehensive Plan calls for a collector street (Road 60) along 2 the western border of the site and an arterial street (Power Line Road) along the northern border of the site. UTILITIES: The developer will be responsible for extending the water lines, sewer lines and other utilities into the plat. A utility easement will be needed along the first 10 to 15 feet of street frontage of all lots. The final location and width of the easements will be determined during the engineering design phase. The front ,yard setbacks for construction purposes are larger than the requested easements; therefore the front ,yard easements will not encroach upon the buildable portions of the lots. The City Engineer will determine the specific placement of fire hydrants and streetlights when construction plans are submitted. As a general rule, fire hydrants are located at street intersections and at a maximum of 600-foot intervals and streetlights are located at street intersections and at 300-foot intervals on residential streets and 150-foot intervals on all others. STREET NAMES: The street names have not been selected ,yet. The Three Rivers development to the west is using northwest geographical names as a theme. IRRIGATION: The municipal code requires the installation of irrigation lines as a Part of infrastructure improvements. WATER RIGHTS: The assignment of water rights is a requirement for subdivision approval. Water rights have not ,yet been assigned to the City. FINDINGS OF FACT State law (RCW 58.17.010) and the Pasco Municipal Code require the Planning Commission to develop Findings of Fact as to how this proposed subdivision will protect and enhance the health, safety and general welfare of the community. The following is a listing of proposed "Findings of Fact" per RCW 58.17: 1) Prevent Overcrowding: Minimum lot sizes of 8,500 square feet or greater will address the overcrowding concern by providing manageable lots and usable open spaces. The Comprehensive Plan suggests the property in question be developed with 2 to 5 dwelling units per acre. The proposed plat has a density of about 3.5 units per acre. No more than 40 percent of each lot can be covered with structures per R-1 zoning standards. 2) Parks Opens Space/Schools: A future 5-acre park site is located at the southwest corner of Road 60 and Three Rivers Drive. The preliminary plat was submitted to the School District for review. No comments were received from 3 the School District. The School District has purchased an 8-acre site for an elementary school at the northwest corner of Road 60 and Sandifur Parkway. The elementary school site is currently being reviewed by the Planning Commission under the special permit process. The School District has also purchased a 40-acre middle school site at the north end of Road 52 directly east of the site in question. 3) Effective Land Use/Orderly Development: The plat is laid out for low density residential development as identified in the Comprehensive Plan. The maximum density permitted under the Comprehensive Plan is 5 dwelling units per acre. The proposed development with about 3.5 dwelling units per acre, is an orderly continuation of the existing residential subdivisions to the west. 4) Safe Travel & Walking Conditions: The plat provides connections to the community by way of Road 60, Three Rivers Drive, Road 56 and Power Line Road. Sidewalks will be installed throughout the development. Sidewalks are installed at the time homes are built on individual lots. Sidewalks along arterial or collector streets are built in conjunction with the street by the developer. The Comprehensive Plan indicates a major north/south collector street (Road 60) is to be located in the western boundary of the proposed development. The Plan also indicates a major east/west arterial (Power Line Road) is to be located along the northern edge of the proposed plat. The developer will be responsible for constructing a portion of these major roadways. To assist in the construction of area wide transportation improvements the City has been assessing traffic impact fees on all new development to finance transportation related improvements in the I-182 Corridor Area. The I-182 Sub-Area Transportation Plan was reviewed and updated in 2008-2009. As a result of the review, traffic impact fees were updated in January of 2009. Single-Family residential traffic impact fees are now $709 per single-family dwelling unit. Funds collected through impact fees, including those from the proposed plat, will be used for improvements identified in the Sub-Area Transportation Plan. 5) Adequate Provision of Municipal Services: All lots within the plat will be provided with water, sewer and other utilities. 6) Provision of Housing for State Residents: This preliminary plat will provide 139 lots to provide a variety of housing types and densities for Pasco residents. 7] Adequate Air and Light: The lot sizes and maximum lot coverage limitations will assure that adequate movement of air and light is available to each lot. 4 8) Proper Access & Travel: The access streets to and through the plat will be paved and developed to City standards to assure that proper access is maintained to each lot. Connections to the community will be provided by Road 56, Road 60, Three Rivers Drive and Power Line Road. The preliminary plat was submitted to the Transit Authority for review. (The discussion under "Safe Travel" above applies to this section also.) 9) Comprehensive Plan Policies & Maps: The Comprehensive Plan designates the plat site for Low-Density Residential development. Policies of the Comprehensive Plan encourage the advancement of home ownership and suggest the City strive to maintain a variety of housing for residents. Other Findings: (list additional findings as appropriate) (1) The site is within the Pasco Urban Growth Boundary. (2) The State Growth Management Act requires urban growth and urban densities to occur within the Urban Growth Boundaries. (3) Prior Comprehensive Plans for the past 2 decades have set the site aside for low density residential development. (4) Low density development is described in the Comprehensive Plan as 2 to 5 dwelling units per acre. (5) The site is zoned R-1 (Low Density Residential) with a concomitant agreement permitting minimum lot sizes of 8,500 square feet. (6) The land use allocation table (Land Use Section, p. 17, Vol. II) of the Comprehensive Plan encourages development of lands designated for low density residential uses when sewer is available, when there is market demand and where land is suitable for home sites. (7) The Housing Element of the Comprehensive Plan encourages the advancement of programs that encourage home ownership and development of a variety of residential densities and housing types. (8) The Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan encourages the interconnection of neighborhood streets to provide for the disbursement of traffic. (9) The interconnection of neighborhood streets is necessary for utility connections (looping) and the provision of emergency services. (10) The Pasco I-182 Corridor Sub-Area Transportation Plan and the Highway Capacity Manual indicate there is capacity in the current street network to absorb traffic from the proposed site if developed with homes. (11) The traffic improvements recommended in the Traffic Impact Analysis have been completed or will be completed in 2010. (12) The School District has purchased sites for future schools at the northwest corner of Road 60 and Sandifur Parkway (elementary school) and at the end of Road 52 (middle school). 5 (13) The Three Rivers Crossing subdivision is being developed directly to the west of the site in question. (14) A water line is now located at the north end of Road 56. (15) A new sewer line has been installed through the southern portion of the site from the Three Rivers Crossing subdivision to the west. CONCLUSIONS BASED ON INITIAL STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT Before recommending approval or denial of the proposed plat the Planning Commission must develop findings of fact from which to draw its conclusion (P.M.C. 26.24.070) therefrom as to whether or not: (1) Adequate provisions are mane for- the public hearth, safety and general welfare and for open spaces, drainage ruays, streets, alleys, other- public ruays, ruater- supplies, sanitary xuastes, parks, playgrounds, transit stops, schools and school grounds, sidewalks for safe rualking conditions for students anti otherpublic needs; The proposed plat will be required to develop under the standards of the Municipal Code and the standard specifications of the City Engineering Department. These standards for streets, sidewalks and other infrastructure improvements were designed to ensure the public health; safety and general welfare of the community are secured. These standards include provisions for streets, drainage, water and sewer service and the provision for dedication of park lands. This preliminary plat has been forwarded to the Franklin County PUD, the Pasco School District and Ben-Franklin Transit Authority for review and comment. A 5-acre park site is located on Road 60 directly west of the proposed plat. Two new school sites are located to the north on Road 60 and Road 52. (2) The proposed subdivision contributes to the orderly development and land use patterns in the area; The proposed plat makes efficient use of vacant land and will provide for the looping of utilities and interconnectivity of streets as supported in the Comprehensive Plan. (3) The proposed subdivision conforms to the policies, maps and narrative text of the Comprehensive plan; The Comprehensive Plan land use map designates the site for low-density residential development. Low-density development is described as 2 to 5 single-family units per acre in the text of the Comprehensive Plan. The Housing Element of the Plan encourages the promotion of a variety of residential densities and suggests the community should support the 6 advancement of programs encouraging Home ownership. The Transportation Element of the Plan suggests major streets should be beautified with trees and landscaping. The Plan also encourages the interconnection of local streets for inter-neighborhood travel for public safety as well as providing for traffic disbursement. (4) The proposed subdivision conforms to the general purposes of any applicable policies or plans which have been adopted by the City Cou ncil; Development plans and policies have been adopted by the City Council in the form of the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed subdivision conforms to the policies, maps and narrative text of the Plan as noted above in (3). (5) The proposed subdivision conforms to the general purposes of the su bdivisio n regu la do ns. The general purposes of the subdivisions' regulations have been enumerated and discussed in the staff analysis and findings of fact. The findings of fact indicate the subdivision is in conformance with the general purposes of the subdivision regulations. (6) The public use and interest tuill be served by approval of the proposed subdivision. The proposed plat, if approved, will be developed in accordance with all City standards designed to insure the health, safety and welfare of the community are met. The Comprehensive Plan will be implemented through development of this plat. These factors will insure the public use and interest are served. PLAT APPROVAL CONDITIONS 1) Lots abutting Road 60 and Power Line Road shall not have direct access to said streets. Access shall be prohibited by means of deed restrictions or statements on the face of the final plat(s). 2) The developer/builder shall pay the "traffic mitigation fee" established by ordinance at the time of issuance of building permits for homes. Fees collected shall be placed in a fund and used to finance signalization and other improvements necessary to mitigate traffic impacts on the circulation system within the I-182 corridor. 3) The developer shall install a common "Estate Type" fence 6 feet in height adjacent the rear line of all lots backing on Road 60 and Power Line Road as a part of the infrastructure improvements associated with each phase abutting said streets. The fence must be constructed of masonry block. A fencing detail must be included on the subdivision construction drawings. Consideration must be given to the vision triangle at the intersection of streets. The City may make repairs or replace the fencing as needed. Property owners adjoining said fence shall be responsible for payment of all costs associated with fence maintenance and upkeep. These fencing requirements shall be noted clearly on the face of the final plat(s). A concrete mow strip shall be installed under or beside any common fence when directed by the Parks Division and shall be approved by the Parks Division prior to installation. 4) All corner lots and other lots that present difficulties for the placement of ,yard fencing shall be identified in the notes on the face of the final plat(s). 5) No utility vaults, pedestals or other obstructions will be allowed at street intersections. 6) Excess right-of-way along Road 60 and Power Line Road must be landscaped. Said landscaping shall include irrigation, turf and trees. Trees shall be planted at 50-foot intervals. The species of the trees will be determined by the Parks Department. All landscaping and irrigation plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Parks Department prior to installation. Water usage for City right-of-way landscaping shall come from a source as approved by the City with the connection and meter fees paid for by the developer. 7) The developer/builder shall pay the City a "common area maintenance fee" of $465 per lot upon issuance of building permits for homes. These funds shall be placed in a fund and used to finance the maintenance of lands along Road 60 and Power Line Road. The City shall not accept maintenance responsibility for the landscaping abutting said streets until such time as all fees are collected for each phase abutting said streets. S) All storm water is to be disposed of per City and State Codes and requirements. Storm water retention for the subdivision shall utilize a storm pond system. Storm water retention for Road 60 and Power Line Road may be by means of exfiltration trenches. A storm water plan is required to be submitted and approved (PMC 26.24.40). Due to storm water runoff concerns, all lots abutting the bottom of a hillside shall be raised a minimum of 2 feet above the curb line to protect from runoff overflow. 9) The developer shall insure active and ongoing dust, weed and litter abatement activities occur during the construction of the subdivision and construction of the houses thereon. 10) The developer shall prepare a weed, dust and erosion control plan to be approved by the Community and Economic Development Director prior to approval of any construction drawings for the first phase of the subdivision. The plan may include the use of an irrigated cover crop (not to include row crops) on portions of the site not being developed. The 8 subdivision shall be developed in such a manner as to ensure that a maximum area of the site is covered with a cover crop. 11) The developer shall be responsible for the creation of record drawings. All record drawings shall be created in accordance with the requirements detailed in the Record Drawing Requirements and Procedure form provided by the City Engineering Department. This form shall be signed by the developer prior to plan approval. 12) Plat phasing shall follow the phasing order as submitted with the preliminary plat application. 13) At the time each phase is developed, all roads and utilities contained therein shall be developed to City standards or as approved by the City Engineer. This includes, but is not limited to, water, irrigation and sewer lines, streets, storm water, fire hydrants and streetlights. Sidewalks must be installed no later than the time each lot is developed with a house. All pedestrian ramps and the sidewalks on Road 60 and Power Line Road must be completed with the street and curb improvements prior to final plat approval for phases abutting said streets. Water utility improvements shall include necessary pressure reducing valves and utility extensions/looping as approved by the City Engineer. 14) Road 60 must be completed from Power Line Road to Sandifur Parkway with each phase the firs phase of developmer�;.: Curb returns shall be constructed on Road 60 for the connections to Sandifur Parkway, Power Line Road, Three Rivers Crossing and Overton Road. The curb returns on Sandifur Parinvay and Power Line Road shall have a radius of 55 feet. Overton Road and Three Rivers Crossing curb returns shall have a radius of 35 feet. Road 60 must have 40 feet of right-of-way dedicated on the developer's property to accommodate a future right-of-way of 80 feet. Additional right-of-way on adjoining property will be required to accommodate the 4 feet of paving required to the east of the future centerline of Road 60. The pavement width must be 28 feet (24 feet on the developer's property and 4 feet east of the future centerline of Road 60 on the adjoining property) for a total future pavement width of 48 feet. The paving section must consist of a 4 inch asphalt layer placed on a 2 inch top course with an 8 inch base course. The developer must install curb, gutter and a 5 foot wide sidewalk and pedestrian ramps on the developer's property down the east side of Road 60 along with the street improvements. The developer shall install curb and gutter to Sandifur Parkway on the east side of Road 60. All required fire hydrants, street lighting and storm drain facilities must be installed along with the street improvements. The developer must also install a 12 inch irrigation main line in Road 60 in conjunction with the roadway improvements. The location and material for the pipe will be as directed by the City Engineer. 9 15) Power Line Road must be completed with each phase of development abutting said street. Power Line Road must have 40 feet of right-of-way dedicated on the developer's property to accommodate a future right-of- way of 80 feet. Additional right-of-way on adjoining property will be required to accommodate the 4 feet of paving required to the north of the future centerline of Power Line Road. The curve radius for the right-of- way at all intersections with Power Line Road must be 45 feet with the exception of the intersection with Road 60 which must be 55 feet. Power Line Road must be built to a 28 feet pavement width (24 feet on the developer's property and 4 feet north of the future centerline of Power Line Road on the adjoining property. The pavement section for Power Line Road must consist of a 4 inch pavement layer placed on a 2 inch top course with an 8 inch base course. The developer must install curb, gutter and a 5 foot wide sidewalk along the south side of Power Line Road as part of the roadway improvements. All required fire hydrants, street lighting and storm drain facilities must be installed by the developer along the south side of Power Line Road. The developer must also install a 16 inch irrigation main line in Power Line Road as part of the roadway improvements. The location and material for the pipe will be as directed by the City Engineer. 16) Street grades for all arterial and collector roads shall not exceed 6%. Interior local access street grades shall not exceed 10%. Approaches to intersecting interior streets shall not exceed 2% and any street intersecting an arterial or collector street shall be 0% coming out of the toe of the slope. All temporary streets will be required to have a paved turn around (2" paved surface on 2" of top course and 4" of base course) at the end of the street to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 17) All water lines must be extended through the length of each proposed plat. No phase can be left for more than 6 months without the subsequent looping of each system with the existing City of Pasco water system. The developer will be required to deposit funds for any non- looped system left longer than 6 months with the City of Pasco to insure the completion of the water system. No water valves/meter boxes are to be located in any easement/walkways. 18) Irrigation mainlines shall be installed throughout the entire plat of a size sufficient to service every lot within the plat pursuant to PMC 26.04.116. All easements/rights of way necessary to convey an irrigation system to and through the plat must be conveyed to the City of Pasco. A 12" irrigation mainline shall be extended from Sandifur Parkway to Power Line Road (it is 10" on the 3-Rivers side an it be shared with Hayden—Hayden does north of 5 rivers and Olin sloes south). 19) Any existing irrigation pipe from the previous farming activities on the site, regardless of size, type or location, must be removed at the owner/developers expense. Existing pipe must be removed prior to the 10 development of the please in which it is located and must be removed to the satisfaction of the City of Pasco. 20) Any and all utilities shall be located as directed by the City Engineer. This shall include, but is not limited to, gas, phone, power, cable and all other utilities located within or adjoining the plat. Any existing utilities that present difficulties shall be relocated at the developer's expense, pursuant to the City Engineer's direction. All utility plans, including the above mentioned, are required to be submitted to the City of Pasco prior to subdivision approval. 21) The developer shall be responsible for all costs associated with construction inspection and plan review service expenses incurred by the City of Pasco Engineering Department. 22) All engineering designs for infrastructure and final plat drawings shall utilize the published City of Pasco Vertical Control Datum and shall be identified on each such submittal. 23) The final plat shall contain 10-foot utility easements parallel to all streets. An additional easement shall be provided as needed by the Franklin County PUD. All other easement widths are to be as directed by the City Engineer. 24) The final plat shall contain the following Franklin County Public Utility District statement: "The individual or company making improvements on a lot or lots of this plat is responsible for providing and installing all trench, conduit, primary vaults, secondary junction boxes, and backfill for the PUD's primary and secondary distribution system in accordance with PUD specifications; said individual or company will make full advance payment of line extension fees and will provide all necessary utility easements prior to PUD construction and/or connection of any electrical service to or within the plat." 25) Water rights shall be assigned to the City of Pasco prior to acceptance of any subdivision construction plans. 26) Street lighting will be installed to the City of Pasco/Franklin County PUD standards and as directed by the City Engineer. Residential street lights are typically installed every 300 feet and collector/arterial type street lights are typically installed every 150 feet. 27) Prior to the City Pasco accepting construction plans for review for any phase of development the developer must enter into a Storm Water Maintenance Agreement with the City. The developer will be responsible to obtain the signatures of all parties required on the agreement and to have the agreement recorded with the Franklin County Auditor. The original signed and recorded copy of the agreement must be presented to the City at the first intake meeting for construction plans for each phase of development. 28) The developer will be required to conform to all conditions set forth in the Storm Water Maintenance Agreement including, but not limited to, Ii regular cleaning and maintenance of all streets, gutters, catch basins and catch basin protection systems. Cleaning shall occur on a regular basis to ensure that no excess build up of sand, trash, grass clippings, weeds or other debris occurs in any portion of the streets, gutters, or storm water collection facilities. Cleaning and upkeep of the streets, gutters, and storm water collection facilities must be to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. The developer will be responsible to operate and maintain the storm drain system in accordance with the Storm Water Maintenance Agreement for a period of up to 5 ,years from the date of final plat approval for each phase or until the system is accepted by the City. The City of Pasco's acceptance of construction plans for subsequent phases of the subdivision will be contingent on the developer satisfying all requirements of the Storm Water Maintenance Agreement. 29) The developer will be required to comply with the City of Pasco Civil Plan Review process. A copy of the requirements for the civil plan review process is available from the City of Pasco Engineering Department. 30) A revised Preliminary Plat incorporating all plat approval conditions shall be submitted to the City of Pasco Engineering Department prior to the submittal of any subdivision construction plans. RECOMMENDATION MOTION for Findings of Fact: I move to adopt findings of fact and conclusions as contained in the April 15, 2010 staff report. MOTION for Recommendation: I move based on the findings of fact and conclusions, as adopted, that the Planning Commission recommend City Council approve a preliminary plat for West Pasco Terrace with the conditions as listed in the April 15, 2010 staff report. 12 Item: Prelim . West Pasco Tefface Over"*e Map w Applicant: Farm 2 File #: PP 10-00 1 Z�4 �G r �.- -i lu M� •:'• iii".^"r 7_. � ` r'R--t�.r-.3 �.�yl�p 9 i•---_ • ns , � _ i Al, ryc, 44 y � � anti wt a ' • �r � � 1i�re^"���� ♦r�� lf^�� i � r� r �r � a► 19�� � �-i �1)1'..r`.+�1 ed�� �IIi1 - . --��� ��+dir ilTirrll i+i! iiRir �>+M��iK,11 • r. �� �i � - • * - fl ' � ids its a __ i' ie u n ar>! as �• '`_ ■i l�±a� ►�/ elf itt■ Kv a4 tnii �+,�+ y� '' s �w ■iMYRt+i/j _- Vt r a r it . ...•.• . ����. .�.., „ w � ..� 11111/ ��' �'. !11 " � �. ., •�i. ,�* ''-�.. t,, � �y s _ vsy ttr ■e alit- now s ■■ "9 rI s - - a •ie JI'I�N>rW11� R ' R RI fT I .rrw ."�i.r y • _n � ��: FF� : ii +�d:n� . e!+in�tr•� 'r • 1/11•/ 1�1 ' r - R`J` s I s R.:, 4 - i!i •- i::1RRlYRM/ ia' ,�� i _. iir-/ �i(rs1l �s '+�+v�'. �� �yt::�1�1111/', � ' PJifESr�f�� �d1 _ • i �'� rt� iitRMi tiai' v' i. .,Yfi ♦: '•e v:.t�C.tk: ' Ik r wJl �; -. ' .a, r nor .. lot + �tt �►,� - _* �, �► !" S 1 �is+'��r aW � i••,, Q � r' JL1 twill•-: ' � ! Q, iiI ira ,. 1tiitlGc�fslaf f s` 3. #c ■ 'tn -rF�� diC if• ^� �r V � - I � / i� .►i1 S• ,,/a�i�� 'O ^�� �r . '7`S _ 4 ��� y �i�c� a .It J t ' i� :ii � ai sa�ih%4►i is � :k it•y I� v ..•y � Wf�i!^�° � .�-���,�: $.t._ '�U4"r �1 -Z .,Y F'r•R t s _• r 7 ,I� d - � v tv p• sue' � ,� r � w �r v~,,� • }..Y-.ra L. „�� �3ii b:� ,�r.O:s$I�y S: :af A•f�i - rr 'i# � r i �M�r dST ►��^:�� _� a_4u Y jlol i;" 6 DC _�t+i�'� viii � Kk' ,:a' .:�•' / %: i}i � . s i � .� ariryni'�t �. •� � � � ai�.�� s.• I/Iii h r P�.r l in IN All _-. \\ �\ 1 '! :.�ir• �� -'� �� ■ ,. ..:as�ii�.�'a-��t j r • +►�•��ittt +a ��f��� �� Vicinity Item: Prelim Plat Map Applicant: Fe 2005 File #: PP 10-00 1 bob- ..,. y .s �w�ww��wwwwww �,,q. LIMA. 1111,10011. .Is11\\ \ , Sligg i��\\, �\ \.s\§11 M � F \.\an NO S NO Sh'EN§ R\ \N gNg SMOW - Aim - _ �. Land Item: Prelim Pasco Terrace Use Applicant: Map . . 10-00 1 Farming (County) §3 1 121 4§01, R"t�11105 RMN INN I NQ li ■■err N. \I� \\ Rk NOIL SFDU 'S (County) sr�rrr�rt` ►psi �,�.,,�.����•���.��, ■ irk ■ris�ison ■1►� ME Item.: Prelim Plat - West Pasco Terrace Zon'ng Applicant: Farm 200 Map File #: PP 10-00 1 INNINNIN NS N,NN bb ice \ Nov, WAR\ \� SL& \ Its ex;��\� ION MEN MEN ■��r� SITE WEST PASCO TERRACE PRELIMINARY PLAT ARM H MIMMIJ RE*EN BIN GCRI N13 8697 Gage Boulevard Kennewick, WA 99336 (o SANDIEU PARKWAY P: 509.735.1589 "' F: 509.783.5075 Of LO a � z www.meierinc.corn o! o a z a 0 \11C z BURDEN BOULEVARD w 0 �f# ■■■■f■■fr* ■�H■ ■f■#■#ifN■ �N■i ■■�■�H■N�■#■��■■■��H■H �■�si■N — . , _ . . — . . — . . _ z 2 I ■N■ ■i#�H■� ■�■#**■#�■■�■aHw�#■ : POWERLINE ROAD a aQ� tc�G�p 45tyc,��G �' Z■�■■■=■■■�i■�p I I I I '�I I,`I I� I(I 0■ I I I 1 I I I`'`I I I 4' I I Q�P c� . 2g I I I I 27 I I t I I,I t I I r y I I l 1 2 6 iI Q�2P5 �I■ I y i I I I t I t I I I ~ t!I I I I 24■ 36 35 34 33 32 31 30 29 I l 37 STR I VICINITY MAP 38 106 107 128 129 I 84 85 22 62 63 I �■■■i ii� 1 OWNER: CHERYL L BURG 39 127 130 2420 W COURT ST 1 61 I 83 86 105 108 21 PASCO, WA 99301 64 (509) 547-0416 2 k a z�d Z APPLICANT 40 104 109 126 131 20 FARM 2005, LLC 60 65 82 87 ATTN: THOMAS KIDWELL -4 °Tj�.2420 w COURT ST PASCO, WA 99301 41 125 1 132 I 19 PHONE: (509) 521-8400 I 59 81 ■ 103 J 110 1 ti6 66 PLAT INFORMATION: 44 am3,(L 13 TOTAL AREA: 41.97 ACRES 42 I 0` TOTAL RIGHT-OF-WAY AREA: 10.24 ACRES OVA 124 133 1 8 TOTAL LOT COUNT: 139 58 67 80 89 102 MINIMUM LOT SIZE: 8,500 SOFT I y MAXI MUM LOT SIZE: 17,723 SOFT ..■■■■■ ■■ ■ AVERAGE LOT SIZE: 9,083 SQFT APPROVAL MENEM 43 1 57 123 134 17 BENCH MARK: DRAWN JEP 2r'G f z x 1 8/10 � 68 79 90 I � 101 112 I � DESIGN JEP 2/18/10 qc\5 I I MONUMENT IN ROAD 68 AND SANDIFUR PARKWAY, 3" BRASS CAP ELATION: 502.21 CHECKED PTK 2/19/10 101, 44 I I 16 APPROVED PTK 2/1 9/10 56 100 1 113 122 135 69 78 91 , I Lj 45 Ln Q 55 121 136 15 I �a�, ��■'a I I l j I I ■ 77 92 �I 99 114 I� ( I I I OC �-o 70 NOTES C) o 46 co o I r 111111111 14 W 54 137 0 ` 98 76 93 I NEW EXISTING C CAP C CAP E 47 71 1-� I I I ' MO CB ® 3 CATCH BASIN � ! I r ' 13 • CO o CLEAN OUT TO GRADE � LLJ o I I 53 I 119 138 1 V CONCRETE THRUST BLOCK - i W v � i 16 � --- 0 97 CD ■ r 72 75 94 I FH FIRE HYDRANT ■ r i ' I ■ I I i'^� MANHOLE p ■ 48 I I I I ,O,j MH `U� 0 0 � 1 r 52 I t ' I 118 139 I 12 � WV IV D4 WATER IRRIGATION VALVE 95 96 117 WP WORK POINT N � 73 74 (E) EXISTING( C�-J- 49 I ■�■i* FW FIRE WATER +� 1 r % ■i ■.,■ GL GUTTER LINE L 51 •+�'� t �'■ ' ` THREE RIVERS DRIVE IE INVERT ELEVATION IR IRRIGATION V) w t ,. -�-� `� "' - - — NTS NOT TO SCALE LLJ Cf) a 50 /r — 10 11 PRP RADIUS DRAIN PIPE � � Q ■ I i 2 3 4 5 6 ,� 7 $ SS SANITARY SEWER i I SLV PIPE SLEEVE �. °� ■ - -- r 1p. �' _ — e4'A �--XXX.XX SPOT ELEVATION ■ ■ .t . . . SO STORM DRAIN -- _ r ■ TA TOP OF ASPHALT ELEVATION WON TC TOP OF CONCRETE ELEVATION L-1 I = north TG TOP OF GRAVEL ELEVATION �' TW TOP OF WALL ELEVATION ■ i LOT 1 LOT 1 LOT 4 LOT 1 I CC LOT 1 TYP TYPICAL CD ■ , 1 O 0 80 160 240 W WATER DWG. No. ■ 1 i I I ' I . 3 -----1 QO---- EXISTING CONTOUR CbV I CJV cp SQ 100 NEW CONTOUR ■ ■ p'�. I y� �� � I tf) �� —xxxx— EXISTING FENCE x—x—x—x— NEW FENCE C 1 01 o y� — — — J --- -- --- EXISTING UNDERGROUND UTILITY ■+ LOT 2 LOT 3 LOT 2 , O LOT 2 NEW UNDERGROUND UTILITY SCALE- 1"-801 � ' I CAD FI LE: 626200C101 JOB No. REV. PRELIMINARY PLAT LAYOUT 1- = 80--©„ I LEGEND 6262 A Exhibit 1 - Resolution 3124 (#16) presented by John Fetterhoff RESOLUTION N0.JL2-q A RESOLUTION approving a planned density dcvelopinent preliminary plat for Three Rivers Crossing division 11. WHEREAS, RCW 58.17 enables the City to uniformly administer the process of .,uMividing property for the overall welfare of the community; and, WHEREAS, owners and developers of property situated in southwest quarter of Section 10, Township 9 North, Range 29 East, W.M. have requested approval of a preliminary plat;and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed said preliminary plat which is named Three Rivers Crossing division Il;and WHEREAS, following a public hearing, the Planning Cu€€see€€€--sioii fouad Vic proposcxl plat promoted the general welfare of the community and recommended said preliminary plat bC appmvcd with conditions;NOW THEREFORE, BE IT I SOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASCO: That the preliminary plat for Three Rivers Crossing Division II located in the North half of Section 10, Township 9 forth, Range 29 East, W.M., is hereby approved with the following conditions; 1) At the time lots are developed, all abutting roads and utilities shall be developed to City standards as approved by the City Engineer. This includes, but is not limited to, water, irrigation and server lines, streets, street lights, and storm water retention. Sidewalks must be installed no later than the time each lot is developed with a house, The handicapper) accessible pedestrian ramps must be completed with the street and curb improvements prior to final plat approval. All existing and proposed utilities must be installed underground by the developer at the developer's expense. 2) All intersections will require setback lines for appropriate sight distances.1\To fences, utility vaults or pedestals,or other obstructions will be allowed in this area. 3) The developer/builder shall pay the City a"traffic mitigation fee" per the Municipal Code. 4) The developer shall install a common Estate type fence/wall b feet in height along the rear line of all lots abutting Read 60, Power Line Road and Convention Drive. Said wall must match the existing block wall in Phase 5 of Three Rivers Crossing, The City may make repairs or replace the fencing as needed. Property owners adjoining said fencelA.vall shall be responsible for payment of all costs as k)ciated with mainteamce and upkeep of the fencinglwall. These fencingfivall requirements shall be noted clearly on the face of the final plat(s). S) Tho developer shall be responsible for all costs associated with cons:ruction inspections and plan review service expenses incurred by the City of Pasco Engineering Department. 6) The developer Will be required to provide a deposit to the City of Pasch to allow the City of Pasco to hire a surveying company to perform topographic surveys of the constructed utilities including manhole lids and flow line elevations,location of sewer stubs, water valves, water Ineters, inigation valves, irrigation services, storm water catch basins, street lights, flac Hydrants, :monuments and other pertinent information deemed necessary, to the satisfaction of the City of Pasco. The developers will be required to provide: as-built drawings for the remainder of the improvements. 'the City of Pasco contracted surveyor will he given an clectronic copy of the design drawings to then insert their findirpg from the topographic survey. 7) '/'lie devOoper shall ensure active and ongoing dust and litter abatement activities occur dozing the construction of the subdivision and construction of the houses thereon. 8) The final plat shall contain 10 to 15 foot utility easements parallel to all streets as required by uttlity providers. 9) All engineering designs for infrastructure and final plat drawings shall utilize the published City of Pasco Veriical Control Datum. Said datum shall be identified on the drawings for each submittal. ltl) The final plat shall contain the following Franklin County Public Utility District statement: "nie individual or company making i provernents on a lot or tots of this plat is msponsibk for providing and installing all trench, conduit, primary vaults, secondary junction boxes, and backfill for the PUD's primary and secondary distribution system in accordance with PUD specifications; said individual or company will make full advance paynent of line extensiurt fees and will provide ail necessary utility easeraeuts prior to PUD construction and/or connection of any electrical service to or within the plat" l I) All corner lots and other lots that present difficulties for the placement of yard fencing shall be identified by lot number in the notes on the face of the final plat(s). 12) All storm water must be disposed of through means approved by the City of Pasco. All methods utilized to capture And dispose of storm water must be in aceordnnae with current City Codes and Standard Specifications, and applicable Washington State Law, 13) The developer shall be responsible for installing landscaping in the unimproved right- of-way on Road 64, Convention Drive, and Power Line Road. This landscaping %ill consist of lawn and Spring Snow Crab apple trees or approved equal. The trees shall be,Taced at 50-four.intem-aJs. No trees will he planted within 25 feet of a street light. The landscaping must include an irrigation system. All landscape plays shall be reviewed and approved by the Engineering and Community and Administra,ive Services Departments prior to installation. -5 14) Lots abutting Road 60, Convention Drive and Power Line Road shall not have direct access to those streets. Access shall be prohibited by means of deed restrictions or statements on the fact of the final plat(s). 15) The developer/builder shall pay the City a "common area maintenance fee" of$375 per lot upon issuance of building permits for homes. These funds shall be placed in a fund and used to for the maintenance of the landscaping along Convention Drive, Power Line Road and Road 60. The City shall accept maintenance responsibility for the landscaping abutting said streets at such time as all maintenance fees for all lots in each division abutting said streets have been paid. Irrigation mainlines must be installed throughout the entire proposed plat of a size sufticicnt to service each and every currently proposed/future lot pursuant to PMC 'THR��- RtvCeS 26.04,116. Additional mainlines, as directed by the City Engineer may be required to be installed. The developer must install a properly designcd irrigation system with COPIQN(2 Dw v- stubs to all lots in the subdivision for future irrigation needs. All easementshights of 3124 way necessary to convey an irrigation system to and through the proposed plat must �� 1?A be conveyed to the City of Pasco. The irrigation lines shall tun in casements/rights of way as directed by the City Engineer. In addition to the subdivision improvements, a 16 inch irrigation mainline must be installed along with the street improvements for Power Line Road, a 12 inch mainline must be installed in conjunction with the street improvement for Convention Drive and a 10 inch mainline must be installed in conjunction with the street improvements for Road 60. 17) The assignment of water rights associated with this land is a requirement for subdivision approval. If no water rights are available to transfer to the City the property owner/developer must pay a water right fee of$1,500 per acre in lieu thereof. The Public Works Director may waive the fee if the developer mixes a soil additive in the ground that provides 30%retention of irrigation water. 18) All streets are to be developed to City Standards and/or as directed by the City Engineer. Street grades for all arterial and collector roads shall not exceed 6 percent, Interior local access street grades shall not exceed 10 percent. All intersections will require setback lines for appropriate sight distances. No fences, utility vaults or pedestals, or other obstructions will be allowed in this area. Approaches to intersecting interior streets shall not exceed 2 percent and any street intersecting an arterial or collector street shall be zero (0) percent coming out of the toe of the arterial/collector street slope. All temporary streets will be required to have a paved turn around (2 inch pavement on 4 inches of rock base) at the end of the street to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 19) Convention Drive must be completed in conjunction with the first phase of development. Convention Drive must have 40 feet of right of way dedicated on the developer's property to accommodate a future right of way of 80 feet. Additional right of way on adjoining property will be required to accommodate the 4 feet of paving required to the west of the centerline of Convention Drive. The curve radius for the right of way at the intersection of Convention drive with Power Line Road must be 55 feet. Convention Drive must be built to a 28 feet pavement width (24 feet on the developers property and 4 feet west of the centerline of Convention Drive on the adjoining property) to accommodate a future width of 48 feet. The pavement section for Convention Drive crust be a 4 inch asphalt layer placed oil a 2 inch top cc,urse rack with an 8 inch base course rock. The developer must construct curb,gutter and a 5 feet wide sidewalk: along tho east side of convention drive as part of the roadway improvements. All required fire hydrants and struc t.lighting must be installed by the developer along the east side of Convention Drive. The developer crust also install a 12 inch irrigation main line in Convention Drive in conjunction with the roadway improveinerts, The location and material for the pipe will be as directed by the City Engineer. 20) Powcr Line Road must be completed with each phase of development abutting said street. Power Line Road must have 40 feet of right of way dedicated on the developer's property to accommodate a future right of way of 80 feet. Additional fight of way on adjoining property will be required to accommodate the 4 feet of paving , required to the north of the future centerline of Power Line Road. (City Staff will assist the developer in obtaining the additional right-of-way,)The curve radius for the Tight of way at all intersections with Power Line Road roust be 45 feet with the exception of the intersections with Convention Drive and Road 60 which must be 55 feet. Power Line Road must be built to a 28 feet pavement width (24 feet on the developers property and 4 feet north of the future centerline of Power Line Road on the adjoining property, In the event the 4 feet of right-of--way can not be obtained the road may be permitted to be shifted south 4 feet) to accommodate a future pavement width of 48 feet. The pavement section for Power Line Road must consist of a 4 inch pavement layer place on a 2 inch top course with arc 8 inch base course. The developer must install curb,gutter and a 5 feet wide sidewalk along the south side of Power Lino Road as part of the roadway improvements. All required fire hydrants and street lighting must be installed by the developer along the south side of Power Lane Road. The developer must also install a 16 inch irrigation main line in Power Lure Road as part of the roadway improvements. 'Me location and material for the pipe will be as directed by the City Engineer. 21) Road 60 must be completed with each phase of development abutting said street. Read 60 must have a 40 f4ct right of way dedicated on the developer's property to accommodate a future right of way of 80 feet. Additional right of way on adjoining property will be required to accommodate the 4 feet of paving required to the cast of the future centerline of Road 60. The curve radius for the right of wary for all streets intersecting Road 60 must be 35 feet, except the intersection with Power Line Road which must be 55 feet. The pavement width must be u8 feet (24 feet on the developer's property and 4 feet east of the future centerline of Road 60 on the adjoining property) for a total future pavement width of 48 feet. The paving section must consist of a 4 inch asphalt layer placed on a 2 inch top course with an 8 inch bus* course. The developer must install curb, gutter and a 5 feet wide sidewalk and all appurtenant handicapped sections on the west side of Road 60 along with the street improvements, All required fire hydrants and street lighting must be installed along with the street improvements. The developer must also install a 10 inch irrigation main line in (toad 60 in conjunction with the roadway improvements. The location, and material for the pipe will be as directed by the City Engineer. At the time of dcw lapment: of any phase abutting Road 60, if the Pasco School District has not developed its property abutting said road,the developer will be responsible to extend the above roadway improvements south to Sandifur Pmicwxy, including We intersection thereof. The City will work with the developer to establish a late comers agrccmcnt for the street improvements in the cvant the School District has not developed Road 60 at the time the developer completes any phase of the plat adjacent Rd 60. 22) All water lines must be extended through the length of each proposed plat. All water lines will be required to be looped with the existing City of Pasco water system. A deposit is required for the removal of any temporary loops installed by the developer. The deposit mast include the cost of removing the temporary piping, replacing damaged curb, gutter and sidewalk, and a curb to curb replacement of all pavement for at least 10 feet on both sides of the temporary line that was removed. No water valves or meter-boxes are to be located in any ea sefnents or walkways, 23) Any existing irrigation pipe from the previous. .Corn=.irw activities on the site, ' regardless of size, type or location, must be removed at the ownerldevelopers exprnsc. Existing pipe must be removed prior to the dt,Yvtlopmont of the phase in which it is located and must be removed to the satisfaction of the City of Pasco. 24) Any and all utilities must be located as directed by the City Engineer. This shall include but not be limited to gas, phone,power, cable and all other utilities located within or adjoining this p vilminary plat. Any existing utililaes that p=cr:t difficulties shall be relocated at the developer's expense, pursuant to the City Engineer's direction. All utility plans,including the:above mentioned, are required to be submitted to the City of Pasco prior to subdivision approval, 25) The final plat(s) must contain the following statement: "Irrigation service lines are currently available to lots within this plat; however, water for the irrigation system may not currently be available. The City of Pasco is constructing its irrigation inl astructure on an ongoing basis. The use of the system will became available as tine and resources permit the expansion and connection of nc-,v systems to the existing irrigation supply". This statement must appear on all pages of said final plat(s). 26) Street lighting must be as directed by the City Engineer. Residential street lights are typically installed every 340 feet and colleCtorlarterial street lights are installed every 150 feet. 27) Prim to the City of Pasco accepting construction plans for review for any pha t of development, the developer must enter into a Storm Water Maintenance Agree-men! with the City. The developer will be responsible to obtain the signatures of all parties required on the agreement and to have the agreement recorded with the l`ranklin County Auditor. The original signed and recorded copy of the agreement must be presented to the City of Pasco at the first intake meeting for construction plans for each phase of development. 28) The developer wall be required to conform to all conditions set forth in the Storm Water Maintenance Agreement including, but not limited to, regular cleaning and maintenance of all streets, gutters, catch basins and catch basin protection systems. Cleaning shall occur on a regular. basis to ensure bat no cxccsa build up of sand, trash, grass clippings, weeds or other debris occurs in any portion of the streets, gutters, or storm water collection facilities.. Cleaning and upkeep of the wtc-x, gutters, and storrrr water collection facilities must be to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. The developer will be responsible to operate and maintain the storm drain system in accordance with the Sturm Water Maintenance Agreement for a period of up to S years from the date of fatal plat approval for each phase or until the system is accepted by the City of Pasco. The City of Pasco's no+ptance of construction plans for subsequent phacec of &e subdivision will be contingent on the developer satisfying all requirements of the Storm Water Maintenance Agreement. 29) The developer will be requited to comply with tha City of Pasco Civil Plan Review � process. A copy of the tcquirements for the civil plan reNriew }process is available from the City of Pasco Enginecring Department. Paised by the(fCity Council of the City of Pasco this I st day of December,2008. Yoyee4hAm,Mayor rro Iwo. A ST: fio S TO FOPUM: Sandy L. ' uworthy, Leland B.Kerr,City Attomey Deputy City Clerk REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION MASTER FILE NO: SP 09-010 APPLICANT: Hancock Sandblast & Paint HEARING DATE: 3/18/10 900 N. Avery Avenue ACTION DATE: 4/15/10 Pasco, WA 99301 BACKGROUND REQUEST: SPECIAL PERMIT: Location of a temporary membrane structure in a I-1 zone. 1. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: Legal: The southwest 1/4 of the northeast 1/4, Section 28, Township 9 North, Range 30 East W.M. General Location: 900 N. Avery Avenue Property Size: Approximately 2 acres 2. ACCESS: The site has access from Avery Avenue which is not a dedicated right-of-way. Avery Avenue begins near the northeast intersection of East Lewis Place and Heritage Boulevard. 3. UTILITIES: City water currently serves the site from Heritage Boulevard. City sewer does not serve the site and is located in Lewis Street approximately 588 feet to the south. 4. LAND USE AND ZONING: The subject property is currently zoned I-1 (Light Industrial) and contains a 6,900 ft= structure. Surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows: NORTH - I-1 - Vacant & Freeway Interchange SOUTH - I-1 & C-1 - Mini storage and construction yard EAST - I-1 - Vacant WEST - I-1 - Vacant and Heritage Boulevard 5. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The Comprehensive Plan designates this area for commercial use. 6. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The City of Pasco is the lead agency for this project. Based on the SEPA checklist, the adopted City Comprehensive Plan, City development regulations, and other information, a threshold determination resulting in a Determination of Nan-Significance (DNS) has been issued for this project under WAC 197-11-158. ANALYSIS The applicant is seeking special permit approval for a previously constructed 3,024 ft= temporary membrane structure that is being used for sandblasting and "some painting' purposes. Temporary structures themselves are not regularly permitted within the city limits. However, under PMC 25.86.030 temporary uses may be approved for a limited duration through the special permit process provided such use is clearly of a temporary nature and does not involve the erection of a permanent structure. Sandblasting and painting are allowable uses in the I-1 zoning district. Said uses are not the subject of this special permit review. The land use being considered in this case is the temporary membrane structure. Review of this special permit should consider the temporary sandblasting structure use relative to the proposed location and zoning. Sandblasting has been permitted and does occur in other I-1 locations within the city. While sandblasting by itself does not require a special permit the temporary membrane structure triggers the need for the special permit review. Sandblasting has the potential to introduce dust and particulate matter into the atmosphere. The membrane structure was erected to contain any dust and provide some protection from the weather while large pieces of equipment are being sandblasted. The applicant indicated that a 12,000 cubic foot per minute (CFM) dust collector device has been installed in order to reduce the production of atmospheric particulates. Painting produces flammable and toxic fumes within the temporary structure. The applicant has indicated how these fumes will be dealt with in a letter to staff dated March 26, 2010. The method of paint fume removal does not exempt the applicant of sprinklering and structural requirements by the IBC and IFC. Adequate safety of the membrane structure being used for sandblasting and painting will be addressed during the building permit stage should a special permit be granted. The International Building Code (IBC) and the International Fire Code (IFC) contain standards used to identify necessary safety provisions. If IBC and IFC standards cannot be met, a building permit would not be issued. There are two issues pertinent to this operation. The Planning Commission hears the first issue: the duration and conditions for the temporary structure. The second issue is the application of IBC and IFC standards relative to the occupancy of the building. These standards are applied administratively by the Building Official. The applicant is requesting the special permit be valid for a period of approximately 2 years, expiring in 2012. The 2 year time period was requested to allow sufficient time for the applicant to generate revenue to construct a permanent structure intended for sandblasting. As with the review of any special permit application it will be necessary to address the review criteria found in PMC 25.86.060. STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT Findings of fact must be entered from the record. The following are initial findings drawn from the background and analysis sections of the staff report. The Planning Commission may add additional findings to this listing as the result of factual testimony and evidence submitted during the open record hearing. 1. The site is within the Pasco Urban Growth Boundary. 2. The site contains approximately 2 acres. 3. The Comprehensive Plan identifies the site for future Commercial development. 4. The site is zoned I-1 (Light Industrial). 5. No zoning change is being considered. The property will remain I-1 at the present time. 6. The site contains an existing 6,900 ft'- site built structure used for fabrication, equipment repair and storage. 7. Surrounding properties are zoned I-1 & C-1. 8. The temporary membrane structure was previously erected without a building permit. 9. The temporary membrane structure is being used to contain fugitive dust from a sandblasting operation. 10. Temporary structures are not a routinely permitted type of construction. 11. The proposed temporary structure is approximately 3,000 square feet. 12. On March 26, 2010 staff received a letter from the applicant describing their business activities within the temporary structure. 13. The March 26th letter provides some details related to ventilation system specifications, equipment locations and operation procedures. CONCLUSIONS BASED ON STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT Before recommending approval or denial of a special permit the Planning Commission must develop findings of fact from which to draw its conclusion based upon the criteria listed in P.M.C. 25.86.060. The criteria are as follows: Y) Will the proposed use be in accordance xuith the goats, policies, objectives, and text of the Comprehensive plan? The Plan does not specifically address industrial uses such as temporary structures used for sandblasting. The Plan designates the site for commercial uses. The industrial activity on the property will continue as an interim use until such time as uses intended by the Plan can be developed. 2) Will the proposed use adversely affect public infrastructure? The temporary sandblasting structure will not affect public infrastructure. No public infrastructure improvements exist on site due to the fact that the site has no front footage on any public-right-of-way. 3) Will the proposed use be constructed, maintained and operated to be in harmony ruith the existing or intended character- of the general vicinity? The general vicinity is largely undeveloped. Nearby sites with established uses are of an industrial nature; such uses include automobile hulk haulers, automobile service, automobile dismantlers, excavation contractors and contactors' storage ,yards. The proposed temporary sandblasting structure is similar to the existing uses located in the general area to the east and south. 4) Will the location and height of proposed structures cm.d the site design discourage the development of permitted uses on property in the general vicinity or impair- the value thereof? The structure is approximately fifteen (15) feet in height and covered in a white fabric. In the I-1 zone there is no limitation on structure height. The 15 foot tall structure will not negatively affect industrial development in the immediate vicinity. 5) Will the operations in connection ruith the proposal be more objectionable to nearby properties by reason of noise, fumes, vibrations, dust, traffic, or flashing rights than xuould be the operation of any permitted uses xuithin the district? Sandblasting typically produces dust and particulates that may be objectionable to neighboring properties. The membrane structure is being used to contain fugitive dust. Dust within the structure will be further contained by use of a 12,000 CFM dust collector device. Conditions are needed to insure this device is used and maintained to adequately mitigate the production of dust and particulate matter. Other conditions applied by the IBC and IFC will mitigate hazards associated with painting operations. Other uses permitted in the I-1 zone include heavy equipment sales and service, automotive assembly and repair and metal/welding shops. The repair and servicing of heavy equipment as well as welding can involve sandblasting. The location and use of the temporary membrane structure for sandblasting and painting, incorporating the filtration equipment and IBC/IFC standards, will not be more objectionable than other permitted uses in the I-1 zone. 6) Will the proposed use endanger- the public hearth or safety if located and developed where proposed, or in any xua y ruill become a nuisance to uses permitted in the district? Temporary sandblasting within a temporary structure with appropriate filtration equipment in an industrial zone should not endanger public health or become a nuisance. Painting within the same structure, in conformance with applicable IBC and IFC standards, should not endanger public health of become a nuisance. RECOMMENDATION MOTION: I move to close the hearing on the proposed temporary structure and initiate deliberations and adopt findings of fact, conclusions and a recommendation to the City Council. MOTION: I move based on the findings of fact and conclusions therefrom, the Planning Commission recommend the City Council grant a special permit to Hancock Sandblast & Paint for the location of a temporary structure at 900 North Avery Avenue with the following conditions: APPROVAL CONDITIONS 1. The special permit shall be personal to the applicant; 2. Spray painting or application of flammable finishes or primers cannot occur within in the temporary structure; 3. Fugitive dust and particulate matter shall be captured within the temporary structure and not be released into the outside air; 4. The special permit shall expire on February 1, 2012; 5. The special permit shall be null and void if a building permit has not been obtained by June 30, 2010; 6. The temporary structure shall be removed from the premises in its entirety within 30 days following the expiration of this special permit, or change of property ownership. . . y Item: Special Permit - Temp. Structure V�cini Applicant: Hancock Sandblasting N Map � File #-�: SP 10-0 v610 _;4 vow 'ADELIA ST r. 00r* -ftj lot r# T ', (. w.. � - 1. r - W - " LU ' All > T� —GEORGE ST ' SITE 41 N � t W6�; All yr � ANA ST 7 y apt, ,sl ,ter sl :►Tti.a� ••. :�; its /� ;J OAO ��►� ��., `s, ! -� or ! ��4 .� >- �� ` � �, �� �.+,. �',�,` ° 1 �rM`' ..♦ „� a � fit- 4u EA- , •EW! PLACE, ` _ Land Item: Special Permit - Temp . Structure 1 Use Applicant: Hancock Sandblasting err} Map File #: SP 10-010 ` Dean ST SFDU 's -13 6EORGEg�= SITE I - SFDU LU a ALVINA ST Industrial Vacant LEWIS auce Zoning Item: Special Permit - Temp. Structure Applicant: Hancock Sandblasting N Map File #: SP 10-010 "M / Moll ADELIA ST R= 1 =A Z J SITE GEORGE ST z R� Q z W a v ALVINA ST C_ 1 C-1 C-1 ST LEWIS PLACE MAR/26/2 Ol0/FRI 02:04 Ph HPNCOCX SAND & PAINT FAX No. 5095455110 P. 002 Mar 26 10 02:53p HANCOCK SANDBLAST & PAINT 5414$18010 p.i Hancock Sandblast & Paint, LI,C Exhibit 1 -Letter from Dennis Duhon 3-26-10 -Oregon: PO Sox 1067—Boardman,OR 97818541.481.6000- Fax, 541.461.6010 Vashington:900 N.Avery—Pa' co.WA 99301-509.545.5005 March 26, 2010 Planning Department Shane O'Neill PO Box 293 525 N. 3d Ave. Pasco, WA 99301 RE: (MF#SP10-0110) Information Request regarding the Temporary Membrane Structure Mr. O'Neill, The structure is used for sandblasting and painting. There is no dividing wail inside the structure thereby providing one big open space.The equipment seta outside the structure. Blast hoses are ran inside the structure. The 12,004 CFM Du$t'Coilector also sits outside with a 16"diameter duct that nuns Inside enabling the dust to be vacuumed from inside the structure and into the collector. When blasting is completed, it is picked up.and put into bags and properly disposed of. After blasting is completed,we then use Q 2 gallon conventional pot for painting which runs on air. While spraying the 12,000 CFM Duet Collector continues to run pulling all the paint fumes out of the area and Into the dust collector. The dust collector has Is filters inside to accumulate any fumes or dust. Painting and blasting at this site is done by job criteria. We do not blast or paint every day. It might be two weeks or two months before we use the structure again. Thank you for presenting this to the staff for consideration. Regards, 1 Dennis Duhon Project $uperintendent i, I REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION MASTER FILE #: SP 10-003 APPLICANT: Joe Franco HEARING DATE: 3/ 13/ 10 3909 W. 47th Avenue ACTION DATE: 4/ 15/ 10 Kennewick, WA 99337 BACKGROUND REQUEST: SPECIAL PERMIT: Location of a church (Iglesia Bautista E1 C alvario) in an R-1 (Low Density Residential) Zone 1. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: Legal: Kurth's Revised Plat Lots 20 & 21 Block 3 General Location: 1341 W. Sylvester Street Property Size: Approximately 1.4 acres 2. ACCESS: The site has access from West Sylvester Street. 3. UTILITIES: All municipal utilities currently serve the site. 4. LAND USE AND ZONING: The site is zoned R-1 (Low Density Residential) and contains a church. The zoning and land use of the surrounding properties are as follows: NORTH - R-3 - Offices SOUTH - R-2 - Single-Family Residential EAST- R-3 - Multi-family WEST- C-1 - Restaurant 5. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The Comprehensive Plan designates this area for commercial uses. Policies of the Plan encourage compatibility between land uses and harmony between existing and proposed development. The plan does not specifically address churches, but various elements of the plan encourage adequate provision of off-street parking and situating businesses in appropriate locations for their anticipated uses. Policies of the Plan also encourage the location of facilities for educational and cultural activities in the city. 6. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The City of Pasco is the lead agency. This proposal has been issued a Determination of Nan-Significance in accordance with review under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), Chapter 43.21(c) RCW. ANALYSIS The applicant is seeking a special permit to allow operation of a church on a site which has been occupied by a church since the 1945. Churches are defined in Pasco Municipal Code as "Unclassified Uses" which require a special permit prior to locating in any zone within the city. The property in question is located at the northeast corner of West Sylvester Street and 14th Avenue and is approximately 95 feet long and 63 feet wide. The area directly in front of the building in Sylvester Street is landscaped. The main access to and from the site is from the public alley to the north. The applicant plans to make no alterations to the building or grounds. Parking is very limited with about 10 parking spaces located on the eastside of the church. While the parking situation is less than ideal a church has been able to function on this site for many ,years. To staff's knowledge there have been no complaints to parking pertaining to church use of this site. The parking lot however is not paved and does not contain on site drainage facilities. The Planning Commission has made it a regular practice of requiring older Church properties within the community to include parking lot paving and landscaping when special permits are applied for. Typically, churches located in or beside residential neighborhoods have also been required to include a landscaped buffer between the street sidewalk and the church parking lot. This helps maintain the residential character of the neighborhoods and moderates the impacts of large asphalt surfaces. Churches are typically located in or adjacent to residential zoning districts of the city. The operations of churches generate very few complaints from adjoining property owners. The existing church property has generally been well maintained over the ,years despite the fact the parking lot has never been improved. STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT Findings of fact must be entered from the record. The following are initial findings drawn from the background and analysis section of the staff report. The Planning Commission may add additional findings to this listing as the result of factual testimony and evidence submitted during the open record hearing. 1. Churches are unclassified uses and require review through the special permit process prior to locating or expanding in any zoning district. 2. The proposed church site is zoned R-1 (Low Density Residential). 3. The proposed site is located on the north side of West Sylvester Street; Sylvester Street is designated as an arterial street. 4. The main access to the church parking lot is off the alley to the north of the church. 5. Public infrastructure improvements currently surround the site. 6. The proposed site has been developed with church facilities since 1945. 7. Churches are often located in or near residential zoning districts within Pasco. S. The parking lot is unimproved; lacking both hard surfacing and drainage facilities. 9. There is no landscaping within the parking lot or between the parking lot and Sylvester Street. 10. Two eight-plexes are located to the east of the parking lot. CONCLUSIONS BASED ON INITIAL STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT The Planning Commission must make findings of fact based upon the cr-iteria listed in P.M.C. 25.86.060. The cr-iteria and staff listed findings are as folloxus: 1 j Will the proposed use be in accordance ruith the goals, policies, objectives and text of the Comprehensive Plan? Policy LU-Z-B of the Comprehensive Plan encourages the support of facilities for educational and cultural activities. 2) Will the proposed use adver-selg affect public infra str-ucture? The proposed use will have a minimal impact on public infrastructure. A church has been located on the site for 65 ,years. Churches are generally used for a few hours on Sundays and during the evening in the middle of the week. 3) Will the proposed use be constructed, maintained and operated to be in harmony ruith the existing or intended character- of the general vicinity? A church has been located on the site for 65 ,years. The surrounding neighborhood developed after the church was established on the site. The church has coexisted in harmony with the neighborhood for many ,years. Churches are typically located in or near residential areas and add to the character of the general vicinity in which they are located. 4) Will the location and height of proposed structures m7.d the site design discourage the development of permitted uses on pi-oper-ty in the general vicinity or impair- the value thereof? The location and height of the existing church has not discouraged the development of permitted uses on surrounding properties. The presence of churches in residential neighborhoods in other parts of the community has not discouraged potential residential development or impaired the value of residential properties. 5) Will the operations in connection xuith the proposal be more objectionable to nearby properties by reason of noise, fumes, vibrations, must, traffic, or }lashing lights than xuould be the operation of any permitted uses xuithin the district? Churches are often used infrequently, generally two or three days a week and generate traffic during off peak times such as on Sunday mornings and in evenings during the week. The current unimproved parking lot could be a source of dust in the neighborhood. Unimproved parking lots also add to the collection of rocks and dirt in city streets which ends up in street drainage systems. This objectionable condition can be remedied by causing the parking lot to be paved. 6) Will the proposed use endanger- the public health or safety if located and developed where proposed, or in any rua y xuill become a nuisance to uses permitted in the district? Churches are generally accepted uses in or near residential neighborhoods. Past history of church operations within the city has shown they often do not endanger public health or safety. APPROVAL CONDITIONS 1) The special permit shall be personal to the applicant; 2) The parking lot shall be hard surfaced and striped to meet the parking lot standards of PMC 25.78.090 by May 1, 2012; 3) The first ten feet of the parking lot along Sylvester Street must be irrigated and landscaped with live vegetation; 4) The special permit shall be null and void if a City of Pasco Occupancy Registration is not obtained by October 1, 2010. RECOMMENDATION MOTION: I move to adopt findings of fact and conclusions therefrom as contained in the April 15, 2010 staff report. MOTION: I move based on the findings of fact and conclusions therefrom the Planning Commission recommend the City Council grant a special permit to Joe Franco for the location of a church at 1341 West Sylvester Street with conditions as listed in the April 15, 2010 staff report. Item: Special Pen-nit - Church in R- 1 Vicinity Applicant: 1glesia Bautista el Calvario N Map File #: SP to-008 NIXON Aawm HL law ?MOM y SITE SYLVESTER`,ST r •. r .• l'�Vi W �� , y Land Item : Special Permit - Church in R- 1 � Use Applicant: Iglesia Bautista el Calvario Ny Map File #: SP 10-008 NIXON sr Uj SFDU ' s LL SFDU' s LU L2 I W) � Multi = Fam Comm N SITE SVLVESTER ST E 2 L o SFD I U 's �, E w C- 1 E 0 SFDU ' s Mixed Res . I I I I IRVING 5T Zoning Item: Special Permit - Church in R- 1 Applicant: Iglesia Bautista el Calvario N Map File #: SP 10-008 NIXON ST R= 1 ' W a R-1 a oc L I Q C= 1 R-3 C-1 � SITE SYLVESTER ST R-3 C=1 R=3 F7 W C-1 T Q 2 R-2 v R-1 R-2 IRVING ST REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION MASTER FILE #: SP 10-011 APPLICANT: Antonio Murillo HEARING DATE: 4/15/10 1215 W. Court Street ACTION DATE: 5/20/10 Pasco, WA 99301 BACKGROUND REQUEST: SPECIAL PERMIT: Location of a church (Iglesia Evangelica Cristiana Espiritual) in a R-3 (Medium Density Residential) Zone 1. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: Legal: Church Addition Lots 1 to 7, Block 1 General Location: 1215 W. Court Street Property Size: Approximately 1.3 acres 2. ACCESS: The site has access from West Court Street and 13th Avenue. 3. UTILITIES: All municipal utilities currently serve the site. 4. LAND USE AND ZONING: The site is zoned R-3 (Medium Density Residential) and contains a church. The zoning and land use of the surrounding properties are as follows: NORTH - R-3 - Multifamily residences (4-Plex's) SOUTH - R-1 - Pasco High School EAST- R-3 - Church and commercial strip center WEST- C-1 & R-1 - Single family residences, an office and a drive-in restaurant 5. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The Comprehensive Plan designates this area for commercial uses. Policies of the Plan encourage compatibility between land uses and harmony between existing and proposed development. The plan does not specifically address churches, but various elements of the plan encourage adequate provision of off-street parking and situating businesses in appropriate locations for their anticipated uses. Policies of the Plan also encourage the location of facilities for educational and cultural activities in the City. 6. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The City of Pasco is the lead agency for this project. Based on the SEPA checklist, the adopted City Comprehensive Plan, City development regulations, and other information, a threshold determination resulting in a Determination of Nan-Significance (DNS) has been issued for this project under WAC 197-11-158. ANALYSIS The applicant is seeking a special permit to allow operation of a church on a site which has been occupied by a church since the 1930's. A large addition along Court Street was added to the church in 1960. The property in question is located at the northeast corner of Court Street and 131h Avenue and is approximately 420 feet long and 135 feet wide. The first 250 feet north of Court Street are developed with church buildings and landscaping. The northern 170 feet of the site contains an unimproved gravel parking lot. The main access to and from the site is on 13th Avenue. A 10-foot wide alley runs north and south along the east side of the property. The alley is not paved. The parking lot is about a half acre in size and is capable of providing space for 60 to 70 vehicles. Seventy parkhig spaces translates to a sanctuary with a seating capacity of 280. To staff's knowledge there has not been a problem pertaining to off-street parking on the site. The northern portion of the parking lot appears to be regularly used by residents of the multi-family dwellings to the north. The parking lot is not paved at the present time and does not contain on-site drainage facilities. The Planning Commission has made it a regular practice of requiring older church properties within the community to include parking lot paving and landscaping when special permits are applied for. Typically churches located in or beside residential neighborhoods have also been required to include a landscaped buffer between the street sidewalk and the church parking lot. This helps maintain the residential character of the neighborhoods and moderates the impacts of large asphalt surfaces. Churches are typically located in or adjacent to residential Zoning districts of the city. The operation of churches generates very few complaints from adjoining property owners. The existing church property has generally been well maintained over the ,years. INITIAL STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT Findings of fact must be entered from the record. The following are initial findings drawn from the background and analysis section of the staff report. The Planning Commission may add additional findings to this listing as the result of factual testimony and evidence submitted during the open record hearing. 1. Churches are unclassified uses and require review through the special permit process prior to locating or expanding in any zoning district. 2. The proposed church site is zoned R-3 (Medium Density Residential). 3. The proposed site is located on the north side of Court Street; Court Street is designated as an arterial street. 4. The main access to the church parking lot is from 13th Avenue. 5. Public infrastructure improvements currently surround the site. 6. The proposed site has been developed with church facilities since 1930. The main sanctuary was added in 1960. 7. Churches are often located in or near residential zoning; districts within Pasco. 8. The parking lot is unimproved; lacking both hard surfacing and drainage facilities. 9. There is no landscaping within the parking lot or between the parking lot and 13th Avenue. 10. Single-family houses are located directly across 13th Avenue from the church parking lot. TENTATIVE CONCLUSIONS BASED ON INITIAL STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT The Planning Commission must make findings of fact based upon the criteria listed in P.M.C. 25.86.060. The criteria and staff listed findings are as follorus: 1) Will the proposed use be in accordance xuith the goals, policies, objectives and text of the Comprehensive Plan? Policy LU-2-B encourages the support of facilities for educational and cultural activities. 2) Will the proposed use adversely affect public infrastructure? The proposed use will have a minimal impact on public infrastructure. A church has been located on the site for 80 ,years. Churches are generally used for a few hours on Sundays and during the evening in the middle of the week. 3) Will the proposed use be constructed, maintained and operated to be in harmony tuith the existing or intended character- of the general vicinity? The church has been located on the site for 80 ,years. The surrounding neighborhood developed after the church was established on the site. The church has coexisted in harmony with the neighborhood for many ,years. Churches are typically located in or near residential areas and add to the character of the general vicinity in which they are located. 4) Will the location and height of proposed structures and the site design discourage the development of permitted uses on property in the general vicinity or impair- the value thereof? The location and height of the existing church has not discouraged the development of permitted uses on surrounding properties. The presence of churches in residential neighborhoods in other parts of the community has not discouraged potential residential development or impaired the value of residential properties. 5) Will the operations in connection tuith the proposal be more objectionable to nearby properties by reason of noise, fumes, vibrations, dust, traffic, or flashing lights than tuould be the operation of any permitted uses tuithin the district? Historically, churches are used infrequently, generally two or three days per week and generate traffic during off peak times such as on Sunday mornings and a couple of evenings during the week. It is estimated that a 7,000 square foot church could produce 9.8 vehicle trips per day on weekdays and 256 vehicle trips on Sundays. By way of comparison, if fully developed to the maximum R-3 density the site would generate 120 vehicle trips every day. Using those estimates from the ITE Trip Generation Manual, the proposed church would produce 37% less traffic than if the site were to be developed residentially. The current unimproved parking lot could be a source of dust in the neighborhood. Unimproved parking lots also add to the collection of rocks and dirt in city streets, which ends up in street drainage systems. This objectionable condition can be remedied by causing the church parking lot to be paved. 6) Will the proposed use endanger- the public health or safety if located and developed where proposed, or in any tua y tuill become a nuisance to uses permitted in the district? Churches are generally accepted uses in or near residential neighborhoods. Past history of church operations within the city has shown they do not endanger public health or safety. RECOMMENDED APPROVAL CONDITIONS 1) The special permit shall be personal to the applicant; 2) The parking lot must be hard surfaced and striped; 3) The parking lot shall be landscaped to meet the commercial parking lot standards of PMC 25.75; 4) The first 10 feet of the parking lot along 13th Avenue must be irrigated and landscaped with live vegetation; 5) The special permit shall be null and void if a City of Pasco building permit for the parking lot is not obtained by June 30, 2011. RECOMMENDATION MOTION: I move to close the hearing on the proposed church and initiate deliberations and schedule adoption of findings of fact, conclusions and a recommendation to the City Council for the May 20, 2010 meeting. Item: Special Pen-nit - Church in R-3 Vidn'tY App lic Iglesia Evangelica N Map p File # : SP 10-011 ASTO R (!AY a, ,t ;,IL4F' Aj fA 1 r W r �� M C'OU'RT ST "` SITE Land Item : Special Pen-nit - Church in R-3 ' Use Applicant: Iglesia Evangelica N Map File # : SP 10-0 11 I ASTOR WAY L � j SFDU 's � �_ SFDU S SFDU s Multi -Family, P 1UUUj W RUBY ST � a MF W Commercial Commercial m COURT ST R3]- SITE High Grade School School Zoning Item: Special Pen-nit - Church in R-3 Applicant: Iglesia Evangelica N Map File #: SP 10-011 ASTOR WAY R-1 R-1 R-1 R-3 R-3 W W wu RUBY ST � Q R_3 W C -1 � a C-1 C-1 Tm COURT ST 7R-3 SITE R_1 t� - L Lml i MF# SP 10-011 Site plan alt � # lee LLU VP i t � � 1 C� sa x REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION MASTER FILE NO: SP 10-012 APPLICANT: Maria Galindo HEARING DATE: 04-15-2010 720 W. Lewis Street ACTION DATE: 05-20-2010 Pasco, WA 99301 BACKGROUND REQUEST: SPECIAL PERMIT: Location of dwelling units on the second floor of a building within a C-1 zone. 1. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: Legal: Lots 3-12, Block 23, Gerry's Add & Lots 6- S, Block 1, Pettits Add. General Location: 720 W. Lewis Street Property Size: 167' x 160' or 26,954 square feet 2. ACCESS: The site has access from West Lewis Street. The alley in Block 23, Gerry's Addition forms the southern boundary of the site and 7th Avenue is located to the west. Although abutting these two rights-of-way the current site layout does not access these rights-of-way. 3. UTILITIES: All municipal utilities are available to the site. 4. LAND USE AND ZONING: The property is currently zoned C-1 (Retail Business) and contains three buildings in a 2-story motel complex converted to office spaces, now known as the West Lewis Street Business Park. Surrounding zoning and land use are as follows: NORTH- C-1 service station, a motel and an office building) SOUTH- C-1 & C-3 contains two warehouse buildings and a muffler shop EAST- C-1 commercial) WEST- C-1 Grigg's variety store) 5. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The Comprehensive Plan designates this area as commercial. The plan does not specifically address the location of residences above the ground level in the commercial zones; however policies of the plan can be applied to this situation. Policy H-1-A encourages the location of medium density residential uses near shopping and employment centers. Policy H-2-A suggests a full range of housing environments should be provided. This plan also suggests that residential use should be in close proximity to the downtown area to support the service related business of the core. 6. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The City of Pasco is the lead agency for this project. Based on the SEPA checklist, the adopted City Comprehensive Plan, City development regulations, and other information, a threshold determination resulting in a Determination of Non-Significance (DNS) has been issued for this project under WAC 197- 11-158. ANALYSIS The applicant is seeking a special permit to allow dwelling units on the second floor of a commercial/office building. The Pasco Municipal Code (PMC) 25.42.040 [1] contains a provision allowing dwelling units on the second floor of a commercial building in C-1 zones with special permit approval. The PMC also requires that the main floor of the building be designed and intended for a use permitted within the C-1 zone. This complex of three buildings was originally constructed as a two-story motel with restaurant, however that use has ceased. The complex has since been used as a business incubator. The previous owner purchased and remodeled the ground floor of the building into office spaces, known as the West Lewis Street Business Park. The previous owner obtained a special permit to establish up to 21 dwelling units on the second floor and allow only tenants renting space on the main floor or employees of the owner to occupy these dwelling units. In the C-1 zone, a building may be used as a motel (short-term occupancy) or a commercial/office building. Motel/hotel use requires a state license, which enables the State of Washington to collect taxes on transient rental income. According to the Washington Department of Revenue, "transient rental income is income received from any guest, resident, or other occupant to whom lodging and other services are furnished under a license to use real property for less than 30 continuous days." However, for long-term residential use the applicant must obtain a special permit, obtain a City of Pasco rental dwelling license, and residential units may not be located on the ground floor. INITIAL STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT Findings of fact must be entered from the record. The following are initial findings drawn from the background and analysis sections of the staff report. The Planning Commission may add additional findings to this listing as the result of factual testimony and evidence submitted during the open record hearing. 1. The site is zoned C-1 (Retail Business). 2. The site is developed with a 2-story building. 3. The site has approximately 49 on-site parking places. 2 4. The building was initially designed and used as a motel. 5. The building was subsequently converted to a business incubator with office/retail spaces. 6. Office, retail, and motel uses may all be located in C-1 zones. 7. Hotel/motel occupancy is considered transient rental and is subject to State of Washington transient rental income taxes. 8. Residential uses other than short-duration hotel/motel occupancies are allowed in commercial zones only with a Special Permit and only above the first floor. 9. No zoning change is being considered; the property will remain C-1 Zoned. 10. A previous owner obtained a special permit for up to 21 dwelling units on the second floor. 11. The current applicant has applied for a special permit to continue the existing use with the same configuration as the previous owner. 12. The previous special permit was personal to the applicant. 13. The previous special permit required the residential tenants to vacate within 30 days upon termination of the ground-floor business activity. CONCLUSIONS BASED ON INITIAL STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT The planning Commission must make findings of fact based upon the criteria listed in P.M.C. 25.86.060. The criteria and staff listed findings are as folloaus: 1) Will the proposed use be in accordance ruith the goals, policies, objectives and text of the Comprehensive plan? The site is designated for commercial uses by the Comprehensive Plan. The plan does not specifically address the location of dwelling units within the C-1 zone, however policies of the plan suggest that residential use should be in close proximity to the downtown area to support the service related business of the core. 2) Will the proposed use adversely affect public infrastructure? The demands of this proposal on the public infrastructure are about the same as allowed uses in the area. The required municipal utilities are sized to accommodate demands of a greater intensity than this proposal will place upon the systems. 3) Will the proposed use be constructed, maintained and operated to be in harmony ruith existing or intended character-of the general vicinity? 3 The majority of the site will be utilized for Permitted office/commercial activities. 4) Will the location and height of proposed structures and the site desigli. discourage the development of permitted uses on property in the genera vicinity or impair- the value thereof? Size, height of the structure and size of the site are constants; the building already exists. 5) Will the operations in connection ruith the proposal be more objectionable to nearby properties by reason of noise, fumes, vibrations, dust, traffic, or flashing rights than ruould be the operation of any permitted uses xuithin the district? The Proposal is less intensive than many of the uses Permitted in the C-1 zoning district and would generate far less noise, light, glare and other permitted uses. The proposal is very similar to motel activities, which is a permitted use in this district. 6) Will the proposed use endanger- the public hearth or safety if located and developed where proposed, or in anyway ruill become a nuisance to uses permitted in the district? A residence located in this commercial area is much less intensive than most uses allowed in the C-1 district. RECOMMENDED APPROVAL CONDITIONS 1) The special permit is personal to the applicant; 2) A maximum of twenty-one (2 1) dwelling units on the second floor shall be permitted; 3) If the business activity ceases on the main level, the residential uses must be vacated within 30 days following the date the ground floor business activity ceased; 4) Special permit shall be null and void if a City of Pasco rental dwelling license is not obtained by September 4, 2010. RECOMMENDATION MOTION: I move to close the hearing on the proposed dwelling units on the second floor of a building within the C-1 Zone, and initiate deliberations and schedule adoption of findings of fact, conclusions and a recommendation to the City Council for the May 20, 2010 meeting. 4 Item: Special Permit - Res . in C- 1 Zone Vicinity App lic Marla Galindo Map p File # : SP 10-012 do F ►` S .7 • , d' ...���sss 003 I,,, - R . 7 Land Item: Special Permit - Res . in C- 1 Zone Use Applicant: Maria Galindo N ap File # : SP 10 -012 � C%- CP oA / L 9 Zonin Item: Special Permit - Res. in C- 1 Zone g Applicant: Maria Galindo N Map File #: SP 10-012 CA 74 Tk CA G�p,R A C,.3 , G,1 VIN REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION MASTER FILE NO: SP 10-014 APPLICANT: Mike Young, Equipment HEARING DATE: 4/15/10 Locators Company ACTION DATE: 5/20/10 4003 W. Sylvester St. Pasco, WA 99301 BACKGROUND REQUEST: SPECIAL PERMIT: Location of a light truck and trailer sales business in a C-1 Zone 1. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: Legal: Lots 5-10, Block 1, Longs 1st Addition together with Lots 17-19, Block 119, Pasco Land Co 1St. General Location: 114 N. Oregon Avenue Property Size: 125'x 155' = 19,375 square feet or 0.44 acres 2. ACCESS: The site has access from N. Oregon Avenue and from the unimproved portion of Clark Street. 3. UTILITIES: All municipal utilities currently serve the site. 4. LAND USE AND ZONING: The subject property is currently zoned C-1 (Retail Business) and contains a car sales lot, an office and three accessory structures. Surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows: NORTH - C-3 - Radiator repair shop SOUTH - C-1 - Gas station/convenience store EAST - C-1 - Vacant lots/residential dwellings WEST - C-1 - Residential dwellings 5. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The Comprehensive Plan designates this area for industrial use. Although the Plan does not specifically address vehicle sales, Policy LU-4-A encourages the location of commercial facilities at major street intersections to avoid commercial sprawl and disruptions to residential neighborhoods. The site in question is located on a State Highway 397; one block north of Lewis Street. b. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The City of Pasco is the lead agency for this project. Based on the SEPA checklist, the adopted City Comprehensive Plan, City development regulations, and other information, a threshold determination resulting in a Determination of Nan-Significance (DNS) has been issued for this project under WAC 197-11-158. ANALYSIS The applicant is seeking special permit approval to locate a retail vehicle and equipment sales business in a C-1 (Retail Business) zone. More specifically, the applicant intends to primarily sell light-duty and full-size trucks along with equipment such as flat bed trailers and the like. The site has previously been used as an automobile sales lot which was established via special permit approval hi 2002. The previous auto dealer has since discontinued use of the site. The Pasco Municipal Code (PMC) lists retail automotive sales as a permitted conditional use in the C-1 zone provided the site meets the following additional criteria: a) Adjacent the intersection of two arterial streets, or; b) Adjacent a single arterial street; provided it is not adjacent to o1- across a public street right-of-ruag from a residential district, and xuould not be located closer- than 300 feet to any existing car- lot. The site is adjacent to a major arterial street and is not adjacent to or across a public right-of-way from any residentially zoned parcels nor is it closer than 300 feet from any other existing car lot. The proposal meets the criteria. Under the previous special permit for vehicle sales the applicant was required to pave the sales lot, install curb gutter and sidewalk along the north side of the property, install a sight screening fence along the west edge of the site and install landscaping. An office building and small shop building were also constructed on the site. The general area surrounding the site has supported automotive related activities for many years, with automotive repair services to the north and an auto body shop just south of Lewis Street. All permitted conditional uses are required to be reviewed through the special permit process prior to establishment. As with the review of any special permit application it will be necessary to address the review criteria found in PMC 25.86.060. STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT Findings of fact must be entered from the record. The following are initial findings drawn from the background and analysis sections of the staff report. The Planning Commission may add additional findings to this listing as the result of factual testimony and evidence submitted during the open record hearing. 1. The site is zoned C-1 (Retail Business). 2. The site is within the Pasco Urban Growth Boundary. 3. The site contains approximately 0.44 acres. 4. The Comprehensive Plan identifies the site for future industrial development. 5. No zoning change is being considered. The property will remain C- 1 at the present time. 6. The site was originally approved for vehicles sales by a special permit in 2002. 7. Under the previous special permit, curb, gutter and sidewalk were installed along the north side of the property. 8. Under the previous special permit, a sight screened fence was installed along the western edge of the property. 9. Under the previous special permit, landscaping was installed along Oregon Avenue and Clark Street. 10. An office and small shop were constructed on the site to support vehicle sales in the past. CONCLUSIONS BASED ON INITIAL STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT Before recommending approval or denial of a special permit the Planning Commission must develop findings of fact from which to draw its conclusion based upon the criteria listed in PMC 25.86.060. The criteria are as follows: I) Will the proposed use be in accordance tuith the goals, policies, objectives, and text of the Comprehensive plan? The Plan designates this area for industrial uses. Policy LU-1-C encourages clustered commercial development to avoid strip commercial development. The proposed site is located in an area currently developed with many commercial businesses surrounding the intersection of a main arterial street and a state highway. z) Will the proposed use adversely affect public infrastructure? The proposed use will not significantly impact municipal sewer or water services. City services currently serve the site and their use should not noticeably increase from the previously established business. The site is substantially developed to commercial development standards. 3) Will the proposers use be constructed, maintained ar�.d operated to be in harmony tuith the existing or intended character- of the general vicinity? The general vicinity is heavily developed with commercial businesses. Land directly to the north is zoned for heavy commercial use and should not be affected by the proposed use. Land to the south is zoned for industrial uses and should not experience any detrimental effects of the proposed business. No construction is being proposed in association with this special permit. 4) Will the location and height of proposed structures and the site design discourage the development of permitted uses on property in the general vicinity or-impair- the value thereof? The existing buildings on the site will not be altered. These buildings have not discouraged the development or use of surrounding properties for permitted uses. A major construction project is currently taking place on the east side of Oregon Avenue directly across from the site which is a good indication the buildings in question are not impacting surrounding development. 5) Will the operations in connection tuith the proposal be more objectionable to nearby properties by reason of noise, fumes, vibrations, dust, traffic, or flashing lights than tuould be the opera do n of a ny permitted uses tuithin the dis trict? The site is located on a major truck route. The sale of vehicles adjacent to this truck route will have far less impact on noise, vibrations, dust and fumes compared to the truck traffic and surrounding uses in the C-3 zone. The operations of the previous vehicles sales business on the site did not create objectionable conditions for permitted uses in the area. 6) Will the proposed use endanger- the public health or safety if located and developed where proposed, or in any tua y tuill become a nuisance to uses permitted in the district? The site has previously been used for vehicle sales. In the past, the use did not create public health or safety issues for the surrounding area nor did it negatively impact surrounding uses. TENTATIVE APPROVAL CONDITIONS 1. The special permit shall be personal to the applicant; 2. The sale of heavy equipment/machinery typically associated with industrial uses shall not be allowed; 3. A commercial sidewalk shall be required along the entire property frontage with North Oregon Avenue; 4. The special permit shall be null and void if a building permit has not been obtained by August 31, 2010; RECOMMENDATION MOTION: I move to close the hearing on the proposed automobile and equipment sales business and initiate deliberations and schedule adoption of findings of fact, conclusions and a recommendation to the City Council for the May 20, 2010 meeting. • Item: Special Permit Auto Sales in C- 1 Vicinity . . Applicant: Mike Young Equipment N Map File # : SP 10-014 . Oil -- > ap ^ 2 2 J� 40 y . SITE a 1A F 00 00* t r Land Item: Special Permit Auto Sales in C- 1 ' Use Applicant: Mike Young Equipment (N - Map File # : SP 10 -014 I Mixed Industrial o Mixed „ Comm . . ,,, 2 Comm . Re � �� ' �Q 74 74 z i SITE `� 5� --, Vacan Mixed park � ' ��S � � Comm . \ Zoning Item: Special Permit Auto Sales in C- 1 Applicant: Mike Young Equipment N Map File #: SP 10-014 0 7yo C_3 o C=3 74 C-3 �C W 2 ° a 74 74 Z CA SITE 17 \CM1 'C-1 \ REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION MASTER FILE NO: SP-10-015 APPLICANT: Griselda Lopez HEARING DATE: 4/ 15/ 10 516 S. 6th Street ACTION DATE: 5/20/ 10 Yakima, WA 99301 BACKGROUND REQUEST: SPECIAL PERMIT: Location of a private bus terminal (Fronteras Travel) (Griselda Lopez) (2 05 S. 4th Avenue) 1. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: Legal: Lots 13-17, Block 19, Gerry's Addition General Location: 205 S. 4th Avenue Property Size: 14,300 square feet 2. ACCESS: The site is adjacent to South 4th Avenue. 3. UTILITIES: Water and sewer services are located in the alley to the east. 4. LAND USE AND ZONING: The site is currently zoned C-3 (General Business) and is vacant. Surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows: NORTH- C-2 Farmer's market parking lot SOUTH- I-1 Vacant EAST- C-3 & C-2 Commercial/old motel WEST- I-1 Golden Nugget nightclub 5. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The Comprehensive Plan designates the site for commercial uses. The Comprehensive Plan (Goal TR-2) encourages the efficient use of multi-modal transportation systems, which would include bus and van services for residents. 6. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The City of Pasco is the lead agency for this project. Based on the SEPA checklist, the adopted City Comprehensive Plan, City development regulations, and other information, a threshold determination resulting in a Determination of Non-significance (DNS) has been issued for this project under WAC 197- 11-158. 1 ANALYSIS A private van/bus service has been operating at 205 S. 4th Avenue for approximately 2 ,years without the benefit of a City business license. This business was recently sold to a new owner. The new owner applied for a business license and was informed by staff that a license could not be issued for the van/bus services until a special permit had been granted for the site. Pasco Municipal Code Section 25.86.020 lists the applicant's van/bus business as an unclassified use requiring special permit review before locating in the city. This request is similar to other private bus service applications that have been reviewed by the Planning Commission in the past. Private bus/van services have operated with Special Permit approval at 115 N. 4th Avenue, 1320 N. 4th Avenue, 702 W. Lewis Street and 1011 W. Sylvester Street. There is also a bus/van service (Estrella Blanca) operating from the Pasco Multi-Modal Terminal on North 1st Avenue. The special permit application for proposed van/bus service indicated scheduled service at 205 S. 4th Avenue, including one arrival and one departure per day, seven days a week. The departing van leaves the site at 7:00 am and the arrivals occur at 7:00 pm. The applicant further emphasized to staff that the scheduled arrival and departures are the Company's advertized schedule. If no tickets have been sold, no stops are made in Pasco. During the winter months when ridership is down vans do not arrive or depart from the site on a daily business. Occasionally during the height of the season Fronteras Travel uses a 25-passenger buses or 51-passenger buses to provide service through Pasco. Fifteen passenger vans are the primary vehicles used in the service. No changes to the site or building are planned as a result of the bus service to and from the Fronteras Travel office at 205 S. 4th Avenue. INITIAL STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT Findings of fact must be entered from the record. The following are initial findhigs drawn from the background and analysis section of the staff report and comments made at the public hearing. The Planning Commission may add additional findings as deemed appropriate. 1. The site is located in a C-3 (General Business) zone. 2. The site is located at 205 S. 4th Avenue. 3. There is currently a van/bus ticket office located at 205 S. 4th Avenue. 4. The applicant has plans to continue to operate a regularly scheduled van/bus services from an existing ticket office at 205 S. 4th Avenue. 5. Scheduled departures will occur at 7:00 am every day of the week. e. Scheduled arrivals will occur at 7:00 pm every day of the week. 7. The applicant indicated their vehicles include 15-passenger vans, 25- passenger buses, and 51-passenger buses. 8. Fifteen passenger vans are the primary vehicles used in the proposed van/bus service. 9. Private operator carriers, charter or transit buses, vans and similar businesses are listed as unclassified uses in PMC 25.86.020. 10. Unclassified uses require review through the special permit process before locating in the community. 11. Private bus companies have been permitted by special permit to locate in other commercial zoning districts on N. 4th Avenue, Lewis Street and Sylvester Street. 12. No alterations are planned for the office or site. 13. The site has a small on-site parking area that can be used for passenger loading and unloading. 14. The on-site parking and loading area is shared with a wholesale produce business. 15. The wholesale produce business utilizes large trucks for receiving and delivering produce. CONCLUSIONS BASED ON INITIAL STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT Before recommending approval or denial of a special permit the Planning Commission must draw its conclusion from the findings of fact based upon the criteria listed in P.M.C. 25.86.060. The criteria and staff listed conclusions are as follows: 1) Will the proposed use be in accordance ruith the goals, policies, objectives and text of the Comprehensive Plan? The site is designated by the Plan for commercial uses. The Plan also encourages the efficient use of multi-modal transportation systems. Bus and van services would be considered part of the multi-modal transportation system. 2) Will the proposed use adversely affect public infr-astr-ucture? The site is developed with all municipal utility services. No building additions or alterations are planned that would increase demands on the utility system. Fourth Avenue is a designated arterial street and has been constructed to 3 arterial street standards to carry more traffic and Heavier loads as compared to local access streets. The addition of a van or bus on 41h Avenue at off peak travel times is not anticipated to generate significant demands on the surrounding street system. 3) Will the proposed use be constructed, maintained and operated to be in harmony xuith existing or intended character- of the general vicinity? The intended character of the area includes the development of various commercial enterprises. The proposed use is a commercial activity. No changes to the building or site are planned as a result of the proposed van/bus service. 4) Will the location and height of proposed s h-u ctu res and the site design discourage the development of permitted uses on property in the general vicinity or impair- the value thereof? The location and height of the structures on-site will not change as a result of the proposed van/bus service. The property will continue to be used for commercial purposes. 5) Will the operations in connection xuith the proposal be more objectionable to nearby properties by reason. of noise, fumes, vibrations, dust, traffic, or- flashing lights than tuould be the operation of any permitted uses tuithin the dis h-ict? The proposed van/bus service will not create noise, vibrations, and fumes in a quantity unlike those of a permitted use in the C-3 district, such as the semi- trucks and delivery trucks used by the produce business located on the site. 6) Will the proposed use endanger- the public health or safety if located and developed where proposed, or in anyway xuill become a nuisance to uses permitted in the district? The on-street parking area directly in front of 205 South 4th Avenue is about 37 feet long, not long enough for a standard 51-passenger bus. On-street parking of a passenger bus along with the loading and unloading of passengers and luggage on a public sidewalk may lead to the creation of a nuisance situation twice a day. This problem can be resolved by requiring all buses and vans to load and unload on private property. However a 51-passenger bus may have difficulty negotiating the confined parking area between the buildings on the site. This problem becomes more acute when semi-trailers and large delivery trucks are parked on the site. RECOMMENDED APPROVAL CONDITIONS 4 1. The special permit shall be personal to the applicant. Scheduled bus service shall be limited to one arrival and one departure per day. 3. No van loading shall occur on 4th Avenue or Columbia Street. 4. Vans must enter 4th Avenue from the site without backing across the sidewalk. 5. No 25-passenger buses or 51-passenger buses are permitted at the site. 6. The applicant shall maintain all necessary governmental approvals and licenses required for the operation of a bus transportation business. 7. The special permit shall be null and void if a City of Pasco business license is not obtained by July 6, 2010. RECOMMENDATION MOTION: I move to close the public hearing and schedule deliberations, the adoption of findings of fact, and development of a recommendation for City Council for the May 20, 2010 meeting. 5 } _ 9 Y - d vi AV -moomr;lIc TAN- • Item: Special Pennit - Bus Ten-ninal Vicinity Applicant: Griselda Lopez N Map File # : SP 10-015 tr �r� ore S - r - SITE . Land Item : Special Permit - Bus Terminal Use Applicant: Griselda Lopez N j Map File # : SP 10 -015 � 01 Commercial 117 SITE ,��� ✓� \ `�� . Industrial Zoning Item : Special Permit - Bus Terminal Applicant: Griselda Lopez N Map File # : SP 10 -015 C=2 C=2 C=3 - C 2 C=2 C-1 o��Me�PS C-3 SITE Z. MEMORANDUM DATE: April 2, 2010 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Rick White, Director Community & Economic Development SUBJECT: Pasco's Lighting Ordinance (Section 12.32 PMC) The purpose of this brief is to bring the issue of night sky protection (commonly known as a "dark sky" ordinance) to the Planning Commission for discussion and consideration. Once that discussion is concluded, the Planning Commission should provide direction to staff for further consideration or for revisiting this issue at a later date. Pasco's Lighting Ordinance is contained in Section 12.32 of the Pasco Municipal Code (attached) and was adopted in 1973. It was part of a region - wide effort to protect the night sky from ambient light for the benefit of the observatory on Rattlesnake Mountain. Although somewhat generic, the existing Section 12.32 appears to provide some degree of protection for the night sky — most effectively between the hours of midnight and sunrise. The existing Section 12.32 does not address light trespass, or the spillage of light from one property to another. It also does not provide a clear indication of what is exempt from provisions of the PMC or provide an acceptable method of exemption. I n 2007, both Kennewick and Richland revised their lighting ordinances to update definitions and requirements. The single largest change in both Kennewick's and Richland's codes was the restriction of light trespass to other properties. Our existing lighting ordinance does not contain such a restriction and therefore allows a greater degree of lighting impacts from new development. It's likely that as a community we have come to accept a high degree of light trespass and glare as the price for growth or progress. However, changes in how lighting is administered in the construction process can have large impacts on community aesthetics and quality of life. These changes also pose several policy questions that are important to consider. What is the appropriate extent to which new regulations apply? Should updating occur only when remodeling or site improvements are made? Should changes in land use require updating? If so, what is the trigger for updating, thirty percent of the value of the structure or more? How should existing lighting be treated? Should it be considered "grandfathered?" Should it be given an amortization period and then required to update to applicable code changes? A third area of policy may be the scope of new regulations. Should the existing code be dealt with surgically and revised to provide only more dark sky protection? Should changes be made to reduce light spillage to other properties? Is residential lighting exempt? Finally, a fourth area of policy is the cost. What might increased shielding cost a building or property owner? What might increased review and inspection time cost the City? Examples of issues that may be appropriate to address if PMC Section 12.32 is updated include: • Definitions (a general update of terms relative to lighting advancement and technology); • Exemptions (a concise list of lighting that is not subject to provisions of any code update or regulation); • Amortization (how to handle existing lighting) and the point at which lighting upgrades are required (when building remodeling or a change in land use occurs): and • "Good Neighbor" provisions (how to handle light trespass or spillage). RW/sa