HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-17-2011 Planning Commission Packet PLANNING COMMISSION — AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING 7:00 P.M. February 17, 2011
I. CALL TO ORDER:
II. ROLL CALL: Declaration of Quorum
III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: January 20, 2011
IV. OLD BUSINESS:
A. Rezone Rezone four parcels from RT (Residential
Transition) to C-1 (Retail Business) (Northeast
corner of "A" Street and Heritage Boulevard)
(Howard Rowell) (MF# Z 10-004)
V. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
A. Special Permit Expand and continue resource recovery operation
in an I-1 (Light Industrial) Zone (215 E. Ainsworth
Avenue) (Ray Poland & Sons, Inc.) (MF# SP 2011-
001) (No written material. This item is to be
continued one month.)
B. Special Permit Agricultural uses in a RS-20 (Residential
Suburban) Zone (the 2000 block of Road 72)
(Philipp W. Schmitt) (MF# SP 2011-002)
C. Special Permit Location of a church in a C-3 (General Business)
Zone (3330 W. Court Street) (Troy Jeff Woods) (MF#
SP 11-001)
D. Rezone Rezone from C-1 (Retail Business) to C-3 (General
Business) to allow for auto sales (624 W. Lewis
Street) (Shane Fast) (MF# Z 2 011-00 1)
E. Rezone Rezone from RT (Residential Transition) to C-1
(Retail Business) (the southeast corner of Wrigley
Drive and Clemente Lane) (Lee Eickmeyer) (MF# Z
2011-002)
VI. OTHER BUSINESS: April Planning Commission Date -Volunteer Reception
on April 21, 2011
VII. ADJOURNMENT:
REGULAR MEETING January 20, 2011
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
CALL TO ORDER:
The meeting was tailed to order at 7:00 p.m. by Vice-Chairwoman Kempf.
POSITION MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT
No. 1 Vacant
No. 2 James Hay
No. 3 Andy Anderson
No. 4 Alecia Greenaway
No. 5 Joe Cruz
No. 6 Kurt Lukins
No. 7 Vacant
No. 8 Jana Kempf
No. 9 Lisa Gemig
APPEARANCE OF FAIRNESS:
Vice-Chairwoman Kempf read a statement about the appearance of fairness for
hearings on land use matters. Vice-Chairwoman Kempf asked if any
Commission member had anything to declare. Commissioner Anderson recused
himself from the application for CPA 10-002. No other declarations were made.
Vice-Chairwoman Kempf then asked the audience if there were any objections
based on conflict of interest or appearance of fairness questions regarding any
of the items to be discussed this evening. There were no objections.
ADMINISTERING THE OATH:
Vice-Chairwoman Kempf explained that State law requires testimony in quasi-
judicial hearings such as held by the Planning Commission be given under
oath or affirmation. Vice-Chairwoman Kempf swore in all those desiring to
speak.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Commissioner Anderson moved to adopt the December 16, 2011 minutes. The
motion was seconded by Commissioner Greenaway. The motion passed
unanimously.
-1 -
OLD BUSINESS:
A. Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation change from Low-
Amendment Density Residential to Mixed Residential
(3300 Block of Wernett Road) (Vinh Pham)
(MF# CPA 10-001)
Vice Chairwoman Kempf read the master file number and asked for comments
from staff.
Shane O'Neill, Planner I, stated the only changes have been revisions to the
density chart to reflect the maximum allowable density.
Commissioner Lukins mentioned at the last meeting the applicant had stated
they intended to build duplexes to the density of single family residences and
questioned if a special permit would be needed.
Mr. O'Neill stated a special permit would not be necessary, however a rezone
would be needed.
Commissioner Anderson moved, seconded by Commissioner Hay, to adopt
findings of fact and conclusions therefrom as contained in the January 20,
2 0 11 staff report.
Commissioner Anderson further moved, seconded by Commissioner
Greenaway, based on the findings of fact and conclusions therefrom, the
Planning Commission recommend the City Council deny the proposed
Comprehensive Plan Amendment. The motion passed unanimously.
B. Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation change from High-
Amendment Density Residential to Industrial (Corner of
Pearl Street and 4th Avenue) (Terry Brown)
(MF# CPA 10-002)
Vice Chairwoman Kempf read the master file number and asked for comments
from staff.
Shane O'Neill, Planner I, had no further comment.
Commissioner Lukins moved, seconded by Commissioner Hay, to adopt
findings of fact and conclusions therefrom as contained in the December 16,
2010 staff report.
Commissioner Lukins further moved, seconded by Commissioner Hay, based
on the findings of fact and conclusions therefrom, the Planning Commission
recommend the City Council approve the proposed Comprehensive Plan
Amendment. The motion passed unanimously.
-2 -
C. Comprehensive Plan Urban Growth Area Expansion (Road 52 and
Amendment Powerline Road) (Farm 2005, LLC) [MF# CPA
10-003
Vice Chairwoman Kempf read the master file number and asked for comments
from staff.
Dave McDonald, City Planner, had no further comments.
Commissioner Lukins stated he supported the Urban Growth Area expansion.
Commissioner Greenaway agreed with Commissioner Lukins.
Mr. McDonald stated the problem with the proposal was the fact that services
are not available to the site. The property in question was not included in the
Urban Growth Area previously because of the lack of sewer capacity east of
Road 68.
Commissioner Anderson agreed with the Commissioners Lukins and
Greenaway however there is no sewer capacity available and including the site
in the Urban Growth Area would add a burden to the City.
Vice-Chairwoman Kempf stated she agreed with Commission Anderson and did
not see a need to expand the Urban Growth Area at the present time.
Commissioner Anderson moved, seconded by Commissioner Hay, to adopt the
findings of fact and conclusions as contained in the Urban Growth Area
Boundary Staff report dated January 20, 2011. The motion was unanimously
approved
Commissioner Anderson further moved, seconded by Commissioner Hay, based
on the findings of fact and conclusions therefrom the Planning Commission
recommend the City Council deny the request for the Urban Growth Area
Expansion under Master File # CPA 10-003. Commissioners Anderson, Hay
and Kempf vote aye. Commissioners Lukins, Greenaway and Gemig voted nay.
The motion failed
Commissioner Lukins asked staff if the City had to plan for the area if it was
included in the Urban Growth Area.
Mr. McDonald stated ,yes, the City would be required to plan for utilities and
streets. Mr. McDonald explained the ongoing efforts taking place to plan for
utilities west of Road 68 to accommodate the expanded Urban Growth Area
that was added in 2008.
Commissioner Anderson stated adding the area to the Urban Growth Boundary
would burden the City with the cost of utility planning for the area.
Commissioner Anderson felt the issue could be reviewed in a few ,years.
-3 -
Mr. McDonald stated there was one additional issue that needed to be
considered and that was the population projections provided by the State. The
City is required to use those population projections for planning purposes and
in establishing the Urban Growth Boundary. The projections have not changed
since the current Urban Growth Area was established.
Commissioner Lukins stated he understood the utility issue and after hearing
Commissioner Anderson's statement he would change his vote. Commissioner
Lukins further asked when the next Urban Growth Area review would take
place.
Mr. McDonald stated the next major Comprehensive Plan update was
scheduled for 2014. Annual amendments can also be considered.
Mr. White stated that 2014 would be next time population estimates would be
provided.
Commissioner Greenaway asked what the population growth would be for
2014.
Mr. McDonald stated the 2010 to 2027 estimated was approximately 30,000
additional residents.
Commissioner Greenaway asked what the current population was.
Mr. McDonald stated 56,300.
Commissioner Greenaway stated she would rescind her vote.
The Planning Commission reconsidered their action and unanimously
approved Commissioner Anderson's original motion to recommend denial for
the Urban Growth Area Expansion request under Master File # CPA 10-003.
D. Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation change from Low-
Amendment Density Residential to Mixed Residential
[Corner of Charles Avenue and Clark Street]
[Beacon Development] [MF# CPA 10-004)
Vice Chairwoman Kempf read the master file number and asked for comments
from staff.
Mr. White stated the staff report was revised to reflect a change to finding
number 12 which stated mixed density residential and should stated mixed
residential density.
Commissioner Anderson moved, seconded by Commissioner Greenaway, to
adopt findings of fact and conclusions therefrom as contained in the January
20, 2011 staff report.
-4 -
Commissioner Anderson further moved, seconded by Commissioner Gemig,
based on the findings of fact and conclusions therefrom, the Planning
Commission recommend the City Council approve the proposed Comprehensive
Plan Amendment. The motion passed unanimously.
NEW BUSINESS:
A. Rezone Rezone four parcels from Residential
Transition to C-1 (Retail Business) Zone
(Northeast corner of "A" Street and Heritage
Boulevard) (Howard Rowell) (MF# Z10-004)
Vice Chairwoman Kempf read the master file number and asked for comments
from staff.
Mr. O'Neill stated this application is to rezone the current site from R-T to C-1.
This area would provide a buffer between residential areas to the north and
industrial areas to the south. Uses for C-1 zones typically consist of
restaurants, banks, retail stores, hotel and motels and etc. Those uses provide
services to residential neighborhoods.
Vice-Chairwoman Kempf asked if gas stations were also included in C-1
zoning.
Mr. C Neill stated ,yes.
Howard Rowell, 4709 Hilltop Drive, Pasco, WA 99301 stated the property is
being cleaned up and has been an eyesore for many ,years. He requested the
rezone so he could proceed to the next level of development. The southwest
corner would be an ideal location for a gas station mini-mart. At the current
time the fire department is using the vacant house for training purposes and it
will be demolished soon.
Vice-Chairwoman Kempf called for further public comment, after three calls
and no response the hearing was closed.
Commissioner Hay moved, seconded by Commissioner Anderson, to close the
hearing on the proposed rezone and initiate deliberations and schedule
adoption of findings of fact, conclusions, and a recommendation to the City
Council for the February 17, 2011 meeting. The motion passed unanimously.
B. Comprehensive Plan Parks and Recreation Comprehensive Plan
Update Update (MF# INFO 10-1011
Vice Chain voman Kempf read the master file number and asked for comments
from staff.
-5 -
Rick Terway, Administrative & Community Services Director was present to
review the proposed Park Plan Update. Mr. Terway explained the Parks,
Recreation and Forestry Plan provides guidance for future park development
and reflects the wishes of residents for future park development and recreation
programming. Additionally, the Washington State Recreation and Conservation
Office (RCO) require communities to update to their plan every six years to be
eligible for grant funding. Mr. Terway stated the plan has not changed a great
deal and then he reviewed areas that have been revised. An Urban Forestry
component has been included. The forestry component including a
management plan was developed in 2008. The plan also places additional
emphasis on arts and crafts to provide a broader spectrum of activities for
residents to participate in. Mr. Terway briefly discussed parks needs and the
desire of residents for a community park in the northwest portion of the city.
The plan was updated with the assistance of a consultant, the Parks and
Recreation Advisory Board and input from the community through a
community survey. The Parks and Recreation Advisory Board held several
meetings to discuss and review the updated plan.
Vice-Chairwoman Kempf opened the public hearing, after three calls and no
response the hearing was closed.
Commissioner Greenaway moved, seconded by Commissioner Anderson, to
adopt the findings of fact as contained in the staff memo for the 2010 Parks,
Recreation and Forestry Plan, dated January 20, 2011. The motion passed
unanimously.
Commissioner Gemig moved, seconded by Commissioner Lukins, based on the
findings of fact, the Planning Commission recommend the City Council adopt
the proposed 2010 Parks, Recreation and Forestry Plan. The motion passed
unanimously.
OTHER BUSINESS:
With no further business, the Planning Commission was adjourned at 7:43
p.m.
David McDonald, Secretary
-6 -
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
MASTER FILE NO: Z 10-004 APPLICANT: Howard Rowell
HEARING DATE: 1/20/2011 4709 Hilltop Drive
ACTION DATE: 2/17/2011 Pasco, WA 99301
BACKGROUND
REQUEST: REZONE Rezone four -parcels from RT (Residential Transition)
to C-1 (Retail Business)
1. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION:
Legal: Blocks 9 & 19, Washington Addition
General Location: Northeast corner of"A" Street and Heritage
Boulevard
Property Size: 243,600 square feet or 5.6 acres
. ACCESS: The property has access from "A" Street, and Heritage
Boulevard.
3. UTILITIES: All municipal utilities currently serve the site.
4. LAND USE AND ZONING: The subject property is currently zoned RT
(Residential Transition) and contains a single-family residence with
accessory structures which the property owner has slated for demolition.
Surrounding properties are zoned and developed as follows:
NORTH R-1-A - Vacant
SOUTH I-1 - Vacant
EAST RT - Vacant lots/Residential dwellings
WEST C-1 & R-1-A - Vacant lots/Residential dwellings
5. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The Plan designates this site for Mixed
Residential/Commercial uses. The proposed zone change would allow
uses that would be consistent with the Plan.
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
Non-Significance (DNS) has been issued for this project under WAC 197-
11-158.
1
ANALYSIS
The site is comprised of four adjacent parcels totaling approximately 5.6 acres
located at the northeast corner of Heritage Boulevard and "A" Street. Platted
rights-of-way and alleys currently divide the site into ten pieces. The total area
used in this report assumes rights-of-way and alleys will be vacated prior to
site development.
The applicant, Howard Rowell, has applied to rezone the property from RT
(Residential Transition) to C-1 (Retail Business) in order to develop the site with
commercial business(es). The RT zone is commonly described as a "holding
zone" and is assigned to lands for which municipal sewer and water services
are unavailable. Once municipal sewer and water services become available,
the zoning is converted, via application, to a zoning designation most
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
Establishing C-1 zoning on the site would appear, on the zoning map, as a
continuation of the existing C-1 zoning along "A" Street to the west. Developing
the site with regularly permitted retail businesses would serve as a physical
buffer between the residences to the north and the industrially zoned land to
the south. Examples of permitted uses in the C-1 zone are: restaurants, banks,
retail sales and service stores, hotels and motels, etc.
The initial review criteria for considering a rezone application are explained in
PMC. 25.88.030. The criteria are listed below as follows:
1. The date the existing zone became effective:
The current zoning classification ruas established when the property ruas
annexed in 1994.
2. The changed conditions, which are alleged to warrant other or additional
zoning:
The Heritage Boulevard connection tuith "A" Street ruas completed in 200-1 along
tuith utility extensions that tuere part of the Sunrise Estates development to the
Cues t. The large tracts of Sunrise Estates fronting "A" Street to the Cues t tuere
rezoned from R-T to C-1 in 2005. "A" Street ruas improved to arterial street
standards irz 2010. The "A" Street improvements also included installation of
tuater- and setuer- lines along the frontage of the subject property.
In addition to the recent infrastructure improvements near the site, the City, port
and property otuner- have been tuorking together- in an effort to establish the
Heritage Industrial Center- along the south sine of "A" Street directly south of the
subject property. Similarly, the Tierra Vida development to the east involved a
rezone to C-1 for- those properties fronting "A" Street.
3. Facts to justify the change on the basis of advancing the public health,
safety and general welfare:
Recent development of the Tierra Vida and Sunrise Estates residential
subdivisions directly to the east and xuest of the site has presenters the
opportunity to sustain some general retail businesses. Both Tierra Vida and
Sunrise Estates are similarly co nfigu revs ruith commercially zoned rots a to rig "A"
Street and residences to the north. Approval of this application xuould create
consistency along "A" Street between the two subdivisions; thereby advancing
the general welfare of the community. Additionally, rezoning the site to C-1 ruin
alloxu the establishment of a less intense buffer- area between the indush ially
zo n.ed Heritage Indu s trio l Center- to the sou th a nd fu to re u ses to the north.
4. The effect it will have on the value and character of the adjacent property
and the Comprehensive Plan:
The proposal is supporters by the lams use resignation of the Comprehensive
Plan. Rezoning the property to C-1 xuill create a buffer between the more intense
bi.dustr-iol area to the south and less intense future uses to the north.
5. The effect on the property owner or owners if the request is not granted:
The property oxuner- purchasers the property baser on the Compressive Plan
designa do n which suggests co mmercia l u ses cou Id be developed o n the property.
Developing the property under- the RT zone is not cost effective and is
inconsistent xuith the Comprehensive Plan.
6. The Comprehensive Plan land use designation for the property:
The Comprehensive Plan shoxus the site to be designated for Mixers
Residential/Commercial uses. The Mixers Residential/Commercial Land Use
Designation permits rezones to residential (RS-20, RS-12, RS-1 and R-1 thru R-3)
acid/or- commercial (C-1 and "O").
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 site is within the Urban Growth Boundary.
2. The site is comprised of four parcels.
3. The Comprehensive Plan designates the site for Mixed Residential/
Commercial uses.
4. The site is zoned RT (Residential Transition).
5. The site is approximately 243,600 square feet or 5.6 acres.
6. The site is located in the Washington Addition which was platted
approximately 100 years ago.
3
7. The Washington Addition has never been improved with street and
utilities and is largely undeveloped
S. The site is located at the intersection of "A" Street and Heritage
Boulevard.
9. "A" Street and Heritage Boulevard are major streets.
10. The Comprehensive Plan (LU-4-A) encourages the development of
commercial land uses near the intersections of major streets.
11. Property owners along East "A" Street participated in support of recent
utility extensions and street improvements through an LID.
12. Properties to the east and west along the north side of East "A" Street
have been rezoned to C-1 within the last five (Sunrise Estates) to seven
(Tierra Vida) ,years.
13. The site contains a single family residence and accessory structures. The
property owner has been issued a demolition permit and is in the process
of removing all structures and debris from the site.
14. The property to the south is zoned I-1.
15. The City, property owner and Port of Pasco are working jointly to
establish the Heritage Industrial Center on the south side of East A"
Street.
CONCLUSIONS BASED ON STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT
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- riot.
1. The proposal is in accordance with the goals and policies of the
Comprehensive Plan.
The Comprehensive plan designates this site for Mixed Residential/Commercial
uses. The Comprehensive Plan (policy EE-2-A) encourages a xuide range of
commercial uses strategically located to support local and regional needs. Policy
LU--4-A encourages the location of commercial businesses at major- street
intersections. The site is located at the intersection of a minor- arterial and a
major- collector- which qualifies the site to be supported by Policy LU--4-A. The
proposed rezone is supported by both the goals and land use map of the
Comprehensive Plan.
2. The effect of the proposal on the immediate vicinity will not be
materially detrimental.
The proposal should have a positive effect on the neighborhood by providing a
retail services area for nearby residential neighborhoods and by providing a
buffer- between future indushial development to the south and future
development to the north. The C-1 zone is designed to include uses based on
their- compatibility ruith potentially nearby residences. The proposal ho potential
4
to foster- development of the neighborhood and to provide needed services. It is
unlikely the proposal xuill be a detriment to the community.
3. There is merit and value in the proposal for the community as a whole.
Rezoning the site to C-I ruin aHow greater- ease for-utilization of the site under- its
current condition considering the surrounding uses. Retail businesses located in
close proximity to residential neighborhoods have the potential to offer- needed
goods and services. There is merit and value because the proposal supports the
Comprehensive Plan and provides a buffer- between industrial and residential
uses.
4. Conditions should be imposed in order to mitigate any significant
adverse impacts from the proposal.
The site is at the intersection of truo major- streets and rezoning to C-I is
consistent ruith the Comprehensive Plan. The proposal may lead to opportunities
for the development of needed neighborhood services and it xuill assist zuith the
creation of a transition buffer- between industrial activities to the south. As a
resu It there is no need fo r-corzditio ns.
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 needed in conjur2ction. tuith this applicatior7..
RECOMMENDATION
MOTION for Findings of Fact: I move to adopt Findings of Fact and
Conclusions therefrom as contained in the February 17, 2011 staff report.
MOTION for Recommendation: I move based on the Findings of Fact and
Conclusions therefrom the Planning Commission recommend the City Council
rezone the site from RT (Residential Transition) to C-1 (Retail Business).
5
Vicinity Item: Rezone (RT to C- 1 )
Map File # iii 4 —-----
" :CUSTER Wit
Cn
• w U.
do
� ■ D ,r i\lam
.0 .
..- 'A S ,`
y i
D
NEI
mill on SFRS
CT
vacant Vacant
O
� I i
ON
IN MIN I IN
1 ( Light Industrial)
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
MASTER FILE NO: SP 2011-002 APPLICANT: Philipp Schmitt
HEARING DATE: 2/17/2011 5b04 McKinley Court
ACTION DATE: 3/17/2011 Pasco, WA 99301
BACKGROUND
REQUEST: SPECIAL PERMIT: Farming in an RS-20 Zone (2000 Block
of Road 72)
1. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION:
Legal: The southeast and northeast quarters of the
northwest quarter of the southeast quarter of
Section 21, Township 9 North, Range 29 East, WM
less the southerly 165 feet and less road right-of-
way.
General 2000 Block of Road 72
Location:
Property Approximately 18 acres
Size:
2. ACCESS: The site has access from Road 72 and Wernett Road.
3. UTILITIES: The proposed use will not need public utilities.
4. LAND USE AND ZONING: The subject property is currently zoned
RS-20 (Suburban) and consists of two vacant parcels. Surrounding
zoning and land uses are as follows:
NORTH R-S-20- County-residential
SOUTH R-S-20- Faith Assembly Church of God Church
EAST R-S-20- County-residential
WEST R-S-20- County-residential
5. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The Comprehensive Plan designates this
area for Low-Density Residential uses.
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 requesting Special Permit approval to conduct farming
activities in an RS-20 (Suburban Residential) zone on Road 72 north of
Court Street. The proposed farm will involve the planting and harvesting
of row crops, legumes, cereal grains and the winter pasturing of cattle.
Commercial farming on sites larger than 10 acres and within 1,000 feet
of a house, subdivision or residentially zone property may be permitted
through the Special Permit review process.
Even though the Municipal Code contains provisions for commercial
farming, the City's Comprehensive Plan has designated the site for future
residential use. Therefore farming on the site must be considered only an
interim use. As an interim use, farming activities can easily be converted
to intended uses when utilities become available. Recent growth in Pasco
is a good example of how the conversion process takes place. Most of the
development in the I-182 corridor over the last ten ,years has occurred on
lands that were formally developed with farms. The farms have not
restricted the implementation of the Comprehensive Plan, nor has the
development of housing restricted, to any great extent, continued farming
activities.
The general area surrounding the proposed site can be characterized as a
low-density suburban area with large pastures, livestock raising and
grape vineyards. Truck farming and raspberry production has also
occurred in the neighborhood in the past.
In reviewing this proposal staff has identified four issues for
consideration by the Planning Commission: 1) dust control; 2) noise; 3)
the planting of cereal grains; and 4) the winter pasturing of livestock.
During plowing and planting and prior to seed germination fugitive dust
could potentially impact adjacent properties if not properly monitored.
This impact will be minimized once a crop is established. Staff would
suggest the applicant be required to maintain a viable water source on
site during the initial grading and leveling to manage fugitive dust during
wind events, and submit a dust control plan for approval by City staff.
Commercial agricultural activities often occur at odd hours, which could
potentially impact adjacent residential uses. Staff suggests the applicant
be required to submit a complaint monitoring plan to help alleviate these
impacts. The plan should minimally include potential hours of operation,
a contact person to whom complaints may be submitted and a process
outlining how noise complaints will be addressed.
The planting of wheat (cereal grain) within a suburban neighborhood
brings with it a concern for fire safety. Wheat fields become very dry prior
to harvesting and burn rapidly if set on fire. With two homes
immediately adjacent to the site and other homes nearby, planting wheat
in a partially built neighborhood is a concern. The simplest way to
address the fire safety concerns is to not permit the planting of grains.
However grains can sometimes be effective as a cover crop to prevent
dust from blowing. If grains are to be used for a cover crop restrictions
should be placed on their usage to address fire safety concerns presented
by ripe wheat.
The last issue is one of using the site for grazing of livestock. The
definition of commercial agriculture excludes feeds lots, stockyards, and
similar animal husbandry activities. Large concentrations of animals can
cause severe odor, dust and fly problems. The pasturing of animals can
also create these concerns. The Planning Commission may want to
consider limiting the number of cattle to be pastured on the site.
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 within the Pasco Urban Growth Boundary.
2. The Comprehensive Plan identifies the site for future Law-Density
Residential development.
3. The site has been used in the past for agricultural activities.
4. Pastures and vineyards as-well-as animal husbandry occur on
adjoining properties.
5. The site is zoned RS-20.
b. The site contains 18 acres.
7. The site is large enough for about thirty 20,000 square foot lots.
8. Gardening and fruit raising on vacant land are permitted uses in
the R-S-20.
9. Non-commercial agriculture uses are a permitted accessory use in
the R-S-20 zone.
10. The site is vacant.
3
11. The site has been used for farming in the past.
12. Large vacant parcels within the general vicinity have been used in
the past for producing watermelons, pumpkins and other row
crops.
13. Much of the new residential development in the I-182 corridor has
been developed on or adjacent to farms.
14. The site is accessible from the north and south by way of Road 72
and from the east by way of Wernett Road.
15. The process of tilling and planting the ground exposes unprotected
soil to the wind and can cause blowing dust.
16. The applicant is proposing to plant vegetables, legumes and cereal
grains.
17. Wheat is a cereal grain.
18. Ripe wheat is very dry and presents a fire hazard.
19. Locating large numbers of cattle and other farm animals in a single
area can create odor, dust and fly nuisances.
20. The RS-20 District permits one animal unit per 10,000 square feet
of lot area.
21. Commercial farming requires the use heavy equipment and
machinery.
22. The City's noise regulations prohibit excessive noise from
emanating from properties and intruding into residential areas
between the hours of 10:00 pm and 7:00 am.
CONCLUSIONS
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:
1. Will the proposed use be in accordance ruith the goals, policies,
objectives, and text of the Comprehensive plan?
The Comprehensive Plan designates the proposed site for low density
residential development. The Plan does not specifically address the
proposed use. However, the zoning regulations which implement the
Plan permit the keeping of farm animals and allow limited agricultural
4
production in RS-20 zones. The zoning regulations also permit
commercial agricultural production by Special Permit in the RS-20 zone.
2. Will the proposed use adversely affect public infrastructure?
The proposed farm does not depend upon City utilities therefore there
will be no adverse impact to city utilities. The current zoning permits the
site to be developed with about 30 homes which would generate about
300 vehicle trips per day. An 18 acre farm will generate minor traffic in
comparison.
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 existing character is that of a suburban residential neighborhood.
The act of growing additional crops in the neighborhood will not alter the
existing neighborhood character. The location of farms in West Pasco and
within the I-182 Corridor has demonstrated that farms within close
proximity of dwellings can be operated harmoniously with intended uses.
Farms have operated simultaneously with development of Island Estates,
Sunny Meadows, Wilson Meadows, The Village at Pasco Heights and
other subdivisions in the community. The proposed use will not make
intensive use of the land or lead to disorderly growth of the community.
4. Will the location and height of proposers structures and the site
design discourage the development of permitted uses on property iri
the general vicinity or impair- the value thereof?
There will be no permanent structures erected with this proposal.
Development within the community over the last 10 ,years attests to the
fact that farming operations do not discourage the development of
permitted uses or impair the value of nearby development. The proposed
use is a temporary use that will not materially impact property values.
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 lights than ruould be the
operation of anypermitted uses ruithin the district?
Without conditions the proposed activity could create noise, dust and
odor and fire hazards that may be objectionable to nearby properties.
5
6. Will the proposed use en do the public hearth or- safety if loco ted
and developed where proposed, or in any xua y xuill become o
nuisance to uses permitted in the dish ict?
The existence of numerous farming operations within the community,
particularly in the I-182 corridor, demonstrates that farming near
residential uses does not necessarily become a nuisance to permitted
uses nor do the farms endanger public health and safety.
TENTATIVE APPROVAL CONDITIONS
1. The Special Permit shall apply to the property;
2. The farm shall be operated by using best management practices
for agricultural production;
3. No irrigation water is permitted to be sprayed or otherwise drain
onto the adjoining right-of-way;
4. No irrigation water is permitted to be sprayed onto the adjoining
residential fences or properties;
5. Irrigation water and farm chemicals must be applied at
agronomic rates;
6. The farm crops shall be limited to alfalfa or row crops such as
pumpkins, tomatoes, watermelons, peppers, etc. The definition
of row crops does not include wheat and other cereal grains.
Cereal grains may be used as a winter cover crop or for green
manure purposes;
7. The property shall be posted to indicate no motorcycling or
four-wheeling is permitted;
8. A Conservation Plan approved by the Farm Service shall be
submitted to the City prior to site grading;
9. A dust control plan must be approved by City staff prior to site
grading;
10. A complaint monitoring plan that identifies how the applicant
will respond to neighborhood complaints must be submitted
and approved by City staff prior to site grading;
11. The Special Permit shall be valid for a period of three ,years and
will automatically extend to five ,years if the applicant adheres
to the conditions of Special Permit approval. Extensions beyond
the first five ,years may be permitted, but will require the
submittal of a new Special Permit application. In reviewing a
new Special Permit application for this farm the Planning
Commission will consider the criteria of PMC 25.86.060 along
with changes in surrounding development, the pace at which
surrounding development is occurring, improvements to
utilities services within the area and any nuisance complaints
about the operations of the farm over the past five ,years;
6
12. The Special Permit shall be null and void if farming activity has
not begun by September 30, 2011.
RECOMMENDATION
MOTION: I move to close the hearing on the proposed farm and
schedule deliberations, adoption of findings of fact, conclusions and a
recommendation to t he City Council for the March 17, 2011 meeting.
7
Item- Farming in RS-20 Zone
Vidnity Applicant Pliilll*p
Map File SP 2011 -002
.. s
w � . � r. •vim'_=1� "'..
p LEI:
iw-
>.
p 1
4 L ..
r I.
sp
dow'516 q
RM
r
Land Fan-ning Item: ` in Zone
Use Applicant: Phillip Schmitt N
Map File # : SP 2011 -002
UBM -CREEK CT
ti1Y=WERf+IETT=R6
SF DU S
Bln"TERNUT Cif
Cl E
SITE SIL.V CREST- T
�
SFDU's :RE K T
I�1(-LIMITS
T
RAY Church
lTE = CT
I
SFDU 's
i
� ac
Church =
COU _ -*rJMITS
Zoning Item: Fanning in RS-20 Zone
Applicant : Phillip Schmitt x
Map File # : SP 2011 -002
� w ��.� VBU-M
RS-20
(County) RKU JT C�RCLE
SITE - RS-20
II � (County)
RS-12 Im ::R7
♦ � � _ � RS-20 C1 1-y-WMIT.S.-L
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
MASTER FILE # SP 11-001 APPLICANT: Troy Jeff Woods
HEARING DATE: 2/17/2011 3104 S. Everett Place
ACTION DATE: 3/17/2011 Kennewick, WA 99337
BACKGROUND
REQUEST: SPECIAL PERMIT: Location of a church in a C-3 (General
Business) zone.
1. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION:
Legal: Westerly 264 feet of the northerly 330 feet of
the northeast 1/4 of the northwest 1/4 of the
northwest 1/4 of Section 25 Township 9 North
Range 29 East
General Location: 3330 West Court Street, Suite "K"
Property Size: Approximately 1.5 acres
2. ACCESS: The site has access from West Court Street and Road
34.
3. UTILITIES: All municipal utilities currently serve the site.
4. LAND USE AND ZONING: The site is zoned C-3 (General
Business) and contains a partially occupied multi-tenant
commercial building. The zoning and land use of the surrounding
properties are as follows:
NORTH CR - Commercial shopping plaza (Riverview Plaza
SOUTH C-3 - Auto sales
EAST C-3 - Mini-storage facility
WEST C-1 - U.S. Post Office
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.
6. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The City of Pasco is the
lead agency for this project. Based on the SEPA checklist, the
1
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 the location of a church
in a multi-tenant commercial center at 3330 West Court Street.
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 approximately 20,000 square foot building proposed to be used for a
church contains 17 suites. The church is proposing to use one suite
equaling approximately 1,078 square feet. The 17 commercial tenant
spaces are divided into two (2) separate buildings which are nearly
identical in size and layout. The parcel contains 100 parking stalls which
are divided into two parking lots, one for each commercial building.
In terms of occupancy load, the proposed tenant space has a maximum
capacity of 49 people. Based on square footage alone the space has a
maximum occupancy of 56 people, but due to the fact the front door
opens to the inside and a narrow room partition entryway, the IBC
restricts the occupancy load to 49 people. From the occupancy,
minimum parking requirements are derived. The church would be
required to provide 13 parking stalls.
Site specific calculations reveal that the site contains approximately 21
surplus parking spaces based on the current uses contained on-site.
The surplus parking figure assumes the proposed site occupied by a
retail use. In other words, taking into account the increased parking
requirements of the two existing beauty salons and the restaurant and
considering all other tenant spaces (including the subject site) occupied
with retail businesses; the site contains 21 excess parking stalls. Based
on the surplus parking calculation it can be concluded that the site
contains sufficient off-street parking to support the proposed church.
Traffic generated by the church will occur mostly on Sunday mornings
when traffic is minimal and when some of the adjacent businesses will be
closed. Wednesday evening church activities generally generate less
traffic than Sunday morning meetings. The operations of churches
generally generate few complaints from adjoining property owners.
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 site is zoned C-3 (General Business).
3. The proposed site is located at 3330 West Court Street.
4. The site is approximately 1.5 acres.
5. The site contains two identical 10,000 square foot multi-tenant
commercial structures.
6. The site contains 100 off-street parking stalls.
7. The main access to the site is from West Court Street. Secondary
access is available from Road 34.
8. The only access to the suite in question is from Road 34.
9. The proposed site has been developed with a commercial structure
since 1980.
10. Churches are classified as an "A" occupancy under the International
Building Code.
11. The municipal Code (PMC 25.78.170) requires one off-street parking
space for every four fixed seats.
12. The floor plan submitted with the application indicates 50 fixed
seats are proposed.
13. The suite is located on the south side of the complex which is not
visible from Court Street.
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?
3
Policy LU-2-B of the Comprehensive Plan encourages the support of
facilities for educational and cultural activities.
.2. Will the proposed use adversely affect public infrastructu re?
The proposed use will have a minimal impact on public infrastructure.
Churches are generally used during off-peaks hours, on Sundays and
during evenings in the middle of the week. The church will use existing
City utilities and infrastructure.
3. Will the proposed use be constructed, maintained and operated to
be in harmony tuith the existing or intended character- of the
general vicinity?
Churches are typically located in or near residential areas. In this case,
all surrounding land uses are of a commercial nature. The site would
not be modified to appear any differently than retail businesses located
in the same building.
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 structure has not discouraged the
development of permitted uses on surrounding properties in the past. No
exterior site modifications are proposed. Any prospective businesses
seeking to locate within the vicinity will not be affected by the proposed
church.
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?
Churches are typically used infrequently, generally two or three days per
week and generate traffic during off-peak times such as Sunday
mornings and in evenings during the week. Increases in traffic will be
during off-peak hours and are unlikely to exceed levels the commercial
center experiences on a typical weekday. It is unlikely the effects of
church operation will be any more objectionable than other uses
regularly permitted in a C-3 zone. Permitted uses in the C-3 zone
include: Heavy equipment sales and service, warehouses, auto sales and
service, etc.
6. Will the proposed use endanger- the public health or safety if
located and developed where proposed, or in any tuay tuill
become a nuisance to uses permitted in the district?
Past history of church operations within the City has shown they usually
do not endanger public health or safety. Churches are generally
accepted uses within the community.
4
TENTATIVE APPROVAL CONDITIONS
1. The special permit shall be personal to the applicant;
2. All restrooms must be meet ADA accessibility requirements;
3. The maximum occupancy load shall be posted inside the main
assembly area;
4. The outside store front shall not be modified from its current
condition with the exception of a sign installed in conformance
with a City approved sign permit;
5. The Church shall not object to the issuance of a liquor license
within 1,000 feet of the church building;
6. The special permit shall be null and void if a City of Pasco business
license is not obtained by August 1, 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 February
17, 2011 meeting.
5
Vicinity
Item: Special Permit (Church)
Applicant: Troy Jeff Woods
MaP
File #: SP 11 -001
ICN s 1 R
SITES-
- I �r . ,r,,,a
q pill v ST
"
rST-
f„
r
7 A 01 c w
dF
oio
w
�! .w r1 �^ •• SIC �,, ,� , •.a,Ax fd�R i W �x siL 71
� .� MARiIiE.
I, �� 131,�11.51i•li+111N•�, �° ��, p¢ "op
s. f ifp 1' 1!►I"ff r !:. r1, r i 1',x..11{fN" , 1 e►_ O s
dw
6 IF
kF —
Land Use Item: Special Permit (Church)
Applicant: Troy Jeff Woods rr
Map File #: SP 11 -001
SFR's
SFR's
Commercial Comm .
J_T I OUR ST
Comm . Post Office
a Commercial x
� W
c,SFR' s o ol
o Q
. . p
MEN
db
End
C=3
INS -MARIIE ST
City of Pasco,
Please accept my application to open a church in the city of Pasco, WA.
I have been a licensed minister with The Unted Pentecostal Church International
for seven years assisting the local churches in the cities of Kennewick and
Richland as Youth Pastor and three years as an Assistant Pastor. Before that I
was a faithful member for twelve years and served as a Youth Leader for the
focal church in Kennewick during that time.
I currently am this sections Sunday School Director and serve on the United
Pentecostal Church International District of Washington's Sunday School Board.
In March of 2009 1 was appointed to open a church in the city of Pasco by the
Washington District Board. l could not of been happier, with the possibility of
growing a church in the expanding city of Pasco.
We have a great store front building to open in. My Landlord Rachel Simpson
thought it would work well as a church since the surrounding business would be
closed during our hours of operation and we would have the whole large parking
lot for ourselves. We have worked very hard to clean up and paint the interior in
preparation of holding services.
My wife and I are the proud parents of six children ranging from the ages of
twenty to one years of age. My oldest completed the running start program at
Columbia Basin College and is now in his last year at WSU Tri Cities earning a
degree in Business. He is a dynamic young man that also serves this section as
our Youth Leader on the WA State District Board.
In the near future i would like to relocate my more than a decade old New York
Life insurance and financial services business from Kennewick to Pasco and
move my family back to Pasco as well.
Thank You,
4-a- -&---%--
Reverend a ?od s
i�
r/ D CD
r=
m_. CD
i 53.J =?jrL.{
D ��1
i
/ s J-
W
E a �D-
D �u D
a
U D D
�1U
W
a
ULL
a�
s,
ZZ
Oft 1 2ft 24ft
�_— -- — floor ;)fanrw
00 SKATES QF 414t
sTaTEo� '
irbe 4§tate of �
WM6
}
secretary of State
I, SAM REED, Secretary of State of the State of Washington and custodian of its seal,
hereby issue this
CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION
to
THE MEETING PLACE OF WEST PASCO
a/an WA Non-Profit Corporation. Charter documents are effective on the date indicated
below.
Date: 11/15/2010
UBI Number: 603-063-656
APPID: 1 877387
STA T,
f Given under my hand and the Seal of the State
of Washington at Olympia, the State Capital
Wry �
1 y�} Sam Reed, Secretary of State
1
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
INTERNAL REVOME SERVICE
CINCINNATI OH 45999-0023
Date of this noticer 11-25-2010
Employer Identification Number:
27-4040017
For : SS--4
Number of this notice: CP 575 E
MEETING PLACE OF WEST PASCO
% TROY WOODS
3104 S EVERETT PL Fox' assistance You may call us at:
KENNEWICK, WA 99337 1-900-829-4933
IF YOU WRITE, ATTACH THE
STUB AT THE END OF Tnis NOTICE.
WE ASSIMM YOU AN EMPLOYER IDENTIFICATION NUMBER
Thank you for applying for an Employer Identification Number (EIN) . We assigned you
EIN 27-4040017. This EIN will identify you, your business accounts, tax returns, and
documents, even if you have no employees. Please keep this notice in your permanent
records.
When filing tax documents, payments, and related correspondence, it is very important
that you use your EIN and complete name and address exactly as shown above. Any variation
may cause a delay in processing, result in incorrect information in your account, or even
cause you to be assigned more than one EIN. If the information is not correct as shown
above, please make the correction using the attached tear off stub and return it to us.
Assigning an EIN does not grant tax-exempt status to non-profit organizations.
Publication 557, Tax Exempt Status for Your Organization, has details on the
application process, as well as information on returns you may need to file. To apply
for formal recognition of tax-exempt status, most organizations will need to complete
either Form 1023, .Application for recognition of Ftion Under Section 501(c) (3) of
the Internal Revenue Code, or Form 1024, Application for Recognition of Exeaption
Under Section 50I(a) . submit the completed forth, all applicable attachments, and the
required user fee to:
Internal Revenue Service
PO Box 12192
Covington, KY 41012-0192
The Pension Protection. Act of 2006 Mains numerous changes to the tax law
provisions affecting tax-exempt organizations, including an annual electronic
notification requirement (Form 990--N) for organizations not required to file an annual
information return (Form 990 or Form 990-EZ) . Additionally, if you are required to
file an annual information return, you may be required to file it electronically.
Please refer to the Charities & Non-Profits page at www.irs.gov for the most current
information on your filing requirements and on provisions of the Pension protection
Act of 2006 that may affect you.
To obtain tax forms and publications, including those referenced in this notice,
visit our Web site at www.irs,gov. If you do not have access to the Internet, call
1-800-829-3676 (TTY/TDD 1-800-829-4059) or visit your local IRS office.
UNITED PENTECOSTAL CHURCH INTERNATIONAL
TROY J WOODS
31"S EVEREST PL
KENNEMM WA,99337
loill III III 11111111111111 IN IN
!D Number. 145001 D6ftkt:4033
p(P ON: JAN 2012
GENERAL SUPERINTENDENT GENERAL SECRETARY
DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT
at �
rJ �
-1446.0
R ' ! NNna ssqq
7 7
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
MASTER FILE NO. Z 2011-001 APPLICANT: Shane Fast
HEARING DATE: 2/17/20 11 624 W. Lewis Street
ACTION DATE: 3/17/2011 Pasco, WA 99301
BACKGROUND
REQUEST: REZONE: Rezone from C-1 to C-3 to allow for Auto Sales Use
1. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION:
Legal: Lots 9 through 12 & East 1/2 of Lot 13, Block 16,
Gerry's Addition
General Location: 624 West Lewis Street
Property Size: Approximately .36 acres
2. ACCESS: The property has access from West Lewis Street and from an
east-west alley along the south property line.
3. UTILITIES: All utilities are available at the site.
4. LAND USE AND ZONING: The site is currently zoned C-1 (Retail
Business). The site is occupied by a building. Surrounding properties
are zoned and developed as follows:
NORTH C-1 Retail Business District—Sea Mar Motel
SOUTH C-1 (Retail Business District—Auto service; residential unit;
vacant lots
EAST C-3 General Business District—Car lot
WEST C-1 Retail Business District—auto shop
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.
ANALYSIS
The property in question consists of two tax parcels located on the south side
of West Lewis Street, one lot east of 6th Avenue in the Gerry's Addition
Subdivision, which was platted in 1906. Block 16 of Gerry's addition, which
contains the subject property, lies just west of an area of C-2 zoning and is
part of the current Central Business district. The subject property is zoned C-1
and is surrounded by C-1 zoning except for the tax parcel directly to the east,
1
which is zoned C-3. A building on the west parcel has been used as a Print
shop, a clothing store, and a retail plumbing supply store.
The tax parcel to the east was rezoned from C-1 to C-3 in 1973 presumably to
accommodate auto sales (City of Pasco Ordinance 1594). It is one of two C-3
spots in the western downtown area. While this type of "spot" zoning may have
been typical of the era, it is not recommended under current zoning practices.
Since the 1973 rezone to the east, one other parcel was "spot" rezoned from C-
1 to C-3; The City has subsequently tightened regulations in the downtown
area, including the implementation of a Central Business District (CBD) overlay
zone. The subject property is within that overlay zone. According to PMC
25.45.010, "The purpose of the Central Business Overlay District is to provide
regulations that reinforce a positive public image and confidence in commercial
activities within the geographical area of the City . . . ... The district does not
specifically target C-3 type uses, but it does target undesirable conditions,
including "nuisance." C-1 zones generally have fewer potential nuisances than
C-3 zones.
The applicant wishes to sell cars on the lot, a use which is not allowed in the
C-1 zone except with a special permit, and only if the property is adjacent the
intersection of two arterial streets; or adjacent a single arterial street (provided
it is not adjacent to or across a public street right-of-way from a residential
district, and would not be located closer than 300 feet to any existing car lot).
This property does not qualify for the Special Permit provisions; it is neither on
a corner nor adjacent two arterial streets (option #1 above); and although the
subject property is located on an arterial (West Lewis Street) it is nevertheless
within 300 feet of an existing car lot (option #2 above), thus excluding it from
this Special Permit option.
Furthermore, a rezone to C-3 would run contrary to the spirit of the CBD
overlay zone, as it would allow such land uses as wholesale businesses, heavy
machinery sales and service, warehouses, landscape gardening and storage
area for equipment and materials, mobile home and trailer sales and service,
and lumber sales business. Veterinarian clinics for livestock, including outdoor
treatment facilities, (including boarding or overnight holding of animals), and
auto body shops could be allowed in a C-3 zone with a Special Permit.
The initial review criteria for considering a rezone application are explained in
PMC. 25.88.030. The criteria are list below as follows:
1. The changed conditions in the vicinity which warrant other or additional
zoning:
Since the 1973 rezone to the east, anotherparcel ruas "spot" rezoned from C-1 to
C-3; The City subsequently tighteners regulations for the doxuntorun area,
including the introduction of the CBD overlay zone. The subject property is ruithin
that overlay zone. However- none of the subsequent changes have xuar-ranted the
inclusion of many of the uses allowed by the C-3 zoning, including wholesale
businesses, heavy machinery sates and sert,ice, ruarehouses, landscape
gardening and storage area for equipment and materials, mobile home and
trailer- sales and service, and lumber- sales business, as ruell as veterinarian
clinics for- livestock, including outdoor- treatment facilities, (including boarding or-
overnight holding of animals), and auto body shops ruith a Special Permit.
2. Facts to justify the change on the basis of advancing the public health,
safety and general welfare:
A rezone from C-1 to C-3 has the potential of being detrimental to "public health,
safety and general welfare" by allowing more intense land uses closer- to retail
commercial customers.
3. The effect it will have on the nature and value of adjoining property and
the Comprehensive Plan:
There is no evidence that auto sales in particular- ruould inhibit neru business
groxuth, 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 ruithin the CBD; however-
the C-3 zone allows for uses not compatible ruith the intent of the CBD overlay
zone, such as wholesale businesses, heavy machinery sales and service,
warehouses, landscape gardening and storage area for equipment and
materials, mobile home and trailer- sales and service, and lumber- sales business,
and, ruith a Special Permit, veterinarian clinics for livestock, including outdoor-
treatment facilities, (including boarding or overnight holding of animals), and
auto body shops.
Furthermore, a rezone to C-3 tuith a concomitant agreement prohibiting all C-3
uses except Auto sales ruould not be appropriate because it defeats the purpose
of the C-3 zone creating an exception to the rule which is as large as the n le_
itself.
4. The effect on the property owners if the request is not granted:
The property otuners ruould still be able to enjoy all uses currently available in
the C-1 district and CBD Overlay zone, which xuas the zoning at the time of
property acquisition.
5. The Comprehensive Plan land use designation for the property:
The Comprehensive Plan designates the site for- Commercial uses.
STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT
Findings of fact must be entered from the record. The following are initial
findings drawn from the background and analysis section of the staff report.
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
3. The site is zoned C-1 (Central Business District).
4. The site was zoned C-1 in 2007 when the applicant acquired the
property.
5. The purpose of the C-1 Zone, among other things, is to promote
commercial activities outside the central business district that meet the
retail shopping and service needs of the community.
6. The site is in the Central Business Overlay District.
7. The applicant is proposing a rezone to allow vehicle sales on the
property.
8. Special Permits for such vehicle sales is inappropriate because the
property does not qualify for either of the Special Permit provisions; being
on a corner adjacent two arterial streets; or located on an arterial at least
300 feet from an existing car lot.
9. The Central Business Overlay District was not intended to include uses
such as wholesale businesses, heavy machinery sales and service,
warehouses, landscape gardening and storage area for equipment and
materials, mobile home and trailer sales and service, and lumber sales
business, and (with a Special Permit), veterinarian clinics for livestock,
including outdoor treatment facilities, (including boarding or overnight
holding of animals), and auto body shops. It is primarily zoned C-1 and
C-2, with a retail commercial focus.
CONCLUSIONS BASED ON INITIAL STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT
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- o r- not.
1. The proposal is in accordance with the goals and policies of the
Comprehensive Plan.
"here are no Comprehensive Plan Goals or Policies which directly address this
type of request.
2. The effect of the proposal on the immediate vicinity will not be materially
detrimental.
Expanding the C-3 District into the established central core of the city tuou ld
alloru uses incompatible ruith the retail intent of the CBD. Allowed uses would
include wholesale businesses, heavy machinery sales and service, warehouses,
landscape gardening and storage area for equipment and materials, mobile
home and trailer- sales and service, and lumber- sales business, and (ruith a
Special Permit), veterinarian clinics for livestock, including outdoor- treatment
facilities (including boarding or overnight holding of animals), and auto body
shops.
3. There is merit and value in the proposal for the community as a whole.
4
Uses allowed in a C-3 zone, such as wholesale businesses, heavy machinery
sales and ser-t,ice, xua rehou ses, landscape gardening and storage area for
equipment and materials, mobile home and trailer- sales and service, and lumber
sales business, and (tuith a Special permit), veterinarian clinics for livestock,
including outdoor- treatment facilities, (including boarding or overnight holding of
animals), and auto body shops, are generally incompatible xuith retail business
uses fou rid in the CBD.
4. Conditions should be imposed in order to mitigate any significant
adverse impacts from the proposal.
Conditions necessary to mitigate adverse impacts tuould essentially cause the
rezone to mirror- the permitted uses tuithin the C-1 zone, tuith the addition of auto
sales, rather- than reflect the intent of the C-3 zone.
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 tuar-r-anted.
RECOMMENDATION
MOTION: I move to close the hearing on the proposed rezone and initiate
deliberations and schedule adoption of findings of fact, conclusions and a
recommendation to the City Council for the March 17, 2011 meeting.
5
Vicinity Item: Rezone C - 1 to C-3
N
Applicant: Shane Fast N
# : z 2011 -001
WW
0 ki
a ' ,
.
SITE �.
• M
D
i
i
Vicl*nl Item: Rezone C - 1 to C-3
'*ty Applicant: Shane Fast
Map File Z 2011 -001
144� ff or kv,Ir
ri
ode, v
P �
Land Use Item: Rezone C- 1 to C-3
Applicant: Shane Fast N
Map File #: Z 2011 -001
Res.
SS
Commercial s
SITE, 74
Commercial
�► V
s
74 Res
S1
Commercial
FEMME/a
Avg FAA W- Iffasoja
MAP
Zoning Item: Rezone C - 1 to C-3
Applicant- Shane Fast x
Map File # : Z 2011 -001
R-2
C-1
C_2
C-3
SITE
y
C-1
c
m
JH`9�'SS
C_3 cow I -1
-.0ollillillIllIlIll,ll�illillililililliliiiiiillillillillill",IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
4
low qWW
� �V
Jeff Adams
From: Charles Grigg [chas Ogriggsonline.com]
Sent: Monday,January 31, 2011 2:01 PM
To: Jeff Adams
It is our feeling thatwe should notre-zone C-1 zone to C-3 zone (mf# z 2011-001)
The downtown area should not be down zoned to allow car lots.
Pasco has many locations for zoned c-3 around the city, Lets not use the downtown are
For c-3 uses.
Thank you,
Charles Grigg
Grigg Enterprises, Inc
801 West Columbia Street
Pasco, Wa 99301
509-547-0566 Voice
509-547-4387 fax
chas grkcgsonline.com
i
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
MASTER FILE NO. Z 2011-002 APPLICANT: Lee Eickmeyer
HEARING DATE: 2/ 17/2011 510 Easy Street
ACTION DATE: 3/17/2011 Pasco, WA 99301
BACKGROUND
REQUEST: REZONE: Rezone from RT (Residential Transition) to C-1
(Retail Business) to allow for Commercial
Development
1. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION:
Legal: Beginning at a point on the west line of Convention
Drive said point being the intersection of the
westerly extension of the north line of Wrigley Drive
with the west line of Convention Drive; Thence
southerly along the west line of Convention Drive for
a distance of 178 feet; Thence westerly to the
intersection with the east line of Clemente Lane;
Thence northerly to the northeast corner of
Clemente Lane and Wrigley Drive; thence easterly to
the point of beginning
General Location: South of Wrigley Drive between Convention Drive
and Clemente Lane
Property Size: Approximately 2.23 acres
2. ACCESS: The property has potential access from Wrigley Drive,
Convention Drive and Clemente Lane.
3. UTILITIES: All utilities are stubbed in and available to the site.
4. LAND USE AND ZONING: The site is currently zoned RT (Residential
Transition). The site is vacant. Surrounding properties are zoned and
developed as follows:
NORTH RT - Residential Transition—Vacant
SOUTH C-1 - Retail Business District—Farming
EAST R-1 - Low-Density Residential —Single-Family Dwelling Units
WEST C-1 - Retail Business District—Vacant
5. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The Comprehensive Plan Policy LU-3-D
encourages the development of employment clusters. Policy LU-4-B
encourages the concentration of commercial activities, which are
functionally and economically beneficial to each other.
1
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
At the time the Comprehensive Plan was originally established there was no
development in the I-182 corridor except for Desert Plateau. The Plan
envisioned development radiating from the major interchange nodes of Road 68
and Road 100. The interchange nodes were established for commercial
development while residential development was identified for areas beyond the
commercial nodes. Through the implementation of land use regulations
development is expanding as planned from the interchange nodes. The
proposed zoning request is consistent with that plan and will provide areas for
necessary commercial services for existing and new residential development.
The property in question consists of part of a tax parcel South of Wrigley Drive
between Convention Drive and Clemente Lane, consisting of about 2.2 acres.
The subject property is zoned RT and is surrounded by C-1 zoning except for
the Residential area to the east, which is zoned R-1. The subject property is
also within the I-182 Corridor Overlay district and is subject to the
development standards therein.
The property to the north is being farmed; land to the east contains the Sunny
Meadows Subdivision and is fully built out with single-family residential units;
properties to the west and south are vacant, although commercial development
is advancing north along Road 68 towards the City Limits. This parcel is in the
path of that development.
The City's land use plan indicates the property in question should be utilized
for commercial uses. Rezoning the site would support past community
development efforts in infrastructure improvements, land development and
planning within the I-182 Corridor.
The initial review criteria for considering a rezone application are explained in
PMC. 25.88.030. The criteria are listed below as follows:
1. The changed conditions in the vicinity which warrant other or additional
zoning:
Commercial development has been adva icing north a to rig Roam 68 between
Road 76 and Convention Drive for several years. Properties to the south and
iuest of the site have developed ruith commercial buildings. Clemente Lane ruas
extended to Wrigley DiiL,e approximately five years ago and a traffic signal ruas
ir�.stalled at the Burden Boulevard/Convention Drive intersection. about 6 years
ergo. Water- and sewer- utilities are noru available to the site.
2. Facts to justify the change on the basis of advancing the public health,
safety and general welfare:
A rezone from RT to C-1 tuill permit uses identical to the uses on properties to the
south and tuest and anticipated on surrounding vacant properties. This rezone
ruin not be materially detrimental to surrounding properties because it is an
extension of the exis Ling co mmercia lly zoned property to the sou th a nd rues t. It is
consistent tuith the Comprehensive plan aii.d recent infrastructure development
tuithin the neighborhood.
3. The effect it will have on the nature and value of adjoining property and
the Comprehensive Plan:
The uses permitted by the proposed zoning are identical to the uses on properties
to the south and anticipated on surrounding properties. This rezone may create
economies of scare improving the commercial viability of the Road 68 commercial
corridor. County assessor- records indicate commercially zoned properties tuithin
the neighborhood have not diminished the value of surroundirz.g residentially
developed properties. The assessor's records indicate nearby residential
properties have increase by 14 to 18 percent in the past 5 years.
4. The effect on the property owners if the request is not granted:
The property otuners tuill not be able to develop the land in a tuay consistent tuith
the Comprehensive Plan goals and policies.
5. The Comprehensive Plan land use designation for the property:
The Comprehensive Plan designates the site for- Commercial uses.
STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT
Findings of fact must be entered from the record. The following are initial
findings drawn from the background and analysis section of the staff report.
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 vacant.
3. The site is zoned RT (Residential Transition).
4. The site was zoned RT in 1982 prior- to construction of streets and
utilities within the neighborhood.
5. The purpose of the C-1 Zone, among other things, is to promote
commercial activities outside the central business district that meet the
retail shopping and service needs of the community.
6. The site is in the I-182 Corridor Overlay District.
3
CONCLUSIONS BASED ON INITIAL STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT
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 with the goals and policies of the
Comprehensive Plan.
The proposal is consistent tuith the land use designations and policies of the
Comprehensive Plan.
2. The effect of the proposal on the immediate vicinity will not be materially
detrimental.
The uses permitted by the proposed zoning are identical to the uses on properties
to the south and anticipated on surrounding properties. This rezone xuill not be
materially detrimental to surrounding properties because it is consistent xuith th.e
Comprehensive Plan and is an extension of the existing commercially zoned
properties to the south.
3. There is merit and value in the proposal for the community as a whole.
The proposaI has merit because it is consistent ruith the Comprehensive Plan
policies and provides an opportunity for- the location of additional commercial
sert►ice s for- the benefit of the commu nity.
4. Conditions should be imposed in order to mitigate any significant
adverse impacts from the proposal.
Property should be developed according to the underlying zori.bi.g aii.d consistent
xuith the I-1 82 development standards.
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.
RECOMMENDATION
MOTION: I move to close the hearing on the proposed rezone and initiate
deliberations and schedule adoption of findings of fact, conclusions and a
recommendation to the City Council for the March 17, 2011 meeting.
4
Item: Rezone RT to C- 1
Vicinity
Map App Lee Eicki-neyer N
File # : z 2011 -002
SANDIF ROBINSON�3R
rO .wr r`r � I y
H
SITE _
Its 4P
Y WRIGLEY DR s �
►'AMD N
O
ILI
UIS1llLLE" -
�' Y -ACA DLES+TIC
iw: B T'S 1 R
sib
. r "
+ qqz 1
r,� , , • �r�vvwAY�" ;Vii,, ` , • .;,,:. F _ _ ,3 . -
': �u��, nN `illhl.'AP. h t i1 F�+•i Y� I "^
` - ' -BURDEN"Bt�"D -
Item:Land Use Rezone r to C- 1
Applicant:
Map File # : Z 2011 -002
ORION IN
go MONISM
Vacant/ - - 11�
NINE OEM mom
mom
Farming.,
mom
--- WRIGLEY DR monsoon
loom Simon
mom
mom loom
soon
loom
MONISM
Rezone r to C- 1
Zoning Item:Map Applicant: Lee Eicki-neyer
File Z 2011 -002
RT MEN so
SITE
MM
Om I Emilio M
MIN
loss
0 lol -
1 so
mile IN
,I