HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-18-2010 Planning Commission Meeting Packet PLANNING COMMISSION — AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING 7:00 P.M. March 18, 2010
I. CALL TO ORDER:
II. ROLL CALL: Declaration of Quorum
III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: February 18, 2010
IV. OLD BUSINESS:
A. Special Permit Renewal/Expansion of Gravel Minim operation in a R-
T Zone (Rocky Hills Management, LP) (3291 Dent
Road)(MF# SP 10-001)
B. Special Permit Location of an Elementary School in a R-1 Zone (Pasco
School District)(Sandifur Parkway & Road 60)(MF# SP
10-002
C. Special Permit Location of a Sikh Temple in a RS-20 Zone (Gurdwara
Guru Nanak Par. WA)(7505 W. Court Street)(MF# SP
10-005
D. Special Permit Location of a Caretakers Residence in a I-1 Zone (Ty
Gemmell)(505 S 26th Avenue)(MF# SP 10-006)
V. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
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) (711 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)
VI. WORKSHOP:
VII. OTHER BUSINESS:
VIII. ADJOURNMENT:
REGULAR MEETING February 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. Commissioner Little stated he is a member of
Faith Assembly of God Christian Church and recused himself from MF# SP 09-
008. No other 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 Anderson moved, seconded by Commissioner Hay, that the
minutes dated January 21, 2010 be approved as mailed. The motion carried
unanimously.
-1 -
OLD BUSINESS:
A. SPECIAL PERMIT Location and operation of a large scale (27)
acres) water park (Dynamic Waters, LLC) (9600
block of Sandifur Parkway, west of Broadmoor
Square) (MF# SP 09-012)
Chairman Samuel read the master file number and explained the proposed
special permit had been reviewed during a public hearing. The Chairman asked
if staff had any additional comments.
Staff explained that as a result of the public hearing the applicant was requested
to modify the site plan to accommodate the following: the height of structures;
the concern for maintaining the traditional streetscape look and appeal of
Sandifur Parkway; and driveway entrance and parking lot concerns. Staff
reviewed the revised site plan highlighting the areas that addressed the Planning
Commission's instructions and/or recommendations from the hearing. The
project was revised to be built in one phase and the cabana motel area was
redesigned to create a business appearance along Sandifur Parkway with a Hotel
and attached indoor water park.
Chairman Samuel asked staff if the applicant was aware of and agreed to the
conditions.
Staff stated the report and conditions were mailed and emailed to the applicant,
no objections had been received.
Commissioner Little asked about a traffic study and who would be responsible
for the cost of the study.
Staff stated the traffic study was the applicants' responsibility and would be
required as a part of the building permit submittal.
Commissioner Little asked if the go-cart track would have a noise impact in the
neighborhood.
Staff stated only electric go-carts would be used, thereby eliminating the noise
or emissions associated with gasoline engines.
Chairman Samuel complimented the applicant on his proposal incorporating the
Planning Commissions' recommendations.
Commissioner Little moved, seconded by Commissioner Cruz, that the Planning
Commission adopt the findings of fact and conclusions as contained in the
February 18, 2010 staff report. The motion was passed unanimously.
Commissioner Little further moved, seconded by Commissioner Cruz, based on
the findings of fact as adopted, the Planning Commission recommend the City
-2 -
Council grant a special permit to Dynamic Waters, LLC for the location and
operation of a water park in the 9600 block of Sandifur Parkway with conditions
as contained in the February 18, 2010 staff report. The motion was passed
unanimously.
Staff explained the appeal process for the audience.
B. SPECIAL PERMIT Preschool in a R-S-20 District (Imagination
Studios Academy Preschool) (Faith Assembly
of God Christian Center) (1800 Road 72) (MF#
SP 09-008) (Remanded from City Council)
Chairman Samuel read the master file number and explained the proposed
special permit had been reviewed during a public hearing. The Planning
Commission recommended to City Council that they grant the special permit.
After an appeal was filed, the City Council remanded the item back to the
Planning Commission to further clarify and correct the findings of fact. The
Chairman asked if staff had any additional comments.
Staff stated the City Council remanded this item back to the Planning
Commission to specifically address traffic impacts related to the number of
students enrolled in the preschool. The Planning Commission was also
instructed to discuss possible limitations on the number of students enrolled in
the preschool. Staff noted a correction in the memo to the Planning Commission
stating the estimated number of vehicle trips per day per student was 4.48
rather than 2.4.
Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director, stated this
testimony was provided at the public hearing and it was clarified that a
preschool existed and not a daycare. The findings of fact have been developed on
that clarification.
Chairman Samuel stated that information received during the public hearing
conflicted with the original findings of fact and the clarification has been made.
Chairman Samuel questioned staff on the recommendation to limit the class size
to 50.
Staff stated there are two classes with morning and afternoon sessions: one
class on Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday and the other class on Tuesday and
Thursday. The Monday, Wednesday and Friday morning class consists of 40
students; the Tuesday and Thursday morning class has 37 students. The
afternoon class for each day consists of 9-10 students. Each day there would be
approximately 100 students with 50 per class period. If the applicant were to
enroll more students a new special permit review would be needed to discuss
additional traffic impacts.
-3 -
Chairman Samuel asked how the number was developed for the maximum
number of students allowed.
Mr. White stated the maximum number of students was based upon a projected
traffic volume that would be generated if the site was developed with single
family homes.
Chairman Samuel asked if the applicant is aware and agreeable to the special
permit conditions.
Staff stated the applicant was notified there would be a limit on the number of
students allowed to attend, however a specific number was not discussed with
the applicant.
Chairman Samuel asked what process was required for the preschool to enroll
additional students.
Staff stated the applicant would need to apply for a special permit.
Commissioner Cruz moved, seconded by Commissioner Hay, to adopt the
findings of fact and conclusions therefrom as contained in the February 18,
2010 staff report. The motion was passed unanimously.
Commissioner Cruz further moved, seconded by Commissioner Hay, based on
the findings of fact and conclusions therefrom, the Planning Commission
recommend the City Council grant a special permit to the Faith Assembly of God
Church for the location of the Imagination Studios Preschool with the following
approval conditions. The motion was passed unanimously.
C. SPECIAL PERMIT 10-year Master Plan for the location of
portable classrooms at several public school
locations in Pasco [Pasco School District] [MF#
SP 09-011]
Chairman Samuel read the master file number and explained the proposed
special permit had been reviewed during a public hearing. The Chairman asked
if staff had any additional comments.
Staff had no comment.
Commissioner Hay moved, seconded by Commissioner Anderson, to adopt the
findings of fact and conclusions therefrom as contained in the February 18,
2010 staff report. The motion was unanimously approved.
Commissioner Hay further moved, seconded by Commissioner Anderson, based
on the findings of fact and conclusions therefrom, the Planning Commission
recommend the City Council grant a special permit to the Pasco School District
approving a ten year master plan for the location of portable classrooms with
conditions as listed in the staff report. The motion was unanimously approved.
-4 -
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
A. 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 stated the application involves the location of an elementary school at the
northwest corner of Road 60 and Sandifur Parkway. The site was purchased by
the School District in 2004 when the preliminary plat for Three Rivers Crossing
was being prepared. Staff explained schools are listed as conditional uses in the
residential districts and unclassified uses in other districts causing the need for
the special permit review. Most schools in Pasco are located in residential zoning
districts. The School District will be responsible for road improvements on Road
60 up to the City Park. The building will be similar to the Ellen Ochoa Middle
School and the Virgie Robinson Elementary School. The school will be able to
house 730 students. Staff reviewed the balance of the staff report for the benefit
of the Planning Commission.
Chairman Samuel asked if there were any complaints received over noise or
traffic when Maya Angelou was built.
Staff stated there were no complaints to the Planning Office or during the
construction.
Chairman Samuel questioned the traffic impact on Road 68.
Staff stated the traffic generated by elementary schools occurs during off peak
times and is not considered in traffic modeling.
Commissioner Little asked if the students would come from the area east of
Road 68 and north of Burden Boulevard.
Staff stated they believed that would be the case.
Staff also mentioned that Road 60 and Sandifur Parkway are arterial collector
streets.
Staff stated an email was received from a property owner in the vicinity of the
proposed site. Copies of the email were presented prior to the meeting for the
Planning Commission to review.
Kim Marsh, Pasco School District, 1215 W. Lewis Street was present to speak in
favor of the proposal. Mr. Marsh stated in response to an earlier question that
the School District had not received any complaints from neighbors of Maya
-5 -
Angelou Elementary. Mr. Marsh stated approximately 10 buses would go to and
from the proposed school. The Pasco School District predicts there will be
approximately 10,000 elementary students and 9,800 secondary students within
the next 5 ,years. The school will be sized for 730 students. The building would
be built in the same fashion as Virgie Robinson Elementary School.
Phil, address not given except Pasco, WA, asked if the School District would be
more equitable on how they make the boundaries for the school.
Tom Bidwell, 4320 Riverhaven Street, owns neighboring property and is in favor
of the school.
Staff made some additional comments on traffic and stated schools are closed
during the weekends, holidays and during summer vacation.
After three calls, the public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Anderson moved, seconded by Commissioner Hay, to close the
public hearing and schedule deliberations, the adoption of findings of fact, and
development of a recommendation for City Council for the March 18, 2010. The
motion passed unanimously.
B. 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 stated the applicant was seeking to consolidate and renew the special
permits that were previously granted for gravel milling on the property. Staff
explained the property was covered by both City and County permits. The
County permit was issued prior to annexation and is set to expire in 2014. Staff
explained the site was identified as a mineral resource area in the
Comprehensive Plan and was appropriate for gravel mining. Staff reviewed the
written report and suggested an additional condition should be considered
dealing with best management practices.
Commissioner Cruz asked if the recommended permit condition expiration date
for this permit was coincident with the Central Pre-Mix special permit.
Staff stated yes the Central Pre-Mix special permit expires in 2025.
Commissioner Little asked if the permit involved the extraction of minerals and
other activities.
-6 -
Staff stated it would also allow for storage of mined gravel and the storage of
equipment. The rock crushing and the creation of asphalt would occur to the
south of the site.
David Wilson, Rocky Hills Management, 10723 W. Court Street, stated the site
contained 140 acres and the original mining on the site started in the mid-
1970's. He was seeking to combine the existing special permits on his property
into one special permit. He stated the condition related to best practice
management would be agreeable.
Commissioner Little asked if irrigation water would be affected due to the
mining.
Mr. Wilson stated he does not believe the irrigation water would be affected since
the irrigation water for the South Columbia Irrigation District was from canals
and the Franklin County Irrigation District pulls water from the river.
Chairman Samuel asked Mr. Wilson if he reviewed the recommended approval
conditions.
Mr. Wilson stated he had reviewed the conditions and had no issues.
The public hearing was opened for public comment and after three calls and no
answer, the public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Cruz asked staff if they would clarify the special conditions for
the special permit for the asphalt plant.
Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director, outlined a series of
conditions related to best management practices.
Commissioner Little, seconded by Commissioner Cruz, moved to close the public
hearing and schedule deliberations, the adoption of findings of fact, and
development of a recommendation for City Council for the March 18, 2010. The
motion passed unanimously.
C. SPECIAL PERMIT Location of an Auto Body Shop in a C-3 zone
(Martin Cortes) (2700 E. Lewis Street) (MF# SP
10-003
Chairman Samuel read the master file number and stated the applicant
submitted a letter withdrawing his application for a special permit.
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.
-7 -
Staff stated the application involved a request to locate a caretaker residence
next to the Gemmell Welding facility on 26th Avenue. Staff explained the intent of
the caretaker's residence provisions was solely to provide security for a
business. Staff reviewed the written report and pointed out there had been no
police reports of criminal activities on the site within the last 3 ,years. Staff did
not recommend approval of the special permit.
Chairman Samuel questioned City staff's position with regard to the potential
negative impacts with granting this special permit.
Staff stated approving the special permit would set a precedent for allowing
caretaker facilities in other locations in the community where someone may
want to make a similar proposal. The caretaker facilities are for providing
security not necessarily to provide a convenient place for someone to live. Staff
then explained the areas (East "B" Circle & Columbia Avenue) where past
caretaker residences have been approved.
Chairman Samuel asked if there were any data provided regarding declining real
estate values where a caretaker residence has been located in an area.
Staff stated no.
Chairman Samuel asked if there were any data indicating increased safety
issues or any sanitation problems with caretaker residences.
Staff stated no.
Commissioner Anderson believed the intent of the caretaker provisions was to
provide security to a site and he did not believe there was a compelling reason to
grant the special permit in this case.
Ty Gemmell, 2525 W. "A" Street, Space 11, Pasco, WA stated he felt there were
security problems at this site. He agreed there had been no burglaries at the site
because it has been vacant for the past 3 ,years. There have been burglaries
reported next door; in 2008 there was a reported $10,000 burglary. The property
is surrounded by an 8 foot fence which prevents people from looking in; however
wood has been knocked out of the fence from men climbing the fence within the
past 30 days. Mr. Gemmell reviewed pictures with the Planning Commission. He
reported the house two doors to the south had 25 calls to the police within the
last bfl days.
Commissioner Anderson questioned why the police had been called to that
residence.
Mr. Gemmell stated an individual was wanted for narcotics and three weeks ago
the SWAT team was there looking for an individual with a rifle.
Chairman Samuel asked what the caretaker facility would look like, what size
would it be and what hours would someone be there.
-8 -
Mr. Gemmell stated his son would live in the unit. The site currently has an RV
hookup with sewer, electric and water service. There is a concrete slab already
there.
Commissioner Anderson asked if Mr. Gemmell considered an alarm system.
Mr. Gemmell stated no.
Commissioner Anderson stated alarm systems don't sleep.
Mr. Gemmell stated he did not think they were as good as humans.
Commissioner Cruz asked staff based on the statements regarding the
neighborhood if they considered the activities in the surrounding neighborhood.
Staff stated they did check police reports on the specific property and did not
check on any neighboring properties.
Commissioner Cruz asked if any special permits have been granted for a
caretaker residence for a short term basis, such as 6 or 12 months.
Staff stated the other caretaker residences are permanent facilities.
Chairman Samuel asked Mr. Gemmell what impacts would occur to his
operations if the permit was not approved.
Mr. Gemmell's main concern is theft.
Chairman Samuel asked if there were any operations on site that would require
24-7 hour presence.
Mr. Gemmell stated no.
Earl Warren, 520 S. 26th Avenue, who lives across the street from the "little red
house", stated in the past there was a caretaker residence on the property. He
stated he served on the Planning Commission for 13 ,years.
Chairman Samuel thanked Mr. Warren for his ,years of service.
Phil, Pasco, WA stated he owned a business a decade ago and agrees with the
applicant. He had to deal with graffiti and damaged property.
Mr. Warren further stated the people in the red house were being evicted.
Staff asked the Planning Commission for some direction on a recommendation
for the special permit.
Commissioner Anderson stated he was sympathetic with the applicant however
with his experience in law enforcement he stated an alarm, when properly
-9 -
monitored, will alert the police. He was not in favor of the special permit; he feels
this is a dangerous precedent to allow this in a residential neighborhood.
Commissioner Cruz was also sympathetic but did not want to establish a place
for someone to live at the business location. He suggested staff prepare findings
that would support a special set of circumstances and well stated criteria for
granting a permit in this case.
Chairman Samuel stated it was hard to strike a balance for people to be able to
do what they want with their property versus zoning requirements.
Commissioner Cruz suggested staff look at the surrounding properties for
special consideration especially regarding the police calls to the little red house.
Phil, Pasco, WA stated the property was in a light industrial zone.
Commissioner Anderson mentioned that Mr. Warren was in the process of
evicting the residents in the little red house and does not feel any further
investigation is necessary.
Commissioner Anderson moved, seconded by Commissioner Perez to close the
hearing on the proposed Caretaker Residence and initiate deliberations and
schedule adoption of findings of fact, conclusions and a recommendation to the
City Council for the March 18, 2010 meeting.
E. 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.
Staff stated the application was for the location of a Sikh Temple in an R-S-20
Zone at 7505 W. Court Street on a 2.8 acre parcel. The proposal was to convert
an existing 1,800-square-foot single-family home into a temple. Twenty parking
stalls would be located in the northeast corner of the property. The maximum
seating capacity was 54 and estimated vehicle trips were considered based on
the size of the facility. Two letters from citizens were received and provided to the
Commission for review.
Chairman Samuel asked if the Faith Assembly and the Nazarene Churches were
next to the proposed site.
Staff stated they were.
Commissioner Cruz asked about the proposed 35 foot tall sigh and flow it fit in
with the sign code.
-10 -
Staff stated if it was a sign it does not fit; the sign code has a 15 foot height limit
for religious signage with a 40 square foot maximum. The sign code exempts
religious symbols such as crosses, spires, symbols of different sorts that are
much higher than 15 feet; they also do not have wording on the signage such as
hours, etc.
Chairman Samuel asked if anyone would be able to see the facility from Court
Street due to the landscaping.
Mr. White stated it is not invisible however the landscaping does screen the
property.
Raj Bhandal, 5204 Dundas Lane, represented the Sikh community and stated
they were a small community without a Temple. Approximately 10-15 families
would attend the Temple. During the past 5 ,years they have held services at
members' homes rotating locations once a week. They have not had any negative
feedback from neighbors during their services. They will not have a sign but
would have a symbol on the top of a flag pole. Mr. Bhandal stated the pole would
not be lit a night.
Chairman Samuel asked when services would be field.
Mr. Bhandal stated they would meet once a week from 9 a.m. to 12 noon.
Chairman Samuel asked if they would hold services outside of that timeframe.
Mr. Bhandal stated they currently did not have any services planned.
Chairman Samuel asked if they would have outdoor activities.
Mr. Bhandal stated wedding ceremonies would be indoors and the dinner or
reception may be held outside.
Commissioner Cruz asked the applicant if he understood that if in the future he
wanted to expand his operations he would need to apply for a special permit
review.
Mr. Bhandal stated they do not anticipate any modifications and they will
accommodate all recommendations set forth by the City.
Chairman Samuel asked if they had any issues with the City's
recommendations.
Mr. Bhandal stated they did not have any issues but would need sufficient time
to conform to the City recommendations.
Commissioner Little mentioned there would be requirements that need to be met
prior to occupancy, and asked the applicant if he was aware what the cost would
be to accommodate the recommendations.
-11 -
Mr. Bhandal stated they Have not obtained a cost estimate at this time.
Chairman Samuel opened the public hearing.
Mike Garrett, 1 Lavender Ct, Pasco, WA, President of the Ivy Glades
Homeowners Association, stated his first concern was regarding traffic; he stated
there was a turn lane into the Ivy Glades main entrance that did not match up
well with the entrance to the Temple. He proposed the temple use the western
entrance versus the eastern entrance to the site. He also said that maintenance
of the greenbelt would be preferred.
Chairman Samuel asked Mr. Garrett if he was in favor of this proposal.
Mr. Garrett stated he would be in favor if the traffic issue is addressed, the
greenbelt is maintained and if there would be no illumination allowed for the
pole.
Chairman Samuel asked if he would have a problem if they had a sign similar to
the sign at the Nazarene Church.
Mr. Garrett said no.
Jim Millard, 7305 W. Court Street, Pastor of the Church of the Nazarene, stated
he was in favor of the proposal with one condition. He stated since the building
is somewhat obscure that any signage or emblems should be far removed from
his facility to prevent confusion for visiting guests.
Richard Manke, 7517 W. Court Street, stated he lives adjacent to the proposed
site. He felt a 35 foot sign was excessive. He also stated there currently are 3
churches within 600 feet of his house. He stated if the church remained small
it would not affect his residence, but if it expanded it would. He also mentioned
his concern for noise from weddings. He would not like commercial activities to
occur on this site. He asked if it is a permitted use for someone to live at the site
of a church.
Chairman Samuel asked if Mr. Manke was in favor for this proposal.
Mr. Manke stated he is still making up his mind.
Jim Nelson, 7505 W. Court Street, stated he sold the site to the applicant. He
currently uses both driveways and felt there was adequate room to stack in the
turn lane. He did not feel there was a problem with traffic. He felt the Temple
would be a great addition to the community.
Roger Lenk, 1817 N. Road 76, discussed site ingress/egress and mentioned lie
was opposed to the 35 foot sign. He was opposed to the proposal.
Phil, Pasco, WA, stated he heard the applicant state there would not be a sign,
as well as no lights. He was in favor of this proposal.
-12 -
Mr. Manke asked if there was any public input when the matter came before the
Council.
Chairman Samuel stated there would be no Public input allowed after the public
hearing.
Mr. Manke asked if any discussion could be made prior to the City Council with
Council Members.
Chairman Samuel stated no and if they did, they would have to recuse
themselves from that item.
Mr. Bhandal stated there would not be a sign but a flag pole with an emblem on
top and it would not be lighted. He mentioned their community consists of
native people from India and said their community would only grow if other
natives migrated to the Tri-City area.
Commissioner Little asked about the comment made on someone living at the
site.
Mr. Bhandal stated at this time that is not the case; however in the future if they
were to hire a priest they would look into the priest living at the site.
Chairman Samuel asked staff if they had any further information or comments
on this proposal.
Staff stated live-in quarters or parsonages have been allowed for this type of
situation. Staff stated a symbol is exempt from the sign code and is allowable.
Following little additional discussion Chairman Samuel closed the public
hearing.
Commissioner Anderson moved, seconded by Commissioner Hay, to close the
hearing on the proposed location of a Temple in an R-S-20 Zone and initiate
deliberations and schedule adoption of findings of fact, conclusions, and a
recommendation to the City Council for the March 18, 2010 meeting.
OTHER BUSINESS:
Mr. White mentioned there would be approximately 5 public hearings at the
March hearing.
With no further business, the Planning Commission was adjourned at 9:30 pm.
David McDonald, Secretary
-13 -
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
MASTER FILE NO: SP 10-001 APPLICANT: Rocky Hills Management
HEARING DATE: 2/18/10 10723 W. Court Street
ACTION DATE: 3/18/10 Pasco, WA 99301
BACKGROUND
REQUEST: SPECIAL PERMIT: Renewal/Expansion of a Gravel Mining
Permit in an R-T zone
1. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION:
Legal: Farm Unit # 84
General Location: 3291 Deist Road
Property Size: Approx. 143 acres
2. ACCESS: The site has access from Dent Road.
3. UTILITIES: Power is available to the site. No water or sewer
service is available to the site
4. LAND USE AND ZONING: The property is zoned RT (Residential
Transition) and contains a farm, a single-family dwelling. Site has
been partially mined for gravel. Surrounding properties are zoned
and developed as follows:
NORTH: COUNTY-R-S-40 & RC-5 - Farm land and vacant land
SOUTH: RT-Central Pre-Mix gravel pit and related operations
EAST: RT-Vacant land
WEST: COUNTY RT—Farm land
5. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The Comprehensive Plan designates
this area for Single Family Residential development. However, the
Resource Lands Chapter of Vol. II designates the property as
resource lands. The Comprehensive Plan points out that mineral
resource lands should be protected for the extraction of minerals
(RCW 36.79A.060 (1) (a).
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.
1
ANALYSIS
Gravel mines and quarries are listed as unclassified uses in PMC
Chapter 25.86 and as such are required to be reviewed through the
special permit process before locating anywhere in the City. The
property in question has been issued special permits in the past by both
the City and County for gravel mining operations. The property is
currently under two different permits. 73 acres is covered by a City
special permit that expires in the year 2028 and the balance is under a
County special permit that expires in 2014. The applicant is requesting
that all of the property be consolidated under one special permit. Only
about 25 acres of the site has been mined.
The Rocky Hills property (formerly the Wilson property) is designated
under the Resource Lands Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan as a
mineral resource area. The Growth Management Act (GMA) requires each
city and county in the state to designate mineral resource lands that are
not characterized by urban development and which have long term
commercial significance for mineral extraction (RCW 36.70A.170). The
GMA requires communities to protect mineral resource lands for mineral
extraction once the lands have been so designated.
Gravel mining has occurred in the general location of the Rocky Hills site
since the 1950's. The adjoining property to the south and east (owned by
Dale Adams) has been granted special permits for sand and gravel
mining. The property is under lease to Central Pre-Mix who has been
operating a gravel pit on the property since 1956. Prior to that time gold
was mined on the property. Central Pre-Mix produces various types of
crushed rock, gravel products and ready mix concrete from gravel that is
or has been mined on both the Rocky Hills property and Mr. Adam's
property. In 2009 Central Pre-Mix was granted a special permit to also
operate a hot mix asphalt plant.
The Central Pre-Mix gravel mining facility is only one of three major
functioning gravel pits within the Tri-Cities area. However, the Acme pit
in Richland is basically depleted and will no longer provide significant
amounts of gravel. Because gravel products are a critical component for
construction they therefore have an impact on the economy of the
community. The Comprehensive Plan recognizes this and suggests there
is a need to protect the lands around the Central Pre-Mix mining
operation for future mineral production.
Due to the lack of infrastructure in the area, current development
potential of the property in question is limited to land intensive uses.
This proposal does not need the types of infrastructure that support
residential or commercial development. The site is located a mile west of
the Broadmoor Boulevard/Road 100 Interchange and considering the
lack of infrastructure and the development planned between Road 68
and Broadmoor Boulevard, it is unlikely the Rocky Hills property will
develop in the near future. If changing economic conditions warrant a
change in land use, the applicant can simply not utilize the special
permit and develop his land with permitted uses.
In 2009 the City Council adopted the Broadmoor Concept Plan that
identifies development issues and opportunities for the Broadmoor area
west of Broadmoor Boulevard. In addition to explaining development
constraints created by gravel mining operations in the area, the plan also
discusses river oriented development opportunities for the expired gravel
pit areas. While gravel mining operations will continue for at least 15
more ,years, perhaps longer depending on the pace of extraction, further
discussions will be needed with the property owners and Central Pre-Mix
to refine development objectives and solutions to development
constraints for the area.
The special permit, if granted by the City, regulates land use only.
Several other governmental agencies monitor sand/gravel extraction
activities to assure compliance with associated environmental
regulations. Mining permits are required by the Department of Natural
Resources and an air source permit and a storm water discharge permit
are required from the Department of Ecology. A reclamation plan is also
required by the Department of Natural Resources which regulates the
closure of gravel pits.
Given the quality of the aggregate found on the applicant's property and
the lack of other mineable sites in the urban area the applicant has
requested that a special permit be granted to allow gravel mining until
the year 2035. The applicant feels that a permit with such a time frame
would help insure the availability of the gravel resource without it being
lost to other land uses. Past gravel mining special permits (Wilson &
Central Pre-Mix) have been granted for a period of 30 ,years. The
applicant is seeking a permit for 25 ,years which is seven ,years beyond
the current permit on the property and 10 ,years beyond the Central Pre-
Mix permit. For consistency and to avoid confusion over the various
gravel mining special permits it may be appropriate to grant the new
Rocky Hills permit only to the year 2025. The applicant has the option of
requesting further review of the special permit in ten or fifteen ,years if
additional time is needed for extracting gravel.
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 and comments made at the public hearing. The Planning
Commission may add additional findings as deemed appropriate.
1. The site is located in an RT zone.
2. The site is within the Urban Growth Boundary
3. The Resource Lands Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan
designates the property as a resource land area.
4. The Comprehensive Plan identifies the property in question as
lands containing one of the best gravel deposits in Franklin
County.
5. The GMA requires mineral resource lands to be protected for the
extraction of minerals (RCW 36.79A.060 (1) (a).
6. In the past the property has been granted special permits from
both the City and County for gravel mining.
7. Part of the site has been mined by Central Pre-Mix.
8. The site is being farmed and contains one farm house.
9. The site is not served by water and sewer service.
10. Surrounding lands to the west, north and east are vacant or are
being farmed.
11. The Central Pre-Mix gravel pit, rock crusher, ready-mix plant and
related facilities are located directly south of the site.
12. Central Pre-Mix was granted a special permit in 2009 to operate a
hot mix asphalt plant to the south of the Rocky Hill property. That
special permit expires in 2025.
CONCLUSIONS BASED ON STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT
The planning Commission must make findings of fact based upon the
criteria listed in P.M.C. 22.80.060. The criteria and staff listed findings are
as follorus:
1 j Will the proposed use be in accordance ruith the goals, policies,
objectives and text of the Comprehensive plan?
The "Resource Lands" of the Comprehensive Plan identifies the property
in question as mineral resource land containing one of the best gravel
deposits in Franklin County. The Plan also suggests these lands should
be protected for mineral extraction. Mining gravel on the applicant's
property would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
2) Will the proposed use adversely affect public infrastructure?
4
The proposed land use does not require sewer and water service.
Municipal utilities would interfere with the proposed gravel mining
process.
3) Will the proposed use be constructed, maintained and operated to
be in harmony ruith existing or intended character- of the geri.er-crr
vicinity?
The surrounding properties are vacant, being farmed or mined for gravel
and sand. The proposed mining operation will be consistent with
mining operations to the south and the special permits issued for mining
on the adjoining lands. According to the Comprehensive Plan and the
Broadmoor Concept Plan the ultimate use of the property will be
primarily low density single-family residential once the mining
operations have finished. Portions of the site near the Central Pre-Mix pit
area will be devoted to mixed residential and commercial uses.
4) Will the location and height of proposers structures and the site
design discou rage the development of permitted uses on property in the
general vicinity or impair- the value thereof?
This proposal will not involve the construction of permanent structures
and will be identical to previously special permitted uses on the property
and adjoining properties.
SJ 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 xuould be the operation of any
permitted uses ruithin the district?
Nearby properties are being mined, farmed or are vacant and under lease
to be mined. The nearby farming operations, rock crusher, and concrete
batch plant presently create as much or more dust, noise and odor as
does the proposed use. The property to the south has been granted
special permits for the operation of a hot mix asphalt plant and for
graveling mining and related activities. These special permits expire in
2025. Central Pre-Mix has the option of requesting further review of their
special permits if additional time is need to retrieve gravel. Drawing
comparisons between permitted uses in the RT zone is difficult because
only farming and large lot residential (5 acres) development is permitted
in the zone.
6) Will the proposed use endanger- the public health or safety if
located and developed where proposed, or in any ruay ruill become a
nuisance to uses permitted in the district?
5
The proposal will make available a needed resource to the community in
general which is important for continued growth and welfare of the
community. The present mining operations nearby by do not endanger
public health. This proposal will allow the continuation of the existing
mining operation and will not be a nuisance to the existing Central Pre-
Mix operations permitted by special permit. The site is designated as a
mineral resource area and is to be protected for the extraction of
minerals. Permitted uses such as housing will not occur until the
mineral extraction is completed.
Recommended Approval Conditions
1) The special permit shall apply to Farm Unit # 84;
3) The scope of the approved activities includes sand/gravel
extraction, storage of gravel and storage of equipment
utilized in the extraction process;
4) The applicant shall obtain and maintain all necessary
governmental permits for the operations permitted by this
special permit;
5) The gravel mining operation must follow best management
practices. Best management practices may include, but are
not limited to:
• Using water or chemical dust suppressant on particulate
matter (PM) containing surfaces (i.e. haul roads, staging
areas, transfer areas and parking areas) and/or materials
prior to and during activities that may release PM into the
air. Re-application may be required periodically to
maintain effectiveness;
• Managing activity during high winds, if the winds are
likely to cause the release of PM into the air;
• Using covered chutes and covered containers when
handling, transferring, and/or storing PM containing
materials;
• Minimizing the free fall distance, i.e. drop height, of PM
containing materials at transfer points such as the end of
conveyors, front-end loader buckets, etc.;
• Managing vehicle loads with potential of release of PM
with appropriate covers or freeboard consistent with
applicable laws;
6
• Minimizing exposed areas of PM containing materials
such as storage piles, graded surfaces, etc, and/or using
tarps or chemical dust suppressants to minimize releases
to the air;
• Limiting vehicle speed to less than 15 miles per hour on
unpaved surfaces;
• Consolidating storage Piles whenever Possible;
• Managing stockpile loader and haul truck travel to
control release of PM;
• Prevent the deposition of particulate matter (PM) onto
paved public roadways;
6) This special permit shall expire on January 1, 2025.
RECOMMENDATION
MOTION for Findings of Fact: I move to adopt findings
of fact and conclusions there from as contained in the
March 18, 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 Rocky Hills Management for the location and
operation on Farm Unit # 84 with conditions as listed in
the March 18, 2010 staff report.
7
Item: Gravel Mining in RT Zone
Vidn'tY
licant: Rocky Hi
A -m T lls Management N
Map
File # : SP 10-00 1
SITE
If
t �•'��f� ,q,.t,� �Y., �� �;� � - .....rte � #
Land Item: Gravel Extraction in RT Zone �
Use Applicant: Rocky Hills Management (NJ-
Ma File # : SP 10 -001 I
Farming
i
Farming
Vacant
SITE
_j
0
�� Gravel
Extraction
Zoning Item: Gravel Extraction in RT Zone
Applicant: Rocky Hills Management N
Map File # : SP 10 -001
RS-40 (County)
Ce
RT
r (County) SITE
0
RT
r � �
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
MASTER FILE NO: SP-10-002 APPLICANT: Pasco School District #1
HEARING DATE: 2/18/10 1215 W Lewis St
ACTION DATE: 3/18/10 Pasco, WA 99301
BACKGROUND
REQUEST: SPECIAL PERMIT: Location of an Elementary School in a R-1
Zone (Sandifur Parkway & Road 60)
1. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION:
Legal: The easterly 564' of the southerly 846' of the southeast 1/4 of the
northwest 1/4 of Sec 10, T 9 N, R 29 E, W.M., except that portion
lying southerly of the north right-of-way line of Sandifur
Parkway.
General Location: Northwest corner of Sandifur Parkway and Road 60
Property Size: Approximately 8 acres
2. ACCESS: The site is adjacent to Sandifur Parkway and Road W.
3. UTILITIES: A 12" water line is located to the south in Sandifur Parkway
and to the east in Road 60. The water line in Road 60 extends about 125
feet north of Sandifur Parkway. Sewer service for the site has been
extended east in an easement from Coppercap Mountain Lane to the city
park site to the north. The water line will need to be extended in Road 60
to coincide with the construction of the proposed elementary school.
4. LAND USE AND ZONING: The site is currently zoned R-1 (Low Density
Residential) and is vacant. Surrounding zoning and land uses are as
follows:
NORTH- R-1 Vacant future park site
SOUTH- R-1 Single-Family
EAST- R-S-20 County-Residential
WEST- R-1 Single-Family
5. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The Comprehensive Plan designates the site
for low-density residential. Goal CF-5 suggests adequate provisions
should be made for educational facilities located throughout the urban
growth area. Policy CF-5-A encourages the appropriate location and
design of schools throughout the community. Goal TR-1 encourages the
creation and maintenance of an effective and convenient street system.
Other transportation policies (TR-1-E & TR-1-F) discourage through
traffic in residential neighborhoods and encourage the disbursement of
1
traffic through an interconnected network of streets. Various utility
goals and policies encourage the extension of water and sewer service in
the Urban Growth Area (UF-1, OF-1A & OF-1-E). OF-D-1 suggests
irrigation distribution lines be distributed with development where there
are irrigation districts. The City now maintains and operates an
irrigation system in the general area around the proposed school site.
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 site in question was identified during the preliminary plat process for the
Three Rivers Crossing development as a future school location. To ensure the
site would remain available for a school at some future date the School District
purchased the property in 2004.
Schools are conditional uses and may be permitted within the R-1 zoning
district only after review through the special permit process. Even though the
School District purchased the property in question 6 years ago the proposed
school is required by the Municipal Code to be reviewed through the special
permit hearing process.
Pasco currently has eleven elementary schools (the School District has one
additional elementary school [Edwin Markham] outside the Pasco UGA). With
the recent growth in population (Pasco's population has more than doubled hi
size since 1997) and student enrollment, the School District needs to construct
another elementary school. Elementary school enrollment in Pasco has
increased by an average of about 365 new students per year for the last
decade. This year the elementary enrollment increased by over 400 new
students. The State Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction
estimates Pasco's elementary enrollment will increase by 2,500 students over
the next 5 ,years. This continued growth in school enrollment will create the
need for additional elementary schools.
To address part of the need for additional school space the District is proposing
to develop the site in question with a 69,330 square foot elementary school
similar to Maya Angelou and Virgie Robinson. The two story building will have
classroom space for 730 students. The site will contain public parking and bus
loading off Road 60. The school site is the same size (8 acres) as the Maya
Angelou site. A future neighborhood park will be developed immediately to the
north of the school site, and will help provide necessary open space for student
use.
The proposed site is not fully improved with necessary infrastructure. City
codes require concurrent development of street, sidewalks and utilities
whenever a new building is constructed. In the case of the proposed elementary
school site, this would involve improvements on Road 60 and Sandifur
Parkway. These improvements will include street construction and paving,
installation of curb, gutter, sidewalk, street lights, handicapped ramps,
signage, lane striping, street drainage, utilities, fire hydrants and any
necessary speed-reduction modifications needed by the School District.
Modifications to the sidewalks may be needed along Sandifur Parkway. The
PUD overhead power lines bordering the site will need to be placed
underground. Hayden Homes, the developer of the Three Rivers subdivision,
previously undergrounded most of the overhead power lines along Sandifur
Parkway. The School District is responsible for undergrounding the portion
that remains overhead.
With respect to traffic-related issues a signal warrant test will be needed to
determine when a signal should be installed at Road 60 and Sandifur Parkway.
The I-182 Subarea Transportation Plan identifies the proposed school but the
plan does not identify a need for a traffic signal at Road 60 and Sandifur
Parkway. The Regional Transportation Analysis model used by the Regional
Council does not include elementary schools in the data used to identify future
traffic impacts because elementary schools do not impact the peak hour traffic
conditions in the way other land uses do. Based on the Institute of Traffic
Engineers Trip Generation Manual (7th Edition) an elementary school with 730
students on average can be expected to generate about 941 vehicle trips per
day. That would amount to $40,463 in traffic impact fees. If the site was fully
developed with single-family homes about 300 vehicle trips could be expected
per day.
Most of the schools in Pasco including the Pasco High School and Chiawana
High School are located in residential zoning districts. An on-line search of the
Franklin County Assessors records (February, 2010) revealed that many of the
residential properties located near the existing Maya Angelou Elementary
School have increased in value since the school was built. The Maya Angelou
neighborhood was not fully developed until after the school was built. This
provides a good indication that elementary schools do not discourage the
development of permitted uses on property in the general vicinity of a school or
impair the value thereof. Recent development around the McGee Elementary
School also provides another example of a residential neighborhood that
developed after a school was constructed.
3
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
and comments made at the public hearing. The Planning Commission may
add additional findings as deemed appropriate.
1. The site is located in an R-1 zone.
2. The site was identified during the preliminary platting process as a
location for a future elementary school.
3. The Pasco School District purchased the site in 2004 for a future
elementary school.
4. Schools are conditional land uses in the R-1 zone and require review
through the special permit process prior to permitting for construction.
5. The site is within the city limits of Pasco.
6. The Comprehensive Plan identifies the site for low-density residential
uses.
7. The site is currently vacant.
8. Comprehensive Plan Goal OF-5 suggests that adequate provisions should
be made for the location of educational facilities throughout the urban
growth area.
9. Various utility goals and policies (UF-1, OF-1A, OF-1E & OF-D-1) within
the Comprehensive Plan encourage the extension of water, sewer and
irrigation lines within the UGA.
10. Water service is located in Sandifur Parkway.
11. Water service extends north on Road 60 approximately 125 feet northerly
of Sandifur parkway.
12. Road 60 is not completely developed with standard street improvements.
13. Road 60 lacks the necessary right-of-way for a fully developed street.
14. Overhead power lines are located along the southern and eastern edge of
the site.
15. City development standards require off-site street and utility (sewer,
water, irrigation & etc) improvements to be constructed or installed
concurrently with site development.
16. Off-site street improvements include but are not limited to street
construction and paving, installation of curb gutter and sidewalk (7'
wide), street lights, handicapped ramps, signage, lane striping, street
drainage, speed-reduction modifications, fire hydrants and the
undergrounding of overhead power lines.
17. According to the Institute of Traffic Engineers Trip Generation Manual
(7th Edition) a 730 student elementary school will generate about 941
vehicle trips per day.
18. If developed with single family homes the site would generate about 300
vehicle trips per day.
4
19. The Pasco School District enrollment has grown from 8,648 in 1997 to
14,437 in the 2009-2010 school year.
20. The Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction estimates Pasco's
elementary school enrollment will increase by another 2,500 by 2015.
21. Residential development near the existing Maya Angelou Elementary
School indicates elementary schools do not negatively impact the value of
surrounding homes or the intended development of residential
neighborhoods.
CONCLUSIONS BASED ON 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 proposed use supports the following plan goal CF-5 that suggests adequate
provisions be made for educational facilities throughout the Urban Growth
Area. Transportation and utility policies support city standards that require
the extension of streets and utilities in conjunction with development. To be in
accord with the Comprehensive Plan the proposed elementary school
development would also need to include the development of utilities through
the length of the site and development of corresponding street improvements.
2) Will the proposed use adversely affect public infrastructure?
Development activities within the City are required to install or improve all
necessary public infrastructure concurrent with development. Construction of
the proposed elementary school will require street improvements, street
lighting, sidewalks, fire hydrants, street drainage, signage, the installation of
water lines and all other items required in the standard specification of the
City. Required improvements will enhance public infrastructure facilities in the
area around the proposed school site. The proposed school will generate about
600 more vehicle trips per day than if the site was fully developed with homes.
However, the operations of elementary schools do not fully correspond with
surrounding peak hour traffic. The sewer system was designed with a stub
specifically to service the proposed school.
3) Will the proposed use be constructed, maintained and operated to be in
Harmony ruith existing or intended character-of the general vicinity?
5
The proposed elementary school has been designed to complement the existing
and future neighborhood by providing generous ,yard setbacks, landscaping,
screening of mechanical equipment and a pitched roof line to moderate the
school's height in keeping with typical pitched roofs of residential homes.
Elementary schools are typically located in or near residential neighborhoods
and are an accepted part of the character of residential areas.
4) Will the location and height of proposed structures a rid the site design
discourage the development of permitted uses on property in the general
vicinity or impair- the value thereof?
The construction of schools in residential neighborhoods often encourages
development of nearby properties. Residential development around the Maya
Angelou and McGee schools was not completed until after the schools were in
place. An on-line search of the Franklin County Assessors records (February,
2010) revealed that values of many residential properties located near the
existing Maya Angelou Elementary School have increased since the school was
built.
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 rights than ruou ld be the operation of any permitted uses xuithin
the district?
Experience has shown that schools within Pasco generate few complaints from
neighbors. Elementary schools typically are not a source of dust, fumes,
vibrations or flashing lights. The proposed school could generate up to 940
vehicle trips per day. During weekends, the summer break, and other break
periods very little traffic will be generated.
6) Will the proposed use endanger- the public health or safety if located cm.d
developed where proposed, or in anyway ruill become a nuisance to uses
permitted in the district?
The elementary school will be constructed to meet all requirements of the
International Building Code, the fire code, the plumbing code, all other
construction codes and state regulations pertaining to elementary school
construction. The building will be required to have fire-rated corridors, area
separation walls, sufficient exiting and fire sprinkler systems to ensure the
safety of the public. The construction of sidewalks and street improvements
will address pedestrian and traffic safety issues.
Schools have a long history of being accepted in residential neighborhoods. In
most communities schools, including elementary schools, are located in or near
residential neighborhoods.
6
RECOMMENDED APPROVAL CONDITIONS
1. The special permit shall be Personal to the applicant.
The elementary school and school site shall be developed in substantial
conformity with the site plan and building elevations submitted with the
special permit application.
3. No driveway on Road 60 may be located closer than 270 feet from the
center of the intersection of Road 60 and Sandifur Parkway.
4. One driveway will be permitted on Sandifur Parkway. The driveway shall
not be located closer than 350 feet from the center of the intersection of
Road 60 and Sandifur Parkway. This driveway shall be exit only.
5. Road 60 abutting the school property shall be improved to arterial street
standards meeting all applicable regulations and construction standards
of the City Engineer. Improvements shall include but not be limited to
curb, gutter, sidewalk and street lighting along the school side of the
street.
6. The complete road width for Road 60 shall be 48 feet; the Pasco School
District shall be responsible for constructing the full road width,
including the intersection of Sandifur Parkway and Road 60, from
Sandifur Parkway north to the first school driveway. Full road width
shall include curb and gutter and any required storm water retention
facilities on the east side. Minimum of 28 feet of road width shall be
constructed for the remaining portion of Road 60.
7. Sidewalks shall be off-set to match surrounding subdivisions on Road 60
and Sandifur Parkway
S. The planting strip between the curb and the off-set sidewalk must be
planted in lawn and trees at 50-foot intervals. The type of trees and
landscaping plan must be approved by the city prior to installation.
9. All costs associated with speed reduction/modification including but not
limited to flashing lights, signage, pedestrian sensors, safety and
crosswalks shall be paid for by the School District.
10. All street/roadway signage abutting the property and offsite is to be
provided by the school district and must be per the most current MUTCD
& City of Pasco construction standards.
11. The School District shall identify and provide all necessary
accommodations for pedestrian school routes along Sandifur Parkway
and Road 60.
1?. No mid-block crosswalks will be permitted.
13. The School District shall pay the traffic mitigation fee in effect at the time
a building permit is issued.
7
14. The School District shall prepare a dust control mitigation plan to be
submitted with the building permit application.
15. All utilities, storm water facilities, and infrastructure improvements shall
be designed and constructed to meet the standard specifications of the
City Engineer. The School District shall be responsible for extending the
12 inch water line north in Road 60 to the edge of the school site
16. The School District shall install a 12 inch irrigation line along the length
of the school site in Road 60.
17. The School District shall dedicate the east 10 feet of the site for
additional Road 60 right-of-way.
18. No sports field lighting shall be permitted.
19. The special permit shall be null and void if a building permit has not
been obtained by May, 2012.
RECOMMENDATION
MOTION for Findings of Fact: I move to adopt findings of fact
and conclusions there from as contained in the March 18, 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 the Pasco
School District for the location of an elementary school at the
northwest corner of Sandifur Parkway & Road 60 (parcel #s 116-
240-072 & 116-240-067) with conditions as listed in the March
18, 2010 staff report.
8
Item-: Elementary school ' -
Vicin it In R 1 done
Applicant. Pasco School
M District ap
File #. SP 10-002
• L
_- ♦ _ �'-.
THREE-RIVERS
'DANION POINT DR SS z
L
O e�' !
a ALBINE LAKES DR t ,V� �
•,. ` :p ��, OVERTON RD
O 'NIISUCJALLYID)R�.
jW .c�,„1U SITE
t
w
. y
'ENZI 'FALLS"IStZ: _ +�,.
131
a DIU P Y
lip;ROBINSON DR
+ ± 7• -. FFERSONjD'R:
x DR JOHN Q[il+'13
b
NINE
Land Item: Elementary School in R- 1 Zone
Use Applicant: Pasco School District D
Map File SP 10-002
Farming
_7
co
NONE
mm 1, _ _ __
SFDU 's
(County)
NONE
FINE
Item: Elementary School in R- 1 Zone
Zoning A ,
Map ,,,Plicant-. Pasco School District
D
File SP 10-002
oul
MEN
RS=20
(County)
loss
MEN
w...........■o..............�..y........... .... �... ...-- .... - -.. ---.�� - �-__ '-� ---�-r-==a==-.�: ..r^rrtr.... ....-. �..... .... .r...■.. .�.. .... .... ....�a�'`, /'� �
i ■■� x- �'lT i Y ♦a
OEM
■ •
:
■ ■■ iii `-'_
�
an iii '-� � � �♦ ±♦
so ME ;
OMEN
� � iii �o■ 5 1? : • ' + �
■ ■■ �Y��:•�:g..■■■ r�iiiiiiiiiiiiiiii i I
n ■uu■u• t
iiii iiiiii�r f '
• ■■ 1? ■uu■u■■■■ ■ E R
iiiiiiii■ ■u' a�IN .%
eo
NOON me
>t w,.. 4. +ro �, uuu■
to
■
no ur r 1
■■ Yo � �,y r ■
- $ ■■Y ■
■n ■
■ ii � �� � iii
I ;
No �p k P iii ; • 1
�fi ■
u
::■■■■:IR ° em ■l
ii #iii j • • •
:. t0'� 4 iii
+ ri■u■uu■ u■ouuuii:
� muu■uu■uu■u�rr.-wr..�....r......x�....r....■ 1
KNEEN
1
i
I
i —
�I I
... l PHI EI�III III
114
rk
I
...r:F �a wq�tom_
�-r�lnr' rir'.'rltr:r:�riAJlr�ll'��Ir'a`tf6!'�,'�rr7 — Ib1Y'i'r614F:rariff'a'r�'�i: �, - �9wY■=r�t�r d�,rr
Fes,_ _� : fIfIN� �IIIIIIfINlll9l� lfl
�iJill'1111111111IH�Vllfll MR
■mi�m" ..ar �to[rii� , : rawer rerreu`__a��r-�4+ ��cair■ :_ ■��as�r r.r ,■�■rrr, ■.r.■c.'fe rM'r�, .r.■ ■�■4_.
f 11 i —
� Ate'
1111 TI M- 1111 1. mill
« ; N
Olt_' a �aa tact ■rcrlr awn aw ■ka
0
aw�s� � _. �,. .e■„��}�IEy�.■r ,_��Ir����1r1111e���llll��l�ldll�Il�lllll��llpld� l�Illl�llll fllll�IIIIIIl:I�1���'I`�li�lll�llull�ll�
i �alr■ k. - --- ° -- — --
�,� = �” � g1. -i .�Imo'�1�1? ■4! _ 'yy l I i 1���i■ I ■91i#91!°r I'�II�waF� �� �'lla�f
1 2 3 4 5 6 / F3 9 10
e
g
w
0
A $ A
h �
°
N R
h
N
_ _ 0 - -
O - 'Q-,� N
- - - - - - - - - -� - - - - RAD 0 _ _ [_ �� _ - m o
725_46' - —
PARKINGI
'PARKING, -
°
-PLAY \ PICK-UF"3RJVE THRU
1. I STRUCTURE i SOFTBALL '. �`' l."` - i /[ ! J// / y H
C I $ 4,11 O ' \ �{ , i // / r• / b i C
+� a ELE RY \
' 'N a v U l ) L SOCCER
n LOADItk6 ❑ 4 - - - ' \ T - o b 4
M I + .(; :acres
\ i
—
'I I CITY PARK
Ln
` i • u I i N I �_
, / n �a f ♦Z
M
a W o D
--- - - -
En
= a0
m C I U W M
I
' r SOFTBALL W
9
�S� Y ' . I I I I i N I + Q,PCi 1RUCTU 2179.65 FZ- _Q U
R00 j O \ li I ;I W O
I \ - . FNi 0 \ _ 1 , Q U rnj
BASK BA
COUR Si:i
E - L Jg E
* 400.74' I I'
I I - X7.98' y
4II-- I p
u
rl 04
12 W3
Z 3
F �', �•, I ti 0 s F
°c0 ON c
-'.y-e —_!._._may 5 - - - - - •� `r�t3 �, li 4 ° V of
o N o
W m
ho o 2 o
Q N n co
V<) J U
SITE PLAN SCHOOL SITE = 8 — 10 ACRES Z n
ALTERNATE SCHEME PARK SITE = 3 — 5 ACRES °
��— TOTAL SITE = 13.05 ACRES
SCALE: 1" = 50' J 0
w 1
G W o n o G
0 50 100 O:f j
c €
SCALE IN FEET a -
0
j < EjA DO 9
Cu
1 1 1 ? 3 1 4 5 6 7 A 9 10 I6 —
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
MASTER FILE #: SP 10-005 APPLICANT: Gurdwara Guru Nanak P.W.
HEARING DATE: 2/18/10 7505 W. Court Street
ACTION DATE: 3/18/10 Pasco, WA 99301
BACKGROUND
REQUEST: SPECIAL PERMIT: Location of a Church (Sikh Temple) in an
R-S-20 (Residential Suburban) Zone.
1. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION:
Legal: The south 1/ of the southwest 1/4 of the southwest 1/4 of the
southeast 1/4, of Sec 21, T 9 N, R 29 E, less the west 160' and
less the east 103' of the west 263' of the south 1/2 of the
southwest 1/4 of the southwest 1/4 of the southeast 1/4 of said
Section and less roads.
General Location: 7505 W. Court Street
Property Size: Approximately 2.8 acres
2. ACCESS: The site has access from Court Street.
3. UTILITIES: All municipal utilities are available to the site.
4. LAND USE AND ZONING: The site is zoned R-S-20 (Residential
Suburban) and contains a single family residence. The zoning and
land use of the surrounding properties are as follows:
NORTH - County RS-20
SOUTH - R-S-1/PUD
EAST- RS-20
WEST- RS-20
The surrounding properties north, west and south contain residential
development, with a church to the east.
5. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The Comprehensive Plan designates this
area as Low Density Residential. 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: This proposal has been
issued a Determination of Non-Significance in accordance with
review under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), Chapter
43.21(c) RCW.
ANALYSIS
The application involves converting a 1,800 square foot single-family
residence into a place of worship with a 35' tall sign/religious symbol
along Court Street and approximately 20 parking spaces. Parking would
be located along the property lines in the northeast corner of the lot. The
applicant will be required to pave and stripe the parking area.
The applicant estimates a total of 10 Sunday vehicular trips at peak
usage. This traffic projection is based on an estimated 15 regular
attendees out of a pool of 15-25 congregant families in the Tri-Cities
area. The applicant will also be required to connect the building to City
sewer and bring the restroom up to ADA standards.
Two people will be living on-site at the temple.
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-S-20.
3. The proposed site is located on the north side of Court Street;
Court Street is a designated "Minor Arterial" street at this
location.
4. The main driveways to the church will be located on Court Street.
5. Improvements surrounding the site have recently been upgraded
(streets, curb, gutter, sidewalk, etc.).
6. The proposed church is located west of an existing church.
7. Churches are typically located in residential Zoning districts
within Pasco.
8. The proposed church contains 1,800 square feet, approximately
800 square feet of which could be used for seating. The maximum
seating capacity based on this area is 54.
9. According to the Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE) Trip
Generation Manual (7th Edition), the estimated number of vehicle
trips for a 1,000-square-foot synagogue/temple on Sunday is
13.5.
10. The City will require the applicant to retrofit the bathroom with
ADA hardware.
11. The City will require the applicant to provide two exits for the
assembly area with lighted exit signs and out-swinging doors
equipped with "panic" bars.
12. The Pasco Municipal Code (PMC) 25.73. 170 requires one off-street
parking space for each four seats in a church, based on maximum
seating capacity.
13. The PMC (25.78.170(1)) requires the proposed church to have a
minimum of 14 parking spaces.
14. The PMC (25.78.090) requires all parking areas and driveways
between the street and the face of the building to be paved with
asphalt or Portland cement concrete.
15. The church is providing 20 paved parking spaces.
16. The church site will include a pole-mounted religious symbol that
does not require special permit approval, as it is within the local
height restrictions.
17. The church building and all parking areas meet or exceed the
front ,yard setback requirements for the R-S-20 District.
18. The church site is fully landscaped.
19. The site is not hooked up to city sewer or water.
TENTATIVE 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 listen findings
ar-e as folloxus:
1 j Will the proposed use be in accordance xuith the goals, policies,
objectives and text of the Comprehensive Plan?
3
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.
The congregation proposes to meet only once each Sunday. Estimated
number of vehicle trips will have a minimal impact on Court Street or on
water/sewer facilities.
3) Will the proposed use be constructed, maintained and operated to
be in harmony ruith existing or intended character- of the general
vicinity?
The intended character of the general vicinity is residential. Churches
are typically located in or near residential areas and add to the
character of a neighborhood. The proposed church will maintain or
exceed the front ,yard setbacks for all buildings and parking facilities.
The site is sufficiently landscaped to complement the adjacent
residential lots in the neighborhood.
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?
No current or proposed on-site structures will exceed the height limits of
the R-S-20 zone. 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 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 ruithin the district?
Churches are used infrequently, generally two or three days a week and
generate traffic during off peak times such as on Sunday mornings and
a couple of evenings during the week. Under current R-S-20 zoning the
parcel could be subdivided into four single-family lots, potentially
generating about 280 vehicle trips per week. The current application
proposes only Sunday use and the housing of two residents, which use
would generate approximately 110 vehicle trips. Churches may not be
expanded without review through the special permit process. Churches
are generally well maintained and contain well-landscaped front ,yards.
6) Will the proposed use endanger- the public hearth or safety if
located and developed where proposed, or in any ruay xuill
become a nuisance to uses permitted in the district?
4
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 bathroom shall be retrofitted with ADA hardware, as per
City of Pasco requirements.
3) Two exits for the assembly area with lighted exit signs and
out-swinging doors equipped with "panic" bars shall be
provided.
4) The pole-mounted religious symbol shall not exceed 35" in
height, and shall not be lit.
5) One off-street parking space for each four seats, based on
maximum seating capacity of 54 (a minimum of 14 parking
spaces) shall be provided.
6) All parking areas and shall be paved with asphalt or Portland
cement concrete and striped.
7) The Temple shall only use the western drive approach to the
parking area for Temple services.
8) The eastern driveway approach to the parking area shall be
closed off for Temple services with a city-approved barricade.
9) All landscaping shall be retained and maintained along Court
Street.
10) Attendance may not exceed 54 persons, based on maximum
occupancy.
11) The building shall be connected to municipal sewer/water.
12) Any expansions or renovations beyond the scope of this
Special Permit shall require a new Special Permit application.
13) The Special Permit shall be null and void if a City of Pasco
building permit is not obtained by March 1, 2011.
RECOMMENDATION
MOTION for Findings of Fact: I move to adopt findings of fact
and conclusions therefrom as contained in the February 18, 2010
staff report.
5
MOTION for Recommendation: I move 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 West Court Street, with
conditions as listed in the March 18, 2010 Staff report.
6
Item: S ecial Permit - Sikh Tem le
� init p �� y e
Map Applicant: Gurowara. Guru Nanak P N
File # : SP 10-005 OWN
ot
dim
lie SITE
z C'O U,RT �-
Mr
S 0
L i y a Jill �r'
Land Item : Special Pen-nit - Sikh Temple �
Use Applicant: Gurowara Guru Nanak PW
Map File # : SP 10-005 `
SFDU S
In Church SFD
0 Oct
U
I
SITE
COURT 5T
is
ul
SFDU 0 SFDU 's (j)
uj�
Zoning Rein: Special Permit - S1kb Temple
Applicant: Gurowara Guru Nanak PW N
Map File #: SP 10-005
RS=20 - Rs-2o
� N
�O Q
SITE Ce
COURT ST
0
I'�a RS-20 a - 3 �- R=S=I /PUD
"0
�r d-
J
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
MASTER FILE NO: SP 10-006 APPLICANT: Ty Gemmell
HEARING DATE: 2/18/2010 505 S. 26th Avenue
ACTION DATE: 3/18/2010 Pasco, WA 99301
BACKGROUND
REQUEST: SPECIAL PERMIT: Location of a Caretakers Residence in an I-1
(Light Industrial) Zone (505 S. 26th Avenue)
1. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION:
Legal: The west 147.91' of the east 575.7' of Sec 25, T 9 N, R 29 in
the S 1/2 of Government Lot 3, EXC S 495' Thereof.
General Location: 505 S. 26th Avenue
Property Size: Approximately 0.45 acres
2. ACCESS: The site has access from south 26th Avenue
3. UTILITIES: All municipal utilities are available to the site.
4. LAND USE AND ZONING:
The site is zoned I-1 (Light Industrial) and contains Gemmell's
Welding & Services shop. The zoning and land use of the surrounding
properties are as follows:
NORTH-R-1-A2 Manufactured homes
SOUTH- I-1 & RP Indoor shooting range, a single family house &
manufactured homes
EAST- R-1-A2 Manufactured homes
WEST- RP Manufactured homes and former excavation
company
5. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The Comprehensive Plan designates this
area as mixed residential. The Comprehensive Plan does not
specifically address the sitting of caretaker's facilities. Policies of the
plan encourage compatibility between land uses and harmony
between existing and proposed development.
6. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The City of Pasco is the lead
agency for this proposal which has been issued a Determination of
Nan-Significance in accordance with review under the State
Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), Chapter 43.21(c) RCW.
1
ANALYSIS
The applicant is proposing to locate a caretaker's facility to provide security
to the existing Gemmell's Welding & Services shop. The proposed site
contains a 2,000 square foot shop building, a number of old vehicles,
trailers and antique tractors. The site also contains a concrete RV pad with
utility connections. There are no records readily available that indicate why
or how the RV pad was installed on the property.
Pasco Municipal Code Section 25.70.060 establishes criteria for locating
caretakers in commercial and industrial zones through the special permit
process. The code requires the caretaker's facility to be utilized for security
purposes only, be located on a site at least two times the size of the
caretakers' residence and to conform with applicable regulations for
residential structures (in this case RV structures). In addition, a special
permit for a caretaker's residence may be reviewed annually if requested by
property owners within 300 feet of the caretakers unit. In the absence of a
request by adjoining property owners the special permit automatically
extends.
The key criteria for the approval of a caretaker's residence would be whether
or not there is a security need on site twenty-four hours per day. Police
records would give the Planning Commission a good indication of crime
activity on the site in question. According to the Pasco Police Department
there has only been one police contact at the site within the last three ,years.
An individual was arrested at or near the site for an outstanding warrant.
In the last three ,years there has been no property crimes reported at the
site.
The property is located on the private drive portion of 26th Avenue that
connects with "A" Street. There are five manufactured homes located
directly north or east of the site. These homes are all within 40 feet or less
of the site. The site is totally fenced and located on a dead-end private
roadway. Twelve occupied dwellings are located along this roadway leading
to the site. The site is more or less surrounded by dwelling units that make
the area less attractive for burglaries. Police reports bear this out.
Unlike other commercial or industrial properties this site is highly visible to
neighboring residential properties that are occupied all night long. There is
little criminal activity to justify the location of a caretaker's residence on this
site.
Caretaker residences have been approved in the past for areas of the
community that are isolated or sparsely developed. These areas often lack
street lights and do not receive regular patrols by police vehicles. Other
approved sites have demonstrated need resulting from burglaries. The site
in question is not in an isolated part of the city and does not have a history
of burglaries.
STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT
Findings of fact must be entered from the record. The following are initial
findings drawn from the background and analysis section of the staff report.
The Planning Commission may add additional findings to this listing as the
result of factual testimony and evidence submitted during the open record
hearing.
1. The site is zoned I-1 (Light Industrial).
2. The site is located on a dead end private roadway.
3. The site is approximately 0.45 acres.
4. The applicant has requested that an RV be permitted for use as a
caretaker's residence.
5. The site contains a concrete RV pad that was previously used for the
storage and occupancy of an RV unit.
6. The site contains a 2,000 square foot industrial shop building.
7. The site currently contains a welding business.
8. The site contains a number of old tractors, vehicles and equipment.
9. The site is located within the central core of the community.
10. The site is surrounded on the north, east and partially on the west by
occupied manufactured homes.
11. The site is fenced on all sides.
12. Twelve dwelling units are located along the private roadway leading to
the site.
13. Only one police contact has been made with the property in the last
three ,years.
14. No property crimes or burglaries have been report to the police
department from the site in the last three ,years.
15. An indoor shooting range is located directly south of the site.
16. The Comprehensive Plan designates the site for Mixed Residential
uses.
17. The current zoning and use of the site is not consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan.
18. All municipal utilities currently serve the site.
19. Public testimony indicated there were recent police calls at 520 S. 26th
Avenue (one parcel south of Gemmell Welding).
3
20. Public testimony indicated Police calls related to problems with drug
use and criminal activity specific to the occupants of 520 S. 2b",
Avenue.
21. The applicant indicated the site is completely surrounded by site
obscuring fencing.
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
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 xuith the goals, policies,
objectives and text of the Comprehensive plan?
The plan does not address security issues within the community. The
Mixed Residential land use designation is intended to permit a variety of
housing types including single-family and multi-family units. The property
is non-conforming with respect to the plan.
2) Will the proposed use adversely affect public infrastructure?
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 xuith existing or intended character-of the general vicinity?
The existing character of the area is somewhat confused in that the area
contains a mixture of residential, commercial and industrial uses. Most of
the neighborhood to the east, north and south has transitioned from
industrial zoning to residential development consisting of manufactured
homes on private lots or in mobile home parks. Much of the neighborhood
is developed with manufactured homes. The intended character of the
neighborhood is one of single-family dwellings located on landscaped ,yards
and permanently connected to utilities. The proposed use is inconsistent
with the intended character of the area.
3) Will the location and height of proposed structures and the site design
discourage the development of permitted uses o r�. property in the
general vicinity or impair- the value thereof?
4
The height of the structure is approximately 9 feet while the I-1 Zoning
District does not have a height limitation. The surrounding properties were
developed previously before the proposal to locate a caretaker's residence.
4) 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 xuould be the operation
of any permitted uses xuithin the district?
The site is zoned I-1, which allows a variety of industrial and commercial
uses, many that typically generate more traffic, noise, fumes, vibrations and
dust than the proposed caretaker's residence.
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?
A caretaker's residence located in this industrial area is much less intensive
than most uses allowed in the I-1 district. The safety of the general public
will not be impacted by the proposed caretaker's residence. However
locating the caretaker's residence behind a fenced compound may create
some safety concerns for the delivery of emergency service to the residence.
CARETAKER RESIDENCE CRITERIA
In addition to the standard special permit review criteria the Planning
Commission needs to considered the requirements of PMC 25.70.060
dealing with the permitting of caretakers residences.
(1) The ca retaker's residence is so lel y intended to pro vide secu rzty fo 1-
the establishedprincipaIpermitted use of the property;
The proposed site is in a well developed part of the community surrounded
by single family dwellings. The site is secured on all sides by fencing. Police
Department records indicate there have been no burglaries or property
crimes on the site within the last three ,years. Property security does not
appear to be an issue at this location. Convenience for the business
operator is not a legitimate reason for granting a special permit.
(2) The residential structure, to include factory assembled homes, ruill
be located on a parcel at least two times the size of the caretaker's
residence;
There is ample space on the site for the location of a caretaker's residence.
5
(3) The structure xuill conform to other applicable cosies and
regulations for residential structures.
RV units meeting minimum sanitation and safety criteria are permitted to
be used for primary dwellings in mobile home parks and RV parks.
APPROVAL CONDITIONS
Staff cannot recommend approval of a caretaker's residence on the site.
RECOMMENDATION
MOTION: I move to adopt findings of fact and conclusions there from as
contained in the February 15, 2010 staff report.
MOTION: I move based on the findings of fact and conclusions there from
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.
6
• Item: Caretaker Residence in I- 1 Zone
Vi
Applicant: Ty Gemmell UN
Map .
F ile # : SP 10-006
ko
80NrNEVILL- -ST N ' ; : a
f
�r . r�� �,_�T7 j H • '\ �a • � N��. �/fit
ui
Cm
y ELE.M.IN G LN
ul
�. SITE :T
�A
a.3 iy-r" T
R
~�� ♦cp 441p t
Land Item: Caretaker Residence in I- 1 Zone
Use Applicant: Ty Gemmell N
Mae File #: SP 10-006 1
MEN"
'"' FRo Ind .
BONNEVILLE STN IQ �yT -J �
qQFRp�-_
_ � T N SFDUs -_
� Cemetery
W
9
Industrial N , E
SITE E Um M
N
0 VI �
MHP v
"A" ST
Zonin Item: Caretaker Residence in I- 1 Zone
g Applicant: Ty Gemmell N
Map File #: SP 10-006
LU
BONNEVILLE STN IQ FRO^jTgG
a
--FLEMING LN Rml A2
� 0 I -1
a
-1 N
M
SITE C-3 oC a
RP
"A" ST
i .
31116 EAG L E ESTATES NO 3 3%19 428
I
/ s
k i
z
j f? I i",.''r •t^r.,�f /i?:..'lJ � FAG L E ESTATE-
IS 4
;� iGoh��eCe.
�r X it
+-1�
lT)
L �a5C
1`_3
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 .b4 acres
2. ACCESS: The property has access from both North 5th Avenue and West
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) 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.
b. 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 Downtown 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 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 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 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 initial review criteria for considering a rezone application are explained ill
PMC. 25.88.030. The criteria are list below as follows:
1. The changed conditions in the vicinity which warrant other or additional
zoning:
No changes have occurred ill the neighbor-hood that xuou ld xua rra nt 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
xua s ill the mini-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 xuou ld a lloru the opportunity for increased "general public disorder,
loitering, nuisance and other acts detrimental to the public image of the
a rea."
2. Facts to justify the change on the basis of advancing the public health,
safety and general welfare:
The facts indicate that a rezone from C-2 to C-1 ruould likely be detrimental
to supporting "public health, safety and general welfare" by allowing uses
that, according to evidence revierued by the planning Commission ill 2001,
contribute "to general public disorder, loitering, nuisance and other- acts
detrimental to the public image of the area."
3. The effect it will have on the nature and value of adjoining property and
the Comprehensive Plan:
Evidence received by the planning Commission du ring hearings that led to
the enactment of the C-2 zo ning regu la do rhs demo rhs tra ted tha t cer-ta ill la rid
uses inhibit nexu business groruth, contribute to business loss and decline
of property va lues, a rid/o r-per petu a to a pu blic image which is u rhdesira ble
or unattractive and detrimental to public and private investment ill
business property xuithin the CBD.
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 ill the C-2 district/ Overlay District, which xuas the zoning at the
time of purchase.
S. The Comprehensive Plan land use designation for the property:
The Comprehensive Elan designates the site for- Commercial uses.
3
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).
4) The site was zoned C-2 in January of 2006 when the Applicant purchased
the property.
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 certain uses such as membership clubs, taverns, billiard and pool
halls, amusement game centers, dance halls and similar places.
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."
9) Pasco Police have reported 17 calls for Police assistance at the nearby
Golden Nugget dance hall nightclub since January 2009.
4
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.
Introduction of a dance hall in the C-2 Zoning District ruould not be in accordance
xuith 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
doxuntoxun 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 will not be materially
detrimental.
Expanding the C-1 District into the established central core of the city xuould not
further- the purposes for- the establishment of the C-2 district. Expansion of the C-
1 district xuould alloxu the introduction of a dance hall and other- uses in the C-2
zoning district which have been determined by the community to be materially
detrimental to the doruntorun 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 value in the proposal for the community as a whole.
"Eonce 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." To introduce that which has been found detrimental to
the dotuntoxun area ruould 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.
5
The proposed rezone is not appropriate for the site. Conditions necessary to
mitigate adverse impacts ruourd essentially cause the rezone to mirror- the
permitted uses xuithin the C-2 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 Iva r-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 April 15, 2009 meeting.
6
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
User:PDVORAK Pasco Police Department 03102J2010 15:25:26
CALL ID CALLGLASS CSDISPOSIT ACTDATE ACTTIME STREETNBR STREET
0900012 TI ASSAULT 01/Oi/2009 00:OC:00 C006 214 S 4TH AVE
0902602 TI DOMESTIC 01/18/2009 00:00:00 0103 214 S 4T14 AVE
0904261 IC AS/BAR 01/30/2009 00:GD:00 2236 214 S 4TH AVE
0909306 IC AS/EAR 03/06/2009 00:00:00 2331 214 S 4TH AVE
0910411 IC AS/BAR 03/13/2009 00:00:00 2323 214 S 4TH AVE
D922247 TI A/FTSID 05/31/2009 00:00:00 1516 214 S 4TH AVE
0924417 IC AS/BAR 06/12/2OD9 00:00:00 232E 214 S 4TH AVE
0925718 TI MAL/MISC 06/20/2009 00:00:00 2224 214 S 4TH AVE
0929965 IC 911HU 07/15/2009 00:00:0D 2315 214 5 4TH AVE
0935457 IG FIELD 06/i6/2009 00:00:00 0055 214 S 4TH AVE
0936539 IC AS/0TH 08/22/2009 OC:OO:OD 1629 214 S 4TH AVE
0947537 IC CIVIL 10/30/2009 D0:00:00 11D4 214 S 4TH AVE
0947763 IC SUSP/CIR 10/3!/2009 DO:00:00 1531 214 S 4TH AVE
0954C56 IC FIT-LC 12/17/2009 03:00:CO 1041 214 S 4TE AVE
0954440 TI AUTO/THE 12/20/2009 00:DO:00 D056 214 S 4TH AVE
0954581 IC REC/STLN 12/21/2009 00:00:00 1212 214 S 4TH AVE
1006170 TI THEFT 02/14/2010 00:DO:00 !639 214 S 4TH AVE
C:IFoxTmp110.162... Pagel
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
MASTER FILE NO: SP 10-007 APPLICANT: Action Towing
HEARING DATE: 3/ 18/ 10 1948 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 sq. ft.
2. ACCESS: The property has access from N. 4tn 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 Vet 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 Non-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 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. 51h
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 and
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 half a block off N. 4th Avenue (the primary access) and hidden
more or less behind another building, stored vehicles and fencing all create fire
safety concerns.
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 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 INITIAL STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT
Before recommending approval or denial of a special permit the Planning
Commission must develop findings of fact from which to draw its conclusions
based upon the criteria listed in P.M.C. 25.86.060. The criteria are as follows:
11 Will the proposed use be in accordance ruith the goals, policies, objectives
and text of the Comprehensive Plan?
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 public infrastructure?
3
The proposed use will not create a significant impact on infrastructure. Sewer
and water usage for an auto body shop is minimal.
3) Will the proposed use be constructed, maintained and operated to be in
hormorng 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 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.
4) Will the location and height of proposers s tni c.to r-es 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 use 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.
s) 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 ruould be the operation of any permitted uses ruithirn
the district?
The operations of the proposed auto body shop will be in a fully enclosed
building on 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
4
operation aspects that may be objectionable to properties west of N. 5th Avenue
and in the Green Tree RV Park.
61 Will the proposed use endanger- the public hearth or safety if located aria
developed where proposed, or in any ruay ruin become a nuisance to uses
permitted in the district?
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 aspects of the proposed body shop.
TENTATIVE 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 511,
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 shall be installed along the north line of Lot 20,
Bucks Addition for a distance of 80 feet east of the 5th Avenue sound
wall.
5) The first five (5) feet of the property adjacent to the length the property
along North 5th 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.
5
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.
RECOMMENDATION
MOTION: I move to close the hearing on the proposed special permit
and initiate deliberations and schedule adoption of
findings of fact, conclusions and a recommendation to the
City Council for the April 15, 20 10 meeting.
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
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 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/` 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 # 113394202.
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 right-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 West 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 for 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 501 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.
STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT
Findings of fact must be entered from the record. The following are initial
findings drawn from the background and analysis section of the staff report.
The Planning Commission may add additional findings to this listing as the
result of factual testimony and evidence submitted during the open record
hearing.
1. The site is located 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. Services currently being provided in the La Clinica building on the east
side of 5th Avenue will be relocated to the proposed building.
9. La Clinica has been located near the corner of 5th Avenue and Court
Street since the early to mid-1980's
10. The Benton Franklin CAC building is located on the south side of Court
street directly opposite the proposed La Clinica building.
11. The proposed building will be open for business Monday-Friday from
8:00 am to 5:00 pm.
12. 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.
13. 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;
3
b. The proposal will adversely affect public infrastructure;
c. The proposal will be constructed, maintained and operated to
be in 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
f. 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 INITIAL STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT
Before recommending approval or denial of a special permit the Planning
Commission must develop findings of fact from which to draw its conclusions
based upon the criteria listed in P.M.C. 25.86.060. The criteria are as follows:
1) Will the proposed use be in accordance xuith the goals, policies, objectives
anal 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) and
the Hospital and medical office on 4th Avenue. The proposed facility is located
near the intersection of two major arterial streets (4th Avenue & Court Street)
2) Will the proposed use adversely affect public infrastructure?
All municipal utilities are currently available to the proposed site from 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.
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 area surrounding the intersection of 5th Avenue and Court Street
contains office buildings and restaurants. The proposed use is an office
4
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, night clubs 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 structures and the site design
discourage the development of permitted uses on property in the general vicinity
or impair- the value thereof?
The proposed office building will be located on one of the remaining vacant
areas 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 Clinca 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 irz connection xuith theproposal be more objectionable to
nearby properties by reason of noise, fumes, vibrations, dust, traffic, or flashing
rights tha n ruou Id be the opera do n of a ny permitted uses xuithin the dis trict?
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 xuay become a nuisance to uses permitted
in the district?
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.
TENTATIVE APPROVAL CONDITIONS
5
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) The driveway on Court Street must be signed as an entrance only.
Exiting from the site must be by way of 5th Avenue.
4) The special permit shall be null and void if a building permit has not
been obtained by May 31, 2012.
RECOMMENDATION
MOTION: I move 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, 2009 meeting.
6
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
RT
i
Y 5J' t
't�-�•t
i e
I
,
Ell] N
1 1• t •tvl . 'A'�. 1 -1• v.
4
El I
- III! __ __ _- • 1 _ ' •i= � .. ..•. • • 1 �, ... `
41-1 r 1
111111 ll J 1 ' 1111 - - • ''(•
r'i�x4�.s'a 4Ltii:i.l - t..
Ilr;�tlt.l�1'�rtitiih'rr'*1�'�'h �ttsl:r•. 4 � ..t ,k r"' �'• �'�
.'. ._. 1 1 1,1'rlia-:r�r'',r It'[•t.Y.l.i ... - .r
y�,,1Y 1'1,1- L _ - ... • .. • • •t t
l
1
.. r 'I '1., 1.1 1.1 1 't'�J31y 1 , •. • _ •v•• •J .. '
- t jti r z�•rtl r'crl tr,rlt�l r tt _. 14
Li 4i•!-'i•Ir s,'�r`<it i�a c r- .7,lai 7 = 1 •,r .. t' •!.. •`•j .1 .r 1 r
.1.,lrl[1....•1.1-L' 's5'r s�:t 14�1_TIJI .. .. - .t .— .. ,
i'rr4'i'tt,;�ta r.t i h�irl�_y�L�`�� ... •_ ... .�.
'.1.1 AIt.'La .1. !.1 x ( 3^ilfj'L'S, ,.\. - 1 f -•1 ; .. •.
i:i t' lehx i �'1' trz`T.-''��['i;r:r t r r� '. .. .. � .. r,•.
rlt'.rs•-.1 1 i :• .- 7�J 4 r .f ,,t r47'c?--4 - '•
— - .;l 4! IJ 17 IJ Z l t .. - •` -1 . Y '4• ' 5
��,N•r'•. ql rtitr�xi'ti:a;',.� .. .. - r.. - ... ... ,
r.r !"i'i'` "T�'T -'ir4'%'i ry:i�'1';1` 1• t'. 1 .. .• , .. I
"l r.t.Ia t,1'1.1 t ..-...-.t t.1.L.tf Ct.7. t )t r.2s�l . •. ...• , .. ..
rCC 1 er_<I'Crt,:rhu-L'_e.r-tirrr 1.^_•ttY�'� Ix:'r Y: •• � .. - ... y
'rIa-7;1;4;';r;t�l^..r ',•t .1 10.
t rtLCT n,rrl l•r li-' .rr
now
•11 t rt'tllrrr't �
1 _
1r
Iv 'r' llTll 11,1 1't.l. r t °•' 1 1
[Ires}, as l ;• 1
a11111'r'l�(�'I It ,r11 r .I' I �: 1 c..t � '1.I .. . .. •• . 1•' '• � ... _f••• •, �. .... - L
1. ,1�•'9 Mar�,��rhyMr[, 1 till a:i .17:r.,..r .. f• .. • . .. '• 1 t
�r-�I 1 1'[.tlttti 1,t� 111 r•-z. .1.: ••
-- '.c �.1 Mrr;/14 1-•'1 iz ;�'i'r'Yjr�isri'r4�t � .. .� � .. .. —_ ..
;4.^,t.l'll'Irttlr. 1�1'lYt•1 J:Y 1� .. NOT ' ✓.- •1 .�
1 1;II:Y•.Iri�eft 1r1r1•` 1 1 •. . .. • � � ' •
111 LL1.1/•'r_-.• _-t 1"l.tT�l .�:1./ t.� . . • _ �'
S VIA
-'':`• 11111•.-� �..i-'�4r�`���� r�. , • . ..• . .. • J - • • ' •:.\
1 _'i�1 l 1.1 1.1'}L �_Lt�l.l Tt.,.'Ir . • .. .. .. .. __
�.. j4j1�=4 t[IIr11��11 - M, ' Yr� r • r.
1'
fT
ID
I I I
...........
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
_ r
I�
4r
�i
rx
II
Q
4_T
V
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
MASTER FILE NO: PP 10-001 APPLICANT: Farm 2005 LLC
HEARING DATE: 3/ 18/10 2420 W. Court St
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 (Vol. II, 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
I
ownership 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: This proposal has been issued a
Detcrmination of Non- igizificanec in accordance with revicw Lindcr th
State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), Chapter 43.2 1(c) RCW.
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 in
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
the western border of the site and an arterial street (Power Line Road) along the
northern border of the site.
2
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":
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.
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
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
3
purchased a 40 acre middle school site at the north end of Road 52 directly
east of the site in question.
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.
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 Rd) 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 update 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.
Adequate Provision of Municipal Services: All lots within the plat will be
provided with water, sewer and other utilities.
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.
Adequate Air and Light: The lot sizes and maximum lot coverage limitations
Nvill assure that adequate movement of air and light is available to each lot.
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.)
4
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)
• The site is within the Pasco Urban Growth Boundary.
• The State Growth Management Act requires urban growth and urban
densities to occur within the Urban Growth Boundaries.
• Prior Comprehensive Plans for the past 2 decades have set the site aside
for low density residential development.
• Low density development is described in the Comprehensive Plan as 2 to
5 dwelling units per acre.
• The site is zoned R-1 (Low Density Residential) with a concomitant
agreement permitting minimum lot sizes of 8,500 square feet.
• 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.
• 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.
• The Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan encourages the
interconnection of neighborhood streets to provide for the disbursement
of traffic.
• The interconnection of neighborhood streets is necessary for utility
connections (looping) and the provision of emergency services.
• 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.
• The traffic improvements recommended in the Traffic Impact Analysis
have been completed or will be completed in 2010.
• 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).
• The Three Rivers Crossing subdivision is being developed directly to the
west of the site in question.
• A water line is now located at the north end of Road 56.
• A new sewer line has been installed through the southern portion of the
site from the Three Rivers Crossing subdivision to the west.
5
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) there from as to whether or not:
(1) Adequate provisions are made for the public health, safety and
general welfare and for open spaces, drainage ways, streets, alleys,
other public ways, water supplies, sanitary wastes, parks,
playgrounds, transit stops, schools and school grounds, sidewalks for
safe walking conditions for students and other public needs;
The proposed plat tuill be required to develop under- the standards of the
Municipal Corse and the standard specifications of the City Engineering
Department. These standards for- streets sidetua lks and other- infrastructure
improvements tuere designed to ensure the public hearth; safety and general
welfare of the community are secured. These standards include provisions for
streets, drainage, tuater- and server- service and the provision for dedication of
park fonds. This preliminary plat has been for-tuarded to the Franklin County
PUE, the Pasco School District anti Ben-Franklin Tra nsit Au tho rity for revietu anti
comment. A fire acre park site is located on Road 60 directly tuest of the
proposed plat. Two netu 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 tuill 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 Plats. land use map designates the site for lotu 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 advancement of programs
encouraging home ownership. The Transportation Element of the Plan suggests
major- streets should be beautified tuith trees and landscaping. The Plan also
encourages the interconnection of local streets for inter-neighborhood travel for
public safety as tuell as providing for traffic disbu rsement.
6
(4) The proposed subdivision conforms to the general purposes of any
applicable policies or plans which have been adopted by the City
Council;
Development plans and policies have been adopted by the City Council in the
form of the Comprehensive plan. The proposed subdivision conforms to the
po licies, maps a rid na rra tine text of the Pla n as no ted in nu mber- three a bone.
(5) The proposed subdivision conforms to the general purposes of the
subdivision regulations.
The genera l pu r poses of the su bdivisio ns' regu latio ns have been enu mega ted a rid
discussed in the staff analysis anti findings of fact. The findings of fact indicate
the subdivision is in conformance ruith the general purposes of the subdivision
regulations.
(6) The public use and interest will be served by approval of the proposed
subdivision.
The proposed plat, if approved, tuill be developed in accordance xuith all City
standards designed to insure the health, safety and welfare of the community
are met. The Comprehensive plan ruill be implemented through development of
this plat. These factors ruill insure the public use and interest are set-c►ed.
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 of Pasco 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
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
8
provided by the engineering department. This form snail 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 the first phase of development. 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
Parkway 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 a 40 feet 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 S inch base course. The developer must install
curb, gutter and a 5 feet 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.
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
9
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 feet 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.
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
development of the phase 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
10
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 streets
lights are typically installed every 150 feet.
27. Prior to the City of 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 of Pasco 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,
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
Ii
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 of Pasco. 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: 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 April 15, 2009
meeting.
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 P A S C a TERRACE PRELIMINARY PLAT 597 Gage„E•E„•,„ea,„„
Ao
a 8697 Boulevartl
SA Kennewick, WA 99336
c°o
SANDIFUR PARK AY
o P: 509.735.1589
F: 509.783.5075
0
Z a www.meterinc.com
O
F
z
Ij o
a
z
0 �
,k�g"50 BURDEN BOULEV RD „,
0
QP�GEv o
in
in
S
T .�. _ .
— . . — . . — . . _ . . — . . _ . . _ . . — .. _ .. _ .. _ .._ .__. . _ POWERLINE ROAD _ 3
0
27 L26 25 24
36 35 34 33 32 � 31 30 29 L28 I a
a
37 — � I ni
I - - - — STREET A VICINITY MAP =
1 / N
j 1 38 X62 63 I 84 85 \1 I I 106 107 I 12829 I I 22
OWNER:
I 7
1 I' I 727 130 I I I I CHERYL L BUG
105 10 v COURT
11
86 PASCO, WA 9930
61 64 83
(sos) 547-0416 Z
APPLICANT
1 I --
4o I
I 60 I 82 87 04 109 I 726 131 20 I I FARM 2005, LLC
65 I ATTN: THOMAS KIDWELL
1 2420 W COURT ST
1 I I 1 7 I I $ PASCO, WA 99301 QP of WASy,� ti
at PHONE: (509) 521-8400 a
I
kini 11I 81 0 125 132 11
1 B6 59 I I I I I I I I 79 I i I Q �11 PLAT INFORMATION:
Q G �?
c403:t3
TOTAL AREA: 47.97 ACRES ;
42 I TOTAL RIGHT-OF-WAY AREA. 1024 ACRES
124 133 I 18 TOTAL LOT COUNT: 139
58 1d2 771 MINIMUM LOT SIZE: 8,500 SOFT
67 I I k�4 80 89 MAXIMUM LOT SIZE: 17,723 SOFT
AVERAGE LOT SIZE: 9,083 SQFT APPROVAL
43 57 173 134 77 BENCH MARK: DRAWN JEP 2O G
/�e 1
8/10
7s so , 2/18/10 MONUMENT IN ROAD 68 AND SANDIFUR PARKWAY, 3° BRASS CAP
I
DSGN JEP
ELEVATION:
EP
ELEVATION: 502.21 CHECKED PTK cz Z-
Q�
2/19/10
44 APPROVED PTK 2/19/10 1 W 16 4—:j
58
78 � 100 113 �6s 91 �n 75
55 114 121 136(0 70 NOTES
O I' 46 14 Lj
s4 98 115 NEW EXISTING 120 137 V
71 76 1 93
k47 ® 0 CB 1111 u) CAP
BASIN EL 3 �I ld
m
as 13 CO a CLEAN OUT TO GRADE J LJJ
o i I 11 53 1 97 116 I 119 138 I I I ♦ v W
CONCRETE THRUST BLOCK —I
c J I 72 I I 75 94 FH FIRE HYDRANT =
i 1--
I 1 1 I I ~ I ri co MH MANHOLE O p
as O U
52 12 WV/IV WATER/IRRIGATION VALVE 3
I Ct
r — i 117 1 18 WP WORK POINT N
W
” I I
I I' 74 II95 I a 73 ( ) A z 49 GL GUTTER LINE
O 0 I I s 1 — _ IE INVERT ELEVATION Ld
9 THE RIVER '\ IR IRRIGATION V w
a _ - _ - -- - � v
V
�f NTS NOT TO SCALE Lv (f)
8 _ _ POP PERFORATED DRAIN PIPE
a I 50 I � — — 70 11 { R RADIUS �
U i — I / �/ 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 I SS SANITARY SEWER
a / / SLV PIPE SLEEVE
�XXX XX SPOTELEVATION
. . _ . . — • — — — ' � SD STORM DRAIN e-
m 1 TA TOP OF ASPHALT ELEVATION
E
- - - - i
TO TOP OF CONCRETE ELEVA110N LEI
I I I , = north TG TOP OF GRAVEL ELEVATION Z
LOT 1 I I LOT 4 LOT 1 ~ TW TOP OF WALL ELEVATION
\ I LOT 1 TYP TYPICAL
LOT 1 O 0 80 160 240 W WATER DWG. No.
P 9 —100— NEW CONTOUR
5 C 1 C 1
i; I 1 1 i I 02 I ,xy I I I Z 0'� EXISTING CONTOUR
o O.y 1 9510 SQ 9 — —
ST
EXISTING FENCE
NEW FENCE
9
—SQ EXISTING UNDERGROUND UTILI' •
a 1 — LOT 2 LOT 3 LOT 2 9 I LOT 2 NEW UNDERGROUND UTILITY SCALE:
I I
I I CADFlLE: 6262000101
JOB No. REV. I
PRELIMINARY PLAT LAYOUT t° = B0.-0° LEGEND 6262 Q
- - - - - - - ti
� -� -� I
� �
E- � � �-
� � � �
�- -� � �
-� � � F--
-� � �-- i
�- � _ �� l
T490e:1000,
i
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 for sandblasting 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 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.
Review of this special permit should consider the temporary sandblasting
structure use relative to the proposed location and zoning. Although the
sandblasting use is not specifically mentioned in the Permitted Uses
section of the I-1 zoning code, staff interprets sandblasting to be a
permitted use. Sandblasting has been permitted and does occur in other
I-1 locations within the city. The special permit process allows for
further insight into the appropriateness of sandblasting in the I-1 zone in
a temporary structure. While sandblasting by itself does not require a
special permit the combination of the temporary membrane structure
with the sandblasting triggers the need for the special permit review.
Sandblasting has the potential to produce noticeable amounts of dust
and particulate matter into the atmosphere. The membrane structure
was erected to contain the 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.
The applicant has used the temporary membrane structure at a remote
location for indefinite periods of time for sandblasting and painting large
pieces of equipment.
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 a 6,900 ft= 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.
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 P.M.C. 25.86.060. The
criteria are as follows:
Y) Will the proposed use be in accordance xuith the goals, 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 proposers 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 and 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
and therefore the 15 foot tall structure will not negatively affect
industrial development in the immediate vicinity.
s) Will the operations in connection ruith the proposal be rrzore
objectionable to nearby properties by reason of noise, furnes,
vibrations, dust, traffic, or flashing lights than ruould be the
operation of any permitted uses ruithin 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 that will
operate at all times sandblasting is being performed.
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 incorporating the filtration equipment 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 xuag xuilr become
a nuisance to uses permitted in the dish ict?
Uses of a temporary sandblasting structure with filtration equipment
in an industrial zone should not become a nuisance to permitted uses
in the zone.
Sandblasting using the appropriate air filtration equipment does not
pose a health or safety risk to other permitted uses in the
surrounding parcels.
TENTATIVE APPROVAL CONDITIONS
1. The special permit shall be personal to the applicant;
2. Painting shall not be allowed inside of the temporary structure;
3. The special permit shall expire on February 1, 2012;
4. The special permit shall be null and void if a building permit has
not been obtained by June 7, 2010.
RECOMMENDATION
MOTION: I move to close the hearing on the proposed temporary
sandblasting structure and initiate deliberations and schedule
adoption of findings of fact, conclusions and a recommendation to
the City Council for the April 15, 2010 meeting.
. . 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
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
MASTER FILE #: SP 10-003 APPLICANT: Joe Franco
HEARING DATE: 3/ 18/ 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 W. 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 laird 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.
b. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The City of Pasco is the lead
agency. This proposal has been issued a Determination of Non-
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 first 25 feet north of Sylvester Street are landscaped.
The east 30 feet of the site contains an unimproved gravel parking lot
accessible from West Sylvester Street. 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 across a street from
houses.
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.
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-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.
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 Sylvester Street.
10. Several four-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
criteria listed in P.M.C. 25.86.060. The criteria and staff listed findings are
as folloxus:
1 j Will the proposed use be in accordance xuith the goals, policies,
objectives and text of the Comprehensive plan?
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 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 xuith the existing or intended character- of the
general vicinity?
The 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 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 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 any permitted uses ruithin 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 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 xua 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.
TENTATIVE 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;
3) The parking lot shall be landscaped to meet the commercial
parking lot standards of PMC 25.75;
4) The first ten feet of the parking lot along Sylvester Street 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
April 15, 2010 meeting.
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