Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-17-2008 Planning Commission Meeting Packet PLANNING COMMISSION — AGENDA REGULAR MEETING 7:00 P.M. April 17, 2008 I. CALL TO ORDER: II. ROLL CALL: Declaration of Quorum III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Dated March 20, 2008 IV. OLD BUSINESS: A. Rezone R-S-1 (Suburban Residential) to R-1 (Low Density Residential) (All Pro contracting) (3300 Block of W Wernett) (MF # Z 08-001) V. PUBLIC HEARINGS: A. Special Permit Farming in an R-S-1 Zone (DNR) (7500 Block of Argent) (MF # SP 08-001) B. Code Amendment Driveway Standards (City of Pasco) (MF#CA 08-0011 VI. WORKSHOP: A. Code Amendment Subdivision Fence Standards (City of Pasco (MF#CA 08-002) VII. OTHER BUSINESS: VIII. ADJOURNMENT: REGULAR MEETING March 20, 2008 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman Todd Samuel. MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT Todd Samuel, Chairman Andy Anderson James Hay David Little Ray Rose Tony Schouviller Joe Cruz APPEARANCE OF FAIRNESS: Chairman Samuel read a statement about the appearance of fairness for hearings on land use matters. Chairman Samuel asked if any Commission member had anything to declare. No declarations were made. Chairman Samuel then asked the audience if there were any objections based on a conflict of interest or appearance of fairness questions regarding the items to be discussed this evening. There were no objections. Commissioners Schouviller and Little declared they lived in close proximity to the proposed rezone, and both stated it would not be a problem being fair and impartial. Chairman Samuel asked the audience if there was an objection to either commissioner hearing the mater. There were no objections from the audience. ADMINISTERING THE OATH: Chairman Samuel explained that state law requires testimony in quasi-judicial hearings such as held by the Planning Commission be given under oath or affirmation. Chairman Samuel swore in all those desiring to speak. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Little moved, and Commissioner Hayes second, that the minutes dated January 31, 2008 8s February 21, 2008 be approved. The Motion carried unanimously. -1- OLD BUSINESS: None PUBLIC HEARINGS: A. Special Permit R-S-1 (Suburban Residential) to R-1 (Low Density Residential) (All Pro contracting) (3300 Block of W Wernett) (MF # Z 08-001) Chairman Samuel read the master file number and asked staff for a report. Staff stated that notice of the hearing was published in the newspaper and mailed to surrounding property owners. Staff provided an overview of the proposed project and its location, which is a rezone of just over 5 acres from R-S-1 to R-1. Staff provided a description of existing densities and parcel sizes in the immediate vicinity of the proposal. It was pointed out that the Newton Addition to the southwest of the site was developed with 7,200-square-foot lots and several duplex units are adjacent the site. Staff reviewed the written report for the benefit of the Planning Commission and explained that the Commission could consider a concomitant agreement to set the minimum lot size larger than what is allowed in the zone. Staff suggested that 8,000 sq ft as opposed to 7,200 sq ft which would lower the density, yet provide enough lots to cover need improvements in the future including a sound wall along the freeway. Commissioner Little asked if this rezone would allow duplexes. Staff stated that it would not. Commissioner Schouviller asked if there would be any conditions on square footage of homes to be built in the area. Staff explained that law prohibits the City from specifying square-footage requirements. Only lot sizes can be a condition with a concomitant agreement. Commissioner Little asked whether there would be noise problems with a subdivision along the freeway. Staff explained that this would be a legitimate question at time of a subdivision review. Staff also stated that because the rezone would go from 10,000 sq ft lots to 7,200 sq ft lots that there would not be a significant change in the number of -2- lots that could be developed. However due to the cost of development the additional lots would make a project more feasible. Development would help keep the site clean and orderly. Commissioner Schouviller asked if any road improvements would be required along Wernett. Staff explained that this would also be an issue of subdivision. At the time of development the developer would have to provide the necessary right-of-way and complete road improvements such as curb, gutter, sidewalk, etc; including fire hydrants. Commissioner Rose asked how much of the road infrastructure would have to be built prior to construction of homes. Staff explained that all infrastructure improvements would either have to be built or bonded for prior to final plat approval. Also, at the time of subdivision development Staff noted that the issues of a subdivision should not be the focus of this meeting, but rather the criteria for approving a rezone. Chairman Samuel opened the public hearing. Arnold Haag spoke in favor of the proposal. He stated that the rezone would create additional opportunities for additional housing. Development of the property would not be a feasible project without the additional lots. Commissioner Schouviller asked what price range of homes or types of homes would be built. Mr. Haag stated that the homes would range from $110,000 to $145,000. And that the houses would range in size from 1,200 to 1,700 square feet. Arie McReynolds, 2220 RD 34, Pasco, WA stated he had lived in his home for more than 25 years. The Duplexes across the street have been a problem for the neighborhood. He gave a brief history of development of Newton Addition. Mr. McReynolds felt the rezone would permit more houses and the additional lots would degrade the neighborhood. He felt that the subdivision and rezone should be done at the same time. He explained that the site had been well cared for. He was concerned that additional lots will degrade the neighborhood. He stated he was not able to support the rezone without knowing the design of the subdivision. Commissioner Little asked how he liked living on a smaller lot. Mr. McReynolds stated he has gotten used to living on it, but feels that it is a little small. -3- Commissioner Little asked if there has been a lot of turnover on the smaller lots. Mr. McReynolds stated no. Lonnie Haag 2016 RD 44, owner of All Pro Contracting stated he lives close to the area. Also, that without the rezone, development of this property is not feasible due to the high cost for infrastructure. He will probably build homes starting at 1,200 square feet for $135,000 up to 1,600 square feet for about $160,000. Mr. Haag did not believe the additional lots would create a traffic issue for this area. Chairman Samuel closed the public hearing. Staff stated that County Regulations used to allow lots to be reduced in size if water and sewer were available regardless of zoning restrictions. Newton's Addition was developed with 7,200 square feet because water and sewer were available at the time of development. Commissioner asked about restricting lots sizes to 8,000 square feet. Staff explained that through a concomitant agreement the lot sizes could be restricted. Commissioner recommended that lot sizes be restricted. Commissioners suggested 8,000 square feet. Commissioner Hayes moved, seconded by Commissioner Schouviller, that the Planning Commission close the public hearing and schedule it for deliberations, adoption of findings of fact, conclusions, and a recommendation for the City Council for next Planning Commission meeting. The motion was approved unanimously. WORKSHOP: A. Driveway Standards Review proposed changes to PMC Title 12 regarding number, location, and widths of driveways. Chairman Samuel asked staff for comments under the workshop item. Staff explained current driveway standards were developed in the late 1960's and have not been revised or update since. Since the 1960's vehicles have changed in size, and over the years driveways have gotten large to accommodate three-car garages. While the PMC limits residential driveways to 20ft. in width many driveways have been developed at a width greater than 20ft. Commercial driveways have been restricted to 30 feet in width. However over the years, in -4- the interest of safety, commercial driveways have been permitted to exceed 30 feet. Staff explained some of the problems associated with narrow commercial driveways on major streets. Staff explained that in preparing for the workshop, driveway requirements from neighboring cities such Richland, Kennewick, Walla Walla, Yakima, and Spokane were reviewed. Staff provided a brief overview of the different requirements for surrounding communities. It was explained that there were at least three important reasons to control driveway widths. The first important issue that needed to be considered is the width of the driveway as it relates to the street design for storm water drainage. The absorption areas under the streets for storm water are design to accommodate a limited amount of runoff from adjacent properties. Increasing the driveway widths increases the amount of runoff from a property, possibly overusing the street drainage system. Also, neighborly peace should be considered, as increased driveway widths prevent parking in front of the property and cause visitors to park in front of neighboring properties, which could potentially create conflict. Finally, standard practice is inconsistent with current City codes. Commissioner Rose felt that shrubbery adjacent to driveways needs to be addressed. Commissioner Schouviller asked staff for recommendations on driveway widths. Staff stated that changes definitely need to occur for commercial driveways along arterial roads. For smaller developments 35-40 foot driveways may be OK but for large projects located on major streets flexibility is needed to allow the City Engineer to modify driveway widths for traffic safety reasons. For residential driveways Staff recommended nothing greater than 34ft. Staff would like to prepare language for an April hearing. Commissioner Rose agreed that commercial areas needed to have wider driveways. Residential lots also need more flexibility because of the various shapes of the lots throughout the community, especially on cul-de-sac lots. Staff requested direction on lots large enough for circular driveways: "If you have a circular driveway how wide can each driveway be?" Commissioner Schouviller suggested 20 ft. because that is enough room for two vehicles. Staff asked what would be the appropriate spacing between driveway entrances on a circular driveway. The City of Richland requires a minimum of 5ft. 5ft is not much. -5- Staff explained how the width of driveways is measured. There were no other comments. Staff provided a brief memo describing the proposal and would like to schedule a public hearing at the next Planning Commission meeting in order to consider changes to the driveway standards. OTHER BUSINESS: A. Plat Interpretation Review of adjustments to Northwest Commons Preliminary Plat Chairman Samuel read the master file and asked for a report from Staff. Staff provided a brief history of the previously approved Northwest Commons Preliminary Plat. Staff explained that the PMC allows preliminary plats to be modified as long as proposed changes are minor in nature and the plat resembles that of the original approval. Staff reviewed the modified plat layout pointing out that the main roadways through the plat essentially remain in the same locations as well as the locations of the parks and open space. The lots in the NE corner of the plat were approved for septic tanks due to limited sewer capacity. The lots and streets in this area of the plat were redesigned to limit the problem of having septic tanks at a higher elevation than the homes. Also the location of the storm water pond made access for maintenance difficult. This area has been redesigned and the storm water pond has been relocated. Originally the NW corner of the plat was set aside for RV storage. Staff stated they were seeking direction from the Planning Commission as to whether the proposed changes are indeed minor in nature. Commissioner Little asked about lot sizes; "Are they the same as previously approved?" Staff explained that the plat was approved as a PUD and that the lot sizes are similar. No additional lots have been created. Commissioner Rose asked who will be responsible for maintenance of common areas. Staff explained that the homeowners association will be responsible for maintenance of all the common areas. This will be done through the creation of covenants that will encumber each lot with the maintenance of the common areas. The homeowners association will be managed by a professional organization. Commissioner Hay asked if the road along lots 56 and 337 will be extended to provide access to the park. -6- Staff explained that the street, Porto Lane, would be built out to the Park. The consensus of the Planning Commission was that the proposed changes the NW commons plat were minor in nature. Commissioner Hay moved, seconded by Commissioner Schouviller, that the meeting be adjourned. The motion passed unanimously. With no further business the Planning Commission was adjourned at 8:20 pm. Respectfully submitted, David McDonald, Secretary -7- REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION MASTER FILE NO: Z 08-001 APPLICANT: All Pro Contracting INC. HEARING DATE: 03/20/08 4514 W 9th Ave. ACTION DATE: 04/17/08 Kennewick, WA 99336 BACKGROUND REQUEST: A site-specific Rezone of a 5.12 Acre parcel from R-S-1 (Residential Suburban) to R-1 (Low Density Residential). 1. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: Legal: A 5.12 acre portion of the East 1/2 of the Southwest 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4 of Section 24, Township 9 North, Range 29 East, WM lying southerly of SR-182 Right-of-Way. General Location: Just west of the intersection of Wernett and RD 32. Property Size: Approximately 5.12 acres 2. ACCESS: The property has access from Wernett. 3. UTILITIES: All municipal utilities are available to the site. 4. LAND USE AND ZONING: The subject parcel is currently zone R-S-1 and occupied by one house. The subject parcel is bounded by I-182 on the North and Wernett on the South. Property to the west is zoned R-S-1 and occupied by two duplexes, a house, and a vineyard. Properties to the south are zoned R-S-1, and are developed with single family dwellings. A few scattered multi-family dwellings are also located in the general vicinity. The property to the east is occupied by one house and is zoned R-S-1. 5. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The Comprehensive Plan designates this area for Low Density Residential development. 6. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: This proposal has been issued a determination of nonsignificance in accordance with review under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), Chapter 43.21(c) RCW. ANALYSIS The subject property is currently zoned R-S-1 (Suburban Residential) which allows for a minimum lot size of 1 residence per 10,000 square feet. Surrounding properties to the west and east are similarly zoned. Properties to the south are zoned R-S-12 which allows a minimum lot size of 12,000 square feet. The applicant is requesting the property be rezoned to R-1 (Low Density Residential) which permits minimum lot sizes of 7,200 square feet. In determining if a zone change is appropriate for the subject parcel the Planning Commission should, among other things, consider the following issues: 1) the current density of existing development in the immediate vicinity of the subject property; and, 2) the comprehensive plan future land use designation of the property and surrounding areas. Reviewing the general neighborhood surrounding the site, Staff found that parcels directly to the southwest (Newton Addition) of the site averaged 7,200 square feet in size. The Newton Addition is 3.7 acres and contains 19 lots for a density of 5.1 units per acre. Parcels to the south have average lot sizes of 12,000 square feet, and parcels to the southeast average 11,000 sq ft; however several of the parcels to the southeast contain multi-family units which produce an actual density of approximately 1 dwelling unit per 5500 sq ft. There are two duplexes directly west of the site and three duplexes are located on the south side of Wernett at the southeast corner of the site. Other duplexes, a four-plex and a tri-plex are located nearby. The current Comprehensive Land Use Map designates the subject property and all surrounding properties for low density development. Pursuant to Section CP.3.15 of the Comprehensive Plan the low density residential designation allows a net density of 2-5 units per acre. Zones consistent with this designation include R-S-20, R-S-12, R-S-1, and R-1. Thus, changing the zoning of the subject property to R-1 would be consistent with the Comprehensive Land Use Designation of the Plan. The initial review criteria for considering a rezone application are explained in PMC. 25.88.030. The criteria are listed below as follows: 1. The changed conditions in the vicinity which warrant other or additional zoning: • Sewer service is now available in the neighborhood • All properties to the south and southeast are fully developed with a variety of housings type, single family units being the predominate type. • The Newton Addition directly across Wernett to the southwest was developed with 7,200 square foot lots. • Duplex units are located to the east and west of the site. • Many of the streets in the neighborhood have been rebuilt to a higher standard in the last 10 years. • The water system was upgraded in the neighborhood within the last 10 years 2 2. Facts to justify the change on the basis of advancing the public health, safety and general welfare. The rezone will enhance development opportunities that may lead to the development of low density single family homes which will eliminate the potential fire hazards created by the current vacant field. The low density character of the area will be maintained and future development will participate in the costs previously incurred by the community for the water and sewer system that serve the parcel. The general welfare will be support by additional in-fill development that will contribute to the cost of municipal services. 3. The effect it will have on the nature and value of adjoining property and the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed rezone is supported by the comprehensive plan and would be considered a proper implementation of the plan. The proposed rezone would protect the established character of the nearby neighborhoods and thereby the nature and value of the neighboring properties. The proposal could enhance development of the site and lead to the elimination of a large field that grows weeds and grasses that can be considered a fire hazard for adjoining residential structures. 4. The effect on the property owners if the request is not granted. The proposed rezone will permit the future development cost for the site, including any sound walls along the freeway, to be spread more reasonably over a few additional lots. 5. The Comprehensive land use designation for the property. The Comprehensive Plan designates the site for low density residential development. The proposed rezone is for low density residential consistent with the Plan. 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) The site is zoned R-S-1 (Suburban Residential). 3 2) The Comprehensive Plan designates the site Low Density Residential development, which allows a net density of 2-5 units per acre. 3) R-1 zoning is identified as Low Density Residential in the zoning regulations. 4) R-1 zoning is consistent with the Comprehensive Land Use Designation of Low Density Residential for the site. 5) Most properties in the immediate vicinity of the subject parcel are developed with single family dwellings 6) Duplex units are located directly west and east of the site and other multi- family units are located nearby. 7) The Newton Addition across Wernett was developed with 7,200 square foot lots matching the minimum lot size for the R-1 District. 8) The Newton Addition is developed at a density of 5.1 units per acre. CONCLUSIONS BASED ON STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT Before recommending approval or denial of a rezone the Planning Commission must develop its conclusions from the findings of fact based upon the criteria listed in P.M.C. 25.88.060. The criteria are as follows: (1) The proposal is in accord with the goals and policies of the comprehensive plan. The goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan encourage the development of old and new neighborhoods into safe and enjoyable places to live. (2) The effect of the proposal on the immediate vicinity will not be materially detrimental. The surrounding properties will not be detrimentally impacted by the proposed change because the land will be able to be developed with similar land uses at similar densities that are compatible with one another. (3) There is merit and value in the proposal for the community as a whole. Rezoning the property to R-1 will allow it to develop with residences at a density consistent with the surrounding neighborhood (Newton Addition) and consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 4 (4) Conditions should be imposed in order to mitigate any significant adverse impacts from the proposal. There are no significant adverse impacts expected from this zone change, as such, no conditions are required at this time. (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. The neighborhood contains a variety of housing and varying lots sizes. While the R-1 district permits lots sizes equal to those found in the neighborhood a concomitant agreement could be use to slightly enlarge the minimum lot size to 8,000 square feet. Recommendation MOTION: I move the Planning Commission adopt the Findings of Fact as contained in the April 17, 2008 staff report. MOTION: I move, based on the findings of fact as adopted, the Planning Commission recommend the City Council rezone the site from R-1- S (Suburban) to R-1 (Low Density) with a condition requiring a minimum lot size of 8,000. 5 • Item: Rezone Wernett and Road 32 Vicinity Applicant: All Pro Contracting N Map File #: Z 08-001 'Z. 00, 00 v Wi — n 0 01 0 SITE , • a _ MM4 _ Mai.. W WERNETT RDA Chi - a1 a a a�� � 1 '* _ ,r. �c +�•• ka� ° ��_ `Y lost �, ;_- __-_�� � i _ __"fit-.+C• �� .•. ._1�,�s'_ - �f ,� �+ • )�t W JAY ST "'O to Q '_- �r �� S�EAJROO 1 - a ~�w t ■ i7l'aaa • J� ., ate... .! �(�} •w ,1`' R•r to , �° : b +.>�.-•w., {{t j —vim+ _. : a r W ELLA ST 1 1►; - r• � j j Land Item: Rezone Wernett and Road 32 Use Applicant: All Pro Contracting N Map File #: Z 08-001 0 7-7)200S j j Zoning Item: Rezone Wernett and Road 32 Applicant: All Pro Contracting N Map File Z 08-001 j/ CO SEABROOK CT R=S= 1 2 __R=S= 1 2 REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION MASTER FILE NO: SP 08-001 APPLICANT: WA DNR HEARING DATE: April 17, 2008 Toby McKay 713 Bowers RD Ellensburg, WA 98926 BACKGROUND REQUEST: SPECIAL PERMIT: Farming in an R-S-1 Zone (7500 Block of W. Argent) (DNR) (MF# SP 08-001) 1. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: Legal: That portion of parcel 117-510-016 located in the SW 1/4 of the SE 1/4 of Section 16, Township 9 North, Range 29 East, W.M., in the City of Pasco laying south of the Franklin County Irrigation District Canal. General Location: 7500 Blk. of Argent Rd. Property Size: Approximately 30 acres. 2. ACCESS: The site has access from Argent Rd. 3. UTILITIES: City water is available to the site, and is located in the Argent right-of-way. Sewer service is located at the intersection of Road 72 and Argent. 4. LAND USE AND ZONING: The subject property is currently zoned RT (Residential Transition) and is bordered on the south and east by the City Boundary, is bordered on the west by lands zoned R-S- 1, and bordered on the north by lands zoned RT. The land to the west is the site of the New Pasco High School. The lands to the north and northwest are in agricultural use. The lands to the south and east are under Franklin County jurisdiction and are in residential use. S. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The Comprehensive Plan designates this area for low density residential development. 6. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: This proposal has been issued a determination of nonsignificance in accordance with review under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), Chapter 43.21(c) RCW. ANALYSIS The applicant, the Department of Natural Resources, has submitted an application for a farming operation in an effort to perfect the reaming water rights on the parcel in question. Pasco has been an agricultural community from its inception. Considerable acreage devoted to farm fields can be found within the City limits and such has been the case for many years. Recognizing the importance of agricultural production to the community as a whole the City Council specifically established all farm fields within the City as of 1990 as lawfully established non-conforming uses. (Ordinance # 2780) In 1990 agricultural uses were also added as an unclassified uses in the zoning regulations and as such required review thorough the Special Permit process when they are within 1,000 feet of a dwelling or residential subdivision. In the early 1990's much of the 1-182 corridor area was put into agricultural production with farming operations still occurring between recently developed subdivisions. These farms made productive use of the land and played an important role in preserving water rights for the community. As irrigation water was applied to the land water rights became perfected. When development occurs and farms are converted to land uses as indicated in the Comprehensive Plan the water rights are required to be transferred to the City. Following the necessary paperwork the water rights are then converted for community-wide use. The property has been used in the past, as reported in the School District Hearing on the adjacent farm, by dirt bikers, four wheelers and horseback riders. Although the property in question has been vacant for many years it currently has water rights available, however, the water rights have not been perfected. The applicant is endeavoring to put the land into agricultural production to preserve the water rights. The water rights can only be persevered if they are put to use through agricultural production or they will be forever lost. The property is identified in the Comprehensive Plan for low density residential uses and is currently zoned R-S-1 (Suburban Residential). Farming on the site can only be considered an interim use that can be easily converted to the intended use when conditions and development activities warrant full development. Recent growth in Pasco is a good 2 example of how the conversion process takes place. Most of the development in the I-182 corridor over the last ten years has occurred on lands that were formally developed with farms. In reviewing this proposal Staff has identified five (5) issues for consideration by the Planning Commission: 1) dust control; 2) noise; 3) general farming operations; 4) ground water concerns; and 5) the eventual conversion to a residential use. During the initial grading and leveling of the site fugitive dust could potentially impact adjacent lands if not properly monitored. This impact would be eliminated once a crop is established. Staff would suggest the applicant be required to maintain a viable water source on site during the initial grading and leveling so that during wind events the site can be managed to prevent dust from leaving the site. During other times of the year a cover crop can be utilized to control dust. Often commercial agricultural activities occur at odd hours with the use of heavy equipment and various chemicals. Development of an appropriate farm management plan such as the one required for the adjacent School District would help mitigate any adverse impacts on surrounding properties. During the hearing process for the adjacent School District Farm several neighbors voiced the concerns over ground water contamination from overwatering during the irrigation season. Again this concern can be addressed through implementing a farm management plan and specifying the type of crop to be grown. Even though the Municipal code makes provisions for commercial agriculture, the City's comprehensive plan has designated this area for low density residential development. Therefore farming on the site must be considered only an interim use. Placing a time limit or a reassessment date for the farming operation would address the concern of having the farming operation on the site for an extended period of time. It should also be mention that the School District prepared a Phase One Environmental Study and Burrowing Owl Study for the adjacent farm to the west. A portion of those studies include a survey buffer that covers the western portion of the site in question. INTIAL 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 3 listing as the result of factual testimony and evidence submitted during the open record hearing. 1. The site is zoned R-S-1. 2. The Comprehensive Plan identifies the site for future single family housing development. 3. The site is not designated as a critical area. 4. Commercial agriculture (farms) is listed as unclassified uses in the zoning regulations. 5. The site is in the Pasco Urban Growth Boundary. 6. The site contains 30 acres. 7. The site is vacant. 8. Testimony for the School district hearing indicated four wheelers, dirt bike riders, and horseback riders have used the site for many years for off-road recreation activities. 9. A large commercial farm is located directly north of the site. 10. The subject site is within 1000 ft of a residential zone. 11. The Pasco School District was granted a special permit for a farm on the property to the west. 12. The School District prepared a Burrowing Owl Report (BOSR) for the nearby property. 13. The BOSR indicated there were no burrowing owls or important fish and wildlife habitat on the adjacent school site. 14. The site in question is similar to the adjacent school site but contains far less shrub vegetation than the school site did. 15. The site is not list as a critical area in the City's Comprehensive Plan. 16. Much of the property was de-vegetated in the early 1990's in preparation for the development of a farm. 17. The site is adjacent Argent Road, a major street. 18. There are many small irrigated pastures located to the south of the site. 19. A farm management plan was establish for the School District farm to address concerns related to farm operations, dust, and ground water. 20. Developing a farm on the site will secure scarce water rights. 4 TENTATIVE CONCLUSIONS BASED ON INTIAL 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: 1) Will the proposed use be in accordance with the goals, policies, objectives and text of the Comprehensive Plan? The Comprehensive Plan designates the proposed site for low density residential development. The proposal is an interim use that will preserve the site for uses designated in the Comprehensive Plan. The proposal also supports Policy LU-3-F that encourages the use of irrigation water in residential districts and Policy OF-3-B that calls for the continued expansion of the water system. The proposal will preserve water rights for the Pasco Community. 2) Will the proposed use adversely affect public infrastructure? The proposed farm will have no adverse impact on public infrastructure. A farm is not dependant upon City utilities or infrastructure as are residential and commercial development. 3) Will the proposed use be constructed, maintained and operated to be in harmony with existing or intended character of the general vicinity? The proposed use will be in harmony with the large commercial farm to the north and is similar in nature to the many acres of irrigate pasture lands and hobby farms to the south. The location of other farms within the I-182 Corridor has demonstrated that farms within close proximity of dwellings can be operated harmoniously with intended uses. Farms have operated simultaneously with the development of Island Estates, Sunny Meadows, The Village of Pasco Heights and in harmony with other residential developments in the I-182 Corridor. The proposed use will not make intensive use of the land or lead to the disorderly growth of the community. 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? 5 There will be no structures erected with this proposal other than a pivot irrigation system. Development over the last 10 years within the P182 Corridor attests to the fact that farming operations do no discourage the development of permitted uses or impair the value of nearby development. 5) Will the operations in connection with the proposal 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? Gardening and fruit growing are permitted uses in the R-S-1 district. Farming activities are occurring north of the site. The proposed use will not create more traffic, flashing lights, fumes, noise or vibrations that the traffic on Argent Road or activities at the High School. 6) Will the proposed use 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? The proposed farm will be compatible with the existing farm to the north and the pasture ground and hobby farms to the south. The proposed farm is only an interim use, and will not impede the development of future uses; nor will it become a nuisance to future permitted uses. The existence of numerous farming operations within the 1-182 Corridor demonstrates that the proposed use will not become a nuisance to permitted uses nor will it endanger public health and safety. RECOMMEDNATION MOTION: I move to close the hearing on the propose Special Permit and initiate deliberations and schedule adoption of findings of fact, conclusions and a recommendation for the City council for the May 15, 2008 meeting 6 • Item: S pecial Permit Farmin in R-S- 1 one Vicinity • A pplicant: Dept. of Natural esources N Map File #. SP 08-001 sy......... ". 0Ito a VALLEY VIEW PL Q w.- - M1T ' 01 If SITE �: �-,;t_r_�- �; f O 0 0 00 0 0 .y Y. y �'° T m I 00 00 _ - - ARGENT RDA-_ tom` IL, IL ° ° _ Land Item: Special Permit Farming in R-S- I one Use Applicant: Dept. of Natural Resources N Map File #: SP 08-001 Farming City Limit SFDUs T U City Limit O va High School 0 SFDUs Under TE"r a_ _ C) Construction Q -1 0 00 Mixed City Limit 00 Comm. Res. E F I Low-Density SFDUs o � City Limit 0 101 1 a Zonin Item: S pecial Permit Farming in R-S- 1 one g Applicant: Dept. of Natural Resources N Map File #: SP 08-001 RT City Limit County RS-20 U City Limit 0 rn m RS-1 SITE RS-12 C-1 City Limit E I C�� County RS-20 w City Limit � fU MEMORANDUM DATE: April 17, 2008 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Dave McDonald, City Planner SUBJECT: Driveway Standards The current driveway standards relating to the number of driveways and width of driveways per lot were developed in the late 1960's. Since the late 60's the size of service vehicles and the number of personal vehicles have all increased. Speeds on major streets may have also increased. In the sixties single-car garages were prevalent. The single-car garage gave way to the two-car garage while many homes today are constructed with three-car garages. A site plan was submitted last week for a house with a four-car garage. While driving habits, the size of vehicles and the number of residential garages has evolved over the years, Pasco's driveways standards have not. The current standard permits one private residential driveway not exceeding 20 feet in width for every 50 feet of frontage. Commercial driveways are limited to 30 feet in width for every 50 feet of frontage. However for commercial driveways the number and location can be modified by the Community Development Director. For public safety reasons and to accommodate service vehicles, commercial driveways have been permitted in excess of 30 feet on major streets. Residential driveways have also expanded over time to complement the growing trend for three-car garages. Residential driveways are now typically 34 feet in width. Due to changing conditions related to the evolution of the size of commercial service vehicles and the way houses are typically constructed, there is a need to reconsider the current driveway standards. A public hearing has been scheduled during the regular April 17th meeting to consider proposed amendments to the city's driveway standards. The attached proposed code amendment provides specific standards for both residential and commercial driveways. These standards are designed to address the items discussed in the workshop of March 17th. These items included I driveway widths, number of driveways, circular driveways, distance from side streets, location of meters and utilities and general public safety issues. A public hearing has been scheduled the regular meeting of April to consider proposed driveway amendments. Recommendation MOTION: I move the Planning Commission recommend the City amend the driveway standards of Title 12 as indicated in proposed ordinance. 2 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE amending Title 12 dealing with sidewalk and driveway improvements. WHEREAS, cities have the responsibility to regulate and control the physical development within their borders and insure the public health, safety and welfare are maintained; and, WHEREAS, the City of Pasco has standards to develop safe driveways within the City; and, WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that to further the purposes maintaining the public health, safety and welfare of the community, it is necessary to amend PMC Title 12; and, NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASCO, WASHINGTON DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That section 12.04.110 of the Pasco Municipal Code be and the same is hereby amended to read as follows: DRIVEWAY LEI, DRIVEWAYS GENERALLY: The City Bttildiag inspeeter- shall lewalk of the City unless the same shall be upon the level of the sideWalk 40111 a r� et o eding f e-feet f a the ,-b line of the side al No driveway shall be so located as to create a hazard to pedestrians or mortorists. All driveways including any radius returns or transitions shall be confined within property lines extended perpendicular to the curb line. Section 2. That section 12.04.120 of the Pasco Municipal Code be and the same is hereby amended to read as follows: 12.04.120 DRIVEWAY STANDARDS NUMBER OF DRIVEWAYS n vc PE LO T1 A) Residential Driveways: All residential driveways shall be constructed to the city's standard specification and the following_ 1. Driveway widths shall be measure at the curb flow line exclusive of the transitions. Where there is no curb line the driveway width shall be measured at the points where the extensions of the two outer edges the driveway intersect the street right-of-way. 2. Only one driveway shall be permitted for each lot unless otherwise provided herein. 3. No single driveway shall be wider than 34 feet or 50 percent of the lot frontage which ever is smaller. 4. Circular driveways are only permitted on lots with 100 feet or more of frontage on the street that carries the lot address. 5. Driveway widths for each driveway of a circular driveway must not exceed a total of 34 feet. 6. Lots with double frontage mgy be permitted to have a secondary driveway off the flanking or side street of no more than 22 feet in width. 7. No driveway shall be located closer to an intersection of two streets than 25 feet. Distance from the intersection shall be measure from the beginning of the radius closest to the driveway transition. 8. No driveway shall encase a water meter or irrigation vale or meter. 9. Driveways must provide access to a garage, carport or Parking pad. Driveways that do not must be removed per PMC 12.04.130. 10. Driveways must be position to avoid interfering with fire hydrants, utility boxes and equipment. The cost of relocating any utilities to accommodate a driveway shall be borne by the permit holder. B) Commercial Driveways: All commercial driveways shall be constructed to the city's standard specification and the following 1. Driveway widths shall be measure at the curb flow line exclusive of the transitions. 2. No single driveway may exceed 35 feet unless the Public Works Director determines a greater width is necessary a) The Public Works Director shall consider the following before approving a modification to the width of a commercial driveway: i) Street classification ii) Street speed limit iii) Traffic volume iv) Number of parking spaces within the parking lot V) Whether or not the proposed driveway will serve multiple businesses vi) Safety of pedestrians and motorists 3. The location and number of driveways permitted to serve a commercial property will be determined by the Public Works Director number. The determination on the location and number of driveways shall be based upon the review criteria of PMC 12.04.120 B (2) a) and shall consider reasonable traffic engineer issues deemed necessary to insure safety to pedestrian users of the public wad preclude hazardous or congestive_ traffic movements, maintain desirable traffic flow along the arterial corridor, or any other reason related to public safety. The decision of the Community Public Works Director is final unless appealed to the Hearing Examiner, in writing and stating the reasons thereof, within ten days of the Director's decisions. (A) One pr-ivate driveway, not exeeeding twenty feet in width, shall be-pefmitted zee. except,e— driveway, not exeeeding thifly feet in width, shall be peffflitted; that •f troop i ii trove ��r � crrcn�� crccr-vi-c1v@ Alii�rS--�zirisrcE'rizcr-v�E6acEt6i�crcc, hazardous or- eongestive tr-affie movements, maintain desirable tfaffie flow along the after-i-aleoer-, or- any other- reason related p4he safaty. The deeision of th Commiinity Development Dir-eeter- is final unless appealed te the City Cotmeil, i wfifing and stating the reasons ther-eef-, ,v�,ithin ten days of the Dir-eeter-'s deeisiefis. Section 3. That section 12.04.130 of the Pasco Municipal Code be and the same is hereby amended to read as follows: ABANDONED DRIVEWAY DUTY OF nix NE When any driveway has been abandoned, or becomes unused for any reason, it shall be closed and the abutting property owner shall replace it with a standard curb and sidewalk constructed to the city's standard specifications. in the even4 tha4 any driveway shall be abandoned 0 level of the adjoining sidewa In the event of f litre to do so, the abutting property owner of fails to replace an abandoned or unused driveway with standard curb and sidewalk the city may order the curb and sidewalk be constructed as , the pr-aeedufe shall be the same as provided by the laws of the State of Washington relating to the repair of sidewalks. Section 4. That Chapter 12.04. of the Pasco Municipal Code be and the same is hereby amended to include a new subsection 12.04. 135 read as follows: EXISTING DRIVEWAYS: Existing driveways that do not conform to the standards of this chapter or other standards or regulations of the City of Pasco must be brought into conformance when any permit is issued for work on the affected property where said work exceeds 33 percent of the assessed value of buildings upon the property. Permit applications for any alterations or repair to nonconforming driveways other than ordinary maintenance will require the driveway to be brought into conformance with current standards. Not withstanding the Public Works Director may permit the modification or improvement of an existing driveway without full compliance to city standards where the strict application of the standards would result in substantial hardship on the property owner. Provided however the modification or improvement does not impeded the better movement of traffic or increase hazards to pedestrians or motorists. What do we do with this What do we do with this What do we do with this 12.04.140 SUPERVISION OF CONSTRUCTION. The person making such improvement, or his contractor or agent, shall notify the City Building Inspector, in writing, at least twenty-four hours in advance of the time when the grading will be completed and the forms set ready for placing concrete. The City Building Inspector shall check up the forms as to line and grade and place an inspector in charge of the work until the same is completed, and it is unlawful for any contractor to commence construction work until the forms have been checked and the inspector placed upon the location of the job at the time such improvement is actually installed. 12.04.1 SO SAFETY PRECAUTIONS. The contractor or person having charge of the construction of any such improvement shall see that good and sufficient fences or barriers shall be kept around such work at all times, and a sufficient number of red lights shall be placed at proper intervals upon such work during the night time as a warning to all person traveling upon such streets or alleys. 12.04.160 INSPECTION- CONFORMANCE TO PLAN. No improvement will be accepted until the City Building Inspector is satisfied that the work has been performed according to the plans, profiles and specifications furnished by him and to the lines and grades established. What do we do with this What do we do with this What do we do with this What do Section 4. This ordinance shall be in full force and effective after its passage and publication as required by law. PASSED this day of 2008. Joyce Olson Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: Sandy Kenworthy Leland B. Kerr Deputy City Clerk City Attorney CITY OF PASCO SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. ORDINANCE No. changing the name of Billings Street to Heritage Boulevard. The full text of Ord. No. is available free of charge to from the City Clerk, City of Pasco (509) 545-3402, PO Box 293, Pasco, WA 99301. Sandy Kenworthy, Deputy City Clerk MEMORANDUM DATE: April 17, 2008 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Dave McDonald, City Planner SUBJECT: Subdivision Fencing Since 1996 when the first major subdivision (Sunny Meadows) was constructed the City has been requiring developers to install common boundary fences where lots back on to major streets. Sunny Meadows was the first subdivision developed with a common boundary fence that consisted of a chain link fence with vinyl slats. As other subdivisions were approved fencing was required to be located on property lines instead of along the sidewalk as in Sunny Meadows and chain link with slats was not permitted. The chain link has since been replaced with cedar estate type fencing secured on 4x6 posts. In 1999 the subdivision regulations were amended to require cedar, masonry, block, or brick fencing for subdivision boundary fencing. As successive subdivisions were constructed developers were requesting permission to substitute composite or vinyl products for "less durable" cedar. As a result some subdivisions have boundary fences constructed of vinyl and cedar look-alike materials. Others have 100 percent vinyl products. While product claims boast of the durability of the cedar look-alike products and other fencing materials, experience has shown some products have major flaws. Now that the community has had several years of experience with various types of subdivision boundary fencing it is clear better direction is needed for what constitutes acceptable fencing for this applications. After contacting a local fencing supplier, staff learned the following about various fencing materials: Cedar Cedar is the most prevalent material used for wooden fencing. Over time wood fencing, including pressure treated posts, will crack, split, break, warp, shrink and rot. Wood fences that have been stained or painted will fade, peel, flake, blister and discolor over a few short years. Wood fences require constant maintenance to maintain a reasonable appearance. I Pressure Treated Wood Treated wood that resists rotting and insect infestations contains strong chemical products that are not good for the environment. Useful life is about 25 years. Vinyl Vinyl does not rot, peel, flake or need staining, oil treatment of painting. Like wood, vinyl fences can be damaged by hard impacts. Some vinyl fences can become brittle when exposed to prolonged sunlight. Others will bend and warp with the wind or in high heat. However, most vinyl fence products now come with a lifetime guarantee. Vinyl can be more difficult to repair than wooden fences. Cambium is a newer vinyl product that looks wood. It has a soft wood-grain appearance that comes in shades of driftwood and cedar to give the rich look of a wood fence without the maintenance. This product is being used in the Linda Loviisa subdivision being built south of Burden Boulevard just east of the soccer complex. Composite Products Composite wood and plastic products provide a fence board that can be cut, nailed and drilled like wood but it will not rot, splinter or delaminate. There is no need for painting or staining. The product is thin and is relatively easy to break. Without enough support the product also bends. High Density Polyethlene High density polyethelene is a tough hard-wearing plastic product resistant to yard chemicals and unsightly degradation caused by sprinklers. This product will not rot, stain, crack or become brittle, and will withstand sharp impacts that will break or make holes in other types of fencing materials. It can be sensitive to heat causing picket bending during hot days. The subdivision fencing along the east side of Rd 84 north of Sandifur Parkway was recently replaced with this type of product. Block Block is sturdy and requires minimal maintenance. Because block comes in many colors and textures it is versatile and adaptable to various environments and architectural styles. Rivershore Estates, Mediterranean Villas and the First Place subdivision all have block fencing as a boundary fence. 2 Modular Concrete Panels Pre-cast concrete panel are virtually indestructible and require little maintenance. The By-pass highway sound wall along the 240 Highway through Richland is an example of this type of fencing. The trade name for this product is Verti-Crete. There are various types of pre-cast stone or brick looking concrete fencing products. Miscellaneous Product Miscellaneous fencing materials include bamboo, metal panels, tubular steel, tubular aluminum, stucco coated block our treated wood products and others. Planning Commission Recommendation After reviewing the various options for fencing staff is seeking direction form the Planning Commission on the preferred type of fencing materials for subdivision boundary fences. 3