Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-20-2009 Planning Commission Meeting Packet PLANNING COMMISSION - AGENDA REGULAR MEETING 7:00 P.M. August 20, 2009 I. CALL TO ORDER: II. ROLL CALL: Declaration of Quorum III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: July 16, 2009 IV. OLD BUSINESS: A. SPECIAL PERMIT: Location of a Community Service Facility in a C-1 Zone (3901 W Court St.) (Planned Parenthood) (MF# SP 09-005) B. SPECIAL PERMIT: Expansion of a College/Technical School in a C-1 zone (5278 Outlet Dr.) (Charter College) (MF# SP 09-006 C. SPECIAL PERMIT: Location of a Corn Maze/Farm in a R-S-20 Zone (2000 Block of Rd 76) (Philipp Schmitt/Haywire Farms) (MF# SP 09-007) V. PUBLIC HEARINGS: A. Rezone: Rezone from C-1 to R-1 (1300 Block of Rd 36) (St. Martin) (MF# Z 09-005) B. Code Amendment: PMC 25.58 I-182 Corridor Overlay District (City of Pasco) (MF# CA 09-001 VI. WORKSHOPS: A. Code Amendment: PMC 25.78.030 (4) and PMC25.78 140 RV Parking in residential zones (City of Pasco) (MF# CA 09-002 VII. OTHER BUSINESS VIII. ADJOURNMENT REGULAR MEETING July 16, 2009 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. 6 Ray Rose No. 7 Tony Schouviller 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 Cruz stated he would recuse himself from the Special Permit Application for the location of a Community Service Facility in a C-1 Zone (MF# SP09-005). Commissioner Little recused himself from the Special Permit Application for the expansion of a College/Technical School in a C-3 Zone (MF# SP09-006) and the Special Permit for the location of a Corn Maze/Farm in a R-S-20 Zone (MF#SP09-007). 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. -1 - APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Little moved, seconded by Commissioner Hay, that the minutes dated June 18, 2009 be approved as mailed. The Motion carried unanimously. OLD BUSINESS: A. SPECIAL PERMIT Location of a Community Service Facility in a C-1 Zone (3901 W. Court Street) (Planned Parenthood) (MF# SP09-005) Chairman Samuel read the master file number and stated that a public hearing was held on June 18th with a large number of people providing input. He then asked staff for comments. Rick White, Community 8v Economic Development Director stated the Planning Commission, under Pasco's land use permitting scheme, conducts two hearings, one of them an open record hearing which occurred on June 18, 2009. The Planning Commission heard a large amount of testimony, however not much of the testimony either in favor or opposition addressed the six special permit criteria that the Planning Commission is bound to consider. Mr. White briefly reviewed the criteria as outlined in PMC 25.86. It was pointed out that factual evidence was needed by referencing the recent Central Pre-Mix case, where Central Pre-Mix took the City to court and won a favorable judgment because issues that were not supported by factual evidence were used as the basis for denial. Mr. White again reminded the Commissioners that the evidence considered for this permit and any special permit are the six criteria that are contained in section 25.86 of the Pasco Municipal Code. Chairman Samuel stated his concerns about building a complete record that the City Council could use to make an informed decision. He also stated he appreciated the testimony from the 200+ citizens from the Tri-Cities that attended the public hearing on June 18, 2009. He also appreciated the opportunity to read the large number of emails and letters submitted to the City. After referencing the following Municipal Code sections 25.86.050, 25.86.060 and 25.86.070 Chairman Samuel read his observations and conclusions into the record. These observations made reference to the location of the proposed site near Mark Twain Elementary School and a daycare and reference to protests around Planned Parenthood facilities in other parts of the country. Chairman Samuel further stated he had concerns about the possible secondary effects of the proposed facility on nearby businesses. Chairman Samuel then reviewed the special permit criteria as outlined in PMC 25.86. -2 - Chairman Samuel then asked Planning Commission members for input on the matter. Commissioner Hay stated he agreed with Chairman Samuel's statements and was concern about the location next to an elementary school. Commissioner Schouviller agreed with Commissioner Hay's statement. Commissioner Kempf stated she also thought the facility was too close to a school. Commissioner Little stated he had the same concerns about safety and harmony at the school and nearby businesses. Commissioner Rose stated a lot of the allegations are exceptions rather than the rule. He stated the moralistic side of the issue is beside the point and he is in favor of the facility. Commissioner Cruz has recused himself from this item. Commissioner Perez was not at the last meeting and stated he would not be voting on the item. Chairman Samuel asked staff if there were additional information to provide. Mr. White stated the presence of legal or illegal demonstrations by the case of Sunnyside vs. Lopez cannot be the basis for conditioning or denying a permit. Since there were no findings that supported recommendation of denial staff suggested the Planning Commission continue the matter for a month to allow preparation of findings. Following additional discussion on the question of tabling action for a month Chairman Samuel asked for a vote by the Planning Commission. Commissioner Little moved, seconded by Commissioner Rose that the Planning Commission table the item for one month. Commissioners voted as follows: Commissioner Hay - yes, Commissioner Schouviller-yes, Commissioner Kempf- no, Chairman Samuel - no, Commissioner Little-yes, Commissioner Rose-yes. The item was tabled for one month. B. CDBG 2010 Annual Action Plan (City Wide) (MF# CDBGO9-004) Chairman Samuel read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Angela Pitman, Block Grant Administrator stated there were presentations from the applicants at the public hearing on July 16, 2009. The purpose for the CDBG program is to develop viable communities by expanding economic -3 - opportunities and providing a suitable living environment and decent housing within the city of Pasco. Eligible activities must meet one of the three national objectives which are to primarily benefit low to moderate income persons, aid in the preventions or elimination of slum and blight, or meet an urgent need, and must also comply with CDBG regulations at 24CFR570. There is an estimated $665,000 to be available from the 2010 entitlement and from reallocation of prior year activities. There are 16 proposals received totaling $1,392,000 which leaves a deficit of$727,000. Staff recommendations were provided and broke down by activity type. Administrative activity is limited to 20% of the entitlement plus 20% of the current year's program income. Public services activity is limited to 15% of the entitlement plus 15% of the prior year's program income. Economic development activities were also listed. HUD likes to see the funding leveraged not using 100% of CDBG funds for a project, but other funding being added to it as well. Chairman Samuel asked for comments from the Planning Commission. Commissioner Cruz stated by reviewing this and listening to testimony we need to look at the current state of the economy and the kind of people that are affected negatively by the economy and will benefit from these kinds of proposals. He is in favor of a significant reduction from the staff recommendation for CDBG Program Administration of$120,000 to $80,000. The city should take on more of the burden to fund this instead of using CDBG money to fund Administration. He also stated the Code Enforcement officer funding should be revisited and would prefer that the money be used for prevention versus the back-end solution with Code Enforcement. Commissioner Schouviller stated he agrees with Commissioner Cruz on the reduction of the CDBG Program Administration and Code Enforcement Officer, as well as the Continuing to Step Up, and Neighborhood Improvements -Phase II. He is wondering why there is no funding being approved for the Benton Franklin CAC -Home Energy program. He would also like to see funding for the Boys 8v Girls Club external lighting and security system camera and monitor. Commissioner Little questioned for comment on why there is no funding for the Boys 8v Girls external lighting and security system camera and monitor. Staff stated there are some portions of the application that may be ineligible per CDBG regulations and would need time to research that. In addition, there is a lot of other funding that will go to the facility. Mr. White further added the Boys 8v Girls Club is receiving approximately $162,000 through the ARRA program or in the event of HUD technicalities money will be shifted from current programs to the Boys 8s Girls Club and the ARRA money will be shifted back to the program where the money was retrieved from. The CAC Home Energy application is in the same boat, they have submitted stimulus money for their energy programs and there is a real doubt if -4 - they have the capability to carry out their programs this year due to they are project poor and money rich, so to speak. They are at capacity with their projects and funding. The CDBG Program Administration funding is important and is money that if not taken from the CDBG program, it will then be made up from the City of Pasco general taxpayer. The Code Enforcement Officer request is a value driven preventative program. It's the broken window theory, if the window breaks and it doesn't get fixed then there is another house with a broken window, etc. The Code Enforcement Officer is focused in Census Tracts 201, 202, 203 & 204 specifically for the area wide benefit that occurs in those low to moderate areas. Chairman Samuel stated he would like to hear comments from staff on their recommendation for the Lucas Park Playground. Staff stated this is the only playground equipment within the City that is not in compliance, more importantly it will help replace the play mat which is a safety issue. Chairman Samuel stated $60,000 for replacing equipment that is still in fairly good shape could be used for other items. Commissioner Cruz stated there may be a liability issue with having non- compliant equipment. Chairman Samuel stated he would be in favor if the equipment was in bad shape. Commissioner Kempf questioned why there was no recommendation for Brush with Kindness. Staff stated they ran short on funding, providing there were more funds available this project would be funded. There is a lot of money for housing type projects from other sources and there are certain things that can be done with CDBG funds. Rehabilitation is acceptable, maintenance is not and this application is for materials and labor as well as cleaning up the yard, etc., elements of which may be maintenance and therefore ineligible. Chairman Samuel would like to see Brush with Kindness funded and clarified if CDBG Program Administration was reduced the citizens of Pasco would have to pay for the balance. Commissioner Cruz stated he is amazed on the quality of the City's money management. He would like to focus more on investment kinds of things rather than administrative and other things, if we have to take a bite out of the other pie then ok. Commissioner Rose mentioned he would like to see progress with programs such as the Code Enforcement Officer. -5 - Chairman Samuel states there is a citizens committee that oversees what the Code Enforcement is doing and can make recommendations to City Council with regard to how Code Enforcement is executed. Commissioner Rose questioned if Code Enforcement issues are dependent on citizen complaints or do they canvass the neighborhoods. Staff stated Code Enforcement surveys neighborhoods and will send Courtesy Notices to locations that are in violation. Commissioner Rose stated there is a large amount of weeds in vacant lots and wants to know if they wait to hear from complaining neighbors or do they canvass the city. Staff stated they have gone from four officers to three and the complaint system is backlogged constantly. If they get a complaint from an area, they gather all the complaints in that neighborhood and address those issues. Mr. White further stated the Code Enforcement team was reduced by one officer and in that time the number of reported cases have doubled. In the winter, staff is reduced by two to canvass the city for dog licensing. Commissioner Cruz further stated he would like to see these funds used in other areas. As a former Code Board member, he mentioned two types of issues where citizens that are in violation of the city code, one is the neighbor that does not want to maintain his yard and has weeds; the other is the family that has medical reasons and has financial hardships. Chairman Samuel stated he is on the Franklin County law justice council and there is a chart that shows the number of law enforcement officials and the crime rate in the City of Pasco and over the last 15 years the law enforcement officials has significantly increased and the crime rate has decreased. He stated if we had more Code Enforcement Officers we would see a cleaner city, more responsive to complaints city. Commissioner Cruz again stated he feels this is a back end solution and would prefer to provide resources and assistance versus being listed on the Code Enforcement list. Commissioner Hay stated staff has prepared recommendations and is in favor of moving forward with the staff recommendations. Commissioner Schouviller stated he is also in favor of moving forward. Commissioner Cruz further stated he is not in favor of moving forward and would rather take the time to discuss each item. Chairman Samuel stated he is disappointed that Habitat for Humanity was not even considered for funding after their third year of applying and also the -6 - application for Brush of Kindness. He would like to see a decrease even zero the request for the Lucas Park playground equipment and re-allot the money to Brush with Kindness or the Neighborhood Improvements - Phase II. This would improve things as suggested by Commissioner Cruz with the Code Enforcement issues. Commissioner Rose stated he agrees with Chairman Samuel on the Lucas Park playground equipment. Chairman Samuel amended the motion to include changes as follows: zero funds for the Lucas Park equipment and redistribute the money as $24,000 to Brush with Kindness with $ 36,000 to Neighborhoods Improvements - Phase 11. Commissioner Rose further stated he is in favor of Chairman Samuel and seconds the motion to amend the first motion. Chairman Samuel called for a roll call for the vote: Hay - no, Schouviller - yes, Kempf - no, Samuel - yes, Little - yes, Rose - yes, Cruz - no, Perez - yes. The motion passed with 5 members voting yes and 3 members voting no. The Planning Commission passed the recommendation with the following changes: Brush with Kindness $24,000, Lucas Park Playground equipment $0, and $36,000 to Neighborhoods Improvements - Phase II. C. BRAC Plan Wagenaar Reserve Center Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) Redevelopment Plan (MF# INFO 08-025) Chairman Samuel read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Staff stated they had no additional comments. Commissioner Cruz moved, seconded by Commissioner Schouviller the Planning Commission recommend the City Council approve the Wagenaar Reserve Center Base Realignment and Closure Plan for submittal to HUD for Balance Determination and to the Military for Property Disposal Planning. Motion passed unanimously. Staff explained this item would be present to the City Council at their July 13, 2009 workshop with final Council action to follow in August. PUBLIC HEARINGS: A. SPECIAL PERMIT Location of an Autobody shop in a C-3 Zone 1603 W. Lewis Street) (Gustavo Oliva) (MF# SP09-004) -7 - Chairman Samuel read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Staff stated the applicant had applied for a special permit for an auto body shop in a C-3 General Business zone at 1603 W. Lewis Street. Staff reviewed the surround zoning and land uses which included auto sales, auto repair, auto detailing, and an auto body shop. Staff reviewed the balance of the written report for the benefit of the Planning Commission. Chairman Samuel explained that state law required 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. After three calls for public comment and no response, the public hearing was closed. Chairman Samuel asked staff questions about lighting, noise, parking, disposal of waste, hours of operation and fumes. Commissioner Cruz stated Condition 3 referred to no painting, priming or grinding outside the building which addressed the noise and fume generating items. A current IBC approved spray booth would emit cleaner air than the surrounding air. Lighting was not an issue due to proximity (distance) to residential units. Commissioner Little asked about past experiences where the applicant was not present. Staff stated there have been a few cases in the past where the Planning Commission had moved forward with an application without the applicant being present. Commissioner Hay stated he agreed with Commissioner Little that the Planning Commission should table the item due to the absence of the applicant. Staff further stated the report to the Planning Commission was mailed to the applicant which explained the recommended approval conditions. Additionally one of the staff members also had a phone conversation with the applicant recently and the applicant had no issues with the report or recommended conditions. Chairman Samuel asked about Condition 6 which referred to fencing. Staff stated there was a fence along the back alley however there is no sight screened enclosure on the property. The concern was that auto body shops often have car parts, broken fenders and so forth that are outside the building which need to be contained in a sight screened bull pen. -8 - Chairman Samuel asked if there was a chain link fence on the front of the property. Staff stated there was a fence on the rear and side of the property. Chairman Samuel asked if it would be reasonable to provide additional details to the design, height and material of the fence. Commissioner Cruz stated the condition stated the fence was to be completely screened. Most other body shops contain opaque screening versus a block wall fence, etc. Commission Cruz wanted to move forward on this item. Staff stated the fence must be completely screened. Staff also explained PMC Title 12 addresses lighting. PMC Title 9 addresses noise. Fumes will be controlled by an IBC certified spray booth and waste disposal is addressed by the regulation dealing with solid waste management. Commissioner Hay moved, seconded by Commissioner Schouviller, to adopt findings of fact and conclusions as contained in the July 16, 2009 staff report. The motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Hay further moved, seconded by Commissioner Schouviller, based on the findings of fact and conclusions there from, the Planning Commission recommend the City Council approve a special permit for the location of an automotive body shop at 1603 West Lewis Street. The motion passed unanimously. B. SPECIAL PERMIT Expansion of a College/Technical School in a C-1 Zone (5278 Outlet Drive) (Charter College) (MF# SP09-006( Chairman Samuel read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Staff stated the applicant had applied for a special permit to expand the Charter College/Technical School in a C-1 zone located at 5278 Outlet Drive. In 2008, Charter College was granted a special permit to locate a facility in the Broadmoor Outlet Mall. The college now occupies 10,000 square feet of tenant space. This application involves the expansion of an additional 10,000 square feet of tenant space to accommodate students. Staff briefly reviewed the balance of the written report. Commissioner Cruz stated he attends the gym adjacent to the college and was unsure of the first permit, however, he does not have concerns anymore. There is a lot of traffic and the college is a good neighbor. Chairman Samuel asked if there was a time limit for this special permit. -9 - Staff stated Condition #7 contains the typical language on time frames. Commissioner Rose was concerned about the college being a diploma mill and questioned the credentials of the college. Josh Swayne, 5005 Laredo Drive, President of Charter College stated they opened for business on January 26, 2009 and since have had a great response from the community. They offer training in medical, business administration, computer networking and accounting. They are applying to expand their classes. Mr. Swayne further commented on accreditation for Charter College. By saying an application to the State of Washington was submitted and granted for certificates in 2008. Associate and Bachelor Degree level programs have been granted by the State. The Department of Education, National accreditation has also been received. Commissioner Schouviller asked if the college had a placement program. Mr. Swayne stated yes. Chairman Samuel stated he was delighted with the success of the college and the service they were providing to the city. Chairman Samuel opened the public hearing after three calls and no response, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Cruz moved, seconded by Commissioner Kempf to close the hearing on the proposed college expansion schedule deliberations, adoptions of findings of fact and conclusions and a recommendation to the City Council for the August 20, 2009 meeting. C. SPECIAL PERMIT Location of a Corn Maze/Farm in a R-S-20 Zone (2000 Block of Road 761 (Phillip Schmitt/Haywire Farms) (MF# SP09-007( Chairman Samuel read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Staff stated the applicant applied for a special permit to operate a farm and a corn maze in an R-S-20 zone. Staff discussed the location of the site and reviewed surrounding zoning and land uses along with other information contained in the written report. The proposed activity includes a corn maze, pumpkin patch and a family oriented fall festival. Chairman Samuel asked about the recommended condition related to signage. Staff explained the condition was recommended because of past experience with the corn maze on Road 68 operated by the applicant. -10 - Chairman Samuel questioned how this relates to yard sale signs. Staff stated yard sale signs are allowed to be put up and taken down after the event. This application is different and requires special permit review which allows for conditions on the activity as appropriate. Commissioner Cruz stated he was concerned about signage. Phil Schmidt, 5604 McKinley Ct., stated last year he operated a corn maze and produce stand off of Road 68. They posted signs on gooseneck trailers with big bails and located them at Bank Reale, TRAC, and HAPO's parking lots with permission from the property owners. They then received notification from the City that they were in violation and quickly removed the signs. Mr. Schmidt stated he has operated a corn maze since 1998. They are land renters and relocate their farm periodically. They signed a land lease with Faith Assembly to farm the site for the next three years. Mr. Schmidt further explained his experience with conditions with controlling noise, dust, traffic, trespassing/vandalizing on neighboring properties, litter and sanitation. Mr. Schmidt explained his hours of operation were M-F from 4 pm until 9 pm, Saturdays from 10 am - 10 pm, and on Sundays from 1 pm - 5 pm. Wednesday and Thursday nights are youth group nights which generate more traffic during the week. They had up to 9,000 people visit their corn maze last year. Mr. Schmidt questioned the recommended conditions dealing with non-lighted signs, hours of operation and other conditions. Mr. Schmidt discussed a stabbing that occurred during the first year of his corn maze on Road 100. Chairman Samuel asked if during their operations have they received any complaints and if so, what were they. Mr. Schmidt stated a neighbor in Benton County was concerned with pesticides, garbage, etc. They have had complaints about noise, traffic and dust. Chairman Samuel asked if the traffic flow generated from the corn maze would be the same as church traffic. Mr. Schmidt stated traffic flow generated by the church is on Sundays. His event will generate traffic mostly in the evening hours during the week. Chairman Samuel was concerned about traffic coming through Wernett Road. Commissioner Rose asked about the size of the signs. -11 - Mr. Schmidt stated 4 X 8 feet. Chairman Samuel opened the public hearing. John Pietrusiewicz, 2909 Road 72, stated with church operations there is a heavy traffic flow which does not obey the 25 mph speed limit and with no law enforcement from the County it makes him shudder. He is not in favor of this special permit to be located in this area. Jesse Rodgers, 7309 W. Wernett Road, stated they are overwhelmed by the tremendous traffic already generated from the church and with Wernett Road that was developed sometime in the 1950's it is only 20 feet wide with no sidewalks. He is also concerned with the dust from the traffic coming down the road as well as the dust that will be generated from the cattle on the land. He was opposed to the application. Sal Beltran, 2316 Road 72, stated his concerns with noise, traffic, lights and hours of operations at night for the residents and animals that reside near the proposed commercial enterprise. Pat Grady, 2703 Road 72, was concerned with the traffic and the lack of law enforcement to control the traffic. He was not in favor of the special permit application. Tamara Roy, 7116 W. Wernett Road, was concerned with traffic, hours of operation and is not in favor of the special permit application. Charlene Heyen, 7421 W. Wernett Road, was concerned about increased traffic, garbage, parking, property damage and dust control. She was under the impression that the church would only be able to use the property for church purposes only. Nancy Rieke, 7109 W. Wernett Road, was also concerned about addiitonal traffic, the lack of street lighting, possible property damage and the safety of her family. Sean Van Dinter, 7815 Wrigley Drive, stated he is in favor of this special permit. He is the security officer for Haywire Farms and explained some of their safety measures. Travis Matthews, 2205 Road 72, stated he was not in favor of the special permit. Gary Gatewood, 1821 Road 72, stated he was concerned about additional traffic and was opposed to the application. Phil Schmidt, 5604 McKinley Court, again spoke on the traffic issue and stated he could not control where the traffic came from. -12 - Commissioner Schouviller asked Mr. Schmidt what would prevent parking on Road 72. Mr. Schmidt stated they have ample parking available on the church property. Commissioner Cruz asked staff about the possibility of closing the street. Staff stated some special events may be granted street closures under special circumstances; however this application is for a special permit. Commissioner Cruz suggested the hours of operation should state no more customers on the property after 10 pm. Mr. Schmidt stated Commissioner Cruz's suggestion for hours of operation would financially impact their operation. Ms. Roy further stated if the application was approved, there would be calls to 911 with complaints as well as calls to the city for light spillage. Mr. Rogers explained his efforts to get the church to control traffic. Ms. Heyen stated if signs were permitted maybe directional signs would be ok. Chairman Samuel closed the public hearing. Staff explained the staff report contains tentative condition and does not contain a recommendation at this point and based on the evidence presented this evening a staff recommendation will be presented at the next hearing. Commissioner Cruz stated conditions #19 & # 21 are overly restrictive and would like more restrictive measures for #11. Commissioner Schouviller asked why #19 restricted sales to pumpkins only. Staff stated condition # 19 was in response to last year's operation on Road 68 that was a produce stand. Chairman Samuel explained he was in favor of the business however, the location may not be appropriate. Commissioner Hay further mentioned the setbacks should be appropriate. Commissioner Rose expressed concern over litter control. Commissioner Hay suggested the hours of operation needed to be clarified and set according to the noise ordinance. Commissioner Cruz stated he would like operations to cease by 10 pm with no customers on site. -13 - Commissioner Hay moved, seconded by Commissioner Schouviller to close the hearing on the proposed corn maze and schedule deliberations, adoption of findings of fact and conclusions and a recommendation to the City Council at the August 20, 2009 meeting. WORKSHOP: A. CODE AMENDMENT PMC 25.58 I-182 Corridor Overlay District (City of Pasco) ( MF# CA09-001) Staff stated in the fall of 2001 the Planning Commission reviewed a proposed code amendment that would create enhanced landscaping and building standards for the I-182 corridor. The City Council adopted the amendments. The code has made some impact with the aesthetics and the look of the development of the area. Staff provided a few examples of development along Road 68. It was further explained that temporary businesses that operate from vehicles in parking lots detract from what the city has been trying to accomplish in the 1-182 area. Special sales event vendors and itinerant vendors set up in parking lots with paraphernalia stored or scattered about parking lots. This detracts from the look of the buildings. Staff was seeking direction from the Planning Commission on this matter. Chairman Samuel stated he has had a number of citizens complain to him about this issue. Chairman Samuel asked the length of time and cost of an itinerant business license. Staff stated itinerant licenses are valid for 30 days and cost about $50 per month; special event permits are valid for only a few days and cost $50 - $75 (Special Sales Event licenses are $40). Chairman Samuel questioned if the price of itinerant licenses is still $50 a month. Staff stated itinerant licenses are $50 ($45) and standard business licenses are $75. The initial license application for itinerant merchants for the first month is $100+ ($105) and each succeeding month is $50 ($45) per month. Commissioner Rose stated there are temporary signs that are creating clutter in the area and they detract from the overall appearance of the city. Commissioner Cruz supported the suggestions. -14 - Commissioner Little stated displays in parking lots cause safety hazards with people looking at the display instead of focusing on their driving. Commissioner Kempf mentioned Krispy Kreme sales and the people selling to cars stopped at the red light as a concern also. Commissioners Hay and Perez were also in favor of moving forward with a code amendment to address the issue. B. SUB-AREA PLAN Columbia Bend Sub-Area Plan (West of Broadmoor Blvd north of Harris Road) (City of Pasco Staff stated the development of a sub-area plan for the Broadmoor area was reviewed by the Planning Commission in 2004. The 2004 plan was prepared with assistance from a consultant. The consultant developed four land use schemes that laid out street patterns, identified locations for schools and parks and divided the area into different types of residential uses. The development of the plan occurred about the time Central Pre-Mix applied for a special permit for the location of the asphalt batch plant. The planning for this area was stalled due to the special permit application. Additionally some property owners felt the plan layout was too specific when it included local street patterns and the specifics on where schools and parks were to be located. The plan was not supported by the property owners. Staff explained the current planning effort consisted of reviewing the previous plan and a number studies that have been done for the area. As a result, a draft concept plan has been prepared. Staff then briefly reviewed the plan Chairman Samuel asked staff to explain the outline or boundaries of the existing Central Pre-Mix pit and the future boundaries that could exist during the next 15 years. Staff explained the pit could stretch to Dent Road. CPM has an agreement with the Wilson family and a special permit allows mining to stretch north into the Wilson property. Chairman Samuel asked if there was gravel located outside of the area approved in the special permit and whether CPM would have access to it in the future. Staff stated there may be gravel but they would have to apply for a special permit to mine beyond the existing permit. The general consensus was that the plan was moving in the right direction. Staff explained they would hold meetings with the property owners and would come back to the Planning Commission with the plan later in the fall. _15 - OTHER BUSINESS: A. RIVERSHORE PLAN Rivershore Amenities Plan 2009 (MF# PLAN08- 001 Staff provided the Planning Commission with an update on the Rivershores Amenities Plan the preparation of which is a City Council goal. Staff have reviewed 7-8 past Rivershore plans and have developed a matrix outline various goals, policies and objectives of those plans. An inventory of existing Rivershore amenities has been prepared and mapped. Staff also explained the Tri-Cities Rivershore Enhancement Committee (TREC) is also looking at developing a similar plan. Commissioner Hay questioned if this would need to be approved by the Corp of Engineers. Staff stated yes. Commissioner Rose stated we have a world class river with clean water in our own backyard and yet there is no swimming area for the public. Commissioner Little mentioned where the sail boats dock there is a gate that is locked and if you are riding your bike there is no access to go further on the Heritage Trail. Additional discussion centered on future planning efforts with the Port of Pasco for the area between the Cable Bridge and Sacajawea Park. With no further business, the Planning Commission was adjourned at 11:42 pm. David McDonald, Secretary -16 - REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION MASTER FILE NO: SP 09-005 APPLICANT: Planned Parenthood of Central Washington HEARING DATE: 6/ 18/2009 1117 Tieton Drive ACTION DATE: 8/20/2009 Yakima, WA 98902 BACKGROUND REQUEST: SPECIAL PERMIT: Location of Community Service Facility Level One 1. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: Le al: Mark Twain Addition Lot 3 General Location: 3901 West Court Street Property Size: 39,107 square feet (0.9 acres) 2. ACCESS: The site is accessible from Court Street. 3. UTILITIES: All municipal utilities are available to the site from Court Street. 4. LAND USE AND ZONING: The site is currently zoned C-1 (Retail Business) and contains a 4,692 square foot unoccupied structure. The property to the north is developed with Mark Twain Elementary School and is zoned R-1 (Low Density Residential). Properties to the east and west are zoned C-1 and developed with a bank and multi-tenant office buildings. Properties to the south are also zoned C-1. The Pasco Unified School District resource center occupies two parcels to the south and a car-wash is located to the southeast. 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: 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 locate a Community Service Facility at 3901 West Court Street. The proposed facility will provide women's health care through medical exams, cancer screening, reproductive health screenings, other medical related services and a variety of educational programs. The 4,692 square foot building will contain three exam rooms, four administrative offices, a kitchen, a waiting area, a small laboratory and five restrooms. Initial hours of operation will be from 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM Monday through Friday. The site is located on West Court Street 3,000 feet west of SR-395, which is a State Highway. Court Street is an arterial street. Both Court Street and SR- 395 are able to accommodate high traffic volumes and would easily serve the additional 70 vehicle trips per day estimated to be generated by the facility. Court Street is fully developed in this area and would require no additional infrastructure improvements. The site provides 38 off-street parking spaces in two parking lots to the north and south of the facility. The Pasco Municipal Code requires a minimum of 16 spaces to accommodate the clinic. Therefore, the applicant will exceed the minimum parking requirement by twenty two (22) spaces. 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 La Clinica facility at Court Street and 5th Avenue and the Yakima Valley Farm Workers Clinic (Mir Mar) on Road 44 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. One of the areas of concern often expressed when special permit uses are reviewed is their potential impact on property values. According to Benton County Assessor records, property values have increased over the past six (6) years for those properties surrounding the Planned Parenthood facility at 7426 W. Bonnie Avenue in Kennewick. At the last regular meeting of July 16, 2009 the Planning Commission tabled action on the proposed Planned Parenthood Clinic application to afford staff time to completely review the record to assist the Commission in developing finding and conclusions. Staff also needed additional time to obtain legal counsel for the Planning Commission necessary to properly prepare findings and conclusions from which to render a recommendation to the City Council. The City Attorney's memo on the proper process of gleaning facts from the record is attached. The City Attorney pointed out in his instruction that the "Washington Supreme Court concluded that neighborhood opposition based upon unsupported fears of neighborhood residents or unsubstantiated allegations of loss of property value do not constitute competent or substantial evidence to support a finding of fact." 2 As instructed the staff has provided the Planning Commission two sets of findings and conclusions for consideration. These findings and conclusions are attached as Alternate 1 (for denial) and Alternate 2 for approval). Based on the record and the City Attorney's instructions staff is recommending the Planning Commission accept Alternate 2 and recommend approval of the special permit. 3 • Item: Community Service Facility Vicinity Applicant: Planned Parenthood N Map 09-005 File #. SP At W AGATE #014 SITE WAGATE ST LL _ t r - . W�RU BY ST. CO RUBY ST •r- r r F COURT ST 4' CO l Q fr►f F rrr� ' ,f _ ,nf T - .•� - - PAL r AL w Community Service Facility Land Item: Community Service Facility Use Applicant: Planned Parenthood N Map File #: SP 09-005 7 7-- � � I W AGATE ST School N QSITE W AGATE ST ry SFDU's � SFDU's W RUBY ST CO W RUBY ST w 3 COURT ST CO o Commercial Q 1 -%.Church o C) BROWN-ST- Vac. SFDU's S F D U 'S Zoning Item: Community Service Facility Applicant: Planned Parenthood N Map File #: SP 09-005 W AGATE ST R- 1 N QRS= 12 SITE W AGATE ST O -j� a W RUBY ST � R- � I Li R� 1 M W RUBY ST IW011 M COURT ST p � CO CO ° C1 Q a - o C- 1 RS= 12 BROWN-ST RS- 12 d n e i -_Concepf--Exter o dificationis'�- , P hanvied Parevithoo Planned Parenthood -Pasco Clinic Project Application Package City of Paco --------- ------ LIT- IL i i ------------------------ Existing As built Layout Planned Parenthood -Pasco Clinic Project Application Package City of Paco ------ -------------------------- ----------------------------i i Elec Unassigned Tech ;`RR � O Community Room Kitchen O _ i i RR\ Unassigned _ Exam Exam Office ------- Exam;/ i ❑ --- O Ed ❑ +�9 ',Lab 1 Open Office Area i -- ' RR ` Office , keceptidn ` ' E) 1:1 D ❑ D ❑ D Office Jan. D ❑ D Office -" .'"� Entry Cl Waiting RR ; RR ; Kid 00000 -------------------' Concept Layout Planned Parenthood -Pasco Clinic Project Application Package City of Paco KERR LAW GROUP 7025 Grandridge Blvd., Suite A Kennewick, Washington 99336-7724 (509) 735-1542 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission City of Pasco FROM: Leland B. Kerr Attorney-at-Law DATE: August 14, 2009 RE: Findings of Fact, Conclusions and Recommendation Planned Parenthood of Central Washington Special Use Permit Application (SP-09-005) This memorandum is written to assist the Planning Commission in the adoption of its Findings of Fact, Conclusions and Recommendation to the City Council concerning the above-entitled application. The Planning Commission serves as the fact-finding body for the City Council in special use permit hearings. It draws those findings of fact from the evidence presented during, and as a part of the hearing. The evidence comes in written form received as a part of the hearing such as the staff report, drawings, petitions and other demonstrative evidence. It also comes in the form of verbal testimony received, under oath, during the testimony portion of the public hearing. Unfortunately, verbal evidence does not come tagged identifying it as a factual opinion, or conclusions. Part of the Commission's job is to sort out the "facts" from all of the information or evidence it receives. These facts are the physical circumstances that the Commission finds to be true. Very much like the pieces of puzzle, each fact must be supported by creditable evidence and relate to the permit as defined by the special use criteria in PMC 25.86.060. Collectively, these facts constitute the "findings of fact." Findings of fact have been defined by Washington law as "an assertion that a phenomenon has happened or is or will be happening independent of or anterior to any assertion as to its legal affect." (Leschi Improvement Council vs. State Highway Commission, 84 Wn.2d 271.) "If a determination concerns whether the evidence showed that something occurred or existed, it is properly labeled a finding of fact, but if a determination is made by a process of legal reasoning from, or of interpretation of legal significance of, the evidentiary facts, it is a conclusion of law." (Poyner vs. Lear Siegler, Inc., 542 F.2d 955) Planning Commission August 14, 2009 Page 2 What this means is that the Commission must gather the facts - - things that exist - - of this case within the framework of the permitting criteria which identify the conclusions that are to be drawn from the facts. Therefore, the facts found by the Commission create the foundation of its recommendation. An equally important question is what cannot be considered as "facts" upon which the recommendation can be based. It is well established in Washington law that the unpopularity of a project, or opposition by neighboring land owners, is not a legally sufficient "fact" upon which a land use recommendation or decision can be based. In Sunderland Services vs. City of Pasco, 127 Wn.2d 782, the Washington Supreme Court concluded that neighborhood opposition based upon unsupported fears of neighborhood residents or unsubstantiated allegations of loss of property value do not constitute competent or substantial evidence to support a finding of fact. Likewise in Maranatha Mining Inc. vs. Pierce County, 59 Wn.App. 795, the Washington Supreme Court reversed the denial of a permit concluding: "It is apparent that the Council gave little consideration to the merits of Maranatha's application and that it disregarded the facts set forth in the examiner's findings. The Council seemed to have heard clearly the citizen complaints and the comments of one of its own members while disregarding the record. We cannot escape the conclusion, in view of evidence in support of Maranatha's application that the Council based its decision on community displeasure and not on reasons backed by policies and standards as the law requires." Similarly, opinion testimony likewise may not constitute "facts" necessary to support a recommendation. Opinion testimony (i.e, an estimation as to the occurrence of future events) can only constitute a "fact" if it is rendered by a qualified expert. Foundation for that qualification must have been presented at the hearing demonstrating that the "expert" has sufficient training, experience and knowledge to make the opinion reliable. Anecdotal evidence such as newspaper articles and other media accounts of events must also be cautiously approached. If they are offered as proof of the event, there likewise needs a foundation of reliability to be laid before they can be considered. In addition, all parties must have an opportunity to rebut or challenge the accuracy of truthfulness of that account. Any information that is submitted to the Commission after the close of the public hearing may not be considered or identified as a finding upon which the Commission relies in coming to its recommendation. All factual evidence must be submitted within the open record hearing affording all parties an opportunity to rebut and respond to the evidence. Planning Commission August 14, 2009 Page 3 Once the Commission draws from the evidence it has received, the facts which it has found to be true, it applies these facts to the special use permit criteria which results in the conclusions. Literally, the conclusions are the affirmative or negative answer to each of the questions posed by the six criteria. Based on those answers, the Commission must make its recommendation to the City Council. The intent of this process is to make sure that the best and appropriate decision is made. That decision must be based upon appropriate and reliable facts gathered by the Commission. The Commission serves as a filter to identify those reliable facts which directly bear on the land use question presented. It is not a determination of philosophical correctness - - it is a land use decision. This is obviously a complicated, but very important process. It is my hope that these suggestions may assist in that pursuit. LBK/sla ALTERNATE # 1 Findings and Conclusions to support denial of the Planned Parenthood Application FINDINGS OF FACT Findings of fact must be entered from the record. The following are findings drawn from the background and analysis section of the staff report and from the evidence and testimony presented at the open record hearing. The Planning Commission may add additional findings to this as the result of testimony and evidence submitted during the open record hearing. 1. The site is located within the Pasco Urban Growth Boundary. 2. The Comprehensive Plan identified the site for Commercial use. 3. The site is zoned C-1 (Retail Business). 4. The site is adjacent to Mark Twain Elementary School. 5. There is an existing Planned Parenthood clinic operating in Kennewick approximately 8 miles away. 6. 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. 7. Other non-profit community health clinics in the community are located in "C-1" (La Clinica) or "O" (Yakima Valley Farm Workers Health Clinic) zones. 8. For-profit medical offices & clinics are permitted uses in C-1 zones. 9. The site proposed for the medical clinic is currently unoccupied. 10. The proposed medical clinic could generate approximately 30-60 vehicle trips per day (including employees). 11. The clinic will have up to 10 staff members. 12. The applicant anticipates the facility will provide services for approximately 19-25 clients per day. 13. The site contains enough area for thirty eight (38) on-site parking stalls. 14. PMC 28.86.060 Requires the Planning Commission to make and enter findings and conclusions from the record as to whether or not: 1) The proposal is in accordance with the goals, policies, objectives, maps and/or narrative text of the Comprehensive Plan; 2) The proposal will adversely affect public infrastructure; 3) The proposal will be constructed, maintained and operated to be in harmony with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity; 4) 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; 5) 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 6) 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. 15. There was considerable testimony for and against approval of the Special Permit at the June 18th 2009 open record hearing. In addition, the Planning Commission received a large amount of written testimony. Testimony was not focused on the six (6) criteria contained in PMC 25.86.060. 16. There was testimony at the June 18th, 2009 open record hearing that expressed the potential for disruption of existing business activities by public protests if the clinic were granted a special use permit. 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 with the goals, policies, objectives and text of the Comprehensive Plan? The site is identified in the Comprehensive Plan for commercial use. The proposed medical clinic is an office use. 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 at Road 40 and Court Street and Road 44 and Court Street. 2) Will the proposed use adversely affect public infrastructure? All municipal utilities are currently available to the proposed site from surrounding streets. The daily client base and number of employees at the facility will not generate a greater demand on infrastructure than past uses on the site or than uses permitted in the C-1 zoning district. 3) Will the proposed use be constructed, maintained and operated to be in harmony with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity? The office building considered in this application has existed on the site for over 40 years. It will be continued to be maintained as an office building with operating hours similar to those of surrounding offices. 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 clinic is proposing minor fagade improvements which will not alter the size or height of the building. The existing facility was originally constructed in 1962. 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? Health clinics may generate vibrations, noise or fumes in quantities similar to other uses in the C-1 zone. 6) Will the proposed use endanger the public health or safety if located and developed where proposed, or in any way become a nuisance to uses permitted in the district? Health clinics and medical offices are typically located within commercial zoning districts. Disruption of existing business patterns by public protests at the site is a potential and could become a nuisance to uses that are permitted and existing in the C-1 zoning district. RECOMMENDATION MOTION for Findings of Fact: I move to adopt findings of fact and conclusions there from as contained in the August 20th, 2009 staff report identified as "Alternative #1". MOTION for Recommendation: I move based on the findings of fact and conclusions identified in "Alternative #1" there from the Planning Commission recommend the City Council deny a special permit to Planned Parenthood for the location of a Level-One Community Service Facility. ALTERNATE # 2 Findings & Conclusions to support approval of the Planned Parenthood Application FINDINGS OF FACT Findings of fact must be entered from the record. The following are findings drawn from the background and analysis section of the application, staff report, public hearing testimony and written testimony submitted prior to the close of the 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). 4. Permitted uses in the C-1 zone include hotels and motels, retail stores, stores for repair services, membership clubs (VFW, Eagles, Moose & etc), restaurants, taverns, banks and offices (medical, dental, Law, Insurance offices & etc) 5. The site is located on Court Street which is an arterial street. 6. The site is on a Ben Franklin Transit route. 7. The proposed use is a non-profit health clinic/office that will provide medical exams, cancer screening, reproductive health screenings, other medical related services and a variety of educational programs. 8. 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. 9. Other non-profit community health clinics in the community are located in "C-1" (La Clinica) or "O" (Yakima Valley Farm Workers Health Clinic) zones. 10. La Clinica and the Yakima Valley Farm Workers Health Clinic also provide medical exams, cancer screening, reproductive health screenings and other related services. 11. For-profit medical offices & clinics are permitted uses in C-1 zones. 12. The proposed site contains a 4,692 square foot office building. 13. The applicant is not proposing to increase the height or size of the building. 1 14. The applicant is proposing to improve the front of the building with a new entry porch or portico. 15. The School District fence to the north of the site has an open gate that permits pedestrian access from the school playground to the commercially zoned properties to the south. 16. The office building on the site proposed for the medical clinic is currently unoccupied. 17. The proposed medical clinic could generate approximately 30-60 vehicle trips per day (including employees). 18. The clinic will have up to 10 staff members. 19. The applicant anticipates the facility will provide services for approximately 19-25 clients per day. 20. The site contains thirty eight (38) on-site parking stalls. 21. 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. 22. PMC 28.86.060 Requires the Planning Commission to make and enter findings and conclusions from the record as to whether or not: 1) The proposal is in accordance with the goals, policies, objectives, maps and/or narrative text of the Comprehensive Plan; 2) The proposal will adversely affect public infrastructure; 3) The proposal will be constructed, maintained and operated to be in harmony with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity; 4) 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; 5) 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 6) 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. 23. There was considerable testimony for and against approval of the Special Permit at the June 18th 2009 open record hearing. In addition, the Planning Commission received a large amount of written testimony. The testimony was not focused on the six (6) criteria contained in PMC 25.86.060. 2 CONCLUSIONS BASED ON THE FINDINGS OF FACT Before recommending approval or denial of a special permit the Planning Commission must develop findings of fact from which to draw its conclusions based upon the criteria listed in P.M.C. 25.86.060. The criteria are as follows: 1) Will the proposed use be in accordance with the goals, policies, objectives and 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 (ED-2-B) encourages the development of a wide range of commercial uses located to support local and regional needs. Statistical information provided in testimony at the open record hearing of June 18th 2009 indicated the proposed health clinic would support or address local health needs. The proposed use is located near other related medical facilities at Road 40 and Court Street and Road 44 and Court Street. The facility will be strategically located on a major arterial about half a mile from a regional highway. The proposed medical clinic is located on Court Street, a major arterial that is also a Transit route. In this respect the proposal supports the Comprehensive Plan goal of the Regional Transportation Plan (Vol. 1 Transportation Element Goals of the RTP) to provide a transportation system for all citizens regardless of age race or handicap. The proposed use located on a Transit route also supports Plan Policies (RTP Policy # 14) which promote use of the Transit system. The clinic site also uses a shared driveway with the adjacent bank thereby minimizing driveways on arterial streets consistent with Plan Policy TR-1-D. 2) Will the proposed use adversely affect public infrastructure? All municipal utilities are currently available to the proposed site from surrounding streets. The daily client base and number of employees at the facility will not generate a greater demand on infrastructure than past uses on the site or than uses permitted in the C-1 zoning district. The proposed use will generate less than 100 vehicle trips per day. Water and sewer demand will be negligible compared to permitted uses such as restaurants. 3) Will the proposed use be constructed, maintained and operated to be in harmony with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity? The office building being considered in this application has existed on the site for over 40 years. It will continued to be maintained as an office building with operating hours similar to those of surrounding offices. The proposed use will 3 be less intense than other permitted uses within the C-1 District such as restaurants, night clubs and certain types of stores. A medical clinic/office will be operated and maintained in harmony with the intended commercial character of the general vicinity which includes the location of medical offices. 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 clinic is proposing minor facade improvements which will not alter the size or height of the building. The existing facility was originally constructed in 1962 by the Pasco School District. The existing commercial zoning and development has not impaired the value of adjoining properties. A search of property tax records for properties adjacent to the Planned Parenthood facility in Kennewick revealed that values have increased over the past several years. 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? Health clinics are generally less intense land uses than general retail or restaurant uses. The proposed health clinic will not generate vibrations, noise or fumes that often accompany permitted uses such as car washes, auto repair shops, restaurants and taverns. There will be no grinding, pounding, fabricating or other activities as a part of the proposed medical services that medical clinic will provide that will create vibrations dust, noise fumes or flashing lights. 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 in nearby residential neighborhoods will to be home. The proposed facility is estimated to have 10 employees that will provide medical services to less than 30 people per day. The proposed medical clinic will generate far less traffic than permitted uses such as a bank, a convenience store or a restaurant. 6) Will the proposed use endanger the public health or safety if located and developed where proposed, or in any way 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 in the 1990's was not a nuisance to other nearby uses on 20th Avenue. Nor did the 20th Avenue Planned Parenthood office become a nuisance to the nearby Richardson Park of Robert Frost Elementary School. Permitted uses in the C-1 zone such as car-washes, which can be very noisy, taverns, 4 nightclubs and restaurants, which generate significant traffic and are open until 2:00 am, are all more likely to be disruptive to the surrounding neighborhoods than a health clinic with about 70 vehicle trips per day only S days a week. The open school district gate to the north allows children and others to access commercial parking lots. A barrier along the north side of the site may provide a deterrent to access and address concerns about children accessing this site and nearby commercial parking lots. RECOMMENDATION MOTION for Findings of Fact: I move to adopt findings of fact and conclusions there from as contained in the August 20, 2009 staff report identified as "Alternative # 2". MOTION for Recommendation: I move based on the findings of fact and conclusions identified in "Alternative # 2" there from the Planning Commission recommend the City Council grant a special permit to Planned Parenthood for the location of a Level-One Community Service Facility with the following conditions: APPROVAL CONDITIONS 1) The special permit shall be personal to the applicant; 2) The clinic shall be developed in substantial conformance with the site plan submitted with the application; 3) A 6-foot masonry block wall of a design and color approved by the Community and Economic Development Director shall be constructed along the rear property line and extending 10 feet down each side property line a distance of 10 feet from the rear property line; 4) The special permit shall be null and void if a building permit has not been obtained by February 3, 2010. 5 REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION MASTER FILE NO: SP 09-006 APPLICANT: Charter College HEARING DATE: 7-16-09 5278 Outlet Drive ACTION DATE: 8-20-09 Pasco, WA 99301 BACKGROUND REQUEST FOR SPECIAL PERMIT: Expansion of a College/Technical School in a C-1 District 1. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: Legal: Parcel # 115-502-016: a portion of the South half of Section 8, Township 9 North, Range 29 East General Location: 5278 Outlet Dr. Property Size: Approximately 11 acres 2. ACCESS: The site has access from Sandifur Parkway by way of Outlet Drive. 3. UTILITIES: Municipal water and sewer are available to the site through easements around the property. The property is connected to City utilities. 4. LAND USE AND ZONING: The property is zoned C-1 (Retail Business). All surrounding property is zoned C-1 and undeveloped. S. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The site is designated in the Plan for future commercial uses. The Plan encourages the fostering of adequate provisions for educational facilities throughout the urban growth area. 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 In December of 2008 Charter College was granted a Special Permit to locate a facility in the Broadmoor Square Outlet Mall. The College now occupies 10,768 square feet in the center portion of the northern Outlet Mall building. The college space is divided into 7 offices, 10 classrooms, a resource center and a student lounge. Enrollment at Charter College has grown to the point where the College needs to increase its classroom space. This application involves I expansion of the College into an additional 10,000 square feet of tenant space. The expanded area will include 8 more offices and 9 more classrooms. The expansion, like the initial development of the College, is an unclassified use and requires review through the special permit process. The proposed site is zoned C-1 which permits a variety of retail and office type uses. The administrative offices of the College are a permitted use in the district and do not require a special permit to locate in the Outlet Mall. The classrooms, the education/skills training, the student counseling portion of the college requires the special permit review. The College offers programs in computer-aided drafting (CAD), medical insurance coding and billing, computerized bookkeeping and other courses. Eventually the College will offer five bachelor degree programs and nine associate degree programs. The lease agreement requires the College to participate in all common area charges shared by all lessees within the mall. The Outlet Mall contains over 103,000 square feet of floor space. Currently about 57,000 square feet of the mall is occupied. There are seven businesses, a Mini Police Station a church (on a three lease) and Charter College within the occupied space. Forty-five percent of the mall is vacant. The Outlet Mall was constructed to meet building code requirements for retail activities. Colleges and technical schools are classified in the Building Code as either "A" occupancies or "B" occupancies depending on the size of the classrooms. When a building is changed from one occupancy class to another (from an "M" [Mercantile] to an "A" [Assembly] or "B" [Business] for example), the building is required to meet life/safety standards required for the new occupancy classification. The specific size and location of the classrooms and offices will determine the applicable building code standards that will apply to the proposed college expansion. To meet the new occupancy requirements, proper exiting, exit signage, emergency lighting, occupancy separation walls (between retail space and college space), and additional restroom facilities may be required by the Building Code. These requirements are all based on the occupant load of the building. The Building Code has been developed from years of experience with various types of building occupancies. The code has been enacted to promote the life, safety, and protection of people occupying classrooms, offices and other building spaces. 2 A potential problem with a school/college locating in a commercial area is the fact that some retail establishments or restaurants sell or serve liquor. The issue is typically addressed by placing a condition on the Special Permit approval limiting the college's ability to object to a liquor license. 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 proposed site is located at 5278 Outlet Drive. 2. The proposed College site is zoned C-1. 3. Business offices are permitted uses in the C-1 zone. 4. Colleges are unclassified uses and require review through the special permit process prior to locating or expanding in any zoning district. S. The College proposes to expand operations by 10,000 square feet of floor area. 6. The site was originally developed as the Broadmoor Outlet Mall. 7. The Outlet Mall currently contains over 103,000 square feet of floor area. 8. Forty-five percent of the outlet mall is vacant. 9. The Municipal Code (PMC 25.78.170) requires one off-street parking space for 300 square feet of floor area for a vocational school, office, or retail store. 10. The Outlet Mall parking lot was designed to meet or exceed the one- parking-space-to-300-square-feet-of-floor-area ratio. 11. A 10,000 square foot expansion of the College will require an additional 33 parking spaces. 12. Colleges can be classified as an "A" or "B" occupancy under the International Building Code. 13. "A" or "B" occupancy building design standards differ from the "M" occupancy standards. 14. The mall was designed and built for "M" occupancy loads. 3 CONCLUSIONS BASED ON THE FINDINGS OF FACT Before recommending approval or denial of a special permit the Planning Commission must develop findings of fact from which to draw its conclusion based upon the criteria listed in P.M.C. 25.86.060., and determine the following: (1) Will the proposed use be in accordance with the goals, policies, objectives and text of the Comprehensive Plan? The Comprehensive Plan encourages the location of educational facilities throughout the Urban Growth Area. (2) Will the proposed use adversely affect public infrastructure? The outlet mall was designed to handle significant traffic with a large parking lot and interior circulation. The parking requirements for the proposed college are identical to the parking requirements for retail and offices uses indicating traffic generated by the proposed college will be similar to other permitted uses in the zone. The proposed use will have less impact on water and sewer utilities than other permitted uses such as hotels and motels, laundromats and restaurants. (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 college expansion will be located in the Broadmoor Outlet Mall and no exterior changes are planned to the building. The current store front character will be maintained. The College will participate in common area maintenance costs of the mall. (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 structures will be built or added to the mall. The site design will remain unchanged. The College will be paying market rent and will be responsible for common area charges like all tenants of the Mall. (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? 4 The College will generate no more dust, vibrations, flashing lights or fumes than would be expected by permitted retail and offices uses of the zoning district. (6) Will the proposed use endanger the public health or safety if located and developed where proposed, or in anyway will become a nuisance to uses permitted in the district? Experience with the operations with schools and colleges within the community have shown they do not endanger public health or safety and are generally not nuisance generators. RECOMMENDATION MOTION for Findings of Fact: I move to adopt the findings of fact and conclusions there from as contained in the August 20, 2009 staff report. MOTION for Recommendation: I move based on the adopted findings of fact and conclusions the Planning Commission recommend the City Council grant a special permit to Charter College for the expansion of the existing college/technical school with the following conditions: APPROVAL CONDITIONS 1) The special permit shall be personal to the applicant; 2) The college must comply with all requirements of the International Building Code for occupancy prior to occupancy by the building; 3) The storefront appearance of the leased space cannot be altered except as needed to comply with building code exiting requirements; 4) The building, including entrances and restrooms, must be ADA/handicap-compliant prior to occupancy; 5) Occupancy of the building for college purposes will not be permitted until the college complies with all conditions listed herein; 6) The college shall not object to the transfer, renewal or issuance of a liquor license for an existing or new establishment within 1,000 feet of the property; 7) The special permit shall be null and void if a building permit has not been obtained for necessary improvements by March 1, 2010. 5 • Item: Special Permit - College Expansion Vicinity Applicant: Charter College N Map File #: SP 09-006 SANDIFUR-PKWY - or LLI SITE 1 • r�" • r��� - 1� , may- / �•'� Land Item: Special Pen-nit - College Expansion � Use Applicant : Charter College N ap File #: SP 09-006 ` SANDIFUR PKWY LLJ Vacant SITE Vacant Comm. Zoning Item: Special Pen-nit - College Expansion Applicant : Charter College x Map File #: SP 09-006 SANDIFUR PKWY LLJ C- 1 SITE C-1 CR ' Paz ITI MR171-11 T-1112JTI-11 BLDG 'B' 4v- Existing Charter h a��r t e r cv co SITE C4 1 cq ti College 18 180 76 r= - C ' 172 F- 164 j A.m.. ca glib it UL BLDG NORTH ryJ, +, MCI zU) N� M p� rn a ar QU M E �� y W U m W NEW T.I. EXISTING Q ¢ = N� EXPANSION 242'-113/411 0 x E� x oF- d a z r MEN'S r---------- � EXIST. I 190 45 S.F. BREAK I WET LAB #4 R/R WET LAB #1 ®® WET LAB #2 I WET LAB #3 FIRE Z J ROOM ° I 164 989 S.F. 165 - 126 598 S.P. 127 414 S.F. I 2e 9es S.P. PAPER FACTORY J 160 882 S.F. �! I I Q I 1 I I I I iRB 91 S.F. STORAGE W Z 191 50 S.P. CORRIDOR CORRIDOR CORRIDOR ° FACULTY W X OU <b 161 1255 WA i--i Lu I— Q O 192 49 S.F. J D 0- BREAK Z O CLASS womo-NIS: ROOM cw Y O � t24 294 S.F. G � LY ROOM 58 599 S.F. o CLASS CLASS CLASS CLASS R MEN'S o CLASS j N LECTURE #2 LECTURE #1 ROOM ROOM 00 1 ROOM 3 ° ROOM #5 O ne m S.F. 156 680 S.F. 155 880 S.F. 154 547 S.F. 155 547 SF. 116 548 S.F. 118 620 S.F. 121 787 ST. w °^ o o CLROOMS#7 POSSIBLE Q 2 (of � OFFICE tt9 498 S.P. U) FUTURE 2 o w J CLASS "� ,ae6.F. EXPANSION v Q o co o 158 526 6F. g 315 3 9 S.F. m `� LL CLASS ° CLASS CLASS CLASS w ROOM #2 ROOM #4 ROOM #6 ROOM #8 -, CLASS GROOMS FACULTY Y 0 548 S.F. 11 482 S.F. n4 500 S.F. n5 984 S.F. /���}/+p WORK ROOM 148 514 S.F. 150 514 S.F. 151 407 S.F. OFFICE 112 n4 S.P. 152 407 S.P. STORAGE CORRIDOR d CLASS CORRIDOR CORRIDOR 104 6 S.F. 1096 ROOM 108A X "' 599 S.F. PRES. RESOURCE OFFICE CORR. 0 I OFFICE 0 I 0 I OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE RECEP• COMPUTER LAB ROOM 146 IBB S.F. 745 744 165 S.F. 149 122 S.F. 142 198 S.F. 747 197 S.F. 140 19B S.F. 108 198 S.P. 707 120 S.F. 105 770 S.F. 109 718 S.F. 101 120 S.F. 100 701 985 S.F. 106 982 S.F. J EXISTING; 101768 S.F. FLOOR PLAN o EXPANSION; 101247 S.F. N.T.S. "' a TOTAL; 211015 S.F. 0 CAD FILE: 4609A101_FP.DWG O (O DESIGNED: EML DRAWN: JEF O O CHECKED: DATE: 2009.JUL.08 U O a. O O DRAWING: O N a A1.1 REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION MASTER FILE NO: SP 09-007 APPLICANT: Philipp Schmitt HEARING DATE: 7/16/09 5604 McKinley Court ACTION DATE: 8/20/09 Pasco, WA 99301 BACKGROUND REQUEST: SPECIAL PERMIT: Farming in an RS-20 Zone (2000 Block of Road 72) 1. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: Legal: The southeast and northeast quarters of the northwest quarter of the southeast quarter of Section 21, Township 9 North, Range 29 East, WM less the southerly 165 feet and less road right- of-way. General Location: 2000 Block of Road 72 Property Size: Approximately 28 acres 2. ACCESS: The site has access from Road 72 and Wernett Road. 3. UTILITIES: The proposed use will not need public utilities. 4. LAND USE AND ZONING: The subject property is currently zoned RS-20 (Suburban) and consists of two vacant parcels and the Faith Assembly of God Church. Surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows: NORTH- R-S-20- County-residential SOUTH- R-S-20- Nazarene Church EAST- R-S-20- County-residential WEST- R-S-20- County-residential 5. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The Comprehensive Plan designates this area for Low-Density Residential use. 6. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: 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 has requested a Special Permit to locate a corn maze and associate activities on 18 acres of land directly north of the Faith Assembly of God Church on Road 72 (the church occupies 10 acres). A corn maze is a combination of agricultural and recreational uses. Both use categories' are identified as unclassified uses and as such require a Special Permit before locating within the community. The festival component of the corn maze will include hay-rides, a barnyard animal exposition, piglet races and a concession stand. The applicant has developed corn mazes within the Tri-Cities area for the past 11 years. The first corn maze was located on the corner of Road 100 and Argent Road on property now occupied by the Desert Springs Covenant Church. The proposed corn maze will occupy 11 acres of land directly north of the Faith Assembly Church parking lot. The pumpkin patch portion of the project will be located on 6 acres just south of Wernett Road. A barn yard area for small petting zoo is proposed for a half acre site at the northwest corner of the church parking lot. The church parking lot, which is completely paved and fully lighted, will be used for parking. The general area surrounding the proposed site can be characterized as a suburban very low density area with large pastures, livestock raising and grape vineyards. Truck farming and raspberry production has also occurred in the neighborhood in the past. The actual use of the corn maze and fall festival activities will occur for about a month during the fall. The heaviest use of the corn maze will be on the weekends and near Halloween. Three to six tours of preschool and elementary aged children may occur on weekdays. The site can be accessed from the north or south by Road 72 and from the east by Wernett Road. The area surrounding the proposed corn maze is sparely developed. Homes on adjoining properties the west are located approximately 500 feet west of the proposed site. One of the major concerns over the location of past corn mazes (the one at Road 100) was the issue of parking. In this case the Faith Assembly parking lot is available for use. The parking lot is completely paved and fully lit in the evening. The parking lot contains over two hundred parking spaces. 2 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 28 acres. 3. The Comprehensive Plan identifies the site for future Low-Density Residential development. 4. The site contains the Faith Assembly of God Christian Center. 5. The Faith Assembly of God Christian Center is the largest church in Pasco. 6. The site has been used in the past for agricultural activities. 7. Pastures and vineyards as-well-as animal husbandry occur on adjoining properties. 8. Surrounding properties are zoned R-S-20 in the County. 9. The site is zoned R-S-20. 10. The site contains approximately 28 acres. 11. Agriculture is a permitted accessory use in the R-S-20 zone. 12. Large vacant parcels within the general neighborhood have been used in the past for producing watermelons, pumpkins and other row or truck farming crops. 13. The site contains a Church facility with an improved parking lot and two vacant parcels. 14. The proposed use includes the development of a corn maze, pumpkin field and fall festival attraction area. 15. The proposed use is a commercial business enterprise designed to attract customers. 16. The applicant stated in the hearing customers would come from Franklin County, Benton County and Walla Walla. 17. The applicant anticipates attracting 7,000 to 9,000 people to the proposed corn maze. 18. The site is accessible from the north and south by way of Road 72 and from the east by way of Wernett Road. 3 19. Testimony provided by residents on Road 72 indicated current church traffic on Road 72 comes in about equal portions from both the north and south. 20. Road 72 is developed to rural standards with no curbs, gutter, sidewalk or street lighting from Argent Road on the north to the north line of the Church parking lot. 21. Wernett Road is developed to rural standards with no curbs, gutter, sidewalks or street lighting. 22. Road 72 is partially developed to urban standards adjacent to the Faith Assembly Church. 23. Improvements (paved area) on Road 72 are only 20 feet wide adjacent to the corn maze site. 24. The corn maze will be open for business on Wednesday evenings during the time when youth and other church activities are occurring. 25. During Wednesday night church activities the church parking lot is in use. 26. The church occasionally has functions on Friday nights and on Saturdays. These activities will generate the need for use of the parking lots. 27. The applicant stated he could not control traffic on surrounding streets. 28. The applicant's security manager stated traffic was a problem in the area. 29. The applicant's security manager stated they could not control loitering around the site. 30. The City's noise regulations prohibit excessive noise from emanating from properties and intruding into residential areas between the hours of 10:00 pm and 7:00 am. 31. The applicant stated on the weekends he planned to operate up to 11:00 pm. 32. The applicant proposes to play country music on the site. CONCLUSIONS Before recommending approval or denial of a special permit the Planning Commission must develop findings of fact from which to draw its 4 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 Plan does not specifically address the proposed use. However, the zoning regulations which implement the Plan permit the keeping of farm animals and allow limited agricultural production in R-S-20 zones. The zoning regulations also permit commercial agricultural production by special permit in the R-S-20 zone. 2) Will the proposed use adversely affect public infrastructure? The proposed farm/corn maze is not dependent upon City utilities but the maze and fall festival will be dependent upon City and County streets for access. Road 72, the main access road to the site, was constructed to rural standards not urban standards. Likewise, Wernett Road does not meet City standards for a local access street. These roads have no night lighting, no sidewalks and in many places are half the width of standard City streets. Wernett Road west of Road 72 along the proposed pumpkin patch area is a gravel road only. The operation of a corn maze to coincide with Wednesday evening church services and youth activities will place a strain on the use of public streets. Little onsite parking will be available on Wednesdays nights thereby increasing the likelihood corn maze customers will park on Road 72. Use of the property for farming only will created minimal impact on surrounding streets. 3) Will the proposed use be constructed, maintained and operated to be in harmony with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity? The existing character is that of a suburban residential neighborhood. Small farms, pastures and vineyards are common in the neighborhood. The act of growing additional crops in the neighborhood will not alter the existing neighborhood character. 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. The proposed corn maze portion of the application with fall festival activities however, is more of a commercial enterprise that will draw between 7,000 and 9,000 people to the neighborhood over a few weeks. Much of the increase in traffic generated by the influx of people will occur on the weekends and evenings when surrounding neighbors are home enjoying the peace and comfort of their properties. The additional traffic, noise, litter and commotion associated with a commercial enterprise in a 5 residential area will disrupt the peace and harmony customarily enjoyed in a residential 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? There will be no permanent structures erected with this proposal. Development over the last 10 years within the I-182 Corridor attests to the fact that farming operations do not discourage the development of permitted uses or impair the value of nearby development. The operation of a commercial corn maze, while not a structure, will have a deleterious impact on the use and enjoyment of surrounding residential properties. The impact on long term property values is unknown at this time. 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? The addition of 7,000 to 9,000 people into the neighborhood over a short period of time will create increased levels of noise, traffic, vibrations and dust currently not experienced by the residents. The late night operation of a commercial enterprise within a residential neighborhood with the problems of noise, litter, additional traffic and young people loitering in the neighborhood will be become objectionable to neighboring residential properties. The location of a small farm within the neighborhood will have a minimal impact on the neighborhood. 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 establishment of a commercial corn maze providing recreational services to 9,000 people will become a nuisance in the residential neighborhood due to the increase in traffic, noise, loitering and other side effects associated with the corn maze and fall festival. Due to the narrow width and poor conditions of adjoining streets traffic safety is also a concern. The surrounding neighborhood is characterized by low density residential development interspersed with pastures and hobby farms. A commercial vineyard is located Road 72 directly east of the Faith Assembly Church. The existence of numerous farming operations within the West Pasco area demonstrates that the farming portion of the use will not become a nuisance to permitted uses nor will it endanger public health and safety. 6 RECOMMENDATION MOTION: I move to adopt findings of fact and conclusions there from as contained in the July 16, 2009 staff report. MOTION: I move based on the findings of fact and conclusions, the Planning Commission recommend the City Council grant a special permit to Phillip Schmitt of Haywire Farms for the location of a farm with the following conditions: APPROVAL CONDITIONS 1) The special permit is personal to the applicant; 2) The special permit shall be for farming only and does not permit the use of the property for a corn maze, a fall festival, or anything like unto it; 3) The farm shall be operated by using best management practices for agricultural production; 4) The applicant must prepare a conservation plan approved by a farm service agency. A copy of the plan must be submitted to the city prior to the operation of the farm; 5) No irrigation water is permitted to be sprayed or otherwise drain onto the adjoining right-of-way; 6) Irrigation water and farm chemicals must be applied at agronomic rates; 7) The farm crop shall be limited to alfalfa or row crops; 8) No farm equipment is permitted to be stored on the site; 9) The special permit shall be valid for a period of 3 years and will automatically extend for an additional 3 years if the applicant adheres to the conditions of special permit approval; 10) The special permit shall be null and void if farming activity has not begun by April, 2010. 7 'C*H'ty Item: Special Permit - Corn Maze/Farm Vi Applicant: Schmitt - Haywire Farms N Map File #: SP 09-007 st.r- ---i�-- . 4 P. Jam: BUTTERCREEK,C•T. - . _. �" - .,L• . �-}ice- ., ik. , -- - - WWERNETT RD t . jilo 046- - �- .� BUTiERNUT-CIRCLE "SILUERCREST CT f � � SITE ,tr-r-A -- r 1,r} 1 ROSEC CityL■imit AGATE ST --• '�i � '4 TER=RAY CT C101Limit ARM rn �)URT ST - =�- -O - - �— - -- Land Item: S ec i* al Permit - Corn Maze/Farm Use Applicant: Schmitt Haywire FarmS N Map File #: SP 09-007 I ore N Esm Item: Spec i* al Permit - Corn Maze/Farm Zoning Applicant: Schmitt Haywire Farms N Map File #: SP 09-007 i oil Wernett Road 0 v Q N ® Field corn Theron, Shelly Woody ❑ Pumpkins Home Lj Barnyard area ® Franklin County Water District water valve Trees Pastor John Home Grass Paved parking lot 210 paved & marked spots Fully lighted Handicap stalls Faith Assembly Building and playground REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION MASTER FILE NO: Z 09-005 APPLICANT: Anthony St. Martin HEARING DATE: 8/20/09 5361 Elm Avenue ACTION DATE: 9/17/09 Pasco, WA 99301 BACKGROUND REQUEST: Rezone from C-1 (Retail Business) to R-1 (Low Density Residential) 1. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: Legal: Lot 3 of Short Plat 2004-25. General Location: 1302 Road 36, approximately 515 feet south of Court Street Property Size: Approximately 0.34 acres (14,810 square feet) 2. ACCESS: The property has access from Road 36. 3. UTILITIES: Municipal utilities are currently located in Road 36. 4. LAND USE AND ZONING: The subject parcel is zoned C-1 (Retail Business) and is currently vacant. Land use and zoning for surrounding properties are as follows: North - C-1 - Bi-State Siding & Window Inc. East - C-3 - U.S. Post Office South - R-S-12 - Single Family Residence West - R-1 - Two (2) Single Family Residences 5. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The site is in a transitional area of the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map located on the border of a Commercial designation and a Low-Density Residential designation. 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 site in question is located about 500 feet south of Court Street surrounded on the south and west by single family development and the Post Office to the east. In 2005 the lots directly to the west of the site were rezoned from C-1 to R-1 and developed with homes the following year. This site was zoned C-1 about 30 years ago when it was annexed to the city. The property at the north end of Road 37 was also rezoned from C-1 to R-1 in 2002 and developed with single family homes shortly thereafter. The property to the east of the site was developed with the Post Office in the late 1980's. The Post Office constructed a large landscaped buffer along the east edge of Road 36 to provide a visual buffer between the Post Office parking area and existing and future homes to the west. The initial review criteria for considering a rezone application are explained in PMC. 25.88.030. The criteria are as follows: 1. The changed conditions in the vicinity which warrant other or additional zoning: Properties to the west were rezoned in 2002 and 2005 and developed with single-family dwellings. All properties to the south and west are now developed with single-family dwellings. The Post Office property to the east was developed with a large landscaped buffer to provide a visual and aesthetic barrier between the Post Office and the properties on the west side of Road 36. 2. Facts to justify the change on the basis of advancing the public health, safety and general welfare. The character of the neighborhood on Road 36 between Court Street and Sylvester Street is generally residential in nature. Rezoning the property in question to R-1 will support previous residential rezones in the neighborhood and will protect the residential nature of the west side of Road 36 thereby advancing the general welfare of the area. 3. The effect it will have on the nature and value of adjoining property and the Comprehensive Plan. Rezoning the property will help maintain the residential integrity and value of the residential properties in the neighborhood while support Comprehensive Plan policies that encourage preservation of existing neighborhoods and providing housing opportunities for Pasco residents. 4. The effect on the property owners or owners if the request is not granted. The owners would have no opportunity to develop the property for residential uses. The property has proven to have little utility for commercial uses and would likely continue to remain vacant. 2 5. The Comprehensive land use designation for the property. The property is located in a transition area between two Comprehensive Plan designations—low density residential and commercial. 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 listing as the result of factual testimony and evidence submitted during the open record hearing. 1) The site is currently zoned C-1. 2) The site has been zoned C-1 for approximately 30 years 3) The site is vacant. It was annexed 30 years ago. 4) C-1 properties to the west were rezoned to R-1 in 2002 and 2005. 5) Properties to the west are zoned R-1 and developed with single-family dwellings. 6) Properties to the south are zoned R-S-12 and developed with single-family dwellings. 7) The neighborhood on Road 36 between Court Street and Sylvester Street is generally residential in nature. 8) The Pasco Post Office was developed in 1987 to the east with a large landscaped buffer and provides a stable and adjacent land use CONCLUSIONS BASED ON STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT Before recommending approval or denial of a rezone the Planning Commission must develop findings of fact from which to draw its conclusion based upon the criteria listed in P.M.C. 25.88.060. From the criteria the Planning Commission must determine whether or not: (1) The proposal is in accord with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. The proposal rezone site is in a transition area between two Comprehensive Plan land use designations. The rezone would support the policies of the Comprehensive Plan dealing with providing housing for residents. (2) The effect of the proposal on the immediate vicinity will be materially detrimental. 3 The proposal would have a positive effect on the surrounding area by eliminating the potential for commercial uses adjacent to recently constructed single family homes. The rezone may also hasten the development of a parcel that has been skipped over by past development. (3) There is merit and value in the proposal for the community as a whole. Encouraging the infill of a vacant parcel has merit and value to the community as a whole. Allowing residential development to occur on the parcel will help maintain and preserve the value of nearby residential properties which has a positive impact on the community. (4) Conditions should be imposed in order to mitigate any significant adverse impacts from the proposal. The proposal would not need special conditions to negate adverse impacts because the proposal would be compatible with surrounding residential zoning. (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. No agreement would be required. 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 September 17, 2009 meeting. 4 'CI nity Item: Rezone - C- 1 to R- 1 V Applicant: Anthony St. Martin N Map File #. Z 09-005 cWTT- oo r F Adi ,r B,ROWN_ST w . qk Q 0 1 sf Opft Ile rr -- ' � , ARIE R. : SIT E MARIE ST r rfFFF Frp , . Sk . OCTAVE Ir &AWA PO Land Item: Rezone - C- 1 to R- 1 � Use Applicant: Anthony St. Martin -(x - Map File #: Z 09-005 ` COURT ST Commerciall � co co 1 < 0 a o SITE MARIE MARIE ST co 0 Commercial a 0 0 OCTAVE ST OCTAVE Residential Church� � wLa�x v ST 1 ■t ■■■■fit - Zoning Item: Rezone - G I to R- I 111■1 ■■ --tM F MEMORANDUM DATE: August 20, 2009 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Dave McDonald, City Planner SUBJECT: Code Amendment PMC 25.58 I-182 Corridor Overlay District Introduction In the fall of 2001 the Planning Commission held several meetings to develop a code amendment providing for development standards in the 1-182 Corridor west of Road 36. The City Council accepted the Planning Commission's recommendations by adopting Ordinance # 3515 enacting the I-182 Corridor Overlay District as Pasco Municipal Code 25.58. The purpose of PMC 25.58 was to create development provisions designed to enhance the aesthetics of commercial development around and near the Road 68 and Road 100 Interchanges. This chapter of the zoning code includes enhanced standards for landscaping and building design and screening. Much of the development that now exists in the I-182 Corridor has occurred since the adoption of the I-182 standards in December of 2001. While not being over bearing these standards have been responsible for visual enhancements to commercial buildings and parking lots on Road 68, Burden Boulevard and the other commercial areas west of Road 36. The development of the garden centers at the Lowes and Wal-Mart buildings along with some of the additional architectural features and landscaping on those projects, are examples of what the code was designed to achieve. The purpose statement of PMC 25.58 states that the Overlay District is to provide additional development regulations to create aesthetically attractive buildings and commercial development within the 1-182 Corridor of the city. PMC 25.58 provides development guidance for buildings and landscaping but it does not provide safe guards to protect the intended character of the I-182 area with respect to activities such as special event sales in service station parking lots or itinerant merchants in other parking lots. While buildings built in the I-182 Overlay District are required to contain several architectural features per elevation and must be constructed of certain materials there are no such requirements for temporary businesses that set up in parking lots. As a result the temporary businesses operate in a haphazard fashion with goods displayed all over parking lots on city sidewalks on shrubs and in landscaped beds. These businesses also store various items (propane tanks, coolers, tables chairs, recreational equipment, etc) in the parking lot around the vehicle from which business is transacted. 1 The haphazard display of goods and use of parking lots for storage purpose by vendors totally unrelated to the purpose of the building on the lot defeats the whole purpose for which the community established the I-182 m development standards. Experience from other areas of the community has shown that temporary businesses (itinerant merchants) routinely store miscellaneous items around their sales vehicle such as propane tanks, buckets, boxes coolers, dust bins, milk crates, recreational equipment flower pots, satellite dishes, hoses, chairs tables, picnic benches. These temporary businesses also affix carport structures, tarps, umbrellas to the ground. Experience has also shown that temporary businesses are often open for business past the time permanent businesses usually close. With the late hours of operation the Pasco Police Department has found that where temporary businesses concentrate geographically there is an increase in disorderly conduct, assaults, and other criminal activity. Findings 1) In 2001 the Pasco City Council adopted Ordinance 3515 enacting the I-182 Overlay District codified as Pasco Municipal Code Chapter 25.58 2) The purpose of PMC Chapter 25.58 is to provide development regulations to create aesthetically attractive buildings and commercial development within the I-182 corridor of the city 3) Permanent businesses in the 1-182 Overlay District are required to develop with enhanced architectural features, screening and landscaping in comparison with other commercial areas of the community 4) Buildings built in the 1-182 Overlay District must contain architectural features such as columns,pilasters,belt courses, brackets, decorative molding, quoins and similar items 5) Buildings in the 1-182 area must be contain exterior walls one or more of the following materials: wood, brick, stucco,block, glass, and composite materials 6) PMC 25.58 requires the owners of all building sites to maintain their properties in a clean, safe and well-maintained condition consistent with the enhanced landscaping and screening requirements 7) Temporary businesses include itinerant merchants and businesses licensed for special event sales 8) Temporary businesses locating in the I-182 Overlay District have not been included in the design standards necessary to support the purpose and intent of the 1-182 Overlay District 9) Temporary businesses locating in parking lots of permanent businesses in the I-182 Overlay District have scattered and displayed merchandise for sale in a haphazard 2 fashion on public sidewalks, around parking lots, in areas of parking lots necessary for safe travel, and on shrubbery and plants in landscaped beds 10)Temporary businesses locating in parking lots within Pasco store items such as propane tanks, buckets, boxes, coolers, flower pots, dust bins, milk crates, recreational equipment and satellite dishes around the vehicles from which the businesses operate 11)Temporary businesses locating in parking lots set up permanent customer seating, and attach carport structures constructed of metal siding like material and or plastic tarps 12)Temporary businesses locating in parking lots often run water hoses and electrical extension cords across parking lots 13)Temporary businesses occupy parking spaces and aisle ways within parking lots of permanent businesses 14)Experience within the community has shown that temporary businesses are often open for business past 10:00 pm 15)Temporary businesses conduct business activities out-of- doors where the conduct of such activities can generate noise and commotion that impacts neighboring residential properties 16)Where temporary businesses (itinerant vendors) are geographically concentrated the Pasco Police Department reports an increase in lawlessness with such businesses such as assaults, fights, disorderly conduct, gang activity, the public consumption of alcohol and other criminal activity 17)The Pasco Police Department has found that where itinerant vendors are located individually at dispersed locations there are virtually no calls for service and virtually no reports of lawlessness RECOMMENDATION MOTION for Findings of Fact: I move to adopt the findings of fact as contained in the August 20, 2009 staff memo. MOTION for Recommendation: I move based on the adopted findings of fact the Planning Commission recommend the City Council amend PMC Chapters 25.12 and 25.58 defining temporary businesses and creating standards for such businesses in the I-182 Overlay District as indicated in the proposed Ordinance attached to the August 20, 2009 staff memo. 3 • Item: Corridor Overlay District Vicinity Code Amendment N Map File #: CA 09-001 1\1\��,� XN,�-X, \ Corridor Over Ia \ District tA qvn �- • �A:4 �j11.-%tom � � \ � � \ + _WAS I d'�. •'�,L•_. �•.. +� MEMORANDUM DATE: August 06, 2009 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Shane O'Neill, Planner I SUBJECT: Code Amendment Recreational Vehicle Parkin Recently some controversy has arisen in the community regarding PMC Title 25 regulations on recreational vehicle (RV) parking within suburban residential zoning districts. In some neighborhoods, city streets are becoming cluttered with RV's, however, Pasco Municipal Code (PMC) restricts the storage of RV's in any public right- of-way. The Code also restricts parking RV's in any front yard area in suburban residential zones; thereby limiting the area available for RV parking to the side and rear yards. It is the intent of the Planning Department to examine possible code amendments further clarifying appropriate locations for RV parking in the R-S-1, R-S-12 and R-S-20 zoning districts. Code amendment proposals will aim to relieve cluttered streets while preserving the health, safety and the general welfare of Pasco residents. Staff will compile code revision alternatives and corresponding diagrams depicting possible solutions for the Planning Commission's review. 1