Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-15-2009 Planning Commission Meeting Packet PLANNING COMMISSION - AGENDA REGULAR MEETING 7:00 P.M. October 15, 2009 I. CALL TO ORDER: II. ROLL CALL: Declaration of Quorum III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: September 17, 2009 IV. OLD BUSINESS: A. Rezone Rezone from R-1 to C-1 (4200 Block of West Court Street) (MF# Z 09-006) V. PUBLIC HEARINGS: A. Sub-Area Plan Broadmoor Sub-Area Plan (West of Broadmoor Boulevard and north of Harris Road) (City of Pasco) B. Code Amendment Title 19 & 25 Dealing with RV's and Residential Parks (Citywide)(City of Pasco) (MF# CA 09-003) VI. WORKSHOP: A. Code Amendment RV Parking in suburban zones (Citywide)(City of Pasco) (MF# CA 09-002) VII. OTHER BUSINESS: VIII. ADJOURNMENT: REGULAR MEETING September 17, 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 Little recused himself from the Special Permit for the location of a Corn Maze/Farm in a R-S-20 Zone (MF#SP09-007). Commissioner Anderson recused himself from all old business items (MF#'s SP 09-005 & SP 09-007) on the agenda due to his absence at the July 16, 2009 meeting. Chairman Samuel then asked the audience if there were any objections based on a conflict of interest or appearance of fairness questions regarding the items to be discussed this evening. There were no objections. Chairman Samuel asked the audience if there were objections to any Commissioner hearing any matter. There were no objections. ADMINISTERING THE OATH: Chairman Samuel explained that State law requires testimony in quasi-judicial hearings such as held by the Planning Commission be given under oath or affirmation. Chairman Samuel swore in all those desiring to speak. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Little moved, seconded by Commissioner Hay, that the minutes dated August 20, 2009 be approved as mailed. The Motion carried unanimously. -1 - 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 explained that in August they did not have a quorum of Planning Commission members who had actually heard the matter at the public hearing. As a result the Planning Commission was unable to take action on the matter at the August. Chairman explained there was now a quorum available and he asked staff for comments. Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director, briefly explained the process that the Planning Commission had undertaken to arrive at the September 171h meeting. It was explained that there were three sets of findings, and conclusions in the written report for the Planning Commissions consideration. Alternate # 1 recommends denial of the special permit based on Planning Commission direction in July. Alternate # 2 contains a staff recommendation for approval and Alternate # 3 contains a set of findings and conclusions prepared by the Chairman recommending denial. Mr. White also discussed the City Attorney's memo that explained what could and could not be used as evidence or testimony on which to base a recommendation. Mr. White concluded by recommending the Planning Commission accept Alternate # 2 for a recommendation to the City Council. Chairman Samuel explained he prepared the findings in Alternate # 3 because he felt the other alternatives did not incorporate the comments and discussion the Planning Commission had on the matter in order to recommend denial. Commissioner Schouviller moved, seconded by Commissioner Hay, to adopt findings of fact and conclusions as contained in the August 20, 2009 staff report identified as Alternate # 2. Chairman Samuel stated he did not believe Alternate #2 accurately reflected the issues that were discussed. Commissioners Samuel, Kempf and Little voted no and Commissioners Schouviller and Hay voted yes. The motion failed. Commissioner Little moved, seconded by Commissioner Kempf to adopt findings of fact and conclusions as contained in the August 20, 2009 staff report identified as Alternate # 1. Commissioners Samuel and Schouviller vote no and Commissioners Hay, Kempf and Little voted yes. The motion passed. -2 - Commissioner Little moved, seconded by Commissioner Kempf, based on the findings of fact and conclusions identified in Alternate # 1 the Planning Commission recommend the City Council deny a special permit to Planned Parenthood for the location of a Level-One Community Service Facility. Commissioners Samuel, Hay and Schouviller voted no and Commissioners Hay, Kempf and Little voted yes. The motion failed. Chairman Samuel asked for comments from the Commission. Commissioner Schouviller stated he was originally opposed to the proposal but, with the recommendation for a block wall along the north property line he was comfortable with recommending approval. Commissioner Little was concerned about the traffic generated by the facility. Chairman Samuel was concerned about the disruptive effects the facility will have on the surrounding businesses and school. Chairman Samuel moved, seconded by Commissioner Kempf, to adopt findings of fact and conclusions as contained in the August 20, 2009 staff report identified as Alternate # 3. Commissioners Samuel and Kempf voted yes and Commissioners Hay, Schouviller and Little voted no. The motion failed. Chairman Samuel stated he could not support Alternate # 1 because he did not feel it contained the necessary information to support a denial of the permit. Following additional discussion Commissioner Little moved, seconded by Commissioner Kempf, to adopt findings of fact and conclusions as contained in the August 20, 2009 staff report identified as Alternate # 1. Commissioners Samuel, Little and Kempf voted yes and Commissioners Hay, Schouviller and Little voted no. The motion passed. Commissioner Little moved, seconded by Commissioner Kempf, based on the findings of fact and conclusions identified in alternate # 1 the Planning Commission recommend the City Council deny a special permit to Planned Parenthood for the location of a Level-One Community Service Facility. Commissioners Samuel, Little and Kempf voted yes and Commissioners Hay, Schouviller and Little voted no. The motion passed. Staff explained the recommendation would go to the City Council on October 5th unless an appeal is filed. An appeal would cause a closed recorded hearing to be held before the City Council. -3 - B. SPECIAL PERMIT Location of a Corn Maze/Farm in a R-S-20 Zone (2000 Block of Road 76) (Philipp Schmitt/Haywire Farms) (MF# SP09-007) Chairman Samuel read the master file number, explained the background on the matter and asked for comments from staff. David McDonald, City Planner explained staff provided a second set of findings and conditions in the written report as requested by the Planning Commission. It was pointed out that there were 32 conditions attached to the motion for approval leading staff to believe that the location was not appropriate for a corn maze. Staff is recommending Alternate # 2 which denies the corn maze and approves a farm. The Chairman asked staff if they had had a conversation with the applicant about the farming activity currently taking place on the site. Staff stated they had spoken with the applicant and indicated the applicant had jumped the gun on the farming portion of the application in anticipation of the special permit being approved. The Chairmen explained he was disappointed with the applicant starting the farm before the special permit was acted upon. Commissioner Schouviller moved, seconded by Commissioner Hay, to adopt the findings of fact and conclusions as contained in the July 16th 2009 staff report identified as Alternate # 1. The motion was approved with one dissenting vote by Commissioner Kempf. Commissioner Schouviller moved, seconded by Commissioner Hay, based on the findings of fact and conclusions identified in alternate #1, the Planning Commission recommend the City Council grant a special permit to Phillip Schmitt and Haywire Farms for the location of a farm and corn maze with conditions as contained in the July 16, 2009 report. The motion was approved with one dissenting vote by Commissioner Kempf. Staff explained the matter would go to the City Council on October 5th unless an appeal was filed. An appeal would cause a closed record hearing to be held before the City Council in November. C. REZONE Rezone from C-1 to R-1 (1300 Block of Road 36) (St. Martin) (MF# Z09-005) Chairman Samuel read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. -4 - Staff had no additional comments on the rezone. Commissioner Hay moved, seconded by Commissioner Anderson, that the Planning Commission adopt the Findings of Fact as contained in the September 17, 2009 staff report. The motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Hay further moved, seconded by Commissioner Anderson, that based on the Findings of Fact as adopted, the Planning Commission recommend the City Council rezone the site from C-1 (Retail Business) to R-1 (Low-Density Residential). The motion passed unanimously. PUBLIC HEARINGS: A. REZONE Rezone from R-1 to C-1 (4200 Block of West Court) (Goodwin) (MF# Z 09-006) Chairman Samuel read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Staff explained the applicant had applied to rezone the property in question from R-1 to C-1. Staff discussed the site location and reviewed surrounding zoning and land uses along with other information contained in the written staff report. Verl Goodwin, 557 Fir Road, Eltopia stated they inherited the property and would like to rezone the property before it is sold. Rick White, Community 8s Economic Development Director stated the Findings of Fact were prepared to support a recommendation for approval. Commissioner Little questioned the fence on the property. Mr. Goodwin stated the fence will be moved to the new property line and the vacant lot will be restored without a fence. The public hearing was opened for public comment, after three calls and no response, the hearing was closed. Mr. McDonald, City Planner, stated when the report was being developed there was discussion that some uses would not be compatible with the homes to the north such as; car washes, and related facilities, etc. Staff is recommending approval of the rezone with a concomitant agreement. Commissioner Anderson moved, seconded by Commissioner Hay, 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 October 15, 2009 meeting. The motion passed unanimously. -5 - B. CDBG 2010-2014 Tri-Cities Consolidated Plan (Citywide) (MF# CDBG 09-022) Chairman Samuel read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Mr. White stated the Plan concerns the Tri-Cities and is a very large document with valuable information on data and trends for Pasco, Kennewick, and Richland. This plan is on a 5-year cycle and we are in the stages of consolidating comments and advice from the Planning Commission and eventually City Council to prepare the 2010-2014 Consolidated Plan. The plan sets up a blue print for the cities to use their Federal Entitlement dollars. Over the course of the next couple of years, Pasco could receive up to $4 million in the lifecycle of this plan in Federal aid. The Plan identifies the spending priorities for each city through the strategic action plan, which begins on page 115. All the information prior to this page contains the trends and data collected that identifies the community's needs and community inventory to prepare the goals that are contained in the action plan. There are eight goals that are key to advance the three main purposes of the Community Block Grant and HOME program purposes which are identified on the second page of the cover sheet as follows, to provide: 1) decent housing, 2) economic opportunities, and 3) suitable living environments to benefit primarily low to moderate income households. The Planning Commission was being asked to advise staff if the goals in the Strategic Action adequately advance the purposes of the City. The plan was written to be very flexible. Staff discussed changes to the goals and pointed out that goals for lead-based paint and to affirmatively further fair housing are now included under the decent housing goal. Characteristics of the community were highlighted from the plan. Public facilities, public services, economic development and housing needs gathered from the stakeholder's forums conducted in June of 2009 were also highlighted. There was a brief discussion on the definition of homeless and the population affected by homelessness. Chairman Samuel asked what facilities were available in Pasco for the mentally ill. Commissioner Anderson stated that for homeless mentally ill persons there were no facilities. Chairman Samuel asked if there were facilities in Kennewick or Richland. Commissioner Anderson answered that Carondelet can take them, but they have to be referred by medical personnel. This remains a significant need in the Tri- cities. -6 - Commissioner Little asked how the plan effects allocation of the funds. Staff answered that it does not increase public service caps or administrative caps. Commissioner Little asked about the economic development goals. Staff referred to Page 115 where economic development goals are discussed. Chairman Samuels asked about the strategy under the housing goals to minimize concentration of new tax exempt housing. Staff replied that strategy was to prevent concentration of low-income housing in existing low-income neighborhoods. Chairman Samuels asked about the public service accomplishments of Richland and Kennewick for the disabled. Staff answered that Pasco uses public service funding for City projects. It is a matter of policy and we are maintaining existing programs and they are capped. Additional discussion centered on the shortage of affordable housing, data collection and the 2010 census. Staff pointed out better data would be available after the 2010 Census next year. Commissioner Samuels opened the item up for public comment. After three calls the public hearing was closed. Staff stated the Consolidated Plan would be forwarded to City Council for the Workshop on October 12, 2009. OTHER BUSINESS: With no further business, the Planning Commission was adjourned at 8:22 pm. David McDonald, Secretary -7 - REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION MASTER FILE NO: Z09-006 APPLICANT: Verl Goodwin HEARING DATE: 9/17/2009 1851 Bellevue Rd. ACTION DATE: 10/15/2009 Pasco, WA 99301 BACKGROUND REQUEST: REZONE: Rezone from R-1 to C-1 (42 15 W. Court Street) 1. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: Leal: Lot 2, Block 1 Cline Addition together with the westerly 50 feet of Lot 1 of said plat General Location: 4215 W. Court Street Property Size: 0.68 Acres 2. ACCESS: The property has access from Court Street. 3. UTILITIES: All municipal utilities are available at the site. 4. LAND USE AND ZONING: The site is currently zoned R-1 (Low Density Residential) and is vacant. Surrounding properties are zoned and developed as follows: North: R-S-12 Single Family Residences South: R-S-12 Single Family Residences East: R-1 Single Family Residence West C-1 Retail Business 5. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The Comprehensive Plan designates this area for commercial uses. This designation encourages the development of retail businesses, service businesses and offices. The rezone proposal is consistent with the Plan. 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 seeking a rezone for the property in question from the current R-1 (Low Density Residential) zoning to C-1 (Retail Business) zoning. No associated development is proposed at this time. 1 This property was annexed in 1987, and zoned R-1 to avoid creating a non- conformity due to the fact the adjacent single-family residence was parceled together with the property in question. The site has remained vacant ever since annexation to the City. The adjacent properties to the west are zoned C-1 and contain a flower shop and a Seven-Eleven convenience store. A convenience store has been located on the corner of Road 44 and Court Street since 1964. The Flower Basket property was originally developed with a retail building in 1980 and then rebuilt several times beginning in the late 1990's. Due to the size and shape of the lot coupled with the fact it is located on a heavily traveled arterial, the property is somewhat difficult to develop for residential purposes. However, the traffic volumes at this location may be considered an asset for commercial development. The site is located within a contiguous corridor extending along Court Street which is identified for commercial uses on the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map. The proposed rezone is consistent with the Plan. The zoning regulations anticipate situations where commercial properties may adjoin properties with less intense zoning such as the lots to the north of the site which are zoned R-S-12. If the parcel in question were to be rezoned to C- 1, future development on the site would be required to include a landscaped buffer along the north property line. While the Comprehensive Plan indicates the site should be used for commercial purposes and zoning regulations require protective buffers, there still may be some uses that would not be appropriate for the site. Uses such as car washes have been proven to be incompatible activities next to residential areas. The Planning Commission has the option of limiting uses such as car washes through the use of a concomitant agreement. Currently, all municipal utilities are available to the site in Court Street and are of adequate capacity to serve commercial development. The site has good access from Court Street. The site has adequate lot frontage to support a commercial ingress/egress driveway. The initial review criteria for considering a rezone application are explained in PMC. 25.88.030. The criteria are listed below as follows: 1. The changed conditions in the vicinity which warrant other or additional zoning: • Since annexation the adjoining property to the west has been redeveloped with a larger retail business. 2 • Since annexation, retail and office development has expanded at both Road 40 and Court Street and Road 44 and Court Street. • Sewer utilities have been installed in Court Street and surrounding streets since the property was annexed. • The Riverview Methodist Church at the corner of Road 40 and Court Street (500 feet to the east) is expanding and redeveloping. 2. Facts to justify the change on the basis of advancing the public health, safety and general welfare: The rezone will enhance development opportunities which may lead to the property being utilized for productive purposes. Development of the property will eliminate the unkempt condition of the property. Developed properties contribute more fully (through taxes, fees and licenses) to the funding of municipal services thereby promoting the general welfare. 3. The effect it will have on the nature and value of adjoining property and the Comprehensive Plan: The proposed rezone is supported by the Comprehensive Plan and would be considered a proper implementation of the Plan. Other commercially zoned properties on the block have co-existed with the residential properties to the north since the early 1950's. A search of the Franklin County Assessor's records indicate the value of residential properties to the north of the existing C-1 properties have increased in value in recent years. 4. The effect on the property owners if the request is not granted: The property is currently undeveloped and has been for many years. Without rezoning the property the owners will have land zoned contrary to the Comprehensive Plan designation. It will be difficult to develop the property in a manner consistent with the current R-1 zoning in this location. 5. The Comprehensive Plan land use designation for the property: The Comprehensive Plan designates the site for commercial development. The proposed rezone is for C-1 (Retail Business) which is consistent with the Plan. INITIAL STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT Findings of fact must be entered from the record. The following are initial findings drawn from the background and analysis section of the staff report. 3 The Planning Commission may add findings to this listing as the result of factual testimony and evidence submitted during the open record hearing. 1) The site is zoned R-1 (Low-Density Residential). 2) The site is vacant. 3) Adjoining properties in the same block have been zoned C-1 and developed retail businesses prior to annexation in 1987. 4) The first retail business was located on the block in 1964 at the corner of Road 44 and Court Street. 5) Since the late 1980's retail and office development has occurred near the intersection of Road 44 and Court Street and Road 40 and Court Street. 6) Sewer service is now available in Court Street. 7) The Comprehensive Plan designates the site for commercial uses. 8) The zoning regulations require commercial developments to construct a landscaped buffer along common property lines with residential uses. 9) The site is located adjacent to shopping areas, employment areas, and transit routes. CONCLUSIONS BASED ON INITIAL STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT Before recommending approval or denial of a rezone, the Planning Commission must develop its conclusions from the findings of fact based upon the criteria listed in P.M.C. 25.88.060 and determine whether or not: (1) The proposal is in accordance with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. The proposal is consistent with the land use map and various Goals and Policies of the Plan. Policy LU-3-B encourages infill in support of more intensive/walkable neighborhoods. Policy LU-3-D encourages mixed-use development to promote walkable communities. The proposal promotes the potential to develop the site with a business that will serve the surrounding neighborhood making it a more convenient place to live. Policy LU-1-C encourages the clustering of commercial development and discourages strip development. The Plan (Policy LU-4-A) also encourages the location of commercial activities at major street intersection. The property in question is in an area that was partially developed for commercial uses when the area was in the county. The future Land Use Map recognized the commercial nature of surrounding properties and the fact that the site was functionally convenient to development at major street intersections. (2) The effect of the proposal on the immediate vicinity will not be materially detrimental. 4 According to Franklin County Assessor records, property values for single-family units in the neighborhood have increased over the last 5 years. Such is true for those residences north of and adjacent to the Seven-Eleven convenient store/filling station directly to the west. The Seven-Eleven store has been located on the block since 1964. Zoning regulations require commercial development to install protective buffers between commercial and residential uses to minimize compatibility issues that may be detrimental to residential uses. To further address possible adverse impacts, the Planning Commission has the option of requiring the applicant to enter into a concomitant agreement. (3) There is merit and value in the proposal for the community as a whole. The proposal has merit because it will allow infill development to occur consistent with the Land Use designation provided in the Comprehensive Plan. Enabling the property to develop commercially will implement the Comprehensive Plan and promote the community's welfare. (4) Conditions should be imposed in order to mitigate any significant adverse impacts from the proposal. In the past car washes located in commercial zones adjacent to residential neighborhoods have created compatibility problems. Automotive repair facilities and similar services may also create compatibility issues. These problems can be eliminated by requiring a concomitant agreement. (5) A concomitant agreement should be entered into between the City and the petitioner, and if so, the terms and conditions of such an agreement. The petitioner should enter into an agreement with the city to minimize impacts that may be associated with certain uses that have had a history of incompatibility with nearby residential development. RECOMMENDATION MOTION for Findings of Fact: I move the Planning Commission adopt the Findings of Fact as contained in the October 15, 2009 staff report. MOTION for Recommendation: I move, based on the Findings of Fact as adopted, the Planning Commission recommend the City Council rezone the site from R-1 (Low Density Residential) to C-1 5 (Retail Business) with a concomitant agreement precluding carwashes. g 6 Item: Rezone - R- 1 to C- 1 Vicinity Map Applicant: Verl Goodwin N File #: Z 09-006 W AGATE ST r ^ WRUBYST W RUBY ST ; i ^ 7 _ �.. �� SITE o r 1 o soft IL • - COURT ATk - lob r..r r— '-BROWN PL •.: W BROWN ST - --- r+ . �"' a O. (n 1' f ' W MARIE ST - _ - - - Land Item: Rezone - R- 1 to C- 1 Use Applicant: Verl Goodwin N Map File #: Z 09-006 W AGATE ST N 1--T S1= uU v S 0 SFDU 's - S FDU ,S� W RUBY ST W RUBY ST 0 U a SITE a � �o 0 COURT ST Commercial Commercial BROWN PL W BROWN ST SFD U 's SFDU's Vacant J a W MARIE ST � Item: Rezone - R- 1 to C- 1 Zoning Applicant: Verl Goodwin N Map File #: Z 09-006 W AGATE ST T—T RS-20 - RS- 12 a RS- 12 R- 1 _s W RUBY ST (County) S W RUBY ST >9 Ivoll ,1 �r 0 0 U R-1 C- 1 COURT ST C- 1 BROWN PL RS- 12 RS- 12 W BROWN ST N P J RS= 12 a CD -----------I----------- v W MARIE ST MEMORANDUM DATE: October 15, 2009 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Dave McDonald, City Planner SUBJECT: Broadmoor Sub-Area Plan Concept Plan In 2004, city staff and the Planning Commission were assisted by a consultant in a land use and market study for the 1,000 acres of mostly undeveloped land located west of Broadmoor Boulevard and north of Harris Road. The study advanced a number of development concepts for this area and provided four detailed site development schemes for possible future development. It was about the time the study was being completed that Central Pre-Mix applied for a modification of their special permit to allow the operation of an asphalt plant. Activities surrounding the asphalt plant application and the fact that property owners were concerned about the land use section of the study being overly specific, stopped the forward movement of the study and plan. Despite the fact property owners were invited to participate in the plan development process, the high level of detail in the areas of street layout and land use were not supported. Concepts in the plan were never formally adopted by the city. Much of the growth experienced by the community has occurred west of Road 36 and as a result there are only a few large undeveloped areas left to accommodate future growth. The most significant undeveloped area encompasses the undeveloped properties west of Broadmoor Boulevard. This area is sometimes referred to as the Broadmoor Area. Staff has prepared a draft sub-area plan for the Broadmoor Area that is less detailed than the 2004 planning effort. The draft plan is more of a conceptual plan rather than a detailed plan and it identifies development concepts and policy statements that can be used to guide future development. The proposed plan was reviewed by the Planning Commission in a workshop during the July Planning Commission meeting. On August 4th a copy of the draft plan was mailed to property owners within the boundaries of the study area. The property owners were then invited to attend a meeting with staff on August 24th for the purpose of providing comments on the plan. From the feedback received from property owners there was general agreement with the broad concepts in the proposed plan. A hearing has been set for the October 15, 2009 Planning Commission meeting to receive public testimony and make a recommendation to the City Council. 1 Findings of Fact The following are initial findings drawn from a review of proposed Volume II. The Planning Commission may add additional findings to this list as the result of factual testimony and evidence submitted during the public hearing. 1. Pasco has experienced a rapid rate of growth since 2000. 2. The city's population has increased from 32,066 in 2000 to over 54,000 in 2009. 3. Based on estimates from the Office of Financial Management, Pasco could grow by another 30,000 people by 2027. 4. Most of the community growth over the last decade has occurred west of Road 36. 5. Over 3,000 acres of land have been rezoned and approved for development since 2000. 6. Few large undeveloped tracts remain in west Pasco. 7. The most significant area remaining undeveloped within the city limits is the Broadmoor Area west of Broadmoor Boulevard and north of Harris Road. Recommendation MOTION for Findings of Fact: I move to adopt the findings of fact and conclusions as contained in the Broadmoor Sub-Area Plan Concept Plan staff memo dated October 15, 2009. MOTION for Recommendation: I move based on the findings of fact and conclusions therefrom, the Planning Commission recommend the City Council adopt the Broadmoor Sub-Area Plan Concept as a guide for future development in the Broadmoor Area. 2 MEMORANDUM DATE: October 15, 2008 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Dave McDonald, City Planner SUBJECT: Code Amendment Title 19 & 25 dealing with RV's and Residential Parks In 2008 the State Legislature amended the State Law by prohibiting cities from excluding mobile homes or manufactured homes from mobile home parks based on the age or dimensions of a mobile or manufactured home. The Pasco Municipal Code does not restrict the location of mobile or manufactured homes in mobile home parks because of age or dimensions. If a mobile or manufactured home is older than 10 years it must have a life safety inspection performed by the Department of Labor & Industries prior to being issued a Pasco placement permit. The law allows cities to require compliance with fire and safety regulations when considering the issuance of permits for the placement of a manufactured home in a mobile home park. The Pasco Municipal Code is in compliance with State Law; however, our definition for mobile homes includes certain dimensions for both widths and lengths. The State definition does not include dimensions. The attached code amendment modifies the Pasco definition for mobile homes to conform with the State definition. The State Law dealing with mobile home parks was further amended in 2009 to preclude cities from adopting regulations that would directly or indirectly prevent the placement of a recreational vehicle in mobile home parks to be used as a primary residence. Recognizing there may be fire and safety issues related to the use of RV's as permanent residences the law permits cities to impose fire, safety, or other regulations that may be necessary to secure public safety. The law also allows cities to require utility hookups that are consistent with state or federal codes. RV's without onboard bathroom facilities may be permitted in mobile home parks as permanent dwellings provided the mobile home park has a community building with toilets and showers. Current regulations in Pasco do not permit RV's to be occupied in mobile home parks (Residential Parks). The Pasco code needs to be amended to reflect changes in the State Law. The proposed ordinance amends Titles 19 (Mobile Homes) and 25 (Zoning) to permit the location of RV's in Residential Parks provided a number of fire and safety standards (see Section 8) are met. A Public Hearing has been for the scheduled for the October 15, 2009 meeting. Findings to support the adoption of the proposed ordinance are listed below. Findings of Fact 1) The City of Pasco has enacted development regulations as required by the Growth Management Act that encourage orderly growth and development. These land use regulations also further the purpose of promoting the health, safety, convenience, comfort, prosperity and general welfare of the present and future inhabitants of the community, and are designed: (1) To encourage and facilitate the orderly growth and development of the Pasco Urban Area; (2) To provide adequate open space for light and air, to prevent overcrowding of the land, and to lessen congestion on the streets; (3) To secure economy in municipal expenditures, to facilitate adequate provisions for transportation, water, sewer, schools, parks, and other public facilities and services; (4) To increase the security of home life and preserve and create a more favorable environment for citizens and visitors of the Pasco Urban Area; (6) To secure safety from fire, panic and other dangers; (7) To stabilize and improve property values; (8) To enhance the economic and cultural well being of the inhabitants of Pasco; (9) To promote the development of a more wholesome, serviceable and attractive city resulting from an orderly, planned use of resources. 2) The City's development regulations include provisions for the location of manufacture homes, mobile homes and recreational vehicles within the City. 3) The Revised Code of Washington (35A.21.312) precludes a city from restricting the location of mobile homes or manufactured homes in mobile home parks or manufactured home communities based on the age or dimension of a mobile home or manufactured home. 2 4) The Revised Code of Washington (35A.21.312) precludes a city from adopting an ordinance that has the effect, directly or indirectly, of preventing the use of a recreational vehicle as a primary residence in a manufactured/mobile home community except as provided in RCW 35A.21.312 (4). 5) The Revised Code of Washington recognizes the importance of fire and safety regulations associated with the siting of recreational vehicles as a primary residence and permits the imposition of local fire, safety and other regulations related to the location of recreational vehicles in manufactured/mobile home communities. 6) The State of Washington Legislature also recognized the importance of securing safety of life and property from fire and other hazards when it established the State Building Code Council. 7) The State Building Code Council has developed and adopted building, mechanical, fire, plumbing, energy and indoor air quality codes for the State of Washington. 8) The codes adopted by the State Building Code Council provide minimum requirements to safeguard the public safety, health and general welfare through structural strength, means of egress, stability, sanitation, light, ventilation, energy conservation and safety to life and property from fire and other hazards attributed to the built environment. 9) The Washington State Legislature found (RCW 36.70A.280) that the State, including its counties, cities and residents, must engage in activities that reduce greenhouse gas emissions and dependence on foreign oil but failed to take that into consideration when recreational vehicles were permitted as primary residences. 10) The State Legislature's concern for the life, safety and general welfare of state residents related to the use and occupancy of buildings and places of primary abode is exhibited through the adoption of Sate-wide building, fire, energy, indoor air quality and other related codes. 11) All residents of Pasco regardless of their race, religion, national origin or economic status are important to the community and must be afforded equal protection under the law from the dangers of fire, poor indoor air quality, substandard protection from the elements of nature, and other hazards associated with the use and occupancy of buildings and places of primary residence. 3 Recommendation MOTION: I move the Planning Commission adopt the Findings of Fact and conclusions as contained in the October 15, 2009 staff memo on code amendments for Title 19 and 25. MOTION: I move the Planning Commission recommend the City Council adopt the proposed code amendments modifying PMC Title 19 and PMC Title 25 as attached to the October 15, 2009 staff memo to the Planning Commission. 4 MEMORANDUM DATE: October 15, 2009 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Shane O'Neill, Planner I SUBJECT: Code Amendment (MF# CA09-002) - Recreational Vehicle Parking in Suburban Zones The purpose of this Code Amendment (MF# CA09-002) is to review the existing standards for recreational vehicle parking in suburban residential zones. For many years the city has had zoning standards dealing with the storage of RV's in residential zoning districts. Essentially those standards permit the parking and storage of RV's in all yard areas of the R-1 through R-4 zones and only in the side and rear of the suburban zones. In areas of the County, later annexed into the City, residents in suburban district have continued to park their RV's in front yard areas as they did before annexation. Staff has been asked to review the residential RV parking provisions with the Planning Commission to explore the possibility of developing modifications to the existing standards. One direction of thinking is to partially relax the standards for front yard RV parking by permitting them in what would be considered the side yard portion of the front yard. This idea is expressed in Alternatives 1 8v 4. In order to ensure public health and safety by maintaining good sight visibility, staff recommends imposing an RV parking setback. Alternative 1 imposes a fifteen (15) foot RV parking setback and Alternative 4 imposes a ten (10) foot RV parking setback. Alternatives 2 8s 3 use the same parking setbacks but allow RV parking in any front yard area. These Alternatives lift the code requirement to comply with section 25.78.030, specifying the exact location of accessory parking pads, in suburban zones. Lifting said requirements would allow vehicle parking directly in front of homes where parking is not regularly permitted in any residential zone. The resultant physical environment would conflict with the purpose of residential zoning by creating excessive parking allowances in highly visible locations. Alternatives 2 & 3 provide the greatest degree of flexibility when locating RV's in suburban zones; however they are not staff's preferred Alternatives. Contained in the packet are illustrations of the allowable parking areas associated with each Alternative as well as examples of RV parking in suburban zones. Annotated photos are designed to show how each Alternative effects the physical environment. To help guide the decision making process staff has developed the following questions: 1 - Is there a need to modify the current RV parking requirements? - Is it desirable to retain obstruction free front yards? - Should RV parking requirements in suburban zones differ from other residential zones? Recommendation After review by and direction from Planning Commission, staff will set a date to conduct a public hearing. 2 ALTERNATIVE 1 - Strike language in PMC 25.78.140 specifying zoning districts; thus allowing RV parking in all yard areas in all residential zones with regulations on the exact location of RV parking pads within front yards. This alternative would impose a fifteen (15) foot RV parking setback to the R-S-12, R-S-20 and R-S-1 zones. 25.78.140 RECREATIONAL EQUIPMENT PARKING: Boats, motor homes, camp trailers, travel trailers, fifth wheels, pickup campers, utility trailers, and snowmobiles as defined herein may be stored in all yard areas within -He R 1, k 2, k 3, d k 4 di tF„-t. -, may-within the side a .EJs : the k -j,R3 - all residential zones. All storage areas shall be surfaced with all weather materials such as asphalt, brick stone, concrete or gravel. Additionally, the storage and parking of said items in all residential zoning districts shall, at all times, comply with the parking conditions in Section 25.78.030(4) provided that all Recreational Vehicles in suburban zones shall be located no closer than fifteen (15) feet from any right-of-way. Bonified guests of the occupants of the premises may temporarily park on driveways for periods not to exceed 10 days in any 60 day period. (Ord. 3354 Sec. 2, 1999.) 25.78.030 GENERAL PROVISIONS: (4)...An additional area between the nearest side property line and the rip mary driveway of not more than 10 x 20 feet may be used for additional parking. New allowable RV parking area Alternative #1 SFR SFR a H � a H 3 � Q LJ H GARAGE zq a DRIVEWAY DRIVEWAY 5 5 LANDSCAPING STRIP LANDSCAPING STRIP SIDEWALK SIDEWALK ALTERNATIVE 2 - Strike language in PMC 25.78.140 specifying zoning districts; thus allowing RV parking in all yard areas in all residential zones. Modify language requiring compliance with Section 25.78.030(4)thus allowing RV parking in the entire front yard with a 15 foot parking setback in R-S-12, R-S-20 and R-S-1 zones. 25.78.140 RECREATIONAL EQUIPMENT PARKING: Boats, motor homes, camp trailers, travel trailers, fifth wheels, pickup campers, utility trailers, and snowmobiles as defined herein may be stored in all yard areas within ,he R 1, R 2, R 3, and k 4 di5tF EtS, afid E)H4Y-W44ifi the Side a110 US iH th k aa„ii all residential zones. All storage areas shall be surfaced with all weather materials such as asphalt, brick stone, concrete or gravel. Additionally, the storage and parking of said items in suburban residential zoning districts (R-S-12, R-S-20 and R-S-1) shall, at all times, Ee!,;piy with the paFkiRF E9R ensinSpetie.-, .79.030(4) pFev+o that ;;I! e4s shall be located no closer than ten (15) feet from any right-of-way. Accessory parking pads in the R-1, R-2. R-3 and R-4 zones shall, at all times, comply with the parking conditions in Section 25.78.030(4). Bonified guests of the occupants of the premises may temporarily park on driveways for periods not to exceed 10 days in any 60 day period. (Ord. 3354 Sec. 2, 1999.) 25.78.030 GENERAL PROVISIONS: (4)...An additional area between the nearest side property line and the primary driveway of not more than 10 x 20 feet may be used for additional parking in the R-1, R-2, R- 3 and R-4 zones only. New allowable = RV parking area Alternative #2 U) N k N N aj O O) SFR �4 - SFR o a 0 H O Z o H 3 P4 w FC q � U H GARAGE q a) � q r, r, ro DRIVEWAY DRIVEWAY L 5 5 LANDSCAPING STRIP LANDSCAPING STRIP SIDEWALK SIDEWALK ?"") ALTERNATIVE 3 - Strike language in PMC 25.78.140 specifying zoning districts; thus allowing RV parking in all yard areas in all residential zones. Modify language requiring compliance with Section 25.78.030(4)thus allowing RV parking in the entire front yard with a 10 foot parking setback in R-S-12, R-5-20 and R-S-1 zones. 25.78.140 RECREATIONAL EQUIPMENT PARKING: Boats, motor homes, camp trailers, travel trailers, fifth wheels, pickup campers, utility trailers, and snowmobiles as defined herein may be stored in all yard areas within the R it R 7 R 3 and R A .distFkla. the sTCd-e-e ,f4 e:ii-ya 4s-lfr iit '-K-S-- ?(�--RR-S-1 ? diS s all residential zones. All storage areas shall be surfaced with all weather materials such as asphalt, brick stone, concrete or gravel. Additionally, the storage and parking of said items in suburban residential zoning districts (R-S-12, R-S-20 and R-S-1) shall, at all times, p;y kvith thepaFkiRg E9 - shall be located no closer than ten (10) feet from any right-of-way. Accessory parking pads in the R-1, R-2, R-3 and R-4 zones shall, at all times, comply with the parking conditions in Section 25.78.030(4). Bonified guests of the occupants of the premises may temporarily park on driveways for periods not to exceed 10 days in any 60 day period. (Ord. 3354 Sec. 2, 1999.) 25.78.030 GENERAL PROVISIONS: (4)...An additional area between the nearest side property line and the primary driveway of not more than 10 x 20 feet may be used for additional parking in the R-1, R-2, R- 3 and R-4 zones only. New allowable RV parking area Alternative #3 u x v 0 �4 a� SFR 0 0 0 U � SFR a o 0 rn H 4 0 a z 0 H 3 a a w Q ---- - -- _ -_ w U H -H U) U� GARAGE w A rt N DRIVEWAY DRIVEWAY Y 0 LANDSCAPING STRIP _ LANDSCAPING STRIP SIDEWALK SIDEWALK ALTERNATIVE 4 - Strike language in PMC 25.78.140 specifying zoning districts; thus allowing RV parking in all yard areas in all residential zones with regulations on the exact location of RV parking pads within front yards. This alternative would impose a fifteen (10) foot RV parking setback to the R-S-12, R-S-20 and R-S-1 zones. 25.78.140 RECREATIONAL EQUIPMENT PARKING: Boats, motor homes, camp trailers, travel trailers, fifth wheels, pickup campers, utility trailers, and snowmobiles as defined herein may be stored in all yard areas within , t4 2 „-i , 4t- +-,O-i E 6 F Yd F U s-H 20 R S " and R S , ai< all residential zones. All storage areas shall be surfaced with all weather materials such as asphalt, brick stone, concrete or gravel. Additionally, the storage and parking of said items in all residential zoning districts shall, at all times, comply with the parking conditions in Section 25.78.030(4) provided that all Recreational Vehicles in suburban zones shall be located no closer than fifteen (10) feet from any right-of-way. Bonified guests of the occupants of the premises may temporarily park on driveways for periods not to exceed 10 days in any 60 day period. (Ord. 3354 Sec. 2, 1999.) 25.78.030 GENERAL PROVISIONS: (4)...An additional area between the nearest side property line and the primaLy driveway of not more than 10 x 20 feet may be used for additional parking. New allowable = RV parking area Alternative #4 (SkD SFR a H �i H H 3 w w � Q U H GARAGE Q a DRIVEWAY DRIVEWAY 0 0 ' LANDSCAPING STRIP LANDSCAPING STRIP SIDEWALK SIDEWALK ALTERNATIVE 5 - No action alternative. The Code currently restricts RV parking in any front yard in the R-S- 20, R-S-12 and R-S-1 zones; thusly there is no required RV parking setback from rights-of- way. 25.78.140 RECREATIONAL EQUIPMENT PARKING. Boats, motor homes, camp trailers, travel trailer, fifth wheels, pickup campers, utility trailers, and snowmobiles as defined herein may be stored in all yard areas within the R-1, R-2, R-3, and R-4 districts, and only within the side and rear yards in the R-S-20, R- S-12 and R-S-1 districts. All storage areas shall be surfaced with all weather materials such as asphalt, brick stone, concrete or gravel.Additionally, the storage and parking of said items in residential districts shall, at all times, comply with the parking conditions in Section 25.78.030(4). Bonified guests of the occupants of the premises may temporarily park on driveways for periods not to exceed 10 days in any 60 day period. (Ord. 3354 Sec. 2, 1999.) 25.78.030 GENERAL PROVISIONS: (4)...An additional area between the nearest side property line and the primary driveway of not more than 10 x 20 feet may be used for additional parking. Current allowable RV parking area Alternative #5 7SFR SFR a H fx N C7 � H Q U H GARAGE GARAGE zq a DRIVEWAY DRIVEWAY LANDSCAPING STRIP LANDSCAPING STRIP SIDEWALK SIDEWALK Aw_ Y3 i' r r F' _ a t i + I VA I aaiE J r F r JL ds '4 Yr 1 I _ I _ A�� 1: pi•fr - _ -�i f y Ok Boat This boat is stored illegally under - current code. Alternatives #1 & #4 would allow the boat to be stored �_- in the same location. : .r � 40 ' e .. 1. 4 4 Y.•FFjj L `` _ �„ t i ��µ(ce ii�,.`l', �y'•� i 7 a ;��" ,j' _� , F,`/� �:��'�' *• � ''yam-,�i �. l N �r.; �,�t.'��;��,•'�� . ��- 't4 J K ;� r dr !9-1,- An� `I 4+,. � �•� ��..� ,*fit,' ' '� ••j � �h'r' ^ri'n`� , � . ! kli 091g / 2g09 09 :