Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-21-2013 Planning Commission PacketPLANNING REGULAR MEETING I. CALL TO ORDER: II. ROLL CALL: III. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: V. OLD BUSINESS: A. Special Permit B. Code Amendment VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS: A. Special Permit B. Special Permit VII. OTHER BUSINESS: VIII. WORKSHOP: A. Code Amendment B. Code Amendment IX. ADJOURNMENT: .AGENDA 7:00 P.M. Declaration of Quorum February 28, 2013 March 21, 2013 Location of a private bus terminal (Griselda Melendez) (MF# SP2013 -002) Title 25 Code Revisions (Caretaker's Residencies) (MF# CA2011 -006) Location of a church in an R -2 District (Samuel Nunez) (MF# SP2013 -003) Location of a temporary cellular antenna tower in a C -1 (Retail Business) Zone (AT &T Wireless c/o Vinculums) (MF# SP2013 -004) Airport Zoning Update (MF# CA2013 -001) Park Fees (MF# CA2013 -002) REGULAR MEETING PLANNING CALL TO ORDER: MEETING The meeting was called to order at 7:OOpm by Chairwoman Kempf. POSITION MEMBERS PRESENT No. 1 No. 2 No. 3 Andy Anderson No. 4 Alecia Greenaway No. 5 No. 6 (MF# SP No. 7 Zahra Khan No. 8 Jana Kempf No. 9 Paul Hilliard APPEARANCE OF FAIRNESS: MEMBERS ABSENT Michael Levin Vacant Joe Cruz Vacant February 28, 2013 Chairwoman Kempf read a statement about the appearance of fairness for hearings on land use matters. Chairwoman Kempf asked if any Commission member had anything to declare. There were no declarations. Chairwoman Kempf then asked the audience if there were any objections based on a conflict of interest or appearance of fairness question regarding the items to be discussed this evening. There were no objections. ADMINISTERING THE OATH: Chairwoman Kempf explained that state law requires testimony in quasi - judicial hearings such as held by the Planning Commission be given under oath or affirmation. Chairwoman Kempf swore in all those desiring to speak. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Anderson moved, seconded by Commissioner Greenaway, that the minutes dated January 17, 2013 be approved as mailed. The motion passed unanimously. OLD BUSINESS: A, Special Permit Location of a Childcare Facility in a C -1 District (Elodia Gutierrez) (MF# SP 2012 -028) Chairwoman Kempf read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. David McDonald, City Planner, stated there were no additional comments since the previous meeting. -1- Commissioner Hilliard moved, seconded by Commissioner Khan, to adopt the findings of fact and conclusions therefrom as contained in the February 28, 2013 staff report. The motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Hilliard moved, seconded by Commissioner Anderson, based on the findings of fact and conclusions therefrom the Planning Commission recommend the City Council grant a special permit for the location of a preschool operation at 1803 West Bonneville Street, with conditions as listed in the February 28, 2013 staff report. The motion passed unanimously. Mr. McDonald explained that this will go to City Council at their next regular meeting unless an appeal is filed. B. Rezone Rezone from C -1 (Retail Business) to R -3 (Medium Density Residential) (Michael & Mindy Newton) (MF# Z2012 -005) Chairwoman Kempf read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director, stated there were no additional comments since the previous meeting. Commissioner Anderson moved, seconded by Commissioner Greenaway, to adopt the findings of fact and conclusions therefrom as contained in the February 28, 2013 staff report. The motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Anderson moved, seconded by Commissioner Greenaway, based on the findings of fact and conclusions therefrom, the Planning Commission recommend the City Council approve the rezone from C -1 (Retail Business) to R -3 (Medium Density Residential). The motion passed unanimously. Mr. White explained that this will go to City Council at their next regular meeting unless an appeal is filed. C. Code Amendment Title 25 Code Revisions (MF# CA2011 -0061 Chairwoman Kempf read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director, discussed the proposed Pasco Municipal Code (PMC) Title 25 revisions and asked for input from the Planning Commission on sections of the code identified by Council for modification with directives: PMC 25.22.030(1) RS -20 (detached garage size) Council would like to allow one or more options for incremental increases in floor area for detached residential shops and garages based on land area, PMC 25.24.030(1) RS -12 (detached garage size) Council would like to allow one or more options for incremental increases in floor area for detached residential shops and garages based on land area, PMC 25.66 Home Occupations Council would like the Planning Commission to review the proposed maximum number of students allowed to be tutored and PMC 25.70.050 Caretaker's Residencies Council would like the Planning Commission to insert objective and measureable criteria related to the proposed terminology "substantially undeveloped residential or commercial neighborhood ". -2- The first option for accessory structures in the RS -20 Zone is taking the existing wording, of 1,200 maximum that a detached garage or shop could be and for each additional 20,000 square feet it could be increased by 400 square feet. The second option increases the maximum detached garage size to 1,600 square feet and for each additional 20,000 square feet it could be increased by 400 square feet. The same options have been applied to the RS -12 Zone except the maximum of 1,200 square feet for the detached shop or garage was kept and allowed the size to be larger based on the additional lot area of 12,000 square feet. Commissioner Hilliard asked how the 400 additional square feet was determined based on the lot size increase. Mr. White responded that it was based on a premise of an area with very large lots with a need for more storage or garage space. For every 20,000 square feet in addition there might be a need for more storage space. Commissioner Hilliard stated that the proposed options seem reasonable but preferred the second option that allowed for 1,600 square feet as the maximum size with an additional 400 square feet for each additional 20,000 square feet of lot size. Commissioner Anderson agreed with Commissioner Hilliard that option 2 was the best option. Commissioner Greenaway, Chairwoman Kempf and Commissioner Khan all agreed with option 2. The Commissioners also agreed that option 2 was best for the RS -12 Zone. Mr. White then asked what the Commissioners felt was an appropriate number of students at one time allowed to be tutored in home occupations. City staff checked with neighboring cities and Kennewick allows 4 students in a 24 hour period, Richland allows 4 students, Yakima allows 5 students and Walla Walla says "whatever is customary in their neighborhood ". Commissioner Hilliard stated that he believes 4 students in a 24 hour period is reasonable and would not cause any serious traffic impacts to a neighborhood. Commissioner Greenaway and Chairwoman Kempf agreed with Commissioner Hilliard. Commissioner Khan stated that it depends on the neighborhood but 4 students in a 24 hour period did not seem unreasonable. There was a consensus with 4 students in a 24 hour period. Mr. White asked the Commissioners for input on the term "substantially undeveloped residential or commercial neighborhoods" in regards to caretaker's residencies. The proposed wording in the PMC is, "The caretaker's residence is within a commercial or industrial area with less than thirty percent (30 %) of parcels within the surrounding vicinity, defined as a 300 ft. radius from the site, being developed. The term -3- "developed" shall mean a parcel containing at least one permitted structure or land use with a current City of Pasco Business License ". Commissioner Anderson asked where the 30% came from. Mr. White answered that it is an arbitrary number. Commissioner Anderson gave an example of the caretaker's residence on South 25th Avenue that would not be eligible yet someone who has a business on East B Circle would be eligible. Mr. White answered yes. Commissioner Anderson stated that in areas of the city that are built up he doesn't see the need for a caretaker's residence however out in areas with less development then there might be a need. Commissioner Khan asked if the objective of the revision to the code to make it more difficult for someone to have a caretaker's residence. Mr. White answered that the revision is to establish a measurement into the ordinance on caretaker's residencies for the word "substantially developed ". Commissioner Anderson responded that he would defer to staff on the amount since it is arbitrary. Chairwoman Kempf responded that 30% developed seemed like a reasonable amount. Commissioner Hilliard stated that he would have to defer to staff as well. He doesn't know what would be defined as substantially developed. Commissioner Khan stated that she was disconcerted with the arbitrary 30% as "substantially developed" because the language might automatically not allow for a caretaker's residency is certain areas. She asked if a special permit could still be used to allow for a caretaker's residence if there was a special need for the applicant even though the area might be developed over 30 %. Mr. White stated that the Planning Commission would need to have findings that would justify making contrary recommendations to what is in the code. It would not preclude the ability to approve or deny for a special permit but it would be difficult given the criteria. The Commissioners were all in agreement with 30% being a reasonable number for "substantially developed" areas. Mr. White stated that staff will present the recommendations to City Council as agreed upon. -4- PUBLIC HEARINGS: A. Special Permit Location of a private bus terminal (Griselda Melendez) (MF# SP2013 -0021 Chairwoman Kempf read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director, discussed the special permit application for the location of a private bus terminal. This applicant was issued a special permit in 2012 for the location of a private bus terminal; however one of the conditions in that special permit was that the passenger bus would be limited to 25 passengers. After the permit was approved and operations were underway, City Code Enforcement discovered that a 30 passenger bus was being used and recommended that the applicants amend the special permit, which they have made applications to do. All other operations assigned to this special permit are the same as they were in the 2012. The size of the bus will not change; it will simply allow for the re- installation of seating that was taken out in order to comply with the 2012 list of conditions. Commissioner Hilliard asked the applicant if they were in agreement with the conditions. The applicant answered that they were. Jose Torres, 205 S. 4th Avenue, spoke on behalf of his application and for the owner, Griselda Melendez. He stated that there was a misunderstanding in the conditions of the original special permit. They thought they were only allowed 25 people on the bus at a time and didn't realize that the bus couldn't have seating for over 25 people. Once Code Enforcement discovered this, they removed the additional seating to currently operate in compliance. With no further comments the public hearing closed. Commissioner Khan moved, seconded by Commissioner Hilliard, to close the public hearing and schedule deliberations, the adoption of findings of fact, and development of a recommendation for City Council for the March 21, 2013 meeting. The motion passed unanimously. OTHER BUSINESS: B. Other Motion to move April Planning Commission Meeting to April 25, 2013 Chairwoman Kempf read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Commissioner Khan moved, seconded by Commissioner Greenaway, to reschedule the April 18, 2013 Planning Commission Meeting to April 25, 2013. The motion passed unanimously. -5- WORKSHOP: A. Plan Shoreline Master Program Orientation fMF# PLAN2013 -0011 Chairwoman Kempf read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Rick White, Community &, Economic Development Director, discussed the Shoreline Master Program Orientation and invited staff from the Department of Ecology to give their presentation. Jaime Short and Jeremy Sikes introduced themselves as the point of contacts for the Department of Ecology Shoreline Master Program. They showed a brief slideshow containing a summary of, the shoreline master program. They referenced the Shoreline Management Act of 1971 (RCW 90.58) which was designed as a cooperative state /local partnership to recognize and protect private property rights consistent with the public interest (RCW 90358.020). Some of the key standards in shoreline guidelines that were addressed were: shoreline modifications (piers, docks, bulkheads, riprap, fill), vegetation management, buffers/ setbacks, critical area protections and public access. Cumulative impacts were discussed as "Reasonably foreseeable" impacts to ecological functions from new development which should be evaluated and avoided where possible and unavoidable impacts must be minimized and mitigated to satisfy the "no net loss" standard. The restoration plan was discussed as an assessment of potential restoration projects that may be possible on the shorelines, including restoration and enhancements that are being done by other entities, such as the federal government or private entities. The restoration plan is to act as a tool against which the no net loss can be measured. Commissioner Anderson asked what they meant by "restoration ". Could it impact a property owner to where they would have to remove structures and return the shoreline to a "natural state ". Mr. Sikes answered that a shoreline owner who wants to develop their shoreline that has an impact on that shoreline could offer to move structures away from the shoreline and restore another area to balance the scales. Commissioner Anderson gave an example to clarify his question that if someone has a structure from part of their lot, such as a boat house, could they be required to remove the structure at some time and was concerned about property rights. Ms. Short answered that the restoration plan would not make anyone move a structure that has already been permitted and built. The restoration plan is more a way to allocate money in the most effective way. Commissioner Hilliard asked for a more clear definition on the restoration plan and if it means restoring the shoreline to its natural state or to a park. -6- Mr. Sikes explained that the program is to create a functional lift in the area. Taking a natural area and turning it into a park is not going to be covered under a restoration plan since it's about improving the ecological impact at the site. Ms. Short added that many areas will not be able to be transformed back to their natural state but it is to provide the lift and improve the ecology. Commissioner Hilliard asked if 2014 is the deadline is for the City to turn in the proposed program. Ms. Short answered that 2014 would be the goal and the deadline is in the RCW. There would also be a one -year extension. However, the way that the grant would be written with the Department of Ecology is for a three -year period. The City of Pasco should anticipate funding July 1, 2013 and allows for three years. The agency has not caused any trouble for those jurisdictions making progress under the grant agreement. Commissioner Hilliard asked if the Franklin County, City of Kennewick and City of Richland on the same timeframe. Ms. Short answered that Franklin County is on the same timeline but Kennewick has finished. David McDonald, City Planner, asked if there is a penalty attached to the Shoreline Master Program if the City is not meeting its deadline, such as money withheld for other City programs and projects. Ms. Short replied that they cannot punish the City in that way. Throughout the grant process the Department of Ecology will constantly be monitoring the progress commensurate to costs. If anything starts to go off track and there are problems with product and deliverables, the City Staff will know. The worst case scenario is that the State is on the hook and the State will then go through the rule making and create a Shoreline Master Program on behalf of the jurisdiction. With no further questions or comments the workshop concluded COMMENTS: Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director, gave a brief update about the Auto Repair Advisory Committee. Commissioner Khan attending the first meeting that took place just prior to the Planning Commission Meeting along with himself and one representative of an auto repair business, Mr. Desjarlais. Together they formulated some next steps to come up with a proposal for Planning Commission consideration at some point in the future. With no further discussion or business, the Planning Commission was adjourned at 7:59 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Dave McDonald, City Planner -7- REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION MASTER FILE NO: SP 2013 -002 APPLICANT: Griselda Melendez HEARING DATE: 2/28/13 516 S. 6th Street ACTION DATE: 3/21/13 Yakima, WA 99301 REQUEST: SPECIAL PERMIT: Location of a private bus terminal (Fronteras Travel) ( Griselda Melendez) (205 S. 4th Avenue) 1. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: Legal: Lots 13 -17, Block 19, Gerry's Addition General Location: 205 S. 4th Avenue Property Size: 14,300 square feet 2. ACCESS: The site is adjacent to South 4th Avenue. 3. UTILITIES: Water and sewer services are located in the alley to the east. 4. LAND USE AND ZONING: The site is currently zoned C -3 (General Business). Surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows: NORTH- C -2 Farmer's Market parking lot SOUTH- I -1 Vacant EAST- C -3 8s C -2 Commercial /old motel WEST- I -1 Golden Nugget nightclub 5. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The Comprehensive Plan designates the site for commercial uses. The Comprehensive Plan (Goal TR -2) encourages the efficient use of multi -modal transportation systems, which would include bus and van services for residents. 6. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The City of Pasco is the lead agency for this project. Based on the SEPA checklist, the adopted City Comprehensive Plan, City development regulations, and other information, a threshold determination resulting in a Determination of Non - significance (DNS) has been issued for this project under WAC 197- 11 -158. 1 ANALYSIS A private van /bus service has been operating at 205 S. 4th Avenue since 2009. In 2012 the applicant obtained a special permit (MF# SP2012 -003) authorizing the travel terminal to operate. The approving Special Permit Resolution #3400 condition (e) limits the seating capacity of pick -up vans to 25 seats. Since the Special Permit was issued it was discovered that the passenger van being used contained thirty (30) seats. To address this discrepancy the applicant removed five (5) seats within the passenger van and continued operations. At this time the applicant wishes to revise their Special Permit to allow a 30- passenger van to be used for on -site loading and unloading. The proposed revision is not intended to affect the size of the vehicle being used; rather the revision will allow the applicant to add the five passenger seats back into the van. All other aspects of operations will be the same as described in the staff report for Master File #SP2012 -003. To briefly review details outlined in the previous report, the van /bus service at 205 S. 4th Avenue schedule includes one arrival and one departure per day, seven days per week. The departing van leaves the site at 7:00 am and arrives at 7:00 pm. The scheduled arrival and departure times are the company's advertised schedule. If no tickets have been sold, no stops are made in Pasco. During the winter months when ridership is down vans do not arrive or depart from the site on a daily basis. Their vehicle fleet includes 15- passenger vans, 25- passenger (currently requested to be 30- passenger) vans and 51- passenger buses. Twenty -five passenger vans (currently requested to be 30- passenger) are the primary vehicles used by Fronteras Travel to transport passengers to Yakima where a 51- passenger bus provides connections to other states. No changes to the site or building are planned as a result of the bus service to and from the Fronteras Travel office at 205 S. 4th Avenue. STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT Findings of fact must be entered from the record. The following are initial findings drawn from the background and analysis section of the staff report and comments made at the public hearing. The Planning Commission may add additional findings as deemed appropriate. 1. The site is located in a C -3 (General Business) zone. 2. The site is located at 205 S. 4th Avenue. 3. There is currently a van ticket office located at 205 S. 4th Avenue. 4 4. The applicant has plans to continue to operate a regularly scheduled van service from an existing ticket office at 205 S. 4th Avenue. 5. Scheduled departures will occur at 7:00 a.m. every day of the week. 6. Scheduled arrivals will occur at 7:00 p.m. every day of the week. 7. Thirty - passenger vans are the primary vehicles used in the proposed van service. 8. The passenger vans used are approximately 24.5 feet in length. 9. Private operator carriers, charter or transit buses, vans and similar businesses are listed as unclassified uses in PMC 25.86.020. 10. Unclassified uses require review through the special permit process before locating in the community. 11. Private bus /van companies have been permitted by special permit to locate in other commercial zoning districts on N. 4th Avenue, Lewis Street and Sylvester Street. 12. No alterations are planned for the office or site. 13. The site has a small on -site parking area that can be used for passenger loading and unloading. 14. The on -site parking and loading area is shared with a wholesale produce business. 15. The wholesale produce business utilizes large trucks for receiving and delivering produce. CONCLUSIONS BASED ON STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT Before recommending approval or denial of a special permit, the Planning Commission must draw its conclusion from the findings of fact based upon the criteria listed in P.M.C. 25.86.060. The criteria and staff listed conclusions are as follows: 1) Will the proposed use be in accordance uvith the goals, policies, objectives and text of the Comprehensive Plan? The site is designated by the Plan for commercial uses. The Plan also encourages the efficient use of multi -modal transportation systems. The van service would be considered part of the multi -modal transportation system. 2) Will the proposed use adversely affect public infrastructure? The site is developed with all municipal utility services. No building additions or alterations are planned that would increase demands on the utility system. Fourth Avenue is a designated arterial street and has been constructed to arterial street standards to carry more traffic and heavier loads as compared to local access streets. The addition of a van on 4th Avenue at off peak travel times 3 is not anticipated to generate significant demands on the surrounding street system. 3) Will the proposed use be constructed, maintained and operated to be in harmony with existing or intended character of the general vicinity? The intended character of the area includes the development of various commercial enterprises. The proposed use is a commercial activity. No changes to the building or site are planned as a result of the proposed van service. 4) Will the location and height of proposed structures and the site design discourage the development of permitted uses on property in the general vicinity or impair the value thereof? The location and height of the structures on -site will not change as a result of the proposed van service. The property will continue to be used for commercial purposes. 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 proposed van service will create no more noise, vibrations, and fumes than the semi - trucks and delivery trucks used by the produce business located on the site. 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 on- street parking area directly in front of 205 South 4+h Avenue is about 37 feet long. On- street parking of a passenger van along with the loading and unloading of passengers and luggage on a public sidewalk may lead to the creation of a nuisance situation twice a day. This problem can be resolved by requiring all vans to load and unload on private property. 16 APPROVAL CONDITIONS 1. The special permit shall apply to parcel 112041317. 2. Scheduled van service shall be limited to one arrival and one departure per day. 3. No van loading or unloading shall occur on 4th Avenue or Columbia Street. 4. Vans must be assisted across the sidewalk by one or more spotters when exiting the site. 5. 6. 7, Passenger vans containing a maximum of thirty (30) seats may be permitted at the site. The applicant shall maintain all necessary governmental approvals and licenses required for the operation of a transportation business. The special permit shall be null and void if a City of Pasco business license is not continuously maintained. RECOMMENDATION MOTION for Findings of Fact: I move to adopt findings of fact and conclusions therefrom as contained in the March 21, 2013 staff report. MOTION for Recommendation: I move based on the findings of fact and conclusions as adopted the Planning Commission recommend the City Council grant a special permit to Fronteras Travel for the location of a private van transportation business at 205 S. 4th Avenue with conditions as listed in the March 21, 2013 staff report. M Land Use Item: Special Permit - Bus Terminal Ma Applicant: Grlselda Melendez Map File #: SP2013 -002 Commercial x� x� �O Industrial pro Zoning Item: Special Permit -Bus Terminal Applicant: Griselda Melendez N Map File #: SP2013 -002 E Isi C-2 (Central Business A� s �G I -I Industrial) �o \�G Y ante _ i l D�S A; AGIONALP - S pIApIA LINEAINTERN i- JgO SALWAS SFIEL� AMIONERA L6 SACRAMEN1R 0 GENTRC. MEX. g1 LOS ANGELES. AEROPUIjE TIJUANA B a sag) 1 5)37 - b _ ,.CAL Isoll SAUENUE PA sco.. A 99701 305 5011TH 4TH IP l r0 1, i i qe - 1 +a, ` I 1 � t I i Loo r, �GGIOff HuCGET FA r I. I 3 ,r P' I !r, ( n uth of Site MEMORANDUM DATE: March 15, 2013 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Shane O'Neill, Planner I SUBJECT: Revisions to PMC Title 25 (Zoning), Caretaker's Facilities Over the years, administration of the Zoning regulations found in Title 25 of the Pasco Municipal Code (PMC) has revealed the need for certain modifications to provide clarity or to address changing conditions within the community. As such, the Planning Department has undertaken the task of inventorying sections of the code that may warrant modification. On January 28, 2013 the City Council reviewed the inventory of proposed Code amendments as a workshop item. During their discussion Council expressed concern over Code language regulating caretaker's residences. Four options revising Code language regulating caretaker's residences have been prepared for review by the Planning Commission. Current Code Lanauase 25.70.060 CARETAKER'S RESIDENCE. In the commercial and industrial districts, a caretaker's residence may be permitted by special permit as an accessory use, provided the following circumstances are demonstrated by the applicant: (1) The caretaker's residence is solely intended to provide security for the established principal permitted use of the property; (2) The residential structure, to include factory assembled homes, will be located on a parcel at least two times the size of the caretaker's residence; and (3) The structure will conform to other applicable codes and regulations for residential structures. A special permit granted for a caretaker's residence may be reviewed annually upon written request of owners of property within three hundred feet of such residence or upon written request of the city building official. In the absence of written request for review, the special permit shall automatically be extended for one year. Option #1 (Option 1 establishes a thirty percent (30 %) development criteria within the "vicinity" to qualify for location of the caretaker's residence, requires caretaker's residences be recreational vehicles and requires Planning Commission review every 2 years.) 25.70.060 CARETAKER'S RESIDENCE. hi the commercial and industrial districts, a caretaker's residence may be permitted by special permit as an accessory use, provided the following circumstances are demonstrated by the applicant: (1) The caretaker's residence is solely intended to provide security for the established principal permitted use of the property; (2) The caretaker's residence is within a commercial or industrial area with less than thirty percent (30 %) of parcels within the surrounding vicinity, defined as a 300 fr radius from the site being developed The term "developed" shall mean a parcel containing at least one permitted structure or land use with a current City of Pasco Business License 3 The residential structure to inelude factory assembled h (� _ � =r ��� = =D�� limited to recreational vehicles, will be located on a parcel at least two times the size of the caretaker's residence; 11 will b A special permit granted for a caretaker's residence may be reviewed annually upon written request of owners of property within three hundred feet of such residence or upon written request of the city building official. In the absence of written request for review, the special permit shall automatically be extended for one year; and The special permit shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission biennially to determine if the surrounding vicinity within a 300 foot radius is at least 30% developed If the area is at least 30% developed, the caretaker's residence shall be removed from the site within one Year of the review date; and (66) The recreational vehicle may not be located on -site in such a way that it becomes a permanent structure. Option #2 (Option 1 establishes a forty percent (40 %) development criteria within the "vicinity" to qualify for location of the caretaker's residence, requires caretaker's residences be recreational vehicles and requires Planning Commission review every 2 years.) 25.70.060 CARETAKER'S RESIDENCE. In the commercial and industrial districts, a caretaker's residence may be permitted by special permit as an accessory use, provided the following circumstances are demonstrated by the applicant: (1) The caretaker's residence is solely intended to provide security for the established principal permitted use of the property; (2) The caretaker's residence is within a commercial or industrial area with less than forty percent (40 %) of parcels within the surrounding vicinity, defined as a 300 ft radius from the site being developed The term "developed" shall mean a parcel containing at least one permitted structure or land use with a current City of Pasco Business License 3 The residential structure to include faeten. assembled >.e� > � =y ��� = =� =a�s limited to recreational vehicles, will be located on a parcel at least two times the size of the caretaker's residence; A special permit granted for a caretaker's residence may be reviewed annually upon written request of owners of property within three hundred feet of such residence or upon written request of the city building official. In the absence of written request for review, the special permit shall automatically be extended for one year; and The special permit shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission biennially to determine if the surrounding vicinity within a 300 foot radius is at least 40% developed If the area is at least 40% developed, the caretaker's residence shall be removed from the site within ones of the review date: and (6) The recreational vehicle may not be located on -site in such a way that it becomes a permanent structure. 2 REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION MASTER FILE NO: SP2013 -003 APPLICANT: Samuel Nunez HEARING DATE: 3/21/13 217 N. Douglas Ave. ACTION DATE: 4/25/13 Pasco, WA 99301 BACKGROUND REQUEST FOR SPECIAL PERMIT: Location of a Church in an R -2 District 1. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: Legal: Parcel #'s: 113 - 811 -028: AM Wehe's First Addition together with the south 30 feet of vacated George Street lying between the east /west line of Lot 14; General Location: 217 N. Douglas Avenue Property Size: Approximately 0.9 acres 2. ACCESS: The site has access from South Douglas Avenue 3. UTILITIES: The site is served by municipal water and sewer. 4. LAND USE AND ZONING: The property is currently zoned R -1 (Low Density Residential). NORTH: R -1 -A - Residential SOUTH: R -1 - Residential EAST: R -1 -A - Residential WEST: R -1 - Residential 5. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The site is designated in the Comprehensive Plan for future Mixed Residential uses. The Plan does not specifically address churches, but elements of the Plan encourage the promotion of orderly development including the development of zoning standards for off - street parking and other development standards. 6. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The City of Pasco is the lead agency for this project. Based on the SEPA checklist, the adopted City Comprehensive Plan, City development regulations, and other information, a threshold determination resulting in a Determination of Non - Significance (DNS) has been issued for this project under WAC 197- 11 -158. ANALYSIS The application is a request to operate Apostolic Assembly church in an existing building previously (and currently) used for church activities. Constructed in 1970, the 2,900 square foot structure in question has been on- site for the past 43 years. Apostolic Assembly (church) has recently purchased the property (217 N. Douglas Ave.) with the intent of continuing church operations under new ownership. The church in question has been part of the neighborhood's character since 1970 (43 years). The structure was originally constructed as a church. The church structure sits on the south half of the 0.9 acre parcel, leaving the northern portion vacant. The vacant portion of land contains lawn and a few trees. This open space serves as a physical buffer between church activities and residences to the north. The surrounding neighborhood is predominantly residential with one church located almost directly across Douglas Ave. from the Apostolic Assembly church site. Overtime this area of our community has proven to value the presence of churches and that they can operate in harmony within the neighborhoods. All off - street parking areas and driveways are currently surfaced with gravel only. This condition does not meet current standards for required parking and driveway approaches. Based on the eighteen (18) pews in the congregation area, special permit approval will be conditioned upon paving the driveways and approximately 18 parking stalls. Although the applicant has options in locating the paved parking area it is most likely they will overlay the existing parking area and driveway on the south side of the church. After purchasing the property the owner installed sod between the church and Douglas Avenue which is a substantial improvement from its' prior condition. As such, additional landscaping is not needed. INITIAL 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. 2 1. Churches are unclassified uses requiring review through the special permit process prior to locating or expanding in any zoning district [PMC 25.86.020(3)]. 2. The proposed site is located at 217 N. Douglas Avenue. 3. The proposed church site is zoned R -1 (Low Density Residential). 4. The existing structure was constructed in the year 1970. 5. Access to the parking is from Douglas Avenue. 6. The church is approximately 2,900 square feet in area. 7. Churches are classified as an "A" occupancy type under the International Building Code (IBC 2009). 8. A gravel parking area is located on the south end of the site. INITIAL 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 whether or not the proposal: (1) Will the proposed use be in accordance with the goals, policies, objectives and text of the Comprehensive Plan? The Plan does not specifically address churches, but elements of the Plan encourage the promotion of orderly development including the development of zoning standards for off - street parking and other development standards. (2) Will the proposed use adversely affect public infrastructure? The church is unlikely to place additional demands on public infrastructure beyond increased passenger vehicle traffic. Church activities place a negligible demand on city sewer and water facilities. Churches are generally used most heavily on Sundays and during the evening on weekdays. (3) Will the proposed use be constructed, maintained and operated to be in harmony with existing or intended character of the general vicinity? The site has recently changed ownership. Residents and occupants of the surrounding homes and businesses may be comfortably accustomed to the church activities. There have been no complaints about the church received by the City. Continuation of the church use is unlikely to affect K. the character of the neighborhood in a negative way. The church has coexisted in harmony with the neighborhood for many years. Churches are typically located in or near residential areas and often add to the character of the general vicinity in which they are located. (4) Will the location and height of proposed structures and the site design discourage the development of permitted uses on property in the general vicinity or impair the value thereof The location and height of the existing church has not discouraged the development of permitted uses on surrounding properties. The presence of churches in residential neighborhoods in other parts of the community has not discouraged potential residential development or impaired the value of residential properties. The surrounding neighborhood is considered fully developed. (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 church will generate no more dust, vibrations, flashing lights or fumes than would be expected by permitted residential uses of the zoning district. Traffic generated by the church will occur mostly on Sunday mornings when neighborhood traffic is minimal. Churches are generally used infrequently, two or three days a week, and generate traffic during off peak times such as on Sunday mornings and in evenings during the week. (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? Past history of church operations within the City has shown they do not endanger public health or safety and are generally not nuisance generators. Churches are generally accepted uses in or near residential neighborhoods. TENTATIVE APPROVAL CONDITIONS 1) The special permit shall apply to parcel 113 - 811 -028; 2) A parking area containing a minimum of eighteen (18) parking stalls shall be hard surfaced and striped. All driveways must be hard surfaced 0 to meet city standards. All parking lot and driveway improvements must be completed by May 31, 2014; 3) Driveways must be modified to meet current ADA standards. 4) The church 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; and 5) This special permit shall be null and void if a City of Pasco Occupancy Registration is not obtained by July 1, 2013. RECOMMENDATION MOTION: I move to close the public hearing and schedule deliberations, the adoption of findings of fact, and development of a recommendation for City Council for the April 25, 2013 meeting. 5 Vicinity Item: Special Permit - Church Applicant: Apostolic Assembly N Map File #: SP2013 -003 > ^mew � a= �LL Ion ,ALVIN�T ' I , •° yman fa .p Land Use Item: Special Permit - Church Applicant: Apostolic Assembly N Map File #: SP2013 -003 Residences ADELIA ST d a oil a ■ �� ■� M ■■ Residences Pn Residences Church Vacant IMM Ami mn - d a oil a ■ �� ■� M ■■ Residences Pn Residences Church Vacant Zoning Item: Special Permit - Church Applicant: Apostolic Assembly N ORIN Map File #: SP2013 -003 nn nn n R4 (Low Density Residenti9 R -1 .ORGE ST ti R2 (Medium Density Wk R -1 -A Density Residential Alternate) 9 a w C-1 l Business il�ll r � If �. if If fff �5 1. . ;-v a a�i ar ti .: '^e fr 2 _ kI u e' Looking North t i �L4; HP, IN will t� � st t , � a i a a 4 — t i �L4; HP, IN will t� � st Parking Area f i r 4�b �w �y k 1 i Q ry p vW Nr r, ; - _ r r � t � ! ., G � �*q � ✓ r.. r !7r I 11 r 'c si r i ,yr.G �' a ,. ; °t "r t - �y�' -�./T' d M"'Y rYf�:Lt.Yq•�0 41 IQYe �. {y f( y� ?� %yt Y rk,1'i J,rYf t� £M. y>`z �r�� r '' re l•iv - L y w ,r rr of „P ,Y r/� `)C. rj ,f .'r'. ,�A. r y yam-„ � 5 Parking Area f i r 4�b �w �y k 1 i Q ry p vW Nr r, ; - _ r r � t � ! ., G � �*q � ✓ r.. r !7r I 11 r 'c si r i ,yr.G �' a ,. ; °t "r t - �y�' -�./T' d M"'Y rYf�:Lt.Yq•�0 41 IQYe �. {y f( y� ?� %yt Y rk,1'i J,rYf t� £M. y>`z �r�� r '' re l•iv - L y w ,r rr of „P ,Y r/� `)C. rj ,f .'r'. ,�A. r Looking South REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION MASTER FILE NO: SP2012 -023 APPLICANT: AT&T Wireless c/o Vinculums HEARING DATE: 3/21/2013 3301 Burke Ave. Ste #100 ACTION DATE: 4/25/2013 Seattle, WA 98103 REQUEST: SPECIAL PERMIT: Location of a Temporary Cellular Antenna Tower in a C -1 (Retail Business) Zone 1. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: Legal: Parcel #117 - 380 -022: The northwest '/a of the northwest '/a, Section 15, Township 9 North, Range 29 East, WM. General Location: 6600 Burden Boulevard Property Size: The parcel is approximately 27.6 acres 2. ACCESS: The site is accessed from Burden Boulevard, Homerun Road and Convention Place. 3. UTILITIES: All municipal utilities currently serve the site. 4. LAND USE AND ZONING: The site is currently zoned C -1 (Retail Business) and contains TRAC event center and recreation facility. Surrounding properties are zoned and developed as follows: NORTH: C -1 - Commercial Businesses SOUTH: C -1 - TRAC EAST: C -1 & RT - TRAC WEST: C -1 - Vacant 5. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The Comprehensive Plan designates the site for Government/ Public uses. Goal OF -2 suggests the City ought to maintain land use flexibility in regard to placement of infrastructure for public and private utilities. Policy OF -2 -A encourages the sound management of all energy and communication utilities through coordination and cooperation dealing with construction of such facilities. Policy OF -2 -13 encourages the placement of utility substations which are necessary for the surrounding neighborhood. 6. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The City of Pasco is the lead agency for this project. Based on the SEPA checklist, the adopted City Comprehensive Plan, City development regulations, and other information, a fl threshold determination resulting in a Determination of Non - Significance (DNS) has been issued for this project under WAC 197 -11 -158. ANALYSIS AT &T Wireless is requesting special permit approval to locate a temporary cellular antenna tower on wheels (COW) within the TRAC campus. The requested temporary tower is a 50 foot tall tower together with associated equipment located on a flat -bed trailer (see Exhibit 1). The trailer is proposed to be located within an existing Verizon cellular tower equipment enclosure at the base of the flag pole cell tower in the TRAC parking lot (see Exhibit 2). The existing Verizon equipment enclosure is currently fenced and sight obscured. The COW is being request to remain on -site for up to 12 months. A temporary cell tower is needed in order to allow AT &T to reserve licenses for radio frequencies while they construct a new permanent tower. If the frequencies are not used by AT &T within a certain time period, the licenses will be lost. The special permit at hand however, is for the temporary tower only. AT &T is expected to follow -up soon with a special permit application for a separate permanent tower. The C -1 zone permits structures to reach a maximum height of twenty five (35) feet "except a greater height may be approved by special permit" [PMC25.42.050(4)]. The COW would exceed the 35 foot height limit by fifteen (15) feet. Additionally, the proposed location of the wireless communication antenna and equipment meets the requirements listed under the provisions of PMC 25.70.070, which requires wireless facilities to be located on or within a publicly owned facility. Wireless Facility zoning regulations were specifically developed to permit (through special permit review) cellular tower /antenna equipment on taller buildings within the community. The PMC special permit review criteria for wireless facilities are written as follows: 25.70.075 WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITIES. Wireless Communication Facilities are permitted under the following conditions: (1) Such structures shall be permitted in all industrial or C -3 zoning districts provided the location is 500 feet or more from a residential district. Any location closer than 500 feet requires special permit approval. (2) Such structures maybe permitted by special permit in all other zoning districts provided said structures are: (i) Attached to or located on an existing or proposed building or structure that is higher than thirty -five (35) feet or (ii) Located on or with a publicly owned facility such as a water reservoir, fire station, police station, school countu or port facilitu. K (c) All wireless communication facilities shall comply with the following standards 1) Wireless facilities shall be screened or camouflaged by employing the best available technology. This may be accomplished by use of compatible materials, strategic location, color, stealth technologies, and /or other measures to achieve minimum visibility of the facility when viewed from public rights - of -way, and adjoining properties such that a casual observer cannot identify the Wireless Communication Facility. 2) Wireless facilities shall be located in the City in the following order of preference. a) Attached to or located on buildings or structures higher than 35 feet. b) Located on or with a nubliciu owned facilitu c) Located on a site other than those listed in a) or b). The proposal meets the criteria above in that the tower is proposed within a public facility. The TRAC property is owned by Franklin County. Commonly, cellular providers locate the equipment cabinets within a fenced area surrounding the base of a pole; in this case the entire tower with its equipment will be located within an existing sight - obscured equipment enclosure at the base of an existing tower. INITIAL STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT Findings of fact must be entered from the record. The following are initial findings drawn from the background and analysis section of the staff report. The Planning Commission may add additional findings to this listing as the result of factual testimony and evidence submitted during the open record hearing. 1. The site is zoned C -1 (Retail Business). 2. The Comprehensive Plan identifies the site for Government /Public uses. 3. The site contains TRAC, an event center and recreation facility. 4. The site is 27.6 acres in area. 5. All municipal utilities currently serve the site. 6. In the C -1 zone cellular towers may be permitted by special permit provided the tower is either: i) Attached to or located on an existing or proposed building or structure that is higher than thirty -five (35) feet; or ii) Located on or with a publicly owned facility such as a water reservoir, fire station, police station, school, county or port facility. W 7. The temporary/ portable cellular tower is proposed to be located within an existing cellular equipment enclosure. 8. The Comprehensive Plan suggests the City ought to maintain land use flexibility with regard to placement of infrastructure for public and private utilities. 9. The Comprehensive Plan does not specifically address cellular equipment. 10. Cellular equipment creates minimal demands on City infrastructure. TENTATIVE 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 Comprehensive Plan does not specifically address cellular equipment. The Comprehensive Plan goal OF -2 and policy OF -2 -A discuss the need for sound management and coordination in the location of utilities and community facilities. (2) Will the proposed use adversely affect public infrastructure? The proposed use is a part of the communication network utilized by the general public. The proposed equipment will be located in such a manner so as not to impact other public utilities or services. The proposed use does not require water and sewer. (3) Will the proposed use be constructed, maintained and operated to be in harmony with existing or intended character of the general vicinity? The character of the vicinity is dominated by the TRAC event center and recreation facility. The addition of a small antennae tower in the parking lot will not alter or affect the existing or intended character of TRAC. The tower is intended to be temporary and the special permit will condition it as such. (4) Will the location and height of proposed structures and the site design discourage the development of permitted uses on property in the general vicinity or impair the value thereof? The proposed 50 -foot tall antenna tower will be located amid a vast parking lot and will not generally be noticed by the public and is unlikely to discourage development in the vicinity. 0 (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 proposed cell tower will create no fumes, dust or noise. Cell towers facilities have been located throughout the community in residential, commercial and industrial zones without generating any complaints received by the City. (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? Cell tower radio waves have not been proven to be harmful to human health. Radio wave activity is focused on the antennas which are elevated approximately 50 feet above grade away from human activity. The most noticeable impact will be visual. Though potentially displeasing to the eye, the tower poses no true threat to public health and safety. A Determination of No Hazard to Air Navigation for the tower has not yet been issued by the FAA. TENTATIVE APPROVAL CONDITIONS 1) The special permit shall apply to Parcel # 117 - 380 -022; 2) The property shall be developed in substantial conformity with the site plan and elevations submitted with the application; 3) The temporary cellular tower shall be located within a sight obscuring enclosure; 4) The wireless communication antenna shall not be used for advertising or other non - communication purposes; 5) The special permit shall be valid for twelve (12) months. The special permit shall be null and void on May 31, 2014 and the cell facility must be removed; 6) A Determination of No Hazard to Air Navigation from the FAA for the tower must be submitted to the Planning Department prior to location of the tower; and 7) The proposed cellular facility must comply with all FCC regulations regarding radio frequency emissions. RECOMMENDATION MOTION: I move to close the hearing on the proposed temporary cellular tower and initiate deliberations and schedule adoption of findings of fact, conclusions and a recommendation to the City Council for the April 25, 2013 meeting. 5 Vicinity Item: Special Permit - Temporary Cell Tower Ma Applicant: AT &T N Map File #: SP2013 -004 A_ S RODEO DR Land Use Item: Special Permit - Temporary Cell Tower Ma Applicant: AT &T N Map File #: SP2013 -004 Co V RODEO DR Vacant d ingle Family Residences BURDEN BLVD Public Recreation w (TRAQ Zoning Item: Special Permit - Temporary Cell Tower Ma Applicant: AT &T N p File #: SP2013 -004 C -1 (Retail Business) R1 C-1 U (Retail Business .7 BURDEN BLVD C-1 (Retail Business) RT (Residential Transition) C-1 1 Looking East Existing Tower �1 1GI L Equipment Enclosure ig South m Looking West 1 ` N 4 N 4rtl ,P� Pole Base i -Ak'- INTEGRATED Exhibit 1 I TS T O W E N SYSTEMS IT SERIES: MODELS ~ IT406127, IT- 89127, M72127 & M55127 s +106'(33m), ±89'(27m), ±72'(22m) & +55'(17m) Self - Supporting & Guy Capable Tower Elevations N Fully Automated, Direct Drive Tower Operating System; No Belts, No Chains, No Guy Wires Required n +550 lb/250kg to +750lb1340kg Standard & Upgraded Tower Load Capacity; 120- 220VAC 160 -50Hz Configurations s Greatest Self - Supporting and Guyed Wind /Payload Capacity of Any Comparable Tower System a Extra -Heavy Duty, Primary Road Drawbar Trailer; +14'0 "L x 8'0 "W x 6'6 "H Equipment Payload Area a Standard 18,000lb/8,163kg Capacity Trailer GVWR; To +5,5001b/2,494kg Equipment Capacity Model Series Summary: Each specific model designates an extra heavy -duty, primary road configured trailer and integrated tower system designed to transport and support at site a payload to +5,500lbs/2,494kg of ITS and /or customer- supplied equipment. As designed, the trailer's skeletal frame is engineered with a minimum factor of safety of 2:1, with 4:1 in critical load areas. A multi- section — 2l V76.4m each, lattice steel telescopic structure is designed to transport horizontally over the trailer's single -level platform and automatically tilt by means of a heavy -duty, chrome plated hydraulic cylinder. The tower system is raised to its full extension utilizing a direct drive, minimum 1HP, totally enclosed fan cooled (TEFC), wash -down rated electric winch motor and gearbox assembly. Each Portable Tower System model is capable of being deployed, elevated to its full - extended height, and secured by a mechanical tower lock mechanism by one person in under 30 minutes. For added security and stability during poor weather conditions, excessive loading, long -term deployment, or to minimize structure deflection for critical applications, this self - supporting tower may be further protected by the use of an optional guy cable and ground anchor system. IT Series Trailer: 18,000lb/8,163kg Capacity GVWR • GVWR 18,000lbs /8,163kgs; 8,000lbs/3,628kgs GAWR • W8 @21 Main Frames and C5 @6.7 Perimeter Steel • Tandem 8,000lb/3,628kg Axles; 16,0001b17,256kg Capacity • To +5,5001bs/2,494kg Trailer Deck Payload Capacity • +11'8" Transport Height; +30'6" Transport Length • Trailer Dimensions: +26'6 "L x 8'0 "W, 1 -Level Platform • 1 /8" Steel Diamond Plate Operating Platforms; Welded • 2- 5/16" Ball Coupler or NATO Pintle Tow Devise • Electric or Hydraulic Brakes; LT235/85R16 LRG Tires • Client Equipment Area: +14'0 "L x 8'0 "W x 6'6 "H • +25" Loaded Deck Height; +18'0" Platform & 8'6" Drawbar • Emergency Break -Away Device; SAE Universal Truck Plug • 15,000 1b /6,803kg Static Capacity Landing Gear and Outrigger Jacks • Four (4) Heavy -Duty Retractable and Locking Stabilizing Outriggers • Full Sized Spare Tire with 16" 8 -Hole Wheel; Sub - Trailer Carriage • All- Weather Sealed Modular Wiring and LED Lighting Package • Locking Storage Box, Jack Transport Mount, Teardrop Fenders • DOT Safety Decals; Reflectors; Multiple Perimeter Bubble Levels • ITS Black Painted Structure with Impact/Weather Resistant Coating • Grounding Lugs; Lashing Rings; Wheel Chocks and DOT Cones Standard ITS "B" Series Tower: Elevations — ±106' (33m), 89' (27m), 721(22m) & 55' (17m) • Self - Supporting and Guy Capable Steel Tower Structures • To +550lb/250kg - 750lb/340kg Lift and Tilt Capacity • Full Automation; Multiple Limit Switch Controls • From (3) to (6) 21'0 " /6.4m Each, Galvanized Sections • %d' & 5/16" 7x19 Aircraft Quality Galv or Stainless Cables • Electronic Safety & Motor Protection Features • Solid State Control Circuitry; Locking NEMA Enclosure • Min. 1HP TEFC Motor /Gearbox Assembly; Weather Rated • Hydraulic Tilt Assembly with Integrated Safety Features • Heavy -Duty Galvanized Tower Base Support Structure © 2010 Integrated Tower Systems. All Rights Reserved. R103010 • Direct Drive Telescopic Wmch/Motor Assembly — No Belts /Chains • Two (2) to Five (5) Coax/Cable Rings; Min. 15'0 " /4.6m Power Cable • Positive Pull Down and Redundant Tower Cabling Systems • 120VAC /60Hz and 220VAC /60 -50Hz Power Configurations Offered • Extended Tower Locking Mechanism; Tower Transport Locks • Optional 3 -Arm Antenna, Camera and/or Pan/Tilt Mounts • Optional Multi -level Guy Kit, Anchor and Torque Arm Assemblies • Optional Lightning Protection and Grounding Packages • Optional Aviation Obstruction Lighting; Halogen Work Lights • Power Generation, Climate Controlled Electronics Cabinets & More PROJECT INFORMATION APPLICANT: AT &T MOBILITY RTC BUILDING 3 15221 HE 72ND WAY REDMOND, WA 98052 ITE INFORMATION ZONING CLASSIFICATION: PUBLIC BUILDING CODE: 2009 IBC CONSTRUCTION TYPE: II —B OCCUPANCY: U (U11Utt) JURISDICTION: CITY OF PASCO CURRENT USE: TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACIUTY PROPOSED USE TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACIUTY SITE LOCATION: LATITUDE: 4S 16' 5.17" N LONGITUDE: 119' 10' 24.39" W TOP OF STRUCTURE AGL 120' -0" PROJECT MANAGER WESTOWER COMMUNICATION INC. 7525 SE 24TH STREET MERCER ISLAND, WA 98040 CONTACT: PETER WESCOTT PH: (206) 550 -6448 RF ENGINEER AT &T MOBILITY REDMOND TOWER CENTER, BLDG 3 REDMOND. WA 98052 7 PROPERTY OWNER KGI WIRELESS 180 WASHINGTON RD. BEDMINSTER. NJ 07921 TOWER OWNER: VERIZON WIRELESS 15900 BE EASTCATE WAY BELLEVUE. WA 98008 BUILDING CODE COMPLIANCE: ALL WORK AND MATERIALS SHALL BE PERFORMED AND INSTALLED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CURRENT CONDITIONS OF THE FOLLOWING CODES AS ADOPTED BY THE LOCAL GOVERNING AUTHORITIES. NOTHING IN THESE PLANS IS TO BE CONSTRUED TO PERMIT WORK NOT CONFORMING TO THESE CODES: WASHINGTON STATE AND LOCAL BUILDING CODES WITH THE FOLLOWING REFERENCE CODE: • 2008 NATIONAL ELECTRIC CODE (NEED, 70 • 2009 INTERNATIONAL BUILDING CODE (IBC 2009 INTERNATIONAL MECHANICAL CODE (IMC) PARCEL NUMBER(S): 117 -350 -022 GENERAL INFORMATION' 1. PARKING REQUIREMENTS PRE UNCHANGED. 2. TRAFFIC IS UNAFFECTED. PROJECT TEAM CONSTRUCTION MANAGER WESTOWER COMMUNICATION INC 7525 BE 24TH STREET MERCER ISLAND. WA 98040 CONTACT: DAVE COTNER PH: (509) 429 -1007 PROJECT ARCHITECT MORRISON HERSHFIELD CORPORATION 10900 WE 8TH. STREET. SUITE 810 BELLEVUE, WA 98004 CONTACT: ROY LORETE PH: (425) 289 -5922 DOCUMENTS SITE ACQUISITION & PERMITTING VINCULUMS 3301 BURKE AVE N, SUITE 100 SEATTLE, WA 98103 CONTACT: CYNTHIA SAPP PH: (205) 213 -9932 x229 ISLAND VIEW WA342 6600 BURDEN BLVD PASCO WA 99302 DRIVING DIRECTIONS VICINITY MAP APPROVAL AB SIGNATURE APPROVAL DATE eoRd BUrdial Burden Rd Buiden Blvd ti � ST" me A A -1 FJT.Poanp EvdNC^nw A -2 EXISTING AND INTERIM TOWER PROFILE RE MANAGER: A -3 Q SITE ACQUISIT ION: PROPERTY P OPPS MANAGER: HEATING PT ZONING AGENT: BLDG C A/E PROJECT NO.: 0 RED m PROJECT MANAGER: OI Tar x EI NSB MANAGER: a - A SITEBOIeCa TRANSPORT: oT CEILING ID INSIDE DIAMETER Sale SIMILAR M91nen1n Rd CLEAR IN n SPEC SPECIFICATION CONC COMPLIANCE: INFO INFORMATION SF m CONST CONSTRUCTION REVIEWERS SHALL CLEARLY PLACE INITIALS ADJACENT TO S BEING REVIEWED STA)NLESS STEEL CONY 3 INT INTERIOR STL 9 A% IBC INTERNATIONAL G =Asa STRUCTURAL DBL DOUBLE $Ietl19n1 W11% STO SAID ON DIAMETER SUED SUSPENDED DIAL DIAGONAL L95 POUNDS DO DOWN MAX DRIVING DIRECTIONS DRAWING INDEX FROM SPOKANE INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT: HEAD NORTH ON W AIRPORT OR TOWARD S FLINT RD..TAKE THE RAMP ONTO US -2 E.KEEP RIGHT AT THE FORK, FOLLOW SIGNS FOR 1 -90 W /RITNILLE AND MERGE ONTO 1 -90 WTAKE EXIT 220 FOR US -395 S TOWARD RITZVILLE/PASCO.SUGHT LEFT ONTO US -395 S.MERGE ONTO 1 -182 W/US-395 S VA THE RAMP TO RICHLND /PENDLETON CONTINUE TO FOLLOW 1 -182 WFAKE EXIT 9 FOR RD ISSFURN RIGHT ONTO N RD 68.TAKE THE 1ST RIGHT ONTO GOODS DR.TURN RIGHT ONTO CONVENTION PL.TAKE THE 1ST LEFT ONTO HOMERUN RD. APPROVAL DATE SIGNATURE APPROVAL DATE A SIGNATURE RF ENGINEER: A A -1 LANDLORD: A A -2 EXISTING AND INTERIM TOWER PROFILE RE MANAGER: A -3 PROPOSED TOWER PROFILE SITE ACQUISIT ION: PROPERTY OPPS MANAGER: HEATING PT ZONING AGENT: BLDG BUILDING A/E PROJECT NO.: CONSTR MANAGER: RED REQUIRED PROJECT MANAGER: BLOCKING AIR CONDITIONING NSB MANAGER: ROOM CONSTR MANAGER: SIR TRANSPORT: CLG CEILING ID INSIDE DIAMETER SIM SIMILAR EQUIP ENGINEER: CLEAR IN INCH SPEC SPECIFICATION CONC COMPLIANCE: INFO INFORMATION SF SQUARE FOOT CONST CONSTRUCTION REVIEWERS SHALL CLEARLY PLACE INITIALS ADJACENT TO EACH REDLINE NOTE AS DRAWINGS PRE BEING REVIEWED Ir �xn PROPRIETARY INFORMATION THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS SET OF CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS IS PROPRIETARY BY NATURE. ANY USE OR DISCLOSURE OTHER THAN THAT WHICH RELATES TO CARRIER SERVICES IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. LEGAL DESCRIPTION A PORTION DP THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 15, TOWNSHIP 9 NORTH, RANGE 29, E.W.M.. FRANKLIN COUNTY. WASHINGTON DRAWING INDEX DATE SHEETI DESCRIPTION IREVa T -1 TDIS SHEET A C -1 SITE PLAN A A -1 COMPOUND PLAN A A -2 EXISTING AND INTERIM TOWER PROFILE A A -3 PROPOSED TOWER PROFILE A Ir �xn PROPRIETARY INFORMATION THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS SET OF CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS IS PROPRIETARY BY NATURE. ANY USE OR DISCLOSURE OTHER THAN THAT WHICH RELATES TO CARRIER SERVICES IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. LEGAL DESCRIPTION A PORTION DP THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 15, TOWNSHIP 9 NORTH, RANGE 29, E.W.M.. FRANKLIN COUNTY. WASHINGTON ibit 2 ROMIl DNS AN) VARIATION$ OR MODIFICATIONS TO WRITTEN APPROVAL ALL PREVIOUS ISSUES OF THIS OF MORRBON HERSHFIELD CORPORATION NEITHER MORRISON HERSHFIELD AM THE ARCHITECT WILL BE PROVIDING CONSTRUCTION REVIEW OF Hie PRONECT CLIENT: 6 at &t IMPLEMENTATION TEAM: Web1bWER COMMON /CAT /ONS ASE TEAM: mti 10900 NE 8TH STREET, SUITE 810 BELLEVUE. WA 9RO04 Tel: 425451.1301 Fax: 425.451 1369 w.w<mortuonM1ersMiaM . com ISLAND VIEW WA342 6600 BURDEN BLVD PASCO, WA 99302 REVISIONS NO DATE ABBREVIATIONS A/C AIR CONDITIONING HORZ HORIZONTAL PLYWD PLYWOOD AGL ABOVE GROUND LEVEL HE HOUR PROD! PROJECT APPROX APPROXIMATELY HT HEIGHT PROP PROPERTY WAVE HEATING PT PRESSURE TREATED BLDG BUILDING A/E PROJECT NO.: VENTILATION RED REQUIRED BLK BLOCKING AIR CONDITIONING HIM ROOM SIR SHEET CLG CEILING ID INSIDE DIAMETER SIM SIMILAR CLR CLEAR IN INCH SPEC SPECIFICATION CONC CONCRETE INFO INFORMATION SF SQUARE FOOT CONST CONSTRUCTION INSUL INSULATION SS STA)NLESS STEEL CONY CONTINUOUS INT INTERIOR STL STEEL IBC INTERNATIONAL STRUCT STRUCTURAL DBL DOUBLE BUILDING CODE STO SAID ON DIAMETER SUED SUSPENDED DIAL DIAGONAL L95 POUNDS DO DOWN MAX MAXIMUM THEO THROUGH GET DETAIL MECH MECHANICAL TNNG TINNED TWO DRAWING MR METAL TRIP TYPICAL MFR MANUFACTURER EA EACH MCR MMIAGER ONO UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE ELEV ELEVATION MIN MINIMUM ELEC ELECTRICAL MISC MISCELLANEOUS VERT VERTICAL ED EQUAL RQ ROUGH OPENING VIF VERIFY IN FIELD EQUIP EQUIPMENT EXT EXTERIOR NA NOT APPUCABLE W/ WITH NIC NOT IN CONTRACT W/0 WITHOUT FIN FINISH NTS NOT TO SCALE WP WATER PROOF FLUOR FLUORESCENT HR FLOOR OC ON CENTER FT FOOT OD OUTSIDE DIAMETER GA GAUGE GALV GALVANIZED GC GENERAL CONTRACTOR GRND GROUND GYP DD GYPSUM WALL BOARD ibit 2 ROMIl DNS AN) VARIATION$ OR MODIFICATIONS TO WRITTEN APPROVAL ALL PREVIOUS ISSUES OF THIS OF MORRBON HERSHFIELD CORPORATION NEITHER MORRISON HERSHFIELD AM THE ARCHITECT WILL BE PROVIDING CONSTRUCTION REVIEW OF Hie PRONECT CLIENT: 6 at &t IMPLEMENTATION TEAM: Web1bWER COMMON /CAT /ONS ASE TEAM: mti 10900 NE 8TH STREET, SUITE 810 BELLEVUE. WA 9RO04 Tel: 425451.1301 Fax: 425.451 1369 w.w<mortuonM1ersMiaM . com ISLAND VIEW WA342 6600 BURDEN BLVD PASCO, WA 99302 REVISIONS NO DATE OESCRIPTON Squal 02/21/13 LORD EMH9N W NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION UNLESS LABELED AS CONSTRUCTION SET A/E PROJECT NO.: 1 719046 DRAWN ED, I AN REYIEwED BY: I GIRL SHEET TITLE TITLE SHEET SHEET NUMBER T -1 BURDEN BLVD - - - EXISTING F-- PARKIN i{I�I -µ I}� -I�.L� II IIII AREA LOT 1111 I III V I I I T� Q I EGRESS Z _O ~ INGRESS Z J Z O IU EXISTING n PARKING RKING�J < < II LOT I _ `EXISTING - GRASSY ' AREA EXISTING BUILDING I I I I I < - - - � IIII IIII IIIIIIIIIIII o !1 HOMERUN RE NOTES: 1. THIS IS NOT A SURVEY. PROPERTY LINE INFORMATION AND STRUCTURE LOCATION ARE OBTAINED FROM THE GIS ASSESSOR'S WEB PAGE AND ARE APPROXIMATE. 2. THERE WILL BE NO PROPOSED ALTERATION ON EXISTING GINGRESS /EGRESS ACCESS TO THE PARCEL 3. THERE WILL BE NO PROPOSED ALTERATION TO THE EXISTING LANDSCAPING WITH THE PARCEL PROPERTY LINE, TYP EXISTING BUILDING XISTING BUILDING `EXISTING BUILDING OPEN LOT STING LINE, '-EXISTING GRASSY oESUIPTIDN AREA A 03 /ir /131FASE Exn6n OPEN LOT STING LINE, TOP oESUIPTIDN — A 03 /ir /131FASE Exn6n EXISTING 120' -0" 2KING OT NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION UNLESS LABELED AS CONSTRUCTION SET A/E PROJECT NO.: T13M8 DRAWN BY: as RDIOMEO BY: PROPERTY LINE, TOP oESUIPTIDN — A 03 /ir /131FASE Exn6n EXISTING 120' -0" EXISTING RV PARKING LOT (I L c I _ I SITE PLAN THIS PRIXECT I CLIENT: 6 at &t IMPUNENTATON TEAM: Wk. wzR COMMON /CAT /OMS A&E TEAM; I P11111 MORRISOSHFIELD 109W NE BTH STREET, SUITE 810 BELLEVUE, WA WON Tel 025.051.1301 Fax '-0250.51,1389 w .wrneonhershfmld.wm PROECT: ISLAND VIEW WA342 6600 BURDEN BLVD PASCO, WA 99302 REVISIONS rv0. wre oESUIPTIDN INrtw A 03 /ir /131FASE Exn6n ou NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION UNLESS LABELED AS CONSTRUCTION SET A/E PROJECT NO.: T13M8 DRAWN BY: as RDIOMEO BY: SHEET TITLE SITE PLPN SHEET NUMB ER C -1 DO NOT 5CNE 0RAWNES CONTRACTOR MUST VERIFY UL DIM OR LAW AND ANISE CONSULTANTS OF NIY WHOSE WOomuSIONS NOVARMTIONSORMODIFICATIDNSTO RK SHOWN SHALL BE IMPLEMENTED AUTHORS ERROR WRITTEN APPRI ALL PREVIOUS ISSUES OF THIS DWNiNGPAE91PE16ELEO BYTHEIATFSTPEVINO4. ALL DMWINDSPXOBROFlCAilOM15 REMAINTHE PROPERTY OF MORRISON HERSHFIELD CORPORATION. NEITHER MORRISON HERSHFIELD NOR THE ARCHITECT WILL BE IFUNDING CONSTRUCTION REVIEW OF THIS PRaECT. CLIENT: at &t IMPLEMENTATION TEAM. WkSObb WZR COMMON /CAT IONS A E TEAM I pl ell MORRISON HERSHFIELD 1090] NESTH STREET, SUITE 610 SELLEW E, WA ONION Tol:425451.1301 Pox:425.,V51.1369 www.mOmsonMrsM1frcN . wm ISLAND VIEW WA342 6600 BURDEN BLVD PASCO, WA 99302 REVISIONS NO. SATE DITICUPTION ' A DR /]H /HJL£ASE EXHIBIT DIA NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION UNLESS LABELED AS CONSTRUCTON SET A/E PROJECT NO 7123046 DERAN BY: RR RENEWED BY: Po(L SHEET TITLE COMPOUND PLAN SHEET NUMBER A -1 NOTES: NO WORK SHALL COMMENCE WITHOUT THE APPROVED STRUCTURAL POWER /ANTENNA MOUNT ANALYSIS REPORT (SIGNED AND SEALED) PROVIDED BY OTHERS UNDER SEPARATE COr'ER. CONTRACTOR PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION SHALL REVIEW THE APPROVED TOWER STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS SUPPLIED BY AT &T AND MODIFY. IF REQUIRED. ALL APPLICABLE MEMBERS AS INDICATED IN CERTIFIED STRUCTURAL REPORT PRIOR TO INSTALLATION OF ANTENNAS AND COAX CABLES. SLA.Jt: 110 t — SCALE: 1115" — 1' -0" INTERIM TOWER PROFILE EXISTING TOWER NO NOT SCI1E0R41MNGe CONTRACTOR MUSTVERIE ALL I MEN91M5 AND ADVISE COSULT ATE CE ANY DROPS OR OMISSIONS NO VARIATIONS OR M OOI F ICATI OHS TO WORTSHONHSNALL BE IMPLEMENTED WITHWT PRIOR WRITTEN APPROVAL. ALL PREVIOUS ISSUES OF THIS WUV.WGWESUPEKFIIO BY EUIgTnENSKK1. ALL CRWWINGSANDVNL1RCATIOIA REMAINTNE PRSERIY OF MORRISON H RSHFIELD CORPORA71ON. NEITHER MOREI HERSHFIELC NOR NE ARCHITECT WILL RE PRWIOMG CON.TRUCTON REVIEW OF THIS PROJECT CLIENT: aw IMPLEMENTATION TEAM. wkSOb WER COMMON /CAT IONS A&E THAN rP1911 MORRISON HERSHFIELD 10000 HE BOTH STREET, SUITE 810 BELLEVUE, WA 88000 Tel 425451.1301 Fax: 425.451.1360 www.morTbonrenM1lleld<om ISLAND VIEW WA342 6600 BURDEN BLVD PASCO, WA 99302 REVISIONS ND. WTF NOTE' INITI EXXIISSTTIING AT &T CABINETS ARE NOT VISIBLE I EXISTING AT &T CABINETS ARE NOT VISIBLE FROM OUT OF FENCE AREA FROM OUT OF FENCE AREA SLA.Jt: 110 t — SCALE: 1115" — 1' -0" INTERIM TOWER PROFILE EXISTING TOWER NO NOT SCI1E0R41MNGe CONTRACTOR MUSTVERIE ALL I MEN91M5 AND ADVISE COSULT ATE CE ANY DROPS OR OMISSIONS NO VARIATIONS OR M OOI F ICATI OHS TO WORTSHONHSNALL BE IMPLEMENTED WITHWT PRIOR WRITTEN APPROVAL. ALL PREVIOUS ISSUES OF THIS WUV.WGWESUPEKFIIO BY EUIgTnENSKK1. ALL CRWWINGSANDVNL1RCATIOIA REMAINTNE PRSERIY OF MORRISON H RSHFIELD CORPORA71ON. NEITHER MOREI HERSHFIELC NOR NE ARCHITECT WILL RE PRWIOMG CON.TRUCTON REVIEW OF THIS PROJECT CLIENT: aw IMPLEMENTATION TEAM. wkSOb WER COMMON /CAT IONS A&E THAN rP1911 MORRISON HERSHFIELD 10000 HE BOTH STREET, SUITE 810 BELLEVUE, WA 88000 Tel 425451.1301 Fax: 425.451.1360 www.morTbonrenM1lleld<om ISLAND VIEW WA342 6600 BURDEN BLVD PASCO, WA 99302 REVISIONS ND. WTF DESCRIPTION INITI A 02/21 /I3 LFISE EXHIBIT CM NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION UNLESS LABELED AS CONSTRUCTION SET PRGfELi HO.: 112SIR INV DRAwN B REWEwcO IBr: PHIL SHEET TITLE EXISTING AND INTERIM TOWER PROFILES SHEET NUMBER A -2 MEMORANDUM DATE: March 21, 2013 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Dave McDonald, City Planner SUBJECT: Airport Zoning Update (MF# CA2013 -001) Approximately every 10 years the Port of Pasco updates the Tri- Cities Airport Master Plan. The most recent update was completed in 2012. The new Plan calls for modifications to the air terminal building, taxi ways and also includes a 1,200 foot future expansion for runway 12. Runway 12 is the most frequently used runway and allows planes to take -off to the northwest. The proposed extension of runway 12 has land use implications for both the Port and the City. As a result early in the Master Planning process the Port, City and County staff began meeting to discuss the need for updating the airport zoning regulations to guide growth around the airport. The current airport zoning regulations were adopted in early 1972 and have remained virtually unchanged for 41 years. Through State planning and airport laws (RCW 36.70.547 & RCW 14.12.030) communities with airports are required to develop regulations that limit structure heights and control land uses adjacent to airports. To assist local governments with this responsibility WSDOT developed an "Airport and Compatible Land Use Guidebook ". Based on these laws and the WSDOT guidebook the Port, City and County staff completely redrafted the Airport Zoning overlay district contained in Chapter 25.82. The updated ordinance language provides protection of the airport airspace consistent with FAA regulations and maintains compatibility with surrounding land uses. Major changes in the code include the addition of a purpose statement, definitions specific to the airport including a diagram visually explaining airspace zones, airport safety compatibility zones, general review procedures and the requirement for a disclosure statement on residential properties within close proximity to the airport. The Planning Commission should pay close attention to Section 25.82.090 Airport Safety Compatibility Zones. This section establishes six zones tied to airport functions for the protection of the approach and departure zones for aircraft, turning movements areas near the ends of the runways and for general traffic patterns around the airport. The six zones contain a list of 11 prohibited land uses. For example, Zone 3 prohibits the location of schools and hospitals as well as residential uses except infill development matching the established density of a given neighborhood. The current regulations do not contain specific airport safety zones. Staff has scheduled a workshop for the Planning Commission meeting of March 21, 2013. Representatives of the Port of Pasco will be present at the workshop to discuss the proposed code changes and answer questions related thereto. 2 DRAFT CITY OF PASCO ZONING ORDINANCE REVISIONS March 4, 2013 CHAPTER 25.82 AIRPORT OVERLAY DISTRICT Sections: 25.82.010 PURPOSE 25.82.020 AIRPORT OVERLAY DISTRICT 25.82.030 AUTHORITY 25.82.040 APPLICABILITY 25.82.050 DEFINITIONS 25.82.060 HEIGHT LIMITATION ZONES 25.82.070 HEIGHT LIMITATIONS 25.82.080 USE RESTRICTIONS 25.82.090 AIRPORT SAFETY COMPATIBILITY ZONES 25.82.100 GENERAL REVIEW PROCEDURES 25.82.110 DISCLOSURE 25.82.010 PURPOSE. The purpose of the Airport Overlay District is to protect the viability of the Tri- Cities Airport as a significant resource to the community by encouraging compatible land uses, densities and reducing hazards that may endanger the lives and property of the public and aviation users. 25.82.020. AIRPORT OVERLAY DISTRICT. There is hereby created an airport overlay district as shown by the map made a part hereof labeled Tri- Cities Airport Future Part 77 Zones Map dated and the Airport Safety Compatibility Zones map, as established by their updated Airport Master Plan. All lands lying within the zones therein shown within the city limits of Pasco are subjected to the following building and use restrictions in addition to the other uses allowed under this chapter. The Airport shall be responsible for providing updated maps to the City coincident with 10 year updates to the Airport Master Plan. The Airport Overlay District classification identifies a series of imaginary surfaces and safety zones within the airport influence area that has historically been prone to hazards associated with aircraft and airports. This chapter is based on aircraft accident data from the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) and the Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) Part 77 Imaginary Surfaces and the "Airports and Compatibility Land Use Guidebook" produced by the Washington State Department of Transportation Aviation Division. As the name implies, this classification is laid over the existing City of Pasco zoning districts to ensure that densities and land use requirements of the underlying zoning districts are consistent with the NTSB standards and provide for maximum protection to the public, health, safety and general welfare of the community and for those citizens working and residing within the airport influence area. 1 25.82.030. AUTHORITY. The legislature of the State of Washington through RCW 14.12 the "Airport Zoning Act" has given authority to local governments to adopt regulations within its jurisdiction to promote the public health, safety, and general welfare of its citizenry regarding airport hazards. RCW 36.70.547 requires every county, city, and town in which there is located an airport to discourage the siting of incompatible uses adjacent to such aviation airport. 25.82.040. APPLICABILITY. The provisions of this chapter shall apply to all lands, buildings, structures, natural features or uses located within those areas that are defined by the Airport Overlay District and designated on the Tri- Cities Airport Part 77 Surfaces map which identifies areas of height limitations and the Airport Safety Compatibility Zones (ASCZ) map, 25.82.050. DEFINITIONS. The following terms shall have the meanings indicated, specific to this chapter only: AIRPORT: The Tri- Cities Airport, AIRPORT ELEVATION: The highest point of an airport's useable landing area measured in feet from sea level. The Tri - Cities Airport is four hundred ten feet (410') above mean sea level. APPROACH SURFACE: An imaginary surface longitudinally centered on the extended runway centerline, extending outward and upward from the end of the primary surface and at the same slope as the approach zone height limitation slope set forth in Chapter 25.82.060. The perimeter of the approach surface coincides with the perimeter of the approach zone. CONICAL SURFACE: An imaginary surface extending outward and upward from the periphery of the horizontal surface at a slope of twenty to one (20:1) for a horizontal distance of four thousand feet (4,000'), DEED NOTICE: A formal statement provided in 25.82.110 as a note on the face of a short plat, major subdivision or binding site plan or recorded against the property notifying potential property owners that the property is located adjacent to an active airport and said property may be impacted by aircraft noise, odors, vibration, and low flying aircraft. FAA FORM 7460 -1, NOTICE OF PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION OR ALTERATION: A form which the Federal Aviation Administration requires to be completed by anyone who is proposing to construct or alter an object that could affect airspace and allows the FAA to conduct an airspace analysis to determine whether the object will adversely affect airspace or navigational aids. More information regarding this requirement can be found on the FAA website. 2 FAR PART 77 SURFACES: The Part of 49 CFR of the Federal Aviation Regulations that deals with objects affecting navigable airspace, FAR PART 77 ZONES: Imaginary airspace surfaces established with relation to each runway of an airport. There are five types of surfaces: (1) primary; (2) approach; (3) transitional; (4) horizontal; and (5) conical. t Approach ;ion Approach HAZARD TO AIR NAVIGATION: An obstruction determined to have a substantial adverse effect on the safe and efficient utilization of the navigable airspace. HEIGHT: For the purpose of determining the height limits in all zones and as shown on the Tri- Cities Airport Future Part 77 Zones map, this datum shall be height above mean sea level elevation unless otherwise specified. HORIZONTAL SURFACE: A horizontal plane one hundred fifty feet (150') above the established airport elevation, the perimeter of which plane coincides with the inner perimeter of the conical surface. This is five hundred sixty feet (560') above mean sea level for the Tri- Cities Airport. 3 INFILL: Development designed to occupy scattered vacant parcels of land which remain after the majority of development indicated on an FAA- approved airport layout has occurred in an area. OBSTRUCTION: Any object of natural growth, terrain, of permanent or temporary construction or alteration, including equipment or materials used therein which exceeds a limiting height set forth in Chapter 25.82.070. PRECISION APPROACH: A landing approach made without visual reference to the ground by the use of aircraft instruments and ground -based electronic or communications systems or devices. An aircraft making such an approach should be flying in accordance with an IFR (instrument flight rules) flight plan. PRIMARY SURFACE: A surface longitudinally centered on a runway with a width of one thousand feet (1,000') for instrument approaches and five- hundred feet (500') for visual approaches. When the runway has a specially prepared hard surface, the primary surface extends two hundred feet beyond each end of the runway. The elevation of any point on the primary surface is the same as the elevation of the nearest point on the runway centerline. The elevation of the Primary Surface at the Tri- Cities airport is four hundred ten feet (410 above mean sea level. RUNWAY: A defined area on an airport prepared for landing and take -off of aircraft along its length. TRANSITIONAL SURFACES: These imaginary surfaces extend outward at ninety- degree angles to the runway centerline, and runway centerline extended, at a slope of seven feet (7') horizontally for each foot vertically (7:1) from the sides of the primary and approach surfaces to where they intersect with the horizontal and conical surfaces. TREE: Any object of natural growth. VISUAL RUNWAY: A runway intended solely for the operation of aircraft using visual approach procedures, with no straight -in instrument approach procedure and no instrument designation indicated on an FAA- approved airport layout plan. 25,82.060 HEIGHT LIMITATION ZONES. The height limitation zones are hereby established, consistent with the FAR Part 77 Surfaces — Objects Affecting Navigable Airspace, and are described below. (1) PRECISION INSTRUMENT APPROACH ZONE. Includes Runways 3L, 21R, 30. A precision instrument approach zone is established at each end of a precision instrument runway for instrument landings and takeoffs. The precision instrument approach zones shall have a width of one thousand feet (1,000') at a distance of two hundred feet (200') beyond each end of the runway, coinciding with the Primary Surface, widening thereafter uniformly to a width of sixteen thousand feet (16,000') at rd a distance of fifty thousand two hundred feet (50,200) beyond each end of the runway, its centerline being the continuation of the centerline of the runway. (2) NON- PRECISION INSTRUMENT APPROACH ZONE. Includes Runway 12. A Non - Precision instrument approach zone is established at each end of a Non - Precision instrument runway for improved landings and takeoffs. The non - precision instrument approach zones shall have a width of five hundred feet (500') at a distance of two hundred feet (200) beyond each end of the runway, thereafter widening uniformly to a width of three thousand five hundred feet (3,500') at a distance of ten thousand two - hundred feet (10,200') beyond each end of the runway, it's centerline being the continuation of the centerline of the runway. (3) VISUAL APPROACH ZONE. Includes Runways 3R and 21L. A visual approach zone is established at each end of all visual runways for landings and takeoffs. The visual approach zones shall have a width of five hundred feet (500') at a distance of two hundred feet (200') beyond each end of the runway, widening thereafter uniformly to a width of one thousand five hundred (1,500) feet at a distance of five thousand two hundred feet (5,200') beyond each end of the runway, its centerline being the continuation of the centerline of the runway. (4) TRANSITION ZONES. Transition zones are hereby established adjacent to each instrument and non - instrument runway and approach zone as indicated on the Tri- Cities Airport Future Part 77 Zones map. Transition zones symmetrically located on either side of runways have variable widths as shown on the map. Transition zones extend outward from a line two hundred fifty feet (250') on either side of the centerline of the non - instrument runway, for the length of such runway plus two hundred feet (2001) on each end; and five hundred feet (500) on either side of the centerline of the instrument runway, for the length of such runway plus two hundred feet (200') on each end, beginning at and are parallel and level with such runway centerlines. The transition zones along such runways slope upward and outward one foot vertically for each seven feet horizontally to the point where they intersect the surface of the horizontal zone. Further, transition zones are established adjacent to both instrument and non - instrument approach zones for the entire length of the approach zones. These transition zones have variable widths, as shown on the Tri- Cities Airport Future Part 77 Zones map. Such transition zones flare symmetrically with either side of the runway approach zones from the base of such zones and slope upward and outward at the rate of one foot vertically for each seven feet horizontally to the points where they intersect the horizontal and conical surfaces. Additionally, transition zones are established adjacent to the instrument approach zone where it projects through and beyond the limits of the conical zone, extending a distance of five thousand feet measured horizontally from the edge of the instrument approach zones at right angles to the continuation of the centerline of the runway. (5) HORIZONTAL ZONE. A horizontal zone is hereby established as the area within a horizontal plane one hundred fifty feet (150') above the established airport elevation or at a height of five hundred sixty feet (560') above mean sea level, the perimeter of which is constructed by swinging arcs of ten thousand feet radii from the center of each end of the primary surface of each runway of the airport and connecting 5 the adjacent arcs by lines tangent to those arcs. The horizontal zone does not include the instrument and non - instrument approach zones and the transition zones. (6) CONICAL ZONE. A conical zone is hereby established as the area that commences at the periphery of the horizontal zone and extends outward therefrom a distance of four thousand feet. The conical zone does not include the instrument approach zones and transition zones. 25.82.070 HEIGHT LIMITATIONS. No building, pipe, chimney, tower, steeple, stand, platform, pole, wire or structure or erection or object of natural growth, or obstruction of any kind or nature whatsoever, shall be built, placed, hung, or permitted to grow or allowed to be built, placed or hung which shall at any point or part thereof exceed the heights as provided in the zones established herein. Where an area is covered by more than one height limitation, the more restrictive limitations shall prevail. The restrictions shall apply to the area surrounding all runways and approaches situated thereon. The owner of any existing nonconforming building, structure, or tree shall be required to permit the installation, operation, and maintenance thereon of any markers and lights as deemed necessary by the airport sponsor or the FAA to indicate to operators of aircraft in the vicinity of the airport the presence of such airport obstruction. Such height limitations are hereby established for each zone as follows: (1) Precision Instrument Approach Zone. Beginning at the end of and at the same elevations as the Primary Surface, slopes one foot in height for each fifty feet (50:1) in horizontal distance and extending to a distance of ten thousand two hundred feet (10,200) from the end of the runway; thence one foot in height for each forty feet in horizontal distance to a point fifty thousand two hundred feet (50,200) from the end of the runway; (2) Non - Precision Instrument Approach Zone. Beginning at the end of and at the same elevations as the Primary Surface, slopes one foot in height for each thirty- four feet (34:1) in horizontal distance and extending to a distance of ten thousand two hundred feet (10,200) from the end of the runway; (3) Visual Approach Zones. Beginning at the end of and at the same elevation as the Primary Surface, slopes one foot in height for each twenty feet (20:1) in horizontal distance and extending to a point ten thousand two hundred feet (5,200') from the end of the runway; (4) Transition Zones. Slopes outward one foot in height for each seven feet (7:1) in horizontal distance beginning at the Primary Surface, extending to a height of one hundred fifty feet (150') above the airport elevation which is four hundred ten feet (410') above mean sea level. In addition to the foregoing, there are established height limits of one foot vertical height for each seven feet horizontal (7:1) distance measured from the edges of all approach zones for the entire length of the approach zones and extending upward and outward to the points where they intersect the horizontal or conical surfaces. Further, where the instrument approach zone projects through and beyond the conical zone, a height limit of one foot for each seven feet of horizontal distance shall be maintained beginning at the edge of the instrument approach zone R and extending a distance of five thousand feet (5,000') from the edge of the instrument approach zone measured normal to the centerline of the runway extended; (5) Horizontal Zone. One hundred fifty feet (150') above the airport elevation or a height of five hundred sixty feet (560) above mean sea level; (6) Conical Zone. Slopes outward one foot in height for each twenty feet (20:1) of horizontal distance beginning at the periphery of the horizontal zone, extending four thousand feet (4,000') to a height of three hundred fifty feet (350') above the airport elevation or a height of seven hundred sixty feet above mean sea level (760'). 25.82.080 USE RESTRICTIONS. (1) General Requirements: Notwithstanding any other provisions of this chapter, no use may be made of land or water within any zone established by this chapter in such a manner as to create electrical interference with navigational signals or radio communication between the airport and aircraft, make it difficult for flyers to distinguish between airport lights and others, result in glare in the eyes of flyers using the airport, impair visibility in the vicinity of the airport, create bird strike hazards or otherwise in any way endanger or interfere with the landing, taking off, or maneuvering of aircraft. (2) Lighting: No new or expanded industrial, commercial, recreational or residential use shall project lighting directly onto an existing runway, taxiway, or approach /departure surface except where necessary for safe air travel. Lighting for these uses shall incorporate shielding to reflect light away from the airport and shall not imitate airport lighting. (3) Communications Facilities: Approval of cellular and other communications or transmission towers located within any zone described within section 25.82.060 shall be conditioned to require their removal within 90 days of discontinuance of use. 25.82.090 AIRPORT SAFETY COMPATIBILITY ZONES. Zones described below are shown in the Airport Safety Compatibility Zones (ASCZ) map with the prohibited land uses listed below in order to promote the general safety and welfare of properties surrounding the airport and the continued viability of the airport. Zone 1 — Runway Protection Zone (RPZ): only airport uses and activities are allowed within the RPZ. Zone 2 — Inner Approach /Departure Zone: Prohibited land uses within this zone are residences (all residential zones except areas south of I -182 where infill residential is allowed similar in density to the existing residential development), places of public assembly such as churches, schools (K -12), colleges, hospitals; high density office, retail or service buildings; shopping centers and other uses with similar concentrations of persons. Production of asphalt paving and roofing materials or rock crushing are also prohibited. Fuel storage facilities or the storage or use of significant amounts of materials which are explosive, flammable, toxic, corrosive, or otherwise exhibit hazardous characteristics shall not be located within the Inner Approach /Departure Zone. Hazardous wildlife attractants including waste disposal operations, water management and storm water facilities with above - ground water storage, and man- 7 made wetlands shall not be allowed within the Inner Approach /Departure Zone. All new infill residential development must include the disclosure statement in Chapter 25.82.110 on plats, short plats and binding site plans. Zone 3 — Inner Turning Zone: Prohibited land uses within this zone are schools (K -12) and hospitals. New residential development is prohibited unless it is infill residential similar in density to the existing residential development. All new infill residential development must include the disclosure statement in Chapter 25.82.110 on plats short plats and binding site plans. Zone 4 — Outer Approach /Departure Zone: Prohibited land uses within this zone are places of public assembly such as churches, schools (K -12), hospitals, shopping centers and other uses with similar concentrations of persons. Low density residential is permitted on legal lots of record and on new lots provided the new lots are 20,000 square feet or larger. All new residential development must include the disclosure statement in Chapter 25.82.110 on plats, short plat and binding site plans. Zone 5 — Sideline Zone: Prohibited land uses within this zone are residences, except residences that are constructed to replace existing residences, of like size and type, damaged by fire and other causes, places of public assembly such as churches, schools, hospitals, shopping centers and other uses with similar concentrations of persons. Mining, including sand and gravel pits are prohibited in the Sideline Zone. Zone 6 — Traffic Pattern Zone: Prohibited land uses within this zone are new schools (K -12), hospitals and other uses with similar concentrations of persons. Replacement or expansion of existing schools is permitted. All new residential developments must include the disclosure statement in Chapter 25.82.110 on plats, short plats and binding site plans. 25.82.110: GENERAL REVIEW PROCEDURES. No use, building, structure, or development activity shall. be permitted, established, altered or relocated by any person except as otherwise authorized by this chapter. All permit applications within the Airport Overlay District shall, in addition to being reviewed through the standard development review process, be subject to the following: A. All developments, permits or plats with proposed buildings and /or structures found to be within twenty feet (20') of any of the height limitations described in 25.82.070 and /or all buildings and structures over two hundred feet (200') in height must submit a site plan, building elevations and an FAA Form 7460- 1 to the Port of Pasco Administrative Office for Port and FAA review and approval. Upon review, further documentation shall be required, if more accurate data is necessary for a determination of impact including detailed surveys by a licensed land surveyor. B. All developments, permits or plats falling within the ASCZs described in 25.82.090 associated with special use permits, variances or existing non- conforming uses must also submit a site plan to the Port of Pasco Administrative Office for Port review. E9 25.82.120 DISCLOSURE. To all extents possible, property owners and potential property buyers should be made aware of the following disclosure. The disclosure statement shall be listed on all approved subdivision plats, short plats, binding site plans and deeds within any of the identified zones in section 25.82.060 or 25.82.090. "Properties near the Tri- Cities Airport may be subject to varying noise levels and vibration. Properties near the airport may be located within height and use restriction zones as described and illustrated by Federal standards and regulations and the City of Pasco Zoning and Development Regulations. There is the potential that standard flight patterns will result in aircraft passing over the properties at low altitudes and during all hours of the day. Future airport expansion including a potential 1850' runway extension to the northwest may impact the size and number of aircraft that utilize the airport. Generally it is not practical to redirect or severely limit airport usage and /or planned airport expansion. Developments near the airport should assume that at any given time there will be some impact from air traffic." 9 ---- - - - - -- - - - -' - LCOMPatlbi Radar Easement ties Ai Mon 8ountlary UC.A f Pasco afety Compatibility Zones x z3 a s 6 =% P�ST�� MIR ......ao... ' � � mn.x�•�• ZaneS --- - - - - - - _ I I mna y 1 Znna I 1 I znn. z I. mne6 I • 1 1•I� ! I I I 1 - mnea I•I �•Zene3 7 Zone 3 Zone9 znn.2 •'Z . Zone Zone3 Zones mnex ___.._ 7%%% Li �.. Zane 6 mnex LCOMPatlbi Radar Easement ties Ai Mon 8ountlary UC.A f Pasco afety Compatibility Zones x z3 a s 6 =% P�ST�� MIR ......ao... TRI- CITIES AIRPORT Airport Safety Compatibility Zones MMW� Feet 0 1,100 2,200 1 inch = 1,100 feet Date: 9/62012 ' � � mn.x�•�• ZaneS _ —— es _ I I mna y 1 Znna I 1 I znn. z I. mne6 I • 1 1•I� ! I I I 1 - mnea I•I �•Zene3 7 Zone 3 Zone9 znn.2 •'Z . Zone Zone3 Zones TRI- CITIES AIRPORT Airport Safety Compatibility Zones MMW� Feet 0 1,100 2,200 1 inch = 1,100 feet Date: 9/62012 MEMORANDUM DATE: March 21, 2013 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Dave McDonald, City Planner SUBJECT: Park Fees (MF# CA2013 -002) The city has required new development to contribute to park development costs since 1980 when the first park fee adopted. The original $200 fee was modified in 1997 and replaced with a base fee of $450 that increased every year at the rate of 3.35 percent. The fee is currently $709 per dwelling. It wasn't until about 2000 that subdivision development reached a pace that warranted park construction. The Sunny Meadows Park on Robert Wayne Drive was the first neighborhood park built to serve the rapidly growing residential areas in the plateau area of the city west of Road 36. Since that time six other neighborhood parks have been constructed. Following the pattern started with the Sunny Meadows Park staff worked with the developers through the platting process to ensure larger subdivisions (160 acres or more) provided a park as a part of the plat. The park sites were identified on the preliminary plat and then dedicated to the city as the plat was developed. Typically the developer built all of the infrastructure around the park including the sidewalks. The developer also provided a sewer and water stub to each park site. The park land would then be dedicated to the city during the final platting process. Using the provision of the Code (PMC 26.20.040) that allow for a combination of land dedication and payment of a fee a reduced park fee was collect at the time permits were issued in addition to the dedication of land. The reduce fee were contained in the Planning Commission recommendations and included in the Council resolutions approving the preliminary plats. In one case it should be noted that the developer of the First Place subdivision elected to donate a park site and completely build the park with the finished landscaping and playground equipment. While the city has been successful for ensuring parks are being providing for with new development the Administrative and Community Services Department has indicated the annual fee increase has not kept pace with finished park improvement costs. The attached memo from the Administrative and Community Services Director provides an explanation of how the park fees are falling short. The director is suggesting the base fee i should be increased by $91 to more accurately reflect the cost for completing park improvements. Staff has scheduled a workshop for the Planning Commission meeting of March 21, 2013 to discuss this issue. Rick Terway, Director of the Administrative and Community Service Department will be present at the workshop to discuss the issue and need for a code amendment. Pa 1 1 Administrative & Community Service Department February 21, 2013 Memorandum To: Rick White, Community Development Director From: Rick Terway, Director A &� Subject: Park Impact fees Staff has looked at the impact fee used for park acquisition and development, the fee charged per house in 2013 is $709. In chapters 25 and 26 of the PMC 26.20.020 and 25.80.010 sets a base fee for the impact fee, this was set at $450 in 1999. The ordinance allows for a 3.25% increase per year, this has not kept pace with the cost of construction and increase in land prices. Staff evaluated the two most recent park construction projects which are shown on the attached spreadsheet. This confirms that the fee structure needs to be reevaluated. The impact fees are only used for acquisition and development none of these dollars are used for maintenance or replacement of equipment etc. As a comparison, staff checked to see where our fees stand in relation to the other cities in our area. The city of Richland current fees are $1,187 per household, Kennewick ranges from $400 to $1,000 per household and West Richland is currently at $860 per house hold. At the February 2013 Park and Recreation Board meeting the fees were discussed at length and as this is the major method of funding new parks, although the spreadsheet shows an average cost of $833, the board pass a motion unanimously to increase the base fee from $450 to $800, this equates to a $91 dollar increase over our current fee. The board also sighted the increased demand for more amenities at the new facilities.