Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-25-2013 Planning Commission PacketPLANNING REGULAR MEETING I. CALL TO ORDER: II. ROLL CALL: III. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: V. OLD BUSINESS: -AGENDA 7:00 P.M. April 25, 2013 Declaration of Quorum March 21, 2013 A. Special Permit Location of a temporary cellular antenna tower in a C -1 (Retail Business) Zone (AT&T Wireless c/o Vinculums) (MF# SP 2013 -004) VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS: A. Special Permit Location of a church in an R -2 District (Samuel Nunez) (MF# SP 2013 -003) (Continued from March 21, 2013 meetinel B. Special Permit Location of a church in a CR (Regional Commercial) Zone (World Life Christian Center) (MF# SP 2013 -005) C. Special Permit Location of a high school in a C -1 (Retail Business) Zoning District - Delta High (Pasco School District)(MF# SP 2013 -008) D. Code Amendment E. Code Amendment F. Plan VII. OTHER BUSINESS: VIII. WORKSHOP: IX. ADJOURNMENT: Airport Zoning Update (MF# CA 2013 -001) Park Fees Update (MF# CA 2013 -002) Auto Repair in Commercial Zones (MF# PLAN 2012 -006) REGULAR MEETING PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at 7:OOpm by Chairman Cruz. POSITION MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT No. 1 Michael Levin No. 2 Vacant No. 3 Andy Anderson No. 4 Alecia Greenaway No. 5 Joe Cruz No. 6 Vacant No. 7 Zahra Khan No. 8 Jana Kempf No. 9 Paul Hilliard APPEARANCE OF FAIRNESS: March 21, 2013 Chairman Cruz read a statement about the appearance of fairness for hearings on land use matters. Chairman Cruz asked if any Commission member had anything to declare. There were no declarations. Chairman Cruz 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: Chairman Cruz explained that state law requires testimony in quasi - judicial hearings such as held by the Planning Commission be given under oath or affirmation. Chairman Cruz swore in all those desiring to speak. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Anderson moved, seconded by Commissioner Greenaway, that the minutes dated February 28, 2013 be approved as mailed. The motion passed unanimously. OLD BUSINESS: A. Special Permit Location of a private bus terminal (Griselda Melendez) IMF# SP 2013 -002) Chairman Cruz 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. -1- Commissioner Anderson moved, seconded by Commissioner Greenaway, to adopt the findings of fact and conclusions therefrom as contained in the March 21, 2013 staff report. The motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Anderson moved, seconded by Commissioner Greenaway, 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. The motion passed unanimously. Mr. White explained that this will go to City Council at their next regular meeting unless an appeal is filed. B. Code Amendment Title 25 Code Revisions (Caretaker's Residencies) (MF# CA 2011 -0061 Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director, discussed the code amendment for Title 25 for the Pasco Municipal Code (PMC) related to caretaker's residencies. At the previous meeting the Planning Commission had and settled on a 30 percent ratio in terms of development around an area to apply to the applications for a caretaker's residence. Mr. white explained that previous discussion fostered a permanent structure in an area where only a caretaker's structure might be appropriate. Staff took a look at the proposed code language and wanted the Planning Commission to consider the use a recreational vehicle for a caretaker's residence rather than a site -set mobile home, which tends to become a permanent piece of property as opposed to something that could be started up and wheeled off. Staff presented two options to the Planning Commission, both including a recreational vehicle rather than a site -set mobile home. The difference between the two options would be the amount of development in the area of the caretaker's residency, either 30% developed or 40% developed. Commissioner Hilliard agreed with the direction staff was heading and preferred option 2, with 40% of development as the reasonable amount of development in an area for a caretaker's residency. He supported the concept of using a recreational vehicle to keep from having a permanent structure on site. Commissioner Anderson stated that he would prefer option 1, with 30% being the reasonable amount of development for the caretaker's residence. He did like the addition of the recreational vehicle. Commissioner Greenaway stated that she preferred option 2, with 40% development. Commissioner Kempf stated that she preferred option 1, with 30% development. She asked staff about a timeframe for the recreational vehicle to remain on site. Mr. White responded that a timeline would be based on the functionality of the recreational vehicle. If it connected to utilities it can be classified by the state as a -2- primary residence which would involve the timeframe in which a person lived in the recreational vehicle during the calendar year. Chairman Cruz responded that with the addition of the recreational vehicle provision he would lean towards development up to 40% because it is an issue that comes up a lot and being more generous in the amount of development would preclude people from wanting to push for establishing secondary residencies in the back of their businesses. It could perhaps be revisited in a couple of years if it doesn't work out. Mr. White added that there is a review built into the proposed language for every two years. The Planning Commission members were in agreement that 40% development would be reasonable. PUBLIC HEARINGS: A. Special Permit Location of a church in an R -1 District (Samuel Nunez) IMF# SP 2013 -003) Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Shane O'Neill, Planner I, discussed the special permit application for the location of a church in an R -1 Zoning District. Churches require review through the special permit process prior to locating within the community. The code requires one parking stall for every 10 lineal feet of bench seating. The church in question has 18 pews that are roughly 10 feet. There is sufficient area on site for the required parking. The primary condition is to pave the parking area and driveway approaches. The applicant was not at the public hearing but Mr. O Neill stated that he met with the applicant onsite. Chairman Cruz asked if the applicant is aware of the proposed approval conditions. Mr. O'Neill answered that a packet with the staff report had been mailed to the applicant. He had discussed many of the conditions with the applicant. Commissioner Anderson asked if the applicant was aware that he would have to do some paving as one of the conditions. Mr. O Neill answered that the applicant does know about the paving. With the costs being high the recommendation gives the church close to a year to make those improvements. Commissioner Hilliard asked if the goal is to get the whole parking lot paved. Mr. O Neill replied not necessarily. The requirement in the approval conditions is for 18 parking stalls. Chairman Cruz opened this item up for public hearing. QC1 Mary Howard, 304 N. Elm Avenue, spoke on behalf of this item. Ms. Howard voiced concern about the noise levels coming from the church from their events. On several occasions she has heard music from their events at night inside her home. Ms. Howard stated that she does not have a problem with them operating as a church as long as the noise level decreases and she hopes to see landscaping improvements. Chairman Cruz asked staff for clarification on rules for special events the church might hold. Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director, responded that churches and schools are still bound by the same regulations as everyone else, including the level of noise and how much noise they can make at a particular time. Should there be a noise complaint, at night especially; the best thing to do is to contact the 911 dispatch to send an officer to the location. Mr. Howard stated that she has contacted the Police Department in the past by contacting dispatch directly. Chairman Cruz stated that in these circumstances the Planning Commission can ask staff to remind the applicant about what the noise ordinance rules are. Noise levels can be factored in with their special permit renewal if they are troublesome and noisy. Since this is new ownership taking over the church a little more leeway may be given at first. Ms. Howard stated that she is unaware when the applicant took over the church but noise levels have increased as of last summer. Mr. White responded that staff would pass the concern on during the course of the permitting process and perhaps establish a condition that reiterates the noise conditions to make sure it's on paper. Chairman Cruz added that he would be good with adding a condition to address the noise. He asked staff how long the special permit was valid. Mr. White answered that a special permit once issued is specific to the property, meaning it is indefinite. Chairman Cruz asked the Planning Commission members if they would have an issue forcing a renewal on this particular special permit. The Planning Commissioners were all in agreement that a renewal should be a condition of this special permit. Ms. Howard asked a question about the alley by the church that frequently has cars driving up and down along with garbage cans the neighbors keep. She wanted to know if that is something the Planning Commission could look into. Chairman Cruz answered that as the applicant works with the building department to get their permit staff will look into street access appropriate to the lot not to rely on the alley for access. David McDonald, City Planner, replied that staff will further research the issue of the alley. With no further comments the public hearing closed. Commissioner Anderson had concern about moving forward with the special permit without the applicant being present at the public hearing. He would like to hear the applicant acknowledge the conditions and would like the public hearing to be continued. Commissioner Greenaway agreed with Commissioner Anderson in that the applicant needs to be present to comfortably move forward. Chairman Cruz stated he did not have a problem with continuing the public hearing. Commissioner Anderson moved, seconded by Commissioner Greenaway, to continue the public hearing until the April 25, 2013 Planning Commission Meeting. The motion carried with a 4 to 1 vote with Chairman Cruz dissenting. B. Special Permit Location of a temporary cellular antenna tower in a C -1 (Retail Business) Zone (AT &T Wireless c/o Vinculums) (MF# SP 2013 -0041 Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Shane O'Neill, Planner I, discussed the special permit for a temporary cellular antenna tower in a C -1 (Retail Business) Zone. The applicant is proposing to contain the antenna inside of an existing cell phone tower equipment enclosure on the TRAC property. The antenna is called a cell on wheels (COW). The "COW" would be towed in and stored behind a fence. This request allows AT &T to reserve licenses for 4G wave- length frequencies which would otherwise expire. They plan to erect a permanent 100' cell tower in the near future in which they will need to apply for a special permit. The temporary tower will be removed when the permanent tower is constructed. Commissioner Hilliard asked if the applicant is leasing the site for their temporary antenna. Mr. O'Neill answered that he would need to ask the applicant. The public hearing opened and the applicants spoke on behalf of their special permit. Ken Lyons of Busch Law Firm, 22525 SE 64th Place, Suite #288 Issaquah, WA 98027, spoke on behalf of this special permit application as legal counsel for AT &T. He briefly clarified the reason for AT &T needing a temporary -5- cellular antenna tower. AT &T is currently upgrading all of their sites in the Tri- Cities Area to the latest 4G technology called, LTE (Long -term Evolution). It provides 10 times the speed of 3G, essential for broadband data. They have to have the broadband service up and running by June 2013. This would then be removed within a year for the permanent facility to take its place. He answered Commissioner Hilliard that they are paying lease space from Franklin County for the site. Cynthia Sapp, 3301 Burke Ave N, Ste 1, Seattle, WA 98103 spoke on behalf of the special permit application. Commissioner Kempf asked how the temporary antenna, which is pictured on wheels, would be tied down to handle high winds in the area. Mr. Lyons answered that it would be tied down and they have very strict guidelines. With no further comments the public hearing closed. Chairman Cruz and the other Commissioners were in agreement that as long as the temporary cellular antenna came down when the permanent tower is constructed this would not be an issue. Commissioner Anderson moved, seconded by Commissioner Kempf, 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 City Council for the April 25, 2013 meeting. The motion passed unanimously. WORKSHOP: A. Code Amendment Airport Zoning Update (MF# CA 2013 -001) Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. David McDonald, City Planner, discussed the Airport Zoning Update. He explained that roughly every 10 years the Port of Pasco updates their master plan, which was just completed this past year. Within that plan expansion of the terminal and taxi- ways are discussed along with the need for expansion of one of the runways. When that expansion was identified staff from the City and County met with the Port of Pasco to begin the exercise of going through current zoning regulations to see how they would provide protection for the runway expansion. Current regulations in the zoning code were established in 1972 and have not been touched since that time and need to be reviewed. Mr. McDonald then introduced members of the Port of Pasco and they followed with a brief presentation. Randy Hayden, 3601 N. 20th Avenue, spoke on behalf of the Port of Pasco. He explained that the passenger numbers at the Tri - Cities Airport continues to increase there has been an increase in new airlines and an increase in the size of the planes. With the increased numbers and aircraft, larger terminals and runways are required as well as protection for the surrounding area. An update to the zoning code is necessary to allow proper growth and expansion to the airport and to ensure safety. The Port of Pasco has updated their Comprehensive Plan with the FAA and three things led to needing to change the zoning code: (1) Physical growth to the airport, such as runway extensions, (2) The FAA has updated their requirements for protection of the airspace and (3) WSDOT has updated their land use requiremets to protect against encroachment. Chuck Larsen, 3601 N. 20th Avenue, stated that the most significant item to look at is airspace protection and compatible land use. He discussed the disclosure statement in the ordinance that will be needed to remind owners that they are living under an airport and they may be subjected to noise, fumes and vibrations. WSDOT developed the "Airport and Compatible Land Use Guidebook" to assist local governments with this responsibility. The Planning Commission was asked to pay close attention to Section 25.82.090 of the Airport and Compatible Land Use Guidebook which establishes six zones tied to airport functions for the protection of the approach and departure zones for aircraft, turning movement areas near the ends of the runways and for general traffic patterns around the airport. The six zones contain a list of prohibited land uses. Current regulations do not contain specific airport safety zones. The Port of Pasco has communication with the City of Pasco to allow for solutions in non - compatible land use areas and will try to keep an awareness so that the airport can be protected and remain in Pasco since it is an important facility in the Tri- Cities. Commissioner Hilliard asked what was the largest plane that can land at the airport. Mr. Larsen answered that the airport is setup for nearly any plane except for the 747 or 777. The runways are a little short for a very heavy 757 which is one of the reasons an extension is needed. Chairman Cruz stated in 20 -50 years the Tri - Cities may be very different and the City will not want growth to surround the airport. Mr. Larsen stated the Port has looked out 50 years to see if they will need more runways and they have concluded they will not. Chairman Cruz asked how much change is anticipated in the zones due to new GPS technology. Mr. Larsen stated that has been factored into the plan. With new GPS technology more approaches will be possible due to increased precision. Mr. Larsen added that the Port is very comfortable with what has been occurring in the area. Commissioner Hilliard asked about the height of water towers. David McDonald, City Planner, responded that they are 158' -160' in height. Commissioner Hilliard asked if any water towers could be constructed in the airspace. Mr. Larsen answered that they could be constructed in the airspace as long as the Port is aware of the construction and location so that they can manage and take proper safety measures. dFA Chairman Cruz stated that he was in support of expansion of the airport and getting bigger planes. Commissioner Hilliard added that he would also like to see the facilities grow at the airport. Mr. Hayden stated that the Port has spoken with the School District and Columbia Basin College and both were in agreement that their plan is protecting the schools as well. Commissioner Anderson stated he supported what the Port was doing. It is needed for economic development efforts in the Tri- Cities. Mr. McDonald pointed out that the Planning Commission needed to be aware of 25.82.090, the section in the plan where there had been most discussion about the land use protection areas. Commissioner Kempf asked about one of the designated zoning land use, Zoning 2, regarding cell towers and remote controls and if those interfere with that zoning. Mr. McDonald replied that there were some towers in that area but they were alright as far as height was concerned. Jim Toomey, 3601 N. 20th Avenue, added that the towers and remotes don't interfere with the electronics of the planes as long as the airport is informed about their location in which is the importance of development to be communicated with the Port. Chairman Cruz stated that he did not have any problems with the plan. The Commissioners were in agreement. Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director, explained that staff will prepare a formal staff report and ordinance to bring to a public hearing at the meeting in April. B. Code Amendment Park Fees (MF# CA 2013 -0021 Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. David McDonald, City Planner, discussed the proposed park fees update. The city has had a park fee in place for many years. The original fee of $200 was modified in 1997 to $450 per dwelling which increased annually at 3.25 %. The fee is currently $709. Mr. McDonald explained the process used in the recent past to obtain a combination of park land and fees to acquire and develop neighborhood parks. The park sites are typically identified on the preliminary plat and dedicated to the city as plats are recorded. Developers build the entire infrastructure around the park including the sidewalks and sewer and water stubs to each park site and then dedicated the park with the filing of a final plat. A reduced park fee is then collected at the time permits are issued. While the city has successfully ensured park are provided with new development, the Administrative & Community Services Department has indicated the annual fee increase has not kept up with the costs of finished park improvements. M Rick Terway, Administrative & Community Services Director, briefly discussed the park fees update. He explained that construction and land costs which increased roughly 55 -65% in the same time that the park fees have increased 30 -35 %. The Park Commission feels that a new base fee needs to be set to match the rising construction costs. Mr. Terway made a comparison of the park fees stating that the City of Richland's current fees are $1,187 per household, the City of Kennewick's current fees range from $400 - $1,000 per household and the City of West Richland's current fees are at $860 per household. He stated that the Park & Recreation Board discussed the fees at length and made a motion to increase the base fee from $450 to $800. The board also cited the increased demand for more amenities at new park facilities. Commissioner Hilliard asked if these fees are only for new housing permits or for new developments. Mr. Terway answered that the fees are paid with each building permit that is issued. Commissioner Hilliard replied that his concern is that recently there have been several fee increases for building permits and in return less permits have been issued. The numbers for building permits this year have and if fees continue to increase he is concerned as to what it will do for new development. He believes that the City might need to look into alternative ways to generate money to pay for the development and upkeep of parks as the city might not always be able to rely on the development of new homes. Commissioner Greenaway was in agreement with Commissioner Hilliard. Since the School Impact Fee development has slowed down. She asked if there is a way to combine park money when new schools are built to create larger shared playgrounds with the schools and the neighborhoods. Mr. Terway responded that the city currently does share property and facilities with the School District however this cannot always happen as facilities need to be developed throughout the community. Kurtzman Park was used as an example that is shared with the School District and responsibilities are shared. Commissioner Kempf believed that the park fee was reasonable and still seems low compared to other cities in the area. Commissioner Anderson requested clarification for the amount of the base fee increase to $800. Mr. Terway stated that staff would like to request a base price of $1,500. The $800 would be sufficient if it didn't include streets and sidewalks. Commissioner Anderson stated that either way he is supportive of the park fee increase. Community and neighborhood parks are critical to the fabric of a neighborhood and are needed for quality life in Pasco. Chairman Cruz was in agreement with Commissioner Anderson. The parks are a big amenity, where the per capita income lags behind Kennewick and Richland substantially. In neighborhoods in Pasco there are many basketball hoops out in the streets and he would rather see the parks have higher standards and amenities to get kids out of the streets. He also agreed with the idea of starting the fee high and allowing the developers to reduce the fee by doing much of the work themselves. Having lived in the Sunny Meadows area he said that the park was nice but a little sparse and would like to see equipment and things to do such ask basketball hoops, soccer fields, a skate park, etc. With higher fees those are amenities that Pasco residents would like to see and could keep kids out of trouble. Commissioner Hilliard agreed with Chairman Cruz and mentioned the DNR property that the Planning Commission has discussed in previous meetings as a good time for the city to plan for parks in the community. Mr. Terway responded that a park is part of the preliminary site plan for that area adjacent to school. Chairman Cruz summed up that the Commissioners want to set park expectations high and with funding those expectations. Commissioner Hilliard asked a question about road development and why the developer isn't putting in the road infrastructure. Mr. White answered that at times the park might be at the edge of a subdivision as the park site might be possible to put in the middle of the subdivision. With the location on the edge of a subdivision the developer may not feel any responsibility to improve one or both sides of the road the city may have to finish that infrastructure. Mr. Terway added that if a street might have a land owner on each side of the street and each land owner has to develop their half of the street. If the park is on one half of the street then the city has to develop that half which is where the infrastructure cost comes from. With no further comments the workshop ended. OTHER BUSINESS: Rick White, Community &, Economic Development Director, stated that City Council will be appointing new Planning Commissioner's to fill vacant seats on April 1, 2013. Mr. White also reminded the Planning Commissioner's that the April Meeting is scheduled for April 25, 2013 since April 18, 2013 is the Volunteer Banquet. COMMENTS: With no further discussion or business, the Planning Commission was adjourned at 8:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Dave McDonald, City Planner 511111 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 BACKGROUND 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 '/4 of the northwest '/4, 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 -B 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 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 requested 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: (I) 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 may be permitted by special permit in all other zoning districts provided said structures are: OA (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 publiclu owned facilitu such as a water reservoir, fire station, police station school countu or port facility. (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 publiciy owned facility 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. 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. 3 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. 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. CONCLUSIONS BASED ON STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT Before recommending approval or denial of a special permit the Planning Commission must develop findings of fact from which to draw its conclusions based upon the criteria listed in P.M.C. 25.86.060. The criteria are as follows: (1) Will the proposed use be in accordance 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. (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. 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 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 for Findings of Fact: I move to adopt findings of fact and conclusions therefrom as contained in the April 25, 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 AT&T for the location of a temporary cellular tower at 6600 Burden Boulevard with conditions as listed in the April 25, 2013 staff report. Gan ■ • imm ■ U Z MONTGOME TOM Qn I V pA P 71 .� a 0 a ado W CA o a 0 C1003 � x N v� p ?IaAIOIL �MIO3 T NOUK3AN03 �W .� o �a .,� OWN O gOAj 68 N .I- I . IT - I - Pole Base r/ •Il:' t • r ` / 3 a !. r Orr y, Ii ! I , t1JS � �rrt QF 91 t�xy.� Y *ft i.tf�0y�i �1 L •J •, ' 3r NO t 4J ° i `rt s; , rl to � la rl to ru au .� 0 O a x 41 O/� w N O a rw H- I NO 0 0 P4 I i III 1 m r I REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION MASTER FILE NO: SP2013 -003 HEARING DATE: 4/25/13 ACTION DATE: 5/16/13 BACKGROUND REQUEST FOR SPECIAL PERMIT: 1. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: APPLICANT: Samuel Nunez 217 N. Douglas Ave. Pasco, WA 99301 Location of a Church in an R -2 District 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. 1 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 91 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 which shall be hard surfaced and striped. All driveways must be hard surfaced to meet city standards. The combination of the fore mentioned V paving conditions requires the entire parking area south of the church be fully paved. All parking lot and driveway improvements must be completed by June 30, 2014; 3) Driveways must be modified to meet current ADA standards. 4) The church shall comply with noise regulations pursuant to Chapter 9.61 of the Pasco Municipal Code; 5) 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 6) This special permit shall be null and void if a City of Pasco Occupancy Registration is not obtained by August 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 May 16, 2013 meeting. 5 IN milli ■ INS Bill I oil B I� 1-1 SHE IN. MOE MEMO MENEM NINE V19flo(l mommEN aAV KaMO AV Maaff Un owl E 0-115mml- 0 ;:4 Al �1111 ;Y .: . , . -y..:, � Wd .. 3 ' �" , .1 3 ® ti }f i a � �; �.. :- -- - I. � IT jlv ­ Ij '7- VI-I ti 31 F 71- OYI 9! 0 0 A to, I REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION MASTER FILE NO: SP 2013 -005 APPLICANT: World Life Christian Center HEARING DATE: 4/25/13 3315 W Court St ACTION DATE: 5/16/13 Pasco WA BACKGROUND REQUEST: SPECIAL PERMIT: Location of a church in a C -1 Zone. 1. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: Legal: Binding Site Plan 2011 -05, Lot 5. Location: 3315 W Court Street Property Size: Approximately 4.6 acres 2. ACCESS: The property has access from Court Street along the south property line. 3. UTILITIES: All utilities are available to the site. 4. LAND USE AND ZONING: The site is currently zoned CR (Regional Commercial). The site is developed with a 46,000 square -foot retail building. Surrounding properties are zoned and developed as follows: North R -S -12 (Suburban Residential) - SFDUs South C -3 (General Commercial) - Retail East C -1 (Retail Commercial) - Retail West CR (Regional Commercial) - Retail 5. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map designates this area for commercial uses. 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 Applicant/ current owner wishes to remodel the exterior of the 46,000 square - foot building and establish a church in the northern 2/3rd of the divided retail space, with existing store front retail spaces to be retained for commercial rental space. The church plans on dedicating about 6,800 square feet of the church space for a sanctuary with removable seating (see site plan). Churches are unclassified uses and require review through the special permit process prior to locating or expanding in any zoning district. When a building is changed from one occupancy class to another (from an "M" [Mercantile] to an "A" [Assembly] for example) the building is required to meet life /safety standards for the new occupancy classification. If a 6,800 square - foot portion with removable seating is devoted to sanctuary there will be enough square footage for up to 900 people to congregate. To meet the "A" occupancy requirements proper exiting, exit signage, emergency lighting, occupancy separation walls (between retail space and church space), additional restroom facilities and fire sprinklers may be required by the building code. These requirements are all based on the occupant load of the building. The "A" occupancy requirements of the building code have been developed from years of experience with places of assembly and have been enacted to promote the life, safety, and protection of people occupying churches and other gathering places. Another potential problem with a church locating in a commercial area is the fact that some retail establishments or restaurants sell or serve liquor. The issue is typically addressed by placing a condition on the Special Permit approval limiting the church's ability to object to a liquor license. The property is approximately 4.6 acres fronting Court Street along the south property line, with Agate Street on the rear property line to the north. It is developed with a 46,000 square -foot retail building formerly occupied by a Buttrey Market, then a Food Pavilion. The building is part of the Riverview Plaza strip mall with 20,500 square feet of divided retail spaces directly adjoining to the west and another 76,000 square -foot retail space at the west end of the development, currently being renovated by Goodwill Industries for use as a thrift store. The Food Pavilion store moved to the east side of Highway 395 in 1996 leaving the building vacant or underutilized for many years. Since that time the building has had a series of owners that have tried to revitalize the building and adjoining strip center. Most recently (2011 -2012) General Advertising Agency converted the building to a market style retail space. This effort has largely been unsuccessful. General Advertising Agency gave up this effort in 2012 when the property was deeded to an investment group which in turn sold the property to another investment group who again sold the property to the World Life Church after owning the property for only nine months. The property was annexed to the City in 1979, at which time it was zoned C -1- D (Designed Shopping Center). The property has since been rezoned to C -1 2 (Retail Commercial) and in 2003 to CR (Regional Commercial) with a concomitant agreement containing two conditions, as follows: A. The following uses shall be prohibited: 1) Amusement game centers, recreation centers or similar uses; 2) The use of outdoor speakers and public announcement systems of any kind; B. The following design controls shall apply to these properties: 1) All outdoor lighting must be strictly shielded to prevent lighting from encroaching on adjoining residential property; 2) All new development and site improvements shall comply with the 1 -182 Corridor Design Standards as identified in P.M.C. 25.58 as existing and hereafter amended; The referenced zoning changes were an effort to help the property and adjoining strip center redevelop. Although the CR zoning broadened the allowable uses on the property it had little impact toward effectuating a positive change for the Riverview Plaza and the property in question. The old Buttrey's /Food Pavilion building and parking lot were developed in 1980 prior to the initial landscaping standards that appeared in the zoning regulations in 1982. The site has ample parking for the proposed use. The parking lot does contain some perimeter landscaping, but lacks any interior landscaping; particularly in the landscaping islands at the end of each row of parking. The eastern margin of the parking lot is also an undeveloped strip of weeds, dirt and debris. As a part of their remodel requirements General Advertising Agency signed a development agreement that provided a timeline for upgrading the parking lot landscaping based on the percentage of the building occupied. That agreement expires on June 1, 2013. However through the Special Permit process the Planning Commission has the latitude of conditioning the approval of the special permit to include parking lot landscaping improvements and improvement of the undeveloped strip along the eastern margin of the parking lot. The building on the site has been vacant or underutilized for about 17 years. In that time it has passed through five different owners some of which retained professional marketing agents to restore the building and adjoining strip center to a fully leased and functioning commercial center. The leasing agents have been unsuccessful and the building has generally been neglected with respect to exterior maintenance. Any improvements needed on the building are to comply with the design standards contained in PMC 25.58. These standards were included as a condition when the property was rezoned from C -1 to CR in 2003. These conditions can also be included in the Special Permit conditions with specific requirements to soften the color scheme and restore the facade to a more appealing commercial look. 3 STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT Findings of Fact must be entered from the record. The following are initial Findings drawn from the background and analysis section of the staff report. The Planning Commission may add Findings to this listing as the result of factual testimony and evidence submitted during the open record hearing. 1. The site was annexed by the City of Pasco in 1979 (Ordinance #2066). 2. The site was originally zoned C -1 -D. 3. The site was rezoned from C -1 to CR in 2003 (Ordinance #3620) and has been zoned CR for approximately 9 years. 4. The site and adjoining strip center were zoned CR in 2003 to broaden the types of commercial uses permissible on the property in an effort to help revitalize the commercial viability of the Riverview Plaza. 5. The CR rezone included a condition that all new development and site improvements shall comply with the 1 -182 Corridor Design Standards as identified in P.M.C. 25.58 as existing and hereafter amended. 6. The site borders CR, C -1 and RS -12 Zones to the west, east and north, respectively. 7. The RS -12 area to the north is developed with single - family homes. 8. The Comprehensive Plan designates the site for commercial uses. 9. The site is developed with a 46,000 square -foot retail building. 10. The site has ample parking for the proposed use. 11. This building has been vacant or underutilized for approximately 17 years. 12. The building has been owned by five different investment groups or development companies and World Life Christian Center over the past 17 years. 13. World Life Christian Center purchased the property in March of 2013. 14. World Life Christian Center is requesting a Special Permit for the location of a church in the northern 2/3rd of the building at 3315 West Court Street. 15. World Life Christian Center plans to retain the existing retail store fronts for commercial retail activities. 16. The parking lot landscaping does not conform to current standards. 17. The eastern margin of the property is undeveloped and consists of weeds, debris and bare ground. CONCLUSIONS BASED ON INITIAL STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT The Planning Commission must make Findings of Fact based upon the criteria listed in P.M.C. 25.86.060. The criteria and staff listed findings are as follows: 0 (1) Will the proposed use be in accordance with the goals, policies, objectives and text of the Comprehensive Plan? The site is identified in the Comprehensive Plan for Commercial use. The Commercial Land Use designation includes all commercial uses listed in the CR zones. Landscaping improvements may be required as part of the permitting process. The proposed use as a church is not specified for the CR Zoning district but may be allowed in any zoning district with a special permit. (2) Will the proposed use adversely affect public infrastructure? The public infrastructure surrounding this property was installed to support the original retail nature of the property. The proposed redevelopment of the interior space for a church will not have an adverse effect on public infrastructure. (3) Will the proposed use be constructed, maintained and operated to be in harmony with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity? Re- occupying the building and putting it to some beneficially use will assist in arresting the declining appearance of the property. While churches are allowable in any zoning district the intended character of the area is regional -scale sales and services. By retaining the commercial retail store fronts in the building the general character of the general vicinity will be maintained. (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? Surrounding properties are fully developed with the exception of the commercially zoned property to the east. As well, no new structures are proposed. Applicant is proposing a remodel of interior space and redo portions of the recent exterior modifications. The retail rental space fronting the parking lot will remain. (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? 5 The building will retain a commercial appearance with retail rental space in the southern 1 /3rd of the building facing the parking lots and Court Street. Church activities will occur for a few hours on Sunday morning when surrounding commercial activity is minimal and one or two nights a week during the evening hours. The proposed use will be no more objectionable by reason of noise, fumes, vibrations, dust, traffic, or flashing lights than uses permitted in the CR District. Auto and RV sales and service for example could create more noise and vibrations than the proposed church use. (6) Will the proposed use endanger the public health or safety if located and developed where proposed, or in any way will become a nuisance to uses permitted in the district? The proposed use will occur for only a few hours each week and will not endanger the public health or safety any more than uses permitted in the CR District. TENTATIVE APPROVAL CONDITIONS 1. The special permit shall apply to Parcel No. 119 271 020. 2. The space leased to the church must maintain compliance with all requirements of the International Building Code for an "A" occupancy; 3. The building fagade must comply with the 1 -182 Corridor Design Standards as identified in P.M.C. 25.58 according to the CR rezone concomitant agreement, and be architecturally consistent with the Goodwill Industries remodel at the west end of the complex. Prior to facade repainting and modification plans must be submitted and approved by the Community and Economic Development Director. 4. The building, including entrances and restrooms, must be ADA /handicap compliant; 5. Occupancy of the building for church purposes is contingent upon continued compliance with all conditions listed above; 0 6. 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; 7. A landscape plan must be submitted and approved by the Community and Economic Development Director. 8. Landscaping islands meeting PMC 25. 75. 070 standards must be installed at the ends of all rows of parking; 9. The existing landscaped islands near the Court Street entrance must be re- landscaped /restored to standards contained in PMC 25. 75. 070; 10. All landscape islands, beds and buffers must contain automated irrigation systems. 11. The eastern margin of the property must be cleaned of all debris and weeds and landscaped to standards contained in PMC 25. 75; 12. The driveway entrances shall be reconstructed to meet current ADA requirements. 13. The special permit shall be null and void if a building permit has not been obtained by June 1, 2014. 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 18, 2013 Planning Commission meeting. 7 Ilowl" Al Eo min R I Q •�5 fn I1 ✓� Y` v �`�` ^•l I! o y Lam¢" ii M, I � 1 i t a.�'�rs+• u � s . 111 �J ll 6s' i`. l m. . �l a awe t ` �i asstt y a L =� W :k Tit -, IF u , Y 6 U vE avow L ` .nt 4 ' 1aµ t LNLL 3 F 1 � ■, �� �- �- � -� �- �� �� �� �� �� �� ��� �� �� �� _ �� � .... �� � � �� - ■ �_ - �� j �_ �� ii � � � ,- �� � � �� ::..� - _ � • �: ..� � ��� � . _ 1 ii � __ �, �� �� �� �� � � ���� � ��� �.. �� � �� �� �� �� �� �� � �� �� � ! ' __ � �� � ■ �� ; �� � _ ■ .... • : �� � � • ' ' �� ■ _ i i� ii .. � � � � � � - � _ - -__- � ' ��� � X11 � , �� � ..... __ , 0 rs 4k H[H -rGw F'I.BG,16.Z0 C 1 2 Ou - c>z wl u A_ I w w r rl I u «e x UFXA 2)C.J,OIm, 9 N 3 N J _ U 0� 5 r 3 >x S 6 Nm T rcXx By m O Y ���, v'SVOW% !l 4180$ ti 0311V'IdNft N � mNv oaN IIn I � i� M LO.IaL65 m :p m� S3LJY tL'0 .a z +' �; 9 10'7 •vr > �a$ ,C656 u�r BY:B I •. ` Q r 1 1 u,coox .`' r. oaoQS rs'te - 7J 3..!106 Iiiilii _ Y 0 rs 4k H[H -rGw F'I.BG,16.Z0 C 1 2 Ou - c>z wl u A_ I w w r rl I u «e x UFXA 2)C.J,OIm, 9 N 3 N J _ U 0� 5 r 3 >x S 6 Nm T rcXx By m O Y ���, v'SVOW% !l V m � i� A r Sg W LLJ W �wo , 1� sI U� »r IS E-1 m � i `. ,- r I .� �.-., r. _.•'..ICI ly i� � . 1 a� i {3QLY 09) 9E 4V0ti vii AYM MY_ "3m�'1 2 V m � i� A r Sg W LLJ W �wo , 1� sI U� »r IS E-1 m � i `. ,- r I .� �.-., r. _.•'..ICI ly i� � . 1 a� i {3QLY 09) 9E 4V0ti vii AYM MY_ "3m�'1 meavm ads asivis m ■mot "_, I n m Ego ■t� _ ~� - - ���� . ■k� § ■ •~ a & , � a Im m \� 3 - � § � O bA O O i y I w bA .y; O O t«` �y i i t� °: O bIJ O O I .�i REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION MASTER FILE NO: SP 2013 -008 APPLICANT: Pasco School District No. 1 HEARING DATE: 4/25/13 1215 W Lewis St ACTION DATE: 5/16/13 Pasco WA BACKGROUND REQUEST: SPECIAL PERMIT: Location of a high school in a C -1 Zone. 1. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: Legal: Lot 1, Binding Site Plan 2002 -05, except that portion deeded for Lot 2, Binding Site Plan 2003 -09, Location: A 6.3 acre parcel on the east side of Broadmoor Blvd. approximately 210 feet north of the intersection with Sandifur Parkway (Parcel ID #115 430 161). Property Size: Approximately 6.3 acres 2. ACCESS: The property has access from Broadmoor Blvd. along the west property line. 3. UTILITIES: All utilities are available to the site. 4. LAND USE AND ZONING: The site is currently zoned C -1 (Retail Commercial). The site is vacant. Surrounding properties are zoned and developed as follows: North R -3 (Medium Density Residential) - Condos South C -1 (Retail Commercial) -Office East C -1 (Retail Commercial) -Office West RT (Residential Transition) - Vacant 5. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map designates this area for commercial uses. The proposed use is a high school. Goal OF -5 suggests adequate provisions should be made for educational facilities throughout the urban growth area. Policy -5 -A encourages the appropriate location and design of schools throughout the community. 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 Applicant wishes to build a small, regional public high school building for Delta High School, where students will focus on science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) as integral elements of all subject matter. According to a district spokesperson, the School District has seen great academic growth in the students participating in the Delta School STEM program, and it is a nationally recognized prototype that may be replicated by other school districts around the country. Pasco is the "home district' in which the Delta School will be built. The Pasco School District will therefore be responsible for the construction and operation of the school with support from the other districts. High schools are listed as unclassified uses in the Pasco Municipal Code Title 25 (Zoning). Unclassified uses may be permitted in any zoning district following a review through the Special Permit process. The proposed site, approximately 6.3 acres of land fronting Broadmoor Boulevard, is currently vacant and is located near the geographic center of the Tri- Cities at the Road 100 /13roadmoor interchange, for exceptional access to Kennewick and Richland. The proposed school campus would include a 45,000 square -foot multi -story (Average height 35 feet; highest peak 38 feet) structure finished with concrete masonry veneer and precast concrete panels, student plaza amenities, visitor parking and a bus drop- off /pick -up zone in the front, a parent drop off zone in the rear, parking for at least 120 vehicles and all required utilities and landscaping. The school would accommodate up to 400 students and 70 teachers and staff. The site is smaller than typical high schools because there are no extra - curricular sports, music or other programs. The Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation manual indicates that a high school with 45,000 square feet of floor space could generate an average of 580 vehicle trips per weekday. By comparison, a 45,000 square -foot office park might generate slightly less traffic at 514 trips per weekday, while a specialty retail center of the same size has the potential of generating an average of 1,994 vehicle trips per weekday. Thus traffic impacts from the proposed high school would not be substantially different than a comparable office park but would be far less than a specialty retail center, both uses currently allowed in the C -1 Zone. 2 It is also important to note that a majority of the students will leave the school grounds well before the pm peak traffic time. Furthermore, even though the morning traffic to the school may overlap the am peak traffic, the school traffic will generally be going in the opposite direction. Finally, as the school will not be open 12 months of the year, its impact on surrounding properties would be lighter than currently permitted uses such as an office park or retail facility which are customarily open year- round. Based on the code requirement of $42 per vehicle trip, the traffic impact fee for the proposed school would be approximately $24,362. STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT Findings of Fact must be entered from the record. The following are initial Findings drawn from the background and analysis section of the staff report. The Planning Commission may add Findings to this listing as the result of factual testimony and evidence submitted during the open record hearing. 1. The site is vacant. 2. The site was annexed by the City of Pasco in 1982 (Ordinance #2388). 3. The site is zoned C -1. 4. The site is located at the Road 100 /13roadmoor interchange near the geographic center of the Tri- Cities. 5. Delta High School is a regional educational facility serving three school districts in the region. 6. Schools are unclassified uses and require review through the special permit process prior to permitting for construction. 7. The site is within the city limits of Pasco. 8. The site borders an R -3 zoning district to the north, C -1 zoning districts to the east and south, and an RT Zoning district to the west. 9. The R -3 area to the north is developed with the Mediterranean Villas Condominiums. 10. The Comprehensive Plan designates the site for commercial uses. 11. Comprehensive Plan Goal OF -5 suggests that adequate provisions should be made for the location of educational facilities throughout the urban growth area. 12. The Pasco School District enrollment has grown from 8,048 in 1997 to 15,633 in the 2011 -2012 school year. 13. No extracurricular activities, such as sports or music will be sponsored on campus. 14. The school will be closed during the evening hours, weekends, summer break and various school holidays. 15. Commercial activities permitted on the site under the current zoning classification would permit business that could remain open on the weekends and well into the evening hours, year- round. 3 16. The Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation manual indicates that a high school with 45,000 square feet of floor space could generate an average of 580 vehicle trips per weekday. 17. Office parks and specialty retail centers with 45,000 square feet generate an average of 514 trips and 1,994 vehicle trips per weekday, respectively. 18. Traffic impacts from the proposed high school would be comparable to an office park and far less than a retail center, both uses currently allowed in the C -1 Zone. CONCLUSIONS BASED ON INITIAL STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT The Planning Commission must make Findings of Fact based upon the criteria listed in P.M.C. 25.86.060. The criteria and staff listed findings are as follows: (1) Will the proposed use be in accordance with the goals, policies, objectives and text of the Comprehensive Plan? The site is identified in the Comprehensive Plan for Commercial use. School uses are allowed in all districts with the issuance of a special permit. The proposed use supports goal CF -5 that suggests adequate provisions be made for educational facilities throughout the Urban Growth Area. Transportation and utility policies support city standards that require the extension of streets and utilities in conjunction with development. (2) Will the proposed use adversely affect public infrastructure? The public infrastructure surrounding this property was installed to support the original retail nature of the property. The traffic impacts of a high school with 45,000 square feet of floor space would be comparable to or less than uses currently permitted in the C -1 zoning district. The traffic impact fees were designed to help mitigate traffic impacts to the circulation system resulting from new development. The school will be contributing to the cost of future needed intersection improvements in the area as the result of paying the traffic impact fees. (3) Will the proposed use be constructed, maintained and operated to be in harmony with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity? The intended character of the general vicinity is commercial retail, including high - traffic uses such as restaurants; the impact of a high rd school with 45,000 square feet of floor space would not be significantly different than those uses currently permitted in the C -1 zoning district. (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 45,000 square -foot building is less than 35 feet tall. The residential property to the north is fully developed with condominiums; the R -3 zoning to the north was intended as a buffer between the C -1 and the less intensive R -1 to the north. Properties to the east and south are partially developed with commercial and office uses, and would benefit somewhat from the added landscaping which would be required as part of the development requirements of the proposed Delta School project. As no extracurricular activities are planned in conjunction with this school, and because students will be bussed or driven to and from the school from around the region, the impact of the school on surrounding properties is not expected to be significantly different than those currently allowed in the C -1 zone. The school will not being open evenings, weekends or during the summer. This major difference would provide a benefit to the neighborhood to the north. (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? As no extracurricular activities are planned in conjunction with this school, and because students will be bussed or driven to and from the school from around the region, the impact of the school on surrounding properties is not expected to be significantly different than those currently allowed in the C -1 zone. (6) Will the proposed use endanger the public health or safety if located and developed where proposed, or in any way will become a nuisance to uses permitted in the district? The school will be constructed to meet all requirements of the International Building Code, the fire code, the plumbing code, all other construction codes and state regulations pertaining to school E construction. The building will be required to have fire -rated corridors, area separation walls, sufficient exiting and fire sprinkler systems to ensure the safety of the public. The construction of sidewalks and street improvements will address pedestrian and traffic safety issues. TENTATIVE APPROVAL CONDITIONS 1. The special permit shall apply to Parcel No. 115 430 161. 2. The school site shall be developed in substantial conformity with the site plan and building elevations submitted with the special permit application. 3. The School District shall prepare a dust control mitigation plan to be submitted with the building permit application. 4. The school district shall prepare a traffic study and modified traffic management plan for the anticipated traffic to and from the proposed school site to determine the need for additional right -of -way improvements. The traffic management plan should include a parking lot circulation plan for the proposed parking lot. The traffic study and management plan must be completed and submitted to the City Engineer prior to issuance of a building permit and may result in additional conditions or requirements related to the school construction. 5. All street improvements recommended in the traffic study, including traffic signals, must be constructed in conjunction with the construction of the school. 6. The School District shall pay the traffic mitigation fee in effect at the time a building permit is issued. 7. All street /roadway signage abutting the property is to be provided by the School District and must conform to the most current MUTCD & City of Pasco Construction Standards. 8. All costs associated with speed reduction/ modification including but not limited to flashing lights, signage, pedestrian sensors, safety and crosswalks shall be paid for by the School District. 9. Sidewalks in the Road 100 /Broadmoor right -of -way abutting the school property shall be 7 feet in width. 3 10. A landscaping and screening plan approved by the Planning Department shall be required as part of the building permit application. 11. The School District shall construct a 6 -foot tall block sound wall between the proposed school and the residential properties to the north, as per PMC 25.75. 12. The School District shall not object to the issuance of a liquor license within 1,000 feet of the school site. 13. The special permit shall be null and void if a building permit has not been obtained by January 1, 2015. 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 May 16, 2013 Planning Commission meeting. 7 ■ ■'� _� jai • ��� � � ■iii � . w m low � ` �� � ``■■' rte ■ '' mall sa rNm AT rw w e um • ■ IN row, r� ?M .• PM tw e e wail' w � s r� ME .. P r I �'= ■. o= 1 ■" ■■ 11111111 � I ■ ■■ 111111 � , 1 . ��•_ ■ ... • 1,, ■.�. a �� Elm NI (INVIGIVY CO • ■ ■ IIIII � J O � v va � _ N O W d W 4 6 ®,31. may}.y , ®i �a w M ,4 EMENNES4 ktm �E< i F a tOI �FiY Z x` e W � " z c f� al v 4 F 0 va 0 I !''! :II.!� dllllllllfil' Ii 'i �' � �■ EM iG iii MEN INN IN AM � t R: I S f u Y I i y a ) 1 n+ �+• ' �� ham/!,`:`% .1, i I " •' , jig t j x t4 l: rr . r jI. 44 .f n � rAr r ` . (A f tt r" �.,v w i i r � T� V1 bA O O - -_ .� .} �, �� r, ri ', '�,' �; E. ,� R �� . GA .� O O �,�� MEMORANDUM DATE: April 25, 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 8s 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 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 as recommended in the WSDOT "Airport and Compatible Land Use Guidebook ". A public hearing has been schedule for the Planning Commission meeting of April 25, 2013 to consider the proposed code amendments. Findings of Fact 1) The Tri- Cities Airport is the 4th largest airport in the State of Washington based on passenger enplanements. 2) The Tri- Cities Airport is an important transportation facility serving southeastern Washington and Northeastern Oregon 3) The current airport zoning regulations were adopted in 1972. 4) Approximately every 10 years the Port of Pasco updates the Airport Master Plan. The most current Master Plan was completed in 2012. 5) Among other changes the 2012 Airport Master Plan calls for a 1,200 foot extension of Runway 12 to the northwest. 6) Residential development is already occurring to the northeast of the airport. 7) Through State planning and airport laws (RCW 36.70.547 8s RCW 14.12.030) communities with airports are required to develop regulations that limit structure heights and control land uses adjacent to airports. 8) The current airport zoning regulations lack airport safety compatibility zones as recommended in the WSDOT "Airport and Compatible Land Use Guidebook ". Recommendation MOTION: I move the Planning Commission adopt the Findings of Fact as contained in the April 25, 2013 staff memo on the Airport Zoning update. MOTION: I move the Planning Commission recommend the City Council adopt the proposed Code Amendment updating the Airport zoning regulations under PMC chapter 25.81. K ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO Z.,ONING AND AMENDING PMC TITLE 25 I31' REPEALING ( "IJAPTER 25.81 AND CREATING A NEW CIIAPTF,R 25.81 DLALING WITH AIRPORT PROTLIC11ON ZONES AND RELATED PROVISIONS. WHEREAS, cities have the responsibility- to manage physical development within their borders and to ensure public health, safety and welfare are maintained; and, WHEREAS, the Tri- Cities Airport is located within the City of Pasco; and, WHEREAS, the updated (2012) Tri- Cities Airport Master Plan identifies airport improvements necessary to accommodate an increasing population base and travel demands for the Tri -City region; and, WHEREAS, the Tri - Cities Airport Master Plan includes a 1,200 foot extension to runway 12 to the northwest which will impact land use and development to the northwest of the airport; and, WHEREAS, State planning and airport laws (RCW 36.70.547 & RCW 14.12.030) require communities with airports to develop regulations that limit structure heights and control land uses adjacent to airports; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public meeting on April 25, 2013 and to consider development regulations for areas surrounding the airport and made a recommendation that the City Council amend PMC Title 25 by repealing Chapter 25.82 "Airport Zoning" and replacing the same with a new Chapter 25.81 "Airport Overlay District "; and, WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that to further the purposes of maintaining the integrity of the Tri -City Airport, it is necessary to amend PMC Title 25; NOW THEREFORE, . THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASCO, WASHINGTON, DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That Chapter 25.82 entitled " AIRPORT ZONING" of the Pasco Municipal Code be and the same is hereby repealed in its entirety: Section 2. That a new Chapter 25.81 entitled "AIRPORT OVERLAY DISTRICT" of the Pasco Municipal Code be and the same is hereby enacted to read as follows: 1 CHAPTER 25.81 AIRPORT OVERLAY DISTRICT 25.81.010 PURPOSE 25.81.020 AIRPORT OVERLAY DISTRICT 25.81.030 AUTHORITY 25.81.040 APPLICABILITY 25.81.050 DEFINITIONS 25.81,060 HEIGHT LIMITATION ZONES 25.81.070 HEIGHT LIMITATIONS 25.81.080 USE RESTRICTIONS 25.81.090 AIRPORT SAFETY COMPATIBILITY ZONES 25.81.100 GENERAL REVIEW PROCEDURES 25.81.110 DISCLOSURE 25.81.010 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. 25.81.020. AIRPORT OVERLAY DISTRICT. There is hereby created an airport overlay district as identified in the map made a part hereof and labeled Tri- Cities Airport Future Part 77 Zones Map dated and the Airport Safety Compatibility Zones map, as established by the current Tri- Cities Airport Master Plan. All lands lying within the zones therein shown within the city limits of Pasco are subjected to the building and use restrictions within this chapter. This chapter shall be used in addition to and in combination with all other district and development regulations contained in this title. 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. 2 25.81.030. 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. 25.81,040. 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. 25.81.050. 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 25.81.060. 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 25.81.110 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. 0 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. 2 INFILL: Development designed to occupy scattered vacant parcels of land which remain after the majority of development 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 25.81.070. 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. 25.81.060 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 5 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 (200) 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 I 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. 25.81.070 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 7 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'). 25.81.080 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 25.81.060 shall be conditioned to require their removal within 90 days of discontinuance of use. 25.81.090 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 -181 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- R made wetlands shall not be allowed within the Inner Approach /Departure Zone. All new infill residential development must include the disclosure statement in Chapter 25.81.110 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 25,81.110 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 25.81.110 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 25.81.110 on plats, short plats and binding site plans. 25.81.110: 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 25.81.070 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 25.81.090 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. LA 25.81.120 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 25.81,060 or 25.81.090. "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." Section 3. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect five days after passage and publication as required by law. PASSED by the City Council of the City of Pasco, at its regular meeting of , 2013. Matt Watkins Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: Debra L. Clark Leland B. Kerr City Clerk City Attorney lLI 71 ' 1O R 760' co W I— Z �O ON S 0- Of CO W d _H W Of . U- r r n u { 5 _ LL O S M O aon N N � O - N N II U 0- r 12 4 .-- ----- -- cn r ' .Y I cu CL �1\ E i (n O LU CU j (n Q s a N J'r O _ _ N t a iv O Immp � m � N a.�31N tr - J f OyY MEMORANDUM DATE: April 25, 2013 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Dave McDonald, City Planner SUBJECT: Park Fees (MF# CA 2013 -002) During the workshop of March 21, 2013 the Planning Commission heard a report for the Director of Community and Administrative Services about the need to amend the municipal code with respect to the park fees. 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 current fee structure has not kept pace with finished park improvement costs. As was explained on March 21, 2013 the current fee is approximately half of what is needed to cover the cost of developing a neighborhood park within a subdivision with 600 to 700 dwelling units. The attached spread sheet prepared by the Director Community and Administrative Services highlights park development costs over the past several years. The Director is suggesting the park fee should increase to $1,500 per dwelling unit to more accurately cover the costs for new park development. In addition modifying the park fee there is also a need to restructure the format of the park fee code by consolidating the park fee with other development impact fees (traffic and schools) that are found in Title 3, under Revenue and Finance. Consolidating the park fee with the other impact fees will require repeal of the park fee chapters in both the zoning (25.80) and subdivision regulations (26.20). The proposed code will establish a new Chapter 3.133 -1 for park impact fees. The proposal contains a purpose statement and various sections that impose a park impact fee, provide definitions, explain applicability, explain exemptions and explain how the inclusion of certain parks and recreation features incorporated into new developments can off -set or reduce the impact fee. The proposed code amendment may need to be coordinated with changes in PMC Chapter 3.29 dealing with the park fund and park districts. As a result the proposed impact fee regulations could be changed or modified slightly over the next few months. As a public hearing has been set for April 25, 2013 to consider this matter staff is recommending the hearing be conducted to provide staff with direction on the proposal and then closed with no action. Staff is not requesting action at this time because coordination is needed with other code revisions related to park districting. The impact fee works in tandem with Chapter 3.29 of the Municipal Code and any changes in the park fee code should be coordinated with updates in Chapter 3.29. Staff will schedule one or more workshops for the purpose of reviewing additional code changes in the near future and then follow up with scheduling a final hearing. It is anticipated that a new hearing will be schedule for early summer. Recommendation Motion: I move to close the public hearing on the proposed park fee code amendment. z Proposed Code CHAPTER 3.133 -1 PARK IMPACT FEES 3.133 -1.010 PURPOSE ............................................................. ............................... 1 3.133 -1.020 FINDINGS ...................................................... ..............................1 3.133 -1.030 IMPOSITION OF PARK IMPACT FEE ........... ............................... 1 3.133 -1.030 APPLICABILITY ............................................. ..............................1 3.133 - 1.040 EXEMPTIONS ................................................. ..............................2 3.133 -1.050 DEFINITIONS ................................................ ..............................2 3.133 -1.060 IMPACT FEE REDUCTION ............................ ............................... 3 3.133 -1.010 PURPOSE. The purpose of this Chapter is to ensure new residential development contributes a proportionate share to the capital costs necessary to provide parks, recreational open space and related amenities for residents of the City of Pasco. It is further the intent of this chapter to assist in the implementation of the City's Park, Recreation and Forestry Plan and Capital Facilities Plan. 3.133 -1.020 FINDINGS. The City Council finds and determines that residential development within the city will create additional demand and need for parks, recreation and open space within the city. The City Council further finds the city does not have sufficient resources to meet anticipated park and recreation needs created by new residential growth and that said growth should pay a proportionate share of the costs of park, recreation and open space facilities needed to serve new growth. It is the intent that the provisions of this Chapter shall be liberally construed to effectively carry out the purposes of the Council in establishing this impact fee. 3.133 -1.030 IMPOSITION OF PARK IMPACT FEE. A park impact fee as provided in PMC 3.07.240 is hereby imposed for the City of Pasco and is required for all new residential development. The park impact fee must be paid prior to the issuance of a building permit. Compliance with the provisions of this chapter is required prior to the issuance of a building /development permit authorizing construction of a residential park (mobile home park) in accordance with Title 19 and Chapter 25.40 (RP Zone). The total impact fee shall be based on the number of mobile home spaces to be authorized under the permit. 3.133 -1.030 APPLICABILITY. The park impact fee as provided in PMC 3.07.240 applies to all new residential development within the City of Pasco regardless of geographic location. 1 3.133 -1.040 EXEMPTIONS. The provisions of this chapter shall not apply to the following: (1) Rebuilding of lawfully established dwelling unit(s) destroyed or damaged by fire, flood, explosion, act of nature, or other accident or catastrophe; provided, that such rebuilding takes places within one (1) year after destruction and provided no additional dwelling units are created; (2) Alteration, expansion, reconstruction, remodeling, or rebuilding of existing single - family dwellings, multifamily dwelling units, factory assembled dwellings and mobile homes; provided, no additional dwelling units are created; (3) Condominium projects in which existing dwelling units are converted into condominium ownership and where no new dwelling units are created. (4) Construction of residential accessory structures. (5) Installation of individual mobile homes or recreational vehicles within a residential park. 3.133 -1.050 DEFINITIONS. For purposes of this Chapter, the following terms shall have the indicated meanings: DEDICATED PARK LAND means a 5 acre parcel dedicated to the city with approval of a final plat and containing the adjoining infrastructure improvements. FULLY DEVELOPED NEIGHBORHOOD PARK means dedicated park land that is developed with lawn, an irrigation system, pathways, trees, playground equipment, ball courts and sun shelters according to a plan approved by the city prior to construction. INFRASTRUCTURE means curb, gutter, sidewalks, handicap ramps, street lights, fire hydrants, storm drainage facilities, road base, road pavement to the center line of the street, street signs, provisions for electrical power, one water stub and one sewer stub, site rough grading and hydro seeding for dust control. NEW RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT means the construction or placement of, single - family site built dwellings, factory assembled dwellings including mobile homes and multi - family dwellings within the City of Pasco. Included within this definition are the terms residential subdivision, apartment complex and residential park. OPEN RECREATION AREA means areas of land, at least improved with lawn and irrigation, intended and designed for unorganized, passive or active recreation and may include minor recreation improvements such as children's playground equipment and children's wading pool, provided such minor improvements do not occupy more than half (1/2) of the total open recreation area. Open recreation areas must equal at least 100 square feet of area for each dwelling unit within the development. Open recreation Ed area shall not include parking lots; driveways and other automobile- oriented areas or recreation improvement areas and swimming pools as defined herein. PARK IMPACT FEE means a payment of a fee imposed upon new residential development as a condition of development approval to pay for a proportionate share of the costs to provide park and recreational facilities needed to serve new growth and development. The park pact fee does not include building permits or permit application fees or any other fee require of new development. PARKS, RECREATION AND FORESTRY PLAN means the Park, Recreation and Forestry Plan adopted by the City Council for the City of Pasco and used as a planning document that provides policies and guidance on developing citywide park and recreation facilities. RECREATION IMPROVEMENT AREA means an area developed with recreation facilities such as, but not limited to, basketball, tennis and similar playing courts, saunas, hot tubs, recreation buildings and similar improvements. Recreation improvements shall not include parking lots, driveway and other automobile- oriented areas, habitable buildings, swimming pools, or minor recreation improvements. SWIMMING POOLS. Means a pool for swimming which contains at least five hundred (500) square feet of water surface area and is at least four (4) feet in depth at the deepest point. 3.133 -1.060 IMPACT FEE REDUCTION. The base impact fee per dwelling unit may be reduced per the following: (1) Open Recreation Area. New residential developments that provide one or more open recreation areas the base fee will reduced at the rate of one percent (1 %) for each ten (10) square feet of open recreation area per unit (as determined by dividing the total square feet of open recreation area by the total number of dwelling units), not to exceed thirty percent (30 %). (2) Recreation Improvement Area. New residential developments that provide recreation improvement areas the base fee will be reduced at the rate of one percent (1 %) for each ten (10) square feet of recreation improvement area per unit (as determined by dividing the total square feet of recreation improvement area by the total number of dwelling units), not to exceed thirty percent (30 %). (3) Swimming Pools. New residential developments that provide one or more swimming pools the base fee shall be reduced at the rate of one -half percent (1/2 %) of each square foot of water surface area per unit (as determined by dividing the total 3 square feet of water surface area by the total number of dwelling units), not to exceed fifteen percent (15 %). (4) Dedication of Park Land. New residential developments that provide dedicated park land as a part of the platting process shall have the base fee reduced by fifty percent (50 %). (5) Dedication of a Fully Developed Neighborhood Park. New residential developments that dedicate a fully developed neighborhood park shall have the neighborhood park portion of the impact fee waived. Residential subdivisions with privately maintained and operated recreation facilities must contain final plat conditions ensuring the perpetual maintenance of the recreation facilities. Proposed Amendments for Chapters 3.07 and 3.29 3.07.230 PARK IMPACT FEES Base Fee /Charge Reference A) Single - Family Dwelling $1,500.00 3.133 -1.030 B) Multi - Family Dwelling $1,500.00 3.133 -1.030 C) All other dwelling units $1,500.00 3.133 -1.030 The base fee established herein shall increase by 3.25 percent on January 1 of each year without notice. 3.29.010 ESTABLISHED. There is established a fund to be called the "Park Fund." All moneys derived from the fees collected pursuant to Chapters 25.89 and 26-20 3.133 -1 shall be deposited in and disbursed from this fund only. All interest earned that is attributable to moneys in the fund shall be deposited in and credited to the fund. M Current Zoning Code CHAPTER 25.80 PARK FUND FEES Sections: 25.80.010 FEE PER DWELLING UNIT REQUIRED .............. ............................... 1 25.80.020 EXCEPTIONS ................................................... ..............................1 25.80.030 APPLICATION TO RESIDENTIAL PARKS ........... ............................... 1 25.80.040 REDUCTION OF FEE ....................................... ............................... 1 25.80.010 FEE PER DWELLING UNIT REQUIRED. Prior to issuance of a building permit for the construction or placement of any new residential unit, a base fee of Four Hundred and Fifty Dollars ($450.00) as of January 1, 1999 shall be collected per dwelling unit and deposited in the park fund established in Pasco Municipal Code Chapter 3.29 for use in accordance with the provisions relating to said fund. The base fee established herein shall increase without notice by 3,25 percent per year. (Ord. 3731 Sec. 25, 2005; Ord. 3354 Sec. 2, 1999.) 25.80.020 EXCEPTIONS. The provisions of this chapter shall not apply to the following exceptions: (1) Building permits for the replacement of existing dwelling units; this exception shall only apply in those cases where the lot on which the replacement is to be built has not been vacant for more than two years; (2) Building permits for dwelling units on land in subdivisions having fulfilled the requirements of Chapter 26.28, provided the number of dwelling units proposed does not exceed the number of units for which the requirements of Chapter 26.28 have been satisfied; (3) Installation of individual mobile homes or recreational vehicles within a mobile home park; and (4) Building permits for construction of nursing or convalescent homes, as defined in Section 25.12.340. (Ord. 3354 Sec. 2, 1999.) 25.80.030 APPLICATION TO RESIDENTIAL PARKS. Compliance with the provisions of this chapter is required prior to the issuance of a building permit authorizing construction of a mobile home park in accordance with Title 19 and Chapter 25.40 (RP Zone). The total fee shall be based on the number of mobile home spaces to be authorized under the building permit. (Ord. 3731 Sec. 26, 2005; Ord. 3354 Sec. 2, 1999.) 25.80.040 REDUCTION OF FEE. The fee per dwelling unit established shall be reduced in accordance with the following provisions, provided the landowner records covenants to run with the property whereby any future owner of said property is obliged to the City to perpetually provide and maintain and all private parks and 1 recreation improvements in a satisfactory manner. Said covenants require legislative approval prior to amendment: (1) Open Recreation Area. Where the proposed development provides one or more open recreation areas, the total area of which at least equals one hundred square feet for each of the dwelling units expected to be contained within the proposed development, the basic value shall be reduced at the rate of one percent for each ten square feet of open recreation area per unit (as determined by dividing the total square feet of open recreation area by the total number of dwelling units), not to exceed thirty percent. "Open recreation area" means areas of land, at least improved with grass and sufficient irrigation, intended and designed for unorganized, passive or active recreation and may include minor recreation improvements such as children's standard playground equipment and children's wading pool, provided such minor improvements do not occupy more than half of the total open recreation area; however, open recreation area shall not include required yard areas for multiple family dwellings, parking areas, driveways and other automobile- oriented areas, buildings, swimming pools, or any recreation improvement included in subsections (2) and (3) below; (2) Recreation Improvement Area. Where the proposed development provides recreation improvements, including but not limited to basketball, tennis and other similar playing courts, saunas, hot tubs, jacuzzis, recreation buildings, and similar improvements, the base value shall be reduced at the rate of one percent for each ten square feet of recreation improvement area per unit (as determined by dividing the total square feet of recreation improvement area by the total number of dwelling units), not to exceed thirty percent. Recreation improvements shall not include required yard areas for multiple family dwellings, parking areas, driveways, and other automobile - oriented areas, habitable buildings, swimming pools, or minor recreation improvements included in subsection (a) above; (3) Swimming Pools. Where the proposed development provides one or more swimming pools, each of which contains at least five hundred square feet of water surface area and is at least four feet in depth at one point, the base value shall be reduced at the rate of one and one -half percent for each square foot of water surface area per unit (as determined by dividing the total square feet of water surface area by the total number of dwelling units), not to exceed fifteen percent; and (4) Previous Subdivision Improvements. Where the proposed development is located in a subdivision, which provided park and recreation facilities prior to the effective date of the ordinance codified in this chapter, the City Council, at its discretion, may authorize reduction of the fee commensurate with the guidelines established above. (Ord. 3354 Sec. 2, 1999.) 2 Current Subdivision Code CHAPTER 26.20 DEDICATIONS FOR PARKS AND PLAYGROUNDS Sections: 26.20.010 PROVISION FOR PARK /PLAYGROUND REQUIRED ... ............................... 1 26.20.020 DETERMINATION OF VALUE .................................. ............................... 1 26.20.030 REDUCTION OF VALUE ... ..................................................................... 1 26.20.040 CASH PAYMENT IN LIEU OF DEDICATION .............. ............................... 2 26.20.050 DISPOSITION OF LAND AND CASH PAYMENTS ....... ............................... 2 26.20.060 APPLICABILITY ...................................................... ..............................3 26.20.010 PROVISION FOR PARK /PLAYGROUND REQUIRED. To assure appropriate and adequate provision for parks, playgrounds, and other recreation facilities is made at the time of subdivision approval, the subdivider shall be required to dedicate, by statutory warranty deed, a parcel or parcels of land as selected by the City in such amount to be at least equal in value to the total value of park and recreation demand generated by the subdivision as determined in Section 26.20.020. Said land shall be exclusive of required subdivision improvements and free of any and all encumbrances, including all labor and material liens, or the subdivider shall provide a bond in lieu thereof. (Ord. 3398 Sec. 2, 1999.) 26.20.020 DETERMINATION OF VALUE. (1) Based on the proposed subdivision and the zoning classification thereto, a total number of dwelling units expected to be contained by the subdivision shall be determined. Said total number of dwelling units shall then be multiplied by the base park fund fee as specified herein, the product of which shall represent the total value of the park and recreation demand expected to be generated by the proposed subdivision. The base value of four hundred fifty ($450.00) dollars will increase without notice by 3.25 percent a year. To avoid an increase in the determination of value the subdivider /developer has the option, as determined by the City Council, of dedicating the appropriate amount of land or providing the City with the base fee (four hundred fifty ($450.00) dollars on January 1, 1999) for each lot at the time of final plat approval. If the subdivider /developer elects not to dedicate park land or pay fees for all lots at the time of final plat approval the subdivider /developer knowingly subjects his /her preliminary plat to future increases in the determination of value for lot fees and park dedication. The base fee will increase by 3.25 percent a year after January 1, 1999. (Ord. 3398 Sec. 2, 1999.) 26.20.030 REDUCTION OF VALUE. The total value of demand determined in Section 26.20.020 shall be reduced where a subdivision includes any of the following recreation areas or improvements and the final plat provides assurance, deemed 1 sufficient by the City Council, that said recreation area and improvements shall be perpetually maintained in a satisfactory manner by the owner and any future owners: (1) Open recreation area. Where the subdivision provides one or more open recreation areas, the total area of which at least equals one hundred (100) square feet for each of the dwelling units expected to be contained within the subdivision, the base value shall be reduced at the rate of one percent (1 %) for each ten (10) square feet of open recreation area per unit (as determined by dividing the total square feet of open recreation area by the total number of dwelling units), not to exceed thirty percent (30 %). "Open recreation area" means areas of land, at least improved with grass and sufficient irrigation, intended and designed for unorganized, passive or active recreation and may include minor recreation improvements such as children's standard playground equipment and children's wading pool, provided such minor improvements do not occupy more than half (1/2) of the total open recreation area; however, open recreation area shall not include parking areas; driveways and other automobile - oriented areas, building, swimming pools, or any recreation improvement included in subsection (2) below. (2) Recreation improvement area. Where the subdivision provides recreation improvements including, but not limited to, basketball, tennis and other similar playing courts, saunas, hot tubs, jacuzzis, recreation buildings and similar improvements, the base value will be reduced at the rate of one percent (1 %) for each ten (10) square feet of recreation improvement area per unit (as determined by dividing the total square feet of recreation improvement area by the total number of dwelling units), not to exceed thirty percent (30 %). Recreation improvements shall not include parking areas, driveway and other automobile- oriented areas, habitable buildings, swimming pools, or minor recreation improvements included in subsection (1) above. (3) Swimming pools. Where the proposed subdivision provides one or more swimming pools, each of which contains at least five hundred (500) square feet of water surface area and is at least four (4) feet in depth at one point, the base value shall be reduced at the rate of one -half percent (1/2 %) of each square foot of water surface area per unit (as determined by dividing the total square feet of water surface area by the total number of dwelling units), not to exceed fifteen percent (15 %). (Ord. 3398 Sec. 2, 1999.) 26.20.040 CASH PAYMENT IN LIEU OF DEDICATION. In lieu of dedication of land as required in Section 26.20.010, the City Council may, at its discretion, require a cash payment equal to the total value of park and recreation demand expected to be generated by the proposed subdivision as may be reduced in accordance with Section 26.20.030. The City Council may, at its discretion, require a combination of land dedication and cash payment provided the total combined value is at least equal to the total value of park and recreation demand. (Ord. 3398 Sec. 2, 1999.) 26.20.050 DISPOSITION OF LAND AND CASH PAYMENTS. Any land deeded under the provisions of this chapter may be held for future sale or for park /recreation X use improvements; however, any such land not to be improved shall be offered for sale within three (3) years from the effective date of the deed or before fifty percent (50 %) of the subdivision is developed, which ever occurs later. The proceeds from the sale of any land dedicated under the requirements of this chapter and any cash payment in lieu of such dedication shall be deposited in the park acquisition and development fund established in Pasco Municipal Code Chapter 3.29 for use in accordance with the provisions relating to said fund. (Ord. 3398 Sec. 2, 1999.) 26.20.060 APPLICABILITY. The provisions of this chapter shall apply to any subdivision or portion thereof receiving final approval subsequent to the effective date of the ordinance codified in this chapter; however, a preliminary plat with a fully completed application properly filed for review or approved prior to the effective date of the ordinance codified in this chapter need not comply with the provisions of this chapter at the time of final approval of the subdivision or portion thereof, provided the final plat contains a statement directing compliance with the Pasco Municipal Code Chapter 25.80, (Ord. 3398 Sec, 2, 1999.) 3 MEMORANDUM DATE: April 17, 2013 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Rick White, Director Community & Economic Development SUBJECT: Automobile Repair Operations One of the issues of City Council concern noted during Council's biennial retreat in 2012 was the outdoor occurrence of major auto repair and dismantling operations. These operations are often, but not always, located in former service stations that that have been converted to full -time repair shops. Typically, the issues surrounding automobile repair operations include: • The use of the public right -of -way for parking and storing business related vehicles and equipment; • Depositing oil, grease and other automobile fluids on the public street; • Parts salvaging and storage of automobile hulks; • Outdoor dismantling and repair of vehicles; and • A scale of auto repair that is outside that allowed by the C -I (Retail Business) Zoning District. Complicating the growth of the non - permitted repair operations is the fact that the general and site - specific regulations governing automobile repair have not been consistently enforced. We are now left with circumstances and situations where the repair operations occurring in violation of the Pasco Municipal Code are having an adverse effect on the health and safety of nearby businesses and residents and are presenting a negative perception of the City as a whole to the general public. When this occurs, private investment in commercial and industrial areas is often discouraged. Council Resolution 3441 tasks the Planning Commission to develop an action plan for a solution. Staff has conducted an inventory of automobile repair operations, including site - specific violations of existing codes twice — once in June of 2012 and once in January of 2013. The Committee (Commissioners Levin and Khan and two representatives of the automobile repair industry) has also conducted an inventory and review of existing codes in February and March of this year. This inventory and review included notices that were fully advertised to owners and operators of automobile repair businesses included on the site inventory. An outcome of that inventory and review was an activity list for a series of code revisions to accommodate light automobile repair in the C -1 Zoning District and an enforcement option. Exhibit A is the Activity List developed by the Committee. The list contains the a full set of actions in abbreviated form. Exhibit B are the definitions for "minor automobile repair" and "automobile repair facilities" which are both important to fully understand the scope of the proposed revisions to the C -1 Zoning District that may now include automobile repair operations. Exhibit C contains the draft changes within the C -1 Zoning District to allow minor automobile repair. Exhibit D is an amendment to existing titles 25.70.150 Vehicle Related Uses. It was discovered during the code inventory that the C -3 and R -1 Zoning Districts do not contain screening requirements. It is recommended that the screening requirements contained in Exhibit D are likewise adopted. Exhibit E the proposed action plan that staff recommends the Planning Commission consider its recommendation to City Council. The Commission should note that this item has been fully advertised as a public hearing and any applicable testimony should be heard. Staff recommends the Action Plan (Exhibit E) be forwarded to Council and the public meeting on this item continued to May 16. This will allow the recommended Action Plan to be presented to Council prior to the Commission undertaking a formal recommendation on any of the proposed code amendments. Recommended Motions: I move the Planning Commission approve the Action Plan as presented, recommend it be forwarded to City Council and authorize the Chairman's signature. I move the Planning Commission continue the public hearing on the code amendments associated with the Action Plan until May 16, 2013. EXHIBIT A Auto Repair Operations Activity List 1. Solidify the site inventory by adding a "Note" section for special considerations such as "nonconforming use ", "recently out of compliance" or "new business operator ". 2. Create a definition for "Minor Repair" for inclusion the C -1 Zoning District. 3. Determine the number of vehicles that can be on the site for "minor repair" at a given time. 4. Provide for those sites with outdoor facilities (such as hydraulic lifts) — ie, "the number of vehicles being serviced outdoors cannot exceed the capacity of the outdoor repair facilities on- site." 5. Create a definition for "Auto Repair Facilities" to be used in the C -1 Zoning District. 6. Provide for the maximum number of vehicles that can be parked on — site for completed minor repairs (waiting for owner pick -up). 7. Provide for the prohibition of using sites in the C -1 Zone for vehicle storage. S. Amend the standards in the C -3 /I -1 Zoning districts to prohibit visible vehicle /part storage and a requirement for screening. Provide an inventory of locations considered "legal nonconforming" within C -3 /I -1 Zones. 9. Provide for notification and a grace period for operators to bring operations into compliance with existing regulations in all Zoning Districts. 10. Issue Notices of Civil Violation to noncompliant operations at the expiration of the grace period. 11. Process NCV's through the Code Enforcement Board EXHIBIT B Proposed definition of "Minor Automobile Repair" for the C -1 Zone: Repairs that are started and completed in one business day (6 AM until 6 PM) and do not involve vehicle disassembly, dismantling, salvage or recycling; such as belt and bulb replacement, oil changes and lubrication, fluid flushes, tire and rim replacement or mounting, muffler and exhaust replacement, filter and hose replacement, audio and alarm system installation and glass or wiper replacement or other similar activities. Proposed definition of "Auto Repair Facilities ": "Auto Repair Facilities" means the machinery permanently installed on -site to facilitate automobile repair such as hydraulic lifts, hoists or repair pits. EXHIBIT C 25.42.020 PERMITTED USES. The following uses shall be permitted in the C -1 district: (1) Auto Detail Shops; (2) Banks; (3) Dancing schools; (4) Hotels and motels; (5) Printing shops; (6) Restaurants; (7) Stores and shops for the conduct of retail business; (8) Stores and shops for repair and similar services such as: (a) Bakeries, retail for distribution from the premises. (b) Barbershops and beauty shops. (c) Catering establishments. (d) Garage and filling stations, provided: (i) All outdoor repair work is "minor" as defined by Section 25.12 XXX, and the number of vehicles undergoing outdoor repair does not exceed the capacity of the outdoor repair facilities as defined by Section 25.12.XXX (ii) the number of vehicles awaiting customer pick -up cannot exceed the total capacity of the indoor and outdoor auto repair facilities, (iii) Pumps, lubrication or other devices are located at least fifteen feet from any street property line, and (iv) All stored automobiles, automobile parts and storage and this^^ inoperative automobiles are stored contained within the building, except outdoor display racks. (e) Laundromats and dry - cleaning establishments employing not more EXHIBIT D Amend 25.70.150 by adding a Section 3 to read as follows: 25.70.150 VEHICLE - RELATED USES. (1) Any building to be used as an AUTO BODY SHOP, as defined in Section 25.12.085, shall have a spray paint room or spray paint booth which complies with the requirements of the International Fire Code and /or International Building Code; (2) INOPERABLE VEHICLES, as defined in Section 25.12.475 are permitted within the R -T, R -S -20, R -S -12, R -S -1, R -I, R -2, R -3, R -4, and RFA -1 /1 -A Districts and on all non - conforming residential uses in other districts subject to the following conditions: (a) Only one (1) inoperable vehicle may be stored outside of a fully enclosed building on the property, as an accessory use to a dwelling unit. (b) The inoperable vehicle stored outside shall not be stored upon a public right -of -way or in the front or side yard areas of the property, and shall not conflict with other residential requirements such as off - street parking and lot coverage. (c) The trunk of the outside inoperable vehicle shall be removed or locked at all times it is unattended, and the unattended vehicle shall be completely enclosed within a six (6) foot fence, which is fully site obscuring. (d) All vehicle parts not properly installed upon a vehicle shall be stored inside a fully enclosed building except that parts may be stored within the outside inoperable vehicle. (3) In the C -3 and I -1 Zoning Districts, inoperable vehicles as defined in Section 25.12 475 and vehicle parts, tires and accessories that are not readily moveable and for immediate sale shall be stored or parked behind screening as defined by 25.75.040 (1) (d). STAFF NOTE., existing "Outdoor Storage' regulations in 25.75 030 (6) (a) exempt automobiles from storage restrictions - see below 6) 'Outdoor storage" means all materials, equipment, merchandise or objects kept or placed on the lot or not within an enclosed structure, for preservation or later use or disposal; it is not intended, however, to include the following exceptions. (a) Those objects customarily stored outside an enclosed structure due to their size and due to their being of such character as to not readily deteriorate when exposed to the elements, such as automobiles, mobile homes, boats and other vehicles, farm machinery, irrigation and heavy construction equipment, and those objects which are themselves enclosures; provided, however, said objects are being kept primarily for immediate sale or rental to others. (b) Neat and orderly outdoor displays of items or objects for immediate sale when such displays are incidental or accessory to an established commercial principal activity conducted from an enclosed structure, and further provided that the area consumed by said displays does not exceed an amount equal to ten percent of the net lot area EXHIBIT E RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF PASCO PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING AN ACTION PLAN FOR RESOLVING ISSUES INVOLVING AUTOMOBILE REPAIR OPERATIONS AND VIOLATIONS OF THE PASCO MUNICIPAL CODE. WHEREAS, automobile repair operations are permitted in various degrees in the C -1 (Retail Business), C -3 (General Business) and Industrial Zoning Districts; and WHEREAS, the Pasco Municipal Code contains both zone - specific and general regulations governing the conduct of automobile repair that have been inconsistently enforced over the course of time; and WHEREAS, automobile repair in many locations and sites has evolved to include operations that are in conflict with applicable regulations of the Pasco Municipal Code including the use of the public right of way for storage and parking repair business vehicles, outdoor repair operations, outdoor dismantling of vehicles, parts salvaging and automobile hulk storage in public view and depositing oil, grease and similar substances on City Streets; and WHEREAS, such operations occurring in violation of the Pasco Municipal Code have an adverse effect on the health and safety of nearby businesses and residents, discourage private investment in commercial and industrial areas and present a negative perception of the City as a whole to the general public; and WHEREAS, the Pasco City Council has directed the Planning Commission to develop an action plan for resolving code conflicts and preparing code revisions and options for enforcement regarding auto repair operations; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has created a committee of Planning Commissioners and business operators to review the proposed action plan; and WHEREAS, The Planning Commission has notified affected business operators and land owners involved in automobile repair operations of the task directed by the City Council and of the various meetings and preliminary strategies of the Commission on this matter; NOW THEREFORE, THE PASCO PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDS THAT CITY COUNCIL ACCEPT THE FOLLOWING ACTION PLAN: Section 1. Revise the uses permitted in the C -1 (Retail) Zoning District to include: • the provision for "minor automobile repair" to be allowed outdoors as this zoning district currently prohibits all outdoor automobile repair work; • A maximum number of vehicles that can be on the site both under repair and awaiting owner pick -up; and • A prohibition for using sites as automobile storage. Section 2. Revise the definitions contained in the Zoning Code to include "Minor Automobile Repair" and "Automobile Repair Facilities" as these definitions are needed to implement any revision to the permitted uses within the C -1 Zoning District. Section 3. Amend the screening standards in the C -3 (General) and I -1 (Light Industrial) Zoning Districts to regulate vehicle and vehicle part storage as these Districts currently exempt vehicle and part storage from such requirements. Section 4. Continue to keep operators and land owners apprised of the meeting dates and status of the above code revisions. Section 5. Notify affected businesses once the appropriate the code revisions have been adopted and provide a 60 day period to conform to the revised standards. Section 6. Complete a site inventory to determine those businesses out of compliance and initiate the code enforcement process as applicable. The code enforcement process is to include a Notice of Civil Violation, a re- inspection after 10 days and scheduling of a hearing before the Pasco Code Enforcement Board as applicable. This process is estimated to occur within a 30 day time period of the completion of the site inventory. ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City of Pasco this 25"' day of April, 2013. Joe Cruz, Chairman Auto Repair Resolution - 2