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