HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-16-2013 Planning Commission Packet PLANNING COMMISSION -AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING 7:00 P.M. May 16, 2013
I. CALL TO ORDER:
II. ROLL CALL: Declaration of Quorum
III. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: April 25, 2013
V. OLD BUSINESS:
A. Special Permit Location of a church in an R-2 District (Samuel Nunez)
(MF# SP 2013-003)
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. Plan Auto Repair in Commercial Zones (MF# PLAN 2012-
0
VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
A. Special Permit Location of a cellular tower (AT&T) (MF# SP 2013-009)
B. Special Permit Location of an automotive sales dealership (Dave
Warner) (MF# SP 2013-010)
C. Special Permit Location of a Water Intake Facility (City of Pasco) (MF#
SP 2013-011)
D. Zoning Rezone from RT (Residential Transition) to R-1 (Low
Density Residential) (Nathan Machiela) (MF# Z 2013-
0
E. Zoning Rezone from R-3 (Medium Density Residential) with
density limit of 30-units to R-3 (Medium Density
Residential) without density limit (Ronald Grate) (MF#
Z 2013-002)
F. Code Amendment Building Heights for Detached Garages
VII. OTHER BUSINESS:
VIII. WORKSHOP:
IX. ADJOURNMENT:
REGULAR MEETING April 25, 2013
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
CALL TO ORDER:
The meeting was called to order at 7:00pm by Chairwoman Kempf.
POSITION MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT
No. 1 Tim Hoekstra
No. 2 Tony Bachart
No. 3 Andy Anderson
No. 4 Alecia Greenaway
No. 5 Joe Cruz
No. 6 Loren Polk
No. 7 Zahra Khan
No. 8 Jana Kempf
No. 9 Paul Hilliard
APPEARANCE OF FAIRNESS:
Chairwoman Kempf read a statement about the appearance of fairness for hearings on
land use matters. Chairwoman Kempf asked if any Commission member had anything
to declare. There were no declarations.
Chairwoman Kempf then asked the audience if there were any objections based on a
conflict of interest or appearance of fairness question regarding the items to be
discussed this evening. There were no objections.
ADMINISTERING THE OATH:
Chairwoman Kempf explained that state law requires testimony in quasi-judicial
hearings such as held by the Planning Commission be given under oath or affirmation.
Chairwoman Kempf swore in all those desiring to speak.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Commissioner Khan moved, seconded by Commissioner Hilliard, that the minutes
dated March 21, 2013 be approved as mailed. The motion passed unanimously.
OLD BUSINESS:
A. Special Permit Location of a temporary cellular antennae
tower in a C-1 (Retail Business) Zone (AT&T
c/o Vinculums) (MF# SP 2013-0041
Chairwoman Kempf read the master file number and asked for comments from staff.
Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director, stated that there were no
new comments or conditions since the previous meeting.
-1-
Commissioner Hilliard asked staff if this special permit is for the temporary cellular
tower and if the applicant has moved forward with a permanent tower.
Mr. White answered that the applicant has turned in their application for a special
permit for a permanent cellular antennae tower and it will be on the agenda for the
next meeting.
Commissioner Polk asked what the length of time for the Determination of No Hazard
from the FAA process is.
Mr. White replied that he is uncertain on the length of time but it is necessary to be
obtained before the permit can be issued for the location of the mobile unit. It was his
understanding that the applicant was well underway in that process.
Commissioner Hoekstra asked for clarification on the ownership of the flagpole and the
property.
Mr. White answered that the flagpole and equipment is owned by the cellular provider
and the property is owned by Franklin County. There is more than one cell provider at
this location and they co-operate to the best of their ability but cannot always share
equipment which is why there is a need for a separate tower to locate on this site.
Commissioner Hilliard moved, seconded by Commissioner Khan, to adopt findings of
fact and conclusions therefrom as contained in the April 25, 2013 staff report. The
motion passed unanimously.
Commission Hilliard moved, seconded by Commissioner Khan, 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.
The motion passed unanimously.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
A. Special Permit Location of a church in an R-1 District (Samuel
Nunez) (MF# SP 2013-003) (Continued from
March 21, 2013 Meeting)
Chairwoman Kempf read the master file number and asked for comments from staff.
Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director, discussed this special
permit for the location of a church in an R-1 Zoning District. The hearing was
continued from the March 21St to allow the applicant to present at the hearing and
ensure the church understood the approval conditions. At the previous meeting there
was public testimony that suggested noise was an issue so two conditions were added;
one adding conformation of the noise ordinance and the other condition providing for
Planning Commission review of the special permit at any given time to make certain
complaints are addressed.
Elizabeth Ramiro, 220 W. Sylvester Street, the church's secretary, spoke on behalf of
the church.
-2-
Rosalea Lopez, 217 N. Douglas Avenue, the church's treasurer, also spoke on behalf of
the church.
Chairwoman Kempf asked if they understood all of the conditions in the staff report.
Ms. Ramiro answered that she understands all of the conditions.
Commissioner Khan asked if either of them had any comments or concerns from Ms.
Howard who spoke at the last public hearing regarding noise levels from the church.
Ms. Ramiro responded that they were not aware of any noise issues until a few weeks
ago. She stated that their church was never advised of any noise concerns. The
church is only used Monday-Friday from 7:00 p.m. to 9:30 p.m., occasionally until
10:00 p.m. On Sunday's they operate from 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. which includes
school, service and afternoon service.
Commissioner Hilliard asked if they were aware of the condition requiring the paving
of the parking lot.
Ms. Ramiro answered that she understood the requirement and that there is a
timeline to complete the work. She asked if there would be an extension.
Mr. White stated staff should know 2-3 months in advance if it would be necessary to
return to the Planning Commission for an extension before the permit would expire.
Commissioner Hoekstra asked if the church was anticipating anything that would be a
noise concern as addressed in the previous public hearing.
Ms. Ramiro and Ms. Lopez responded that they did not anticipate noise problems from
upcoming events.
Commissioner Polk asked if the concern voiced at the previous public hearing
regarding increased traffic had been addressed.
Mr. White answered that there was no evidence that the church caused any additional
traffic in the alley or was responsible for any additional traffic.
With no further comments the public hearing closed.
Commissioner Khan moved, seconded by Commissioner Hilliard, to close the public
hearing and schedule deliberations, the adoption of findings of fact, and development
of a recommendation for City Council for the May 16, 2013 meeting. The motion
passed unanimously.
B. Special Permit Location of a church in a CR (Regional
Commercial) Zone (World Life Christian
Center) (MF# SP 2013-005)
-3-
Chairwoman Kempf read the master file number and asked for comments from staff.
Rick White, Community 8v Economic Development Director, discussed the special
permit application for the location of a church in a CR (Regional Commercial) Zone.
The church proposes to use the easterly portion and northern two-thirds of the
building with the existing front third retained for retail space. There would be enough
sanctuary space for roughly 900 church attendees.
The property underwent a zone change in which a concomitant agreement was signed
to include conditions that the Planning Commission should be aware of which are
located in the staff report. Those conditions prohibited amusement, game and
recreation centers, outlined special design standards for outdoor lighting and for the
development to comply with the I-182 corridor design standards.
Chairman Kempf asked if this was a standard special use permit for churches with the
addition of the concomitant agreement.
Mr. White responded that it is fairly similar to other special use permits for churches.
David Jarrett, 1951 Peachtree, Richland, WA spoke on behalf of the church. He
explained that World Life Christian Center has been at the Broadmoor Outlet Mall and
they are ready to move into their own space. They are currently working on
architectural designs but getting the special permit is the first step.
Commissioner Hilliard asked the applicant for clarification on access to the church.
Mr. Jarrett answered there is an entrance in the front of the building that goes to the
center of the building that separates the retail space from the church space.
Commissioner Hoekstra asked if there is a need for another exit point to assist with
traffic coming in and out of the parking lot.
Mr. Jarrett answered that there is a drive in the rear so there is a way to exit from the
front and back of the lot.
Jose Zamora, 4732 Sedona Court, Senior Pastor for the church, spoke in support of
the proposal. He stated the church has outgrown their current space.. They would
like to improve the area and be an asset to the community.
With no further comments the public hearing closed.
Commissioner Hilliard moved, seconded by Commissioner Khan, 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. The motion passed unanimously.
Location of a high school in a C-1 (Retail
C. Special Permit Business) Zone - Delta High (Pasco School
District) (MF# SP 2013-008)
Chairwoman Kempf read the master file number and asked for comments from staff.
-4-
Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director, discussed the special
permit application for the location of a high school in a C-1 (Retail Business) Zone.
Delta High School, is a specialized Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics
(STEM) School that focuses curriculum on those four subjects. It will serve not only
Pasco students but Richland and Kennewick students as well. The property will
contain appropriate visitor parking and drop off areas. It will not have football fields
or other extra-curricular facilities because they will not be provided at this location.
The traffic impacts can be roughly compared to an office park of similar size, however,
less than one would experience if this 45,000 square foot building were developed with
retail spaces. Even at a lesser traffic generation rate than a retail use, the school will
generate traffic that is generally off-peak, overlapping a little with the morning peak
but earlier than the afternoon peak and should not conflict with the other traffic
patterns in that area.
An email was received from an adjacent property owner that requested that an
architectural wall be placed on the perimeter of the school except for the Broadmoor
Street side.
Commissioner Bachart stated that there is already a substantial wood fence. He
asked if the current fence would remain in place or if the new fence would replace it.
Mr. White responded that it could be done both ways. If the fence remains, it will not
be the School District's responsibility to maintain, rather the various homeowners. If
the block wall is built then it will be maintained by the School District.
Commissioner Khan asked if the property west of the proposed site would have
sidewalk put in by the School District.
Mr. White stated that it would not be the School District's responsibility to put in the
sidewalk on the property to the west of the proposed site. When the property to the
west develops it will be that developer's responsibility.
Commissioner Hilliard discussed the traffic counts for the mornings and afternoons
and how they will create their own peak traffic flow times. He asked if there is right-
of-way and access in the future to grow as the site on the west is development.
Mr. White responded that the existing right-of-way is adequate for the school but will
not be adequate in the future when the property on the west is developed. There will
be a substantial additional dedication of right-of-way and street improvements when
that property develops to the west. On the tentative list of conditions the School
District is asked to do a study to address traffic management concerns.
Chairwoman Kempf asked if the property on the west was still currently mineral land
and will most likely not be developed for another several years.
Mr. White stated that the mineral designation doesn't go all the way over and the
gravel pit itself expires in the year 2025. The current property owner doesn't seem to
be motivated to develop that property.
John Morgan, 1215 E. Lewis Street, Assistant Superintendent of the Pasco School
District, spoke on behalf of the school. He explained that Delta is a State recognized
-5-
high school. They have math and science teams that perform around the nation.
There would be a minimum number of buses coming from other districts, unlike other
schools where there are thousands of students. The School District will build the
stone wall if it is decided that it is necessary.
Commissioner Khan asked for the projected population of the school.
Mr. Morgan answered that there would be roughly 400 students.
Chairwoman Kempf asked if there would be slightly less bus traffic due to many of
these students having their own vehicles or their parents dropping them off.
Mr. Morgan stated that they have found that the majority of these students will ride
the bus or their parents will drop them off.
Commissioner Hilliard stated that he liked the design of the school.
Commissioner Bachart asked if the student population is expected to someday exceed
400 students.
Mr. Morgan replied that 400 students is the expected population after growth and that
it is not currently at 400 students.
Commissioner Hoekstra asked for clarification of the design of the building.
Mr. Morgan answered that the design is going to be a great caveat for the district and
community.
Sharon Gittleman, 6008 Majestia Lane, was concern the school is going to impact
views that some of the Mediterranean Villas residents have. She was also concerned
about the increasing traffic and the ability of the residences to get in and out of the
development. She also wanted to know where the students will congregate between
classes and during breaks. She wanted to know what the stone wall would entail and
what it would look like.
Margaret Jacobson, 9601 Mia Lane, asked what the height of the school would be and
the height of the proposed block wall.
Chairwoman Kempf answered that the wall would be 6 feet tall.
Commissioner Polk asked if the students would be allowed off campus for lunch.
Mr. Morgan spoke to the concerns voiced by Mr. Gittleman, Ms. Jacobson and
Commissioner Polk. He stated that the building at its highest point will be 35 feet tall
consisting of a one-story building and partial two-story. They will have an onsite
lunch facility but that doesn't mean they cannot leave campus. The district has found
that traditionally the students eat on campus meeting with their teachers or with their
groups.
Commissioner Khan asked what the security will look like at Delta High School.
-6-
Mr. Morgan responded that traditionally the Pasco School District has a Security
Resource Officer (SRO) at each campus but the board will decide if one is needed.
There will be security cameras on campus and security entrances.
With no further comments the public hearing closed.
Commissioner Hilliard moved, seconded by Commissioner Khan, 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. The motion passed unanimously.
D. Code Amendment Airport Zoning Update (MF# CA 2013-001)
Chairwoman Kempf read the master file number and asked for comments from staff.
David McDonald, City Planner, explained the background of the proposed airport
zoning code amendment. The current ordinance was developed in the early 1970's
and hasn't been updated since its adoption. The proposed code will bring the airport
zoning regulations up to modern day standards and meet requirements that are
currently available through handbooks developed by the State of Washington
Department of Transportation.
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.
Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director, stated that these code
amendments are a result of work between City Staff, County Staff and Port of Pasco
Staff and Consultants. During the process of working together, great care has gone
into making sure the uses in the compatibility zones is not very much different than
current zoning for permitted uses and densities.
Randy Hayden, 1110 Osprey Pointe Blvd, spoke on behalf of the Port of Pasco. He
stated that the Port of Pasco is fully supportive of the updates to the Airport Overlay
District and he explained it will help the airport expand to meet the needs of the
community well into the future.
Chairwoman Kempf asked about expansion of the runways.
Mr. Hayden stated the current runway can be expanded because the area it would
need to extend into is an agricultural production area.
Commissioner Hilliard asked about easements to gain more property and access.
Mr. Hayden responded that they are in the process of acquiring more property around
the airport.
Commissioner Hoekstra asked if the growth of the airport would cause a need for
expansion of the roadways.
-7-
Mr. Hayden responded that the airport is a traffic generator in that area of town. City
Staff has been active in improving access. The Port will be working jointly with the
City and Columbia Basin College (CBC) to widening Argent Road in the near future.
Carter Timmerman, 18204 59th Drive NE, Suite B, Arlington, WA 98223, spoke in
support of the airport zoning updates on behalf of the Washington State Department
of Transportation Aviation Division. His office recommendations approval of the
proposed airport zoning updates and their office is available for support.
With no further comments the public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Khan asked if McGee Elementary was in the vicinity of the airport and
if it interfered with the safety compatibility zones.
Mr. Hayden stated schools within many of the compatibility zones are prohibited,
particularly K-12. As the ordinance was being written an exception was made for
existing schools to be able to remain if they so choose. A new school in one of those
zones would not be permitted because of the safety considerations. The Port of Pasco
and the School District continue to have a good working relationship over the years
and they are aware of the situation.
Commissioner Hoekstra asked if the compatibility zones will need to expand if there is
growth and expansion to the airport.
Mr. Hayden answered that the compatibility zones presented to the Planning
Commission are for the expected growth.
Commissioner Hilliard asked for clarification that current homes, assembly buildings
and other buildings will not be removed due to the compatibility zones.
Mr. Hayden agreed and stated that there currently aren't any issues. The Port of
Pasco just wants to ensure that there aren't issues in the future.
Commissioner Hilliard moved, seconded by Commissioner Khan, to adopt the Findings
of Fact as contained in the April 25, 2013 staff memo on the Airport Zoning Update.
The motion passed unanimously.
Commissioner Hilliard moved, seconded by Commissioner Khan, to recommend the
City Council adopt the proposed Code Amendment updating the airport zoning
regulations under PMC Chapter 25.81. The motion passed unanimously.
E. Code Amendment Park Fees Update (MF# CA 2013-002)
Chairwoman Kempf read the master file number and asked for comments from staff.
David McDonald, City Planner, discussed the code amendment for Park Fee Updates.
The current fee has not kept up with the construction costs for the development of
new parks.
Staff is proposing that the current regulations be repealed completely and those
regulations be combined and located with the other impact fees, such as the School
Impact Fees and Traffic Impact Fees. The Park Impact Fee will have to be paid prior to
the issuance of any building permit and would be applicable to all new residential
-8-
development within the City of Pasco. Mr. McDonald briefly listed some exemptions to
the fee, definitions, possible reductions in the fee and the proposed amendments. The
proposed fee would be $1,500 per dwelling unit.
Commissioner Khan asked if there is a minimal amount of acreage for dedicated park
land.
Mr. McDonald answered that the standard size for a neighborhood park is 5 acres for
a 160 acre subdivision.
Commissioner Khan asked if there is a minimal amount of facilities that the City
would require the developer to put in the park.
Mr. McDonald stated that the City does not require specific items to be placed in
parks. Typically land has been dedicated to the City along with infrastructure
improvements and the collection a reduce fee. When a development is nearly finished
the Parks Department will hold public meetings for the neighborhood to receive input
on the types of facilities to be placed in the park.
Commissioner Khan asked if the neighborhood decided that they wanted a swimming
pool if it would be the City's responsibility to maintain.
Mr. McDonald answered if a pool was built in a City Park it would be the City's
responsibility to maintain however neighborhood parks won't have swimming pools.
Commissioner Polk asked if the ratio is for the size of parks for the other cities in the
area.
Mr. McDonald stated that every City has a different ratio within their comprehensive
park plan. The City of Pasco has a Comprehensive Park Plan in which the ratio is
based on population of people for a neighborhood park.
Commissioner Hoekstra asked what is driving costs so high to propose $1,500 per
dwelling unit for Park Impact Fees.
Mr. McDonald answered that much of the costs for the parks revolve around the
equipment that's placed in the parks. There are new enhanced national safety
requirements that the City didn't have years ago, such as the rubberized matting that
goes around the equipment. Material costs have also increase substantially.
Commissioner Bachart asked if the neighborhood could vote for a pool at the public
meetings held prior to completion of development.
Mr. McDonald answered they could but there wouldn't be enough funds to build the
pool. The neighborhood is typically given a range of items that could be built and a
budget.
Commissioner Hilliard asked if there is any other funding that helps pay for
community parks.
Mr. McDonald stated that there is the Park Impact Fee along with state grants that the
City can apply for and local taxes.
-9-
Commissioner Khan asked how staff calculated a 3.25% annual increase of the fee.
Mr. McDonald answered that when it was initiated in 1999 that was roughly the cost
of inflation. Since that time the costs have escalated more.
Commissioner Hoekstra asked for clarification on the fee for multi-family units.
Mr. McDonald answered that the $1,500 fee would be per unit, so if there are 60 units
in the complex the fee would be $90,000. But typically what happens with larger
apartment complexes is that they will have swimming pools, basketball courts and a
recreation building. If they have many of those amenities their fee is reduced
Commissioner Hilliard stated that the fee is good for the community but will hurt
development. He would encourage staff to find other avenues for park funding.
With no further comments the public hearing closed.
Mr. McDonald added that the recommendation is for the hearing to be closed at this
time and staff will bring an ordinance back for approval once the City Attorney
completes his review.
Commissioner Polk stated that she agrees with a reduced fee for the developers who
dedicate park land but felt that a 50% reduction is a large reduction and 5 acres
doesn't always feel like a lot of park land for a large neighborhood that may have 600
homes.
Mr. McDonald responded that the developer is not only dedicating the land for the
park but they would also be providing all of the infrastructure, streets, sewer, water,
storm drainage and street lights which a significant amount of capital cost.
Commissioner Hoekstra stated that as the parks get developed so does the cost for
maintenance. There needs to be a balance between stimulating park development to
create a healthy neighborhood environment but at the same time be able to afford the
parks.
Mr. McDonald responded that the money for the impact fee does not cover the
maintenance. The maintenance is covered through annual taxes on homes.
Chairwoman Kempf stated that the 50% reduction is very workable and is appealing
for the developer to dedicate the land.
Rick White, Community 8a Economic Development Director, stated that staff can take
a look at the reductions and ratios that go along with a "typical" development and a
"non-typical" development with more dwelling units.
Commissioner Hoekstra added that it would make sense in terms of congestion in the
park to have larger park space for larger developments.
Commissioner Polk responded that after some thought the 50% does seem reasonable
since the developer is also making infrastructure improvements but agrees that for
larger developments more park space should be developed.
-10-
Commissioner Hilliard stated that since the fee is doubling from its current amount to
$1,500 with a 3.25% annual increase, he is concerned what it will look like in 5-10
years. Instead of the automatic 3.25% annual increase he would like to see this come
back to the Planning Commission in five years to make any needed adjustments.
Commissioner Hoekstra asked for clarification from Commissioner Hilliard.
Commissioner Hilliard stated that with the 3.25% increase annually, in ten years the
fee will be substantially higher and he is concerned with the fee getting too high.
Commissioner Hoekstra asked if staff could look at the fee being locked at $1,500 for
the next five years.
Mr. McDonald stated that they will discuss the concern with the Parks Department.
Commissioner Polk asked the Commissioners if they would accept a higher fee if it
was guaranteed to be a locked in rate for the next five years.
Commissioner Hilliard responded no. He stated that there needs to be other sources
of funding for the parks.
Commissioner Hoekstra added that costs should be controlled for the developers
because development should be encouraged.
Mr. White stated that impact fees are hard and people either like them or they don't.
He posed the question of how much does new growth need to pay for the impact they
produce. If they aren't paying any impact then the public is picking up all of it
because someone has to pay. It is not an issue strictly between the developer and the
government but the public has to pay as well The deductions that are in the proposed
update add incentives for the developer to provide fully dedicated park sites. If the
City has to put in the same improvement in the neighborhood it will cost much more
because the City will have to pay a different wage scale and comply with bidding laws.
The developer does not necessarily have to follow those same rules.
Commissioner Khan moved, seconded by Commissioner Bachart, to close the public
hearing on the proposed park fee code amendment. The motion passed unanimously.
F. Plan Automobile Repair Operations (MF# PLAN
2012-006)
Chairwoman Kempf read the master file number and asked for comments from staff.
Rick White, Community 8v Economic Development Director, discussed the action plan
for automobile operations. Retail and Commercial Zones used to have service stations
allowed as a permitted use. Service stations don't seem to exist anymore but the
buildings remain in place and have been used for auto repair operations. They have
presented themselves to be a nuisance in the sense of dismantling automobiles,
storing parts outside, parking in the street and depositing parts and fluids onto public
streets which is a problem for the storm drainage system.
Several months ago City Council tasked the Planning Commission to create an action
plan. An advisory committee that consisted of City Staff, Commissioner Levin,
Commissioner Khan and two automobile business owners. The committee conducted
-11-
an inventory and review of existing codes, developed an activity list containing the full
set of actions, gave definitions for "minor automobile repair" and "automobile repair
facilities", they created draft changes within the C-1 Zoning District to allow minor
automobile repair, they recommended screening requirements and they recommend
the Action Plan be presented to Council prior to the Commission undertaking a formal
recommendation on any of the proposed code amendments.
Commissioner Khan asked if it would be beneficial to define "screening".
Mr. White answered that the screening requirements were cut out of the presented
exhibits that were given with the staff memo but it should contain the definition of
"screening".
Commissioner Hoekstra asked about the capacity of the outdoor facility and the
maximum amount of vehicles parked outside.
Mr. White answered that capacity was not defined but was intended to mean the
amount of cars relative to the repair facilities. After hours in the C-1 vehicles cannot
be left outdoors in public visibility. In the C-3 Zone the vehicles could remain
outdoors but would need to be behind screening.
Commissioner Hoekstra asked how the proposed plan speaks to the appearance of an
auto sales lot compared to auto repair facility. Where the cars aren't for sale but they
are parked and lined up to look like a sales lot. He asked if the City has enough
language in the code to enforce the operations.
Mr. White responded that the question Commissioner Hoekstra asked has been one of
the problems the City was trying to resolve with the action plan and eventually a code
amendment. Staff conducting inventory in June of last year and January of this year
and much improvement has happened in that time. Many of the cars are setting out
being used for parts.
Commissioner Hoekstra stated that filling up a lot in a C-1 Zone with cars used for
parts is not good for business or the area and asked if more needed to be added to
enforce this problem.
Mr. White responded that there is an adequate start with the action plan and
eventually a code amendment will be coming to the Planning Commission and more
can be added if needed at that time.
With no further comments the public hearing closed.
Commissioner Hoekstra moved, seconded by Commissioner Bachart, to approve the
Action Plan as presented, recommend it be forwarded to City Council and authorize
the Chairman's signature. The motion passed unanimously.
Commissioner Hoekstra moved, seconded by Commissioner Khan, continue the public
hearing on the code amendments associated the Action Plan until May 16, 2013. The
motion passed unanimously.
-12-
OTHER BUSINESS:
Rick White, Community 8v Economic Development Director, presented a Certificate of
Appreciation for Planning Commissioner, Michael Levin, who recently resigned after
dedicating over two years of service to the City of Pasco.
COMMENTS:
With no further discussion or business, the Planning Commission was adjourned at
8:57 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Dave McDonald, City Planner
-13-
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
MASTER FILE NO: SP2013-003 APPLICANT: Samuel Nunez
HEARING DATE: 4/25/13 217 N. Douglas Ave.
ACTION DATE: 5/16/13 Pasco, WA 99301
BACKGROUND
REQUEST FOR SPECIAL PERMIT: Location of a Church in an R-2 District
1. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION:
Lam: 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: 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
S. 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
3
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
4
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
Vicinity Item: Special Permit - Church
N
Ma p Applicant: A p ostolic Assembl Y
# SP2013 -003
I
1
ti
II.
w
i al
ADELIXST
R
-L
- E x S � x
r � h
y
7
wr
L'r/I
d F
w CALVIN
biI
:•'mil..: i � I ,� M�
n
17--tv -
+ WT —
If 0
As
i- -
Land Use Item: Special Permit - Church
A I'D
lcant: A ostoli*c Assembly N Map pp p
•
File #: SP2013 -003
Single-Family_ Single-Family-
Residences Residences
ADELIA ST
Vac.
Vac.
MFR'S Church
SY A
Q' W Vac.
GEORGE ST
Vac.
U
�
A Single-Famil
Residences
Single-Family- ALVINA ST
Residences
ALVINAST
Vacant
7 — --]Vac Com BLD Comm O
LEWIS ST
Zonin Item: Special Permit - Church
9 A t: A N
Map "Pplican i-vostolic Assembly
File #: SP2013 -003
■
L-j MW
(Medium Density Residential) (Retail Business)
4- 4
vgt
n }
1,
i
,� � , � q ti •� y�,•i w !� �MKP,igyV'yW�s _ F " -
_ r
'!.- ►-•,. r ~ ��y�ri��'r+E/aY.y'w� ��y .s `�_.�,i' Ne+�--fie •. �����r�ar.3. '�- +�h� r _ _ . _ � t.
°
"� r � q _�� M, �:..rte�J - - +.gyp. .rh. �+„�,` r- �t•,- `- - -. _ + -
�,�� ��--. .,mot::'`•�; _-_ � -:_ten -� ..,� _ _ � � _ _ _- - _ - - .
a� ♦ °�`_ _ ".-� - _�#F 'F'4ieyli��'� �de� _:F �• a V �Zs! _'+N�" ; - `•- �k 'r'
4 �. ,_ _ «+°J- 1 "Gv,y. •a�''` z} =� -;,�,t c w.� _ __ ..t.•�. __ - ,tsar..� -
� _ -�'�i'.�T�.�'"'-'�t`>A�rt'��'se- " _ `,`w ;_�.YF`�;: t^F'.�.-'writ t�3'•"'_"° .�... �� -� "�• �'�;'* "s
F
-
run
-- -
•
a T• _ _
-
i
i
. r.
i
a
T y:
7
F
v a
� 1
y 4
{w
:
sc
i
r" zlt i
!
1
y @e
s ''k 1 k 1 :• �• 1
a.
t
�h
•
• a ,� r � 1 1 I 1 1 1 � # i
LL
� C 3
Looking South
MOMy
•
,. F r •
r
M
•ice-#. '-'+.� -�r'..f =f'S' _, r � � �`'`4 s __ '$:. _
_
r
a
•
II y+ {
��.c r� ��G arm• �.—�IL� I. � y '. ., �'�r ,�`_ _ - — � .J ��— �li � __. _ ..1�
, }
.,, --� ._ „,^—_.-.'�'�� ,. + _ _ it i'Y� ♦ •-r.- - —
s
Looking West
wft nl�
.l
,
-
r.
Ft
r
��' A WIWI.s* 0 -
xry� k
,..�,., c. .,aP,. '�1"�• a•� -.���•r:. � r, pl,4 ab s ez ��1$� 5'' 1 � 4�i� • - -
.
Y�r m ,
T � �
do �"' , ,~ ��y�. k• R 1 r,. �� _ � a:. '
Y?e
'461
Parking Area
,R
- - -- - - ,r..•�.— _�—� � � - - "� [�. fie:.(_
_
= W
W*�
t
v
r. v
F
.5 �SJ•'��yy. rte;.r�
• �,'.'-f e ' ,{�� ,e � �r ti's ��R',✓�` i ri ,
VEV
• fr X ;U`io"7 '9F s^jet _ } ti:•'F
r � ik
t{V� . s+7`' ' � 4 •��? _ - • '
[�a, .aka �,� I+y�'v,� a;' 3 :r, .' 4 Gti"" Pf �k � 'x i'� ,s• .f
F •.��"•� �/`,� � � ', •,'� � Y� 14S r� ti5`'"}��" yn���� aa4��•fi��} alt t1' r 'r',
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 fagade 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:
4
(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 following uses shall be prohibited:
a. Amusement game centers, recreation centers or similar uses;
b. The use of outdoor speakers and public announcement systems of
any kind;
4. The following design controls shall apply to these properties:
a. All outdoor lighting must be strictly shielded to prevent lighting
from encroaching on adjoining residential property;
b. 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
5. Prior to fagade repainting and modification plans must be submitted and
approved by the Community and Economic Development Director.
6. The building, including entrances and restrooms, must be
ADA/handicap compliant;
7. Occupancy of the building for church purposes is contingent upon
continued compliance with all conditions listed above;
8. 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;
9. A landscape plan must be submitted and approved by the Community
and Economic Development Director.
10. Landscaping islands meeting PMC 25. 75. 070 standards must be
installed at the ends of all rows of parking;
11. The existing landscaped islands near the Court Street entrance must be
re-landscaped/restored to standards contained in PMC 25. 75. 070;
12. All landscape islands, beds and buffers must contain automated
irrigation systems.
13. The eastern margin of the property must be cleaned of all debris and
weeds and landscaped to standards contained in PMC 25. 75;
14. The driveway entrances shall be reconstructed to meet current ADA
requirements.
15. 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 adopt findings of fact and conclusions therefrom as
contained in the May 16, 2013 staff report.
MOTION: I move based on the findings of fact and conclusions therefrom the
Planning Commission recommend the City Council grant a special permit for
the location of a church operation at 3315 W Court Street, with conditions as
listed in the May 16, 2013 staff report.
7
Item: Church in CR Zone
Vicinity Map
Applicant: World Life Christian Center N
File #: SP 2013 -005
lop ST
zM
If J
i
�u r ilv
" k A ST
AGATE 7
ITE - T
4,r=, � R ,.: • o 3°c ,� � Wdl�uailwaYaY� i
RUB
M f T T
lop—,
F.
Ir
. a
: F
T r COURT ST P _
00 • r�rrrr �r
M rF � � �4 � ��, rr � P f erg .. .. . ., .,� ��;'• e.�P r � F�G�tf �ri �rFF k�r ea
r r.
fro,
� er fr
efft Off f �4
of
10* Q (Foot
re r
rF
p• - - e� ��� P�PFF,t�fi F p
r 7z T
s O
�r ? � ��r � rfrFElFERf FiP1
p. .�. r W�ic�t -rfir. •.�..�-es �� t
Inc-
MARIE ST
Land Item: Church in CR Zone
Use Applicant: World Life Christian Center N
Map File #: SP 2013 -005
=ELI
Q PA ST
PA
I SFDUs - -- - 1 �
AGATE ST
RUBY ST
Office I Post
7 Office
I I 1.aa =�I
Zoning Item: Church in CR Zone
a
MAN
CY) i
0
ct
14ARIE ST
: J � »_ \
0 38
0wm - -
�
� �
. - \ � \� %
^ P.
: !
; ) .
N/ .
l \ '
jl� \`
|
-- ------®
141 , \
! / - . s : . ,
( ( \ . G \ mom
§ % Rte„
. §
/
\� - - -
- 32
' Sad AREA
tISA
as may we
tu
� rf 4
[ , ;iri ',;f " {°,,IL'" °ia'' "Iii Qb`i ''. " � 13
ma
4'I
Stan IIm"i 9To2 9 `c(MI �I1 ��nx � las ins Ito
�GSLT h
Looking
:• �'ice'
A n s i 'a
� ' -��� �I � :� liil iplr II! �.. i Ilda, � � , � ;� � xrj�fi �_. ,- ``� (,- - , -�•- -- "rte
Looking East
,,1�
=MINr r
r,J:�, ti� «+ Y�r_"'�"'w' _.. - -.�:;'�IaerW i�.� .�......au£ _ •IMleww�:d'�ret,�^•. _
Looking
n
ti11ltllii 1M�li'.r•i
Looking West
AX
-��-
El
jr
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/Broadmoor 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/Broadmoor 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
4
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
5
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.
6
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 split-face block wall
between the proposed school and the properties to the north, east, and
south, coated with a City-approved anti-graffiti finish.
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 adopt findings of fact and conclusions therefrom as
contained in the May 16, 2013 staff report.
MOTION: I move based on the findings of fact and conclusions therefrom the
Planning Commission recommend the City Council grant a special permit for
the location of a regional high school operation at Lot 1, Binding Site Plan
2002-05, except that portion deeded for Lot 2, Binding Site Plan 2003-09, with
conditions as listed in the May 16, 2013 staff report.
7
Vicinity Item: Regional HE h School in C- I Zone
I r
Map Applicant: Pasco chool District # 1 N
File #: SP 2013 -008
mmw
low
P4 0 0
N WN Whifth ,. 111"i MAIN . �iNW011111W111111
�1�,�
011 W, Will hill
OWN
L
Land Item: Regional HI* ,&h School in G I Zone
Use Applicant: Pasco School District # 1 N
Map File SP 2013 -008
MEMO
ZO
��nn i nun
Vacant .
• Item: Regional Hi h School in C- 1 Zone
Zoning
Applicant: Pasco chool District # 1 N
Map 2013 -008 File #. SP
U I =
� U
jw — —arc
J Z
W
R= 1 -BUCKINGHAM DR BROUGHTON DR
U
J
0
MIA LN Q Q VINCENZO DR
J �
Q
VINCENZO DR MIA LN MAJESTIA LN
I ILI I I I I I I
RT
SITE
U)
0 �
0
0
LL
< C)
0 w
m
C=1
z
J
Q z
Z Q
mQ
SANDIFUR PKWY
e�OFOR�ST
I
!■!■■ ■■■1■!■■■!■■ ���■■!■ �l�isii■■■i■■ •
LL
t1 ■ 1 ■■■■� 1■■!■■1■■■■■■ ■1■■■y 1■■■■!■■■■■!■
LJ
1 y 1 ■■■■!■■!■■!■!■■■■■!■■■ ■1■■■1. . . . . . . . . ol
• I ■ !■■■1■■!■■1■!■!■!■!■■■■■■■■i■!■!■!!■■1 }
- ■■.i■■■■■■■■■.■i■■■■■■■■.■!E■.■■1 1
I
0 W
■f ..��■■■■■■� ■■�11111111�■■i 1111111■■■iii1■A■■■ .._ �.
■■�1�1■■���--� =�■ -- �= __ _- =� i.== ��•'" --_ I '■■■111 ■!
"mZ
OMEN►`1 ► - ■.:■®i=�i - �■ .rte=i=ii-=��■■�Il r;� ■� i=�=�■■
����■�® a IMMMMI ®■®�����■i■■®��!�:����M��i I■■■�!
�� "�N�{Ei1N{N NINa I{{ff{ { III {{ff�r�{{i± ��I N1��1�41�13��_■■■■� ee =�M�s JIM
no
MEN
fiws_rr���iCil3�wa_a�fiiilW/� ...r - ^'=- .. ■■
■■ 1■■�® =.►ice ►1�t=_ =Mu►Ii ��= v ■ ■ -■■_
Looking
r
r■
VA
# n 7PT
IJ r'... .' .. ..r �i, G.� ,,,r ��o:r,.T•r���rr +,y,-.t ,rr n>r.,rwrnw .. "M rsr 6,r��, +kn. ! :. ,I
i y
• �. �.>�-� 111 i� � �f�
!yc U
C• 1:,' ^�r��l'^ 1 ):I it a'#'a! w3 ' ice+ ,
�S � f��x r4•,,N F�� t ,�. J. 91,x•, kA ✓t�y u'�" �''r�r.rP �7^'�'rr,� q-r��t�'u
r`�`F'wf�, r^y y N' '� t_•x'f 1 jb.r�r y.'�- .h
.y t �a/�'sI .,J y�y Rp��r ��ihd� �e, a t. �;�" � •''�C T+'p'�
t'y�-'`+�'�+4 .�J`�� •4 �ti�r �,{• i�V y �� '�,. d4} M11� � r}yr / �.�a y � i �k
t r a l s•��`�
.r �,. r j ._,. �yi ��j ' ,:+�i''d�j�tr;�y tr `�r-�r a' '. r r' I--�� ��'�,�yy wq� � ''���'•S ,f
.r tr ik... � � 'r y�i. nj'X'a j�T,. F k'! tt i ,F �;. y �5 .� � •�-
�`
11
Yii
i i V
V
•r+�+�,+�1�l�MA�II���r1�/������'"I�'■lt��'�wIAR�I���,'��':�'i�� �(�, � � I � � — -
a
i•
., ' - r+ ,r� rz^j;�e�,�'� '.. 3t"i i,, �?r,' r'k`'Ya x�` e.,. .mac •'°s�1V..*Py�
_ r°.•' kt`7-r�,T� .�9F�''M _ �� i ,,w �y, A �+. k. i`�wtiA �b..
���` �y� r, �� `• r3R`'�i � x x. a;. � `�°i�M �;r`i.�£ � a� • '"`' t� A!ry; x`�� N� R'`:
+ �?'.,l �,�;?a9 ::s. °° a�,. �. $ +S '`iar � 34� `1 �{'r z �v;i{� 11 ' � •�(?:� �,"a• -"Ah°c+c. '. � j ,� € �y �.„� ,
��i`ii
NI, All I
t a�'*'�I'r7t
L
.x 7�t, x i9�.t +R ,» �•..,• M.x x .w r1 1 "I+a'" �M,,.� 1y'�.`: �r. i yea a, t r'`"•�•? '$W~ m - 4 - -`u�' YN
s'. f i i Eli
«��, •y c u Y- w1 I � r'� -'� �.+'fArrX" r 7(`. i,*�"S+ L� � r +i. � "." - .iy, }
a o sc•,r < °�, -g �.a�i ..t a.' Jy� MR+�,T .� .� *"� , +� f?`r , ;,ti;, � •��,
'�^-;3`�w*x�: s�"� 4 ! �i t .t1a l c_ �.,�f� t n„� � � .•'s��y �fv g ,�._ -3 •xti '. r ��, ,s .��'j �* 1
�. �s"r�ing�9 �#1�p} � �Y IrF^.I•'C } .�. ��}.�e sew rC°r4. ��1:�..': � y � :�'.:N &5,-Lr s@ �:'�ry� � ��P' � hr-' � ���J .�,� L
t
�
di:I h ti.� ' �'! �rAM yl rn}rA Y, F a` � � ^s•� rY.
_ � �w � •„ + ,> t � �F 4LF.'s�7� ',5, �5��4�' n � �145�.��� ;° �.. �` ' n j�: '
�g.r: a �� err '� s, a � f��,► p'c i�7 ���- , �' �M N,� �r�"i" a
<'k,� .�rf��• �. 7fiyn ;� L.� C" � �m�"1i.y�'y� Y R 4 ,:i• _ � �`1 ♦ .�
Looking
i ALA,
,�k�►.�`-�,aIP 'W1M`�,. ; �. _ �r _ate
.n a .�. r- •, al®�e'.,+�.,a ��M.� �, ,r � _ +;���� tVF r � yx'» x hi'#?�4
s
,4 C
� "�.`. �.► -a�*b �; Q0.„"." v ��"�f` i � .a� r{�� _ ''p.x�.�� � "� -r .
+'It€� •� .i, �f+s1 �_ .. :;a.• 4 °t:.w p t .+` {N ":f� �i..�.i 0., _ �° y�. _
r.i'fa:
' `F�
I ;>% i va'�'r 'St• ,.aw
. c
�, -.a °' �
� _ •w�.r,.� �i� � �� n� Yx :,,,r�� !r:='�} �'r, has �w r fi 'Y`j� .���A k'��'�f r�,+- E`, 'd `x '' +� k: S'F tl �i
y
ryy/X� s r
Looking West
J.
r
N'
Z .0
L Leh• r ' .� - _
Y J
* »x
A
,.E•�.d.u.
�{ � � � '31��, p�,t Yd+ yr;� ,� 7` Yy�� ���'��k , ;f�0.� ,?.'"",{°1 •,�1�+. .,y4 � _, -
4%'ry c�P� '1 H'��v��� •� + �� f��` ��,?,4{ '"N1� .�'1��i'°�i. .�a�"��'k�w aWiu�.�„�;..
MEMORANDUM
DATE: May 8, 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-1 (Retail Business) Zoning
District.
Council Resolution 3441 tasked the Planning Commission to develop an action plan for a
solution.
At the Planning Commission meeting of April 25th, the Commission recommended that City
Council accept the Action Plan (see the attached Planning Commission Resolution) for
automobile repair operations in various commercial districts. The Commission also opened a
public hearing on the issue and continued the hearing to allow any further testimony or
comments, noting that staff would be preparing an ordinance reflecting the Action Plan for
the Planning Commission's consideration. City Council will also be conducting a workshop
meeting to consider the Action Plan on May 13, 2013.
The proposed attached ordinance amending the Zoning Code contains the specific language
to implement the Action Plan. The Planning Commission is requested to review the proposed
ordinance and provide suggestions or comments.
Staff asks that the Commission particularly note the following:
• The definition of "Minor Automobile Repair" as described in Section 1, especially
the notation of the "business day" from 6AM until 6PM; and
• The limitations of the number of vehicles as described in Section 2, subsection (i) and
(ii).
Findings of Fact
I. Automobile repair operations are permitted in various degrees in the C-I (Retail
Business), C-3 (General Business) and Industrial Zoning Districts.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. The Planning Commission created a committee of Planning Commissioners and
business operators to prepare an action plan for addressing the issue.
7. 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.
8. The proposed ordinance amends Title 25 of the PMC to establish definitions for
minor automobile repair and applicable regulations governing such repair in the C-I
(Retail Business) Zone.
9. The proposed ordinance amends Title 25 of the PMC to establish a screening
requirement for inoperable automobiles in the C-3 (General Business) and I-1 (Light
Industrial) Zones.
10. The proposed ordinance is necessary to protect the safety and economic vitality of
business districts within Pasco.
If the Planning Commission is satisfied that the Findings and proposed ordinance addresses
the issues with auto repair operations, the following motions are in order:
Recommendation
MOTION: I move the Planning Commission adopt the Findings of Fact as contained in the
May 16, 2013 staff memo on automobile repair operations.
MOTION: I move the Planning Commission recommend the City Council adopt the
proposed ordinance amending Title 25 of the PMC as contained in the May 16, 2013 staff
memo.
EXHIBIT "A"
RESOLUTION NO.ZO -O r
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 I.
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 25t" day of April,
2013.
Joe Cruz, Chairman
Auto Repair Resolution-2
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO AUTOMOBILE REPAIR
OPERATIONS AND LAND USE AMENDING TITLE 25 OF THE
PASCO MUNICIPAL CODE
WHEREAS, cities have the responsibility to regulate and control the physical development within
their borders and to ensure public health, safety and welfare are maintained; and,
WHEREAS, the City of Pasco has zoning regulations that limit vehicle repair in commercial zoning
districts; and
WHEREAS, over time, conditions involving minor vehicle servicing and repair operations have
evolved so that enforcement of Title 25 has revealed the need to address changing conditions in the
community; and,
WHEREAS, over time, changed conditions within the community and the need for revising
applicable regulations concerning vehicle repair have caused the need for revised regulations and additional
definitions within Title 25; and,
WHEREAS,the City Council has determined that to further the purposes of comprehensive planning
and to maintain and protect the welfare of the community, it is necessary to amend PMC Title 25, NOW,
THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASCO, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS
FOLLOWS:
Section 1. That Chapter 25.12 entitled "Definitions" of the Pasco Municipal Code shall be and
hereby is amended and shall read as follows:
25.12.093 "Auto Repair Facilities" means the machinery_permanently installed on-site to facilitate
automobile repair such as hydraulic lifts,hoists or repair pits.
25.12.311 "Minor Automobile Repair" means repairs that are started and completed in one business
day, which is defined as the 12 hour period from 6 AM until 6 PM, and do not involve vehicle disassembly,
dismantling salvage or recycling; and include 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.
Section 2. That Section 25.42.020 entitled 'Permitted Uses"of the Pasco Municipal Code shall
be and hereby is amended and shall read as follows:
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.
Ordinance Amending Title 25
Page 1 of 3
(c)Catering establishments.
(d)Garage and filling stations,provided:
(i)" r° k is per-formed otA of a°°�°, All outdoor repair work is "minor" as
defined by 25.12.311,and
(ii) the number of vehicles undergoing outdoor repair does not exceed the capacity
of the outdoor repair facilities, and
(iii)the number of vehicles awaiting customer pick-up cannot exceed the capacity of
the indoor and outdoor auto repair facilities, and further provided that all vehicles must be
kept on the business premises,and
(iv) Pumps, lubrication or other devices are located at least fifteen feet from any
street property line, and
(v) All stored automobiles, automobile parts and storage and dismantled inoperative
automobiles are store contained within the building, except outdoor display racks.
(e) Laundromats and dry-cleaning establishments employing not more than five persons,
(f) Locksmith shops,
(g) Offices,
(h) Membership clubs,
(i) Photo shops,
0) Shoe repair shops;
(9) Sign shops,commercial(no outdoor storage of materials);
(10)Theaters;
(11)Veterinarian clinics for household pets(no boarding or outdoor treatment
(12)Upholstery shops; and
(13) Parking lots within 500 feet of a C -2 district boundary,provided such lots are paved and half of
the required landscape is live vegetation and, provided further, that any such property adjacent a
residential zoned parcel shall provide a site obscuring fence along the common lot line(s) in
accordance with residential fence height requirements.
Section 3. That Section 25.70.150 entitled"Vehicle Related Uses"of the Pasco Municipal Code
shall be and hereby is amended and shall 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-1,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).
Ordinance Amending Title 25
Page 2 of 3
PASSED by the City Council of the City of Pasco,Washington, and approved as provided by law this
day of 12013.
Matt Watkins,Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Debbie Clark,City Clerk Leland B.Kerr,City Attorney
Ordinance Amending Title 25
Page 3 of 3
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
MASTER FILE NO: SP2013-009 APPLICANT: AT&T Wireless
c/o Vinculums
HEARING DATE: 5/16/2013 3301 Burke Ave. Ste#100
ACTION DATE: 6/20/2013 Seattle, WA 98103
BACKGROUND
REQUEST: SPECIAL PERMIT: Location of a Cellular Antenna Tower in a C-1
(Retail Business) Zone
1. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION:
Leal: Parcel #117-380-022: The northwest 1/4 of the northwest 1/4,
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 8v RT - TRAC
WEST: C-1 - Vacant
S. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The Comprehensive Plan designates the site
for Government/Public uses. Goal OF-2 suggests the City ought to
maintain land use flexibility in regard to placement of infrastructure for
public and private utilities. Policy OF-2-A encourages the sound
management of all energy and communication utilities through
coordination and cooperation dealing with construction of such facilities.
Policy OF-2-13 encourages the placement of utility substations which are
necessary for the surrounding neighborhood.
6. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The City of Pasco is the lead
agency for this project. Based on the SEPA checklist, the adopted City
Comprehensive Plan, City development regulations, and other
information, a threshold determination resulting in a Determination of
Non-Significance (DNS) has been issued for this project under WAC 197-
11-158.
1
ANALYSIS
AT&T Wireless is requesting special permit approval to locate a permanent
cellular antenna tower within the TRAC campus allowing AT&T to expand their
fourth generation (4G) mobile data coverage area and to support more users.
The requested tower is proposed to be 120 feet tall; located directly adjacent to
the existing Verizon cellular tower. The two towers will share an existing
equipment enclosure (see Exhibit 3).
The tower will be designed to resemble a flag pole by housing all antennae
within an outer sheath. This method increases the outer diameter of the tower
but hides unsightly above-ground equipment from public view. The tower is
proposed to display a large Washington State flag. The adjacent Verizon tower
currently flies the United States flag; by displaying a Washington State flag the
proposed tower will complement the existing one. The outer pole sheath is
conditioned to be painted to match the color of the existing tower. This will
create unity in appearance, blending in with one another.
The C-1 zone permits structures to reach a maximum height of thirty five (35)
feet "except a greater height may be approved by special permit"
[PMC25.42.050(4)]. The proposed tower would exceed the 35 foot height limit
by eighty five (85) feet. The proposed location of the wireless communication
antenna and equipment meets the requirements listed under the provisions of
PMC 25.70.070, which requires wireless facilities to be located on or within a
publicly owned facility.
Wireless Facility zoning regulations were specifically developed to permit
(through special permit review) cellular tower/antenna equipment on taller
buildings within the community.
The PMC special permit review criteria for wireless facilities are written as
follows:
25.70.075 WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITIES.
Wireless Communication Facilities are permitted under the
following conditions:
(1) Such structures shall be permitted in all industrial or C-3
zoning districts provided the location is 500 feet or more from a
residential district. Any location closer than 500 feet requires
special permit approval.
(2) Such structures may be permitted by special permit in all
other zoning districts provided said structures are:
(a) Attached to or located on an existing or proposed
building or structure that is higher than thirty-five (35)feet,
or
2
(b) Located on or with a publicly owned facility such as a
water reservoir, fire station, police station, school, county or
port. acilittl.
(3) All wireless communication facilities shall comply with the
following standards
(a) 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.
(b) Wireless facilities shall be located in the City in the
following order of preference:
i) Attached to or located on buildings or structures
higher than 35 feet.
ii) Located on or with a publicly owned facility
iii) 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 complex. 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.
The zoning regulations were specifically developed to permit (through special
permit review) cellular tower/antenna equipment on publicly owned property.
The design of the tower will conceal the fact that it is a cellular tower. The
antennas will have no visual impact on the community because they will be
located inside the pole. A portion of the height of the pole will be mitigated due
to the height and bulk of the TRAC building. There are also a number of very
tall light poles on the surrounding sports fields that will tend to moderate the
height of the pole.
INITIAL STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT
Findings of fact must be entered from the record. The following are initial
findings drawn from the background and analysis section of the staff report.
The Planning Commission may add additional findings to this listing as the
result of factual testimony and evidence submitted during the open record
hearing.
1. The site is zoned C-1 (Retail Business).
3
2. The Comprehensive Plan identifies the site for Government/Public uses.
3. The site contains TRAC, an event center and recreation facility.
4. The site is 27.6 acres in area.
5. All municipal utilities currently serve the site.
6. In the C-1 zone cellular towers may be permitted by special permit
provided the tower is either:
i) Attached to or located on an existing or proposed building or
structure that is higher than thirty-five (35) feet; or
ii) Located on or with a publicly owned facility such as a water
reservoir, fire station, police station, school, county or port
facility.
7. The cellular tower is proposed to be outside of the existing cellular
equipment enclosure.
8. The equipment serving the proposed tower will be located within the
existing equipment enclosure.
9. The Comprehensive Plan suggests the City ought to maintain land use
flexibility with regard to placement of infrastructure for public and
private utilities.
10. The Comprehensive Plan does not specifically address cellular
equipment.
11. Cellular equipment creates minimal demands on City infrastructure.
12. The cellular tower will be camouflaged as a flag pole. The outer sheath of
the tower will be painted to match the existing adjacent tower and will
display a Washington State flag.
TENTATIVE CONCLUSIONS BASED ON INITIAL STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT
Before recommending approval or denial of a special permit the Planning
Commission must develop findings of fact from which to draw its conclusions
based upon the criteria listed in P.M.C. 25.86.060. The criteria are as follows:
(1) Will the proposed use be in accordance with the goals, policies, objectives
and text of the Comprehensive Plan?
The Comprehensive Plan does not specifically address cellular
equipment. The Comprehensive Plan goal OF-2 and policy OF-2-A
discuss the need for sound management and coordination in the
location of utilities and community facilities. Policy ED-1-C promotes
the need to support Pasco's urban area as a good business environment
by enhancing the infrastructure of the community. The applicability of
4
policy ED-1-C is enhanced due to the fact that the new tower will
provide more/better service primarily to commercially zoned properties.
Policy UT-1-C encourages coordination of utility providers' functional
plans with the City's land use and utility plans to ensure long term
service availability.
(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. The proposed equipment will look and function more or less as
a part of the TRAC complex
(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 120-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. The tower will be
designed to appear as a flag pole and will fly a State of Washington flag.
This flag-pole design will blend in with the existing flag-pole (Verizon)
tower which flies a United States flag. Lighting at the base of the flag
pole/tower will shine upwards; illuminating the flag at night. There will
be no impacts to surrounding publicly owned properties.
(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.
5
(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?
The proposal is required to be designed by a professional engineer to
withstand the forces of nature. The applicant is also required to
coordinate with the FAA and FCC prior to obtaining a building permit.
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 120 feet above grade away from human activity.
The most noticeable impact will be visual. The tower poses no true
threat to public health and safety. A Determination of No Hazard to Air
Navigation for the tower has not yet been issued by the FAA.
TENTATIVE APPROVAL CONDITIONS
1) The special permit shall apply to Parcel # 117-380-022;
2) The property shall be developed in substantial conformity with the
site plan and elevations submitted with the application;
3) The cellular antenna tower shall not exceed 120 feet in height;
4) The cellular antenna tower shall be designed to resemble a flag pole
and shall continuously display a flag;
5) The cellular antenna tower shall be painted to match the color of
existing flag pole cellular antenna tower which shares an equipment
enclosure with the proposed tower;
6) The cellular equipment shall be located within a sight obscuring
enclosure;
7) The wireless communication antenna shall not be used for advertising
or other non-communication purposes;
8) 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
9) The proposed cellular facility must comply with all FCC regulations
regarding radio frequency emissions.
RECOMMENDATION
MOTION: I move to close the hearing on the proposed temporary
cellular tower and initiate deliberations and schedule adoption of
findings of fact, conclusions and a recommendation to the City
Council for the June 20, 2013 meeting.
6
Vicin Item: Special Permit - AT&T Cell Tower
it
Y
A licant: AT&T N
Map pp •File #. SP2013 -009
a
•� R'4 4 i '� � II �.
u
. 6K. 1 » _ a
-.,
r -
r
l _
Y.1
E
m
BVRF.,L-N
P
SITE
Oil
WIN
HWJ -
r .
,
r" VTiO`r ROL
y q
� y+
Iy C
Land
� / / 1
Map File #: SP2013 -009
I I I "Willa
■■■■■■■■■■■■
Commercial -' W
� ■■■■■■■■■�■■■■■■■■■■■■
OF-
Commercial
,1
RODEO DR _
Vacant� WON
Public Recreation
(TRAQ
�� .
_■■
Zonin Item: Special Permit - AT&T Cell Tower
9
A pplicant: AT&T N
Map File •
#. SP2013 -009
W ,
A R1
o
F (Low Density Residential)
OF-
d C-1
° J(Retail Business
.a BURDEN BLVD W
a �
C-1
(Retail Business)
z C-1
RODEO DR o SITE
U
O
R-1 Ll L I I
RT
HOMERUN RD
(Residential
Transition) tON Ro
C-1
(Retail Business) o
y
0
Pole Base
f,� u}��gtlu011���l
R
l
_ j d
U
h ij re
Equipment Enclosure
4
i
Y-
Looking North
ON WIN
W.
� X. L
Looking East
Existing Tower
i
1jo
t
w
�"�d�M r+rwa �s�p �r i,, ,z ',�� ,t.���eYe� +•,, ` 'z.may -'� �„�,•.'��` .rw� ±�,lr�
' "�i4i$ }�"4F`' +�' �"�i. �r a", s f,-_y".r r 'w•�',''r•a �' "�'�.`'�,""' �''ti�� '�+t�'� ., _
�w x :;',",:s�... ";! �F;. ...•. � w t�, K i �..l�..s 3a� 7 4�$� �-_ .i, •tL. �,� i ,r�,.
�_:.-,FSr �AC��1:�;�1�+r�° ^��.'.,.�r-�..�s '' -' ..,."iii��►aii. �Jt'"-"�' .� `ir3,�'^!1:4.. �`,t'r��_ds±;� `,.
s � •
00
;Y
r � F
Looking South
rj
L FL
iz
{
- - ■IIIHIIIII�ttIR R36l11'' _ w$� �; - - -
���
P
it
ti rte.
ir,
est _N �
OR
WIN
� x
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
MASTER FILE NO: SP2013-010 APPLICANT: Dave Warner
HEARING DATE: 5/16/2013 4318 Des Moines Ln.
ACTION DATE: 6/20/2013 Pasco, WA 99301
BACKGROUND
REQUEST: SPECIAL PERMIT: Location of an auto sales lot in a C-1 (Retail
Business) Zone
1. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION:
Leal: Parcel #116-273-765: Lot 4, Binding Site Plan 2005-01
General Location: The 6300 Block of Burden Boulevard
Property Size: The parcel is approximately 1 acre with about 17,000 sq.
ft. available for the proposed auto sales lot.
2. ACCESS: The site is accessed from Burden Boulevard
3. UTILITIES: All municipal utilities are currently available to serve the site.
4. LAND USE AND ZONING: The site is currently zoned C-1 (Retail
Business). The northwest portion of the site contains a paved parking lot
while the southeast portion is vacant. Surrounding properties are zoned
and developed as follows:
NORTH: C-1 - Commercial retail/office uses
SOUTH: C-1 - TRAC/RV Park
EAST: C-1 - Vacant
WEST: C-1 - Commercial retail
5. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The Comprehensive Plan designates the site for
Commercial uses. Goal LU-4 encourages the development of high quality
regional and community shopping facilities within the City. LU-4-B
promotes the idea of clusters or centers for shopping and services that are
functionally and economically similar operationally. LU-4-C encourages
the application of standards and guidelines that will result in attractive
and efficient commercial centers.
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 applicant is requesting special permit approval to locate an auto sales lot
in a C-1 zone in the shopping center parking lot located at 6311 Burden
Boulevard. The site is part of a commercial complex consisting of five buildings
occupied by offices, retail businesses and a commercial daycare and common
parking areas. The buildings share the same access off Burden Boulevard and
Robert Wayne Drive to the west. Although the buildings and some of the
parking lot are on separate parcels they collectively function as a one
retail/office strip center (Sunny Meadows Center).
The property was zoned C-1 in 1994 and was intended to be developed with
indoor retail and offices uses as listed under the permitted uses section of PMC
25.42.020. The C-1 zone was established to provide locations for commercial
activities to meet the retail shopping and service needs of the community.
Banks, restaurants, offices, and retail stores are some of the most common
uses permitted within the C-1 zone. These businesses typically conduct
business indoors.
Automobile and truck sales are a permitted use in the C-3 zone. Other
permitted uses within the C-3 zone include mobile home and trailer sales,
heavy machinery sales, lumber sales and similar uses where business activities
often occur outdoors. Auto sales were included in the C-3 zone because they
were deemed to be a higher intensity use that would not be appropriate in a
typical C-1 zone. C-1 zones are often used as an intermediate zone between
more intense commerce areas (such as C-3) and low-intensity uses such as
residential. A typical car lot is adorned with balloons, flags, pennants, search
lights, banners, remote radio broadcast trucks, and other items to attract
attention. Additionally, car lots frequently have outdoor loudspeakers that can
be heard many blocks away. The loudspeakers at the Pasco Auto-Plex have
been heard up to a quarter of a mile away.
In the early 1980's the zoning regulations were amended to add automobile
sales as a Permitted Conditional Use in the C-1 zone. It was about that time
that many of the old service stations in town were closing. After closing it was
difficult for the old gas stations to be reused because they were built for a
single purpose related to servicing vehicles. Most of these old service stations
where located on the corner of two busy arterials streets in the central core of
the community. In an effort to assist with the reuse of the old gas stations the
zoning code was amended to conditionally permit auto sales on old service
station properties. The term "Conditional Use" means auto sales may be
approved under certain circumstance and conditions in one location and not in
another location. The Special Permit review process is used to determine
2
whether or not a conditional use would be appropriate in a given location. To
even qualify for the Special Permit review in a C-1 zone a proposed auto sales
lot must meet the preliminary criteria listed in PMC 25.42.040(2):
(a) Adjacent the intersection of two arterial streets, or
(b) Adjacent a single arterial street, provided it is not adjacent to or
across a public street right-of-way from a residential district, and
would not be located closer than 300 feet to any existing car lot.
Meeting either of the locational criteria above allows a business owner to apply
for a Special Permit. In this case the property meets criteria (b) due to the sites'
location on Burden Boulevard (arterial) which is not adjacent to any
residentially zoned parcels. Also, the site is not within 300 feet of another auto
sales business.
The proposed site is a vacant pad site that was reserved for a future
commercial building. The applicant is proposing to use this pad site to display
vehicles for sale. The proposed sales office will be located in the nearest
commercial building, 120 feet across a parking lot to the north. Unlike a typical
used car sales lot that is devoted to the display and sale of vehicles the
proposed sales lot will be intermixed with a functioning parking lot serving
other businesses. This is a potential safety issue for customers of the auto
sales lot and drivers trying to park in the parking lot. Parking lots do not
typically have foot traffic moving around looking at cars to buy.
The Comprehensive Plan encourages the grouping of similar types businesses.
A used car sales lot located within a business center or retail center does not
support the clustering concept. Similar businesses that locate near each other
tend to fare better economically than when they isolate themselves from other
similar businesses. The fast food restaurants are examples of like businesses
that often locate together or in the same general vicinity. A used car sales lot
shares little in common with an office or retail store.
The proposed used car sales lot is located in the 1-182 Overlay District. The
Overlay District was created in 2001 to provide additional development
guidelines to facilitate the development of an aesthetically pleasing
environment with attractive buildings and properties. Car sales lots and the
manner in which they are operated do not facilitate the development of an
aesthetically pleasing businesses environment. The I-182 standards were
amended in 2010 to address community concerns about the haphazard
manner in which temporary outdoor businesses were operating in the 1-182
area. Car sales lots are by nature outdoor businesses and some of the
community concerns that apply to the temporary and special event businesses
would also apply to car sales lots.
3
INITIAL STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT
Findings of fact must be entered from the record. The following are initial
findings drawn from the background and analysis section of the staff report.
The Planning Commission may add additional findings to this listing as the
result of factual testimony and evidence submitted during the open record
hearing.
1. The Comprehensive Plan identifies the site for commercial uses.
2. The Comprehensive Plan encourages the grouping of similar types
businesses. There are no other automotive sales or related business
located in the Sunny Meadows Center.
3. The site is zoned C-1 (Retail Business).
4. Retail stores, restaurants, offices, and banks are the most common uses
permitted within the C-1 zone. These businesses typically conduct
business indoors.
5. C-1 zones are often used as intermediate zones between more intense
commerce areas (such as C-3) and low-intensity uses such as residential.
6. The site is part of a one acre parcel within the Sunny Meadows Business
Center, most of which is used as a parking lot for the business center.
About 17,000 square feet of land is available for the proposed car lot.
7. Car sales are a permitted use in the C-3 zone which is a zoning district
that permits outdoor sales activities.
8. Auto sales were included in the C-3 zone because they were deemed to
be a higher intensity use that would not be appropriate in a typical C-1
zone.
9. Car sales are a conditional use in C-1 zone.
10. The term "conditional use" means auto sales may be approved under
certain circumstance and conditions in one location and not in another
location. The Special Permit review process is used to determine whether
or not a conditional use would be appropriate in a given location.
11. For a C-1 property to qualify for special permit review for a car sales lot,
the property in question would have to either be located at the
intersection of two arterial streets or be located on one arterial street and
not adjacent to or across a public right-of-way from any residentially
zoned properties. A proposed site must also be more than 300 from
another auto sales business.
4
12. In the early 1980's the zoning regulations were amended to add
Automobile sales as a Permitted Conditional Use in the C-1 zone.
13. The Permitted Conditional Uses of PMC 25.42.040 were amended in
1981 to address a growing concern about how to reuse many of the old
service stations in town that had closed. After closing, it was difficult for
the old gas station to be reused because they were built for a single
purpose related to servicing vehicles. The C-1 zone was amended to
specifically allow the adaptive reuse of old service station for car sales
lots.
14. The proposed site is not an old service station.
15. Applying of a Special Permit does not guarantee a special permit
application will receive approval.
16. The proposed site is a vacant pad site that was reserved for a yet-to-be-
built commercial building. The applicant is proposing to use this pad site
to display vehicles for sale. The proposed sales office will be located in
the nearest commercial building 120 feet across a parking lot to the
north.
17. A used car sales lot is typically not intermixed with a functioning parking
lot that serves other businesses.
18. Comprehensive Plan policy LU-4-C encourages the application of
standards and guidelines that will result in attractive and efficient
commercial centers.
19. The proposed used car sales lot is located in the I-182 Overlay District.
The Overlay District was created in 2001 to provide additional
development guidelines to facilitate the development of an aesthetically
pleasing environment with attractive buildings and properties.
20. Parking lots typically do not have foot traffic moving around looking at
cars to buy. This is a potential safety issue for customers of the auto
sales lot and drivers trying to park in the parking lot.
21. The I-182 standards were amended in 2010 to address community
concerns about the haphazard manner in which temporary outdoor
businesses were operating in the I-182 area. Car sales lots are by nature
outdoor businesses and some of the community concerns that apply to
temporary and special event businesses would also apply to car sales
lots.
22. A typical car lot is adorned with balloons, flags, pennants, search lights,
banners, remote radio broadcast trucks and other items to attract
attention.
5
TENTATIVE CONCLUSIONS BASED ON INITIAL STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT
Before recommending approval or denial of a special permit the Planning
Commission must develop findings of fact from which to draw its conclusions
based upon the criteria listed in P.M.C. 25.86.060. The criteria are as follows:
(1) Will the proposed use be in accordance with the goals, policies, objectives
and text of the Comprehensive Plan?
The site is identified in the Comprehensive Plan for commercial uses
and has been zoned C-1 rather than C-3 because of the residential
zoning to the north. Plan Policy LU-4-B promotes the idea of clusters or
centers for shopping and services that are functionally and economically
similar operationally. A used car sales lot is not functionally similar to a
strip center and permitting a used car sales lot in the parking lot of the
Sunny Meadows Center does not appear to support the objectives of the
Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan (LU-4-C) also encourages
the application of standards and guidelines that will result in attractive
and efficient commercial centers. This policy of the Plan is implemented
in part through the I-182 Overlay District (PMC25.58) which requires
architectural and landscaping enhancement over and above what is
required in other commercial areas of the City. Permitting a used car
sales lot in the parking lot of the Sunny Meadows Center would detract
from the overall purposes of the I-182 Overlay District and would not be
supportive of the Comprehensive Plan. Used car lots are notorious for
"junking up" business areas with balloons, flags, pennants, search
lights, banners and flashing lights.
(2) Will the proposed use adversely affect public infrastructure?
The proposed use will have little impact on the capacity of public
infrastructure. Any permitted use located within a permanent business
on the site will have more impact on the utility system but will also
contribute more through the payment of fees.
(3) Will the proposed use be constructed, maintained and operated to be in
harmony with existing or intended character of the general vicinity?
The existing character and intended character of the neighborhood on
the north side of Burden Boulevard is that of an indoor retail/office strip
center. The southern side of Burden Boulevard is intended to be the
recreation and event center of the community. The proposed use will be
operated differently than the existing and intended uses of the Sunny
Meadows Center. Having a used car sales lot within the existing parking
lot could become a nuisance for the business center and its employees
6
and customers. A used car lot at this location could alter the intended
character of the Sunny Meadows Center and surrounding office and
retail areas.
(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 zoned to permit commercial development.
Buildings on surrounding lots and on the lot in question are permitted to
be 35 feet in height. Development on the lot in question and on
surrounding lots must comply with all municipal codes including
landscaping, zoning and building codes. These codes are intended to
support property values and encourage compatibility within
neighborhoods.
(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 operation of the proposed used within an existing parking lot will
create objectionable safety conflicts between people looking to buy cars
and people trying to park cars to transact business in the Sunny
Meadows Center. The operation of the car lot with the typical balloons
tied to cars, flags, banners and all manner of obnoxious advertising
methods will not be a good business fit within the Sunny Meadows
Center.
(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?
The proposed car sales lot could create a public safety issue because the
lot will not be in a location that is devoted strictly to car sales. It will be
part of a large parking lot that is dedicated to providing parking to the
Sunny Meadows Business Center. Having salespersons and customers
wandering back and forth through the parking lot to get to the sales lot
and office may become a nuisance to the established businesses within
the Sunny Meadows Center. The manner in which car sales lots are
operated with obnoxious advertising may also create a nuisance for the
established businesses within the center.
7
RECOMMENDATION
MOTION: I move to adopt the findings of Fact as contained in the
staff report of May 16, 2013.
MOTION: I move the Planning Commission recommend the City
Council deny the Special Permit request for an auto sales lot on
Parcel # 1 16273765 at 6411 Burden Boulevard.
8
VicinY Item: Special Permit - Auto Dealership i
A licant: Dave Warner N
Map pp File #
FE`1't AY DR&
.. 1 sue' ° --- -
W .
r
;,� `• a :��. ;�'
-
SITE
N .�. r
{ V
I Her
.;�
j
Land Use Item: Special Permit - Auto Dealership
Applicant:Map # Warner
File N
0
Li
w
FENWAY DR
Single Family Residences
x
a
d
Commercial
3
F
a
w
SITE
BURDEN BLVD
TltAC
Zoning Item: Special Permit - Auto Dealership
Applicant: Dave Warner N
Map File #: SP2013 -010
Li
0
w
FENWAY DR
R-1 (Low-Density Residential)
x
W C-1 (Retail Business)
d
3
F
a
w
SITE
BURDEN BLVD
G1 (Retail Business)
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
MASTER FILE NO: SP 2013-011 APPLICANT: City of Pasco
HEARING DATE: 5/16/13 Public Works Dept.
ACTION DATE: 6/20/13 Pasco, WA 99301
BACKGROUND
REQUEST: SPECIAL PERMIT: Location of Water Intake Facility in an RT
Zone.
1. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION:
Legal: Lot 11, Harris Subdivision Except that portion deeded
for 1-182 right-of way.
Location: 11410 W. Court St
Property Size: .27 acres
2. ACCESS: The property has access from West Court Street.
3. UTILITIES: All utilities are available to the site.
4. LAND USE AND ZONING: The site is currently zoned RT (Residential
Transition). The site is vacant. Surrounding properties are zoned and
developed as follows:
North RT- Corn field
South No zoning - Columbia River
East RT-Parking lot and vacant lots under the I-182 Bridge
West R-S-20 - Residential/Harris vegetable stand
5. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The goals and policies of the
Comprehensive Plan encourage the extension or expansion of water
service throughout the Urban Growth Area. (UT-1 8v UT-1-A). Policy
UT-1-D encourages the leveraging of irrigation water to ease the use of
potable water for the maintenance of landscaping.
6. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The City of Pasco is the lead
agency for this project. Based on the SEPA checklist, the adopted City
Comprehensive Plan, City development regulations, and other
information, a threshold determination resulting in a Determination of
Non-significance (DNS) has been issued for this project under WAC
197-11-158.
ANALYSIS
The Public Works Department has applied for a Special Permit to locate a water
intake and pumping facility at 11416 West Court Street. The City currently has
an existing water intake and pumping facility adjacent to the proposed site
where water is pumped from the River to the West Pasco Treatment Plant
(113 15 W Court St) where it is treated and pumped into the City's potable
water system. The remaining water is pumped directly into the municipal
irrigation system.
The proposed intake and pumping facility will be dedicated solely to providing
water to the West Pasco Treatment Plant. The new intake will include a circular
concrete structure approximately 30 feet in diameter extending 75 feet below
the ground (wet well) with a 36-inch diameter pipe extending up to 220 feet
into the River. A building will be constructed over the wet well at ground level.
The building will house the pumping and electrical equipment. The building
will be constructed to match the scale and look of a residential structure. The
site will also be developed with a two car parking pad, front yard landscaping
and a wrought iron type perimeter fence.
This project is part of the City's ongoing efforts to keep the water utility system
current with the growing population of the community and to meet future
needs. Pasco's population has increased from 32,066 in 2000 to over 65,000
in 2013 an increase of 32,934 over the past 13 years. Corresponding with this
population growth has been the ever present need to increase the capacity of
the City's water utility system to accommodate the growth. In 2009 the City
constructed the West Pasco Treatment Plant to help meet current and future
demands for potable water and fire protection. The construction of the
proposed water intake and pumping facility is part of the ongoing plans to
provide community water service to the community.
The West Pasco Treatment Plant has an ultimate treatment capacity of 18
million gallons a day (mgd) when four more membrane filter racks and two
more raw water strainers are added. Currently, the plant can treat up to 6
mgd. The current water intake facility has a maximum capacity of 7.8 mgd
and a "firm capacity" of just 3.9 mgd. "Firm capacity" is defined as the
capacity when one pump is not in service. Hence the existing water intake
facility has neither the firm capacity to support the existing production
capability of the West Pasco Treatment Plant nor the total capacity to support
the ultimate treatment capability of the plant. The proposed intake facility will
be designed to provide a firm capacity to meet the current treatment plant
capacity and to be expandable to support the ultimate capacity of the
treatment plant.
2
Following the completion of the proposed water intake and pumping facility
and connection to the West Pasco Treatment Plant, the existing water intake
facility will be converted to an irrigation intake and pumping facility only.
All pumping equipment and electrical equipment will be housed in a CMU
block building that will have an exterior wainscot of split faced block above
which will be placed HardiePlank lap siding on the main walls along with
HardieShingle shingle siding above the walls on the gable ends. To aid in
creating a residential look for the building, the building will have the following
features:
• a rectangular wing extending from the main structure with a wall height
2 feet less than the wall height of the main structure;
• a 5/12 pitched roof on the main structure, a 4/12 pitched roof on the
wing and a dormer with windows facing West Court Street on the main
structure;
• 17 faux windows sized and located to balance the appearance of
ventilation intake louvers on two elevations and to give the appearance of
interior residential spaces on the other elevations;
The engineers designing the facility have selected 250 horsepower pumps
rather than 300 horsepower pumps to reduce the size of the building, size of
the electrical equipment, cooling requirements and to reduce noise. Intake and
exhaust louvers will be sound attenuating and an in-line silencer will be
included in the compressor room to reduce noise emanating from the exhaust
louvers.
The FCID pumping station is located at 11100 West Court Street, 1,200 feet
down-river from the proposed intake and pumping facility. The FCID pumping
station is located 160 feet from the nearest dwelling and operates with a 125
horsepower pump, a 300 horsepower pump and a 450 horsepower pump. The
pump house does not contain any noise abatement features and runs all
season with the doors and windows open to provide cooling to the building. A
fourth buster pump is located near the corner of Road 111 and West Court
Street. The City has never received a complaint about noise from the pumping
station. An online search of the Franklin County property records indicates
homes located in the vicinity of the FCID pumping station have maintained
their values or improved in value over the past few years.
The front yard area of the proposed site will be extensively landscaped with 11
trees, 38 shrubs, 1470 yarrow plants and 700 Potentilla. The existing
arborvitae hedge along the easterly edge of the site will be removed and the
hedge on the riverside of the property will remain. Residential setbacks
consistent with the neighboring RS-20 zoning will be maintained around the
proposed building.
3
The proposed facility will be remotely monitored and as a result less than a
dozen vehicle trips per week will be generated by the facility. A typical single-
family dwelling will generate about 10 vehicle trips a day (ITE Traffic Manual
Stn Addition). The 1-182 Bridge is located over and slightly south of the
proposed site. The WSDOT traffic counter near the east end of the bridge
indicates 56,000 vehicles pass over the site every day. The noise resulting from
this traffic has a significant impact on the surrounding neighborhood.
The three parcels to the south of the proposed facility are part of the 1-182
right-of-way and will never be developed with residential dwellings.
Pasco Municipal Code 25.86.020(l 1) classifies the proposed water utility
facility as an "Unclassified Use" requiring special permit approval prior to
location anywhere in the city, regardless of zoning.
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 and currently being used as a garden.
2. The site was annexed by the City of Pasco in 2012 (Ordinance #4088).
3. The site is zoned RT.
4. The proposed water intake and pumping facility is an unclassified use
requiring special permit approval prior to location anywhere in the city,
regardless of zoning.
5. The Comprehensive Plan designates the site for low-density residential
uses.
6. Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies encourage the extension or
expansion of water service throughout the Urban Growth Area. (UT-1 8v
UT-1-A).
7. Policy UT-1-D encourages the leveraging of irrigation water to ease the
use of potable water for the maintenance of landscaping.
8. The site is located more or less under the I-182 Bridge.
9. The site is adjacent to the existing water intake facility that provides raw
water to the West Pasco Treatment Plant and irrigation water for the
municipal irrigation system.
10. The West Pasco Treatment Plant was constructed in 2009 and is on a
parcel of land at 11315 West Court Street located 425 feet from the
proposed intake facility site.
11. The new water intake and pumping facility is needed to supply enough
raw water to meet the design demands of the West Pasco Treatment
Plant.
4
12. The proposed facility is designed to provide 25 million gallons of raw
water to the West Pasco Treatment Plant every day.
13. The new water intake facility will enable the existing water intake facility
to be converted to an irrigation only facility that will pump directly into
the municipal irrigation system thereby leveraging irrigation water to
reduce the use of potable water for yard maintenance.
14. The proposed pump and equipment structure will be built to resemble a
residential structure with a 5/12 pitched roof, lap siding, shingle siding
on the gable ends and 17 faux windows. Every elevation will have one or
more windows.
15. The facility has been designed with 250 horsepower pumps rather than
300 horsepower pumps to reduce the size of the building, size of the
electrical equipment, cooling requirements and to reduce noise
16. Intake and exhaust louvers will be sound attenuating and an in-line
silencer will be included in the compressor room to reduce noise
emanating from the exhaust louvers.
17. The FCID intake and pumping station in the 11100 block of West Court
Street operates with a 125 horsepower pump, a 300 horsepower pump
and a 450 horsepower pump. The pump house does not contain any
noise abatement features and runs all season with the doors and
windows open to provide cooling to the building. The City has never
received a noise complaint about the operation of the FCID pumping
station.
18. Properties in the vicinity of the FCID pumping station have maintained
their values or improved in value over the past few years.
19. Residential setbacks consistent with the neighboring RS-20 zoning will
be maintained around the proposed building.
20. The site will be heavily landscaped with a total of 2,919 plants.
21. Only two parking spaces will be provided on the site meeting the
minimum requirement for a single-family dwelling.
22. The facility will generate less than a dozen vehicle trips per week.
23. A typical single-family dwelling will generate about 10 vehicle trips per
day (ITE Traffic Manual 8th Addition).
24. Approximately 56,000 vehicles pass over the site on the I-182 Bridge
every day.
25. Pasco's population has increased from 32,066 in 2000 to over 65,000 in
2013.
26. The three parcels to the south of the proposed facility are part of the I-
182 right-of-way and will not be developed with residential dwellings.
5
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:
(I) Will the proposed use be in accordance with the goals, policies, objectives
and text of the Comprehensive Plan?
Comprehensive Plan Goals encourage the provision of adequate utility
services throughout the Urban Growth Area to accommodate population
increases as anticipated in the Plan. Plan Policy UT-1-A suggests public
water and sewer services be available concurrently with development in
the urban growth area. Policy UT-1-D encourages the leveraging of
irrigation water to ease the use of potable water for the maintenance of
landscaping. The proposed facility is consistent with and supports
policies of the Plan and helps implement the Comprehensive Water Plan
for the City.
(2) Will the proposed use adversely affect public infrastructure?
The proposed facility will have a positive impact on the potable water
system and the municipal irrigation system. The new intake and
pumping facility is designed to supply enough water to the West Pasco
Treatment Plant to enable the plant to operate at it full capacity of 25
million gallons per day. The current intake and pumping can only
supply water for about a quarter of the plant's capacity. Operating the
proposed facility will enable the existing intake and pumping facility to
be converted to pump only irrigation water thereby benefiting the
municipal irrigation.
(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 Public Works Department has gone to great lengths to design a
facility that will be constructed and maintained in harmony with the
intended character of the neighborhood. The building will be built to
resemble a residential structure with a 5/12 pitched roof, lap siding,
shingle siding on the gable ends and 17 faux windows. Every elevation
will have one or more windows. The property will be heavily landscaped
with a total of 2,919 plants. Fencing will be wrought iron in nature
6
rather than chain link. The overall design has incorporated a number of
features to minimize noise impacts on the area.
(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 existing pumping facility and the FCID pump house have not
discourage development in the area nor have they impaired the value of
nearby homes. The proposed height of the structure and site design
have been prepared to reflect the future residential character of the
neighborhood. The proposed building will resemble a single-story
single-family dwelling with a residential style driveway, heavy front yard
landscaping, exterior residential construction materials, a 5/12 pitched
roof and a wrought iron type fence.
(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 facility is located more or less underneath the I-182
Bridge that carries 56,000 vehicles across the Columbia River each day.
The bridge traffic creates considerable noise, vibrations and fumes in
the neighborhood. The standard operation of the proposed facility will
create no dust, fumes, odors, vibrations and less traffic on a weekly
basis than a single-family dwelling generates on a daily basis. The
operation of the standby generators will create occasional fumes. The
facility may create noise similar to the FCID pumping station but that
noise will be contained in the building that has specific design features
to minimize noise beyond the property boundaries.
(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 facility will be constructed to meet the current International
Building Code and American Water Works Standards. Once constructed
the facility will be professionally operated and maintained so as to be in
7
harmony with the general character of the neighborhood. Extra care has
been taken to incorporate design features that will ensure the facility
does not become a nuisance to the neighborhood. Air intake and
exhaust louvers will be sound attenuating and an in-line silencer will be
included in the compressor room to reduce noise emanating from the
exhaust louvers. All equipment will be located inside the building and
the building will be built to resemble a single-family structure.
Extensive landscaping will also be included to provide a residential look
to the property
TENTATIVE APPROVAL CONDITIONS
1. The special permit shall apply to Parcel No. 118221111.
2. The water intake and pumping facility shall be developed in substantial
conformity with the site plan and building elevations submitted with the
special permit application.
3. Landscaping shall conform to the landscape plan submitted with the
application.
4. Construction of the building must conform in every detail related to the
installation of noise attenuating devices and equipment.
5. 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 June 20, 2013 Planning
Commission meeting.
8
Item: Water Intake Facilit V icinity •
Applicant: City of Pasco vublic Works N
Map _
File #. SP 2013 011
Ai:
i
i
SITE
40
x
,.
`A
Land Item: Water Intake Facilit
Use Applicant: City of Pasco Public Works N
Map File #: SP 2013-011
Agriculture
(County)
Vac.
SITE
�o% H2O
mob` Treatment
aR'�e
r
�s
Zonin Item: Water Intake Facility
g Applicant: City of Pasco Public Works N
Map File #: SP 2013 -011
RT
(County)
SITE
RS-12
r
n .
a ,
� y a
y` r •.. A..x � w�"�J4} � �7~.L .�' S� tt"f-v} . .
�!. ,`�• _ .. raj - - �- tlry^ '+� tF r y.; 1 .. ti�+ !
IP 4
jp
JiL-
It
• -. ���t � {* 4. '+V'- _ •�• �.; .. is�'�.. f�...,y '..q j+=., � - .lei r.
... / - •, `b� �' _ Via.
17' / � �• 'a. J`.4''7 "�'�^
WIR41-
� - - cam. a� � _ -_ �'` 3' � - -.�'`��►'�--
_
i w�;, .� ti F. • � cab. ,. ��
�'..y, +� �?'^���° � 4� � '�:• �ryt'��, rr�, f �., i �� �s,�r�' ��3 r Y � ,` x�'�'rT ter`
#�y ��. }a .� +�� !L� �.°1 � �N r`'•� �� 'rr,'�C; q�.0��;i+M i �r�,S,R'"� .�a•f. '�f
-' °its `t fcti. ; r "�s!1''4a�•' Vii;- � `�` 4! ". oti -G"+r� '' f'y �.^1✓i I 'Yt3�y`'v, y .,. .sa,
y; f�•a i.•i..- a t;o'�9 3i11 r � '�I - `��'�: f� r'�, '� � ky'"g'� ''SS "� '*'`'°tY ./ t'' +y- 6
e° ;li -.dr _4R�v '��' r.�� .s �t �'F• -,t�,�-r 3 •�M i d ,�' �d!''''.. ✓•,�-" c- ' ,.r�,.� •t.. $ t -•F =
j
i
r f * �tl` s �,. ,�S ,� � s� � lr x' x*�•� x ��.e TI '�� �; ,.r � � '
+.� .' '� $ '��•� d it d• ��'•` y >� a•r. _�� '�.• ¢' i-,i •; ,.v. " f.
� rt'• -y+.. � '►�`:,_ ;�� ;�`�" '�'LJ�;�`:" r�r}ti•-` ter. 'rte ''�'`';�C.,,,' y� `ik1 ?�' xt,,! '�' � i*.K''� ("....
'a -. �. „_, ay ,. 3� ;•' i.. : : '.'f;! �t" ��_ 1. - :d` - y •�Yt+ °i 3 Ste. ° U;+�d ^,% m�x-: � '�
[- _. Y F.�"`,�. - "'•W'r �;, .'.'C' •'�' _ � V a' '4 °� r� � t r��: ti�� a r Vr� °
Looking East
,� �. °'L.r�sr„i_.,t�, �, {;EL;�a�s•�.ta,. ._�'�t.iR+. >�=3•r.'r ,,,
.1451
OL 70
Looking South
.,............
Af
NN
-� -�.-.,,ti.•-:tea
r �
r,
f (yam
i �,
e
�:
Looking West
k V, ,
,Mv.
110
tkr. wj�
f JAW.
z_ 7
Arr
gip` •. �. e �ti �.
y� w
16,
Looking
N.
wwv-
Cl
ICU
ar'�a-_..f f --r- /�_ r �•f• a -� � a�nr,..go- -y. - .s '•d r• _�
���• f ".- _ .-_> � tit% �' .a` f,,'� "s�� - - ..1 _ _-._, � � - « .
"W-4
s
"1 S:
rj y S�' r w � 1 „�'e•_
4T ' t
SAM
,�[ _ ar -�"• .'1c�1� � ��� .'tie ,.t- + a'f+,.,r '�, r� �.���+4�'� .11c ti"�. --
�i k �� .. � �� r•l x � r*- �f '-�.q, � �wy�,I I t''ti � �3a�`{t-.`fig •�• .
%J;
��r ly rIaf—, T/y?- ��CC!! t!k �� _"s �r ' 'iY. t <" i;''R`p•t'"'�c?y�r -- F
• T
L
,I �f r1� ?fit' ,i !< {t!-�4k' �,°^,ii �-� 1:s � - '� 3y`.., .[ 'Sc : l• .. � � - -_
/.•'+y{� a r<t i".r i_` �.iF fr. . ".ij{ ' �",. ar1�` yiF- +; -
f p •sue►. g'{r 7 AAA-
V:iV ,4r
Looking West
.. I
46, ANIL
+i�S. +
4T y t
PxL-, r�l x � r*- �f '-�.q, � s+wy�,I I t''ti � �3a�`{t-.�g _ , •"�'r .
•�/�r ly IIaf—, T/y???__- t!k �� _"s �r 'iY. t <" i;''R`p•t'"'�c?y�r -- F
• T
L
,I �f r1� ?fit' ,i !< {tI-�4k' •�,°^,ii �-� 1:s � - '� 3y`..,' .[ 'Sc : l• .. � � - --
/.•'+ ' -
+�
1.7 ���yyy,,, •� .A � � IiP', .M�N , '�• � q.S '�I�
REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
MASTER FILE NO. Z 2013-001 APPLICANT: Nathan Machiela
HEARING DATE: 5/16/13 2464 SW Glacier Place STE# 110
ACTION DATE: 6/20/13 Redmond, OR 97756
BACKGROUND
REQUEST: REZONE Rezone from RT (Residential Transition) to R-1 (Low-
Density Residential).
1. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION:
Legal: That portion of the SW quarter of the SW quarter of Section 15,
Township 9 North, Range 29 East, WM. lying northerly of the FCID canal
except that portion platted as Chapel Hill Division 2 and that portion
platted as Short Plat 2010-14.
General Location: 6720 Aintree Drive
Property Size: The parcel is approximately 5 acres.
2. ACCESS: The property will have access from Aintree Drive along the
north property line.
3. UTILITIES: All utilities are available to the site. Utilities will need to be
extended into the site prior to development.
4. LAND USE AND ZONING: The site is currently zoned RT (Residential
Transition). The site contains a single-family residence with an accessory
structure. Surrounding properties are zoned and developed as follows:
North R-1 - SFDUs
South C-1 - Fire Station/Commercial Business
East R-1 - SFDUs
West County RS-20 - SFDUs
5. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The Comprehensive Plan designates this area
for Mixed Residential uses. Land Use Policy LU-3-13 encourages "infill"
development. Other goals and policies suggest the City permit a full
range of residential environments including single family homes (H-2-A)
and standards that control the scale and density of accessory buildings
and homes to maintain compatibility with other residential uses (H-4-13).
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
1
Non-significance (DNS) has been issued for this project under WAC 197-
11-158.
ANALYSIS
The property in question was annexed to the City in 1982 and was a remnant
parcel of the original farm circle that occupied the area between the FCID canal
and I-182 east of Road 68. Because this 5 acre parcel was held under separate
ownership from the farm circle it was not rezoned when the Chapel Hill
development was being planned. Consistent with the RT zoning classification
the site was developed with one single-family house and a shop/barn. In 2003
the surrounding farm circle was rezoned to R-1, R-3 and R-4 and developed as
the Chapel Hill Subdivision. The site has remained minimally developed since
that time. The applicant is requesting a rezone for the subject property to allow
single-family residential development consistent with the single-family zoning
in the Chapel Hill development.
The City's land use plans for the past 30 years have indicated the property in
question should be utilized for Mixed Residential uses. The "Description and
Allocation of Land Uses" table in the Land Use Chapter of the Comprehensive
Plan indicates the Mixed Residential classification permit's single-family
through multi-family zoning with densities ranging from 5 to 20 dwelling units
per acre. Following the direction of the land use plan, most of the community's
residential development over the last two decades has occurred in the I-182
corridor. Rezoning the site would support past community development efforts
related to infrastructure improvements.
The applicant is seeking a zone change from RT (Residential Transition) to R-1
(Low-Density Residential) to match the zoning of the single-family portion of the
Chapel Hill subdivision to the north and east. The R-1 zone allows for up to one
dwelling per 7,200 square feet, with up to 40% lot coverage and building
heights up to 25 feet without a special permit. R-1 zoning permits up to 4.5
dwelling units per net acre after accounting for the areas occupied for public
roadways.
The proposed rezone will essentially facilitate a residential infill development
that is encouraged by the Comprehensive Plan (LU-3-B). The R-1 zoning will
permit the development of single-family homes at a scale and density to match
the scale and density of the Chapel Hill development.
The initial review criteria for considering a rezone application are explained in
PMC. 25.88.030. The criteria are listed below as follows:
1. The changed conditions in the vicinity which warrant other or additional
zoning:
Adjacent residential development and growth within the City make the zone
change appropriate, timely, and consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan.
2
Properties to the north and east have been zoned to R-1 and developed with
single-family residences. Changed conditions in the neighborhood include
installation of all utilities in the surrounding subdivision as well as the
construction of homes, apartments and commercial buildings
2. Facts to justify the change on the basis of advancing the public health,
safety and general welfare:
The rezone will cause the existing home on the site to be fully connected to city
utilities thereby eliminating the need for a septic tank and causing the home to
fully contribute to the cost of maintaining the utility system. The rezone will also
facilitate the development of new single-family dwellings in a safe and sanitary
development providing housing for Pasco residents.
3. The effect it will have on the nature and value of adjoining property and
the Comprehensive Plan:
Based on past experience with rezoning vacant land adjacent to existing
subdivisions, and evidence provided by tax records of Franklin County, the
proposed rezone will not negatively impact adjoining properties. Rezoning the
property will assist with the implementation of the Comprehensive Plan.
4. The effect on the property owners if the request is not granted:
If the request is not granted it is probable the property will continue to remain
underdeveloped.
5. The Comprehensive Plan land use designation for the property:
The Comprehensive Plan designates the site for Mixed Residential uses which
include single-family dwellings. The proposed rezone is consistent with the Plan.
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 currently zoned RT (Residential Transition) and has been
zoned RT for approximately 30 years.
2. The site borders R-1 Zones to the north and east, which are
developing with single-family homes as a part of the Chapel hill
development.
3. The Comprehensive Plan designates the site for mixed residential
uses.
4. The surrounding Chapel Hill subdivision was rezoned for multi-family,
single-family and commercial development in in 2003.
5. A fully developed street (Aintree Dr.) now borders the property.
3
6. Aintree Drive and the other streets within the Chapel Hill subdivision
contain all municipal utilities required to serve residential
development.
7. The site contains a single-family residence and a small barn.
8. The site was annexed by the City of Pasco in 1982.
9. Applicant is requesting a change of zoning from RT to R-1.
10. Properties to the west are zoned RS-20 and have been developed with
single-family homes.
11. The R-1 zone allows one dwelling per 7,200 square feet of land
permitting net densities of 4.5 dwelling units per acre.
12. The R-1 zone allows for building heights up to 25 feet without a
special permit.
13. The rezone will facilitate an infill development which is encouraged by
the Comprehensive Plan.
CONCLUSIONS BASED ON INITIAL STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT
Before recommending approval or denial of a Rezone, the Planning Commission
must develop its conclusions from the Findings of Fact based upon the criteria
listed in P.M.C. 25.88.060 and determine whether or not:
1. The proposal is in accordance with the goals and policies of the
Comprehensive Plan.
The proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map and
several Plan policies and goals. Land Use Policy LU-3-B encourages "infill"
development while H-2-A suggests the City permit a full range of residential
environments including single-family homes. Housing Policy (H-B-A) encourages
standards that control the scale and density of accessory buildings and homes to
maintain compatibility with other residential uses. The standards of the
proposed rezone are identical to the standards for the single-family portion of the
Chapel Hill subdivision.
2. The effect of the proposal on the immediate vicinity will not be materially
detrimental.
The proposed R-1 zoning matches the R-1 zoning in the Chapel Hill subdivision
and will permit the development of single-family dwellings under the same
development standards that apply to the Chapel Hill development.
3. There is merit and value in the proposal for the community as a whole.
Adjacent residential development and growth within the City make the zone
change appropriate, timely and consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan.
The rezone will facilitate a residential infill project that will utilize the existing
traffic circulation system and utility systems.
4. Conditions should be imposed in order to mitigate any significant
adverse impacts from the proposal.
4
The proposed zoning is identical to the zoning in the Chapel Hill development and
as a result there is no need for conditions.
S. A Concomitant Agreement should be entered into between the City and
the petitioner, and if so, the terms and conditions of such an agreement.
A Concomitant Agreement is not needed.
RECOMMENDATION
MOTION: I move to close the hearing on the proposed rezone and
initiate deliberations and schedule adoption of findings of fact,
conclusions and a recommendation to the City Council for the
June 20, 2013 meeting.
5
• Item: Rezone RT to R- 1
Vicinity Applicant: Nathan Machiela N
Map 2013 -001 File #: Z
CHAPEL HILL BLVD --- __
r _
.i DEL MAPC*T
CO
Y
•f
Y" CITY LIMITS w
VALLEY VII=UV PL �C:) ,� �, ,� OC)p8I
4
1 I
®4• + n
Ic-
CP4 m `,
Q a CO r
}, ¢ SITE w v �
P/
� p Rya
m m.
L n;
CD r ?'gam'' `y'. m f
a ,
low
.' ,.'. .ARGENT RD
Item: Rezone RT to R- 1
Land Use Applicant: Nathan Machiela N
Map 2013 -001 File #. Z
CHAPEL HILL BLVD
DEL MAR CT =
v
Vacant Multi-Family v a
U�
Al"
VALLEY VIEW PL ?� TRFEDR
Q:1 SFDUs
00 Now
4 J� J
SITE � °� � T�RFpq
SFDUs
U
PI /CO
Fire
DR
Fire
CO Station
CD
J
0
Vacant
0 —
Of
COM.
ARGENT RD
Ip I'l , Ili
Zoning Item: Rezone RT to R- I
Map Applicant: Nathan Machiela N
File Z 2013 -001
RS-20 (County) � '
SEEM
i
I ,N
k WE LE�14%, k I ONE
Site
(Looking North )
l]i1011T -.
�$ r
r _
•+4�- ',,r'• �• �, — � t � •r;��' yew ". , r _ ��
{
- *a ► �+'}, �1 �F ' +MFE`5^F5' ..J �R;"..6LN � '. {Lly.�+' P y M1A, R , '�`M1Y
� ,r4yd'' - r •{ - aE rJ;f�,r .�tx. � .. �r �h � �r °�;�� � F �
fi
_ �.•�. �' 'Q`` - � ._, ,�" �: r � rte• +�•
• � F
Yrrt7-
-
q,
,, ���f_.� # .,+fx ��� �'� a, ,t�'es •'+�ca�aa�`, +� `?{9 ' ��
►:d z -,.wit ,�"n'�r': � � � ., tJggp e � +
VA
r"
Looking North
'IMMM-T-71., 't
a i
_
�z
Looking
TF' '
u
,..� _
r� �� ✓-; .�.r ,R-�,r� P y!✓fir r' f'. � t� , ,. ' �..`i r �. 'y �� .. ':
I
r f r f.t ';:4 r 3 Y.. .� .+y rf� �� .�r!� r C II, �. .§�°�" t L �5•" V .C1� - $� -��5 ;a r+ 1' a '
a
��#��,�- - �•.'�, C 4�A.. ;� - 4�1. 1 � � y '� r i`'�"� �Y,r-aa' + „ °V,� �r`I..� ` ` � ;�" t J6r!
{
;:.
Looking South
y•.
ff
r _
d
_.r., — Y- -' `+, -kFa w �,.ti�ki Sy'1,'• ��L, ,. t � L,.,r�N.. ��.;� � .. r
Irv°
�t
Looking West
-
_
-
-
' 4
Y
w
t�
T �.., K.xM L vim.. 4 f .�L j�p- _ _ _ y-•
r
�-s
y _ a >
r -
+(
r �.- �� .++r. - -- Lit . ✓ � '.. �. - .!4, �-sue f-.' - � - .9`°•� � �� -���+�_.
REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
MASTER FILE NO. Z 2013-002 APPLICANT: Ronald Grate
HEARING DATE: 5/16/2013 540 S. Rayburn Rd
ACTION DATE: 6/20/2013 Othello WA 99334
BACKGROUND
REQUEST: REZONE Remove 30 unit density limit requirements from
concomitant agreement in R-3 (Medium-Density
Residential) Zone.
1. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION:
Legal: Cole's Estates Lot 5.
Location: The 5900 Block of Road 90
Property Size: Approximately 4.7 acres
2. ACCESS: The property has access from Road 90 along the west property
line.
3. UTILITIES: All utilities are available to the site.
4. LAND USE AND ZONING: The site is currently zoned R-3 (Medium-
Density Residential) with a concomitant agreement limiting density on
the site to 30 units maximum. The site is vacant. Surrounding properties
are zoned and developed as follows:
North R-1 (Low Density Residential) - SFDUs
South C-1 (Commercial) - Vacant
East R-1 (Low Density Residential) - SFDUs
West RT (Residential Transition) - Vacant
5. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map
designates this area for mixed residential 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
The property is approximately 4.7 acres fronting on Road 90 along the west
property line. The lot was platted under Franklin County zoning as part of a
1
large-lot rural subdivision in 1967, before the City annexed the area in 1982.
The residential subdivisions to the north and east were subsequently rezoned
to R-1 and have largely been built out with single-family residences. Properties
to the west were rezoned with higher density R-3 zoning and developed with the
Mediterranean Villas condominiums. Adjacent properties to the south were
rezoned to C-1 and are vacant. Properties further to the south have been
developed with a mini-storage and a few professional office buildings. The C-1
District permits the development retail, office and commercial services such as
retail stores, automotive repair shops, tire stores, restaurants and taverns.
The subject property was rezoned in 2012 to R-3 with a concomitant agreement
with the following conditions:
Conditions:
A. No more than 30 residential units shall be permitted on the property;
B. Maximum building heights shall be limited to 30 feet;
C. No Special Permits shall be authorized for increases in building height
over the allowable 30 feet;
D. Where side yard areas abut the northern and eastern lines of said Lot
5 the setback shall be at least 15 feet;
Applicant wishes to rezone the subject property to eliminate the 30-unit
limitation, while retaining the other conditions.
Applicant has also expressed willingness to accept a design standard requiring
stucco finish on all units.
The City of Pasco Comprehensive Plan shows the property to be within a
mixed-density residential designation. The R-3 Zone allows for up to one
dwelling per 3,000 square feet for multiple family dwellings, with up to 60% lot
coverage and building heights up to 35 feet without a special permit.
The City's Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map indicates the property in
question should be utilized for mixed residential uses. Land Use Policy LU-3-B
encourages "infill and density including planned unit developments to protect
open space and critical areas, and provide recreational areas and amenities in
support of more intensive, walkable neighborhoods." Land Use Policy LU-3-E
calls for designating "areas for higher-density residential development where
utilities and transportation facilities enable efficient use of capital resources."
Housing Policy H-1-B encourages "the location of medium and high density
housing in locations that will avoid the need for access through lower density
residential neighborhoods." Housing Policy H-1-1) directs the City to "avoid
large concentrations of high-density housing." Housing Policy H-2-A calls for
the City to "Allow for a full range of residential environments including single
family homes, townhouses, condominiums, apartments, and manufactured
housing." Housing Policy H-4-B requires the City to "Maintain development
2
regulations and standards that control the scale and density of accessory
buildings and homes to maintain compatibility with other residential uses."
The initial review criteria for considering a rezone application are explained in
PMC. 25.88.030. The criteria are listed below as follows:
1. The changed conditions in the vicinity which warrant other or additional
zoning:
Adjacent residential development and growth within the City make the zone
change appropriate, timely, and consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan.
Properties to the north and east have been rezoned to R-I and developed with
Single-Family residences. The property to the south has been recently rezoned C-
1 in anticipation of future commercial development. Properties to the west have
been rezoned R-3 zoning and developed with condominiums.
2. Facts to justify the change on the basis of advancing the public health,
safety and general welfare:
The rezone will create a medium density transition or buffer between residential
areas to the east and north and commercial zones to the south. The original
rezone from RT to R-3 was designed to encourage "infill and density including
planned unit developments to protect open space and critical areas," as per Land
Use Policy LU-3-B, and allow for "higher-density residential development where
utilities and transportation facilities enable efficient use of capital resources," in
keeping with Land Use Policy LU-3-E. This rezone would still align with that
intended goal and also "Allow for a full range of residential environments
including single family homes, townhouses, condominiums, apartments, and
manufactured housing," consistent with Housing Policy H-2-A.
3. The effect it will have on the nature and value of adjoining property and
the Comprehensive Plan:
Without a development or concept plan to review the particulars for this proposed
change of zone, it is not possible to assess the impacts to the existing
neighborhood. It is also not possible to establish a concomitant agreement that
would address mitigation of any impacts.
4. The effect on the property owners if the request is not granted:
If the request is not granted it is probable the property will continue to remain
vacant, and/or the owner may submit a rezone for a different residential
designation.
5. The Comprehensive Plan land use designation for the property:
The Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map designates the site for medium-density
residential uses. The proposed density increase would not contravene the
Comprehensive Plan.
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 is currently zoned R-3 (Medium-Density Residential) with a
concomitant agreement with the following conditions:
a. No more than 30 residential units shall be permitted on the
property;
b. Maximum building heights shall be limited to 30 feet;
c. No Special Permits shall be authorized for increases in building
height over the allowable 30 feet;
d. Where side yard areas abut the northern and eastern lines of said
Lot 5 the setback shall be at least 15 feet;
2. Applicant is requesting a removal of the 30-unit density limitation of
the R-3 Rezone concomitant agreement.
3. The site was rezoned to R-3 in 2012
4. The site was zoned RT for approximately 30 years previous to the
current rezone.
5. The site borders R-1 Zones to the north and east, which are developed
with single-family homes.
6. The Comprehensive Plan designates the site for medium-density
residential uses.
7. The property was platted in 1967 as part of a rural, large-lot
subdivision.
8. The site is vacant.
9. The site was annexed by the City of Pasco in 1982 (ORD #2388).
10. The purpose of the Mixed Residential area is to serve as a buffer or
transition between low-density residential and commercial districts.
11. Properties to the west are zoned R-3 and have been developed with
condominiums.
12. The R-3 Zone allows for one dwelling per 3,000 square feet for
multiple family dwellings, or up to 68 units.
13. The R-3 Zone allows for building heights up to 35 feet without a
special permit. The current R-3 Zoning with concomitant agreement
limits building heights to 30 feet. Applicant is proposing one-story
buildings.
14. Single-family residential homes developed in the Loviisa Farms
subdivision across Chapel Hill Boulevard from the 200 unit Silver
Creek Apartment complex and the Sandy Heights RV park have
increased in value (per Franklin County records 2012) in recent years.
15. The single-family homes on Klickitat Lane sharing a common property
line with the 200 unit Stonegate apartment complex were constructed
after the Stonegate Apartments were constructed. The homes on
4
Klickitat lane have increased in value (per Franklin County records
2012) in recent years.
16. No development plans have been submitted as part of this rezone
request.
CONCLUSIONS BASED ON INITIAL STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT
Before recommending approval or denial of a Rezone, the Planning Commission
must develop its conclusions from the Findings of Fact based upon the criteria
listed in P.M.C. 25.88.060 and determine whether or not:
1. The proposal is in accordance with the goals and policies of the
Comprehensive Plan.
The proposal is consistent with many of the goals and policies of the
Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan also encourages the development
of a variety of residential environments (Goal H-2) and the Plan and supports
efforts to provide affordable housing to meet the needs of low and moderate
income households (Goal H-5). However, conformance with H-4-B cannot be
determined due to lack of a concept or development plan.
2. The effect of the proposal on the immediate vicinity will not be materially
detrimental.
It is believed that the rezone will not have any adverse effect on adjacent
property values. However, no formal development proposal has been submitted
as part of this rezone request, and the property could be developed with up to 68
units at one unit per 3,000 square feet, with building heights up to 30 feet.
3. There is merit and value in the proposal for the community as a whole.
Adjacent residential development and growth within the City make the zone
change appropriate, timely, and consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan.
The rezone will create a medium density transition between residential areas to
the east and north and commercial zones to the south and west.
4. Conditions should be imposed in order to mitigate any significant
adverse impacts from the proposal.
Conditions should address concerns over privacy encroachment and free flow of
air and light near the established R-1 zone.
5. A Concomitant Agreement should be entered into between the City and
the petitioner, and if so, the terms and conditions of such an agreement.
The site is currently zoned R-3 (Medium-Density Residential) with a concomitant
agreement with the following conditions:
a. No more than 30 residential units shall be permitted on the property;
b. Maximum building heights shall be limited to 30 feet;
5
C. No Special Permits shall be authorized for increases in building height over
the allowable 30 feet;
d. Where side yard areas abut the northern and eastern lines of said Lot 5
the setback shall be at least 15 feet;
Applicant wishes to remove condition "a" which limits density to 30 units.
Applicant is willing to accept a provision requiring minimum design standards,
including stucco exteriors.
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 June 20, 2013 Planning
Commission meeting.
6
• Item: Rezone R-3 Remove Density Limit
Vicinity Applicant: Ronald Grate N
Map File #: Z 2013 -002
7777
e' F J
WELLINGTON DR = ZERHER CT. 1 �T.UCKER CT�.,,T.I,.CKER DR
Q I Y
_...
U _ '
a
r Il`+ J O
W Z u) I
4
Y CHESHIRE CT
__,. ,. ..STUTZ D.R. _.
w m
U C/) •
m ;
,T e. p�C �� HU,,1DS`'OO NI<CT
wF
r OV„ERLAN T
z ..
rn W
,. JLS.HTRE DR �r
r ,
O a
STUDEBAKER DR �..
a e
SITE
r
\\\\\\
P•ACKARD,DRS
Of
Ui
7
U) D
0
t
U)
w NASH DR
,
NASH DR -
jrs
��° :� DESOTO DR
Item: Rezone R-3 Remove Density Limit
Land Use Applicant: Ronald Grate N
Map File #: Z 2013 -002
MEN
moll
M A
■
� Y
zoning Item: Rezone R-3 Remove Density Limit
Map Applicant: Ronald Grate N
File #: Z 2013 -002
MEN
M1 I VL�
NINE MEN
o
r . .
a r
�� � ,ice � ✓ Y•k; '"� ��'•��� -
b r
� 4
o i
4
ri
.. r
3D R ND RING
�l� III
Tl
Yo •
i
I
a-s
1 o'=
Vi � eat �,,• >, vim, � � �.� i I �� I --I �—=� I
I � ,
tl __
4
-
� (I
I IL
- 1` - -1 L
FF
1
r
% -
vv
7--I
I
r
1
-- ,.
s
<.a
y
� I
i
r \
\
,
Y _
' �Y
^1c
Id
J - _
z 41
TETRATECH HOUSING PROPOSAL 9 MAY 2013 Page:
i
I
tea:
i
r
4
. s
_u
,v
-
a
I
I
' _ r• - -� ,ten - _• �::d, s -� � f+.'� � l - •;� - - -t7•Iti ii-'S'• �'°'� vi• i 4^.
-- - ��s� �- ;,: ->-• Syr y=�"'-�._ .�.rr a. .. <: - _ - _ - - _ '�-�e .� ��s`L`'-` - '.
— - .- -��'.rx�' -�-jir � -�`�- �'r- _ � - ��• - _ti- . -� ,�.:—�� '4'1i5 � �#it, �.ate,� —
_
- -
i
-
r
:
Y --
__ _ - h� 1.•' _
f
Looking North
Looking East
Looking •
•^lar4 .;.� Rv lr r 'A4 ~�a -_ r 'ry � .�.i°�`- -- _
�' X.. sr K ''•S
'yb
i.(. ; - T lift bP r u �.�.•r .
a ; yYR:.h. «°E,s- ` "• it abi,
r,
A
-�1C ✓e.i✓<:�-•- ...ate► a ��'1U6r�� - - -
x.
,r
-
r
4 .Pig r.? � '!�'• �V.. `' - .,.W_-y.
•"�FS^�,>sy �-� yyww!!,�a f,�,�p•..! ��2-�r - '� ' a°�' -'•� At � r� ,��`� '.
., -�, _ - �y Vii; � � -- c � ,"• v,•,.. ,�i�
1 M1
MEMORANDUM
DATE: May 16, 2013
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Dave McDonald, City Planner
SUBJECT: Accessory Structure Heights (MF# CA2013-003)
On January 1st of this year the City annexed 608 acres of land located in West
Pasco (Riverview Annexation Area # 2) generally between Road 68 and Road 52
south of the FCID Canal and north of Sylvester Street. Over 500 dwelling units
were included in this area. Much of the annexation area is developed with low-
density single-family homes on large suburban lots. The area was zoned mostly
RS-20 following the annexation in an effort to protect the suburban nature of
the area. Due to the size of the properties and suburban nature of the area it is
not uncommon to find properties with large detached garages and shops.
The current City zoning standards limit detached garages/shops heights to 18
feet and in no case can a shop be built higher than the house it shares a lot
with. If a shop is to be built on a lot with a house that is only 14 feet tall the
shop height will be limited to 14 feet. The County zoning standards also permit
detached garages/shops to a height of 18 feet. There is no limit based on the
height of the house. Additionally, the County permits a height greater than 18
feet through the approval of a special permit.
Several inquiries have been made by recently annexed property owners on what
options are available to allow a shop to be taller than the 18 foot limitation.
Currently the only means of exceeding the accessory building height limit is to
attach the shop/garage to a house making the garage part of the house thereby
eliminating the height restriction. The overall height limitation within the
zoning district still applies. Most people do not review this as an option
because it adds expense to the project or requires modification to their home.
The purpose for the shop height limitation was to protect the integrity and
nature of single-family zoning districts. Residential zoning districts are the
most restrictive zoning districts in the city and are designed to protect the
value of property. Single-family dwellings are the principle or primary uses
permitted on low-density or suburban lots. The dwelling must be the
prominent feature on a lot. Accessory buildings are subordinate to the
principle use. Permitting shops to be taller or large than a house on the same
I
lot causes the shop to be the dominate feature turning the intent of the zoning
regulations upside down.
The height limitations on accessory structures was placed in the code as a
result of homeowner complaints about tall and over bearing garage/shop built
in neighboring back yards. The neighbors perceived large garages as a
detriment to the character and value of their residential neighborhood. This
reaction is not uncommon. As the Planning Commission will recall early last
year a property owner submitted a letter of complaint to the Planning Office
about the height and size of a shop/garage that was constructed on the lot
behind his house. The large shop was viewed as something obnoxious and
"reminiscent of an industrial complex, not a residential neighborhood".
The problem with the excessively large garages/shops is more acute in
neighborhoods with smaller lots. The scale and bulk of a large garage in
relationship to a small lot makes the garage overbearing and decreases the
aesthetic appeal of a neighborhood. The open feeling one expects to find in a
residential neighborhood is diminished by the large garages. Permitting the
construction of these oversized accessory structures is counter to the purposes
of the zoning ordinance. The zoning ordinance was enacted to provide open
space for light and air and to prevent the overcrowding of land. It is not
uncommon for staff to receive complaints about the size and height of garages
and shop in RS-12 zones. The complaint about the garage discussed in the
paragraph above was from a neighborhood with 12,000 square foot lots. The
issues of architectural scale and bulk become less of a concern as the size of
lots increase. Larger lots afford greater distances between houses and
accessory buildings eliminating some of the aesthetic problems experienced
with the smaller lots including, 12,000 square foot lots.
In addition to inquiries made to staff about how to build shops beyond the 18
foot limit the City Council has also received similar inquires. As a result the
Planning Commission is again being asked to review the matter.
In reviewing this matter the Planning Commission may want to consider the
following:
• Do nothing and keep the height limitation in place.
• Increase the height limit but keep it under the maximum allowed in the
district.
• Allow a greater height if a larger setback is provided.
• Allow a greater height if the lot exceeds a certain square footage.
• Allow an increase in height only through the Special Permit review
process.
2
This matter has been scheduled for a public hearing on May 16th. While the
Special Permit process may be the simplest option to pursue, other options
listed above may also have some merit. Staff is recommending the scheduled
public hearing be opened and treated more like a workshop to provide staff
with some direction to assist with preparing a code amendment. The hearing
could then be continued until the June meeting at which time a code
amendment could be considered.
3