Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-19-2013 Planning Commission PacketPLANNING REGULAR MEETING I. CALL TO ORDER: II. ROLL CALL: III. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: V. OLD BUSINESS: A. Plan VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS: -AGENDA 7:00 P.M. Declaration of Quorum July 18, 2013 September 19, 2013 Rezone from C -3 (General Business) to R -3 (Medium Densitv Residential) (NICO Investments LLC) (MF# Z 2013 -004) A. Special Permit Farming Operations in an RT (Residential Transition) Zone (Washington Dept of Natural Resources) (MF# SP 2013 -013) (Continued from August 15, 2013 Meeting) VII. OTHER BUSINESS: VIII. WORKSHOP: A. Code Amendment B. Code Amendment IX. ADJOURNMENT: Detached Accessory Structure Heights Special Permits for Auto Sales in C -1 (Retail Business) Zones REGULAR MEETING PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at 7:00pm by Chairman Cruz. POSITION MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT No. 1 Tim Hoekstra No. 2 Tony Bachart No. 3 Andy Anderson No. 4 No. 5 Joe Cruz No. 6 Loren Polk No. 7 Zahra Khan No. 8 Jana Kempf No. 9 Paul Hilliard APPEARANCE OF FAIRNESS: Alecia Greenaway August 15, 2013 Chairman Cruz read a statement about the appearance of fairness for hearings on land use matters. Chairman Cruz asked if any Commission member had anything to declare. There were no declarations. Chairman Cruz then asked the audience if there were any objections based on a conflict of interest or appearance of fairness question regarding the items to be discussed this evening. There were no objections. ADMINISTERING THE OATH: Chairman Cruz explained that state law requires testimony in quasi-judicial hearings such as held by the Planning Commission be given under oath or affirmation. Chairman Cruz swore in all those desiring to speak. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Hilliard moved, seconded by Commissioner Hoekstra, that the minutes dated July 18, 2013 be approved as mailed. The motion passed unanimously. OLD BUSINESS: A. Plan Auto Repair in Commercial Zones (MF# PLAN 2012 -0061 Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Rick White, Community 8s Economic Development Director, explained the Planning Commission had reviewed this item before and in June made a -1- recommendation to City Council for approval of the ordinance. Further review of proposed ordinance after the June meeting produced two small changes for the proposal. The first of the change precludes the establishment of new auto repair facilities in C -1 zones. The second change allows some repair facilities that don't have lift pits or hoists installed to have some semblance of outdoor auto repair as long as it is minor, as defined by the code. Commissioner Hilliard moved, seconded by Commissioner Khan, to adopt the findings of facts as contained in the August 15, 2013 staff memo. The motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Hilliard moved, seconded by Commissioner Khan, the Planning Commission recommend the City Council adopt the proposed ordinance amending Title 25 of the P.M.C. as contained in the August 15, 2013 staff memo. The motion passed unanimously. Mr. White explained that this item will go to City Council at the first workshop meeting in September. PUBLIC HEARINGS: A. Special Permit Farming Operations in an RT (Residential Transition) Zone (Washington Dept of Natural Resources) (MF# SP 2013 -0131 Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Shane O'Neill, Planner I, explained the application involved the renewal of the Department of Natural Resources special permit for a farming operation in an RT (Residential Transition) Zone. Mr. O'Neill reviewed the site on Argent Road east of the high school. The farm contains about a '/a of a crop circle and is irrigated from the Franklin County Irrigation Canal. Various aspects of the written report were then reviewed along with a discussion on proposed conditions that were similar to the conditions for the original application. Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director, briefly reminded the Planning Commission that late in 2012 they reviewed a draft concept plan developed for the DNR property located east of Road 68 that included the proposed farm site. He recommended the public hearing be opened and continued to allow more research for the record at the September meeting. Staff would like to research the budget provisions to make sure when DNR is required to dispose of the property and under what circumstances that disposal might occur under. Chairman Cruz stated that he didn't have an issue with cereal grains on this land based on its size and distance from development. Toby McKay, 2708 N. Road 60, spoke on behalf of the application. He stated that -2- he was supportive of continuing the permit. He stated the DNR already has a resource management plan that is in place and is just as strict as any conservation plan that would be developed so he did not feel that should be a condition as it would complicate things. He addressed the complaint monitoring plan and said that they haven't received a single complaint in the past five years so perhaps they don't need a plan. Lastly, the permit is limited to two years. He would like the permit to be valid for five years in case plans change. Commissioner Hoekstra asked the applicant to explain DNR's contribution is to the local area in regards to proposed site. Mr. McKay responded that the Department of Natural Resources leases the property to local farmers at fair market rates. They lease out some of the land to other local businesses as well, such as Lowe's and Maverick. They are not well suited for residential which is why there is a need to transition the parcel. The State doesn't pay property taxes. In lieu of property tax, the lessees pay a lease hold excise tax which is equivalent to 12.84% of the value of the lease. Chairman Cruz asked the applicant what his thoughts were on cereal crop limitations. Mr. McKay answered that he doesn't believe cereal crops pose a large threat but if the City felt strongly on limitations the they would include that condition into the lease. It is important to have some flexibility on the crop to recover investment and it would also allow for the rotation of crops to lessen the needs for chemicals for pest control. With no further comments the public hearing closed. Commissioner Anderson moved, seconded by Commissioner Khan, to continue the public hearing, schedule deliberations and adoption of the findings of fact and development of a recommendation for the City Council for the September 19, 2013 Planning Commission meeting. The motion passed unanimously. B. Rezone Rezone from C -3 (General Business) to R -3 (Medium Density Residential) (NICO Investments LLC) (MF# Z 2013 -0041 Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director, explained the property in question contains less than an acre and is currently developed with multi- family structures and is a legal non - conforming use in the C -3 Zone. It can continue to exist but when there is a legal non - conforming use there can be problems with a bank or lender. The applicant would like the ability to be able to replace, refinance, enhance or sell this property and making this a legal conforming use would allow the applicant to do so. The Comprehensive Plan indicates the area is reserved for high density residential development. -3- Nicholas Cooper, 4216 Santa Ana Loop, spoke on behalf of this rezone application. Due to the legal non - conforming use it present many financing problems. Chairman Cruz asked the applicant if there was anything in the staff report that gave him concern. Mr. Cooper replied no. With no further comments the public hearing closed. Commissioner Hoekstra moved, seconded by Commission Kempf, to close the public hearing and schedule deliberations, the adoption of findings of fact and development of a recommendation for City Council for the September 19, 2013 Planning Commission meeting. The motion passed unanimously. C. Block Grant Annual Action Plan Substantial Amendment IMF# BGAP 2013 -0061 Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director, discussed the Annual Action Plan Substantial Amendment. During the 2014 Community Development Block Grant hearings the Veteran's Coalition for Southeast Washington requested funding to purchase a site for rental housing but since they didn't have a site picked out and repairs were unknown, they were not recommended for approval. However, the City has six homes, four of which were purchased with the Neighborhood Stabilization Program (NSP) money and HOME money and two were donated by the School District. Three of the six homes are still owned by the City, one of which is under contract. One is a manufactured home. Mr. White stated he contacted the Veteran's Coalition regarding the manufactured home and they are very interested in assuming ownership. It would be a good fit as far as HUD is concerned and they would have to meet the Federal standards for housing. It would also help the City as it is difficult to a manufactured home in terms of lending and will establish a well -kept property in the neighborhood it is located in. This action would require an amendment to the Annual Action Plan to include conversion to rental housing. Commissioner Polk stated that she appreciates the work staff has put in to come up with a solution to help both the Veteran's Coalition and the City. With no public comments the public hearing closed. Commissioner Hilliard moved, seconded by Commissioner Polk, the Planning Commission recommend to City Council that the Annual Action Plan for Community Development Block Grants be amended to include the provision for rental occupancies. The motion passed unanimously. Mr. White stated that this item will go to the next regular City Council meeting. OTHER BUSINESS: A. Code Amendment Detached Accessory Structure Heights (MF# CA 2013 -003) Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Shane O'Neill, Planner I, explained this item has been brought before the Planning Commission on several occasions. Currently the Zoning Code permits detached shops and garages up to fifteen feet in height in the RS -1, R -1, R -2, R -3 and R -4 zones provided lot size criteria are met. The maximum detached shop /garage height in the RS -12 and RS -20 zones is eighteen feet. In all zones, detached structures may not exceed the overall height of the home. It was suggested that the Planning Commissioners address the questions from the staff memo: (1) Is it appropriate to increase the allowable maximum height for detached shops and garages in the RS -1, R -1, R -2, R -3 and R -4 zones? (2) What process should be used to request height increases (administrative or special permit)? (3) Which criteria should be used to evaluate height increase requests? (4) Should the City maintain the catch -all requirement restricting detached structures from exceeding the height of the home? There were two alternatives proposed in the staff memo that staff wanted input on from the Planning Commission: (1) Use the special permit process to evaluate height increase requests with corresponding criteria for evaluation. (2) Apply a graduated scale allowing incremental height increases based on the provision of increased setbacks (side and /or rear). Commissioner Hoekstra asked what the difference would be between special permit and administrative methods to allow height increases. Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director stated the administrative method would have a set and staff would make a decision while t] same criteria but the decision would be the public would be able to comment. I criteria that a parcel would have to meet ie special permit request might have the made by the Planning Commission and Chairman Cruz stated that in the past the special permit process sometimes becomes a deal- breaker for applicants. One of the difficulties is that there can't be huge shops on small lots. Bigger lots they shouldn't be a big deal even if the home is only a single - story. Commissioner Polk stated that she doesn't favor the special permit consideration because it is a bit arbitrary. The special permit process might be difficult for some and not for others. She asked if the materials of the shops or garages would be considered for criteria at all. Mr. O'Neill responded that the construction type is not currently a consideration. Commissioner Khan stated that she believed the special permit process would -5- allow for the public to voice their concerns even if they couldn't physically attend a meeting by writing a letter or sending an email. Besides that it gives the Planning Commission some decision making when it comes to the size of the lot, height of the structure and zoning. Commissioner Hilliard believed that the Planning Commission should empower the staff to handle exceptions to structure heights. Perhaps a graduated approach would allow the staff to make it easier on staff to assess each case. Commissioner Hoekstra agreed with Commissioner Hilliard. Commissioner Khan stated the simpler the code can be made, the better it will be for the property owners and the graduated scale might be too complicated. Commissioner Bachart asked if there was a way for neighbors to comment even if the property owner met all the requirements for a height increase. Chairman Cruz responded that consistency is important. Regardless of which process is used, such as special permit, it is important to follow the criteria and hold that criteria every time. The criteria for setbacks and height should possibly be by lot size rather than zone because lot sizes may vary in the same zoning. In regards to the questions presented by staff, he stated that it should be appropriate to increase the allowable maximum height for detached shops and garages but based on lot size and square footage instead of zoning. Mr. White responded that as long as he's been with the City, there haven't been any requests for larger shops in the R -3 or R -4 zones than what's allowed. Chairman Cruz asked for clarification on the lot size minimums among all of the zones. David McDonald, City Planner, replied that R -S -1 has a minimum of 10,000 square feet, R -1 is 7,200 however a good share of the R -1 homes within the south of Court Street are in the 5,500 square foot range, R -2, R -3 and R -4 are multi- family zones and are based more on density. For example, a duplex would need a minimum of 10,000 square feet (5,000 for each unit, R -3 requires 3,000 square feet per unit so a four -plex would need 12,000 square feet of land and R -4 can be as small as 1,500 square feet per unit so large apartments would use that zoning. Mr. McDonald further explained in the RS -20 and RS -12 zones there are provisions for special permits to allow greater heights. There should be consistency between all of the zones, so if RS -20 and RS -12 allow special permits then the other zones should also allow for special permits. This would also allow neighbors to be notified. If done administratively, the neighbors most likely would not be notified. Chairman Cruz asked the Commissioners if they would then like to add the special permit provision for zones R -2 through R -4 even though they are multi - family dwelling units. Mr. McDonald responded that there are some single - family lots in R -2 and R -3 zones. Commissioner Hoekstra stated that due to the lack of requests to build larger shops or garages, how many special permit applications would actually be turned in. Mr. McDonald stated the County has a special permit provision to allow taller heights for shops and those are sent to the City for review. He stated that the City has not received one this year. Some years there aren't any applications as most shops fit within the 18 foot limitation. Commissioner Hoekstra asked if the criteria would remain the same across all zones or if there would be a graduating element. Mr. McDonald answered that the lot size provision would be the first thing to consider. In a residential district the single - family home is supposed to be the dominant feature as the permitted use and the shop or garage is secondary to the home. When the garages are allowed to be larger it flips the zoning and the garage would become the predominant feature and it's not supposed to be that way. Mr. White stated that the criteria could be similar. As an example, in the RS -12 or RS -20 zones, the height could be increased outright if you have an additional 10,000 square feet or you could use the special permit process. Commissioner Bachart asked if there is a provision on how many square feet you can have under a roof per property size. Mr. White responded that it all depends on lot size. He thought perhaps a harder look at some of the properties zoned R -2, R -3 and R -4 might be beneficial for the Commission and staff could release some of the areas where the lots might suggest to consider a special permit process. Chairman Cruz stated that the Commission feels that it is appropriate to increase the maximum height for detached shops and garages. Commissioner Khan asked if the restriction would still state that it cannot exceed the overall height of the home. Chairman Cruz responded that they would get to that later. He moved onto the next item in the staff memo, stating the special permit process would be the better way to go in terms of allowing larger shops and garages. The other Commissioners were in agreement. Chairman Cruz discussed the next item from the staff memo in regards to the shop or garage size exceeding the height of the home. He used the example of a two -story home adjacent to another person who has a one -story rambler but both lot sizes are the same size then he does not have a problem with the accessory structure being taller than the home. He would rather see other criteria to determine the height. The other Commissioners agreed as long as other criteria would be worked out. QIA Chairman Cruz stated that lot size and setbacks are the key criteria in looking at accessory structure height. Commissioner Polk mentioned that she would like a discussion on the aesthetics of the accessory structures. She said in her neighborhood there are large garages built in the same style as the home and they do not detract from the neighborhood. Chairman Cruz responded that they could discuss that idea but it could prove problematic for homeowners due to associated costs but it could, through special permit process, be conditioned to still be harmonious with the neighborhood without going over the top in money. Commissioner Hoekstra asked if there were criteria specifically developed for the height, meaning, is there a limit it could be capped to. Chairman Cruz answered that there could be part of the criteria but mainly they would evaluate the height limit based on setbacks and lot size. Commissioner Hilliard asked if the special permit process would only be on accessory structures heights greater than 18 feet. Mr. O'Neill responded that 15 feet at the mid -roof point is currently the maximum but the special permit would only be over the permitted height. Commissioner Khan asked if the roof peak height should be clarified. Commissioner Hilliard said no since it is measured from the mid - point. Mr. O'Neill stated that there is only a slight variation between the peak and mid- point and there is only so much flexibility with the roof pitch and the width of the building. Mr. White added that keeping the mid -point as the criteria makes it consistent with the building code. Commissioner Hoekstra asked if the location of the shop is in consideration, such as set in front of or behind the home. Staff nodded their heads yes. With no further comments this item was wrapped up. Mr. O'Neill stated that staff will develop alternatives for the Planning Commission to choose from. COMMENTS: With no further discussion or business, the Planning Commission was M adjourned at 7:58 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Dave McDonald, City Planner REPORT TO THE PLANNING MASTER FILE NO. Z 2013 -004 APPLICANT: NICO Investment LLC HEARING DATE: 8/15/2013 4216 Santa Ana Loop ACTION DATE: 9/19/2013 Pasco WA 99301 BACKGROUND REQUEST: REZONE Rezone property from C -3 (General Commercial) to R -3 (Medium - Density Residential). 1. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: Legal: Lots 13 -17, Block 5, NP Plat. Location: 120, 124, and 132 W. Shoshone Street Property Size: Approximately 0.8 acres 2. ACCESS: The property has access from W. Shoshone Street along the northern property line and N. lst Avenue to the west. 3. UTILITIES: All utilities are available to the site. 4. LAND USE AND ZONING: The site is currently zoned C -3 (General Commercial) and is occupied by apartment buildings. Surrounding properties are zoned and developed as follows: North I -1 (Light Industrial) -Commercial South I -1 (Light Industrial) -Commercial East I -1 (Light Industrial) -Heavy Commercial West R -3 (Medium- Density Residential) - SFDUs S. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map designates this area for high- density 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 0.8 acres fronting W. Shoshone Street along the northern property line and North 1st Avenue to the west. The lot was platted in 1889 by the Burlington Northern Railroad as one of the earliest additions to the 1 original Town of Pasco. By 1938 the block was zoned C -1 ( "Commercial District "), later to be rezoned to its current C -3 (General Commercial). The site is developed with four residential structures, including two multi- family units. The structures on site were built between 1961 and 1967. The current use is multi - family apartments and is considered a legal nonconforming use in the C -3 zone. Applicant wishes to bring the multi - family use into conformity with the zoning ordinance by rezoning the parcels to R -3 (Medium- Density Residential) so as to allow replacement, enhancement and /or expansion of the multi - family residential use. Properties to the north, east, and south are zoned industrial and contain general commercial and light industrial uses. Properties to the west are zoned medium - density residential and are developed primarily with single - family units, with a few multi - family uses. The site is also within walking distance of Downtown Pasco, the Pasco Intermodal Train Station as well as Pasco City Hall. The City of Pasco Comprehensive Plan shows the property to be within a high - 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 high- density 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 -D 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 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: The City is gradually and consistently developing its vacant residential land. This location is part of the potential infill area still close to downtown. The Pj Comprehensive Plan Maps from at least 1963 to the present have designated this area for high - density residential uses. 2. Facts to justify the change on the basis of advancing the public health, safety and general welfare: The rezone will legalize and allow the continuance of a high- density transition or buffer between residential areas to the west and industrial zones to the north, east and south. Land Use Policy LU -3 -B, was designed to encourage "infill and density including planned unit developments to protect open space and critical areas," 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: This development would legalize and allow the continuance of a high- density transition or buffer between residential areas to the west and industrial zones to the north, east, and south. 4. The effect on the property owners if the request is not granted: If the request is not granted the property will continue as a legal nonconforming use, and /or change from multi family residential use to a use allowed in the C -3 (general commercial) zone. 5. The Comprehensive Plan land use designation for the property: The Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map designates the site for high- density residential uses. The proposed zone change would not contravene the Comprehensive 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 C -3 (General Commercial). 2. Applicant is requesting a zone change to R -3 (Medium- Density Residential) to bring the current legal nonconforming residential use into conformity and to allow for expansion of the residential use. 3. The site was zoned C -1 ( "Commercial District') in 1938 and rezoned sometime between then and the present to C -3 (General Commercial). 3 4. The site is developed with four residential structures, including two multi - family units. These structures were built between 1961 and 1967. 5. The site borders an R -3 (Medium- Density Residential) Zone to the west which is developed with single - family dwellings and a few multi- family units, and an I -1 (Light Industrial) Zone to the north, east, and south, containing general commercial and light industrial uses. 6. The Comprehensive Plan designates the site for high- density residential uses. 7. The property was platted in 1889 by the Burlington Northern Railroad as one of the earliest additions to the original Town of Pasco. 8. The site is developed with four residential structures, including two multi - family units. 9. The purpose of the High- Density Residential area is to serve as a buffer or transition between low- density residential and commercial/ industrial districts. 10. The R -3 Zone allows for one dwelling per 3,000 square feet for multiple family dwellings, or up to 68 units. 11. The R -3 Zone allows for building heights up to 35 feet without a special permit. 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 supports efforts to provide affordable housing to meet the needs of low and moderate income households (Goal H -5). 2. The effect of the proposal on the immediate vicinity will not be materially detrimental. This development would legalize and allow the continuance of a high - density transition or buffer between residential areas to the west and light industrial zones to the north, east, and south. 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 would create a high - density transition or buffer between residential areas to the west and light industrial zones to the north, east, and south. 4. Conditions should be imposed in order to mitigate any significant adverse impacts from the proposal. No special conditions are necessary, as any future building would be required to comply with current city of Pasco site design and building standards. 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. No concomitant agreement is necessary. RECOMMENDATION MOTION for Findings of Fact: I move to adopt findings of fact and conclusions therefrom as contained in the September 19, 2013 staff report. MOTION for Recommendation: I move based on the findings of fact and conclusions as adopted the Planning Commission recommend the City Council approve the rezone from C -3 to R -3 for Lots 13 -17, Block 5, NP Plat. 5 Vicinity Item: Hacienda Apts. Rezone (C -3 to R -3) Ma Applicant: NICO Investment Group V File #: Z2013 -004 3 ;s i ' a v r Y r . 1 '1 �n yG c 1 1` ,P, Land Use Item: Hacienda Apts. Rezone (C -3 to R -3) Ma Applicant: NICO Investment Group Map File #: Z2013 -004 City Hall Residential (Multi & Single Family; d� 'yG / gTERS'C S�yQS Vacant Comm. �V-77 Commercial sv°ss;�� v yyj����� 1 Commercial Heavy SFR Heavy Comme Industrial �i Zoning Item: Hacienda Apts. Rezone (C -3 to R -3) Ma Applicant: NICO Investment Group p File #: Z2013 -004 C -1 R -3 um- Density d� SYL S 01sr iN 74 tet I -1 (Light Industrial) o� 9e REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION MASTER FILE NO: SP2013 -013 APPLICANT: WA DNR HEARING DATE: 8/15/2013 713 Bowers Rd. ACTION DATE: 9/19/2013 Ellensburg, WA 98926 BACKGROUND REQUEST: SPECIAL PERMIT: Farming Operations in an RT (Residential Transition) Zone 1. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: Legal: That portion of the Southwest 1/4 of the Southeast '/4 of Section 16, Township 9 North, Range 29 East, W.M. lying south of the Franklin County Irrigation District canal. General Location: 7500 Block of Argent Road Property Size: The entire parcel is approximately 411.6 acres; a 25 acre portion of the parcel is the subject site. 2. ACCESS: The site is accessible from both Argent Road. 3. UTILITIES: All municipal utilities exist in Argent Road and are currently available to serve the site. Water from the FCID irrigation canal is currently used to irrigate the existing farm. 4. LAND USE AND ZONING: The site is currently zoned RT (Residential Transition) and contains an irrigated quarter crop circle. Surrounding properties are zoned and developed as follows: NORTH: RT - Agriculture SOUTH: RS -20 (County) - Single - Family Residence EAST: RS -20 (County) - Single - Family Residence WEST: RS -1 - High School 5. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The Comprehensive Plan designates the site for Low- Density Residential uses. The Plan does not specifically address agricultural 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. 1 ANALYSIS The Washington State Department of Natural Resources (DNR) has applied to renew their special permit allowing farming operations on a site zoned Residential Transition (RT) within 1,000 feet of a residential zone. Pursuant to PMC § 25.20.040(1) commercial agriculture is a permitted conditional use in the RT zone; thereby requiring special permit review. Also, pursuant to PMC § 25.70.110(2)(b) the production of alfalfa or pasture grasses on acreage of any size are permitted uses within all zoning districts. Finally, pursuant to PMC § 25.86.035(1) for commercial agricultural uses listed as conditional uses [PMC 25.20.040(1)] the applicant shall be required to submit a conservation plan approved by the Farm Service Agency. In 2008, DNR received special permit approval for farming on the site under Master File #SP08 -001; with a validity period of up to five (5) years. The special permit has since expired, creating the need for renewal. Approval conditions of the 2008 special permit limited crop types to alfalfa and pasture grasses. As part of this application the applicant is currently requesting not to be limited in the types of crops to be grown on the site. The site currently contains less than one quarter of a full crop circle with the eastern one third being unfarmed and in a natural sagebrush condition. The unfarmed portion serves as a physical buffer between the farm and the residence to the east. In review of this proposal staff has identified three issues for consideration by the Planning Commission: 1) dust control; 2) noise and 3) the eventual conversion to a residential use. During grading and tilling of the site between harvests and plantings, fugitive dust could potentially impact adjacent lands if not properly monitored and controlled. This impact would be eliminated once a crop is planted. Staff suggests the applicant be required to maintain a viable water source on site during soil disturbing activities to prevent dust from leaving the site. The existing FCID irrigation water is a sufficient source to manage dust. Often commercial agricultural activities occur at odd hours which could potentially impact adjacent residences. Staff suggests the applicant be required to submit a complaint monitoring plan to help alleviate these impacts. At minimum, the plan should include potential hours of operation, a contact person where complaints can be submitted and a preliminary plan outlining how noise complaints will be addressed. The planting of wheat and other similar cereal grains, within a suburban neighborhood brings with it a concern for fire safety. Wheat fields become very dry prior to harvest surrounding the site and other homes nearby; planting FA wheat in a neighborhood is a concern. The simplest way to address the fire safety concerns is not to permit the planting of grains. However, grains can sometimes be an effective cover crop to prevent dust from blowing. If grains are to be used for a cover crop, restrictions should be placed on their usage to address fire safety concerns presented by wheat. The DNR owns approximately 400 acres (including the subject property) west of Road 68. The property is encircled with urban development. The city has made substantial effort to facilitate the urban development of this property, including a conceptual land use plan reviewed by the Commission in late 2012. The recently adopted State budget contains a provision that will require portions of this DNR ownership to be sold and /or developed. Staff will research the budget provisions applicable to the subject property and report to the Planning Commission in September. Additional or revised conditions may be appropriate as a result of this research. 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 parcel is currently 411.6 acres in area. 2. The "site" is an approximately 25 acre portion of the parcel lying south of the FCID irrigation canal. 3. Parcel number 117 - 510 -016 is zoned RT (Residential Transition). 4. The site fronts Argent Road. 5. The subject site is within 1,000 feet of a residential zone. 6. The subject site is bordered on the east and south by the City Limits boundary. 7. The subject site is located within the I -182 Overlay District. 8. The subject site is bordered to the west by Chiawana High School. 9. The subject site is bordered to the north by the FCID irrigation canal. 10. The site is within the Urban Growth Area boundary. 11. The Comprehensive Plan identifies the parcel for low- density residential uses. 12. The FCID irrigation water system serves the site via a pump located on an undeveloped portion of the Chiawana High School property. 3 13. The applicant is requesting not to be limited in the types of crops to be grown on the site. 14. Washington State Department of Ecology water rights permit # 53 -28876 (assigned to the Washington State Department of Natural Resources) applies to the site. 15. Farms are listed as permitted conditional uses in the RT zone [PMC 25.20.040(1)]. 16. Pursuant to PMC § 25.70.110(2)(b) the production of alfalfa or pasture grasses on acreage of any size are permitted uses within all zoning districts. 17. Pursuant to PMC § 25.86.035(1), commercial agricultural uses listed as conditional uses requires the applicant to submit a conservation plan approved by the Farm Service Agency. CONCLUSIONS BASED ON STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT Before recommending approval or denial of a special permit the Planning Commission must develop findings of fact from which to draw its conclusions based upon the criteria listed in P.M.C. 25.86.060. The criteria are as follows: (1) Will the proposed use be in accordance with the goals, policies, objectives and text of the Comprehensive Plan? The Comprehensive Plan designates the proposed site for low- density residential development. The Comprehensive Plan encourages urban development within the Pasco Urban Growth Boundary. Agricultural uses are not specifically addressed in the Comprehensive Plan. (2) Will the proposed use adversely affect public infrastructure? The proposed use will have negligible impacts on public infrastructure. Crop circle farms are visited infrequently, generating almost no vehicle traffic on a regular basis. (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 vicinity is predominately residential. Residential development in the vicinity has developed around and a variety of agricultural uses for many years. No additional site modifications beyond ones existing are proposed as part of this special permit application. n (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 No construction of any kind is proposed and no development will occur if the special permit is granted. (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 farm lies south of the I -182 freeway. The farming operation will not create more noise, fumes, vibrations, traffic and flashing lights than the freeway. Dust and noise may potentially impact nearby uses. To address the issue of dust, staff suggests the applicant be required to maintain a viable water source on site during soil disturbing activities to prevent dust from leaving the site. Staff suggests the applicant be required to submit a complaint monitoring plan to help alleviate the impact of noise. At minimum, the plan should include potential hours of operation, a contact person where complaints can be submitted and a preliminary plan outlining how noise complaints will be addressed. (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 farm is only an interim use, and will not impede the development of future uses; nor will it become a nuisance to future permitted uses. The existence of numerous farming operations within the I -182 area generally demonstrates that the proposed use should not become a nuisance to permitted uses nor endanger public health and safety. APPROVAL CONDITIONS 1. The special permit shall apply to that portion of parcel # 117510016 lying south of the Franklin County Irrigation District canal; 2. The special permit is personal to the applicant; 3. The applicant shall submit a copy of the applicable Resource Management Plan prior to beginning farming operations on the site; 4. Prior to beginning farming operations on the site, the applicant must submit 24 —hour contact information where complaints can be submitted; 5 5. The applicant must manage the farm to control dust from leaving the site; 6. Cereal grains may only be used as a winter cover crop or for green manure; 7. Prior to July 1, 2015 staff will review with the Planning Commission the status of the special permit in relation to the DNR budgetary disposal directive; 8. The special permit shall expire on July 1, 2015. RECOMMENDATION MOTION for Findings of Fact: I move to adopt findings of fact and conclusions therefrom as contained in the September 19, 2013 staff report. MOTION for Recommendation: I move based on the findings of fact and conclusions as adopted the Planning Commission recommend the City Council grant a special permit to allow farming operations on that portion of parcel # 117 - 510 -016 lying south of the FCID irrigation canal. on Zoning Item: Farming in an RT Zone Ma Applicant: WA DNR Map File #: SP2013 -013 Legend City Limits City Zoning C -1 R -1 R -3 R -4 R -S -1 RP RS -12 RS -20 _ RT ounty RS -2 YI1. Vicinity Item: Farming in an RT Zone Ma Applicant: WA DNR N Map File #: SP2013 -013 q O -? o � a r—r_'' DF14 M.AR CyT a VALLE�1 L Y VIE� r� 1 RED SITE A11W �r�fCt L: �"► F nom• .� - ARGENT RD I a kit t' suL jL :DRADIE'RD' _r // �n h __ — ,_.}tt. X, - . FRNIAN � - ' r. _ . IGSTON RD' ��- ';.a LI7VI:NGST0N RD 1+ ` Y -- _ - ---- F L r. rFRANKLIN +RU , �i - —ter _ I k`F I ' . V ! • �... ' _ . City Limits CHRINEaCT rim',C4 c:` • w _s, k ' 7+rRf(ti•H R SOO N RD - - — RIC Land Use Item: Farming in an RT Zone Applicant: WA DNR N Map File #: SP2013 -013 Agriculture Trailer Park High School f- 2 Vacant MFR' Multi- Family Residential Vacant I� 11 �Q7 Looking North Looking South -- - Looking West MEMORANDUM DATE: September 19, 2013 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Shane O'Neill, Planner I SUBJECT: Accessory Structure Heights (MF# CA2013 -003) Currently, the Zoning Code permits detached shops and garages up to fifteen (15) feet in height in the RS -1, R -1, R -2, R -3 & R -4 zones with a provision for a three (3) foot height increase in the RS -1 and R -1 zones on parcels over 12,000 square feet. The maximum detached shop /garage height in the RS -12 & RS -20 zones is currently eighteen (18) feet with an available special permit review to exceed 18 feet. It should be noted that heights are measured at the mid - roof -line which is half way between the roof eve and the roof peak; this results in structures with roof peak heights over the listed maximums. In all zones, detached structures may not exceed the overall height of the home. The caveat is that the maximum height for the primary structure can be applied to the garage or shop simply by attaching it to the home via substantial architectural integration. Provisions currently exist in the R -1 & RS -1 zones to allow a maximum height of 18 feet provided the lot is 12,000 square feet or more. In effect, the provisions allow accessory structure heights to match the Suburban zones provided there is sufficient land area. Staff is not inclined to recommend an option allowing heights to exceed those allowed in Suburban zones. This leaves the R -2, R -3 & R -4 zones to be addressed. Including a similar provision for a three (3) foot height increase based on land area would be consistent with the RS -1 & R -1 zones. This would allow the accessory structures in medium and high- density residential zones to potentially be up to eighteen (18) feet. If the Commission is inclined to offer the Special Permit process for height increase requests, review criteria should be developed. These criteria may relate to: residential density of the immediate vicinity, increased setbacks and structure design (exterior finishes, fenestrations and other design features). The attached table illustrates a few possible alternatives as a tool to help organize discussion. The table is far from full range of possible choices and may be modified as the Commission sees fit. Accessory Structure Height Maximum Options Table Zone RS-20 RS-12 RS-1 R-I R-2 R-3 R-4 18' max. height 18' max. height 15'w/ 3' increase on 15'w/ 3' increase on Current Ht. w/ Special Permit w/ Special lots over 12,000 ft.2 lots over 12,000 ft,I Max.Rule to exceed 18' Permit to (18' max.) (18' max.) 15' height max. 15' height max. 15' height max. exceed 18' .... . . . . . . .. Permit a 3' height Permit a Theight Permit a 3' height Option I No Change No Change increase (up to 18') increase (up to 18') increase (up to 18') on lots over 10,000 on lots over 10,000 on lots over 10,000 ft.2 ft.2 ft.2 Offer S pecial Permit Offer Special Permit Offer Special Offer Special Permit Offer Special Permit Option 2 to exceed 18' to exceed 18' Permit to exceed to exceed 15' to exceed 15" 15' Offer Special Offer Special Permit Offer Special Permit Option 3 No Change No Change T Permit to exceed to exceed 15' to exceed 15' 15' OPTION #1 Zone Option RS -1 No Change R -1 No Change R -2 Increase the accessory structure height to 18 feet for lots over 10,000 square feet R -3 Increase the accessory structure height to 18 feet for lots over 10,000 square feet R -4 Increase the accessory structure height to 18 feet for lots over 10,000 square feet OPTION #2 Zone Option RS -1 Offer Special Permit review for requests to exceed 18 feet R -1 Offer Special Permit review for requests to exceed 18 feet R -2 Offer Special Permit review for requests to exceed 15 feet R -3 Offer Special Permit review for requests to exceed 15 feet R -4 Offer Special Permit review for requests to exceed 15 feet OPTION #3 Zone Option RS -1 No Change R -1 No Change R -2 Offer Special Permit review for requests to exceed 15 feet R -3 Offer Special Permit review for requests to exceed 15 feet R -4 Offer Special Permit review for requests to exceed 15 feet Parcels Zoned R -2, R -3 or R -4 10,000 Square Feet or Greater N N �� r MEMORANDUM DATE: September 19, 2013 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Dave McDonald, City Planner SUBJECT: Auto Sales in C -1 Zones (MF# CA2013 -006) Earlier this year the Planning Commission held a hearing to consider an application (Warner Auto Sales) for an auto sales lot in the 6300 block of Burden Boulevard. Public testimony at the hearing suggested there was an unintended flaw in the code that made it possible for auto sales business to apply for a special permit in any C -1 area of the community, counter to the original intent of the code. The City Council recognized this during their closed record hearing on the Warner Auto Sales application and asked the Planning Commission to review the code provisions related to specials permits for auto sales uses in C -1 zones for possible amendment. 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 activities indoors. Auto sales lots and auto dealerships are permitted uses in the C -3 zone. Other permitted uses within the C -3 zone include mobile home and trailer sales, heavy machinery sales, lumber sales, contractor's yards and similar uses where business activities often occur outdoors. The auto sales was included in the C -3 zone because it was 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. The special permit provisions for auto sales in the C -1 zone were added to the code in the early 1980's. It was about the time when 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 were located on the corner of two busy arterial 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 with narrow locational requirements to ensure only the old service 1 stations would qualify for a special permit. The qualifying requirements are listed in PMC 25.42.040(2) as follows: (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. The community has changed considerably since 1981. Many of the old service stations have been replaced with new buildings or have been transitioned to uses other than auto sales. The need for the 1981 code provision is now significantly diminished. The community problem (vacant service station properties) addressed by the code no longer exists. Another change that has occurred in the City since 1981 is the addition of several hundred acres of land to the C -1 inventory. The developing C -1 properties around Road 68 and Road 100 were never intended to be developed with auto sales lots (except for properties on Saint Thomas Drive). There are no vacant service stations in need of redevelopment in the I -182 area. Vacant commercial land in this area is still in the process of being developed. The Planning Commission should determine if there is a need to retain the current special permit provisions or whether or not they need to be modified to support the intent of helping to develop underutilized properties within the central core of the community. An example of a recent use of the special permit process for assisting development of underutilized property is the development of Para's Auto Sales at the corner of 10th Avenue and "A" Street. Staff has scheduled a workshop for the Planning Commission meeting of September 19, 2013 for discuss the need to amend or refine the special permit provisions for auto sales in the C -1 zone. 2