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