Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-20-2014 Planning Commission Packet PLANNING COMMISSION - AGENDA REGULAR MEETING 7:00 P.M. November 20, 2014 I. CALL TO ORDER: II. ROLL CALL: Declaration of Quorum III. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: October 16, 2014 V. OLD BUSINESS: A. Rezone Rezone from I-1 (Light Industrial) to I-2 (Medium Industrial) (Bob Tippett) (MF# Z 2014-005) B. Rezone Rezone from "O" (Office) to R-1 (Low Density Residential) (Charles Steltenpohl) (MF# Z 2014-006) C. Comprehensive Plan Comprehensive Plan Amendment to Modify the Urban Growth Boundary (Farm 2005, LLC) (MF# CPA 2014-002) D. Comprehensive Plan Comprehensive Plan Amendment to Change the Land Use Designation from Low-Density Residential to Mixed Residential (Roger & Kay Walker) (MF# CPA 2014-003) E. Plan Shoreline Master Plan - Environmental Designations VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS: A. Code Amendment Car Rentals in C-1 (Retail Business) Zones (MF# CA 2014-004) VII. WORKSHOP: VIII. OTHER BUSINESS: IX. ADJOURNMENT: REGULAR MEETING October 16, 2014 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 VACANT No. 2 Tony Bachart No. 3 VACANT No. 4 Alecia Greenaway No. 5 Joe Cruz No. 6 Loren Polk No. 7 Zahra Khan No. 8 Jana Kempf No. 9 Gabriel Portugal APPEARANCE OF FAIRNESS: 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 Portugal made not of some typos in the minutes. Staff made note and stated they would make the proper corrections. Commissioner Greenaway moved, seconded by Commissioner Polk that the minutes dated September 18, 2014 be approved as amended. The motion passed with only Chairman Cruz abstaining. OLD BUSINESS: A. Special Permit Special Permit to Sell Motorcycles and Other Vehicles in a C-1 (Retail Business) Zone (JMC Motor Sports LLC) (MF# SP 2014-009) Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. M -1- Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director, discussed the special permit to locate motorcycle and other vehicle sales in a C-1 (Retail Business) Zone. There were no additional comments since the previous meeting. Commissioner Bachart moved, seconded by Commissioner Kempf, to adopt the findings of fact and conclusions therefrom as contained in the October 16, 2014 staff report. The motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Bachart moved, seconded by Commissioner Kempf, based on the findings of fact and conclusions as adopted the Planning Commission recommend the City Council grant a special permit to allow vehicle sales on tax parcel # 112-311-104 with conditions as contained in the October 16, 2014 staff report. The motion passed unanimously. PUBLIC HEARINGS: A. Preliminary Plat Replat a Portion of the Whitehouse Addition (Tri- County Partners) (MF# PP 2014-0041 Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Dave McDonald, City Planner, discussed the preliminary replat for the Whitehouse Addition. This item was held over as a public hearing from the previous meeting. Mr. McDonald explained that much of the discussion last month centered on the need for a boundary fence around the proposed subdivision. The property abuts a public park which has considerable activity during certain times of the year. The property is also directly across the street from a C-3 Zoning District that can develop with heavy commercial uses. A block wall would provide a buffer for the families that would ultimately live in the subdivision. The block wall requirement isn't any different than requirements in other subdivisions, for example, the Linda Loviisa Subdivision backs up to the soccer complex and was required to have a 8' block wall for the entire length of the subdivision. There is no code provision that requires fencing at the proposed site but because of where it is, staff feels it should be included. However, if a boundary fence is included as a plat approval condition the fence must be constructed of masonry block or poured concrete. Possible funding for the fence through the HOME was also discussed. Mr. McDonald also discussed water rights issues, storm water management and the need to improve California Avenue. That option is in the code and carries a caveat that it has to be approved by the Public Works Director. The Engineering Department suggested a deferral agreement or a cash deposit of$20,00 to $25,000 would be way way of addressing the short segment of California Avenue. Commissioner Bachart asked if Resolution 3078, regarding fencing, was new or came to be within the last few years since he's noticed several subdivisions with inconsistent fencing. Mr. McDonald replied yes, that it was in response to some of the problems experienced with the wooden and Sherwood fences. From the date of that resolution forward the fencing along arterial streets have all been block walls. M -2- Commissioner Greenaway asked how the developer feels about the block wall now. Mr. McDonald answered that the applicant is present. He believed that the applicant would agree that the block wall would make for a nicer development and provide some protection for the residents but, they are concerned about the costs. Commissioner Portugal asked if the height of the wall is 6' or 8'. Mr. McDonald answered 6' is the requirement for the block wall. Chairman Cruz stated that a few years ago the Planning Commission went through a long process looking into the maintenance of fencing. The architectural block wall was decided to be the best option because other fencing was becoming a maintenance problem and eye sore. Rick Jansons, 313 Wellsian Way, Richland, WA spoke on behalf of Habitat for Humanity. He wanted approval condition 1 to have the following sentences added, "The installation of abutting roads and utilities for or along California Avenue are expressly and specifically excluded from the plat avenue conditions. Further, neither the homeowner's nor Tri- County Partners Habitat for Humanity will be required to fund any portion of installation of abutting roads or utilities for or along California Avenue during the 20 years following completion of the last of the 24 homes in the subdivision." Mr. Jansons briefly gave reasons for adding those sentences to the approval conditions; (1) California Avenue is not developed at all in this area, (2) There has been discussion in abandoning California Avenue in this area which would mean no road is necessary, (3) This development is for Habitat for Humanity for low-income families and would be an added expense and (4) There would be no benefit to the families in the subdivision to leave a condition on their property to build a road sometime in the future. He stated that Habitat for Humanity is asking for a deferment for up to 20 years. Regarding the fencing, Mr. Jansons agreed that the block wall would be aesthetically pleasing but felt that along the park, the fencing wouldn't be much help since there is an incline in elevation at the park. The block wall, however, would be roughly a $50,000 added expense. He stated that he acquired about the HOME funds but received a written response stating that no funds were available. There may be funds next year but it is a competitive process. If they were awarded the money, they would put the block wall up. Per code, the block wall is not required. Mr. Jansons requested the condition 18, 19 and 21 be removed. As an alternative, he stated the following sentence could be added to condition 19, "Only if HOME funds are available and awarded in an amount sufficient to fully cover the costs ...and if said HOME funds are not awarded, no fencing is required for the project." Mr. Jansons also discussed the soil additives in plat approval condition 4, stating that they must comply with PMC 26.04.115(b). As stated in previous testimony, Habitat for Humanity has found two commercially available additives that would exceed the 30% requirement and they wish to retain the capability to perform a cost benefit analysis to determine which method, payment or soil additive, would be most economical. He would like the following sentence added to approval condition 4 stating, "Tri-County Partners Habitat for Humanity may use soil treatment in lieu of fees per PMC 26.04.115(b)." In regards to the storm water maintenance fee and would like to have, "The developer would M -3- be responsible for operating and maintaining the storm drain system for one year in accordance with the storm water maintenance agreement," added to the approval condition. Commissioner Portugal asked the applicant if there isn't a block wall fence, what would be idea for a fence. Mr. Jansons responded that in reading of the resolution, that if a fence is required it has to be a concrete masonry fence. However, if a fence is not required, almost all of their families build cedar fences of their own. Churches come out and assist in building the fences and the families pay for the cost of materials. Christine Batayola, 2931 W. 43rd Court, Kennewick, with Harms Engineering, spoke on behalf of this application. Ms. Batayola stated that she has been working with the applicant and has been out to the site. She added that there are no other block walls in this area. All other fencing in the area are 4' tall, chain link fencing and no other fencing around the park and it would seem out of character with that particular neighborhood. Lastly, she agreed with the other comments made by Mr. Jansons. Mr. McDonald then responded to the applicant's comments. Starting with California Avenue, the City doesn't have money to build local streets. The streets are built by the abutting property owners, in this case, the developer. If the applicant doesn't build the street it doesn't get built. In the future the community will have to pay for it. The options are doing the waiver or providing a cash bond $20,000-$25,000 that would go toward the street. There has been talk of vacating the street but that hasn't gone very far. There is an argument that it should be maintained to provide circulation around the park and another exit for all of the park traffic. For the fence, there are no other subdivisions in the neighborhood that abut a park. The park is elevated slightly and the people who will live in this subdivision shouldn't be treated any different than those who live in Linda Loviisa; they were benefited by a block wall next to the park. To address the soil additive, Staff recommends keeping the condition in the Staff Report. Lastly, the storm water agreement, City Engineers are recommending it be handled like any other subdivision with the standard agreement signed rather than deferring it out to the Department of Ecology or adding any additional conditions or sentences. All of the conditions being asked are typically placed on all developers and is part of the development process. Chairman Cruz asked if there was a block wall requirement for a previous charitable development, like Bishop Topel Haven. Mr. McDonald replied no, it was a multi-family development that already had a fence separating the development from the school but they were required to build two streets, with curb, gutter, storm drain and street lights. Chairman Cruz mentioned that in previous discussions about block walls there was talk of the size of subdivisions and asked what the definition or size is required to be a subdivision. Mr. McDonald answered that any development that has more than 9 lots would be the defined as a subdivision. o -4- Chairman Cruz stated that he is not inclined to waive any recommendations that Staff is proposing since other non-profit developers and for-profit developers have all been treated the same. Commissioner Portugal asked for clarification as to whether there were other concrete fences in the area. Ms. Batayola stated that there were none. Mr. McDonald added that the only concrete wall in East Pasco is near Sunrise Estates, on the corner of"A" Street and Heritage Boulevard. Commissioner Portugal noted that it may not appear fair to require this development to have a concrete wall when there aren't other concrete walls in the area. Commissioner Bachart asked if there was a lot and the City wished to develop a road behind it, even though they would have no access or need for it, they would have to develop it. Mr. McDonald said if that was the case it would most likely be a road that the City would build. Those roads are typically done by an LID or by the developer the City builds very few roads. Commissioner Bachart asked how it would pertain to California Avenue. Mr. McDonald responded that the street is already there and is a dedicated, platted street of record. The only way that it will be developed is by the property owner or LID. Commissioner Bachart asked if somebody wants to develop the commercial property and they want the road, would the residents have to put in the road. Mr. McDonald stated the person who develops the commercial property would be required to put in their side of the road to the centerline, plus two to four feet and curb, gutter and sidewalks. Commissioner Bachart was concerned for the two lots that abut California Avenue and the potential costs to finish the road. Mr. McDonald stated that if the developer does it the cost is folded into all 24-lots as opposed to just the two properties, which is what almost all developers do. Chairman Cruz added that historically, the developers are treated the same way in terms of infrastructure. Commissioner Bachart asked what the municipal code states exactly regarding fencing. Mr. McDonald replied that the municipal code states that a fence is only required if it's on an arterial street and if a fence is required it must be poured concrete or architectural IN -5- block. In this case, California Avenue is not an arterial street and neither is the park, so there is no code requirement for it, but during the hearing process the Commission is allowed to look at additional conditions to ensure neighborhood is protected. Chairman Cruz added that the City is strongly recommending that there should be a block wall fence but is not necessarily a requirement. Commissioner Greenaway asked if there was a way to have the applicant put the money in a bond or holding pattern for California Avenue and if the road is required to go through the money is there but if it doesn't go through it could be refunded. Mr. McDonald answered that there might be a way but is unsure as to how. There is an account for deposits for subdivision bonds and after a number of years that money can be reimbursed. Commissioner Polk asked if there is potential to develop a parking lot in the area in between the park and California Avenue. Mr. McDonald responded yes, the Parks Department is looking at that location for extra parking. Commissioner Polk asked if the Parks Department would then have to finish the road, curb and sidewalk or any other conditions. Mr. McDonald responded that if it is developed then the Parks Department would have to put in their part of the curb, gutter, sidewalks, landscaping and any other requirements at the time of development. Chairman Cruz asked the applicant if he had any additional questions or comments. Mr. Jansons reiterated that the fence is not required by code. While the fence would be nice for the neighborhood, however, the costs would be passed on to the low-income families that will be living on the lots. He would like the sentence added to the conditions that if HOME funds are awarded, then a fence would be installed. Mr. Jansons also stated that they will be working with the Engineering Department for a deferment for California Avenue. With no further comments the public hearing closed. Chairman Cruz asked the Planning Commission if they were in favor of the fence requirement. Commissioner Greenway, Commissioner Polk, Commissioner Bachart and Commissioner Portugal were not in favor of the fence requirement. Commissioner Kempf was in agreement for the fence requirement. Chairman Cruz stated that they Planning Commission would like to remove the fence M -6- requirement but leave all other conditions as recommended by City staff. Mr. McDonald clarified that he understood conditions 18, 19 and 21 will be removed from the recommendation to City Council. Commissioner Portugal moved, seconded by Commissioner Bachart, to adopt findings of fact and conclusions therefrom contained in the October 16, 2014 staff report. The motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Portugal moved, seconded by Commissioner Bachart, based on the findings of fact and conclusions, as adopted, the Planning Commission recommend the City Council approve the Preliminary Plat for the Replat of the Whitehouse Addition with conditions as listed in the October 16, 2014 staff report as amended by the Planning Commission.. The motion passed unanimously. B. Rezone Rezone from I-1 (Light Industrial) to I-2 (Medium Industrial) (Bob Tippett) (MF# Z 2014-005) Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Dave McDonald, City Planner, discussed the application to rezone roughly 350 acres from I-1 (Light Industrial) to I-2 (Medium Industrial). The rezone site is located south of "A" Street and east of Cedar Street. This general area of the community has been identified in the Comprehensive Plan for over 30 years as an area for future industrial development. Mr. McDonald explained the planning history for the site and discussed a Sacajawea Industrial Park plan for the area. That plan was initiated about 12 years ago and eventually lead to the area being called the "Heritage Industrial Park". The City, through expenditures and work with the property owners, has tried to posture the property for industrial development. Over the years, the City has installed water lines near the property, there's a 21" sewer line along the bottom edge of the property, there's a major sewer trunk line and there is a major water line that runs through the northern third of the property. A major rail spur was recently installed through the length of the site from the west end to Road 40. A number of years ago along the southern portion of the property, Burlington Northern built a rail yard with 7 miles of track along with some high intensity lighting that allows the railroad to work 24 hours a day. One of challenges or changes in the community occurring now is that most of the I-2 (Medium Industrial) property within the community has been developed. Mr. McDonald also explained that although there was a need for additional I-2 ground in the city a number of uses permitted in the I-2 Zoning District and other uses permitted through special permit process may not be appropriate for the area. These uses were then highlight and it was suggested that a concomitant agreement would be needed to remove the undesirable uses from the list of possible uses for the site. Charles Laird, P.O. Box 3027, Pasco, WA spoke on behalf of Columbia East LLC who owns the majority of the rezone site. Columbia East LLC has been largely responsible for developing the Commercial Avenue Corridor. The primary reason for the rezone application is to increase the potential industrial users who may choose to locate in the Tri-Cities. I-2 zoning puts the Heritage Industrial Center in a better position to compete with industrial centers and will allow for full advantage of the recently installed rail spur. o -7- The rail spur construction was a joint effort between the State of Washington, City of Pasco, Port of Pasco and the property owners. Columbia East LLC recognizes that there are some uses permitted under I-2 Zoning that may not be viewed favorably by nearby neighbor. The applicant is willing to sign a concomitant agreement with the City to restrict the following uses: junkyard, slaughterhouse, livestock yard, automobile wrecking yard, scrap iron, distillation of bones, fat rendering, garbage or dead animal reduction or dumping. With the exception of scrap paper, rag storage, sorting or bailing, the remaining permitted uses under I-2 Zoning will be subject to further public scrutiny during the conditional special permit process. In addition to the concomitant agreement, Columbia East LLC intends to record restrictive covenants that will establish an upfront expectation that Heritage Industrial Center will be a clean, orderly and well thought out development. Gary Ballew, 1100 Osprey Pointe, spoke on behalf of the Port of Pasco for this application. The Port Commissioner's reviewed this zoning request at their September 25th meeting. At that meeting they passed a motion to support the request. Leanne Smith, 506 Manzanita Lane, stated she supports the growth for business in Pasco but was concerned with the type of businesses that could locate with I-2 Zoning. Ms. Smith wanted to make sure that any changes made to the zoning won't have a negative impact on the residential neighborhood nearby. She was concerned with her property value and quality of life. Chairman Cruz asked Ms. Smith if she would be supportive of the rezone with the concomitant agreement. Ms. Smith answered the concomitant agreement was a great effort to ensure their community is protect. She was concerned about the description of the I-2 Zone, such as noise levels, lighting, odors and smoke. Those are the things that will affect her and her home. Chairman Cruz responded that the Planning Commission has had experience in the past with development of industrial near residential and they review the conditions and agreements to ensure minimal impact on the residential neighborhoods. He asked if there were specific things in the I-2 Zone that should be prevented, such as animal rendering. Ms. Smith stated that anything that would make noise, odor or any other disturbance. She stated that the only people that got notified by mail on this rezone were people within 300 feet of the proposed site. Her neighborhood is beyond 300 feet yet she feels she is still close enough to be affected by this rezone. She happened to find out about the hearing through other people. Chairman Cruz stated that concern has come up a few times and asked staff if 300 feet is statutory. Mr. McDonald answered that it is a municipal code requirement. Ryan Brault, 617 Esperanza Court, stated he was a resident in the nearby neighborhood he appreciates the concomitant agreement idea. Ted Osborn, 3808 E. "A" Street, stated he owns the salvage operation at the corner of Road 40 and "A" Street. He spoke in favor of the proposed zone change. M -8- Mr. Laird reiterated that the intention is to record restrictive covenants along with a concomitant agreement and in those covenants offensive uses will be addressed. Chairman Cruz responded that there is general support for the rezone to I-2, however, there needs to be more clarity as to which uses will be restricted.. Chairman Cruz asked staff how many restrictions should be put in the covenants. Mr. McDonald answered that the covenants Mr. Laird referred to arc different than the concomitant agreement. The concomitant agreement is controlled by the City and the City will make sure that it is recorded. Mr. McDonald went through a list of uses that the Planning Commission stated they wished to have placed in the concomitant agreement as prohibited uses, such as: slaughter houses, plaster manufacturing, distillation of bones, manufacturing and storage of explosives, fat rendering, glue manufacturing, fertilizer, garbage, dead animal reduction or rendering, race tracks, asphalt and concrete batch plants and commercial composting companies. Chairman Cruz stated that some items listed are in the middle in it would depend on the company and their plans. Chaiman Cruz stated that there were a few activities that should be completely restricted without the option of a special permit. Mr. Laird responded that finding language that isn't too restrictive will be the challenging. There may be uses that can be done in a tasteful and clean manner and certain language in the agreement could prevent such uses. Mr. Brault added that he would like some consideration to extending the buffer. He asked for clarification on the buffer. Mr. McDonald answered that the site is 350 to 600 feet from "A" Street. He stated that the issue of buffers came up when Tierra Vida was approved. The properties on the north side of"A" Street where zoned to provide an additional buffer from the I-1 zone. The applicants wish to further enhance that buffer by staying back to 350-600 feet. Linda Patrick, 3914 Milagro Dr., stated concern that residents in Tierra Vida didn't receive written notification in the mail. Ms. Patrick also added that the buffer didn't provide much protection to the residents as there is still a lot of noise, odor and other problems. With no more comments the public hearing closed. Commissioner Greenaway moved, seconded by Commissioner Polk, to close the public hearing and schedule deliberations and development of a recommendation for City Council at the November 20, 2014 meeting. The motion passed unanimously. C. Rezone Rezone from "O" (Office) to R-1 (Low Density Residential) (Charles Steltenpohl)_(MF# Z 2014-0061 Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Rick White, Community 8v Economic Development Director, discussed the rezone M -9- application from "O" (Office) to R-1 (Low Density Residential). The proposed rezone would allow the existing structure on the site to be used as a single-family residence. Originally it was constructed in the late 1950's as a duplex and later converted to a medical office. The Comprehensive Plan designates the site for low-density residential uses and there is R-1 Zoning to the west and northwest and Office Zoning directly across the street and behind the property, however Office Zoning and Residential Zoning are often harmonious. Charles Steltenpohl, 3005 Road 56, the applicant, stated one of the main issues with the property has been parking causing it to be unattractive for businesses uses. Converting to residential will make the property more attractive. With no further questions or comments the public hearing closed. Commissioner Polk asked if it currently being used as a single-family residence or office. Mr. Steltenpohl stated that it is used as a single-family residence. Commissioner Greenaway moved, seconded by Commissioner Polk, to close the public hearing on the proposed rezone and initiate deliberations and schedule the adoption of findings of fact and conclusions and a recommendation for City Council for the November 20, 2014 meeting. The motion passed unanimously. D. Rezone Rezone from C-1 (Retail Business) to CR (Regional Commercial) (City of Pasco) (MF# Z 2014-007) Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Dave McDonald, City Planner, discussed the rezone application from C-1 (Retail Business) to CR (Regional Commercial). The property is on Sandifur Parkway, west of Bedford. The site is 14 acres and is owned by the City of Pasco. The CR Zoning District would allow for commercial uses included; RV sales, car sales and related type of businesses. Mr. McDonald briefly referenced the findings of fact in the written report and the recommendation for rezoning this property. Chairman Cruz stated that the report notes motorcycles sales. Mr. McDonald added the motorcycles sales are located directly to the south of I-182 in the new building being built on St. Thomas Drive. The rezone provides a little more flexibility for signage and perhaps size of the sales lots and numbers of vehicles. Commissioner Bachart stated that he is a little concerned with the other types of commercial properties already in this vicinity and how this rezone could affect those businesses. The special permit would require new cars only. He asked if it would really be preferable to rezone or use the special permit process. Mr. McDonald said yes and no. In this particular case, it would be more than just a used car lot. The special permit process and some of the limitations, particularly for signage, doesn't quite work. A rezone is preferable in this particular case. Commissioner Bachart asked if all 14 acres of this property are going to be developed into a single car lot. M -10- Mr. McDonald answered only 7 acres, with the possibility of the other 7 acres for a different dealership. Commissioner Greenaway stated that she was also concerned since the majority of the area consists of medical offices and banks. Mr. McDonald replied that most of those businesses are on the north side of the boulevard. Also, in the I-182 Corridor, there will be landscaping requirements along with building enhancement not found in other parts of the community. Chairman Cruz added that there is a nice gradient from less intense to more intense. Preston Ramsey, 415 S. Alpine, Liberty Lake, WA, stated that he represents the original developer and owner of the site. The site is encumbered with restrictive covenants that will have to be reviewed by the architectural committee. Mr. McDonald stated that he is aware of the covenants and he has been in communication with Mr. Ramsey. With no further comments the public hearing closed. Commissioner Kempf moved, seconded by Commissioner Greenaway, to adopt findings of fact and conclusions therefrom as contained in the October 16, 2014 staff report. The motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Kempf moved, seconded by Commissioner Greenaway, based on the findings of fact and conclusions as adopted the Planning Commission recommend the City Council approve the rezone for the property at the southeast corner of Bedford Street and Sandifur Parkway from C-1 to CR. The motion passed unanimously. E. Zoning Determination Develop Zoning Recommendation for Rogers Annexation Area (MF# ZD 2014-001) Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Dave McDonald, City Planner, discussed the need to develop a zoning recommendation for the Rogers Annexation Area. The owners of the property signed a notice of intent to annex the property in August. Subsequent to that the owners signed a 60% annexation petition which has now been certified by the County Assessor. A zoning determination needs to be made so when the public hearing is held in December a zoning recommendation will be ready for City Council to consider. In looking at the general area and surrounding properties, staff is suggesting that the property be zoned R-S-1 to match the DNR property directly to the west which is also zoned R-S-1. Following additional discussion the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Greenaway moved, seconded by Commissioner Bachart, the Planning Commission adopt the findings of fact as contained in the October 16, 2014 staff report. The motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Greenaway moved, seconded by Commissioner Bachart, based on the findings of fact adopted, the Planning Commission recommend the City Council zone the M -11- Rogers Annexation Area R-S-1 Suburban Residential upon annexation. The motion passed unanimously. F. Comprehensive Plan Comprehensive Plan Amendment to Modify the Urban Growth Boundary (Farm 2005, LLCL(MF# CPA 2014-002) Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Dave McDonald, City Planner, discussed the Comprehensive Plan Amendment to modify the Urban Growth Boundary. He stated the applicant is seeking to have the urban Growth Boundary expanded to include 160 acres north of Northwest Commons. Mr. McDonald explained the staff memo for contained pertinent sections of the Growth Management Act relating to urban growth boundaries. The property is next to the city limits and there is a new school and a new subdivision located to the south. There is a provision within the law that the cities and counties can consider a local market supply factor to provide a buffer and an opportunity to prohibit the boundary from being so restrictive it would drive the price of property up. Mr. McDonald also shared concerns with the local supply factor as well as concerns with the airport. Mr. McDonald briefly discussed some possible uses on this property. Tom Kidwell, 4320 Riverhaven Street, stated that including his property in the urban growth boundary would be a natural progression of the city. With the new school, he built a water main and new street down to his property. He stated that this would be a good site for homes. Ron Foraker of the Port of Pasco and Spencer Montgomery of J.U.B. Engineers spoke on the application. Mr. Foraker stated over the past two years the Port of Pasco has worked with the City of Pasco and Franklin County to safeguard future service capabilities of the Airport. Ideally they would prefer there be no development on a runway approach to the airport. There will be low-flying aircraft arriving and departing above the proposed site. In planning of the airport overlay zone, it was agreed that no residential development would be allowed in Zone 2 but the compromised reached was that Zone 4 would allow for large lots due to some existing conditions on other runway approaches. Of the 160 acre parcel that is being considered for the urban growth boundary, nearly half will be protected in the approach zones. Because restrictions were not in place previously, the Port of Pasco is forced to purchase 34 acres southeast of the subject property to retain protection for growth of the airport. There will also be height restrictions on the entire parcel. Chairman Cruz asked for clarification as to what land uses would conform to the airport overlay zoning. Mr. Foraker responded mostly farming. Mr. Montgomery added that the overlay district would prohibit residential in parts of this property and public assemblies or anything that would have a large amount of people gather. Chairman Cruz responded that this puts the Planning Commission in a tough spot since part of the property can't be developed and other parts probably shouldn't or should be at a lower density. He asked the applicant how these restrictions will affect his plan. M -12- Mr. Kidwell answered half the property on the south side of the runway will be available but he needs city water and in order to have city water they have to be in the urban growth boundary. Mr. Kidwell added that even decreasing the size of the property to include into the urban growth boundary would still facilitate his needs. Chairman Cruz stated that it will become awkward for the land owner because this land won't be large enough to be farmable and the rest would be limited on the amount of homes. Mr. Kidwell stated he still wished to move forward on this application. With no more questions or comments the public hearing closed. Commissioner Greenway stated that she would have difficulty approving this application due to safety of the airport. Commissioner Bachart moved, seconded by Commissioner Portugal, to close the hearing on the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment and initiate deliberations and schedule adoption of findings of fact, conclusions and a recommendation to City Council for the November 20, 2014 meeting. The motion passed five to one with Commissioner Greenaway dissenting. G. Comprehensive Plan Comprehensive Plan Amendment to Change the Land Use Designation from Low-Density Residential to Mixed Residential (Roger & Kay Walker) (MF# CPA 2014-003) Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Dave McDonald, City Planner, discussed the Comprehensive Plan Amendment to modify the urban growth boundary. The property is located at the north end of Crescent Drive where it meets Chapel Hill Boulevard. The 3-4 acre site is currently zoned RS-12 and was zoned that way when annexed in the 1980's. The applicants wish to develop the property at a little higher density than RS-12. The property to the north is designated as mixed- residential which would allow for apartments and the property to the east is zoned C-1 and the properties to the south are zoned RS-12. One of the issues to consider is that this site is difficult to develop, particularly for single-family homes due to the elevation for the on Crescent Dr. It would be cost prohibitive to develop single-family homes due to the amount of fill needed for Crescent Dr. This is one of the reasons why they would like to change the plan. Changing the designation would provide a transition or buffer between the R-4 zoning to the north and RS-12 to the south. Chairman Cruz added to building up the property for road access and stated that it would be expensive. Harvey Prickett, P.O. Box 34341, Pasco, WA with Wave Architects spoke on behalf of the application. Initially this property was an orchard with the plans to develop it as a single- family home for themselves. When discussions with the Engineering Department revealed issues with the road, grade and utilities, it was no longer economically feasible for them to do so and they are now trying to adjust their plans. They would like to see a townhome style of residence for this property. M -13- Shawn Defferding, 4500 Crescent Road, stated that she was also speaking for other neighbors near this property. They do not wish to see a buffer zone but would like to see a single-family residence. She stated that it will change their quality of life and the character of the neighborhood. Traffic increase was a main concern and they feel that they will get more traffic from this development. She stated that when Mediterranean Villas first opened it was mostly seniors or adults and now they are renting and leasing to all ages and there is concern the same will happen in this case. She noted that the applicants will have to finish the infrastructure in front of their home but asked who would have to finish the rest. Chairman Cruz responded that the mixed residential nearby could easily be apartments. Chairman Cruz stated that some of the concerns are a little late due to the zoning of the surrounding properties and that the nearby farm will not always be a farm. Ms. Defferding responded that the surrounding neighbors had not understood that. They thought that it would be more commercial zoning. Chairman Cruz responded to the street closures and stated that he can't recall ever asking for street closures and didn't know if that could even be done. Mr. McDonald stated that the difficulty in this case is Crescent Drive and Road 108 are identified in the Major Street Plan to connect to Chapel Hill Boulevard and in the future there will be that connection. This area is within the urban growth boundary so this area will develop and as it develops the street will have to go through. Chairman Cruz asked for clarification as to how the street will get developed. He asked if the road will be completed as needed. Mr. McDonald answered that is correct and briefly explained the process. Ms. Defferding asked how the land is going to be leveled for development. Chairman Cruz answered that in order to get the street to City standards they will have to fill it in. Once it is filled in there will need to be a wall or have it graded to that there is a flat spot to build on. Roughly 70% of that lot would be available to build on so there won't be room for several units on this property, just enough to make the development costs worthwhile. Zana Griffith, 4205 Road 111, asked if Crescent Road would open up and feed into Chapel Hill Boulevard. Mr. McDonald responded the applicants will be responsible for building their portion of the road. Ms. Griffith asked for clarification on keeping a barrier to keep people from coming down to Crescent Drive. Mr. McDonald stated that it wouldn't be advisable and would eventually be removed. Chairman Cruz discussed the option of an LID to help with street, road, sewer and M -14- irrigation improvements and there may be a street plan. There was discussion between Chairman Cruz and Ms. Griffith on the different options and what could potentially be developed. Mr. McDonald reminded the Planning Commission that at this time they should only be considering the Comprehensive Plan Amendment. Commissioner Polk addressed the problem of speeding from church traffic and suggested that anyone with issues should contact the church to let them know. Mr. McDonald stated that currently the church congregation shouldn't be able to use the road because it is blocked off. Mr. Pritchett stated that he agreed with many of the comments made and they too would like to see the lowest speed. They plan to be responsible developers. With no further questions or comments the public hearing closed. Commissioner Bachart moved, seconded by Commissioner Kempf, to close the public hearing and initiate deliberations and schedule adoption of findings of facts, conclusions and a recommendation to the City Council for the November 20, 2014 meeting. The motion passed unanimously. H. Code Amendment Revisions to PMC Title 17 (Signs) dealing with Highway Follow-Through Signs (MF# CA 2011-011) Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Rick White, Community 8s Economic Development Director, discussed the code amendment for revisions to PMC Title 17 (Signs) dealing with highway follow-through signs. The Commission has seen this item several times. After meeting with the Department of Transportation, the Engineering Department and working out code language, a proposed ordinance that uses existing language in the sign code, will allow for highway follow-through signs with the same parameters that the Commission has given approval at previous workshops on this issue. It captures all of the permitting requirements necessary for the State Code. With no further comments the public hearing closed. I. Block Grant Preliminary Draft of the 2015-2019 Tri-Cities Consolidated Plan (MF# BGAP 2014-0071 Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Rick White, Community 8v Economic Development Director, discussed the preliminary draft of the 2015-2019 Tri-Cities Consolidated Plan. The Consolidated Plan is established to provide a framework on how to utilize Block Grant and HOME fund money. Mr. White referred to the draft plan which was sent to the Planning Commissioners and is available on the City website as well as the Pasco Branch Libraries. The major change in this plan from previous years is the format due to a change in federal reporting requirements. Instead of seven goals there are only three goals; (1) Affordable housing creation, preservation, access and choice, (2) Community, neighborhood and economic development M -15- and (3) Homeless intervention and prevention and supportive services. Each goal has a priority system for recommending what should or should not be considered for funding. With no questions or comments the public hearing closed. OTHER BUSINESS: A. Plan Shoreline Master Plan Update - Environmental Designations This item was postponed and will be on the upcoming meeting. COMMENTS: With no further discussion or business, the Planning Commission was adjourned at 10:06 p.m. Respectfully submitted, David McDonald, City Planner M -16- REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION MASTER FILE NO: Z 2014-005 APPLICANT: Tippett/Lampson/City HEARING DATE: 9/18/2014 &, 10/16/14 2815 St Andrews Loop # F ACTION DATE: 11/20/2014 Pasco WA 99301 BACKGROUND REQUEST: REZONE: Rezone from I-1(light Industrial) to 1-2 (Medium Industrial) 1. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: Legal: Parcel #'s 112540019, 112470014, 112510060, 112510079, 112530053 and 112430021. General Location: South of "A" Street north of the Port of Pasco and west of Road 40 East. Property The combined area of the parcels is 365 acres. 2. ACCESS: The parcels are accessible from Road 40 East. Currently there is not dedicated right-of-way from "A" Street. 3. UTILITIES: All municipal utilities are currently available in Road 40 East. A 16 inch water main also runs east and west through the western half of the property and along the western boundary. This 16 inch line reduces down to a 12 inch line through the eastern half of the property. 4. LAND USE AND ZONING: The parcels are currently zoned RT (Residential Transition) and are vacant. Surrounding properties are zoned and developed as follows: NORTH: I-1 - Vacant/salvage yard/temp office rental SOUTH: I-3 8v I-1 - Port of Pasco/ Vacant EAST: 1-1 - Vacant/farm land WEST: 1-1 - Vacant 5. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The Comprehensive Plan designates the property for industrial uses. Land Use Goal ED-2 encourages the appropriate location and design of commercial and industrial facilities within the city. Policy ED-2-13 encourages the development of a wide range of industrial uses strategically located within the community to support local and regional needs. 6. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The City of Pasco is the lead agency for this project. Based on the SEPA checklist, the adopted City 1 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 applicants have applied to change the zoning designation of their property from I-1 (Light Industrial) to I-2 (Medium Industrial). The subject site is comprised of five parcels of land located west of Road 40 East between the Port of Pasco on the south and "A" Street on the north. The site contains about 365 acres of land which is mostly in agricultural production. The Comprehensive Plan designates site for Industrial land uses that are permitted in the I-1 through I-2 zoning districts. The I-3 District is only applicable to the Big Port of Pasco area to the south of the site. The City has been working with the Port and property owners for many years to encourage industrial development on the site. Approximately 12 years ago the City contracted with a land use consulting firm to develop a sub-area land use plan for much of the area located between Oregon Avenue, Cedar Street and SR 12. The result was the Sacajawea Industrial Area and Circulation Concept Plan which identified future streets, rail corridors and land uses for the area. Following the Concept Plan, the City constructed the Heritage Boulevard truck route connecting "A" Street with the Lewis Street Interchange in 2005. A rail spur was also recently added to the rezone site more or less following the direction of the referenced Concept Plan. The rail spur was a joint project of the Port, City, Franklin County and property owners. For marketing purposes the Sacajawea Industrial Area has been renamed as the Heritage Industrial Area. The future street network though the Heritage Industrial Area was further refined with the completion of the Tank Farm Road Interchange Study completed in 2008. The Heritage Industrial Area will eventually be connected to SR 12 through two freeway interchanges. To assist with preserving the Heritage Industrial Area for future industrial development the City acquired 15 acres of land between Elm Street and Cedar Street in 2009 and then in 2011 acquired the old Western Meats property. These properties were cleaned up to look more presentable. About 12 years ago the BNSF built a rail yard between the rezone site and the Port of Pasco. This rail yard contains 7 miles of track and high intensity lighting to permit work 24 hours a day if necessary. 2 Prior to the development of the industrial park concept plan the City installed a 16 inch water main through the center of the western half of the property proposed for the rezone. A 12 inch water line is also located in the eastern half of the property. In 1999 the City in conjunction with the Port installed a 21 inch sewer main along the southern boundary of the rezone. That line also was extended a short distance north in Road 40 East. In 2004 the sewer line was extended all the way to "A" street. The rezone site is now severed by both a major sewer line and a major water line. The above items can be considered changing conditions that would merit consideration of a rezone for the property. Another changing condition in the community is the fact that the Pasco Processing Center no longer has large enough parcels of land to accommodate another food processing plant. The Processing Center is essentially full and there is no other land available with a rail spur that would permit the development of a full range of food processing plants. The Processing Center was zoned I-2 and developed with a rail spur specifically for the food processing industry. 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 date the existing zone became effective: The current zoning classification was established in 1979 when the property was annexed to the City. 2. The changed conditions, which are alleged to warrant other or additional zoning: The City, Port and property owners have been posturing the property for industrial development for many years. The site has been identified as the Heritage Industrial Park by the City. The Heritage Boulevard truck route was constructed in 2007 to provide a link between "A" Street and the Lewis Street Interchange. Planning for the Tank Farm Road Interchange on Highway 12 identified the general location of future street connections from the end of Heritage Boulevard to the Tank Farm Road Interchange that will traverse the rezone property. The old "Pig Farm" site to the west and north has been razed and cleared and the City purchased the Western Meats packing facility and other properties to support industrial development in the area. A rail spur was constructed though the property last year. Construction of the spur was a joint project between the City, Port, Franklin County and property owners. The Burlington Northern and Santa Fe railroad constructed a rail yard between the property and the Port of Pasco over 12 years ago. Seven miles of rail track are 3 now located in the area. The Port of Pasco was annexed and zone I-3 (Heavy Industrial) in 1994 and since that time the Port has made significant improvements to infrastructure in the area to further support industrial development. A major industrial sized water line was located through the property to support future industrial development in the late early 1980's. 3. Facts to justify the change on the basis of advancing the public health, safety and general welfare: Rezoning the property will support past public and private efforts and expenditures to posture the property for major industrial development. By expanding opportunities for industrial development the city will be expanding employment opportunities and the tax base thereby advancing the general welfare of the community. 4. The effect it will have on the value and character of the adjacent property and the Comprehensive Plan: The comprehensive Plan designates the site for Industrial development. Policies (ED-2-B) of the plan encourage the development of a wide range of industrial uses strategically located within the community to support local and regional needs. There will be little immediate impact to surrounding properties which are currently zoned either I-3 or I-1. Development of large industrial plants on the site may encourage the development of support related facilities (trucking, packaging suppliers, repair facilities, cold storage, raw product storage etc.) on adjacent properties. For example support facilities were constructed in and near the Pasco Processing Center after the food processing plants were built. 5. The effect on the property owner or owners if the request is not granted: Without the rezone the site may be less attractive for the development of industrial plants and the public and private expenditures to position the property for industrial development will not provide a positive return for the community. INITIAL STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT Findings of fact must be entered from the record. The following are initial findings drawn from the background and analysis section of the staff report. The Planning Commission may add additional findings to this listing as the result of factual testimony and evidence submitted during the open record hearing. 1. The site is comprised of five tax parcels. 4 2. A majority of the site is being farmed. 3. The site is approximately 365 acres in area. 4. The site is currently zoned I-1 (Light Industrial). S. The applicant is requesting the I-2 (Medium Industrial) zoning. 6. The Comprehensive Plan designates the site for industrial development. 7. In the early 2000's the City contracted with a consultant to develop an industrial land use and circulation concept plan for the property included within the rezone request area. 8. The concept plan referenced in # 6 generally identified the future location of major streets and rail spurs through the rezone site. 9. The City constructed the Heritage Boulevard truck route connecting "A" Street to the Lewis Street Interchange. 10. The City, Port and property owners recently constructed a rail spur through the rezone site. 11. The BNSF built a rail yard between the Port of Pasco and the rezone site about 12 years ago. This yard contains seven miles of track 12. The Comprehensive Plan designates the properties for industrial land uses. 13. In the mid-1990s the City and the Port jointly developed the Pasco Processing Center. The Port developed the industrial park on Industrial Way and the City built an industrial waste water facility to support the industrial park. 14. The Pasco Processing Center is essentially built out and cannot accommodate any additional food processing plants. 15. The Pasco Processing Center was zone I-2 and contains a rail spur. 16. There are no more I-2 industrial sites within the City with a rail spur. 17. The Port of Pasco is located to the south of the rezone site and is zoned I- 3. 18. A 12 inch and 16 inch water line was installed through the rezone site in the early 1980's. 19. A 21 inch sewer line was installed along the south boundary of the rezone site in 1999 and completely extend up Road 40 East to "A" Street in 2004. 20. The I-2 District permits the location of junkyards, automobile wrecking yards and scrap iron yards. 5 21. Conditional uses permitted through the special permit process in the I-2 District include: (1) Slaughterhouses and stockyards; (2) Acid manufacture or wholesale storage of acids; (3) Cement, lime, gypsum, or plaster of paris manufacture; (4) Distillation of bones; (5) Manufacture of explosives or storage of explosives, including gases; (6) Fat rendering, fertilizer, gas or glue manufacture; (7) Garbage, offal, or dead -animal reduction or dumping; (8) Petroleum or petroleum products refining; (9) Smelting or reduction of ore or metallurgical products; (10) Foundry casting of nonferrous metals or electric foundry causing noxious fumes or odors; (11) Race tracks and courses for the conduct of seasonal or periodic racing; (12) Asphalt or concrete batch plant; and (13) Commercial composting facilities. TENTATIVE CONCLUSIONS BASED ON INITIAL STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT Before recommending approval or denial of a special permit the Planning Commission must develop findings of fact from which to draw its conclusions based upon the criteria listed in PMC 25.86.060. The criteria are as follows: 1. The proposal is in accordance with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. The proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map and several Plan policies and goals. Land Use Policy LU-3-B encourages "infill" development while H-2-A suggests the City permit a full range of residential environments. Housing Policy (H-B-A) encourages standards that control the scale and density of accessory buildings and homes to maintain compatibility with other residential uses. 2. The effect of the proposal on the immediate vicinity will not be materially detrimental. All properties surrounding the site are zoned for industrial development (T 1 or I- 3) with the exception of a small area to the northwest owned by the city which is zoned C-3. Development on the site may be beneficial to surrounding properties in that industrial support services may locate on these properties. Industrial development in the Pasco Processing Center lead to ancillary developed on other properties in the area. 3. There is merit and value in the proposal for the community as a whole. 6 There is merit in developing vacant parcels within the City in accordance with the goals and policies contained in the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed zoning is consistent with the Plan's Land Use Map. Encouraging the development of more industrial facilities in the community has merit as a whole for the increase in employment opportunities it creates and increase in the tax base without a corresponding increased need for public services as is the case with residential development. 4. Conditions should be imposed in order to mitigate any significant adverse impacts from the proposal. The I-2 zone permits the location of salvage yards and wrecking yards. The rezone could be conditioned to address concerns, over the development of salvage yards and other activities listed as conditional uses. The current property owners may not permit the development of salvage yards or bone distillation facilities on their property but, future owners may not share the same concern. The only sure way to prohibit the development of wrecking and salvage yards and other uses that may be obnoxious to surrounding properties is to tie a concomitant agreement to the property limiting uses like junkyards that may have more of a negative impact on the neighborhood. 5. A Concomitant Agreement should be entered into between the City and the petitioner, and if so, the terms and conditions of such an agreement. The following are the permitted and conditional uses allowed in the 1-2 zoning district. 25.54.020 PERMITTED USES. Uses permitted in the I-2 district shall be: (1) All uses not otherwise prohibited by law, but no residential buildings shall be permitted; and (2) Junkyards, automobile wrecking yards, scrap iron, scrap paper, or rag storage, sorting or bailing shall be permitted, provided: (a) An eight-foot sight-obscuring fence must be constructed and inspected prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for use of the goods. The fence shall be of solid single neutral color. (b) No automobile or parts thereof, junk or salvage materials or parts thereof shall be visible from any public right-of-way. All materials or parts shall be located within the fenced area. (c) Fire lanes shall be provided as required in the International Fire Code. (d) A performance bond for one thousand dollars shall be required prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit, to assure compliance with provisions of this section. The bond shall remain in force as long as the use exists. (e) The permit shall be granted for a period not to exceed two years and at the end of such period an inspection shall be made of the premises to determine the advisability of renewing such permit. 7 25.54.040 PERMITTED CONDITIONAL USES. The following uses may be permitted in the I-2 district upon approval of a special permit as provided in Chapter 25.86. (1) Slaughterhouses and stockyards; (2) Acid manufacture or wholesale storage of acids; (3) Cement, lime, gypsum, or plaster of paris manufacture; (4) Distillation of bones; (5) Manufacture of explosives or storage of explosives, including gases; (6) Fat rendering, fertilizer, gas or glue manufacture; (7) Garbage, offal, or dead-animal reduction or dumping; (8) Petroleum or petroleum products refining; (9) Smelting or reduction of ore or metallurgical products; (10) Foundry casting of nonferrous metals or electric foundry causing noxious fumes or odors; (11) Race tracks and courses for the conduct of seasonal or periodic racing; (12) Asphalt or concrete batch plant; and (13) Commercial composting facilities. Many of the uses listed above would not be appropriate for the proposed rezone site. To reduce or eliminate adverse impacts to surrounding properties a concomitant agreement is needed. The concomitant agreement should prohibit the following uses: 1) Slaughterhouses and stockyards; 2) Cement manufacturing; 3) Distillation of bones; 4) Fat rendering; 5) Garbage, offal, or dead animal reduction or dumping; 6) Race tracks and courses for the conduct of seasonal or periodic racing; 7) Junk yards, automobile wrecking yards and scrap iron yards; 8) Asphalt or concrete batch plant; The concomitant agreement should also restrict the operation of certain scrap or recycling businesses as follows: 1) Scrap paper and rag storage, sorting and bailing shall only be permitted if such activity occurs within a building. The proposed concomitant agreement is a part of the proposed rezone ordinance attached to this report. 8 RECOMMENDATION MOTION: I move to adopt findings of fact and conclusions therefrom as contained in the October 16, 2014 staff report. Motion: I move based on the findings of fact and conclusions as adopted the Planning Commission recommend the City Council approve the rezone for the Heritage Industrial Area from I-1 to I-2 with a concomitant agreement prohibiting junkyards and other uses as listed in the attached agreement. 9 Item: Rezone from I- I to 1-2 Overview Applicant: CQ Map File Z 2014-005 Mkt� � ' �" �~�■ p ��" � � �as��+ •,�»� � — ,/ D. N� e��UZI d� I� v MR MR UM ISM NNI 4iiik�ay rtEa er� ! „"„�`® :� Rin�L�Mrcea:rr q SY4aYGi4i7t�11'.SS: IIfR1�Cwai ` 'J� +.=;_ � Vii► � 11111!1 �,����-�i'■' ��Ih it 1� r1 1� r- • Item: Rezone from I- 1 to I-2 Vicinity Applicant: Columbia East et al. N Map File #: Z 2014-005 7.7 L� A.,ST Q _ a DEED 00 Li i Ea EE EH SITEN IN IN NNNN CQJ fou Land Use Item: Rezone from I- 1 to I-2 Applicant : Columbia East et al. x Map File #: Z 2014-005 I I I SFDUsLLA � �.- Lim- �lIJ A Pts. er a Ind. Vac. Ind. Canty \ SITE LL Industrial `' ' Vacant h e LL Zoning Item: Rezone from I- 1 to I-2 Applicant: Columbia East et al. x Map File #: Z 2014-005 R-1 - C3 € C-1 � RT ` R3 C-1 C3 Li LL F SITE 1=3 CO � I- 1 Looking North 6&"i .- _ , Y _ .c J,.f 11 Looking - - -- _ AA �y� �,k � rl'4 S+j a_„F', r, _ ,' r l-• I -i�,T w �, 1lJ t � ,R�I �' i r J ;, '- � x -- - 'c"�� - a - a Looking South w Looking Nest r '�e..� °s �.:r>t' .�:e, r-� - �• 1R7"'N a. - i }� � ,. .r.+xu�'�1YA� - - •A.=l - .` � �4 - -. - w• r - _ � - _ .etk n. ,�•:•. _. - .. � ��lY��'�)J.''�I r'��`:"�i 'i:5��;:. �� si -� t- ?fir- �. � �• i - i- .. �' - - j �, ... ,,'_ __ S � `•��, a- - _ '' �. ham"•��' � _ �, � � a�` ...: � ` _ r � R• a i owl A. ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF PASCO, WASHINGTON, AMENDING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE HERTITAGE INSUDSTRIAL AREA SOUTH OF "A" STREET WEST OF ROAD 40 EAST FROM I-1 (LIGHT INDUSTRIAL) TO I-2 (MEDIUM INDUSTRIAL). WHEREAS, a complete and adequate petition for change of zoning classification has been received and an open record hearing having been conducted by the Pasco Planning Commission upon such petition; and, WHEREAS, that the effect of the requested change in zoning classification shall not be materially detrimental to the immediate vicinity; and, WHEREAS, based upon substantial evidence and demonstration of the Petitioner, that: (A) the requested change for the zoning classification is consistent with the adopted Comprehensive Plan; (B) the requested change in zoning classification is consistent with or promotes the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan serving the general public interest in the community; and (C) there has been a change in the neighborhood or community needs or circumstances warranting the requested change of the zoning classification; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASCO, WASHINGTON DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That the Zoning Ordinance for the City of Pasco, Washington, and the Zoning Map, accompanying and being part of said Ordinance shall be and hereby is changed from I-1 (Light Industrial) to I-2 (Medium Industrial) for the real property as shown in the Exhibit "I" attached hereto and described as follows: The NE 1/4 of Section 33, T9N, R29E, WM except the northerly 330 feet thereof and Lot 4, Binding Site Plan 2010-02, together with the NE 1/4 of the SE 1/4 of Section 33, T9N, R29E, WM lying northerly of the railroad right-of-way together with the SE 1/4 of the NW 1/4 of said Section 33, less that portion for the NPRR right-of-way, Except that portion described in Auditors File #523713; and NW 1/4 of the SE 1/4 of said Section 33, Except the SP & S right-of-way and the N 1/Z of the N %2 of the SW 1/4 of Section 34, T9N, R30E, W.M. (Parcel#'s 112540019,01 12470014, 112510060, 112430021, 112530053 & 112510079) Section 2. This ordinance shall take full force and effect five (5) days after its approval,passage and publication as required by law. Passed by the City Council of the City of Pasco this I st day of December, 2014. Matt Watkins, Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: Debra L. Clark, City Clerk Leland B. Kerr, City Attorney IN Exhibit Item: Rezone from I- I to 1-2 Applicant: Columbia East et al.#1 File #: Z 2014-005 N man MEN WIND milli ROOM 11 MEN ON INS ELM INOW LON 0114 INS, "Exhibit # 2" CONCOMITANT ZONING AGREEMENT WHEREAS, the City of Pasco, Washington, a non-charter code city, under the laws of the State of Washington (Chapter 35A.63 R.C.W. and Article 11, Section 11 of the Washington State Constitution) has authority to enact laws and enter into agreements to promote the health, safety and welfare of its citizens, and thereby control the use and development of property within its jurisdiction; and WHEREAS, the Owner(s) of certain property have applied for a rezone of such property described below within the City's jurisdiction; and WHEREAS, the City pursuant to R.C.W. 43.12(c), the State Environmental Policy Act, should mitigate any adverse impacts which might result because of the proposed rezone; and WHEREAS, the City of Pasco and the Owner(s) are both interested in compliance with the Pasco Municipal Code provisions relating to the use and development of property situated in the City of Pasco, described as follows: The NE 1/4 of Section 33, T9N, R29E, WM except the northerly 330 feet thereof and Lot 4, Binding Site Plan 2010-02, together with the NE 1/4 of the SE 1/4 of Section 33, T9N, R29E, WM lying northerly of the railroad right-of-way together with the SE 1/4 of the NW 1/a of said Section 33, less that portion for the NPRR right-of-way,Except that portion described in Auditors File#523713; and NW 1/4 of the SE 1/4 of said Section 33, Except the SP & S right-of-way and the N 1/2 of the N % of the SW 1/4 of Section 34, T9N, R30E, W.M. (Parcel # 112540019, 112470014, 112510060, 112430021, 112530053 & 112510079) WHEREAS, the Owner(s) have indicated willingness to cooperate with the City of Pasco, its Planning Commission and Planning Department to insure compliance with the Pasco Zoning Code, and all other local, state and federal laws relating to the use and development of the above described property; and WHEREAS, the City, in addition to civil and criminal sanctions available by law, desires to enforce the rights and interests of the public by this concomitant agreement, NOW, THEREFORE, In the event the above-described property is rezoned by the City of Pasco from I-1 (Light Industrial) to I-2 (Medium Industrial) and in consideration of that event should it occur, and subject to the terms and conditions hereinafter stated, the applicant does hereby covenant and agree as follows: 1. The Owner(s) promise to comply with all of the terms of the agreement in the event the City, as full consideration herein grants a rezone on the above-described property. 2. The Owner(s) agrees to perform the terms set forth in Section 4 of this agreement. 3. This agreement shall be binding on their heirs, assigns, grantees or successors in interest of the Owner(s) of the property herein described. 4. Conditions: A. The following Permitted and Conditional Uses in the Medium Industrial District are prohibited: 1) Slaughterhouses and stockyards; 2) Cement manufacturing; 3) Distillation of bones; 4) Fat rendering; 5) Garbage, offal, or dead animal reduction or dumping; 6) Race tracks and courses for the conduct of seasonal or periodic racing; 7) Junk yards, automobile wrecking yards and scrap iron yards; 8) Asphalt or concrete batch plant; B. The following uses are permitted with restrictions as indicated: 1) Scrap paper and rag storage, sorting and bailing shall only be permitted if such activity occurs within a building. The person(s) whose names are subscribed herein do hereby certify that they are the sole holders of fee simple interest in the above-described property: Owner: STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) ss. County of Franklin ) On this day of , 2014, before me, the undersigned, duly commissioned and sworn, personally appeared to me known to be the individual(s) described above and who executed the within and foregoing instrument as an agent of the owner(s) of record, and acknowledged to me that he/she/they signed the same as his/her/their free and voluntary act and deed, for the uses and purposes therein mentioned, and on oath stated that he/she/they is/are authorized to execute the said instrument. GIVEN under by hand and official seal this day of , 2014. CONCOMITANT ZONING AGREEMENTPAGE 2 OF 3 Notary Public in and for the State of Washington, residing at Owner: STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ss. County of Franklin ) On this day of , 2014, before me, the undersigned, duly commissioned and sworn, personally appeared to me known to be the individual(s) described above and who executed the within and foregoing instrument as an agent of the owner(s) of record, and acknowledged to me that he/she/they signed the same as his/her/their free and voluntary act and deed, for the uses and purposes therein mentioned, and on oath stated that he/she/they is/are authorized to execute the said instrument. GIVEN under by hand and official seal this day of 2014. Notary Public in and for the State of Washington, residing at Owner: STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ss. County of Franklin ) On this day of , 2014, before me, the undersigned, duly commissioned and sworn, personally appeared to me known to be the individual(s) described above and who executed the within and foregoing CONCOMITANT ZONING AGREEMENTPAGE 3 OF 3 instrument as an agent of the owner(s) of record, and acknowledged to me that he/she/they signed the same as his/her/their free and voluntary act and deed, for the uses and purposes therein mentioned, and on oath stated that he/she/they is/are authorized to execute the said instrument. GIVEN under by hand and official seal this day of 2014. Notary Public in and for the State of Washington, residing at CONCOMITANT ZONING AGREEMENTPAGE 4 OF 3 REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION MASTER FILE NO: Z 2014-006 APPLICANT: Charles Steltenpohl HEARING DATE: 10/16/2014 3005 Road 56 ACTION DATE: 11/20/2014 Pasco, WA 99301 BACKGROUND REQUEST: REZONE: Rezone from `O' (Office) to R-1 (Low-Density Residential) 1. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: Legal: Parcel # 112-131-158: Lot 29, Sylvester's Addition, except the east 5 feet of the south 50 feet and the north 65 feet of Lots 30 to 32, Block 7 General Location: 704 W. Margaret Street Property Size: The parcel is 7,500 square feet or approximately 0.17 acres 2. ACCESS: The site is a corner lot fronting both W. Margaret Street and 51h Avenue; with secondary access from the adjacent alley to the south. Alley access is obstructed by a detached accessory structure. There are no driveways and therefore no off-street parking on-site. 3. UTILITIES: Municipal sewer and water currently serve the site from the adjacent alley. 4. LAND USE AND ZONING: The site is currently zoned `O' (Office) and contains a commercial building. Surrounding properties are zoned and developed as follows: NORTH: O - Commercial Office SOUTH: R-1 - Single-Family Residences EAST: C-1 - Commercial Offices WEST: R-1 - Single-Family Residences 5. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The Comprehensive Plan designates the site for Low Density Residential uses which allows for the assignment of single-family residential zoning districts. ❑ 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 Charles Steltenpohl has filed an application to change the zoning designation of 704 W. Margaret Street from `O' (Office) to R-1 (Low-Density Residential) which would allow the existing structure to be used as a single-family residence. The site contains a single story brick building originally constructed in 1957 as a duplex which was later converted into a medical office. Medical offices operated in the building until 2010 with the benefit of a City of Pasco business license (#2505). The City's Comprehensive Plan designates this site for Low Density Residential land uses which allows assignment of a variety of single-family zoning districts. Of the allowable zones under the Low Density Residential designation, the R-1 zone permits the highest residential density at a rate of one dwelling unit for every 7,200ft2 of land area or approximately 6 units per acre. Other zoning districts allowed under the Low Density Residential land use designation are suburban (RS-1, RS-12 and RS-20). Although similar in terms of land use intensity, single-family residences are generally considered to be a less intensive than commercial offices. Office zoning and residential zoning are two zoning types that are frequently viewed as harmonious and compatible with one another. It follows that this application proposes to reduce the intensity of permitted uses on-site. For this reason the proposal is not likely to have disruptive effects on surrounding homes and offices. Changing the zoning classification of the site will likely provide the owner the opportunity to convert the building to a single-family home and allow the property to be sold as such Zoning Configuration: The subject site together with the site directly to the north, represent a "spot" of isolated office zoning amongst an otherwise uniform R-1 zoned neighborhood. In this location 5th Avenue serves as the eastern boundary of the Sylvester's Addition residential neighborhood. Despite their R-1 zoning, parcels to the east are not residential land uses; they are offices, Lourdes hospital and the courthouse. From an academic planning perspective there is merit in increasing the uniformity of the R-1 zoning in this residential vicinity. 2 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 date the existing zone became effective: The current zoning classification was established over 35-years ago. 2. The changed conditions, which are alleged to warrant other or additional zoning: For approximately 100-years the Sylvester's Addition neighborhood has been developed largely with single-family homes. A small number of duplexes are present in the vicinity. The subject site and the parcel directly to the north are ones which at some point were converted to offices, they are the exception to the intended character of the neighborhood. According to the current owner, the sites' lack of off-street parking has been detrimental to the commercial viability of the property as an office. The most recent change in conditions is the assignment of Office zoning to the subject parcel. This zoning has ceased to be needed and the owner requests to revert back to the original zoning. 3. Facts to justify the change on the basis of advancing the public health, safety and general welfare: There is merit in enhancing the predictability of the areas' zoning district boundaries, a concept which would be promoted by approving this rezone application. The lifestyles of adjacent residents may benefit from converting the sites' use and zoning by way of enhancing the uniformity of conduct in the neighborhood. 4. The effect it will have on the value and character of the adjacent property and the Comprehensive Plan: A change in zoning classification as requested will promote land use goals illustrated in the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map. In the Comprehensive Plan the surrounding vicinity has been assigned a "low-density residential" land use designation which encourages the application of single-family residential zoning. It is unlikely that converting the sites' zoning and use from office to residential will affect the value of surrounding properties either positively or negatively. 5. The effect on the property owner or owners if the request is not granted: Without transitioning the site to a residential zoning classification the site may remain vacant for an extended period of time. Vacant sites are generally considered a detriment to neighborhoods and run the risk of becoming blighted. 3 STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT Findings of fact must be entered from the record. The following are initial findings drawn from the background and analysis section of the staff report. The Planning Commission may add additional findings to this listing as the result of factual testimony and evidence submitted during the open record hearing. 1. The site is currently zoned Office (General Business). 2. The site is approximately 0.17 acres in area. 3. The site occupies a corner location; bordering West Margaret Street and 5th Avenue. 4. The site contains a commercial office building. 5. The structure on-site was originally constructed as a residential duplex. 6. The applicant is requesting R-1 (Low-Density Residential) zoning be assigned to the site. 7. The Comprehensive Plan identifies the site and much of the vicinity for Low-Density Residential uses which allows assignment of a range of single-family residential zones including R-1 (Low-Density Residential). 8. The R-1 zone is the highest density allowed under the Low-Density Residential land use designation, allowing 6 dwelling units for every One (1) acre of land area. 9. Municipal water and sewer currently serve the site from the adjacent alley. 10. The neighborhood to the west is zoned R-1 and contains primarily single- family residences. 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 PMC 25.86.060. The criteria are as follows: 1. The proposal is in accordance with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. The proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map and several Plan policies and goals. Land Use Policy LU-3-B encourages "infill" development while H-2-A suggests the City permit a full range of residential environments. Housing Policy (H-B-A) encourages standards that control the scale and density of accessory buildings and homes to maintain compatibility with other residential uses. Although development is not the proposed result of 4 this application, the change in zoning classification would enhance the compatibility with land uses in the vicinity to the west. 2. The effect of the proposal on the immediate vicinity will not be materially detrimental. The proposed R-1 zoning will permit the site to be used residentially. The site was originally developed for residential uses. Franklin County property value research indicates that homes do not negatively affect the values of other surrounding homes. Prospective home buyers are more likely to purchase a home neighboring other homes than they would buy a home adjacent to a commercial office. 3. There is merit and value in the proposal for the community as a whole. Assignment of residential zoning will contribute to the residential character matching much of the vicinity. There is merit in enhancing the predictability of zoning district boundaries, a concept which would be promoted by the proposed change in zoning classification. The proposal is supported by land use goals and policies contained in the Comprehensive Plan. 4. Conditions should be imposed in order to mitigate any significant adverse impacts from the proposal. No special conditions are proposed. 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. A concomitant agreement is not needed. RECOMMENDATION MOTION for Findings of Fact: ❑ I move to adopt findings of fact and conclusions therefrom as contained in the November 20, 2014 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 Office to R-1 for 704 W. Margaret Street. 5 Vicin Item: Rezone - Office to R- 1 it y Applicant. Charles Steltenpohl N Map File #: Z 2014-006 rr+ r- Ai - Y S Ali SITWdil MARCA r A ,+ i 0) 14 PARK ST in r� - Land Use Item: Rezone - Office to R- 1 Applicant: Charles Steltenpohl N Map File #: Z 2014-006 HENRY ST Public/Government Sin le-Family Residences Office MARGARET ST SIT W W d F7 .j x SFR F � Offices Single-Family Residences PARK ST Parking Hospital Zoning Item: Rezone - Office to R- 1 Applicant: Charles Steltenpohl N Map File #: Z 2014-006 HENRY ST R-1 R-1 (Low-Density Residential)- SITE MARGARET ST W C-1 � ..o.. x (Retail Business) F R-1 (Low-Density Residential) PARK ST R1 ter`„' .N� +,�,yam`r t '.}M �,, �s r °`"3�a���"'I+ ��h v ��y w•r�' �,y� :+ . - 'tit n�ti• - R�3.,C. i �. .�V.� ` !y.• - � , ,- § .. q t a z. w. s �Tly • -= �- �' fir' # '�a• �, - kk AX pv it • �_ - � i,�� 1�` 1 �+ � r S ��r',S Lei' , �� �il �� � �k✓. r'N }VA Ir Looking North - r �w a� ■ .4 r.Vajer S G.r'' ♦ '� - .. N � `''�'•_ •` "°� ¢ ,a:.}.��`i eta: �� �J �•iW� �., .i. -— ` • r�^ ,w t14 lmr 'Ye r - ti •�Y a '�� �cr �'. z � j, ,r, ..+4 `W�:''<`' i f i rM1 - , ti f Y•: vam -APf. Ift fk"Ill �6h ► y d Looking South ,9is r .rte„ ," dl+'F'^'*' ;�'•'{.` . IF Ur it _ t s .. -� T P rn. - - - �� �'� f •;±5 -, +� � .�' �.� ?a,T,,�+ ,�. k,��,��z'f�'��iP„ J + f `i`-'': -."d].'"�'e�*.:k'-e� s,�`:b,:. - _. _ p__,...... t, 4 � �� � 1`$ 'J f* �T�`�r'�"4 f T/�Y.p °��x' !�' S'%.{,V r� `�� 4 f•.a _ - ,. �`..-` �1,yf:; �}n�o�4'�., +y xr;.,.aF�,r��#,jp��,..� �. Ju w�;..., � t +".v�-1 ..��'_ ^�'sGi,7.r�,e+� �i+., `�'�"'"°'�r a�''�,�a"�.`n����"•.c.�;t� • ��e...�-. - yC �,�. .e T { �C zY.r a.' �4 �,� x ��x ' a. 77 4���ti:'�� B,.A• _3� ,.Y+l {��,#S af. 9�F �` � - 'ems.• ' `.t '� � I ,� � �•: ��44 ���,.a � '� � � ,� ..'! 1 Ap }w� 1 Ilk , IN �`w� Yw} ` ��'• ,,.�' 4 fi.'� - \y!R� mfr'/��! w v `.' fly IA is Ilk ► w r. 9.. 1 I � NY"�, F�s�r r •; i MEMORANDUM DATE: November 20, 2014 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Jeff Adams, Associate Planner SUBJECT: Urban Growth Area Expansion (MF# CPA14-002) (Farm 2005 LLC) Farm 2005, LLC., the owner of 160 acres of farm land directly north of the City limits, has applied for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment that would revise the Urban Growth Area (UGA) to include 160 acres currently outside the Pasco UGA. The property in question is located at the northeast corner of Road 52 and Powerline Road. The site is northeasterly of the new Rosalind Franklin Elementary School. The following provides the historical background on Urban Growth Areas and may help with arriving at a recommendation on this request. The 1990 Growth Management Act (GMA) required the establishment of Urban Growth Areas (UGA's) around urban centers throughout the State. Urban Growth Areas have become a key component in managing urban growth within Washington. Urban Growth Areas define the area in which a community is to encourage higher density urban development and the area in which urban services can be supported and promoted. Land located outside UGA's are to be reserved for the promotion of rural density and functions. By directing growth to UGA's natural resource lands such as farmlands and forest lands can be conserved and the character of rural areas can be maintained for future needs. Pasco's first Urban Growth Area was established in April of 1993 and has been modified only four times since then. The designation of the Pasco UGA was not only guided by the GMA Goals (see attachment #1), but also by the provisions of RCW 36.70A.110 the most pertinent portions of which are as follows: • Each county that is required or chooses to plan under RCW 36.70A.040 shall designate an urban growth area or areas within which urban growth shall be encouraged and outside of which growth can occur only if it is not urban in nature. • Each city that is located in such a county shall be included within an urban growth area. • An urban growth area may include territory located outside of a city only if such territory already is characterized by urban growth whether or not the urban growth area includes a city, or is adjacent to territory already characterized by urban growth, or is a 1 designated new fully contained community as defined by RCW 36.70A.350. • Based upon the growth management population projection made for the county by the Office of Financial Management, the county and each city within the county shall include areas and densities sufficient to permit the urban growth that is projected to occur in the county or city for the succeeding twenty-year period, except for those urban growth areas contained totally within a National Historical Reserve. • Each city must include areas sufficient to accommodate the broad range of needs and uses that will accompany the projected urban growth including, as appropriate, medical, governmental, institutional, commercial, service, retail, and other non-residential uses. • Each urban growth area shall permit urban densities and shall include greenbelt and open space areas. • An urban growth area determination may include a reasonable land market supply factor and shall permit a range of urban densities and uses. In determining this market factor, cities and counties may consider local circumstances. • Urban growth should be located first in areas already characterized by urban growth that have adequate existing public facility and service capacities to serve such development, second in areas already characterized by urban growth that will be served adequately by a combination of both existing public facilities and services and any additional needed public facilities and services that are provided by either public or private sources, and third in the remaining portions of the urban growth areas. Urban growth may also be located in designated new fully contained communities as defined by RCW36.70A.350. • In general, cities are the units of local government most appropriate to provide urban governmental services. In general, it is not appropriate that urban governmental services be extended to or expanded in rural areas except in those limited circumstances shown to be necessary to protect basic public health and safety and the environment and when such services are financially supportable at rural densities and do not permit urban development. 2 Based on State law, the Pasco UGA is to include all lands within the city and may include lands outside the City if the lands are urban in nature or adjacent to territory that is already characterized by urban growth. Development within the UGA is to occur first on lands that currently have adequate public facility and service capacities and secondly on lands that will be served adequately in the future. The UGA needs to contain a sufficient amount of land to accommodate expected growth for the 20 year planning horizon. The expected growth is determined by county wide population projections prepared by the State Office of Financial Management (OFM). In addition to the population projections the city must also considered land needs for parks and open space, school, retail businesses, offices, industrial buildings and other land uses. In the determination for UGA land needs local market supply factors may also be considered. The local market supply factor is beginning to become an issue within the UGA. The large remaining tracts of land that could be used for future residential development are controlled by a few individuals or companies. Additionally the remaining five major subdivisions available (228 acres of buildable land) for new housing construction are likewise controlled by a limited number of builders. As a result prices for raw land to develop subdivisions are rising. The last sale of land for a subdivision (Three Rivers West) was about 30 percent higher than comparable sales in the recent past. The owner's that sold the 50 acres for Three Rivers West control another 450 acres of vacant land within the UGA. Increasing land costs resulting from limitations created by the UGA boundary are at odds with State and local housing goals to provide affordable housing (RCW 36. 70A.210(3)e and County Policy # 6) for the community. Twelve owners control 2,117 acres of raw land within the UGA designated for residential development. Due to various constraints much of this land cannot or will not be developed within the near future. Development constraints include lack of utility service, land prices, gravel mining leases and contracts and lack of development interest on the part of the owners. The County donut hole areas contain approximately 300 acres of undeveloped land that could be used for future housing development. Much of this vacant land is occupied by hobby farms, pastures, horse corrals and gardens. It is difficult to predict how soon these parcels will be available for development. Some of the parcels have limited utility for residential developed due to poor subdivision practices of the past. Many of these parcels are remnant lots with odd shapes that lack access to public streets. If development occurs on these parcels the densities will be very low. With much of the large useable remaining vacant parcels under limited ownership prices tend to rise impacting the affordability of housing. This is the 3 reason the Growth Management Act included a provision for adding additional land to the UGA for a market supply factor so land prices are not driven unreasonably high. As Linda Loviisa, First Place and Northwest Commons continue to develop the market demand on the remaining vacant parcels will continue to increase. Increasing the UGA slightly will help moderate that market demand. Another condition impacting the market factor of available residential properties within the UGA is the fact that in 2012 Port of Pasco purchased 30 acres within Northwest Commons permanently removed 30 acres of land from the residential inventory. The property was purchased for a future runway protection area to enable future airport expansion. The airport protection zones will also impact the property included in the proposed UGA boundary amendment. Approximately 73 acres of the proposed site is located under an approach/departure zone which limits residential density to two dwelling units per acre. While the request is to include a total of 160 within the UGA boundary the resulting increase to the buildable lands inventory will be negligible. One of the purposes of establishing UGA's is to preserve resource lands and prevent them from being lost to urban development. The site in question is currently being farmed but is not designated as farm land with long term commercial significance. The land did not meet the test used by the County for classifying the land for prime farm land. The soils on this land are not considered prime agricultural soils. The land is located between an urbanizing portion of the City and the Clark Addition which is urban in nature and extensively developed. The site is also across Road 52 and to the northeast of the new Rosalind Franklin Elementary School. These factors all impact the long term viability of the site for commercial agriculture. The population projections provided by the State Office of Financial Management for Pasco's 20 year planning horizon (2007-2027) indicates Pasco's UGA population could be about 87,300 by 2027. Adjusted for growth since 2007 an additional 19,530 people need to be accommodated within the UGA by 2027. The UGA will therefore need to include enough land area to accommodate at least another 19,530 people by 2027. Between the tightly controlled subdivisions, large vacant tracts and donut hole properties there are about 2,600 acres of vacant land in the City's high growth area potentially available for residential development. Realistically though because of gravel mining, distance from utilities, past subdivision practices, high land prices and lack of development interest only about a quarter of the vacant land could be used for residential development. Based on our population projection the City will need 1,222 acres of land to accommodate the housing needed to match the population. 4 Population projections, land market factors, and preservation of resource lands are not the only items to consider when determining the extent of the UGA. Utility capacities should also be considered. A new water filter plant was constructed on Court Street near Road 111 between 200 and 2010 to increase the cities capacity to provide potable water to the community. In the near future (waiting for Army Corp of Engineer approval) a new water intake structure and pump house will be built on West Court Street near the new water plant to increase pumping capacity. Early next year the main Butterfield water plant intake structure in the Columbia River will be rebuilt in improve pumping capacity. The Franklin County PUD and Big Bend Electric built a new substation north of the Columbia Place subdivision (west of Road 68 north of Snoqualmie) in 2004. The PUD also enlarged and upgraded the Road 52 and Argent substation last year to support future growth in the community. The PUD five year capital plan calls for a new substation to be located north of Power Line Road to the east of Convention Drive which will further add to the PUD's capacity to serve the community with power needs. This UGA expansion application was reviewed by the Planning Commission in 2010 and was not recommended for approval mainly because of concerns over the capacity of the sewer system in the area. Since that time modeling studies have shown previous studies on sewer capacity were overly conservative. As a result the Northwest Commons subdivision that was previously approved partly for septic tank usage has now been granted approval to be completely served by the sewer system. A lift station will be constructed in Northwest Commons a short distance from the subject property. The applicant has also been considering the development of a force main to the east of the site to connect with the sewer system in 41h Avenue. The biggest change however between the current application and the 2010 is the fact that the new airport zoning regulations will reduce the density on the site such that only about half of the site will be able to accommodate urban densities matching existing development on adjacent parcel to the south. This lowered density will cause less of an impact on the City's sewer system. Airport Zone # 2 and #4 through the center portion of the site will have severe density restrictions. The 33.5 acres within Zone # 2 will not be able to contain any homes and the 41 acres in Zone 4 will limit development to two units per acre. Findings of Fact The following are initial findings drawn from the background and analysis section of the staff report. The Planning Commission may add additional 5 findings to this listing as the result of factual testimony and evidence submitted during the public hearing. 1. The GMA (RCW 36.70A.110) requires the establishment of Urban Growth Areas. 2. The goals of the Growth Management Act related to UGA's include: i) Encouraging development of urban areas where adequate public facilities and services exist or can be provided in an efficient manner; ii) Reducing the inappropriate conversion of undeveloped land into sprawling low-density development; and, iii) Maintaining and enhance natural resource based industries, including productive timber, agriculture, and fisheries industries. 3. Each city located in Franklin County must be included within a UGA. 4. UGA's are to encompass lands within the City's recognized utility service area. S. UGA's may include portions of the County already characterized by urban growth or adjacent to urban growth. 6. Designated Urban Growth Areas are to include enough undeveloped land to adequately accommodate forecasted growth for a 20 year planning period. 7. Forecasted growth is determined by population projections provided by the State Office of Financial Management. 8. The GMA mid-range population projections for the County anticipate Franklin County will grow to over 100,000 people during the 20 year planning horizon. 9. For planning purposes during the development of the 2007 Comprehensive Plan update, City and County Planners assume 85 percent of future population growth in Franklin County would occur in the Pasco UGA. 10. Pasco's UGA population is expected to be about 87,300 by 2027. 11. To reach the projected population the City will need to accommodate another 19,530 people. 12. There are over 2,500 acres of raw undeveloped land within the Pasco UGA designated for residential development. At least 1,222 acres are needed to accommodate the projected growth. 6 13. Twelve owners control 2,117 acres of raw land within the UGA designated for residential development. Due various constraints much of this land cannot or will not be developed within the near future. Development constraints include lack of utility service, land prices, gravel mining leases and contracts, and lack of development interest on the part of the owners. 14. The County donut hole areas contain approximately 300 acres of undeveloped land that could be used for future housing development. Much of this vacant land is occupied by hobby farms, pastures, horse corrals and gardens. Some of the parcels have limited utility for residential developed due to poor subdivision practices of the past. Many of these parcels are remnant lots with odd shapes that lack access to public streets. 15. The remaining five major subdivisions available (228 acres of buildable land) for new housing construction are controlled by a limited number of builders. 16. The large remaining tracts of land within the UGA are controlled by twelve owners causing the local market supply factor to become an issue. 17. The last land sale for a subdivision (Three Rivers West) was about 30 percent higher than comparable sales in the recent past. The owners that sold the 50 acres for Three Rivers West control another 450 acres of vacant land within the UGA boundary 18. State and local housing goals encourage the provision of affordable housing (RCW 36. 70A.210(3)e and County Policy # 6) within the community 19. Since 2010 the Port of Pasco purchased 30 acres of land in the Northwest Commons subdivision for a runway protection zone. This purchase removed 30 acres of residential land from the UGA inventory. 20. Since 2010 the zoning code has been updated to include revisions to the airport zoning regulation that will limit the densities on about half of the site in question. Reducing the density will reduce the impact on utility providers including the City's sewer utility. 21. The site in question is currently being farmed but is not designated as farm land with long term commercial significance. The land did not meet the test used by the County for classifying the land for prime farm land. The soils on this land are not considered prime agricultural soils. 7 22. In the past ten years the Franklin County PUD built one new substation and completely rebuilt and significant expanded another to ensure electrical needs will be met within the UGA. The five year capital plan for the PUD calls for a another new substation to be located north of Power Line Road to the east of Convention Drive which will further add to the PUD's capacity to serve the community with power needs. 23. The City recently built a new water filter plant on West Court Street near Road 111 to increase capacity to provide potable water to current and future residents. 24. In the near future (waiting for Army Corp of Engineer approval) a new water intake structure and pump house will be built on West Court Street near the new water plant to increase pumping capacity. 25. Early next year the main Butterfield water plant intake structure in the Columbia River will be rebuilt in improve pumping capacity. 26. A recent analysis of the sewer system capacity in the area east of Road 68 north of I-182 has indicated more capacity than previously thought. As a result all of the Northwest Commons subdivision will be able to be served by sewer. 27. A new lift station will be built in the Northwest Commons subdivision a short distance from the subject site. 28. The applicant has been investigating the possibility of providing additional sewer capacity to the area by constructing a force main easterly to 4th Avenue. 29. The site is encumbered with Airport Use Zone #2 and Zone #4. Zone # 2 prohibits residential development of any kind and Zone # 4 limits residential development to two units per acre. Conclusions Based on the GMA population projections for Franklin County the City of Pasco must plan for an additional population of about 19,530. The project population for the City will require about 1,222 acres for the development of dwelling units. Most of the remaining (2117 acres) vacant acreage in the UGA is control by 12 property owners which could be impacting the market through higher land prices. The most recent subdivision (Three Rivers West) purchase was about 30 percent higher than similar purchases in the past. 8 The limited subdivisions available for new housing are tightly controlled by a few builders. In recent years the Franklin County PUD has increased its capacity to provide electrical service to the community by upgrading substations or building new substations. The five year capital plan for the PUD includes the construction of a new substation north of Power Line Road east of Convention Drive. Since 2010 the City has increased its ability to provide potable water to the community. Further increases will be shortly realized with the reconstruction and improvement of the Butterfield plant intake structure and the construction of a new pump house and intake structure for the West Pasco water plant. Utility demands for development of the subject site has been greatly reduced since 2010 due to development limitation now in place as a result of the updated airport zoning regulations. The new Airport Zoning regulations prohibit development on 33.5 acres of the proposed site and limit another 41 acres to two dwelling units per acre. Without the ability to develop the entire site at urban densities it may be advisable to exclude most of the site from the Urban Growth Area. Based on the findings and conclusion the Planning Commission should consider only include about half of the site within the Urban Growth Area. Recommendation MOTION: I move to adopt findings of fact and conclusions therefrom as contained in the November 20, 2014 staff report. MOTION: I move based on the findings of fact and conclusions as adopted the Planning Commission recommend the City Council approve the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment expanding the Urban Growth Area as depicted on Exhibit #1. 9 Item: UGB Amendment Overview Applicant: FARM 200 Q Map File CPA 2014-002 IRit!r11Y1Y11Y Aok IW m ■ t G . Mi •' ry r Y 'i f F •r 1 `Yi�kM1 LYLfIY rrr r�r - - � . B p IiY � RYY ��� �1■ S�� li w'�` � A,S lulioll - ix ���I� �rY1PMii YY�Y�Y C♦ a� V 3%1 ?1114111. e rY Gila rY i G® _ Y YlilAil Lryh 1111Y� a Sarkfrl r. '` _ e�,yY +i p C C YYtYkYrCr' ; s rrr r orrairrrrrl . IIISifIPii r /���F� \\4 ea b3 YYrY .�� - Yi IYY t Yiti t}. ,yi •aYr rrrR rY ® iiY'iiYiYiYYY 100 •YYY■ N k!i]Y S■1 Yt iY b t' YY all 1 IidiuY m F.arYi iif MrirP fi- YIYl f .■ 11 Y 1■i YYL Y■ a - !ri ■kli. ■ !! YaYY YYi tik■■� � trt■\Y ■ ♦ � t w � M � m RaiiflPi iiil 9i1lrr P � •��Yy_t' YfwaY/Y 1 i1Y.s � IfIp1t1111Yi11..,� � all IY� E "iC�'Cr`�a�e•k�iaY a •,�! ]Yaa L .a m YYWii YY ti - %� Yii+$; i f1i1i1'IM IM � Y rr rriais R%' - ' i/aY a ,Y�.ir r• � iFF!!L FiliFbr`�" YA II •r ■YY� � ��r YGP-iG �i.7[r�aa YYYGYi 4i� � YFY YCYY - � IYIi Gii tti aY iilii YYFLL it r. Y r r YILliii fiilY rr r•ii trlrGiiR yy' Y iYSY4 m _ iYY,k■".. iif/l'd Y 4ii Yiiit i■IY■riY . �P P^nl c.'L! CF°� iL'�W ■69� PM°•i%w 'fr WFG �. w.-L"�J �j a El Y YIF YY Yt 9 ♦S y i - ea k L YiiY A • aa ►^Y WYiY�+ifYGi4 FfYS �.+Y.�raY YYaIiY YYRM Ygfl Y i8G C - ti 1 VA •o:il�c`YL ♦p+r: C G:.ar itl®CY YSLYG iY Cf�_ at, i ' � _. iWlll Yf rr'i■1 iiFSYFNli s . r r '11■iY10�y�arrrrrrY'l ■■YWYF%IYL� �+p� P C. ' � r■W r tiYHfir •UlY r tirY:itliYY YY:r:LiP ■rr iaakiY .. wn M: �. F. r Y Ar iY krtii Ygrra rY ss16WxrYili4 ' :; _ iY■iaFi+r iRiiY F altl.i .`� �y tr/ rrrr Y:rG°� rr rGtSYFY 'm - _ Cir "rrik. i e 9 • ■t■rY lr■■Y lRII YYFltY ii!lYYIIPYY r r - . , - �' ILI IaiflYli Yfii3MYYtiIFi Si bsi:FMiF \fir i1 Y6q k r i tiRi W�� �®�v� � ' �� 1�lrf !I s� r k °t�4.lar �wa`w Yr�Y ifs Vi w■ Y.yti: .� _�,, ARM-• ,�r..Y.a,d+arrRS rer + 0 Y:,oa�YiPFi%71� lM1 G sc a Y_M_ rr s Yrr shF. ' I Wi]ki Y}wr r � �' ■i' r Jr#li r.P ahL• `' � �.'• _ �P'a••'• Y: �r �+A L Y r rR brr u: y r.Y{a� ��� �'1L*' �--- .. - w r v a■i1Y a r _ 'Y'b aYY�r a rcY�Y ►' yi !r rr yr, a v,.� �, ,1 Lisa y 1::ii {■ r ti mr C+ri.�.aYlA.ri a a%r r rrr raps Yr.-;,YaWarr ■ ra iY a a ._..- ^ $ l,e" Yr .,tb YGYni.0 rr Y:Sl. t ;ab ■r rrsarrll R lY7La91ais= # rra � . ' 1/ _ }y J Ygii rp Yr ,� ,• _ � iiY1!!f r �Y r F��' ai1.Y� kraYrf. a .- _- �ii � � '�yr/ FO - r aA�+GR M Y• L _ �� 4 6 a ��cailY b:■ai ?:►s..�blrh Vicinity Item: UGB Amendment Appli F 2005 LLC +cant: Map File #. CPA 2014-002 —Q APB-R 9 -R!Dt5 c - - K ^9 6 SITE ........... CITY LIMITS LEOPARD- 'ic\ i J —rJ J Q 111 Q o \ 0 9= Land Use Item: UGB Amendment Applicant: FARM 2005 LLC x Map File #: CPA 2014-002 SFDUs � , I (County)- Ag Farming N I�E� rx (County) SITE Vacant (County) oSFDUs School Farming Vacant 0 U Zoning Item: UGB Amendment Map Applicant: FARM 2005 LLC N File #. CPA 2014-002 z QIJAI L_R Z N i O O RR-1 =RTA_RD (County) AP-20 I EL.c Y-LN (County) SITE AP-20 (County) CIT-Y-L■4MIT-S- �LEOP_ARD-D:R R-1 a RS-11PUD RT o J W Z J m � 44 o ,01 bb mamNFw 4 / 16.90 ACRES i � I .. � / �, , RUNWA 12/3, �� 480r00 i��+UO 520+00 ,540+00 560+00 580+00 COG+00 RUNWAY I2 820+00 EXTENDED CENTERLINE 40.78 ACRES 32.66 ACRES do 73.10 A ES J ° N o N j1 160 ACRE­4 z FAR 2005 LLC \\� w w w J NON-PRECISION PAR?77 + �\� �a 34:1 APPROACH SU 'ACE I PROPERTY — "♦ — —� 1000 FT. NSION / f LEGEND AIRPORT SAFETY COMPATIBILITY ZONES RPZ FUTURE 1850 FEET EXTENSION / PART n APPROACH SURFACE ZONE COLOR ZONE# FARM 2005 LLC AIRPORT PROPERTY LINE ACREAGE l /•/\ --� PASCO U ZONE 1 U 311.1 A6C0 _ ZONE 2 32.66 Fu RTUE N Fu NRE NO ZONE 3 C 0 500 1,000 ZONE 4 40.76 SCALE IN FEET y�PORTOF �;;TRFCITIES TRI-CITIES AIRPORT - RUNWAY 12 END SHEET cj i::IPASCO 16 AIRPORT 1-U-R ENGINEERS,INC. PROPERTY ACQUISITION IMPACTS 1 1111■■11111111.G 1111111111. �■■11111111�■1111111111■ - =II='■■111111111■�' ■ ���IIIlllli ■ � �■"C.�IIIIIIC ■' ■�■■111111 �� Exhibit Item: UGB Amendment #1 Applicant: FARM 2005 LLC N File #: CPA 2014-002 MONEENNEENEN.-ON \111■■11 '�� IIIIIIIIII, \II■■ ' ■1111111111 MINIM MEIIii1�11 1_ \ 1111 POWERLINE POWER -• . 1 ON A IS ON NO 1111111111/ ��°""'�"'• I 1 1111111114 �.auu■u■muq� � �. .� �::: 11111111/1 �■m.��C _C ••.�ii IIn111111� :nu■�� =�C iii■ �i I/I/ �- m :■11111111 II■11■�i i.u■n..o - �I/�I�h►iiii% � _ �iiii:'I��: .�����111 ��► �11f_ �� ,�■ ,���111�-. B :_iii.�:::: ■ -i��p♦,♦ I■1■ ♦.,�♦��, �,= 1111-IIIn111 /%::::_. �11. ♦O//■111111 111111/11 1\♦,♦.��,��_ -►uu c=_uunu _._ um►\' I■::►m1_=mum ■i�'�:�••:u1uu::.;. �1111� �;/p■1111MINIM 1111 1\♦ ��=��_ II��11111111-=Illlrr� -p��� \I/iu.■■n■■■urlluu u■\\ � � �/►� e e III � „■\� _ ��11� 1 1 uw�_ � 11\\i UIIIIII\%IIIIII�\ . .♦r-►\\IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII/��.�iiiiiii II\�.■■■■■■■■��■■■■■■■■■■■��I•11 1 � 1 �■■ 1111111/� \ uuuv�punnv� - .uuuw nu■u►\G_IIn1■nu.:�;;';::■nnuuuq�=q■1111111111 q■■■■■I�♦�1� � ■■■■■■■�.nn■u■_ MO: munuun/ i111;nuu unn\♦G,�unI11nQ: �uy�♦,♦♦,♦♦ ■i �Iiiii■iiu ummnu- -=:n■nn■i 1111111■■■1■■■■r IIIII■■■i IIIIIIIn. ::: �,■ ;.,■......■ r ::=:...♦.,♦♦♦. .�11111111111.■,........................ r noun■■■u■■uuuuu unmu■ uunu ,!O♦♦II■ nuunuu■n►/��u muu unmmu.Ilumum► unu■ .■111111 ,.- Q\1 1111 IIrI%.�\n■nu mn■►�..�ii■nn V/ ♦♦♦♦�1\■ .■ ■ �u■■■■■■ mow■ :uuuu■�.: uuuu■■■■n. 1111111111111111. ■nuu■u■uuuuu■nnu■■■u■ 'nngl► ,♦ ♦♦�♦'.■ ■ ■i♦ �/■� � uunn:•noon:. •11111111111111111� �°.our► ,♦♦♦♦1./\��IIIIIIIIIIIIIIU�.unuun uuuuun■ �:'1.►r■■ unuu ■■■■■■■■• _:IIIllllu�:.I uso 1111m '....:�11111 ♦♦♦♦♦♦ i■■1111111111111111:uunuu nununu.�1.�♦ ■■■■■■■��■■■■■■■■: -• iiiiiiiii■7 ilu�iiiIN iimiiiiiu: ':i►Q,��♦♦♦♦•♦♦♦�li�i■CI 11111111111111 iiiiiiiiii iiii 1111111 ii i,■i i�i� mom..uunn' : ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦r unnn::uuu■■: 1111111111.11 ummunuunuu■ ■�.�♦♦♦ i::i�r/1■����UIIIIIIIIIIO♦t .■ 1I 1t 1■.v v q■■■■q�-� H nom■:: °==- _ �� logo ��.'In►♦O�:��■..■u■o 11111111..__-_-_ .-" _. %IU■D♦LII■■■■■■■■■■�►■/,`�I■■■■1■11■1■■IA/r\/r\/r\/r�Ii►1r\►O•■OOH►1■/�; 11111111 ullnrinviilllillr„I„ _ a == A►\�ouunm mmuumu on►i��►1.0►q�U IIPi ■- - 1 ■ .��p11/IIIIIIIII/ �1��■■1111■q■■.�::a■u■■u■p■d■■/i i■■■■\� �� D.�uou■- ■■-pi�� ♦��.. �__.►I►�►I ► ■E/ ��a.■ _MIN, %r\�■■■■■■■ •�■■�i��1♦ ♦1♦♦,�i ii i=ii i i ii ii �// �� ♦f■■ ■ �W■■.■11.11■-=��=■=► ♦♦♦♦♦ ♦♦�♦� ���♦ ♦�1��1�I -� ,,♦ ■♦gnu- /If♦♦ ♦Q♦♦ /■■■■■■■■u■■■■ 11 f.I► I ,��-- ,,w■■■■■\■■■■■-... • �.♦ �i u o■■,�■vim■ ■.--- ���♦,v■°111■■1111 C ■�Q�����■:is i►�►\►■rte■ ■■.u. - .:.■ = :1i■11111 1■■■■1■■■■1111 In NINE ON ::�;► : _:1111111111 uunwmmn■umuu ■■�►�� �� .: ==_=:■■■■■■■■■■IIIIVI■■...■■■■■■■11111 �■Iltq, nom■7: ■o■■■■■nuu■■■-•■■■■.■■■■■■■■■■ .■n :111111111: - C.C��■uu■t•/1►':r■■uu 11.1111■■■ ��:■ I , -= � �■ 111111■uunu■ � ♦ .i �111111111:�...�_C� �i\��♦��/�■■■ 11�1�r I ■ ■■■1111■1111111111 I - ■■i■� ♦♦�II�/�i�--►r�111111�1/I////1�11� . �\Ii/(♦♦1�\\III�11��I,��111►������`��t�����O�■ ■I��� ��II�■I■■11 ��III■�■A�:���.�.� �1�i■ 1 /� � -•■ I ■..■■■■ijij��jiiiiiiiii ii�♦���i�.i� Looking North a � f-J Looking East r -,k t Looking South _ ¢i y J L - - - s r • p`�. � . � .�� it i '�� � J'riW". I ,�^ ' , J - Looking West yLa WAO Ms.{,f ;p: ,'�r•� ,1 , 17-;,- +1,la r 1., J �* Fr'T t. .'T�. 1',i'i .;t �'�tp_^,r � :��,1 �,•u.y.� � +c4'� 1�,�/ 7 a R ��i�}�.6. � _ .._ � JN�.•. JN'r"\ •�� ,_ t.1 Y .. �. .� _ _ .ail Site Lookin g Northeast --1 P A Brew r�t � �-0 '�''Fy�p 4'- .��•w'rt � a ;n��g `i Tfi 4 e � fts- rji r J k�v, d��rfa fld 'r•it e ,�. �' �� �• t� � � L,?r er�y<�� -'v ^5' -. ' '�'r L � ��� C ..q• �'±kt � .� � +' Vii. ' o;.m '-' � !} •., ,�.T ;t a L� �� s � ,t•�{ � �d y'� `' � �'�, 1 � �.i. *, � ��'¢. ry ,e {�.i e � ��.- .� tom: `<' ;•v�r „, ' - C ,1.ti ♦ v� �" �* �u�� �a ,1 r'g4 � +r f � ♦,����M r�mty�vt o 'S " ) > .y F iW7rCy + +nr _ S M +° �' ri : hy ..• P �3 _ ~ l 4 e 'iot " View of Elementary School -- OR _. _ .. L•y. ' �� ",�.. •.. ',nY{11..=�•.:-�°''� � �;. '...��'..- .�__�y_.� '':ny+�.t',' �r."^.�.:S9+rijRO Wit- .w7m, h ,• �¢y "��;-i. -�f#"�✓ '`fit„ 1 ''k ,?'-- '' -_. s.wv r •.�,ntr.:y - �: ;_ +, �.w s wc. > ...,�+ ,"tk . pt.°s�'. � � '.�. •sg',a .�: --"irk' ..�. ve-�0'�_ '..w+-' I � ,� •.. � -.`�.a a'N' ��'° .it ^� •� .�. 1 r:FL•� ��. ;a'-n +' Ic. ":l"..n �•-�„ �'rr4 i�•, View of Northwest Commons Irrigation On Site Vw. - r •, Yom' , n 11 MEMORANDUM DATE: November 20, 2014 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Dave McDonald, City Planner SUBJECT: Comprehensive Plan Amendment (Walker) (MF# CPA 2014-003) Roger and Kay Walker have applied to amend the Comprehensive Plan land use designation of their property on Crescent Drive from Low-Density Residential to Mixed-Residential. The property contains 4 acres and is located at the far north end of Crescent Drive (4600 Block). The FCID right-of-way is located on the north side of the property and Crescent Drive and the Wilson farm field are located to the east. The Walker property was annexed as a part of the Road 100 Annexation Area in 2000. Upon annexation the property was zone RS-12. In the early 2000's the orchard on the property was removed in anticipation of development. The property owners then prepared a site plan and rough building plans for a residential condominium project in the mid-2000's. The project was unable to move forward due to the Comprehensive Plan designation. Surrounding properties to the north and east are set aside in the Comprehensive Plan for mixed residential or commercial land uses. Accordingly the property to the north was zoned R-4 High Density Residential and the farm field to the east was zoned C-1 Retail Business. The farm field has not developed but the property to the north now contains the Broadmoor Villas Apartment complex. There are also 4 acres of vacant land to the north that is zoned R-4 and is been held by the Broadmoor Villas Apartments as a future apartment expansion area. The properties to the south of the Walker property on the west side of Crescent Drive are developed with low-density single-family homes and the east side of Crescent Drive remains undeveloped except for a church located at the corner of Crescent Drive and Road 108. The east side of Crescent Drive north of the church to the FCID right-of-way can be developed with a variety of retail and office types businesses. The Walkers are requesting a Comprehensive Plan change to designate their property as an area for mixed residential development. The mixed residential classification allows low-density to medium-density residential development with zoning ranging from RS-20 to R-3. Housing styles under the Mixed Residential category would include single-family homes, patio homes, townhouses, condominiums and apartments. The following Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies are applicable to this application: LU-3-B Policy: Encourage 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. H-1. GOAL: ENCOURAGE HOUSING FOR ALL ECONOMIC SEGMENTS OF THE CITY'S POPULATION. H-1-A Policy: Medium and high density housing should be located near arterials and neighborhood or community shopping facilities and employment areas. H-1-B Policy: Support dispersal of special needs housing throughout the community. H-1-C Policy: Avoid large concentrations of high-density housing. H-1-D Policy: Support or advance programs that encourage home ownership. H-2. GOAL: STRIVE TO MAINTAIN A VARIETY OF HOUSING CONSISTENT WITH THE LOCAL AND REGIONAL MARKET. H-2-A Policy: Allow for a full range of residential environments including single family homes, townhouses, condominiums, apartments, and manufactured housing. H-4. GOAL: ENCOURAGE HOUSING DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION THAT ENSURES LONG TERM SUSTAINABILITY AND VALUE. H-4-A Policy: Encourage innovative techniques in the design of residential neighborhoods and mixed use areas to provide character and variety in the community. H-4-B Policy: Maintain development regulations and standards that control the scale and density of accessory buildings and homes to maintain compatibility with other residential uses. 2 CF-2-A Policy: Encourage growth in geographic areas where services and utilities can be extended in an orderly, progressive and efficient manner. TR-1. GOAL: PROVIDE FOR AND MAINTAIN AN EFFECTIVE TRANSPORATION SYSTEM CENTERED ON A CONVENIENT AND INTEGRATED STREET NETWORK. TR-3 Goal: Beautify the major streets of the City. UT-1. GOAL: PROVIDE ADEQUATE UTILITY SERVICES TO THE URBAN GROWTH AREA TO ASSURE THAT THE ANTICIPATED 20-YEAR GROWTH IS ACCOMMODATED. Changing the Comprehensive Plan on the Walker property would allow a gradation in housing density between the high density apartment development to the north and the lower density single-family development to the south. The land use designation change would also provide a greater range of options for development of the property. The odd shape of the property and the elevation problems with Crescent Drive make it difficult to develop the property with single-family homes. The expense associated with elevating Crescent Drive to properly connect with Chapel Hill Boulevard would be cost prohibitive for single-family development. Crescent Drive will need to be elevated 12 or more feet above its current elevation to achieve the proper grade for connection to Chapel Hill Boulevard. One of the benefits of connecting Crescent Drive to Chapel Hill Boulevard is that traffic to and from the site will not need to travel past the homes to the south on a regular basis. Chapel Hill Boulevard is identified in the Major Street Plan as minor arterial that is planned to connect with Crescent Drive. This connection will complete the general circulation system for the area west of Road 100. The travel distance from addresses on Crescent Drive to the intersection with Road 100 and Chapel Hill Boulevard will be shortened by 1.34 miles. This street connection has been planned for many years. The proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment will allow for a gradation in housing densities as discussed above. This gradation in density will occur only after a rezone is applied for. Permitting higher density development near or adjacent to lower density development always raises the concerns over the impact on property values in neighborhoods. Several single-family developments (Columbia Place, Chapel Hill and Loviisa Farms) have been built adjacent to multi- family developments in the past decade with no appreciable impact on property values (per Franklin County Assessor records). 3 The Walker site contains two parcels of land both within Short Plat 2001-29. To address perceived concerns about the possibility of higher density development immediately adjacent to the existing lower density development the Planning Commission may want to consider recommending changing the Comprehensive Plan designation of the northern 3 acres only. Lot 1 would then serve as a buffer between the single-family properties to the south and future mixed-residential development to the north. Findings of Fact 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 public hearing. 1. The site is located on in the 4600 block of Crescent Drive. 2. Crescent Drive is an unimproved gravel road. 3. Crescent Drive must be elevated 12 or more feet above its current elevation to properly connect with the end of Chapel Hill Boulevard when the property in question is developed. 4. The Comprehensive Plan designates the site for low-density residential development. 5. The site is zoned RS-12. 6. The Comprehensive Plan designates the properties directly to the north and east of the site for mixed residential and commercial land uses. 7. The property to the north of the site is zoned R-4 High Density Residential. 8. The property to the east of the site is zoned C-1 Retail Business. 9. The vacant area directly north of the site is zoned for development of more apartment units and is a future expansion area for Broadmoor Villas. 10. With the connection of Crescent Drive to Chapel Hill Boulevard access to the site will be from the north eliminating the need for traffic to travel past the homes to the south. 11. The connection of Crescent drive with Chapel Hill Boulevard has been included in planning documents for many years. 12. Due to the odd shape of the property and the fact Crescent Road will need extensive fill development of the property with single-family dwellings may be cost prohibitive. 13. The location of a mixed-residential area on the site could lead to the development of apartments, condominiums or similar higher density development adjacent to a lower density residential area. 14. Mixed residential development permits less intense development than the existing C-1 zoning along the east side of Crescent Drive. 4 15. The location of higher density residential development adjacent to lower density in other part of the community has shown to create no appreciable impact on the value of nearby single-family properties according to Franklin County Assessor records. 16. The site contains two lots for a total of 4 acres. Conclusions The site is located between an area of more intense land uses and an area of less intense land uses with apartments permitted to the north and retail businesses and offices permitted to the east. Consequently the site is in an area of transition between more intense and less intense uses. Modifying the Comprehensive Plan to designate the site for mixed residential uses will enable the site to serve as a transition area or buffer between the more intense apartment development to the north and the less intense single- family development to the south. Additionally amending the Comprehensive Plan designation for the site would support the land use policy and housing goals identified on pages two and three of this memo. The extension of Crescent Drive to the north may be cost prohibitive for a single-family development on the property. The completion of Crescent Drive may be more feasible with a mixed residential development. Recommendation MOTION: I move to adopt findings of fact and conclusions therefrom as contained in the November 20, 2014 staff report. MOTION: I move based on the findings of fact and conclusions therefrom, the Planning Commission recommend the City Council amend the Comprehensive Plan designation for Lot 2, Short Plat 2001-29 to Mixed-Residential. 5 • Item: Land Use Amendment Vicinity Applicant: Roger & Kay Walker N Map File #. CPA 2014-003 gel f f f \v CHAPEL HILL BLVD r x 4 SITE 4 - Q Q ' m Land Use Item: Land Use Amendment Applicant: Roger & Kay Walker N Map File #: CPA 2014-003 Vacant Broadmoor Apartments Vacant Vacant ti v^� CHAPEL HILL BLVD SITE oo Comm. m Ja SFDUs 0 a 0 Vacant m �G G SFDUs Zoning Item: Land Use Amendment Applicant: Roger & Kay Walker x Map File #: CPA 2014-003 RT R-4 C-1 CHAPEL HILL BLVD �I j' SITE � a - 0 C- 1 RS- 12 � Comp Plan Item• Land Use Amendment Applicant: Roger & Kay Walker N Map File #: CPA 2014-003 � Commercial � Mixed Residential/ Commercial � Commercial 0 X v^ CHA EL HILL BLVD � SITE 0 Commercial ea a� Low-Density Residential �o Mixed Residential/ � Commercial X Looking North r rt { hill. .�.� �.� .. '+r.,s Y� "`„� sM.-, - -veM�•aik--_ F _ s ,-. "� �” k`'� /'�� _ f .I � ..�"1 d{-► � � ¢rte°' �` -� -- --- .,�;Y- °Xx.. `y.;..�?.° J° _•; � _ _ s_� _ irk.. y I � i .-4 oft 7y �._: ✓ �,'��� i r a` # fir` •M � .� fi r � �� t ' --- -r.'� �C, .r - _ .ra �- I � Y t�L `" i•f, I Y''� -." w .o� � - ` 'A h�fi"a :.,,,cr.,K �},c,� _ .,. ., - *.d� e, r t.y r �, "; ae,��f j"r �, tr � m ' ♦ i"'� _-_ •t M 9`�r+: �e .y '��� 7�� / � �� t ,�4. - ��`• -eti-- 'ter .�.._ .•.�5y,r1y���y."�:i„�.'.il..�.M^er.�.,,i�- .'.-Y/`-`-- c�+�1,'�t,.-.-;.'i," �f"!" 1•_�.'.,°4.i.'�:.�f t�''��d}.�., It`��` ` ;� "' •`z�f F'o.�:t y`•W u �t 1 ,a'x�°.�..w V.t'� ', �, 4 �,S+ ��4'�•`��h� e 0����r�'1.v!��^,"A r+ y°a y�..r,;.��W ,•�, '�!'+y i�,��+s i i ��p•�•�',r r s r -. .+P•,t;.4+,q'.'3��:t• t �I�S".,�1' ti!..?.4 �...... .. � r ayl. ;w�-a`.'• _.._ •^�' Looking; East va ir 11 IAN •3� f-w✓u ro. � f s R w "aim' � •- - ~� 4 a. f ,r .r.' - � 9 � rah ��• fa• r �*- _ -.- � '� �•T F.yr' +' - .''. - .l. Looking South . �_.. .,::.��_ 1 _.> _ -�-.: s� --� m' msµ, :y � � -,e. r' � � °ter+.P _•�-.. �N,► '�-_ ..- ' r � -- '`_-�3 `' }' � - �"��J' a:r.-y::-.�. "�:. �.: y; -K.a�2.a'�+--? �,,. -»• - i, -�C r _ sg� w pry, 4 _ n� Looking Nest f; a r 7 •,}�t fw i S P " _ 3' ',y r°` r p^ -C} ,V'mJr, - 4- -k x y r � � kn` F• y;. _ L 'All MEMORANDUM DATE: November 14, 2014 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Jeffrey B. Adams, Associate Planner SUBJECT: Shoreline Management Act - Continuation of SMP Regulatory Components and Environment Designation Maps Discussion Introduction Pasco is updating its Shoreline Master Program (SMP) with project funding from the Department of Ecology (Ecology). In February of 2013 the Planning Commission received an SMP orientation from representatives from the Washington State Department of Ecology. This is a continuation of the discussion on the Anchor QEA Memo from last meeting. SMP Regulatory Components As mentioned in the last memo, the City of Pasco currently uses the updated Franklin County Shoreline Management Master Program of 1974 to regulate developments within its shorelines. The current SMP process will create a separate SMP document for Pasco and implement the SMA consistent with the Ecology guidelines. Once adopted, the SMP will be integrated as part of the City's Comprehensive Plan and PMC and will be used to regulate development specifically within the City's shoreline jurisdiction. The Anchor QEA Memo describes key regulatory items and offers multiple options for each item, with a recommendation designed to accommodate the unique challenges and opportunities of the City of Pasco. Environment Designation Maps Environment designation maps classify shoreline reaches to reflect local shoreline conditions including ecological functions and shoreline development. City shoreline policies and regulations will then be based on these designations. Shoreline environment designations must be based on Ecological characteristics, shoreline reaches, land use patterns, community goals, and shoreline management recommendations from the inventory and characterization report. In order to conform to the State Guidelines, a purpose, designation criteria and management policies must be established for each environment designation. A summary of these proposed designations is as follows: Page 1 of 2 Aquatic: Protect, restore, and manage the unique characteristics and resources of the areas waterward of the ordinary high water mark. High-intensity: Provide for high-intensity water-oriented commercial, transportation, and industrial uses while protecting existing ecological functions and restoring ecological functions in areas that have been previously degraded. Two sub-designations under the High-Intensity designation include; Public Flood Protection: This designation is specifically tailored for leveed areas along the shoreline. These areas are recognized as having at best minimal ecological function. Recreation: Designation specifically tailored for parks and open space along the shoreline. Natural: Protect those shoreline areas that are relatively free of human influence or that include intact or minimally degraded shoreline functions intolerant of human use. These systems require that only very low-intensity uses be allowed in order to maintain the ecological functions and ecosystem- wide processes. Consistent with the policies of the designation, local government should include planning for restoration of degraded shorelines within this environment. Shoreline Residential: Accommodate residential development and appurtenant structures that are consistent with this chapter. An additional purpose is to provide appropriate public access and recreational uses. Urban Conservancy: Protect and restore ecological functions of open space, flood plain and other sensitive lands where they exist in urban and developed settings, while allowing a variety of compatible uses. At the November 20, 2014 meeting Staff will focus on the preliminary environment designation maps and ask the Planning Commission for concurrence if the Commission agrees with the designations. Preparation of the fleshed-out SMP will follow. Page 2 of 2 M., i. t ~�%4 LEGEND - �i } l Reach Break cn . �rY Q Incorporated City of Pasco 0 Urban Growth Area x3 °fNr' o County Boundary y SMA Jurisdiction Environment Designation s yv� Natural Recreation Rich and Shoreline Residential } < r $ E ' { Urban Conservancy o d - W C � ' �,� Cd A• ro ° N � NOTES: o { � ��, < < itl. w 1.This Information is to be used for planning p purposes only. Data is displayed as is and rye; h" - without any guarantee of accuracy or completeness. 2.Aerial image courtesy of USDA NAIP (2013). tit EL o Franklin Pasco BA Benton Walla M t) Walla ?, 6 0 O DRAFT Map 1 ANCHOR Miles Subreach 1 a - Reach 2 OEA 0 0.5 1 City of Pasco Environment Designations �v City of Pasco, WA lkk° a +I re� y� =, LEGEND Pit` Reach Break cn W . p? N -' � Incorporated City of Pasco Urban Growth Area County Boundary VOl SMA Jurisdiction Environment Designation Vl Natural y Public Flood Protection ° Recreation Shoreline Residential C Urban Conservancy W _ y M NOTES: 1.This information is to be used for planning o + purposes only. Data is displayed as is and C - °/4ry�b, without any guarantee of accuracy or � v : `?!. Cak° �a R/� completeness. 2.Aerial image courtesy of USDA NAIP (2013). U) O? t Franklin a ennewick Pasco •-k _ ` as: �� B. Walla Walla DRAFT Map 2 ANCHOR Miles Subreaches 3a - 4b 0 E A �`' 0 0.5 1 City of Pasco Environment Designations �—' City of Pasco, WA y 1�'t�'*y!�h j, �' `F'�`6 1t r t,� 'r"'�`�•S i�.j 7'1F +. 1 4# �t =�M•Ir•� .i'^' r a i•tia.aRw k� L.'fi'� = _ ;�' F� �. '� � ;.r, �� .�' x��.��= 5��� +�`r•r:�� *•,,,I� r� - - -.. �,[�r ��"` f n LEGEND , n • . Reach Break n' .a„ S i ..r,.,v 7�'i►"��jj,,i aw• -.tlt� r'.yEJt ' i. ,r C. .4 9� '-"�� �` ;7 � �{ r~� r' �` Incorporated City of Pasco °�TJ � �i'i �f'. �� it I{ r•.4`{i�'*` II 1`.+aQwd 4� � / l'� � c G k '�{ yUrti `r� '� Urban Growth Area ter r � Pascoa Count Boundary c 5y7 ,.. qtr: y FLL T t_l■ kr sf 7 "�ar'•1'•.3 !i'� ip.6 -.• Q Y y s,y ,�' •rP -'f ¢�`• : ]T:..Yir2�5Zt-"..-'#`i 1 Ciy-dl ., a �., ! •�}"` n'� - Q SMA Jurisdiction -° ' ¢'�4^��" .It s .�a•�a ,..r , :i 1 Pasco c � fr• # tq "� ��� — Environment Designation NR �5 arN ► � : t �r t' r1" _ High Intensity �' `tea a � �- Natural ° - 4 , ' s; %' *< Public Flood Protection Recreation Sa �.. "° a ,,.••s+r .'' ,,.. E • aye. .t:.'3`r„ a • ro Lu SRI I Shoreline Residential Urban Conservancy 'N NOTES: 1.This information is to be used for planning purposes only. Data is displayed as is and without any guarantee of accuracy or • try completeness. r . o"ry r , r..•1 � c r ayt r, r - r Aerial image courtesy of USDA NAIP m. (2013) TkyR* 1. . to-� } �'� + '�- � � +� .- �1ef'�dkR�l ♦ '_ - _ Kennewick � r p t+.a Co/ Franklin a % s <ake byaR+�er� o • ,+. Pasco r o t,,'4 dam,, 1 .f = H^ - R, tit �' µ"TY y - C /�. x. Benton Walla 'lryd ," t�A y• +' ."' Y � .,k�. :{s Walla M d FCC .a=a - a.. DRAFT Map 3 ANCHOR Miles Subreaches 5a - 6c OEA 0 0.5 1 City of Pasco Environment Designations ��—' City of Pasco, WA LEGEND rI Reach Break In M Incorporated City of Pasco Urban Growth Area d rasp Q County Boundary SMAJurisdiction Environment Designation `s y S, High Intensity E k` Natural o »+ �y. Recreation Urban Conservancy LU C Yp CL o ter t '• J...' a NOTES: y 1.This information is to be used for planning purposes only. Data is displayed as is and Ewithout any guarantee of accuracy or E completeness. o 2.Aerial image courtesy of USDA NAIP w � .`rs (2013). y. Y .. -:. 'a x. s-, cO/4 'Burbank Franklin CL ►e , n Vie_ 0 LL U ,Y Pasco s o ''` •. � •1 t - •t_. Benton Wal y - { =LralkellW5111 ula DRAFT Map 4 ANCHOR Miles Reach 7 - Subreach 8b OEA 0 0 0.5 1 City of Pasco Environment Designations ��—' City of Pasco, WA MEMORANDUM DATE: November 20, 2014 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Shane O'Neill, Planner I SUBJECT: Automobile Rental and Leasing in the C-1 Zone Code Amendment (MF# CA 2014-004) Stemming from a recent land use request to allow automobile rentals in the C-1 (Retail Business) zoning district, staff is proposing to amend code language related to the conditional uses and permitted uses of the C-1 zone. The proposal involves lifting the requirement for special permit review for automobile rental/leasing businesses in the C-1 zone, and to then relocate automobile rental/leasing to the list of permitted use in the C-1 zone. Pasco's special permit provisions for auto sales in the C-1 zone were added to the code in the early 1980's. It was about that 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. 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 stations would qualify for a special permit. Currently, the qualifying requirements are listed in PMC 25.42.040(2) as follows: (2) Retail automobile sales, including rental or lease, provided the property is: (a) Located east of Highway 395 and is; (i) Adjacent the intersection of two arterial streets, or adjacent a single arterial street, provided it is not adjacent to or across a public street right-of-way from a residential district, (ii) Not located closer than 300 feet to any existing car lot. (b) Located west of Highway 395 and north of I-182 provided any point of the property is within 1,000 feet of the I-182 WSDOT right-of- way for a distance of 2,500 feet east and west of the center line of Road 68 and Road 100/Broadmoor Boulevard, except properties zoned for residential uses, and is: (i) A new auto dealership. The Commission may recognize the criteria listed above as being the subject of a recent code amendment whereby locational requirements referencing specific highways were added. The amendment at hand however, relates only to the (MF#CA 2014-004) Page 1 of 3 underlined fragment that appears in subsection (2); which reads "including rental or lease". Staff proposes to strike this language which was initially included when Ordinance #2280 was adopted back in 1981. This would release the applicability of special permit review and locational criteria from automobile rental/leasing businesses only. In the opinion of staff, auto rental businesses are no more intensive than some of the permitted uses listed in the C-1 zone. By way of comparison, gas stations, grocery stores and restaurants, which are all regularly permitted in the C-1 zone, generate more noise and traffic than a typical car rental business. Furthermore, automotive sales lots commonly use impactful business practices such as outdoor loudspeakers and lighting which may occur late at night. Ancillary signs such as flags and inflatables are also used. The inflatables and outdoor lighting are items which are sometimes powered by loud generators, producing fumes and noise. These and other advertising techniques which produce a high level of light, fumes and noise are disruptive when located near residential neighborhoods. This is the reason auto sales businesses require special permit review prior to locating in the Retail Business zone. Automobile rental businesses however, do not use the same type of flashy advertising. Auto rental/leasing is a retail service typically conducted in a fashion similar to retail stores as they do not rely so heavily on right-of-way advertising. For the reason of comparative or lesser impact intensity it may be appropriate to eliminate the special permit requirement for automobile rental services and transfer these businesses to the list of permitted uses in the Retail Business zoning district. To assist the Planning Commission's discussion and decision staff has included a city-wide zoning map which shows C-1 zoned properties and the proximity of all other zoning districts. Additionally, the code amendment ordinance is included. If approved, under the current proposal retail automobile sales businesses would continue to require special permit approval prior to their establishment in the C-1 zone. In the interest of retaining clarity of the code, staff also proposes to relocate "automobile rental or leasing" to the list of permitted uses in the C-1 zone; thus establishing said use as regularly permitted. This matter was advertised and scheduled for a public hearing on November 20, 2014. Staff requests the Planning Commission conduct a public hearing and develop a recommendation to City Council. FINDINGS 1) In 1981, to help address an increasing number of vacant service stations the city developed special permit provisions within the C-1 zoning regulations to permit the adaptive reuse of the old service station as auto sales facilities including automobile rental and leasing facilities. 2) Automobile rental and leasing is a type of retail service. 3) The purpose of the C-1 zone is to provide for the location of commercial activities that meet the retail shopping and service needs of the community. (MF#CA 2014-004) Page 2 of 3 4) In many areas of the City C-1 zoned properties located are adjacent to a variety of residentially zoned properties. 5) Automobile sales businesses are known for business practices which are disruptive to less intense land uses such as residences and offices. 6) It is uncommon for automobile rental and leasing businesses to use advertising techniques which are disruptive to less intense land uses such as residences and offices. RECOMMENDATION MOTION: I move the Planning Commission adopt the findings of fact as contained in the November 20, 2014 staff memo on automobile rental and leasing the in C-1 Zone. MOTION: I move the Planning Commission recommend the City Council adopt the proposed C-1 zoning code amendments as attached to the November 20, 2014 staff memo to the Planning Commission. (MF#CA 2014-004) Page 3 of 3 IN IN ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING PMC TITLE 25 DEALING WITH AUTOMOBILE RENTAL AND LEASING BUSINESSES IN THE C-1 ZONING DISTRICT. WHEREAS, cities have the responsibility to regulate and control physical development within their borders and to ensure public health, safety and welfare are maintained; and, WHEREAS, the City of Pasco has zoning regulations that encourage orderly growth and development of the City; and, WHEREAS, the zoning regulations contain special permit provisions for certain uses that require public review and city council approval prior to locating in the city; and, WHEREAS, PMC 25.42 has contained special permit provisions for automobile rentals and leasing in the C-1 District; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has developed a code amendment recognizing automobile rental and leasing as a retail service which is compatible with the intent of the C-1 District; and, WHEREAS, on November 20, 2014 the Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider amending provisions for automobile rental and leasing uses in the C-1 District. Notice of said hearing being provided in the Tri-City Herald and through the City's website; and, WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that to further the purposes of maintaining a quality community, it is necessary to amend PMC Title 25; NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASCO, WASHINGTON, DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That PMC Section 25.42.050 be and the same is hereby amended to read as follows: 25.34.020 PERMITTED USES. The following uses shall be permitted in the C-1 district: (1) All uses permitted in the `O' Office district; (2) Automobile Detail detail Shops shops and automobile rental or leasing; (3) Banks; (4) Dancing schools; (5) Hotels and motels; (6) Printing shops; (7) Restaurants; (8) Stores and shops for the conduct of retail business; (9) Stores and shops for repair and similar services such as: (a) Bakeries, retail for distribution from the premises. (b) Barbershops and beauty shops. (c) Catering establishments. M IN IN IN (d) Garage and filing stations,provided: (i) All outdoor repair work is "minor" as defined by 25.12.311, and (ii) The garage or filling station conducting outdoor repair work was in existence and conducting outdoor auto repair prior to September 1, 2013 and (iii) the number of vehicles undergoing outdoor repair does not exceed the capacity of the existing outdoor repair facilities, or no more than two vehicles if there are no existing outdoor repair facilities and (iv) the number of vehicles stored outdoors and awaiting customer pick-up cannot exceed the capacity of the indoor and outdoor auto repair facilities, and further provided that all vehicles must be kept on the business premises, and (v) Pumps, lubrication or other devices are located at least fifteen feet from any street property line, and (vi) All stored automobile parts and dismantled or inoperable automobiles are contained within the building, except material on outdoor display racks. (e) Laundromats and dry-cleaning establishments employing not more than five persons, (f) Locksmith shops, (g) Offices, (h) Membership clubs, (i) Photo shops, 0) Shoe repair shops; (k) Upholstery shops. (10) Sign shops, commercial (no outdoor storage of materials); (11) Theaters; (12) Veterinarian clinics for household pets (no boarding or outdoor treatment facilities); (13) Parking lots within 500 feet of a C-2 district boundary, provided such lots are paved and half of the required landscape is live vegetation and,provided further, that any such property adjacent a residential zoned parcel shall provide a site obscuring fence along the common lot line(s) in accordance with residential fence height requirements; and (14) Carwashes provided they are located more than 300 feet from a residential district. Section 2. That PMC Chapter 25.42.040 be and the same is hereby amended to read as follows: 25.42.040 PERMITTED CONDITIONAL USES. The following uses are permitted subject to the approval of a special permit: (1) Dwelling units, provided the units are within the principal building, are all above the ground floor of said building, and the ground floor of said building is designed or intended to be used for a use permitted in Section 25.42.010. However, a building originally constructed on- site for residential purposes may be utilized as a dwelling unit without a special permit provided: (a) The structure does not have to be reconstructed, altered or converted from an office/commercial use such that the cost of the alteration exceeds 25% of the assessed value of the structure at the time of the alteration. 2M IN IN (2) Retail automobile sales, ' , provided the property is: (a) Located east of Highway 395 and is; (i) Adjacent the intersection of two arterial streets or adjacent a single arterial street; provided it is not adjacent to or across a public street right-of-way from a residential district, (ii) Not be located closer than 300 feet to any existing car lot; (b) Located west of Highway 395 and north of I-182 provided any point of the property is within 1,000 feet of the I-182 WSDOT right-of-way for a distance of 2,500 feet east and west of the center line of Road 68 and Road 100/Broadmoor Boulevard, except properties zoned for residential uses, and is: (i) A new auto dealership. (3) Parking lots; (4) Mini-storage facilities defined under 25.12.310; (5) Wineries defined under 25.12.480; and (6) Dance halls and nightclubs. Section 4. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect five days after passage and publication as required by law. PASSED by the City Council of the City of Pasco, at its regular meeting of December 2014. Matt Watkins Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: Debra L. Clark, City Clerk Leland B. Kerr, City Attorney M IN Pasco Zoning Map W1 \ \ ■o■ —� - , 'N IN LIP Legend .,, �.•.• N, :• .';•,•�;�;�•.�, , 0 - CITY LIMITS C-1 Retail Business 1` I I _J. \ C-2 C-3 -��-= i- go CR "i \ A N 1. N, fit' •,\\ _f`_�"-;..Jr..l-Y'1°=f"-Ir�• \`�, <\�<• V. me R-1 \\� R-1-A \\\ R-1-A2 ' R-1/PUD R-2 R-3 R-4 \\� R-S-1 R-S-1/PUD \\� RS-12 RS-20 _ RP _ RT