HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-18-2015 Planning Commission Meeting PacketPLANNING COMMISSION -AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING
I. CALL TO ORDER:
II. ROLL CALL:
III. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
v. OLD BUSINESS:
VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
A . Special Permit
B. Code Amendment
VII . WORKSHOP:
A. Code Amendment
VIII. OTHER BUSINESS:
IX. ADJOURNMENT:
7:00P.M. June 18, 2015
D e claration of Quorum
May 2 1 , 2015
Lo catio n of a Community Solar System m a C-1
Zone (Franklin PUD) (MF# SP 20 1 5-006 )
Emergency Airc raft Landing Code Amendment (MF #
CA 20 15-001)
Arterial Corridors Commercial Design Standards
(MF# CA 20 15-003)
This meeting is broadcast live on PSC-TV Chan nel 191 on Charte r Cable and streamed at
\V\VW. pasco-wag. com I psctvlive.
Audio equipment available for the h earing impaired; contact staff for assistance.
REGULAR MEETING May 21, 2015
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 Tanya Bowers
No.2 Tony Bachart
No.3 Paul Mendez
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 Greenaway moved, seconded by Commissioner Portugal that the minutes
dated April 16, 2015 be approved as amended. The motion passed unanimously.
OLD BUSINESS:
A. Preliminary Plat Preliminary Plat for Majestia Place (Peter Strizhak)
(MF# PP 2015-0011
Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff.
Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director, stated that there were no
additional comments or changes to the staff report since the previous meeting.
Commissioner Portugal moved, seconded by Commissioner Greenaway, to adopt findings
-1-
of fact and conclusions therefrom as contained in the May 21, 20 15 staff report. The
motion carried unanimously.
Commissioner Portugal moved, seconded by Commissioner Greenaway based on the
findings of fact and conclusions, as adopted, the Planning Commission recommend the
City Council approve the Preliminary Plat for Majestia Place with conditions as listed in
the May 21, 20 15 staff report. The motion passed unanimously.
B. Zoning Determination Zoning Determination for Sharma Annexation Area
(City of Pasco) (MF # ZD 2015-002)
Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff.
Dave McDonald, City Planner, discussed the zoning determination application for the
Sharma Annexation Area. He reminded the Planning Commission that there was
considerable discussion on this item at the previous meeting. The proposal has been
modified to reflect the Commissions discussion about graduated zoning being applied to
the property. RS-20 was proposed for the north end of the site zoning, followed by RS-12,
and RS-1 with R-1 at the southeast corner where Mr. Sharma's property is located. A
concomitant agreement was recommended for the R-1 zoning to ensure minimum lot sizes
would be consistent with the 8,500 square foot lots in the subdivisions to the south east.
The Planning Commissioners were in agreement and liked the zoning that was proposed
for the annexation area.
Commissioner Portugal moved, seconded by Commissioner Greenaway, to adopt the
findings of fact as contained in the May 21, 2015 staff report. The motion passed
unanimously.
Commissi oner Portugal moved, seconded by Commissioner Greenaway, based on the
findings of fact, as adopted, the Planning Commission recommend the City Council zone
the Sharma Annexation Area to R-1 through RS-20, as indicated on the zoning map
identified as Exhibit # 1 attached to the May 21, 20 15 staff report. The motion passed
unanimously.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
A. Special Permit Location of a mini-storage facility (Calin Tebay)
(MF# SP 2015-003)
Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff.
Dave McDonald, City Planner, explained that the applicant would like for the public
hearing to be continued.
Commissioner Bowers moved, seconded by Commissioner Greenaway, to continue the
public hearing to the June 18, 2015 meeting. The motion passed unanimously.
WORKSHOP:
-2-
A. Code Amendment Arterial Corridor Commercial Design Standards
(MF# CA 2015-003)
Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff.
Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director, discussed the code
amendment for arterial corridor commercial design standards. During the April meeting
the Planning Commission discussed possible design standards outside of the I-182
Corridor. The City has design standards for the north and west sections of Pasco,
however, nowhere in other commercial corridors in the City. Design standards would be a
positive advantage for development within the City and Staff would like direction as to
whether the I -182 Corridor standards should be extended or if new standards should be
developed.
Commissioner Bowers asked what Staff recommends.
Mr. White responded that they don't particularly have a recommendation but would prefer
to develop unique design standards for other parts of town, different from the I-182
Corridor standards.
Chairman Cruz responded that he is in favor of seeing specific standards and perhaps
pick targeted areas to start with. It would be difficult to use the I-182 Corridor standards
everywhere else.
Commissioner Bowers asked why there haven't been design standards set before.
Mr. White answered that it was easier and more feasible to apply the standards as the
community developed from the ground up, as opposed to going back on additions and
remodels in established areas of town.
Commissioner Bowers asked how much it would cost to make the new design standards.
Mr. White responded that it is just staff time. As for cost to the recipients of the new
regulations, until he knows what the standards are he could not answer.
Commissioner Mendez asked if this would apply to the downtown area that has different
design standards.
Mr. White answered that those questions will be brought back to the Commission at a
future meeting, such as if it applies to a building should a remodel occur or an addition.
Chairman Cruz added that typically when there is a remodel to 50% or more of the
structure then the new design standards would have to apply but the Planning
Commission could make specific conditions for specific areas in the City as long as there
is consistency.
Commissioner Portugal asked what option staff is recommending.
Mr. White responded that option three is what staff recommends.
-3-
Commissioner Portugal asked for clarification on the costs.
Mr. White responded that it will not be costly for staff time.
Commissioner Bowers suggested a map be supplied to make it easier to see the areas
proposed for code amendments.
Mr. White responde d that there are many options depending on the areas that the
Planning Commission would like to review. Visuals will be brought to the Planning
Commission at a later meeting.
Chairman Cruz added that when it comes back to the Commission there will likely be
options with arterial and non-arterial streets and existing versus new development but as
of now there are only design standards for the I-182 Corridor.
There were no further comments.
B. Plan Shoreline Master Program -Reports (MF# PLAN
2013-001)
Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff.
Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director, discussed the Shoreline
Master Program Report. He introduced Anchor QEA consultant, Ben Floyd who was
present to provide an update to the ongoing work on the Shoreline mater Program.
Ben Floyd , Anchor QEA, briefly discussed the Shoreline Master Program. He pointed out
items that were given to the Planning Commission, such as, the Memorandum, Draft
Cumulative Impacts Analysis Report and the Restoration Plan. The first phase developed
an inventory analysis identifying natural areas, parks and levies etc. The second phase
described the future vision for those designated areas. Workshops were held whe re
members of the public provided comments. Goals and policies were developed and from
that came regulations and environment designations. The documents provided to the
Planning Commission are a draft of the program. The key criteria of the process is "no
net-loss" of ecological function. Mr. Floyd gave examples of "no net-loss" and pointed out
some key tables in the Cumulative Impacts Analysis Report.
Chairman Cruz asked Mr. Floyd if there was anything in particular in the reports that he
wanted Planning Commission input.
Mr. Floyd asked the Planning Commission to look for any land use issues that they might
have .
Chairman Cruz briefly discussed dock permits and that there are only a couple of dock
permits left per the CORPS management plan .
Commissioner Bowers stated that she would like to see the maps referring to the reach
locations.
-4-
Mr. White responded that those maps can be accessed via the City of Pasco website but
staff would make sure they receive those maps.
Mr. Floyd offered to meet with the new Planning Commissioner's to catch them up on the
Shoreline Master Program.
Chairman Cruz added a little clarification about the process, reaches and maps for the
new Commissioners.
Mr. Floyd went on to discuss the Restoration Plan, which is another State requirement. It
is to protect wildlife and to identify how it is possible to make ecological functions better.
He referred to tables in the plan with 7 different action areas.
Commissioner Portugal asked for clarification on what is being "made better".
Mr. Floyd responded that it is for the environment and habitat restoration. He briefly
explained the designated areas and some of the options for those areas. He stated that
the restoration is in addition to mitigation (no net-loss).
Commissioner Bowers asked if invasive vegetation is taken into account.
Mr. Floyd answered yes. But it also doesn't try to return the area to pre-development
conditions. Some of the tables include vegetation management including non-native or
invasive species that can be removed for more natural species more typical for this area.
Mr. White responded to Commissioner Bowers that once she receives her map and original
Shoreline Management Draft, all of these items will become familiar.
Commissioner Portugal pointed out differences in the memorandum and tables concerning
restoration and protection.
Mr. Floyd clarified that both needed to be included and covered.
Commissioner Mendez asked if there are heritage areas that need to be protected.
Mr. Floyd answered that they haven't been pointed out specifically, however, both historic
and cultural resources were evaluated, identified and generally described.
Chairman Cruz asked if Mr. Floyd had any questions for them.
Mr. Floyd responded that the process will be ending in the near future and they have yet
to receive any comments from the State on the two documents other than that they look
good. The State will do a more detailed review once the final plan is submitted. Soon the
SEPA Review will be done, a hearing will be scheduled. Once a recommendation is made
to City Council and assuming they follow Planning Commission's recommendation, the
whole package will be submitted to the State.
-5-
Commissioner Portugal asked if the City has ever been m any legal trouble for
environmental issues in the past.
Mr. White responded that the City has not. Most of the shoreline is publicly owned by the
Army Corp of Engineers or owned by private property owners and they have not had any
controversies.
There were no further questions or comments.
COMMENTS:
With no further discussion or business , the Planning Commission was adjourned at
7:50p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
David McDonald, City Planner
-6-
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
MASTER FILE NO: SP 2015-003
HEARING DATE: 6/18/2015
ACTION DATE: 7/16/2015
BACKGROUND
APPLICANT: Franklin PUD
1411 W . Clark Street
Pasco, WA 99301
REQUEST FOR SPECIAL PERMIT: Location of a Community Solar System in a
C -1 Zone
1. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION:
Legal: The west half of Block 6 and all of Block 5, Pettit's Second
Addition
General Location: 1411 W Clark Street
Property Size: Approximately 2.73 acres
2. ACCESS: The site has access from Clark Street, 14th Avenue and
Bonneville Street.
3. UTILITIES: Water lines are located in Bonneville Street, 14th Avenue
and transect the site through the parking lot. A sewer line comes into the
site from the southwest corner (at 14th Ave. and Clark St.) and a sewer
line borders the east property line in an alley. The proposed solar system
will not require sewer or water services.
4. LAND USE AND ZONING: The property is zoned C-1 (Retail Business).
The zoning and land use of the surrounding properties are as follows:
NORTH: R-1 /R-2 Library
EAST : R-2 Single & Multi-Family Residences
SOUTH: C -1/C-3 Residential/Commercial
WEST: R-1 Single-Family Residences
5. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The site is designated in the Comprehensive
Plan for future Public/Quasi-Public Government uses. The Plan does not
specifically address community solar system facilities, but elements of
the Plan encourage the promotion of orderly development within the City.
The Comprehensive Plan (UT-2-A) encourages coordination between
utility providers' plans for utilities with City land use plans and
development permits. Policy UT-2-B also encourages the design of utility
substation to be consistent adopted codes and standards.
6. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The City of Pasco is the lead
agency for this project. Based on the SEPA checklist, the adopted City
Comprehensive Plan, City development regulations, and other
information, a threshold determination resulting in a Determination of
Non-Significance (DNS) has been issued for this project under WAC 197-
11-158.
ANALYSIS
The local Public Utility District (Franklin PUD) has applied for special permit
approval to allow installation of a 60 kilowatt photovoltaic (solar) panel array in
the parking lot of the PUD office on Clark Street. The PUD falls under the
definition of a community service facility and the proposed modification to the
PUD site is considered an unclassified use under PMC 25.86.020 (10) as is a
community service facility. Unclassified uses require special permit review
before being issued a building permit.
The proposed solar panel array is described as a five hundred (500) square feet
in area producing up to 60 kilowatts per hour. It has not been determined how
the array will be mounted but two alternates are discussed in the SEPA
checklist. The panels may be installed near ground-level or they may be
elevated to serve a dual-purpose of acting as a shade structure possibly
providing a shaded parking area.
The PUD facilities have been located at the northeast corner of 14th Avenue and
Clark Street for approximately 50 years. The offices, auditorium and most
recently the shop and parking addition have been an accepted part of the
neighborhood. The operations of the PUD facilities have not permitted any
condition to occur that interferes or obstructs with the free use of neighboring
properties. Additionally, no activity on the PUD site has created any condition
that would render a neighbor insecure in the use of his/her property or would
impose a health or safety concern that would injure or endanger the comfort,
repose, health and safety of others. Apart from the initial construction activity
the solar array will not generate additional traffic, dust, noise, fumes or night
lighting. Depending on construction materials the solar panels may create
some glare . However the properties directly to the south of the solar
installation are commercial businesses that are not as sensitive to glare as
other types of development. There have been no reports or complaints about
glare from the existing solar panels that line the south and west walls of the
PUD offices.
The solar array will be constructed as an elevated structure and will serve as a
shaded carport covering twenty-six (26) parking stalls toward the east side of
the site. The panels will be elevated at least 9 feet off the surface of the parking
lot.
Residents of Pasco will have an opportunity to invest in the solar system;
thereby securing ownership of a defined surface area of the solar panels. The
2
surface area will equate to units (kilowatt hours) of electric energy production
which in-turn results in a PUD bill credit and an annual State incentive
program cash payment.
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 located at 1411 W Clark Street.
2. The site is accessed from Clark Street, Bonneville Street and 14th
Avenue.
3. Currently the site is approximately 2.73 acres in size.
4 . Municipal sewer and water currently serve the site from the surrounding
rights-of-way.
5. The site contains the Franklin County Public Utility District main office
and Engineering shop.
6. The PUD has been located at the northeast corner of 14th Avenue and
Clark Street for 50 years
7. The site is zoned C-1 (Retail Business).
8. The properties south of the solar installation site are zoned C-1 and
developed with a commercial/industrial tool supply store and a tire
repair store.
9. The PUD offices contain solar panels.
10. The current solar panels on the PUD offices have not created glare
problems for the neighborhood.
11. Installation of a solar photovoltaic system will not to generate additional
vehicle traffic to the site after the initial construction is completed.
12 . The site contains 118 off-street parking stalls.
CONCLUSIONS BASED ON THE FINDINGS OF FACT
Before recommending approval or denial of a special permit the Planning
Commission must develop findings of fact from which to draw its conclusion
based upon the criteria listed in P.M .C. 25.86.060 and determine whether or
not the proposal:
(1) Will the proposed use be in accordance with the goals, policies, objectives
and text of the Comprehensive Plan?
3
The PUD u se of the proposed site is consistent with the land u se map
designation of Public/Quasi-Public Government uses. The Plan does not
specifically address community solar system facilities, but elements of the
Plan encourage the promotion of orderly development w ithin the City. The
Comprehensive Plan (UT-2-A) encourages coordination between utility
providers' plans for utilities with City land use plans and development
permits. Policy UT-2-B also encourages the design of utility substation to
b e consistent adopted codes and standards.
(2) Will the proposed use adversely affect public infrastructure?
The proposed solar facility does not require water and sewer service and
does not generat e traffic. The proposed use will support the electric utility
in that i t w ill produce power rather than consume power.
(3) Will the proposed use be constructed, maintained and operated to be zn
harmony with existing or intended character of the general vicinity?
The existing PUD facility h as defined the general character of the
n eighborhood for 50 years. The current PUD office contains solar panels.
The proposed solar panels will augment the existing solar equipment on
the PUD property. The existing character of the general neighborhood will
not be a ltered by the proposal.
(4) Will the location and height of proposed s tructures and the site design
discourage the development of permitted uses on property in the general
vicinity or impair the value thereof?
The height of the propose d structure (9 feet) w ill be less than the h eight of
the existing buildings on the property and less than the height of the
commercial buildings to the south. The existing PUD facilities have not
discouraged deve lopment of surrounding properties nor have they
impaired neighborhood values. The PUD site is separated from
surrounding properties by streets and an alley so building heights and
setbacks are less of an issue than they would be if the site actually
abutted other properties.
(5) Will the operations in connection with the proposal be more objectionable to
nearby properties by reason of noise, fumes vibrations, dust, traffic, or
flashing lights than would be the operation of any permitted uses within the
district?
There will be some initial traffic and noise associated with construction
activities but, likely no more noise than what is generated from the tire
repair store to the south. The operation of the solar panels will not
create fumes, noise, vibrations, dust, traffic or flashing lights. The only
concern with the proposal may be the possibility of glare from the solar
4
p a n e ls. However, fro m the expe rie n ce w ith the exi s ting solar p a n e ls on
the PUD office building glare h as n o t b e en an iss u e. In this case the
p a n e l s w ill be a rra n ged differently but, will be e levated such tha t ther e
will b e no glare t h a t w ill impact ve hicula r traffic o n s urrounding s treets.
(6 ) Will the proposed u se e ndanger the p ublic h e alth or s afe ty if lo cate d and
d e ve lop e d where proposed , or in a ny way will b eco m e a nuisance t o u ses
p e rmitte d in the dis trict?
The o p e r a tio ns of the exi s ting PUD facilities including t h e solar p anels on
the main o ffi ce building h ave c r eated h ealth and safety issue and n o r h a ve
they b ecome a nuisan ce t o a djoining pro p e rties .
APPROVAL CONDITIONS
1) This S p ecia l P e rmit s h a ll apply t o the w est h a lf o f Block 6 a nd a ll o f
B lock 5, Pe ttit's S econd Addition (Franklin C o unty T ax Pa r cel
11 227 1409 ).
2 ) The s ite s hall b e d evel o p ed in s ubstantial conforma n ce with the s ite pla n
s ubmitte d w ith t h e S p ecia l Pe rmit a pplication;
3 ) T h e S p ecia l Pe rmit s h a ll be null a nd vo id i f a build ing p e rmit h as not
b een o bta ine d b y Au g u s t 1 , 2 01 6 .
RECOMMENDATION
MOTION: I m o v e t o close the h earing on the p roposed solar
system a nd Imtla t e d e libe r a tion s a nd sch edu le
a doption of fi n dings o f fact , c onclusions a nd a
r ecomme ndatio n to t h e C i ty C o unc il fo r t h e J u ly 16,
201 5 m eeting.
5
Vicinity
Map
Item: Special Permit-Solar Project
Applicant: Franklin PUD
File #: SP 2015-006
Land Use
Map
Item: Special Permit-Solar Project
Applicant: Franklin PUD
File #: SP 2015-006
City Park HOPKINS S
I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I i I I ' '
Commercial
I I I I 1 I : ' Comm.
ommetci
~ LEWIS ST
1----1 ----.--: ~I ----,:~1 I I )
Zoning
Map
Item: Special Permit-Solar Project
Applicant: Franklin PUD
File #: SP 2015-006
R-1
(Low-Density Residential)
BONNEVILLE ST
~~~~
I I I I I I ' I~ I I I I I I I I ~ I I 1 ~I» ~'0'&\'> ~~ lrTI~"""[ R_,....~3_,....1 -I I " I I I ~ u II-' ~
C-1
C-3
(General Business)
--~ C-1
(Retail Business)
3
.!2
Q)
>
.!:
"0
Q)
.!: ....
::J
0 .... u
Q) ·e
a. ..... ro
0
V)
.~ c:
::J
E
E
0 u ....
0
c:
.Q .... ro u
.!2
"0
Q)
V)
0 a. e a.
-i:;,'
~
.!:
"0
Q)
.!: ....
::J
0
t
Q) a. e a..
0
::> a..
If ground-mounted, community solar system would look similar to this, but a little larger.
If elevated and used to cover parking, community solar system would look similar to this but smaller.
(One double-sided row would be covered .)
~----------------~
MEMORANDUM
DATE: June 18,2015
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Shane O'Neill, Planner I
SUBJECT: Emergency Aircraft Landing Code Amendment (MF# CA 2015-001)
Title 9 (Peace, Safety & Morals) of the Pasco Municipal Code regulates aircraft landing
within the city. Currently, it is a violation for aircraft to land anywhere within the City
besides the airport and at hospital locations authorized by special permit. The intent
of the proposed code amendment is to provide code authority for aircraft landing in
cases of emergency. Specific language amending Title 9 is shown below.
Staff requests the Planning Commission hold a public hearing on the proposed
amendment.
CHAPTER 9. 78 LANDING OF AIRCRAFT
Sections:
9 .78.010 LANDING OUTSIDE PERMITTED AREA UNLAWFUL ................................ 100
9 .78.020 FACILITATING UNLAWFUL LANDINGS UNLAWFUL ................................. 100
9 .78.010 LANDING OUTSIDE PERMITTED AREA UNLAWFUL. It shall be a
violation of this Chapter for any person to land a helicopter, air plane or ultralight
aircraft in the City of Pasco except at an airport or heliport, or any other landing or
maneuvering space for aircraft permitted by special permit obtained under the
provisions of Chapter 22.80 25.86 of the Pasco Municipal Code.
9.78.020 FACILITATING UNLAWFUL LANDINGS UNLAWFUL. Except in case of
an emergency, it shall further be a violation of this chapter for the owner, lessee,
manager, or any other person in charge of a public or private place to knowingly
permit, encourage or cause , whether by commission or omission, any person to land a
helicopter, airplane or ultralight aircraft in the City of Pasco except at an airport or
heliport or any other landing or maneuvering space for aircraft permitted by special
permit obtained under the provisions of Chapter~ 25.86 of the Pasco Municipal
Code.
9.78.030 LANDING MEDICAL EVACUATION HELICOPTERS . Landing of medical
evacuation helicopters for the transport of patients or for training by emergency
response agencies shall be allowed under the supervision of a trained ground contact
individual.
(MF# CA 20 15-00 I) Page 1 of 1
MEMORANDUM
DATE: June 11, 2015
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Jeffrey B. Adams, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: Arterial Corridors Commercial Design Standards (MF# CA 20 15-003)
At the April 16, 2015 Planning Commission m eeting Community & Economic
Developme nt Director Rick White distribute d photos o f a recently constructed
records storage building on Sylvester Street. The structure is a stark white pole
building which dramatically contrasts with the rathe r handsome bank
a djacent. This project is permitted under the c urrent code. Mr. White asked the
Planning Commission if they would like to see proposals by staff for a code
a mendme nt establishing minimum d esign standards in the future, particularly
on our main streets. The Planning Commission was in agreement to have a
proposed code amendment brought to them.
At the May 29, 2015 Planning Commission meeting staff presented thr ee
options to the Commi ssion for a ddre ssing the i ssue, as follows:
1) Do nothing
2 ) E xtend t h e I-1 82 Corrido r Design Standards to a ll or selecte d z ones
outside the I -182 Corridor.
3) Develop specific standards for zones o utside the I-182 Corridor or for
selected corridors and j or arteria ls outside the I -182 Corridor.
The Commission opted for a "custom-fit" standard over t h e "do nothing" and
simple ext ension of I -182 standard s to other areas of town . The Commission
a l so request e d con sid eration of the fo llowing questions before proceeding:
1) Planning Commission Query: Will the standards apply only to new
buildings?
Sta ff R ecommendation: The e nhanced standards are anticipated to apply
to all n ew commercial development and a ll r emodel s or expansions when
t h e c ost of remode ling and expansion i s e qual to or e xceeds 50% of the
current assessed value of the structure as dete rmined b y the City's
building official.
2 ) Planning Commission Query: If the standards apply to a ll buildings -
what is the threshold (percentage of a remodel or a ddit io n) for triggering
compliance with the new standards?
Staff Recommendation: As stated above, the enhanced standards are
anticipated to apply to a ll new commercial development a nd all remodels
or expansions when the cost of remodeling and expansion is equal to or
exceeds 50% of the curr ent assessed value of t h e structure as
determined by the City's building official.
3) Planning Commission Query: Will the standards apply to all zonmg
districts?
Staff Recommendation: It is a nticipated that the enhanced standards will
apply to the Office (0) and Retail Business (C-1) zones in the specified
corridor areas.
4) Planning Commission Query: Should the standards apply to only certain
street corridors?
Staff Recommendation: The enhanced standards should apply a long the
following street corridors:
a. "A" Street.
b. Columbia Street, between 1st Avenue and lOth Avenue.
c. Lewis Street.
d. West Clark Street.
e. Sylvester Street.
f. Court Street.
g . Third Avenue, north of "A" Street.
h. Fourth Avenue, south of Highway 395.
1. Fifth Avenue, between " A" Street and Court Street.
J. Sixth Avenue, between" A" Street and Court Street.
k. Tenth Avenue.
1. Fourteenth Avenue.
m. Twentieth Avenue.
n. Twenty-Eighth Avenue.
o. Thirty -Sixth Avenue.
p. Highway # 12.
Staff proposes the following for Commission consideration:
1) A "minimum" standard which addresses only the street-facing fac;:ade(s)
of a commercial building, or
2) An "enhanced" standard w hich would require treatments on all facades.
For Office and C-1 zoned properties adjoining residential properties staff
recommends the "enhanced" standard.
Finally, Staff h as contemplated requiring certain baseline items as "Mandatory''
and creating a second tier of items where the client is required to select one of
2
three options to include in the design. The objective of this approach is to a ll ow
flexibility in architecture while at the same time requiring some level of
enhanced aesthetics and functionality in the project.
An example might be as follows:
A. Mandatory:
Solid blank fac ades must be avoided on the front or street facing sides of
the building. They must be treated with windows, entrances, canopies,
cornices, and by articulating the fa<;ade and/ or screening with
l andscaping.
B. Mandatory (Choose one or more of the following):
a ) A primary pedestrian entrance complying with the standards of
"prominent entrance," and accessible from the sidewalks.
b) Distinctive massing and roof form of the building.
c) Other architectural features such as porches, canopies, and display
windows.
This flexibility would encourage variety, accommodate different tastes, and
allow for varying architectural styles.
SUGGESTED STANDARDS
Building design standards might include the following:
Massing and Architectural Features
These measures are intended to reduce the bulk of the buildings to "human
scal e" and to offer variety and consistency a long the street face.
1. Multi-story buildings must have separate and distinct "Base," "Middle" and
"Top" styles so as to avoid the "box" look and feel. "Top" can be expressed by
using s loped, gabled or flat roofs. Flat roofs shall have cornices, parapets, or
similar special features to act as the top of the building. Step-backs of the
buildings at the upper floors can a lso be used as a method to express base,
middle and top.
2. Street facing fa<;ade more than 50 ft. long shall be treated with the following:
a) Change in the roof or wall plane (4ft. minimum)
b) Projecting or recessed elements
3
c) Varying rooflines (4 ft. minimum)
3. Solid blank facades must be avoided on the front or street facing sides of the
building. They must be treated with windows, entrances, canopies, cormces,
and b y articulating the fa<;ade and/ or scr eening with landscaping.
4. For slope-roof structures, the slope of the roof must not be less than 4:1 2
except for a s pecific design to be approved by the Planning Director.
Prominent Entrance
This standard i s d esigne d to ensure that e ntrances are visible, attractive,
inviting, a nd efficient.
1. Entrance to the building must be made visible and prominent by using large
entry doors, porches, protruding, or recessed entrances.
2. Primary pedestrian entrances must face public streets, open spaces or
plazas whenever available.
3. Light poles, s ignage and s imilar accessories shall be coordinated so that the
view and accessibility to the e ntrance are not obstructed.
Fa{:ade Transparency
Transpar ent facades h e lp c r eate a visual connection between the indoor a nd
outdoor e n vironment in order to m a k e businesses m ore attractive .
1. Solid blank walls shall b e avoided except for service areas, which s h a ll b e
screened from public view.
Corner Treatments
1 . Buildings located at the corner of street intersectio n s s h a ll have at least one
of the follo w ing:
a ) Distinctive m assing a nd roof form of the building (to help ide ntify the
intersection as a landmark);
b) Other archi tectur a l features such as porches, canopies, and display windows
at the corner.
2 . Signage and accessory structures must not obstruct the view of the building
at the corner.
4
Rear of Building
1 . Loading a nd service areas shall be lo cat e d in the less visible side of the site.
2. R ear of the building a nd service a r eas must not be lo cated facing a major
public str eet. In cases where t here are n o other options, the street a nd s ite
lay out, service a reas and r ear located facing public s treets must be scr eened
from public v iew w i th la ndscaping, grading a nd/ or fe n c ing. Fencing s h a ll b e
consistent with the overa ll building desig n.
3 . Rear o f the building shall b e consiste n t with the front s ide of the building in
terms of d esig n styl e, building material a nd arc hitectura l features.
Screening of Electrical and Mechanical Equipment
1. Rooftop e lectrical and m ech a nical e quipme nt sha ll b e obscured from v1ew
(i.e. b y u se of a n architecturally integrated screen or para p et).
2. Mechanical equipme n t when place d on the ground s h a ll b e obscured from
view by u se of a n architecturally integrated screen.
3. Wall-mounted electrical a nd mechanica l equipment s h a ll be located on the
less visible s ide of the building a nd obscured from public view.
DISCUSSION:
Staff r equests furth e r feedback to the r ecomm e ndations above .
5