HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-16-2015 Planning Commission Meeting Packet PLANNING COMMISSION - AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING 7:00 P.M. July 16, 2015
I. CALL TO ORDER:
II. ROLL CALL: Declaration of Quorum
III. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: June 18, 2015
V. OLD BUSINESS:
A. Special Permit Location of a Community Solar System in a C-1
Zone (Franklin PUD) (MF# SP 2015-006)
VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
A. Special Permit Redevelopment of Stevens Middle School (Pasco
School District) (MF# SP 2015-002)
B. Special Permit Location of a Wireless Cellular Communications
Tower in an RS-1 (Suburban) Zone (Verizon
Wireless) (MF# SP 2015-008)
C. Rezone Rezone from R-1 (Low Density Residential) to R-3
(Medium Density Residential) (Envision Homes)
(MF# Z 2015-002)
VII. WORKSHOP:
VIII. OTHER BUSINESS:
P
IX. ADJOURNMENT:
This meeting is broadcast live on PSC-TV Channel 191 on Charter Cable and streamed at
www.pasco-wag.com/psctvlive.
Audio equipment available for the hearing impaired; contact staff for assistance.
REGULAR MEETING June 18, 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 VACANT
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 Bowers that the minutes
dated May 21, 2015 be approved as amended. The motion passed unanimously.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
A. Special Permit Location of a Community Solar System in a C-1
Zone (Franklin PUD) (MF# SP 2015-006)
Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff.
Dave McDonald, City Planner, discussed the special permit application for the location for
a community solar system in a C-1 zone. The proposed site is on the eastern most
parking lot of the PUD property at the corner of 14th Avenue and Clark Street. The PUD
has been at this location for roughly 50 years so they are well established within the
-1-
neighborhood and well accepted. The PUD itself is classified as a service facility because
of the public/governmental nature of the facility so anything they do requires a special
permit. In addition to that the proposed solar array is similar to other utility facilities that
also require special permit review. The array will be covering a row of parking stalls and
will be angled slightly towards the south. In preparing the report, Staff inquired about a
possible problem with glare from the solar panels, but due to the location of the panels
above the parking lot glare should not be much of a problem. The PUD building itself has
a number of solar panels attached to the building and there haven't been any complaints
regarding glare from these existing panels.
Commissioner Khan asked if the solar panels would increase the temperature in the
surrounding area.
Mr. McDonald answered that it depends on how they are set up. They have had problems
in California and Nevada where they have large facilities but, this will not be the same
situation. There haven't been any problems with the solar panels that are currently on
the building itself.
Commissioner Khan didn't know how it would handle the Tri-Cities summer sun.
Mr. McDonald responded that it would actually provide some shade for the parked
vehicles.
Commissioner Bowers added that she thinks it would be an asset for those who have to
park because of the added shade and could lower the temperature.
Commissioner Khan stated that she was only concerned about the neighboring homes
getting any additional heat.
Chairman Cruz responded that he didn't think there would be an issue with the additional
heat in terms of this design.
Todd Blackman, 7428 Deseret Drive, spoke on this item, representing Franklin PUD.
Commissioner Portugal asked if the residents in the City of Pasco would have an
opportunity to invest on the solar panels.
Mr. Blackman answered that the array would be owned by the utility but the output
owned by citizens who buy into the system. Franklin PUD anticipates more demand than
available with this first project so a "lottery" will be held and current customers will all get
a chance to participate in the lottery.
Commissioner Portugal asked if the shares would be advertised to the public.
Mr. Blackman responded that they have sent mail outs to all account holders and other
forms of media.
Commissioner Portugal asked if the PUD has anything to compare their program to.
Mr. Blackman stated that their plans will hopefully be even better than prior solar projects
-2-
in other communities. Typically they are ground mounted systems taking up real estate,
where this unit does not take up space and will provide shade and deflect heat.
Commissioner Bowers asked for clarification on the "community investment".
Mr. Blackman answered that they would be investing in this particular solar system.
Commissioner Bachart asked if a person buys into a share if they are entitled to tax
breaks.
Mr. Blackman stated that is what makes this program work - Washington State
Production Credits. The pay back for investing would be around four years.
Commissioner Bachart asked how that would work, such as, would a check be sent or
would the amount be taken off of the bill.
Mr. Blackman responded that customers would get a check for their production and
throughout the year they would also get a net-meter benefit of whatever the size of their
system is offsetting energy use in their home. Since the system and the meter isn't
actually on their house, they wouldn't see the energy actually run to the grid but the PUD
can calculate it.
Commissioner Khan asked if this is only applicable for people for Franklin PUD
customers.
Mr. Blackman answered that to participate you only need an account with Franklin PUD.
Commissioner Polk asked if this is a pilot for future modules like this in the Tri-Cities.
Mr. Blackman responded that he hopes so.
Commissioner Mendez asked if there was an initiative to reach out to surrounding
homeowners to let them know what is about to take place and give them a chance to voice
concerns.
Mr. Blackman stated that the PUD will be holding a public hearing, the date is to be
determined since this is still early in the planning process. So far the only public
participation has been at board meetings.
Commissioner Bowers stated that she would like to see those outreach meetings to take
place in Spanish as well.
Mr. Blackman responded that their department is bilingual and the first point of contact
will be a bilingual staff person. The direct mailers that will be sent will be in English and
Spanish.
Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director, added that the Planning
Commission Public Hearing was also advertised to homeowners within 300 feet of the
-3-
PUD.
Commissioner Mendez pointed out a correction that needed to be made to the staff report
under one of the conditions (#6).
Mr. McDonald stated that would be corrected.
With no further comments the public hearing closed.
Commissioner Khan moved, seconded by Commissioner Polk, to close the hearing on the
proposed solar system and initiate deliberations and schedule adoption of findings of fact,
conclusions and a recommendation to the City Council for the July 16, 2015 meeting.
The motion passed unanimously.
B. Code Amendment Emergency Aircraft Landing Code Amendment (City
of Pasco) (MF # CA 2015-001)
Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff.
Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director, discussed the proposed code
amendment for emergency aircraft landing. The Pasco Municipal Code currently has a
prohibition on landing aircraft outside of an airport without a special permit. In cases of
an emergency that is not an option so the proposed code amendment would allow it to
occur in cases of an emergency as well as the landing of aircraft for training purposes for
this type of operation. This has been referred to the Pasco Airport as well as the FAA and
neither had any comments.
Commissioner Polk asked for clarification on not receiving any comments from the Pasco
Airport or the FAA - whether they feel if it is a good working model of they just didn't have
anything to say one way or another.
Mr. White clarified that they did respond that they are comfortable with the language and
they already have procedures in place.
Roger Casey, 2101 South Highlands Boulevard, West Richland, spoke on behalf of
Northwest MedStar. He stated that they are a 24/7 critical care transport agency based
out of Spokane. They have a medical helicopter located in the Tri-Cities fully staffed and
currently in the City of Pasco they cannot land without a permit without violating the code
and paying the consequences. They have worked with city staff and are satisfied with the
proposed language to the code and he would like to see the Planning Commission approve
the code amendment to allow this service to Pasco. In terms of training, they don't' land
just anywhere - there is always landing zone training courses and work closely with EMS
agencies for training purposes.
Commissioner Polk asked if there are parameters that would define an emergency.
Mr. Casey stated that an emergency in the aircraft itself are governed by the pilots and
their knowledge, intuition and judgment. There are certain conditions that happen in
aircraft for landing as soon as possible and safely, such as engine failure, the landing is
-4-
going to happen but the pilot will have to do it as controlled and safely as possible.
Commissioner Bowers asked how frequently the trainings are held or how frequently are
trainings anticipated.
Mr. Casey responded that it varies - there could be months without any training and then
months were there is a week or two at a time. He emphasized the importance of the
proposed code amendment so that they can provide emergency medical services in
situations where time is of the essence.
Commissioner Bachart clarified that as the code is currently written, Northwest MedStar
cannot legally make their landings in Pasco.
Mr. Casey replied that is correct, they can only land at the airport or an approved heliport,
which is currently only at Lourdes, unless they apply for a special event permit, in which
would take several weeks and would not be appropriate for emergencies.
Chairman Cruz added that they could land but would be subject to pay the fine.
Todd Blackman, 7428 Deseret Drive, spoke on this item stating that he has worked with
Northwest MedStar as a volunteer firefighter and believes they are a highly trained and
professional organization. They cooperate with the Fire Department and it is a great asset
for the community.
Commissioner Greenaway added that she is in support of the code amendment, as her
family has pilots.
Commissioner Greenaway moved, seconded by Commissioner Khan, to close the public
hearing on the proposed code amendment, initiate deliberations and develop a
recommendation for City Council for the June 13, 2015 meeting. The motion passed
unanimously.
Commissioner Greenaway moved, seconded by Commissioner Khan, to recommend the
City Council adopt the proposed ordinance allowing emergency aircraft landing as
contained in the June 18, 2015 staff report. The motion passed unanimously.
WORKSHOP:
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 proposed code
amendment of arterial corridor commercial design standards. During the last discussion
on this item, the Planning Commission posed some questions that staff has tried to
answer in the first part of the staff report. Mr. White asked for feedback from the Planning
Commission on the following questions:
(1) Should the new standards apply only to new buildings and if so, is 50% the correct
-5-
threshold?
Chairman Cruz responded that in the past, 50% has been the threshold and he is in
support of that number. The Commissioners were all in agreement.
(2) If the standards apply to all buildings - what is the threshold (percentage of a
remodel or addition)for triggering compliance with the new standards?
Mr. White stated that question was already answered.
(3) Will the standards apply to all zoning districts?
Mr. White stated that staff is looking at areas outside of the I-182 Corridor. Many of
Pasco's Commercial District's east of Highway 395 are not meant for retail sales but for
very heavy commercial and/or industrial types of uses. Staff recommends the design
standards would only apply to the Office "O" Zone and the Retail Business "C-1" Zone and
only along specific corridors.
Chairman Cruz asked the Commissioners if they wished to push the applicability beyond
office or retail.
Commissioner Khan asked for clarification on C-2 Zoning.
Mr. White answered that C-2 is Downtown. C-1 is the zoning typically along Court Street
or Road 68.
Commissioner Bachart asked what the zoning was for the building that triggered the need
for this code amendment.
Mr. White responded that it was zoned C-1.
Commissioner Bowers asked for examples that didn't follow design standards of what isn't
desired in a C-1 Zone.
Mr. White couldn't think of another example other than the building directly west of the
Gesa Credit Union on Sylvester Street.
Chairman Cruz added that the goal is to uphold consistent curb appeal without overly
impugning property owners.
Commissioner Polk stated that the reason the particular building in question seems so out
of place is because it doesn't match the surrounding buildings and character of the
neighborhood, so she wouldn't mind language in the code addressing the style and
character of the existing neighborhood.
Chairman Cruz responded it gets touchy. The Planning Commission should address areas
because for example, Lowe's doesn't have to match Walmart but they both have to be
presentable.
-6-
Mr. White added that in further discussion, Commissioner Polk's concern might get
addressed.
(4) Should the standards apply to only certain street corridors?
Mr. White reminded the Commissioners that it would only pertain to the "O" and "C-1"
Zones in these corridors. The staff report contained a list of suggested corridors.
Commissioner Bowers stated that there should be caution in terms of"standards" because
different communities have different ideas as to what works for them and what is
attractive and the City should be as inclusive as possible.
Chairman Cruz responded that the staff report addresses those issues. It isn't about
making every building look the same, but rather, eliminating huge blighted buildings that
don't fit the neighborhood.
Commissioner Polk said that was her earlier point in that the building in question didn't
remotely match the character of the neighborhood. She would like the building to match
the neighborhood but not a specific design.
Commissioner Mendez asked about the Downtown Area.
Mr. White clarified that the Downtown Area is zoned C-2 and is common-wall construction
so the same concerns won't apply. There are some C-1 stand-alone buildings along those
streets.
Mr. White asked if the standards were imposed, would they only apply to the part of the
building or fagade facing the street or would they apply to the sides as well as the street
and in some cases, the rear. Staff would recommend the Commissioners only consider the
street facing facades for properties that are not adjoining residential properties but that
the sides and rear be addresses for properties that do adjoin residential properties.
Chairman Cruz agreed with the staff recommendation and the Commissioners were in
agreement.
Mr. White added that staff would like to require certain baseline items as "Mandatory" and
creating a second tier of items where the property owner could choose suggested
standards at their discretion, such as: massing and architectural features, prominent
entrance, fagade transparency, corner treatments, rear of building and screening of
electrical and mechanical equipment.
Chairman Cruz stated that he would be fine with "faux" features, such as fake windows,
for certain structures due to security reasons, etc.
Commissioner Polk asked if the pump house structure that went before the Planning
Commission a while back had fake windows.
David McDonald, City Planner, responded that the pump station mainly had brick and a
-7-
pitched roof and some landscaping.
Mr. White responded that what staff is looking for is an approach that establishes the
minimum baseline and allows a menu of options to choose for enhancing the baseline or
not.
Chairman Cruz replied that to Commissioner Bower's previous concerns of design
standards, this would offer a lot of flexibility to the property owners. Variety is good, this
is just to prevent an eye sore. These standards will help keep the character of the
neighborhood yet meet the functional requirements for the property owner.
Commissioner Bowers stated that she would like to see an example of the "faux" windows.
Mr. McDonald responded that a good example is on the Lowe's building on Road 68.
Commissioner Khan asked why Sandifur, Burden and Road 68 weren't listed and if it was
because there were already rules that apply to those areas.
Chairman Cruz stated those areas fall within the I-182 Overlay District.
Commissioner Bowers asked what the process is going to be moving forward.
Chairman Cruz answered that staff will draft a final proposed code amendment and bring
it back to the Planning Commission where a recommendation will be made to City
Council.
Commissioner Khan discussed using this as an opportunity to define neighborhoods by a
set of characteristics rather than a base, such as how the Downtown has a theme and
that theme is matched with facades, roofing and vegetation.
Commissioner Polk responded that the Downtown Area is her neighborhood and she
hopes that the proposed code amendment will protect her neighborhood from industrial
looking buildings.
Commissioner Bowers asked if there would be an opportunity for public comment.
Mr. White answered that when a more finished draft of the code amendment is ready a
public hearing will be held for public comment.
Chairman Cruz suggested examples for the next time it is brought back to the Planning
Commission. In terms of defining neighborhoods, that would be nice but a little difficult,
especially retroactively. Typically those would have to be enforced with restrictive
covenants which are either a boost or barrier to people developing.
Mr. White responded that the notion of having a menu might allow for what Commissioner
Khan was talking about to happen on its own.
There was no further discussion.
-8-
COMMENTS:
Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director, discussed having a special
meeting on July 30, 2015 at 7:00 p.m. to hold a public hearing for 2016 Community
Development Block Grant (CDBG) allocations. Commissioner Bowers, Commissioner
Mendez, Commissioner Greenaway, Chairman Cruz, Commissioner Polk and
Commissioner Portugal stated they could attend the special meeting.
With no further discussion or business, the Planning Commission was adjourned at
7:58 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
David McDonald, City Planner
-9-
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
MASTER FILE NO: SP 2015-006 APPLICANT: Franklin PUD
HEARING DATE: 6/18/2015 1411 W. Clark Street
ACTION DATE: 7/16/2015 Pasco, WA 99301
BACKGROUND
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-2-13 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
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 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 it is a
community service facility. Unclassified uses require special permit review
before being issued a building permit.
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
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.
2
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?
The PUD use of the proposed site is consistent with the land use 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 within the City. The
Comprehensive Plan (UT-2-A) encourages coordination between utility
providers' plans for utilities with City land use plans and development
3
permits. Policy UT-2-13 also encourages the design of utility substation to
be 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 generate traffic. The proposed use will support the electric utility
in that it will produce power rather than consume power.
(3) Will the proposed use be constructed, maintained and operated to be in
harmony with existing or intended character of the general vicinity?
The existing PUD facility has defined the general character of the
neighborhood 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 altered by the proposal.
(4) Will the location and height of proposed structures and the site design
discourage the development of permitted uses on property in the general
vicinity or impair the value thereof?
The height of the proposed structure (9 feet) will be less than the height 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 development 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 maybe the possibility of glare from the solar
panels. However, from the experience with the existing solar panels on
the PUD office building glare has not been an issue. In this case the
panels will be arranged differently but, will be elevated such that there
will be no glare that will impact vehicular traffic on surrounding streets.
4
(6) Will the proposed use endanger the public health or safety if located and
developed where proposed, or in any way will become a nuisance to uses
permitted in the district?
The operations of the existing PUD facilities including the solar panels on
the main office building have not created health and safety issue and nor
have they become a nuisance to adjoining properties.
APPROVAL CONDITIONS
1) This Special Permit shall apply to the west half of Block 6 and all of
Block 5, Pettit's Second Addition (Franklin County Tax Parcel
112271409);
2) The site shall be developed in substantial conformance with the site plan
submitted with the Special Permit application;
3) The Special Permit shall be null and void if a building permit has not
been obtained by August 1, 2016.
RECOMMENDATION
MOTION for Findings of Fact: I move to adopt findings of fact and
conclusions therefrom as contained in the July 16, 2015 staff report.
MOTION for Recommendation: I move based on the findings of fact
and conclusions as adopted the Planning Commission recommend the
City Council grant a special permit for community solar system on tax
parcel # 112-271-409 with conditions as contained in the July 16, 2015
staff report.
5
Item: Special Permit - Solar Project
Vicinity N
Ma p Applicant: Franklin PUD
File #: SP 2015-006
y
TT °P 11
i
- 1
BONNE VILL
- - SITE
Y � �
�_ 'LARD ST .
-�7- -lq
l'
F
rt
Y
.�
LEWIS ST
Land Use Item: Special Permit - Solar Project
Applicant: Franklin PUD N
Map File #: SP 2015-006
_ 9
City Park HOPKINS S Residential
Library � \
BONNEVILLE ST �� � ` CoMtneCC�a1
9G
E 71
Residential SIT
� CLARK ST
Commercial
CRes. Comm.
t7l Comm.
FCommeivi�,
LEWIS ST
Y
Zoning Item: Special Permit - Solar Project Applicant: Franklin PUD N
Map File #: SP 2015-006
� �E L 1 � � � � � � � � � � � � � S
R-2
(Medium-Density Residential)
HOPKINS S
R-1
R-1
(Low-Density Residential) �
BONNEVILLE ST
-2 7,
� SIT
L] LL L
G1
yc-1 >, (Retail Business)
C CLARK ST
LL.C-1 R-3 C-1
x LEWIS ST
C-3
(General Business)
A`i nn ppi
I-�51WPPWIMW-
W- J
F,in f]fro D
rim,
- t
Looking No rth
Looking
Looking West
I�eFR-Rl,�
i56,
.I.r.
a r
s�
South Wall Panels
�1
Is M,
7771P
West Wall Panel
1l P
1 V y�
I
If elevated and used to cover parking, community solar system would look similar to this but smaller.
(One double-sided row would be covered.)
'Aw.
T �F r1
��' - �'3 •�� - t ,1,
rr� 1
y.
rT r-
�r
•� � r .9'+_/ T+� b � '1.nq:z
15k,
• • r r -• • ISM• r r •r r r
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
MASTER FILE NO: SP 2015-02 APPLICANT: Pasco School District #I
HEARING DATE: 7/16/15 1215 W Lewis St
ACTION DATE: 8/20/15 Pasco, WA 99301
BACKGROUND
REQUEST: SPECIAL PERMIT: Stevens Middle School Site Improvements
1. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION:
Legal: A portion of the SW 1/4 of the NE Quarter of NE 1/4 of Section 25,
Township 9 North, Range 29 East, W.M. contained within Parcel
# 119332080 adjoining parcels and Hillhaven Addition.
General Location: 1120 22nd Avenue
Property Size: Approximately 16.18 acres
2. ACCESS: The site is accessible from 22nd Avenue and 241h Avenue
3. UTILITIES: All municipal utilities serve the school site.
1. 4. LAND USE AND ZONING: The site is zoned R-2 and R-3 (Medium
Density Residential) and is developed with The Stevens Middle School
Campus. The zoning and land use of the surrounding properties are as
follows:
NORTH: C-1 - Commercial Businesses
SOUTH: R-2 & R-3 -Multi-Family Residences
EAST: R-1 - Single Family Residences
WEST: R-2- Single Family and Multi-family Residences
S. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The Comprehensive Plan designates the site
as public and quasi-public uses. Goal CF-5 suggests adequate
provisions should be made for educational facilities located throughout
the urban growth area. Policy CF-5-A encourages the appropriate
location and design of schools throughout the community.
6. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The City of Pasco is the lead
agency for this project. Based on the SEPA checklist, the adopted City
Comprehensive Plan, City development regulations, and other
information, a threshold determination resulting in a Determination of
Non-significance (DNS) has been issued for this project under WAC 197-
11-158.
DISCUSSION
Stevens Middle School was constructed in 1960 and has been a part of the
surrounding neighborhood for the past 55 years. As the community has
grown Stevens Middle School and the school site have been modified to meet
increased enrollment. Since 2010 the School District has been working on
plans to improve vehicular and pedestrian safety around the school. In 2011
the Planning Commission reviewed plans for a new parking lot on the east side
of 22nd Avenue and new bus staging and unloading area for the parking lot to
the north of the school. The first phase of the plan was completed in 2014 with
the construction of the new parking lot across 22nd Avenue from the main
entrance of the school. The next phases of the plan called the construction of
the new bus staging area on the north side of the school with bus traffic being
re-routed from 22and Avenue to 24th Avenue. Additionally to improve traffic
safety at the new bus entrance on 24th Avenue and to eliminate safety concerns
of having 960 students a day across 24th Avenue (1,920 students crossing for
going over and back) to the sports field a portion of 24th Avenue is proposed to
be closed. Closing that portion of 24th Avenue between the sports fields and the
main school campus will enable the School District to enlarge the sports fields
to regulation size and eliminate the need for students crossing 24th Avenue for
PE activities or sports games.
Closing 24th Avenue will require the School District to reconstruct the
intersections at Octave and Marie Streets and modify street drainage facilities
and possibly relocate a fire hydrant. Coordination with the PUD will also be
required for undergrounding power lines.
Closing 24th Avenue will undoubtedly impact traffic circulation around the
sports fields. Adjustments will have to be made to daily travel for residents of
the neighborhood. However these adjustments will involve an extra turn or two
and in a few cases require perhaps two blocks of additional travel. It is
anticipated people will adjust their travel to 26th Avenue and 22nd Avenue and
the east/west streets thought he neighborhood. The attached Traffic Report
indicates there would be less than one additional vehicle per minute during
most hours of the day on the new travel routes. The impact to traffic
circulation will be offset the elimination of 960 students crossing 241h Avenue
to attend PE classes. This will be a significant safety improvement.
2
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 located in an R-2 zone.
2. The Comprehensive Plan identifies the site for public and quasi-public
uses.
3. Comprehensive Plan Goal CF-5 suggests that adequate provisions should
be made for the location of educational facilities throughout the urban
growth area.
4. Schools are conditional land uses in the R-S-1 zone and require review
through the special permit process prior to permitting for construction.
5. Stevens Middle School has been located at the current site for the past
55 years.
6. The Planning Commission considered a Stevens Middle School re-
development plan during a Special Permit review in 2011. The
Development plan included a new parking lot on the east side of 22nd
Avenue a revised bus parking area on the north side of the school and
bus access from 24th Avenue rather the 22nd.
7. The Stevens School sports fields are separated from the main school
campus by North 24th Avenue.
8. Nine hundred and sixty Stevens Middle School students are required to
cross 24th Avenue to access the sports fields for PE classes on a
consistent basis during the school year.
9. The access gate from the main Stevens Campus for crossing 24th Avenue
is midway between Octave Street and Marie Streets. There is no cross
walk at this location.
10. A Traffic Study was prepared for the proposed street closure in July of
2014. The study indicated motorists will shift their travel to 22nd Avenue
and 26th Avenue. This would result in less than one additional vehicle
per minute on those streets during most hours of the day.
11. 22nd Avenue and 26th Avenue are connected to Court Street with a traffic
signal.
12. 24th Avenue is not connected to Court Street with a traffic signal.
3
CONCLUSIONS BASED ON STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT
Before recommending approval or denial of a special permit the Planning
Commission must draw its conclusion from the findings of fact based upon the
criteria listed in P.M.C. 25.86.060. The criteria and staff listed conclusions are
as follows:
1) Will the proposed use be in accordance with the goals, policies, objectives
and text of the Comprehensive Plan?
The proposed use supports the following plan policies or goals: CF-5
suggests adequate provisions be made for educational facilities
throughout the Urban Growth Area. The Comprehensive Plan land use
map indicated the site is to be developed with public and quasi-public
land uses. Schools are a public land use.
2) Will the proposed use adversely affect public infrastructure?
Stevens Middle School has been located on the site for over 50 years and
has not adversely impacted public infrastructure. The proposal will not
increase the need for municipal utilizes. The proposal will impact the
current configuration of the neighborhood street network by decreasing
vehicle trips on 24th avenue and cause a slight increase in traffic on 22nd
avenue and 26the Avenue.
3) Will the proposed use be constructed, maintained and operated to be in
harmony with existing or intended character of the general vicinity?
Stevens Middle School is part of the neighborhood character and has
been for 55 years. Schools are typically located in or near residential
neighborhoods and are an accepted part of the character of residential
areas.
4) Will the location and height of proposed structures and the site design
discourage the development of permitted uses on property in the general
vicinity or impair the value thereof?
The construction and height of the school will not be altered as a part
of the site redevelopment. The neighborhood is fully developed as a
result there is no development to discourage. Past experience has
shown the location of schools within Pasco neighborhoods has not
impaired the value of residential development within those
neighborhoods.
4
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?
Experience has shown that schools within Pasco generate few
complaints from neighbors. Schools typically are not a source of dust,
fumes, vibrations or flashing lights. During weekends, the summer
break, and other break periods very little activities occurs on school
sites.
6) Will the proposed use endanger the public health or safety if located and
developed where proposed, or in anyway will become a nuisance to uses
permitted in the district?
The proposal with the closure of 24th Avenue will enhance public safety
be eliminating the need for 960 students to cross a public street to
access fields for PE classes
Proposed Approval Conditions
1. The special permit shall apply to Parcel Nos. 119341114,
119332080, 119362333, 119362093 and 119362342 and any
subsequent parcel # use to consolidate the parcel numbers
referenced herein.
2. The school site shall be developed in substantial conformity with
the site plan submitted with the special permit application.
3. The School District sign a letter of agreement with the City prior to
beginning design work on the plans for closing 241h Avenue
between Marie Street and Octave Street.
4. The letter of agreement shall identify the steps necessary for
closure of 24th Avenue including a time line for street vacation.
5. The School District shall be responsible for all engineering, design
construction costs, and utility relocation costs associated with the
closure of 24th Avenue.
6. The special permit shall be null and void if a permit for site
redevelopment has not been obtained by December 31, 2017.
5
RECOMMENDATION
MOTION: I move to close the hearing on the proposed site
redevelopment for the Stevens Middle School site and
initiate deliberations and schedule adoption of findings
of fact, conclusions and a recommendation to the City
Council for the August 20, 2015 meeting.
6
Vicinity Item: Special Permit
Map A plicant: Pasco School District
File #: SP 2015-002
. ...... ...
t•
41
MEN
40
IL
MAR
age
.j
s ►
zu
MOM_ Y�
Land Use Item: Special Permit
A
Map plicant: Pasco School District
File #: SP 2015-002
Commercial Commercial
Commercial
"19 1 OWJ I
LCommercial
Zoning Item: Special Permit
A
Map plicant: Pasco School District
File #: SP 2015-002
C-1
(Retail Business)
C-1
R-4 (Retail Business)
ensity Res.)
MARIE
0 TAVE S
R-3 R-3
(Medium-Density Res.) (Medium-Density Res.)
HENRYST
S SEEN
I
I
ooking North
.......... ......
EJ
_ r -
•
g
Loo In East
r �
I �a
Its
.7
c
_ -, �'`.-..•a_'° _ - .. y✓'s' ri.x -.;`. Y rip.,.;�,-..,.:;;;F& .r,�� t.r*k w = -r�r .,k - _ -_,��-`,�'-.. ,s��:.. .. -.
Looking West 907
,,n
Site
I q-
C
C3
m
C3
E.
Y
U
t
n_ Q�
it
BLDG U
` Co
LLI
w �
.�. 0.G 200 g
I &.0G 00
Z
CL
x
w
w
min 5w
PU
c7
l 1 1 is
I T
Q
ill P
S
' PROPOSED SITE PLAN
Y u'ry1L,
1
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
MASTER FILE NO: SP 2015-008 APPLICANT: Verizon Wireless
HEARING DATE: 7/16/2015 c/o Land Services Northwest
ACTION DATE: 8/20/2015 PO Box 302
Bend, OR 97709-0302
BACKGROUND
REQUEST: SPECIAL PERMIT: Location of Wireless Communication Facilities
in an R-S-1 (Suburban) Zone
1. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION:
Legal: Parcel #117 190 022: the W1/2 of the NW1/4 of the SE1/4: together
with the E1/2 of the NE1/4 of the SE1/4 of the NE1/4, all in Section 14,
Township 9 North, Range 29 East W.M., Franklin County, WA: and
together with that portion of the S1/2 of the S1/2 of the NE1/4 of said section
14 as conveyed to the city of Pasco under auditor's file no. 482245.
General Location: Northeast corner of Desert Plateau Drive and Horizon
Drive
Property Size: The parcel is approximately 10.55 acres; the lease area
contains 1,354.4 square feet.
2. ACCESS: The site is accessed from Desert Plateau and Horizon Drives.
3. UTILITIES: All municipal utilities are currently available to the site.
4. LAND USE AND ZONING: The site is currently zoned R-S-1 (Suburban)
and contains a potable water reservoir. Surrounding properties are zoned
and developed as follows:
NORTH: R-S-1 -McGee Elementary School and Park
SOUTH: R-S-1 - Single-Family Residences
EAST: R-S-1 - Single-Family Residences
WEST: R-S-1 - Single-Family Residences
5. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The Comprehensive Plan designates the site
for low-density residential uses. Goal OF-2 suggests the City ought to
maintain land use flexibility in regard to placement of infrastructure for
1
public and private utilities. Policy OF-2-A encourages the sound
management of all energy and communication utilities through
coordination and cooperation dealing with construction of such facilities.
Policy OF-2-B encourages the placement of utility substations which are
necessary for the surrounding neighborhood.
6. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The City of Pasco is the lead
agency for this project. Based on the SEPA checklist, the adopted City
Comprehensive Plan, City development regulations, and other
information, a threshold determination resulting in a Determination of
Non-Significance (DNS) has been issued for this project under WAC 197-
11-158.
ANALYSIS
Verizon Wireless is requesting special permit approval to locate a 49' stealth
monopole antenna support structure and associated ground-based equipment
in a fenced, landscaped area just east of the water reservoir at the Northeast
corner of Desert Plateau Drive and Horizon Drive. The proposed tower will be
located a few feet northeast of the existing radio communication tower at the
southeast corner of the reservoir. The current 30-foot tall tower is used by the
City's Public Works Department to monitor and control valves, pumps and
equipment related to the delivery of water and sewer services in the City.
Unlike the existing City tower the proposed tower will utilize a stealth antenna
support structure that will be painted with a color to blend in with the sky.
The applicant's request is an effort to fill a coverage/capacity gap between
Roads 36 and 44. The installation is intended to better support existing users
between Roads 36 and 44 and would also potentially increase Verizon's ability
to support more users in the same area (See coverage maps).
Wireless Facility zoning regulations were specifically developed to permit
(through special permit review) cellular tower/antenna equipment on publicly
owned facilities, including water reservoirs, as per PMC 25.70.075.
The PMC special permit review criteria for wireless facilities are written as
follows:
25.70.075 WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITIES.
Wireless Communication Facilities are permitted under the
following conditions:
(1) Such structures shall be permitted in all industrial or C-3
zoning districts provided the location is 500 feet or more from a
residential district. Any location closer than 500 feet requires
special permit approval.
(2) Such structures may be permitted by special permit in all
other zoning districts provided said structures are:
2
(a) Attached to or located on an existing or proposed
building or structure that is higher than thirttl-five (35) feet:
or
(b) Located on or with a publicly owned facility such as a
water reservoir, fire station, police station, school, count
port. acj l
(3) All wireless communication facilities shall comply with the
following standards
(a) Wireless facilities shall be screened or camouflaged by
employing the best available technology. This may be
accomplished by use of compatible materials, strategic location,
color, stealth technologies, and/or other measures to achieve
minimum visibility of the facility when viewed from public
rights-of-way, and adjoining properties such that a casual
observer cannot identify the Wireless Communication Facility.
(b) Wireless facilities shall be located in the City in the
following order of preference:
i) Attached to or located on buildings or structures
higher than 35 feet.
ii) Located on or with a publicly owned facility
iii) Located on a site other than those listed in a) or b).
Commonly, cellular providers locate the equipment cabinets within a fenced
area surrounding the base of a pole; in this case the ground-level equipment is
proposed to be housed in a metal shelter designed for functionality. Renditions
submitted with the application show a fenced and landscaped enclosure
surrounding the ground-based equipment. The screening must meet design
requirements of the I-182 Overlay District (PMC 25.58).
A determination of non-significance from the FAA has been obtained by the
applicant according to the TOWAIR (or Landing Slope Facility Calculator)
software program; as required by PMC 25.70.075(4) a copy has been included
in the application submittal.
Furthermore, the Southwest Regional Office of the Federal Aviation
Administration Obstruction Evaluation Group posted the following comments
in a memo sent May 5, 2015:
Initial findings of this study indicate that the structure as
described exceeds obstruction standards and/or would have an
adverse physical or electromagnetic interference effect upon
navigable airspace or air navigation facilities. Pending resolution of
the issues described below, the structure is presumed to be a
hazard to air navigation.
3
If the structure were reduced in height so as not to exceed 49 feet
above ground level (560 feet above mean sea level), it would not
exceed obstruction standards and a favorable determination could
subsequently be issued.
As the current plan specifies a tower height limited to 49 feet it appears this
issue has been resolved. A building permit cannot be issued for the proposed
tower unless and until the proper FAA forms are submitted with the
application indicating the proposed tower will not interfere with airspace or
airport operations. The applicant has resubmitted the FAA paper work for a 49
foot tower as indicated in the May 5, 2015 FAA memo and is expecting
approval.
Typical neighborhood concerns expressed over proposed cell towers in the past
have included fear of electromagnetic radio waves and the unsightliness of tall
towers within the neighborhood. Under Federal regulations cities are barred
from considering electromagnetic radio waves in the permitting process for cell
towers. An application for a cell tower cannot be conditioned or denied based
on concern over electromagnetic waves.
The site location and height restrictions placed on the proposed tower by the
FAA will help address possible concerns over the height of the tower. At 49 feet
the tower will be less than 20 feet taller than the street lights in the
neighborhood. However a portion of the tower height will be mitigated or
obscured by the height of the water reservoir and the arborvitae hedge around
the reservoir. The proposed tower will also be located over 100 feet from any
property line or street, providing some distance between the tower and
adjoining properties. The landscaped equipment compound at the base of the
tower will also help screen the east wall of the reservoir from the residential
properties to the east.
INITIAL STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT
Findings of fact must be entered from the record. The following are initial
findings drawn from the background and analysis section of the staff report.
The Planning Commission may add additional findings to this listing as the
result of factual testimony and evidence submitted during the open record
hearing.
1. The site is zoned R-S-1 (Suburban).
2. The Comprehensive Plan identifies the site for low-density residential
uses.
3. The site is approximately 10.55 acres in area; the lease area is 1,354.4
square feet.
4
4. The site contains the main City water reservoir of approximately 72,838
square-feet in area and associated equipment and communication tower.
The existing communication tower is approximately 30 feet in height.
S. The proposed tower incorporates stealth features into the design to hide
all wiring and antennas from surrounding streets and property.
6. The proposed tower will be partially obscured on the west and southwest
by the existing water reservoir and hedge along the south side of the
reservoir.
7. All municipal utilities currently serve the site.
8. In the R-S-1 zone cellular towers may be permitted by special permit
provided the tower is either:
i) Attached to or located on an existing or proposed building or
structure that is higher than thirty-five (35) feet; or
ii) Located on or with a publicly owned facility such as a water
reservoir, fire station, police station, school, county or port
facility.
9. The cellular tower will be adjacent a publicly owned water reservoir.
10. The overall tower height will be 49 feet.
11. Equipment serving the proposed antennae within the tower will be
located within a 1,354.4 square-foot fenced and landscaped lease area.
12. Federal regulations bar the City from considering electromagnetic radio
waves in the permitting process for cell towers or conditioning or denying
permits based upon concerns over electromagnetic radio waves.
13. The proposed tower will be set back over 100 feet from adjoining streets
and property lines.
14. The landscaped screening for the tower equipment will obscure a portion
of the bare eastern wall of the reservoir from adjoining residential
properties.
15. The Comprehensive Plan suggests the City should maintain land use
flexibility with regard to placement of infrastructure for public and
private utilities.
16. The Comprehensive Plan does not specifically address cellular
equipment.
17. Cellular equipment creates minimal demands on City infrastructure.
18. The proposed cellular tower site is located on the east side of the main
City reservoir in an area that is not landscaped or improved in any way
except for fencing.
5
TENTATIVE CONCLUSIONS BASED ON INITIAL STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT
Before recommending approval or denial of a special permit the Planning
Commission must develop findings of fact from which to draw its conclusions
based upon the criteria listed in PMC 25.86.060. The criteria are as follows:
(1) Will the proposed use be in accordance with the goals, policies, objectives
and text of the Comprehensive Plan?
The Comprehensive Plan does not specifically address cellular
equipment. The Comprehensive Plan goal OF-2 and policy OF-2-A
discuss the need for sound management and coordination in the
location of utilities and community facilities. Policy ED-1-C promotes
the need to support Pasco's urban area as a good business environment
by enhancing the infrastructure of the community. The applicability of
policy ED-1-C is enhanced due to the fact that the new tower will
provide more/better service primarily to commercially zoned properties.
Policy UT-1-C encourages coordination of utility providers' functional
plans with the City's land use and utility plans to ensure long term
service availability.
(2) Will the proposed use adversely affect public infrastructure?
The proposed use is a part of the communication network utilized by the
general public. The proposed equipment will be located in such a
manner so as not to impact other public utilities or services. The
proposed use does not require water and sewer. Only one service trip is
expected to be generated each month.
(3) Will the proposed use be constructed, maintained and operated to be in
harmony with existing or intended character of the general vicinity?
The character of the vicinity is dominated by residential suburban
development but also includes a public school and the main City
reservoir with ancillary equipment such as a 30 foot communication
tower. The antenna tower enclosure will be located adjacent to the 10-
million gallon municipal water reservoir and park area.
(4) Will the location and height of proposed structures and the site design
discourage the development of permitted uses on property in the general
vicinity or impair the value thereof
The neighborhood is fully developed with permitted uses which were
located in the neighborhood well after the construction of the water
reservoir. The antenna tower enclosure will be located adjacent a
municipal water reservoir and public park area. Market conditions
within the Tri-Cities general account for variations in the assessed value
of residential properties in the community. The values of homes to the
west of the water towers on Road 76 (with multiple cellular antennas)
6
have shown little variation in values according to the Franklin County
Assessor's records.
(5) Will the operations in connection with the proposal be more objectionable to
nearby properties by reason of noise, fumes, vibrations, dust, traffic, or
flashing lights than would be the operation of any permitted uses within
the district?
The proposed cellular equipment will create no fumes, dust or noise
during normal operations. An emergency generator may start up in
cases of power outages, but this would be rare. Cellular facilities have
been located throughout the community in residential, commercial and
industrial zones without generating any complaints received by the City.
The cellular site is a part of a large area located east of the water
reservoir that is not treated with landscaping elements as is the rest of
the reservoir property.
(6) Will the proposed use endanger the public health or safety if located and
developed where proposed, or in any way become a nuisance to uses
permitted in the district?
The proposal is required to be designed by a professional engineer to
withstand the forces of nature. The applicant is also required by law to
coordinate with the FAA and FCC prior to obtaining a building permit.
The FAA has made an initial determination that the tower can be no
taller than 49 feet. Verizon will be required to provide a copy of the
Determination of No Hazard to Air Navigation before a building permit
can be issued. Radio waves at frequencies utilized by local cellular
networks have not been proven to be harmful to human health. Radio
wave activity is focused on the antennas which are elevated
approximately 40 to 50 feet above grade, away from human activity.
Federal law prohibits the City from considering the impacts of radio
wave frequencies when reviewing permits for cellular towers. The
operation of the emergency generator could become a nuisance if not
designed and constructed to mitigate noise impacts on the
neighborhood.
TENTATIVE APPROVAL CONDITIONS
1) The special permit shall apply to parcel #117 190 022;
2) The property shall be developed in substantial conformity with the
elevations and site plan submitted with the application except as
conditioned herein;
3) The cellular antennae tower shall not exceed 49 feet in height as
measured from existing grade;
4) The cellular antennae shall be enclosed within a stealth assembly
tower surround;
7
5) The tower enclosure shall be painted to provide addition camouflaging
of the tower;
6) Verizon shall coordinate with the City to develop a landscaping plan
for the unimproved area on the east side of the water reservoir.
Through a mutual agreement the landscaping plan shall be
implemented with the City accepting maintenance responsibility
when the landscaping is completed;
7) The landscaping plan must be submitted as a part of the tower and
equipment enclosure permitting package;
8) The ground-level equipment shall be located within a landscaped and
sight-screened enclosure which fully blocks the view from all
directions at the time of installation. Design of the sight-screening
shall meet the requirements of the I-182 Overlay District (PMC 25.58);
9) The proposed cellular facility must comply with all FCC and FAA
regulations;
10) The tower shall not emit light. If the FAA requires a strobe light the
tower shall be lowered to a point that a strobe is not required;
11) The emergency generator shall be muffled or screened with a solid
wall to eliminate the impact of associated noise. Noise levels shall not
exceed Class A "Environmental Designation for Noise Abatement'
(EDNA) standards, as per PMC 9.61.
12) The special permit shall be null and void if a City of Pasco building
permit is not obtained by December 30, 2016.
RECOMMENDATION
MOTION: I move to close the hearing on the proposed Verizon
Wireless Cellular Tower and initiate deliberations and
schedule adoption of findings of fact, conclusions and
a recommendation to the City Council for the August
20, 2015 meeting.
8
Item: Wireless Cell Tower
Overview Applicant: Verizon Wireless Q
Map File SP 2015 -008
a RUN mig N ,
�� flRilfi iii > ! rte$@G� wGu��'Fr�ftilYl fu�crsilira Uade�a # �#� �wE�'!v'�f�'
" M■ ■ r�fiiaa�li�11®r war. �� ■ ■■ a�ON f�NMEN■ sir sa it
! iiiiil '`' ■
,���.�C��a. wr .,s . �,c� ■■f6 ■ii■■ii ii #�r3i#'ii#I!■at ■ .+ / zdf' �Ysy.�
�� �'� � i,+lr ■ GCC.Cra� ,rte +-
.a - �wlrfine���>,wiaa craw r.y
r � IWl�ig ■ ii '+�� G��#®K fi■� � ;rn�@��1��_,■ 1G5:GJ 61 so 6
� ' ' ■r GGiii GGGi�IG�fiQG .. '
�� � ■ G�6 CaGO:G�� ,gra
Now a
e ++�� b � �i rrr gad■ iila■■td WfidiGl"�iwLlII�I rl��iP v
� � N�����M� ����G aw Ili ■idfii■ 'dad's 'a`rG��if�i#ii# ia9 �llfii�ly�°°���"
.�.. arl� �. ayrr e�sr ■��■ YiMii �! I�,� � ■�} #,,
r4�' Q �Gr rr, ■ nt� lrF # r+ �>r er!r rr 3ib�
i«' � i�ra�Vll�f�;�■ ■'�, r?�i ',�'��►'��w, � �_ +rr�•� ���ra ��fy ■ �s gMd
iv �r ■Q 3� � rr � _y. ,. . .. � "� a�� tam ■ � ii �r aarra � � 'r I�!•
G awr a� day�r " +�'� slim iii ar�� q' 63a
ball 3i6er rirf�i� C * '� ?'r'ri► ® � i
,p.si rr�� ��.��iw+'t�fi ■I IrIM ■�
BIG MEW
pil CDC W
rr nrrr w s � r�lli�aa'l �� lk�sif 1€t
No a�l� r ar ■r�r :.
I� ilaii�i#!i axe - r,DoR
rdtir rr rrrar
saw rr ra. �#1�11�i�w � � � �[ �° �� G �ar$k3al�i�#•• � ��.] 4'
aM � r r+Ax asrar or �� �l` Fyn,.' sue' ■ ,� -` aakr#!d#��s: � �'
parr rirl
ra
IN
IN A
_ lam:■�����/# ##1 �„+��wr �i�'�ti�#file#�� aat�
i �" ..�,� ► ' '� Ida
• Item: Wireless Cell Tower
Vicinity Map
Applicant: Verizon Wireless N
File #: SP 2015 -008
J �:+ — u TUSAYAN DR �
CO
�'Af�ARADR __ ■ ` i
LU
t4-
1r °'
f # HILLTL7P DR SANTA ANNA_LP
s
SITE
DESERT Ps
,
low .�
I 1
DESERT PLATEAU DR `
J
, r
400
��
Item: Wireless Cell Tower
Land Use Applicant: Verizon Wireless N
Map File SP 2015 -008
NONE
in NONE
a I MAN -wmqn
zoning
Map Applicant: Verizon Wireless N
File SP 2015 -008
ooki* ng
AIM&
• c
-
r
a
yy • - - _
Ykj IYVi. - :14_ -. r
2 4_
at ,
- -
4r r -
°. 1
Looking
49�
WWI
k
i ■1E�eV
r
34��d►9 R
• � ����C:as7 M1��� � t'.' _ °: s..`�� ifs �« �;!� �iY � r. .. f �-
OPEN
1 ay avy4,
Y
3 �
A
Lo
Ilk
MiMlw -
Ned
rn�,�# s �rw �1 �j^i [+���r'r�i r \Y^Y4r��,�Y� �f. „�rs t �AS�.✓2,hfWty it'r
{.
i�;i Pr tit
T - 1 lr4 ° ; �� � � 3 �� �j. •%mod ft y r. ' r r� � hs�'K k.t J^h ; v } � ',' i 7 s 1 r J .-J
.y t y. f$�`CT"Y� h'�'+f � � � �j �,x�y a wP� •�, ns � �j v r xy4 khl r � ✓ �, r � x yy r� rf P f
-- � -' - - • 4 °t �r1 `°Ea� � E ?_y ; BEY { �t'.o- 'k 7 t � {�¢ i' h J 1 b° d N •' -
.4� �°� Nt kr 5k�' i°r'�.'l'�•�t'¢ 'v7 y 'S ' rlp.,z T a}'(^q d`°ry °����y ,SR�a roR3i�w�L r"f` /r J ,�
-
.. a.� il'''.,- f;42 .a
f".1 `7y <n--V-
'- ,f•°3r r*'dip ak'.: f '�_. ._^�4r k „ c _ f r r:::,.r �1 wi r .:.A +;h;y{ 9}~r:f„�.pR��P�aS YEY��:J�S'�`G°F�,r k�.N�'i".y,}. fh TrPo'3` * �Y }r r
'y.Iy...•�Rt�?+a�..4�',';�si � i..�\ 1r4F,�{'."_f' `l..V;'� �, �y�.,.t. S ..�..,r .:.i� Jr'.n�10'� 1Sl 4 t,,!l�t�ft 1✓1 `��l�h�,��+�.`� s �t t s�-;1 � '..� y�E.•{i:�_,cr f r � :'.l , •i' 4 Je.I"�
'! r-f �, -'cYil .� vYft -•.... 44. tr �., (iY hkJa.�,s,5C73ybr•,':°� If,
t",41c,',fi ,� •J,c: Sr ..' .,:r w y9'y,r� f r,r4 k.:;: h � :`: s.+. `r '+.
�.. - i.��: ..! .Me..iJ�.i ��.,.:�•Y.. .% �.�:�' � t,.,+.a;: � ''4 y«I r. .rr, plt
._.�'�Ysiy;+r- �r_� . o.!`�. f .°i :"-� it y.1?'r=.:3 "rS,,?f+ h �r,...s,. pV.. «.� tFt+7-.�.fir Fr�V.{ ,..- � ,:a" a. � u.'�• r'�•e. ,,,,'ktAl t+a�..:-a� h ,�i�l'kaa ��.;: ,f�'?. -t •<
}r�:-lr'i.� �'�:'a `l.r.• 4�': -:.k6'�'•i 'l,..'li�,��.�{, r ..k �Rud°+�;w�y� � i i�s r'r, {��,�N fir, M,y .,'.his,
�•_[y 3 �� "�..-'f: m�`•, f. �'4^"','. ,a 'F'v-::- w- r J 1� Y'� t.,N,-J.�'rqy r '. qd h�',; Ml. '��?B k,Y ;k! ,t+ �p:.'t �� r hs u 7 -,� !"yvc � �
wr:Ry►� "l"_� aii - �y' p.� f, Ar rr"o`ryt°�!I_�?`c � �,,�'i. �TdF° ./.. * �� '+5; �� %J � i..{'�,4... a�. b,.o?-r•�I, r=tt s �'f'T _
�` a .K
?`�95,.. �yi. Y fj •�•.�y�b y�.1 x fir J r`� tYy��•rrN`')'fi ,g rt � x�"q�;�� .� N'�t de ri 7 iJ( i ) He s� ..e '4 ,F n f �t a. r r �
(.>>�s• ` ', i, ��� 17�=✓3 � -r',�� {+ •; .�''C'!r 77'T.?r6t�� # 1r. tk44`['�P� ,�-,t' � g� �f�� y,,�_.n r� e�y,•✓1 � +..,y, r
:° �,�A =�+`r �� s":!�,"`� :„yy�`� �,... � d'4tr,•�.fi:�e�y�f.y�'�r s'.a?t "'t{ `�'�;kk� �^',>'+.� �''y�°'�`�i "� '�i� �,r k,,•"c'"'� a:'� �> 'rw
�.r e c�., e � r`,�y�,l {.r v ;p� F S?+,•-rr R l,F,� ,a; fi �d�f� 'Q'+�i �,i;4t�'r �-h _-t�` f J �;.
'++cy�;:ri�f• 1 �7,�"-wT=a'1h7�`rtil�yy`'i:'�-:�u�i.�f�..�LyYr:±,?�/-j a��i.'.'�i�:.�f''.'c�J:��t.'f,'�,YJr°'�. r."r'.�+�'lF}„T nip��ai'ked,..c..�,,_{'t9��_Y Yr.�e 'k�'�yy±�5�ha 1 f ri`y"i�,*"�✓..s��'r K.°.�'4h;t:-p s I'yd+`�l.�tkK st'v,y�t�`. ,�, ...,;.r.^M �y!rt{l,�,'`16 r n.�it l�^J�1 t_f J fl�:' SJr�;,,,.. i ,><,:. _ 'f�`n 4 y -...1ry•
;
ooki* ng W
r(('���tty�
... �.. _ -I - '•r - • any , �j '�`t ,;R -r'* t'a _ F 'Fw.;'
Ad
•
n
• Y'
a
S•-
:X t.,�s _,P ;'`f• _ �' ;� d�ja' . -.as'�''i:r',,•"i{s• '�i �q r•T1 _t,;4+,�" c � �3,bitr .t_iy ,�5+�_ ..� ;,_,4�d.�:-
+.� .k-
w �, �IfJ'1. ,� r, irr T- 'uT:. - 1p!A,"'H: �''A,.!7� a,�F, ._,�• � .�fq +�ti, �. `_'^{c�S'a*� a- s��,'�4..+K,. - :R"-tr
�`r✓�1,,ty
it
.i' aft a• i '�' '";! w P6�a,- • s '1 0.: . w++' a '� 5.- r„r� ':• .f ' nc, L_ -k,
r_5 e'i 'li y _L"` -r!" ..'- .: h l° ... ,u e�• --P", vi,:..lt°' ♦..4a'r" r__ T• `t-' �`?r- 4e. -
W- �-.. :- _ 2 '7�i• -%9d4+ .- I ' 1''' al r' �' P '.•`' .[.- '?,ii gee- i s
.� ... '. - � ,-...wt...•:r- �c�. �.;,:�r R,+. :',N.._°� }'.`..r 4`�*.s'aFP`�'•, '�i;'7'• +11.h. _ 1 f -f.' -is..! --ti
_, ,��. --.+. .r.- -as i��j_16rk c-' -i. 4� r�,..�.� �- ,w;-. fir`. '��r�';-` _x '� .�•. �.• yry-t9.�ti rtlo •-�.&!, �`=', J:�e `:w _
�. 7 ".a= ,.-•"�''"`. - -e',►a_"a ,u-.-=:3 .,�..,..',•'C= < ,,�4J
•y - l I-2 — .Y� 3 f.`' :2r•+' Y':t �a,.�, -_�_.a ���G"' .�,`:, .�. 'r`,•I-.'
_ .•'w-: Y 5.:-, _- i,� �;� � �� ..�^�-,1 C •Y`r'��t'?h �+... ,t �k�,"�+ u,tl, a. ,� .,t}'`- � � } �,• J =r�- <
- -e•��' - .: ti,�"�_�:p. r °� ,.9. tb. '"' �,'r"....wH .'�''6�:� .da d-. 'r:: -f�, "�` �K• �rT`�C..�'+ � � ��.a',
K. :► �. .- .- L"'- s . '•n` g v.tTa..; rt 44 -r' x'•4+"°-•'.fir :'•,i:'� .
T 5rl ? ar'a �t .: S " 1 e,
- - - f - h4"'+• ? �.5i.-' x. ',`r:�i'�`''4- ,r� °war t "trr°„LV h.,:7' '•4 sf" -
G _'- � t ; r ,_'.r.,• +:v;,:ur �c, :¢' : ,. ,� '•`�:� 1` ���"", � �r �i.+�it� ��-
._ .. ': , ..f"-Y" '^',� �'r'ti-.:•r�'lFi _ .q*� i1 .�,��. 11�s.y}S•,I a +k• '-.t, �-a �, 't'-:�e�''A-.,. •-�
.! , ,� �. .� �`.+�`'"r y :::�r. .•.;r,�+ i �_m ��� _`-�`� �'�;r„ ., l; a° �r o, °s_�'tl ,y`t b,i:;_`' r:?s��;,..�'�.,,~'.t ai4- -
.j
.d•. �'p .�' i ar r.f, �'y {ra -,e .R 3 w,T!a='i'r'.,�*d'P�,•,1 'i.
„x� .� §` aL
� iJ!,`t F.rt r [ .n• � rS�tPpIrV �, ti- ,f ,�,. r� *r+'_�,"�. rar'`-` rr; � ; ,G}�.r,' `•;�%'° �, _
- - - ;_t�4 f-�• 1'_ i �Y��r, i,. 'Y'h ..�a.'.S _ r','° .r�.� r i•�,..'a .�.Y,' �t lY:�_ ++r�.�, '"_Y t;,{ 1�z,
- .9[;LLf 4.".w..-•�#.' 4 rr. ri. .#,. "P" a p . r� L•.. - ^7 r.r•;4•e�iE'.�F e'�a;T+ r i:��1 -�p Y �� ..a`Iy�;'�Cit
?w .r'-ti+"• _*t. 1c'`'+�^ -
P:
r_ ,>w .;� rr,p� ".:.y-•. �.rT t,�� + E ;.x �� I .;� � � y„ •4• - 1� < - ��i��a Pt,r. ��,
r
r
+. � a� ) s'-�,. /;;gin°• s�Y IC��:.r•,�°� .+t'A�•� a_d.�1ya..s, _ Ty'A ��, 'S �tlFy�,�._- �' �L� i�F - - ,.�y 4 ,r r .�r�';
�.r., tl �. .;.• �'�i_ ... tl .,�, ,,,y/' y. .7 ..,,.-r^'[ ,r.t ,'y:.. t �l :l, '._. ,�• ?� j.w�^ .,�.y7 �. �^� !��•l�yy+
.- - iif #� ... 441:.,n�i, A.�i+.f#f'�s,��"III t'FY6 _ -�r ;.P. tyi .., ,•�'r {G, +l,n y - - ��p� sY ^.Cr�a .'_�P:
' - .._ '.Y'•• ya`•r.` a'4�J ,: r 7 .. Y ,,.:.. ,I_. .- ,,. ;' .j `_4e��,.1 J.� j I `3` ry� �wa.tih"� pA�",ir �_' R
—� �..; ^- � .v hy.). � v`'tl" r rr t� 45..„+r , _.��,tgl�,i' ..r?.�r/pn !^ � ,� >'°�� :a.y� e Mme, .iV1x _f - far.. „sf 5 ..�k•�r .�:Yfir�t'"v k �'.:.�`
- - <r- ..tiv •' f. 'i'i ='.JM .�.. _:..r �i. _1y�V..-r ..: .. ice+ 11 �',+.�..'7':- f 5 .1...1g,. �•� .ri' ,�p�.�.- "�
♦. -T4i' a a., �.r,r + ,r.:...a s .,iii�1 r.'+:y-:k r 4.1. "tea. .��`:�. r. x °r' :v,_. +.;' * k._-.a r -h,_�:e•T4 .:•.�'. ' �p
t'
, ._. __. "'..r,.h :� ..,-�:�, � d - D Pl�•.r.''. rpl. rJrl[�`' .��, [�:rti;u ! •r � .�..�.: .,S .4,_ .i.+i w�� (�A'. .r ..
v. -
,,:1' 1 f_ �' "t� ' '% '.. d.h -s. t+. ;' �tl , •.+tl +' �,. ;.� �:� ..,,, c _.i 5r !J'._ r,SC:. ;7..
�.. _:�: .'ly ..,.�� �. .a �.,;{.PM�1� ! ��� fP r: •i ti''.
�.. +-•+4et'.. �i '.a t � '.T k! ` ! a, s. '�G. 'r'i '.
� y
•. .'::+.. ty ,� rr,.w._: T.,r,�.,rl1,+.•. 1'.'r T w1a4w.' ,..r�.1r'r" ;+; ? rS ,>4 i f`''�lP ..'P.J: i'a�{�� h�'.L•. ,I -:,4: m✓'r
;. ;n „•.r J..°." ,'J• t6.a: r d1 '�7,,+�, -, 'Yr r'i b,.r..x pX tl."1� '•q * a,f+ .ti s•ct
„".� �:',YJ"-.¢ '''�,♦ r, .ten,.�1'�- '^.=.r ^.Il'r,°���dy� �” � r4! ,: 57��F � ;Sr. r t�,4: 'il +v' �ri '`a .1.•'.... _ .�;°e, �7 l'd:'a' � _ .4� �r'a. r��� '
1f ,.g.. tl•- -r ,. ..<. . ay. r.=„der..,, h.�'
i�!#& '�� y l,rr•� i,: 'r r,. ',}t. :V1'r : fir,....
- 'Pr'Js':. �s,. J� 5• it ° �f_ ,;i s, M.l a„ •P + �r �, '1`_Y',; �'u` ri�r, � .d' � � � �� � d � � a,•�.�, '� y_.'
��ii a•6,�.!' kf•J;4. J rn: ,.e..^A '� � .�,✓_�'.b rhr�[: e'Y; '� � !. '' '1� ,t' ''�'.i..
1.�
.T !t l+!^ ��•"-i✓. `f�.'�'� ! J. �,. 'F°µ_.r. �. T'. Y?_1"
r► +_il: r i. ,r . `.mow - 1,:. rlrl'. -_ , era ': w a° 1_ tl'
W�'��r:"!'i
sr�
i� .�-�4'r
3. � �.[gt 4 �!1_r z c ' 1 ` �1�.,f.�`' .- � � � r,., ti? 3"?' �F•-,t
I' "!: S + _ ;+ P .a. ,,,:La, a rTr. "e`�. r.•+r:. %�'»_ ::�'r i.. r,4J�?..ti '�''f ,1 Y�..�,.. v..J .wT.F '= ..,`�.,_ a� dl 'T1�,!h�.r,�,, ��+,�
,,w.l. r.1{`ti .� :�•' �.,' i.�j'. ;..y•_.�. 4 •! a..r t,'y�P.,., M9rr . r� ,�,r ..a4•�-�.�} -fit �-�;P1"�•f•s�,' ` .fi
l - .. _ r. h.,M,� �r•Y`d-r.y.. d -J. �i '�'•tr• V1`, l i�..ey4.TA��, - ..'WIJ:`,��.���5 - GYt•. -.�. 1.
,
�+C
� �ti,,it c :ar _� � .y'+��[t• .�- :r. �l,l.• � 9 y;�'.5�r_„�f�' ' rs:$."Y9P, �-' � t� �� y'{"� r'r' . �r.��`�Y�''e �-•"'� - r �
• i ' S' 1 'r;7�i �. 5 tJ':}` :x+'41+' �r art r�` A tl. fir•, y{`'' .P��I'. 7r`:- -
y �� .- ��ssRR��•• y� ( �1
�!i-. I1Pt.,.'+'`�-rs?'�h ..r�r � ,�. � r�• fi.4r'l�rl��ii erY i•_�',+`i+ E+.Ih I�I .r1e:�.ter: _;� ... ..._ ,.r!,1`- :4.. d x .
SI* te
"
.� ti
Y
T,
,r
i
t S
:
•Y
:
+ t
3
:
r'
7
l
r'
faL+ ;•. �
Exis, I 0�� ,e, ;,
..a s.t n.•u' �� '^�'�,�liL�-r'[r�L.�YSC..yY.ih'r- . -
Pump ouse hlorina/t t
1
I ■
—- —
icy .� � .,,..{,.. .1��- _ � l +. � � ?�•�� _ .�A'!-
I �
i
� I I Ve/'%�/lwireless
DISTANCE FROM TOWER w i I
TO PROPERTY LINE I �L LAND
EXIST SERVICES
NORTH: 613'± i BUILDING NORTHWEST
SOUTH: 55'-4"± 0_ - - - Drawings Produced By:
1 TO DESERT: 131'-9"± U i
PLATEAU CL '
EAST: 281'-5"± - -- -- -- -- -- -- -- �V
�7 Aq
WEST: 548'-7"± 1 GPA
ARCHITECTS LLC
2701 NW Vaughn,suite 764
JI NOTE: PROJECT PARCEL: { 503-274-7800 9721n
761 1 TAX LOT: 117190022
SOURCE & ROUTE OF NEW ZONING: R-S-1 SUBURBAN
0. .
UTILITIES TO BE DETERMINED. JURISDICTION: CITY OF PASCO
a€crs
II � nrscH ecr
EXIST.
/— — — BUILDINGS��R
f
J I EXISTING 6' FENCE
GALV. CHAIN LINK
. . . . ... . . . .
��
SCRUB \ N z a
BRUSH 0 a w o?
�& DIRT o �NL�
. . . . . . . 00
Z_J
1 K N Z z
EXISTING COVERED RESERVOIR V EXIST. C):z
PROJECT AREA q2,p BUILDING
Ln 2<
lad
, N wZOZ
yl U N L�
J -- ADJACENT PARCELS:
l ZONING: R-S-1 SUBURBAN
d j , JURISDICTION: CITY OF PASCO N woz
U 1 U K N L�
J
Z Q
1 I JJI / EXIST. TREE ° t4 L,
M Z 3
EXISTING 12"x3.5" ' - - .. BUILDING / / a o
CONC. CURB EXISTING
EXISTING LANDSCAPE ---—_= PUMP HOUSE �D /
No. Date By Revisions
(STING /" :..:..:.:.:.:...'...
BUFFER f TR FORMER / \ File no. 14-109
----------------------------------------
Date 05/19/15
PROPERTY LINE �------------ --
- Designed by
u_ - T�\,, �� G'R%a�S .. ... \� Drawn b
�r� / / NEW V.ER-f70N � / y
4VlRELESS.. \ Checked
-. . . . - 2O'.=Q'''.ACCESS/'.'. EXISTING 6' WOOD y
I
/' by
FEN
- \ .......
T � Approved b
N Dote issued
UTILITY ......... CE
T
' 'EASEMENT......
WIRELESS E ON \ Dame issued for
T /
. . .. . . . . _ /
Zoning
. . .Q �r`T\ ROAD \ Date issued for
. . . .. . . . . �S� — _ r�T / Budding Permit
BUILDING fare Bidsued
j Date issued
for Construction:
0 I'
Project title
/j /. . EXIST. TRI SAHARA
BUILDING BUIILDING / BUILDING BUILDING j / \4' / / BUILDING
TED OFF OF DESERT PLATEAU
i DRIVE,
PASCO. WA 99301
Sheet title
r-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- / OVERALL
Yt
EXISTING ADJACENT PARCELS: °� EXIST.
BUILDING ZONING: R-S-1 SUBURBAN I BUILDING SITE PLAN
JURISDICTION: CITY OF PASCO
OVERALL SITE PLAN 22X34 SCALE. 1/32" A1 .0
11X17 SCALE: 1/64"4" — 1'-0"0" /q
FENCE-EXISTING — ACCESS ROAD
veriNnwireless
I I LnNn
NEW HAMMERHEAD TURNAROUND
SERVICES
NORTHWEST
X 40'-0"
FENCED AREA Drawings Produced By:
• ----------------------- �
V
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS LLC
30'-0" BUFFER Portland,OR97210uite764
10'-0" LEASE AREA 503-274-7800
SETBACK �`
I 2'-4" I
I NEW 12'-0" WIDE ACCESS GATE
EXISTING COVERED RESERVOIR I
REGIS
nrscH ec1
PLOMW
I
BOUNDARY
- -- x- - --- -- LINE
NEW VERIZON I rn �ZJ
WIRELESS vN Z a
NATURAL GAS a w o?
O GENERATOR ON o N w
`= CONC. PAD �
w
w �ZJ
NEW LED TASK a < N a
y LIGHT (SHADED a w o O?
p � d'Nw
n DOWN CAST) w
Q
cc) Q NEW VERIZON rn NZ J
w I WIRELESS EQUIP. A3.0 nZ a WIN ILL
°w � wi, CABINETS ON v
z o r CONC. PAD
w N a Q l NEW VERIZON
z WIRELESS
O ,N i1 Z Q
w=O I J 49' MONOPOLE N w O?
U X N w
+ o
(0 I NEW VERIZON Z z
WIRELESS
�+
/ ° °w
GRAVEL H—FRAME
j W/ LED TASK
/ LIGHT o Z w
EXISTING
� J GRAVE No EXISTING Date Revisions
CONC. CURB F n By e no. 1;_109
NEW CURB & GRASS Date 05/19/15
EXISTING
UTILITY VAULT LANDSCAPE Designed by
W/ LIGHT POST TO MATCH /Q[� / / Crean by
AND ANTENNAS EXISTING— / h v+�+ Checked by
EXTEND Sm / /_ i Approved by
EXISTING, j / EXISTING
IRRIGATION / GATE TO BE / �:
SYSTEM. REMOVED Date issued
/ GRASS / & REPLACED/ �EXISTING� - - - '�+ Date Issued for
Zoning Permit
27.\ / W/NEW GRASS _ _ _ _ _ +.—+ Dote issued for
.q FENCE +� Building Permit
+ Date issued
/- NEW .12'-0" GATE, MATCH �+ for Bid
EXISTING BLACK FACTORY issued
for Construction:
3" FINISH. +�+
EXISTING 48',O» - - - - - �+ x
POWER / Project title :
❑ TRANSFORMER / / TRI SAHARA
/ TBD OFF OF DESERT PLATEAU
DRIVE,
'=ASCO, WA 99301
CON 0..
At;CFSCRFre / gy Street title
2O'_0" ROAD N ENLARGED
/�c" SITE PLAN
FMEIVT /
ENLARGED SITE PLAN 22X34 SCALE: 1/8" _ A2.0
11X17 SCALE: 1/16"
veriNnwireless
LAND
SERVICES
NORTHWEST
NEW VERIZON Drawings Produced By:
WIRELESS MONOPOLE
FOUNDATION -
o�a GPA
NEW VERIZON ARCHITECTS LLC
WIRELESS PANEL 2701 NW Vaughn,suite 764
ANTENNAS, TYP OF (6) Portland,OR 97210
503-274-7800
NEW VERIZON
A ❑O WIRELESS MONOPOLE
AZ: 260
e€crs
9� AecH ECr
V-0" ?> n�wruxrr_ocwiw
70. VA1EOFWA8W14MM
0
I
in
N g"
ANTENNA RAID CENTER m N z J
TYP. ALL RAID CENTERS < N 2 z
a wo_
CD
Lul
O 0 U
I ______________ O N Z Q
d
O N Q
d X N z
p N U_
W
ANTE N N A P LAN 22X34 SCALE: 1/4" = 2 w
11X17 SCALE: 1/8" i'-0" L
°a NEW VERIZON WIRELESS MONOPOLE, / — rn Nz_J
MATTE GRAY FINISH W/ (6) PANEL N2 a
ANTENNA AND (9) RRU12 W/A-2 C) X N L_
w ANTENNA RAID CENTER UNITS, ALL ANTENNAS & EQUIPMENT
MOUNTED WITHIN SHROUDS
w�
N Z
z Q
U \
Z N K W o?
O
U X N w
o C.D
z
_ J
z<
ad
W O w
O 2 �?
I
0 J z U' 3
d- < O —_ o z w
o o�
O Li NEW VERIZON WIRELESS NEW VERIZON WIRELESS EXISTING COVERED RESERVOIR o U N X
> UTILITY H—FRAME EQUIPMENT CABINETS (BEYOND) No. Date By Revisions
Ed NEW COAX CABLE NEW 6'-0" TALL CHAINLINK Fte no. 14_109
BRIDGE W/GPS ANT. FENCE WITH BARBED WIRE Date 05/19/15
EXISTING 0 12'-0" AGL
TREES, NEW LANDSCAPE BUFFER. Designed by
(BEYOND) NEW VERIZON WIRELESS Drawn by
NATURAL GAS GENERATOR Checked by
Approved by
NEW
Date issued
TREES Date issued for
t Daten Permit
(BEYOND issued for
) �,
Bull ding Permit
Date issued
for Bid
Date is ued
for Construction:
4 1 ,ii, NOTE:
00 r
Project title
LANDSCAPING IN FOREGROUND
GRADE
iii i l� ' NOT SHOWN FOR CLARITY. TRI SAHARA
TBD OFF OF DESERT PLATEAU
DRIVE,
:=ASCO, WA 99301
Sheet title
EAST
ELEVATION
EAST ELEVATION 22X34 SCALE: 1/4" = 1 A3.0
11X17 SCALE: 1/8" = V-0"
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
MASTER FILE NO: Z 2015-002 APPLICANT: Envision Homes
HEARING DATE: 7/16/2015 P.O. Box 3431
ACTION DATE: 8/20/2015 Pasco, WA 99301
BACKGROUND
REQUEST: REZONE: Rezone from R-1 (Low-Density Residential) to R-3
(Medium-Density Residential)
1. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION:
Legal: Chapel Hill Phase 5, Tract B, less that portion dedicated for Chapel
Hill Boulevard right-of-way
General Location: The 5500 Block through the 5900 Block of Chapel Hill
Boulevard
Property The site is approximately 4.25 acres
2. ACCESS: The site has unimproved access from Chapel Hill Boulevard.
3. UTILITIES: Municipal sewer and water lines are located in the future
extension of Chapel Hill Boulevard.
4. LAND USE AND ZONING: The site is currently zoned R-1 (Low-Density
Residential) and is vacant. Surrounding properties are zoned and developed
as follows:
NORTH: R-3 - Vacant (Future Park & Multi-family Residences)
SOUTH: R-1 - Single-Family Residences
EAST: R-1 - Single-Family Residences
WEST: R-3 - Single-Family Residences
5. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The Comprehensive Plan designates the site for
Mixed Residential uses. Goal LU-3-13 encourages infill and (higher) density
to protect open space and critical areas in support of more walkable
neighborhoods. Goal LU-3-E encourages the city to designate areas for
higher density residential development where utilities and transportation
facilities enable efficient use of capital resources.
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
Envision Homes has applied to change the zoning classification of one 4.25 acre
parcel from R-1 (Low-Density Residential) to R-3 (Medium-Density Residential) to
allow for multi-family residential development. The subject site is a linear shaped
tract fronting Chapel Hill Boulevard beginning at the intersection of Saratoga
Lane; extending east to Pimlico Drive.
The end product desired by the applicant is described as a multi-family
development similar to Columbia Villas on Road 76 at Sandifur Parkway where we
see attached single-family dwellings divided only by the property line along a
common wall; leaving a single dwelling unit on each parcel, but giving the
appearance of a duplex. This style of development is commonly referred to as zero
lot-line development. The Pasco's Municipal Code does not offer a zero lot-line
setback option. In the past accommodations have been made to permit this type of
development through the use of multi-family zoning and platting. This allows the
developer to take advantage of the smaller minimum lot sizes offered by multi-
family zones. The R-3 zone permits minimum lot sizes of 5,500 ft2.
The City's Comprehensive Plan designates this site for Mixed Residential land uses
which allows for a variety of residential zones/densities ranging from RS-20
(Suburban) through R-3. Of the zones allowed under the Mixed Residential land
use designation, R-3 zoning permits the highest residential density at a rate of one
dwelling unit for every 3,OOOft2 of land area or 14.5 units per acre. For
comparison, the single-family R-1 zone permits an approximate density of 6-units
per acre. Currently the site totals approximately 185,130 ft2 in area; since the goal
of the applicant is to create sellable units on individual parcels, residential density
would be confined to the minimum lot size of 5,500 ft2. After the required right-of-
way dedication the site area would total approximately 156,263 ft2, allowing up to
28 dwelling units. Under the parameters described by the applicant the proposed
change in zoning would gain the applicant seven additional units compared to
development permitted under the existing R-1 zoning.
The 4.25-acre site is undeveloped vacant land. Adjacent roadways are entirely
unimproved. Curbs, gutters, sidewalks, utility lines and other improvement
extensions will be required before the building permits will be issued.
The applicant indicates the expense associated with right-of-way improvements
required to extend Chapel Hill Boulevard with municipal sewer and water would be
cost prohibitive for single-family development. The applicant is only able to utilize
the street improvements along the south side of the street. Chapel Hill Boulevard
in this location is identified in the Major Street Plan as a collector roadway. The
site lies at the eastern terminus of Chapel Hill Boulevard which is not planned to
extend east of the site; rather Chapel Hill Blvd. will connect to Pimlico Drive to
create a loop.
2
It is common urban planning practice to assign higher-density residential zones to
transitional areas where they serve as buffers between higher and lesser intense
land uses such as we see here with the highway to the north and single-family
homes immediately to the south. The site is separated from Highway I-182 only by
a narrow parcel of vacant land zoned R-3. The site is located 300-feet south of
Highway I-182 and is adjacent to existing single-family residential development to
the south. Due to the sites' physical location between the highway and existing
homes, development on this site will inevitably act as a physical buffer between
the higher intensity highway and lower intensity homes.
The site is visible from the highway. Bolstering development of vacant parcels
which are visible from the highway has an enhanced effect on the general
perception of the economic health of a community. Eliminating vacant land on
sites visible from the main thoroughfares is in the best interest of Pasco's
economic development.
Concern is often expressed about impacts to lower density property values when
nearby properties are being considered for higher density zoning. Past searches of
the Franklin County Auditor's records in areas of the community where multi-
family development is located adjacent to lower density development have
indicated there is no diminution in the value of the surrounding single-family
homes. Studies by the Urban Land Institute (Higher-Density Development Myth
and Fact, 2005, Urban Land Institute) confirm this fact. Even so neighbors are
often concerned about the impact of higher density development upon the
character of the surrounding neighborhood. To address those concerns The
Planning Commission could consider a concomitant agreement setting a minimum
lot size, permitting only one dwelling per lot, requiring several architectural
features on each elevation and requiring articulated front elevation to provide a
distinct identity for each unit.
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 12 years ago prior to the platting
process in 2003.
2. The changed conditions, which are alleged to warrant other or additional
zoning:
The Mixed-Residential land use designation allows assignment of a variety of
residential zones/densities ranging from RS-20 (Suburban) through R-3. Of the
allowable zones under the Mixed Residential designation, the R-3 zone permits the
highest residential density at a rate of one dwelling unit for every 3,000ft2 of land
area or 14.5 units per acre.
3
In 2003 the Chapel Hill was planned as a mixed use subdivision the assignment of
commercial, multi family and single-family zones. This mix of zoning classification
assignments set the tone for the subdivision to provide a variety of land use
opportunities. Since the establishment of the original zoning the Crossings at Chapel
and the Village at Chapel Hill have been constructed along with several hundred
single-family homes creating the mixed residential component to the subdivision. The
subdivision is basically built out except for the parcels on either side of the
undeveloped portion of Chapel Hill Boulevard.
3. Facts to justify the change on the basis of advancing the public health,
safety and general welfare:
Changing the zoning classification of the site will foster development of a largely
underdeveloped parcel of land within close proximity to the city's heaviest travelled
freeway. There is merit in the elimination of dusty, weed covered parcel within an
existing neighborhood to eliminate nuisance conditions. The construction of buildings
on the parcel will add a buffer between the existing single-family dwellings to the
south and the freeway to the north. Limiting development of the parcel to one
dwelling per lot will also provide a transition area between the single-family
dwellings to the south and future apartment development to the north.
4. The effect it will have on the value and character of the adjacent property
and the Comprehensive Plan:
A change in zoning classification will have little impact on the R-3 property to the
north. The rezone may result in a benefit to the R-1 property to the south by
encouraging the elimination of nuisance conditions created by the dusty vacant
parcel in question. Conditioning the rezone to require additional architectural
features and ensuring only one dwelling will be permitted per lot will assist in
maintaining the value and character of the existing neighborhood. The rezone is
consistent with the intent of the Comprehensive encouraging a full range of
residential environments.
The proposal is supported by the Comprehensive Plan's Mixed-Residential Land Use
Designation which includes R-3 (Medium-Density Residential) as a compatible
zoning classification.
5. The effect on the property owner or owners if the request is not granted:
Without increasing the allowable residential density site development may not be
cost effective causing the developer to abandoned efforts to make further
improvements in the neighborhood.
4
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 currently zoned R-1 (Low-Density Residential).
2. The 4.25-acre site is vacant.
3. The site location extends from the 5500 Block through the 5900 Block of
Chapel Hill Boulevard.
4. The applicant is requesting R-3 (Medium-Density Residential) zoning be
assigned to the site to allow zero lot-line single-family residential
development.
S. The property to the north of the site is a vacant parcel zoned R-3 (Medium-
Density Residential without any restrictions).
6. I-182 is located 400 feet north of the site.
7. The Comprehensive Plan identifies the site for Mixed-Residential uses which
allows assignment of a range of residential zones including R-3 (Medium-
Density Residential).
8. The R-3 zone allows a maximum residential density rate of one dwelling unit
for every 3,000 square feet of land area.
9. The R-3 zone allows minimum lot sizes of 5,500 square feet.
10. Chapel Hill Boulevard adjacent to the site is undeveloped.
11. Right-of-way for the south half of Chapel Hill Blvd. must be dedicated to the
City at the time of platting.
12. The Chapel Hill subdivision contains a mix of single-family and multi-family
and commercial zoning.
13. Properties to the south of the site contain single-family dwellings.
TENTATIVE CONCLUSIONS BASED ON INITIAL STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT
Before recommending approval or denial of a zoning amendment the Planning
Commission must develop findings of fact from which to draw its conclusions
based upon the criteria listed in PMC 25.88.060. The criteria are as follows:
1. The proposal is in accordance with the goals and policies of the
Comprehensive Plan.
5
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.
The effect of the proposal on the immediate vicinity will not be materially detrimental
if a concomitant agreement is established requiring enhance building features and
specifying a minimum lot size.
2. There is merit and value in the proposal for the community as a whole.
There is merit in providing an increased range of housing opportunities available in
those areas currently served by municipal utilities to enable efficient use of capital
resources. The proposal is supported by land use goals and policies contained in the
Comprehensive Plan.
Establishment of medium-density residential zoning will encourage development
thereby eliminating a dusty parcel adjacent to developed properties. Additionally
development of the site will provide a buffer from the freeway to the north and a
transition area between the R-3 properties to the north and the single-family homes
to the south.
3. Conditions should be imposed in order to mitigate any significant adverse
impacts from the proposal.
Because the properties to the south are developed with single-family homes
conditions should be imposed to limit development on the rezone site to one dwelling
per lot and said dwelling should contain articulated front elevations and several
additional architectural features on each evaluation. A minimum lot size should also
be established
4. 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 needed to incorporate the items discussed in conclusion
number 3 above into the rezone ordinance.
RECOMMENDATION
MOTION: I move to close the hearing on the proposed rezone and
initiate deliberations and schedule adoption of findings of
fact, conclusions and a recommendation to the City
Council for the August 20, 2015 meeting.
6
Vicinity Item: Rezone R- I to R-3
A plicant: Envision Homes LLC
Map File • 2015-002
QP-
A7
On
`+' � wt.-rr nrt-
Land Use Item: Rezone R- 1 to R-3
Applicant: Envision Homes LLC N
Map File #: Z 2015-002
MFR's
c�9pEt�'`L8i ��yj I82
�= oU Vacant
y aFL�o SIT
rLEOp��
Npk
pIMI,ICODR Single-Family Homes-
-L-L-L-LL-LL
Zoning Item: Rezone R- 1 to R-3
Map Applicant: Envision Homes LLC N
File #: Z 2015-002
R-3
c�9pEt
�eh� 3
8F Reslq�ehtl�l�
L,y�o SIZ'
r�s?'iEOo
R-1
(Low-Density Residential)
pIMI,ICO DR
ALL Ac-
Alk
€d j"ate
i
S -
� ; y
Looking East
Ift. s
- �
WF
- _
_
"� t
g
L o o kin South
g
Lo o yin West
JIL
4
C`'y