HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-19-2015 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. Preliminary Plat
November 19, 2015
Declaration of Quorum
October 15, 2015
Preliminary Plat for Ellie Estates (Llya Parkhot)ruk)
(MF# PP 2015-003) - Continued
B. Special Permit Special Permit for the modification of parkine
facilities at Mark Twain Elementary School (Pasco
School District) (MF# SP 2015-0121
C. Special Permit Special Permit to locate wireless cellular facilities at
an existing church in an RS -12 (Suburban) Zone
(AT&T) (MF# SP 2015-013)
D. Special Permit Special Permit to locate a wireless communications
tower on a vacant parcel in a C-1 (Retail Business)
Zone (Tower Co.) (MF# SP 2015-014)
VII. WORKSHOP:
A. Code Amendment Code Amendment for Home Businesses
VIII. OTHER BUSINESS:
IX. ADJOURNMENT:
This meeting is broadcast live on PSC -TV Channel 191 on Charter Cable and streamed at
w1X\V.pasco-wa.com/psctvlive.
Audio equipment available for the hearing impaired; contact staff for assistance.
REGULAR MEETING
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
CALL TO ORDER:
The meeting was called to order at 7:00pm by Chairman Cruz.
POSITION MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT
No.
1
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:
October 15, 2015
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.
Commissioner Mendez stated that he would need to abstain from MF# PP 2015-003,
Preliminary Plat for Ellie Estates.
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.
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 September 17, 2015 be approved. The motion passed unanimously.
OLD BUSINESS:
A. Special Permit Location of a church in a C-3 ►General Business)
Zone (Tiempos de Poder Church) IMF# SP 2015-0101
Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff.
Dave McDonald, City Planner, discussed the special permit for the location of a church in
a C-3 (General Business) Zone. There were no changes to the staff report since the
previous meeting.
-1-
Commissioner Polk moved, seconded by Commissioner Bachart, to adopt findings of fact
and conclusions therefrom as contained in the October 15, 2015 staff report. The motion
passed unanimously.
Commissioner Polk moved, seconded by Commissioner Bachart, based on the findings of
fact and conclusions therefrom, the Planning Commission recommend the City Council
grant a special permit to Ministerio Apostolico Y Profetico Tiermpos de Poder for the
location of a church at 2508 W Sylvester Street, Suite D with the conditions as contained
in the October 15, 2015 staff report. The motion passed unanimously.
B. Preliminary Plat Preliminary Plat for Sunrise Estates, Division II
(Juan Ochoa) IMF# PP 2015-002)
Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff.
Shane O'Neill, Planner I, discussed the preliminary plat application for Sunrise Estates,
Division II. He stated that the only changes to the staff report from the previous meeting
was language added to Condition #6 to address debris and other dumping of trash or
supplies because of a concern addressed by a citizen during the public hearing.
Commissioner Bachart moved, seconded by Commissioner Greenaway, to adopt findings
of fact and conclusions therefrom as contained in the October 15, 2015 staff report. The
motion passed unanimously.
Commissioner Bachart 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 Sunrise Estates, Division II with conditions as
listed in the October 15, 2015 staff report. The motion passed unanimously.
C. Preliminary Plat Preliminary Plat for Road 84 Estates (Mission
Investments) (MF# PP 2015-0041
Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff.
Dave McDonald, City Planner, discussed the preliminary plat application for Road 84
Estates. There were no changes to the staff report since the previous meeting.
Commissioner Portugal moved, seconded by Commissioner Bachart, to adopt findings of
fact and conclusions therefrom as contained in the October 15, 2015 staff report. The
motion passed unanimously.
Commissioner Portugal moved, seconded by Commissioner Bachart, based on the findings
of fact and conclusions as adopted, the Planning Commission recommend the City Council
approve the Preliminary Plat for Road 84 Estates with conditions as listed in the October
15, 2015 staff report. The motion passed unanimously.
-2-
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
A. Preliminary Plat Preliminary Plat for Ellie Estates (Llya Parkhotyuk)
(MF# PP 2015-003) - Continued
Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff.
Shane O'Neill, Planner I, discussed the application for a preliminary plat for Ellie Estates.
This item was continued from the previous meeting due to substantial revisions to the plat
and is virtually a new plat. The proposed plat consists of 22 lots, zoned Residential
Suburban (RS -20) with the average lot size of 24,150 square feet. The property was
recently annexed into the City in July 2015. The Comprehensive Plan designates the site
as low-density residential development. The site currently contains three single-family
homes and accessory structures. Those three homes will be contained on lots 1, 2 and 3
of the proposed plat. One new cul-de-sac will be extended to the end of the site and 16 of
the proposed lots will be accessed by the cul-de-sac. To the south the plat will accomplish
the connection of Sterling Road. At the northwest corner of the property Maple Drive
terminates. The continuation of Maple Drive is obstructed by an existing shop which was
permitted in the County. The Planning Commission may wish to discuss the possibility of
a turnaround at the end of Maple Drive. Originally septic systems were proposed but now
the properties will be connected to sewer. The sewer line is located at Road 84 and the
sewer line will be extended as well as water to the plat with the exceptions of existing lots
1, 2 and 3 who will remain on their existing septic systems until those systems fail, at
which time they will be required to connect. There are a list of tentative approval
conditions contained in the staff report that are fairly standard. There is a Franklin
County Irrigation easement running through the site and the applicant will have to work
with the Franklin PUD between now and the final plat.
Chairman Cruz asked how the property owners of Lot 1 would access their property.
Mr. O'Neill responded that there is a dirt access road that runs along the side of the
irrigation canal and would be the primary access for the three homes.
Dave McDonald, City Planner, added that the original plat submitted with their
application was configured differently but with the addition of required sewer to the
proposed lots the Irrigation District asked that alternate means of access for those three
lots in case in the future they decide to revoke the access agreement with those three
homes they would be able to access off of the cul-de-sac. The homeowners of the three
lots currently have an agreement with the Irrigation District to use the right-of-way to get
to their homes but the Irrigation District could take that access away in the future.
Chairman Cruz responded that it is a dangerous proposition for anyone considering
buying Lot 1. He was unsure how a turnaround could be placed at Maple Drive with the
existing shop and a lot platted to the north and south.
Mr. McDonald answered that is correct. There are other lots and streets that the City has
inherited or will inherit that dead-end with a home at the end like in this case. This
problem was inherited from the County since they permitted a shop to be built where the
road should have been extended.
-3-
Chairman Cruz suggested the shop to stay for the time being but Lot 15 needs to be the
continuation of Maple Drive.
Mr. McDonald asked for clarification if the plat would show the right-of-way but not
require it to be built at this time.
Chairman Cruz answered that is one possibility. He doesn't want to see the Irrigation
District taking away access, rendering Lot 1 useless. Another option could be to merge
two of the lots just as long as there is guaranteed access.
Commissioner Bachart discussed possible fencing issues on the cul-de-sac.
Mr. McDonald clarified that the front yards would be facing the cul-de-sac so any fencing
would have to be set back 25 feet. He asked the Planning Commission for more direction.
Chairman Cruz replied that he doesn't want to continue propagating the problem of dead-
end streets and access issues contributing to a dead-end lot. He proposed at minimum
Lot 1 to be connected to the cul-de-sac in any way possible. He would also like to see the
right-of-way of Maple Drive to be extended.
Commissioner Polk was in agreement with Chairman Cruz and would like to alter Lot 2 in
order to give Lot 1 access to the cul-de-sac or to work through Lot 15 and possibly
continue Maple Drive.
Chairman Cruz stated that he didn't want to be overly constrictive since there are
variables that the Planning Commission might not be aware of and would like to see the
Engineering and Planning Departments work it would with the applicant just as long as
there is some kind of access for Lot 1.
The Planning Commissioners were in agreement.
Chairman Cruz asked the Commissioners what they felt about Maple Drive.
Commissioner Greenway was concerned about the existing shop and doesn't want the
property owner to have to remove the shop which was permitted in the County.
Chairman Cruz clarified the right-of-way as long as the shop is existing.
Commissioner Bachart added that if the access was evoked the shop would be in the way
anyway.
Rick White, Community 8s Economic Development Director, stated that there are many
instances in the County where there are easements reserved for future road right-of-ways
and they are useless because if they are not developed during the time of platting, no one
will put it in and there won't be a public agency that will pay for it because it will only
benefit one or two lots. If the Commission wants to see the extension of Maple Drive
through it needs to be dedicated right-of-way and constructed as prior to the final plat
approval.
Chairman Cruz asked if that meant condemning the shop.
Mr. White responded that it wouldn't have to be condemned; perhaps moved or the road
could go around the shop. But the easement for a road unless done now is useless.
Chairman Cruz suggested that Lot 1 either needs connection to the cul-de-sac or to Maple
Drive and let the applicant work out the details with Staff.
The Commissioners were in agreement with Chairman Cruz.
Ilya Parkhotyuk, 785 Canyon Street, Apt. #304, Richland, spoke on behalf of his
application. He stated that he will have to work it out with City Staff to get this plat to
work.
Paul Simpkins, 3412 Coral Court, expressed concern for an increase of traffic down
Sterling Road due to Chiawanna High School students being so close. He asked if the City
has planned for the increased.
Mr. McDonald didn't foresee much of a traffic increase down Sterling Road from the
students at Chiawanna as it isn't a direct route to anywhere.
Mr. Simpkins asked if there would be a block wall built along the back of the proposed
lots.
Mr. McDonald answered that there wouldn't be a block wall required since the lots are not
on an arterial corridor.
Commissioner Portugal asked if the school was notified of the proposed plat.
Mr. McDonald stated that they get notified of all proposed plats.
With no further comments the public hearing closed.
Commissioner Bachart moved, seconded by Commissioner Greenaway, to continue this
item to the October 15, 2015 meeting. The motion passed with 5 votes with Commissioner
Mendez recused.
B. Rezone Rezone from R-1 (LOW Density Residential) to R-3
(Medium Density Residential) (Envision Homes)
(MF# Z 2015-002) - Continued
Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff.
Shane O'Neill, Planner I, discussed the rezone application from R-1 (Low Density
Residential) to R-3 (Medium Density Residential). He explained that this item has been
continued several times based on public feedback and to ensure slope stabilization. The
concomitant agreement has been revised to require a geotechnical report analyzing the
slope stability of the site and providing site specific recommendations and appropriate
methods for long-term stabilization. Based on the results of that geotechnical report, the
-5-
applicant or successors of the property, will be required to install the recommended soil
retention features. That report has not been received by Staff at this time and this rezone
application will not move forward to Council until it is received.
Chairman Cruz asked if Staff wanted this item to be continued.
Mr. O Neill answered no.
Alfonso Sanchez, 5715 Belmont Drive, asked if in the concomitant agreement the
applicant will be required to follow the Engineer's recommendation based on each lot.
Chairman Cruz responded yes, that it will be an engineered solution sealed by the
engineer so they are betting their license that they did the job correctly.
Commissioner Polk added that the slope remediation must be a long-term solution as well,
not just an immediate short-term fix.
With no further comments the public hearing closed.
Commissioner Greenaway moved, seconded by Commissioner Polk, to adopt the findings
of fact and conclusions therefrom as contained in the October 15, 2015 staff report. The
motion passed unanimously.
Commissioner Greenaway moved, seconded by Commissioner Polk, based on the findings
of fact and conclusions as adopted the Planning Commission recommend the City Council
rezone parcel 117-470-153 from R-1 to R-3 with restrictions contained in the concomitant
agreement. The motion passed unanimously.
C. Plan Shoreline Master Program IMF# PLAN 2013-0011
Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff.
Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director, discussed the Shoreline
Master Program. He introduced Ben Floyd, Anchor QEA, who has been working diligently
on this plan. A public participation plan has been completed and signed off on by the
Department of Ecology. Mr. Floyd has briefed the Planning Commission on the inventory
analysis and characterization of the Columbia River and Snake River shorelines, there
have been goals, policies and code developed that the Commission has reviewed and an
impact analysis and restoration plan has been completed. The draft plan was dispersed
for public comment for a 60 -day review period and now the hearing. Based on comments
received, the plan will be revised slightly to accommodate those comments, then it will be
forwarded to the Department of Ecology for their comments.
Ben Floyd, 8033 W. Grandridge Boulevard, Kennewick, spoke on behalf of Anchor QEA.
He stated that the Planning Commission is at the point to make a recommendation for
advancing the Shoreline Master Program. It will go to City Council and then to the
Washington State Department of Ecology where there will be a statewide public review
process. While the plan will be locally administered, both the City and Department of
Ecology will approve this program. If there are additional comments received during the
statewide review period, the State will refer those comments back to the City to address
and will provide some guidance. He briefly discussed the land use designations. Some of
the comments received were policy changes from the Port of Pasco as well as some
clarifications from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers regarding mapping and designation
of ownership. A comment was also recently received from the State Parks Department
commending the City for planning for Sacajawea Park and planning for recreation
development.
Chairman Cruz clarified that a map shown in the plan reflects an outdated "donut hole"
and needs to be revised to include the recent Road 80 annexation area.
Staff stated that would be corrected prior to final submittal.
Randy Hayden, 1110 Osprey Pointe, Port of Pasco, thanked the Commission, Staff and Mr.
Floyd for all of their work and this has turned out to be an excellent plan. The Port of
Pasco's comments were to note the maritime and commercial uses.
With no further questions or comments the public hearing closed.
Commissioner Portugal moved, seconded by Commissioner Greenaway, to recommend the
City Council adopt the Shoreline Master Program by reference as part of the City's
Comprehensive Plan and adopt Title 29, "Shoreline Master Program" as part of the Pasco
Municipal Code. The motion passed unanimously.
Mr. White clarified for the record that the Port of Pasco's comments were included in the
recommendation from Planning Commission.
WORKSHOP:
A. Code Amendment Development Agreements Code Amendment IMF#
CA 2015-0051
Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff.
Shane O'Neill, Planner I, discussed the code amendment for development agreements.
Development agreements are very similar to concomitant agreements but in this proposal
Staff wants to repeal the section relating to concomitant agreements and instead add a
section for development agreements. Concomitant agreements can only be used in
relation to a rezone application. Concomitant agreements are outdated, used pre -Growth
Management Act. Development agreements are unique in that they can be used related to
a building permit or special permit but in order to be passed there needs to be a public
hearing held before Council. The proposed code language is attached to staff memo and is
highly reflective of RCW requirements. The city attorney also has revisions that will be
attached in the staff report at the next meeting.
Rick White, Community 8v Economic Development Director, added that one of the
advantages as moving forward with continued development within the urban growth area
but not necessarily within the City, there is the opportunity to use the development
agreement with properties prior to annexation.
-7-
COMMENTS:
Chairman Cruz thanked Commissioner Bachart for his 2+ years of service on the Planning
Commission and awarded him a Certificate of Appreciation as this was his last meeting.
With no further discussion or business, the Planning Commission was adjourned at
7:53 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
David McDonald, City Planner
In
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
MASTER FILE NO: PP 2015-003 APPLICANT: Ilya Parkhotyuk
HEARING DATE: 10/ 15/2015 8s 11 / 19/2015 785 Canyon St. Apt #304
ACTION DATE: 12/17/2015 Richland, WA 99352
REQUEST: Preliminary Plat: Ellie Estates
1. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION:
Legal: That portion of the northeast 1/4 of the southeast 1/4 of Section 17,
Township 9 North, Range 29 East WM, Franklin County, Washington;
lying southerly of the FCID canal and easterly of Sunset Manor and
Chiawana Estates; northerly of the easterly extension of Sterling Road
and less Lot 2 of Short Plat 2009-19.
General Location: 3600 Block of Road 84
Property Size: 13.64 Acres
Number of Lot/ s Proposed: 22 single-family residential lots
Square Footage Range of Lots: 20,042 ft2 to 54,110 ft2
Average Lot Square Footage: 24,150 ft2
2. ACCESS: The property is accessible from Road 84.
3. UTILITIES: A municipal water line currently extends the length of the
property in Road 84. Municipal sewer lines currently terminate in Road
84 near the southeast corner of the site and another sewer line traverses
Road 84 approximately 130 feet north of the irrigation canal.
4. LAND USE AND ZONING: The site is zoned RS -20 (Suburban).
Surrounding properties are zoned and developed as follows:
NORTH: RS -20 - Single -Family Residences
SOUTH: RS -20 - Single -Family Residences and Church
Educational Facility
EAST: RS -20 - Mobile Home Park and High School
WEST: RS -20 - Single -Family Residences
S. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The Comprehensive Plan indicates the site is
intended for Low -Density Residential development. Policy H -1-E
encourages the advancement of home ownership and Goal H-2 suggests
the City strive to maintain a variety of housing options for residents of
the community. Goal LU -2 encourages the maintenance of established
neighborhoods and the creation of new neighborhoods that are safe and
enjoyable places to live.
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 proposed plat encompasses 13.64 acres of land and contains 22 single-
family residential lots. This property was incorporated into the City in 2015
with the most recent "Road 80 Annexation". During the annexation process
RS -20 (Suburban) zoning was applied to the subject site without any additional
zoning restrictions.
The RS -20 zone permits single-family homes on lots no less than 20,000
square feet in area. Minimum setbacks for homes are as follows: front = 25',
sides = 10' and rear = 25'. The maximum permitted height of homes is thirty
five (35) feet.
The site is designated in the Comprehensive Plan for low-density residential
development which provides the option to develop single-family homes. The
overall density and average lot size between the proposed subdivision and
Chiawana Estates residential subdivision to the west are similar.
The site currently contains three single-family homes with a variety of
accessory structures. For many years the homes have been accessed via the
dirt FCID irrigation canal access road. Lots 1, 2 & 3 have each been designed
to contain said homes. In the proposed plat, Lot 1 will have road frontage on
Maple Drive to the west and Lots 2 & 3 will be accessible from the new,
centrally located, cul-de-sac.
LOT LAYOUT: The proposed plat contains 22 residential lots; with the lots
varying in size from 20,042 to 54,110 square feet. The average lot size is
24,150 square feet.
RIGHTS-OF-WAY: One new right-of-way in the form of a cul-de-sac will be
dedicated. The cul-de-sac will extend north from Sterling Road for an
approximate distance of 619 -feet. Seventeen (17) lots will be accessed from the
cul-de-sac. The second right-of-way to be dedicated will achieve the east -west
connection of Sterling Road. In ideal circumstances Maple Drive would extend
from the westerly edge of the proposed plat to Road 84. This extension would
provide needed looping of the water system and improve traffic circulation in
and through the neighborhood and would also provide some benefits to the
2
surrounding neighborhood by improving emergency vehicle access.
Unfortunately the County allowed one of the property owners to build a large
shop accessory structure at the end of Maple Drive blocking the easterly
extension of Maple Drive. Since the initial public hearing the cul-de-sac bulb
has been reconfigured to provide right-of-way frontage to Lot 1.
UTILITIES: Currently, a municipal water line is located in Road 84 extending
the entire length of the parcel. The municipal sewer line located in Road 84
terminates near the south end of the site. The developer will be responsible for
extending utilities into the plat. Due to the proximity of the site to existing
sewer lines it will be a requirement for municipal sewer to be extended into the
site to service each lot. Lots 1, 2 & 3 will not be required to connect to
municipal sewer until such time that existing septic systems fail.
A utility easement will be needed along the first 10 feet of street frontage of all
lots. The final location and width of the easements will be determined during
the construction design phase of the platting process. The front yard setbacks
for construction purposes are larger than the requested easements; therefore
the front yard easements will not encroach upon buildable portions of the lots.
Additionally, Franklin County Public Utility District requires ten (10) foot wide
utility easements along the north property line of lots 5, 14 & 16.
The City Engineer will determine the specific placement of fire hydrants and
streetlights when construction plans are submitted. As a general rule, fire
hydrants are located at street intersections and with a maximum interval of
500 feet between hydrants on alternating sides of the street. Streetlights are
not required in RS -20 zoning districts.
STREET NAMES: Site development will connect Sterling Road along the south
line of the plat. Sterling Road currently terminates into southwest corner of the
site. One additional public road extending north from Sterling Road will be
created in the form of a cul-de-sac approximately 588 -feet in length. A name
for the court will be assigned during the final platting process.
IRRIGATION: The municipal code requires installation of irrigation lines as a
part of infrastructure improvements. Franklin County Irrigation District (FCID)
provided comments on the plat related to the use of irrigation water from the
canal to the north. FCID will require all new lots to have separate irrigation
services and piping installed to each new lot, except lot 1 which will be served
from the main in Maple Drive. Servicing the development will require the
irrigation main in Road 84 to be tapped in five locations. Associated FCID
easements will be required on the final plat. Upon completion of development
and prior to final acceptance by FCID, all fees must be paid and all as -built
drawings shall be presented to the District for acceptance.
3
WATER RIGHTS: The assignment of water rights is a requirement for
subdivision approval per Pasco Municipal Code Section 26.04.115(B) and
Section 3.07.160. If no water rights are available to transfer to the City the
property owner/ developer must pay a water right fee in lieu thereof. The Public
Works Director may waive the fee if the developer mixes a soil additive in the
ground that provides 30% retention of irrigation water. In this case there are
no water rights to deed to the City as a result the current fee will be required
before a final plat is approved.
FINDINGS OF FACT
State law (RCW 58.17.110) and the Pasco Municipal Code require the Planning
Commission to develop Findings of Fact as to how this proposed subdivision
will protect and enhance the health, safety and general welfare of the
community. The following is a listing of proposed "Findings of Fact":
Prevent Overcrowding: With an average lot size of 24,150 square feet the
proposed development will address the overcrowding concern by providing
manageable lots and usable open spaces. RS -20 zoning requires a 25 -foot
front yard setback, ten -foot side yard setbacks and a 25 -foot rear yard setback.
Of all residential zones in Pasco the RS -20 zone provides for the most open
space between homes and roads.
Parks Opens Space/Schools: The proposed plat is located within a one mile
from Chiawana Park on the Columbia River. The subject site lies within one
half of one mile from Liberty Park in the Loviisa Farms residential subdivision.
The developer will be required to pay the current park fee prior to receiving
building permits.
The developer will be required to pay the current school impact fee prior to
receiving building permits. The City is required by RCW 58.17.110 to make a
finding that adequate provisions are being made to ameliorate the impacts of
the proposed subdivision on the School District. At the request of the School
District the City enacted a school impact fee in 2012. The imposition of this
impact fee addresses the requirement to ensure there are adequate provisions
for schools. A school impact fee in the amount of $4,700 will be charged for
each new home at the time of building permit issuance.
Effective Land Use/Orderly Development: The plat is laid out for suburban
low-density residential development consistent with surrounding residential
development. Platting is configured around three existing homes to the north
which create slight irregularities but development proposed within the plat area
will be of a more orderly fashion; conforming to the City's current development
standards to promote orderly growth.
a
Safe Travel & Walking Conditions: The plat will connect to the community
through the existing network of streets initially via Road 84. Sidewalks are
typically not a required right-of-way development component in Pasco's
suburban zones. However, it has been a long standing policy to ensure
sidewalks are included with developments near and around school. Road 84 is
a school route that connects the Linda Loviisa subdivision with Chiawana High
and the two schools south of Argent Road. The LDS Seminary Building on the
west side of Road 84 has already constructed 260 feet of sidewalk and installed
the curb and gutter across the frontage of the proposed plat. Sidewalks will
need to be added along the frontage of each lot as homes are built. The
Roadway improvements into the plat will consist of an asphalt driving surface
and roadside stormwater collection/ diversion depressions.
Adequate Provision of Municipal Services: All lots within the plat will be
provided with water service. All new lots will be served by sewer with the
exception of lots 1, 2 & 3 which will remain on their existing septic systems.
Provision of Housing for State Residents: The proposed preliminary plat
contains 22 building lots, providing opportunities for the construction of 19
new homes for Pasco residents. Three homes exist on the site which will be
contained within three separate lots (Lots 1, 2 & 3).
Adequate Air and Light: The maximum lot coverage limitation of 40 percent
and building setbacks will assure adequate movement of air and light is
available to each lot.
Proper Access & Travel: The access streets will be paved and developed to
City standards to assure that proper access is maintained to each lot. The
discussion under safe travel above applies to this section also.
Comprehensive Plan Policies & Maps: The Comprehensive Plan indicates the
site is designated for low-density single-family development. Policies of the
Comprehensive Plan suggest the City strive to maintain a variety of housing for
residents.
Other Findings:
• The site is within the Pasco Urban Growth Area Boundary.
• The State Growth Management Act requires urban growth and urban
densities to occur within Urban Growth Boundaries.
• The Comprehensive Plan identifies the site for low-density residential
development
• The site is currently zoned RS -20.
5
• The Housing Element of the Comprehensive Plan encourages the
development of a variety of residential densities and housing types.
• The current traffic impact fee is $709 per dwelling unit. The impact fees
are collected at the time permits are issued and said fees are used to
make traffic improvements and add traffic signals in the I-182 Corridor
when warranted.
• RCW 58.17.110 requires the City to make a finding that adequate
provisions have been made for schools before any preliminary plat is
approved.
• The City of Pasco has adopted a school impact fee ordinance compelling
new housing developments to provide the School District with mitigation
fees. The fee was effective April 16, 2012.
• Past correspondence from the Pasco School District indicates impact fees
address the requirement to ensure adequate provisions are made for
schools.
• There are no water rights associated with this plat therefor a payment in
lieu of dedication of water rights will be required to receive final plat
approval.
CONCLUSIONS BASED ON THE FINDINGS OF FACT
Before recommending approval or denial of the proposed Plat the Planning
Commission must develop Findings of Fact from which to draw its conclusion
(PMC 26.24.070) therefrom as to whether or not:
(1) Adequate provisions are made for the public health, safety and
general welfare and for open spaces, drainage ways, streets, alleys,
other public ways, water supplies, sanitary wastes, parks,
playgrounds, transit stops, schools and school grounds, sidewalks for
safe walking conditions for students and other public needs;
The proposed plat will be required to develop under the standards of the Pasco
Municipal Code and the standard specifications of the City Engineering
Division. These standards for streets and other infrastructure improvements
were designed to ensure the public health; safety and general welfare of the
community are secured. These standards include provisions for streets,
drainage, water and sewer service and the provision for dedication of right-of-
way. The preliminary plat was forwarded to the Franklin County PUD, the
Pasco School District, Cascade Gas, Charter Cable and Ben -Franklin Transit
Authority for review and comment. The PUD requested easements along the
front of all lots for utility service.
2
Based on the School Districts Capital Facilities Plan the City collects school
mitigation fees for each new dwelling unit. The fee is paid at the time of
building permit issuance. The school impact fee addresses the requirements of
RCW 58.17.110.
(2) The proposed subdivision contributes to the orderly development and
land use patterns in the area;
The proposed plat makes efficient use of vacant land and will provide for
additional housing within the City.
(3) The proposed subdivision conforms to the policies, maps and
narrative text of the Comprehensive Plan;
The Comprehensive Plan land use map designates much of the site low-density
residential development. Single-family homes are identified as one of the
permitted residential uses within the low-density residential designation. Plan
Goal H-2 suggests the City strive to maintain a variety of housing options for
residents of the community while Plan Policy H -1-B supports the protection
and enhancement of the established character of viable residential
neighborhoods.
(4) The proposed subdivision conforms to the general purposes of any
applicable policies or plans which have been adopted by the City
Council;
Development plans and policies have been adopted by the City Council in the
form of the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed subdivision conforms to the
policies, maps and narrative text of the Plan as noted in number three above.
(5) The proposed subdivision conforms to the general purposes of the
subdivision regulations.
The general purposes of the subdivision regulations have been enumerated and
discussed in the staff analysis and Findings of Fact. The Findings of Fact
indicate the subdivision is in conformance with the general purposes of the
subdivision regulations provided certain mitigation measures (i.e. school
impact fees and park development) are included in approval conditions.
(6) The public use and interest will be served by approval of the proposed
subdivision.
If approved the proposed plat will be developed in accordance with all City
standards designed to insure the health, safety and general welfare of the
community are met. The Comprehensive Plan will be implemented through
development of this Plat. These factors will insure the public use and interest
are served.
PLAT APPROVAL CONDITIONS
1. At the time lots are developed, all abutting roads and utilities shall be
installed and/or improved to City standards as approved by the City
Engineer. This includes, but is not limited to water, sewer and irrigation
lines, streets, street lights and storm water retention or management.
Because Road 84 is an arterial street and school route sidewalks will be
required along the frontage of Road 84. A note shall be placed on the final
plat stating sidewalks shall be required along the frontage of Lots 4-8 at
the time permits are issued for said lots.
2. The developer must comply with PMC 26.04.115(B) and PMC 3.07.160
dealing with water rights acquisition.
3. No utility vaults, pedestals, or other obstructions will be allowed at street
intersections.
4. It shall be identified in the notes on the face of the final plat(s) that Lot 5
presents difficulties for the placement of yard fencing.
5. All storm water is to be disposed of per City and State codes and
requirements.
6. The developer shall insure active and ongoing dust, weed and litter
abatement activities occur during the construction of the subdivision and
construction of dwellings thereon.
7. The developer shall prepare a dust, weed and erosion control plan to be
approved by the City prior to approval of any construction drawings for the
first phase of the subdivision.
8. The developer shall be responsible for the creation of record drawings. All
record drawings shall be created in accordance with the requirements
detailed in the Record Drawing Requirements and Procedure form provided
by the Engineering Division. This form shall be signed by the developer
prior to construction plan approval.
9. All engineering designs for infrastructure and final plat(s) drawings shall
utilize the published City of Pasco Vertical Control Datum and shall be
identified on each such submittal.
10. The final plat(s) shall contain a 10 -foot utility easement parallel to all
streets unless otherwise required by the Franklin County PUD.
11. The final plat(s) shall contain a 10 -foot utility easement parallel to the
north property line of Lots 5, 14 and 16 as required by the Franklin
County PUD.
12. The final plat(s) shall contain the following Franklin County Public Utility
District statement: "The individual or company making improvements on a
0
lot or lots of this Plat is responsible for providing and installing all trench,
conduit, primary vaults, secondary junction boxes, and backfill for the
PUD's primary and secondary distribution system in accordance with PUD
specifications; said individual or company will make full advance payment
of line extension fees and will provide all necessary utility easements prior
to PUD construction and/or connection of any electrical service to or
within the plat".
13. Prior to the City of Pasco accepting construction plans for review the
developer must enter into a Storm Water Maintenance Agreement with the
City. The developer will be responsible for obtaining the signatures of all
parties required on the agreement and to have the agreement recorded
with the Franklin County Auditor. The original signed and recorded copy
of the agreement must be presented to the City of Pasco at the intake
meeting for construction plans.
14. The developer will be required to comply with the City of Pasco Civil Plan
Review process.
15. The developer/ builder shall mitigate impacts to the Public School System
by the "school impact fee" established by Ordinance at the time of
issuance of building permits for homes.
16. The developer/ builder shall pay the "traffic impact fee" and "park fee"
established by ordinance at the time of issuance of building permits for
homes.
MOTION: I move to close the hearing on the proposed
preliminary plat and initiate deliberations and
schedule adoption of findings of fact, conclusions and
a recommendation to the City Council for the
December 17, 2015 meeting.
9
DESCRIPvm
C
nmzo:o a rawc � � swnr W.ri o.a „. Lrwarr.�Nr«s ai s
TO'TI I
,cREs
0
PRELIM;MRY PUT
ELLIE ESTATES
v. z
MOT
21
---- -
bARI
W .
o, wp
Lar ,s � ,oure.Ls
r
7 Lai x `�"`
,o I
IT,
hR
_M LOT 1]
o.eecas a
a
'°`°$ 90
a R
iR+5".
i 'b'
y
w,
�
i
LOT IJ
cors
�
x
'°�JOunEs
II
I In
owwrnLs
�Wb' c rmoi
Lar. -1-1 s,-
I-
LOT 11
Lm i9 I
m m'Im
w
o.aareREs
oiacv[5
Aa
----------
Lore
I
I
�'R
I
IT,
hR
'
a
'°`°$ 90
w'LI
y
w,
�
cors
II
x
'°�JOunEs
II
I In
5
"i LOT 6
I� j
Lor 21 av I LOT 1.
aw.W.w-00LOT
Lor �. "stl Lor az:• A
awcREs I 8 mLar6n�
j'41.�R�b a.
----scxL111a reaaa---- "•# as I —
a—,,,:. — -- —
OEYEIOPER - f:m
n PtaHMJrWN
I] MTWO6E UNE
CA9c0 WP 99]Or
wR��roR
RussuM
weRLLr sumnwc sERVlccs
ro. Box 61JI
NENNEMCN Wn 99JJ8
,O, 1.C LOR _ ]26. KMs NOTE$ Grp 4wLer.r..c .r
M LOT I'll IC0.1 0, 'M arax'�'
W�LLI LOT ENISO SOA. r
AM�Ol U151 1 PFT -----pzz , I, rpwn
M, 4R' 1' Pa0PC5E0 01- Of .1 11112 90.1 zrwwro a
sPOO
0
N
nW
r�
r�
W
o
c
� a
�
sPOO
0
F11
4-J
0
,r_
p-
�S
y„_
�1I
i
y ,e
t�,
�p
1 �
h
d 4..�i'.3. �.rP. ..' '.
fp
t
A L
�i.
A
2 e
V' I�h ` �•
�
C/�
{
cd
W
buO
• r{
O
O
4
0
w
0
0
n
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
MASTER FILE # SP 2015-012 APPLICANT: Pasco School District
HEARING DATE: 11/ 19/2015 1215 W. Lewis St.
ACTION DATE: 12/17/2015 Pasco, WA 99301
BACKGROUND
REQUEST: SPECIAL PERMIT: Redevelopment of Parking Lots and
Bus Drop off at Mark Twain
Elementary.
1. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION:
Legal: West '/2 of the southeast 1/4 of the
southeast 1/4 of Section Township 9 North,
Range 29 East less the Roads and Short
Plat 93-2.
General Location: 1801 Rd 40
Property Size: Approximately 13 acres
2. ACCESS: The school has access from Road 40 and Pearl Street.
3. UTILITIES: All municipal utilities currently serve the site.
4. LAND USE AND ZONING: The site is zoned RS -12 (Suburban
Residential) and contains Mark Twain Elementary School. The
zoning and land use of the surrounding properties are as follows:
NORTH: RS -12 - Single -Family Residences
SOUTH: C-1 - Bank & Offices
EAST: RS -12 - Single Family Residences
WEST: RS -12 - Single Family Residences
S. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The Comprehensive Plan designates
this area for 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 -S-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.
1
ANALYSIS
Mark Twain Elementary School as been located at the southeast corner
of Road 40 and Pearl Street since 1956. A major remodel of the school
occurred in 1998 and portable classrooms have been added during four
of the last five years.
The added classrooms and other improvements at the school has
generated addition car and bus travel to and from the school every
morning and afternoon during the school year. To improve neighborhood
traffic circulation and congestion concerns during the morning drop-off
and after school pickup of students, the School District is proposing to
add additional parking and an expanded/new bus staging area. These
improvements will include new staff parking, new parent pickup and
drop-off and a new bus loading and unloading area. The improvement
areas are identified in the attached site plan.
The current bus loading and unloading area only provides space for five
to six buses. The proposal will add an additional 10 bus stalls enabling
the current bus stalls to be converted to special needs bus drop-off and
pickup only. The expanded and reconfigured parking along Road 40 will
include 31 drop-off stalls and 58 parking stalls. The proposed facilities
are designed to eliminate or lessen the stacking of school buses on Pearl
Street and parent parking along Road 40.
The School District is anticipating having the improvements completed
for the 2016-2017 school year.
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. Mark Twain Elementary School has been located at the southeast
corner of Road 40 and Pearl Street since the 1956.
2. The Pasco School District received Special Permit approval for a
major remodel of the Mark Twain Elementary School in 1997. The
remodel was completed in 1998.
3. The school site is zoned RS -12.
2
4. Additional portable classrooms were added to the Mark Twain site in
2010, 2012, 2014 and 2015.
5. A new cafeteria was added to the school in 2012.
6. The proposed parking improvements will add an additional 10 bus
stalls enabling the current bus stalls to be converted to a special
needs bus drop-off and pickup area.
7. The expanded and reconfigured parking along Road 40 will include
31 drop-off stalls for parents and 58 teacher and visitor parking
stalls.
8. The new bus loading and unloading area will include an area that
will now or in the future provide additional teacher and employee
parking
9. Schools are defined as unclassified uses require review through the
Special Permit process as enumerated in PMC 25.86.
10. The proposed parking expansion and new bus loading and
unloading areas will be hard surfaced and will contain on-site
drainage.
CONCLUSIONS BASED ON INITIAL STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT
The Planning Commission must make Findings of Fact based upon the
criteria listed in P.M.C. 25.86.060. The criteria and staff listed findings
are as follows:
1. Will the proposed use be in accordance with the goals, policies,
objectives and text of the Comprehensive Plan?
Goal CF -5 suggests adequate provisions be made for educational
facilities throughout the Urban Growth Area. Policy CF -S-A encourages
the appropriate location and design of schools throughout the
community. The proposal is consistent with the referenced Plan goal and
policy and is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan Land use map.
2. Will the proposed use adversely affect public infrastructure?
The proposal will have no additional impact on water, sewer or other
utility services. No additional classrooms are being proposed. The
proposed parking lot expansion and new bus staging area are designed
to reduce on street parking and stacking thereby lessening the impact on
of school traffic and bus operations on surrounding streets.
3. Will the proposed use be constructed, maintained and operated
to be in harmony with the existing or intended character of the
general vicinity?
3
The proposed use of the property will not be altered. Mark Twain
elementary has been located on the property site 1956 and is an
accepted part of the neighborhood. The proposed parking lot
improvements and new bus staging will not alter the general character of
the neighborhood. The proposed improvements will lessen the impact of
on street parking associated with the school and will mostly eliminate the
stacking of school busses on the adjoin streets. The proposal will
improve harmony between the school operations and the neighborhood.
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 almost fully developed and much of the development
to the west and south occurred after the Mark Twain Elementary School
and associated parking areas were constructed. The school and
associated parking lots have not discouraged development or impaired
the value of neighboring properties. An online search of the Franklin
County Assessors records indicates the school has not had a detrimental
impact on surrounding values.
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 no change in the use or operation of the Mark Twain site
with the exception of the redevelopment and expansion of off-street
parking along Road 40 and the addition of a new bus staging area in the
northeast corner of the site. These improvements will improve traffic,
parking and bus operation in and around the school.
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?
Improving and expanding off-street parking and bus staging areas will
generally improve safety in the neighborhood. The Mark Twain
Elementary School campus has been an accepted part of the
neighborhood for 59 years. The school has not been considered a
nuisance to the neighborhood. The proposed parking improvements and
expanded bus staging area will improve traffic circulation
13
TENTATIVE APPROVAL CONDITIONS
1. The Special Permit shall apply to Tax Parcel 119162022;
2. The parking lot improvements and bus staging improvements shall
be constructed in substantial conformance with the site plan
submitted with the Special Permit application;
3. Any and all parking lot lighting shall be shielded to prevent light
encroachment on adjoining lots;
4. Driveways shall be marked to indicate the direction of traffic flow
per the current edition of the MUTCD;
5. The Special Permit shall be null and void if a City of Pasco building
permit is not obtained by January 1, 2017;
6. The project shall meet applicable requirements of the Pasco
Municipal Code.
RECOMMENDATION
MOTION: I move to close the hearing on the proposed parking lot and
initiate deliberations and schedule adoption of Findings of
Fact, conclusions and a recommendation to the City Council
for the December 17, 2015 meeting.
5
0 0 0 0
K
-----------------
m0000 0
53SSf18 S033N 1tl1036 C _ 133H15 ldvld —
L
,s a
is 9M
r4
Z
0
0
Z
Q
._1
CL
LU
U)
cl
LU
U)
0
a-
0
Q
CL
r
0
0
�:.y >z »
�\� ��
�����
.
e¥� .
.� .�?
� ��
� \\� j»\
�
: \��
� ��
:z
.:� !
` � ^
^ƒ
. �
� §
. �ƒ�
: � �� � { /
. .� » �
\ {�
� \� �j
. . ,Q\�
}
¢£x
��� § %
.
`\ § �
� :�
^
_� /� }
\ /.
� - �22��
Z:�
� :2\}=£%
� \
. � \.
\ �
\� �
� \d \\}\�
�
� � � ƒ
\� � \� /�
\�
:_ ��§<
}\\�\\/
� `{(/\
�
���
:
�/�
� �
� %!
���� »/
\� /
� : � .
ƒ�� ��
�
. �
«\
/�� \� / / \
Zƒ {1!\ �
/� \:\ \
�
.
ƒ� � `
�
.d,� /}
\/;§�}}
. �
y,
\ � `\
.
� /}
.
�lmJ
%� � �
�� 2222
� w.
rM
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
MASTER FILE NO: SP 2015-013 APPLICANT: AT&T Mobility
HEARING DATE: 11/19/2015 19801 SW 72nd Ave., STE# 200
ACTION DATE: 11/19/2015 Tualatin, OR 97062
BACKGROUND
REQUEST: SPECIAL PERMIT: Location of a Wireless Communication Facility
in the RS -12 (Suburban) Zone
Legal: Parcel #118-112-036: Lot 1, Short Plat 2005-11
General Location: 9915 West Argent Road
Property Size: The parcel is approximately 1.65 acres
2. ACCESS: The site is accessed from Argent Road.
3. UTILITIES: All municipal utilities currently serve the site.
4. LAND USE AND ZONING: The site is currently zoned RS -12 (Suburban)
and contains a church. Surrounding properties are zoned and developed
as follows:
NORTH: RS -12 - Vacant
SOUTH: RS -20 - Single -Family Residences
EAST: RS -12 - Vacant
WEST: RS -12 - 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
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.
1
ANALYSIS
AT&T Wireless is requesting special permit approval to locate cellular wireless
communication facilities at the Desert Springs Covenant Church located on the
northeast corner at the intersection of Road 100 and Argent Road. The
proposal involves the addition of an architectural feature on the roof of the
existing church to house cellular antennae together with a ground -level
equipment enclosure. The applicant's request is an effort to fill a
coverage/ capacity gap west of Road 68. The installation is intended to better
support existing users west of Road 68 and would also potentially increase
AT&T's ability to support more users in the same area.
In April of 2014 the Planning Commission held a hearing to consider the
addition of cellular communication facilities on the property in question. At
that time the application was submitted by Smartlink LLC doing business as
AT&T. During 2014, AT&T abruptly stopped all construction on new cell
tower/antennae due to the reallocation of funds and consequently the special
permit and subsequent building permit for the previously approved facility
expired. AT&T's funding has been restored and the firm has again applied for a
special permit to locate cellular communication facilities above the existing
church located at 9915 W. Argent Road.
As illustrated in the elevations submitted with the application (Exhibits 1-3),
the applicant wishes to install wireless communication network antennae atop
an existing church. The antennae will be housed within an architecturally
integrated rooftop feature extending fifteen (15) feet above the existing roofline;
for an overall structure height of 55.4 feet above grade. The proposed wireless
communication antenna meets the requirements listed under the provisions of
PMC 25.70.075, which require wireless facilities to be located on an existing
structure taller than thirty-five (35) feet.
Wireless Facility zoning regulations were specifically developed to permit
(through special permit review) cellular tower/antenna equipment on taller
buildings within the community.
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.
tj
(2) Such structures may be permitted by special permit in all
other zoning districts provided said structures are:
(a) Attached to or located on an existing or proposed
building or structure that is higher than thirty-five
(35) feet; or
(b) Located on or with a publicly owned facility such as a
water reservoir, fire station, police station, school, county or
portfacility.
(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 no fence is proposed around the metal
equipment shelter. Staff has entered a condition (#7) requiring the equipment
enclosure be screened from view from surrounding roadways. The screening
must meet design requirements of the I-182 Overlay District (PMC 25.58).
A determination of non -significance from TOWAIR for the FAA has been
obtained by the applicant; as required by PMC 25.70.075(4) a copy has been
included in the application submittal.
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.
N
1. The site is zoned RS -12 (Suburban).
2. The Comprehensive Plan identifies the site for low-density residential
uses.
3. The site is approximately 1.65 acres in area.
4. The site contains a church approximately 9,200 square feet in area.
5. All municipal utilities currently serve the site.
6. In the RS -12 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.
7. The cellular antennae will be mounted on top of an existing church
which is 40.4 feet in height.
8. Addition of the antennae housing appurtenance will increase the height
of the church by fifteen (15) feet for an overall height of 55.4 feet.
9. Equipment serving the proposed antennae will be located within a 275
square foot ground -level equipment enclosure approximately 11.5 feet in
height.
10. The Comprehensive Plan suggests the City ought to maintain land use
flexibility with regard to placement of infrastructure for public and
private utilities.
11. The Comprehensive Plan does not specifically address cellular
equipment.
12. Cellular equipment creates minimal demands on City infrastructure.
CONCLUSIONS BASED ON STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT
Before recommending approval or denial of a special permit the Planning
Commission must develop findings of fact from which to draw its conclusions
based upon the criteria listed in PMC 25.86.060. The criteria are as follows:
(1) 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
El
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.
(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. The addition of roof -top cellular antennae, as marked
through architecturally consistent features, will not alter or affect the
existing or intended character of the surrounding neighborhood.
(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 proposed antennae housing will be located on top of an existing
church building and generally will not be noticed by the public. The
cellular facility is unlikely to discourage development in the vicinity.
The tower will be designed to be integrated into the architectural design
of the existing church.
(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.
Cellular facilities have been located throughout the community in
residential, commercial and industrial zones without generating any
complaints received by the City.
5
(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 applicable snow and wind loads. The applicant is also
required by law to coordinate with the FAA and FCC prior to obtaining a
building permit. A Determination of No Hazard to Air Navigation for the
tower has been issued to AT&T by the FAA for the proposed facility.
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. The cellular antennae and
equipment pose no true threat to public health and safety.
APPROVAL CONDITIONS
1) The special permit shall apply to parcel # 118-112-036 addressed
9915 West Argent Road;
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 enclosure shall not exceed 55.4 feet in height as
measured from existing grade;
4) The cellular antennae shall be enclosed within an architecturally
integrated feature attached to the church building;
5) The ground -level equipment enclosure shall be located no closer than
ten (10) feet from the north and east property lines of parcel # 118-
112-036;
6) The ground -level equipment shall be located within a decorative block
wall which fully blocks the view from all rights-of-way. Design of the
sight -screening shall meet the requirements of the I-182 Overlay
District (PMC 25.58);
7) The proposed cellular facility must comply with all FCC regulations;
8) The roof -top antennae housing shall not emit light;
9) The roof -top appurtenance housing the cellular antennae shall be
constructed and painted to match the architecture of the church;
10) The special permit shall be null and void if a City of Pasco building
permit is not obtained by December 31, 2016.
3
This proposal has previously been considered through the special permit
review process and was approved by the City Council. Following Council
approval, a building permit was issues for the construction of the
integrated antennae enclosure. Because this project was previously
approved and issued all necessary permits, staff is recommending the
Planning Commission use the following motions to send a
recommendation on to the City Council after the November 16th hearing.
MOTION: I move to close the hearing and adopt findings of fact
and conclusions therefrom as contained in the
November 16, 2015 staff report.
MOTION: I move based on the findings of fact and conclusions
as adopted, the Planning Commission recommend the
City Council grant a special permit to allow the
installation of wireless communication facilities on tax
parcel # 118-112-036 addressed 9915 West Argent
Road with conditions as contained in the November
19, 2015 staff report.
7
z
� z
c�
o OOT UVOR
N �
4--4
Con
ti Q' ti
Z
j
v.
4i4.
nr
Ka, I IJ
1
{ A
t r fr. "� J t99c
# 4'•
t y
it k
ja
t'
i•
!4
1 �4
1 J
1
f y ! �` pd♦♦� irk#
i� 7
a
[4—)
`V
W
• rj
44
0
0
s a.
i
�1
,tig s e
u /
�
s a.
�
'
v
q
f
1
J
,•
�
1 .i
t`
r
l �.
C
� ',Y yl�
s ��
1 ;'q
�: s
c.'.
-'ir ��ILL
�
�'
(` J
t�
h
���
II
I,��r1l�
1
�
�
�
1
�'4 "
�
�
'����
�_1.
��'t
i
1
�
� h ..
I t'
�J n.
� �
( � a � r f
1
�.�
Y
i.
�.
1
� 1
1
1< r
,�
,.
.�
�:.
f; � �,
.� f�:.
� �
i
� '1
�'
�f
�
— l>
4y
4, 1
c,
�
i
t �
M1 r
��
1
/•.�1 1
t :{.
�'a
0
��
JS
1 �
l �Y.
�' 1
1 I
Lti
.���
. ,
��� , 1 �:
.;
',;
�;
E;
,1
� ; �.
.:
;.� ,..
'� � �
�
��1
!f. , .r
1 '�1
A ,�.
1
i �� � "Y d i�
'�'1.,.
1
�, 4
.r. ;��
'��� 1 ..i.
\ e ,� ,
y�
11�
� 1 F
�.
11
' 1
,l
4 � Y
1
a {;.�
�Ip , l i
.., �,.
:.
_!..
�. fl: t
� �
i',` 4 1
x
� � IY 1 , 1
'��,
�`
F
t I
21
z
—
LL Z 0 I
¢
0005
ad@ i
ci
21
00
i
0 o
i
m
0 2
w
x
a¢
w0
U
W z
O
owa
ao¢
d H
4
d J<
OWN
ra
N
Opp
�-ma
v
w
m
a
O L _
da
Oz
I
xW
vz0
w¢
x�Q
dre
r¢$
Ow
6vTi
rev uneoae G
Irvbeanens)e�sa
�ONINOZ 1N3�tlfOtl
L
w
z
a -
e Z�
wwp
O iw w
0 o
9
N
I
I
L
w
z
a -
e Z�
wwp
O iw w
0 o
REPORT TO PLANNING
MASTER FILE NO: SP 2015-014
HEARING DATE: 11/19/2015
ACTION DATE: 11/19/2015
APPLICANT: TowerCo Cell Tower
1631 NE Broadway, #100 1002
Portland, OR 97232
REQUEST: SPECIAL PERMIT: Location of Wireless Communication Facilities
in an RS -12 (Suburban) Zone
1.
Legal: Parcel # 119-701-412: Lot 2, Short Plat 93-08
General Location: The southwest corner of the intersection of Road 68
and W. Court Street
Property Size: The parcel is approximately 1.4 acres
2. ACCESS: The site is accessed from Road 68 and West Court Street.
3. UTILITIES: All municipal utilities are currently available to serve the site
from Road 68 and West Court Street.
4. LAND USE AND ZONING: The site is currently zoned C-1 (Retail
Business) and is vacant. Surrounding properties are zoned and
developed as follows:
NORTH: RS -20 (County) - Vacant
SOUTH: C-1 - Commercial
EAST: C-1- Vacant
WEST: R-2 - Vacant
5. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The Comprehensive Plan designates the site
for commercial uses. Goal OF -2 suggests the City ought to maintain land
use flexibility in regard to placement of infrastructure for 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 -2-13
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.
1
ANALYSIS
In May of 2014 the Planning Commission held a hearing to consider the
placement of a cell tower on the property in question. The application at the
time was submitted by New Cingular Wireless PCS doing business as AT&T
Mobility. During 2014 AT&T abruptly stopped all construction on new cell
towers due to the reallocation of funds and consequently the building permit
and special permit for the previously approved tower both expired. AT&T's
funding has been restored and the firm has again applied (through TowerCo)
for a special permit to locate a cell tower on Lot 2, Short Plat 93-08. The tower
site is located on the west side of Road 68 south of Court Street and directly
north of the MorStor mini -storage facility. The proposal involves construction of
a new antennae tower approximately 90 -feet in height. The applicant's request
is an effort to fill a coverage/ capacity gap south of I-182 (coverage maps
Exhibits 1-3). The installation is intended to better support existing users and
would provide siting for two additional cellular providers to locate antennae on
the same tower. The proposal is identical to the proposal reviewed by the
Planning Commission in 2014.
As illustrated in the elevations submitted with the application (Exhibits 4-6),
the applicant wishes to install an 89 -foot tall wireless communication network
tower on a vacant parcel. The tower design is proposed to appear as a pine tree
complete with faux branches, foliage and bark. At the base of the tower will be
a 40'x40' (1,600ft2) equipment enclosure constructed of a six-foot tall chain-
link fence with privacy slats and three strands of barbed wire above.
Surrounding the fenced area the applicant proposes to install a live vegetative
buffer to further help screen the ground -level equipment enclosure and pole
base from view and to enhance appearance. A 31 -foot wide utility service and
parking easement will connect Road 68 to the fenced enclosure to establish
legal access and use of the property. Staff has entered a condition (#5)
requiring the equipment enclosure be screened from view from surrounding
roadways.
Cellular facilities are proposed to be located in approximately the southeast
corner of the subject parcel; roughly twenty feet north of the nearest mini -
storage building. This location may alleviate some the visual impact created by
the new tower and enclosure by separating them from Court Street traffic as
much as the site will allow.
Zoning regulations for wireless facilities were specifically developed to permit,
through special permit review, cellular tower/antenna equipment on taller
buildings within the community.
2
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:
(a) Attached to or located on an existing or proposed
building or structure that is higher than thirty-five (35) feet;
or
(b) Located on or with a publicly owned facility such as a
water reservoir, fire station, police station, school, county or
portfacility.
(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).
(c) If an applicant chooses to construct a new
freestanding wireless communication facility, the burden of
proof shall be on the applicant to show a wireless
communication facilitu located on a higher order of preference
site cannot reasonably be accommodated. The situ reserves the
right to retain a qualified consultant, at the applicant's expense,
to review the supporting documentation for accuracy.
(4) All applications for building permits must be accompanied
by verification of approval by the Federal Communications
Commission (FCC), the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)
and any other state or federal requirements for tower design
and location. Additionally all tower construction plans must be
designed and stamped by a licensed professional engineer.
3
(5) All wireless communication facilities shall be removed by
the facility owner within 6 months of the date the facility ceases
to be operational or if the facility falls into disrepair.
In this case the applicant is unable to locate an existing building 35 -feet or
taller nor a publicly owned facility in the general vicinity which would allow the
cellular coverage objectives to be met. The applicant has provided staff with
analysis of co -location opportunities; staff is in general agreement with the
findings of the analysis. This leaves the last locational preference being a site
other than an existing building 35 -feet or taller or a publicly owned facility.
A determination of non -significance from TOWAIR for the FAA has been
obtained by the applicant; as required by PMC 25.70.075(4) a copy has been
included in the application submittal.
Per request by the Planning Commission the applicant has provided an AM
radio frequency (RF) analysis (Exhibit 7) evaluating the effect of the proposed
wireless communication facility on the nearby AM radio towers. In brief, the
analysis concludes that FCC regulation do not require analysis of effects on
nearby AM radio facilities. The analysis further concludes that the proposed
cellular tower will have no adverse effect on the existing AM signal and service.
A copy of the AM RF analysis is included in the report.
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 C-1 (Retail Business).
2. The Comprehensive Plan identifies the site for commercial uses.
3. The site is approximately 1.4 acres in area.
4. The site is vacant.
5. All municipal utilities are currently available serve the site from adjacent
roadways.
6. In the C-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
M
ii) Located on or with a publicly owned facility such as a water
reservoir, fire station, police station, school, county or port
facility.
iii) Located on a site other than those listed in a) or b).
7. As analyzed by the applicant, there are no publicly owned facilities nor
are there any existing buildings taller than 35 feet, within a 1,300 -foot
radius of the site that would allow for AT&T's coverage objectives to be
met.
8. The cellular antennae tower will be approximately 90 -feet in height.
9. The cellular antennae tower will be treated with features to disguise the
tower as a tree.
10. Equipment serving the proposed antennae will be located within a 1,600
square foot ground -level equipment enclosure fenced with chain-link
fence and barbed wire.
11. The Comprehensive Plan suggests the City ought to maintain land use
flexibility with regard to placement of infrastructure for public and
private utilities.
12. The Comprehensive Plan does not specifically address cellular
equipment.
13. Cellular equipment creates minimal demands on City infrastructure.
CONCLUSIONS BASED ON STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT
Before recommending approval or denial of a special permit the Planning
Commission must develop findings of fact from which to draw its conclusions
based upon the criteria listed in PMC 25.86.060. The criteria are as follows:
(1) 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.
5
(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.
(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 a combination of residential suburban
development and commercial businesses. The two notable businesses
near the site are commercial in nature; they are a nursery and the
adjacent mini -storage facility. Much of the surrounding vicinity remains
largely vacant. The nursery business to the northeast has contained an
AM radio tower, approximately 100 feet in height, for many years. It is
unlikely that placement of a new antennae tower on the proposed site
will significantly alter the existing and/or intended character of the
general vicinity.
(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?
There exist a number of cellular antennae towers throughout the
community. Staff has not received complaints from potential developers
about any of the existing towers being a deterrent to development
opportunities. Perhaps the inverse is a more likely result. The added 4G
cellular data service of increased signal strength may be an attractant to
potential commercial developers.
(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 notable fumes, dust or
noise. Emergency power generators are included in the ground -level
equipment. The generators will be periodically activated to test
functionality. Noise associated with the generators should be no greater
than noise generated by normal vehicle traffic on Court Street. The
generators and other equipment will be fully housed within a solid
containment enclosure. An antennae tower will generate far less noise,
dust and fumes than many of the land uses allowed in the C-1 zone.
Cellular facilities have been located throughout the community in
G
residential, commercial and industrial zones without generating any
complaints received by the City.
(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. A
Determination of No Hazard to Air Navigation for the tower has been
issued to AT&T by the FAA for the proposed facility.
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 50 to 90 feet
above grade, away from human activity. The cellular antennae and
equipment pose no true threat to public health and safety.
APPROVAL CONDITIONS
1) The special permit shall apply to parcel # 119-701-412, Lot 2, Short
Plat 93-08, Franklin County WA;
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 90 feet in height as
measured from existing grade;
4) The entire cellular antennae tower shall be treated with faux tree
features including branches, foliage and bark;
5) The ground -level equipment shall be screened from all adjacent
rights-of-way by a block wall;
6) The ground -level cellular equipment enclosure shall be surrounded by
a landscaping buffer which obscures view of the equipment enclosure.
Said landscaping buffer shall be served by an automatic irrigation
system and shall be maintained in a well -kept manner by the
applicant;
7) The ground -level equipment enclosure shall be located no closer than
fifteen (15) feet from the property line adjacent to Road 68;
8) The driveway connecting Road 68 to the equipment enclosure shall be
paved with either concrete or asphalt to the design specifications of
the Pasco City Engineer;
9) The antennae tower shall not emit white light between the hours of
6pm and 8am;
7
10) The proposed cellular facility must comply with all FCC regulations
regarding radio frequency emissions;
11) The special permit shall be null and void if a City of Pasco building
permit is not obtained by January 1, 2016.
This proposal has previously been considered through the special
permit review process and was approved by the City Council.
Following Council approval a building permit was issued for the
construction of the tower. Because this project was previously
approved and issued all necessary permits staff is recommending the
Planning Commission use the following motions to send a
recommendation on to the City Council after the November 19th
hearing.
MOTION for Findings of Fact: I move to close the hearing and
adopt findings of fact and conclusions therefrom as contained in the
November 19, 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 to allow wireless communication
facilities on tax parcel # 119-701-412 with conditions as contained in
the November 19, 2015 staff report.
0
mom..
If
Em
T,
Id
ly
0
a
O
ct
�
ct
C-)
- -
mom..
If
Em
T,
Id
ly
r� Id H199
N
a�
89 UVON
ct
.. cd
U
Z Id H199� — - — -
O C
.j
89 UVOU
.rn
rool
�a
p cnd i-"
N � ��
i
10
W
J V)
N
N
J
N
W fu
>
>
O
U
L -°
O
,,On
U
O
V
W '' v
� =m
O
V) fo
fo
N N
■� L >
J oQ)
o ro
U
C:
U) r(yl) Fp
d'
m
m
E E E E E E E E
Eg�ggic�n �
rc n e�2 c a�2 n
"c�rc�szrc�zrc
e as- Boom r
2
$ A
Manama! m E E E E E
e a m a .
II�M%%%K5.E
In ago",
FF 3 p
yj� u 4 R K 4 2
iLU ays Q J 3S Z pQffGzS�O i
g444aa•Wogo a a
�u`i uui �� PLJ
0 R
z
a S 2 z § ± g33
Z
S
�+a¢s a a3$
O t p€ 8@ a� 6 a & xm 8. w ugW7E y
N °g.
o s W os o �G o o o Hqi z
p g El) Rt
e g $ a g. 9. g so a = z�«a� >
U 0i, it> i>® ri Y
N
g �
dU
= Adl
F N &w
r 3
4 4
4
Z p
a� a?
F Z4 Ja
Q W �Y
■
/
\
e
!
°\§ �i §!
MIR!!
r
Agh.
` ()!A( =$k | |
—� —�--(�
(� . �—p--
!
[
� \
- - - «-- � =— --
�--------._� �\ �
I �
E
!
� —� — -- —� -- ----- --
I
, !
. > ! „ IL
/ § |
/ p &! ! ,/.
\.us *Nj,
i J ALL= ag4 J (%§ �! -
44|
5
\ ------ --
�- ----- — --� .—
/...--
,CIVOU ,
K
.EE,,
------- ? �— ---�— .
�||§/
} IJ
t
k`,
f
k44
y
r
O
O
i
1
r
r
..Kr•-
1
r
t
MEMORANDUM
DATE: November 12, 2015
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Jeffrey B. Adams, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: Home Occupations/ Client Present (MF# CA 2015-007)
The City of Pasco prohibits any "occupation requiring the customer or client to
be present upon the premises while the profession, trade, skill or service is
performed . . . ." This has been interpreted to include hair dressers/beauty
salons. Recently the code has been amended to allow for "private tutoring or
instruction for 4 or fewer student per 24 -hour period;"
It has been proposed that provision be made for home occupations where the
customer or client may be present on-site—such as what may occur in a
beauty salon, dental or medical office, tailor or seamstress, or photography
studio. Typical standards for such client -present home occupations may
include the following:
• Be separated from the living quarters by a permanent wall;
• Cannot use a separate entrance;
• Cannot change the principal use of the home as a residence;
• Must be by appointment only.
Were this provision to be offered by the City two general approaches should be
considered, as follows:
1) Allow client -present home occupations by Special Permit, with conditions
focused on mitigating the impacts of on-site client visits
2) Allow client -present home occupations outright as a Permitted Use.
Impact -mitigating provisions would need to be built into the code.
The Special Permit route would add to the Planning Commission and City
Council workload, but would allow more personalized focus on each applicant.
It would also increase the possibility for discrimination litigation if one client -
present home occupation is treated slightly different than a similar one, for
whatever reason.
The Permitted Uses option would be more complex to initiate, anticipating all
possible scenarios, but simpler to use, and much faster for the applicant as it
bypasses the quasi-judicial process altogether.
Staff requests Commission consideration and discussion of this issue
Page 1 of I