Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-17-2015 Planning Commission Meeting PacketPLANNING COMMISSION - AGENDA REGULAR MEETING 7:00 P.M. December 17, 2015 I. CALL TO ORDER: II. ROLL CALL: Declaration of Quorum III. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: November 19, 2015 V. OLD BUSINESS: A. Preliminary Plat Preliminary Plat for Ellie Estates (Ilya Parkhotyuk) IMF# PP 2015-0031 B. Special Permit Special Permit for the modification of parkin facilities at Mark Twain Elementary School (Pasco School District) (MF# SP 2015-012) 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( VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS: A. Rezone Rezone from C-1 (Retail Business) to R-1 (Low Density Residential) (Bardown Consulting LLC) (MF# Z 2015-004) B. Preliminary Plat Preliminary Plat for Coles Estates, Lot 6 (Bardown Consulting LLC) (MF# PP 2015-005) C. Rezone Rezone from "O" (Office) to R-3 (Medium Density Residential) (Ruben Escalera) (MF# Z 2015-005) D. Special Permit Modification of a Special Permit issued under adaptive reuse of Historic Places Provisions (Brad & Debra Peck) (MF# SP 2015-015) E. Special Permit Special Permit for the location of a vineyard frost protection wind machine in an RS -12 (Residential Suburban) Zone (Jerry Czebotar) (MF# SP 2015-016) F. Special Permit Special Permit for the location of sports field lighting in an R-1 (Low Density Residential) Zone (City of Pasco) (MF# SP 2015-017) G. Special Permit Special Permit to locate a farm and related buildings (WSU Extension Office) (MF# SP 2015-018) VII. WORKSHOP: VIII. OTHER BUSINESS: IX. ADJOURNMENT: This meeting is broadcast live on PSC -TV Channel 191 on Charter Cable and streamed at www.pasco-waxom/nsetvlive. 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 Chairwoman Polk. POSITION MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT No. 1 Tanya Bowers No.2 VACANT 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: November 19, 2015 Chairwoman Polk read a statement about the appearance of fairness for hearings on land use matters. Chairwoman Polk 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. Chairwoman Polk 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: Chairwoman Polk explained that state law requires testimony in quasi-judicial hearings such as held by the Planning Commission be given under oath or affirmation. Chairwoman Polk swore in all those desiring to speak. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Greenaway moved, seconded by Commissioner Bowers that the minutes dated October 15, 2015 be approved. The motion passed unanimously. PUBLIC HEARINGS: A. Preliminary Plat Preliminary Plat for Ellie Estates ILIva Parkhotvukl IMF# PP 2015-0031 - Continued Chairwoman Polk read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Dave McDonald, City Planner, discussed the preliminary plat application for Ellie Estates. This item has been before the Planning Commission for the past three months as a continuing hearing. Last month direction was provided by the Commissioners to connect -1- Maple Drive through to the proposed cul-de-sac running north to south from Sterling Road. The applicant was asked to modify his plat and talk to the property owners to see if they were willing to allow Maple Drive to connect, which would provide better circulation through the neighborhood and provide redundancy for utilities. The developer discussed this matter with the property owners and they weren't interested in having Maple Drive connect. The plat has been redrawn to include a temporary cul-de-sac with a right-of-way connecting from that cul-de-sac to Maple Drive. The thought being that the cul-de-sac and the north and south street could be developed and the bit of connecting right-of-way (connection to Maple) could be provided but not developed at this time. With the right-of- way in place, someday in the future the road could be extended. The right-of-way would also allow the water line to be extended. The proposal isn't exactly what the Planning Commissioner's had hoped for but it mostly fulfills what was trying to be accomplished. Commissioner Portugal asked how long in the future Maple Drive could be connected once the right-of-way is dedicated. Mr. McDonald answered that it could be 1 or more years, however, with the dedication of the right-of-way the option is preserved for the road to be extended in the future. Commissioner Portugal asked if the City or developer would move the shop in the future in order to connect the road. Mr. McDonald responded that in the future the developer or property owner would have to move the shop unless there was an arrangement made between the City and property owner to have it removed. Commissioner Greenaway asked for clarification that the City would not be forcing the current property owner to move the shop. Mr. McDonald stated that they would not be required to remove the shop, however, with this proposal they would require dedication of right-of-way. Commissioner Bowers asked if the owner of Lot 1 had no interest in moving the shop at this time. Mr. McDonald answered that is correct. Commissioner Bowers asked if the property owners of Lots 1, 2 and 3 amenable to this plat. Mr. McDonald stated that he was unsure but perhaps the applicant could respond. Ilya Parkhotyuk, 785 Gaines Street, Richland, WA spoke on behalf of this application. He reiterated that the property owners are not interested at this time in connecting Maple Drive. The proposed plat is the best case scenario that was negotiated. Mr. Parkhotyuk stated that he offered to build a block wall to assist with any noise for the property owners but they weren't interested and did not want the road to go through at this point. This design is the only option left. -2- Commissioner Bowers asked for clarification as to where they didn't want the road to go through. Mr. Parkhotyuk answered that they didn't want Maple Drive connecting to the cul-de-sac. With no further questions or comments the public hearing closed Commissioner Bowers moved, seconded by Commissioner Greenaway, to close the public 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. The motion passed unanimously. B. Special Permit Special Permit for the modification of narking facilities at Mark Twain Elementary School (Pasco School Districtl IMF# SP 2015-0121 Chairwoman Polk read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Dave McDonald, City Planner, discussed the special permit application for the modification of parking facilities at Mark Twain Elementary School. The School District wants to reconfigure and enlarge the current parking that runs along the west side of the school by adding a number of additional drop-off points for parents to drop-off and pick up their children, as well as adding a number of parking stalls. In addition, the District wants to reconfigure the bus drop-off and pick-up which is currently a very small area north of the school. Plan is to add an area to the east that could accommodate 10 or more buses. The current smaller drop-off area would be used for special needs students. In between the new bus area additional staff and teacher parking would be added. The new parking should lessen some of the congestion on Road 40 and Pearl Street. The school has been at this location since 1956 and is an established part of the neighborhood. These improvements should benefit the surrounding properties. Chairwoman Polk asked where the existing drop-off area is located. Mr. McDonald stated that he believed it is right along the sidewalk on Road 40. There is not much room inside the parking lot to drop children off. Commissioner Portugal asked if the public was informed about the proposed modifications and if the City has received any feedback. Mr. McDonald responded that with every public hearing a notice is posted twice in the newspaper at least 10 days before the hearing and that same notice is mailed directly to all property owners within 300 feet of the school site. The Planning Office received a visit from one couple that lived on the east side of the school site and perhaps one phone call but that is the only feedback received from the public. Randy Nunamaker, 1215 E. Lewis Street, spoke on behalf of the application. Mark Twain Elementary School was built in 1956 and has had significant renovations in 1988 and was to house approximately 500 students. With the growth in Pasco since then, the School District has added a number of portables and has increased the enrollment of the school. -3- The traffic along Road 40 and Pearl Street is congested at times, backed up to Road 40 with parent pick-up and drop-off. In 2013, Pasco voters approved a bond and this project was part of the bond. In the interim, the School District has worked with the Pasco Engineering Department and they have provided crosswalks and stop signs to try to alleviate some of the challenges with traffic. The Pasco Police Department and Fire Department have assisted as well. Commissioner Portugal asked how many buses pick-up and drop-off children. Mr. Nunamaker answered that it varies. Currently there are 3 special needs buses and roughly 4-5 general needs buses. Commissioner Greenaway asked what is located in the open space between the parking and the school. Mr. Nunamaker said that it is a playground. Chairwoman Polk asked if the majority of drop-offs are occurring on Road 40 and Pearl. Mr. Nunamaker responded that the parent drop-off is on Road 40. Currently they have to pull into the parking lot to load and unload and it blocks traffic so nobody can pull in or out. The bus parking is currently on Pearl Street and some of the buses can fit into the pull-out but some have to park on Pearl Street. Commissioner Bowers asked if this new plan has been shared with the parents at this school. Mr. Nunamaker said it has been given to the principal to share and the School District has received input. The School District went through a process a few years ago with the parents when this project was first looked at and they came up with short term and long term fixes. The principal was provided with four options and this is what was chosen as the proposed plan. Commissioner Mendez asked if the School District views this as a way to relieve congestion and enhance safety for the children. Mr. Nunamker responded yes. Pamela Morehouse, 3611 Mesquite Drive, stated that she has control over her parents' property, 1812 Road 36, that is adjacent to where to proposed bus drop-off is located. She asked how the proposed plan was going to alleviate congestion on Road 40 and Pearl by increasing traffic on Road 40 and Pearl since both of these streets will be used to access these drop-off points. The property to the south is not being used and would be a better location. She also believes that these modifications will affect the value of her parents' property negatively. Commissioner Portugal asked if Ms. Morehouse or her parents were offered the opportunity to participate in discussions at the school. Ms. Morehouse answered that this was this first chance she has been able to speak on this proposal. Rob Morehouse, 3708 Road 103, stated that his parents' property is adjacent to the proposed modifications and the property on the south side of the school is all weeds and the improvements would be better suited there. He requested clarification on where they were expanding the parking lot. Chairwoman Polk responded that they are proposing to remove any existing bus drop off but they are adding an additional bus drop-off and expanding the parent drop-off to keep cars off of the street. Mr. Morehouse asked where Road 38 is located. Mr. McDonald answered that Road 38 is to the north of the proposed bus parking. Rick White, Community 8s Economic Development Director, clarified that the map that was displayed during the meeting had north to the left of the sketch. Mr. Morehouse said that since this school was built in 1956, they owned the property adjacent to the school and this is the first notice that they have received. He didn't believe that this plan was going to relieve traffic at all. Commissioner Portugal asked Mr. Morehouse how his property would be negatively affected as he had mentioned. Mr. Morehouse said that with the bus loading moved next to his property the value will be hurt. If someone wants to develop the property with homes they will not want the bus drop-off in the backyard. Commissioner Portugal asked what other concerns he has about this proposal. Mr. Morehouse responded that his other concern is that the City of Pasco is wanting another 10' to widen the road down Pearl Street, which is what they did a couple of years ago on his parents property and was told they were going to widen the road. Chairwoman Polk responded that she is unaware of the issue widening the road but it does not pertain to this application and those plans are not a part of the School District's modifications. Donnabelle Labonte, 1804 Road 40, stated that she was concerned about the safety of the students and traffic on Road 40. The parents that pick-up and drop-off double park at times. It is difficult to safely drive down this road even going the speed limit of 25 mph. She has spoken with staff at the school as well as the Police Department. She also thought the empty lot to the south of the school would be a better location for the parking and drop-off. Commissioner Portugal asked Ms. Labonte if she has contacted anyone at the school or spoken to the principal. -5- Ms. Labonte answered that she has been over to the school frequently over the years working with the administration and this past year she has seen an improvement. Marilyn Hansen, 3905 W. Pearl Street, stated that her driveway is continually blocked and her mailbox has been destroyed by parents picking up and dropping off their children. She stated that she cannot come home for lunch or around 3:00 p.m. because it is too hard to pull into her home. She believes something definitely needs to be done to the current parking and asked where the proposed parking will be located. Chairwoman Polk responded that the school is planning to have 23 drop-off spots inside the school property where cars can turn in and park parallel to the school instead of on the street and some parallel parking. The existing bus drop off will remain but designated for special needs buses only. The bulk of the buses will be located farther away. Ms. Hansen felt that the proposed bus drop-off was a long ways for the kids to walk. Chairwoman Polk stated that the children would be walking through the school grounds, not on the sidewalk. Ms. Hansen asked if the buses could pull in on Pearl but then exit around on the other side of the school. Mr. Nunamaker shook his head no. Ms. Hansen asked if the School District owned the property south of the school. Mr. Nunamaker responded no. Rebecca Cooper, 3807 Santa Ana Loop, stated that the buses aren't so much of an issue as the parent who pick-up and drop-off their children as she sees in her neighborhood near McGee. She would like to see something done to keep parents off the street, such as "No Parking" signs or painting the curbs yellow. Chairwoman Polk asked Mr. Nunamaker to come back and address some of the concerns discussed by the public, such as; modifying the lot south of the school, how many parking spots will be added and if any studies have been done regarding parking on the street versus using the drop-off. Mr. Nunamaker stated that one of the challenges they have is parents can pull up in the street wherever they want. The Pasco Police Department has been very responsive when contacted for traffic control, however, they cannot be out every day. The challenge with parents is that they want to get as close as possible to where the children are being let out and want to pick up as quickly as possible. The further away you place the parking, the more likely they are to violate that and move closer to the building on either side of the street. The idea behind their proposed design is to get the parents off of Road 40 which is where they are parking right now. The proposal gives parents a place to park and even an area to drive through so they don't have to get out of the car. As for the lot to the south, Mr. Nunamaker referred to Kim Marsh from the School District, who stated that the M School District does not own the property to the south. Chairwoman asked for clarification on the parking and drop-off area. Mr. Nunamaker responded that it will all be reconfigured. Currently there is a small semi- oval pull-out for parents to pull in however it is significantly smaller. The challenge is that they have had to use the parking lot as part of the parent pick-up/drop-off area. Commissioner Portugal asked how many students attend the school and if there are more students than intended. Mr. Nunamaker answered that they are not over capacity with the core building and portables. Commissioner Bowers asked for clarification of the drop-off area for parents, pull through for the buses, where the kids go to find their parents and where the children will be released from school. Mr. Nunamaker referred to the map on the overhead to point out where the proposed parent pick-up and drop-off would be and children released. Commissioner Portugal stated in addition to reminding parents but neighboring property owners who may not have children going to the school and asked if they are notified. Mr. Nunamaker stated that the property owners in the area typically get notified through the School District's Building Administration, so the principal contacts people in the area. Commissioner Bowers asked Mr. Nunamaker to address the claim from the Morehouse's regarding this negatively affecting their property value. Mr. Nunamaker responded that he would not be the correct person to address that issue. Donnabelle Labonte, 1804 Road 40, suggested the Planning Commissioner's drive through the area between 2:30pm-3:40pm to see how congested it gets. In terms of getting notified by the school, she stated that she no longer has children going to the school, however she works with the School District and that is the only way she finds anything out. She did receive a notice in the mail from the City regarding the public hearing but nothing from the School District. Pamela Morehouse, 3611 Mesquite Drive, addressed employees parking around their homes. She asked if there are plans to expand staff parking and if there will be enough to handle the staff load. Chairwoman Polk answered that it appears the bus loading is moving to the east and there will be an optional 40 -stall staff parking area in the middle of the bus loading area while the buses loop around them. Ms. Morehouse was concerned about the design for the safety of the children. -7- Chairwoman Polk addressed the safety concerns. With no further comments the public hearing closed. Commissioner Portugal asked staff about a concern Mr. Morehouse had about the City needing 10' of property to widen the road by this School. Mr. McDonald responded that is a separate issue and has nothing to do with the special permit application. Commissioner Greenaway moved, seconded by Commissioner Mendez, 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. The motion passed unanimously. C. Special Permit Special Permit to locate wireless cellular facilities at an existing church in an RS -12 (Suburban) Zone (AT&T1 (MF# SP 2015-0131 Chairwoman Polk read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Rick White, Community 8s Economic Development Director, discussed the special permit application to locate wireless cellular facilities at an existing church in an RS -12 Zone. The site is located at 9915 West Argent Road and is 1.65 acres. The Planning Commission saw this application in April 2014 and the applicant was granted a special permit, however, they let the special permit expire. This application is a renewal as some of the applicant's internal issues have been resolved. The antennae will be housed within a structure that looks like a bell tower. It will be disguised within the addition on the top of the existing roof of the church located on this property. The elevation of the church is greater than 35' in height and with the antennae it will be roughly 55' above the ground level. The Pasco Municipal Code does have a priority or hierarchy for cell service and cellular antennae's and in this case, the structure exceeds 35' in height so it meets one of the priority locational criteria. Since the Commission has seen this item before, Staff is requesting the Planning Commission close the public hearing and make a recommendation for Council at this meeting. Angela Raymond, 5501 NE 109th Court, Vancouver, WA spoke on behalf of AT&T for this application. She stated that this proposal is exactly the same as it was presented and approved in 2014. She presented a photo into the record as to what the "bell tower" will look like on the church, which is where the antennae's will be housed. The ground facilities will be located on the left of the structure as an enclosed structure surrounded by a solid 8' brick wall. Chairwoman Polk asked if there would be any ornamentation on the bell tower. Ms. Raymond responded that there would be at the top. Commissioner Mendez asked if there were any safety concerns with the antennae inside M the bell tower. Ms. Raymond answered that it meets the FCC safety regulations and does not propose a risk. It will be structurally engineered by a certified engineer in Washington State during the building permit process. Commissioner Mendez stated he was more concerned with the frequencies. Ms. Raymond responded that AT&T is licensed under the FCC so they are in compliance with all of the federal regulations with radio frequency waves. Commissioner Bowers asked why the tower is proposed for this site. Ms. Raymond answered that there is a process as to how a location is selected. AT&T comes forth to consultants with their needs for service areas to better serve their customers and increase quality and then the consultants go through zoning requirements for each municipality and look for existing communication towers and buildings to first co - locate on to attach their antennae's for the least impact. In this case they were fortunate to find a building in the needed location that is suitable for the antennae's and already has a significant height. It is a better solution than a new monopole. Commissioner Bowers asked if the church would be compensated. Ms. Raymond responded yes that there is a separate process between AT&T and the property owner goes through. Rebecca Cooper, 3807 Santa Ana Loop, discussed her concerns for this application. She stated that her family has property located near this proposed site, including two homes and a vineyard. She is speaking on their behalf. In 2014 and this year her family has not received any notice on these public hearings other than the legal notice in the newspaper. She asked Staff if 300 feet was the required notification for public hearings. Staff shook their heads yes. Ms. Cooper responded that anyone who has property just over 300 feet, such as 310 feet, could find excavating and other work being done on property near them without receiving any notification. This is the first time she has had a chance to speak on this special permit application, however her second time in one year speaking on the location of a cell tower. She shared her concerns about the health safety of the towers especially located so closely to children, the effects on property value and the appearance. She stated that in 2014, Realtor Magazine published an article that 94% of homebuyers and renters say they are less interested and would pay less for a property located near a cell phone tower. And 79% said they would never purchase a property within a few blocks of a cell tower or antennae. The article stated that homebuyers that do buy, pay 20% less for a property located near a tower or antennae. Ms. Cooper briefly discussed the Desert Plateau hearing in July regarding another cellular tower and how the citizens were told the Planning Commission could not reject a special permit application based on health concerns because it meets the FCC standards, however, the International Commission for Electromagnetic Safety has studied the effects of health and went over those concerns. Commissioner Portugal asked how far her family's property is from the proposed cell tower. Mr. White responded that it is well over 300 feet from the church site. Ms. Cooper said the vineyard is another issue and because they would like to someday sell it and this will affect their real estate. Commissioner Portugal responded that the reason he asked is because the City is bound to notify within 300 feet and anything outside of that 300 feet the City is within the law. Ms. Cooper agreed but stated that the law should be expanded so more people have an idea as to what is going on. Commissioner Portugal answered that the City doesn't have much control over that. Ms. Cooper stated that the City could change those policies and could have policies to not locate cell towers near schools, churches or parks. Chairwoman Polk responded that the towers have to be located where there is a need. Ms. Cooper said nobody wants these towers in their backyard. Peoples concerns are real and this is near her family's property and they would like to sell their property someday. Nobody wants to live near cell towers and they shouldn't be near schools. There is going to be a school at this location. She asked that the Planning Commission consider that health research exists, that the Commission extend notification if they can and to use precautions of health. Jeff Smith, 8920 W. Dradie Street, stated that his family owns property across the street from the proposed site. He agreed that 300 feet is a little short for the notices and believes that there should at least be `/2 mile radius. Mr. Smith said that his concern is that there seems to be double standards for building characteristics to match the neighborhood. He tried to add on to his shop and the County informed him that the zoning had changed and he couldn't because it didn't fit the theme of the neighborhood. Later the City annexed his property, which he didn't mind, but he tried again to add on to his shop. The City said no because it was already too big the way it was and didn't fit the theme of the neighborhood. But throughout the neighborhood there are shops everywhere and he didn't see how a cell tower fit the theme of the neighborhood. Rob Morehouse, 3708 Road 103, wanted to state that he also felt the 300 foot radius notification wasn't a fair distance. David Hurley, 4311 W. Murray Court, stated that he was on the leadership team of the church and he felt they were good neighbors and found it alarming to hear they were not. The church body has agreed to move forward with this application, however, to his understanding it hasn't been completely solidified with AT&T and could fall through. The fact that it will be enclosed in a bell tower and hidden from site, adding service to the neighborhood, they all thought it was a win-win for everybody. -10- Angela Raymond, 5501 NE 109th Court, spoke again on her application. She addressed the concerns discussed during the hearing. All requirements have been met per Pasco Municipal Code and as far as property values, she has read other statistics to the opposite affect that an average of 1 in 4 homes have a cell phone that they solely rely on for emergency purposes, personal use and business. The communication tower will provide emergency services for e-911 requirements. As for the health concerns, she stated that there have been no proven health effects associated with wireless communication facilities and all radio frequency waves will be met with the FCC and are in compliance. There was mention of wireless devices, this application is for a wireless communication facility and not associated with the wireless devices used. The facility is proposed to be located where service is needed. The site is in a suburban district which is allowed through the Pasco Municipal Code and AT&T has met all requirements. They are stealthing the facility at maximum capacity. Commissioner Greenaway asked the applicant if she has heard any research of the towers or antennae's lowering property values. Ms. Raymond answered no. Rebecca Cooper, 3807 Santa Ana Loop, spoke again to Ms. Raymond's comments. She discussed the article in Realtor Magazine again concerning property values. Commissioner Portugal asked the City about the health concerns discussed by Ms. Cooper and if there is any way to compare. Mr. White responded that with the health and property data mentioned during the hearing that there are pro and con for both. He has done the research and so you will find some information stating that it does effect health and property values and no it doesn't. The City, County and anyone else in the United States is prohibited from using potential health impacts as a way to deny a permit since it is federally compliant. Commissioner Greenaway asked if the school was notified since they own property nearby and what happened to the notification to the vineyard. Dave McDonald, City Planner, responded that there is a database used to pull addresses or parcels within 300 feet and the Planning Department mails out the notices to those addresses. Commissioner Portugal asked if the 300 foot notification was the same in Pasco as it is in other municipalities. Mr. White added that the 300 foot radius notification comes from Washington State Law. Commissioner Bowers said it would be helpful to know where other cell towers are located in the area. Chairwoman Polk assisted Commissioner Bowers with that information. The Commissioners were in agreement to close the public hearing but hold off on making -11- a recommendation to City Council until the December meeting. Commissioner Mendez moved, seconded by Commissioner Greenway, to close the public hearing and schedule deliberations and adoption of findings of fact and conclusions for the December 17, 2015 meeting. The motion passed 4 to 1 with Commissioner Portugal dissenting. D. Special Permit Special Permit to locate a wireless communications tower on a vacant parcel in a C-1 (Retail Business) Zone (Tower Co.) IMF# SP 2015-0141 Chairwoman Polk read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Dave McDonald, City Planner, discussed the special permit application for the location of a wireless communication tower on a vacant C-1 parcel near the intersection of Road 68 and Court Street. It was explained the AT&T had previously received approval for a cell tower on this site and that a permit had been issued for construction. After receiving a building permit the project was put on hold and the special permit expired. Mr. McDonald reviewed the site information for the Planning Commission and explained the background and need for a cell tower at this location. The proposal was generally the same as the one reviewed last year. The proposal involves the construction of a tower that would then be concealed by a false "pine tree". It is the same design that was reviewed by the Planning Commission and Council over a year ago. The same findings of facts have been provided as well as conditions. In regards to comments concerning property values and cell towers, Staff checked with the County Assessor to find out if there was any impact in the community. The Assessor stated, he has not seen a reduction in property values within the community as a result of cell towers locating near houses. Mr. McDonald also stated cell towers can be found near schools and fire stations. Commissioner Portugal asked if the structure would be safe with the high winds in this area. Mr. McDonald responded that it will be engineered to meet the safety standards. Arvid Morfin, 2916 South Huntington Court, Kennewick, spoke on behalf of this item. He stated that he was speaking on behalf of his brother, Byorn Morfin, who was unable to attend. Commissioner Mendez asked why the project didn't follow through the last time and allowed the special permit to expire. Mr. McDonald stated that there was an internal situation with AT&T that affected sites all over the country, not just in Pasco, dealing with availability of funding. The funding has been restored and now they are completing the unfinished projects. Commissioner Bowers asked why the applicant, a representative of AT&T, who spoke on the previous cell tower special permit wasn't speaking on behalf of this permit. -12- Mr. McDonald explained that it is a different branch or company. In this case, the applicant will own the tower and AT&T will rent from them. Kristopher Butcher, 1048 S. Hi Lo Drive, Othello, spoke on behalf of this special permit. He stated that he just acquired property to the northeast of the proposed site and on his property they have existing towers. He asked how the applicant chose this particular site and if they had looked into possibly locating their equipment on the existing towers on his property. Currently on his site there is already a Verizon tower. He asked if there would be interference with the existing towers and would like to see a condition that if this special permit is approved that their tower won't interfere with his existing towers. Chairwoman Polk responded that she remembers at the last hearing for the cell tower at this location that a representative from the radio station regarding interference. Mr. McDonald added that there was a representative from the radio station along with an additional report that addressed those concerns to the effect that it would not impact the radio station. Chairwoman Polk asked if there would be any benefit in making that a condition. Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director, explained that it was and still is a condition already through the federal permitting process. Rebecca Cooper, 3807 Santa Ana Loop, spoke on this item. She asked if the Road 100 tower (the cell tower proposal from the hearing before this tower) would be heard next month at the Planning Commission Meeting. Chairwoman Polk explained that for that special permit applicant, the public hearing has been closed. At the December meeting, the Planning Commission will deliberate and make a recommendation for City Council. Ms. Cooper asked for clarification if it would be brought back up at the December 17th meeting. Chairwoman Polk explained that it wouldn't be open for public comment at that meeting but it would be discussed and deliberated. Ms. Cooper asked if someone from the City could notify her of the Planning Commission decision from that meeting. Staff stated they would send her notification of the Planning Commission's recommendation for the December 17th meeting. Ms. Cooper added that there is a pattern of cell towers everywhere and believes there will be effects on the public health. She would like to see the City widen the scope of mailing notifications and find other ways to deal with these towers without the towers for the residents to see. -13- With no further comments the public hearing closed. Commissioner Bowers asked if there would be adverse effects of colocation of towers in the FCC rules. Mr. White answered that he doesn't believe there are but that information was given to the Commission last year at the original special permit hearing from a radio frequency engineer. Commissioner Bowers noticed residential properties to the west are over 300 feet away. Mr. McDonald stated that it was the Ivy Glades Subdivision and it is over 300 feet away. Commissioner Greenaway moved, seconded by Commissioner Portugal, to close the hearing and adopt findings of fact and conclusions therefrom as contained in the November 19, 2015 staff report. The motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Greenaway moved, seconded by Commissioner Portugal, 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. The motion passed unanimously. WORKSHOP: A. Code Amendment Code Amendment for Home Businesses Chairwoman Polk read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director, discussed the proposed code amendment for home businesses. The City has a home occupation provision in the zoning code that allows certain home occupations to be practiced in the home, which is very common in most cities. Pasco, however, prohibits home occupations that requires clients to be present at the home. For example, a photography studio, hair salon, etc. If the Commission recalls, 2-3 years ago the zoning code was amended and inserted language to allow for private tutoring occupations as long as there are 4 or less students per day. It has been proposed that the provisions relating to home occupations be updated as many of the neighboring cities have to allow limited instance where the client could be present at the home. The first question for the Commission to consider is if they are inclined to go down that path and if so, would it be advantageous to use a special permit process to allow it to occur, which would allow more individual tailoring of each permit or would it be advantageous to simply identify the parameters in the code and allow that to occur outright. The second option would be easier to administer but would be lengthier in terms of a code amendment. If the special permit process is used, it would increase the Planning Commission and Council work load and would be hard to approve one and deny others. With the more complex code amendment option would lessen work load but would make rules that are set in the code so if the business does not meet the code they would be out -14- of luck. Staff requested input on this issue and options that should be explored. Chairwoman Polk asked the Commissioners if they should allow for home occupations with in-home customers. Chairwoman Polk added that the purpose for the current code is so those living in residential zones aren't impacted by the traffic of commercial activity. Commissioner Bowers asked for clarification on the uses that could be brought into the home that were pointed out in the staff memo. Mr. White responded the report provided examples and the Planning Commission could decide which types of business activities could be allowed. Commissioner Bowers stated that many people are going to do these activities anyway and likely already are doing them. If they expand the current code, would it encourage to get licensed or discourage them? Chairwoman Polk responded that both special permit option and code amendment option would establish the boundaries or rules for people to abide by. Commissioner Bowers clarified that she is wondering if the code amendment will cause neighbors to be watching and calling on their neighbors. Commissioner Greenaway added neighbors can already call on their neighbors now on activity that is being conducted. Chairwoman Polk asked again if the Commissioners would be interested in the code amendment. Commissioner Greenway answered yes. Commissioner Portugal stated that he was still confused. Commissioner Mendez asked what is driving the code amendment. Mr. White responded that a suggestion was received from a member of the public. The citizen who requested this code amendment moved to Pasco from Kennewick where her home occupation was allowed and it was allowed in Richland and couldn't see why it is not allowed in Pasco. The business was a hair salon. Commissioner Portugal asked how Kennewick deals with the increased traffic. Mr. White answered there is a limit on the number of customer visits to a home per day. Chairwoman Polk added details and restrictions would be the next step in the process. -15- Right now the Commission is just asked if they would like to amend the code. Commissioner Bowers asked if there has been much more demand for this amendment other than the one person who brought this forward. Mr. White stated that he can tell the Commissioner's that these types of businesses activities are occurring now unpermitted. Chairwoman Polk stated that there probably are many people performing these businesses but violating code. She would like it to be more procedural rather than case by case basis, such as special permit process. Commissioner Bowers said she would be open to the code amendment and would seem permissible to do what the neighboring cities are doing. Following considerable discussion Chairwoman Polk asked if Staff could also look into the costs of special permit applications, such as Staff time, notifications, etc. and the cost to the applicants. Mr. White said they could provide that information. COMMENTS: With no further discussion or business, the Planning Commission was adjourned at 9:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, David McDonald, City Planner -16- REPORT TO PLANNING MASTER FILE NO: PP 2015-003 APPLICANT: Ilya Parkhotyuk HEARING DATE: 10/ 15/2015 & 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 5. 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. I 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: New public rights-of-way to be dedicated with the plat include a north/ south oriented cul-de-sac through the center of the site and an east/west oriented road connecting Sterling Road to Road 84. The cul-de-sac will extend north from Sterling Road for an approximate distance of 619 -feet; slightly extending west at the terminus. Seventeen (17) lots will be accessed from the cul-de-sac. The cul-de-sac bulb will be noted as temporary on the final plat for future dissolution. Right-of-way will be dedicated extending from the bulb and connecting to Maple Drive to the west. At such time the existing shop building on Lot 1 is eliminated the temporary cul-de-sac shall be 2 dissolved and right-of-way improvements for that portion of Maple Drive be completed. 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 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 8v 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 3 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. 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 for homes. 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 a will be of a more orderly fashion; conforming to the City's current development standards to promote orderly growth. 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 (4 through 8) 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 s • The site is currently zoned RS -20 (Suburban). • 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-1-13 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 building permits for homes are issued for said lots. 2. Approval condition # 1 above shall also apply specifically to municipal water line extension in Maple Drive. Prior to Final Plat approval the municipal water line serving the plat must be extended and connected to the existing water line in Maple Drive currently terminating near the west line of the site. 3. The developer must comply with PMC 26.04.115(B) and PMC 3.07.160 dealing with water rights acquisition. 4. No utility vaults, pedestals, or other obstructions will be allowed at street intersections. 5. It shall be identified in the notes on the face of the final plat(s) that Lot 17 presents difficulties for the placement of yard fencing. 6. All storm water is to be disposed of per City and State codes and requirements. 7. 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. 8. 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. 9. 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. 10. 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. 11. The final plat(s) shall contain a 10 -foot utility easement parallel to all streets unless otherwise required by the Franklin County PUD. 12. 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. 13. The final plat(s) shall contain the following Franklin County Public Utility District statement: "The individual or company making improvements on a G 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". 14. The Final Plat shall dedicate a 60 -foot right-of-way from the cul-de-sac bulb westerly connecting to Maple Drive. Said right-of-way bordering Lots 1, 15 & 16 will not have to be improved until such time that the existing accessory shop building is removed. Final Plat approval is not contingent upon completion of Maple Drive improvements. 15. The final plat(s) shall contain the following statement: "A license is hereby granted authorizing the detached accessory shop building contained on Lot 1 of this plat to remain in its current location as indicated on this plat." 16. At such time the detached accessory shop building contained on Lot 1 is removed and Maple Drive is improved the temporary cul-de-sac bulb may be vacated; returning land back to Lots 15, 16 & 17. 17. 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. 18. The developer will be required to comply with the City of Pasco Civil Plan Review process. 19. 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. 20. 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 adopt Findings of Fact and Conclusions therefrom as contained in the December 17, 2015 staff report. MOTION: I move based on the Findings of Fact and Conclusions, as adopted, the Planning Commission recommend the City Council approve the Preliminary Plat for Ellie Estates with conditions as listed in the December 17, 2015 staff report. 0 0m) 4 l� O W C� ct C 1� 0m) 4 Z N � W - � • FOOMI .F" 0.0 O HAS O c� a' url Av.nnrld,9 � viaVU c O(.,A Nwg aI a, OJ [Do, ET A In W W" PC ...- r I F ;: �` c� �: 4 '� ��� � M �..p s -4-j 0 0 4 u co U) Cd 10 b rl4O r-4 r!4 4 u 0 16 R nil j r4 4-J 0 0 0 n 4j r 44 O O a[scRroTlan O.mwr LOT 1e . LN T o..ucus § a it `" • �IIM, I Ia,�ar.MIME..MII..A'».mY..a,.IME aA¢ fP Ibl'Pn. m1u6 rc.uvll YOJ RY. [dewT V :IP]e N,: nma n�1141 � � � AmMm ,le.%v/I:aNY i f^•. ivy I" MY \\ u M Ae]Nx bl' Of \.\ M: IIh11:F 4Z�`I �� L �bl'M=Mm �AMTT�iME rt.n •. W:m,,. h erlrbl'fM Iav VfOX.v„�m gnu RY A M IME MNIx MOYM R,. m„wx M ..A \ / 111 . o"I.�; � a�1rm a`u0611v`¢.ax'noal°`�m I"' RRELIMRWY/ F r ELLIEESTATES ..Mos rl.rmma r r 01 al O.mwr LOT 1e . LN T o..ucus § a it `" • I m.al � ,�ea9r. � i f^•. I" w. air w, M-• Lor 19 L I W:m,,. h a.uwcs . � eu 3" 9 ITesl.sM mxa I 'be y LOT2 Ism e � _ _ _ In.T LOT 15 —_—. SrtwllLa RMD wIDn. $ a J ..ycgs^'.An TI .OWNP96— TIN ._. op �E_Lb���___._____ � bmgxsrY YJ'Ira` VI IV'✓' 01 al O.mwr LOT 1e . LN T o..ucus § a it `" • I m.al � ,�ea9r. � i f^•. I" w. air w, M-• Lor 19 L I W:m,,. h a.uwcs 01 al Lor 21 +°I Lar 11 IDT lO I `" • i I { 'bT4 � 'BK.aRa w �( a 7 iii gs 4r � a.utwo na vwmm,wx r amrwaee I.r¢ PASLO W B8J01 A/R4EfYAP RKiLLGJ 5 RUSSLW v.aew'� sLRnca xwxavcE w vnve LOT 'o Lor 21 +°I IDT lO `" • a.waM cmla a '"�� W . eu 9 1y 31uv:_ JJ MA I Hvm y Ism e � _ _ _ In.T —_—. SrtwllLa RMD vMsr _ TI .OWNP96— ._. na vwmm,wx r amrwaee I.r¢ PASLO W B8J01 A/R4EfYAP RKiLLGJ 5 RUSSLW v.aew'� sLRnca xwxavcE w vnve LOT 'o 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 1/2 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 8a Offices EAST: RS -12 — Single Family Residences WEST: RS -12 — Single Family Residences 5. 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 a] 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; MOTION for Findings of Fact: I move to adopt Findings of Fact and Conclusions therefrom as contained in the December 17, 2015 staff report. MOTION for Recommendation: I move based on the Findings of Fact and Conclusions therefrom the Planning Commission recommend the City Council grant a special permit to the Pasco School District for the redevelopment of the parking lot and bus facilities at Mark Twain Elementary School with the conditions as contained in the December 17, 2015 staff report. 5 rA u 'P kil K 'F �l 71➢ � t. p Y' Vl{y ,t i z t y j fff�ff�f�.SS�f�r ' 4 `�f$.f, r <ffffff%fffif r r yfr r ' frrrfrTrrfr rrr�rfr�fr} �. . r� i r�rrrr r, �frrrfrfif i;iSrrr err -r.. r i •r� r p Y' Vl{y ,t i z t y j fff�ff�f�.SS�f�r ' 4 `�f$.f, r <ffffff%fffif r r yfr r ' frrrfrTrrfr rrr�rfr�fr} �. . r� i r�rrrr r, �frrrfrfif i;iSrrr err -r.. r - - -------------------- - 111 11//I P 0 o 00 0 0l/il',' CD000pL 0 IL w I I Lu - 0 0 0 0 _ o IL IL Q ZI O� I I 0--0 - W1 It- osz 53SSf10 S033N 1tl103dS d _ 133N1S -I V3d -- 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: 12/17/2015 Tualatin, OR 97062 BACKGROUND REQUEST: SPECIAL PERMIT: Location of a Wireless Communication Facility in the RS -12 (Suburban) Zone 1. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: 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. UTIIILNTIES: 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 AT8&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. 2 (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 (3 5) feet; or (b) Located on or with a publicly owned facility such as a water reservoir, fire station, police station, school, county or port facility. (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. AT&T is licensed by the FCC to operate cellular telemetric communications on certain radio frequencies determined by the FCC to be safe for use within a civilian population. For this reason a request to locate cellular communication facilities cannot be denied on the basis of potential impacts on human health. During the November 19, 2015 public hearing the Planning Commission received testimony regarding potential health concerns, property value impacts and the City's public notification policies. During the hearing no supporting documentation substantiating the potential impacts discussed were submitted for entry into the record. Issues related to health concerns, property value 3 impacts and public notification policies were addressed by staff during the hearing and within this staff report. Since the time of the hearing the applicant submitted two documents; they are a zoning narrative (Exhibit "B") and the TOWAIR determination stating that due to the low height of the facilities registration with the FAA is not required (Exhibit "C"). 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 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. 0 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 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? 5 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. (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. AT&T is licensed by the FCC to operate cellular telemetric communications on certain radio frequencies determined by the FCC to be safe for use within a civilian population. For this reason a request to locate cellular communication facilities cannot be denied on the basis of potential impacts on human health. 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 January 31, 2017. MOTION for Findings of Fact: I move to adopt findings of fact and conclusions therefrom as contained in the December 17, 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 the installation of wireless communication facilities on tax parcel # 118-112-036 addressed 9915 West Argent Road with conditions as contained in the December 17, 2015 staff report. 7 rmci � � 0 � b4o .r � 0 0 � \- �3 � .� �\�le \ � \4V \ : • T i,i t y J' ����R R Al, - e,btl 3 1M aa Y 14 t 4. ,1 kr��/S •2 ttt t (: Ql y t' i. w Fr"tt ._ �1• 4r ad l.' _ i at}b' 1� •�' *}1 ! 4 a R bjO 5-4 0 0 ���:�_ac_��.�='•�.a+c:�ae..-_.::gyp• - � .. i ' vF6i'-t O LUa w a n OZ FzW 2 a f7 Z W d 2 F- aF �a b N JW ❑ 2� Q N ":aI O � N O ry u 0 = b I—I y w 0 0 wID V z LLOy ai wN 0�¢ 00¢ J Q N OF N O iy: � 'v&+pl ax l W Mvednens)zlsa �`JNINOZ 1N30tlfOtl E - xr uaam /p I II — — — x._ I —yn�am I 'J H 21y I I, -------- I svrvrvazrvr I 0-.E01 I I i �9 :e ao °n0 na _ _ 3rm.vex.,wa 737 R 9x 9�. CD rv6 = 20 O� N W� arc O a 001 aVod op J� CENTERLINE j�L-UTONS October 15, 2015 City of Pasco Planning Department Attn: Shane O'Neill 525 N. Third Street Pasco, WA 99301 EXHIBIT "B" 16360 Table Mountain Pkwy. Golden, CO 80403 P: 303-993-3293 / F: 303-993-3019 RE: AT&T Mobility KP0458 NORTH ROAD 92 & ARGENT Wireless Communication Facility 9915 Argent Rd. 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. A Special Use Permit is being obtained 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 structure that is higher than thirty-five (35) feet; or The proposed antennas will be mounted to the existing church rooftop. b) Located on or with a publicly owned facility such as a water reservoir, fire station, police station, school, county or port facility. 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-ofway, and adjoining properties such that a casual observer cannot identify the Wireless Communication Facility. The antennas will be concealed on the rooftop within a fagade that is designed to look like a steeple. The ground equipment will be within a stick built structure that will match the existing fagade of the building. 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. The antennas will be located on the rooftop of the existing church that is 40' in height. ii) Located on or with a publicly owned facility iii) Located on a site other than those listed in a) or b). EXHIBIT "B" <' C E N T E R L I N E 16360 Table Mountain Pkwy. Golden, CO 80403 J W L - U T IONS P: 303-993-3293 / F: 303-993-3019 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 facility located on a higher order of preference site cannot reasonably be accommodated. The city 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. The site will be registered with the FCC. A determination of non -significance from TOWAIR for the FAA is enclosed. I have included complete stamped construction drawings. 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. (Ord. 3734 Sec. 1, 2005.) Angela Raymond Site Acquisition Specialist Cascadia PM A %CENTERLINE SOLUTIONS Company 5501 NE 109th Court, Suite #A-2, Vancouver, WA 98662 Mobile: 509.998.9015 Web: www.centerlinesolutions.com TOWAIR Search Results Page 1 of 1 EXHIBIT "C" TOWAIR Determination Results *** NOTICE *** TOWAIR's findings are not definitive or binding, and we cannot guarantee that the data in TOWAIR are fully current and accurate. In some instances, TOWAIR may yield results that differ from application of the criteria set out in 47 C.F.R. Section 17.7 and 14 C.F.R. Section 77.13. A positive finding by TOWAIR recommending notification should be given considerable weight. On the other hand, a finding by TOWAIR recommending either for or against notification is not conclusive. It is the responsibility of each ASR participant to exercise due diligence to determine if it must coordinate its structure with the FAA. TOWAIR is only one tool designed to assist ASR participants in exercising this due diligence, and further investigation may be necessary to determine if FAA coordination is appropriate. DETERMINATION Results Structure does not require registration. The structure meets the 6.10 -meter (20 -foot) Rule criteria. Your Specifications NAD83 Coordinates Latitude 46-15-26.1 north Longitude 119-13-15.4 west Measurements (Meters) Overall Structure Height (AGL) 16.9 Support Structure Height (AGL) 12.3 Site Elevation (AMSL) 119.8 Structure Type B - Building Tower Construction Notifications Notify Tribes and Historic Preservation Officers of your plans to build a tower. Qldwi http://wireless2.fcc.gov/UlsApp/AsrSearch/towairResult jsp?printable 12/29/2013 REPORT TO PLANNING MASTER FILE NO: Z 2015-004 APPLICANT: Bardown Consulting HEARING DATE: 12/17/2015 P.O. Box 3252 ACTION DATE: 1/21/2016 Pasco, WA 99302 BACKGROUND REQUEST: REZONE: Rezone from C-1 (Retail Business) to R-1 (Low -Density Residential) 1. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: Leal: Lot 6 Coles Estates General Location: 5800 Block of Road 90 Property Size: Approximately 5 acres 2. ACCESS: The property has access from Road 90 3. UTILITIES: All municipal utilities serve the site. 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: R-3 - Vacant (Proposed Senior Housing Project) SOUTH: C-1 - Vacant &Veterinarian Clinic EAST: R-1 - Single -Family Dwellings WEST: C-1 -Vacant 5. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The Comprehensive Plan land use map designates much of the site for mixed -residential development. R-1 zoning is one of the zones permitted in this land use classification. Plan Goal H-2 suggests the City strive to maintain a variety of housing options for residents of the community while Plan Policy H-1-13 supports the protection and enhancement of the established character of viable residential neighborhoods. 6. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The City of Pasco is the lead agency for this project. Based on the SEPA checklist, the adopted City Comprehensive Plan, City development regulations, and other information, a threshold determination resulting in a Determination of Non -Significance (DNS) has been issued for this project under WAC 197-11-158. 1 ANALYSIS The site is part of the Coles Estates that was platted for residential development in 1967. In 1982 Coles Estates was annexed to the City and a portion of the subdivision was zoned C-1 (Retail Business). The site has remained vacant and undeveloped since it was platted in the sixties. In 2009 an LID ( Local Improvement Distrcit) was formed to extend Road 90 north from Sandifur Parkway past the site. Some utility services were also included with the street improvements. The applicant, Bardown Consulting is seeking to change the zoning classification of property from C-1 (Retail Business) to R-1 (Low -Density Residential) to allow development of 20 single-family residential lots. The City's Comprehensive Plan designates this site for Mixed Residential land uses which permits a variety of residential zoning ranging from RS -20 (Suburban) through R-3. R-1 zoning would permit the applicant to develop residential lots with a minimum square footage of 7,200 square feet. In this case the applicant is proposing to develop residential lots with an average minimum lot size of 8,468 square. The frontage requirements for residential lots will not enable the applicant to achieve an average lot size of 7,200 square feet as permitted by R-1 zoning. The lots in the neighboring subdivision to the east average about 8,400 square feet in size. The subdivision (Vintage Village) to the east is zoned R-1 in 2003 and contains over 140 lots. 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 33 years ago when the property was annexed to the City in 1982. 2. The changed conditions, which are alleged to warrant other or additional zoning: The property to the east of the site was developed in the early 2000's and now contains 140 single-family homes on lots with at least 8,400 square feet. The property to the north was rezoned R-3 for a senior housing project in 2013. Prior to 2013 a single-family subdivision (Broadmoor Estates) was developed at the north end of Road 90. In 2009 Road 90 built past the site in question connecting Broadmoor Estates to Sandifur Parkway. Municipal utilities were also installed when Road 90 was improved. 2 In 2014 145 plus acres of land was rezoned from RT to C-1 at the northwest corner of the Road 100 and I-182 Interchange providing additional land inventory for future commercial development needs. 3. Facts to justify the change on the basis of advancing the public health, safety and general welfare: The property has remained vacant and undeveloped since 1982 when it was annexed and zoned C-1. Based on the changing conditions identified in Number 2 above the property could be developed if the rezone was granted. The general welfare of the community would be advanced by enabling the development of a residential neighborhood to provide additional housing opportunities for Pasco residents. Development of the property would eliminate a possible fire hazard created by the accumulation of weeds on the property and would eliminate the potential of blowing dust that impacts the residential neighborhood to the east and 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 protect and maintain the value and character of the adjoining residential properties to the north and east. The rezone will also increase the number of residential units in the neighborhood creating a larger customer base for local businesses and the possible expansion of businesses creating jobs and an improved tax base. The proposed rezone is consistent with the land use map of the Comprehensive Plan and supports the goal (Goal H-2) of maintaining a variety of housing options for residents while protecting and enhancing the established character of existing residential neighborhoods (Policy H -1-B). 5. The effect on the property owner or owners if the request is not granted: Without a rezone it is highly probable the property will continue to remain vacant for many years due the fact it is not in a highly visible location for commercial development. 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 C-1 (Retail Business). c 2. The site was annexed to the City in 1982 and zoned C-1. 3. The site is identified in the Comprehensive Plan for mixed residential development. Mixed -residential development permits a range of residential zoning form RS -20 to R-3. 4. The applicant is requesting a rezone to R-1 (Low -Density Residential). 5. The site is part of the Coles Estate that was platted in 1967. 6. The property to the east of the site was rezoned R-1 (Single -Family) and platted into residential lots in the early 2000's. There are now 140 single- family homes located to the east of the site. 7. In 2013 the parcel to the north of the site was rezoned R-3 with a concomitant agreement to allow the development of a senior housing complex comprised of single-family homes and a community club house all located on 4.70 acres. 8. Broadmoor Estates to the north and northwest of the site has been developed with single-family homes over the past 7 years. 9. Majestia Estates was recently approved for development on the west side of Road 90. Majestia Estates is a 38 lot single-family residential development located about a 160 feet to the northwest of the proposed rezone site. 10. Road 90 was fully developed in 2009 with street and utility improvements. 11. The 145 acres of the Adams property to the west of Road 100 was rezoned C-1 in 2014 increasing the land inventory of commercial zoned property.. 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. The Comprehensive Plan land use map designates much of the site for mixed - residential development. R-1 zoning is one of the zones permitted in this land use classification. 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. 2. There is merit and value in the proposal for the community as a whole. There is merit in increasing housing opportunities available in those areas currently served by municipal utilities and near public transportation and will enable efficient use of capital resources. The proposal is supported by land use goals and policies contained in the Comprehensive Plan. Development of the property would eliminate a possible fire hazard created by the accumulation of weeds on the property and M would eliminate the potential of blowing dust that impacts the residential neighborhood to the east and north. 3. Conditions should be imposed in order to mitigate any significant adverse impacts from the proposal. No conditions are needed for this rezone. 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 not needed. 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 January 21, 2016 meeting. 5 dp 10 0 RM 0111111 Emmons ..son 06 GVOIJ 1 A • ( (IMA mm- loss 1520 • ` . ■ 0. GVM: i Oil t 7 El r F•E" -. i� •� rp0 i � „Aix 4`x y t p , I l rr � - _ Y / dr r t rl ^� ..i� Y•:Y. �y - ---J 0) Cd W 5.4. rX O O �. I .- r �� � F � – 3 � `i -. � k' � � I �� �Y [', ,+✓ .. Y � � 9Q i :., � -. �r � .i F"Y"i_7.."llt. d'. � i 1 kw ' r. �� x �. �. � ,�4. -`�� — 1 Y �I } r �� ` -A� � '� i,�. ; ,l �� �� � _� �:, �' _ � �r .4 �'�,. � �� "" �t, � � __ ����� ��S � �' I ` I '. � t 1 1 �. 7 �; �� � � � �_� � d�ayy'' r� I h `�'.+ a �` �L){ 'f n, I .' � .., m� �� r t �' t 1 '� r� Lam: pit <E F" � � S _" F '�-�� ��. 1 � '�l y,`j` � I.: �� �. � l i � � i � � .. � � � ... - i . .. .. ,. ` F � �, i� ,� ( � v �- ; REPORT TO PLANNING MASTER FILE NO: PP 2015-005 HEARING DATE: 12/17/2015 ACTION DATE: 1/21/2016 APPLICANT: Bardown Consulting P.O. Box 3252 BACKGROUND REQUEST: Preliminary Plat: Columbia Dunes 1. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: Pasco, WA 99302 Legal: Lot 6 Coles Estates General Location: 5800 Block of Road 90 Property Size: 4.72 Acres Number of Lot/ s Proposed: 20 single-family residential lots Square Footage Range of Lots: 7,295 ft2 to 11,594 ft2 Average Lot Square Footage: 8,468ft2 2. ACCESS: The property has access from Road 90 3. UTILITIES: All municipal utilities serve the site. 4. LAND USE AND ZONING: The site is zoned C-1 (Retail Business) and is in the process of being rezoned to R-1 to accommodate the proposed Columbia Dunes Plat. Surrounding properties are zoned and developed as follows: NORTH: R-3 - Vacant (Proposed Senior Housing Project) SOUTH: C-1 - Vacant & Veterinarian Clinic EAST: R-1 - Single -Family Dwellings WEST: C-1 - Vacant S. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The Comprehensive Plan indicates the site is intended for 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 site is part of the Coles Estates that was platted for residential development in 1967. In 1982 Coles Estates was annexed to the City and a portion of the subdivision was zoned C-1 (Retail Business). The site has remained vacant and undeveloped since it was platted in the sixties. In 2009 an LID (Local Improvement District) was formed to extend Road 90 north from Sandifur Parkway past the site. Some utility services were also included with the street improvements. The applicant, Bardown Consulting has applied for a rezone and preliminary plat approval to allow the site to be subdivided into 20 single-family lots. The City's Comprehensive Plan designates this site for Mixed Residential land uses which permits a variety of residential zoning ranging from RS -20 (Suburban) through R-3. R-1 zoning would permit the applicant to develop residential lots with a minimum square footage of 7,200 square feet. In this case the applicant is proposing to develop residential lots with an average minimum lot size of 8,468 square. The frontage requirements for residential lots will not enable the applicant to achieve an average lot size of 7,200 square feet as permitted by R-1 zoning. The lots in the neighboring subdivision to the east average about 8,400 square feet in size. The subdivision (Vintage Village) to the east is zoned R-1 in 2003 and contains over 140 lots. LOT LAYOUT: The proposed plat contains 20 residential lots; with the lots varying in size from 7,295 to 11,594 square feet. The average lot size is 8,468 square feet. RIGHTS-OF-WAY: All lots have adequate frontage on streets which will be dedicated. UTILITIES: Municipal sewer and water lines are located in Road 90. The developer will be responsible for extending utilities into the plat. 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. 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 located at street intersections, with a maximum interval of 300 feet on residential streets, and with a maximum interval of 150 feet on arterial streets. The intervals for street light placements are measure along the centerline of the road. Street lights are placed on alternating sides of the street. z STREET NAMES: The one street will be named prior to final platting. IRRIGATION: The municipal code requires installation of irrigation lines as a part of infrastructure improvements. 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. INITIAL 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 8,468 square feet the proposed development will address the overcrowding concern by providing manageable lots and usable open spaces. R-1 zoning requires a 20 -foot front yard setback, five-foot side yard setbacks and a rear yard equal to or greater than the height of the house. Parks Opens Space/Schools: The proposed plat is located within a third of a mile from Vintage Park. Vintage Park is located directly south of Maya Angelou Elementary School. The developer will be required to pay the current park 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 low-density residential development consistent with surrounding residential developments. Safe Travel & Walking Conditions: The plat will connect to the community through the existing network of streets. Sidewalks are installed at the time homes are built on individual lots. The sidewalks will be constructed to current City standards and to the standards of the American's with Disabilities Act (ADA). The ADA ramps at the corners of the intersection with road 90 will be installed with the construction of the road improvements. C Adequate Provision of Municipal Services: All lots within the plat will be provided with water, sewer and other utilities. Provision of Housing for State Residents: The proposed preliminary plat contains 20 building lots, providing opportunities for the construction of 20 new homes for Pasco residents. 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 mixed -residential 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 mixed -residential development which includes single-family homes. • The site is currently being rezoned from C-1 to R-1. • The Housing Element of the Comprehensive Plan encourages the development of a variety of residential densities and housing types. • Per the ITE Trip Generation Manual 8th Addition the proposed subdivision, when fully developed, will generate approximately 200 vehicle trips per day. • 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. 4 • 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 per Pasco Municipal Code Section 26.04.115(B) and Section 3.07.160. • Plat improvements within the City of Pasco are required to comply with the 2015 Standard Drawings and Specification as approved by the City Engineer. These improvements include but are not limited to water, sewer and irrigation lines, streets, street lights and storm water retention. The handicapped accessible pedestrian ramps are completed with the street and curb improvements prior to final plat approval. Sidewalks are installed at the time permits are issued for new houses. Except sidewalks along major streets, which are installed with the street improvements. • All engineering designs for infrastructure and final plat(s) drawings are required to utilize the published City of Pasco Vertical Control Datum. • All storm water generated from a developed plat is required to be disposed of • per City and State codes and requirements. Prior to the City of Pasco accepting construction plans for review the developer is required to enter into a Storm Water Maintenance Agreement with the City. The developer is 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 is presented to the City of Pasco at the intake meeting for construction plans. • The City has nuisance regulations (PMC 9.60) that require property owners (including developers) to maintain their properties in a manner that does not injure, annoy or endanger the comfort and repose of other property owners. This includes controlling dust, weeds and litter during times of construction for both subdivisions and buildings including houses. • Prior to acceptance of final plats developers are required to prepare and submit 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 must be signed by the developer prior to construction plan approval. • Sandifur Parkway and other major streets in the I-182 corridor have been developed with landscaped boulevard strips. All residents benefit from the boulevard strips and as a result new subdivisions all participate in a modest cost for upkeep. TENTATIVE CONCLUSIONS BASED ON THE INITIAL 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 (P.M.C. 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, 5 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, sidewalks, 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. 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 for mixed - residential development. Single-family homes are identified as one of the permitted residential uses within the mixed 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 11 regulations provided certain mitigation measures (i.e. school impact fees, park development and boundary fence construction) 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. TENTATIVE PLAT APPROVAL CONDITIONS 1. No utility vaults, pedestals, or other obstructions will be allowed at street intersections. 2. All corner lots and other lots that present difficulties for the placement of yard fencing shall be identified in the notes on the face of the final plat(s). 3. The final plat(s) shall contain a 10 -foot utility easement parallel to all streets unless otherwise required by the Franklin County PUD. 4. The final plat(s) shall contain the following Franklin County Public Utility District statement: "The individual or company making improvements on a 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". 5. The developer/builder shall pay the City a "common area maintenance fee" of $375 per lot upon issuance of building permits for homes. These funds shall be placed in a fund and used to finance the maintenance of arterial boulevard strips. RECOMMENDATION MOTION: I move to close the hearing on the proposed preliminary plat and initiate deliberations and schedule adoption of findings of fact, conclusions and a recommendation to the City Council for the January 21, 2016 meeting. VA i�; O i K --!' w ,AIN w '?! all ' • � AM a i�; O �, m i ;l �, m i 5 t� � .. \K\. A� K\7ICA� - ..- {\�«� � - y A°d di =aea�I a; �� L y � CS S� o i 2• ' RR A A Vx a ILSTY/A'STHR GN6 y i � < � O A m Z Z `12 a add;' zn-1 CD 8 .. w 'z ��' R . ! r :r .. i°aart. � i rsnffia�•nis : Z'r -� �." Z >$d�Rw'�" x 4' rJ;:FY ism b'n" tb r�r,^7, vl m - a. n � >n ROAD 90ax _--F•r M-—�—- Wm M qg'i<d >a n e� �n EO } q x rj Cn y A°d di =aea�I a; �� L y � CS S� o i 2• ' RR A A Vx a ILSTY/A'STHR GN6 y i � < � O A m Z Z `12 a add;' zn-1 CD 8 .. w 'z ��' R . ! r :r .. i°aart. � i rsnffia�•nis : Z'r -� �." Z >$d�Rw'�" x 4' rJ;:FY ism b'n" tb r�r,^7, vl m - a. n � >n REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION MASTER FILE NO: Z 2015-005 APPLICANT: Ruben & Maria Escalera HEARING DATE: 7/16/2015 3612 W. Agate Street ACTION DATE: 8/20/2015 Pasco, WA 99301 BACKGROUND REQUEST: REZONE: Rezone from "O" (Office) to R-3 (Medium -Density Residential) 1. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: Legal: Lots 13 8v 14, Block 3 Sprouse Addition together with vacated alley General Location: 1804 8s 1808 N 20th Ave. Property Size: The site is approximately 18,900 square feet or 0.43 acres 2. ACCESS: The site has access from 20th Avenue. 3. UTILITIES: Municipal sewer and water lines currently serve the site. 4. LAND USE AND ZONING: The site is comprised of two parcels currently zoned Office ("O") and contain two duplexes. Surrounding properties are zoned and developed as follows: NORTH: "O" - Commercial Office SOUTH: C-1 - Veterinary Clinic EAST: R-1 - Single -Family Residences WEST: R-3 - Multi -Family Residences 5. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The property is in an area of transition between residential and commercial land use designations. In transition areas properties can be zoned to match either of the identified land uses. Plan Policy H -1-A encourages the location of medium and high density housing near arterial streets. Policy H-1-13 suggests medium and high density housing should be located to avoid the need for access through lower density neighborhoods. Goal H-3 encourages the preservation of the existing housing stock for current and future residents. 6. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The City of Pasco is the lead agency for this project. Based on the SEPA checklist, the adopted City Comprehensive Plan, City development regulations, and other information, a threshold determination resulting in a Determination of Non -Significance (DNS) has been issued for this project under WAC 197- 11-158. 1 ANALYSIS The property owner of 1804 & 1808 N. 20th Avenue, Ruben Escalera, has applied to change the zoning classification of two parcels fronting 20th Avenue north of Court Street from "O" Office to R-3 Medium Density. The "O" Office zoned site(s) contain a total of two duplexes which are considered non- conforming with respect to permitted uses allowed in the Office zone. The current (Office) zoning classification was established in 1999 (16 years ago); 36 years after the site was developed with duplexes. Prior to 1999 the R-3 zoning classification was assigned to the site together with much of the immediate vicinity on the west side of 20th Avenue. The "O" Office zoning district is designed to allow areas in the community for development of professional and administrative offices and certain complementary uses. Office zones are commonly used to create a less intense land use buffer between commercial and residential land uses. Because the subject site(s) front 201h Avenue they are not functioning to buffer between commercial businesses and residences. Application of Office zoning to the subject parcels has created some difficult circumstances for the owner. The fact that duplex use of the property is considered non -conforming is problematic for financing, refinancing and obtaining insurance. When property owners seek to refinance a property or when a prospective buyer seeks a bank loan to purchase property, the Planning Department is routinely contacted by prospective lenders such as banks. Bank agents inquire about the property's zoning and whether or not the current use of the property may be re-established in the event of severe damage. Pursuant to the non -conforming uses section of the Zoning Code (PMC Chapter 25.72) in the event a non -conforming is be damaged to the extent that repair costs exceed 50% of the assessed value of the use may not be re-established. Banks often refuse to issue loans for unsecured investments such as nonconformities. Assigning the multi -family "R-3" zone to this property would remove any doubt about non -conformities by aligning the zoning with the current use of the property. It is a 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. The site is located west of 20th Avenue, which is a busy arterial road, and east of a larger suburban single-family residential neighborhood. The proposed R-3 zone will effectively buffer traffic impacts 2 generated by 20tb Avenue, transitioning to the single-family neighborhood to the west. The vicinity generally functions as a gateway into Pasco. Bolstering site development in gateway areas has an enhanced visual effect on the economic state of a community. Supporting site development and property maintenance on land in gateway areas 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. 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 (Office) zoning classification was established in 1999 (16 years ago); 36 years after the site was developed with duplexes. Prior to 1999 the R-3 zoning classification was assigned to the site together with much of the immediate vicinity. Remnants of the original R-3 remain applied to parcels to the north and to the west which contain residential apartment buildings. 2. The changed conditions, which are alleged to warrant other or additional zoning: The duplexes were established on-site in 1963 before the current Office zoning was assigned to the site. At the time of development the site was zoned R-1, a single-family residential zone. Office zoning was assigned to the parcels in 1999. Prior to the 1999 rezoning, land to the north, south and west was zoned R- 3 (Medium -Density Residential). The R-3 zoning regulations in effect today largely reflect the regulations and purpose of the R-3 zoning in place in 1999. 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 to R-3 will support the current and future residential use of the site(s). Application of a residential zoning 3 classification will assist in preventing the property from falling into a state of disrepair resulting from the City's reluctance to issue building permits for substantial remodeling and repair projects. Located on 20th Ave, the property fronts one of Pasco's arterial corridors. It is important to pay special attention to the appearance of high visibility locations such as this one and bringing properties into zoning conformance is one technique that can be applied to help prevent blighted sites. 4. The effect it will have on the value and character of the adjacent property and the Comprehensive Plan: The site can be considered in a transition area where two (commercial & residential) different land use designation meet. Policy LU -3-E encourages higher -density residential development where utilities and transportation facilities enable efficient use of capital resources. Plan Policy H-1 A encourages the location of medium and high density housing near arterial streets. Policy H -1- B suggests medium and high density housing should be located to avoid the need for access through lower density neighborhoods. Goal H-3 encourages the preservation of the existing housing stock for current and future residents. S. The effect on the property owner or owners if the request is not granted: Under the current zoning classification the property owner will be unable to refinance the site and make improvements. Many times properties with non- conforming zoning suffer deferred maintenance because owners become disinterested in investing in maintenance costs. This can lead to blighted sites which may lead to economic disinvestment in the immediate vicinity. It is in the best interest of the City to protect against the establishment and spread of blight. STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT FOR APPROVAL 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 "O" (Office). 2. The 0.43 -acre site is comprised of two parcels each containing one residential duplex. 3. A total of four (4) dwelling units are involved in this rezone application. 4. The duplexes have occupied the property since 1963. 11 5. Prior to 1999 the property was zoned R-3 Medium -Density Residential. 6. The applicant is requesting R-3 (Medium -Density Residential) zoning be assigned to the site to bring the current land use into conformance with the zoning. 7. The property to the north of the site is zoned "O" (Office). 8. The site directly fronts N 20th Avenue. 9. The Comprehensive Plan identifies the site to be in a land use transitional zone bordering commercial and residential land use designations. 10. The R-3 zone allows a maximum residential density rate of one dwelling unit for every 3,000 square feet of land area. 11. The R-3 zone allows minimum lot sizes of 5,500 square feet. 12. The site is approximately 18,900 square feet in area. 13. Application of the R-3 zone to the site would bring the four dwelling units into full conformity with zoning regulations. 14. The Comprehensive Plan Major Street Plan map classifies North 20th Avenue as a principal arterial roadway. CONCLUSIONS BASED ON 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. The property is in an area of transition between residential and commercial land use designations. In transition areas properties can be zoned to match either of the identified land uses. Plan Policy H-1 A encourages the location of medium and high density housing near arterial streets. Policy H -1-B suggests medium and high density housing should be located to avoid the need for access through lower density neighborhoods. Goal H-3 encourages the preservation of the existing housing stock for current and future residents. 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 -BA) 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. 9 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. 3. Conditions should be imposed in order to mitigate any significant adverse impacts from the proposal. There are no identifiable potential impacts in need of mitigation by way of conditioning. 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 does not need to accompany this rezone. 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 January 21, 2016 meeting. 3 3AV H L6..4- . - 5--� ir c i �,• r� Y^YI I t 4 3AB' H.LOZ to, - v 21Ax' LSIZ 0 o Y F I s e t a�-I Y -rW tiff - X r [ ® �» j., !!:��i 1.A Iyer ib • s e t a�-I Y -rW tiff - X r [ ® �» Zi RAV H16I U •� w � �-a W � � H d d a O d aAV HIOZ I—� samog suauiaId� 1131 sag aAV ,LSIZ TI ¢4 AAV (INZZ �' 3AV Q2I£Z I 1 1 77 �+ I Ad H16I C ct �a U N - O M � ° 21AV HIOZ O Op -- a W moi , P-, 51Ad ISTZ �-+ O C) �rA s ^� 2tnV auzz -TIT � A a HAV ax£Z N .z r I ill u 11 Y � y r L 11111jj ' ��!I! i aY� d r r F k I I' SI� 4 i I 1 d �i 1 0 REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION MASTER FILE NO: SP2015-015 HEARING DATE: 12/17/2015 ACTION DATE: 1/21/2016 REQUEST FOR SPECIAL PERMIT: 1. APPLICANT: Brad & Debra Peck 200 Road 34 Pasco, WA 99301 Modification of a Special Permit Issued Under Adaptive Reuse of Historic Places Provisions Legal: Parcel #'s 119-430-241 & 119-430-205: A portion of the southwest quarter of the southwest quarter of Section 25, Township 9 North, Range 29 East, W.M.; General Location: 200 Road 34, Pasco, WA 99301 Property Size: Approximately 272,250 square feet or 6.25 acres 2. ACCESS: The site has access from Hopkins Drive. 3. UTILITIES: The site is served by municipal water and sewer. 4. LAND USE AND ZONING: The property is currently zoned R-1 (Low -Density Residential). Surrounding properties are zoned as follows: NORTH: RS -12 - Single -Family Homes SOUTH: NA - Columbia River EAST: RP - Highway & Mobile Home Park WEST: R-1 & RS -12 - Vacant & Single -Family Homes 5. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The site is designated in the Plan for low-density residential uses. Applicable Plan goals or policies include ED -1-D and LU -6- A. These goals and policies encourage the promotion of tourism and recreational uses associated with the River and the restoration and use of historic structures. Specifically policy LU -6-A encourages the permitting and reuse of historic structures "which may include more intensive activity than the surrounding properties if adverse impacts on the neighboring properties are mitigated" for the purpose of preserving community history and enriching 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 HISTORY In the fall of 2005 the owner of the Moore Mansion was granted a special permit under the adaptive reuse of historic places provisions of the Zoning Code (PMC 25.86.025) authorizing the use of the Mansion property for weddings, wedding receptions, family reunions and other similar special events (MF# SP05-098). The 2005 special permit was the fifth in a series of special permits that have been granted to owners of the Moore Mansion. Previous special permits authorized the operation of restaurants, wedding receptions, banquets and bed and breakfast activities on the Mansion property. During the early part of 2014 the Planning Commission authorized modification of Special Permit SP05-098 to allow construction of a 2,400 square foot carport structure because said Special Permit did not specifically authorize any additional structures on-site. This application is the second to modify Special Permit SP05- 098. ANALYSIS This application involves adding several accessory structures together with modifying and relocating one existing accessory structure on a historic site known as the Moore Mansion. A supplemental project description submitted by the applicant explaining the proposal in detail is included herein as Exhibit "A". This application includes permitting a variety of accessory structures cumulatively exceeding the floor area and height limits listed under R-1 zoning provisions regulating the site. Secondly, the request involves making substantial modifications to an existing accessory structure which is non -conforming in terms of height. Lastly, the applicant requests permission to construct a 4,000 square foot, 25 -foot tall detached living quarters beside the Moore Mansion; thereby re- creating two dwelling units on one parcel in a single-family zoning district. In reviewing the details outlined below, it may be useful to know that the footprint of the Moore Mansion including all of its first floor appurtenances is 3,630 square feet in size. Carriage House In the southwest corner of the property there is a two-story building, referred to as the carriage house, consisting of a garage on the first floor with a residential apartment above. According to the Franklin County Assessors records this building has a footprint of 665 square feet. Staff estimates the height of this structure to be approximately eighteen (18) feet as measured to the mid -point of the roof, which is the method Pasco uses to regulate structure heights. The owner proposes to demolish the garage and foundation while retaining the second -story dwelling unit for reuse as part of a new storage building elsewhere 2 on-site. Two alternate locations for said new building are indicated as "A" 8v "B" in the full color site plan included in Exhibit "A" New Sheds The property owner is proposing to locate four additional storage sheds on the site. Each shed is proposed to be 200 square feet in floor area; for a total of 800 square feet above the approximately 4,033 square feet of accessory structures currently on-site. The exterior design and height of these sheds was not specifically addressed in the application materials. Living Ouarters In place of the carriage house proposed for demolition, the property owner plans to construct a new two-story building having a residential apartment above a first floor garage. The application indicates the new building may be up to 4,000 square feet and twenty five (25) feet in height. Architectural features of the building will be designed to match or compliment the Beaux-Arts (neoclassical) style of the Moore Mansion. A draft elevation illustrating the proposed design and treatment of the proposed apartment is included on the last page of Exhibit "A". Zoning Regulations: For the Planning Commission's reference staff offers the table below comparing some applicable R-1 zoning regulations to details of the applicant's proposal. R-1 Zoning Regulations Structure Type Maximum Limits Proposal Detached Garage Floor Area 1,000 ft2 6,400 ft2 Detached Garage Height 15 feet 25 feet Shed Floor Area 200 ft2 2,233 ft2 ** Shed Height 15 feet Unknown TBD Cumulative Floor Area 1,200 ft2 8,633 ft2 * Figure represents the existing carport (2,400 ft2) and the proposed apartment building (4,000 ft2). ** The existing gazebo (768 ft2), the historic guest house to be relocated (665 ft2) and an existing picnic shelter (200 ft2) have been accounted for in the category of shed floor area. To protect against residential sites from becoming dominated by structures dedicated to uses other than habitable living space and to achieve a decided urban form PMC 25.70.030 contains the following provisions: 25.70.030 ACCESSORY BUILDINGS. Accessory buildings shall not be permitted on a parcel prior to the existence of 3 a principal use. The following standards shall apply to all accessory buildings in residential districts: (1) Roofing materials must be compatible and similar in relation to the primary structure; and (2) Exterior siding must be compatible and similar in relation to the primary structure. (3) In no case shall a detached garage have more square footage than the principal building and shall not be higher than the principal building. To ensure the intent of the provisions above are met the list of tentative approval conditions contains a condition requiring specific compliance therewith. Mitigating factors supporting approval of the special permit include the following: - The site contains 6.25 acres. - There are no neighbors to the south and east of the site. The River is to the south and SR 395 is to the east. - All proposed structures will be 300 feet or more from the north property line and Hopkins Street. - Including the additional structures added to the site lot, coverage will only be 4.5%. - In the R-1 zone lot coverage can be up to 40%. If the 6.25 acres was subdivided in to 7,200 square feet lots the coverage would be far greater than what the applicant is proposing. INITIAL 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-1" (Low -Density Residential); the R-1 zone is a single- family residential zoning district. 2. Surrounding properties are zoned "RS -12" (Suburban). 3. The 6.25 acre site contains the historic Moore Mansion. 4. The Moore Mansion is one of two structures in Pasco included on the National Register of Historic Places. 5. The zoning regulations permit the adaptive reuse of historic structures through approval of a special permit (Master File# SP05-098). 6. The Moore Mansion has been granted four previous special permits for the operation of restaurants, wedding receptions, banquets and bed and breakfast facilities. 4 7. The R-1 Zone permits detached residential garages up to 1,000 square feet in floor area and up to fifteen (15) feet in height. 8. The R-1 Zone permits shed cumulatively not to exceed 200 square feet in floor area and up to fifteen (15) feet in height. 9. The current application proposes to construct and additional 4,800 square feet of accessory structures. 10. The site currently contains accessory structures amounting to 4,033 square feet in area. 11. The 3,630 square foot Moore Mansion is the primary structure on-site. The Mansion is approximately forty (40) feet in height. 12. The site currently contains two dwelling units. 13. The application involves constructing a 4,000 square foot accessory dwelling unit twenty five (25) feet in height. 14. The application proposes to construct four (4) new 200 square foot sheds; totaling 800 square feet in area. 15. The existing detached carriage house contains an accessory dwelling unit that will be eliminated and relocated for an alternate use. 16. Highway 395 borders the east site of the property, separating activities on the Mansion property from residential land uses to the east. 17. Highway 395 generates highway noise. 18. The Moore Mansion property contains two parcels totaling 6.25 acres of land. 19. The Moore Mansion is located over 700 feet from the nearest house. 20. Receptions and weddings can generate the need for considerable parking and items requiring storage such as tables, chairs and various decorations. 21. The Moore Mansion site has an acre and a half site set aside for parking. 22. Overflow parking in the past has been accommodated on the expansive lawn area. TENTATIVE CONCLUSIONS BASED ON THE INITIAL 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? N Applicable Plan goals or policies include ED -1-D and LU -6-A. These goals and policies encourage the promotion of tourism and recreational uses associated with the River and the restoration and use of historic structures. Specifically policy LU -6-A encourages the permitting and reuse of historic structures "which may include more intensive activity than the surrounding properties if adverse impacts on the neighboring properties are mitigated" for the purpose of preserving community history and enriching the community. The purpose of this application however, relates to the addition of accessory structures which support the previously authorizes land use activities. Besides the Plan policies mentioned above, the nature of this proposal is not otherwise specifically addressed in the Comprehensive Plan. (2) Will the proposed use adversely affect public infrastructure? The site is presently served adequately with water, sewer and other municipal utility facilities. The City's major West Pasco sewer interceptor parallels the Mansion site. (3) Will the proposed use be constructed, maintained and operated to be in harmony with existing or intended character of the general vicinity? The general character of the neighborhood is residential. The general look and character of the Moore Mansion is that of a residential estate. The proposed use will continue the residential estate character. New construction will be conditioned to comply with accessory structure regulations contained in the Zoning Code (PMC 25.70.030) to ensure consistency amongst the structures on-site. (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 Mansion itself stands approximately forty (40) feet in height. The location and height of the Moore Mansion were established in 1908. While considerably larger than surrounding structures, as it currently exists the Mansion is located on an expansive tract with considerable setbacks not creating any bulk or density concerns. (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? Land use activities of the site have previously been authorized pursuant to Special Permit SP05-098 and are not the subject of the application at hand. It is unlikely that the addition of the proposed accessory structures will significantly alter the nature of activities conducted on-site although enhancing the level of service for the venue may lead to an increase in the 9 number of events held. Impacts generated by on-site events have been addressed in the conditions set forth in the 2005 Special Permit. The addition of an accessory residential dwelling unit will come after the existing accessory apartment is demolished, resulting in no net increase in residential density. (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? 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) The Moore Mansion was located and developed in its present location in 1908. It has been used as a restaurant and reception -center though the issuance of special permits over the last 15-20 years with minimal impacts to the neighborhood. It is unlikely that adding several accessory structures on the Moore Mansion property will present any potential detriment to public safety. TENTATIVE APPROVAL CONDITIONS The special permit shall be personal to the applicant; The site shall be developed in substantial conformance with the site plan submitted with the special permit application; The new carriage house shall be constructed to match the elevation submitted with this application; All storage structures must compliment the Neo -Classical design of the Moore Mansion; Siding and roofing materials of all newly constructed buildings shall be similar and compatible in relation to the Moore Mansion; The Special Permit shall be null and void if a City of Pasco building permit to begin construction activities authorized under Master File # SP2015-015, by February 28, 2017. RECOMMENDATION MOTION: I move to close the public hearing and schedule deliberations, the adoption of findings of fact, and development of a recommendation for City Council for the January 21, 2016 meeting. Ii7 M, r 1® -- IN IS- M t��S1v�P � ♦ A' � � +, 'a L S r *d -.i-�i J � � f R S6V �M� Y MRM_ l ®an NONE •U a O Q � ^� o o � � �+ N M, r 1® -- IN IS- M t��S1v�P � ♦ A' � � +, 'a L S r *d -.i-�i J � � f R S6V �M� Y MRM_ l ®an NONE T a 4-J �-1 0 UO r O O !§: \��9<» *I 0 CO w 0 0 j'A / \' ; , �>\ �- .. :y�� � • - . j'A / \' ; , �>\ ty✓��6� <l� x . Fe n tz;%- rid 'm•,�s�i ` s Exhibit "A"� i SUPPLEMENT TO SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION MOORE MANSION BRAD & DEBRA PECK This information supplements the Special Use Permit application submitted by Brad & Debra Peck on November 16, 2015. This application does not replace, supplement, amend or otherwise alter Special Use Permit #05 -89 -SP issued to the applicant's on September 9, 2005. The Moore Mansion property is presently zoned R-1 Low Density Residential District. Applicants requested advice from the City Manager and staff on how best to proceed with property development plans not covered by SUP 05 -89 -SP. Staff recommended either rezoning the property to RS -12 Suburban District, or applying for a Special Use Permit. DEVELOPMENT PLANS The RS -12 Suburban District zone does not allow the all the applicant's desired property improvements. Those improvements include: 1. Relocate the second story of the 1930's era carriage house (garage/apartment guesthouse) located behind the Moore Mansion. 1.1. The applicants wish to save the historical second level apartment by placing it on a new ground level foundation at a new location on the property (see attached aerial photo with building overlay for proposed and alternate locations). 1.2. This foundation is failing and the floor/slab is badly cracked and heaved. The structure has begun to lean to the south. The applicant's have added reinforcements to keep the structure stable for the short term, however time is of the essence to address the structural integrity of the building. 1.3. Cost estimates for lifting the second story apartment, rebuilding the ground level garage below, then reattaching the second story apartment to the new first story are not cost effective. Relocating the second level to a new foundation elsewhere on the property is more cost effective. 2. Construct a replacement garage/apartment structure at the site of the present carriage house/apartment. Exhibit "A" 2.1. The design will complement the Beaux Arts (Neoclassical) architecture of the Moore Mansion (draft front elevation artist concept attached). 2.2. The structure will have a footprint no larger than 50x80. The proposed site has adequate room for setback distances at that size. 2.3. A special Use Permit is more appropriate than an RS -12 Suburban District zone because RS -12 does not allow adequate garage height to maintain historically appropriate proportions with the Moore Mansion. Initial design plans suggest a height of approximately 25 feet, an appropriate scale height alongside the approximately 40 foot tall Moore Mansion. 2.4. The building will be multipurpose, providing code compliant restrooms for the event center, equipment and supplies storage, vehicle storage, and an upstairs private guesthouse. 2.5. The applicants also wish to add four mobile storage sheds (— 10x20) for commercial mowers, and event center equipment (folding tables, chairs, linens, tents, work carts, beverage serving tables, coolers, etc). The storage units will be constructed to complement the Beaux Arts (Neoclassical) architecture of the Moore Mansion. 3. An aerial photo showing the proposed additional structures and their approximate locations is attached. BACKGROUND The Moore Mansion sits on 6.5 acres adjacent to the Columbia River and Highway 395. Present owners Brad and Debra Peck purchased the property in March 2004, just days before a court order requiring demolition of the structure was to take effect. The mansion had fallen into disrepair as the result of a May 2001 arson fire that severely damaged the structure. Over the past decade the Peck's have invested a great deal of time and money into saving this Pasco landmark and National Historic Register Property. The City of Pasco approved a Special Use Permit (#05 -89 -SP) on September 9, 2005 allowing the Peck's to operate a part time event center, commonly known as the Moore Mansion Event Center. The business is licensed by the city and operates under a state and federally registered corporation. Calendar year 2016 will be the 101h anniversary of Moore Mansion Event Center operations. An estimated 40,000 people have attended events at the facility to date. Exhibit "A" The location and size of the property, together with responsible business practices have made the Moore Mansion Event Center a good neighbor and compatible activity in the residential area. In the past decade of operation there were no noise complaints or other issues related to the operation of the event center. There were however, two noise complaints made by area residents unrelated to the Moore Mansion Event Center. One was called into 911, the other called directly to the Moore Mansion. Both were investigated and determined to be noise from large public music events in Columbia Park directly across the river from the Moore Mansion. In one of those instances Pasco PD reported being unable to hear any noise from the event center at the border of the Moore Mansion property, despite an ongoing event with music playing. In the second instance, the noise also from an event at Columbia Park and could be heard 2-3 blocks north of the river on Road 36. SCHEDULE The Peck's are prepared to move forward with the property improvements as soon a Special Use Permit is approved. The next scheduled event at the property is a charity fundraiser in April. The Peck's are donating use of the property, event equipment, and their staff time as they have for Red Cross, Habitat for Humanity, Franklin County Historical Society, and many other Tri Cities charitable organizations over the years. CONTACT INFORMATION Brad & Debra Peck Moore Mansion 200 N. Road 34 Pasco, WA 99301 1 lWko f hm '.1 i.t 509-547-0336 Exhibit "A" SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION MOORE MANSION 200 N. ROAD 34 PASCO, WA LIEGAIL I(DIE UP E11 TY D ESCII811PZC1)®H Legal: PARCEL A: That portion of Government Lot 1, Section 25, Township 9 North, Range 29 East, W.M., Franklin County, Washington, lying West of State Highway No. 3, as established by deed recorded under Auditor's File No. 139975, and East and South of the following described line: Beginning at the Northwest corner of said Government Lot l; thence South 89036'02" East along the North line of said Government Lot 1 a distance of 756.0 feet; thence South 1°16'58" West parallel to the West line of said Government Lot 1, a distance of 575.0 feet; thence North 89° 36'02" West parallel with the North line of said Government tl, a distance of 120.0 feet; thence South 1°16'58" West parallel with the West line of said Government Lot 1, 197.5 feet to the point of intersection with the United States of America taking line and True Point of Beginning; thence North 1°16'58" east, a distance of 197.5 feet; thence South 89°36'02" East, a distance of 395.0 feet to the West Right-of-way line of State Highway No. 3, and terminus of said line; EXCEPT that portion thereof conveyed to the United States of America by instrument recorded under Auditor's File No. 143667, records of Franklin County, Washington. TOGETHER WITH a 20 foot easement for ingress and egress and utility purposes lying East of the following described line: Beginning at a point of South 89036'02" East a distance of 756.0 feet from the Northwest corner of Government Lot 1, section 25,Township 9 North, Range 29 East, W.M., Franklin County, Washington; thence South 1016'58" West, a distance of 575.0 feet, more or less to the North line of the property to be benefited, and the terminus of said line, said easement being the same easement of road 20 feet in width as shown on the face of the survey recorded in Book 1 of Surveys at page 72, recorded November 16, 1976 under Auditor's File No. 365379. PARCEL B: That portion of Government Lot 1, Section 25, Township 9 North, Range 29 East W.M., records of Franklin County, Washington, described as follows: Exhibit "A" Beginning at a point on the North line of said Lot 736.00 feet South 89°36'02' East of its Northwest corner; thence South 1°16'58" West parallel with the West line of said Lot 255.0 feet; thence South 89°36'02" East 104.13 feet to the P.C. of a curve to the left having a radius of 9 feet; thence Northeasterly along said curve 14.00 feet; thence south 1016'58" West 78.00 feet to a point on a curve to the left, the radius point of which gears North 88043'02" West 9 feet; thence Northwesterly along said curve 14.28 feet; thence North 89036102" West 103.86 feet; thence South 1°16'58" West 260.00 feet; thence South 89°36'02" East 295.00 feet to the Westerly right-of-way line of State Highway No. 3; thence North 16°30'04" East along said right-of-way 549.58 feet; thence North 49"59'54' East along said right-of-way 72.38 feet to the said North line of Lot 1; thence North 89°35'02" West 493.68 feet to the Point of Beginning. General Location: Hopkins Street at the western base of the blue bridge ImI 0 Exhibit "A" REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION MASTER FILE NO: SP 2015-016 APPLICANT: Jerry Czebotar HEARING DATE: 12/17/2015 2421 Rd 44 ACTION DATE: 1/21/2016 Pasco, WA 99301 BACKGROUND REQUEST FOR SPECIAL PERMIT: Location of a Vineyard Frost Protection Wind Machine in an RS -12 (Residential Suburban) District. 1. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: Legal: Parcel # 119 041 091: All of the Southeast 1/4 of the Northeast 1/4 except the South 1/2 of Section 23 Township 29 East Range 9 North; and except the South 300' of the Southwest 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4 of the Northeast 1/4. General Location: Acreage located behind the residential lots north of W. Wernett Road between Road 36 and Road 40. Property Size: Approximately 25.6 acres 2. ACCESS: The site has access from Road 36 and W. Livingston Road. 3. UTILITIES: The site has access to, municipal water and sewer, and irrigation water. 4. LAND USE AND ZONING: The property is currently zoned RS -12 (Suburban). Surrounding properties are zoned and developed as follows: NORTH: RS -12 - I-182 Freeway EAST: R -S-1 - Vacant Land; SFDUs SOUTH: RS -12 - SFDUs WEST: RS -20 - SFDUs; Farming (County) S. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The site is designated in the Plan for Low - Density Residential uses. However the entire property lies within the Airport Reserve Zone. The Port of Pasco purchased the reserve lands to preclude development that is not compatible with airport operations. The land use chapter identifies these lands as severely restricted for development and suggests they be designated as open space areas. 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 I Non -Significance (DNS) has been issued for this project under WAC 197- 11-158. ANALYSIS Jerry Czebotar has applied for a Special Permit to locate an Orchard -Rite Wind Machine on Port of Pasco land currently being used for Concord grape cultivation. The parcel is 25.6 -acre in an RS -12 residential zone. The agricultural use has been operating at this location for over 25 years. Pasco Municipal Code 25.86.035 requires review through the Special Permit process for commercial agricultural uses as follows: 25.86.035 AGRICULTURAL USES. (1) Commercial agricultural uses listed as conditional or unclassified uses in this Title shall conform to the following prior to the issuance of a special permit: a) Special permits for agricultural uses (commercial) may be granted for tracts of land or combination of adjoining tracts of land ten acres or more in size within 1,000 feet of a residential zoning district, subdivision or a dwelling unit excluding dwellings associated with agriculture uses. b) The applicant for a special permit shall be required to submit a conservation plan approved by the Farm Service Agency. (Ord. 4110, 2013; Ord. 3354 Sec. 2, 1999.) The wind machine, manufactured by Cascade Wind Machines utilizes a Ford V- 10 internal combustion engine to turn a 3 -blade fan. The system can be programmed to automatically engage when temperatures drop below a predetermined level known to damage crops. Other frost protection methods include use of "Smudge pots" and sprinkling water on plants to protect the fruit with a layer of ice. These methods have drawbacks; it takes around 60 smudge pots, which burn various combustible fuels, to warm an acre. One fan can circulate air and reduce frost danger for around 10 acres or more. Sprinkling water on the fruit has the potential to cause root rot, and to wash nutrients and herbicides through the soil and into water tables. The primary concern for operating a wind machine in a residential zone is the noise, which has been described as sounding like a military helicopter in flight. This noise would typically occur in the early morning when temperatures dip to their lowest. The property is adjacent to I-182 and also experiences noise from heavy freeway traffic in the morning and evening. 2 The parcel is part of the Port of Pasco Airport Reserve, which places development constraints on the land for air traffic safety purposes; the Port has no plans to develop the land. INITIAL 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. Commercial farming operations are allowed in residential zones by special permit only. 2. Applicant has applied for a Special Permit to locate an Orchard -Rite Wind Machine in a Concord Grape vineyard. 3. The parcel is owned by the Port of Pasco 4. The parcel occupies approximately 25.6 acres. 5. The parcel is in an RS -12 (residential zone. The agricultural use has been operating at this location for over 25 years. 6. Pasco Municipal Code 25.86.035 requires review through the Special Permit process for commercial agricultural uses. 7. The Orchard -Rite Wind Machine utilizes a Ford V-10 internal combustion engine to turn a 3 -blade fan. 8. The system can be programmed to automatically engage when temperatures drop below a predetermined level known to damage crops. 9. Other frost protection methods include use of "Smudge pots" and sprinkling water on plants to protect the fruit with a layer of ice. 10. Other frost protection methods have drawbacks: • It takes around 60 smudge pots, which burn various combustible fuels, to warm an acre, where one fan can circulate air and reduce frost danger for around 10 acres or more. • Sprinkling water on the fruit has the potential to cause root rot, and to wash nutrients and herbicides through the soil and into water tables. 11. The primary concern for operating a wind machine in a residential zone is the helicopter -like noise. 3 12. The property is adjacent to I-182 and also experiences noise from heavy freeway traffic in the morning and evening. 13. The machine would typically operate in the early morning when temperatures dip to their lowest. 14. The parcel is part of the Port of Pasco Airport Reserve, which places development constraints on the land for air traffic safety purposes; 15. The Port of Pasco has no plans to develop the land TENTATIVE CONCLUSIONS BASED ON THE INITIAL 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 site is designated in the Plan for Low -Density Residential uses. However the entire property lies within the Airport Reserve Zone. The Port of Pasco purchased the reserve lands to preclude development that is not compatible with airport operations. The land use chapter identifies these lands as severely restricted for development and suggests they be designated as open space areas. (2) Will the proposed use adversely affect public infrastructure? The commercial vineyard has been in operation for over 25 years without significant effects on public infrastructure. The wind machine will operate utilizing an internal combustion engine with an automatic control device, and thus will not draw significant amounts of power from local utilities. Water and sewer usage on-site should be unchanged. (3) Will the proposed use be constructed, maintained and operated to be in harmony with existing or intended character of the general vicinity? The proposed wind machine will not be in general harmony with the character of a residential neighborhood; however the area immediately surrounding the proposed device will likely remain in cultivation indefinitely, being in the development -restricted Airport Reserve area under Port of Pasco ownership. a (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 wind machine will be around 70' tall and will emit a loud fan blade sound when in operation. This could prove to discourage residential development in the surrounding areas. Some of the surrounding areas are in the Port of Pasco's Airport Reserve area where development is restricted; as well, the Port is not planning on allowing residential development on their 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? The proposed wind machine will be around 70' tall and will emit a loud fan blade sound (resembling a helicopter) when in operation. The fans typically run early in the morning before sunrise, when temperatures drop to their lowest levels. Most people find such noises objectionable, especially before sunrise. (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? There have been instances when fan blades have broken off, or sheared, causing a dangerous cascading machine failure. This potential for failure might pose a danger to surrounding properties; however the proposed wind machine may be located far enough away from residences that it would not be an immediate danger. It will emit a loud fan blade sound resembling a helicopter when in operation. TENTATIVE APPROVAL CONDITIONS 1) The special permit shall be personal to the applicant; 2) The Special Permit shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission in two years from initial use of the proposed fan. The review shall consist of an inventory of any associated complaints or concerns during the 2 -year operation. 3) The Special Permit shall apply to a single Orchard -Rite model 2600 V-10 Wind Machine only. 5 RECOMMENDATION MOTION: I move to close the public hearing and schedule deliberations, the adoption of findings of fact, and development of a recommendation for City Council for the January 15, 2016 meeting. �, zE.t�odoa i uj J !�1 TLEL-J, J{ v TJ AlO ^� LU �'tl l iq ct Q,, C� IN , S11 W�1,-1 o � r tl oma, 0 Poo r ,bb-C1:�b .r.. am V m Fa paeA8UTA W FM OI • rl ct 1_ rLL/� J '1 V ct V/IO O O ' ~' O N bb U� .r.. am V m Fa paeA8UTA W FM 0 LL LL 0 CO 0 OI 1_ rLL/� J '1 V V/IO O 0 LL LL 0 CO 0 r ct 4-4 ct O ' O bb UCZ TOM N w a•+ C Ac�l w W O N a O V 4!0P J ,ih, � � I I'J' / � a 't �., 1 • ,, i f � . � / / ...A ,y7 - .. ., 1 � r � . ��� <. �,� �`� � r:- ,. 'i � � , � � � - '- `,; /, �I r I i �r � �,� I� ,� � ��'. � � ' k1_ L, �q `� � r ��� �, � !.� � - � . ��,� :. ,1 ,,� . �,. - ;� ,, , � � ��- /j,:. _ � �� � � /� � ' I rJ �, I ,; �. i ��� y - Y �/ ,J �. �t � � 3; _ A � �� �' � FS li � � l {� ` v � ; t. ' A i} �i 7. `f� .t 2!, ` .. ' - °:.6 � 1 i �] �. � ?ar r1 F4I � �.. ..- L �J E c N O N O U d 3 d > u tl > > o@ G E d d u E o a E m E E a a 2 v 3 m a m m o c o Y s 0 u o Ec cc = c 0 d c c E N C O N M d L 0 N d L C : om W.� N N O. m C >c_ o >E N c N O ° > N> 0 3 a E= .0 70 a y V O r E ■O 7C) !p V C: LO W V O co U �� M fn O AL 7 o E a L U Q) W^^,,. V� U � � U 4-j CZ U 3 LC Cz N (15 :�i N LL w —i rn U) �J E c N O N O U d 3 d > u tl > > o@ G E d d u E o a E m E E a a 2 v 3 m a m m o c o Y s 0 u o Ec cc = c 0 d c c E N C O N M d L 0 N d L C : om W.� N N O. m C >c_ o >E N c N O ° > N> 0 3 a E= .0 y V O r E U z !p C LO f/1 Jc V z //\ M fn O AL 7 o E U � N � � to � 3 � H o 10 J r a w V a00 rn c m La O , 4) �. i .. O C O C iE - i d 0 H � Y U C N pCj R LL 3 Z IA N C O N Ln p 7 > E a N N C C N = N wo >. E ` `cc b _a LLa c r ~ m C 'y i U Q cma =E> n a N 3-6 O E° N N C_ N i N LL 3 �J E c N O N O U d 3 d > u tl > > o@ G E d d u E o a E m E E a a 2 v 3 m a m m o c o Y s 0 u o Ec cc = c 0 d c c E N C O N M d L 0 N d L C : om W.� N N O. m C >c_ o >E N c N O ° > N> 0 3 a E= .0 y V O r E U z !p C LO f/1 Jc V z //\ M fn O AL 7 o E n � I Lnj d7 to LO 3 to LO H -d 10 J r a w V a00 rn c m La O , 4) �. i .. O C O C iE m i d 0 H Y U C J Lt R LL 3 Z �J E c N O N O U d 3 d > u tl > > o@ G E d d u E o a E m E E a a 2 v 3 m a m m o c o Y s 0 u o Ec cc = c 0 d c c E N C O N M d L 0 N d L C : om W.� N N O. m C >c_ o >E N c N O ° > N> 0 3 a E= .0 W LM 4) 71 W c 1 O N N ) 6 m � O Z, Y/ 0c etl W a N N U tl OO N U) N p °o m a E T p c > > w C m p U O O C � O U m W y 1E U O w iL o N m c N rh tea) C O d N p C >1 N o E M3 U " N N i C d Vi E A c N o E z N O E o m a d n N o m (O C d N y N N c S S Q S Y N U O N m O in ao a' N 3 T 'S- (E N a C s a m o o o :% -O y c6 O" 3 U C C U m UI r IQ N o 0 E R Y H 2 3 � s m T E o o> E N C O c n d L c -o ',:Q, m Y E y o O O -QOF 0 "O @ -Q _O -O -o °i m o a O o m N o y O® t6 C > N 3 0-0 J 0) O 3 0 'm C O Cal Y N a E o c 1 O N N ) 6 m � O d m C a m d d ¢° a d E 3 'o C lOL 'O mc d (q '� N r N N N d > y ?+ Z, Y/ 0c etl W a N N U tl OO N U) N p °o m a E T p > > w C m p U O O CV m W d m C a m d d ¢° a d E 3 'o C lOL 'O mc d (q '� N r N N N d > y ?+ Z, 0c W cc m N p > > w C m p U O O c 2i y 1E U O w iL o N E m rh tea) C O d N p C >1 N N C M3 U " N C d Vi E A c N o E z N O m a d X (O C d N y N C Q N d U O N m O in ao a' cp 'S- cc E O J � U N � T m y c c O d m E m N C O c n d L c -o ',:Q, E Y E y o O O -QOF 0 "O @ -Q _O -O S H O r N O® t6 C > N 3 0-0 J d« N N C O J LL O N o E mm d m C a m d d ¢° a d E 3 'o C lOL 'O mc d (q '� N r N N N d > y ?+ Z, 0c W cc m N p > > w d m p U O O c 2i y 1E U E w iL o N E m rh tea) C O N p C >1 N N C M3 " N Vi E A c N o E z N O m 0 X (O C d N y N C Q N d U O N m O in ao a' 'S- O J � T m - >. m o> m E N _ E n d L E Y y E o E o E mm c u -o E c w n C N O cc ` N -O N C N y 0 S E. c T N OU O- O 2i O Q O c N F J O Q U O Z, 0c W cc m N > > w d m p U O O c 2i m U) 1E U E w iL o J E E m tea) C O N p C >1 E N C " Vi E A c N o E z N m 0 (O C d N y N Q U O N m O in ao a' c 0c V cc m ,o N > w V m p U ■ � 2i m U) 1E U E iL Fo tea) >1 U) U)E NWV) " i0 OREGONLIVE Anti -frost fans at lh9ueharry farm not Mnning fans nearby AX166_6AE4_9.JPG (Lynn Ketchum/Oregon State University) The Associated Press By The Associated Press Follow on Twitter on April 26, 2015 at 8:36 AM, updated April 26, 2015 at 8:46 AM GRANTS PASS — In the wee hours of a cold morning in mid-March, residents in the Jerome Prairie and Wilderville areas west of Grants Pass got a rude awakening. Whomp, whomp, whomp. Thirty-foot tall orchard fans, seven of them, went to work protecting 135 acres of blueberries on Helms Road owned by Townsend Farms, a large fruit producer based in the northern Willamette Valley. They weren't there the first 14 years of the berry patch, which some passersby venturing just off the Redwood Highway near the Applegate River might mistake for a vineyard. But last year Townsend invested over $200,000 in the wind machines to upgrade frost protection, after previously spraying irrigation water to protect the young fruit. It's another round of conflict between agriculture and neighbors, following a flap last summer three miles down the lower Applegate River, where Dinsdale Farms uses propane air cannons to keep birds away from wine grapes. And while orchard fans have been around the Rogue Valley for more than 40 years, more have sprung up with the growth of vineyards, which need frost protection in the fall. On cold nights the coldest air often hovers near the ground, and the rotating fans mix the cold air with warmer air aloft to protect the fruit. Suffice it to say neighbors are not fans of the new fans at Townsend's blueberry plot, planted in 2000. "To me it sounds like Huey helicopters. I didn't come here to hear helicopters," said Neal Sousa, who moved here from Southern California and lives near the blueberry farm. "Even inside with the double pane windows. Everybody is sick of them. I moved up here to get some peace and quiet. I should have stayed there." His neighbor Mike Mrkvicka could probably throw a rock at the nearest fan. He likened the sound to a bathroom fan with a bad bearing. "They're loud. I'm hoping we get used to those things," said Mrkvicka, who is cautiously understanding. "Well, it's only three or four weeks a year, and it's not every night. But they need to fine-tune them." Joe Tankersley, manager for Townsend's blueberry fields in both Grants Pass and the Willamette Valley, said the berries just entered the critical phase of petal drop, when the fruit is a small speck. Thus the fans are turned on at 35 degrees to get air moving well above the all-important 32 -degree freeze. They were previously turned on at 33 degrees, Tankersley said. Mrkvicka was concerned when, by his thermometer, he heard fans running at 38 degrees air temperature one morning. He drove out into the field and talked to the on-site manager, and talked to Tankersley. "I felt better about it after talking to Joe," Mrkvicka said. "I just wanted to get some kind of parameters on their use." Frost protection for blueberries here generally starts about the third week of March and lasts about six weeks, Tankersley said. He estimated a total of 50 hours of frost protection will be needed when it's done, probably any day now. Since they're harvested in mid-July, they don't need any fall protection. "It's about a six-week deal," Tankersley said. "I hate being portrayed as the villain. We're running these as little as possible. Our hands are tied when it comes to frost control. That's some of the finest blueberries in the world being grown there. That farm has been there a lot longer than most of those neighbors. What needs to be decided is, do they want agriculture in the valley?" Tankersley said the Orchard -Rite fans, manufactured by Cascade Wind Machines in Yakima, Wash., are the best on the market. "They have catalytic converters and mufflers," Tankersley said. They're also an upgrade over other frost protection methods. Sprinkling water on plants to protect the fruit — a layer of ice does the job — has its drawbacks, Tankersley said. "It causes root rot, washes nutrients and herbicides through the soil, and other issues," he said. Last year Townsend lost 500,000 pounds of blueberries from water damage, and harvested 1.3 million pounds, Tankersley said. In 2013 losses were minimal and the harvest was 1.8 million pounds. "Now that the whole farm is coming into production, it needs to produce 2 million pounds," he said. Townsend operates 1,500 acres of blueberries in Oregon and Washington, and only the Applegate River farm has fans, as of now. "Grants Pass has twice as many frost days as we get up here," he said. Phil Van Buskirk, former administrator for the OSU Extension in Central Point, said it takes 60 smudge pots, which burn kerosene, to warm an acre. One fan can handle 10 acres or more, so smudge pot use is dwindling. The Rogue Valley's pear orchards, which have seen a decline in acreage over the past 30 years, still cover 5,500 acres and most use a combination of wind machines and smudge pots, Van Buskirk said. "It's all about reducing costs for frost protection," he said. "Fans are the cleanest, most economical way to protect crops." Van Buskirk moved to the Rogue Valley in 1984, close to an orchard. "When we first moved here we hated it," he said. "It does sound a lot like a helicopter. Over time, when we went somewhere else, I couldn't sleep (without it)." Neighbors of farms or orchards have little recourse. Oregon's 1973 right -to -farm law includes specific protection for growers from legal actions over noise, vibration, odors, smoke, dust, mist from irrigation, use of pesticides and crop production substances. The law has been updated several times, most recently in 2001. "The real problem here is urban encroachment on our rural community," Van Buskirk said. "They need to be aware when they buy these homes. All of a sudden in the spring they hear things." -- The Associated Press © 2015 OregonLive.com. All rights reserved. http://www.seattlepi.com/local/article/Noisy-wind-machines-protect-state-s-orchards-from-1052292. php Noisy wind machines protect state's orchards from frostbite THE ASSOCIATED PRESS Published 10:00 Washington state's orchards are dotted with wind machines, like this one near Cashmere, which can save delicate blossoms and buds from frost. WENATCHEE -- Each spring, when farmers crank up the earthshaking power of their 35 -foot -tall wind machines, Dave Harmening hears from worried neighbors. "We still get calls from folks who think they're being invaded by helicopters," said Harmening, area manager for Cascade Wind Machine Service, near Monitor. And then there was the woman passing through the area who wanted to know if the huge towers with the big propeller blades were memorials at an airplane crash site. There are 7,500 to io,000 of the machines standing in Northwest orchards, and the nearly deafening whop -whop -whop of those propellers can be the sound of economic survival on a frosty morning. The wind machines -- equipped with 18- to 2o -foot -long propeller blades -- circulate air and raise the temperature in orchards to protect fragile fruit tree buds and blossoms. Farmers pay more than $17,000 per unit for the wind machines, which they use on average about 5o hours a year. Most of the machines run on propane -fueled Chevrolet V-8 engines. They cost about $2o an hour to run; more if they're using electricity. Temperatures just a few degrees below freezing can ruin an apple, pear or soft -fruit crop. More like giant Mixmasters than windmills, the machines stir cold air near the ground and mix it with the layer of warmer air above. The machines can raise temperatures about 4 degrees in a 12 -acre area -- often enough to save a crop from the cosmetic damage that can destroy its value, Harmening said. Other methods of frost control, such as oil or propane heaters or running water over the trees, can raise orchard temperatures an additional 2 degrees or more. Apples, pears and cherries become increasingly sensitive to cold as the trees approach full bloom, Washington State University research shows. At full bloom and for about a week afterward, damage could occur when temperatures drop below 29 degrees. Sustained 25 -degree temperatures can kill 90 percent of the buds on a Red Delicious apple tree. Most of the wind machines turn on automatically when temperatures hit 31 degrees, Harmening said. While last week's overnight lows dipped into the los, things are warming up this week. Yesterday's lows were in the 30s to low 4os and the same is forecast for Tuesday morning, according to the National Weather Service. © 2015 Hearst Communications, Inc. HEARST REPORT TO PLANNING MASTER FILE NO: SP 2015-017 APPLICANT: City of Pasco HEARING DATE: 12/17/2015 525 N 3rd Ave ACTION DATE: 1/21/2016 Pasco, WA 99301 BACKGROUND REQUEST FOR SPECIAL PERMIT: Location of Sports Field Lighting in an R-1 (Low -Density Residential) Zone. 1. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: Legal: Parcel # 112 075 013: The Southeast 1/4 of the Northeast 1/4 of the northeast 1/4 of Section 29 Township 9 North Range 30 East Together with Pasco Land Company's 1st Addition, Blocks 161, 162 & 163 Together with all adjacent vacated roads and alleys. General Location: Highland Park located east of N. Wehe Avenue between E. Broadway Boulevard and E. Adelia Street. Property Size: Approximately 13.7 acres 2. ACCESS: The site has access from N. Wehe Avenue, E. Broadway Boulevard and E. Adelia Street. 3. UTILITIES: The site has access to water, sewer, and power. 4. LAND USE AND ZONING: The property is currently zoned R-1 (Low - Density Residential). Surrounding properties are zoned and developed as follows: NORTH: R-1& C-3 - Whittier and Curie Elementary Schools EAST: R-1 - SFDUs SOUTH: R-1, R-2 & R-3 - SFDUs & duplexes WEST: C-3 - Vacant 5. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The site is designated in the Plan for Low - Density Residential uses. Policy CF -4-A encourages implementation of the adopted Parks and Recreation Plan. The City's adopted Parks, Recreation & Forestry Plan contains various goals, objectives and policies to establish well-developed neighborhood parks to serve surrounding neighborhoods within a radius of one-half to one mile. 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 Comprehensive Plan encourages the location of parks throughout the City. Parks are generally identified as a desirable urban amenity within residential neighborhoods. According to the Parks Plan appropriate facilities for neighborhood parks may include practice fields for softball, soccer, youth baseball etc. The City of Pasco Parks and Recreation Department is in the process of upgrading its facility at Highland Park, located on N. Wehe Avenue just north of E. Adelia Street and south of Whittier and Curie Elementary Schools. Part of the upgrade includes installation of sports field lighting on the south field (Field #1). The proposed lighting would include four light fixtures, each containing six metal halide luminaries, each fixture set on a 70' tall galvanized steel pole, set back 20' from the playfield (See attached exhibits). Parks are listed under PMC 25.86.020(6) "Unclassified Uses" as requiring a Special Permit. Any substantial improvements thereto also require review through the Special Permit process. The park currently contains three youth football fields, a playground, basketball courts, a wooded picnic area, restrooms, and portable storage buildings. The lighting will increase usable hours of the field, allowing the City to meet increasing demand. The lighting will be shielded from sending glare directly into neighboring properties, as per PMC 12.32.020 and will be controllable via both automatic and manual control switches. According to the vendor's Illumination Summary, the light spill at the closest property line will be approximately 2.2 in horizontal footcandles* (See attached "light Spillage" map; *A "footcandle" is defined as "the illuminance cast on a surface by a one -candela source one foot away," a "candela" being roughly equivalent to a candle weighing one sixth of a pound and burning at a rate of 120 grains per hour); this is roughly equivalent to the light one might experience while standing in the indirectly lit area between two City street lights. Lights will be used primarily in the fall (September - November) during the Pasco Youth Football playing season, Saturday evenings from dusk until about 8:00 pm with occasional use on Wednesday, Friday, and Sunday evenings., and in Spring (March - May), coinciding with Lacrosse season and youth flag football, Primarily on Saturday evenings. Organized use during the summer is z very minimal, most of which occurs during daylight hours. The fields will be shut down during the winter to allow them to rest. Applicable regulations regarding outdoor lighting are as shown below: PMC 12.32.020 SHIELDING" specifies that "All outdoor lighting systems . . . shall be shielded from above in such a manner that the edge of the shield shall be level with or below the center of the light source so that any direct light emitted above the horizontal is minimized. All outdoor lighting fixtures installed in zone two on or after ninety days from the enactment of the ordinance codified herein shall be shielded in such a manner so that any direct light emitted above the horizontal is minimized. Light direction refractors shall be considered to be light sources. PMC 12.32.040 "UNLAWFUL ACTS" prohibits "the illumination after midnight of an outdoor public recreation facility unless a specific recreational activity is already in progress" The park is located in an R-1 Zone and is surrounded on three sides (north, east and south) by residential zoning; two elementary schools are located across the street to the north; land to the east is fully built out with low-density residential development and nearly built out to the south with the permits for Habitat for Humanity housing having recently been issued; land to the west is zoned C-3 and is currently vacant. INITIAL 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 City of Pasco Parks and Recreation Department has applied for a Special Permit to locate sports field lighting at its facility at Highland Park. 2. Highland Park is located on N. Wehe Avenue just north of E. Adelia Street and south of Whittier and Curie Elementary Schools. 3. The City of Pasco Parks and Recreation Department is in the process of upgrading its facility at Highland Park, 4. Highland Park is located on N. Wehe Avenue just north of E. Adelia Street and south of Whittier and Curie Elementary Schools. 9 5. Part of the upgrade includes installation of sports field lighting on the south field (Field # 1). 6. The proposed lighting would include four light fixtures, each containing six metal halide luminaries, each fixture set on a 70' tall galvanized steel pole (see attached Exhibit). 7. According to the Illumination Summary, the spill in both horizontal and vertical footcandles) as well as the "blanket" at the property line will be 0.0. 8. PMC 12.32.020 requires all outdoor lighting systems to be shielded so that any direct light emitted above the horizontal is minimized. 9. PMC 12.32.040 prohibits illuminating outdoor public recreation facilities after midnight "unless a specific recreational activity is already in progress." 10. The lighting will be shielded from sending glare directly into neighboring properties, as per PMC 12.32.020 11. The lighting will be controllable via both automatic and manual control switches. 12. Lights will be used primarily Saturday evenings with occasional use on Wednesday, Friday, and Sunday evenings until about 8:00 pm during the fall (September through November), and in Spring (March - May). Organized summer use is minimal and during daylight hours. 13. The fields will be shut down during the winter. 14. Parks are listed under PMC 25.86.020(6) "Unclassified Uses" as requiring a Special Permit. 15. Any substantial improvements to parks require review through the Special Permit process. 16. The Comprehensive Plan encourages the location of parks throughout the City. Parks are generally identified as a desirable urban amenity within residential neighborhoods. 17. According to the Parks Plan appropriate facilities for neighborhood parks may include practice fields for softball, soccer, youth baseball etc. 4 18. The park currently contains three youth football fields, a playground, basketball courts, a wooded picnic area, restrooms, and portable storage buildings. 19. The proposed lighting will increase usable hours of the field, allowing the City to meet increasing demand. 20. The park is located in an R-1 Zone 21. The Park is surrounded on three sides (north, east and south) by residential zoning; 22. Two elementary schools are located across the street to the north of the Park; 23. Land to the east of the Park is fully built out with low-density residential development and nearly built out to the south with the permits for Habitat for Humanity housing having recently been issued; 24. Land to the west of the Park is zoned C-3 and is currently vacant. TENTATIVE CONCLUSIONS BASED ON THE INITIAL 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 Comprehensive Plan encourages the location of parks throughout the City. Parks are generally identified as a desirable urban amenity within residential neighborhoods. According to the Parks Plan appropriate facilities for neighborhood parks may include practice fields for softball, soccer, youth baseball etc. (2) Will the proposed use adversely affect public infrastructure? The park is already built; the upgraded lighting fixtures will draw more power than existing on-site lights, but not beyond the capability of existing utilities. (3) Will the proposed use be constructed, maintained and operated to be in harmony with existing or intended character of the general vicinity? E The Park is already in place. Current residential building activity to the south is being undertaken with knowledge of the park's existence. According to the Parks Plan appropriate facilities for neighborhood parks may include practice fields for softball, soccer, youth baseball etc. (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 area to the east is already fully developed, as is most of the neighborhood to the south. Homes for the remaining residential lots to the south are currently under permit or in the application process. Properties to the west are zoned for general commercial business. (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? PMC 12.32.020 requires all outdoor lighting systems to be shielded so that any direct light emitted above the horizontal is minimized. PMC 12.32.040 prohibits illuminating outdoor public recreation facilities after midnight "unless a specific recreational activity is already in progress." The City requires lighting to be shielded from sending glare directly into neighboring properties, as per PMC 12.32.020. The lighting will be controllable via both automatic and manual control switches. (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? Increased lighting will extend the useable play time for the field past sunset hours, drawing larger sports crowds and potentially creating increased noise, traffic and parking nuisances to surrounding neighborhoods. TENTATIVE APPROVAL CONDITIONS 1) The special permit shall apply to Parcel #112075013; 2) Light standards shall be no taller than 70 feet. 3) Light shall not be employed between 9:00 pm and 6:00 am. 4) Lights shall be installed so as to meet or exceed the minimum light shielding standard as shown on the attached "Illumination Summary." I MOTION: I move to close the public hearing and schedule deliberations, the adoption of findings of fact, and development of a recommendation for City Council for the January 21, 2016 meeting. 7 111.1' N 'T'^^ v/ ct W O O rN ' Lz; V r N ti. r 'fir. ` r 1 r� a a � l � N �a 1 tI N EA I 8 v 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 0 4 4 3 4 a E 4 O 4 4 p q a n 4 yJ 4 y 4 4 4 D 4 4 8q, 4 4 aN 4 4 c n n �+t m� 4 c 4 4 4 4 4 j D D 4 9 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 u`oo d 4 mN d� c p w c c Ha c m ' ..b � a • U'` O^o mrN+l vmim �o �tgQ O V w L c v NU � t, > °° c� GN O 9 9 W $ N N M '`d•' C�� iri y d m H IO m 4 w Z V' N y�� 4 4 4 4 4 4 mEEc°Duca 4 4 4 4 4 Ld� E&.sm 4 @E E n 6¢ F o?LL 4 ` 4 4 a o. m . c x a o d a° a oat t d E q E c m.dd« a d $ ti n c ' ry z° c Ep N°nJ y m t2 r m ._. Vicom � Ei'o uf3 q z m3 4 fa 4 4 4 D -L 4 4 4 4 4 • = F d j q tl d L 2 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4% 4% 4 4 4 D 4 4 4 0 4 i 4 D D D 4> G 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 y 4 4 4 D 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 D 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 D D D 4 9 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 D 9 4 4 4 4 4 4 D D 4 4 4 4 4 4 D D D 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 y n 4 4 9 D D 4 9 4 4 4 4 4 4 9 4 4 4 4 4 4 D D D 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4; 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 9 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 0 4 4 4 D D D D D 4 i N N N N N 4 4 4 4 4 4 D D D D D 4 4 g 4 4 4 D D 9 N n • ^• N 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 94 4 4 4 4 4 �i i 'i 'Y F N m i i D 9 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 C 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 N o 2 N v T D �.SoIY 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4fVM 4 m m �?4 6 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 a ry m 4 4 4 4 D D 4 N N N "✓r "✓. `Y "� "1 `Y n `Y 4 4 4 D 9 9 9 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 N o- w N N N - N 4 4 4 4 4 4 c a 4 a I N N 4 4 4 4 4 4 O 4 4 4 LL LL 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 c 50l � .SOIL 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 i 4 N '� 'H1U✓r 4 "� "� 'q • 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 D 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 i 4 4 4 4 4 i 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 i 4 i s n 4 z 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 D 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 D 4 4 4 4 4 W w 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 a 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 ti 4 4 D D D 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 D D 4 4 4 4 4 D D D 9 D 4 4 4 4 4 4 JZ Q U 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 D D 4 4 4 4 4 D 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 D 4 rA o 4 4 D D 4 4 4 4 4 4 D 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 D 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 D D 4 4 4 4 4 4 9 D 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 9 4 9 D Z m . -�T- � 3AYy Hg338 — • p� VOui w iry p G 9 . env s3IbvH-- V yv � 7 i�tY G.14 D G D D� D D DJ q YW 'D Gi D D 9 D G. 9. D ♦ Y' V L4 V G —V�i bir' li ♦J q J G a c 4 Y G /! I�( a 'i ♦ 9 - 4 4!' _ Aly4 y g p 4: 9E a' q �4 g 4 q q 9'V G D G 7 G N G 4 4♦�G q q q- G V A G V Y a 9 Y G Y '1 i �"� fY j Light -Structure GreenTM System— Stijl Five Easy Pieces" plus: Improved Luminaire Efficiency 1. Reflector system: More than 2000 photometric patterns provide optimal energy efficiency and minimal spill light for each project. 2. Visor System: Several visor choices provide energy efficient light on the fit and minimal spill light. The aerodynamics reduce wind load on the poles. 3. Side Shift Beam Control: Beams can be adjusted within the luminaire horizontally as well as vertically. We can now custom fit the light to the ee Smart Lamp`" Operating System 1. Lamp: 30 years of lamp experience has taught Musco how to operate the I less energy and extend its life with a system of timed power adjustments. 2. Geared tilt adjustment: With a geared leveling mechanism, the lamp arc t operates in the energy advantageous horizontal position. Increased Durability, Assured Results 1. Die -Cast aluminum reflector housing: provides a rugged foundation for building and maintaining a sophisticated photometric unit. 2. Gasketing: Improved material and gasket system design virtually eliminate "outgasing" and other contamination of the reflectors and lens. 3. Factory Assembled Luminaires: The luminaire ships totally assembled: avoids contaminants, saves time, improves aiming accuracy. 4. Attaching Mechanism: The factory assembled luminaire connects electrical and structurally to the crossarm with one simple attachment. 5. Factory Aiming: Musco's well established service of factory aiming is even with Light -Structure Green"'... field, changes can still be done. Solid control and flexible management 1. Controls and monitoring: This system, in one simple cabinet, included in i base price, saves energy and gives you a solid, flexible management tool. 2. Control Link Central-: Real people at Musco, 24/7, support the operation your lights ... from office, field or home ... benefits field users and neighbe Ultimate guarantee With Green Generation Lighting, Musco's Constant 25- guarantees it all for 25 years, plus free relamping at the end of the lamps' rated life. All of this is ass by Musco's field service department and their technicians. Light -Structure Green'" is the result of more than a dozen inventions and innovations from more than 10 million dO1logo of research and capital investment by Musco. muse. We Make It Happen ©2005, 2011 Musco Sports Lighting, LLC 6-200-6 800/825-6030 www.musco.com e-mail: lighting@musco.com prem r:wm.w re�e� REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION MASTER FILE NO: SP 2015-018 APPLICANT: City of Pasco HEARING DATE: 12/17/2015 525 N 3rd Ave ACTION DATE: 1/21/2016 Pasco, WA 99301 BACKGROUND REQUEST FOR SPECIAL PERMIT: 1. WSU Farm in an R-12 (Suburban Residential) District. Legal: Parcel # 118180180 being a portion of the NW quarter of Section 18, Township 9 North, Range 29 East located between Road 111 and I- 182 and north of Court Street. General Location: North of the West Pasco Water Treatment Plant and east of Road 111. Property Size: Approximately 11.41 acres 2. ACCESS: The site has access from Road 111. 3. UTILITIES: The site has access to water, sewer, and power. 4. LAND USE AND ZONING: The property is currently zoned R-12 (Suburban Residential). Surrounding properties are zoned and developed as follows: NORTH: R-12 — Vineyard EAST: R-12 - SFDUs SOUTH: R-12 — Treatment Plant and SFDUs WEST: RT - Vacant S. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The Comprehensive Plan designates the site for Low -Density Residential uses. None of the goals and policies of the plan apply to the proposed use. Farming activities with the Urban Growth Area are considered an interim use. 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 site has been part of a farm since World War two. The farm was dissected in the early 1980's by the construction of I-182 and the bridge to Richland. However the property continued to be used as a farm after the highway construction. In 2000 the property was part of the Road 100 annexation and it became incorporated into the City at that time. The farm continued to be operated in the City until 2007 or 2009. Since that time there has been sporadic use of the land for farming. Most recently the WSU Extension Services has been farming the property. WSU is seeking to expand the farm to use the entire 11 acre parcel and incorporate a storage shed and carport structure to protect farm equipment. The storage structures and accompanying fencing will be located on the north side of the City's water treatment plant near the bike path along the 1-182 right-of-way. The fenced equipment area will occupy about 1,800 square feet of land leaving most of the 11.41 acres available for farming. WSU typically grows vegetable crops on their research farms. WSU research farms are not intensive commercial farms involving a lot of heavy equipment and harvesting vehicles. For the last several years WSU has being farming two parcels of land near the corner of Road 80 and Wernett Road. The property has recently been sold and some of it is in the process of being developed as the Road 84 Estates. Staff is not aware of any complaints from nearby home owners as a result of the WSU farming operations on Road 80. CBC also operates an educational farm across the street from residential properties on Argent Place with nor complaints being generated by neighboring property owners. Pasco has had a long history with large and small farms being operated in the City Limits with little conflict with neighboring residential subdivisions. Farming is an interim use that can easily be converted to intended uses as urban growth dictates. Most of the development within the I-182 corridor over the past 15 years has occurred on lands that were formally developed with farms. WSU was asked to apply for a special permit because they proposed to modify the farming operation on the site by adding a carport and storage shed. There have never been any farm related structures on the property. INITIAL 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. 7 I . The site has been farmed for at least 65 years. 2. The site was annexed to the City in 2000 and zoned RS12. 3. The site is adjacent to I-182 a major highway. At times there is significant noise generated from the highway. 4. Farming operations continued on the site for 7 to 9 years after the site was annexed. WSU has recently being using the property as a research farm. 5. The residential neighborhood to the east of Road 111 was developed after the farming operation began on the site. Some of the houses in the neighborhood were built in the late 1990's and 2000's. 6. The WSU research farm cultivates vegetable crops. 7. A research farm does not involve the extensive use of large farm equipment and there is no commercial harvesting of the crops. 8. A small vineyard is located directly to the north of the proposed WSU farm. 9. The farming operation will include a 10' by 16' storage shed and a 30' by 40' carport to house farm equipment. The structures will be screen with fencing containing vinyl slats of a neutral color. 10. The proposed storage shed and carport will be located about 700 feet away from the nearest house on Road 111. 11. The proposed storage shed and carport will be located about 400 feet north of Court Street and will be screened from Court street by the masonry wall around the water treatment plant. 12. WSU has operated a research farm near the intersection of Road 80 and Wernett Road. This vegetable research farm has not generated any complaints from adjoin property owners. This property was in the County until the Road 80 Annexation occurred in July of this year. 13. The City Council granted a special permit to Columbia Basin College in 2009 for an education farm similar to the proposed WSU farm. The CBC farm is located on the north side of Argent Road across the street from single-family homes. The CBC farm has not created any nuisance problems for the residents on Argent Place. 3 TENTATIVE CONCLUSIONS BASED ON THE INITIAL 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 Comprehensive Plan designates the site for low-density residential development. The proposed use involves no intensive development and is considered an interim use. The property will remain available for urban development. (2) Will the proposed use adversely affect public infrastructure? The proposed farm will have no adverse impact on public infrastructure. A farm is not dependent upon City utilities or infrastructure as are residential and commercial developments. (3) Will the proposed use be constructed, maintained and operated to be in harmony with existing or intended character of the general vicinity? The location of other farms within the I-182 Corridor and other areas of the City has demonstrated that farms within close proximity of dwellings can be operated harmoniously with intended uses. Farms have operated simultaneously with the development of Island Estates, Sunny Meadows, the Village of Pasco Heights, and in harmony with other residential developments in the I-182 Corridor. The proposed use will not make intensive use of the land or lead to the disorderly growth of the community. (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 structures will be similar to accessory structures typically found on residential lots. Development over the last 15 years within the I-182 Corridor attests to the fact that farming operations do not discourage the development of permitted uses or impair the value of nearby development. 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? Nearby properties contain a water treatment plant, a vineyard a freeway and single-family homes. The proposed use will not create more traffic, flashing lights, fumes, noise or vibrations than the traffic on Court Street or I-182. (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 existence of numerous farming operations within the I-182 Corridor demonstrates that the proposed use will not become a nuisance to permitted uses nor will it endanger public health and safety. TENTATIVE APPROVAL CONDITIONS 1) The special permit shall apply to Parcel # 118180180; 2) The proposed equipment storage yard and portable structures must be located north of the water treatment plant and at least 500 feet from Road 111; RECOMMENDATION MOTION: I move to close the public hearing and schedule deliberations, the adoption of findings of fact, and development of a recommendation for City Council for the January 21, 2016 meeting. E z > U) l z O LL LL N = =CIA OJPO o F� L O I Ct 4-4 .2 r+ C 5� ct S .��`y i � a JQ� d ®. � o0 LL Q" "� J a rZ7,", 7�7m L. r-I O m 0 Loo N O U) 0 0�O < CO U °`—° CL it LL oZS � U a� U Z v � a+ 'O i O h c O O n a$ 0 t0 O O V ,n � m d c v - o v M 0 N O O t N Y O N m O 00 >.Ni Ew O m 0 Loo N O U) 0 0�O < CO U °`—° CL it LL oZS � U a� U Z 1 KL tr' 1 P �J 1. \ ; n 1 ice. v ���,. l :: i I �� ��� � -- e