Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
04-21-2016 Planning Commission Meeting Packet
PLANNING REGULAR MEETING I. CALL TO ORDER: II. ROLL CALL: III. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: V. OLD BUSINESS: A. Special Permit -AGENDA 7:00 P.M. Declaration of Quorum March 17, 2016 April 21, 2016 Special Permit to locate a daycare center (Rosa Cantu) (MF# SP 2016-005) B. Rezone Rezone from RT (Residential Transition) to R-1 (Low Density Residential) (Promade Construction LLC) (MF# Z 2016-002) VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS: A. Zoning Determination Zoning Determination for the Mullen Annexation Area (MF# ZD 2016-002) B. Code Amendment C. Code Amendment VII. WORKSHOP: VIII. OTHER BUSINESS: IX. ADJOURNMENT: Temporary Businesses in the I-182 Overlay Zone (MF# CA 2016-001 Home Occupations /Client Present (MF# CA 2015-007) This meeting is broadcast live on PSC -TV Channel 191 on Charter Cable and streamed at www.pasco-wa.com/i)sctvlive. 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 Khan. 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: March 17, 2016 Chairwoman Khan read a statement about the appearance of fairness for hearings on land use matters. There were no declarations. Chairwoman Khan 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 Khan explained that state law requires testimony in quasi-judicial hearings such as held by the Planning Commission be given under oath or affirmation. Chairwoman Khan swore in all those desiring to speak. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Greenaway moved, seconded by Commissioner Portugal that the minutes dated February 18, 2016 be approved. The motion passed unanimously. OLD BUSINESS: A. Special Permit Special Permit to locate a church (Bethel Church) (MF# SP 2016-001 Chairwoman Khan read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Dave McDonald, City Planner briefly discussed the recommended conditions to clarify condition number three dealing with a daycare. Commissioner Greenaway moved, seconded by Commissioner Portugal, to adopt findings of fact and conclusions therefrom as contained in the March 17, 2016 staff report. The -1- motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Greenaway moved, seconded by Commissioner Portugal, based on the findings of fact and conclusions therefrom, the Planning Commission recommend the City Council grant a special permit to Bethel Church for the location of a church at the 6600 Block of Chapel Hill Boulevard with conditions as contained in the March 17, 2016 staff report. The motion passed unanimously. B. Special Permit Special Permit to locate a preschool in an existin¢ home (John Coolevl IMF# SP 2016-0021 Chairwoman Khan read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director, discussed the special permit application to locate a preschool in an existing home. He explained that conditions #5 and #6 were added to the staff report based on the Planning Commission's discussion the previous month. Condition #7 as contained in the staff report is an error. It is a typo and should be deleted and ignored. Commissioner Polk asked if it should be moved as amended since condition #7 is an error. Mr. White responded yes. Commissioner Greenaway asked if the applicant is fine with conditions #5 and #6. Mr. White responded that they would have to comply with those anyway but now it is more clear. Commissioner Greenaway moved, seconded by Commissioner Portugal, to adopt findings of fact and conclusions therefrom as contained in the March 17, 2016 staff report as amended. The motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Greenaway moved, seconded by Commissioner Portugal, based on the findings of fact and conclusions therefrom the Planning Commission recommend the City Council grant a special permit for the location of a preschool operation at 4818 W. Irving Street, with conditions as listed in the March 17, 2016 staff report. The motion passed unanimously. C. Special Permit Special Permit to locate a daycare center in an existin¢ home (Juan & Mariana Valdivia) (MF# SP 2016-003) Chairwoman Khan read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director, discussed the special permit application to locate a daycare center in an existing home. He explained that condition 45 #6 was added to the staff report based on the Planning Commission's discussion the previous month which identifies State regulations for fencing. rz Commissioner Mendez moved, seconded by Commissioner Greenaway, to adopt findings of fact and conclusions therefrom as contained in the March 17, 2016 staff report. The motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Mendez moved, seconded by Commissioner Greenaway, based on the findings of fact and conclusions therefrom the Planning Commission recommend the City Council grant a special permit for the location of a daycare center at 3503 W. Sylvester Street, with conditions as listed in the March 17, 2016 staff report. The motion passed unanimously. PUBLIC HEARINGS: A. Special Permit Special Permit to locate a daycare center (Rosa Cantu) (MF# SP 2016-005) Chairwoman Khan read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Rick White, Community 8v Economic Development Director, discussed the special permit to locate a daycare center. The proposal is to locate a daycare center in a C-3 zone at 220 N. Oregon Avenue. The applicant has indicated that the proposal is to operate the daycare center 7 days per week for 16 hours per day and could serve up to 82 children per day. The property is surrounded by commercial uses and is being used commercially. The staff report identifies the state requirements for the number of the features or at least the child/teacher ratio and an estimated traffic generation rate was provided. A list of preliminary findings have been developed as well as a list of possible conditions. Commissioner Portugal asked if there is a fence around the property. Mr. White answered that currently there is not. Commissioner Greenaway added that they would have to comply with state law regarding fencing. Mr. White stated that this daycare application is similar to other daycare centers that have been discussed. Chairwoman Khan responded that one of the approval conditions states that they will conform to Washington State Department of Early Learning regulations. Commissioner Polk asked for clarification on the sketch that was included in the staff report of the proposed daycare. Mr. White clarified the proposed design, including the layout, streets and parking. Commissioner Mendez stated that he was concerned because there were no grass areas for the kids to play and lack of fencing and if the facility would have to be inspected by the State before they issue a license. Mr. White responded that they would need to be approved by the State prior to a license -3- being issued. Commissioner Greenaway added that the State has very specific rules for any daycare. Rosa Cantu, 115 Honeysuckle, spoke on behalf of her special permit application. The facility currently doesn't look the way it's going to look because she is just starting the process. She is trying to get all of the permits taken care of and prior to opening it will have to be approved by the State or else they won't be able to operate. In the front it will have enough playground space and parking. Commissioner Polk asked if she has a new drawing. Ms. Cantu responded that she does and handed the drawing into the record for the Planning Commission to review. She explained that the engineer is still working on the design. Commissioner Mendez asked if the total area is 3,000 square feet. Ms. Cantu responded that it is 2,211 square feet. He asked if it would have the capacity of 80 kids. Ms. Cantu answered that it would have 80-90, depending on what the State approves. Commissioner Polk asked if that would contain school aged children who won't be there for the entire day. Ms. Cantu said that is correct, they will offer a before and after school program. Chairwoman Khan asked if she had any concerns about it being located next door to commercial. Ms. Cantu answered that she did not have concerns because it will be completely fenced in. Commissioner Greenaway stated that the application just had 80 children as the maximum and if she would like to leave that open. Ms. Cantu responded that it was 80 before they started doing the design but with an addition there could be an extra preschool. It will not exceed 90. Commissioner Portugal asked if the State will have a requirement as to how many kids could be in one room and if that is being taken care of. Ms. Cantu stated that is being taken care of. With no further questions or comments the public hearing closed. Commissioner Portugal discussed changing the approval condition from 80 to 90 for the capacity for the staff report at the next meeting. Commissioner Greenaway moved, seconded by Commissioner Polk, to close the public hearing and schedule deliberations, the adoption of findings of fact and development of a recommendation for City Council for the April 21, 2016 meeting. The motion passed unanimously. B. Rezone IMF# Z 2016-0021 Chairwoman Khan read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Dave McDonald, City Planner, discussed the rezone application from RT (Residential Transition) to R-1 (Low Density Residential). Back in 2014 the applicant for this rezone approached the Planning Commission with a rezone for 2-3 other parcels to the north of the site to have those properties rezoned from RT to R-1. That was passed by City Council following the Planning Commission recommendation. In 2014 the applicant was unable to purchase the site currently under consideration but he has now purchased it and would like to have it zoned to match the zoning to the north to complete his project. In 2014, he also received approval for a preliminary plat, Majestia Estates, and this is the one piece that was missing. Attached to the staff report is a short plat that shows that layout that he wishes to use to develop the lots on this property and will tie into Majestia Estates and finish the neighborhood. It is consistent with the Consolidated Plan and fits the neighborhood. Chairwoman Khan asked for clarification on Lot 1, as it appears there is a road to the east and the west of the lot. Mr. McDonald responded that the lines on the west is vacated road. It will not be a street. Bruce Pritchard, 2025 W. 27th Avenue, Kennewick, spoke on behalf of this application. He stated that he owns property to the south, which is zoned commercial. For commercial property it was great with Road 92 going all the way through it had flowing through traffic. Now the traffic has been blocked off and with residential going in, he was hoping Majestia Lane would run through to Road 90 but it appears that has been dashed. Chairwoman Khan responded that there is a short plat. Staff put the short plat on the overhead. Mr. Pritchard asked if there would just be a square way for traffic to go around. Chairwoman Khan said yes. Mr. Pritchard said that was what he was looking for. Chairwoman Khan clarified that there is a street that will connect from Majestia Lane straight through to Road 90. -5- With no further questions or comments to public hearing closed. Commissioner Greenaway moved, seconded by Commissioner Polk, 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 April 21, 2016 meeting. The motion passed unanimously. C. Block Grant 2015 Consolidated Annual Plan Evaluation Report (MF# BGAP 2016-001) Chairwoman Khan read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Angie Pitman, Block Grant Administrator, discussed the 2015 Consolidated Annual Plan Evaluation Report. Notice of this public hearing was published in the local newspaper in English and Tfi Decides in Spanish. The CAPER reviews the goals from the 2015 Annual Action Plan. Three goals were announced in the Annual Action Plan; (1) Affordable Housing, (2) Community & Economic Development and (3) Homeless Intervention & Priority Public Services. In 2015 the City expended $1.06 million for these projects. These projects included 2015 projects approved in the Annual Action Plan and prior year projects. A chart was referenced on the overhead projector showing where those funds were spent and the percentage of the totals. Public Facilities and Infrastructure consisted of the majority of the funds spent, approximately 70% for physical improvements. Code Enforcement, which is a part of decent housing but categorized as Community & Economic Development, spent roughly 5% of the funds. Public Services and Homeless Intervention projects used 9%. Planning and Administration used 10% of the funds. Affordable Housing used 1% of the funds. Economic Development activities used roughly 6%. Chairwoman Khan asked if there are guidelines to how the funds should be allocated, such as what takes priority. Ms. Pitman stated that there are no priorities as far in terms of the three goals that are outlined in the plan. They have to be in the Five Year Consolidated Plan that was approved in 2014. The Consolidated Plan is the overall plan for the next 5 years and each year there is a supplement to state the plans for each year. The activity must meet one of the goals and the City of Pasco's priorities and eligibilities and national objective requirements. Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director, added that the City does have a prioritized approved Resolution 1969 which identifies the priorities, such as, community infrastructure. It doesn't prioritize non -city social service programs because they have their own separate block grant funds. The City of Pasco prioritizes community infrastructure which is why such a large percentage of the funds were spent on City physical improvements. Ms. Pitman stated that in the CAPER under the technical report the goals are listed with what City has stated would be spent in the next five years towards these types of activities and what is expected during that five year period and what is accomplished. In all goals, the City is ahead of expectations with the exception of Affordable Housing, which was not unusual. There weren't many housing projects estimated. In the five year period it was only estimated that 10 projects would be completed through the CHIP rehab program. In 2015 the City provided down payment assistance for 23 households and the NSP program addressed foreclosed properties in the City. Chairwoman Khan asked for clarification on the numbers in the report regarding percentages complete. Ms. Pitman answered that the first percent complete is the progress in the five year plan and the second percent complete is the progress in this year's goal. With no further questions or comments the public hearing closed. Commissioner Polk moved, seconded by Commissioner Greenaway, the Planning Commission close the public hearing and recommend the City Manager approve the 2015 Consolidated Annual Plan Evaluation Report as presented. The motion passed unanimously. D. Block Grant Neighborhood Stabilization Program 1 (NSP11 Closeout Performance Report for Contract No. 08- F6401-014 IMF# BGAP 2016-0011 Chairwoman Khan read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Angie Pitman, Block Grant Administrator, discussed the Neighborhood Stabilization Program 1 (NSP1) Closeout Performance Report. In 2009 the City received an entitlement of funds that were a part of the stimulus package to handle the housing crisis of foreclosures. The City of Pasco qualified for that grant due to the number of foreclosures that were in the city. The City received additional funds later on when some other entitlement projects dropped out. During this contract award period the funds have been used for home owner assistance. In the beginning the plans were to use all of the funds for home owner assistance which would provide down payment assistance and some minor funds to fix up houses for a person buying a foreclosed property, however, HUD stated that it needed to be assigned to an address. The plan was then revised and 50/50 would go towards acquisition and rehabilitation that could also be used as down payment assistance and used to purchase and rehabilitate foreclosed properties. 25% of the funds had to be spent to assist households that earned less than 50% of the earned median income, however, 43% actually went to households who earned less than 50% of the area median income. During the last few years the City has spent $685,024 of NSP funds, including program income that was generated from houses purchased, rehabilitated then sold. The program income has allowed the City to continue assisting people with down payment assistance. It was estimated in the beginning that 7 households would be assisted with NSP funds, however, during the course of this time 16 households have been assisted — 12 down payment assistance and 4 acquisition/ rehabs. Chairwoman Khan asked out of the down payment assistance, how many families have been able to retain the home. Ms. Pitman responded that there have been no foreclosures. The underwriting is more -7- stringent than many of the banking institutions because the goal is to keep the homeowners in their home. Commissioner Mendez asked what the average amount given for down payment assistance. Ms. Pitman stated that the average was $10,000 per household. Commissioner Polk stated that it was nice to get an update on how the funds were used and the accomplishments. Chairman Khan asked what the average family income in Pasco that would qualify somebody to be under 50% area median income. Ms. Pitman stated that the number is determined on the household family size. Commissioner Mendez asked if the majority of those assisted were of moderate income as opposed to low income. Ms. Pitman stated that moderate income is 80% below median income so they are all considered low income but 43% were earning 50% or below median income. For each household a Part 5 - Income Eligibility is completed to determine need. Commissioner Mendez asked if they required income verification. Ms. Pitman answered that third party income verification is required. With no further questions or comments the public hearing closed. Commissioner Greenaway moved, seconded by Commissioner Polk, the Planning Commission close the public hearing and recommend the City Manager approve the Neighborhood Stabilization Program 1 (NSP1) Closeout Performance Report as presented. The motion passed unanimously. COMMENTS: With no further discussion or business, the Planning Commission was adjourned at 7:52 p.m. Respectfully submitted, David McDonald, City Planner In REPORT TO PLANNING MASTER FILE NO: SP 2016-005 HEARING DATE: 3/17/16 ACTION DATE: 4/21/16 APPLICANT: Rosa Cantu 220 N Oregon Ave Pasco WA 99301 REQUEST FOR SPECIAL PERMIT: Location of a daycare center in a C-3 Zoning District 1. Legal: Lots 20 & 23, Block 118 Pasco Land Company's 1st Addition and Lots 1 - 4, Block 2 Longs Addition together with adjoining vacated right- of-way. General Location: 220 N Oregon Avenue (Parcel # 112 081 455) Property Size: Approximately .36 acres 2. ACCESS: The site has access from N Oregon Avenue and Bonneville Street 3. UTILITIES: The site is served by municipal water and sewer. 4. LAND USE AND ZONING: The property is currently zoned C-3 (General Commercial). Surrounding properties are also zoned C-3, and developed with commercial uses. 5. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The site is designated in the Comprehensive Plan for commercial uses. The Plan does not specifically address daycare centers, but elements of the Plan encourage the promotion of orderly development including the development of zoning standards for off-street parking and other development. 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 Applicant is requesting to locate a daycare center in a commercial zone. The daycare center would operate year-round 7 days per week for 16 hours a day 1 (5am-9pm) and would serve up to 80 children per day. Daycare/preschool centers serving over 12 children per day require review via the Special Permit process. The site is located on Oregon Avenue, which is an arterial street. The surrounding properties are all commercial, developed with commercial uses. Pasco Municipal Code 25.78.170 requires one parking space for each employee and one space per 6 children. Depending on the age of the children the DSHS ratio of adults to children is one adult for every 4 children down to one per 15 children, (see table below). WAC 170-295-2090: With a proposed 90 child center the maximum on-site parking requirement for this site would be 12 stalls for employees (assuming the possibility of children under the age of 5 attending) plus 12 stalls for children's parents/ guardians, for a total of 24 stalls. There are currently 12 parking stalls indicated on the applicant's site plan. According to the 2003 ITE Trip Generation Manual, the estimated weekday trip generation for 12 employees, 80 children and 3,020 square feet of daycare center floor would be between 65.87 and 187.42 trips per day, depending on 2 Then the And the If the age of Cum. Cum. the children staff to maximum Children Adults Max Max is: child ratio group Children Adults is: size is: (a) One month, through 11 1:4 8 8 2 8 2 months (infant) (b) Twelve months through 29 1:7 14 14 2 22 4 months (toddler) (c) Thirty months 1:10 20 20 2 42 6 through 5 years (preschooler) (d) Five years through 12 1:15 30 30 2 72 8 years (school- age child) With a proposed 90 child center the maximum on-site parking requirement for this site would be 12 stalls for employees (assuming the possibility of children under the age of 5 attending) plus 12 stalls for children's parents/ guardians, for a total of 24 stalls. There are currently 12 parking stalls indicated on the applicant's site plan. According to the 2003 ITE Trip Generation Manual, the estimated weekday trip generation for 12 employees, 80 children and 3,020 square feet of daycare center floor would be between 65.87 and 187.42 trips per day, depending on 2 whether the calculation is based on number of employees, children, or facility square footage. The average of these three calculations is 118.24 trips per weekday (see table below). Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimate Estimate Estimate Trips Per Trips Per Trips Per Using 12 Using Using Average Employee Student 1,000 Sq. Employees 90 3020 Estimate Ft. Children Sq. Ft. 14.6 1.56 18.12 175.2 140.4 54.72 118.24 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. Applicant desires to locate a daycare center in a commercial zone. 2. The daycare center would operate 7 days per week for 16 hours a day (5am-9pm). 3. The daycare center would serve up to 90 children per day. 4. Daycare/ preschool centers serving over 12 children per day require review via the Special Permit process. 5. The site is located on Oregon Avenue and Bonneville Street. 6. Oregon Avenue is an arterial street. 7. The surrounding properties are all commercial (C-3), and are developed with commercial uses. 8. The Bonneville Street frontage lacks curb, gutter, sidewalk and landscaping 9. Direct access to the site will be from Bonneville Street. 10. Oregon Avenue will be undergoing major design/improvement project in 2016. Scheduled improvements in this area include curb, gutter, sidewalk, street widening (from 4 to 5 lanes), and landscaping. 11. Pasco Municipal Code 25.78.170 requires one parking space for each employee and one space per 6 children. 3 12. Depending on the age of the children the DSHS ratio of adults to children is one adult for every 4 children down to one per 15 children, 13. The maximum parking requirement for this site based on 90 children will be 12 stalls for employees plus 12 stalls for children's parents/ guardians, for a total of 24 stalls. 14. Applicant has indicated 12 stalls on their submitted site plan. Twelve more parking stalls would be required. 15. According to the 2003 ITE Trip Generation Manual, the estimated trip generation averages to 119.28 trips per weekday. 16. The Daycare Center, owners, and staff will be required to be licensed by the State of Washington Department of Early Learning (DEL) (formerly Department of Social and Health Services/DSHS), and conform to regulations found in WAC 170-295. CONCLUSIONS BASED ON THE FINDINGS OF FACT Before recommending approval or denial of a special permit the Planning Commission must develop findings of fact from which to draw its conclusion based upon the criteria listed in P.M.C. 25.86.060 and determine whether or not the proposal: (1) Will the proposed use be in accordance with the goals, policies, objectives and text of the Comprehensive Plan? The site is identified in the Comprehensive Plan for Commercial uses. The Plan encourages the promotion of orderly development including the development of zoning standards for off-street parking and other development standards. (2) Will the proposed use adversely affect public infrastructure? The site is served by all municipal utilities and the local street network. Oregon Avenue was designed to handle heavy commercial and industrial traffic. The proposed daycare center will operate 16 hours per day 7 days per week (5am-9pm). 8. The Bonneville Street frontage lacks proper curb, gutter, sidewalk and landscaping. (3) Will the proposed use be constructed, maintained and operated to be in harmony with existing or intended character of the general vicinity? a The intended character of the area is primarily commercial. The proposed use would be operated as a commercial enterprise. (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 daycare center would be located in an existing structure and run as a commercial enterprise in a commercial zone. The use would not be any more intensive than other uses permitted in the C-3 zone. (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 daycare center would not generate more noise, fumes vibrations, dust, traffic, or flashing lights than would be the operation of any permitted uses within the C-3 Zoning District. (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 proposed daycare center would not create nuisance conditions or endanger public health or safety any more than the operation of any permitted uses within the C-3 Zoning District. APPROVAL CONDITIONS 1) The special permit shall apply to 220 N Oregon Avenue (Parcel # 112 081 455) 2) Number of children shall not exceed 90. 3) 12 new parking stalls shall be provided in addition to the 12 stalls indicated on the submitted site plan. 4) Curb, gutter, sidewalk and landscaping shall be required along Bonneville Street up to the edge of the additional parking lot area. 5) The daycare center, owners, and staff shall conform to all applicable State of Washington Department of Early Learning (DEL) regulations. 6) The special permit shall be null and void if a City of Pasco building permit for the authorized improvements is not obtained by April 1, 2017. 5 MOTION: I move to adopt findings of fact and conclusions therefrom as contained in the April 21, 2016 staff report. MOTION: I move, based on the findings of fact and conclusions therefrom, the Planning Commission recommend the City Council grant a special permit for the location of a daycare center at 220 N Oregon Avenue, with conditions as listed in the April 21, 2016 staff report. 11 am Aca _a .//. _m•£ 2 »=o 77 ) !HIM § #!:)ej eoA b _ w _ n §! | | )((()( it i it i it i it it ■; � � ! | \\\p it ) \ -- -4 f , }r ! - it Fn it it m it`iti it �|it m� ` it--------------- it -------it , ! }itm :_ ;it It; \ K; / - - !! .! Llj! it it it it it it it it it it � w, °: o WpJ ScCJ Lx0 IA�� 's i! is na bUIu1L'a �1V1 � spix iauloD atppt}I MID e {g�glgFs °s! a�liE t� E �^F'g $ zz 44` 7 SpS$ 4 I$ A31!�ej a�e� Ae4 '.uoP ,., ' 'e n Qy O C O w c .Y pp�yy w aa$ - ®om r- ------------------- � g _ 'F ,C y 9eIS w apean C i is w° °o w I y S m 9 K C O I 3 I I g I w D W I x DNI Anal _-3-j ! , , a__![ �\ SM »_ate m2 % §i § A ®j©A , . . . — — - — — k.■ .�r¢ D|g � \ : , --- ------- -- E ;' !� , \ « � /« C \ « � QZ E S poop oee 3..§ R I i k DNJ zajuQD fuTuma-j 6 ��8% f nmla4/uo}pag ' `s s . sa`ye sea f@am $' Ail!�ej Diel AeQ spix aaTuo� aTpp►x gsay y ]3aqsq � ¢¢�R �$ �� � a Ml HI 40f�if f� uoipuoa.o $ E ei ] s fl €€€ 88 p '.a [ b 6y3b£ % -7 g= gg €: 3y e3 p �Taaa �b- g• s 3 N 0] q flz � p 0 @ B E ou > mJ J mNQ �mU KFQ � ;aa Rill d !S N N 6 e Y Q 4 Q � a ; _ Ifgf ig �y / 'Ca43 ~ 4.6 bSzSb 6EEe ay A s 00 g p W f: ®� uo m� Q� Wo � S DNJ aaauaD 2unuMa7 peep) aee r g.'d ggee NVId 911S %I jt JWP zArse SMA JOUJOD atppt}I e ® ppEI�SS{{p ¢e:[ g[$£y 8g 99p�¢x3pp ig Alli�ej aae� /eaLO MIN 8� :uolgMasp "a 6 § 5 z Di e o o o e l e V o N-R e l e o e d el e e o e tr 0 a - W w 2) ) U5 E A vm 0 o leiluepisau z W 3nb' N_,I-INN-VHJ v o wPJE ai W � M F co V ct U w ON � o� MP\N PSE N � � ca V - z.:,. x% cn Ct W to 0 / � � .2\ /^ ` / � ` � � � � \ � ! / .: : � ` }yx . . \ 2 � � �§ . �\� � \{� { §�. , r\ � � \y \ � § � \ :f\d �� .� » � � � �} :/\� � 2 \\���\ � | � °� /+ <\ «»\ � , . . �� . x S ? «\ ��� z � . �� � ^� � � \ � \ � .�x� * � \� <� « v \� ?f � © � � [ �� � \ - A . [ � - <z � �"� � � � \ � ,�� /\_, 1 �� *«�/<� � � ) ƒ<«. � / � \ - . � � \ « �S\±^ �< '. \ �\ \w�\�` . :� } / ? \ : � � \ � %2. /� .� a r w� . �w �\\\m` � ��\-���y «- ,. (� ~� - .� / 2 - z . ( .� � \ \� , ( . � ) � »`� � \ " . <� � : .. - ( \ � � »?Z _- . n§ \K.�� . \� � \� \ � . [ -. � . . j � � � �. . / � � � ( . \\\� � \ \~ /\: � y�. ,. � � �.� d 2- � +\� \� / \ � < �9c.« . _, [ <% y� � . � \ 9' 3 }: « . �� x� :\\\ < `\\� � \ . \� � } . .. � & �� {2 2 � y�\ \ � \ 0 u REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION MASTER FILE NO: Z 2016-002 APPLICANT: Promade Construction HEARING DATE: 3/17/2016 6223 W Deschutes Ave ACTION DATE: 4/21/2016 Suite 508 Kennewick WA 99337 BACKGROUND REQUEST: REZONE: Rezone from RT (Residential Transition) to R-1 (Low - Density Residential) 1. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: Legal: Lot 20 Coles Estates General Location: The 6000 Block of Road 92 Property Size: The combined area of the parcels is approximately 2 acres. 2. ACCESS: The parcel is accessible from Road 90. 3. UTILITIES: All municipal utilities are currently available to serve the site from Road 92 and will serve the site from Road 90 once the surrounding subdivision is developed. 4. LAND USE AND ZONING: The lot is currently zoned RT (Residential Transition) and are vacant. Surrounding properties are zoned and developed as follows: NORTH: R-1 - Vacant SOUTH: C-1 - Vacant EAST: R-1 - Vacant WEST: R-3 - Multi &, Single -Family Residences 5. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The Comprehensive Plan designates the sites for Mixed Residential and Commercial uses. Land Use Policy LU -3-13 encourages infill and (higher) density development to protect open spaces and critical areas and to support more walkable neighborhoods. Other goals and policies suggest the City permit a full range of residential environments including single family homes (H -2-A) and standards that control the scale and density of accessory buildings and homes to maintain compatibility with other residential uses (H-4-13). 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 1 Non -Significance (DNS) has been issued for this project under WAC 197- 11-158. ANALYSIS The owners of Promade Construction applied for a rezone of Lots 11 &, 19, Coles Estates from RT (Residential Transition) to R-1 (Low -Density Residential) in 2014. The rezone was approved by the City Council followed by the approval of a 38 lot subdivision (Majestia Estates). At the time of the 2014 rezone the applicant tried but, was unsuccessful in purchasing Lot 20 Coles Estates to include in the rezone. The applicant now owns Lot 20 and is seeking to have it rezoned to R-1 to match the surrounding zoning. Lot 20 is the last lot in the Coles Estates to be rezoned from RT- to R-1. Rezoning the property will enable the applicant to complete a short plat that will add seven more single-family lots to the previously approved 38 lot Majestia Estates subdivision. This rezone will facilitate the completion of Majestia Lane between Road 90 and Road 92 and will allow for the looping of the water line. The City's Comprehensive Plan designates the lot for Mixed Residential land uses, allowing a variety of residential zoning ranging from RS -20 (Suburban) through R-3 (Medium -Density Residential); including the R-1 (Low -Density Residential) zone. The requested R-1 zone permits construction of single-family homes on lots with a minimum land area of 7,200 square feet. The requested R-1 zoning matches the zoning in nearby subdivisions. Mediterranean Villas to the west of the rezone site is zoned R-3 and contains a mix of attached and detached dwellings. The initial review criteria for considering a rezone application are explained in PMC. 25.88.030. The criteria are listed below as follows: 1. The date the existing zone became effective: The current zoning classification was established in 1982 when the property was annexed to the City. The property was originally subdivided and zoned in the county in 1967, 49 -years ago. 2. The changed conditions, which are alleged to warrant other or additional zoning: Much of the neighborhood to the north, east and west has been developed with residential neighborhoods containing primarily single-family homes. All public utilities are now available to the site. 2 3. Facts to justify the change on the basis of advancing the public health, safety and general welfare: Approval of the proposed rezone will continue the existing pattern of residential development in the vicinity. The proposed zoning assignment is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan which has been determined to be in the best interest of advancing public health, safety and general welfare. Allowing residential development on the site(s) will encourage the elimination of vacant land within city limits. Vacant sites can potentially generate fugitive dust and weeds creating nuisance conditions for the neighborhood. 4. The effect it will have on the value and character of the adjacent property and the Comprehensive Plan: A change in zoning classification resulting in a single-family residential development will continue the existing residential character of the neighborhood. The rezone from RT to R-1 will encourage infill as per Land Use Policy LU -3-B, and allow for "...residential development where utilities and transportation facilities enable efficient use of capital resources," in keeping with Land Use Policy LU -3-E. This rezone would also allow for a full range of residential environments including single family homes, consistent with Housing Policy H -2- A. 5. The effect on the property owner or owners if the request is not granted: Without transitioning the site primarily to a residential zoning classification residential development will not occur on the property. The applicant may not wish to proceed with any site development if it cannot be residential in nature. STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT Findings of fact must be entered from the record. The following are initial findings drawn from the background and analysis section of the staff report. The Planning Commission may add additional findings to this listing as the result of factual testimony and evidence submitted during the open record hearing. 1. The site is comprised of two tax parcels. 2. The site is vacant. 3. The site is approximately 2 acres in size. 4. The site is currently zoned RT (Residential Transition). 5. The applicant is requesting R-1 (Low -Density Residential) zoning. 3 6. The Comprehensive Plan identifies the site for Mixed -Residential uses which includes R-1 zoning. 7. All municipal utilities are currently available in Road 92. 8. The rezone will facilitate infill development which is encouraged by the Comprehensive Plan. 9. The Broadmoor Estates and other nearby subdivisions are zoned R-1 and developed with single-family homes. 10. Single-family lots in surrounding subdivisions range in size from 8,200 square feet to 9,000 square feet. 11. The Mediterranean Villas subdivision to the west is zoned R-3 and developed with a mix of townhouses, duplexes and single family homes. 12. Lots in the Mediterranean Villas subdivision range in size from 2,400 square feet to 7,000 square feet. CONCLUSIONS BASED ON STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT Before recommending approval or denial of a special permit the Planning Commission must develop findings of fact from which to draw its conclusions based upon the criteria listed in PMC 25.86.060. The criteria are as follows: 1. The proposal is in accordance with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. The proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map and several Plan policies and goals. Land Use Policy LU -3-B encourages "infill" development while H -2-A suggests the City permit a full range of residential environments. Housing Policy (H -BA) encourages standards that control the scale and density of accessory buildings and homes to maintain compatibility with other residential uses. 2. The effect of the proposal on the immediate vicinity will not be materially detrimental. The proposed R-1 zoning will permit site development matching the character of the residential neighborhoods to the north and east. Based on past experience within the community with new development the proposed rezone will not be materially detrimental to the immediate vicinity in terms of property value and/or character. 3. There is merit and value in the proposal for the community as a whole. There is merit in developing vacant parcels within the City in accordance with the goals and policies contained in the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed zoning is 11 consistent with the Plan's Land Use Map. Elimination of vacant land near existing homes will reduce potential impacts of dust and fire danger. Providing an increased range of housing opportunities available in those areas currently served my municipal utilities and 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. 4. Conditions should be imposed in order to mitigate any significant adverse impacts from the proposal. No special conditions are proposed by staff. 5. A Concomitant Agreement should be entered into between the City and the petitioner, and if so, the terms and conditions of such an agreement. A concomitant agreement is not needed. MOTION for Findings of Fact: I move to adopt findings of fact and conclusions therefrom as contained in the April 21, 2016 staff report. MOTION for Recommendation: I move, based on the findings of fact and conclusions as adopted, the Planning Commission recommend the City Council rezone Lot 20, Coles Estates from "RT" to R-1. G z � 0 p Tf c _� O 06 GVMJ m i m U > r--, O � v ONS > W ` cji N O 0 N Z6 GVO2i c N CUD p � � �., LL s J Ct Cl) o = a z C w Z -> 4 -mw 0 o I d UJ , >J i 06 OVO�l p U � � r V O � � r � N ° LV vi N FEE N O `O O Z6 (IMI � NT7 �p .. •� � M � L zwwUZ U) CCS W , 44 O O V - 7V, 4 O U) REPORT TO PLANNING MASTER FILE NO: (MF# ZD2016-002) APPLICANT: City of Pasco ACTION DATE: 4/21/2016 PO Box 293 Pasco, WA 99301 BACKGROUND REQUEST: Develop zoning recommendation for the Mullen Annexation Area 1) AREA ID: Area Size # of Dwellings Population Mullen Annexation 160 acres 0 0 2) UTILITIES: City water and sewer lines are located in the subdivisions to the south of the annexation area. 3) LAND USE AND ZONING: The proposed annexation area is currently zoned AP -20 under the County zoning and is being farmed. Surrounding properties are zoned and developed as follows: NORTH: AP -20 - Farm Fields (County) SOUTH: R-1 - Single -Family Dwellings EAST: AP -20 - Vacant/ Farm Fields (County) WEST: R-1 & AP -20 - Vacant/Farm Fields (City 8, County) 4) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The Comprehensive Plan designates the annexation area for low-density single-family development. 5) 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 Mullen Annexation area contains 160 acres of mainly farm fields located directly north of Power Line Road between Broadmoor Boulevard and Road 84. There are no structures within the annexation other than irrigation systems. Thirty-nine acres of the 160 acres are owned by the School District. In determining the most appropriate zoning for the annexation area the Planning Commission needs to consider the existing land uses, development 1 patterns, policies of the Comprehensive Plan and the land use designations of the land use map. The Planning Commission also needs to be guided by the criteria in PMC 25.88.060 (as discussed below) in developing a zoning recommendation. The proposed annexation area has been identified as a low-density residential area in the City's Comprehensive Plan for about 35 years. Following the Comprehensive Plan all of the subdivisions directly to the south of Power Line Road were zoned R-1 and have been developed with single-family homes, except for Mediterranean Villas which is zoned R-3 and developed with attached single-family dwellings. Many of the neighboring single-family subdivisions were approved using the "Planned Density Development" process which permits the development of subdivisions with varying lot sizes provided the underlying density requirements of the subdivision zoning is not exceeded. The proposed annexation is being pursued due to the dwindling number of lots available for home construction. A developer is interested in developing the first 40 acres of the annexation area between Broadmoor Boulevard and the School property for single-family homes utilizing the planned density development provisions of the development regulations. The proposed annexation area is within the service areas identified in the Comprehensive Water and Sewer Plans. Both of these plans based future services need within the annexation area on the low-density land use designation identified in the land use map of the Comprehensive Plan. Upon annexation the City will be responsible for providing all municipal services to the area. These services include fire and police services. Currently the nearest fire station is located on Road 68 to the north of Argent Road. As the annexation area develops along with other vacant properties around the Broadmoor Boulevard and Power Line Road intersection it will become increasing difficult for the Fire Department to meet the standard six minute response time. The City currently has an agreement with the owner of the "Sand Dunes" property (southwest corner of Broadmoor and Power Line) to acquirer five acres to the west of Broadmoor Boulevard that can accommodate a fire station. A fire station in this area of the community is still a number of years away. 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 changed conditions in the vicinity which warrant other or additional zoning: • The property is located within the Pasco Urban Growth Boundary. • The property in question may be annexed to the City of Pasco. 2 • The property is located east of Broadmoor Boulevard and north of Power Line Road. • Broadmoor Boulevard has been extended north to Dent Road. • Power Line Road has been extended from Road 68 to Road 100 along the south boundary of the proposed annexation area and Burns Road has been extended to the west. • The Pasco School District purchased a 39 acre parcel within the boundaries of the proposed annexation area in 2014. • With the exception of approximately 65 lots the residential subdivisions to the south of the proposed annexation area are fully built out. • Archer Estates, Goose Hollow, Quail Bluff, Pelican Pointe, Spencer Estates and Eagle Crest are all single-family subdivisions that have been developed to the west of the proposed annexation area. • Maya Angelo Elementary School and Delta High School are both located to the south of the proposed annexation area. • Thirty-eight acres of land on the west side of Broadmoor Boulevard was annexed to the City in 2015. 2. Facts to justify the change on the basis of advancing the public health, safety and general welfare. The property may be annexed to the City and will need to be zoned. The justification for the rezone is the fact that if a zoning designation is not determined the property could become annexed without a zoning. For the advancement of the general welfare of the community the property needs to be zoned consistent with the established development patterns. 3. The effect rezoning will have on the nature and value of adjoining property and the Comprehensive Plan. Zoning the proposed annexation area to low-density residential such as R-1 is supported by the Comprehensive Plan and would be considered a proper implementation of the Plan. The surrounding properties directly south of the annexation area are zoned R-1 and developed with single- family homes. The R-1 District would permit the continued development of single -families homes as envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan. Most of the schools in Pasco area located in residential zoning districts. Rezoning the annexation area to R-1 will not impact the school property because schools require approval of a Special Permit prior to the issuance of a building permit. 4. The effect on the property owners or owner of the request is not granted. 3 Without the annexation area being assigned a specific zoning district, the area will essentially be un -zoned upon annexation. The area needs to be zoned for the benefit of the property owners and property owners adjoining the proposed annexation area. 5. The Comprehensive Plan land use designation for the property. There are no changing conditions related to the Comprehensive Plan. The Plan has consistently indicated the proposed annexation area should be zoned and developed with single-family homes. Providing land for residential lots will support the policy of advancing programs that encourage home ownership. 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 findings to this listing as the result of factual testimony and evidence submitted during the open record hearing. 1) The site is within the Pasco Urban Growth Boundary. 2) The Urban Growth Boundary was established by Franklin County in 1994. 3) The property is being proposed for annexation by the summer of 2016. 4) The annexation area is located in the pathway of residential growth and has been designated for low-density residential development by the Comprehensive Plan for over 30 years. 5) Properties to the south of the annexation area are zoned R-1 and developed with single-family homes. 6) The Pasco School District owns 39 acres within the annexation area for a future school site. 7) Schools are typically located in residential zoning districts. 8) Two schools are located to the south of the annexation area. 9) The Water and Sewer Comprehensive Plans based future services needs within the annexation area on the low-density land use designation identified in the Comprehensive Plan. CONCLUSIONS BASED ON STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT Before recommending approval or denial of a rezone the Planning Commission must develop its conclusions from the findings of fact based upon the criteria listed in PMC 25.88.060 and determine whether or not: 9 (1) The proposal is in accord with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. Zoning the proposed annexation site to R-1 is supports Plan Policy H -1-E. (2) The effect of the proposal on the immediate vicinity will not be materially detrimental. Rezoning the proposed annexation area R-1 will cause the site to be consistent with the subdivisions to the south and consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The rezone will complement the existing neighborhoods rather than be a detriment. The R-1 zoning will also be consistent with the latest Sewer Comprehensive Plan that calls for the continuation of low- density residential to the north of the current Urban Growth Boundary. (3) There is merit and value in the proposal for the community as a whole. There is merit and value in following the guidance of the Comprehensive Plan when assigning zoning to properties within the community. The Plan has indicated this property should zoned low-density residential for the past 35 years. Rezoning the area R-1 will leading to additional housing opportunities for Pasco residents. (4) Conditions should be imposed in order to mitigate any significant adverse impacts from the proposal. The proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and no mitigation measures are needed. (5) A concomitant agreement should be entered into between the City and the petitioner, and if so, the terms and conditions of such an agreement. A concomitant agreement is not needed. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The public hearing for this annexation will be May 2, 2016. The zoning determination therefore needs to be completed by the Planning Commission on April 21, 2016. MOTION: I move the Planning Commission adopt the Findings of Fact as contained in the April 21, 2016 staff report. MOTION: I move, based on the findings of fact as adopted, the Planning Commission recommend the City Council zone the Mullen Annexation 5 Area to R-1, as indicated on the zoning map identified as Exhibit # 1 attached to the April 21, 2016 staff report. a in MEMORANDUM DATE: April 21, 2016 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Dave McDonald, City Planner SUBJECT: Temporary Business Standards—I-182 Overlay Zone (MF# CA 2016-002) In 2009 and 2010 the Planning Commission held a series of meetings and hearings to consider temporary business standards for properties within the I-182 Corridor. The I-182 corridor includes properties west of Rd 36 and generally north of the FCID Canal. Development within the corridor area is to be guided by the standard zoning district regulations (C-1, CR and etc.) and the additional provisions of the I-182 Overlay District. The Overlay District was adopted by the Council to provide enhanced development standards for properties around the Road 100 and Road 68 Interchanges. In 2008 itinerant merchants began frequenting the commercial areas around Road 68 and Burden Boulevard. The haphazard fashion in which many of these merchants operated generated a number of citizen complaints. As a result Section 25.58.095 was added to the I-182 Overlay District to address the poor operating standards of temporary business owners. Only two or three temporary businesses have been licensed in the I-182 Corridor since the adoption of the new standards. One of those businesses is We Ice, a shaved flavored ice business, has been operating at 6403 Burden Boulevard for two summers. However, last year it was discovered staff erroneously interpreted the spacing standards for temporary businesses when the We Ice business location was approved. The spacing standard requires 500 feet between temporary vendors but in several other situations the standard is 300 feet. Because the staff error was discovered late into the season We Ice was allowed to continue at their approved location until the end of the season. The owners of We Ice were informed they would need to find another location for the 2016 season or petition for a code amendment. We Ice choose to ask for a code amendment as indicated in the attached letter. The zoning code and business license regulations have three different spacing requirements for temporary businesses. Per PMC 5.10A requires a 250 foot separation between temporary vendors except if they are separated by a public street. The I-182 standards require 300 feet of separation from residentially zoned properties and 500 foot of distance between vendors. We Ice was approved to do business at 6403 Burden Boulevard which is just over 300 feet from the food truck in front of Vieras Bakery at 6411 Burden Boulevard. They are more than the 250 feet required in PMC 5.10A from the next vendor and just over 300 feet from Island Estates. However, they are 170 feet too close to the food truck to the west per PMC 25.58.095. The Planning Commission has a couple of options to consider in this case as follows: • Do nothing and make no changes to the code. • Reduce the required separation between businesses by a distance to be determined. The 500 foot spacing requirement was placed in the code to limit the possible proliferation of temporary businesses in the Road 68 and Road 100 areas. However, spacing requirements are not the only provisions that have limited the concentration of temporary businesses. The standards also limit one temporary business per lot or parcel and require all merchandise to be displayed or offered for sale from a vehicle. The provisions also state that no additional equipment (tables, tents, fencing, shelters and other items) of any kind is permitted around the sales vehicle. Those three provisions may have had a greater impact on the number of licenses issued for temporary vendors than the spacing requirement. As a result an argument could be made to support a reduction in the spacing requirement. The different separation requirements in the current standards of PMC 25.58.095 create a little confusion which can result in the difficulty that arose with the approval of the We Ice license in 2014. The most common spacing figure in the zoning code is 300 feet. Three hundred feet is used for public hearing notices, for spacing between residential areas and car washes, contractor facilities, temporary vendors and auto body shops associated with car dealers and RV dealers in CR zones. The 300 foot spacing requirement is also used to separate car lots approved by special permit in C-1 zones. With other provisions in the temporary business standards of PMC 25.58.095 controlling the location and operation of temporary vendors modification of the separation distance to 300 feet should not lead to the proliferation of temporary vendors in the I-182 Corridor. Reducing the separation distance to 300 feet will also create some consistency with other uses that are regulated by a 300 foot requirement and will eliminate the confusion the current 500 foot separation standard creates. 2 FINDINGS 1) PMC 25.58.095 was adopted to address concerns over the haphazard manner in which temporary businesses were operating in the I-182 Corridor. 2) PMC 25.58.095 was also adopted to limit the problems associated with the concentration of temporary businesses that the community had experienced in other commercial areas. 3) PMC 25.58.095 contains spacing standards for temporary businesses and limits one temporary business per lot. 4) Spacing standards found in PMC 25.58-095 and other sections of the zoning regulations have created some confusion for the implementation of the standards in the I-182 Corridor. 5) The most common spacing standard in the zoning regulations is 300 feet. 6) Operational requirements of PMC 25.58.095 may be a more important factor in managing the number of temporary businesses that locate in the I-182 Corridor than the spacing standard. MOTION: I move the Planning Commission adopt the findings of fact as contained in the April 21, 2016 staff memo on Temporary Business Standards. MOTION: I move the Planning Commission recommend the City Council adopt the proposed amendments to the Temporary Business Standards as attached to the April 21, 2016 staff memo to the Planning Commission. 9 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING PMC TITLE 25 DEALING WITH TEMPORARY BUSINESS STANDARDS IN THE I-182 CORRIDOR. WHEREAS, cities have the responsibility to regulate and control physical development within their borders and to ensure public health, safety and welfare are maintained; and, WHEREAS, the City of Pasco has zoning regulations that encourage orderly growth and development of the City; and, WHEREAS, within the zoning regulations PMC Chapter 25.58 contains provisions that encourage aesthetically attractive buildings and commercial development within the I-182 corridor of the city; and, WHEREAS, permanent businesses in the I-182 Overlay District are required to develop with enhanced architectural features, screening and landscaping in comparison with other commercial areas of the community; and, WHEREAS, PMC 25.58 requires the owners of all commercial properties to maintain their properties in a clean, safe and well-maintained condition consistent with the enhanced landscaping and screening requirements; and, WHEREAS, PMC Chapter 25.58 was amended in September of 2010 to include provisions for the operation of temporary businesses that support the general intent of Chapter 25.58 of the zoning regulations; and, WHEREAS, PMC Section 25.58.095 contains a spacing standards that require temporary vendors to be located at least 500 feet apart; and, WHEREAS, PMC Section 25.58.095 also limits the placement of temporary vendors to one per parcel; and, WHEREAS, PMC Section 25.58.095 contains operational standards that prohibit the use of accessory equipment like tables, tents, umbrellas and other equipment to sell merchandise and the standards further restrict the display of merchandise to a temporary business vehicle only; and, WHEREAS, the operational standards of PMC Section 25.58.095 have impacted the location of temporary vendors in the I-182 corridor in a similar manner as the spacing standards; and, WHEREAS, on April 21, 2016 the Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider amending the provisions of PMC Chapter 25.58. Notice of said hearing being provided in the Tri -City Herald and through the City's website; and, WHEREAS, during the course of the April 21, 2016 public hearing the Planning Commission adopted findings to support a recommendation that the City Council amended the temporary business standards; and, WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that to further the purposes of maintaining a quality community and to support desired business activities, it is necessary to amend PMC Title 25 and adopts by reference the Planning Commission's findings on this matter; NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASCO, WASHINGTON, DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That PMC Section 25.42.050 be and the same is hereby amended to read as follows: 25.58.095 TEMPORARY BUSINESS STANDARDS. (A) Temporary businesses are only permitted on lots that are fully developed with curb gutter and sidewalk and improved with parking lots, landscaping and buildings. (B) Temporary businesses must be located at least 300 feet from the property line of any residentially zoned property. (C) Goods, wares and merchandise of any kind can only be displayed or offered for sale from the temporary business vehicle or conveyance. (D) Only one temporary business vehicle is permitted per licensee and lot or parcel. (E) Temporary businesses must be located at least 380 300 feet apart. (F) No ancillary or accessory equipment of any kind is permitted to be used with a temporary business including but not limited to: tables, chairs, benches, picnic tables, umbrellas, propane tanks, tents, awnings, carport structures, satellite dishes, recreational equipment, amusement devices, entertainment equipment, portable or temporary shelters, portable heaters, temporary lighting fixtures, decorative lighting, coolers not located on the business vehicle, freezers/refrigerators not located on the business vehicle, carpet, fencing, and faux landscape elements. (G) No parking lot modifications are permitted for the location of temporary businesses including but not limited to: curbing, concrete slabs, decking and patios. (H) Signage is only permitted on the temporary business vehicle and not on public right- of-way or in parking lots. (I) No advertising for services, activities and products that are not available on or from the temporary business vehicle is permitted. (J) Temporary businesses must be located at least 25 feet from any public right-of-way. (K) Temporary businesses must locate in an area of the parking lot that will not impede fire lanes or the use of drive aisles within and around parking lots. (L) Required off street parking cannot be diminished by the location and operation of a temporary business. Section 2. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect five days after passage and publication as required by law. PASSED by the City Council of the City of Pasco, at its regular meeting of .2016. Matt Watkins Mayor ATTEST: Debra L. Clark City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Leland B. Kerr City Attorney MEMORANDUM DATE: April 14, 2016 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Jeffrey B. Adams, Associate Planner SUBJECT: Home Occupations/ Client Present (MF# CA 2015-007) The City of Pasco prohibits any "occupation requiring the customer or client to be present upon the premises while the profession, trade, skill or service is performed . . . ." This has been interpreted to include hair dressers/beauty salons. Recently the code has been amended to allow for "private tutoring or instruction for 4 or fewer student per 24 -hour period;" At its February 18, 2016 workshop the Planning Commission was presented two options, as follows: 1) Allow client -present home occupations by Special Permit, with conditions focused on mitigating the impacts of on-site client visits 2) Allow client -present home occupations outright as a Permitted Use. Impact -mitigating provisions would need to be built into the code. The Planning Commission discussed these options, with preference for outright permitting. Also presented were possible conditions, which the Planning Commission reviewed, with the understanding that the Code could be amended to accommodate client -present home occupations, as follows: a) Client services by appointment only—no walk-in services. b) Customer/client presence at the residence shall be limited to between the hours of 7 a.m. and 9 p.m. c) There shall be no more than one (1) customer/client on the premises at any given time. For purposes of this Section, one (1) customer/client visit shall be considered to include up to four (4) persons arriving in a single vehicle. d) Unless otherwise required by law, the entrance to the home occupation must be from within the residence; c) In addition to parking required for the residents, there shall be no more than one (1) vehicle parked on or in the vicinity of the property as a result of the home occupation at any one time. The Planning Commission considered the above options and made recommendations to allow client -present home occupations providing the City Code be augmented as follows: Page 1 of 2 1) Limit client access to the location to two hours between the hours of 8:00 am and 8:00 pm 2) Limit client automobile traffic to two on the property at any given time; 3) Prohibit dog boarding/ kenneling on-site. DISCUSSION: A code amendment ordinance has been crafted to address the Planning Commission's recommendations (See attached Code Amendment Ordinance). STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that if client -present home occupations are to be allowed in the City they be permitted outright with impact -mitigating provisions built into the code as specified in the attached proposed Code Amendment Ordinance. 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 May 19, 2016 meeting. Page 2 of 2 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF PASCO, WASHINGTON AMENDING PMC CHAPTER 25.66 ENTITLED "HOME OCCUPATIONS" WHEREAS, the city has a responsibility to monitor and provide appropriate regulatory guidelines for business activities within the community; and WHEREAS, the city established a home occupation chapter to provide a means whereby the conduct of business may be permitted as a use accessory to an established residence within a residential district; and WHEREAS, the purpose of the Home Occupation chapter was to create an administrative framework to authorize such uses that do not pose a disruption to or conflict with the existing and planned residential environment; and WHEREAS, on April 21, 2016 the Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider amending the Home Occupation Environmental Standards to allow for client -present home occupations, and WHEREAS, the City Council, after reviewing the minutes of the Public hearing and a draft ordinance, has reviewed the following code amendments and finds them to be appropriate and necessary to further the overall welfare of the community; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASCO, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That Section 25.66.020 of the Pasco Municipal Code entitled "PROHIBITED HOME OCCUPATIONS" shall be and hereby is amended and shall read as follows: 25.66.020 PROHIBITED HOME OCCUPATIONS. Due to the increased possibility for generating hazardous or nuisance conditions, the following uses and those similar in nature shall not be permitted as home occupations: Dog boardine/kenneling; vehicle repair and/or maintenance; rebuilding motors; painting vehicles; welding; sheet metal shops; upholstering; firewood cutting and any group H Occupancy as defined in the International Building and Fire Code adopted by the City. Section 2. That Section 25.66.040 of the Pasco Municipal Code entitled "ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARDS" shall be and hereby is amended and shall read as follows: 25.66.040 ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARDS. All home occupations shall conform to the following standards: 1) Be clearly subordinate to the principal use of the property for residential purposes; 2) Not involve modification of the property or exterior of its structures that indicates other than residential uses of the premises; Ordinance Amending PMC 25.66 - 1 3) Is performed entirely within a permanent structure upon the premises; 4) No signs, display or other advertisement upon the property; 5) No media or other off -premises advertising shall give the address or location of the home occupation; 6) No outside storage of materials, supplies, products or by-products, or equipment, except a single occupational vehicle not exceeding 14,000 pounds Gross Vehicle Weight (GVW); 7) Be conducted solely by persons residing within the dwelling unit upon the premises, subject to the definition of family; 8) Except for articles produced thereon, no merchandise, products, goods or wares may be displayed or offered for sale upon the premises; 1 Ne Yation K b profession, trade ..1.:11 ,. seFviee is Y erf .med shall be alle ..eAe Y f ept « private or 6 9) Client access to the residential location shall be limited to the following restrictions: a) Client visits shall be limited to two hours per client visit ver day b) Client visits shall be limited to the hours between 8.00 am and 8:00 pm c) Client automobile traffic shall be limited to two client vehicles on-site at anvig ven time. 10) No more than 8 customer vehicles may visit the dwelling in a given day; 11) Noise generated by the home occupation, detectable at any property line, shall not be in excess of the following standards: a) 8:00 am. to 8:00 p.m.: 55 dba. b) 8:00 p.m. to 8:00 am.: 45 dba. 12) No material or substance which is explosive, highly flammable, corrosive, radioactive or toxic shall be stored, created, utilized or discarded in any way without prior knowledge of and written approval by the city; provided the means or methods necessary for safety purposes do not conflict with other standards established herein; 13) The home occupation shall not generate light or glare, vibration, fumes or odors, or permit other conditions to occur or be present, which annoys, injures, or endangers the comfort, health, repose, decency or otherwise comfortable enjoyment of life and property of neighboring or surrounding residents, in accordance with the intent of this chapter and nuisances as defined in Chapter 9.60 of the Municipal Code. Ordinance Amending PMC 25.66 - 2 14) The home occupation shall not occupy more than twenty (20) percent of the gross floor area of the residence. All of an attached or detached garage may be used for a home occupation provided the area of the garage to be utilized does not exceed six hundred (600) square feet. Section 3. This Ordinance shall take full force and effect five (5) days after its approval, passage and publication as required by law. PASSED by the City Council of the City of Pasco, Washington, and approved as provided by law this day of '12016. Matt Watkins, Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: Debra L. Clark, City Clerk Leland B. Kerr, City Attorney Ordinance Amending PMC 25.66 - 3