Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-19-2016 Planning Commission Meeting PacketPLANNING REGULAR MEETING I. CALL TO ORDER: HE. ROLL CALL: HIE. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: V. OLD BUSINESS: A. Code Amendment VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS: A. Special Permit VIII. WORKSHOP: VIII. OTHER BUSINESS: IX. ADJOURNMENT: -AGENDA 7:00 P.M. Declaration of Quorum April 21, 2016 May 9, 2016 Home Occupations/ Client Present (MF# CA 2015-0071 Location of a Car Lot in a C-1 (Retail Business) Zone (Adriana Robledo) (MF# SP 2016-0071 This meeting is broadcast live on PSC -TV Channel 191 on Charter Cable and streamed at wwwj)asco-wa.com/Psctvlive. Audio equipment available for the hearing impaired; contact staff for assistance. REGULAR MEETING PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at 7:00pm by 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: April 21, 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. ADMINISTERING 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 Polk that the minutes dated March 17, 2016 be approved. The motion passed unanimously. OLD BUSINESS: A. Special Permit Special Permit to locate a daycare center (Rosa Cantul IMF# SP 2016-0051 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. There were no further comments but he noted that the packet contained revised elevations, floor plan and site layout from what was sent out the previous month. -1- Commissioner Bowers asked where this site is located and if it is east of Highway 395, Mr. White responded yes, and briefly described the area. Chairwoman Khan asked if the setbacks are the same for commercial zoning as they are for residential. Mr. White answered that they are not the same. Chairwoman Khan asked what the setbacks would be for this site. Mr. White responded that it would depend on landscaping required, if it's an existing building or not and there are opportunities to place parking or common accessory uses. Commissioner Bowers asked if the applicant already operated a daycare and if so where. Mr. White responded that he didn't believe they do. Commissioner Polk moved, seconded by Commissioner Greenaway, to adopt findings of fact and conclusions therefrom as contained in the April 21, 2016 staff report. The motion passed 4 to 1 with Commissioner Mendez dissenting. Commissioner Polk 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 220 N Oregon Avenue, with conditions as listed in the April 21, 2016 staff report. The motion passed 4 to 1 with Commissioner Mendez dissenting. B. Rezone Rezone from RT (Residential Transition) to R-1 (Low Density Residential) (Promade Constructionl (MF# Z 2016-002) 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). There were no additional comments. Commissioner Greenaway moved, seconded by Commissioner Mendez, to adopt findings of fact and conclusions therefrom as contained in the April 21, 2016 staff report. The motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Greenaway moved, seconded findings of fact and conclusions as adopted, City Council rezone Lot 20, Coles Estates unanimously. -2- by Commissioner Mendez, based on the the Planning Commission recommend the from RT to R-1. The motion passed PUBLIC H EAR114GS: A. Zoning Determination Zoning Determination for the Mullen Annexation Area (MF# ZD 2016-0021 Chairwoman Khan read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Dave McDonald, City Planner, discussed the zoning application for the Mullen Annexation Area. The City received an annexation petition for a 160 acre site located directly north of Powerline Road and east of Broadmoor Boulevard over to Road 84. The petition has been certified by the County Assessor as being sufficient under the "petition method" to allow the annexation to proceed. The City Council will be considering the matter in a public hearing on May 2, 2016. The property has been designated in the Comprehensive Plan for low-density residential development identical to the properties to the south. Mr. McDonald reviewed surrounding zoning and recommended the property be zoned to match the R-1 (Low Density Residential) to the south. Chairwoman Khan asked if the current owner of the property is the City of Pasco. Mr. McDonald stated that the School District owns the middle piece and the other two pieces are owned by a group of farmers. The farmers petitioned for annexation. Commissioner Polk asked what the vacant land to the south is zoned. Mr. McDonald answered the northern portion is currently being developed for single- family homes as Majestia Estates. The other portion to the west is the lot that was considered for a rezone to R-1. To the east is a 5 acre site that was rezoned a few years ago to R-3 and the developer will be building a senior housing project on the property. Commissioner Polk stated that it appears as if Powerline Road stops just after Balmoral Court. Mr. McDonald responded the right-of-way stops but the road continues on in an easement. When the land develops to the north the developer will dedicate the right-of- way. Commissioner Bowers asked about the school that was listed on the zoning map. Mr. McDonald answered it was Delta High School. Chairman Khan asked if there were any other questions Mr. McDonald stated staff received an email from a couple that lives at the end of Balmoral Court, which is directly south of the school site. They identified some concerns about future development in the area as far as traffic, schools and parks. The email is a part of the record. Commissioner Greenaway stated that the more that is built in this area there is potential for the same problem as Road 68. She asked if we should already widen the road with the -3- construction of more homes and another school. Mr. McDonald stated the plan calls for widening Broadmoor Boulevard but that typically doesn't happen until the development occurs. The developer is responsible for providing the additional right-of-way, travel lanes and curb and gutter. The area that says vacant on the zoning map is an area that the City is working in conjunction with the developer in the Broadmoor Development Plan which will include commercial and residential. Commissioner Greenaway stated she was concerned we could overbuild with single-family homes. Mr. McDonald stated that R-1 will allow for lots that you typically see now to the south of the site. The developers have the option of doing a planned density development, which most of them have done, to include some smaller lots and offset with larger lots. Commissioner Greenaway added that another concern is that schools are not being built fast enough. Homes are being built faster than the schools so the schools get overcrowded and portables are required. Mr. McDonald responded that is why the School District has purchased the 40 acres for a new middle school and they are also looking in this general area for additional property. Commissioner Polk asked what would happen if this property was annexed and zoning was determined, if the School District decided to liquidate and sell could it become additional housing. Mr. McDonald responded yes. Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director, addressed Commissioner Greenaway's concerns over traffic. Traffic control isn't just limited to how many homes are in an area but related also to other land uses and how the road system is laid out. There are many drive ways on Road 68 between Burden Boulevard and Wrigley and that is one of the key issues with the frustration that can be felt at the peak hours Road 68. The master plan that Mr. McDonald mentioned will promote controlled access to Broadmoor Boulevard. Access management, land use, signalization and the physical layout of the roadway all contribute to the proper ways of traffic control that we will want to see. It will still get busier, that is a given since it is undeveloped now. Commissioner Mendez discussed the concerns voiced in the email received by staff, such as lack of parks. If the school develops on the 40 acre parcel they could potentially have grounds there but wondered if there were any plans from the City to have a park developed in that area. Mr. McDonald replied that the current neighborhood park is located to the south of Maya Angelou Elementary School which is about a mile walking distance from the home of the couple that wrote the email. As the property develops to the north there will be consideration given to parks. Developer will provide $1,348 per house to the park fund that would allow the City to purchase land for a future park. The Parks Department is actively looking for a parcel for a community park in the western part of the community right now. -4- Chairwoman Khan added the school site could be used by the surrounding neighborhood. With no further comments the public hearing closed. Commissioner Polk discussed commercial and office land uses. She stated she would love to see commercial incorporated at least on the main roads. Mr. McDonald stated the Comprehensive Plan o designates this area for residential which is the only option right now. To rezone it office or commercial, the Comprehensive Plan would have to be amended. Access control issues would be another problem with small parcels along Broadmoor. Access points would be controlled better with block walls and landscaping associated with residential development. There are 145 acres of commercial zoning to the south which permits offices and other commercial uses. Chairwoman Khan asked if R zoning could be used. Mr. McDonald answered RT is a transition zone for areas that don't have a chance for utilities for many years. Mr. White stated the Comprehensive Plan contains policy statements directly contrary to what was mentioned. The City is prohibited from stringing commercial out on arterial streets by land use and transportation policies in the Comprehensive plan just because of the kinds of access issues it creates. Instead they are concentrated at nodes (two - intersections) and as Mr. McDonald mentioned, there are 150 acres, which will likely end up being closer to 200 or more acres immediately to the southwest in the Broadmoor Area for commercial. Commissioner Polk asked about a rezone a couple of months ago where a residential property rezoned a portion of the property to C-1. Mr. White explained that it was already zoned commercial and they rezoned a portion of it to residential but left 6 commercial lots. Chairwoman Khan stated that she understands the Comprehensive Plan for the proposed site only allows for R-1 but they would like to see some buffering with commercial in those neighborhoods so it is not a sea of homes. She asked if they need to wait until the Comprehensive Plan expires and suggest at that time new goals. Mr. White responded that is exactly the process. The Comprehensive Plan is set for low- density residential. In 2018 there will be more options when the Comprehensive Plan is reviewed. Commissioner Polk asked what the Commission can do in the short term before revising the Comprehensive Plan to incentivize or support commercial development. Mr. White answered that they will get a chance this year to review in particular the Broadmoor Area Master Plan as well as an Environmental Impact Statement at the same time. -5- Commissioner Greenaway stated that the options for this application are to either approve the zoning or not. It currently is not in city limits. If the Commission approves the application, it can be annexed and zoned low-density residential. Chairwoman Khan asked if there are any impacts on the School District if it is not annexed into the City. Mr. White stated yes, it could develop with half acre lots in the County and there will still be kids in schools. He added that the School District also has 25 acres on the Department of Natural Resources property just south of the interstate east of Road 84. The City is working with them on a school park site. The City met with the School District recently to talk about the possibility of school sites in the Broadmoor Area. They will be seeking out properties for schools in this area. Commissioner Polk asked if the County has a school impact fee. Mr. White responded that they do not. Commissioner Polk clarified that if the property is developed as County, the School District will not receive any impact fees. Mr. White stated that is correct. Commissioner Polk asked if they would have to rezone it to be used for low-density residential. Commissioner Greenaway clarified that if it isn't annexed, it would have to be rezoned by the County. Mr. White added that the half acre lot development pattern is occurring north west of this site. There are several brand new homes on half acre lots and it is a problematic zoning arrangement occurring in the County. The planned density development tool is a way to have some mix and match size of lots which in the end will still yield the same density but you can have places for starter homes or places for larger families. Commissioner Bowers moved, seconded by Commissioner Polk, to adopt the findings of fact as contained in the April 21, 2016 staff report. The motion passed 4 to 1 with Commissioner Greenaway dissenting. Commissioner Bowers moved, seconded by Commissioner Polk, based on the findings of fact as adopted, the Planning Commission recommend the City Council zone the Mullen Annexation Area to R-1, as indicated on the zoning map identified as Exhibit # 1 attached to the April 21, 2016 staff report. The motion passed 4 to 1 with Commissioner Greenaway dissenting. B. Code Amendment Temporary Businesses in the I-182 Overlay Zone (MF # CA 2016-0011 MZ Chairwoman Khan read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Dave McDonald, City Planner, discussed the code amendment for temporary businesses in the I-182 Overlay Zone. About 5-6 years ago the zoning regulations were amended to include standards for temporary businesses that wanted to locate in the I-182 Corridor. At that time staff was receiving requests from multiple temporary businesses to locate on Road 68 and the manor of which many of them operated detracted from the look of the area. The concern was that these temporary businesses were coming in and operating in parking lots and detracting from the overall character of the neighborhood. Since the adoption of the code there haven't been many temporary businesses locate in that area. There is a food truck near Robert Wayne Drive and Burden Boulevard that has operated for a number of years and recently there was a hot dog stand in the TRAC parking lot. For the last couple of years there has been a small attractive trailer on Burden selling shaved ice, called We Ice. When looking at the We Ice application last year and checking the code it appeared staff was interpreting the code incorrectly and We Ice should not have been approved at the location where they were operating. The code has a couple of separation standards for temporary businesses. One requires temporary businesses to be located 300 feet from residential areas and the other requires a 500 foot separation from other temporary businesses. This is what caused the confusion on the We Ice application. We Ice was operating just a little over 300 feet of the other food truck, however, because they had already spent money and hooked up electrical facilities, staff allowed them to continue their operation last year but were informed that this year they would need to either have the code amended or fmd a new location. They made a written request to have the code amended. Mr. McDonald discussed the 250 foot spacing requirement for temporary vendor spacing in the central core of the community and pointed out that the most common spacing requirement in the zoning code was 300 feet. A number of examples were provided. I Staff recommended the code be changed to allow spacing 300 feet for temporary businesses in the I-182 area. With other standards in place regulating temporary businesses Staff was confident the 300 foot space suggestion would work. Commissioner Greenaway asked if the code is amended to 300 feet if We Ice would have to move since they hooked up to electricity already. Mr. McDonald stated that they wouldn't have to move since they are 380 feet from the other food truck. Commissioner Polk stated that the Planning Commissioner's received a page of Facebook comments regarding We Ice handed to them on the bench. She asked where these comments were found. Mr. McDonald stated that they were pulled from the City of Pasco's Facebook page and those comments are part of the record. Commissioner Bowers asked about the location of the other food truck located near We Ice. Mr. McDonald responded the food truck is on the lot next to Vierra's Bakery. -7- Commissioner Bowers asked if either temporary business had complained about the distance between each other. Mr. McDonald answered they had not. Commissioner Bowers asked how much a permit costs for a temporary vendor Mr. McDonald responded they have aninitial application fee and then they have a monthly fee they pay unlike a permanent business that only pays a one-time fee for the year. This is because temporary businesses require more monitoring by Code Enforcement than a regular business. Commissioner Bowers asked how the vendors at Food Truck Friday operate as they are next to each other. Mr. McDonald stated that Food Truck Friday doesn't apply because it is under the Downtown Pasco Development Association and the Farmer's Market. Crystal Worcott, 54 Applegate Lane, Burbank, WA spoke on behalf of We Ice. She stated that she is one of the four owners of We Ice and they really enjoy doing business in the City of Pasco and have been successful. She appreciates the help from the city staff and it was explained to them that they couldn't return to that location due to the 500 feet requirement from the other vendor. They looked for other locations to operate, including a location in Richland as well as Kennewick and were ready to move forward but the residents of Pasco asked them to stay. The temporary business near them is a taco truck so they are not competing or taking business from each other. They are asking for this code amendment so that they can stay in Pasco for their customers. Ryan Johnson, 6114 Dorchester Court, spoke in support of the code amendment. He stated that he loves to ride his bike to this location and it is a good thing to have in this part of Pasco. Lynn Hendrix, 733 S. Hawaii Street, Kennewick, WA spoke in support of the code amendment and We Ice. He stated that he enjoys taking his grandkids to We Ice. The service and quality of the product are great and the atmosphere is great. It is a place to visit and be a part of the community. With no further comments the public hearing closed. Commissioner Greenaway moved, seconded by Commissioner Bowers, to adopt findings of fact as contained in the April 21, 2016 staff memo on Temporary Business Standards. The motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Greenaway moved, seconded by Commissioner Bowers, 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. The motion passed unanimously. ED C. Code Amendment Home Occupations/Client Present IMF# CA 2015- 0071 Chairwoman Khan read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director, discussed the code amendment application for home occupations with clients present. This item has been discussed by the Planning Commission at previous meetings as a workshop item. The code amendment would allow under certain circumstances the ability for people who have a home use or small business in their home to be able to have a few clients come to the home which is currently prohibited in Pasco. Based on the last workshop, the ordinance has been prepared and does a couple of things related such as added dog boarding and kenneling to the list of prohibited home occupations based on comments and it allows clients access to home occupations provided standards are met. There are conditions in the staff report in which the home occupations will have to meet. The first one limits client access to two hours between 8:00 AM - 8:00 PM. It limits automobile traffic to two vehicles on the property at any given time and prohibits the boarding of kenneling of animals. There are other conditions also listed in the ordinance that will continue to be in effect and provide a necessary amount of conditioning that would be appropriate to make a small adjustment to the ordinance that governs home occupations. The staff recommendation is that the Commission consider the ordinance revising home occupations and that comes back to the Planning Commission in May for deliberations and a recommendation to City Council. Commissioner Bowers asked if there was a limit on the number of clients per day. Mr. White responded that there is a limit that is listed in the ordinance. Chairwoman Khan stated that no more than 8 customer vehicles may visit the dwelling unit in any given day. She asked if that would be a concern with occupancy of clients at one time. Mr. White answered no it would not be a concern. Commissioner Bowers asked if there is not policy for in home occupations currently Mr. White replied that at this time there are regulations for in home occupations but along with their staff report is a proposed ordinance with the revisions crossed out and changes added. For example, currently the ordinance states that aside from private tutoring clients cannot be at the premise but it has been replaced with wording that it clients are limited at two hours per day, between 8:00 AM - 8:00 PM and that no more than two vehicles on site at any given time and that there can be no more than eight vehicles in any given day. Commissioner Bowers asked what would happen if this code amendment is approved but a neighbor feels that the eight vehicles per day is untenable for them, if they would have to write to the City to have the code amendment revised after going through the Planning Commission and City Council again. Mr. White answered yes, if policy is based on one complaint. -9- Dave McDonald, City Planner, added that typically the things that staff will see are one chair beauty salons in homes and there would likely just be one person going to the home and there wouldn't be all that many people coming to the home so it wouldn't be a big issue. Commissioner Bowers responded that for certain cultures they may need more than two hours to get their hair done. She asked where the two hour limit came from. Mr. White replied that there is line of what is fair for people who have home occupations and what is fair for the neighborhood that doesn't expect a certain amount of commercial traffic in a neighborhood and this is trying to strike that balance. The same thing could be said for some people who do taxes as some clients might take longer than two hours. Commissioner Polk added that it would take a neighbor who is very persistent in watching their neighbors in home occupation and they would have to document each person that is there for longer than two hours and then call code enforcement to complain. She asked if the home occupation could get a special permit for the exception. Mr. White responded no. Commissioner Bowers responded that she was concerned because she didn't want it to appear racist because there was a limit on the hours for how long a person can stay to get their hair done, as some textures of hair and procedures can take a long time. Chairwoman Khan stated that she understands both sides but stated that the two hour rule could be in place for code enforcement purposes in case there is an issue and the home occupation is abusing the rule. Commissioner Polk asked if there was an example to site to make the two hour rule necessary. Commissioner Greenaway says it's already going on and nobody is licensed. Commissioner Polk stated that she specifically wanted to know if there is a reason to limit the number of hours per client visit since we aren't allowing multiple clients or vehicles at a time. Commissioner Greenaway stated that a home-based business doesn't typically deal with multiple vehicles. Commissioner Polk asked if the time limit was removed from the ordinance if that would hinder code enforcement in any way. Mr. White responded that the Planning Commission can make whatever recommendation they would like but the practical effect though is that it could hinder effective enforcement if it ever came down to that of home occupations that have clients coming to the home. Chairwoman Khan asked if the conditions are similar to other local jurisdictions. -10- Mr. White answered yes. At one of the workshop meetings staff provided a matrix that listed the regulations of Kennewick and Richland which are both very similar but Pasco, for whatever reason, did not allow clients to visit home occupations except for tutoring. The reason this code amendment came about is because it was suggested by a citizen who had just moved to Pasco from one of the other local jurisdictions. Chairwoman Khan asked if any of the local jurisdictions has helped with the proposed ordinance. Mr. White responded no but from his experience when he worked at Kennewick and with his experience with Pasco's Code Enforcement, home occupations don't typically generate complaints unless they are visibly contrary to the regulations, such as, car repair or landscaping companies. With no further comments the public hearing closed. 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 May 19, 2016 meeting. The motion passed 3 to 2 with Commissioner Bowers and Commissioner Mendez dissenting. COMMENTS: Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director, discussed upcoming City Council interviews for new Planning Commissioners for the two vacant positions on Monday, April 25, 2016. Cinco de Mayo is May 7, 2016 in Downtown Pasco and is a fun event to attend. The downtown consultant will be there to answer any questions and will explain in more detail, in particular their ideas and thoughts for Peanuts Park. The City is looking at the revitalization of that area as a centerpiece for the downtown core. The Department of Natural Resources, who has property south of the freeway, west of Road 68, was going to go to public auction in June but it has been pushed out later in the year. They're working very hard to partner with the City in developing a way to put Chapel Hill Boulevard all the way through and Road 76 to roughly halfway up the land. This will involve a Local Improvement District (LID) to create a four lane road roughly a half mile long with utilities, lighting, landscaping, bike lanes, etc. What the City is trying to avoid is the cost of the LID exceeding the assessed value of the parcels which would make selling them impossible. The GESA rezone application for the barbed-wire fence issue is going to City Council for a closed record hearing on May 2, 2016 based on Council's decision. However, between the end of February and end of March, GESA removed their barbed-wire which will be discussed at the Council meeting. Work is continuing on the Broadmoor property. Staff expects to be mostly wrapped up around October 1, 2016. A professional land designer and traffic analysis/ engineering team has been helping. -11- State law was recently passed regarding the Open Records Act, which was emailed to each Planning Commissioner. The law causes individual commission/board/council members to be held liable should violations of the Open Public Meeting Act occur. With no further discussion or business, the Planning Commission was adjourned at 8:25 p.m. Respectfully submitted, David McDonald, City Planner -12- MEMORANDUM DATE: May 19, 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; Pagel of 3 e) 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: 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. FRN DXMGS OF FACT: 1) The current Pasco Municipal Code (PMC) prohibits any "occupation requiring the customer or client to be present upon the premises while the profession, trade, skill or service is performed, except for private tutoring or instruction for 4 or fewer student per 24 -hour period; 2) The current PMC permits at least eight customer vehicle's to visit a dwelling wherein a home occupation is licensed. 3) The code provisions permitting on-site tutoring and customer vehicles to frequent homes where home occupations are licensed have not generated complaints from neighbors nor have such activities interfered with the free use and enjoyments of property. 4) The City has received numerous requests from residents for an amendment to the code to permit home occupations such as beauty salons in residential neighborhoods. Such businesses would require customers or clients to be present on the premises when the service is being performed. 5) The Planning Commission held one or more public workshop meetings to address the issue of home occupations and discussed the pros and cons of permitting beauty salons and similar businesses as home occupations. 6) The Planning Commission held a public hearing on April 21, 2016 to receive public direction on the proposed code amendment dealing with clients to being present at dwellings approved for occupations. 7) No residents attended the April 21St public hearing to object to, or speak against the proposed code amendment for home occupations. Page 2 of 3 8) Following the April 21s' hearing the Planning Commission recommended approval of the proposed code amendment to allow clients to be present when services are being performed as a part of a licensed home occupation. 9) The Planning Commission found that the current environmental standards provided several safeguards to protect the general character of neighborhoods but recommended the following additions: • Limit client access to the location to two hours between the hours of 8:00 am and 8:00 pm • Limit client automobile traffic to two on the property at any given time • 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). MOTION: I move the Planning Commission adopt the findings of fact as contained in the May 19, 2016 staff memo on client -present home occupations. MOTION: I move the Planning Commission recommend the City Council adopt the proposed code amendments for client -present home occupations as attached to the May 19, 2016 staff memo to the Planning Commission. Page 3 of 3 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: Dos boarding/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; 9) Ne eeeupatien requiring the eus4em-er or Wiens to he, ..Fo..e..r upe.. the «.e,.. ise.. ..,Lae tile pFefession, trade, skill OF sefyiee is peffqFffied shall he. Rilewed, exeept for pfivate tutoring e 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 per day b) Client visits shall be limited to the hours between 8:00 am and 8:00 nm e) Client automobile traffic shall be limited to two client vehicles on-site at anyrg 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 2016. Matt Watkins, Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: Debra L. Clark, City Clerk Leland B. Kerr, City Attorney Ordinance Amending PMC 25.66 - 3 Krystle Shanks From: Tanya bowers <tanyabowers@att.net> Sent: Friday, May 13, 2016 1:12 PM To: Krystle Shanks Subject: Re: 5.19.2016 Planning Commission Meeting Packet Hi Krystle, Unfortunately I won't be in town next week for the meeting. Please forward this email to all the other commissioners. Re: the home business permit policy, I followed up with friends as to how long they take to get their hair done. One said me it takes her 3 hours to do her daughter's hair at home. 1 was also told that it can take up to 8 hours to get hair procedures done at the salon. This leads me to believe we need to put some flexibility re: maximum hours allowed at a home business per client into the policy. I think the current proposal stipulates that a home office can have up to 2 clients at a time for no more than 2 hrs each. So for hair salons, can we stipulate no more than 2 clients at a time and have a per day maximum? Good luck deliberating. Best, Tanya Sent from my iPhone On May 13, 2016, at 11:39 AM, Krystle Shanks <shanksk@pasco-wa.gov> wrote:5 Good morning! Below is a link to the Planning Commission packet for the May 19, 2016 meeting at 7:00 p.m. Packets will be sent out in the mail today. https://eizov-t)asco.com/weblink8/Browse.aspx?startid=l 14971 Krystle Shanks, Administrative Assistant II Community & Economic Development Department 525 N. 3rd Avenue Pasco, wA 99301 shanksk(&.Dasco-wa.eov P: 509-545-3441 F: 509-545-3499 <image001.jpg> This email and your response are considered a public record and will be subject to disclosure under Washington's Public Records Disclosure Act. REPORT TO PII,AWKING COMMHSSION MASTER FILE NO: SP2016-006 APPLICANT: Adriana Robledo HEARING DATE: 5/19/2016 1704 Marsh Rd. ACTION DATE: 6/16/2016 Yakima, WA 98901 BACKGROUND REQUEST: SPECIAL PERMIT: Location of an auto sales lot in a C-1 (Retail Business) Zone 1. Legal: Parcel # 112043146 & 112043155: Lots 25-30 Block 15, Gerry's Addition General Location: The 609 West Lewis Street Property Size: The parcel is contains about 20,900 sq. ft. The existing building on the property occupies 1,548 square feet. 2. ACCESS: The site is accessed from West Lewis Street 3. UTILITIES: All municipal utilities are currently available to serve the site. 4. LAND USE AND ZONING: The site is currently zoned C-1 (Retail Business). The site is fully paved and contains an old service station building that is currently vacant. Surrounding properties are zoned and developed as follows: NORTH: R-2 & C-1 -Commercial retail/office uses SOUTH: C-3 - Auto Repair EAST: C-1 & C-2 - Vacant 8s Commercial Retail WEST: C-1 & C-3 - Commercial retail 5. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The Comprehensive Plan designates the site for Commercial uses. Although the Plan does not specifically address vehicle sales, Policy LU -4-B encourages planning for commercial centers that promote functional and economic marketing and operations. In other words the Plan encourages the concentration of businesses that are functionally and economically beneficial to be located together. 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 applicant is seeking special permit approval to locate a retail vehicle sales business in a C-1 (Retail Business) zone. The Pasco Municipal Code (PMC) lists retail automotive sales as a permitted conditional use in the C-1 zone provided the site meets the following additional criteria: a) The site is adjacent the intersection of two arterial streets, or; b) The site is adjacent a single arterial street; provided it is not adjacent to or across a public street right-of-way from a residential district, and would not be located closer than 300 feet to any existing car lot. The site contains an old service station, is adjacent to an arterial street and is not adjacent to or across a public street right-of-way from any residentially zoned parcels (although residential uses exist directly to the north across an alley) nor is it closer than 300 feet from any other existing car lot. The proposal therefore meets the criteria to be considered for a special permit. The site was originally developed in the 1960's with a service station. Automotive related businesses have occupied the site since 1963. In addition to containing a service station the site has been used for automotive repairs, automotive detailing and vehicle rentals. An auto repair shop and detail shop recently moved from the property. Within two blocks of the site there are seven automotive related businesses. These businesses include an auto body shop, several auto repair shops, a window tinting facility, an audio facility and a car sales lot (the car sales lot is about 400 feet from the site). INITIAIL STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT Findings of fact must be entered from the record. The following are initial findings drawn from the background and analysis section of the staff report. The Planning Commission may add additional findings to this listing as the result of factual testimony and evidence submitted during the open record hearing. 1. The site is zoned C-1 (Retail Business). 2. The site is currently vacant 3. The most recent business activity on the site included auto repair and auto detailing 2 4. The property has been used for automotive related businesses for 53 years. 5. Car sales are a conditional use in C-1 zone. 6. The term "conditional use" means auto sales may be approved under certain circumstance and conditions in one location and not in another location. The Special Permit review process is used to determine whether or not a conditional use would be appropriate in a given location. 7. For a C-1 property to qualify for special permit review for a car sales lot, the property in question would have to either be located at the intersection of two arterial streets or be located on one arterial street and not adjacent to or across a public street right-of-way from residentially zoned properties. A proposed site must also be more than 300 feet from another auto sales business. 8. In the early 1980's the zoning regulations were amended to add Automobile sales as a Permitted Conditional Use in the C-1 zone. 9. The Permitted Conditional Uses of PMC 25.42.040 were amended in 1981 to address a growing concern about how to reuse many of the old service stations in town that had closed. After closing, it was difficult for the old gas station to be reused because they were built for a single purpose related to servicing vehicles. The C-1 zone was amended to specifically allow the adaptive reuse of old service station for car sales lots. 10. The building on the site was originally built as a service station. 11. Applying of a Special Permit does not guarantee a special permit application will receive approval. 12. Seven automotive related businesses are located within two blocks of the property. TENTATIVE CONCLUSIONS BASED ON INITIAL STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT Before recommending approval or denial of a special permit the Planning Commission must develop findings of fact from which to draw its conclusions based upon the criteria listed in P.M.C. 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 designates this area for commercial development. Policy LU -1-D encourages the clustering commercial development at major intersections. Policy LU -4-13 encourages the concentration of activities which are functionally and economically 3 beneficial to each other. There are seven automotive related businesses within two blocks of the proposed site. (2) Will the proposed use adversely affect public infrastructure? The proposed use is located along a major arterial and places minimal demands on the established infrastructure systems. Other permitted uses such as restaurants and taverns would place a greater demand on the public infrastructure than this proposed use. (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 use is consistent with the long established uses that have occurred on the site. There are seven automotive related businesses within two blocks of the proposed 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 proposal involves display of automobiles. Therefore location and height of structures is not an issue. The existing service station building will not be altered. (S) 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 use will not create more traffic, flashing lights, fumes or vibrations than many of the permitted uses, such as convenience stores or fast food restaurants. (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 use is less intense in terms of impact on public health and safety than many of the permitted uses within the district. Some of the nearby parking lots will contain as many cars as the proposed auto sales lot. 4 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 June 16, 2016 meeting. i ttt \ • '�� Via`, - C�, � a CD t � �73 00 1 430 �- CD CD ism �e3..b �b H z r O 0 fI �I II t � R,1 i i ■ 0 tow