Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-15-2016 Planning Commission Meeting PacketPLANNING COMMISSION — AGENDA REGULAR MEETING I. CALL TO ORDER: II. ROLL CALL: III. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: V. OLD BUSINESS: VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS: VII VIII IX. A. Special Permit 7:00 P.M. Declaration of Quorum August 18, 2016 September 15, 2016 Special Permit to locate an elementary school (Pasco School District) (MF# SP 2016-009) B. Special Permit Special Permit to locate a nightclub in a C-1 zone (Bernardo Lopez & Alejandro Leon) (MF# SP 2016-010) WORKSHOP: OTHER BUSINESS: ADJOURNMENT: This meeting is broadcast live on PSC -TV Channel 191 on Charter Cable and streamed at www.pasco-wa.com/psctvlive. Audio equipment available for the hearing impaired; contact staff for assistance. REGULAR MEETING PLANNING CALL TO ORDER: MEETING The meeting was called to order at 7:00pm by Chairman Cruz. POSITION MEMBERS PRESENT No. 1 Tanya Bowers No. 2 Kurt Lukins No. 3 Paul Mendez No. 4 Alecia Greenaway No. 5 Joe Cruz No. 6 No. 7 Zahra Khan No. 8 Pam Bykonen No. 9 APPEARANCE OF FAIRNESS: MEMBERS ABSENT Loren Polk Gabriel Portugal August 18, 2016 Chairman Cruz read a statement about the appearance of fairness for hearings on land use matters. There were no declarations. Chairman Cruz then asked the audience if there were any objections based on a conflict of interest or appearance of fairness question regarding the items to be discussed this evening. There were no objections. ADMINISTERING THE OATH: Chairman Cruz explained that state law requires testimony in quasi-judicial hearings such as held by the Planning Commission be given under oath or affirmation. Chairman Cruz swore in all those desiring to speak. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Greenaway moved, seconded by Commissioner Khan that the minutes dated July 21, 2016 be approved. The motion passed unanimously. PUBLIC HEARINGS: A. Special Permit Special Permit to locate a student housing complex Columbia Basin College) (MF# SP 2016-008) Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Rick White, Community 8s Economic Development Director, discussed the special permit application to locate a student housing complex. He stated that there weren't many changes to the staff report since the previous meeting but did point out a correction to the report in that the public hearing does not need to be continued. The City owns 10 acres at the southeast corner of Argent Road and 20th Avenue. The proposal is to develop the -1- east half of that 10 acres with student housing — possibly as many as 375 units. The first phase consists of roughly 125 housing units which is what the Planning Commission heard testimony on in the previous hearing. Mr. White showed the proposed design on the Power Point presentation and discussed the layout. The proposal has been reviewed by the Sun Willows Architectural Review Committee and they have approved the design of the buildings. Rustin Hall, 203 N. Washington, Spokane, WA, spoke on behalf of ALSC Architects. He briefly discussed the phase 1 site plan, which was presented to the Sun Willows Architectural Review Committee and was approved as shown to the Planning Commission. Commissioner Mendez asked how many parking stalls would be built for the 125 housing units. Mr. Hall responded that the proposal includes 88 parking stalls for 125 beds, as a 75% ratio. Chairman Cruz asked if that number is consistent with apartment building standards. Mr. Hall said no, it is not the same as apartment standards. But they feel that 88 parking stalls is on the high side based on the industry standards for like facilities. Chairman Cruz asked how many parking stalls would be required for an apartment complex. Mr. Hall stated that depending on the layout of the units there would likely need to be parking stalls for 90% of the units. Mr. White added that the parking standards for apartments are 2 parking stalls per unit, which is high for student housing. Staff conducted research on this issue and the ratio of parking per bed ranges anywhere from 5.5 stalls per bed to .75 stalls per bed. The number that Mr. Hall has presented appears to be consistent with other colleges. Mr. Hall responded that on the site plan there are also additional areas that are held out if in fact there is a shortage of parking, they have expansion plans just within phase 1 as needed. Chairman Cruz stated the Columbia Basin College (CBC) students will likely have a higher percentage of cars than a typical university, such as Washington State. CBC has different clientele and would likely have a higher parking requirement but as long as there are possible expansion plans he did not have an issue with the parking. Commissioner Khan asked for clarification on the location of the additional parking. Mr. Hall pointed out the proposed additional parking potential on the Power Point presentation. Commissioner Bowers asked if there would be any parking stalls for bicycles. WZ Mr. Hall answered that there would be some bike parking, including enclosed bike lockers. With no further questions or comments the public hearing closed. Commissioner Khan asked staff how a dwelling unit is different between an apartment and student housing. Mr. White responded that they are similar, however, student housing does not have to include a food prep area, such as a kitchen. Commissioner Khan moved, seconded by Commissioner Greenaway, to close the public hearing and adopt findings of fact and conclusions therefrom as contained in the August 18, 2016 staff report. The motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Khan moved, seconded by Commissioner Greenaway, based on the findings of fact and conclusions as adopted, the Planning Commission recommend the City Council grant a special permit for the location of CBC Student Housing in a C-1 zoning district at the 2900 block of N. 20th Avenue, parcel number 113-300-255, with the conditions as listed in the August 18, 2016 staff report. The motion passed unanimously. B. Zoning Determination Zoning Determination to establish zoning for the Barker Annexation IMF# ZD 2016-0031 Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Dave McDonald, City Planner, discussed the zoning determination application to establish zoning for the Barker Annexation. This item was continued from the July meeting for two reasons: (1) Allow staff time to meet with the applicant to get an understanding of what they wanted in terms of zoning for the property and (2) Look at the Planning Commission's concerns relative to a zoning gradient that was discussed at the prior public hearing. The property to the north, Byer's Addition, has 5 acre parcels but is not a subdivision. Because of the concerns related to the effect on property values in Byer's Addition, staff took a look at Byer's Addition and it was determined that 52% of the development within that area consists of manufactured homes. In looking at the average property value of those homes, excluding the land value, the average value of the manufactured homes was roughly $109,000. When that is compared to the value of the permits of homes being built in Pasco being built west of Road 36 for the past year it has been roughly $260,000 in value. In looking at that, it is hard to see how $260,000 homes would negatively impact the development within the Byer's Addition. In talking to a representative of the Barker family, the preference for the family was to have R-1 zoning but they would be satisfied with R -S-1, which is 10,000 square foot lot sizes, which is comparable to Desert Plateau, First Place and Casa Del Sol. The family intends to hold a strip of property along the northern boundary for family members and indicated that they were looking at lots in the 2 acre range which would go along where Byer's Addition is located. That can be accomplished with the R-1 zoning. Mr. McDonald pointed out that in 2007 when the Comprehensive Plan was updated Pasco added 1,100 acres to the urban growth boundary. That additional area was based on lot sizes and subdivisions that had lots averaging 9,000 square feet but unfortunately much of the development in this area to the west but outside the urban growth boundary is over -3- '/2 acre. The land is quickly being taken and there isn't much left. He briefly discussed current development in the area, including residential, commercial and school property. Staff recommends R -S-1 for the proposed site. Commissioner Khan asked if R-1 zoning would limit the Barker's from having 2 acre lots on the northern portion of the property. Mr. McDonald stated that it would not limit them. R-1 zoning sets 7,200 square foot minimum lot sizes, however, lots can always be larger than the minimum. Commissioner Khan asked if the applicant was available to speak to this item. Jeff Barker, 7148 Iris Lane, stated that his sister is the applicant but he could speak on her behalf. Mr. McDonald added that he has been working with Julie Barker in Everett, WA. Commissioner Khan stated that she was concerned due to upcoming potential development in the Broadmoor Area. She also addressed the gradient that was discussed at the previous public hearing but closer to the Broadmoor property she stated that she would be for a higher density rather than sprawled out R-1 and R -S-1 housing. She wondered what the applicant's plans were for the property. Commissioner Greenway responded that the applicant wanted 10,000 square feet lots on the urban boundary but the northern portion having 2 acre lots for their family. Commissioner Khan wondered if they were interested in any multi -family housing closer to Burns Road. Mr. McDonald replied that the Comprehensive Plan designates this area for low-density residential so there currently isn't an option to consider R-2 or R-3 zoning. R-1 is the highest density that would currently be allowed on the site. There will be some higher density set aside in the Broadmoor Area near the sand dunes. Commissioner Lukins asked if staff feels the zoning should be R-1 for the proposed site. Mr. McDonald responded yes, that was the original proposal and what would still be recommended. R -S-1 would be the lowest density that staff would consider appropriate. Commissioner Mendez asked what the average size lot was in the County, Byer's Addition, just north of the proposed site. Mr. McDonald responded that they are just over 5 acre lots except in the southwest corner they split one of the 5 acre parcels into 4 parcels. Commissioner Khan asked Mr. Barker how they came up with their decision for R-1 zoning. Mr. Barker answered that there are 8 members in the family, 4 of whom want money and the other 4 would like property. In order to please all members this is the plan that works. Along the south edge of the property is where most of the housing would be developed since the family members would like to stay farther away from the main road. Road 100 is very well used already. Commissioner Bowers asked staff if the applicant gets the strip along the norther part of the property, how much of the site is used. Mr. McDonald responded that in discussion with Julie Barker, they would want a couple acre lots for each family member. Mr. Barker added that between all of them they will each likely take 5 acres. Commissioner Khan asked if they are working with a developer. Mr. Barker answered that they are not at this time. Chairman Cruz discussed the concern from the neighbor to the north that spoke at the last public hearing in terms of developing single-family lots next to the current 5 acre lots that are more agricultural in the County. But having R -S-1 lots on the norther part of the property next to Byers Addition, R-1 would be appropriate for the remainder of the site. Commissioner Lukins stated that his only concern is that with the lower left portion of the site the terrain is difficult to develop and could potentially be a park. Mr. McDonald responded that the City was looking for a park in that area and the terrain is difficult. The irrigation canal runs where the tree line is so there will be some topographical issues the developer will have to work through. The park is not going to go there — it will be down the street a ways. Another thing to consider is that the City will be putting in a trunk line down Burns Road and will be an expensive line. To recoup some of those costs you will need a decent amount of density and with half acre lots the City will not recoup the costs for placing the line in. Having higher density down by Burns Road would help recover costs for that sewer line. Commissioner Bykonen reminded that Planning Commission that this is just the first step in the annexation process and it does not determine what will end up on the piece of property. They will still have to come back to the Planning Commission with a preliminary plat prior to development. Chairman Cruz explained that he would like to sort this out now so that the developer knows what the City is willing to allow to be developed on the site so that they know what the economic potential could be. He added that he sees more development going to the east rather than the west. Mr. Barker responded that he has actually had a lot of offers to develop on their site as there is getting to be less land to be developed for housing in Pasco. It is developing very quickly down Burns Road. 162 Chairman Cruz stated that he wants to make sure it is planned properly and that not too much high density is brought in without planning for the traffic. Commissioner Khan asked staff what is to the immediate west of the Barker Annexation property. Mr. McDonald said that to the west is RS -20 zoning and they are finishing up the last plat. There's no sewer in the area which is why they are '/2 acre lots. They are on city water. If they had sewer they would have likely been developed on 10,000 square foot lots. Chairman Cruz stated that R -S-1 on the upper half of the proposed site and R-1 on the lower half and that would still give enough flexibility to move forward. Commissioner Khan stated that she was in agreement with Chairman Cruz. With no further questions or comments the public hearing closed. Commissioner Bowers moved, seconded by Commissioner Khan, the Planning Commission adopt the findings of fact as contained in the August 18, 2016 staff report. The motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Bowers moved, seconded by Commissioner Bykonen, based on the findings of fact as adopted, the Planning Commission recommend the City Council zone the Barker Annexation Area to R -S-1 and R-1, as amended. The motion passed unanimously. C. Block Grant 2017 Community Development Block Grant Fund Allocations IMF# BGAP 2016-0031 Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Rick White, Community 8s Economic Development Director, discussed the 2017 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Fund Allocations. A public hearing was held in the previous month and the Planning Commission heard from a few interested applicants. The City applications were similar from past years. There will be roughly $747,000 available. The staff report contains a spreadsheet with the applicants, how much non-CDBG match of funds, how much they've requested and how much staff recommends. The Planning Commission recommendation will be added when it proceeds to City Council. Staff is recommending the program administration portion of block grant allocation this year be $131,000 which is an increase. The reason for the increase is that the City will need to pay for the costs associated with a neighborhood stabilization program (NSP) and HOME program administration from these funds because the NSP program has ended. All of the recreation specialist positions are consistent with past years and the amount requested and recommended by staff is the same. Staff has recommended that the Martin Luther King Jr. Center - YMCA receive $20,000 as they run a very efficient and much needed program. Staff recommends that the Pasco Specialty Kitchen receive the same amount of CDBG funds as last year. The Code Enforcement Officer position is consistent with last year and staff recommends that same amount. Catholic Family Services - Volunteer Chore Services has received money in previous years but this year staff is recommending that they receive none just because they have lost many volunteers and have been unable to spend the funds awards previously. They run a very good program but with losing volunteers they have currently discontinued the program. For the Peanuts Park Renovation project, staff added $15,000 from their initial request for program administration. This will raise red flags with HUD since so much money will be allocated to one place and it is a commercially zoned area, although it is a public park. Staff anticipates that they will be monitored for this and want to make sure it is run through the Contract Administrator in the Public Works Department so everything is executed properly. For sidewalk construction, staff recommends $105,000, $5,000 of which is recommended for administration of the project. Many of the sidewalks that are proposed to be repaired will be in the downtown Peanuts Park Area. Staff is not recommending any funds to be allocated to Rebuilding Mid -Columbia because they are not yet a 501(c)(3). They area first time applicant and have a ways to go before they would be ready for funding. Commissioner Khan asked about the Peanuts Park Renovation and what the threshold is for HUD to look for. Mr. White responded that projects attract attention when a lot of money is allocated in commercially zoned areas. The reason for that is because HUD wants to see what the area -wide benefit is going to be. You cannot benefit a private business but you can benefit low -moderate income families and citizens. The project is going to be broken into phases and the City plans to use many tools to make the justification easier and far less risky to benefit the area. Commissioner Bowers asked for clarification regarding the Pasco Specialty Kitchen and what it means when income is generated from the commercial kitchen programs and that they be underwritten for return of investments for sustainability. Mr. White replied that the Pasco Specialty Kitchen doesn't completely pay for itself but it does generate program income. Program income year to date is roughly $35,000, however, they have about $100,000 in expenses. HUD requires the program income to be used first for salaries, utilities, repairs, supplies, etc. and then anything over and about that program income can come from CDBG funds. Commissioner Bowers asked what the program income has been going to thus far. Mr. White answered that it has been going towards salaries, utility bills in particular and some minor repairs. Commissioner Bowers asked if staff has reached out to Rebuilding Mid -Columbia regarding their 501(c)(3) status and what they need to do to qualify in the future. Mr. White replied yes. With no further questions or comments the public hearing closed. Commissioner Khan moved, seconded by Commissioner Greenaway, to close the public hearing and recommend the City Council approve the use of funds for the 2017 Community Development Block Grant Program as set forth in the "2017 Fund Summary" as recommended by Staff. The motion passed unanimously. IFA D. Block Grant 2017 HOME Fund Allocations (MF# BGAP 2016-004) Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director, discussed the 2017 HOME Fund Allocations. Through Planning Commission and Council action, it was decided that the funds would be used for down payment assistance. It is estimated that at least 10 down payment assistance projects will be completed with these funds in 2017. Commissioner Bowers asked if the money get refunded or if the people pay back the money. Mr. White answered that they do. Several people pay their down payment assistance back over the course of a year. It differs from year to year. They do not have to pay back the funds until they have paid their first mortgage or when they refinance or sell their home. With no further questions or comments the public hearing closed. Commissioner Bowers moved, seconded by Commissioner Mendez, the Planning Commission recommend the City Council approve the use of funds for the 2017 HOME Investment Partnerships entitlement as recommended by Staff. The motion passed unanimously. OTHER BUSINESS: With no further discussion or business, the Planning Commission was adjourned at 7:55 p.m. Respectfully submitted, David McDonald, City Planner REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION MASTER FILE NO: MF# SP 2016-009 HEARING DATE: 9/15/16 ACTION DATE: 10/20/16 APPLICANT: Pasco School District #1 1215 W Lewis St Pasco, WA 99301 REQUEST: SPECIAL PERMIT: Location of an Elementary School # 16 in an R- -1 District. (4000 Block of Rd84) 1. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: Legal: NW I/4 of the SW '/4 of Section16, Township 9 North, Range 29 East, WM less the portion south of the FCID canal. General Location: North corner of Road 84 and the FCID Canal Property Size: Approximately 26 acres 2. ACCESS: The site is adjacent to Road 84. Access is available from the north and south on Rd 84. 3. UTILITIES: An 8" water line is located in Road 84 with connection to Loviisa Farms. A 10" sewer trunk line is located along the southern portion of the property about 140 feet north of the FCID canal. 1. 4. LAND USE AND ZONING: The site is zoned R-1 (Low Density Residential) and is now vacant. Surrounding properties are zoned and developed as follows: NORTH: R-1 - Single family SOUTH: RP - Mobile Homes 8v Chiawana High EAST: R-1 - Single family WEST: R-1 - Single family 5. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The Comprehensive Plan designates the site as Low -Density Residential. Goal CF -5 suggests adequate provisions should be made for educational facilities located throughout the urban growth area. Policy CF -S-A encourages the appropriate location and design of schools throughout the community. 6. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The City of Pasco is the lead agency for this project. Based on the SEPA checklist, the adopted City Comprehensive Plan, City development regulations, and other information, a threshold determination resulting in a Determination of Non -significance (DNS) has been issued for this project under WAC 197- 11-158. Pasco's population has more than doubled in the past 15 years growing from 32,066 to over 70,000 today. This population growth has also caused the Pasco School District enrollment to almost double over the same time period. Pasco's K-12 enrollment is expected to be around 20,000 by 2019. In anticipation of project enrollment increases and to fulfill current needs the School District is proposing to construct Elementary School # 16. Elementary School # 16 is planned for a 26 acre site located on Road 84, opposite the Loviisa Farms subdivision directly, north of the FCID canal. The 73,000 square foot building will be patterned after the new Marie Currie School and designed for 700-800 students. The site will contain the two story school with public parking, a parent loading and unloading area, a bus loading and unloading area, play areas and landscaping. The school will be designed to allow at least four more class rooms to be added at a later day and to permit a number of portable classrooms. The School District has also expressed a desire to partner with the City of Pasco to provide a public park/open space as part of the school campus. Road 84 is a partially developed street. The School District will be responsible for dedicating the east half of the right-of-way for Road 84. Typically street improvements include but are not limited to street construction and paving, installation of curb gutter and sidewalk, street lights, handicapped ramps, signage, lane striping, street drainage, speed -reduction modifications, right-of- way landscaping and fire hydrants. The playfields will not contain night lighting for sports activities. With respect to traffic -related issues elementary schools do not impact peak hour traffic conditions in the way other land uses do. Based on the Institute of Traffic Engineers Trip Generation Manual (8th Ed) an elementary school with 730 students on average can be expected to generate about 941 vehicle trips per day. That would amount to $40,463 in traffic impact fees. By comparison, if the site were to develop with single family homes about 1,180 daily vehicle trips could be expected. The traffic impact fees generated by single-family homes would be $83,662. K Most of the schools in Pasco including the Pasco High School and Chiawana High School are located in residential zoning districts. An on-line search of the Franklin County Assessors records (2016) revealed that many of the residential properties located near the existing Maya Angelou Elementary School have increased in valued since the school was built. The Maya Angelou neighborhood was not fully developed until after the school was built. This provides a good indication that elementary schools do not discourage the development of permitted uses on property in the general vicinity of a school or impair the value thereof. Recent development around the McGee Elementary School also provides another example of a residential neighborhood that developed after a school was constructed. 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 and comments made at the public hearing. The Planning Commission may add additional findings as deemed appropriate. 1. The site is located in an R-1 zone. 2. Under the current zoning approximately 118 single-family dwellings could be constructed on the site. 3. Schools are conditional land uses in the R-1 zone and require review through the special permit process prior to permitting for construction. 4. The site is in the Pasco Urban Growth Boundary. 5. The site is within the City limits of Pasco. 6. The Comprehensive Plan identifies the site for low-density residential uses. 7. Comprehensive Plan Goal CF -5 suggests that adequate provisions should be made for the location of educational facilities throughout the urban growth area. 8. The site was farmed for many years but is now vacant. 9. The site is owned by the Pasco School District. 10. Sewer and water utilities are available to the site. 11. The site is located at the northeast corner of Road 84 and the FCID canal. 12. The east half of Road 84 has not been constructed. 13. City development standards require off-site street and utility (sewer, water, irrigation) improvements to be constructed or installed concurrently with site development. 14. Off-site street improvements include but are not limited to street construction and paving, installation of curb gutter and sidewalk, street 3 lights, handicapped ramps, signage, lane striping, street drainage, traffic signals, speed -reduction modifications, and fire hydrants. 15. According to the Institute of Traffic Engineers Trip Generation Manual (8th Ed) a 730 student elementary school will generate about 941 vehicle trips per day. 16. If developed with single family homes the site would generate about 1,118 vehicle trips per day. 17. Pasco's population has more than doubled since 2000. 18. Pasco School District enrollment has doubled since 2000. 19. School district enrollment is expected to reach 20,000 by 2019. 20. Residential development near the existing Maya Angelou and McGee Elementary School indicates elementary schools do not negatively impact the value of surrounding homes or the intended development of residential neighborhoods. 21. No sports fielding lighting will be constructed with the proposed elementary school. CONCLUSIONS BASED ON STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT Before recommending approval or denial of a special permit the Planning Commission must draw its conclusion from the findings of fact based upon the criteria listed in P.M.C. 25.86.060. The criteria and staff listed conclusions are as follows: 1) Will the proposed use be in accordance with the goals, policies, objectives and text of the Comprehensive Plan? The proposed use supports the following plan policies or goals: CF -5 suggests adequate provisions be made for educational facilities throughout the Urban Growth Area. Transportation and Utility policies support city standards that require the improvement of streets and utilities in conjunction with development. To be in accord with the Comprehensive Plan the proposed elementary school development would also need to include the development of adjoining streets and utilities. 2) Will the proposed use adversely affect public infrastructure? The School District will be responsible for constructing the east side of Road 84 in conjunction with building the school and installing any need water lines. A major sewer trunk line is already in place along the southern boundary of the school site. The traffic impacts from the proposed school would be comparable to or less than the impacts from a residential subdivision on the property. The school will generate almost no traffic during weekends, holidays and summer break. 2 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 elementary school has been designed to complement the existing and future neighborhood by providing generous yard setbacks, landscaping, screening of mechanical equipment and a pitched roof line to moderate the school's height in keeping with typical pitched roofs of residential homes. Elementary schools are typically located in or near residential neighborhoods and are an accepted part of the character of residential areas. There is enough school property available for the District and the City to cooperate on development of a neighborhood park. 4) Will the location and height of proposed structures and the site design discourage the development of permitted uses on property in the general vicinity or impair the value thereof The construction of schools in residential neighborhoods often encourages development of nearby properties. Residential development around the Maya Angelou and McGee schools was not completed until after the schools were in place. An on-line search of the Franklin County Assessors records (2016) revealed that values of many residential properties located near the existing Maya Angelou and McGee Elementary schools have increased since the schools were built. 5) Will the operations in connection with the proposal be more objectionable to nearby properties by reason of noise, fumes, vibrations, dust, traffic, or flashing lights than would be the operation of any permitted uses within the district? Experience has shown that schools within Pasco generate few complaints from neighbors. Elementary schools typically are not a source of dust, fumes, vibrations or flashing lights. The proposed school could generate up to 940 vehicle trips per day. During weekends, the summer break, and other break periods very little traffic will be generated. 6) Will the proposed use endanger the public health or safety if located and developed where proposed, or in anyway will become a nuisance to uses permitted in the district? The elementary school will be constructed to meet all requirements of the International Building Code, the Fire Code, the Plumbing Code, all other construction codes and state regulations pertaining to middle 5 school construction. The building will be required to have fire -rated corridors, area separation walls, sufficient exiting and fire sprinkler systems to ensure the safety of the students. The construction of sidewalks and street improvements will address traffic safety issues. Schools have a long history of being accepted in residential neighborhoods. In most communities schools, including middle schools, are located in or near residential neighborhoods. Proposed Approval Conditions 1. The special permit shall apply to Parcels #117 581 010 and #117 582019. 2. The elementary school site shall be developed in substantial conformity with the site plan and building elevations submitted with the special permit application. Nothing herein prohibits the School District from adding four additional classrooms to the school building or placing portable classrooms on the site. 3. Road 84 abutting the School District (all of parcel # 117 582 019 existing as of July 30, 2012) property shall be improved to arterial street standards. Improvements shall include but not be limited to curb, gutter, drainage, sidewalk and street lighting along the school side of the street. 4. The complete improvement width for Road 84 will be 48 feet; the Pasco School District shall be responsible for constructing the east side of the street. A tapered street transition shall extend north of the school site as per City of Pasco Public Works standard. 5. Street sidewalks shall be offset with a planting strip between the sidewalk and curb matching the in the west side of Road 84. 6. The planting strip between the curb and the off -set sidewalk shall be planted in lawn and trees spaced at 50 -foot intervals. The landscape and irrigation plan shall be approved by the Administrative and Community Services Department prior to installation. 7. The School District shall construct a continuous 6 -foot tall block fence along the south property line adjacent to the FCID canal right-of-way. 8. No on -street parking or bus staging will be permitted on Road 84. 9. All costs associated with speed reduction/ modification including but not limited to flashing lights, signage, pedestrian sensors, safety and crosswalks shall be paid for by the School District. 10. All street/roadway signage abutting the property is to be provided by the School District and must conform to the most current MUTCD & City of Pasco Construction Standards. 0 7. The School District shall construct a continuous 6 -foot tall block fence along the south property line adjacent to the FCID canal right-of-way. 8. No on -street parking or bus staging will be permitted on Road 84. 9. All costs associated with speed reduction/ modification including but not limited to flashing lights, signage, pedestrian sensors, safety and crosswalks shall be paid for by the School District. 10. All street/roadway signage abutting the property is to be provided by the School District and must conform to the most current MUTCD 8s City of Pasco Construction Standards. 11. The School District shall construct all necessary improvements and accommodations for pedestrian school routes along Road 84. 12. No mid -block crosswalks will be permitted on Road 84. 13. The School District shall pay the traffic mitigation fee in effect at the time a building permit is issued. 14. The School District shall prepare a dust control mitigation plan to be submitted with the building permit application. 15. The School District shall install a 16 inch irrigation line along the length of the school site in Road 84. 16. The School District shall dedicate the south 40 feet of the site for the Massey Road right-of-way. 17. No sports field light shall be permitted. 18. The School district shall acquire all necessary water rights for the site; all water rights associated with site shall be dedicated to the City prior to the issuance of a building permit. 19. The special permit shall be null and void if a building permit has not been obtained by January 1, 2019. 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 October 20, 2016 Planning Commission meeting. 7 ����� » � � \�� �� ���� �- 2«.\ 2 �»� t� .� � /\�� \/� � /^� �� /�~/\ \{ �� \`� � � � » . >� { >� �� ��.ƒ ? / .. « ^ >.. � : E ! . � � � � , . : »�. . « » �§' \ ^ d' � � : \ < ° � . f. � ` ° � ® � J� �^ °� � {<�� � � .� \y d° m m r� I Me U 71K < IM. �10 o 1-i _ Z � � r a u o V $ in p V) v,o c m _N II a Qpm a O 33� fo g cu N E v w Lu Q a r� I Me U 71K < IM. cn O co w s., o 0 O w° Q U c O A 10 � Z N sLry ff cp4w a n REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION MASTER FILE NO: SP 2016-010 HEARING DATE: 9/15/16 ACTION DATE: 10/20/16 BACKGROUND REQUEST FOR SPECIAL PERMIT: 1. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: APPLICANT: Bernardo Lopez & Alejandro Leon 923 W. Park St. Pasco WA 99301 Location of a Nightclub in a C-1 Zoning District Legal: Lot 1, SHORT PLAT 2010-08 General Location: 220 N 18TH AVE (Parcel # 112 230 015) Property Size: Approximately .72 acres 2. ACCESS: The site has access from 18th Ave and W. Bonneville Street 3. UTILITIES: The site is served by municipal water and sewer. 4. LAND USE AND ZONING: The property is currently zoned C-1 (Retail Commercial) and is developed with a restaurant. Surrounding properties are zoned and developed as follows: North: R-1, R-2, R-3, C-1; SFDUs, Multi-Fam; Daycare Center East: "O", R-1; SFDUs, Office South: C-1; Hotel Office & suites West: C-1; Hotel suites 5. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The site is designated in the Comprehensive Plan for commercial uses. The Plan does not specifically address nightclubs, 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. A determination will be made after the public hearing. 1 ANALYSIS On August 5, 2016 Bernardo Lopez & Alejandro Leon applied for a business license to operate a restaurant in a C-1 zone at 220 N 18th Avenue under the business name "Xtasy Nightclub & Grill, LLC". The application was placed on hold because although restaurants are permitted use in the C-1 zone, nightclubs may only be licensed in C-1 zones upon issuance of a Special Permit. Applicant subsequently submitted for a Special Permit to locate a nightclub on the site. The nightclub would utilize an existing 10,412 square -foot structure formerly used as a motel restaurant. The restaurant building is located in a retail commercial zone and immediately across the street from residential and office zoning, and adjacent a retail commercial zoning district. According to Pasco Municipal code (PMC) 25.12.327, a Nightclub is defined as ". . . an establishment that provides entertainment and has as its primary source of revenue (a) the sale of alcohol for consumption on the premises and (b) cover charges. It does not mean premises wherein such beverages are sold in conjunction with the sale of food for consumption on the premises and the sale of said beverages comprises less than 25 percent of the gross receipts." The premise also potentially falls under the PMC 25.12.158 definition of "Dance hall" which "means an enclosed space where public dances are held and where alcohol and/or food may be sold." The proposed nightclub would have approximately 2,000 square feet of dedicated bar area, 3,500 square feet of dance floor, 2,500 square feet of dining area and 2,000 square feet of kitchen area (The Benton -Franklin Public health Department license Plan Review specifies 101+ seats). One parking space per 100 square feet of floor area is required for restaurant uses. With 10,000 square feet of floor area the nightclub would require 100 parking spaces. Excluding the kitchen the total area would be 8,000 square feet, requiring at least 80 parking spaces. There are currently 46 on-site parking spaces (Applicant claims 61 spaces, as per Business License Application #29804). Applicant has stated that the nightclub will operate Thursday, Friday, Saturday and Sunday from Spm to tam, as well as holidays such as Valentine's Day, Spring breaks, 4th of July and Halloween. Applicant has also indicated a possibility of opening for business additional days of the week. The proposed nightclub would employ 12 employees. It is staffs professional opinion that this is not a good transitional use between commercial and residential zoning districts, and that the nightclub would be better located away from family neighborhoods; as such, the application should be denied. However, if the use is considered, strong conditions should be FA placed on the permit to protect the residential nature of surrounding properties. PRELIMINARY 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 is requesting to locate a nightclub at 220 N 18th Avenue. 2. The nightclub would utilize an existing 10,412 square -foot structure formerly used as a motel restaurant. 3. The restaurant building is located in a retail commercial zone 4. Surrounding uses include single-family and multi -family residential, office, and a motel. 5. Nightclubs differ from restaurants in that their primary source of revenue is the sale of alcohol for consumption on the premises and (b) cover charges. 6. Because the application also specifies a dance floor the use also potentially falls under the PMC 25.12.158 definition of "Dance hall" which "means an enclosed space where public dances are held and where alcohol and/or food may be sold." 7. The proposed nightclub would have approximately 2,000 square feet of dedicated bar area, 3,500 square feet of dance floor, 2,500 square feet of dining area and 2,000 square feet of kitchen area. 8. The proposed nightclub would employ 12 employees. PRELIMINARY 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: 3 (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. However the site is also surrounded on two sides with residential uses. One of the purposes of the Special Permit process is to determine the propriety of uses not explicitly allowed in a given zoning district. (2) Will the proposed use adversely affect public infrastructure? The site is served by all municipal utilities and the local street network. A nightclub would not create a more substantial burden on public infrastructure than a restaurant. (3) Will the proposed use be constructed, maintained and operated to be in harmony with existing or intended character of the general vicinity? The intended character of the area is mixed between residential uses, office, and retail commercial (motel). The structure was formerly used as a family restaurant in conjunction with the motel. A nightclub departs somewhat from the family character of a restaurant and from the intended character of the surrounding residential neighborhood. (4) Will the location and height of proposed structures and the site design discourage the development of permitted uses on property in the general vicinity or impair the value thereof? The proposed nightclub would be located in an existing structure in a fully developed neighborhood. (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 nightclub would likely generate more noise, fumes vibrations, dust, traffic, and flashing lights than a restaurant, due to the express intent to have loud music, and the likelihood of late hours, client inebriation, and as a result, increase in police activity on-site. (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 nightclub would likely create increased nuisance conditions and endanger public health and safety due to the express 0 intent to have loud music, and the likelihood of late hours, client inebriation, and as a result, increase in police activity on-site. PROPOSED APPROVAL CONDITIONS 1) The special permit shall be personal to the applicants. 2) Noise from the site shall not exceed decibel level limits found in Environmental Designation for Noise Level (EDNA) Class "A" residential zones, as per PMC 9.61.030. 3) Hours of operation shall be limited to 9:00 PM to 1:30 AM. 4) No sign(s) containing blinking, traveling, or flashing lights, or lighting otherwise varying in intensity or color shall be used. Acceptable signs shall include unlit signs, front -lit signs and signs constructed of translucent materials and wholly illuminated from within. Any signs shall be mounted flush on the building with a message limited to the name of the business and may also contain a street address, days and hours of operation. 5) All outdoor lighting shall be shielded from above in such a manner that the edge of the shield shall be below the center of the light source so that no direct light may be emitted above the horizontal. All outdoor lighting fixtures shall be shielded in such a manner so that no direct light is emitted above the horizontal. Light direction refractors shall be considered to be light sources. No direct light shall reach neighboring properties. 6) Applicant shall provide a security plan identifying the method and qualification for providing one (1) security officer for each one hundred (100) persons upon the premises. 7) If the application results in a significant increase in police activity on the premise the special permit shall be revoked. 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 October 20, 2016 meeting. E W 3AV H1L L c� Z+ El N v L 3 ❑ ❑ ��❑ E N o� o J z Ej LL 7T -i o � C) ct co ❑ ❑ C:� E ❑ ❑ 03 i:g0 N 3AV H18ct L 0 C-° '� ❑ C i CO M� 44/� r-- L . Mho W O .. ,� F V uL LL m W� V H16L Ll 4 , qr I IS. I is , qr t i v itf ura. S t i Ci. t 'lug i e 1 � IN yv7w