HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-15-2016 Planning Commission Meeting PacketPLANNING COMMISSION – AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING 7:00 P.M. December 15, 2016
I. CALL TO ORDER:
II. ROLL CALL: Declaration of Quorum
III. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: November 17, 2016
V. OLD BUSINESS:
A. Comp. Plan Amendment Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan (West)
(MF# CPA 2016-002)
B. Special Permit Location of a Cosmetology & Barber School in a C-1
Zone (Avila) (MF# SP 2016-012)
C. Special Permit Location of a Mini-Storage Facility in a C-1 Zone
(Kim) (MF# SP 2016-013)
D. Special Permit Location of an Early Learning Center in the Senior
Center Building (PSD #1) (MF# SP 2016-014)
E. Rezone Rezone from C-1 (Retail Business) to C-3 (General
Commercial (Mohinder) (MF# Z 2016-005)
VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
A. Special Permit Location of Long Term Rental Units in the
Thunderbird Motel (Hwang) (MF# SP 2016-015)
(Continued from 11/17/16)
B. Special Permit Location of a Church in a C-1 (Retail Business) Zone
(C.L.U.E. Church) (MF #SP 2016-016)
C. Rezone Rezone from C-1 (Retail Business) to R-3 (Medium
Density Residential) (ProMade Construction LLC)
(MF# Z 2016-006)
VII. WORKSHOP:
A. Code Amendment Mini-Pigs in Residential Zones (CA 2016-005)
VIII. OTHER BUSINESS:
IX. 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.
-1-
REGULAR MEETING November 17, 2016
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
CALL TO ORDER:
The meeting was called to order at 7:00pm by Chairwoman Roach.
POSITION MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT
No. 1 Tanya Bowers
No. 2 Kurt Lukins
No. 3 Paul Mendez
No. 4 Alecia Greenaway
No. 5 Joe Cruz
No. 6 Loren Polk
No. 7 Zahra Roach
No. 8 Pam Bykonen
No. 9 Gabriel Portugal
APPEARANCE OF FAIRNESS:
Chairwoman Roach read a statement about the appearance of fairness for hearings on
land use matters. There were no declarations.
Chairwoman Roach 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.
There were no objections.
ADMINISTERING THE OATH:
Chairwoman Roach explained that state law requires testimony in quasi-judicial hearings
such as held by the Planning Commission be given under oath or affirmation.
Chairwoman Roach swore in all those desiring to speak.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Commissioner Portugal moved, seconded by Commissioner Greenaway that the minutes
dated October 20, 2016 be approved. The motion passed unanimously.
OLD BUSINESS:
A. Special Permit Location of wireless antennas (Verizon Wireless)
(MF# SP 2016-011)
Chairwoman Roach read the master file number and asked for comments from staff.
Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director, discussed the special permit
application for the location of wireless antennas. The applicant is proposing to locate the
antennas on the existing Walmart building. Staff had no additional comments or changes
since the previous meeting.
-2-
Commissioner Greenway moved, seconded by Commissioner Polk, to adopt findings of fact
and conclusions therefrom as contained in the November 17, 2016 staff report. The
motion passed unanimously.
Commissioner Greenaway moved, seconded by Commissioner Polk, based on the findings
of fact and conclusions as adopted the Planning Commission recommend the City Council
grant a special permit to allow the installation of wireless communication facilities on Lot
1, Short Plat 2004-13 addressed 4820 Road 68, with conditions as contained in the
November 17, 2016 staff report. The motion passed unanimously.
B. Comp Plan Amendment Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan (Sharma)
(MF# CPA 2016-001)
Chairwoman Roach read the master file number and asked for comments from staff.
Dave McDonald, City Planner, explained the application involved changing the land use
designation of a piece of property at the northwest corner of Burns Road and Broadmoor
Boulevard, from low density residential to high density residential. Staff had no additional
comments since the previous meeting.
Commissioner Polk moved, seconded by Commissioner Portugal, to adopt findings of fact
and conclusions therefrom as contained in the November 17, 2016 staff report. The
motion passed 5 to 1 with Commissioner Greenaway dissenting.
Commissioner Polk moved, seconded by Commissioner Portugal, based on the findings of
fact and conclusions therefrom the Planning Commission recommend the City Council
amend the Comprehensive Plan designation for the Sharma property (Parcel # 115-180-
064) from Low Density Residential to High Density Residential. The motion passed 5 to 1
with Commissioner Greenaway dissenting.
C. Comp Plan Amendment Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan (Rowell)
(MF# CPA 2016-003)
Chairwoman Roach read the master file number and asked for comments from staff.
Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director, discussed the amendment
explaining it involved changing the land use designation of approximately 15 acres from
low density residential and mixed residential commercial to commercial . Staff had no
additional comments since the previous meeting.
Chairwoman Roach asked why the Comprehensive Plan Amendment process is being used
as opposed to a special permit process.
Mr. White responded that the applicant anticipates C-3 zoning on the property and
without the underlying Comprehensive Plan designation allowing that use a C-3 rezone
could not occur. At some point the Planning Commission may get applications for items
requiring special permits. The mixed residential and commercial designation would not
allow for C-3 zoning.
-3-
Chairwoman Roach asked if the land to the north is the Pasco Flea Market.
Mr. White responded no.
Chairwoman Roach asked what is south of the property on ‘A’ Street.
Mr. White answered the property was zoned I-1 and I-2 below that.
Chairwoman Roach asked if that would conform with C-3 zoning.
Mr. White stated industrial zoning allows more uses than C-3 zoning.
Chairwoman Roach asked if staff knew of any impacts to nearby neighborhoods.
Mr. White responded that he didn’t foresee negative impacts.
Dave McDonald, City Planner, added that the whole property abuts the wrecking
yard/holding yard for wrecked vehicles. The applicant over the years has had numerous
requests from people to locate businesses on his property but none of them would fit due
to the current land use designation. That is what drove this request.
Commissioner Greenaway moved, seconded by Commissioner Mendez, to adopt findings of
fact and conclusions therefrom as contained in the November 17, 2016 staff report. The
motion passed unanimously.
Commissioner Greenaway moved, seconded by Commissioner Bykonen, based on the
findings of fact and conclusions therefrom the Planning Commission recommend the City
Council amend the Comprehensive Plan designation for Blocks 1, 7, 8, 9 and 10 of the
Washington Addition to Pasco Subdivision from Low Density Residential and Mixed
Residential/Commercial to Commercial. The motion passed unanimously.
D. Rezone Rezone from C-1 (Retail Business) to R-3 (Medium
Density Residential) (ProMade Construction LLC)
(MF# Z 2016-004)
Chairwoman Roach read the master file number and asked for comments from staff.
Dave McDonald, City Planner, stated Staff had no additional comments.
Commissioner Polk moved, seconded by Commissioner Greenaway, to adopt findings of
fact and conclusions therefrom as contained in the November 17, 2016 staff report. The
motion passed unanimously.
Commissioner Polk moved, seconded by Commissioner Greenaway, based on the findings
of fact and conclusions as adopted the Planning Commission recommend the City Council
rezone Lot 21, Coles Estates from C-1 to C-3. The motion passed unanimously.
-4-
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
A. Comp Plan Amendment Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan (West) (MF#
CPA 2016-002) Continued from 10/20/16
Chairwoman Roach read the master file number and asked for comments from staff.
Dave McDonald, City Planner, explained the application involved 160 acres at the
northeast corner of Rd 52 and Burns Rd. A hearing was continued from last month at the
request of the applicant.
Mr. McDonald explained the Growth Management Act, allows cities to apply a “market
factor” for UGA boundaries to ensure boundaries do not cause property sales to rise. That
is currently happening in Pasco because there are so few properties left within the UGA.
The Department of Natural Resources auction recently brought in $42,000-$45,000 an
acre for the DNR land. This illustrates there is need for expanding the boundary based on
the market factor. There is also justification to expand the boundary based on population
projections. The Department of Financial Management estimates Pasco will need to do
accommodate another 54,385 people in the next 20 years. To do that, there will need to be
more land – anywhere from 900-1,400 acres. Staff also indicated the City and utility
providers have been planning for additional growth through facility expansion. The PUD
has added substations and the City has updated Water and Sewer Plans. At the previous
hearing significant discussion centered on airport approach zones and the need to protect
the airport. That information was in the Planning Commission memo.
Mr. McDonald discussed various options to be considered and stated the applicant’s letter
addressing airport concerns was attached to the memo.
Commissioner Portugal asked for clarification if the County was a part of the process.
Mr. McDonald stated yes and explained the process.
Commissioner Polk asked if the area north is being considered for housing in the County.
Mr. McDonald stated yes, it is the Clark Addition.
Commissioner Polk asked if there were any building height restrictions in the Clark
Addition.
Mr. McDonald responded he believes the height restriction to be 30’ in those areas.
Chairwoman Roach asked if that was a concern for building residential.
Mr. McDonald answered that a typical two-story house is 24’-25’. At 30’ a two-story home
could still be built.
Commissioner Mendez asked if Option 1 was the most intrusive on the protective area and
Option 4 being the least intrusive.
-5-
Mr. McDonald stated that was correct.
Chairwoman Roach asked if only 75-80 acres of the 160 acres, could be built on.
Mr. McDonald said that was correct.
Chairwoman Roach asked about the portion of land south of the interstate auctioned off
by the Department of Natural Resources, if it helped the City offset the needs for acreage.
Mr. McDonald said no, that land was already in the UGA.
Chairwoman Roach asked what the projected population would be of the 75-80 acres if
incorporated into the urban growth boundary.
Mr. McDonald said typically Pasco’s household population averages 3.3 individuals.
Commissioner Bykonon asked in staff’s opinion, how the different options on the urban
growth boundary affect the future potential annexations.
Mr. McDonald responded the shaped would have no effect.
Commissioner Bykonnen clarified that she was referring to the Clark Addition , if they
wanted to be annexed to the city.
Mr. McDonald stated that the Clark Addition wouldn’t be able to annex until they were
within the urban growth boundary.
James Carmody, 230 S. 2nd Street, Yakima, WA, spoke on behalf of the applicant as the
attorney. He stated they were requesting Option 1. He stated the staff report was
exceptional, detailed, accurate and consistent with the growth management requirements .
He briefly discussed the market factor and need for additional ac reage as projected by the
OFM. He also addressed the airport concerns stating the regulations are already in place
to protect the airport and to alter the request boundary to match the airport zones would
be to disregard the adopted regulations. There is no legal or policy basis to disregard the
regulations.
Chairwoman Roach stated that she didn’t see four options in the staff report, only four
photos as exhibits.
Mr. McDonald clarified Exhibits 1, 2, 3 or 4 are the options. He stated it would make the
most sense to have a neat, square boundary He added that condition #28 was similar to
#10 so when making the motion, it should be less condition #28.
Chairwoman Roach read condition #28 outload for the audience and Commissioners.
Ron Foracker, 3601 N. 20th Avenue, Manager of Tri-Cities Airport, spoke on behalf of the
Port of Pasco. With him was Spencer Montgomery of JUB Engineers. He addressed the
-6-
comments made by the applicant’s attorney.
Spencer Montgomery, 2810 W. Clearwater Avenue, stated he worked with the Port, City
and County in amending the overlay zones. Prior to that process, the County ordinance
and City ordinance were identical. Through the update process the ordinances were
identical until the end when minor differences occurred. He briefly discussed those
differences. Zone 4 has different zoning in the County. If the property were to remain in
the County there would only be 8 homes. If it’s brought into the UGA and the City, there
could be 80 homes. He stressed this neighborhood would be off the end of a runway He
presented an option to stay out of Zone 2 and 4. He added that when this item went
forward a couple of years ago, the Department of Commerce asked that this application be
considered in the larger context of the Comprehensive Plan Update in 2018.
Commissioner Bykonen asked if there was anything that would preclude the County from
increasing the density if they went through a Comprehensive Plan Update to change to a
higher density.
Mr. McDonald answered that they would have to change the zoning but the limiting factor
out in the County is the lack of sewer.
Chairwoman Roach asked what would be the first choice option for the airport.
Mr. Foracker answered they would like to keep all of that property out of the urban growth
boundary.
Chairwoman Roach asked how far they project the runway extending and if it would be
reasonable for the airport to purchase land further out.
Mr. Foreaker responded that it would come out 1,800 feet. In order to do that the
approach needs to be clear so they would have to remove part of the hillside on property
already owned by the airport.
Chairwoman Roach asked for clarification on Zone 4 and if it is where zero homes cou ld
be built.
Mr. Montgomery answered that Zone 2 is where no residential homes could be built. Zone
4 is 2 residences or lots per acre.
Mr. Carmody addressed the comments from Mr. Foracker. He reiterated that the City
passed zoning ordinances and compatibility standards for urban level development and
the Port agreed with it. They also made a distinction between the County zoning and City
zoning. There is a reason for the difference under growth management you can’t provide
urban services outside of a growth area. So areas of the County are going to be less dense
because they can’t have the same services as the City. In order to provide those services
sufficiently and economically the density must increase. Another thing the compatibility
standards require an Avigation Easement; it requires people who live there to acknowledge
that they are within the airport flight areas, that there will be noise and inconveniences.
With no further comments the public hearing closed.
-7-
Chairwoman Roach asked if Zone 4 could be kept to the County guidelines if they voted to
bring in the entire 160 acres.
Mr. McDonald said no, Zone 4 is 2 units per acre in the City.
Chairwoman Roach stated that in 2014 the Planning Commission approved this item and
sent it to the City Council where it was approved and sent to the County where it was
rejected.
Chairwoman Greenaway stated that she would keep it out of the urban growth boundary
because the airport eventually will bring the runway out . If it is brought into the City
there will still be areas where they cannot develop so it would be difficult for installing
utilities and the cost to bring utilities to that area would be high for land unused.
Chairwoman Roach agreed that she would like to see it undeveloped for the airport but
she also feels it is unjust to the land owner who would like to do something with that
property and she didn’t want to see it rendered useless.
Commissioner Greenaway responded that it’s not useless. The land is in the County and
homes could still be developed.
Commissioner Roach added that then it would not serve the City.
Commissioner Greenaway responded that anything done on this property wou ld not serve
the City well.
Commissioner Portugal asked what the advantage is for the City for this property to be
included in the urban growth boundary.
Mr. McDonald replied that there are a couple of things that bringing this property into the
urban growth boundary could do for the City. The City is required to have an urban
growth boundary of sufficient size to meet the population projections that the OFM has
provided. Right now there isn’t enough room as the City needs 900 -1,400 more acres.
Also, as experienced with the sale of the DNR property, the urban growth boundary is
creating an artificial restriction on land, driving the cost of land up. The attorney for the
applicant mentioned the concern over affordable housing, which is one of the goals of the
growth management act, to provide affordable housing for residents of the State. Bringing
this in would help meet the needs for future growth and to fulfil the obligation to provide
for the projected 54,000 individuals.
Commissioner Polk added that if these houses would be added to the City they would pay
school impact fees but not if they are in the County.
Mr. McDonald stated that is correct as the County does not have a mechanism to obtain
those fees. In the City they would be paying schoo l impact fees, park impact fees and a
traffic impact fee.
Commissioner Polk also added that it appears that the airport will be expanding but it
-8-
seems unfair to put limitations on properties that people currently own.
Chairwoman Roach was in agreement with Commissioner Polk and stated that the City
could use the additional 75-80 acres of residential development.
Commissioner Greenaway stated that she didn’t want it included into the City at all. She
is not willing to put people’s lives at risk.
Commissioner Polk responded that the land use already has limitations to ensure safety.
She also discussed other areas that were already developed in those zones and felt if they
were that dangerous it could exist.
Commissioner Greenaway discussed property the airport had to purchase due to safety as
well as airports in other cities that have had to relocate their airport for safety reasons.
Chairwoman Roach stated that she shared Commissioner Greenaway’s concern for safety
but there are more car accidents than plane crashes.
Commissioner Bykonen agreed that expansion of the airport is a long ways off and it may
never happen. There is an overlay in place that restricts the number of homes that could
be built in a certain area so it would be protected. She is not in favor of irregular
boundaries and this is just the first step, including in the urban growth area. After this
an annexation would still have to occur along with zoning and platting. She was in favor
of Option 1.
Commissioner Mendez stated that there needs to be a balance of the property owner’s
rights and accommodate the needs of the expanding population and safety. He felt that
Option 4 was a good compromise.
Commissioner Portugal stated that he was in favor of Option 4 but would like to t ake a
section out that was discussed by the Port of Pasco, so he wanted Option 5 which was the
same as Option 4 with the northwest section left out.
Chairwoman Roach stated that she is in favor of Option 1.
Commissioner Polk stated that she was in favor Option 1.
Commissioner Greenaway said that she was not in favor of any of the options and pointed
out that even Option 1 would not be an even line.
Commissioner Polk moved, seconded by Commissioner Bykonen, to adopt findings of fact
and conclusions therefrom as contained in the November 17, 2016 staff report, exempting
condition #28. The motion passed 5 to1 with Commissioner Greenaway dissenting.
Commissioner Polk moved, seconded by Commissioner Bykonen, based on the findings of
fact and conclusions therefrom the Planning Commission recommend the Pasco Urban
Growth Boundary be amended per Exhibit # 1 attached to the staff memo of November 17,
2016. The motion failed with Commissioner Portugal, Commissioner Greenaway and
Commissioner Mendez dissenting thus a tie vote.
-9-
Mr. McDonald stated that this item will go to City Council and they will have the option of
taking a look at the split vote or move it forward and approve it themselves with one of the
options and send it to the County.
Chairwoman Roach added that Council could look at Option 1 or Option 4 with an
amendment to the northwest corner of the property.
Commissioner Portugal asked to make another motion.
Commissioner Portugal moved, seconded by Commissioner Mendez, based on the findings
of fact and conclusions therefrom the Planning Commission recommend the Pasco Urban
Growth Boundary be amended per Exhibit #4 attached to the staff memo of November 17,
2016. The motion failed with Chairwoman Roach, Commissioner Polk and Commissioner
Greenaway dissenting.
Mr. McDonald explained if the Planning Commission needed additional information it
could be provided at the next meeting and at that point a recommendation could be made
to Council.
Commissioner Polk asked if it was possible for City Council to send the recommendation
back to the Planning Commission for further review and another recommendation.
Mr. McDonald responded it was possible.
Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director, stated there could be another
Exhibit, Exhibit 5, added as an option to consider.
Chairwoman Roach asked what the motion would then be changed to.
Mr. White stated the motion would be to continue the deliberations to the next meeting,
although not the public hearing since it has been closed.
Commissioner Portugal moved, seconded by Commissioner Mendez, to continue
deliberations to the December 15, 2016 meeting. The motion passed 5 to 1 with
Commissioner Greenaway dissenting.
B. Special Permit Location of a Cosmetology & Barber School in a C-1
Zone (Avila) (MF# SP 2016-012)
Chairwoman Roach read the master file number and asked for comments from staff.
Dave McDonald, City Planner, discussed the special permit for the location of a
cosmetology and barber school in a C-1 (Retail Business) zone. The location is an existing
salon and has been operating for about 9 years and the applicant wants to add a State
approved cosmetology school. There currently isn’t a cosmetology school in Pasco. For a
number of years, Claire’s Beauty College was located at the corner of 4 th and Lewis in
Downtown Pasco but that school is no longer in Pasco. Mr. McDonald explained the
commercial history of the neighborhood and discusse d the problem with the lack of
parking. It was noted that the applicant had secured an agreement with the landlord for
-10-
additional parking to the west. The additional parking is conveniently located close to the
shop so. The staff report contains findings of fact, conclusions and some special approval
conditions.
Evelyn Menzel, 6809 W. Clearwater, Kennewick, WA, spoke on behalf of the applicant,
Maria Avila. She stated the owners of the nearby businesses know the applicant and don’t
mind her need for additional parking. This would be a bilingual school which would be
unique to the area.
Chairwoman Roach asked if the applicant has had a chance to look at the approval
conditions in the staff report.
Ms. Menzel said that she had.
Arnoldo & Mariana Sita, 4825 Bermuda Dunes Drive, owners of the barbershop to the
right of the proposed cosmetology school. They voiced concern over the lot that would be
used for parking and stated that it is a high traffic area. Ms. Sita stated that over the
years they have paid to re-do the parking lot many times because there are so many
people that park in that lot because there isn’t enough total parking in the area. She also
said that it has become a hostile environment and at times the police have been called.
Chairwoman Roach asked if there were other businesses that shared the parking lot.
Mr. & Mrs. Sita responded that there were.
Chairwoman Roach asked Mr. & Mrs. Sita if they had taken up their problems with Code
Enforcement.
Mr. Sita stated he has. He has worked with Mr. McDonald several times and would like to
place a fence to help remediate the problem.
Chairwoman Roach responded that she appreciate s the input and bringing it to attention
that parking is such an issue. As for solving the current parking issues, the Planning
Commission is unable to resolve the problems.
Mr. Sita responded that he would like the Planning Commission to deny the specia l permit
for this beauty school since it would only add to the problem.
Chairwoman Roach asked if Mr. Sita has approached the other business owners who are
renting spaces.
Mr. Sita answered that he had but they call him a racist and they have attacked his wife.
Commissioner Polk asked for clarification on the location of parking.
Mr. Sita explained where the parking is located and where the majority of customers park.
There are roughly 9 parking spaces in the gravel lot on the side. Most cars park parallel to
the building.
-11-
Ms. Menzel addressed the comments made by Mr. & Mrs. Sita. She had the Planning
Commission look at the site photo and pointed out a sign he has posted for towing. He
uses this service frequently and customers and non-customers alike have been towed.
Many people choose not to park in this lot not just because of water puddles but also
because they are well aware of the hostility with the parking. She explained where most of
the customers park and said that many of the customers walk to the store. They have
made arrangements with the owner of the building for the parking for the school and the
students, clients and customers will know where to park.
Commissioner Greenaway asked how many students will be attending at one time.
Ms. Mendez said there would be no more than 6 students at a time and 1-2 instructors.
With no further questions or comments the public hearing closed.
Chairwoman Roach asked if there is any City remediation to assist with the issues
between tenants.
Mr. McDonald said no, these issues arise from time to time and are civil matters between
the two property owners.
Chairwoman Roach asked if there was any additional information about Code
Enforcement or if that is who they need to work with for parking.
Mr. McDonald responded that Code Enforcement might not be able to do much on parking
issues as it is a civil matter that the tenants need to work out. They could use fencing or
enter into a rental agreement.
Commissioner Portugal asked about the call to Code Enforcement and if that was shared
with the Planning Department.
Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director, stated that there would have
to be a violation for Code Enforcement to act on but since there is no code violation on the
property at this time.
Commissioner Bykonen asked if the City staff person who took the photo of this property
was present at the meeting.
Mr. McDonald stated that it was Associate Planner, Jeff Adams, who was not present at
the meeting. He went out and took photos for all of the reports contained in the meeting
packet. He didn’t purposely pick a date or time when there were no cars, it just happened
to be that way.
Commissioner Bykonen responded that she was curious because she drives by this
property nearly every day and was curious as to when the photos were taken because the
parking lot is typically full and the photo presented to the Planning Commission didn’t
represent what the parking lot usually looks like.
-12-
Chairwoman Roach asked how it was determined to allow 6 students as a part of the
approval conditions.
Mr. McDonald answered that when the applicant came in the parking problems were
discussed as well as the size of the building.
Commissioner Portugal 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 December 15, 2016 Planning Commission
Meeting. The motion passed 5 to 1 with Commissioner Mendez abstaining.
C. Special Permit Location of a Mini-Storage Facility in a C-1 Zone
(Kim) (MF# SP 2016-013)
Chairwoman Roach read the master file number and asked for comments from staff.
Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director, discussed the special permit
application for the location of a mini -storage facility in a C-1 zone. Mini-storage facilities
are permitted in the C-1 zone but only by the granting of a special permit. The proposal
would construct two storage buildings each slightly less than 4,500 square feet. Staff has
developed findings of fact, conclusions and tentative approval conditions for the proposal
that mainly speak to aesthetics. Approval condition #6 in the staff report needs to be
revised striking the 10’ landscaping strip; instead it should be an architectural or block
wall.
Joo Kim, 3712 Road 96, spoke on behalf of his application.
With no further questions or comments the public hearing closed.
Chairwoman Roach stated that she was not strongly opposed to this application but given
the location she didn’t feel a storage facility was in harmony with the character of the
neighborhood; such as, the Albertson’s, restaurants, banks, laundromat, school and strip
malls.
Commissioner Polk agreed with Chairwoman Roach except for across from the nearby
laundromat they are building another strip mall east of the location. It will be fairly large
and closes off the openness of Albertson’s which would help to isolate the school, keeping
it more removed from the extra commercial traffic. The restaurants are closer to Court
Street so the commercial feel doesn’t really flow down 22nd.
Chairwoman Roach asked for clarification on the entry of the mini-storage facility and if it
would be off of 22nd Avenue.
Staff nodded yes.
Commissioner Bykonen asked if this property has always been a vacant lot.
Staff nodded yes.
-13-
Commissioner Greenaway moved, seconded by Commissioner Bykonen, to close the public
hearing and schedule deliberations, the adoption of findings of fact and development of a
recommendation for City Council for the December 15, 2016 Planning Commission
Meeting. The motion passed unanimously.
D. Special Permit Location of an Early Learning Center in the Senior
Center Building (Pasco School District) (MF# SP
2016-014)
Chairwoman Roach read the master file number and asked for comments from staff.
Dave McDonald, City Planner, explained the School District is in the process of entering
into an agreement with the City to purchase the old Senior Center building between Marie
Street and Brown Street. The School District would like to turn the Senior Center into an
Early Learning Center for about 280 students along with 40 staff. The proposal is to
create 10-11 classrooms within the building and have some additional space for testing,
administrative purposes and a nurse. As with any educational facility, the District is
required to obtain a special permit before they can start renovations. The exterior of the
building won’t change much except to add another driveway on the north side of the
building onto Brown Street to create some pass through drop off for buses.
Randy Nunamaker, 1215 W. Lewis Street, spoke on behalf of School District. The Early
Learning Center will help provide learning for Pre -K students to get them on track and on
time with other students entering into Kindergarten. The center will also provide
intentional opportunities for special needs students to interact with typically developing
peers.
Commissioner Portugal asked how many buses are expected to be driving through the
neighborhood.
Mr. Nunamaker said probably 4-5 buses and there would still be the opportunity for
parents to drop off their students.
Commissioner Bykonen asked staff if the surrounding neighborhood was notified about
this public hearing.
Mr. McDonald responded yes.
Commissioner Bykonen asked if staff received any comments.
Mr. McDonald answered that they haven’t.
With no further questions or comments the public hearing closed.
Commissioner Portugal asked if the facility is currently vacant.
Mr. McDonald stated no.
Commissioner Mendez moved, seconded by Commissioner Greenaway, to close the public
-14-
hearing and schedule deliberations, the adoption of findings of fact and development of a
recommendation for City Council for the December 15, 2016 Planning Commission
Meeting. The motion passed unanimously.
E. Special Permit Location of Long Term Rental Units in the
Thunderbird Motel (Hwang) (MF# SP 2016-015)
Chairwoman Roach read the master file number and asked for comments from staff.
Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director, discussed the special permit
application for the location of long term rental units in the Thunderbird Motel. The
applicant is requesting residential dwelling units on the upper floor of an existing building
in a C-2 zoning district in the Central Business District at 414 Columbia. The Municipal
Code allows dwelling units on second floors of commercial properties as long as a special
permit is issued. The property was constructed in the mid-60’s and Lewis Street was a
much different corridor than it is today. It was the main thoroughfare in and out of town.
That has since changed and the property has degraded in terms of quality of the
provisions for itinerant use. As mentioned in the staff re port, there is a series of violations
and issues at this address that seem to be chronic in nature. There are police calls and
information provided to the Planning Commission and a suggestion that one of the issues
is overall management of the property, not necessarily the physical location but rather
how it is managed. The long term dwelling units might not help with those overall
management issues. The staff report contains potential findings of fact, conclusions and a
recommendation from staff to deny this application at the next meeting.
Song Hwang, 414 W. Columbia Street, spoke on behalf of his application.
Jongsuk Chung, 6610 Aintree Drive, helped interpret for Mr. Hwang and represent him.
Mr. Hwang stated that most of his guests are low income . He has 10 units on the second
and third floor of the motel that he would like to rent for long term. Recently he passed
the City inspection. Since he is staying at the motel he does all of the management. He
explained that he retained the police records for this property and in the past year from
January 2015 the police were called 250 times but for 116 of those records there was no
caller or victim listed.
Chairwoman Roach explained the Planning Commission received the police reports in
their packet.
Mr. Hwang went over the police reports. He clarified there are homeless people who sleep
behind his building and use the Thunderbird Motel as their address which often drives up
the number of police reports.
Chairwoman Roach asked if there are more people interested in using the motel for long
term than for the typical use as a motel.
Mr. Hwang replied that his motel has 42 rooms and but only 5 -10 rooms are used for long
term uses at this time.
-15-
Commissioner Polk asked Mr. Hwang what his remedies were for dealing with long term
tenants who might be some of the cause of some of the police calls.
Ms. Chung said for Mr. Hwang that the motel has a policy that gives the tenants 3 days’
notice for the first incident and if there is another incident then he makes them vacate.
Commissioner Bykonen asked what the plans are for the street level floors.
Mr. Hwang responded that the first floor will still be a motel. Only the second and third
floors will have long term units.
Chairwoman Roach mentioned code violations in addition to the police reports and asked
the applicant what he has down to remediate these code violations.
Mr. Hwang said the City Inspector came out and they have passed everything.
Chairwoman Roach asked when that inspection took place.
Russell Glatt, 5 Sunflower Court, stated he agreed with staff that the special permit
should not be granted. He stated the property has been an eyesore in Pasco for at least 20
years and just recently Code Enforcement went out on this property and cited numerous
violations – about 37 violations. He said he is also a landlord in Pasco and has been
trained to keep his properties well-kept and when the property is kept up you will attract
better tenants. When the property is not maintained, it will attract accordingly.
Chairwoman Roach asked Mr. Glatt what qualified him for code violations.
Mr. Glatt responded that all of the code violations are public information on the City’s
website.
Commissioner Portugal asked if Mr. Glatt was a member of the Code Enforcement Board.
Mr. Glatt said that he was as the Chairman.
Commissioner Portugal asked if there were any corrections to this property when it was
presented to the Code Enforcement Board.
Mr. Glatt answered that this property did come up on their agenda, however, the owner
did not come to the Code Enforcement Board and they were given a continuation to bring
the property into compliance .
Rolando Rodriguez, 7909 W. Dradie Street, stated he owns the building at 117 S. 3rd
Avenue. There was a nuisance ordinance passed by the City Council and this property fits
the description of violating the ordinance. There is already a list of violations at the
property and there have been several problems with the tenants that has spilled over onto
the neighboring properties. He has had two people arrested on his property – one person
attacked his office clerk and another person exposed themselves. He would like to see the
Planning Commission take the staff’s recommendation of denying the special permit.
-16-
Ms. Chung translated for Mr. Hwang that the only reason he wanted to have a long term
permit is to have good clients stay longer and have a relationship with management. As a
motel, he doesn’t know the character of a person who rents for just 1 -2 days but for the
long term tenants he could know.
With no further questions or comments the public hearing closed.
Chairwoman Roach addressed some concerns about the findings of fact. She would like
the inspector’s report to be included in the analysis, code violations and the status of this
property as to whether or not it is in compliance.
Commissioner Polk would like to add the applicant’s assertion that many of the police
calls and complaints were not at the motel but rather nearby.
Chairwoman Roach clarified that if this special permit application was denied, the
business could still operate as a motel, just not for long term tenants.
Commissioner Greenaway moved, seconded by Commissioner Mendez, to continue the
public hearing to the December 15, 2016 meeting. The motion passed 5 to 1 with
Commissioner Portugal abstaining.
F. Rezone Rezone from C-1 (Retail Business) to C-3 (General
Commercial) (Mohinder) (MF# Z 2016-005)
Chairwoman Roach read the master file number and asked for comments from staff.
Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director, discussed the rezone
application from C-1 (Retail Business) to C-3 (General Business). C-3 zoning is the
heaviest of the commercial zoning designations. Mr. White explained the location and
zoning for the property. The applicant has petitioned for a rezone so a U-Haul rental
center could locate on the property. There has been a decline to the property with
numerous Code Enforcement issues over the past several years . The staff report suggests
there is a management issue with the property. Rezoning the property would not address
the management issues. The C-3 zone allows uses that would not be appropriate at this
location. In the past, the Planning Commission has recommended zoning changes with
concomitant agreements that would prohibit negative use. Staff would suggest that given
the public’s investment in the aesthetics of Lewis Street a U-Haul distribution facility
would detract from an entryway into the City. The staff’s recommendation would be to
deny the rezone.
Jerry Hudnall, 1800 W. Lewis Street, spoke on behalf of the application, Mr. Mohinder
Sohal. The purpose of the rezone would be to add the U-Haul services that would be a
much smaller in scale than the one on Court Street. They would have approximately 5
trucks and 5 trailers parked facing Lewis Street. He addressed many of the concerns
addressed by staff. He has managed the property for just over a year and it has improved.
He stated that he has zero tolerance for public nuisances. He lives on site and if there is
an issue, even in the middle of the night, he will kick out the guest. As for aesthetics, they
recently had a grand opening of their renovated building. As for adding a U-Haul, it is
common to have a U-Haul with a hotel/motel. He had emailed a list to City staff to be
part of the record containing several hotels/motels that contain a U-Haul. He requested
-17-
the email be a part of the record.
Commissioner Portugal asked Mr. Hudnall if he has had any multi-housing training.
Mr. Hudnall responded that he has.
Mr. Mendez asked if the hotel units are short term rentals or long term rentals.
Mr. Hudnall stated that they only do short term rentals but they do have kitchenette units
so people do stay a little longer.
Don Rickard, 7208 W. Arrowhead, Kennewick, WA spoke on this application. He said that
he is the Area Field Manager for U-Haul. There are 17 locations in the Tri-Cities,
including West Richland and Benton City. The 17 stores in the Tri -Cities average 1.5
trucks per trucks per location and 2.5 trailers so the locations are small and that is what
the proposed location would be like, not the location on Court Street.
Rolando Rodriguez, 7909 W. Dradie Street, said he drives by this facility twice a day .
While he would encourage the Planning Commission deny the rezone application as staff
recommends. He would like to see the nuisance issues addressed first before adding more
uses to this site, potentially making it worse.
With no further questions or comments the public hearing closed.
Commissioner Bykonen reminded the Commission that if approved the rezone would allow
for the U-Haul service to operate but it could also allow for other uses that would not fit
the character of the neighborhood.
Commissioner Polk stated the staff report indicated a concomitant agreement could be
used to ensure the only use allowed in the C-3 zone would be the U-Haul service.
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 December 15, 2016 Planning Commission
Meeting. The motion passed 5 to 1 with Commissioner Portugal abstaining.
OTHER BUSINESS:
A. Plan Update Parks, Recreation & Forestry Plan (City of Pasco)
(MF# PLAN 2016-001)
Chairwoman Roach read the master file number and asked for comments from staff.
Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director, explained that the Planning
Commission looks at the Parks, Recreation & Forestry Plan every 5 years and it is roughly
that time. He introduced Dan Dotta, Facilities Manager, to discuss the plan.
Mr. Dotta stated that the City uses the Park Plan to facilitate budgeting. The Plan is often
-18-
used to qualify for grants. Currently the Parks & Recreation Division is working on a
grant to rebuild Schlagel Park.
Chairwoman Roach asked if the Planning Commission should be familiar with the plan
cover to cover.
Mr. Dotta said no, it is similar to the last plan the Commission considered. The only
difference is that the Forestry Plan is now included which has been overhauled. The rest
has remained mostly the same. Typically more time is given to the Planning Commission
to review the plan but there is an opportunity for a grant with a 75/25 match and the
deadline is coming up.
Commissioner Bykonen stated that she reviewed the plan and approves of the content but
noticed some technical or editorial errors.
Mr. Dotta stated that it is currently in draft form.
Commissioner Mendez asked if there is any information on a water park.
Mr. Dotta said that was correct.
There were no further questions or comments.
Commissioner Greenaway moved, seconded by Commissioner Portugal, to adopt the
findings of facts as contained in the staff memo for the 2016 Park & Recreational Plan
dated November 17, 2016. The motion passed unanimously.
With no further discussion or business, the Planning Commission was adjourned at
9:52 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
David McDonald, City Planner
1
M E M O R A N D U M
DATE: December 15, 2016
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Dave McDonald, City Planner
SUBJECT: Urban Growth Area Expansion (MF# CPA16-002) (Steve West)
Steve West the owner of 160 acres of land directly north of the City limits, has
applied for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment that would revise the Urban
Growth Area (UGA) to include 160 acres currently outside the Pasco UGA. The
property in question is located at the northeast corner of Road 52 and Power
Line Road (now Burns Road). The site is northeasterly of the new Rosalind
Franklin Elementary School and is located between the Clark Addition and the
new Madison Park subdivision. The Clark Addition is an area of the County
characterized by urban growth. The Clark Addition contains a community
water system, fire station and approximately 200 homes.
The Planning Commission considered this proposed amendment in 2014 and
forwarded a favorable recommendation to the City Council to include half the
applicant’s property within the UGA. The City Council passed a resolution
accepting the Planning Commission recommendation and requested the
County expand the boundary (By law only the County Commissioners can
change a UGA boundary). On May 5, 2015 the County Planning Commission
found:
The request was consistent with the requirements of RCW 36.70A. 110
for UGA boundaries;
The proposed UGA boundaries were consistent with County Wide
Planning Policies found in County Resolution 93-015;
The UGA boundary amendment was consistent with the public
participation requirements of RCW 36.70A;
The proposal did not have a materially detrimental impact on the
immediate vicinity;
There was merit and value in the proposal as a whole;
Conditions were not needed to mitigate any significant adverse impacts
from the proposal; and,
2
No conditions or agreements were required between the City and County
for the proposed UGA expansion.
The County Commissioners held a hearing on the County Planning
recommendation on October 21, 2015 and denied the City’s request for the
UGA boundary amendment. The denial was based primarily over concerns
related to airport safety zones and the approach to the Tri-Cities Airport
runway 12.
One of the property owners has reapplied again seeking to obtain approval for a
UGA boundary modification.
The following provides the historical background on Urban Growth Areas and
may help with arriving at a recommendation on this request.
The 1990 Growth Management Act (GMA) required the establishment of Urban
Growth Areas (UGA’s) around urban centers throughout the State. Urban
Growth Areas have become a key component in managing urban growth within
Washington. Urban Growth Areas define the area in which a community is to
encourage higher density urban development and the area in which urban
services can be supported and promoted. Land located outside UGA’s are to be
reserved for the promotion of rural densities and functions. By directing growth
to UGA’s natural resource lands such as farmlands and forest lands can be
conserved and the character of rural areas can be maintained for future needs.
Pasco’s first Urban Growth Area was established in April of 1993 and has been
modified only four times since then. The designation of the Pasco UGA was not
only guided by the GMA Goals (see attachment #1), but also by the provisions
of RCW 36.70A.110 the most pertinent portions of which are as follows:
Each county that is required or chooses to plan under RCW
36.70A.040 shall designate an urban growth area or areas within
which urban growth shall be encouraged and outside of which
growth can occur only if it is not urban in nature.
Each city that is located in such a county shall be included within
an urban growth area.
An urban growth area may include territory located outside of a
city only if such territory already is characterized by urban growth
whether or not the urban growth area includes a city, or is
adjacent to territory already characterized by urban growth, or is a
designated new fully contained community as defined by RCW
36.70A.350.
Based upon the growth management population projection made
for the county by the Office of Financial Management, the county
3
and each city within the county shall include areas and densities
sufficient to permit the urban growth that is projected to occur in
the county or city for the succeeding twenty-year period, except for
those urban growth areas contained totally within a National
Historical Reserve.
Each city must include areas sufficient to accommodate the broad
range of needs and uses that will accompany the projected urban
growth including, as appropriate, medical, governmental,
institutional, commercial, service, retail, and other non-residential
uses.
Each urban growth area shall permit urban densities and shall
include greenbelt and open space areas.
An urban growth area determination may include a reasonable
land market supply factor and shall permit a range of urban
densities and uses. In determining this market factor, cities and
counties may consider local circumstances.
Urban growth should be located first in areas already characterized
by urban growth that have adequate existing public facility and
service capacities to serve such development, second in areas
already characterized by urban growth that will be served
adequately by a combination of both existing public facilities and
services and any additional needed public facilities and services
that are provided by either public or private sources, and third in
the remaining portions of the urban growth areas. Urban growth
may also be located in designated new fully contained communities
as defined by RCW36.70A.350.
In general, cities are the units of local government most
appropriate to provide urban governmental services. In general, it
is not appropriate that urban governmental services be extended to
or expanded in rural areas except in those limited circumstances
shown to be necessary to protect basic public health and safety
and the environment and when such services are financially
supportable at rural densities and do not permit urban
development.
Based on State law, the Pasco UGA is to include all lands within the City and
may include lands outside the City if the lands are urban in nature or adjacent
to territory that is already characterized by urban growth like the Clark
Addition. Development within the UGA is to occur first on lands that currently
have adequate public facility and service capacities and secondly on lands that
will be served adequately in the future. The UGA needs to contain a sufficient
4
amount of land to accommodate expected growth for the 20 year planning
horizon. The expected growth is determined by County wide population
projections prepared by the State Office of Financial Management (OFM). In
addition to the population projections the City must also consider land needs
for parks and open space, schools, retail businesses, offices, industrial
buildings and other land uses. In the determination for UGA land needs local
market supply factors may also be considered to ensure land prices are not
artificially raised resulting from constraints placed on the market due to
limited availability of lands within the UGA.
The sale for the Three Rivers West subdivision was about 30 percent higher
than comparable sales in the recent past and the sale of land for Sanderson
Estates Phase Two was even beyond that. The DNR land south of I-182
between Road 68 and Road 84 recently sold, with the commission factored in,
for about $45,000 an acre. The higher cost of land will be included in the final
cost of the houses to be built on the property. The local market supply factor
has been an issue in Pasco for several years now and is getting worse. As
available residential land has been diminished due to development, land prices
have risen. This is creating a conflict with the State goal (RCW 36.
70A.210(3)e) and local County wide policy (#6) dealing with the need to provide
affordable housing within the County and City.
Another condition impacting the market factor of available residential
properties within the UGA is the fact that in 2012 Port of Pasco purchased 34
acres within the Madison Park subdivision permanently removing 34 acres of
approved residential lots from the buildable lands inventory.
One of the purposes of establishing UGA’s is to preserve resource lands and
prevent them from being lost to urban development. The site in question is
currently being farmed but is not designated as farm land with long term
commercial significance. The land did not meet the test used by the County for
being classifying as prime farm land. The soils on this land are not considered
prime agricultural soils. The land is located between a rapidly growing City and
the already developed Clark Addition with 200 houses and a fire station. The
site is also across Road 52 and northeast of the new Rosalind Franklin
Elementary School and immediately adjacent to the Madison Park residential
subdivision. These factors all impact the long term viability of the site for
commercial agriculture in a negative way.
The population projections provided by the State Office of Financial
Management (OFM) for Pasco’s next 20 year planning horizon indicates Pasco’s
UGA population could be about 124,945 by 2038. Therefore an additional
54,385 people need to be accommodated within the Pasco UGA by 2038.
Based upon information in Appendix III (Urban Growth Area Expansion) of the
current Comprehensive Plan 3,404 acres (5.31 square miles) of land will be
needed to house 54,385 people. (To understand the scale of the additional
5
land needed, Pasco occupied 23.3 square miles in 1985 with a population of
18,700 people.) The additional 3,404 acres needed for the latest OFM
projection does not include any acreage for additional commercial and service
activities. The UGA currently contains about 2,500 acres of vacant land
available for residential development. However, certain areas like the Adams
and Wilson properties south of Burns Road west of Broadmoor Boulevard will
be unavailable for development until the gravel mining leases have expired.
The City needs 900 to 1,400 acres added to the current UGA Boundary to
accommodate project growth. Mr. West is asking to have 160 acres included at
this time.
Population projections, land market factors, and preservation of resource lands
are not the only items to consider when determining the extent of the UGA.
Utility capacities should also be considered.
In 2010 a new water treatment plant was constructed on Court Street near
Road 111 to increase the City’s capacity to provide potable water to the
community. Construction of a new raw water intake structure and pump house
adjacent to the Richland Bridge will begin in January 2017 and will increase
the treatment capacity of the new plant. The main Butterfield water treatment
plant intake structure in the Columbia River was also rebuilt in 2015 to
improve raw water pumping capacity and meet current environmental
regulations.
Over the past several years upgrades have been completed at the wastewater
treatment plant to increase the City’s capacity to accommodate residential and
commercial growth. In 2014 the City completed a new Comprehensive Sewer
Plan that identifies near and long term sewer collection/treatment system
needs to accommodate increased population. The projects identified within the
Plan were added to the City’s Capital Improvement Plan and are systematically
being constructed to enhance the City’s sewer utility.
The Franklin County PUD and Big Bend Electric built a new substation north
of the Columbia Place subdivision (west of Road 68 north of Snoqualmie) in
2004. The PUD also enlarged and upgraded the Road 52 and Argent
substation about three years ago to support future growth in the community.
The PUD five year capital plan calls for a new substation to be located north of
Power Line Road to the east of Convention Drive which will further add to the
PUD’s capacity to serve the community with power needs.
The County Commissioner’s previous denial of this UGA Boundary amendment
failed to consider the cooperative work between the City, County and Port on
the development of the Airport Master Plan and Airport Zoning regulations that
were adopted in 2012 by both the City and County. The new updates to the
Airport Overlay Districts were intended to address issues related to land use
around the airport and to provide protection for the approaches to the airport.
6
The key components to the regulations were to maintain compatible land uses
around the airport and protect airspace consistent with Federal Aviation
Administration regulations. The new zoning regulations place the UGA
amendment area in Compatibility Zones 2 and 4. Thirty-two acres of the
property falls within Zone 2 which prohibits most land uses including
residential dwellings. Forty-one acres fall under Zone 4 and this zone limits
development of homes to one per half acre. The new Airport protection
standards apply to the property whether the property is in the City or County
and those standards are what the Federal Aviation Administration deems
necessary to protect airports. The adopted standards are also consistent with
RCW 14.12.030.
The proposed UGA Boundary amendment cannot change the Airport Zoning
regulations that are in place to protect the airport. Modifying the UGA to follow
the boundaries of the airport protection zones as requested by the Port is in
effect disregarding the adopted regulations that are in place to protect airport
air space and the approaches to the runways. By altering the applicant’s
proposal as requested by the Port the City would be shifting, to the applicant, a
public burden that in all fairness and justice that should be a community
responsibility rather than an individual responsibility. The burden being a
further restriction on the use of private property without compensation.
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,
the Notice of Application 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.
Findings of Fact
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 public hearing.
1. The GMA (RCW 36.70A.110) requires the establishment of Urban
Growth Areas.
2. The goals of the Growth Management Act related to UGA’s include: i)
Encouraging development of urban areas where adequate public
facilities and services exist or can be provided in an efficient manner;
7
ii) Reducing the inappropriate conversion of undeveloped land into
sprawling low-density development; and, iii) Maintaining and enhance
natural resource based industries, including productive timber,
agriculture, and fisheries industries.
3. Each city located in Franklin County must be included within a UGA.
4. UGA’s are to encompass lands within the City’s recognized utility
service area.
5. UGA’s may include portions of the County already characterized by
urban growth or adjacent to urban growth.
6. The proposed UGA amendment is consistent with RCW 36.70A.110
7. The Planning Commission considered the proposed UGA amendment
in 2014 and forwarded a favorable recommendation to the City
Council to include a portion of the applicant’s property within the
UGA. The City Council passed a Resolution 3607 accepting the
Planning Commission recommendation and requesting the County
expand the UGA Boundary (By law only the County Commissioners
can change a UGA boundary).
8. On May 5, 2015 the County Planning Commission held a hearing on
the City’s request for a UGA Boundary amendment and found:
The request was consistent with the requirements of RCW
36.70A. 110 for UGA boundaries;
The proposed UGA boundaries were consistent with County
Wide Planning Policies found in County Resolution 93-015;
The UGA boundary amendment was consistent with the
public participation requirements of RCW 36.70A;
The proposal did not have a materially detrimental impact on
the immediate vicinity;
There was merit and value in the proposal as a whole;
Conditions were not needed to mitigate any significant
adverse impacts from the proposal; and,
No conditions or agreements were required between the City
and County for the proposed UGA expansion.
9. The County Commissioner’s denial of this UGA Boundary amendment
in October of 2015 failed to consider the cooperative work between the
City, County and Port on the development of the Airport Master Plan
and Airport Zoning regulations that were adopted by both the City
and County.
8
10. In 2012, at the request of the Port, the City and County adopted new
Airport zoning regulations to protect the airport from incompatible
land uses. The regulations meet Federal Aviation Administration
standards specifically designed to protect airports from incompatible
uses. The regulations were also designed to protect the air space
around the airport consistent with Federal Aviation Administration
requirements.
11. Clark Addition to the north of the proposed UGA Boundary
amendment is characterized by urban growth causing the proposed
UGA amendment area to be located between the City limits, a new
school and new subdivisions and the urbanized Clark addition. Clark
Addition contains about 200 dwellings, a community water system, a
fire station and almost as many out buildings as houses.
12. Designated Urban Growth Areas are to include enough undeveloped
land to adequately accommodate forecasted growth for a 20 year
planning period.
13. Forecasted growth is determined by population projections provided
by the State Office of Financial Management (OFM).
14. The OFM mid-range population projection for the County anticipates
Pasco will grow to over 124,000 people by 2038, a 54,385 increase
over the current 70,560 Pasco residents.
15. The additional population projected (54,385) by OFM will require
about 3,400 acres of land. The current UGA has about 2,400 acres of
vacant land designated for residential development.
16. About 20 percent of the vacant lands within the UGA designated for
residential development are encumbered with gravel mining
operations and leases which reduces the available buildable lands by
about 500 acres.
17. The current UGA is about 900 to 1,400 acres short of what is needed
to accommodate future growth projected by OFM.
18. The cost of residential subdivision land is about 30 percent higher
than it was previously. The local market supply factor has been an
issue in Pasco for several years now. As available residential land
inside the current UGA has diminished due to land development
prices have risen. Higher residential land costs increase housing
costs for Pasco residents.
19. State and local housing goals encourage the provision of affordable
housing (RCW 36. 70A.210(3)e and County Policy # 6) within the
9
community. The current UGA boundaries are creating market
demand factors that increase the cost of housing inconsistent with
RCW 36.70A. 210(3)e.
20. In 2012 the Port of Pasco purchased 34 acres of land in the Madison
Park subdivision for a runway protection zone. This purchase
removed 34 prime acres of residential land from the UGA inventory.
The referenced 34 acres were part of an approved preliminary plat
that was ready development.
21. The proposed UGA amendment area does not meet the test used by
the County for being classifying as prime farm land. The soils on this
site are not considered prime agricultural soils. The land is also
located between a rapidly growing City and the already developed
Clark Addition with 200 houses and a fire station
22. In the past ten years the Franklin County PUD built one new
substation and completely rebuilt and significant expanded another to
ensure electrical needs will be met within the UGA. The five year
capital plan for the PUD calls for a another new substation to be
located north of Power Line Road to the east of Convention Drive
which will further add to the PUD’s capacity to serve the community
with power needs.
23. In 2010 A new water treatment plant was constructed on Court Street
near Road 111 to increase the City’s capacity to provide potable water
to the community.
24. Construction of a new raw water intake structure and pump house
adjacent to the Richland Bridge will begin in January 2017 and will
increase the treatment capacity of the new plant.
25. The main Butterfield water treatment plant intake structure in the
Columbia River was also rebuilt in 2015 to improve raw water
pumping capacity and meet current environmental regulations.
26. Over the past several years upgrades have been completed at the
wastewater treatment plant to increase the City’s capacity to
accommodate residential and commercial growth.
27. In 2014 the City completed a new Comprehensive Sewer Plan that
identifies near and long term sewer collection/treatment system needs
to accommodate increased population. The projects identified within
the Plan were added to the City’s Capital Improvement Plan and are
systematically being constructed to enhance the City’s sewer utility.
10
28. The UGA Boundary amendment cannot change the adopt airport
protection regulations.
29. The proposed UGA amendment area falls partially under Airport
Protection Zones 2 and 4. The Airport zoning regulations contained in
apply to the property regardless of the location of the UGA Boundary.
30. Altering the UGA to follow the boundaries of the airport protection
zones is in effect disregarding the adopted regulations that are in
place to protect airport air space and the approaches to the runways.
31. Altering the UGA boundaries as requested by the Port of Pasco would
in effect be shifting a public burden that in all fairness and justice
that should be a community responsibility rather than the individual
responsibility of the applicant.
Conclusions
Based on OFM population projections for Franklin County the City of Pasco
must plan for an additional population of about 54,385 by 2038.
The project population for the City will require about 3,400 acres of land for the
development of dwelling units.
Based on the OFM projections and needed lands for development the City no
longer has enough vacant land within the UGA to accommodate future growth
to the year 2038. An additional 900 to 1,400 acres of vacant land is need
within the Pasco UGA to accommodate project growth.
The community has been preparing for growth by increasing utility capacity
through planning, budgeting and construction. These efforts have positioned
the City to accommodate future growth.
The City and County have addressed concerns about protecting air space
around the airport by adopting new airport zoning regulations prepared by the
Port of Pasco specifically for the City and County.
Including the property within the UGA boundary will help the community
address the need to accommodate future growth as project by OFM.
Recommendation
After reviewing the testimony provided at the last two Planning Commission
meetings and conferring with the City Attorney the Planning Commission
11
essentially has two options to consider under this application. Either include
the full 160 acres in the UGA Boundary or recommend none of the property be
included in the boundary. By altering the requested UGA Boundary
adjustment to align with various Airport Compatibility Zones (Zones 2 & 4) the
Planning Commission would be disregarding the development regulations that
are currently in place. By altering the proposed UGA boundary to coincide
with one or more Airport Compatibility Zones the Planning Commission would
be requiring a higher standard of this applicant than other property owners
who are already within the UGA and within Airport Zones 2 and 4.
The City adopted Airport Zoning regulations to provide a public benefit to the
community by protecting the air space around the airport. These regulations
will enable the airport to extend runway 12 in the future with or without the
applicant’s property being in the UGA. The Compatibility Zones imposed on the
applicant’s property benefit the airport, airlines and the traveling public. Land
owners within the Airport Safety Compatibility Zones provide that public
benefit by involuntarily accepting a significantly lower or no development
potential for their land as compared to similar properties not within Airport
Compatibility Zones. The government is generally barred from forcing a few
people to bear the burden of providing a public benefit which in all fairness and
justice should be borne by the public as a whole. The applicant is already
providing a public benefit and by reducing his requested UGA amendment to
align with the Airport Compatibility Zones he would be required to bear an
even greater public burden. Rather than having the general public cover the
cost of that burden the City is being asked to shift the burden to the applicant.
Staff therefore recommends the proposed UGA amendment be accepted as
requested by the applicant.
MOTION: I move to adopt findings of fact and conclusions
therefrom as contained in the November 17, 2016 staff report.
MOTION: I move based on the findings of fact and conclusions
therefrom, the Planning Commission recommend the Pasco Urban
Growth Boundary be amended per Exhibit #1 attached to the staff
memo of December 15, 2016.
It
e
m
:
U
r
b
a
n
G
r
o
w
t
h
B
o
u
n
d
a
r
y
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
Ap
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
:
S
t
e
v
e
W
e
s
t
Fi
l
e
#
:
C
P
A
2
0
1
6
-
0
0
2
SI
T
E
Vi
c
i
n
i
t
y
Ma
p
ROAD 60
C
O
N
V
E
N
T
I
O
N
D
R
R
O
A
D
5
2
B U R N S R O A D
It
e
m
:
U
r
b
a
n
G
r
o
w
t
h
B
o
u
n
d
a
r
y
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
Ap
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
:
S
t
e
v
e
W
e
s
t
Fi
l
e
#
:
C
P
A
2
0
1
6
-
0
0
2
SI
T
E
L
a
n
d
U
s
e
M
a
p
Fa
r
m
i
n
g
(
C
o
u
n
t
y
)
SF
D
U
s
(
C
o
u
n
t
y
)
SF
D
U
s
Sc
h
o
o
l
Fa
r
m
i
n
g
SF
D
U
s
Va
c
a
n
tVacant
(
C
o
u
n
t
y
)
SF
D
U
s
(C
o
u
n
t
y
)
ROAD 60
C
O
N
V
E
N
T
I
O
N
D
R
R
O
A
D
5
2
B U R N S R O A D
It
e
m
:
U
r
b
a
n
G
r
o
w
t
h
B
o
u
n
d
a
r
y
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
Ap
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
:
S
t
e
v
e
W
e
s
t
Fi
l
e
#
:
C
P
A
2
0
1
6
-
0
0
2
SI
T
E
Z
o
n
i
n
g
M
a
p
AP
-
2
0
(
C
o
u
n
t
y
)
RR
-
1
(C
o
u
n
t
y
)
AP-20 (County)RT
RS
-
1
/
P
U
D
R-
1
RS
-
2
0
(C
o
u
n
t
y
)
AIRPORT SAFETY COMPATIBILITY ZON
E
S
FUTURE 1850 FEET EXTENSIONZONE COLORZONE #FARM 2005 L
L
C
ACREAGE.#5672'& (+.' 6%#A4Y[A5JGGV>>UNEHKNGU>RWDNKE>2TQLGEVU>,7$>#KTRQTV>2QTVQH2CUEQ>Ä6%#)GPGTCN>Ä4WPYC[.CPF#ESWKUKVKQPCETGU>%#&>'ZJKDKVU>6%#A4Y[A5JGGVFYIJ-U-B ENGINEERS, INC.
5
0
0
0
1
,
0
0
0
S
C
A
L
E
I
N
F
E
E
T
LEGEND.#5672'& (+.' 6%#A4Y[A5JGGV>>UNEHKNGU>RWDNKE>2TQLGEVU>,7$>#KTRQTV>2QTVQH2CUEQ>Ä6%#)GPGTCN>Ä4WPYC[.CPF#ESWKUKVKQPCETGU>%#&>'ZJKDKVU>6%#A4Y[A5JGGVFYIJ-U-B ENGINEERS, INC.
T
R
I
-
C
I
T
I
E
S
A
I
R
P
O
R
T
-
R
U
N
W
A
Y
1
2
E
N
D
P
R
O
P
E
R
T
Y
A
C
Q
U
I
S
I
T
I
O
N
I
M
P
A
C
T
S
S
H
E
E
T
:
1
AI
R
P
O
R
T
S
A
F
E
T
Y
C
O
M
P
A
T
I
B
I
L
I
T
Y
Z
O
N
E
S
FU
T
U
R
E
1
8
5
0
F
E
E
T
E
X
T
E
N
S
I
O
N
ZO
N
E
C
O
L
O
R
Z
O
N
E
#
FA
R
M
2
0
0
5
L
L
C
AC
R
E
A
G
E
J-
U
-
B
E
N
G
I
N
E
E
R
S
,
I
N
C
.
500 0 1,000 SCALE IN FEET
LE
G
E
N
D
J-
U
-
B
E
N
G
I
N
E
E
R
S
,
I
N
C
.
TR
I
-
C
I
T
I
E
S
A
I
R
P
O
R
T
-
R
U
N
W
A
Y
1
2
E
N
D
PR
O
P
E
R
T
Y
A
C
Q
U
I
S
I
T
I
O
N
I
M
P
A
C
T
S
SHEET:1
AI
R
P
O
R
T
S
A
F
E
T
Y
C
O
M
P
A
T
I
B
I
L
I
T
Y
Z
O
N
E
S
FU
T
U
R
E
1
8
5
0
F
E
E
T
E
X
T
E
N
S
I
O
N
ZO
N
E
C
O
L
O
R
Z
O
N
E
#
FA
R
M
2
0
0
5
L
L
C
AC
R
E
A
G
E
J-
U
-
B
E
N
G
I
N
E
E
R
S
,
I
N
C
.
500 0 1,000 SCALE IN FEET
LE
G
E
N
D
J-
U
-
B
E
N
G
I
N
E
E
R
S
,
I
N
C
.
TR
I
-
C
I
T
I
E
S
A
I
R
P
O
R
T
-
R
U
N
W
A
Y
1
2
E
N
D
PR
O
P
E
R
T
Y
A
C
Q
U
I
S
I
T
I
O
N
I
M
P
A
C
T
S
SHEET:1
AI
R
P
O
R
T
S
A
F
E
T
Y
C
O
M
P
A
T
I
B
I
L
I
T
Y
Z
O
N
E
S
FU
T
U
R
E
1
8
5
0
F
E
E
T
E
X
T
E
N
S
I
O
N
ZO
N
E
C
O
L
O
R
Z
O
N
E
#
FA
R
M
2
0
0
5
L
L
C
AC
R
E
A
G
E
J-
U
-
B
E
N
G
I
N
E
E
R
S
,
I
N
C
.
500 0 1,000 SCALE IN FEET
LE
G
E
N
D
J-
U
-
B
E
N
G
I
N
E
E
R
S
,
I
N
C
.
TR
I
-
C
I
T
I
E
S
A
I
R
P
O
R
T
-
R
U
N
W
A
Y
1
2
E
N
D
PR
O
P
E
R
T
Y
A
C
Q
U
I
S
I
T
I
O
N
I
M
P
A
C
T
S
SHEET:1
AI
R
P
O
R
T
S
A
F
E
T
Y
C
O
M
P
A
T
I
B
I
L
I
T
Y
Z
O
N
E
S
FU
T
U
R
E
1
8
5
0
F
E
E
T
E
X
T
E
N
S
I
O
N
ZO
N
E
C
O
L
O
R
Z
O
N
E
#
FA
R
M
2
0
0
5
L
L
C
AC
R
E
A
G
E
J-
U
-
B
E
N
G
I
N
E
E
R
S
,
I
N
C
.
500 0 1,000 SCALE IN FEET
LE
G
E
N
D
J-
U
-
B
E
N
G
I
N
E
E
R
S
,
I
N
C
.
TR
I
-
C
I
T
I
E
S
A
I
R
P
O
R
T
-
R
U
N
W
A
Y
1
2
E
N
D
PR
O
P
E
R
T
Y
A
C
Q
U
I
S
I
T
I
O
N
I
M
P
A
C
T
S
SHEET:1
AI
R
P
O
R
T
S
A
F
E
T
Y
C
O
M
P
A
T
I
B
I
L
I
T
Y
Z
O
N
E
S
FU
T
U
R
E
1
8
5
0
F
E
E
T
E
X
T
E
N
S
I
O
N
ZO
N
E
C
O
L
O
R
Z
O
N
E
#
FA
R
M
2
0
0
5
L
L
C
AC
R
E
A
G
E
J-
U
-
B
E
N
G
I
N
E
E
R
S
,
I
N
C
.
500 0 1,000 SCALE IN FEET
LE
G
E
N
D
J-
U
-
B
E
N
G
I
N
E
E
R
S
,
I
N
C
.
TR
I
-
C
I
T
I
E
S
A
I
R
P
O
R
T
-
R
U
N
W
A
Y
1
2
E
N
D
PR
O
P
E
R
T
Y
A
C
Q
U
I
S
I
T
I
O
N
I
M
P
A
C
T
S
SHEET:1
Lo
o
k
i
n
g
N
o
r
t
h
Lo
o
k
i
n
g
E
a
s
t
Lo
o
k
i
n
g
S
o
u
t
h
Lo
o
k
i
n
g
W
e
s
t
Vi
e
w
o
f
E
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
r
y
S
c
h
o
o
l
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
MASTER FILE NO: MF# SP 2016-012 APPLICANT: Maria Avila
HEARING DATE: 11/17/16 2612 Glendive St.
ACTION DATE: 12/15/16 Pasco, WA 99301
BACKGROUND
REQUEST: SPECIAL PERMIT: Location of a Cosmetology & Barber School in
a C-1 Zone. (915 W Court St.)
1. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION:
Legal: Lot 9, Block1 Perrys Addition
General Location: 915 W. Court St.) (Lupita’s Beauty Salon)
Property Size: 5,662 square feet
2. ACCESS: Access to the site is available from West Court Street
3. UTILITIES: The property is served by utilities located in Court Street.
4. LAND USE AND ZONING: The site is zoned C-1 (Retail Business)
Residential) and is now vacant. Surrounding properties are zoned and
developed as follows:
NORTH: R-3 – Multi-Family
SOUTH: “O” – Offices
EAST: C-1 - Commercial
WEST: C-1 - Commercial
5. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The Comprehensive Plan designates the site
for commercial development. Goal CF-5 suggests adequate provisions
should be made for educational facilities located throughout the urban
growth area. Policy CF-5-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, the Notice of Application
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.
2
DISCUSSION
The owner of Lupita’s Beauty Salon is in the process of obtaining a State
License to operate a small beauty/barber school in conjunction with her
licensed beauty salon on West Court Street. There is not specific zoning for
beauty schools; however the code does make provision for schools/educational
facilities in the community through the special permit process. Beauty schools
have been permitted within the City in the past and licensed as private schools.
Clare's Beauty College for example was located at the northwest corner of 4th
Avenue and Lewis Street in the downtown Pasco for many years. Clare’s closed
in 2010.
Lupita’s Beauty Salon has operated at the proposed location for nine years. The
proposed beauty school will add another dimension to the beauty salon but will
not change the existing character of the activities taking place within the salon.
Training will be provided for approximately six students or less at a time.
Parking has always been limited at this location but the beauty salon has been
able to function for nine years because most of their services are provided by
appointment. However, with the addition of several students parking could
become a larger issue. To accommodate student parking needs the owner of
the building has made additional parking available in the rear of his building at
923 West Court. With this arrangement the students will not be occupying
parking needed for customers.
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 a C-1 zone.
2. The proposed beauty school will be located within Lupita’s Beauty Salon
at 915 West Court Street.
3. Lupita’s Beauty Salon has been located on the property for nine years.
4. The outward appearance of Lupita’s Beauty Salon will not change with
the proposed beauty school.
5. For many years a beauty school was located in downtown Pasco.
6. There has been no beauty school in Pasco since Clare’s closed in 2010.
3
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 is supported by Plan goals CF-5 which suggests
adequate provisions be made for educational facilities throughout the
Urban Growth Area.
2) Will the proposed use adversely affect public infrastructure?
Public streets and utilities are in place to serve the property. Demands
on infrastructure will not change with the addition of the beauty
school component to Lupita’s Beauty Salon.
3) Will the proposed use be constructed, maintained and operated to be in
harmony with existing or intended character of the general vicinity?
Lupita’s Beauty Salon has been located at 915 W. Court Street for the
past nine years. The operation of the beauty salon will change only
slightly as a few students will be trained as regular services are being
provided. Addition parking for students will be provided on an adjoining
property to the west.
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 height and foot print of the building will not change with the
conversion to the Learning Center. Additional parking will be provided
at 923 W. Court Street
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?
Nothing will change on the site to cause noise dust and other activities
that would be objectionable to neighboring properties. The property will
continue to be operated more or less as a beauty salon with the addition
of a training component.
4
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 current beauty salon is not a public health and safety concern. The
addition of a few students within the beauty salon would not create new
health and safety concerns for the neighborhood.
Proposed Approval Conditions
1. The special permit shall apply to Parcel # 112152300.
2. The number of students shall be limited to six at any one time on
the site.
3. The applicant must maintain a lease with the property owner for
additional parking at 923 W. Court Street for as long as the Beauty
school is in operation. If the parking lease is voided for any reason
the Beauty School must vacate the premises.
4. The special permit shall be null and void if all necessary licenses
have not been obtained by September 1, 2017.
RECOMMENDATION
MOTION for Findings of Fact: I move to adopt Findings of Fact and
Conclusions therefrom as contained in the December 15, 2016 staff
report.
MOTION for Recommendation: I move, based on the Findings of
Fact and Conclusions therefrom, the Planning Commission
recommend the City Council grant a special permit to Lupita’s Beauty
Salon for the location of an Cosmetology and Barber School at 915
West court Street with the conditions as contained in the December
15, 2016 staff report.
Vi
c
i
n
i
t
y
Ma
p
SI
T
E
It
e
m
:
S
p
e
c
i
a
l
P
e
r
m
i
t
-
B
e
a
u
t
y
S
c
h
o
o
l
i
n
a
C
-
1
Z
o
n
e
Ap
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
:
M
a
r
i
a
A
v
i
l
a
Fi
l
e
#
:
S
P
2
0
1
6
-
0
1
2
SI
T
E
It
e
m
:
S
p
e
c
i
a
l
P
e
r
m
i
t
-
B
e
a
u
t
y
S
c
h
o
o
l
i
n
a
C
-
1
Z
o
n
e
Ap
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
:
M
a
r
i
a
A
v
i
l
a
Fi
l
e
#
:
S
P
2
0
1
6
-
0
1
2
La
n
d
U
s
e
Ma
p
Mu
l
t
i
-
F
a
m
i
l
y
SF
D
U
s
Of
f
i
c
e
SFDUsOffice
C
o
m
m
.
SI
T
E
It
e
m
:
S
p
e
c
i
a
l
P
e
r
m
i
t
-
B
e
a
u
t
y
S
c
h
o
o
l
i
n
a
C
-
1
Z
o
n
e
Ap
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
:
M
a
r
i
a
A
v
i
l
a
Fi
l
e
#
:
S
P
2
0
1
6
-
0
1
2
R-
3
R-
1
C-1"O"
C-
1
Zo
n
i
n
g
Ma
p
"O
"
R-3
Lo
o
k
i
n
g
N
o
r
t
h
Lo
o
k
i
n
g
E
a
s
t
Lo
o
k
i
n
g
S
o
u
t
h
Lo
o
k
i
n
g
W
e
s
t
Si
t
e
1
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
MASTER FILE NO: SP 2016-013 APPLICANT: Joo Baik Kim
HEARING DATE: 11/17/2016 3712 Rd 96
ACTION DATE: 12/15/2016 Pasco, WA 99301
BACKGROUND
REQUEST FOR SPECIAL PERMIT: Location of a Mini-Storage Facility in a C-1 Zone
1. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION:
Legal: Lot 4 of Binding Site Plan 2004-08
General Location: The 1200 block of North 22nd Avenue (Parcel #119 331
048)
Property Size: Approximately .54 acres
2. ACCESS: The site has access from North 22nd Avenue.
3. UTILITIES: Water and sewer lines are located in North 22nd Avenue to the
west. Most of the proposed storage buildings will not require connection to
municipal sewer and water.
4. LAND USE AND ZONING: The property is zoned C-1 (Retail Business). The
zoning and land use of the surrounding properties are as follows:
NORTH: R-4/C-1 4-Plexes/Retail shopping center
EAST: C-1 Retail shopping center
SOUTH: R-2 Parking Lot for Stevens Middle School
WEST: R-2/R-3 Stevens Middle School
5. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The site is designated in the Comprehensive Plan for
future commercial uses. The Plan does not specifically address self-storage
facilities, but elements of the Plan encourage the promotion of orderly
development including the development of zoning standards for off-street
parking and other development. Policy LU-1-B encourages enhancement of the
physical appearance of development within the City. The Comprehensive Plan
(LU-4-A) encourages the location of commercial facilities at major intersection to
avoid commercial sprawl and avoid disruptions of residential neighborhoods.
Policy LU-2-D requires all development to be landscaped. ED-3-E suggests the
use of landscaping to provide a buffer between less intensive uses (such as
residential) from utilitarian areas of commercial and industrial facilities.
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, the Notice of Application and other information, a threshold
2
determination resulting in a Determination of Non-Significance (DNS) has been issued
for this project under WAC 197-11-158.
ANALYSIS
Applicant is proposing to develop a mini-storage facility on Lot 4 of the Tower Plaza
Shopping Center (Binding Site Plan 2004-08). The Tower Plaza Shopping Center is
located just south of the Albertson’s Shopping Center, east of Umpqua Bank, and west
of Stevens Middle School. A parking lot for Stevens Middle School is located to the
south of the site.
Mini-storage facilities are a conditional use that may be permitted only by the granting
of a Special Permit. Special Permit reviews and determinations are made based upon
the criteria listed in PMC Section 25.86.060. If it can be demonstrated that a mini-
storage facility will be in accordance with the policies of the Comprehensive Plan, that
it will be maintained in harmony with the existing or intended character of the
surrounding neighborhood, and that it generally supports the other criteria of PMC
Section 25.86.060, a Special Permit may be approved.
The mini-storage facility would consist of two 4,500 square-foot storage buildings
divided into eighteen 10’ X 25’ units on Lot 4 of the Tower Plaza shopping center
(Binding Site Plan 2004-08). In all, a total of around 7,000 square feet of new storage
is proposed.
As discussed above the Special Permit review process allows the Planning Commission
to make a determination on whether or not a proposed use will be or can be
maintained in harmony with the existing or intended character of the neighborhood. It
is through this process that the Planning Commission may develop approval
conditions that would ensure the proposal will be established and operated in
harmony with the neighborhood.
The intended character of the site is retail commercial; properties to the north and
east are a mix of high-density residential and commercial and have been developed
with 4-plexes and a multi-building shopping center; properties to the south and west
are designated for medium to high density residential uses and have been developed
as extended staff parking for the Stevens Middle School and the school itself,
respectively.
The site’s C-1 zoning permits a variety of commercial retail, office and service business
to locate on the property. The Institute of Traffic Engineers Manual estimates an office
complex with square footage comparable to the proposed mini-storage facility could
generate an average of about 771 vehicle trips per day and a similar sized retail
shopping center approximately 3,006 vehicle trips per day. High impact facilities like a
small convenience store/gas station, which are also permitted in the C-1 zone can
generate over 51,600 vehicle trips per day. By comparison mini-storage facilities have
considerably less traffic than permitted uses in the C-1 zone. Experience with mini-
storage facilities in Pasco suggests daily vehicle trips in the teens or less.
Based upon vehicular traffic to the site the proposed mini-storage facility would create
less noise, vibration and commotion than many permitted uses in the C-1 zone.
3
Additionally the hours of operation for a restaurant or tavern (both permitted uses)
could also have a greater impact on the neighborhood than a mini-storage facility.
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 proposing to develop a mini-storage facility at the 1200 block of
North 22nd Avenue (Parcel #119 331 048) on Lot 4 of the Tower Plaza Shopping
Center.
2. Tower Plaza Shopping Center is located just south of the Albertson’s Shopping
Center.
3. Mini-storage facilities may be permitted only through the Special Permit process
in a C-1 zone.
4. The mini-storage facility would consist of a total of around 7,000 square feet of
new storage in two 18-unit 4,500 square-foot storage buildings.
5. Properties to the north and east are a mix of high-density residential and
commercial and have been developed with 4-plexes and a multi-building
shopping center;
6. Properties to the south and west are designated for medium to high density
residential uses and have been developed as Stevens Middle School and
extended school staff parking.
7. The Institute of Traffic Engineers Manual estimates a 7,000 square-foot mini-
storage facility will generate about 175 vehicle trips per day; other similar sized
uses already permitted in the C-1 zone would generate vehicle trips as follows:
a) Office complex: 771 vehicle trips per day;
b) Retail shopping center approximately 3,006 vehicle trips per day;
c) Convenience store/gas station, over 51,600 vehicle trips per day.
d) Experience in Pasco suggests daily vehicle trips for mini-storage facilities
are in the teens or lower.
8. Based upon vehicular traffic to the site the proposed mini-storage facility would
create less noise, vibration and commotion than many permitted uses in the C-
1 zone.
4
9. Additionally the hours of operation for a restaurant (a permitted use in the C-1
Zone) could also have a greater impact on the neighborhood than a mini-storage
facility.
CONCLUSIONS BASED ON THE FINDINGS OF FACT
Before recommending approval or denial of a special permit the Planning Commission
must develop findings of fact from which to draw its conclusion based upon the
criteria listed in P.M.C. 25.86.060 and determine whether or not the proposal:
(1) Will the proposed use be in accordance with the goals, policies, objectives and text
of the Comprehensive Plan?
A mini-storage facility can be compatible with several Comprehensive Plan
policies.
Policy LU-1-B encourages enhancement of the physical appearance of
development within the City. The proposal would replace vacant land with a
well-developed facility with a landscaped street. Policy LU-2-D requires all
development to be landscaped. Development of the site currently includes
landscaping which support policies of the Comprehensive Plan (LU2-D). The
Comprehensive Plan (LU-4-A) encourages the location of commercial facilities at
major intersection to avoid commercial sprawl and avoid disruptions of
residential neighborhoods.
(2) Will the proposed use adversely affect public infrastructure?
All municipal utilities are currently available to the site from North 22nd
Avenue. Water and sewer demands of the proposed use will be negligible
compared to permitted uses such as restaurants and similar uses. Impacts to
the adjoining streets will likewise be minimal due to the low volume of traffic
typically generated by mini-storage facilities.
(3) Will the proposed use be constructed, maintained and operated to be in harmony
with existing or intended character of the general vicinity?
The Comprehensive Plan (LU-4-A) encourages the location of commercial
facilities at major intersection to avoid commercial sprawl and avoid disruptions
of residential neighborhoods. The proposed site is zoned C-1 and is located on
the 1200 block of North 22nd Avenue (Parcel #119 331 048). Due to the lack of
traffic and noise generated by mini-storage facilities the proposal may be more
in harmony with the neighborhood than permitted uses.
(4) Will the location and height of proposed structures and the site design discourage
the development of permitted uses on property in the general vicinity or impair the
value thereof?
5
Structures in the C-1 zone are limited to thirty five (35) feet in height. None of
the proposed structures will approach 35 feet in height with the tallest
structure likely being well under twenty five (25) feet in height.
The location of mini-storage facilities adjacent to residential neighborhoods
within the City has not resulted in complaints being forwarded to the City.
(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 City receives few to no complaints about the operations of mini-storage
facilities adjacent to residential neighborhoods Typically, mini-storage facility
generate far less traffic, noise, dust, etc. than some uses permitted in the C-1
zone; such as restaurants, taverns, night-clubs and car-washes.
(6) Will the proposed use endanger the public health or safety if located and developed
where proposed, or in any way will become a nuisance to uses permitted in the
district?
As a general land use, mini-storage facilities are not inherently dangerous to
public health or safety and do not generate nuisance conditions.
APPROVAL CONDITIONS
1) This Special Permit shall apply to Lot 4 of Binding Site Plan 2004-08 (Parcel
#119 331 048)
2) The site shall be developed in substantial conformance with the site plan
submitted with the Special Permit application;
3) All aisle-ways between buildings and all entrance driveways/roads shall be
hard-surfaced;
4) All building walls exposed to an existing city street together with all walls visible
from adjoining properties shall contain architectural features to add interest
and aesthetic qualities to building by the use of masonry coursing, pilasters,
patterning, alternating textures and decorative molding to match the existing
office building. No composite materials, such as typical home siding, are
permitted. Exterior wall treatment shall be approved by the Community
Development Director.
5) All metal roofing shall be colored to complement the exterior walls of the mini-
storage buildings while minimizing glare;
6) The site shall be screened with an architectural block wall/fence along the
north property line between the proposed facility and the residential
development to the north.
6
7) The 22nd Avenue street frontage shall conform to the commercial landscaping
and screening requirements found in PMC 25.75.
8) All security lighting shall be shielded and designed to prevent the
encroachment of light onto adjoining properties;
9) The Special Permit shall be null and void if a building permit has not been
obtained by September 1, 2018.
RECOMMENDATION
MOTION: I move to close the public hearing and adopt findings of fact and
conclusions therefrom as contained in the December 15, 2016 staff
report.
MOTION: I move, based on the findings of fact and conclusions as adopted, the
Planning Commission recommend the City Council grant a special
permit for the location of a Mini-Storage Facility in a C-1 zoning district
at the 1200 block of North 22nd Avenue (Parcel #119 331 048), with the
conditions as listed in the December 15, 2016 staff report.
Vi
c
i
n
i
t
y
Ma
p
SI
T
E
It
e
m
:
S
p
e
c
i
a
l
P
e
r
m
i
t
-
M
i
n
i
-
S
t
o
r
a
g
e
i
n
a
C
-
1
Z
o
n
e
Ap
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
:
J
o
o
B
a
i
k
K
i
m
Fi
l
e
#
:
S
P
2
0
1
6
-
0
1
3
SI
T
E
It
e
m
:
S
p
e
c
i
a
l
P
e
r
m
i
t
-
M
i
n
i
-
S
t
o
r
a
g
e
i
n
a
C
-
1
Z
o
n
e
Ap
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
:
J
o
o
B
a
i
k
K
i
m
Fi
l
e
#
:
S
P
2
0
1
6
-
0
1
3
La
n
d
U
s
e
Ma
p
Co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
Mu
l
t
i
-
Fa
m
i
l
y
M
u
l
t
i
-
F
a
m
i
l
y
Ch
u
r
c
h
St
e
v
e
n
s
Mi
d
d
l
e
Sc
h
o
o
l
SFDUs SFDUs
SI
T
E
It
e
m
:
S
p
e
c
i
a
l
P
e
r
m
i
t
-
M
i
n
i
-
S
t
o
r
a
g
e
i
n
a
C
-
1
Z
o
n
e
Ap
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
:
J
o
o
B
a
i
k
K
i
m
Fi
l
e
#
:
S
P
2
0
1
6
-
0
1
3
C-
1
R
-
4
R-1
Zo
n
i
n
g
Ma
p
R-1
R-
2
R-
2
"O"
R-
3
C-
1
R-
3
R-
3
Lo
o
k
i
n
g
N
o
r
t
h
Lo
o
k
i
n
g
E
a
s
t
Lo
o
k
i
n
g
S
o
u
t
h
Lo
o
k
i
n
g
W
e
s
t
Si
t
e
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
MASTER FILE NO: MF# SP 2016-014 APPLICANT: Pasco School District #1
HEARING DATE: 11/17/16 1215 W Lewis St
ACTION DATE: 12/15/16 Pasco, WA 99301
BACKGROUND
REQUEST: SPECIAL PERMIT: Location of an Early Development Learning
Center in the Senior Center Building. (1315 N.
7th Ave.)
1. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION:
Legal: All of short Plat 2003-05.
General Location: 1315 N. 7th Ave. (The Pasco Senior Center)
Property Size: 2.73 acres
2. ACCESS: Access to the site is available from Marie Street and Brown
Street.
3. UTILITIES: The property is connected to the City sewer system located
in 7th Avenue and a 4 inch water line is located in Marie Street. A water
line is also located at the northwest corner of the site.
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: R-1 – Single Family
EAST: “O” & C-1 Office and Commercial
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-5-A encourages the appropriate location and
design of schools throughout the community.
2
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, the Notice of Application
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.
DISCUSSION
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 remodel the Pasco Senior Center into an Early
Development Learning Center.
The School District is in the process of purchasing the Pasco Senior Center
property and plans to convert the facility to an Early Learning Center. The
property sale is to close on December 30th of this year. The Early Learning
Center will contain 10 to 11 eleven classrooms with supporting administrative
offices, a nurses’ station, a multipurpose room, a kitchen and testing areas.
The Center will provide educational services to pre-kinder aged children,
special needs children as well as economically disadvantaged children. The
School District plans to serve about 280 children in the proposed facility. There
will be a morning session and an afternoon session with 140 children in each
session. Three busses will transport children from existing elementary schools
to the Early Learning Center. There will be about 40 staff working at the
building.
In addition to remodeling the building for classroom space the parking lot will
be redeveloped to include a bus loading and unloading area (see attached site
Plan. The bus loading area will require one additional driveway on Brown
Street.
The property has been used as a public facility for since 1975. The public
nature and use of the Senior Center property has been well established and is
an accepted part of the neighborhood. The property has been the subject of at
least two special permit hearing over the years. The School District’s proposal
is to change the use from one public function (Senior Center) to another
(School).
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
3
of Traffic Engineers Trip Generation Manual (8th Ed) an elementary school with
280 students on average can be expected to generate about 200 vehicle trips
per day. By comparison, if the site were to develop with single family homes
about 180 daily vehicle trips could be expected.
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. The Pasco Senior Center has been located on the site for the past 41
years.
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 Comprehensive Plan identifies the site for low-density residential
uses.
5. Comprehensive Plan Goal CF-5 suggests that adequate provisions should
be made for the location of educational facilities throughout the urban
growth area.
6. The Pasco School District is in the process of purchasing the site from
the City.
7. According to the Institute of Traffic Engineers Trip Generation Manual
(8th Ed) the low end estimate for vehicle trip to and from the proposed
school will be about 200.
8. If developed with single family homes the site would generate about 180
vehicle trips per day.
9. Pasco’s population has more than doubled since 2000.
10. Pasco School District enrollment has doubled since 2000.
11. School district enrollment is expected to reach 20,000 by 2019.
4
12. 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.
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 is supported by Plan goal CF-5 which suggests
adequate provisions be made for educational facilities throughout the
Urban Growth Area.
2) Will the proposed use adversely affect public infrastructure?
Public streets and utilities are in place to serve the property. Most of
the children will be bussed to the new Learning Center from other
elementary schools as a result there will be minimal parent traffic. The
traffic impacts from the proposed school would be comparable to the
impacts from a residential subdivision on the property. The school will
generate almost no traffic during evenings, weekends, holidays and the
summer break.
3) Will the proposed use be constructed, maintained and operated to be in
harmony with existing or intended character of the general vicinity?
The Senior Center has been an integral part of the neighborhood for the
past 41 years. Site improvements will largely remain as they are with
minor modifications to the parking lot. Elementary schools are typically
located in or near residential neighborhoods and are an accepted part of
the character of residential areas.
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 height and foot print of the building will not change with the
conversion to the Learning Center. The parking lot will be modified
5
slightly to accommodate a bus loading and drop off area along Brown
Street. Past experience in Pasco has shown the location of schools
within residential neighborhoods has no negative impact on
surrounding residential values. Residential development around the
Maya Angelou and McGee schools for example 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 200 vehicle trips per day. During evenings,
weekends, holidays and the summer break 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 Early Learning Center will be remodeled to meet all requirements of
the International Building Code, the Fire Code, the Plumbing Code, all
other construction codes and state regulations pertaining to 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.
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
6
1. The special permit shall apply to Parcels #112152299 and
#112152300.
2. The property shall be redeveloped in substantial conformity with
the site plan submitted with the special permit application.
3. All costs associated with speed reduction/modification including
but not limited to flashing lights, signage, pedestrian sensors,
safety and crosswalks and other accommodation necessary for safe
pedestrian routes to and from the site shall be paid for by the
School District.
4. The special permit shall be null and void if a building permit has
not been obtained by January 1, 2019.
RECOMMENDATION
MOTION for Findings of Fact: I move to adopt Findings of Fact and
Conclusions therefrom as contained in the December 15, 2016 staff
report.
MOTION for Recommendation: I move, based on the Findings of
Fact and Conclusions therefrom, the Planning Commission
recommend the City Council grant a special permit to the Pasco
School District for the location of an Early Learning Center at 1315
N. 7th Ave with the conditions as contained in the December 15, 2016
staff report.
Vi
c
i
n
i
t
y
Ma
p
SI
T
E
It
e
m
:
S
p
e
c
i
a
l
P
e
r
m
i
t
-
E
a
r
l
y
L
e
a
r
n
i
n
g
C
e
n
t
e
r
i
n
R
-
1
Ap
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
:
P
a
s
c
o
S
c
h
o
o
l
D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
Fi
l
e
#
:
S
P
2
0
1
6
-
0
1
4
It
e
m
:
S
p
e
c
i
a
l
P
e
r
m
i
t
-
E
a
r
l
y
L
e
a
r
n
i
n
g
C
e
n
t
e
r
i
n
R
-
1
Ap
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
:
P
a
s
c
o
S
c
h
o
o
l
D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
Fi
l
e
#
:
S
P
2
0
1
6
-
0
1
4
SI
T
E
La
n
d
U
s
e
Ma
p
SF
D
U
s
SF
D
U
s
C
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
Of
f
i
c
e
Of
f
i
c
e
Of
f
i
c
e
M
i
x
e
d
R
e
s
.
It
e
m
:
S
p
e
c
i
a
l
P
e
r
m
i
t
-
E
a
r
l
y
L
e
a
r
n
i
n
g
C
e
n
t
e
r
i
n
R
-
1
Ap
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
:
P
a
s
c
o
S
c
h
o
o
l
D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
Fi
l
e
#
:
S
P
2
0
1
6
-
0
1
4
SI
T
E
R-
1
R-
1
C-1
C-
1
"O
"
"O
"
R-
1
Zo
n
i
n
g
Ma
p
"O
"
R-
1
C-1
@ north
L __ __,___
z(f)IW
----r - - -..------- --
---"----_ _L _ -_J_ __ _J_ __ _L _ ---_ _J
W BROWN ST
CALL 11' 2 BUSINESS D4lS IEf'ORE YOU Dlw
O' 15' 30' 60' 90' py;_J- -- ; 1"..:30'
- - --i
I
1-u ::> a::: I
t/') z 0 u
:t! 7 ;,.1..,,c E:"' il�v .. uJ
��,,,,,.wi.k, WA �!�Ir
.. : !'"�.77!:.1�=�
F"; !'�·i .7'::':..�"'!7!'
www.m•itorine.enff':
t,l<AWN (;WW
L�.:GN LWW
·a:::w1-zw
()
Lo
o
k
i
n
g
N
o
r
t
h
Lo
o
k
i
n
g
E
a
s
t
Lo
o
k
i
n
g
S
o
u
t
h
Lo
o
k
i
n
g
W
e
s
t
Si
t
e
1
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
MASTER FILE NO: Z 2016-005 APPLICANT: Mohinder Sohal
HEARING DATE: 11/17/2016 1800 W Lewis St
ACTION DATE: 12/15/2016 Pasco, WA 99301
BACKGROUND
REQUEST: REZONE: Rezone from C-1 (Retail Business) to C-3 (General
Business)
1. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION:
Legal: Lots 2 & 3 Short Plat 2010-08
General Location: 1800 W. Lewis Street
Property Size: 3.37 acres.
2. ACCESS: The parcel is accessible from Lewis Street and 18th Avenue
3. UTILITIES: All municipal utilities are currently available to serve the site
from Road 92.
4. LAND USE AND ZONING: The lot is currently zoned C-1 (Retail
Business) and developed with the Loyalty Inn. Surrounding properties
are zoned and developed as follows:
NORTH: R-1, R-2 & R-3 – Single & Multi-Family Residential
SOUTH: C-1 – Offices
EAST: C-1 & “O” – Offices & Commercial
WEST: C-1 –Offices
5. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The Comprehensive Plan designates the site
for commercial uses. Those portions of the community designated for
commercial development by the Comprehensive Plan could be zone “O”,
C-1, C-2, C-3 CR and BP. Land Use Goal ED-2 encourages the
appropriate location and design of commercial facilities within the City.
ED-2-B encourages the development of a wide range of commercial uses
strategically located to support local and regional needs.
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, the Notice of
Application 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.
2
ANALYSIS
The owner of the Loyalty Inn at 1800 West Lewis Street has petitioned to have
the zoning for his motel property changed from C-1 to C-3. The motel has been
struggling for many years to capture a reasonable share of the regional motel
traffic. As a result the owner has been exploring various options to create
additional revenue to maintain his property investment. One of the business
options included renting U-Haul equipment as a means of generating
additional funds to maintain his property. The U-Haul equipment created a
problem because the property is not zoned correctly for a U-Haul facility. U-
Haul rental facilities are required to be located in a C-3 or Industrial zone.
Upon receiving notice to remove the U-Haul equipment from his property the
owner applied for a rezone. There are currently no rental trailers or trucks on
the applicants property.
The site was annexed in 1961 and developed in 1966 with a motel. In 1966 Lewis
Street was a main route through the community and consequently the applicant’s
property was well suited for a motel. Six of the original eight motels along Lewis
Street have been demolished or mostly converted to other uses.
In addition to the decline in room rentals at the motel property management
issues have also been a concern. There have been 22 code enforcement cases
filed against the property in the past six years. Most of the cases are nuisance
cases involving unsanitary conditions, weeds trash and general property
maintenance issues. There have also been building and licensing issues at the
property.
The Comprehensive Plan designates the property for commercial land uses but
does not identify what it should be zoned. The actual zoning of a parcel is
determined thought the hearing process. Any one of the six commercial zoning
districts could be considered for the property. The applicant is specifically
requesting C-3 zoning because that is the only zoning district that will permit
U-Haul rental facilities.
The requested C-3 zone permits a number of uses that may not be appropriate
for the surrounding neighborhood. Uses such as heavy machinery sales and
service, mobile home and RV sales, landscape gardening and storage yards for
equipment and materials, contractor storage and material yards, lumber yards,
auto body shops, trucking and express storage yards and others uses that may
not add to the value and character of the neighborhood. These uses could
become nuisances in the neighborhood due to loud noises, vibrations, dust and
other externalities associated therefrom. Because of these secondary effects it
would be necessary to condition a rezone to C-3 by prohibiting the types of
uses listed above. However, a conditioned rezone would still allow the storage
and display of U-Haul or rental equipment adjacent one of the main gateway
corridors into and out of the City. Fifteen to twenty years ago the City invested
3
considerable public funds to enhance the West Lewis Street entrance to the
City by installing irrigation and landscaping along both sides of the street from
18th Avenue west to the freeway.
The initial review criteria for considering a rezone application are explained in
PMC. 25.88.030. The criteria are listed below as follows:
1. The date the existing zone became effective:
The current zoning classification was established on or before 1966. The
property was annexed in 1961 but not developed with a motel until 1966.
2. The changed conditions, which are alleged to warrant other or additional
zoning:
Lewis Street is no longer the main highway through Pasco and as a result six of
the original eight motels along Lewis Street have either been demolished or
converted to another use. New Hotels/motels within Pasco are all located within
a convenient distance to Highway 395 or I-182. However, Lewis Street is still an
important gateway into the community and the City has invested considerably to
enhance the appearance of the Lewis Street gateway.
3. Facts to justify the change on the basis of advancing the public health,
safety and general welfare:
The Loyalty Inn is no longer a first stop motel site. Without active marketing,
management and upkeep the property will continue to decline increasing the
possibility of public nuisances impacting neighboring property values. Rezoning
the property may not address broader management issues.
4. The effect it will have on the value and character of the adjacent property
and the Comprehensive Plan:
The property is currently commercial in nature. Rezoning the property to C-3
may help the property to transition partially to other commercial uses that could
provide funding to stop the physical decline that is occurring on the property at
the present time. However that is not guaranteed. The property has been the
subject of numerous housing, property and nuisance code violations in recent
years. Rezoning the property could alter the character of the neighborhood which
consists of residential uses to the north and recently redeveloped commercial
and offices uses to the east. The redeveloped properties to the east are zoned
“O” and C-1.
5. The effect on the property owner or owners if the request is not granted:
4
The owner has several options including upgrading the quality of the premises
by actively managing tenants; creating retail pad sites for permitted retail uses,
modifying the existing structures to include office space and investing in physical
upgrades to the structures and property.
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 contains the Loyalty Inn Motel.
2. The site was developed in 1966 with a motel when Lewis Street was one
of the major highway routes through the community.
3. Lewis Street is no longer the main travel route through town however; it
is still a major gateway into the community.
4. The City invested heavily into enhancing the Lewis Street gateway several
years ago by improving landscaping and irrigation from 18th Avenue west
to the freeway.
5. Most of the motels in Pasco are now located within a short distance of
Highway 395 or I-182.
6. Six of the original eight motels along Lewis Street have been demolished
or mostly converted to other uses.
7. The property is showing signs of disrepair.
8. The property has been the subject of numerous code cases (22) in the
past six years mainly as the result of poor management practices.
9. Rezoning the property could alter the character of the neighborhood
which consists of residential uses to the north and recently redeveloped
commercial and offices uses to the east. The redeveloped properties to
the east are zoned “O” and C-1.
10. The Comprehensive Plan designates the property for commercial land
uses.
11. There are six commercial zones that could be permitted under the
commercial land use designation. C-3 is one of those zones.
12. The site is currently zoned C-1 (Retail business).
13. Properties to the south, east and west are zoned C-1 or “O”.
14. Properties to the north are zoned R-1, R-2 and R-3.
5
15. The C-3 zone permits heavy machinery sales and service, mobile home
and RV sales, landscape gardening and storage area for equipment and
materials, contractor storage and material yards, lumber yards, auto
body shops, trucking and express storage yards and others uses that
may not add to the value and character of the neighborhood.
16. A rezone with a concomitant agreement will still permit the location of
rental trucks and trailers to be located along a gateway entrance to the
City. A concomitant agreement will not address on going management
issues with the property.
CONCLUSIONS BASED ON STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT
Before recommending approval or denial of a special permit the Planning
Commission must develop findings of fact from which to draw its conclusions
based upon the criteria listed in PMC 25.86.060. The criteria are as follows:
1. The proposal is in accordance with the goals and policies of the
Comprehensive Plan.
The proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map and
several Plan policies and goals. The Comprehensive Plan designates the site for
commercial uses. Those portions of the community designated for commercial
development by the Comprehensive Plan could be zone “O”, C-1, C-2, C-3 CR and
BP. Land Use Goal ED-2 encourages the appropriate location and design of
commercial facilities within the City. ED-2-B encourages the development of a
wide range of commercial uses strategically located to support local and regional
needs.
2. The effect of the proposal on the immediate vicinity will not be materially
detrimental.
The proposed C-3 zoning will permit additional commercial uses to locate on the
site which may make it possible for the property to be better maintained and
have less of a detrimental impact on the surrounding neighborhood. Without a
rezone the property could continue to deteriorate. However, not all of the issues
related to code enforcement cases on the property are related to zoning. Many of
the code issues can be traced to poor management of the property.
3. There is merit and value in the proposal for the community as a whole.
There is merit in providing an opportunity for a greater range of commercial uses
on the property that may lead to better maintenance and upkeep. Maintaining
the property at a higher level could provide value to the neighborhood and
community as a whole. Maintaining the property to a higher standard can also
be achieved through improved management.
6
4. Conditions should be imposed in order to mitigate any significant
adverse impacts from the proposal.
If the property were to be rezoned conditions should be imposed to preclude the
location of heavy commercial uses that would not be appropriate for this portion
of Lewis Street. However, a concomitant agreement will not address ongoing
management issues with the property.
5. A Concomitant Agreement should be entered into between the City and
the petitioner, and if so, the terms and conditions of such an agreement.
A rezone with or without a concomitant agreement will not solve the ongoing
issues dealing with property management.
RECOMMENDATION
MOTION for Findings of Fact: I move to adopt findings of fact and
conclusions therefrom as contained in the December 15, 2016 staff
report.
MOTION for Recommendation: I move, based on the findings of
fact and conclusions as adopted, the Planning Commission
recommend the City Council deny the proposed rezone of Lots 2 &
3 Short Plat 2010-08 from C-1 to C-3.
Vi
c
i
n
i
t
y
Ma
p
It
e
m
:
R
e
z
o
n
e
f
r
o
m
C
-
1
t
o
C
-
3
Ap
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
:
M
o
h
i
n
d
e
r
S
o
h
a
l
Fi
l
e
#
:
Z
2
0
1
6
-
0
0
5
SI
T
E
It
e
m
:
R
e
z
o
n
e
f
r
o
m
C
-
1
t
o
C
-
3
Ap
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
:
M
o
h
i
n
d
e
r
S
o
h
a
l
Fi
l
e
#
:
Z
2
0
1
6
-
0
0
5
SI
T
E
Va
c
a
n
t
SF
D
U
s
SF
D
U
s
Mu
l
t
i
-
SFDUs
C
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
C
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
La
n
d
U
s
e
Ma
p
C-
3
C-
1
It
e
m
:
R
e
z
o
n
e
f
r
o
m
C
-
1
t
o
C
-
3
Ap
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
:
M
o
h
i
n
d
e
r
S
o
h
a
l
Fi
l
e
#
:
Z
2
0
1
6
-
0
0
5
SI
T
E
C-
3
R-
1
R-1
R-
3
Z
o
n
i
n
g
Ma
p
C-3
C-
1
C-
1
I-
1
R-
2
R-1 R-3
I-
1
R-
1
"O
"
Lo
o
k
i
n
g
N
o
r
t
h
Lo
o
k
i
n
g
E
a
s
t
Lo
o
k
i
n
g
S
o
u
t
h
Lo
o
k
i
n
g
W
e
s
t
Si
t
e
Si
t
e
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
MASTER FILE NO: SP 2016-015 APPLICANT: Song (Mike) Hwang
HEARING DATE: 11/17/2016 414 W. Columbia St
ACTION DATE: 12/15/2016 Pasco, WA 99301
BACKGROUND
REQUEST: SPECIAL PERMIT: Location of dwelling units on the upper floors
of a building within a C-2 zone.
1. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION:
Legal: Lots 1 thru 8, Block 19, Gerry’s Add
General Location: 414 West Columbia Street
Property Size: 28,046 square feet (approximately .64 Acres)
2. ACCESS: The site has access from West Columbia Street and North 3rd
Avenue, with an alley along the south property line.
3. UTILITIES: All municipal utilities are available to the site.
4. LAND USE AND ZONING: The property is currently zoned C-2 (Central
Business District) and contains a 3-story motel now known as the
Thunderbird Motel. Surrounding zoning and land use are as follows:
North - C-2 Commercial and Office uses
East - I-1 Industrial Uses
South- I-1 Tri-City Union Gospel Mission (Under Construction)
West- C-3 Commercial
5. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The Comprehensive Plan designates this area
as commercial. The plan does not specifically address the location of
residences above the ground level in the commercial zones; however
policies of the plan can be applied to this situation. Policy H-1-A
encourages the location of medium density residential uses near
shopping and employment centers. Policy H-2-A suggests a full range of
housing environments should be provided. This plan also suggests that
residential use should be in close proximity to the downtown area to
support the service related business of the core.
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, the Notice of
Application 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.
2
ANALYSIS
Applicant is seeking a special permit to allow dwelling units on the upper floors
of a building in the C-2 zoning district.
The Pasco Municipal Code (PMC) 25.44.040 [1] contains a provision allowing
dwelling units on the upper floors, but not on the ground floors of a
commercial building in C-2 zones with special permit approval. The PMC also
requires that the main floor of the building be designed and intended for a use
permitted within the C-2 zone. This building was originally constructed in 1965
as a three-story motel; however, since the construction of the freeway system
around the City the Lewis Street corridor has ceased to be a main thoroughfare
for travelers.
Code violation complaints for this location have included the following:
1) Building/ remodeling without a permit (2)
2) Trash, and miscellaneous debris, furniture, appliances, junk, unlicensed
vehicles, auto repair, vehicle parts, garbage container not screened,
broken windows, dilapidated metal window guards in rear, weeds in rear.
3) Miscellaneous debris, broken windows.
4) Hole in the bathroom.
5) Dumpsters overflowing.
6) Unlicensed business (long-term apartment rentals).
7) Nuisance business, health/safety violations in motel rooms.
8) Sewer backing up into building.
In addition, out of over 1,400 police calls associated with this location over the
last 5 years (see attached Summary—Pasco Police Calls to 414 W. Columbia
Street) nearly a thousand of those calls (997) were for on-site issues.
In the C-2 zone, a building may be used as a motel (short-term occupancy) or a
commercial/office building. Motel/hotel use requires a state license, which
enables the State of Washington to collect taxes on transient rental income.
According to the Washington Department of Revenue, “transient rental income
is income received from any guest, resident, or other occupant to whom lodging
and other services are furnished under a license to use real property for less
than 30 continuous days.” However, for long-term residential use the applicant
must obtain a special permit, obtain a City of Pasco rental dwelling license, and
residential units may not be located on the ground floor.
3
Although a Special Permit may be granted for residential uses on upper floors
of commercial buildings, the intent of that provision is to allow for mixed-use
commercial/residential, meaning retail trade at street level with long-term
residential above, with a view that residential uses would add a level of
security—“eyes on the street”—to the retail functionality of the downtown.
Given the nuisance record of this facility, the evidence suggests that the intent
of the mixed use commercial/residential to reduce or eliminate criminal activity
in the downtown area would not be met with the requested Special Permit for
this property.
Furthermore, the property in question is not limited to motel use, as the C-2
zoning district allows for the following uses:
1) Artist and office supplies;
2) Bakeries;
3) Banks and financial institutions;
4) Barber and beauty shops;
5) Bookstores, except adult bookstores;
6) Clothing, shoes and accessories, and costume rentals;
7) Crafts, stationary and gift shops;
8) Department stores;
9) Fresh and frozen meats, including seafood;
10) Florists;
11) Furniture and home appliance stores;
12) Galleries for art and restored or refinished antiques;
13) Hardware and home improvement stores;
14) Import shops;
15) Jewelry and gem shops, including custom work;
16) Offices for medical and professional services;
17) Restaurants, sandwich shops, cafeterias and delicatessens;
18) Sporting goods;
19) Tailoring and seamstress shops;
20) Theaters for movies and performances, except adult theaters;
21) Public markets for fresh produce and craft work;
22) Parking lots;
23) Micro-breweries and micro-wineries;
24) Research, development and assembly facilities for component devices
and equipment of an electrical, electronic or electromagnetic nature; and
25) Home brewing and/or wine making equipment sales.
INITIAL STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT
Findings of fact must be entered from the record. The following are initial
findings drawn from the background and analysis sections of the staff report.
The Planning Commission may add additional findings to this listing as the
4
result of factual testimony and evidence submitted during the open record
hearing.
1. The site is zoned C-2 (Retail Business).
2. The site is developed with a 2-story building.
3. The site has approximately 43 on-site parking places.
4. The building was initially designed and used as a motel.
5. Office, retail, and motel uses may all be located in C-2 zones.
6. Hotel/motel occupancy is considered transient rental and is subject to
State of Washington transient rental income taxes.
7. Residential uses other than short-duration hotel/motel occupancies in
the C-2 zoning district are allowed in commercial zones only with a
Special Permit.
8. Long-term residential use requires a City of Pasco rental dwelling license.
9. Residential uses other than short-duration hotel/motel occupancies in
the C-2 zoning may not be located on the ground floor.
10. No zoning change is being considered; the property will retain its C-2
Zoning.
11. There have been at least 8 recent Code violation complaints for this
location.
12. There have been nearly 1,000 on-site police calls (997) to this location
over the last 5 years (see attached Summary—Pasco Police Calls to 414
W. Columbia Street).
13. Transient rental income is income received from any guest, resident, or
other occupant to whom lodging and other services are furnished under
a license to use real property for less than 30 continuous days.”
14. The intent of allowing Special Permits for residential uses on upper floors
of commercial buildings is to add “eyes on the street” security to the
retail functionality of the downtown.
15. Given the nuisance record of this facility, the evidence suggests that the
intent of the mixed use commercial/residential to reduce or eliminate
5
criminal activity in the downtown area would not be met with the
requested Special Permit for this property.
16. The C-2 zoning district allows for a wide array of office, trade, retail, and
entertainment uses.
CONCLUSIONS BASED ON INITIAL STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT
The Planning Commission must make findings of fact based upon the criteria
listed in P.M.C. 25.86.060. The criteria and staff listed findings are as follows:
1) Will the proposed use be in accordance with the goals, policies, objectives
and text of the Comprehensive Plan?
The site is designated for commercial uses by the Comprehensive Plan. The
plan does not specifically address the location of dwelling units within the C-2
zone, however policies of the plan suggest that residential use should be in
close proximity to the downtown area to support the service related business of
the core.
2) Will the proposed use adversely affect public infrastructure?
The demands of this proposal on the public infrastructure are about the same
as allowed uses in the area. The required municipal utilities are sized to
accommodate demands of a greater intensity than this proposal will place upon
the systems.
3) Will the proposed use be constructed, maintained and operated to be in
harmony with existing or intended character of the general vicinity?
The history of this site, including code violations and numerous police calls
over the last five years, indicates it will not be operated in accordance with the
intended character of the downtown area.
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?
Size, height of the structure and size of the site are constants; the building
already exists.
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?
6
The history of this site, including code violations and numerous police calls
over the last five years, indicates it will 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.
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 history of this site, including code violations and numerous police calls
over the last five years, indicates it has and would continue to endanger the
public health and safety if located and developed where proposed, and it has
and will continue to be a nuisance to uses permitted in the district.
RECOMMENDATION
MOTION: I move to adopt findings of fact and conclusions therefrom as
contained in the December 15, 2016 staff report.
MOTION: I move, based on the findings of fact and conclusions
therefrom, the Planning Commission recommend the City
Council deny a special permit for the location of dwelling
units on the upper floors of a building located at 414 West
Columbia Street.
Summary - Pasco Police Calls to 414 W. Columbia Street
November 2011 to November 2016
Call classification Count Translation
911HU 30 911 Hang-Up
A/OTH 3 Accident/other
ANIMAL 1 Animal Violation
AS/AMB 11 Officer Assist/Ambulance
AS/BAR 2 Officer Assist/Bar
AS/COURT 1 Officer Assist/Court
AS/FIRE 1 Officer Assist/Fire Department
AS/OTH 24 Officer Assist/Other
AS/OUT 17 Officer Assist/Outside
ASLT/DV 9 Assault/Domestic violence
ASSAULT 8 Assault
AUTO/THE 3 Automobile Theft
BURGLARY 4 Burglary
CANCELLE 1 Cancelled Call
CANCEVT 2 Used for cancel event testing
CHILD/OT 1 Child Other
CHILD/SE 2 Child Sexual Abuse
CIVIL 75 Civil
COUNTERF 2 Counterfeiting
CPS/REFE 1 Child Protective Services referral
DEATH 3 Death
DIS/COND 71 Disorderly Conduct
DISTURB 15 Disturbance
DOMESTIC 9 Domestic
DUPNCAN 6 Duplicate and Cancel
EX/PATRO 14 Ex Patrol
FIELD 29 Field
FIREWORK 3 Fireworks
FLD/ARR 5 Field Arrest
FLD/CONT 343 Field Contact
FOLLOWUP 37 Follow-up
FRAUD 2 Fraud
GANG 2 Gang-related
HARASS 1 Harassment
HAZARD 1 Hazard
INFO 116 Information
KIDNAP 2 Kidnapping
LEW/COND 2 Lewd Conduct
LOIT 10 Loitering
MAL/MISC 3 Miscellaneous Malicious Behavior
MENTAL 15 Mental Health Issue
NARCOTIC 47 Narcotics
NOISE/OR 6 Noise Ordinance/Loud People/Loud house
OBSTRUCT 11 Obstruction of Justice
OPN/BLDG 1 Open Building
ORDER/VI 5 Violation of court order
SP 2016-015 Data Thunderbird 5-year Page 1 of 2
Printed 11/29/2016
at 3:00 PM
Summary - Pasco Police Calls to 414 W. Columbia Street
November 2011 to November 2016
PROPERTY 8 Property crimes
PROSTIT 3 Prostitution
PROWLER 1 Prowler
REC/STLN 4 Recovered Stolen
ROBBERY 2 Robbery
RUN/RTN 3 Runaway Returned
SEX/OFF 1 Sex Offender
SRCH/WAR 1 Search Warrant
SUICIDE/ 1 Suicide
SUSP/CIR 50 Suspicious Circumstances
SUSP/PER 9 Suspicious Person
THEFT 10 Theft
THEFT/SL 1 Theft
THREATS 3 Threats
TMVWOP 2 Taking Motor Vehicle Without Permission
TRAFFIC 65 Traffic
TRESPASS 144 Trespassing
UNFOUND 10 Unfounded
VEH/ABAN 1 Abandoned Vehicle
WALK 5 Walk-Through
WARNT/OU 15 Outstanding Warrant
WARNT/SE 79 Warrant Served
WELF/CKS 30 Welfare Check
Grand Total 1,405
SP 2016-015 Data Thunderbird 5-year Page 2 of 2
Printed 11/29/2016
at 3:00 PM
Vi
c
i
n
i
t
y
Ma
p
It
e
m
:
S
p
e
c
i
a
l
P
e
r
m
i
t
-
L
o
n
g
-
T
e
r
m
R
e
s
.
R
e
n
t
a
l
i
n
C
-
2
Ap
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
:
S
o
n
g
H
w
a
n
g
Fi
l
e
#
:
S
P
2
0
1
6
-
0
1
5
SI
T
E
It
e
m
:
S
p
e
c
i
a
l
P
e
r
m
i
t
-
L
o
n
g
-
T
e
r
m
R
e
s
.
R
e
n
t
a
l
i
n
C
-
2
Ap
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
:
S
o
n
g
H
w
a
n
g
Fi
l
e
#
:
S
P
2
0
1
6
-
0
1
5
La
n
d
U
s
e
Ma
p
Co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
C
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
Industrial
In
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l
SI
T
E
It
e
m
:
S
p
e
c
i
a
l
P
e
r
m
i
t
-
L
o
n
g
-
T
e
r
m
R
e
s
.
R
e
n
t
a
l
i
n
C
-
2
Ap
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
:
S
o
n
g
H
w
a
n
g
Fi
l
e
#
:
S
P
2
0
1
6
-
0
1
5
C-
2
C-
2
I-1
I-
1
C-3
C-
3
C-
3 C-
1
C-
1
SI
T
E
Zo
n
i
n
g
Ma
p
Lo
o
k
i
n
g
N
o
r
t
h
Lo
o
k
i
n
g
E
a
s
t
Lo
o
k
i
n
g
S
o
u
t
h
Lo
o
k
i
n
g
W
e
s
t
Si
t
e
1
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
MASTER FILE NO: SP2016-016 APPLICANT: Veronica Jimenez
HEARING DATE: 12-15-16 4122 Sahara Dr.
ACTION DATE: 1-15-17 Pasco, WA 99301
BACKGROUND
REQUEST FOR SPECIAL PERMIT: Location of a Church (CLUE Church) in a
C-1 District
1. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION:
Legal: Parcel # 115-502-016: a portion of the South half of Section 8,
Township 9 North, Range 29 WM;
General Location: 5202 Outlet Dr.
Property Size: Approximately 11 acres
2. ACCESS: The site has access from Sandifur Parkway by way of Outlet
Drive
3. UTILITIES: The site is served by municipal water and sewer.
4. LAND USE AND ZONING: The property is currently zoned C-1 (Retail
Business). All surrounding property is zoned C-1 and undeveloped.
5. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The site is designated in the Plan for future
commercial uses. The Plan does not specifically address churches, but
elements of the Plan encourage the promotion of orderly development
including the development of zoning standards for off-street parking and
other development standards.
6. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The City of Pasco is the lead
agency for this project. An environmental determination will be made
after the public hearing for this project. A Determination of Non-
Significance or Mitigated Determination of Non-Significance is likely for
this application (WAC 197-11-355).
ANALYSIS
The application involves the location of a second church within the floor space
currently rented by the Bethel Church in the Broadmoor Square Mall. Bethel
Church occupies 17,936 square feet of floor area in the southeast corner of the
mall property. Bethel Church was granted a special permit to locate in the mall
in 2012. In original special permit was limited to 3 years and expired in
October of 2015. The special permit was then renewed without an expiration
date. Bethel church was also granted a special permit for a day care center
2
within the same space. The C.L.U.E. Church (Christo La Unica Esperanza
Church) plans on sharing space with Bethel Church. The two churches will
stager their worship times so both groups will not be in the building at the
same time.
Bethel Church uses the building on Sundays from 9:00 am to 11:00 am. It is
anticipated the C.L.U.E. Church will use the same space from 11:00 am to
2:00 pm. Additionally the new church will be in the building on Monday nights
for youth activities and the dress rehearsal for the following Sunday service.
The major functions of the two churches will occur on Sundays when Charter
College is closed and minimal activities are occurring at the mall.
The Outlet Mall contains over 103,000 square feet of floor space. Forty-one
thousand square feet of the mall is devoted to institutional uses (Charter
College, World Life Church and the Police Mini Station). About Thirty-three
percent of the mall floor area is vacant.
The lease agreement with Bethel Church requires the church to participate in
all common area charges shared by all lessees within the Mall. The common
area charges are used for parking lot and exterior property maintenance. That
agreement will not change with the including of the C.L.U.E. Church sharing
space with Bethel Church.
The Municipal Code (PMC 25.78.170) requires one off-street parking space for
every 10 lineal feet of bench (pew) seating or one space for every 4 chairs in a
church. Based on the occupancy loading of 450 people, 113 parking spaces
would be required. No additional seating will be added for the C.L.U.E. Church
they will be using the same sanctuary space at a different time than the Bethel
Church. Parking areas are located to the north and south of the proposed
church location provide more than 113 parking spaces.
The Outlet Mall was constructed to meet Building Code requirements for retail
activities. Places of religious worship are classified in the Building Code as “A”
occupancies. When a building is changed from one occupancy class to another
(from an “M” [Mercantile] to an “A” [Assembly] for example) the building is
required to meet life/safety standards required for the new occupancy
classification. The main sanctuary area is large enough to allow seating for at
least 450 people.
To meet the “A” occupancy requirements proper exiting, exit signage,
emergency lighting, occupancy separation walls (between retail space and
church space), additional restroom facilities and fire sprinklers are generally
required by the Building Code. These occupancy changes were previously
completed by Bethel church. No additional building modifications will be
needed.
3
The Outlet Mall was built in 1995 for retail commercial purposes and was only
marginally successful in attracting retail tenants. As the Outlet Mall business
model decreased in popularity, occupancy rates at the Broadmoor Outlet Mall
declined. Forty percent of the Broadmoor Mall is currently occupied by
institutional uses such as Charter College, the World Life Christian Center and
the Mini Police Station. Without the institutional uses seventy-three percent of
the Mall would be vacant. While locating non-tax generating uses in a
commercial area with freeway visibility is generally not a good choice for
promoting additional retail activity it may be justified given the ongoing
vacancy issues at the Broadmoor Outlet Mall. The Mall is seen as a temporary
location for the churches which eventually find permanent locations. World Life
Church is an example of a church that was located in the Outlet Mall for
several years before finding a permeant location on court Street. Likewise
Bethel Church has purchased 7.5 acres of Land on Chapel Hill Boulevard for
the location of a permeant church building. The operators of the C.L.U.E.
Church anticipates relocating with the Bethel church when a new building is
constructed on Chapel Hill Boulevard.
A potential problem with a church locating in a commercial area is the fact that
some retail establishments or restaurants sell or serve liquor. There is a
concern some churches may object to the approval of liquor licenses nearby.
The issue is typically addressed by placing a condition on the Special Permit
approval limiting the church’s ability to object to a liquor license.
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. Churches are unclassified uses requiring review through the special
permit process prior to locating or expanding in any zoning district.
2. The proposed church site is zoned C-1.
3. The proposed site is located at 5202 Outlet Drive.
4. The site was originally developed as the Broadmoor Outlet Mall.
5. The Outlet Mall contains over 103,000 square feet of floor area.
6. About thirty-three percent of the Outlet Mall is vacant.
7. About forty percent of the Outlet Mall is occupied by institutional uses
(Charter College, World Life Church and Police Mini Station).
4
8. The area proposed to be occupied by the church is currently being used
by the Bethel church.
9. Bethel Church has been granted three special permits for the site. Two
for the church (one permit has expired) and one for a day care.
10. Churches are classified as an “A” occupancy under the International
Building Code. “A” occupancy standards are different than the “M”
occupancy standards. Bethel Church has previously addressed the
occupancy standards.
11. The proposed sanctuary is large enough to hold at least 450 people.
12. The Municipal Code (PMC 25.78.170) requires one off-street parking
space for every 10 lineal feet of bench (pew) seating or one space for every
4 chairs in a church.
13. Based on the occupancy loading of 450 people, 113 parking spaces
would be required.
14. Parking areas are located to the north and south of the proposed church
location with more than 113 parking spaces.
15. Church functions on Sunday will occur on site from at least 9:00 am to
2:00 pm.
CONCLUSIONS BASED ON THE FINDINGS OF FACT
Before recommending approval or denial of a special permit the Planning
Commission must develop findings of fact from which to draw its conclusion
based upon the criteria listed in P.M.C. 25.86.060 and determine whether or
not the proposal:
(1) Will the proposed use be in accordance with the goals, policies, objectives
and text of the Comprehensive Plan?
The Plan does not specifically address churches, but elements of the Plan
encourage the promotion of orderly development including the
development of zoning standards for off-street parking and other
development standards.
(2) Will the proposed use adversely affect public infrastructure?
The Outlet Mall was designed to handle significant traffic with a large
parking lot and interior circulation. The proposed church will conduct
services at times when other Mall traffic is generally low and utility usage
is low.
(3) Will the proposed use be constructed, maintained and operated to be in
harmony with existing or intended character of the general vicinity?
5
The proposed church will be located in the Broadmoor Outlet Mall and
no exterior changes are planned to the building. The current store front
character will be maintained. The Bethel church currently participates
in common area maintenance costs to maintain the common area of the
Mall. The intended character of the Outlet Mall is retail in nature. The
proposed church is not expected to impact the character of the mall in a
permanent manner.
(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 church will be located in part of the existing Outlet Mall
and no structures will be built or added to the Mall. The site design will
remain unchanged. Allowing the church to be located in the Mall on a
long-term basis may discourage the development/location of commercial
enterprises within the Mall. This concern could be addressed by limiting
the time period for allowing the church to remain in the Mall.
(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 church will generate no more dust, vibrations, flashing lights or
fumes than would be expected by permitted retail uses of the zoning
district. Traffic generated by the church will occur mostly on Sunday
mornings when Mall traffic is minimal. Small weekly meetings will
generate minimal traffic on Monday.
(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?
Past history of church operations within the City has shown they do
not endanger public health or safety and are generally not nuisance
generators.
APPROVAL CONDITIONS
1) The special permit shall be personal to the applicant;
2) The space leased to the church must be maintained to conform with all
“A” occupancy requirements of the International Building Code;
6
3) The church shall not object to the transfer, renewal or issuance of a
liquor license for an existing or new establishment within 1,000 feet of
the property;
RECOMMENDATION
MOTION: I move to close the hearing on the proposed rezone and set
January 19, 2017 as the date for deliberations and the
development of a recommendation for the City Council.
Vi
c
i
n
i
t
y
Ma
p
It
e
m
:
S
p
e
c
i
a
l
P
e
r
m
i
t
-
C
h
u
r
c
h
i
n
a
C
-
1
Z
o
n
e
Ap
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
:
O
m
a
r
R
a
m
i
r
e
z
Fi
l
e
#
:
S
P
2
0
1
6
-
0
1
6
SI
T
E
Mo
t
o
r
-
cy
c
l
e
Sa
l
e
s
It
e
m
:
S
p
e
c
i
a
l
P
e
r
m
i
t
-
C
h
u
r
c
h
i
n
a
C
-
1
Z
o
n
e
Ap
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
:
O
m
a
r
R
a
m
i
r
e
z
Fi
l
e
#
:
S
P
2
0
1
6
-
0
1
6
SI
T
E
La
n
d
U
s
e
Ma
p
RV
Sa
l
e
s
Va
c
a
n
t
SFDUs
Va
c
a
n
t
V
a
c
a
n
t
V
a
c
a
n
t
RV
Sa
l
e
s
Pr
i
v
a
t
e
S
c
h
o
o
l
C-
1
It
e
m
:
S
p
e
c
i
a
l
P
e
r
m
i
t
-
C
h
u
r
c
h
i
n
a
C
-
1
Z
o
n
e
Ap
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
:
O
m
a
r
R
a
m
i
r
e
z
Fi
l
e
#
:
S
P
2
0
1
6
-
0
1
6
SI
T
E
Zo
n
i
n
g
Ma
p
CR
CR
R-1
C-
1
Lo
o
k
i
n
g
N
o
r
t
h
Lo
o
k
i
n
g
E
a
s
t
Lo
o
k
i
n
g
S
o
u
t
h
Lo
o
k
i
n
g
W
e
s
t
Si
t
e
1
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
MASTER FILE NO: Z 2016-006 APPLICANT: Pro Made Homes
HEARING DATE: 12/15/2016 6223 W Deschutes Ave
ACTION DATE: 1/15/2017 Suite 508
Kennewick WA 99337
BACKGROUND
REQUEST: REZONE: Rezone from C-1 (Retail Business) to R-3 (Medium-
Density Residential)
1. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION:
Legal: Lot B, Majestia Place
General Location: The 5800 Block of Road 90
Property Size: Approximately 1.14 acres.
2. ACCESS: The parcel is accessible from Road 90.
3. UTILITIES: All municipal utilities are currently available to serve the site
from Road 90.
4. LAND USE AND ZONING: The lot is currently zoned C-1 (Retail
Business) and is vacant. Surrounding properties are zoned and
developed as follows:
NORTH: R-1 – Majestia Place
SOUTH: C-1 – Office Building under construction
EAST: R-1 & R-3 – Developing with Single-Family Homes
WEST: R-3 – Vacant
5. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The Comprehensive Plan designates the site
for either Mixed-Residential or Commercial uses. Goal LU-3-E
encourages the City to designate areas for higher density residential
development where utilities and other facilities enable efficient use of
capital resources. Other goals and policies suggest the City permit a full
range of residential environments including multi-family homes (H-2-A)
and standards that control the scale and density of accessory buildings
and homes to maintain compatibility with other residential uses (H-4-B).
6. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The City of Pasco is the lead
agency for this project. An environmental determination will be made
after the public hearing for this project. A Determination of Non-
Significance or Mitigated Determination of Non-Significance is likely for
this application (WAC 197-11-355).
2
ANALYSIS
The site was annexed in 1982 as part of the Northwest annexation area. Upon
annexation the property was initially zone RT (Residential Transition) and later
zoned to C-1 (Retail Business). The site is in a transition area as indicated in the
Comprehensive Plan and can be zoned either mixed-residential or for commercial
development.
Surrounding properties began developing with Mediterranean Villas (a multi-
family zoned development) in 2002. Broadmoor estates followed and now single-
family homes are being built in the Majestia Place subdivision to the north. The
commercially zoned property directly south of the site is being developed with a
large office building. A total of three office buildings are planned for the site to the
south.
The site in question is a remnant of a larger lot that was mostly included in the
Majestia Place plat to the north. Majestia Place is a 38-lot single-family
subdivision. Pro Made Homes recently requested R-3 zoning for the two acre
parcel directly to the west. Not fully understanding the zoning process the
applicant meant to but, did not include the current parcel in the R-3 rezone to
the west. The applicant is now seeking to have Lot B Majestia Place rezoned
from C-1 to R-3.
The site is over 800 feet north of Sandifur Parkway, too far from a major street
to be considered prime commercial property. Rezoning the property to R-3
would enable the applicant to create a buffer between his single–family
development to the north (Majestia Place) and the commercially zoned property
to the south.
The requested R-3 zone permits construction of single-family homes, duplexs
and other multi-family structures. Multi-family densities are permitted at one
unit per 3,000 square feet of land. The site is less desirable for single-family
development due of the office building directly to the south of the property.
The initial review criteria for considering a rezone application are explained in
PMC. 25.88.030. The criteria are listed below as follows:
1. The date the existing zone became effective:
The current zoning classification was established after 1982 when the property
was annexed to the City. The property was originally subdivided and zoned in
the County in 1967, 49-years ago.
3
2. The changed conditions, which are alleged to warrant other or additional
zoning:
Much of the neighborhood to the north, northwest and northeast has developed
with single-family and some multi-family dwellings. Majestia Lane to the north
now connects Road 90 and Road 92 to provide cross circulation through the
neighborhood and the looping of utilities. All public utilities are now available to
the site. Single-family homes in Majestia Place now back onto property currently
zoned C-1. Rezoning the site will provide a buffer area of medium-density
residential zoning between single-family homes and commercial zoning to the
south.
3. Facts to justify the change on the basis of advancing the public health,
safety and general welfare:
Approval of the proposed rezone will continue a pattern of residential
development in the vicinity. The proposed zoning assignment is consistent with
the Comprehensive Plan which has been determined to be in the best interest of
advancing public health, safety and general welfare. The rezone will allow the
creation of a buffer area between the newly developed residential lots to the
north and the commercial properties to the south, east and west.
4. The effect it will have on the value and character of the adjacent property
and the Comprehensive Plan:
A change in zoning classification will result in the establishment of a residential
buffer area between the existing single-family development to the north and the
commercial area to the south having a positive impact on the neighborhood. The
rezone will lead to development of the property thereby eliminating potential
nuisance conditions that may exist on the lot by way of dust of weeds that can
impact the surrounding residential areas.
5. The effect on the property owner or owners if the request is not granted:
Without transitioning the site to residential zoning the development potential of
the site is limited due to the distance from a major arterial street. The site is
likely to remain undeveloped for many years if it is not rezoned.
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.
4
1. The site is vacant.
2. The site was platted in 1967 and has remained undeveloped since that
time.
3. The site is 1.14 acres in size.
4. The site is currently zoned C-1 (Retail business).
5. Properties to the south are zoned C-1.
6. Properties to the north are zoned R-1.
7. The site is located on a local access street more than 800 feet north of
Sandifur Parkway.
8. The applicant is requesting R-3 (Medium-Density Residential) zoning.
9. The Comprehensive Plan identifies the site for Mixed-Residential uses
which includes R-1 zoning.
10. All municipal utilities are currently available in Road 90.
11. The rezone will facilitate infill development which is encouraged by the
Comprehensive Plan.
12. The rezone will establish a buffer or transition area between low-density
residential development to the north and commercial development to the
south.
13. The Mediterranean Villas subdivision to the west is zoned R-3 and
developed with a mix of townhouses, duplexes and single family homes
and an RV storage facility.
14. The Rapture Cove development to the east was zoned R-3 for a senior
rental community.
CONCLUSIONS BASED ON STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT
Before recommending approval or denial of a special permit the Planning
Commission must develop findings of fact from which to draw its conclusions
based upon the criteria listed in PMC 25.86.060. The criteria are as follows:
1. The proposal is in accordance with the goals and policies of the
Comprehensive Plan.
The proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map and
several Plan policies and goals. Land Use Policy LU-3-B encourages “infill”
development while H-2-A suggests the City permit a full range of residential
environments. Housing Policy (H-B-A) encourages standards that control the
scale and density of accessory buildings and homes to maintain compatibility
with other residential uses.
5
2. The effect of the proposal on the immediate vicinity will not be materially
detrimental.
The proposed R-3 zoning will permit site development matching the character of
Mediterranean Villas to the northwest and will provide a buffer between the new
single-family development to the north and the commercial property to the south.
The proposed rezone will also match the recently approved R-3 zoning on the two
acres parcel to the west. Based on past experience within the community multi-
family development adjacent to single-family development does not impact the
value of the surrounding single-family homes.
3. There is merit and value in the proposal for the community as a whole.
There is merit in developing vacant parcels within the City in accordance with the
goals and policies contained in the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed zoning is
consistent with the Plan’s Land Use Map. Providing an increased range of
housing opportunities available in those areas currently served my municipal
utilities and will enable efficient use of capital resources. The proposal is
supported by land use goals and policies contained in the Comprehensive Plan.
4. Conditions should be imposed in order to mitigate any significant
adverse impacts from the proposal.
No special conditions are proposed by staff.
5. A Concomitant Agreement should be entered into between the City and
the petitioner, and if so, the terms and conditions of such an agreement.
A concomitant agreement is not needed.
RECOMMENDATION
MOTION: I move to close the hearing on the proposed rezone and set
January 15, 2017 as the date for deliberations and the
development of a recommendation for the City Council.
.
It
e
m
:
R
e
z
o
n
e
C
-
1
t
o
R
-
3
Ap
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
:
P
r
o
M
a
d
e
C
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
Fi
l
e
#
:
Z
2
0
1
6
-
0
0
6
Vi
c
i
n
i
t
y
Ma
p
Re
z
o
n
e
Z2
0
1
6
-
0
0
4
Ap
p
r
o
v
e
d
SI
T
E
It
e
m
:
R
e
z
o
n
e
C
-
1
t
o
R
-
3
Ap
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
:
P
r
o
M
a
d
e
C
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
Fi
l
e
#
:
Z
2
0
1
6
-
0
0
6
La
n
d
U
s
e
Ma
p
Va
c
a
n
t
Co
m
m
.
To
w
n
h
o
m
e
s
SFDUs Comm.
55
+
P
U
D
SF
D
U
s
Va
c
a
n
t
Va
c
a
n
t
SI
T
E
Co
m
m
.
Co
m
m
.
It
e
m
:
R
e
z
o
n
e
C
-
1
t
o
R
-
3
Ap
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
:
P
r
o
M
a
d
e
C
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
Fi
l
e
#
:
Z
2
0
1
6
-
0
0
4
R-
3
R-1 R-3
R-
1
C-
1
Z
o
n
i
n
g
Ma
p
R-1
C-
1
C-1
SI
T
E
R-
3
Lo
o
k
i
n
g
N
o
r
t
h
Lo
o
k
i
n
g
E
a
s
t
Lo
o
k
i
n
g
S
o
u
t
h
Lo
o
k
i
n
g
W
e
s
t
Page 1 of 3
M E M O R A N D U M
DATE: November 2, 2016
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Jeffrey B. Adams, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: Pet Small-Breed Pigs or Mini Pigs (MF# CA 2016-005)
A City of Pasco resident has requested that the City Code be changed to allow
for the keeping of mini pigs as pets.
Basic Characteristics
Mini Pigs are a miniature size pig as recognized and registered by the American
Mini Pig Association. They are usually a product of interbreeding Vietnamese
potbellied pigs with several breeds, including Juliana, Gottengin/Guttengin,
African Pygmy, Yucatan Micro, and/or Swedish White.
Many common labels or nicknames for the American Mini Pig include: Teacup,
Micro, Super Micro, Nano, Pixie, and Pocket Pig. These nicknames are not
considered breeds, but size classifications or labels individual breeders place to
describe size. As such, they are often misleading to customers who expect their
mini pig to remain tiny over their lifespan. However, mini pigs recognized and
registered by the American Mini Pig Association average 12-18 inches in height,
and typically weigh in between 50 to 150 lbs. While this is small as compared
to commercially bred livestock pigs which can exceed 1,000 pounds when
allowed to mature, 50 to 050 pounds of animal is usually not what customers
expect of a “teacup” “pocket” or “pixie” pig.
Mini pigs can live to be 15 or 16 years old, and are bred and sold as pets.
Breeders focus on temperament, personality, size, and structural soundness
avoiding genetic faults or aggression. Pigs are typically very quiet, but can raise
their voice when they are hurt, scared, or lonely. A pig’s most extreme squeal
can reach 110 decibels, compared to a dog kennel of barking dogs at around
100-108 decibels. Unspayed mini pig females suffer from "PMS" and strong
mood swings; intact males produce a pungent odor in addition to displaying
other unpleasant traits; neither are desirable pets. The American Mini Pig
Association recommends all pet pigs be spayed or neutered before 6 months of
age.
Page 2 of 3
The American Mini Pig Association identifies King County, Palouse, Prosser,
Seattle, and Vancouver in the State of Washington as having adopted
provisions for mini pigs.
Mini Pig Options
On September 19, 2016 the City Council held a workshop where they
discussed a code amendment for the keeping of mini-pigs, and requested the
Planning Commission consider several options related to the issue, as follows:
1) Permit mini-pigs as pets outright;
2) Permit mini-pigs as pets via Special Permit; or
3) Prohibit mini-pigs as pets.
Option 1: Permit outright mini-pigs as pets
The first option, permitting mini-pigs as pets outright would require
amendment of the Pasco Municipal Code with special attention focused on the
particular characteristics of porcine as pets, as opposed to cats or dogs. Most
jurisdictions that allow mini pigs require licensing and spaying/neutering.
Several also require appropriate vaccinations in conjunction with the license.
Consideration of providing for mini-pigs in the Pasco Municipal Code would
require amendments to Title 8 (Animal Control) and Title 25 (Zoning). The pigs
would be licensed in the same way as a cat or dog.
While this might seem simple, surrounding jurisdictions have weighed in on
the issue.
The City of Richland offered the following comments:
The issue of mini-pigs should be addressed carefully because I
understand that many people offer mini-pigs for sale which are not truly
of a mini breed. People buy them, get them home, feed them and before
long they have a full-sized hog living in their home. The large pigs get
aggressive and destructive. It would be difficult to know if the piglet you
are buying is actually of a miniature variety.
The City of Kennewick also shared the following:
We've had a few requests to have mini-pigs or pot-bellied pigs as pets in
the last 2 years and we've denied them all. We have continued to classify
all pigs as farm animals so they are only permitted in our lowest
intensity residential zone provided that the parcel is 30,000 sq. ft. or
larger, then only 1 per ½ acre is permitted. Mini-pigs generally grow to be
over 100 lbs. and that most of the time the ones that are sold as "mini-
pigs" are just baby pot-bellied pigs that grow to be fairly large, just not as
large as a typical farm pig.
Page 3 of 3
The Animal Control Agency for the Tri-Cities, which is charged with dealing
with stray and abandoned animals, has advised that mini-pigs get quite large
and can create quite a mess in a yard. They also expressed concern that they
do not have a facility to house the pigs should they fall out of favor with their
owners.
Special Permitting mini-pigs as pets
The Special Permit process is expensive and unwieldy for both the applicant
and the City. It takes around 3 months and the outcome is not guaranteed for
either the applicant or the City. Because each case is addressed on an
individual basis it is subject to natural biases and complexities each case
entails. This uncertainty increases the liability risk factor for the City, and by
extension, the taxpayer.
As well, adding yet another classification for which a Special Permit is required
serves to bind up the all-volunteer Planning Commission with yet another task.
It is generally better to handle such items either administratively or once-and-
for-all via legislation.
Prohibit mini-pigs as pets
Prohibiting pigs as pets and classifying all pigs as farm animals would be the
simplest course of action for the City, in terms of administration and
enforcement. It should also be noted that staff is unaware of other requests for
mini pigs in the last several years, although there have been 7 verified pig-
related complaints, resulting in 5 Code Enforcement Board cases between 2008
and 2016.
While there may be a handful of people desirous of keeping pigs, the public
benefits of pets as pigs (if any) would likely not offset the health, safety and
welfare concerns for the public at large.
Staff requests Planning Commission discussion and direction on this issue.