HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-19-2017 Planning Commission Meeting PacketPLANNING COMMISSION - AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING
I.
CALL TO ORDER:
II.
ROLL CALL:
III.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
IV.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
V.
OLD BUSINESS:
A. Special Permit
7:00 P.M.
Declaration of Quorum
December 21, 2016
January 19, 2017
Location of a Church in a C-1 (Retail Business) Zone
(Omar Ramirez/CLUE Church) (MF #SP 2016-016)
B. Rezone Rezone from C-1 (Retail Business) to R-3 (Medium
Density Residential) (Pro Made Homes) (MF# Z
2016-006)
VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
A. Special Permit
B. Special Permit
C. Code Amendment
VII. WORKSHOP:
VIII. OTHER BUSINESS:
IX. ADJOURNMENT:
Location of a davcare center in an R -1-A Zone
(Gloria Torres) (MF# SP 2016-017)
Location of portables at Chiawana High School
(Pasco School District) (MF# SP 2016-018(
Mini -Pigs in Residential Zones (MF# CA 2016-005)
This meeting is broadcast live on PSC -TV Channel 191 on Charter Cable and streamed at
www.pasco-wa.com/psctvlive.
Audio equipment available for the hearing impaired; contact staff for assistance.
REGULAR MEETING
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
CALL TO ORDER:
The meeting was called to order at 7:OOpm by Chairwoman Roach.
POSITION MEMBERS PRESENT
No. 1
No. 2
Kurt Lukins
No. 3
Paul Mendez
No. 4
Alecia Greenaway
No. 5
No. 6
Loren Polk
No. 7
Zahra Roach
No. 8
Pam Bykonen
No. 9
Gabriel Portugal
APPEARANCE OF FAIRNESS:
MEMBERS ABSENT
Tanya Bowers
Joe Cruz
December 21, 2016
Chairwoman Roach read a statement about the appearance of fairness for hearings on
land use matters. Commissioner Lukins declared that he was a member of the church
that would be renting to one of the applicants on the agenda (MF# SP 2016-016), however
he stated that he would remain impartial as long as the other Commissioners did not have
concerns with him hearing that public hearing item. The Commissioners did not have any
concerns.
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.
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 Greenaway moved, seconded by Commissioner Mendez that the minutes
dated November 17, 2016 be approved. The motion passed unanimously.
OLD BUSINESS:
A. Comp Plan Amendment Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan (West) IMF#
CPA 2016-0021 (Continued from 11/17/16)
Chairwoman Roach read the master file number and asked for comments from staff.
Dave McDonald, City Planner, discussed the proposed amendment to the Comprehensive
me
Plan. He explained that the public hearing was closed at the previous meeting but the
item was continued for further discussion by the Commission. As a result of the public
hearings, staff made some modifications to the staff report. A paragraph was added under
the "Environmental Determination" section relating to the Port of Pasco's request for the
Planning Commission to modify the applicant's urban growth boundary amendment to
exclude Zones 2 & 4 of the Airport Safety Zones but to do that that the Commission would
be disregarding the code presently in place to protect the airport. If the Planning
Commission decides not to recommend bringing the property into the UGA they will need
additional findings of fact to support their decision. Denying the application would shift
the public burden of additional airport protections onto the two property owners making it
more difficult for them to develop or use their property. After consultation with the City
Attorney, there are two options the Planning Commission could consider; accept the
application for the amendment as proposed by the applicant or recommend that none of
the area be brought into the urban growth boundary. To do the latter, the Planning
Commission would have to develop additional findings of fact to justify why it shouldn't be
brought in. Given changes in the community and the new population estimate, it would
be difficult to come up with findings that would lead to a recommendation not to accept
any of the 160 acres. Staff also added an Exhibit based on discussion at the previous
hearing. The City Council adopted the Airport Overlay Zones at the urging of the Port of
Pasco and those overlay zones were specifically designed to protect the integrity of the
airport and the airspace around the airport. Adding to the overlay zones by excluding this
area from the urban growth boundary doesn't change anything - whether they are in the
boundary or not the regulations still provide protection to the airport. It does, however,
shift a public burden to the property owners if the area should not be included in the
boundary. Staff recommended Exhibit 1, bringing the entire property into the UGA.
Commissioner Lukins 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 5 to 2 with Commissioner Greenaway and Commissioner Mendez
dissenting.
Commissioner Lukins moved, seconded by Commissioner Polk, based on the findings of
fact and conclusions therefrom, the Planning Commission recommend the Pasco Urban
Growth Boundary be amended per Exhibit #I attached to the staff memo of December 15,
2016. The motion passed 5 to 2 with Commissioner Greenaway and Commissioner
Mendez dissenting.
B. Special Permit Location of a Cosmetology & Barber School in a C-1
Zone (Avila) (MF# SP 2016-0122)
Chairwoman Roach read the master file number and asked for comments from staff.
Dave McDonald, City Planner, stated there were no changes to the staff report from the
last meeting. Mr. McDonald noted that at the previous meeting one of the Commissioner's
asked the owner of the neighboring barbershop for photos of the parking lot during busy
hours since the photos in the staff report did not show a lot of vehicles parked. Those
pictures were placed on the bench for the Commissioner's to view. Typically once the
public hearing is closed, no further evidence is accepted but since a Commissioner
requested this material during the hearing it was provided.
Commissioner Polk asked if it was just one individual who owned the all units in the
-2-
building and then rented out the units.
Mr. McDonald answered, yes. He believed that there are two tenants in the building and
the owner also owns a building two doors down and possibly the old gas station.
Mr. McDonald added that he needed to mention that in the approval conditions, #3 was
added requiring the applicant to maintain a lease with the property owner for additional
parking behind the building at 923 W Court Street. If the parking lease is voided for any
reason then the beauty school must vacate the premises.
Commissioner Polk stated that she appreciated the addition of the parking condition to
help remediate any issues with parking.
Commissioner Bykonen asked what the current hours of operation were for the beauty
salon and what would the hours of operation be for the proposed school.
Mr. McDonald was unsure of the current hours but said that the beauty school would
likely keep the same hours as the existing salon.
Commissioner Greenaway said that she also appreciated the parking condition.
Commissioner Bykonen stated that while she understands the concerns that were voiced
during the public hearing from the neighboring barber but felt that most of the traffic and
parking related problems were from the convenient store in the building rather than the
beauty salon.
Chairwoman Roach asked if the applicant has seen the approval conditions and accepts
them.
Mr. McDonald replied yes.
Commissioner Greenaway moved, seconded by Commissioner Polk, to adopt the findings
of fact and conclusions therefrom as contained in the December 15, 2016 staff report. The
motion passed 6 to 1 with Commissioner Mendez abstaining.
Commissioner Greenaway moved, seconded by Commissioner Polk, 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 a Cosmetology and
Barber School at 915 West Court Street with the conditions as contained in the December
15, 2016 staff report. The motion passed 6 to 1 with Commissioner Mendez abstaining.
C. Special Permit Location of a Mini -Storage Facility in a C-1 Zone
(Kim) SMF# SP 2016-0131
Chairwoman Roach read the master file number and asked for comments from staff.
Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director, stated there were no changes
or additions to the report since the previous meeting.
-3-
Commissioner Polk moved, seconded by Commissioner Greenaway, to close the public
hearing and adopt findings of fact and conclusions therefrom as contained in the
December 15, 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
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. The motion passed unanimously.
D. Special Permit Location of an Early Learning Center in the Senior
Center Building IPSD 411 IMF# SP 2016-014)
Chairwoman Roach read the master file number and asked for comments from staff.
Dave McDonald, City Planner, stated there were no changes or additional comments to the
report since the previous meeting.
Commissioner Lukins moved, seconded by Commissioner Greenaway, to adopt the
findings of fact and conclusions therefrom as contained in the December 15, 2016 staff
report. The motion passed unanimously.
Commissioner Lukins moved, seconded by Commissioner Greenaway, based on the
findings of fact and conclusions therefrom the Planning Commission recommend the City
Council grant a special permit to the Pasco School district for the location of an Early
Learning Center at 1315 N. Th Avenue with the conditions as contained in the December
15, 2016 staff report. The motion passed unanimously.
E. Rezone Rezone from C-1 (Retail Business) to C-3 (General
Business) (Mohinder) (MF# Z 2016-0051
Chairwoman Roach read the master file number and asked for comments from staff.
Rick White, Community 8s Economic Development Director, stated there were no changes
or additional comments since the previous meeting, however, the applicant provided a list
of other hotels with U -Haul operations co -located that was distributed to the Planning
Commission since a Planning Commissioner accepted such information to be provided at
the previous meeting.
Commissioner Mendez asked if the City is still recommending denial of the rezone.
Mr. White answered, yes.
Commissioner Mendez stated the City didn't feel that this was a proper location for a U -
Haul business. However, the applicant wished to establish this additional business as
another stream of revenue but not so much because there was a demand for this activity.
Chairwoman Roach asked about the business down the road, Columbia Grain & Feed and
an industrial equipment rental business. She asked how that business conforms to the
goals of keeping the entrance into Pasco aesthetically pleasing.
Mr. White responded that Columbia Grain & Feed and the industrial store have been on
Lewis Street for decades but the Lewis Street improvements were made just a few years
ago.
Commissioner Polk stated she didn't feel this type of activity would be bad to have on the
property but she wasn't in favor of zoning the entire site C-3. If it were zoned C-3, a
concomitant agreement would need to be done to prohibit any other C-3 activity except for
the use of the U -Haul rental. Ideally, hotels are C-1 uses and the majority of the property
should be used as C-1. She was more in agreement with the City's recommendation of
denial of the application as the activity doesn't align with the goals of the City.
Chairwoman Roach replied that she agreed with Commissioner Polk. She added that she
was sympathetic to the business owner and the hardships with their tenants and that
they are looking for alternative sources of revenue. With the deep parking lot it may be
alright having a U -Haul location as long as it wasn't abutting the street but it won't be an
inviting thoroughfare for Lewis Street.
Commissioner Lukins stated that he understood staff's concerns about appearance of the
property but felt denying the application was punitive due to other code violations and
appearance currently going on at this property. He was in favor of allowing the rezone but
only to allow this specific use with a concomitant agreement.
Commissioner Portugal added that he was in favor of creating more jobs and revenue. He
felt the creation of jobs would be more important than the appearance from the street.
Chairwoman Roach reminded the Commission that at the public hearing the applicant
said this would not be a large distribution center but rather a small operation with a few
truck or trailers.
Commissioner Bykonen stated that she had thought a lot about this application and how
the additional revenue stream could possibly improve the condition of this site which is
currently in poor shape. But she was familiar with one of the hotels that was provided by
the applicant that has a supplemental U -Haul business, the Garden Suites in Des Moines.
It is located on a busy road and it is not attractive. She does not want the entrance to
Pasco to look like this highway the Garden Suites is located. She recommended denial of
the rezone application.
Commissioner Greenaway and Commissioner Mendez were in agreement with the City's
recommendation to deny the rezone application.
Commissioner Greenaway moved, seconded by Commissioner Polk, to adopt the findings
of fact and conclusions therefrom as contained in the December 15, 2016 staff report. The
motion passed 6 to 1 with Commissioner Lukins dissenting.
Commissioner Greenaway moved, seconded by Commission Bykonen, based on the
findings of fact and conclusions as adopted the Planning Commission recommend the City
Council deny the proposed rezone of Lots 2 and 3, Short Plat 2010-08 from C-1 to C-3.
-5-
The motion passed 6 to 1 with Commissioner Lukins dissenting
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
A. Special Permit Location of Long Term Rental Units in the
Thunderbird Motel (Continued from 11/17/16)
Chairwoman Roach read the master file number and asked for comments from staff.
Rick White, Community 8s Economic Development Director, discussed the special permit
application to locate long term rental units in the Thunderbird Motel. Provided in addition
to the staff report were police reports from the past 5 years at this location.
Commissioner Greenaway asked what the difference was between "Field Arrests" and
"Field Contact" that was listed on the police reports.
Mr. White answered "Field Arrests" are actual arrests made on site and "Field Contact" is
where there was no arrest but an Officer was called to that address or nearby location and
that was the closest address.
Commissioner Polk asked for clarification on the address used
Mr. White responded the field contacts were not necessarily at the building. The actual
arrests were at the building.
Chairwoman Roach discussed public testimony from the applicant at the prior meeting.
She stated that regardless of whether the hotel owner is in compliance or non-compliance
with the code, there are people who stay in this motel long term. If the special permit is
not granted, people will still stay long term and they will be out of compliance with the
municipal code. She understood the applicant's need to come into compliance but it
would be more problematic to have someone in a long term unit. This is not an ideal
location to have long term residents and it isn't bringing up the appearance of the
downtown area or the goal of downtown development. She was in agreement with the
recommendation to deny the special permit application.
Commissioner Mendez stated at the public hearing the applicant had said that it was in
the best interest of the City to allow long term residents so that the owner could develop a
relationship between the tenants and to attract the right clientele rather than the
transient population.
Commissioner Greenaway agreed with Commissioner Mendez. She also didn't think it
would be fair to the families that may be staying at the hotel that they would have to get
kicked out.
Commissioner Polk was torn on the issue. Much of the discussions have been on the type
of tenants and state of the property but she didn't know if denying or accepting the special
permit would change any of the issues and shouldn't be what the Planning Commission is
making their decision on but instead, focus on whether a C-2 Zone is appropriate for long
term residential.
Chairwoman Roach asked if staff recommended denial
®.
Mr. White responded that the recommendation is to deny the special permit. The concept
behind the decision is that based on the findings and conclusions in the staff report, the
Police Department is being used to manage the tenants. Regardless of the permit being
approved or not, Police will always be managing tenants at this particular location with
the present operator. This proposal does not promote the public health, safety or welfare
and could make it more suspect.
Commissioner Bykonen added that she understood the need for the type of housing that
this property owner is trying to provide; something in between a motel and long term -
such as housing for workers who may be in town for a couple of months but not for a
whole year. While she was a strong supporter of mixed-use residential with retail on the
bottom but not motel use then long term residential on the same property. It sends a
mixed message and there will still be problems with the Police Department acting as a way
to resolve tenant issues.
Mr. White answered if an occupant of a motel, hotel or long term rental unit really wants
to stay put in spite of what the owner wants, they can stay there for some time. It takes
due process to remove them. The law tends to be on the side of the tenant, whether it is
in a motel or long term.
With no further questions or comments the public hearing closed.
Commissioner Mendez moved, seconded by Commissioner Polk, to adopt the findings of
fact and conclusions therefrom as contained in the December 15, 2016 staff report. The
motion passed 6 to 1 with Commissioner Portugal abstaining.
Commissioner Mendez moved, seconded by Commissioner Polk, 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 W. Columbia Street. The motion passed 6 to 1 with Commissioner Portugal
abstaining.
B. Special Permit Location of a Church in a C-1 (Retail Business) Zone
W.L.U.E. Church) (MF# SP 2016-0161
Chairwoman Roach read the master file number and asked for comments from staff.
Dave McDonald, City Planner, discussed the special permit application to locate a church
in a C-1 (Retail Business) Zone. This application involves a church locating within the
area of the Broadmoor Outlet Mall that the Bethel Church currently rents. Bethel Church
rents about 17,000 square feet and was granted a special permit back in 2012 for a three
year period. That special permit has since been renewed because they were still working
on finding their own piece of property to locate permanently. They have now found a piece
of property on Chapel Hill Boulevard and they are in the process of working on plans and
building the church so it will still be a while before they can relocate. In the meantime,
there is a smaller church, the C.L.U.E Church that has been invited to share the space
with Bethel. They would use the space at different times on Sunday's and they would also
use the facility on Monday's to practice for the next Sunday and for some youth activities.
The public will not notice much of a change in activity at the site other than more activity
on Sunday but on Sunday's traffic in the general area is low and there is a large parking
lot.
-7-
Chairwoman Roach asked what the alternating times would be for services.
Mr. McDonald answered that Bethel will go from 9:00am-11:00am and the C.L.U.E.
Church would go from 11:00am-2:00pm on Sunday's. Then when Bethel moves to their
new building, the C.L.U.E. Church would like to move with them over at their new
building.
Chairwoman Roach asked if this special permit application only applies to the location at
the outlet mall or if it would move to the new location.
Mr. McDonald responded that it was only for the outlet mall location. Bethel Church as a
special permit to operate at their new location but C.L.U.E. Church may or may not need
to get a new special permit at the new location. With the current application locating in a
commercial area that is why they are needing their own special permit.
Chairwoman Roach asked when this special permit would expire.
Mr. McDonald replied that it doesn't expire as the last special permit from Bethel didn't
expire since they are working towards getting their own property.
Chairwoman Roach asked if staff new when Bethel was moving into their new facility.
Mr. McDonald answered, no.
With no further questions or comments the public hearing closed.
Commissioner Bykonen moved, seconded by Commissioner Polk, to close the hearing on
the proposed special permit and set January 19, 2017 as the date for deliberations and
the development a recommendation for the City Council. The motion passed
unanimously.
C. Rezone Rezone from C-1 (Retail Business) to R-3 (Medium
Density Residentiall (Pro Made Homes)
Chairwoman Roach read the master file number and asked for comments from staff.
Dave McDonald, City Planner, discussed the rezone application. The site is a small piece of
property on Road 90 that was a remnant piece of the neighboring residential development
to the north. Last year, Pro Made Homes received preliminary plat approval for a 36 lot
subdivision and the piece that remained to the south was zoned C-1 at the time so it
couldn't be included in the plat. After the subdivision was being built, Pro Made Homes
was able to purchase a piece of property to the west and short platted it to straighten out
two streets. This rezone is from C-1 to R-3 and would provide a buffer between the low
density residential to the north and the commercial properties to the south. Currently
there is a large office building being constructed on Road 90 directly south of the site and
rezoning this property to R-3 will provide that buffer.
With no further questions or comments the public hearing closed.
go
Commissioner Polk moved, seconded by Commissioner Greenaway, 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. The motion passed unanimously.
WORKSHOP:
A. Code Amendment Mini -Pies in Residential Zones IMF# CA 2016-0051
Chairwoman Roach read the master file number and asked for comments from staff.
Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director, discussed the proposed code
amendment. The City received a request for the municipal code to be amended to allow
mini -pigs to be kept as pets. Currently pigs of any kind are classified as farm animals.
Some research was conducted and mini -pigs while not approaching 1,000 lbs. like a
commercial pig might, they do get to be roughly 50-100 lbs. They are different than a dog
or cat in that they need to be spayed or neutered to be kept as pets. The neighboring
jurisdictions were consulted and they both suggested using caution because most people
that buy mini -pigs think they will stay little forever but they don't. Many people that buy
mini -pigs end up having a full size pig on their hands and then Animal Control will not
accept surrendered mini -pigs as they do not have the proper facilities. The request was
presented to City Council and they have asked the Planning Commission to consider three
options: (1) Allow them outright with conditions, (2) Allow them through the special permit
process or (3) Prohibit them outright as the City does now. Staff does not recommend
Option 2 (Special Permit process) as that would take up the Planning Commission's time
with matters that aren't all that important for the overall public health and welfare of the
community. Staff would suggested the Commission either allow permitting them outright
with conditions or prohibiting them outright, which Staff feels is the logical option.
Commissioner Mendez asked if Staff had any pictures.
Mr. White said no but added staff searched the database for complaints related to pigs
and there have been 7 pig related complaints, not necessarily mini -pigs, but pig related
complaints in general, which are not allowed depending on lot sizes.
Commissioner Polk noticed that in the staff report and wondered if it was people who had
pigs for food use or for pets. She asked if someone were to get a pig right now and it isn't
in compliance, what would happen to the pig and if Animal Control would have to come
take the pig.
Mr. White replied that Animal Control won't take the animal because they're not
contracted to take pigs. The property owners would have to go through the Code
Enforcement Board process.
Commissioner Polk asked if the owner would be required to get rid of the pig.
Mr. White answered that they would have to get rid of it or put it on a parcel that was
large enough to allow farm animals and of the right zoning.
Commissioner Bykonen noted that the staff report identified King County, Palouse,
Prosser, Seattle and Vancouver as allowing pigs. She asked if staff had spoken to staff at
-9-
any of those locations.
Mr. White said no, but there were copies of ordinances that allow it, however, staff was not
contacted.
Commissioner Bykonen was interested in knowing how it works in cities that currently
allow pigs.
Mr. White replied that his impression was that they don't get a high degree of attention
from municipalities because it is a fairly small portion of their overall workload.
The Commissioners discussed the options. The Commissioners voted 5 to 2 of being in
favor of Option 3 (Outright prohibiting mini -pigs in residential zones), with Commissioner
Greenaway and Commissioner Polk in favor of Option 1 (Outright allowing mini -pigs in
residential zones). There were no Commissioners in favor of Option 2 (Special Permit
Process).
With no further discussion or business, the Planning Commission was adjourned at
8:17 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
David McDonald, City Planner
-10-
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
MASTER FILE NO: SP2016-016
HEARING DATE: 12-15-16
ACTION DATE: 1-19-17
REQUEST FOR SPECIAL PERMIT:
1. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION:
APPLICANT: Omar Ramirez
4122 Sahara Dr.
Pasco, WA 99301
Location of a Church (CLUE Church) in a
C-1 District
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. 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.
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
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.
z
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 anticipate 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).
3
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?
a
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;
E
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;
MOTION for Findings of Fact: I move to adopt Findings of Fact and
Conclusions therefrom as contained in the January 19, 2017 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 Christo La
Unica Esperanza Church for the location of church at 5202 Outlet
Drive with the conditions as contained in the January 19, 2017 staff
report.
0
I
m
O
Ct
rct
Ct
U
4-4 e!
IS
OF"
I
m
W
TIGUE CT
ZN
3
W
V
N
U
2
C7
Z
O
W
0
0
Q
z 10 NOdNtf2i9
N
06 CIVMJ
03
Wl iTuno
U
LU
AMA
O
a Ct
O
Ctco
O d d
2
o vN
C
v�
s
>
,�
JUB312A
'
a
W
TIGUE CT
Z N
4LWU
C)3 U r U
W 1 O W
—R --O
O Q z 10 NOaNV' 19
J �
06 OVM:1
N
U
as l3-ilno
U _
Y 1 LU �N
U cr V
LL
ct `O z
a
a ct
C N
COCIO ct
0
CT
aA V
TOM
O
N
a
Flo-
j�7
Flo-
«1
0
4
of
TwWM• <mRr
: .
�""4�yay.� .
\ �
�
sy«
�
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: 1/19/2017 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-4-13).
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).
1
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.
Pa
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.
3
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.
2
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 for Findings of Fact: I move to adopt findings of fact and
conclusions therefrom as contained in the January 19, 2017 staff report.
MOTION for Recommendation: I move, based on the findings of fact as
contained in the January 19, 2017 staff report and conclusions as
adopted, the Planning Commission recommend the City Council rezone
Lot B, Majestia Place from C-1 to R-3.
0
EPP
WMIA
UM,Li
A
a• a
�p r � gar :•+�,;
I
N1 a7.OMtiS L GO
_ %mo XPi
ico >✓<
/ NUJ
O pp CL
N p Q.
NIINal 5H N Q ✓/
Z6 a �b'�� I
r�nlv
A i
«<`�
._._. _ o ■ � :. � kkk
�f
N� (IN
.--o
O
M
,4.—j
�
O
I
O
�
�
N
V
N
EPP
WMIA
UM,Li
A
a• a
�p r � gar :•+�,;
I
N1 a7.OMtiS L GO
_ %mo XPi
ico >✓<
/ NUJ
O pp CL
N p Q.
NIINal 5H N Q ✓/
Z6 a �b'�� I
r�nlv
A i
«<`�
._._. _ o ■ � :. � kkk
�f
N� (IN
W
Z N
3
NI 1N3)4
o G)
O EN
z
W 0
Z_ i
3
0
`dIlS3
W b31S
U
W
_W
2
a
O
U)
E
E
0
W
FM
Z6 GVO0 l U)
2
U)
a
z
E
O
\�
/
'0
V
U
S~
O
�
ct
INC
U
O
O
O
N
�
N
N
N
U
I --I
NI 1N3)4
o G)
O EN
z
W 0
Z_ i
3
0
`dIlS3
W b31S
U
W
_W
2
a
O
U)
E
E
0
W
FM
Z6 GVO0 l U)
2
U)
a
z
E C
0
U r-
0
U
NI ONdl01W
I
Y
a
LL
0
z
a
E
V
\�
/
'0
V
E C
0
U r-
0
U
NI ONdl01W
I
Y
a
LL
0
z
a
NI 2 OlSN
�LU
Z6 GVO2j
2
Q
z
r'
V
V
NI
H
I
■
1. ■
• -
loss
Ll 11111
I.
-
1= .0
NI 2 OlSN
�LU
Z6 GVO2j
2
Q
z
r'
V
V
NI
H
I
M.
V
1-77
q1
91
■
iij
ƒ
<
Al
? :
�
,.,r . �� _.� , ..�
�.k
��.. r ri `E .!,422- ��
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
MASTER FILE NO: SP 2017-001 APPLICANT: Gloria Torres
HEARING DATE: 1/ 19/17 2411 E George St
ACTION DATE: 2/16/17 Pasco WA 99301
BACKGROUND
REQUEST FOR SPECIAL PERMIT: Location of a Daycare Center in an R -1-A
District
1. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION:
Legal: Lot 61, Cindy's Addition
General Location: 2411 E. George Street
Property Size: 7,318 square feet.
2. ACCESS: The site has access from E George Street
3. UTILITIES: The site is served by municipal water and sewer.
4. LAND USE AND ZONING: The property is currently zoned R -1-A (Low -
Density Residential Alternate). Surrounding properties are also zoned
RS -12 and developed as follows:
NORTH: R -1-A - Single family
SOUTH: R -1-A - Single family
EAST: R -1-A - Single family
WEST: R -1-A - Single family
5. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The site is designated in the Comprehensive
Plan for low-density residential uses. Policy LU -3-A encourages the
location of daycare facilities in residential neighborhoods to reduce
vehicular traffic. The Plan also encourages the promotion of orderly
development including the development of zoning standards for off-street
parking and other development.
6. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The City of Pasco is the lead agency
for this project. 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 Applicant has applied for a Special Permit to locate a daycare center in a
single-family residential zone at 2411 East George Street. The lot in question is
just over 7,300 square feet in size. Surrounding lots are equal in size. Street
frontages for each lot in the subdivision are typically 60 feet.
The daycare center would operate 5 days per week for 12.5 hours a day and
would serve up to 25 children per day. Home daycare/ preschool centers
serving over 12 children per day require review via the Special Permit process.
The applicant currently operates a home daycare under the 12 child threshold.
Pasco Municipal Code 25.78.170 requires one parking space for each employee
and one space per 6 children. Depending on the age of the children the DSHS
ratio of adults to children is one adult for every 4 children down to one per 15
children. The applicant plans on having a mix of children requiring two to
three care givers.
With 25 children the on-site parking requirement for this proposal will be 3
stalls for employees plus 6 stalls for parents/ guardians, for a total of 9 stalls.
With the limited street frontage and relatively small front yard there is not
enough room for seven additional parking spaces on the lot (The driveway
already has two stalls). If the Planning Commission determines, based on past
experience with similar daycare facilities, the number of parking spaces can be
reduced to about five at least eighty percent of the front yard would be needed
to accommodate the parking spaces. The largest driveway permitted in a
residential zone can only be 34 feet wide (PMC 12.04.100). The proposed
daycare facility would need a driveway 50 to 90 feet in width depending on the
parking required by the Planning Commission. The lot is only 60 feet wide.
Given the size of the applicant's lot and surrounding lots and the compact
nature of the neighborhood it may not be appropriate for a daycare center to be
located on the proposed lot.
According to the ITE Trip Generation Manual, 8th Edition, the estimated
weekday trips generation by the proposed daycare center would be between 84
and 95 trips per day, depending on whether the calculation is based on
number of employees, or facility square feet. However, experience with daycare
centers in Pasco indicates daily vehicle trips would be significantly lower,
perhaps under 40 vehicle trips per day. A typical single-family home will
generate almost 10 vehicle trips per day. A typical single-family home will not
have a front yard nearly covered with a parking lot. In the past there have
been some exceptions made for daycare centers that have been located on
arterial streets or across the street from commercial development. The lot
under consideration is not on an arterial street and is not located across the
street from commercial development.
2
PRELIMINARY FINDINGS OF FACT
Findings of fact must be entered from the record. The following are initial
findings drawn from the background and analysis section of the staff report.
The Planning Commission may add additional findings to this listing as the
result of factual testimony and evidence submitted during the open record
hearing.
1. Applicant desires to locate a daycare center in a residential zone.
2. The daycare center would operate 5 days per week for 12.5 hours a day
3. The daycare center would serve up to 25 children per day.
4. Home daycare /preschool centers serving over 12 children per day require
review via the Special Permit process.
5. The site address is 2411 E George Street.
6. The building in question is a single-family dwelling.
7. The surrounding properties are all low-density residential (R -1-A)
developed with single-family units.
8. Pasco Municipal Code 25.78.170 requires one parking space for each
employee and one space per 6 children.
9. Depending on the age of the children the DSHS ratio of adults to children
is one adult for every 4 children down to one per 15 children,
10. The maximum parking requirement for this site based on 25 children will
be 3 stalls for employees plus 6 stalls for children's parents/ guardians,
for a total of 9 stalls. Based on community experience the Planning
Commission has reduced the number of required parking space for
daycares in residential zoning districts. Even a reduction to 5 spaces
would fill almost the whole front yard with parking.
11. Due to the limited depth of the front yard a driveway for 5 cars would
require about 50 feet of width. The largest driveway permitted by the
code is 34 feet (PMC 12.04.100).
12. A typical single-family home will not have a front yard nearly covered
with a parking lot. In the past there have been some exceptions made for
daycare centers that have been located on arterial streets or across the
street from commercial development. The lot under consideration is not
on an arterial street and is not located across the street from commercial
development.
3
13. Applicant currently has a driveway large enough of 2 vehicles.
14. According to the ITE Trip Generation Manual, 8t', Edition weekday trips
generation by the proposed daycare center would be between 84 and 95
trips per day. Generally the ITE rates are higher than what occurs in
Pasco.
PRELIMINARY CONCLUSIONS BASED ON THE FINDINGS OF FACT
Before recommending approval or denial of a special permit the Planning
Commission must develop findings of fact from which to draw its conclusion
based upon the criteria listed in P.M.C. 25.86.060 and determine whether or
not the proposal:
(1) Will the proposed use be in accordance with the goals, policies, objectives
and text of the Comprehensive Plan?
The site is identified in the Comprehensive Plan for Low -Density
Residential uses. The proposed daycare center supports Plan Policy LU -
3 -A which encourages such facilities to be located in neighborhoods. The
Plan also encourages the promotion of orderly development including the
development of zoning standards for off-street parking and other
development standards. However given the size of the property in
question and the need for parking the proposed daycare may not support
the general character of the neighborhood.
(2) Will the proposed use adversely affect public infrastructure?
If the special permit were to be approved additional parking would be
needed and that would require modifications to portions of the curb,
gutter and sidewalk in front of the property. The site is served by all
municipal utilities and a local street rather than an arterial street.
(3) Will the proposed use be constructed, maintained and operated to be in
harmony with existing or intended character of the general vicinity?
The intended character of the neighborhood is single-family residential.
Typically, schools and/or preschool/ daycare facilities are located in or
adjacent to residential neighborhoods. However these facilities are
usually located on large to very large parcels of land or on arterial streets
along the periphery of residential neighborhoods. Eliminating most of the
front yard for additional parking will alter the general character of the
neighborhood and cause the property to not be in harmony with the
neighborhood.
0
(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 site design may need to be altered to accommodate additional
parking for employees and parents dropping off or picking up children.
As the neighborhood is fully developed the parking modifications will not
impact future development but may impact the general character of the
neighborhood. Impact to property values is unknown. Parking
modifications in the front yard of the proposed daycare site may
discourage some individuals from buying nearby homes which indirectly
impacts property values.
(5) Will the operations in connection with the proposal be more objectionable to
nearby properties by reason of noise, fumes vibrations, dust, traffic, or
flashing lights than would be the operation of any permitted uses within the
district?
The proposed daycare center would generate more traffic than a single-
family dwelling. The proposed daycare would also require some
modification to the existing driveway and parking to accommodate
employee and parent parking. Due to the compact nature of the
neighborhood the additional traffic and parking may be objectionable to
the neighborhood.
(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 proposed daycare with 25 children located on a 7,300 square foot
lot could create nuisance conditions for neighbors due to noise
additional traffic and the constant commotion associated with
managing 25 children on a small lot.
PROPOSED APPROVAL CONDITIONS
Commercial daycares are often permitted in churches and locations that
are adjacent to arterial streets or across the street from commercial
properties. The proposed daycare is located in a fully developed single-
family neighborhood surrounded by single-family homes. As a result
staff has not prepared any approval conditions for this proposal. Review
of the criteria list above could lead to the conclusion a daycare would not
be appropriate at this location.
5
MOTION: I move to close the public hearing and schedule
deliberations, the adoption of findings of fact, and development of a
recommendation for City Council for the February 16, 2017 meeting.
0
""� �I and lid%W3�� 4M' m ,
W Nl 31NN3d
Z y
3
N
N z
J
1 Q
r� LL
WLLI
a o
W
W c�
0
Q
NlV/I2GNH
I—I �
1 UL
03 Q
Nand 2JV(130
Q V
3Ab 2ibW3altlM
Ljoang3
LU Nl 31NN3d
z U+
3
N
O F-
N z
Q Z
J
LU
1 ' a
W
lA d'
� Q � w
LU
li
NI V3214NV
Q N
1
3AV 21V430
F-
U) r
LLJ
Q
Von CD
3nV 2iVW3aIVM z
N �, a
1
�4
;Q
'e X•.
r
z
�J
�• r
1�
H
0
0
z
x
0
0
P4
J4
I
REPORT TO 7PLANNING COMMISSION
MASTER FILE NO: MF# SP 2016-018 APPLICANT: Pasco School District #I
HEARING DATE: l/ 19/17 1215 W Lewis St
ACTION DATE: 2/16/17 Pasco, WA 99301
BACKGROUND
REQUEST: SPECIAL PERMIT: Location of Portable Classrooms at Chiawana
High School (8125 W Argent Rd.)
1. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION:
Legal: A portion of the Southwest quarter of Section 16, Township 9,
North Range 29, east lying southerly of the FCID Irrigation Canal.
General Location: 8125 W Argent Rd (Chiawana High School)
Property Size: 77.5 acres
2. ACCESS: Access to the site is available from West Argent Rd & Rd 84.
3. UTILITIES: Chiawana High School is connected to municipal utilities.
4. LAND USE AND ZONING: The site is zoned RP (Residential Park). The
School District was granted a special permit prior to the construction of
Chiawana High School. Surrounding properties are zoned and developed
as follows:
NORTH:
RP- Pathfinder Mobile Home Park
SOUTH:
RS -20 - Single Family
EAST:
RS -l- Vacant
WEST:
RS -20 - 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.
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).
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. To
accommodate continued increases in student enrollment the School District is
proposing to local at least eight new portable classrooms at Chiawana High
School.
The School District is proposing to locate eight portable classrooms in the
southeast corner of the northwest parking lot at Chiawana High School. The
parking lot contains close to 600 parking spaces. The portables will occupy
about 87 parking spaces reducing available parking to 511 spaces. The impact
on the parking lot will be minimal due to the fact this parking lot is mainly
used by students and only about 60 percent of the stalls are used during
school days. On most school days about 200 parking spaces remain vacant.
If loss of the parking spaces becomes a problem in the future there is enough
additional land on the Chiawana site that another parking lot could be built.
There are more than three acres of land east of the tennis courts and north of
the existing student parking lot that could be converted to additional parking if
needed.
Most of the schools in Pasco including the Pasco High School and Chiawana
High School are located in residential zoning districts. The addition of portable
classrooms to school properties has had little impact of the surrounding
neighborhoods. Portable classrooms are a common and acceted feature of
schools in Pasco and elsewhere.
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 RP Residential Park.
2
2. High schools are unclassified uses and require review through the
special permit process prior to permitting for construction.
3. The School District was granted a special permit for the construction of
Chiawana High School in 2012.
4. The Comprehensive Plan identifies the site for public uses such as
schools.
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 plans to install at least eight portable
classrooms in the northwest parking lot of Chiawana High School.
7. The location of portable classrooms is a common occurrence on school
properties in many communities including Pasco.
8. Pasco's population has more than doubled since 2000.
9. Pasco School District enrollment has doubled since 2000.
10. School district enrollment is expected to reach 20,000 by 2019.
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. Utilities
surrounding the school site have been sized to accommodate moderate
growth in the student population at Chiawana High School.
3) Will the proposed use be constructed, maintained and operated to be in
harmony with existing or intended character of the general vicinity?
Chiawana High School is a major part of the general character of the
neighborhood. The addition of eight portable classrooms will not alter
the existing character of the neighborhood. The intended character of
3
the neighborhood as identified in the Comprehensive Plan include public
uses (Schools) on the 77 acre Chiawana High School site.
4) Will the location and height of proposed structures and the site design
discourage the development of permitted uses on property in the general
vicinity or impair the value thereof?
The new portable classrooms will be significantly shorter and smaller
than the existing high school. Past experience in Pasco has shown the
location of portable classrooms on school sites within residential
neighborhoods has had no negative impact on surrounding residential
values. The community has a long history of accepting portable
classrooms on school properties.
5) Will the operations in connection with the proposal be more objectionable
to nearby properties by reason of noise, fumes, vibrations, dust, traffic, or
flashing lights than would be the operation of any permitted uses within
the district?
Experience has shown that schools within Pasco generate few
complaints from neighbors. The operation of the high school will not
change as the result of the additional classrooms.
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 new portables will be built and installed to meet all fire and safety
codes and state regulations pertaining to school construction.
Portable classrooms have a long history of being accepted on Pasco
school properties in residential neighborhoods. Portable classrooms are
common features on school properties in many communities.
Proposed Approval Conditions
1. The special permit shall apply to Parcels # 117590010.
2. The property shall be developed in substantial conformity with the site
plan submitted with the special permit application.
3. The portable classrooms may be located on the Chiawana site as needed
by the School District.
EI
MOTION: I move to close the public hearing and schedule
deliberations, the adoption of findings of fact, and development
of a recommendation for City Council for the Februaryl6, 2017
Planning Commission meeting.
5
K i r
647
cn
m
�O
0�9
y
(n o
m m N
rl-
�.
Q
/X
V n 4
NzS� CD
Q C-D �
. n
X
m
r4. CD
O CCD
00 (�
o �
I
♦ ♦ X
ILI
O
A �
1
h
m
i'
N
9
r
O
O
.r
j
�l
�I
TR
4 '
1[
1
r
O
O
O
O
r-� •
�D
MEMORANDUM
DATE: January 11, 2017
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Jeffrey B. Adams, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: Small -Breed Pies or Mini Pies as Pets (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.
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:
a. Permit mini -pigs as pets outright;
b. Permit mini -pigs as pets via Special Permit; or
c. Prohibit mini -pigs as pets.
At a December 21, 2016 Planning Commission workshop meeting the
Commission by consensus indicated it did not want to pursue establishing
mini pigs as pets in the City of Pasco either through the special permit process
or by permitting them outright with conditions.
Findings of Fact
1) In mid -2016 a City resident requested that the City Code be changed to
allow mini pigs as pets.
2) Mini Pigs are a miniature size pig as recognized and registered by the
American Mini Pig Association.
3) Mini Pigs are usually a product of interbreeding Vietnamese potbellied
pigs with several breeds, including Juliana, Gottengin/Guttengin,
African Pygmy, Yucatan Micro, and/or Swedish White.
4) 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.
5) Unspayed mini pig females suffer from "PMS" and strong mood swings;
6) Intact male mini pigs produce a pungent odor in addition to displaying
other unpleasant traits;
7) Neither unsprayed female or intact male mini pigs are desirable pets.
Pagel of 2
8) 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.
9) There have been 7 verified pig -related complaints, resulting in 5 Code
Enforcement Board cases between 2008 and 2016.
10) Staff is unaware of other requests for mini pigs in the last several years.
11) Titles 8 (Animal Control; Licensing), 9 (Specific Nuisances), and 25
(Zoning) would need to be amended.
12) Many people purchase mini -pigs thinking they will remain the size of a
toy poodle but abandon them when they become full-sized.
13) Animal Control will not accept surrendered pigs as they do not have the
proper facilities to deal with them.
14) The Planning Commission indicated at its December 21, 2016 workshop
that it did not want to pursue establishing mini pigs as pets in the City of
Pasco either through the special permit process or by permitting them
outright.
15) The Planning Commission felt that prohibiting pigs as pets should be the
recommended course of action for the City to advance the public health
and welfare.
MOTION: I move the Planning Commission adopt the findings of fact as
contained in the January 19, 2017 staff memo on Small -Breed Pigs or Mini
Pigs.
MOTION: I move the Planning Commission recommend the City Council
decline to amend the Pasco Municipal Code regarding the keeping of mini pigs.
Page 2 of 2