HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-21-2017 Planning Commission Meeting PacketPLANNING COMMISSION - AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING 7:00 P.M. September 21, 2017
I. CALL TO ORDER:
II. ROLL CALL: Declaration of Quorum
III. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: August 17, 2017
V. OLD BUSINESS:
A. Special Permit Wireless Tower (PI Tower Development LLC with T -
Mobile) (MF# SP 2017-011)
B. Rezone Rezone from RS -12 (Suburban) to C-1 (Retail
Business) (D&D Enterprises) (MF# Z 2017-003)
C. Zoning Determination Determination of Zoning in the D&,D Annexation
Area (D&D Enterprises) (MF# ZD 2017-002)
D. Code Amendment Revisions to Residential Design Standards for False
Dormers 8v Flat Roofs (City of Pasco) (MF# CA 2017-
004)
E. Code Amendment Revisions to CBD Zoning (City of Pasco) (MF# CA
2017-005)
VII. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
A. Special Permit Location of a Church in a C-3 District (Pedro
Bautista) (MF# SP 2017-012)
B. Rezone Rezone from I-1 (Light Industrial) to I-2 (Medium
Industrial) (Tom Kidwell) (MF# Z 2017-005)
C. Preliminary Plat Preakness Ridge, 86 -Lot Multi -Family (Big Skv
Developers LLC) (MF# PP 2017-008)
VII. WORKSHOP:
A. Code Amendment Ordinance Amending PMC Chapter 26.28 Allowing
Administrative Approval of Final Plats (MF# CA
2017-007)
VIIIII. OTHER BUSINESS:
IIX. ADJOURNMENT:
This meeting is broadcast live on PSC -TV Channel 191 on Charter Cable and streamed at
www.l)asco-wa.com/13setvlive.
Audio equipment available for the hearing impaired; contact staff for assistance.
REGULAR MEETING
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
CALL TO ORDER:
The meeting was called to order at 7:00pm by Chairman Cruz.
POSITION MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT
No. 1
Tanya Bowers
No. 2
Joseph Campos
No. 3
Paul Mendez
No. 4
No. 5
Joe Cruz
No. 6
Ruben Alvarado
No. 7
Zahra Roach
No. 8
Pam Bykonen
No. 9
Gabriel Portugal
APPEARANCE OF FAIRNESS:
Alecia Greenaway
August 17, 2017
Chairman Cruz read a statement about the appearance of fairness for hearings on land use
matters. There were no declarations.
Chairman Cruz then asked the audience if there were any objections based on a conflict of
interest or appearance of fairness question regarding the items to be discussed. There were
no objections.
ADMINISTERING THE OATH:
Chairman Cruz explained that state law requires testimony in quasi-judicial hearings such as
held by the Planning Commission be given under oath or affirmation. Chairman Cruz swore in
all those desiring to speak.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Commissioner Roach moved, seconded by Commissioner Alvarado that the minutes dated
July 20, 2017 be approved. The motion passed unanimously.
OLD BUSINESS:
A. Preliminary Plat Iris Meadows. 34 -Lots (Sunbelt Properties LLCI (MF# PP
2017-0071
Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff.
Dave McDonald, City Planner, explained that during the public hearing there were some
questions relative to lot sizes in this plat. The concern was that the lots in the plat ought to be
increased in size to conform more to the character of the neighborhood. McDonald reviewed
the staff memo and explained that under the State's "Vesting Doctrine" the Planning
Commission is obligated to review the proposed plat under the RS -12 zoning and the developer
has a right to develop lots conforming to the zoning.
-1-
Commissioner Bowers moved, seconded by Commissioner Bykonen, to adopt findings of fact
and conclusions therefrom as contained in the August 17, 2017 staff report. The motion
passed unanimously.
Commissioner Bowers moved, seconded by Commissioner Bykonen, based on the findings of
fact and conclusions, as adopted, the Planning Commission recommend the City Council
approve the preliminary plat for Iris Meadows, with conditions as listed in the August 17,
2017 staff report. The motion passed unanimously.
B. Special Permit Recreation Complex (JUB Engineers. Incl (MF# SP
2017-0081
Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff.
Darcy Bourcier, Planner I, discussed the special permit application for the location of a
recreation complex. She stated that since the previous hearing, staff made contact with the
applicant with regards to the infrastructure improvements, in particular, the collector street
that would have to be developed abutting the west side of the property halfway between
Broadway Boulevard and Dent Road. Adjoining property owners are responsible for designing
and building their half of the street abutting the property as well as utilities, lighting, drainage
and sidewalks. The applicant has 600' of frontage along Burns Road and will have 1,452' of
frontage along the west side of the property in which they will have to make improvements.
The infrastructure could be completed in phases with improvements being completed with
each phase of the applicant's project, much with subdivisions. In working with the applicant,
staff has come up with a timeline for the completion of the collector street. Each phase of
improvements was discussed. Also noted was that parking lot improvements must be
completed with each phase and field lighting must be approved through an amendment to the
special permit considered by the Planning Commission. There were no further comments.
Commissioner Roach asked when the Planning Commission would see the special permit for
the lighting.
Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director, responded that it would be prior
to installation.
Commissioner Bowers asked if the School District had any comments on this item.
Dave McDonald, City Planner, stated that he has spoken with the School District and they are
aware of the street improvements and they have been cooperative in the past.
Commissioner Roach moved, seconded by Commissioner Campos, to adopt findings of fact
and conclusions therefrom as contained in the August 17, 2017 staff report. The motion
passed unanimously.
Commissioner Roach moved, seconded by Commissioner Campos, based on the findings of
fact and conclusions therefrom, the Planning Commission recommend the City Council grant
a special permit to the Three Rivers Soccer Club under MF# SP 2017-008 for the location of a
soccer complex on Parcel # 115-180-073 with the conditions as contained in the August 17,
2017 staff report. The motion passed unanimously.
-2-
C. Special Permit Pronghorn Ready -Mix Plant IMF# SP 2017-0091
Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff.
Dave McDonald, City Planner, stated that staff had no additional comments to add since the
previous meeting.
Commissioner Campos moved, seconded by Commissioner Roach, to adopt findings of fact
and conclusions therefrom as contained in the August 17, 2017 staff report. The motion
passed unanimously.
Commissioner Campos moved, seconded by Commissioner Roach, based on the findings of
fact and conclusions therefrom, the Planning Commission recommend the City Council grant
a special permit to Pronghorn LLC for the location of a ready -mix concrete facility on Lot 4,
Binding Site Plan 2016-01 with conditions as contained in the August 17, 2017 staff report.
The motion passed unanimously.
D. Rezone Quail Investment Rezone (Terry Blankenshinl IMF# Z
2017-001)
Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff.
Dave McDonald, City Planner, discussed the rezone application from C-1 (Retail Business) to
C-3 (General Business). He stated that staff had no additional comments to add since the
previous meeting.
Commissioner Roach asked what the applicant intends to do with the property.
Mr. McDonald responded that the applicant wants to construct some office space along with
some equipment storage space for businesses such as small contractors who need a small
office space along with equipment storage — there would be a storefront/ office appearance in
the front. The applicant owns a similar project in Kennewick. There is quite a market for this
type of use.
Commissioner Alvarado asked for clarification on the restrictions that would be placed on the
C-3 zoning so that certain C-3 uses would be prohibited.
Mr. McDonald said that is correct.
Commissioner Alvarado asked about unclassified uses in the code and for an example or
definition.
Mr. McDonald responded that unclassified uses are defined in the "Special Permit" section of
the code, and those items require review by special permit and aren't permitted outright.
Some examples are schools, daycares, churches and public facilities.
Commissioner Alvarado asked if any unconsidered land use.
-3-
Mr. McDonald said not necessarily -just they don't fit in any certain zone per say.
Commissioner Bowers asked if there would be any negative impact on the adjacent
apartments and whether there should be restrictions on hours.
Mr. McDonald responded that the developer will be required to put in a landscape buffer on
the east side with a set number of trees. As for hours and noise, the municipal code already
addresses quiet hours after 10:00 p.m. and he didn't believe it would be a problem. There are
provisions in the code already to protect that.
Chairman Cruz added that he felt this would be harmonious with the character of the
neighborhood.
Commissioner Bykonen moved, seconded by Commissioner Bowers, to adopt findings of fact
and conclusions therefrom as contained in the August 17, 2017 staff report. The motion
passed unanimously.
Commissioner Bykonen moved, seconded by Commissioner Bowers, based on the findings of
fact and conclusions, as adopted, the Planning Commission recommend the City Council
rezone Lot 2, Short Plat 2006-06 from C-1 to C-3 with conditions prohibiting the following
uses: (1) Trucking facilities and storage yards, (2) Heavy machinery sales and service, (3)
Landscape gardening and storage areas, (4) Automobile sales and service, (5) Lumber sales
businesses, (6) Mobile home and trailer sales and services, including RV sales, (7) Auto body
shops and (8) Contractor storage yards. The motion passed unanimously.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
A. Special Permit Wireless Tower (PI Tower Development LLC with T -
Mobile) (MF# SP 2017-0111
Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff.
Darcy Bourcier, Planner I, discussed the special permit application for a wireless facility tower.
PI Tower Development LLC and its tenant, T -Mobile, want to locate an 80' tall monopole and
its equipment and storage at the southwest corner of the Columbia Basin College. They are
looking to improve coverage to the students and staff of the college and surrounding area,
such as the airport and businesses. The proposed tower location is at an elevated freeway
interchange and 350' south of an existing tower which hosts Sprint equipment. At this
location it will not detract from the appearance of the campus or interfere with the day to day
activities of the students. The height and location has been reviewed by the FAA and will not
interfere with airport operations. It will be tall enough and strong enough to support
additional wireless carriers in the future if there is need for it.
Commissioner Roach asked if there were any regulations in the code restricting the number of
cell towers in a given area.
Ms. Bourcier responded that there is nothing in the code that prohibits a certain number of
towers in a given vicinity.
Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director, added that there is a hierarchy in
determining the location of wireless facilities. First they would be located on existing poles,
me
second they would be located on public buildings or buildings over 35' high or at least 500'
from residential zones. A special permit is always required but the hierarchy establishes the
way the locational criteria is set up.
Commissioner Roach stated that there is already a very visible antennae near this proposed
location and asked why this equipment isn't being proposed to locate on the already existing
antennae.
Ms. Bourcier replied that the existing tower 300' away that hosts Sprint cannot hold anymore
equipment.
Rod Michaelis, 904 W. Comstock, Spokane, WA spoke on behalf of the applicant. He stated
that he has been involved in the wireless communication industry for over 20 years. He
addressed Commissioner Roach's question of locating on the existing tower. When that tower
was built it was built to handle Sprint's equipment. Since that time equipment has gotten
bigger and the engineering standards are more stringent. The existing tower is not adequate
anymore for additional providers. That is likely why AT&T went to the roof of a building on the
campus rather than co -locating on the Sprint tower. He stated that he has been working with
campus staff and they do not wish to have any more equipment on their buildings due to the
stress and damage to the roof from the equipment. They would prefer a new tower to
equipment on the roof. The tower will be built very strong and could support not only T -
Mobile but other providers as well - as he has already been in contact with other providers.
The college likes having the towers because it helps their services and improves the quality of
service from of heavy usage during an emergency, as everyone jumps onto their cell phones.
He felt the location was good and while visible, when most people are at the interchange on
the highway, they should be paying attention to the road. The tower meets the code and
intent of the Comprehensive Plan.
Chairman Cruz pointed out that the tower meets the FCC standards, the Planning
Commission cannot deny the special permit based on any of those standards.
The public hearing was then closed.
Commissioner Roach asked if there were any concerns that with an existing 300' antennae
nearby if it would present an eyesore and if they should consider disguising the pole as the
Commission requested be done at another cell tower location on Court Street and Road 68.
Chairman Cruz said he had considered that but thought having a large fake tree would look
more out of place than a regular cell tower pole.
Commissioner Roach said they could make it look like a flag pole. With it being a heavily
visited area and our community's one college we should try to consider the aesthetics. It
would be worth considering.
Commissioner Bykonen stated that she has lived near one of the wireless towers disguised at
a flag pole and it was large and the flag was noisy. The flag will also tatter from the wind and
who knows when or if the wireless providers will replace the flag.
Commissioner Bowers asked the applicant if AT&T and Sprint were to move over to the
proposed wireless tower, would they demolish their current facilities.
-5-
Chairman Cruz opened the public hearing back up for the applicant to respond.
Mr. Michaelis replied that the tower is currently owned by SBA, a large company. They are
aware of the situation and if they lose their tenant they may try to find another tenant but if
they cannot get another tenant they may take it down or the college may request that they
take it down. He also addressed the flag pole towers and how they are much larger than they
used to be and would be a nuisance.
Commissioner Campos addressed the aesthetics of the pole and blending in with the
galvanized metal already there.
Commissioner Roach referenced the wireless tower on Court Street and Road 68 and how she
has received a lot of positive feedback about that pole which is disguised as a tree. That area
of Pasco is a lot let travelled than the proposed location at Columbia Basin College so she felt
that it would be nice to try and disguise the proposed pole since it is a heavily visited area.
Chairman Cruz responded that in that instance it was different because there were already
several trees in the area and the pole would have stood out if it was a big grey pole so
disguising it as a tree made sense. In this case there isn't that contrast, otherwise he would
be in favor of that. So while it may not be the most attractive, wireless facilities are nearly
necessity now as everyone has a phone. He also understood why the college didn't want any
more facilities on the roof of their buildings.
Mr. Michaelis said that the cell providers are required to perform any maintenance and fix any
damage to buildings on which they locate so neither parties wish to locate new equipment on
an existing building.
Commissioner Roach asked if there were other camouflage options other than trees and flags.
Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director, said there were other options. As
a part of the special permit conditions can be made to require the pole to be of neutral colors
and is a standard condition that would not affect the functionality of the tower at all.
Commissioner Roach made clear that she was in support of the applicant receiving a special
permit for a wireless tower but wanted to explore options to make it more aesthetically
pleasing.
With no further questions or comments the public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Campos moved, seconded by Commissioner Bykonen, to close the hearing on
the proposed special permit and set September 21, 2017 as the date for deliberations and the
development of a recommendation for the City Council. The motion passed unanimously.
B. Rezone Rezone from RS -12 (Suburban) to C-1 (Retail Business)
(D&D Enterprises) (MF# Z 2017-0031
Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff.
®.
Dave McDonald, City Planner, discussed the rezone application from RS -12 (Suburban) to C-1
(Retail Business) stating the application and the zoning determination application (MF# ZD
2017-002) are tied together. Both properties are owned by the same owner and they are in the
process of annexation the southern property. The site in the City is 4.5 acres and the other
site is 3.88 acres in the county. The property was in 2008 with the intent of developing it for
commercial uses. In 2009 the two homes were removed and the lot was graded. The owners
have now made an application for a rezone and are halfway through the annexation process.
Part of the process of annexation requires the Planning Commission to determine zoning.
Both properties need to be zoned at the same time. Being located at a major intersection at
two arterial streets, the Comprehensive Plan has designated that general area either for higher
density residential development or retail commercial - those are the only two choices of zoning
available. The owners of the property are asking for commercial zoning.
Mr. McDonald stated the Comprehensive Plan encourages the clustering of commercial
development at key intersections along arterial streets. The City has a longstanding policy to
locate commercial development at major intersections and Argent and Road 68 is one of those
intersections.
Staff received an email from one of the adjoining property owners concerned about the impacts
that commercial development could have on the houses to the east. McDonald explained were
built-in safety provisions in the zoning regulations that would require buffer strips to protect
the homes from commercial development. The municipal code also includes noise
regulations limiting the level of noise late in the evening and early in the morning.
Chairman Cruz stated that C-1 uses aren't too terribly intensive. At the same intersection
there is Magill's Restaurant, a coffee stand, etc.
Mr. McDonald referred the Planning Commission to the findings of fact in the staff report and
stated a paragraph requesting additional input from the Planning Commission on had been
added to the report requesting direction on commercial verses multi -family zoning.
Commissioner Roach stated in the past, people near this area have spoken out about not
wanting high density residential in their neighborhood. This area has many suburban zoned
properties nearby with acreage so he thought was that the existing neighbors would not want
apartment buildings at this site. She leaned towards commercial zoning.
Commissioner Bowers responded that she could see how it would make sense to lean either
way.
Commissioner Bowers asked if the two properties together were large enough for a grocery
store.
Mr. McDonald said all together it is 8 acres and typically grocery stores are 10 acres. Walmart
sits on roughly 20 acres.
Commissioner Bowers replied that she could see where there would be value in zoning the
property for residential apartments because she didn't think there were a lot of apartments in
that area. On the other hand, given the fact the so much residential being developed, it would
be nice to have more commercial and retail.
-7-
Commissioner Alvarado asked if the development community has been interested in a mixed-
use development.
Mr. McDonald explained mixed use development does not work well in Pasco. Even some
areas in Seattle have issues keeping businesses on the first floors.
Commissioner Roach asked what would be more beneficial from the City's perspective - high
density residential or commercial.
Mr. McDonald responded that high-density would be beneficial in that it creates a built in
customer base for the other commercial properties. Commercial is beneficial due to the sales
tax and utility tax and those commercial uses don't have children so there is less impact
schools.
Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director, added that apartments are not the
only residential chose the Planning Commission has. If apartments are chosen, the
Commission could address height and density to restrict how dense the site could be
developed. One of the challenges is that this is the only vacant corner left on a soon to be very
busy intersection and trying to adjust it with a series of land uses that have been established
while the property was `but in the country".
Commissioner Bykonen agreed with Commissioner Roach in that there has been public outcry
against higher density residential in this area and the increase in traffic so she leans towards
commercial development. However, she also agreed with Mr. White in that it doesn't have to
be apartments but something more like condominium/ duplex type of dwelling units.
Chairman Cruz asked if the applicant was present.
Mr. Graff stated that they would like to use this property for commercial development. They
considered both, however, the problem he sees with residential is that it will increase the
already congested traffic. He felt that commercial rather than residential would alleviate some
of the traffic. Also, the other corners are already commercial and he felt that commercial
zoning for this site would be more harmonious.
Commissioner Campos asked what the vision was for this site or what type of businesses he
was hoping to attract.
Mr. Graff replied that first he wants to establish the property for commercial development.
At this time they are unsure if it would be best to have a small strip mall or perhaps small
offices/retail area in the front with workshop/ storage areas in the rear.
Dana Crutchfield, 8914 Whipple Avenue, stated she owned property at 2904 Road 68. She
received the notice in the mail and appeared on behalf of herself and her husband. There
was concern about the southern parcel that goes along with this application. That piece of
property has not yet been annexed into the City and if it were designated as commercial, once
it is annexed it would be commercial and the neighborhood would have no recourse at that
point. Just south of her property a new subdivision has started. It is a nice development on
'/z acre lots. There is some commercial in this area but much of it is still residential. She had
concerns with the additional commercial as well as traffic. It also felt premature to rezone to
F-2
commercial without any plans in place.
Chairman Cruz responded there were two separate applications, the rezone and the
annexation, but these items are related. The discussion on the south parcel should be tabled
until the next hearing. The current hearing is regarding the rezone of the northern parcel. He
agreed that the zoning did not have to be the same for both parcels.
Mrs. Crutchfield said that the corner property would be fine zoned commercial as it would
mimic the zoning of Magill's and the dental office. She expressed concern about the southern
parcel being zoned for commercial. The applicant stated that they didn't have any particular
plans for the site at this time but she felt the neighborhood deserves to know what is being
proposed.
Jim Hilgartner, 6521 W. Argent Road, stated he purchased his home 11 years ago when the
area was sparsely populated. He wants the property to be kept at RS -12 with '/2 acre lots. He
felt this application should be tabled until the southern property is annexed. He did not want
to see R-2 or R-3 zoning. If multi -family zoning is determined, he will get petitions for the
neighbors. There are already apartments in the area on Chapel Hill and there is another site
nearby where apartments will be going in. There is no need to place apartments at this site.
He believed RS -12 would best fit the character of that neighborhood but if it has to be rezoned,
then commercial would be the next best choice as long as it isn't multi -family residential.
However, he did not want to see a convenient store gas station due to the fumes that he and
his neighbors would have to smell all the time. He claimed that apartments would ruin the
value of his property.
Chairman Cruz responded that when Mr. Hilgartner purchased his property it was near one of
the major thoroughfares in Pasco.
Mr. Hilgartner said the traffic wasn't there when he purchased his home 11 years ago.
Chairman Cruz replied the Comprehensive Plan has had this area designated for higher uses
and it was just a matter of time before it develops. As for the item on the agenda that goes
along with this rezone pertaining to the property still in the County, the City must determine
the zoning prior to the annexation so that once the property is annexed it has a zoning
assigned to it.
Mr. McDonald stated that the City is following a long standing process of annexation which
calls for the City to determine the zoning prior to annexation. It is highly likely that the
southern piece of property will be annexed. This processed has been used for many years. As
for the northern piece of property already in the City, the rezone process is the same on this
site as it would be for any other site. He addressed Mrs. Crutchfield's comment to table the
zoning determination for the southern property until there is a plan but that is not how the
process works. Typically rezones should not be based on plans because there is nothing that
locks developers into building according to a plan. Sometimes the applicants will paint a
pretty picture of what they would like to do but those plans often fall through.
Commissioner Campos said that if the property were rezoned to multi -family, he didn't see too
many of the other businesses benefiting aside from the coffee shop. The dentist office
wouldn't likely see much of an impact and even Magill's he wouldn't see that many people
going every day to grab a bite to eat there.
®'
Mr. Graff addressed some of the concerns presented by those who spoke. The Washington
State Law and the code as written by the City of Pasco dictates this process as it is. D&D
Enterprises does not wish to annex the southern piece of property if this northern parcel is not
rezoned to commercial. Similarly, they do not wish to rezone the property to the north if they
cannot have commercial zoning determined on the southern parcel prior to annexation. They
need both parcels to have the same zoning. The difficulty is that half of the property is in the
City and half is still in the County.
Chairman Cruz said that with the parcel being at roughly 8 acres it would be a modest
development. He asked if a strip mall would be around 16,000 square feet.
Mr. Graff said yes, about 16,000 square feet but the issue is that the City has specific
requirements for the number of parking spaces, landscaping around the property and between
the residential zones which limits the size of the building. For example, a grocery store
couldn't cover 70% of the property because it would fail to meet the other requirements.
Mrs. Crutchfield spoke again stating she was happy that the development couldn't happen so
quickly and that the public has had a chance to speak. She was happy Mr. Graff clarified that
two different letters went out which is why her map looks different. But there the same
concern. The denial of this application or delay would not prohibit that development from
happening in the future she felt it was premature.
Mr. Hilgartner spoke again said that the site would be disproportionate to the other
commercial properties on the other three corners. He would like to see it stay at RS -12. If it
does go to C-1 he asked if restrictions could be made as to what type of commercial
establishments go in, such as gas stations or convenient stores that sell fuel. As it is now
he can smell Magill's so he knows that he would smell the fuel.
Chairman Cruz said that is something that could be done but he wasn't sure if they would.
Chairman Cruz asked the audience if they would be in support of the additional landscape
requirements.
There were hands from audience members raised in response.
Mr. Hilgartner asked if there could be additional buffer requirements along Argent.
Chairman Cruz responded that he wasn't sure about that.
With no further questions or comments the public hearing closed.
Commissioner Bowers said after looking at this further, C-1 zoning would make the most
sense and is the most harmonious. And if anything, the property to the south RS -12 would be
the most consistent if not C-1.
Commissioner Roach said she was in favor of this particular site being zoned C-1. The
concern of additional buffering should be in place for the residential neighbors.
U62
Commissioner Campos asked if they can dictate access and egress.
Chairman Cruz that will be dictated by regulations already in place.
Commissioner Alvarado replied that he was in favor of C-1 on the corner or Argent and Road
68.
Commissioner Bykonen said that she counted the number of RS -12 lots, there would be
roughly 15-20 lots for the whole piece (City and County properties). She felt that the single-
family residences would actually create more traffic than commercial.
Chairman Cruz felt that this needed to be done altogether with the same zoning on all the
parcels otherwise development may not be possible. This is also a nice node for commercial
that would not be too intensive. And while it is unfortunate to have RS -12 near a major
intersection, that is how it worked out for many lots in West Pasco. He said it wasn't about
money for him but what makes sense for the City.
Commissioner Roach moved, seconded by Commissioner Bowers, to close the hearing on the
proposed zoning determination and set September 21, 2017 as the date for deliberations and
the development of a recommendation for the City Council. The motion passed unanimously.
C. Zoning Determination Determination of Zoning in the D&D Annexation Area
(City of Pasco) (MF# ZD 2017-002)
Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff.
Dave McDonald, City Planner, explained the application was a companion piece to the prior
rezone. The applicant is in the process of annexing this property. They have submitted the
required 10% petition of annexation which has been accepted by the City Council and they
passed a resolution creating the stipulations for annexation. Now the applicant has to submit
a 60% petition for annexation which needs to be certified by the County. Once that is done a
hearing can be held by the City Council to have an ordinance passed to annex the property.
As a part of the annexation process, a companion ordinance is always adopted to establish
zoning. If we didn't do that, the property would be un -zoned and anything could happen. The
applicant is requesting commercial zoning. The two parcels along Argent are too narrow to do
a complete commercial development. The problem they are being faced with is access and
traffic. To develop the site properly, they need to be developed together. The staff report leans
towards C-1. Staff would like input as to whether C-1 or multi -family would be a better fit.
Rick Graff, 3321 W. 42nd Place, Kennewick, WA spoke on behalf of his application. With
regard to the annexation, they will not move forward with the annexation of the property if it is
not zoned commercial and will instead keep it in the County and work on other options.
Chairman Cruz asked if that was because it wouldn't have much commercial potential without
the other piece.
Mr. Graff addressed some of the issues Mr. McDonald discussed in regards to traffic and
access to the site. They do not want to congest traffic.
-11-
Mr. McDonald asked the Planning Commission for input on possibly additional restrictions,
such as an additional buffer on the south and the east. This area is not in the I-182 Overlay
Zone. The I-182 Overlay Zone has higher design standards.
Chairman Cruz asked if someone were to buy the Magill's property if there was anything
preventing them from bulldozing and building a gas station.
Mr. McDonald said no and they have already had interest in the other corner on the east side
or Road 68 prior to the Maverick Gas Station. But there are no restrictions on the other
corners.
Chairman Cruz responded that as much as he would like to add the provision, he didn't see
how it would provide the residents with much protection from a potential gas station from
locating in the vicinity because if they can't place it on one corner, they can place it on any of
the other corners.
Chairman Cruz said that he understood Mr. Hilgartner but it may not be fair to prohibit a gas
station on the proposed corner yet allow it on the other corner near a house as well.
Mr. Hilgartner asked if there is a gas station in the I-182 Corridor abutted to residential.
Chairman Cruz responded that the Maverick Gas Station is near multi -family residential and
while not ideal, there is nothing the Planning Commission can do to prevent it from happening
on the other comers.
Commissioner Bowers said if a smaller version of, say a Petco, at this location she would like
to see more landscape buffers.
Chairman Cruz said he didn't jump on the I-182 Overlay idea because it is costly and the
likeness of developing happening drops. He would prefer to see more buffers than constraints.
Commissioner Campos asked what buffers could be put in place without prohibiting the
developers.
Chairman Cruz responded with fencing, landscaping and space and then let the City work
with the developer.
Mr. Graff added that buffers and plans are in place already so that developers are consistent
and doesn't present unfair advantages to other developers. If unfair buffers are placed on
them, it may not work for them.
Chairman Cruz replied that they have and done in the past is place different restrictions based
on the circumstances so that would not be unusual but they would be fair.
Mr. Hilgartner said that on the east boundary the homes sit on a bluff and have a 9-10' buffer.
If this buffer used specific trees giving more deciduous value and more noise buffer then it
wouldn't be too cost prohibitive. And placing trees closer together isn't that cost prohibitive.
-12-
The only people that would be affected are the homes to the north and to the east.
Commissioner Bowers moved, seconded by Commissioner Roach, to close the hearing on the
proposed zoning determination and set September 21, 2017 as the date of for deliberations
and the development of a recommendation for the City Council. The motion passed
unanimously.
D. Block Grant 2018 Community Development Block Grant Allocations
(CDBGI (MF# BGAP 2017-0031
Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff.
Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director, discussed the 2018 Community
Development Block Grant (CDBG) Allocations. He pointed out the fund summary and staff
recommendations that were included in the memo to the Planning Commission. This was a
unique year in that there were no private applications aside from the YMCA Youth Center and
the total money requested was less than our expected 2018 allocations. As done in the past,
we have established a practice of placing contingencies in the allocation process so that we
don't have to recreate this process should the expected funding fall short or if one of the
project falls though. He briefly discussed the amounts recommended, much of the extra funds
going towards downtown improvements, such as, Peanuts Park and the Specialty Kitchen as
well as other goals and improvements for the revitalization of the downtown.
Commissioner Bowers asked about the proposal summary and how there is less money
requested than the total amount of their project and if that is because the agencies need to
contribute their own funds.
Mr. White said in a way, yes. It is related to the agency match. And there can only be so
much money spent towards public services and the City tries to keep it under 12%.
Commissioner Bowers asked if the amount for staff administration was the same as previous
years.
Mr. White responded that it was more because it is based on the amount expected to be
received and this year more is expected. The money is often underspent and it is placed into
the contingencies.
With no further questions or comments the public hearing closed.
Commissioner Roach moved, seconded by Commissioner Campos, to close the public hearing
and recommend the City Council approve the use of funds for the 2018 Community
Development Block Grant Program as set forth in the "2018 Fund Summary" as recommended
by Staff. The motion passed unanimously.
E. Block Grant 2018 HOME Fund Allocations (MF# BGAP 2017-0041
Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff.
Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director, discussed the 2018 HOME Fund
Allocations. The City of Pasco, City of Kennewick and City of Richland worked together and
-13-
formed a consortium to receive additional federal funds from HUD that individually each city
wouldn't be able to receive. In 2018 the consortium expects to receive $430,000 and those
funds are earmarked for housing solutions in increasing the supply or affordability of housing.
The Commission a few years backed changed the way those funds could be allocated to add
rehabilitation projects. Those projects were done in the past but the onerous regulations
applied then are even greater now and there is a hefty penalty if those regulations are not met
and HUD may need to be paid back. Because of this, the HOME Consortium has dedicated
these funds to down payment assistance. It is a popular program with a maximum of a
$10,000 grant to first time homebuyers as long as they are low -moderate income households.
Those are processed as fast as they come in. Staff is requesting that the program continue.
Commissioner Bowers asked about the recommendation for the entitlement funds to be used
for the down payment assistance and what other options there were for the funds.
Mr. White answered that it could be used for housing rehabilitations. The City of Richland is
in a unique circumstance that the price of homes have reached a point where home prices are
too high for low -moderate income individuals so they took on a project in conjunction with a
community development housing organization, likely Habitat for Humanity, to build housing.
So new construction and rehabs can be done but enough funds must be available to complete
the projects.
Commissioner Bowers discussed if the housing market makes it difficult to allocate funds to
down payment assistance then the cities can partner with their funds to help with low-income
rental housing and if that was an option.
Mr. White said it was an option.
Commissioner Bowers asked if the cities joined to form the consortium due to the lack of a
CDC.
Mr. White responded that the cities formed a consortium because of the required population
based needed to receive the federal funding.
Commissioner Alvarado asked what the threshold was for making it cost prohibitive for people
to use the down payment assistance funds.
Mr. White replied that it is dependent on the housing market as well as who finances the
home. Some lenders may be more inclined to allow a larger ratio of income to housing.
Commissioner Campos stated that he had personal experience with that with his own loan
process with lenders.
Chairman Cruz added that increasing homeownership is huge and this program has been a
huge success.
With no further questions or comments the public hearing closed.
Commissioner Campos moved, seconded by Commissioner Bykonen,
F. Code Amendment Revisions to PUD Open Space Requirements (City of
-14-
Pasco IMF# CA 2017-003) - Continued
Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff.
Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director, asked the Planning Commission
to ignore the recommended motion for this item and postpone this item pending revisions to
the subdivision code. This item needs to be structured differently; moved from zoning to
subdivision and the density tools that allow density increases need to be grouped in the
subdivision code. There is another piece not addressed in this staff report. The current PUD
open space code requires a 35% increase in open space but only allows a 20% increase in
density so nobody would take advantage of that. In looking towards the Broadmoor Area, this
is a tool that is being looked at and could be used.
Commissioner Roach moved, seconded by Commissioner Campos, to postpone the hearing
indefinitely.
G. Code Amendment Revisions to Residential Design Standards for False
Dormers & Flat Roofs (City of Pascol IMF# CA 2017-
0041
Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff.
Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director, discussed the code amendment
for revisions to the residential design standards for false dormers and flat roofs. The Planning
Commission has seen this item before. It would allow for flat roofs provided they are a part of
an architecturally integrated plan and clarifies that false dormers are allowed as long as the
6/12 roof pitch is reached. Staff added photographs for the Commission to illustrate what
false dormers and flat roofs.
Commissioner Bowers asked if tiny houses would ft within this regulation.
Mr. White answered that he was unsure but as long as they met all other requirements and
design standards then likely.
Chairman Cruz added that these items are features not requirements so a tiny home cold take
advantage of these items.
Commissioner Bowers moved, seconded by Commissioner Alvarado, to close the public
hearing and schedule deliberations, the adoption of findings of fact and development of a
recommendation for City Council for the August 17, 2017 meeting. The motion passed
unanimously.
H. Code Amendment Revisions to CBD Zoning (City of Pasco) (MF# CA 2017-
005)
Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff.
Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director, discussed the code amendment
for revisions the Central Business District (CDB) Zoning. The Planning Commission has seen
this item before so Mr. White directed their attention to the proposed revised ordinance. The
-15-
main changes were highlighted in the memorandum. It clarifies that antique sales are
permitted; it provides flexibility for wine, beer and alcohol sales as an accessory use, it allows
dwelling units outright subject to several parameters; it restates the inclusions of consignment
sales and thrift shops; it establishes "electronic sales and repairs" subject to similar
parameters for consignment sales and thrift shops; and it prohibits commissaries outright.
Commissioner Bowers asked if the Pasco Specialty Kitchen was a commercial kitchen.
Mr. White responded that it is a commercial incubator.
Commissioner Bykonen moved, seconded by Commissioner Campos, to close the public
hearing on the proposed amendments to the Central Business District Zone and schedule
deliberations and a recommendation to City Council for the September 21, 2017 meeting. The
motion passed unanimously.
OTHER BUSINESS:
With no further discussion or business, the Planning Commission was adjourned at 9:26
p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
David McDonald, City Planner
air:
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
MASTER FILE NO: SP 2017-011 APPLICANT: PI Tower Development LLC
HEARING DATE: 8/17/2017 with T -Mobile
ACTION DATE: 9/21/2017 PO Box 8436
Spokane, WA 99203
BACKGROUND
REQUEST: SPECIAL PERMIT: Location of Wireless Communication Facilities
at Columbia Basin College (R -i Zone)
1. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION:
Legal: A portion of the northeast quarter of Section 24, Township 9
North, Range 29, East, WM. containing approximately 2,106 square feet
all within Parcel # 119 170 013.
General Location: Columbia Basin College at the southwest corner of the
campus - 2600 North 20th Avenue
Property Size: The parcel is approximately 133.8 acres; the lease area
contains approximately 2,106 square feet.
2. ACCESS: The site is accessed from W Argent Road and N 20th Ave.
3. UTILITIES: Electricity, water, and telephone are currently available to
the site.
4. LAND USE AND ZONING: The parcel is currently zoned R-1 (Low -
Density Residential) and contains Columbia Basin College as a result of a
special permit. There are no existing structures on the site itself within
the storage yard. Surrounding properties are zoned and developed as
follows:
NORTH:
I-1 - Vacant; Tri -Cities Airport
EAST:
C-1 - Vacant; Hotels; Offices
SOUTH:
R -2/R-4 - Multi -Family Residences
WEST:
RS -1/I-1 -Vacant
5. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The Comprehensive Plan designates the site
for government/ public uses. Goal OF -2 suggests the City ought to
maintain land use flexibility in regard to placement of infrastructure for
1
public and private utilities. Policy OF -2-A encourages the sound
management of all energy and communication utilities through
coordination and cooperation dealing with construction of such facilities.
Policy OF -2-13 encourages the placement of utility substations which are
necessary for the surrounding neighborhood.
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
PI Tower Development LLC along with its tenant, T -Mobile, are requesting
special permit approval to locate an 80 -foot monopole antenna support
structure and associated ground-based equipment in a storage yard located at
the southwest corner of the Columbia Basin College campus, addressed 2600
North 20th Ave. By doing so, the applicant and its tenant intend to improve
coverage for students, staff, and visitors of the college as well as the airport and
surrounding businesses (see coverage maps). The proposed tower is located
adjacent to a highway intersection and 300 feet south of an existing tower
(similar in appearance) which hosts Sprint equipment. It will be placed in this
location so as to neither detract from the beauty of the campus nor interfere
with student activities; no views will be obstructed.
The PMC special permit review criteria for wireless facilities are written as
follows:
25.70.075 WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITIES.
Wireless Communication Facilities are permitted under the
following conditions:
(1) Such structures shall be permitted in all industrial or C-3
zoning districts provided the location is 500 feet or more from a
residential district. Any location closer than 500 feet requires
special permit approval.
(2) Such structures may be permitted by special permit in all
other zoning districts provided said structures are:
(a) Attached to or located on an existing or proposed
building or structure that is higher than thirty-five (35) feet;
or
(b) Located on or with a publicly owned facility such as a
water reservoir, fire station, police station, school, county or
portfacility.
2
(3) All wireless communication facilities shall comply with the
following standards
(a) Wireless facilities shall be screened or camouflaged by
employing the best available technology. This may be
accomplished by use of compatible materials, strategic location,
color, stealth technologies, and/or other measures to achieve
minimum visibility of the facility when viewed from public
rights-of-way, and adjoining properties such that a casual
observer cannot identify the Wireless Communication Facility.
(b) Wireless facilities shall be located in the City in the
following order of preference:
i) Attached to or located on buildings or structures
higher than 35 feet.
ii) Located on or with a publiclu owned facilitu
iii) Located on a site other than those listed in a) or b).
The equipment cabinets will be located within a fenced area surrounding the
base of a pole. The applicant has explained that the reason the facility will be
freestanding is because there are no buildings located in the vicinity that are of
appropriate height. Also, Columbia Basin College has indicated that it will no
longer accept the leasing of space to wireless carriers on campus buildings due
to the potential for roof damage. The monopole will be tall and strong enough to
support other wireless carriers in addition to T -Mobile.
Typical neighborhood concerns expressed over proposed cell towers in the past
have included fear of electromagnetic radio waves and the unsightliness of tall
towers within the neighborhood. Because the tower will be located within
public property the provisions for tower height do not apply to this application.
Furthermore, under Federal regulations cities are barred from considering
electromagnetic radio waves for equipment meeting FCC specifications in the
permitting process for cell towers. An application for a cell tower cannot be
denied based on concern over electromagnetic waves.
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 section of the staff report.
The Planning Commission may add additional findings to this listing as the
result of factual testimony and evidence submitted during the open record
hearing.
1. The site is zoned R-1 (Low -Density Residential) and contains Columbia
Basin College as a result of a special permit.
2. The Comprehensive Plan identifies the site for government/ public uses.
3
3. The site is approximately 133.8 acres; the lease area contains
approximately 2,106 square feet.
4. The proposed tower is located adjacent to a highway interchange and 300
feet south of an existing tower.
5. The height of the elevated freeway interchange will help reduce the overall
visual height of the tower.
6. The tower location and height has been reviewed by the FAA and
determined to not create obstructions for airport operations.
7. A copy of the tower site plan and tower was provided to the Airport
Manager.
8. Electricity, water, and telephone are currently available to the site.
9. In the R-1 zone cellular facilities may be permitted by special permit
provided the tower is either:
i) Attached to or located on an existing or proposed building or
structure that is higher than thirty-five (35) feet; or
ii) Located on or with a publicly owned facility such as a water
reservoir, fire station, police station, school, county or port
facility.
10. The equipment cabinets will be located within a fenced area surrounding
the base of a pole.
11. The monopole will be tall and strong enough to support other wireless
carriers in addition to T -Mobile.
12. Federal regulations bar the City from considering electromagnetic radio
waves in the permitting process for cell towers or denying permits based
upon concerns over electromagnetic radio waves.
13. The Comprehensive Plan suggests the City should maintain land use
flexibility with regard to placement of infrastructure for public and
private utilities.
14. The Comprehensive Plan does not specifically address cellular
equipment.
15. Cellular equipment creates minimal demands on City infrastructure.
TENTATIVE CONCLUSIONS BASED ON INITIAL STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT
Before recommending approval or denial of a special permit the Planning
Commission must develop findings of fact from which to draw its conclusions
based upon the criteria listed in PMC 25.86.060. The criteria are as follows:
19
(1) Will the proposed use be in accordance with the goals, policies, objectives
and text of the Comprehensive Plan?
The Comprehensive Plan does not specifically address cellular
equipment. The Comprehensive Plan goal OF-2 and policy OF-2-A
discuss the need for sound management and coordination in the
location of utilities and community facilities. Policy ED-1-C promotes
the need to support Pasco's urban area as a good business environment
by enhancing the infrastructure of the community. The applicability of
policy ED-1-C is enhanced due to the fact that the new monopole and
accompanying equipment will provide more/better service primarily to
Columbia Basin College and the Tri-Cities Airport. Policy UT-1-C
encourages coordination of utility providers' functional plans with the
City's land use and utility plans to ensure long term service availability.
(2) Will the proposed use adversely affect public infrastructure?
The proposed use is a part of the communication network utilized by the
general public. The proposed equipment will be located in such a
manner so as not to impact other public utilities or services. The
proposed use does not require water and sewer. Only one service trip is
expected to be generated each month.
(3) Will the proposed use be constructed, maintained and operated to be in
harmony with existing or intended character of the general vicinity?
The tower will be located on the Columbia Basin campus in a storage
yard and far from the residential uses across I-182 to the south. As the
storage yard is fairly isolated from areas where students and visitors will
gather, the tower will neither interrupt students' daily activities nor
obstruct any views.
(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 area is almost fully developed with permitted uses. The tower will be
located in a storage yard on campus property nearby an existing tower
and a chain link fence will encase both it and the accompanying
equipment. The tower and equipment will likely not be noticeable from
any surrounding properties. Additional the tower tower location and
height has been reviewed by the FAA and determined to not create
obstructions for airport operations.
(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 cellular equipment will create no fumes, dust, or noise
during normal operations. Cellular facilities have been located
5
throughout the community in residential, commercial and industrial
zones without generating any complaints received by the City.
(6) Will the proposed use endanger the public health or safety if located and
developed where proposed, or in any way become a nuisance to uses
permitted in the district?
The proposal is required to be designed by a professional engineer to
withstand the forces of nature. The applicant is also required by law to
coordinate with the FAA and FCC prior to obtaining a building permit.
Radio waves at frequencies utilized by local cellular networks have not
been proven to be harmful to human health. Federal law prohibits the
City from considering the impacts of radio wave frequencies when
reviewing permits for cellular equipment meeting FCC standards.
APPROVAL CONDITIONS
1) The special permit shall apply to parcel # 119 170 013;
2) The property shall be developed in substantial conformity with the
elevations and site plan submitted with the application except as
conditioned herein;
3) The proposed cellular facility must comply with all FCC and FAA
regulations;
4) The tower shall be painted a neutral color to blend in with the
horizon;
5) The special permit shall be null and void if a City of Pasco building
permit is not obtained by December 30, 2018;
6) The wireless tower and all of its accessories must be removed within
90 days of discontinuation.
RECOMMENDATION
MOTION for Findings of Fact: I move to adopt Findings of Fact and
Conclusions therefrom as contained in the September 21, 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 PI Tower Development LLC for
the location of an 80 -foot monopole and its associated ground equipment
at 2600 North 20th Avenue with conditions as contained in the
September 21, 2017 staff report.
61
z�
Fes-•
TOM
� o
Q
U a o
au 4-) a�
U ••
r-
■P
o �
�
N
4�
N
fz
W
C
U)
�
a
m
co
Q
E
20
o
t m
Y
N �
L
E
y
O
0
O
0
O
o
t
U
�a
N
`
N
3
Q
4�
N
fz
W
7'r p
r
•A
el
J
11
s
8 y �
v
Ll❑❑®
kr
s
6
g 4u g3a6§ 8=um„E.�aSe R Yp 30
mks Qs3 n m
5e.�.k4
eGq�agEo�zwy ¢¢ Y=: b�'mm y4izj
3'3 6'r'
`9Wfi.S 9� Y ,;,a
e. g g g
m g
ag
gtz
3 e
:=gym
_ € m W X33'..
Oma$
b
C
U
Z
Y
Y38i33 H -M m eS'S>
m Emo
m:'�.:m.
3
6
g 4u g3a6§ 8=um„E.�aSe R Yp 30
mks Qs3 n m
5e.�.k4
eGq�agEo�zwy ¢¢ Y=: b�'mm y4izj
3'3 6'r'
`9Wfi.S 9� Y ,;,a
e. g g g
m g
ag
gtz
3 e
:=gym
_ € m W X33'..
i m o„=aY m€�
b
C
III I I I
„EW'3 tl":
'e 4.', �553�.eg�m�: m9.e�=g
Y38i33 H -M m eS'S>
m Emo
m:'�.:m.
€ k
grta a
mgQ
yY'
_aa"383
y� tlE seaSa, y e3Y
me om o a qQ«¢ ®QOo090
z
S
aim
mss€
E=i
k,8,u.d..s^
USC_"E
Mg
a9n65awa'. 1 d ��'�_
k'•�33
3..�m„m„
fe:'z'
664y=
5�
'�j F;sy'y�y goue.
e 3 3 e e e }m.-"35253
I € zd Ely
�
ryRt1MY
z},,.§«,Vg
! El
o a... 1:
FSg'
an
6
g 4u g3a6§ 8=um„E.�aSe R Yp 30
mks Qs3 n m
0
/
i.,
III I I I
J
111 1�1
111111
�
ryRt1MY
y
/ � .
'
G$
• \1'
'''LLL,''///
0
/
7f�,
f,t4ti1� - - - -
m
a
4-1
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
MASTER FILE NO: (MF# Z2017-003)
HEARING DATE: 8/17/2017
ACTION DATE: 9/21/2017
APPLICANT: Dan Aden
6200 W Brinkley Rd.
Kennewick, WA 99338
BACKGROUND
REQUEST: REQUEST: REZONE: Rezone from RS -12 to C-1 (Retail
Business)
1)
Legal: That portion of the of the north half of the northwest quarter of
northwest quarter of the northwest quarter of Section 22, Township 9
North, Range 29 East, WM encompassed in parcel #s 118552022 and
118552081.
General Location: SW corner of Rd 68 8v Argent Rd.
Proper Size: Approximately 4.5 acres
2) ACCESS: The property has access from Road 68 and Argent Road.
3) UTILITIES: A City water line is located in Argent and along Road 68.
Sewer is located in Argent Road.
4) LAND USE AND ZONING: The proposed annexation area is currently
zoned RS -12 and is vacant. Surrounding properties are zoned and
developed as follows:
NORTH: C-1-Vacant/Office/Single-family
SOUTH: RS- 20- Vacant
EAST: RS- 12 Single -Family
WEST: C-1- Drive thru Coffee Stand
5) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The property is designated for Mixed
Residential/ Commercial uses. The property can be considered for either
multi -family or commercial zoning. Policy LU -1-C encourages the
clustering of commercial development to avoid strip development up and
down major streets. LU -4-A also supports the location of commercial
facilities at major intersections (like Rd 68 & Argent) to avoid commercial
sprawl. ED -2-13 suggests a wide range of commercial development should
1
be strategically located to support local and regional needs in the
community. ED -3-A encourages the use of landscaping, screening and
superior building design to enhance compatibility between commercial
and residential 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 a Mitigated Determination of Non -Significance is likely for
this application (WAC 197-11-355).
ANALYSIS
The site contains almost 4.5 acres and is located at the southeast corner
of Road 68 and Argent Road. Properties surround the Road 68 and
Argent intersection contain commercial offices, a coffee drive-thru
facility, a restaurant, a City Fire Station and a commercial strip building
with various commercial businesses. The southwest corner of Road 68
and Argent Road is the only corner on this intersection that has not been
zone to C-1. When the property was annexed in 2001 there were two
houses on the property and the owner did not want to zone the parcel to
C-1 until after the houses were removed. The houses were demolished in
2009.
The Mixed Residential/ Commercial land use designation would permit a
variety of multi -family structures, including large apartment buildings,
and neighborhood shopping and specialty centers, business parks,
service businesses and commercial offices. R-3 zoning allowed under the
Mixed Residential/ Commercial designation would permit up to 20
dwelling units per acre or 90 units for the site in question. The
Description and Allocation Table on page 17 of the Comprehensive Plan
states mixed residential commercial areas should be located convenient
to major circulations routes such as Road 68 and Argent Road. The
referenced table also indicates in Mixed Residential/ Commercial
designated areas C-1 and Office zoning would be permitted.
Consideration needs to be given to the existing zoning and land uses
near and around the Road 68 and Argent intersection. The northeast,
northwest, and southwest corners of the Road 68 and Argent intersection
have already been zone C-1 and are partially developed with commercial
enterprises as noted above. The City has had a long history of
encouraging commercial development at or convenient to major street
intersections. The Planning Commission also needs to consider the
criteria in PMC 25.88.060 (as discussed below) in developing a rezone
recommendation.
2
The initial review criteria for considering a rezone application are
explained in PMC 25.88.030. The criteria are listed below as follows:
1. The changed conditions in the vicinity which warrant other or
additional zoning:
• The property is located within the Pasco Urban Growth
Boundary.
• The property in question may be annexed to the City of Pasco.
• The property is located along a major street within a convenient
distance of the Road 68/Argent Road intersection.
• The other corners of the Road 68/Argent intersection have been
zone C-1
• Properties surrounding the Road 68 and Argent intersection
contain commercial offices, a coffee drive-thru facility, a
restaurant, a City Fire Station and commercial strip building
with various commercial businesses.
• A traffic signal is now located at the intersection of Road 68 and
Argent Road.
• The City has installed major sewer and water lines in Argent
Road in anticipation of more intense development around and
near the Road 68 and Argent intersection.
• A major water line now extends down Road 68 past the
proposed annexation and rezone site.
• A City Fire Station is located on Road 68 340 feet north of
Argent Road.
• Road 68 and Argent Road are identified as major streets in the
Comprehensive Plan.
2. Facts to justify the change on the basis of advancing the public
health, safety and general welfare.
The property is located at a major signalized intersection and is served
by major water and sewer lines. The rezone will encourage commercial
infill development that will provide the surrounding neighborhood
with various commercial services thereby shortening commute times
and generally enhance the general welfare of the community.
3. The effect rezoning will have on the nature and value of adjoining
property and the Comprehensive Plan.
Zoning the site to C-1 (Retail Business) is supported by the
Comprehensive Plan land use map and land use policies and would
be considered a proper implementation of the Plan. The nature and
3
value of the adjoining properties have changed little as a result of the
commercial activity and traffic associated with the Road 68 and
Argent Road intersection. Rezoning the property to C-1 will have the
same impact as the current C-1 zoning in the neighborhood. The C-1
zoning regulations and landscape and screening regulations are
designed to enhance the compatibility of commercial development
with residential development. These regulations are in place to
ameliorate any impacts C-1 development may have on nearby
residential development. A review of County Assessor records were
commercial development and residential development adjoin each
other reveal the value of both types of property have continued to
increase over the years (August 2017 of the County Assessors
Records).
4. The effect on the property owners or owner if the request is not
granted.
If the property was not rezoned to C-1 the property owners would
have the opportunity to apply for R-3 zoning and construct 90
apartment units on the site. The height and bulk of a three story
apartment building may have a greater impact on the surrounding
neighborhood than single -story offices or commercial buildings.
5. The Comprehensive Plan land use designation for the property.
The Plan indicates the proposed annexation area can be zoned and
developed for retail and office uses. Policies of the Plan encourage the
location of commercial development near the intersections of major
streets such as Road 68 and Argent Road. Providing land for
neighborhood shopping will benefit the community and help
implement provision of the Comprehensive Plan.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Findings of fact must be entered from the record. The following are initial
findings drawn from the background and analysis section of the staff report.
The Planning Commission may add findings to this listing as the result of
factual testimony and evidence submitted during the open record hearing.
1) The site is within the Pasco Urban Growth Boundary.
2) The Urban Growth Boundary was established by Franklin County in
1994.
3) The property is located near the intersection of Road 68 and Argent
Road.
0
4) The Road 68 and Argent Road intersection is signalized and served by
major utility lines.
5) Policy LU -1-C encourages the clustering of commercial development to
avoid strip development up and down major streets.
6) LU -4-A also supports the location of commercial facilities at major
intersections (like Rd 68 8s Argent) to avoid commercial sprawl.
7) ED -3-A encourages the use of landscaping, screening and superior
building design to enhance compatibility between commercial and
residential development. The Pasco zoning regulations contain
provisions requiring landscaping, screening and setbacks designed to
implement ED -3-A.
8) Properties around and near the northwest, northeast and southwest
corners of Road 68 and Argent Road are currently zoned C-1.
9) The Description and Allocation Table on page 17 of the Comprehensive
Plan states mixed residential or commercial areas should be located
convenient to major circulations routes such as Road 68 and Argent
Road.
10) A review of County Assessor records were commercial development
and residential development adjoin each other reveal the value of both
types of property have continued to increase over the years (August 2017
review of the County Assessors Records).
CONCLUSIONS BASED ON STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT
Before recommending approval or denial of a rezone the Planning Commission
must develop its conclusions from the findings of fact based upon the criteria
listed in PMC 25.88.060 and determine whether or not:
(1) The proposal is in accord with the goals and policies of the
Comprehensive Plan.
Zoning the site to C-1 supports and is consistent with Plan Policies LU -1-
C, LU -4-A, ED -3-A and ED -2-B.
(2) The effect of the proposal on the immediate vicinity will not be materially
detrimental.
The rezone to C-1 will complement the C-1 zoning on the other corners of
the Road 68 and Argent intersection. Rezoning the property supports the
commercial clustering or nodal concept of zoning that the city has followed
for major intersections for the past 35 years. Standards in place within the
zoning regulations are designed to ensure C-1 areas do not become
detrimental to surrounding properties.
5
(3) There is merit and value in the proposal for the community as a whole.
There is merit and value in following the guidance of the Comprehensive
Plan when assigning zoning. The proposed zoning will secure the
commercial nature of the Road 68 and Argent intersection. Providing an
area for the grouping of similar neighborhood businesses enables the
businesses to fair better and will provide services to the community for a
longer period of time.
(4) Conditions should be imposed in order to mitigate any significant
adverse impacts from the proposal.
The proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and no mitigation
measures are needed. Standards within the zoning regulations for
setbacks, screening and landscaping provide mitigation measures.
(5) A concomitant agreement should be entered into between the City and
the petitioner, and if so, the terms and conditions of such an agreement.
A concomitant agreement is not needed.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
MOTION for Findings of Fact: I move to adopt findings of fact and
conclusions therefrom as contained in the September 21, 2016 staff
report.
MOTION for Recommendation: I move, based on the findings of fact
and conclusions as adopted, the Planning Commission recommend the
City Council rezone parcel #s 118552022 and 118552081 at the
southwest corner of Argent and Road 68 from RS -12 to C-1.
2
I
Z isi'l
N
O
0
.
r.
'TJ '-,
-
�O
CD
O
0 �
O O
�
r
N
CSD
rt
O
1�9
P. a
� z
(Olt"
P-
I
I
�.
} ''.
a' ��
i .:J .: 1
i
7�
•�
ti� j
/'
i
•�
t
�.
,k,
�V
a'
r
3
�i
,r
•�
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
MASTER FILE NO: (MF# ZD2017-002) APPLICANT: City of Pasco
HEARING DATE: 8/17/2017 PO Box 293
ACTION DATE: 9/21/2017 Pasco, WA 99301
BACKGROUND
REQUEST: REQUEST: REZONE: Development of a zoning recommendation
for the D&D Annexation Area.
1) AREA ID: Area Size # of Dwellings Population
D&D Annexation 3.88 acres 0 0
2) UTILITIES: A City water line is located in Argent and along Road 68.
Sewer is located in Argent Road.
3) LAND USE AND ZONING: The proposed annexation area is currently
zoned RS -12 and is vacant. Surrounding properties are zoned and
developed as follows:
NORTH: C-1-Vacant/Office /Single-family
SOUTH: RS- 20- Vacant
EAST: RS- 12 Single -Family
WEST: C-1- Drive thru Coffee Stand
4) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The property is designated for Mixed
Residential/ Commercial uses. The property can be considered for either
multi -family or commercial zoning. Policy LU -1-C encourages the
clustering of commercial development to avoid strip development up and
down major streets. LU -4-A also supports the location of commercial
facilities at major intersections (like Rd 68 & Argent) to avoid commercial
sprawl. ED -2-13 suggests a wide range of commercial development should
be strategically located to support local and regional needs in the
community. ED -3-A encourages the use of landscaping, screening and
superior building design to enhance compatibility between commercial
and residential development.
5) 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 -
1
Significance or a Mitigated Determination of Non -Significance is likely for
this application (WAC 197-11-355).
ANALYSIS
The site contains almost 4 acres and is located about 300 feet south of
the Road 68 and Argent Road intersection. Properties surround the Road
68 and Argent intersection contain commercial offices, a coffee drive-thru
facility, a restaurant, a City Fire Station and a commercial strip building
with various commercial businesses. The uses mentioned above are
consistent with the provisions of the Comprehensive Plan.
The Mixed Residential/ Commercial land use designation would permit a
variety of multi -family structures, including large apartment buildings,
and neighborhood shopping and specialty centers, business parks,
service businesses and commercial offices. R-3 zoning allowed under the
Mixed Residential/ Commercial designation would permit up to 20
dwelling units per acre or 77 units for the site in question. The
Description and Allocation Table on page 17 of the Comprehensive Plan
states mixed residential commercial areas should be located convenient
to major circulations routes such as Road 68 and Argent Road. The
referenced table also indicates in Mixed Residential/ Commercial
designated areas C-1 and Office zoning would be permitted.
In determining zoning for the annexation area the Planning Commission
needs to consider the existing zoning and land uses near and around the
Road 68 and Argent intersection. The northeast, northwest, and
southwest corners of the Road 68 and Argent intersection have already
been zone C-1 and are partially developed with commercial enterprises
as noted above. The City has had a long history of encouraging
commercial development at or convenient to major street intersections.
The Planning Commission also needs to consider the criteria in PMC
25.88.060 (as discussed below) in developing a zoning recommendation.
The proposed annexation area is within the City's service area as
identified in the Comprehensive Water and Sewer Plans. Both of these
plans based future services need within the annexation area for more
intense land uses as identified in the land use map of the Comprehensive
Plan.
The initial review criteria for considering a rezone application are
explained in PMC 25.88.030. The criteria are listed below as follows:
1. The changed conditions in the vicinity which warrant other or
additional zoning:
2
• The property is located within the Pasco Urban Growth
Boundary.
• The property in question may be annexed to the City of Pasco.
• The property is located along a major street within a convenient
distance of the Road 68/Argent Road intersection.
• The other corners of the Road 68/Argent intersection have been
zone C-1
• Properties surrounding the Road 68 and Argent intersection
contain commercial offices, a coffee drive-thru facility, a
restaurant, a City Fire Station and commercial strip building
with various commercial businesses.
• A traffic signal is now located at the intersection of Road 68 and
Argent Road.
• The City has installed major sewer and water lines in Argent
Road in anticipation of more intense development around and
near the Road 68 and Argent intersection.
• A major water line now extends down Road 68 past the
proposed annexation and rezone site.
• A City Fire Station is located on Road 68 340 feet north of
Argent Road.
• Road 68 and Argent Road are identified as major streets in the
Comprehensive Plan.
2. Facts to justify the change on the basis of advancing the public
health, safety and general welfare.
The property may be annexed to the City and will need to be zoned.
The justification for the rezone is the fact that if a zoning designation
is not determined the property could become annexed without a
zoning. For the advancement of the general welfare of the community
the property needs to be zoned consistent with the Comprehensive
Plan following the development patterns occurring around the Road
68/Argent Road intersection.
3. The effect rezoning will have on the nature and value of adjoining
property and the Comprehensive Plan.
Zoning the proposed annexation area to C-1 (Retail Business) is
supported by the Comprehensive Plan land use map and land use
policies and would be considered a proper implementation of the Plan.
The nature and value of the adjoining properties have changed little
as a result of the commercial activity and traffic associated with the
Road 68 and Argent Road intersection. Rezoning the property to C-1
will have the same impact as the current C-1 zoning in the
3
neighborhood. The C-1 zoning regulations and landscape and
screening regulations are designed to enhance the compatibility of
commercial development with residential development. These
regulations are in place to ameliorate any impacts C-1 development
may have on nearby residential development. A review of County
Assessor records were commercial development and residential
development adjoin each other reveal the value of both types of
property have continued to increase over the years (August 2017 of
the County Assessors Records).
4. The effect on the property owners or owner if the request is not
granted.
Without the annexation area being assigned a specific zoning district,
the area will essentially be un -zoned upon annexation. The area
needs to be zoned for the benefit of the property owners and property
owners adjoining the proposed annexation area.
5. The Comprehensive Plan land use designation for the property.
The Plan indicates the proposed annexation area can be zoned and
developed for retail and office uses. Policies of the Plan encourage the
location of commercial development near the intersections of major
streets such as Road 68 and Argent Road. Providing land for
neighborhood shopping will benefit the community and help
implement provision of the Comprehensive Plan.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Findings of fact must be entered from the record. The following are initial
findings drawn from the background and analysis section of the staff report.
The Planning Commission may add findings to this listing as the result of
factual testimony and evidence submitted during the open record hearing.
1) The site is within the Pasco Urban Growth Boundary.
2) The Urban Growth Boundary was established by Franklin County in
1994.
3) The property is being proposed for annexation by the fall of 2017.
4) The property is located near the intersection of Road 68 and Argent
Road.
5) Policy LU -1-C encourages the clustering of commercial development to
avoid strip development up and down major streets.
6) LU -4-A also supports the location of commercial facilities at major
intersections (like Rd 68 & Argent) to avoid commercial sprawl.
4
7) ED -3-A encourages the use of landscaping, screening and superior
building design to enhance compatibility between commercial and
residential development. The Pasco zoning regulations contain
provision requiring landscaping, screening and setbacks designed to
implement ED -3-A.
8) Properties around and near the northwest, northeast and southwest
corners of Road 68 and Argent Road are currently zoned C-1.
9) The Description and Allocation Table on page 17 of the Comprehensive
Plan states mixed residential or commercial areas should be located
convenient to major circulations routes such as Road 68 and Argent
Road.
10) A review of County Assessor records were commercial development and
,residential development adjoin each other reveal the value of both types
of property have continued to increase over the years (August 2017
review of the County Assessors Records).
CONCLUSIONS BASED ON STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT
Before recommending approval or denial of a rezone the Planning Commission
must develop its conclusions from the findings of fact based upon the criteria
listed in PMC 25.88.060 and determine whether or not:
(1) The proposal is in accord with the goals and policies of the
Comprehensive Plan.
Zoning the proposed annexation site to C-1 supports and is consistent with
Plan Policies LU -1-C, LU -4-A, ED -3-A and ED -2-B.
(2) The effect of the proposal on the immediate vicinity will not be materially
detrimental.
The rezone to C-1 will complement the C-1 zoning on or near the other
corners of the Road 68 and Argent intersection. Rezoning the property
supports the commercial clustering or nodal concept of zoning that the city
has followed for major intersections for the past 35 years. Standards in
place within the zoning regulations are designed to ensure C-1 areas do
not become detrimental to surrounding properties.
(3) There is merit and value in the proposal for the community as a whole.
There is merit and value in following the guidance of the Comprehensive
Plan when assigning zoning. The proposed zoning will secure the
commercial nature of the Road 68 and Argent intersection. Providing an
area for the grouping of similar neighborhood businesses enables the
5
businesses to fair better and will provide services to the community for a
longer period of time.
(4) Conditions should be imposed in order to mitigate any significant
adverse impacts from the proposal.
The proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and no mitigation
measures are needed. Standards within the zoning regulations for
setbacks, screening and landscaping provide mitigation measures.
(5) A concomitant agreement should be entered into between the City and
the petitioner, and if so, the terms and conditions of such an agreement.
A concomitant agreement is not needed.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
MOTION for Findings of Fact: I move to adopt findings of fact and
conclusions therefrom as contained in the September 21, 2016 staff
report.
MOTION for Recommendation: I move, based on the findings of fact
and conclusions as adopted, the Planning Commission recommend the
City Council zone the D &, D annexation area (parcel #s 11855203) to C-
1.
V
0
I
�f
P
T 1' .'
I
4?
� ,r 1,+.�
�a �
n
1I
I
Z-<
Road 64
a
• Ci
c D
� D
L—1
L J
Q u C!
LL
Cut) H
0 0 0
Comm. w )
� H
� to
_Road 68
F-
0 CD
"'o Fv v a.
c�
''� SFD.Us
zQ _ _
4
o Road 6
ct
N
N � H
cn
Q N Q }
�a o
H
W O
�
.V r
au V
,4-j � �, Road -68-
0 PEA
8•PEA V (�
V
N
RSA 2
N
!.w
ry
!.w
I
/� � /� \� / \ \ \�
}� \ �� \�� \./ \� \�
CA
cu
0
bz
0
a
MEMORANDUM
DATE: September 12, 2017
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Jeffrey B. Adams, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: Residential Desien Standards Reeardina False Dormers & Flat
Roofs (MF# CA 2017-004)
In July of 2005, The Washington State Legislature preempted the City's ability to
regulate the placement of new manufactured homes in the City through the
adoption of SB 6593, which precluded any city in the State of Washington from
enacting and/or enforcing any regulations not applicable to all housing types
(manufactured and site -built). The new State legislation allowed Cities to
regulate aesthetics as long as the standards apply to all housing and did not
specifically discriminate against manufactured housing units.
Many Pasco citizens opposed placement of manufactured homes in traditional,
"stick -build" or site -built neighborhoods for fear that these units would detract
from the aesthetic appeal of their neighborhoods and reduce their property
values.
As part of the campaign to push the bill through the Senate representatives from
the manufactured housing industry introduced images of aesthetically pleasing
high-end manufactured homes as examples of what the industry was willing to
do aesthetically to their units in order to overcome the "mobile home" stigma.
In response to the manufactured home industry's campaign, and as a result of
the State mandate, the City of Pasco (and Kennewick/Richland) crafted a set of
standards that require all homes in certain zoning districts to meet a specific
level of aesthetic values. These standards were crafted so as to reduce the
likelihood of homes which would clash with the surrounding architecture in any
given neighborhood.
These standards are as follows:
25.70.085 RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS.
(1) DESIGN STANDARDS. Except for multi -family structures the following
design standards shall apply to all newly constructed or newly placed dwellings
in RT, R -S-20, R -S-12, R -S-1, R-1, R-2, R-3 and the R-4 Districts:
(a) The main entry doors of all dwellings must face the street on which the
dwelling is addressed;
(b) A minimum of 30 (thirty) square feet of glazing must be on the portion
of the dwelling facing the street. Dwellings with less than 32 square feet of
glazing must contain covered porches with a minimum of a four -foot
overhang;
(c) All entry porches/landing areas must be constructed as an integral
part of the dwelling architecture;
(d) The main roof of all dwellings shall have a minimum 5/12 pitch; except
dwellings with less than a 5/12 pitch legally established as of the effective
date of this ordinance shall be permitted to be rebuilt, altered, enlarged or
remodeled without the roof being changed to a 5/12 pitch;
(e) Eave overhangs are required and shall be a minimum of 12 inches;
(f) Dwellings with 4/12 pitch roofs may be permitted provided the main
roof includes one or more secondary roofs intersecting the main roof at
right angles. The secondary roof must have a pitch of 5/12 or greater;
(g) No false or artificial dormers are permitted;
(h) All foundation walls must be poured concrete or masonry block;
(i) All dwellings must be permanently connected to foundations, and must
meet seismic and wind loading standards for Franklin County,
Washington;
6) No more than 12 inches of foundation wall can be exposed on the walls
facing a street;
(k) All siding must be durable materials, such as brick, masonry, stucco,
vinyl, exterior -grade wood, or exterior grade composites, each with a
lifespan of at least 20 years under normal conditions;
(1) All siding must extend below the top of the foundation 1 1/2 to 2 inches.
A bottom trim board does not qualify as siding and cannot be used to
cover the top of the foundation;
(m) All trim materials around windows, doors, corners, and other areas of
the dwelling, must be cedar or other City approved materials that are not
subject to deterioration;
(n) All electric meters must be securely attached to an exterior side wall of
the dwelling. Meters are not permitted to face the street upon which the
dwelling is addressed;
(o) All additions and/or other architectural features must be designed and
permanently connected to the dwelling so as to be an integral part of the
dwelling;
(p) Primary driveways shall terminate into an architecturally integrated
garage or carport. No parking pad is permitted in front of a dwelling
unless such pad leads to a garage or carport;
(q) At least one required off-street parking space must be located behind
the front building setback line of the dwelling.
(2) EXCEPTIONS. Exceptions to the design standards may be granted through
the special permit process based upon review of the criteria listed in PMC
25.86.060.
Many architectural features of manufactured homes, such as low -pitch roofs,
lack of integrated porches and landings, and so forth, were historically
associated with the transportation requirements of mobile homes, reducing
weight and allowing them to pass under low freeway underpasses.
Unfortunately, a few of these standards—namely items "I" and "g" above, dealing
rN
with roof pitch, and false dormers, respectively—technically preclude
architectural features which have been successfully utilized in stick -build
construction with an otherwise pleasing aesthetic outcome, and without
triggering the "mobile home" stigma.
For example, a handful of architects have petitioned to allow for flat roofs (roofs
with a pitch of 1/12 or less) and/or shed -style roofs with varying pitches in the
City of Pasco as part of their design strategy. While a flat roof is technically less
than the 5/12 specified in the code, it does not resemble the squat -pitched
mobile home roof designed to slide under low freeway bridges.
Similarly, false dormers with windows on a 5/12 roof present an aesthetically
pleasing facade not resembling mobile home dormers.
Findings
1. SB 6593 preempts cities in the State of Washington from regulating the
placement of new manufactured homes.
2. SB 6593 precludes cities from enacting and/or enforcing any regulations
not applicable to all housing types (manufactured and site -built).
3. The City of Pasco adopted Title 25.70.085 "RESIDENTIAL DESIGN
STANDARDS" in response to the passage of SB 6593.
4. Title 25.70.085 requires all homes in certain zoning districts to meet a
specific level of aesthetic values.
5. Title 25.70.085 standards were designed to keep new home designs from
clashing with the surrounding architecture in any given neighborhood.
6. Many architectural features of manufactured homes were associated with
the transportation requirements; reducing weight and allowing homes to
clear low freeway underpasses.
7. The roof pitch and false dormers standards of Title 25.70.085 technically
preclude architecturally pleasing flat roofs (roofs with a pitch of 1/12 or
less) and/or shed -style roofs with varying pitches, and dormers which
have been successfully utilized in stick -build construction without
triggering the "mobile home" stigma.
8. A handful of architects have periodically requested to allow for flat roofs
and/or shed -style roofs with varying pitches in the City of Pasco as part
of their design strategy.
9. False dormers with windows on a 5/12 roof can present an aesthetically
pleasing facade not resembling mobile home dormers.
Staff recommends that the City allow flat roofs (roofs with a pitch of 1/ 12 or
3
less) and/or shed -style roofs with varying pitches, and false dormers as
specified in the attached proposed Code Amendment Ordinance.
NOTE: For the sake of consistency this recommendation, along with the language
in this report and the draft ordinance represents a slight change from the
previous recommendation as follows:
1) Recommending a 5/ 12 minimum roof pitch rather than 6112 pitch for roofs
with false dormers; and
2) Replacing the minimum 5112 pitch roof requirement for shed -style roofs with
the allowance for unlimited "varying pitches."
RECOMMENDATION:
MOTION: I move the Planning Commission adopt the findings of fact as
contained in the September 21, 2017 staff memo regarding roof pitch and false
dormer requirements.
MOTION: I move the Planning Commission recommend the City Council
adopt the proposed code amendments regarding roof pitch and false dormer
requirements as attached to the September 21, 2017 staff memo to the
Planning Commission.
4
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING PMC TITLE 25 DEALING WITH RESIDENTIAL DESIGN
STANDARDS REGARDING FALSE DORMERS & FLAT ROOFS (CA 2017-004).
WHEREAS, cities have the responsibility to regulate and control physical development
within their borders and to ensure public health, safety and welfare are maintained; and,
WHEREAS, the City of Pasco has zoning regulations that encourage orderly growth and
development of the City; and,
WHEREAS, within the zoning regulations PMC Chapter 25.70.085 contains provisions
regarding residential design standards; and,
WHEREAS, Many architectural features of manufactured homes, such as low -pitch
roofs, lack of integrated porches and landings, and so forth, were historically associated with the
transportation requirements of mobile homes, reducing weight and allowing them to pass under
low freeway underpasses; and,
WHEREAS, standards dealing with roof pitch, and false dormers, technically preclude
architectural features which have been successfully utilized in stick -build construction with an
otherwise pleasing aesthetic outcome, and without triggering the "mobile home" stigma; and,
WHEREAS, several architects have periodically requested to allow for flat roofs (roofs
with a pitch of 1/12 or less) and/or shed -style roofs with varying pitches under 5/12 pitch in the
City of Pasco as part of their design strategy; and,
WHEREAS, While flat roofs and shed -style roofs with pitches under 5/12 pitch are
technically in violation of the 5/12 pitch standard specified in the code, they often lend a pleasing
appearance when built as part of an architecturally integrated design, as contrasted to the squat -
pitched mobile home roof designed to slide under low freeway bridges; and,
WHEREAS, fenestrated false dormers placed on a 5/12 roof typically present an
aesthetically pleasing fagade not resembling mobile home dormers; and,
WHEREAS, The Planning Commission considers it appropriate to allow for flat roofs
(roofs with a pitch of 1/12 or less) and shed -style roofs with varying pitches under 5/12 pitch as
part of an architecturally integrated design; and,
WHEREAS, The Planning Commission considers it appropriate to allow false dormers
containing windows on roof pitches with at least a 5/12 pitch; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that to further the purposes of maintaining
a quality community and to support orderly development within the City of Pasco, it is necessary
to amend PMC Title 25.70.085 and adopts by reference the Planning Commission's findings on
this matter; NOW THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASCO, WASHINGTON, DOES
ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. That PMC Section 25.70.085 be and the same is hereby amended to read
as follows:
25.70.085 RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS. (1) DESIGN STANDARDS.
Except for multi -family structures the following design standards shall apply to all newly
constructed or newly placed dwellings in RT, R -S-20, R -S-12, R -S-1, R-1, R-2, R-3 and the R-4
Districts:
(a) The main entry doors of all dwellings must face the street on which the dwelling is addressed;
(b) A minimum of 30 (thirty) square feet of glazing must be on the portion of the dwelling facing
the street. Dwellings with less than 32 square feet of glazing must contain covered porches with
a minimum of a four -foot overhang;
(c) All entry porches/landing areas must be constructed as an integral part of the dwelling
architecture;
(d) The main roof of all dwellings shall have a minimum 5/12 pitch; except dwellings with less
than a 5/12 pitch legally established as of the effective date of this ordinance shall be permitted
to be rebuilt, altered, enlarged or remodeled without the roof being changed to a 5/12 pitch; and
except for flat -pitched roofs (roofs with a pitch of 1/12 or less) and/or shed -style roofs with
varying pitches as part of an architecturally integrated design.
(e) Eave overhangs are required and shall be a minimum of 12 inches;
(f) Dwellings with 4/12 pitch roofs may be permitted provided the main roof includes one or
more secondary roofs intersecting the main roof at right angles. The secondary roof must have a
pitch of 5/12 or greater;
(g) No false or artificial dormers are permitted except fenestrated false or artificial dormers on
roofs with at least a 5/12 pitch;
(h) All foundation walls must be poured concrete or masonry block;
(i) All dwellings must be permanently connected to foundations, and must meet seismic and
wind loading standards for Franklin County, Washington;
0) No more than 12 inches of foundation wall can be exposed on the walls facing a street;
(k) All siding must be durable materials, such as brick, masonry, stucco, vinyl, exterior -grade
wood, or exterior grade composites, each with a lifespan of at least 20 years under normal
conditions;
(1) All siding must extend below the top of the foundation 1 % to 2 inches. A bottom trim board
does not qualify as siding and cannot be used to cover the top of the foundation;
(m) All trim materials around windows, doors, corners, and other areas of the dwelling, must be
cedar or other City approved materials that are not subject to deterioration;
(n) All electric meters must be securely attached to an exterior side wall of the dwelling. Meters
are not permitted to face the street upon which the dwelling is addressed;
(o) All additions and/or other architectural features must be designed and permanently connected
to the dwelling so as to be an integral part of the dwelling;
(p) Primary driveways shall terminate into an architecturally integrated garage or carport. No
parking pad is permitted in front of a dwelling unless such pad leads to a garage or carport;
(q) At least one required off-street parking space must be located behind the front building
setback line of the dwelling.
(2) EXCEPTIONS. Exceptions to the design standards may be granted through the special permit
process based upon review of the criteria listed in PMC 25.86.060.
Section 2. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect five days after passage and
publication as required by law.
PASSED by the City Council of the City of Pasco, at its regular meeting of
2017.
Matt Watkins
Mayor
ATTEST:
Daniela Erickson
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Leland B. Kerr
City Attorney
J
`Y F.
f�+t. I
t.
W-, - - ,
f7
v
�� ��I��iiIllllllllllllnmw
■
i
tt�
9
J .
y.
o-:. is r
,'
`x >..
. xsr. _ k�'k r._..u. _,
,.,
� �-1.y •�
..'1
..' r- � .-. � b _
�.�. 1
r . w.. ���
�1E �. : .�
��� � T -d
'ice; � .. '
[ _ � , . 4. ,.. G �. .,
f p
Y �
4 �
ft , ti � LL•
•y v
iokkill
ill1
MEMORANDUM
DATE: September 15, 2017
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Rick White, Director
Community & Economic Development
SUBJECT: Revisions to the Central Business District Zoning
The Central Business District zoning requirements were adopted by the City in 1999. Since that time a
number of revisions have been suggested to establish additional flexibility in the zoning district or to clarify
existing regulations.
The proposed ordinance does the following:
• It more clearly indicates that "antique sales" are allowed as a permitted use and establishes a code
citation to reinforce the definition of an "antique";
• It provides flexibility for wine, beer and alcohol sales as an accessory use (e.g. tasting rooms);
• It allows dwelling units outright subject to several parameters;
• It restates the inclusion of consignment sales and thrift shops as a permitted use subject to
parameters identified under "Use Regulations" in PMC 25.70;
• It establishes "electronic sales and repairs" subject to similar parameters for consignment sales and
thrift shops; and,
• It prohibits commissaries (kitchens for the preparation of food to be sold elsewhere) outright.
The proposed ordinance has been discussed several times with the Downtown Pasco Development
Authority Board and various City staff. Their input is included in this final draft version for public comment
that is before the Commission.
The Commission should conduct the Public Hearing on the proposed ordinance.
The Commission may find the following definitions contained in Title 25 helpful as these terms are
contained in the proposed ordinance:
25.12.070 ANTIQUE. "Antique" means a piece of furniture, glassware,
silverware, art work or other items that are at least sixty years old and are distinguished
from general secondhand personal property, and collectibles by educational value,
historic value, artistic value, ornamental character or intrinsic aesthetic merits. (Ord.
3354 Sec. 2, 1999
25.70.131 CONSIGNMENT STORES. (1) "Consignment stores" as the term is
defined in this chapter, may operate in the C-1 (Retail Business District) and C-2
(Central Business District) Zones; however no new consignment store may locate closer
than 1,000 feet from an existing consignment store, thrift store, or pawn shop; and,
(2) Consignment stores may operate in the C-3 (General Business District) and in
the I-1 (Light Industrial District) Zones; however no new consignment store may locate
closer than 1,000 feet from an existing consignment store, thrift store, or pawn shop;
and,
(3) All business activities of consignment stores located in the C-1 (Retail
Business District), C-2 (Central Business District), and C-3 (General Business District)
Zones shall be conducted entirely within an enclosed structure. (Ord. 4066, 2012.)
25.70.132 THRIFT SHOPS. (1) "Thrift shops" as the term is defined in this
chapter, may operate in the C-1 (Retail Business district) and C-2 (Central Business
District) Zones upon issuance of a Special Permit, as per the requirements found in PMC 25.86;
however no new thrift shop may locate closer than 1,000 feet from an existing
consignment store, thrift store, or pawn shop; and,
(2) Thrift shops may operate in the C-3 (General Business District) and in the I-1
(Light Industrial District) Zones; however no new consignment store may locate closer
than 1,000 feet from an existing consignment store, thrift store, or pawn shop; and,
(3) All business activities of thrift shops in the C-1 (Retail Business District), C-2
(Central Business District), and C-3 (General Business District) Zones shall be conducted
entirely within an enclosed structure. (Ord. 4066, 2012)
MOTION: I move the Planning Commission recommend to City Council the adoption of the proposed
amendments to the Central Business District Zone as contained in the September 21, 2017 Planning
Commission staff report.
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE of the City of Pasco, Washington, Amending Chapter 25.44
"Central Business District" of the Pasco Municipal Code
WHEREAS, Section 25.44.010 of the Pasco Municipal Code reflects the purpose of the Central
Business District Zone; and
WHEREAS, Sections 25.44.020 and 25.44.030 reflect the permitted uses and accessory uses
within the District; and
WHEREAS, Section 25.44 reflects the prohibited uses within the District; and
WHEREAS, Administration of the regulations within these Sections of the Pasco Municipal Code
have suggested needed adjustments and clarity to the variety of such permitted, accessory and prohibited
uses; and
WHEREAS, The proposed revisions have been considered by the Downtown Pasco Development
Authority; and
WHEREAS, The proposed revisions have been considered by the Pasco Planning Commission
at a public hearing and the Commission has recommended City Council approve the revisions; and
WHEREAS, The revisions reflect the best interests of the public for safety, welfare and betterment
of the economic environment in Downtown Pasco;
NOW THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASCO, WASHINGTON, DOES ORDAIN AS
FOLLOWS:
Section 1. That Section 25.44.010 of the Pasco Municipal Code, shall be and hereby is amended
and shall read as follows:
25.44.010 PURPOSE. The C-2 Central Business District is established to promote the
centralization of business and reinforce a positive public image and confidence in the Downtown
core eaRiffieFeial reviializ , within a compact commercial area having primarily common -wall
building construction. Such construction offers the unique opportunity within the Pasco Urban
Area to cluster together types of retail business and retail services which functionally interact well
together, and will economically fare better, as a result of close proximity by cumulatively attracting
more persons than as individual destination points. It is intended that the commercial clustering
concept be fostered by emphasizing pedestrian access and circulation within the district, in a
manner which is healthy, safe, uninhibited and convenient for employees and visitors of all ages.
Public and private off-street parking shall be located to encourage the transitiAn 40M
ie pedestrian movement. On -street parking should be shared by v ioinity businesses and be oriented
to short duration convenience parking for customers in the vicinity. In order to preserve the public
health, safety and welfare in central business district redevelepfflefA, protect public and private
investment in property and infrastructure improvements and improve stabilizeeelifting property
values, certain uses of the land may be restricted or prohibited.
Section 2. That Section 25.44.020 of the Pasco Municipal Code, shall be and hereby is amended
and shall read as follows:
25.44.020 PERMITTED USES. The following uses shall be permitted in the C-2 district:
(1) Antique stores as defined by 25.12.070 and 25.12.075
(2) Artist and office supplies;
(3) Bakeries;
(4) Banks and financial institutions;
(5) Barber and beauty shops;
(6) Bookstores, except adult bookstores;
(7) Clothing, shoes and accessories, and costume rentals (new/unused materials only);
(8) Consignment Stores (25.70.13 1) and Thrift Shops (25.70.132);
(9) Crafts, stationary and gift shops;
(10) Department and drug stores;
(11) Electronic sales and repair stores with at least 50% of the stock and floor space devoted to
the sale of new equipment;
(12) Fresh and frozen meats, including seafood;
(13) Florists;
(14) Furniture and home appliance stores;
(15) Galleries for art and restored or refinished antiques;
(16) Grocery stores with less than 10,500 square feet of gross floor area;
(17) Hardware and home improvement stores;
(18) Import shops;
(19) Jewelry and gem shops, including custom work;
(20) Offices for medical and professional services;
(21) Restaurants, sandwich shops, cafeterias and delicatessens;
(22) Sporting goods;
(23) Tailoring and seamstress shops;
(24) Theaters for movies and performances, except adult theaters;
(25) Public markets for fresh produce and craft work;
(26) Parking lots;
(27) Micro -breweries, and micro -wineries and associated tasting rooms;
(28) Research, development and assembly facilities for component devices and equipment of
an electrical, electronic or electromagnetic nature; and
(29) Home brewing and/or wine making equipment sales.
(30) Dwelling units, provided the units are within the principle building, are all above the ground
floor of said building, the ground floor of said building is designed or intended to be used for a use permitted
in Section 25.44.020 and there is at least one dedicated and off-street parking space for each unit.
Section 3. That Section 25.44.030 of the Pasco Municipal Code shall be and hereby is amended
and shall read as follows:
25.44.030 PERMITTED ACCESSORY USES. The following accessory uses and buildings, as
respectively defined in Sections 25.12.020 and 25.12.115, shall be permitted in the C-2 district:
(1) Parking lots;
(2) Alcoholic beverage sales provided it is for on-site consumption and located within a
restaurant;
(3) Other uses clearly incidental or secondary to a principal use;
(4) Beer/wine/alcohol beverage sales for on-site and off-site consumption provided the product
is produced in Franklin, Walla Walla, Yakima and/or Benton County or on-site in a micro-
brewery/winery/distillery anal e;5;
(5) Sales of micro -brewery products and non -fortified wines for off-site consumption provided
such sales are in conjunction with an establishment selling predominately, based upon floor area, home
brewing and/or wine making equipment as permitted in Section 25.44.020.
(6) Storage buildings; excluding container storage, as defined in Section 25.12.430 are
permitted.
Section 4. That Section 25.44.040 of the Pasco Municipal Code shall be and hereby is amended
and shall read as follows:
25.44.040 CONDITIONAL USES. The following uses are permitted subject to the approval of a
special permit:
0) Dwelling units, provided the tinits afe within !he prineiple building, are all above tile
ground fleer of said building, and the gratmd - 4qoar of said ' building is designed or intended to be tised for _O
use peFfflitted in 9084isH 35.44.020.
(1) Unclassified uses per Section 25.86.020.
Section 5. That Section 25.44.030 of the Pasco Municipal Code shall be and hereby is amended
and shall read as follows:
25.44.050 PROHIBITED USES. Evidence received by the Planning Commission and contained
in previous studies and Pasco Police Crime Reports demonstrates that certain uses make the Central
Business District less desirable or attractive to the public due to a demonstrated history of contribution to
general public disorder, loitering, nuisance and other acts detrimental to the public image of the area.
Certain other uses provide entirely, or predominately, automobile services and, thereby, do not foster the
clustering concept intended to attract pedestrian visitors. Other uses may, by their inherent nature, require
a disproportionate amount of the limited vicinal on -street parking, for an extended time, which is intended
to be available and shared by all business for the short duration convenience of customers.
The following listed businesses, for the reasons above, inhibit new business growth, contribute to
business loss and decline of property values, inhibit convenient access to vicinal businesses, do not foster
the clustering concept intended to orient the business environment to pedestrians, or perpetuate a public
image which is undesirable or unattractive and detrimental to public and private investment in revitalization
efforts and, therefore, are prohibited within the C-2 district:
(1) Gasoline and service stations, automobile services or repair, except tire stores;
(2) Outdoor storage of goods or materials;
(3) Membership clubs;
(4) Taverns;
(5) Billiard and pool halls;
(6) Amusement game centers;
(7) Pawn shops;
(8) Card rooms, bingo parlors, dance halls, nightclubs and similar places;
(9) Adult theaters, adult bookstores, tattoo parlors, bathhouses and massage parlors;
(10) Community service facilities level two;
(11) Secondhand dealers. Similar or like uses although not specifically listed are also prohibited;
and
(12) Commissaries for the preparation of food to be served elsewhere; and
(123) Adult Business Facilities.
Section 6. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect five days after passage and publication
as required by law.
PASSED by the City Council of the City of Pasco, at its regular meeting of
2017.
Matt Watkins, Mayor
ATTEST:
Debra Clark, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Leland B. Kerr, City Attorney
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
MASTER FILE NO: SP2017-012
HEARING DATE: 09/21/17
ACTION DATE: 10/19/17
BACKGROUND
REQUEST: SPECIAL PERMIT:
1. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION:
APPLICANT: Pedro Bautista
1327 N 24th Ave Apt 3A
Pasco, WA 99301
Location of a Church (Iglesia de Dios
Pentecostes "Casa de Milagros") in a C-3
District
Legal: Parcel # 115-502-016: The West 264' of the North 330' of the NE
quarter of the NW quarter of the NW quarter Section 25, Township 9
North, Range 29 East W.M.
General Location: 3330 West Court Street, Suite Q
Property Size: Approximately 1.8 acres; suite around 1,000 square feet
2. ACCESS: The site has access from West Court Street and Road 34
3. UTILITIES: Municipal utilities currently serve the site.
4. LAND USE AND ZONING: The property is currently zoned C-3 (General
Business) and contains various commercial suites within the existing
building. Surrounding properties are zoned and developed as follows:
NORTH:
CR
- Commercial Strip Centers
SOUTH:
C-3
- Office and Parking Lot
EAST:
C-3
- U -Haul Storage Facility
WEST:
C-3
- Auto Licensing Office and Parking Lot
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. Policy LU -2-13 of the Comprehensive Plan
encourages the support of facilities for educational and cultural
activities.
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 is seeking a special permit to allow the location of a church in a
multi -tenant commercial center at 3330 West Court Street. Churches are
defined in Pasco Municipal Code as "Unclassified Uses" which require a special
permit prior to locating in any zone within the City. The applicant proposes to
locate the church within Suite Q which occupies around 1,000 square feet of
floor area inside the building. One of the neighboring suites, Suite K, had
previously been used as a church, as the applicant at the time had been
granted a special permit in 2011. It has since ceased operation. Even though
Pedro Bautista is applying for an identical use within the same building, the
special permit that was granted in 2011 is personal to the initial applicant and
cannot be transferred.
The proposed site has been developed with a commercial structure since 1980.
The approximately 20,000 square foot building contains 17 suites which are
divided into two separate buildings that are nearly identical in size and layout.
The parcel contains 100 parking stalls which are divided into two parking
lots—one for each commercial building.
It is anticipated the Casa de Milagros Church will use the space on Sunday
mornings and Wednesday evenings with around twenty church -goers in
attendance. In terms of occupancy load, the proposed tenant space has a
maximum capacity of 113 people based on interior floor area. Off-street
parking for visitors will not be an issue, as many of the businesses in the
neighboring suites will be closed on Sunday mornings and Wednesday
evenings, providing plenty of surplus parking.
Furthermore, traffic generated by the church will occur mostly on Sunday
mornings when traffic is minimal and when many of the adjacent businesses
will be closed. Wednesday evening church activities generally generate less
traffic than Sunday morning meetings. The operations of churches generally
generate few complaints from adjoining property owners
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.
z
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-3 (General Business).
3. The proposed site is located at 3330 West Court Street.
4. The site is approximately 1.8 acres.
5. The site contains two identical 10,000 square foot multi -tenant
commercial structures.
6. The proposed tenant suite is around 1,000 square feet in floor area.
7. The site contains 100 off-street parking stalls.
8. The main access to the site is from West Court Street. Secondary access
is available from Road 34.
9. The proposed site has been developed with a commercial structure since
1980.
10. Suite K, a neighboring suite, had previously been granted a special
permit for a church in 2011 but has since ceased operation.
11. Church functions will occur on Sunday mornings and Wednesday
evenings.
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. Policy LU -2-B of the Comprehensive Plan
3
encourages the support of facilities for educational and cultural
activities.
(2) Will the proposed use adversely affect public infrastructure?
The proposed use will have a minimal impact on public infrastructure.
Churches are generally used during off -peaks hours, on Sundays and
during evenings in the middle of the week. The church will use existing
City utilities and infrastructure.
(3) Will the proposed use be constructed, maintained and operated to be in
harmony with existing or intended character of the general vicinity?
Churches are typically located in or near residential areas. In this case,
all surrounding land uses are of a commercial nature. The site would
not be modified to appear any differently than retail businesses located
in the same building.
(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 location and height of the existing structure has not discouraged the
development of permitted uses on surrounding properties in the past. No
exterior site modifications are proposed. Any prospective businesses
seeking to locate within the vicinity will not be affected by the proposed
church.
(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?
Churches are typically used infrequently, generally two or three days
per week and generate traffic during off-peak times such as Sunday
mornings and in evenings during the week. Increases in traffic will be
during off-peak hours and are unlikely to exceed levels the commercial
center experiences on a typical weekday. It is unlikely the effects of
church operation will be any more objectionable than other uses
regularly permitted in a C-3 zone. Permitted uses in the C-3 zone
include: Heavy equipment sales and service, warehouses, auto sales
and service, etc.
(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?
4
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 space leased to the church must be maintained to conform with all
"A" occupancy requirements of the International Building Code;
2) The outside store front shall not be modified from its current condition
with the exception of a sign installed in conformance with a City
approved sign permit;
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;
4) The special permit shall be null and void if a City of Pasco business
license is not obtained by May 1, 2018.
RECOMMENDATION
MOTION for Findings of Fact: I move to close the hearing on the
proposed special permit and set October 19, 2017 as the date for
deliberations and the development of a recommendation for the City
Council.
5
z QF��s.,
a•-
CD
0 E
o
Road_32 v
•� � N
a,, O i
a Road_3_4
� cz a�
u E
E cit
._
v O
U o
y a
Road 36
,� SFDUs Commercial SFD.Us
zQ
N �
U
Road_32
CA
.�4
p O M
a, " w v
F
Ctao V cis
c a Road 34
$D-4C�
U ••
U)
f' VOW v
'pg* Road 36 CV
N L
U w cn
0
m
OF.,
401
CA
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
MASTER FILE NO: Z 2017-005 APPLICANT: Tom Kidwell
HEARING DATE: 9/21/2017 4320 W. Riverhaven St.
ACTION DATE: 10/19/2017 Pasco, WA 99301
BACKGROUND
REQUEST: REZONE: Rezone from I-1 (Light Industrial) to I-2 (Medium
Industrial)
1.
Legal: Lots 4, Binding Site Plan 2016-06
General Location: SW corner of Ventura Rd and the PK Highway
Property Size: 36 acres.
2. ACCESS: The site is accessible from Ventura Road, Kendall Drive and
the Pasco Kahlotus Road.
3. UTILITIES: All municipal utilities are currently serving the site.
4. LAND USE AND ZONING: The lot is currently zoned I-1 (Light industrial)
and is vacant. Surrounding properties are zoned and developed as
follows:
NORTH:
I-1
- Agriculture and Carrot Plant
SOUTH
1-1
- Chemical Haulers, Onion Processers, Truss
Plant, Petroleum Supplier and an Electrical
Fabricator
EAST:
I-1
-Agriculture
WEST:
I-1
- Meat Cutting Facility and a "C" Store
5. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The plan encourages the concentration of
activities that are functionally and economically beneficial to each other.
ED -2-13 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. 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 proposed rezone site has been identified in the Comprehensive Plan for
more intense industrial uses for over 35 years. The site has also been zoned
for industrial activities for about 35 years. The site was originally zoned I-1 in
the County prior to annexation in 2013. The City Council recently approved a
special permit for the location of a ready -mix concrete plant on the site.
The Allocation of Land uses Table in the Comprehensive Plan indicated areas
designated for industrial uses are suitable for manufacturing, food processing,
hazardous material storage, transportation related facilities and the storage
and distribution of equipment and products. I-1, I-2 and I-3 zoning are
permissible within the Industrial Designation. Among other things the
Allocation table suggests industrial lands should be located convenient to the
regional transportation system, be near utilities and contain relatively flat land
suitable for heavy building sites. The site in question is within 1,000 feet of the
Lewis Street/ SR 12 Interchange, contains relatively flat ground, and is a
quarter of a mile from the largest electrical substation in the County.
The general area surrounding the site can be characterized as an industrial
area with land uses including a truss manufacturing plant, chemical haulers, a
petroleum product supplier and hauler, food processors, trucking firms, a large
BPA Substation, potato and onion warehouses, a regional garbage transfer
station (BDI), a industrial pipe supplier, the Oxarc facility and related
industrial facilities. The property was recently granted a special permit by the
City Council for the location and operation of a concrete ready -mix plant. The
operation of the referenced uses is associated with significant outdoor storage,
and higher levels of noise, odors, fumes, vibrations, dust and truck traffic.
The land uses permitted in the 1-2 District are similar to those permitted in the
I-1 District with the notable exception of junkyards and auto wrecking yards
being permitted in the I-2 District. The I-2 District has a considerably longer
list of allowable conditional uses that require special permit review. Some of
these conditional uses include garbage dumping, rendering plants, acid
manufacturing, cement and line manufacturing, commercial composting and
asphalt batch plants.
The initial review criteria for considering a rezone application are explained in
PMC. 25.88.030. The criteria are listed below as follows:
1. The date the existing zone became effective:
The current zoning classification was established in in 2013 when the property
was annexed to the City. Prior to that time the property was zoned for industrial
uses in the County.
2
2. The changed conditions, which are alleged to warrant other or additional
zoning:
The property has been in the City for the past four years. A major sewer line
was installed adjacent to the property after annexation in 2013 and a 16 inch
water line is located in Commercial Avenue. A water line was also extended in
Ventura Road in 2013. Other changes in the area include the expansion of the
trucking firms to the south that store and transport chemicals and petroleum
products, the approval of a special permit for the location and operation of a
concrete ready -mix plant, the expansion and location of other trucking firms, the
opening of the Oxarc facility and other industrial activities in the area.
3. Facts to justify the change on the basis of advancing the public health,
safety and general welfare:
The site is located in an area that the community was planned for industrial
uses for over 35 years. Public infrastructure including sewer and water has
been installed in the area and sized for industrial needs. The Lewis Street
Interchange was designed for industrial traffic and is utilized by the BDI fleet of
trucks, the carrot plant trucks and other agricultural related facilities nearby
that have a heavy reliance on trucking. The Lewis Street Interchange is the
freeway connection to the Heritage Boulevard truck route and a connection to
the surrounding Counties. The rezone would support past industrial
development and would further implement the Comprehensive Plan which has
been adopted to advance the general welfare of the community.
4. The effect it will have on the value and character of the adjacent property
and the Comprehensive Plan:
The rezone is consistent with the designation of the Comprehensive Plan and will
minimal impact on surrounding industrial properties.
5. The effect on the property owner or owners if the request is not granted:
The proposed rezone may allow the property to be developed with uses that
would be compatible with and similar to the recently approved ready -mix facility.
If the property is not rezoned the owner may lose opportunities for development
that would support and complement the ready -mix plant.
3
STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT
Findings of fact must be entered from the record. The following are initial
findings drawn from the background and analysis section of the staff report.
The Planning Commission may add additional findings to this listing as the
result of factual testimony and evidence submitted during the open record
hearing.
1. The site is located at the southwest corner of the PK Highway (Pasco
Kahlotus Road) and Ventura Road.
2. The site contains 36 acres.
3. The site was granted a special permit by the City Council on September
5, 2017 for the location and operation of a concrete ready -mix plant. The
ready -mix plat is to be located on the southern third of the site.
4. The site is about 1,000 feet from the Lewis Street/SR 12 Interchange
providing convenient access to construction sites in a three county area.
5. The Comprehensive Plan designates the property for industrial uses.
6. There are three industrial zones permitted under the industrial land use
designation. 1-2 is one of those zones.
7. The site is currently zoned I-1 (Light Industrial).
8. Properties site is currently zoned I-1 (Light Industrial).
9. The general area surrounding the site can be characterized as an
industrial area with land uses including a truss manufacturing plant,
chemical haulers, a petroleum product supplier and hauler, food
processors, trucking firms, a large BPA Substation, potato and onion
warehouses, a regional garbage transfer station (BDI), a industrial pipe
supplier the Oxarc facility and related industrial facilities.
10. The site is near 8 potato/onion warehouses that generate foul smelling
odors at certain times of the year.
11. Portions of the site are about 800 feet from the freeway (SR -12) and the
truck traffic and noise associated with the traffic.
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 25.88.060. The criteria are as follows:
1. The proposal is in accordance with the goals and policies of the
Comprehensive Plan.
0
The Comprehensive Plan has identified the site for industrial land uses for over
35 years. The industrial designation within the Comprehensive Plan allows
property to be zoned for I-1, 1-2 and I-3 uses. I-3 zoning is reserved only for
Port facilities. The plan encourages the concentration of activities that are
functionally and economically beneficial to each other. ED -2-B encourages the
development of a wide range of industrial and 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 I-2 zoning will permit additional industrial uses to locate on the
site. Most of the additional uses require a special permit hearing providing an
opportunity for placing mitigating conditions that may be needed for the benefit
of adjoining properties.
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 which may lead to the development of a lot that has remained
vacant and in a poor state of repair of the past 42 years.
4. Conditions should be imposed in order to mitigate any significant
adverse impacts from the proposal.
Most of the additional uses allowed under the I-2 District require special permit
review which provides an opportunity for the City to condition the uses if
necessary to mitigate any adverse impact. The regulation for salvage yards
provides a list mitigating measures related to screening and storage of parts.
The landscaping chapter of the zoning regulations provides additional mitigating
measures.
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 October
19, 2017 as the date for deliberations and the development of a
recommendation for the City Council.
5
zQ
�a
C .�
LL
a
O
N U
CU
O
Venture- A
Ln
o O E
UL ;' w
a� o CL
F-' 0
O
L Q
ON J N (�
CTJ
U Nd
.. 0
— JQ'
,C
co-)
'� a = �P
cn
— Go
Pic:
� � J
c�
zQ
N
� U
Tom
O
V_enture-Rd
Ln
O O
Elm
0 0,
O N
CU rN
U N
QCYJ
J�
� Go
N
/
}
y�� �, \�\���
I
I
0
3
. re
Ot
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
MASTER FILE NO: PP 2017-008 APPLICANT: Big Sky Developers LLC
HEARING DATE: 9/21/2017 12406 Eagle Reach Ct
ACTION DATE: 10/ 19/2017 Pasco, WA 99301
REQUEST: Preliminary Plat: Preakness Ridge, 86 -Lot Multi -Family Subdivision
1. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION:
Legal: That portion of the South half of Section 15, Township 9 North
Range 29 East, WM included in Parcel # 117470138
General Location: 5400 to 5600 Block of Chapel Hill Boulevard
Property Size: 12.64 Acres
Number of Lots Proposed: 86 lots for zero lot line construction
Square Footage Range of Lots: 3,937 ft2 to 12,999 W
Average Lot Square Footage: 4,744 ft2
2. ACCESS: The property will have access from Chapel Hill Boulevard.
3. UTILITIES: Municipal water and sewer service are available in Chapel
Hill Boulevard.
4. LAND USE AND ZONING: The site is zoned R-4 (High Density
Residential) Surrounding properties are zoned and developed as follows:
NORTH: R-1 - I-182 is directly north & Loviisa Farms is north
of the freeway
SOUTH: R-3 & R-1 - Single Family
EAST: RT - PUD Substation
WEST R-3 - Future Park and an Apartment complex
5. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The Comprehensive Plan indicates the site is
intended for mixed residential development. According to the
Comprehensive Plan, mixed residential development means 5 to 20
dwelling units per acre. The criteria for allocation under the future land
use section of Volume II of the Comprehensive Plan (Vol. II, page 17)
encourages development of lands designated for mixed residential uses
when or where: sewer is available, the location is convenient to major
circulation routes, the site serves as a transition between more intense
uses and low density uses, and when there is a market demand. Policy
H -1-E encourages the advancement of home ownership and Goal H-2
suggests the City strive to maintain a variety of housing options for
residents of the community. Goal LU -2 encourages the maintenance of
I
established neighborhoods and the creation of new neighborhoods that
are safe and enjoyable places to live.
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 project site is located between I-182 and Chapel Hill Boulevard west of a
PUD substation and east of the Villages at Chapel Hill and a future City Park.
Road 60, south of the Stone Gate Apartments and east of Columbia Place. The
site is relatively flat and slopes slightly from the north to the south. The site is
vacant with a combination of bare ground and native and non-native grasses
and other vegetation.
The site was initially designated for mixed residential development under the
Comprehensive Plan in 1982. The R-3 (Medium Density Residential) zoning
was established in 2003 prior to the development of the Chapel Hill subdivision
8in 2005. The Chapel Hill subdivision contains a mix of R-4, R-3 R-1 and C-1
zoning.
The applicant is proposing to subdivide the site into 86 lots to allow the
construction of 43 duplexes. Each duplex would occupy two lots with the
common lot line dividing each unit. This proposal is identical to the process
that was used for the development of the Island Estates Row Homes in the
Island Estates subdivision (Phase 8), Mediterranean Villas and Columbia Villas
Phases 1, 2 and 3. Each of these subdivisions was zoned for multi -family
development and platted into individual lots. The lots lines within these
subdivisions became the common boundary line separating the multi -family
dwelling units built therein.
The property site is located along the south right-of-way line of I-182. For most
of the day considerable noise is generated from the freeway traffic
LOT LAYOUT: The proposed Plat contains 86 residential lots and one future
commercial lot. The lots vary in size from 3,937 square feet to 12,999 square
feet. The proposal is consistent with the density requirements of the R-4
zoning of the site. R-3 zoning permits the development of one dwelling unit per
1,500 square feet of lot area for multi -family type structures.
RIGHTS-OF-WAY: All lots have frontage on streets which will be dedicated.
2
UTILITIES: Municipal water and sewer lines are located in Chapel Hill
Boulevard. The developer will be responsible for extending utilities into the
Plat. A utility easement will be needed along the first 10 feet of street frontage
of all lots. The final location and width of the easements will be determined
during the engineering design phase. The front yard setbacks for construction
purposes are larger than the required easements; therefore the front yard
easements will not diminish the buildable area of the lots.
The Engineering Division will determine the specific placement of fire hydrants
and streetlights when construction plans are submitted. As a general rule, fire
hydrants are located at street intersections and with a maximum interval of
500 feet between hydrants on alternating sides of the street. Streetlights are
located at street intersections, with a maximum interval of 300 feet on
residential streets, and with a maximum interval of 150 feet on arterial streets.
The intervals for street light placements are measure along the centerline of the
road. Street lights are placed on alternating sides of the street.
STREET NAMES: The one street name need for the plat will follow the race
track theme of the Chapel Hill subdivision.
IRRIGATION: The municipal code requires the installation of irrigation lines
as a part of the infrastructure improvements.
WATER RIGHTS: The assignment of water rights is a requirement for
subdivision approval per Pasco Municipal Code Section 26.04.115. and
Section 3.07.160. If no water rights are available to transfer to the City the
property owner/developer must pay a water right fee in lieu thereof as
established in PMC Chapter 3.07. The Public Works Director may waive the fee
if the developer mixes a soil additive in the ground that provides 30% retention
of irrigation water.
FINDINGS OF FACT
State law (RCW 58.17.010) and the Pasco Municipal Code require the Planning
Commission to develop Findings of Fact as to how this proposed subdivision
will protect and enhance the health, safety and general welfare of the
community. The following is a listing of proposed "Findings of Fact":
Prevent Overcrowding: Density requirements of the R-3 zone are designed to
address overcrowding concerns. The Comprehensive Plan suggests the property
in question be developed with 5 to 20 dwelling units per acre. The proposed
Plat has a density of less than 7 units per acre. No more than 60 percent of
each lot is permitted to be covered with structures per the R-3 zoning
standards.
t3
Parks Opens Space/Schools: A City park site is located directly west of the
site. The Parks Division will be improving the park next year. The City is
required by RCW 58.17.110 to make a finding that adequate provisions are
being made to ameliorate the impacts of the proposed subdivision on the
School District. At the request of the School District the City enacted a school
impact fee in 2012. The imposition of this impact fee addresses the
requirement to ensure there are adequate provisions for schools. A school
impact fee in the amount of $4,525 will be charged for each new dwelling unit
at the time of building permit issuance.
Effective Land Use/Orderly Development: The Plat is laid out for multi-
family development as identified in the Comprehensive Plan. The maximum
density permitted under the Comprehensive Plan is 20 dwelling units per acre.
The developer is proposing a density of 6.80 units per acre. The proposed
subdivision will complete the development of residential land within the Chapel
Hill subdivision.
Safe Travel & Walking Conditions: The plat will connect to the community
through the existing network of streets. Sidewalks are installed at the time
homes are built on individual lots. The sidewalks will be constructed to
current City standards and to the standards of the American's with Disabilities
Act (ADA). The ADA ramps at the corners of all intersection will be installed
with the construction of the road improvements
Adequate Provision of Municipal Services: All lots within the Plat will be
provided with water, sewer and other utilities.
Provision of Housing for State Residents: This Preliminary Plat contains 86
residential building lots, providing an opportunity for the construction of 43
duplexes units containing a total of 86 new dwelling units.
Adequate Air and Light: The maximum lot coverage limitations and building
setbacks will assure that adequate movement of air and light is available to
each lot.
Proper Access & Travel: The streets through and adjoining the Plat have been
or will be paved and developed to City standards to assure proper access is
maintained to each lot. Connections to the community will be provided by
Chapel Hill Boulevard and Saratoga Lane. The Preliminary Plat was submitted
to the Transit Authority for review. (The discussion under "Safe Travel" above
applies to this section also.)
Comprehensive Plan Policies & Maps: The Comprehensive Plan designates
the plat site for mixed residential development. Policies of the Comprehensive
4
Plan encourages the advancement of home ownership and suggest the City
strive to maintain a variety of housing for residents.
Other Findings:
• The site is within the Pasco Urban Growth Boundary.
• The State Growth Management Act requires urban growth and urban
densities to occur within the Urban Growth Boundaries.
• The site slopes slightly to the east and south.
• The site is vacant with a combination of bare ground and native and
non-native grasses and other vegetation.
• The site is not considered a critical area a mineral resource area or a wet
land.
• The Comprehensive Plan identifies the site for mixed residential
development.
• Mixed residential development is described in the Comprehensive Plan as
five to twenty dwelling units per acre.
• The developer is proposing 6.8 dwelling units per acre.
• The site is zoned R-3 (Medium Density Residential).
• The site was zoned R-3 in 2003.
• The Housing Element of the Comprehensive Plan encourages the
development of a variety of residential densities and housing types.
• The Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan encourages the
interconnection of neighborhood streets to provide for the disbursement
of traffic.
• The interconnection of neighborhood streets is necessary for utility
connections (looping) and the provision of emergency services.
• The neighborhood is connected to the community by way of Chapel Hill
Boulevard and Saratoga lane.
• Per the ITE Trip Generation Manual 8th Addition the proposed
subdivision, when fully developed, will generate approximately 572
vehicle trips per day.
• RCW 58.17.110 requires the City to make a finding that adequate
provisions have been made for schools before any preliminary plat is
approved.
• The City of Pasco has adopted a school impact fee ordinance compelling
new housing developments to provide the School District with mitigation
fees. The fee was effective April 16, 2012.
• Past correspondence from the Pasco School District indicates impact fees
address the requirement to ensure adequate provisions are made for
schools.
5
• Plat improvements within the City of Pasco are required to comply with
the 2015 Standard Drawings and Specification as approved by the City
Engineer. These improvements include but are not limited to water,
sewer and irrigation lines, streets, street lights and storm water
retention. The handicapped accessible pedestrian ramps are completed
with the street and curb improvements prior to final plat approval.
Sidewalks are installed at the time permits are issued for new houses
except sidewalks along major streets, which are installed with the street
improvements.
• All engineering designs for infrastructure and final plat(s) drawings are
required to utilize the published City of Pasco Vertical Control Datum.
• All storm water generated from a developed plat is required to be
disposed of per City and State codes and requirements. Prior to the City
of Pasco accepting construction plans for review the developer is required
to enter into a Storm Water Maintenance Agreement with the City. The
developer is responsible for obtaining the signatures of all parties
required on the agreement and to have the agreement recorded with the
Franklin County Auditor. The original signed and recorded copy of the
agreement is presented to the City of Pasco at the intake meeting for
construction plans.
• The City has nuisance regulations (PMC 9.60) that require property
owners (including developers) to maintain their properties in a manner
that does not injure, annoy or endanger the comfort and repose of other
property owners. This includes controlling dust, weeds and litter during
times of construction for both subdivisions and buildings including
houses.
• Prior to acceptance of final plats developers are required to prepare and
submit record drawings. All record drawings shall be created in
accordance with the requirements detailed in the Record Drawing
Requirements and Procedure form provided by the Engineering Division.
This form must be signed by the developer prior to construction plan
approval.
• The project site is adjacent to I-182 which is a busy freeway that can
generate considerable noise during much of the day.
CONCLUSIONS BASED ON INITIAL STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT
Before recommending approval or denial of the proposed Plat the Planning
Commission must develop findings of fact from which to draw its conclusion
(P.M.C. 26.24.070) therefrom as to whether or not:
(1) Adequate provisions are made for the public health, safety and
general welfare and for open spaces, drainage ways, streets, alleys,
other public ways, water supplies, sanitary wastes, parks,
2
playgrounds, transit stops, schools and school grounds, sidewalks for
safe walking conditions for students and other public needs;
The proposed plat will be required to develop under the standards of the Pasco
Municipal Code and the standard specifications of the City Engineering
Division. These standards for streets, sidewalks, and other infrastructure
improvements were designed to ensure the public health; safety and general
welfare of the community are secured. These standards include provisions for
streets, drainage, water and sewer service and the provision for dedication of
right-of-way. The preliminary plat was forwarded to the Franklin County PUD,
the Pasco School District, Cascade Gas, Charter Cable and Ben -Franklin
Transit Authority for review and comment.
Based on the School Districts Capital Facilities Plan the City collects school
mitigation fees for each new dwelling unit. The fee is paid at the time of
building permit issuance. The school impact fee addresses the requirements of
RCW 58.17.110. The Chapel Hill development previously provided the City with
a five acre park site near the northeast corner of Chapel Hill Boulevard and
Saratoga Lane. Utilities have been stubbed to the park site and all street
improvements have been completed. The Parks Division will fully develop the
park site next year.
(2) The proposed subdivision contributes to the orderly development and
land use patterns in the area;
The proposed Plat makes efficient use of vacant land and will provide for the
looping of utilities and interconnectivity of streets as supported in the
Comprehensive Plan.
(3) The proposed subdivision conforms to the policies, maps and
narrative text of the Comprehensive Plan;
The Comprehensive Plan land use map designates the site for mixed residential
development. Mixed residential development is described as 5 to 20 dwelling
units per acre in the text of the Comprehensive Plan. The Housing Element of
the Plan encourages the promotion of a variety of residential densities and
suggests the community should support the advancement of programs
encouraging home ownership. The Plan also encourages the interconnection of
local streets for inter -neighborhood travel for public safety as well as providing
for traffic disbursement.
(4) The proposed subdivision conforms to the general purposes of any
applicable policies or plans which have been adopted by the City
Council;
7
Development plans and policies have been adopted by the City Council in the
form of the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed subdivision conforms to the
policies, maps and narrative text of the Plan as noted in number three above.
(5) The proposed subdivision conforms to the general purposes of the
subdivision regulations.
The general purposes of the subdivision regulations have been enumerated and
discussed in the staff analysis and Findings of Fact. The Findings of Fact
indicate the subdivision is in conformance with the general purposes of the
subdivision regulations provided certain mitigation measures (i.e.: school
impact fees are paid.)
(6) The public use and interest will be served by approval of the proposed
subdivision.
The proposed Plat, if approved, will be developed in accordance with all City
standards designed to insure the health, safety and general welfare of the
community are met. The Comprehensive Plan will be implemented through
development of this Plat. These factors will insure the public use and interest
are served.
TENTATIVE PLAT APPROVAL CONDITIONS
1. No utility vaults, pedestals, or other obstructions will be allowed at street
intersections.
2. All corner lots and other lots that present difficulties for the placement of
yard fencing shall be identified in the notes on the face of the final
plat(s).
3. The developer shall install an eight -foot masonry wall along the freeway
right-of-way. The wall details must be included on the subdivision
construction drawings. All final Plats shall include a note that clearly
indicates the maintenance responsibility for the freeway wall is the
responsibility of the property owners adjoining the wall.
4. The final plat(s) shall contain a 10 -foot utility easement parallel to all
streets unless otherwise required by the Franklin County PUD.
5. The final plat(s) shall contain the following Franklin County Public Utility
District statement: "The individual or company making improvements on
a lot or lots of this Plat is responsible for providing and installing all
trench, conduit, primary vaults, secondary junction boxes, and backfill
for the PUD's primary and secondary distribution system in accordance
with PUD specifications; said individual or company will make full
advance payment of line extension fees and will provide all necessary
utility easements prior to PUD construction and/or connection of any
electrical service to or within the plat".
s
6. The Developer must coordinate with the Franklin County PUD to ensure
all road and access easements to the substation adjacent the east
boundary of the plat are open and unencumbered
MOTION: I move to close the hearing on the proposed subdivision and
initiate deliberations and schedule adoption of Findings of Fact,
Conclusions and a Recommendation to the City Council for the
October 19, 2017 meeting.
0
«
. IT
;
«�
2 >.
SZ
\\K
SAP I
,' ,�
J;�{
,� '
I,! � r ,r .
� fi s
'�C�'1 �'
r
-f^'
�k R
a -_
a.'
;��}
r .�� .� `� 4,.
� �'
i ,�
.2 �!% � i .,k.
(Mf.�
7� .4� .,
f✓,� y�;
T •. i3
rac
.g M.
MEMORANDUM
DATE: September 21, 2017
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Darcy Bourcier, Planner I
SUBJECT: Ordinance Amendine PMC Chapter 26.28 Allowing Administrative
Approval of Final Plats (MF# CA2017-007)
Earlier this year in July the Senate passed a bill amending RCW 58.17.100,
58.17.170, and 58.17.190 which addresses the approval of final plats. The
bill authorizes the legislative body of a city to delegate final plat approval to a
planning commission or other authorized administrative personnel.
Currently, the City of Pasco's review process of the subdivision of land
includes preliminary and final plat approval by the City Council.
According to the current code, the Planning Commission holds a hearing to
review a preliminary plat and ensure that the plat conforms to all planning
standards as established in the PMC. The Planning Commission subsequently
makes a recommendation to City Council which the Council may adopt or
reject. At the time of final plat approval, all issues related to zoning,
environmental impact, and building have been resolved.
Thus, staff believes that delegating final plat approval to the Planning
Director or City Manager would benefit both the City and applicants who
submit subdivision proposals by decreasing the review process by nearly two
weeks and eliminating a formality that has the potential to cause liability
(further discussion is needed to specify which position is best suited for this
duty). Staff has scheduled a workshop for the Planning Commission meeting
of September 21, 2017 for discussion on this issue.
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING PMC CHAPTER 26.28 ALLOWING ADMINISTRATIVE
APPROVAL OF FINAL PLATS.
WHEREAS, the development and approval of plats within the State of Washington are
governed by RCW 58.17; and,
WHEREAS, local subdivision regulations including the City of Pasco subdivision
regulations within Title 26 of the Pasco Municipal must conform to RCW 58.17; and,
WHEREAS, the State Legislature recently amended RCW 58.17 grant cities the option
of administratively approving final plat without City Council action; and,
WHEREAS, PMC Title 26 currently contains provisions for administrative approval of
short plat; and,
WHEREAS, to provide for timely approvals of final plats the City Council hereby
exercises the option to authorize administrative approvals of final plats as authorized by RCW
58.17.100; NOW THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASCO, WASHINGTON, DOES
ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. That section 26.28.010 of the Pasco Municipal Code shall be and hereby is
amended and shall read as follows:
26.28.010 APPLICATION. (1) Except as provided in subsection (2) below, a
final plat meeting all of the requirements of this Chapter shall be submitted to the City
Caaneil City Planner for approval within seven (7) years of the date of the preliminary
plat approval if the date of the preliminary plat approval is was on or after January 1,
2008 but before December 31, 2014, and within five (5) years of the date of preliminary
plat approval, if the date of preliminary plat approval is was on or after January 1, 2015.
(2) A final plat meeting all requirements of this Chapter shall be submitted to
the City- Cowl City Planner for approval within ten (10) years of the date or
preliminary plat approval if the project is within the City limits, not subject to the
requirements adopted under Chapter 90.48 RCW (Shoreline Management Plan), and the
date of the preliminary plat approval is was on or before December 31, 2007.
(3) The proposed final l t shall be ..miaed F reeefdifig pufposes, a. eth
to the
.......,».,.. supplementafy infennation, eeffifieates u,a.4 bonds as may be required,
City PlapAtef at least fifteen (15) days before the City Couneil meeting at whic-h approval
is sou .
(4) A ee lete lio tie. hall 4 f the � � l � .� a..4ed a
.. ...2......, icppxvcacxorz Scv¢cc coia�iSc ox axc�a=r'6niixrSigaca,—vccsco—maa
Ordinance — Amending PMC 26.28 - 1
(3) A complete application for final plat approval shall consist of ten full
sized, four 11x17 paper copies and an electronic copy of the plat. The paper copies
together with such supplementary information and certificates which may be required
shall be submitted to the City Planner at least twenty days prior to the date sought for
final plat approval. Following written notification of corrections or modifications
necessary for the final plat if any, the applicant shall submit a signed dated and stamped
mylar drawing of the subdivision with an updated electronic copy and the applicable
bonding instrument as identified in 26.28.050. A bond will only be needed if there are
outstanding improvements to complete.
Section 2. That section 26.28.030 (14) of the Pasco Municipal Code shall be and
hereby is amended and shall read as follows:
(14) Spaces for certificates or approvals of the following officials or agencies:
a) Mayer City Manager or Designee
b) Cha », r:ty Planning r City Planner
c) City Engineer
d) County Engineer (where applicable)
e) Franklin County P.U.D. or applicable utility provider
f) Franklin County Irrigation District #1 (where applicable)
g) Benton Franklin Health District (where applicable)
h) County Assessor
i) County Treasurer
j) County Auditor
Section 3. That section 26.28.060 of the Pasco Municipal Code shall be and hereby is
amended and shall read as follows:
26.28.060 CITY�C;i ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL. The final
approval of a plat is an administrative function not requiring action by the City Council.
C- itny=��eil-shall have sele aatherity to appreve €x plats. : wYPr-e�skall-aeeUf
A final plat shall only be approved if the rit- administrative reviewrp ocess
finds the subdivision proposed for final plat approval conforms to all terms of the
preliminary plat approval, and the said subdivision meets the requirements of Chapter
58.17 RCW, other applicable state laws and this title which requirements were in effect
on the date of submission of a fully completed preliminary plat application.
Section 4. That section 26.28.070 of the Pasco Municipal Code shall be and hereby is
amended and shall read as follows:
Ordinance — Amending PMC 26.28 - 2
26.28.070 TERMS OF APPROVAL. (1) A subdivision shall be governed by
the terms of approval of the final plat, and the statutes, zoning ordinances and regulations
in effect on the date of preliminary plat approval for a period of seven (7) years after final
plat approval if the date of the final plat approval is on or before December 31, 2014; and
for a period of five (5) years after the final plat approval if the date of final plat approval
is on or after January 1, 2015, unless the City Gouneil a a through the administrative
approval process it is found that a change in conditions creates a serious threat to the
public health or safety in the subdivision. If a serious threat to public health and safety is
found the plat must be reviewed by the City Council.
(2) A subdivision shall be governed by the terms of approval of the final plat,
and the statutes, zoning ordinances and regulations in effect at the time of approval of the
preliminary plat for a period of ten (10) years after final plat approval if the project is
located within the City limits, not subject to the requirements adopted under Chapter
90.58 RCW (Shoreline Management Plan), and the date of the final plat approval is on
before December 31, 2007, unless the City r,.,.neil a a through the administrative
approval process it is found that a change in conditions creates a serious threat to the
public health or safety in the subdivision. If a serious threat to public health and safety is
found the plat must be reviewed by the City Council.
Section 5. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect five days after passage and
publication as required by law.
PASSED by the City Council of the City of Pasco, Washington, and approved as
provided by law this day of 2017.
Matt Watkins
Mayor
ATTEST:
Daniela Erickson
City Clerk
Ordinance — Amending PMC 26.28 - 3
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Leland B. Kerr
City Attorney