Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-20-2018 Planning Commission Meeting PacketPLANNING COMMISSION - AGENDA REGULAR MEETING 7:00 P.M. September 20, 2018 I. CALL TO ORDER: II. ROLL CALL: Declaration of Quorum III. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: August 16, 2018 V. OLD BUSINESS: A. Special Permit Location of Wireless Communication Facilities in an R-4 Zone (Sprint Spectrum LP) (MF# SP 2018-007) B. Special Permit Location of Wireless Communication Facilities in a C-1 Zone (Sprint Spectrum LP) (MF# SP 2018-008) C. Special Permit Location of Wireless Communication Facilities in an R -S-1 Zone (Sprint Spectrum LP) (MF# SP 2018-009) VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS: A. Rezone Rezone from RS -20 to RS -1 (Colette Steinwert) (MF# Z 2018-006) - Withdrawn B. Preliminary Plat Serrano Heights, 104 lots (RP Development) (MF# PP 2018-007 - Continued from August 16, 2018 Meeting C. Preliminary Plat Black Belle Estates. 22 lots (J&,J Kelly Construction) (MF# PP 2018-008) - Continued from August 16, 2018 Meeting VII. WORKSHOP: A. Comp. Plan Amend. VIII. OTHER BUSINESS: A. Other IX. ADJOURNMENT: Single Room Occupancy Housing (MF# CPA 2017- 001) Site Plan Memo Regarding Middle School #4 and Elementary School # 17 This meeting is broadcast live on PSC -TV Channel 191 on Charter Cable and streamed at www.pasco-wa.com/psctvlive. Audio equipment available for the hearing impaired; contact staff for assistance. REGULAR MEETING PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at 7:00pm by Chairman Myhrum. POSITION MEMBERS PRESENT No. 1 Tanya Bowers No. 2 Joseph Campos No. 3 No. 4 Alecia Greenaway No. 5 Abel Campos No. 6 Isaac Myhrum No. 7 No. 8 Pam Bykonen No. 9 Gabriel Portugal STAFF PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT Paul Mendez Zahra Roach August 16, 2018 Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director Michael Morales, Community & Economic Development Deputy Director Darcy Bourcier, Planner I Krystle Shanks, Administrative Assistant II MEETING VIDEO ON DEMAND: This meeting in its entirety has been posted and can be viewed on the City's webpage at htti3s://psctv.viebit.com. APPEARANCE OF FAIRNESS: Chairman Myhrum read a statement about the appearance of fairness for hearings on land use matters. There were three declarations: Commissioner J. Campos for agenda item VI(F) - Location of Wireless Communication Facilities in a C-1 Zone (MF# SP 2018-008) Commissioner Bowers for agenda item V(B) - Rezone from I-1 (Light Industrial) to R-3 (High Density Residential) (MF# Z 2018-004) Chairman Myhrum then asked the audience and the Planning Commission 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 Myhrum explained that state law requires testimony in quasi-judicial hearings such as held by the Planning Commission be given under oath or affirmation. Chairman -1- Myhrum swore in all those desiring to speak. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Greenaway moved, seconded by Commissioner Bykonen that the minutes dated July 19, 2018 be approved. The motion passed unanimously. OLD BUSINESS: A. Rezone Rezone from C-1 (Retail Businessl to CR (Regional Commercial) (Russ Dean RV, Inc.) (MF# Z 2018-003) - Withdrawn Chairman Myhrum read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Darcy Bourcier, Planner I, explained that the applicant has withdrawn their rezone application so no further action is necessary from the Planning Commission. B. Rezone Rezone from I-1 (Light Industrial) to R-3 (High Density Residential) (Rigo Rangel) IMF# Z 2018- 0041 Chairman Myhrum read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Darcy Bourcier, Planner I, discussed the rezone application from I-1 (Light Industrial) to R-3 (High Density Residential). She stated that there were no further comments to add since the previous meeting. Commissioner Greenaway moved, seconded by Commissioner Bykonen, to adopt findings of fact and conclusions, therefrom, as contained in the August 16, 2018 staff report. The motion passed unanimously with Commissioner Bowers recused. Commissioner Greenaway moved, seconded by Commissioner Bykonen, based on the findings of fact and conclusions as adopted, the Planning Commission recommend the City Council rezone the parcel at the southwest corner of West A Street and South 20th Avenue from I-1 to R-3. The motion passed unanimously with Commissioner Bowers recused. C. Rezone Rezone from RT (Residential Transition) to C-3 (General Businessl (Pati Hulll (MF# Z 2018-0051 Chairman Myhrum read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Rick White, Community 8s Economic Development Director, discussed the rezone application from RT (Residential Transition) to C-3 (General Business). He stated that since the public hearing, property owners of the neighboring parcel that was included with this rezone wished to be left out of the rezone so staff has offered a motion to only rezone the applicant's parcel. -2- Commissioner Bowers moved, seconded by Commissioner Bykonen to adopt findings of fact and conclusions therefrom as contained in the August 16, 2018 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 rezone Short Plat 99-22, Lot 2 (3012 E. George Street; parcel # 113-780-104) from RT to C-3, as recommended by the Planning Commission. The motion passed unanimously. PUBLIC HEARINGS: A. Preliminary Plat Burgess Plat, 170 lots (Big Sky Developers) (MF# PP 2018-0061 - Continued from July 19, 2018 Meetina Chairman Myhrum read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Darcy Bourcier, discussed the preliminary plat application for Burgess Plat, 170 lots. She discussed changes to the plat approval conditions, in particular to the sewer, since the public hearing that included comments from a letter that was received by the developer and per the City Engineer, the changes have been approved. Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director, added that estate fencing will still be required along arterial roads and abutting the commercial property but alternatives may be considered. Commissioner A. Campos moved, seconded by Commissioner Greenaway, to close the hearing on the proposed preliminary plat and initiate deliberations to form a recommendation to the City Council. The motion passed unanimously. Commissioner A. Campos moved, seconded by Commissioner Greenaway, to adopt findings of fact and conclusions, therefrom, as contained in the August 16, 2018 staff report. The motion passed unanimously. Commissioner A. Campos moved, seconded by Commissioner Greenaway, based on the findings of fact and conclusions, as adopted, the Planning Commission recommend the City Council approve the preliminary plat for the Burgess Plat with conditions as listed in the August 16, 2018 staff report. The motion passed unanimously. B. Preliminary Plat Meeting Chairman Myhrum read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Rick White, Community &, Economic Development Director, discussed the preliminary plat application for Serrano Heights, 109 lots. This item was continued from the previous hearing because the applicant did not receive their packet in time for the last hearing. That has been corrected and the applicant was present. He clarified discrepancies on the -3- agenda and other places on the number of lots proposed. There will either be 104 or 109 lots based on street connections and Planning Commission decision. Staff felt the Planning Commission should look at options to avoid a direct connection from Valley View Place to Road 68 to prevent any issues with traffic safety on Road 68 and existing Valley View Place. Commissioner Portugal asked for clarification on the number of proposed lots. Mr. White said either 104 or 109 lots depending on what the Planning Commission decides on street connections. Stephen Bauman, 5114 Maxim Court, spoke on behalf of his application. He stated that the preliminary plat will be spelled "Sorano" but they are still working out the details. Street names will not continue with the river theme because these homes will be in a different price point than the adjoining neighborhoods so he wishes to have them stand out. He addressed several issues he had with the approval conditions; one of his main concerns being the requirement to sign a non -protest agreement to the LID. He stated that he would not move forward if he is required to sign the agreement - he would seek legal counsel. Commissioner Greenaway asked Mr. Bauman if he would like the Planning Commission to continue the hearing to allow him time to speak with City staff to work out some of the approval conditions. Mr. Bauman replied that he was told by staff that wasn't an option at this point. He asked the Commissioner where he could go at this point because he felt he has been burned but the City in the past and was not in agreement of the conditions. Commissioner Greenaway asked if Mr. Bauman should withdraw his application and seek legal counsel. Mr. White replied that the staff recommendation will not change. The DNR properties are very problematic. The area is completely unserved by access, it has significant impacts on adjoining and existing street intersections. This is why there is a need for a traffic study. The City has to cover the bases if the LID is formed or if the LID isn't formed. It is unknown at this time. Staff was hoping the LID decision would be made at this point but it still is not made so the City doesn't have a lot of options. The City will not adversely impact public health and safety by funneling traffic onto intersections that aren't improved or capable of handling the additional traffic. And the City must cover all bases in case the LID is the chosen method of addressing traffic concerns. The non -protest agreement involves the assessment of fees on the participants of the LID. With each plat that occurs, there will be another 104 or 109 property owners to deal with. Mr. White said he could clarify the conditions for the Commission or he could pull examples from other approved plats within the DNR property to provide if the hearing were continued. Mr. Bauman stated that he was very clear of the consequences of signing the agreement. He said it cancels his vote and he regrets signing one on the last plat he did. Commissioner Portugal asked the applicant if he was withdrawing his application. Mr. Bauman said he was not willing to accept the plat conditions as they exist since there were too many unanswered questions and fees he felt he would have to pay for twice. Commissioner Portugal asked what options were available in moving forward for the applicant. Mr. White said the Commission needs to address the direction they would like to give to staff. They could approve the plat with the conditions as presented, the hearing could be continued to allow staff to clarify the conditions or they could recommend staff prepare findings and facts for denial of the plat. Commissioner J. Campos stated that as the Planning Commission, it is there job to make decisions and recommendations based on land usage issues. What was before them he felt was past that point and he felt they were asked to provide legal counsel which did not fit their job. The City has made their position clear that they will not change their recommendation. Commissioner Portugal asked the applicant if he would be willing to continue the hearing to try to work things out with the City or if he wants to withdraw. Mr. Bauman said he was torn on what needs to happen. He will not sign a non -protest agreement as he didn't feel it was fair and if he signed he wouldn't get a vote in the LID. Michael Morales, Community 8s Economic Development Deputy Director, gave clarification on LID's. The City would act as a financing instrument to make something happen. If the developer doesn't want an LID, they can pay for all the costs themselves. The vote is right now during this process with one property owner - rather than waiting five years from now when there are hundreds of property owners who had no idea what went into constructing that subdivision. This is a standard urban planning practice all over the country and state. The best way to do an LID is when there is one property owner. Mr. Bauman said the he disagreed. He said he was at an impasse because the City has said they will not budge but neither would he. Chairman Myhrum offered to continue the hearing at this time. Commissioner J. Campos said that the Planning Commission has to make a motion based on what's in front of them. Mr. White went over the options one more time for the applicant and Commissioners. Mr. Bauman asked about the appeal process. Chairman Myhrum stated that the applicant can appeal whatever decision the Planning Commission makes. Mr. Bauman asked what the appeal would do. -5- Mr. White replied that it would go to a closed record hearing with City Council and they would make the final decision. There was further discussion on the options and process. Commissioner Bowers moved, seconded by Commissioner Campos moved to continue the hearing and deliberations to the September 20, 2018 meeting. The motion passed unanimously. C. Preliminary Plat Black Belle Estates. 22 lots (J&J Kelly Construction) IMF# PP 2018-0081 - Continued from July 19, 2018 Meetina Chairman Myhrum read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Darcy Bourcier, Planner I, discussed the preliminary plat application for Black Belle Estates, 22 lots. She stated that there were many items still needing to be discussed in terms of possibly rezoning the property and a cost-sharing agreement with the City for sewer connection, eliminating the need for septic systems. The applicant and his engineer will later be meeting with the Public Works Director to come to an agreement. City Staff at this time recommended continuing the hearing. Commissioner Greenaway moved, seconded by Commissioner J. Campos to continue the hearing on the proposed preliminary plat to the September 20, 2018 Planning Commission Meeting. The motion passed unanimously. D. Rezone Rezone from RS -20 to RS -1 (Colette Steinwert) MF# Z 2018-006 Chairman Myhrum read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Darcy Bourcier, Planner I, discussed the rezone application from RS -20 to RS -1. The site is approximately 6.5 acres and was annexed into the City in 2015 as low density. According to the Comprehensive Plan, low density includes zones RS -20, RS -12, RS -1 and R-1. The applicant intends to rezone to RS -1 and later plat the site which would permit a minimum of 10,000 square foot lots or approximately 4.3 dwelling units per acre. Staff believes the density is appropriate giving that low density should range anywhere from 2- 5 dwelling units per acre. If the property were developed with the existing RS -20 zoning designation each lot would have to be at minimum 20,000 square feet in size so the rezone essentially doubles the amount of lots to be created. This can be considered infill property and developing infill property with the appropriate density to accommodate Pasco's population growth has become one of the City's priorities. At this time, the City does not have a proposed layout from the applicant but that would come at a later date. This application is for the rezone. Colette Steinwert, 4011 N. Road 96, spoke on behalf of her rezone application. She stated that they do not have a plan at this time. She stated that at this time she would leave 1 acre for an existing house and the 5 other acres for development. .® Thomas Legard, 4203 Prairie Lane, spoke in opposition to the rezone application with his main concern being the increased traffic as Balfour Lane is already a small road that people cut through and speed down. Jeff Jenson, 3914 Road 92, spoke in opposition to the rezone application. He addressed a petition that he had signed with over 50 signatures from neighbors with their 3 points of opposition; (1) Traffic and safety risks, (2) Perceived "Spot Zoning" and its impact on property values, and (3) Keeping 4011 at RS -20 still allows its owner to subdivide if needed. He also stated that the 300' radius notification that was sent out is not a large enough radius notification and that many of the property owners that signed the petition are outside of that 300' radius notification sent by the City. Commissioner Greenaway stated that the City follows State law for radius notifications and that the 300' radius notification has been brought up before and may be addressed in the future but at this time the 300' radius notification meets requirements. Jeff Tucksen, 9321 Sunset Trail, spoke in opposition to the rezone application stating that the rezoning to RS -1 would not fit the character of the existing neighborhood. He said that he would have no issue with 1/2 acre lots. Forrest Gibson, 9521 Merlot Drive, spoke in opposition to the rezone application. He was concerned about increased traffic as there is already a traffic problem and speeding through the neighborhood. Isidoro Martinez, 4104 Prairie Lane, spoke in opposition to the rezone application. He was concerned with the increased traffic when there are already issues with people dangerously cutting through the neighborhood. Kevin Litke, 4139 Prairie Lane, spoke in opposition to the rezone application. He discussed a traffic study that was done in their neighborhood by the Engineering Department but never knew what came from it. Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director, stated the Planning Commission should continue the public hearing to research the results of the traffic study. Forrest Gibson, 9521 Merlot Drive, spoke again to the rezone application. He added that he remembered when the area was annexed in 2015 that they were promised acre lots for the next 5 years. Mr. White said that was something he could look into for the next hearing should it be continued. Commissioner Portugal suggested Staff research Police calls for the next hearing pertaining to traffic. Commissioner Greenaway moved, seconded by Commissioner Bowers to continue the public hearing on the rezone application from RS -20 to RS -1 to the September 20, 2018 -7- Planning Commission Meeting. The motion passed unanimously. E. Special Permit Location of Wireless Communication Facilities in an R-4 Zone (Sprint Spectrum LPI IMF# SP 2018- 0071 Chairman Myhrum read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Rick White, Community 8s Economic Development Director, discussed the special permit application for the location of wireless communications facilities in an R-4 zone. The proposed site is located at an existing apartment complex on Chapel Hill Boulevard. This will be a stealth tower disguised as a building architectural feature. Commissioner Portugal asked how the City keeps up with technological advances and public concerns. Mr. White replied that the City and State will probably be seeing pre-emption on a Federal level pertaining to wireless communications. The State of Washington considered this in the past for 5G facilities. It did not happen but likely will in 2019. This will probably happen at the Federal level as well. Ed Maginn, Hoss Consulting, Idaho Falls, ID spoke on behalf of the applicant. He explained that the nearby tower at GESA Stadium was full as was another tower, which is why they are proposing a new stealth tower. Co -locating on another tower would have been the preferred and cheaper option but it was not available. The need for a new tower was growth driven, not technology upgrade driven. Commissioner A. Capos asked what happens to the tower if Sprint leaves. Patrick Kelley, Hoss Consulting, Denver, CO stated that the terms of the lease state that Sprint would have to return the site to its original condition should the contract be terminated. Amanda Cameron, 5206 Roosevelt Drive, spoke in opposition to the special permit application. She addressed he thoughts on the ability to make 911 emergency calls. Chris Acevedo, 4619 Phoenix Lane, spoke in opposition to the special permit application. He voiced concern over the applicant being able to increase the height of the tower once this is permitted. Patrick Kelley, Hoss Consulting, Denver, CO addressed the comments and concerns from the audience and stated that each cell carrier has different coverage and technology. Commissioner J. Campos responded to the permitting concerns and how they are located where they are located and whether or not they need special permits. He reminded the audience that the Planning Commission cannot deny special permits based on health concerns per the FCC. In Commissioner Greenaway addressed permitting concerns and stated that the applicant could not raise the height of the tower without coming back to the Planning Commission because there are approval conditions as a part of the special permit. Eduardo Hernandez, 5301 Montpelier Drive, spoke in opposition to the special permit application and said they already had coverage in the area. Commissioner Greenaway moved, seconded by Commissioner Bowers, to close the hearing on the proposed Sprint Spectrum antennae and equipment proposal, and initiate deliberations and schedule adoption of findings of fact, conclusions and a recommendation to the City Council for the September 20, 2018 meeting. The motion passed unanimously. F. Special Permit Location of Wireless Communication Facilities in a C-1 Zone (Sprint Spectrum LPI IMF# SP 2018-0081 Chairman Myhrum read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Rick White, Community 8v Economic Development Director, discussed the special permit application for the location of wireless communication facilities in a C-1 zone. The proposed location is the Fiesta Food Grocery Store. He briefly went over three different stealth options that the Commission could consider with graphics presented on the overhead. Ed Maginn, Hoss Consulting, Idaho Falls, ID spoke on behalf of the applicant. The three options for the antennae were a result of City Staff, an engineer hired by Sprint and Hoss Consulting to see what options would be supported by the existing structure. They went with the option that wasn't the best for coverage, however, it was the better option for the building and for the community and the most stealth. Stephen Bauman, 7114 Maxim Court, spoke in favor of the application. He said that he appreciated how the company was presenting this application and how they are operating. Commissioner Bykonen discussed the fact that the majority of people have cell phones - often multiple cell phones per home. Cell towers are inevitable and unavoidable. Commissioner Greenaway moved, seconded by Commissioner Bowers, to close the hearing on the proposed Sprint Spectrum antennae and equipment proposals, and initiate deliberations and schedule adoption of findings of fact, conclusions and a recommendation to the City Council for the September 20, 2018 meeting. The motion passed unanimously with Commissioner J. Campos recused. G. Special Permit Location of a Wireless Communication Facilities in an RS -1 Zone (Sprint Spectrum LPI IMF# SP 2018- 0091 Chairman Myhrum read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. In Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director, discussed the special permit for the location of wireless communication facilities in an R-4 Zone. This application involves the location of a relay on top of an existing church at 5304 Burden Boulevard. The Pasco Municipal Code (PMC) establishes priorities for locating wireless facilities, with a preference in commercial or C-3 Zones. If not applicable, they may be permitted by the special permit process in other zones if they are attached to an existing building or structure at least 35' in height or located within a publicly owned facility. The PMC contains standards for the aesthetics of the tower itself. The staff report contains information that that Federal Communications Commission (FCC) does not allow a cell tower site to be rejected based on health effects provided that equipment meets the federal standards and regulations. This particular tower would be disguised in an existing steeple that will be raised approximately 6 '/2 feet. Drawings of the before and after plans were presented of what the church will look like. Commissioner Bowers asked where the nearest C-3 zoning was to the proposed site. Mr. White said that he was unsure but nothing on Burden Boulevard. Commissioner Bykonen noted that in several letters received from the public there were comments that mentioned declining property values due nearby cell towers. Since this tower would be completely disguised and enclosed, she asked if there was any obligation on neighboring property owners to disclose of the nearby cell tower. Mr. White said he was not aware of any disclosure the nearby property owners would need to make. This topic has been discussed in prior public hearings regarding cell towers and the problem is that there are hundreds of internet articles and research indicating property value declines as well as adverse health effects and articles and research stating the opposite. Commissioner J. Campos stated that the proposed cell tower is much less invasive than many of the other cell towers the Planning Commission has approved in the past. Commissioner Bowers stated that she found the comments regarding declining property values interesting because everyone wants great cell phone reception. Ed Maginn, Hoss Consulting, Idaho Falls, ID spoke on behalf of his client, Sprint Spectrum LP. As Pasco continues to grow cell providers are trying to keep up with the growth. Sprint hired Hoss Consulting and they identified gaps in their coverage in Pasco. They were hired to find the best locations to serve. Commissioner J. Campos asked the applicant why they decided on a stealth tower rather than a traditional tower. Mr. Maginn responded that it was due to the zoning and the locations needing coverage. Commissioner J. Campos asked if they could co -locate on other existing towers. Mr. Maginn answered that they looked at all of the options and that would have been their -10- preferred option, however, all nearby towers were already at capacity. Commissioner Bowers asked if Sprint will pay the property owners to locate the tower on their building. Mr. Maginn said yes, they will lease the space. Commissioner Bowers discussed a map with other cell phone towers located nearby that she remembered seeing in previous special permit hearings. Mike Koontz, 5213 Montpelier Drive, spoke in opposition to the special permit application. He stated that his property adjoined the proposed site and while the towers cannot be denied based on health terms, it didn't relieve his concerns as a neighbor as well as property value concerns. He questioned if he would have to disclose the cell tower if he were to sell his home and asked who would be responsible if studies come out in the future stating that the towers do cause issues with people. Amanda Cameron, 5206 Roosevelt Drive, spoke in opposition to the special permit application. She stated that her home was located directly behind the church and the steeple can be seen from her windows. She had many concerns about health and addressed studies that relate to people who live near cell towers. She was also concerned about home values. Irving Brown, 4701 Phoenix Lane, spoke in opposition to the special permit application siting health issues. He was also concerned with transparency and felt that the stealth tower was to conceal and hide the problem. Amanda Cameron, 5206 Roosevelt Drive, spoke again to add that she spoke with neighbors who did not receive their notice about the hearing. Mike Koontz, 5213 Montpelier Drive, spoke again to ask the Planning Commissioner's if any of them would want the tower in their backyards. Chris Acevedo, 4619 Phoenix Lane, spoke in opposition to the special permit application. He asked if the City was getting any money from the tower and if the City would benefit from the tower in any way and where would that money go. He also addressed decreasing property values and how it could hurt the community. Eduardo Hernandez, 5301 Montpelier Drive, spoke in opposition to the special permit application. He said his home was behind the church and he was concerned with health issues and property values. He suggested placing the tower elsewhere. Silbestre Hernandez, 5305 Montpelier Drive, spoke in opposition to the special permit application. He addressed health issues and property values and asked what gains the City would make. He said the towers should be located in nearby commercial. Irving Brown, 4701 Phoenix Lane, spoke again in opposition to the application and -11- proposed some questions. Ed Maginn, Hoss Consulting, Idaho Falls, ID, addressed concerns discussed by the audience. He stated that the proposed stealth tower was not intended to "hide" anything but rather to protect properties values and be more aesthetically pleasing. The church is the only property that would have to disclose a wireless tower on a title report but not nearby property owners. Since the tower is under 35', it will not be reported on the FAA websites as taller towers are so it will be difficult for people to search for this tower unless they know what they are looking for. The reason for this site is because one tower could service the entire area. If this site were denied and they would have to do towers, they would need three towers around the neighborhood just to make the same coverage as this one tower. Chairman Myhrum asked for clarification on the coverage and density pertaining to the cell tower. Patrick Kelley, Hoss Consulting, Denver, CO, clarified that the site selected is considered a "capacity site" and he explained what that meant. Most homes in the neighborhood don't have landlines, they rely on cell phones. This service becomes a public safety issues for emergencies. Commissioner Myhrum asked if Sprint could lease this tower to other carriers in the future. Mr. Kelley said no, this is only a single carrier tower. Commissioner Portugal asked the applicant how they process community concerns when they select a location for a tower. Mr. Kelley replied that they do so through the process of special permits and attending public hearings which is the typical process in most communities. Ed Maginn, Hass Consulting, Idaho Falls, ID added comments addressing their transparency and reminded the audience and Commissioner's that if they were locating in a C-3 zone, they wouldn't have to have a public hearing but with it being in a residential they have the special permit and hearings to be transparent and receive public feedback. Commissioner Bowers referenced a cell tower the Planning Commission recommended for City Council approval that was disguised as a pine tree because people did not want to see a cell tower so it is common to disguise them and make them but had nothing to do with transparency. She also asked the applicant to address money to the applicant or City. Mr. Kelley said that they cannot disclose the amount in the agreement with the church but no money was to go to the City. Commissioner Bowers asked who would be liable if studies later prove cell towers effect health. -12- Mr. Kelley said that would be up to the FCC. Commissioner Portugal moved, seconded by Commissioner Greenaway, to close the hearing on the proposed Sprint Spectrum antennae and equipment proposal, and initiate deliberations and schedule adoption of findings of fact, conclusions and a recommendation to the City Council for the September 20, 2018 meeting. The motion passed unanimously. WORKSHOP: A. Comp. Plan Amend. Comp. Plan Amendment - Goals/Policies. Volume 1 IMF# CPA 2017-0011 Chairman Myhrum read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director, discussed the amendments to Goals/Policies, Volume 1 in the Comprehensive Plan. He addressed a memo that was included from the consulting group. There will be additional goals/policies that come to the Planning Commission in the future. Commissioner Bowers gave feedback and listed details she would like to see included in the goals/policies. With no further discussion or business, the Planning Commission was adjourned at 9:40 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Krystle Shanks, Administrative Assistant II Community & Economic Development Dept. -13- REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION MASTER FILE NO: SP 2018-007 APPLICANT: Sprint Spectrum LP HEARING DATE: 08/16/2018 655 Bradford Lane ACTION DATE: 09/20/2018 Idaho Falls, ID 83404 BACKGROUND REQUEST: SPECIAL PERMIT: Location of Wireless Communication Facilities in an R-4 (High Density Residential District) Zone 1. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: Legal: Short Plat 2004-24 LOT 2 General Location: 6626 Chapel Hill Boulevard, Building #E (Parcel #117 420 011). Property Size: The parcel is approximately 3 acres; the lease area contains approximately 171 square feet of equipment cabinet area on the ground plus an antenna array to be built inside a cupola on building #E. 2. ACCESS: The site is accessed from Roads 68 and 76 and Burden Blvd. 3. UTILITIES: All municipal utilities are currently available to the site. 4. LAND USE AND ZONING: The site is currently zoned R-4 (High Density Residential District) and contains three apartment buildings. Surrounding properties are zoned and developed as follows: NORTH: C-1 Vacant; Mini -Storage; Retail Commercial EAST: R-1, R-3 SFDUs; Multi -Family SOUTH: R-1 SFDUs WEST: R-4 Apartments 5. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The Comprehensive Plan designates the site for Residential uses. Goal OF -2 suggests the City ought to maintain land use flexibility in regard to placement of infrastructure for 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-B 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. Based on the SEPA checklist, the adopted City Comprehensive Plan, City development regulations, and other information, a threshold determination resulting in a Determination of Non -Significance (DNS) has been issued for this project under WAC 197- 11-158. ANALYSIS Sprint Wireless proposes a rooftop cell phone antenna array concealed in an 8' X 8' X 9' cupola on the roof of a three story apartment building located at 6626 Chapel Hill Boulevard, Building #E. Sprint will also fence off a 9'X 19' area in the southeast corner of the existing parking lot in order to house a power meter and fiber optic connection box. The proposed antennae would be located in a cupola on the south end of the building and would be designed and painted to match existing building. 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 port facility. (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 2 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 publicly owned facility iii) Located on a site other than those listed in a) or b). Commonly, cellular providers locate the equipment cabinets within a fenced area surrounding the base of a pole; in this case the ground -level equipment is proposed to be located behind a sight -obscuring fence in the southeast corner of the parking lot. The screening must meet design requirements of the I-182 Overlay District (PMC 25.58). 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 antennae will be mounted in a cupola designed and painted to match the existing building the provisions for tower height do not apply to this application. As well, under Federal regulations cities are barred from considering electromagnetic radio waves in the permitting process for cell towers. An application for a cell tower cannot be denied based on concern over electromagnetic waves, provided the equipment meets FCC standards. 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-4 (High Density Residential District). 2. The Comprehensive Plan identifies the site for Mixed Residential uses. 3. The site is approximately 3 acres; the lease area contains approximately 171 square feet of equipment cabinet area on the ground plus an antenna array to be built inside a cupola on building #E. 4. The site contains three apartment buildings adjacent 10 similar buildings to the east. 3 5. The proposed antennae will be mounted inside a cupola mounted on the top of building "E" which will be designed and painted to match the current building. 6. All municipal utilities currently serve the site. 7. In the R-4 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. 8. The proposed cellular antennae will be mounted inside a cupola on the top of an existing 49' tall apartment building. 9. Equipment serving the proposed antennae will be located within a sight -obscured 9'x19' area in the southeast corner of the existing parking lot. 10. 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. 11. The Comprehensive Plan suggests the City should maintain land use flexibility with regard to placement of infrastructure for public and private utilities. 12. Cellular equipment creates minimal demands on City infrastructure. CONCLUSIONS BASED ON STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT Before recommending approval or denial of a special permit the Planning Commission must develop findings of fact from which to draw its conclusions based upon the criteria listed in PMC 25.86.060. The criteria are as follows: (1) 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 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? 13 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 character of the vicinity is dominated by retail commercial uses to the north, mixed residential to the east, low-density residential to the south, and high-density residential development to the west. (4) Will the location and height of proposed structures and the site design discourage the development of permitted uses on property in the general vicinity or impair the value thereof? The areas to the north include vacant commercial property and commercial lands under development; properties to the east, south and west are fully developed with permitted uses. The antennae will be located on an existing residential structure inside a cupola designed and painted to match the building. Equipment cabinets will be located within a sight -obscured 9' X 19' area in the southeast corner of the existing parking lot. The Antennae and equipment will likely not be noticeable from any surrounding properties. (5) Will the operations in connection with the proposal be more objectionable to nearby properties by reason of noise, fumes, vibrations, dust, traffic, or flashing lights than would be the operation of any permitted uses within the district? The proposed cellular equipment will create no fumes, dust or noise during normal operations. Cellular facilities have been located 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. G APPROVAL CONDITIONS 1) The special permit shall apply to parcel #117 420 011; 2) The property shall be developed in substantial conformity with the elevations and site plan submitted with the application; 3) The proposed cellular facility must comply with all FCC and FAA regulations; 4) The cupola, wireless equipment, and all its associated ground equipment and appurtenances must be removed within 90 days of discontinuation. 5) The special permit shall be null and void if a City of Pasco building permit is not obtained by July 30, 2019. MOTION for Findings of Fact: I move to adopt Findings of Fact and Conclusions therefrom as contained in the September 20, 2018 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 Sprint Spectrum LP for the location of a concealed rooftop cell phone antenna array and its associated ground equipment at 6626 Chapel Hill Boulevard, Building #E with conditions as contained in the September 20, 2018 staff report. GI t t •u ' '.=_ _ Edi `L7 �s►y'': !w �p■j���{�4"4 E! FYI UPS ra 1M /1111 � 11 �� ��r� ,.: • r � rte iirin tutrtr Ci , I �. / alp 1 Bill �� � ' =� uHmenttt � . � �° • b . 72 ■ i' . # 7T y r., aetirsli•ii�a:.�-- PIK* --Iqu ��a ��; 2i W rum b�0jb� • .--I N UIQ' N N) o M d CtN) = 032 o ii 0 Dry �Ny LL O NI bA •� syy�0007 cr l] LL un p •= s f I � NMpp =� o W 0 � U W ANAa . � 00 ; Nil 0 �+ /1 N LL cgab N ct ULL u c� � U Wwoo C f 2 a6 CL c� L O U � a N � O N o' (n U �+ W J O E O O �+ a a Q O Q a N 0- M N L U 4-1 ca U) A ® O U(10 N a i 0 U C) X W O J O 0 W U) U NEI CL Jlx 1 ��y E �!'# o99 IL IE N H ZLLI CL tj �R f m W- Q„es a F i 1py, Z J i D h H 0 = o o as J U m wIL = —+ Z n p U = m �g a"2w a 9 0 ¢ w a 0 o cdL U O� DeV5 FJ zFJ=3�0 0 N X V Z 0 4 m pO,oO w W Z V yyN a Z ��g`g E§�§A T eg o $L06 m W 0 a :E 1 R €e@ §Y^53§§ wCL Z Z p O O W W W d/ W M- N hN —1 h S 3 le z u € u `09 ......... a a 4, I -Eiji 816 i a B � � I-Ei� 6 W g 9 leg 4=J�� _�s ®Nay w ~� ._ � SFip= R R 5yy all RKY e� $b �i85# .-NMd C W4a � o _ ES 25 o z _ gg gg ��ta'rtsF� UOD O a m n d d V cn cu a _ �q E �N 4S N W a�=a m 0==3 (Dp Ua W z 0 0. z 5-d U U Y rn %0 00 N 0 %O �O a _ �q E �N 4S / # n ct W I I I I I REPORT TO PLANNING MASTER FILE NO: SP 2018-008 APPLICANT: Sprint Spectrum LP HEARING DATE: 08/16/2018 655 Bradford Lane ACTION DATE: 09/20/2018 Idaho Falls, ID 83404 BACKGROUND REQUEST: SPECIAL PERMIT: Location of Wireless Communication Facilities in a C-1 (Retail Business) Zone 1. Legal: The west 1/2 of block 3 & all of block 4 of Pettit's Addition except a portion deeded to the City (32029 1) together with all vacated streets & alleys adjoining. General Location: 115 South 10th Avenue (Parcel #112-253-124). Property Size: The parcel is approximately 3 acres; the lease area contains approximately 110 square feet of equipment cabinet area on the ground plus an antenna array consisting of 6 antennae to be mounted at three locations on the roof. 2. ACCESS: The site is accessed from West Lewis Street, West Columbia Street, and South 10th Avenue. 3. UTILITIES: All municipal utilities are currently available to the site. 4. LAND USE AND ZONING: The site is currently zoned C-1 (Retail Business) and contains a grocery store. Surrounding properties are zoned and developed as follows: NORTH: C-1 Commercial/ Mixed Residential EAST: C-1 Commercial (Grigg's) SOUTH: I-1 Fuel Station/Vacant WEST: C-3 Heavy Commerial 5. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The Comprehensive Plan designates the site for Commercial uses. Goal OF -2 suggests the City ought to maintain land use flexibility in regard to placement of infrastructure for 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-B 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. Based on the SEPA checklist, the adopted City Comprehensive Plan, City development regulations, and other information, a threshold determination resulting in a Determination of Non -Significance (DNS) has been issued for this project under WAC 197- 11-158. ANALYSIS Sprint proposes a rooftop cell phone antenna array (concealed in canisters painted to match the building) on the roof of the grocery store located on the property listed above. Sprint will also fence off a 10 X 11' area behind the building in order to house a power meter and fiber optic connection box. No other modifications will be made to the building or property. 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 port facility. (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 ofpreference: 2 i) Attached to or located on buildings or structures higher than 35 feet. ii) Located on or with a publicly owned facility iii) Located on a site other than those listed in a) or b). Commonly, cellular providers locate the equipment cabinets within a fenced area surrounding the base of a pole; in this case the ground -level equipment is proposed to be located behind a sight -obscuring fence in the alley behind the building. 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. Under Federal regulations cities are barred from considering electromagnetic radio waves in the permitting process for cell towers, provided the equipment meets FCC standards. An application for a cell tower cannot be denied based on concern over electromagnetic waves. STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT Findings of fact must be entered from the record. The following are initial findings drawn from the background and analysis section of the staff report. The Planning Commission may add additional findings to this listing as the result of factual testimony and evidence submitted during the open record hearing. 1. The site is zoned C-1 (Retail Business). 2. The Comprehensive Plan identifies the site for Commercial uses. 3. The site is approximately 3 acres; the lease area contains approximately 110 square feet of equipment cabinet area on the ground plus an antenna array on the roof. 4. The site contains a grocery store. 5. The store roof deck is 25'8" tall and a parapet at 26'8" with a cupola extending up another 20' or so at the store's west entrance. 6. The proposed antennae will be mounted on the roof at three locations inside of 36' diameter "Stealth canisters" painted to match the current building. 7. Subsequent to the public hearing a slightly shorter microwave dish assembly was added, proposed to be located roughly in the center of the three stealth canister locations on the roof. 8. All municipal utilities currently serve the site. 9. In the C-1 zone cellular facilities may be permitted by special permit provided the tower is either: c 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 port facility. 10. The proposed antennae are not designed to be attached on the parts of the building that exceed 35' (i.e., the cupola). The applicant has positioned the canisters further toward the center of the roof, thus obscuring them from view of casual passers-by (see attached mock-up photo). The additional microwave dish assembly will also be positioned so as to be mostly obscured from view. 11. Pasco Municipal Code 25.70.075(3)(a) also specifies that antennae be "screened or camouflaged by employing . . . 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." 12. Equipment serving the proposed antennae will be located within a sight -obscured, 10' X 11' fenced area in the alley behind the store to the east. 13. 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. 14. The Comprehensive Plan suggests the City should maintain land use flexibility with regard to placement of infrastructure for public and private utilities. 15. Cellular equipment creates minimal demands on City infrastructure. CONCLUSIONS BASED ON STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT Before recommending approval or denial of a special permit the Planning Commission must develop findings of fact from which to draw its conclusions based upon the criteria listed in PMC 25.86.060. The criteria are as follows: (1) 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 UT -1-C encourages M 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 character of the vicinity is a mix of residential, commercial, and industrial uses. (4) Will the location and height of proposed structures and the site design discourage the development of permitted uses on property in the general vicinity or impair the value thereof? The areas on all sides are fully developed with a mix of single-family dwelling units, commercial/office buildings, and industrial uses. The antennae would be located in 6 "stealth canisters" in three locations on the roof and painted to match the building. The canisters would be located far enough back from the edge of the roofline as to hide them from view of most passers-by. A microwave dish antenna was added to the proposal subsequent to the hearing and would be located roughly in the center of the three canister locations. Equipment serving the proposed antennae will be located within a sight - obscured 10' X 11' fenced area in the alley behind the store to the east. The Antennae would not be visible from most locations along the street, parking areas, and from surrounding buildings; the equipment enclosure on the ground will be visible from Columbia Avenue when looking down the alley. (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 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? 5 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. APPROVAL CONDITIONS 1) The special permit shall apply to Parcel #112-253-124; 2) The property shall be developed in substantial conformity with the Modified elevations and site plan submitted with the application; 3) The proposed cellular facility must comply with all FCC and FAA regulations; 4) The wireless equipment and all its associated ground equipment and appurtenances must be removed within 90 days of discontinuation; 5) The special permit shall be null and void if a City of Pasco building permit is not obtained by July 30, 2019. MOTION for Findings of Fact: I move to adopt Findings of Fact and Conclusions therefrom as contained in the September 20, 2018 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 Sprint Spectrum LP for the location of a rooftop cell phone antenna array and its associated ground equipment at 115 South 10th Avenue (Parcel #112-253-124) with conditions as contained in the September 20, 2018 staff report. 3 MEMORANDUM DATE: September 4, 2018 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Jeffrey B. Adams, Associate Planner SUBJECT: ADDENDUM: Sprint Spectrum Wireless Facility at Fiesta Foods (SP 2018-008; Sprint Spectrum LP) Sprint applied for a Special Permit to place wireless cell antennae on the roof of Fiesta foods, and had submitted three versions of the site plan prior to the public hearing. Since the public hearing Applicant has submitted a fourth site plan (see attached) showing an added microwave antenna, to be located roughly between the three proposed "stealth canisters." According to the site plan the proposed microwave dish appears shorter than the three stealth canisters and would not add noticeably to the street view of the rooftop equipment. Staff requests the Planning Commission review the addition to see if it represents a substantial alteration of the application. If not it should be seen as part of the recommendation to City Council. Otherwise Applicant shall be required to re -submit the application for another public hearing before the Planning Commission. 1 i OWUMUMMM N IF tp ,6£-NS13AV O ct CA V 00 00 ;..o 00 i OWUMUMMM N IF tp ,6£-NS13AV W y�N O - O z w � L v o •� M W O LL CD O O WEP.x�( 1(t� .X rN r•+ CFfl Q•I W 3 V H18 0 a� �? v jXA PA q3AV H16 oc E y ~ • �--I Q rN O Q m P r 3 poxiw Con g� U "Ook , 3AV =IT LLT L LM 1'E1 3" H1Z L 1 C) r. 0 r. u pis 3AV Hl£L � � �L 2994L L:Wwoc)jl w 1. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 M g ZLn U0 3 M N 6TH PSE M w LL V � � r o CD o IEV ct U 3 V H18 LU CN SN PSE 3AV H16 I r C*O 00 Oj �i r 00 SO PSE N� �y� L6£ -MS H10L UTTcL U�N PVE � �0 3AV H1LL 1 LU N 3A' I FL � IL M PVE U •� N N All3" Hl£L 0 I NO r— '� , �J LO T— INK— ' V �[I 0 0 0 LL m '—'^0 �J) W LL co 00 M U X C/�y) V) W U) H A n va 9: a I M1111 z "m v� Z W z W X W W i0 101, o g o -li O O M as 3 z __ a mLL-U�dYO =FCX) ZnUzO www n<w z —CL 04 a s d w o ww O z 2aR v= o0 o r o so s m_ = w o ggs� W Q i ^_K E�� .. „pn-8ry8ndEg 33o z is .s 225 �ZZQ z' w m O W W W �/ W = o oowrc d H h N � N N � i .. rc � ii:i .. u � §oien°vo w � an a w z i Www Q g7o Z o 3 w o c o -Z i z 0 2 s �^��^����Wo <'iY�'<'" iiu d o 5 eGGa i w __- zz... J H v� coi Ni a ....•. / a pNW S No0 J O Y n S •��/ Z �U 5 Y � 4 c4�u odd C�eC na Y mWo o = N�o xe C NZWw d 4mJN m� Jz ��jmV Q J Sp na O �- 22�p Wa Y i t1 11—.911 w H Ow 2 O g=d yz ¢z W O i:Bi3 G�p N 23 S 3 p O O " o, Q 'a N �op=opa <==9pry og o aougl< iP a z- Fi oMo Q a I M1111 z "m v� Z W z W X W W i0 101, o g o -li O O M as 3 z __ a mLL-U�dYO =FCX) ZnUzO www n<w z —CL 04 a s d w o ww O z 2aR v= o0 o r o so s m_ = w o ggs� W Q i ^_K E�� .. „pn-8ry8ndEg 33o z is .s 225 �ZZQ z' w m O W W W �/ W = o oowrc d H h N � N N � i .. rc � ii:i .. u � §oien°vo w � an a w z i Www Q g7o Z o 3 w o c o -Z i z 0 2 s �^��^����Wo <'iY�'<'" iiu d o 5 eGGa i w __- zz... J H v� coi Ni a ....•. / a pNW S No0 J O Y n S •��/ Z �U 5 Y � 4 c4�u odd C�eC na Y mWo o = N�o xe C NZWw d 4mJN m� Jz ��jmV Q J Sp na O �- 22�p Wa Y i t1 11—.911 w H Ow 2 O g=d yz ¢z W O i:Bi3 G�p N 23 S 3 p O O " o, Q 'a N �op=opa <==9pry og o aougl< iP ! I ,A, � u . 4—J .., I!; n §! \ (§ � /`• , h \ / A \ Ma !/((\ } Ma I to �\ \ t % ° Fill j,�ma 64; 0 J f LL Lj- �o oC) LL F0 U W W cnm 4 I n ♦s ' n a ' �. 1 t • \1 LL 10 LL i .°. A T c 4 -J M 0 W W i �+- O 0 I a R I ct (1) OW IDl Ir 'Y ay' tiA, I 501 9 I M•i" fir M•i" REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION MASTER FILE NO: SP 2018-009 APPLICANT: Sprint Spectrum LP HEARING DATE: 08/16/2018 655 Bradford Lane ACTION DATE: 09/20/2018 Idaho Falls, ID 83404 BACKGROUND REQUEST: SPECIAL PERMIT: Location of Wireless Communication Facilities in an R -S-1 (Suburban District) Zone 1. Legal: Short Plat 2005-02, LOT 2 General Location: 5304 Burden Boulevard (Parcel #117-330-067). Property Size: The parcel is approximately 1 acre; the lease area contains approximately 176 square feet of equipment cabinet area on the ground plus an antenna array to be built inside a raised steeple. 2. ACCESS: The site is accessed from Burden Boulevard. 3. UTILITIES: All municipal utilities are currently available to the site. 4. LAND USE AND ZONING: The site is currently zoned R -S-1 (Suburban District) and contains a church. Surrounding properties are zoned and developed as follows: NORTH: R-1 SFDUs EAST: R -S-1 SFDUs SOUTH: R -S-1 SFDUs WEST: R-1 SFDUs 5. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The Comprehensive Plan designates the site for Residential uses. Goal OF -2 suggests the City ought to maintain land use flexibility in regard to placement of infrastructure for 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-B encourages the placement of utility substations which are necessary for the surrounding neighborhood. 1 6. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The City of Pasco is the lead agency for this project. Based on the SEPA checklist, the adopted City Comprehensive Plan, City development regulations, and other information, a threshold determination resulting in a Determination of Non -Significance (DNS) has been issued for this project under WAC 197- 11-158. ANALYSIS Sprint Wireless Sprint proposes a rooftop cell phone antenna array concealed in a raised steeple tower of a church structure located at 5304 Burden Boulevard. Sprint will also fence off an 11' X 16' area just adjacent to the HVAC unit on the south side of the church structure in order to house a power meter and fiber optic connection box. The proposed antennae would be located in the steeple tower, which would be raised an additional 6' on the north (front) side of the building and would be designed and painted to match existing building. 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 port facility. (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 P 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 publicly owned facility iii) Located on a site other than those listed in a) or b). Commonly, cellular providers locate the equipment cabinets within a fenced area surrounding the base of a pole; in this case the ground -level equipment is proposed to be located behind a sight -obscuring fence adjacent the HVAC unit behind the building. The screening must meet design requirements of the I-182 Overlay District (PMC 25.58). 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. Under Federal regulations cities are barred from considering electromagnetic radio waves in the permitting process for cell towers, provided the equipment meets FCC standards. An application for a cell tower cannot be denied based on concern over electromagnetic waves. 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. i. The site is zoned R -S-1 (Suburban District). 2. The Comprehensive Plan identifies the site for Low -Density Residential uses. 3. The site is approximately 1 acre; the lease area contains approximately 176 square feet of equipment cabinet area on the ground plus an antenna array to be built inside an extended height steeple tower. 4. The site contains a church structure. 5. The proposed antennae will be mounted inside a steeple tower which would be raised an additional 6' and designed and painted to match the current building. 6. All municipal utilities currently serve the site. 3 7. In the R -S-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. 8. The proposed cellular antennae will be mounted inside an existing 37' church steeple tower which would be raised an additional 6.' 9. Equipment serving the proposed antennae will be located within a sight -obscured 11' X 16' fenced area just adjacent to the HVAC unit on the south side of the church structure. 10. 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. 11. The Comprehensive Plan suggests the City should maintain land use flexibility with regard to placement of infrastructure for public and private utilities. 12. Cellular equipment creates minimal demands on City infrastructure. CONCLUSIONS BASED ON STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT Before recommending approval or denial of a special permit the Planning Commission must develop findings of fact from which to draw its conclusions based upon the criteria listed in PMC 25.86.060. The criteria are as follows: (1) 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 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 0 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 character of the vicinity is dominated by single-family dwelling units on all sides. (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 areas on all sides are fully developed with single-family dwelling units. The antennae will be located on an existing church structure inside an existing steeple tower which would be raised an additional 6' and designed and painted to match the building. Equipment serving the proposed antennae will be located within a sight -obscured 11' X 16' fenced area just adjacent to the HVAC unit on the south side of the church structure. The Antennae and equipment will likely not be noticeable from any surrounding properties. (5) Will the operations in connection with the proposal be more objectionable to nearby properties by reason of noise, fumes, vibrations, dust, traffic, or flashing lights than would be the operation of any permitted uses within the district? The proposed cellular equipment will create no fumes, dust or noise during normal operations. Cellular facilities have been located 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. APPROVAL CONDITIONS 1) The special permit shall apply to parcel # 117-330-067; 2) The property shall be developed in substantial conformity with the approved elevations and site plan; 5 3) The proposed cellular facility must comply with all FCC and FAA regulations; 4) The wireless equipment and all its associated ground equipment and appurtenances must be removed within 90 days of discontinuation. 5) The special permit shall be null and void if a City of Pasco building permit is not obtained by July 30, 2019. RECOMMENDATION MOTION for Findings of Fact: I move to adopt Findings of Fact and Conclusions therefrom as contained in the September 20, 2018 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 Sprint Spectrum LP for the location of a concealed rooftop cell phone antenna array and its associated ground equipment located at 5304 Burden Boulevard with conditions as contained in the September 20, 2018 staff report. 3 Darcy Bourcier From: Mike Koontz <irondude99301@yahoo.com> Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2018 4:03 PM To: Darcy Bourcier Subject: Proposed Cellular Antennae Array at the Christian Science Church I am a home owner who lives in very close proximity to the Christian Science Church. I strongly oppose approving a permit to allow installation of a cellular antennae array in the church steeple. Long term studies have not been done to verify that the electromagnetic waves are not harmful to human health. Additionally there is evidence that shows there is a potential for decreased property values due to the perceived health hazards from exposure to cellular antennae arrays. Understandably I do not want to take on either of these risks. I am very disappointed that the City of Pasco would consider allowing installation of a cellular tower array in a residential area much less want to take on the legal liability for approving this project. I would not live in a home with a cellular antennae array in close proximity to my living and sleeping areas. Sincerely, Michael L. Koontz Resident at 5213 Montpelier Dr., Pasco, WA.Yahoo Mail on Android A 1.1 . � 4— (it - -A f., CIWAIA NVOY9ti 5 ft ILI pe - - -I 1,,4 m5a Cl) I M I ) vLf) zr,4. Ito, LL 0 Ln 1 41, YUMA UR zG avoll A 1.1 . � 4— (it - -A f., CIWAIA NVOY9ti 5 W Z N PGS M 0 Q D M 3 a Z N d Li Q fir/ N YUMA DR O 0 Z5 avom �--! W LU_ N QN�dW(12i1 N � PHOENIX LN U J G i r4 pHo A3101mm tea' CL VZ m 00 O F-+ N = z Lu = MADISON AVE ct U Q w N Q,� O NATLANTA LN G� 1.4M A43NN3)1 Z L p N '^ V♦ J a N 32i Z9 avom W Nvwnul I ) Mn Ila A3101mm w 0 vM Jla3NN3Y J CD z Lu CD Q z Fn V♦ w G� YUMA DR PHQENIX LN MADISON AVE TOO' ATLANTA LN 0 O V L C) I L I N U X CD V! �W V ) 0 N (6 a m m 0 0 U W H J O O m a 0 0 a 0 u A .. g UA Wwnn o � w� W Mi a W T N_ O �k`� w �� e � � ❑ a � 8 Li tl .. g UA Wwnn o � w� W Mi a W T N_ O .. g UA Wwnn o � w� W Mi uj _� r I 3 N J2 �, z� 'ma z O F � 6 g sk S L Lig -4--� rA- ct 44 w W'® D i i ism 03 Jill Ld Ir 0 UL w m CU F— Cf) CO Cox C4 u D. u x 0 o< Q& = Q z 0. CL Z uj CO ih O u 7- 0 0 CL (a CL LA IL ism 03 Jill Ld Ir 0 UL w m MEMORANDUM DATE: September 20, 2018 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Darcy Bourcier, Planner I Community & Economic Development SUBJECT: Withdrawal of Rezone Application - RS -20 to RS -1 (MF# Z2018-006) Colette Steinwert had previously applied to rezone 4011 Road 96 in Pasco, Washington from RS -20 (Suburban) to RS -1 (Suburban). The rezone went to the August 16, 2018 Planning Commission meeting as a hearing. Since that date, however, Staff researched an Ordinance passed by City Council in 2015 regarding a rezoning prohibition for the subject property and surrounding area. Ordinance 4221 states, "The RS -20 zoning established herein shall remain in full force and effect for a period of five years from the effective date of annexation." As the area was annexed July 1, 2015, the earliest a zone change may be permitted is July 1, 2020. Taking this into consideration, the applicant has officially withdrawn the proposed rezone application. She may choose to develop the property under its current zoning designation or wait until the Ordinance has expired to pursue a rezone. REPORT TO PLANNING MASTER FILE NO: PP 2018-007 APPLICANT: RP Development HEARING DATE: 7/19/2018 6159 W Deschutes Ave Suite 509 ACTION DATE: 9/20/2018 Kennewick WA 99336 BACKGROUND REQUEST: Preliminary Plat: Serrano Heights, (104 -Lot Single -Family Subdivision). 1. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: Legal: Lot 4 of Record Survey # 1847849 General Location: South of Future Chapel Hill Blvd between Roads 70 & 76 Property Size: 38.1 Acres Number of Lots Proposed: 109 single-family lots Square Footage Range of Lots: 7,306 ft' to 25,977 ft' Average Lot Square Footage: 9,810 11:2 2. ACCESS: The property is proposed to have access from Chapel Hill Boulevard, Road 76, and Massey Drive. 3. UTILITIES: Municipal sewer service is located in future Massey Drive extension along the southern portion of the site. Water service will be located primarily in Massey Drive and Chapel Hill Boulevard. 4. LAND USE AND ZONING: The site is zoned R-1 (Low -Density Residential). Surrounding properties are zoned and developed as follows: NORTH: C-1 Vacant; DNR Lease Property EAST: C-1; O; R-1 Vacant & Single -Family SOUTH: R -S-1 Vacant; Chiawana Place Subdivision WEST R-1 Vacant; Riverhawk Pointe II Subdivision 5. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The Comprehensive Plan indicates the site is intended for low-density residential development. According to the Comprehensive Plan, low-density residential development means 2 to 5 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 low-density residential uses when or where sewer is available; the location is suitable for home sites and there is a market demand for new home sites. 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 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. Based on the SEPA checklist, the adopted City Comprehensive Plan, City development regulations, and other information, a threshold determination resulting in a Mitigated Determination of Non -Significance (MDNS) has been issued for this project under WAC 197-11-158. ANALYSIS The project site is located south and west of property held in trust by the Department of Natural Resources (DNR), who expects to lease their land to commercial developers. Also to the east is the Valley View Addition, which is located in a County island and is built out with single-family homes. The property to the south has been preliminarily platted as the Chiawana Place subdivision and is zoned at a lower density (R -S-1; 10,000 square foot minimum lot size) as a transition between the R-1 on site and the lower density (RS -20) county areas to the south. Property directly to the west will be developed with future phases of the Riverhawk Pointe II subdivision, and further west along Massey Drive will be the Pasco School District Elementary School # 16. The site was part of the Road 68 DNR property which sold off a few years ago. The applicant is seeking preliminary plat approval in preparation for the development of a single-family subdivision. The site was initially designated for low-density residential development under the 1982 Comprehensive Plan and again under the 1995 Plan and the updated Plan of 2008. The property is zoned R-1 (Low Density Residential). The proposed plat will provide additional lots within the Urban Growth Area (UGA) for single-family homes consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The old DNR site is one of the few large remaining areas within the UGA to be developed. The proposed plat can be considered an infill development on property that was passed over during the time most of the 1-182 Corridor was developed. The proposed plat was originally part of a larger parcel that extended easterly from Road 84 to the west boundary of Valley View Addition. Improvement of portions of Chapel Hill Boulevard to the north will be the responsibility of the developer of the proposed plat along with improvements for Road 76 and Valley View Place. Road 76 will become a collector arterial street that will connect south of the irrigation canal to Argent Road. As such the developer will be responsible for developing a portion of the canal crossing for Road 76. LOT LAYOUT: The proposed plat contains 109 residential lots. The lots vary in size from 7,306 to 25,977 square feet. The average lot size is 9,810 square feet. The proposal is consistent with the density requirements of the R-1 zoning on the site and the R -S-1 zoning to the south. The minimum lot size for the R-1 zone is 7,200 square feet. RIGHTS-OF-WAY: All lots have frontage on streets, which will be dedicated. The east half of Road 76 will be finished with this subdivision to match the z improvements in the future Riverhawk Pointe II subdivision. The developers of Riverhawk Pointe II will build the west side of the street. Improvements with this plat could also include the easterly extension of Chapel Hill Boulevard from Road 68. With Road 76 extending south to Argent Road the developer will need to participate in the construction of the canal crossing. UTILITIES: Municipal water service will need to be extended to the site from Road 84, Road 68, future Chapel Hill Boulevard, and/or future Chiawana Heights. All utility lines will be extended through the plat and must be guided by the Comprehensive Water, Sewer and Irrigation Plans. A sewer trunk line is located along the south portion of the site about 150 feet north of the FCID canal. 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 requested easements; therefore the front yard easements will not diminish the buildable area of the lots. The City Engineer 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 less than 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 proposed street names will be approved by Staff and added prior to final plat approval. IRRIGATION: The municipal code requires the installation of irrigation lines as 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(B) 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. 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-1 zone are designed to address overcrowding concerns. The Comprehensive Plan suggests the property in question be developed with 2 to 5 dwelling units per acre. The proposed Plat 3 has a density of approximately 2.9 units per acre. No more than 40 percent of each lot is permitted to be covered with structures per the R-1 standards. Parks Opens Space/Schools: There are no City parks in the immediate vicinity, however; the School District has express a desire to work with the City on the development of a park on the school site west of Road 80. City parks have been co -located with McGee, Franklin, McClintock, Maya Angelo and Whitter schools. A park impact fee will be assessed at the time permits are issued for each house in the subdivision to help cover the cost of the future park. 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 $4,700 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 single- family development as identified in the Comprehensive Plan. The maximum density permitted under the Comprehensive Plan is 5 dwelling units per acre. The developer is proposing a density of approximately 2.9 units per acre. The proposed development will include improvements to both Road 76 and Chapel Hill Boulevard. 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 and the sidewalks along Chapel Hill Boulevard and Road 76 will be installed with the infrastructure 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 109 residential building lots, providing an opportunity for the construction of 109 new dwelling units in Pasco. Adequate Air and Light: The maximum lot coverage limitations, building height restrictions 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 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 Road 76, Chapel Hill Boulevard, and Massey Drive. The Preliminary Plat was submitted to the 4 Transit Authority for review (The discussion under "Safe Travel' above applies to this section also). At this time there is no guarantee that Chapel Hill will connect to Roads 68 or 84, thus limiting access to the Plat. Development of Chapel Hill Boulevard all the way through from Road 68 to Road 84 via the LID process between all property owners along said route should be a condition of Plat approval. The LID has been formed by city Council action; however there is a 30 -day protest period which expires on September 19, 2018. Valley View Place is currently a dead-end road located in a Franklin County island off of Road 68 and was aligned with the future extension of Massey Drive. During most hours of the day and particularly at rush hour it is very difficult to make left turns in or out of the street, and doing so can be dangerous. As well, the Valley View Place intersection is located close to two signaled intersections on Road 68, namely Chapel Hill Boulevard and Argent Road. Adding more ingress/egress traffic at this location would likely snarl traffic at that location, necessitating installation of a traffic signal. Adding another signaled intersection this close to the two existing signals may also compound traffic issues along Road 68. Applicant has adjusted their plat as per Staff recommendation so that Massey Drive has been re-routed north to connect to future Chapel Hill Boulevard to avoid a direct connection to Valley View Place. A traffic analysis is needed to address the above issues, specifically how and where plat access should occur, and what improvements should be required at Argent Road, Chapel Hill Boulevard, Roads 68 and 84, at the very least. Comprehensive Plan Policies & Maps: The Comprehensive Plan designates the Plat site for low-density residential development. Policies of the Comprehensive Plan encourage 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 is relatively flat with undulations and slopes toward the south. • The site is currently vacant. • The site is not considered a critical area, a mineral resource area or a wetland. • The Comprehensive Plan identifies the site for low-density residential development. • Low-density residential development is described in the Comprehensive Plan as two to five dwelling units per acre. 5 • The site is zoned R-1 (Low Density Residential). • The developer is proposing approximately 2.9 dwelling units per acre. • The Housing Element of the Comprehensive Plan encourages the advancement of programs that promote home ownership and 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. • Per the ITE Trip Generation Manual 8th Addition the proposed subdivision, when fully developed, will generate approximately 995 vehicle trips per day. • The current traffic impact fee is $709 per dwelling unit. The impact fees are collected at the time permits are issued and said fees are used to make traffic improvements and add traffic signals in the I-182 Corridor when warranted. • The current park impact fee is $1,420 per dwelling unit. The fee can be reduced by 58 percent if a developer dedicates a five acre park site to the City. The dedication of a fully constructed park reduces the fee by 93 percent. • 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. • 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. • Water lines and fire hydrants are required to be looped. • Per PMC 12.36.050 the developer must extend all utilities to and through the subject parcel. 0 • 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. • Storm water runoff and infiltration calculations must comply with the Storm Water Management Manual for Easter Washington, they must be provided for review and approval. Storm water calculations must be prepared, stamped, signed and dated by a currently licensed Professional Engineer registered in the State of Washington. • The assignment of water rights is a requirement for subdivision approval per Pasco Municipal Code Section 26.04.115(B) and Section 3.07.160. • The developer is responsible for all costs associated with construction, inspection, and plan review service expenses incurred by the City Engineering Office. • The developer is responsible for installing irrigation lines, which shall be installed per City of Pasco Standard Detail 3-1. Irrigation mains shall be required along Chapel Hill Boulevard, Road 76, and all internal streets. • 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 final plat will contain 10 -foot utility easements parallel to all streets. Additional easement will be provided as needed by utility providers. • Road 76 will become a collector arterial street connecting Chapel Hill Boulevard with Argent Road. This connection will require a crossing over the FCID canal. The developer will be responsible for a portion (one quarter) of the canal crossing costs and dedication of appropriate right- of-way. 7 • The Comprehensive Water Plan calls for a 12 inch line running north and south in Road 76 with a 12 inch connection west to Road 84. • The Irrigation Master Plan calls for a 12 inch line running north and south in Road 80. • To properly serve the proposed subdivision one or more pressure reducing valves may be needed. The design and installation of which is typically the responsibility of the developer. 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, 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 PUD, the Pasco School District, Cascade Gas, Charter Cable, franklin County Irrigation District and Ben -Franklin Transit Authority for review and comment. The proposed plat has the potential to be partially or wholly "landlocked" if adequate provision for connections to Argent Road, Roads 68 and 84 and future Chapel Hill Boulevard. The approval conditions need to provide for a solution to this potential. 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. City parks are located in the subdivisions to the west and southwest of the site. All new developments participate in establishing parks through the payment of park fees at the time of permitting. (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. The proposed subdivision will provide arterial street K improvements along Chapel Hill Boulevard and connect to Argent Road via Road 76. (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 low-density residential development. Low-density residential development is described as 2 to 5 dwelling units per acre in 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 Transportation Element of the Plan suggests major streets should be beautified with trees and landscaping. 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; 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 ensure 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 ensure 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). W 3. The developer shall install common "Estate" type fence/wall six -feet in height along Chapel Hill Boulevard and Road 76 as a part of the infrastructure improvements associated with the plat. The fence/wall must be constructed of masonry block. A fencing detail must be included on the subdivision construction drawings. An approved vision triangle at the intersection of streets will be required. Following construction of the masonry fence/wall the City may make repairs or replace the fencing as needed. Property owners adjoining said fence shall be responsible for payment of all costs associated with maintenance and upkeep of the fence/wall. These fencing requirements shall be noted clearly on the face of the final plat(s). A concrete mow strip shall be installed under any common fence as directed by the City Parks Division and shall be approved by the Parks Department prior to installation. Alternative designs may be considered and accepted by the Director of Community & Economic Development. 4. Excess right-of-way along Road 76 and Chapel Hill Boulevard must be landscaped. Said landscaping shall include irrigation, turf, and trees. Trees shall be planted at 50 foot intervals. The species of the trees will be determined by the Parks Department. All landscaping and irrigation plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Parks Department prior to installation. Water usage for City right-of-way landscaping shall come from a source approved by the City of Pasco with the connection and meter fees paid for by the developer. S. The sidewalks on Road 76 and Chapel Hill Boulevard shall be offset to accommodate the planting strip required in Number 4 above. 6. The developer/builder shall pay the City a "common area maintenance fee" of $475 per lot upon issuance of building permits for homes. These funds shall be placed in a fund and used to finance the maintenance of arterial boulevard strips. The City shall not accept maintenance responsibility for the landscaping abutting said streets until such time as all fees are collected for each phase that abut said streets. 7. Lots abutting Road 76 and Chapel Hill Boulevard shall not have direct access to said streets. Access shall be prohibited by means of deed restrictions and/or statements on the face of the final plat(s). 8. The final plat(s) shall contain a 10 -foot utility easement parallel to all streets unless otherwise required by the Franklin County PUD. 9. The owner/developer is responsible for one quarter of the cost of installing the Road 76 canal crossing, but based upon the need to connect to Argent Road, may be required to build the crossing at the time of the development with the expectation of reimbursement through a future latecomer's agreement. This contribution shall be in the form a cash deposit to the City in an amount determined by the City Engineer to ensure the completion of the canal crossing. Said deposit must be 10 accompanied by a signed development agreement ensuring the developer's full proportionate share of the crossing is covered in the event the initial deposit falls short of the final construction costs. The owner/ developer must sign a non -protest agreement to the formation of an LID to cover the cost of the share of the canal crossing. Said non -protest agreement may also include the development's share of the required Road 76 improvements. The non -protest agreement shall be recorded, run with the property and be binding upon successors in the property ownership and must be executed within 10 days of Preliminary Plat approval by City Council. The formation and approval of an LID for these improvements shall be deemed sufficient for the fulfilment of this condition. 10. The owner/developer must sign a non -protest agreement to the formation of an LID for the construction of Chapel Hill Boulevard and/or Road 76. The non -protest agreement shall be recorded, run with the property and be binding upon successors in the property ownership and must be executed within 10 days of Preliminary Plat approval by City Council. The formation, approval of and participation in an LID for these improvements shall be deemed sufficient for the fulfilment of the Chapel Hill Boulevard portion of this condition 11. The developer shall prepare a traffic study in accordance with standard practices—the scope and results of which must be approved by the City. The study must consider impacts both with and without a Chapel Hill Boulevard connection to Road 68, and with and without a Valley view connection to Road 68. The cumulative impacts of the proposed subdivision must be considered on the capacity of the intersections of Road 76 and Argent Road, Massey Drive and Road 68, Chapel Hill Boulevard and Road 68, and Road 68 and Argent at minimum. The Traffic study must recommend necessary improvements to address capacity issues and the efficient diffusion of traffic through the neighborhood. These recommendations may include participation in the installation of a traffic signal at Argent/Road 76; construction of a roundabout at Road 76 and Chapel Hill, construction of a canal crossing as identified in condition #9 above, and any other mitigation efforts outlined by the results of said traffic study. The results and recommendations of the traffic study—once approved by the City—shall become conditions upon the preliminary plat and must be implemented prior to final plat approval. The formation, approval of and participation in an LID for Chapel Hill Boulevard shall be deemed sufficient for the fulfilment of this condition. 12. The developer shall provide the necessary right-of-way at the southeast corner of Road 76 and Chapel Hill Boulevard for a roundabout at said intersection. 11 13. 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." MOTION: I move to close the hearing on the proposed preliminary plat and to adopt Findings of Fact and Conclusions therefrom as contained in the September 20, 2018 staff report. MOTION: I move based on the Findings of Fact and Conclusions, as adopted, the Planning Commission recommend the City Council approve the Preliminary Plat for Serrano Heights, with conditions as listed in the September 20, 2018 staff report. 12 W Z N 3 IX )1 I liiyyt lJ d „ F I !I ul < o M ♦YYY ,r { a, r_ -no 1 UL r' I d LLL 1� C� 4J Q -I � w � � � O N a � U IX )1 I liiyyt lJ d „ F I !I ul < o M ♦YYY ,r { a, r_ -no 1 UL r' I d LLL O � z V1O w i LU $O < 8;9a o o nk S U`�€ z� $ 3y �Ea ,. R'..,. oil,gig. P% 85 8g € age =a 9s PH $�LL�z P�� a �j�� .M S �= asy£=ee"9s gr a s baa ais ,ya �gw �2a?.:$t Ye �a a@ .ate 6�s=osoa _ � a Q w 3.£ W We � �/..�.....1�.1.......... LU - 3 L m R 2 c O 0 N 1 .,,, .■ , s ■ co 0 o-ZN U = N _ a" r` a^ 0z3 o°w■ s_, @� - ■ 0 co m CD O o> m U 0 � O <0 s' '�a`f �a �■ '��� � ; LLI Lu LL � � h �� Ji Ye 5 LLm_ 4 Y ■ Ow &� -8� eu�.. a' F a� 0p a ■ N Z as a«:.. ■.: 'kl • • '�V ■ .. . ui 11 W �, f �`yYg a �./ � ®•" � @ sg,� as ase s� se am 8 ass ss a wg 3 i ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- g K OYOY r r r � 8 1 -7,w,..�.. vMrery 'JTd "JNItl33Nl`JN3 ©�0 VM'mPoP�JI•J eV1uIVMwtlV s}y6iaH ou�aaas '.yleltl Aalunley yy. £11 F Gg I a a 8 O � z V1O w i LU $O < 8;9a o o nk S U`�€ z� $ 3y �Ea ,. R'..,. oil,gig. P% 85 8g € age =a 9s PH $�LL�z P�� a �j�� .M S �= asy£=ee"9s gr a s baa ais ,ya �gw �2a?.:$t Ye �a a@ .ate 6�s=osoa _ � a Q w 3.£ W We � �/..�.....1�.1.......... LU - 3 L m R 2 c O 0 N 1 .,,, .■ , s ■ co 0 o-ZN U = N _ a" r` a^ 0z3 o°w■ s_, @� - ■ 0 co m CD O o> m U 0 � O <0 s' '�a`f �a �■ '��� � ; LLI Lu LL � � h �� Ji Ye 5 LLm_ 4 Y ■ Ow &� -8� eu�.. a' F a� 0p a ■ N Z as a«:.. ■.: 'kl • • '�V ■ .. . ui 11 W �, f �`yYg a �./ � ®•" � @ sg,� as ase s� se am 8 ass ss a wg 3 i ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- g K OYOY r r r � 8 Z OZ Ha O LU i g J W x r LL O W N z z x rn F z — U WW N LL O a O w W_ r z D W Q U cc o $b a2�a t6 z z "3g E '1whalx a: Y+5u o'wC° i `��� eg. go W8k b y' s c w � � a erne -q ■ � �p q�. g eco sad s €' as o� q � egz �x�z Up h MH • ._ P - 23 a �e3 aka a a ry a6n�ew6�rux wu.[�a�tt� v.. ..� W tlM'��dp N✓J Wlui�aGotly Sl46iaH oueaaaS wi $§ .a. �x 38H - ©�0 eg„ "d DNwMINi,Da3 �� $ $� a :.CY A� $ 8� 8 Z OZ Ha O LU i g J W x r LL O W N z z x rn F z — U WW N LL O a O w W_ r z D W Q U cc o $b a2�a t6 z z "3g E '1whalx a: Y+5u o'wC° i `��� eg. go W8k b y' s c w � � a erne -q ■ � �p q�. g eco sad s €' as o� q � egz �x�z Up h MH • ._ P - 23 a �e3 aka a a ` „m ,A$' s� a Y� - c6 ei•p� a a� a[Pa, a a rj ----gin.. •.a /d'a� xq im ry riLL .LL R A� iiu .a. �x 38H - - w �� $ $� a :.CY A� $ 8� 8 a� $ 8� 8 ag 9 Cp Ls. B• t o } t O m f6 .■ .d i ` ■ e 3 a o-Z� � 3�° � O « 3 m U N � s� ®� n ®o A& a a= LL _ F ■ m! 0°°� M CD °wu ryas a a w aP> a. '.�' p a■W CLL O f0 eLL Fd x� of a' aY ; a$ ,. �, ■ nuro. uria�a �W`• e�1<.■e. i�� - a.yg� � N � � � 8 .. ■ � � / _� a g$ 5+ ■$ e� - F� �� },` r • E'i • 1!�.... • i ` „m ,A$' s� a Y� - c6 ei•p� a a� a[Pa, a a rj ----gin.. •.a /d'a� xq im ry riLL .LL R A� iiu .a. �x ag - - w �� $ $� a :.CY A� $ 8� 8 a� $ 8� 8 ag 9 Cp Ls. B• t o } ------------------------------------ pa� 6 fi� R A� �x ag 0°°� °wu w aP> a. p a■W \ nuro. uria�a pa� 6 fi� R A� �x ag <I' ^ A �1 V1ct O O O O � U O �1 MEMORANDUM DATE: September 20, 2018 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Darcy Bourcier, Planner I SUBJECT: Black Belle Estates Preliminary Plat (PP2018-008) During the previous Planning Commission meeting held on August 16, 2018, the Planning Commission recommended this item be continued to the September 20, 2018 meeting in order to give the applicant and Public Works the opportunity to hash out a cost-sharing agreement for the northward extension of the sewer from W Sylvester Street. Staff has been informed that the applicant and his engineer have put together a rough cost estimate and will be meeting with the Public Works Director in the days before the September 20, 2018 Planning Commission meeting to formulate an agreement. Staff will most likely provide the Commissioners with an update regarding the status of that agreement the night of the meeting. As a reminder, the proposed subdivision is located between Road 52 and Road 54 south of Court Street and north of W Sylvester Street. The area is zoned RS -20 (Suburban) which permits a minimum of 20,000 square foot lots; however, as the closest sewer line is over 600 feet away in W Sylvester Street, each lot would need to be sized at over 22,000 square feet to accommodate septic systems. A rezone of the plat area will eventually be necessary to change the zoning from RS -20 to either RS -12 or RS -1; however, the proposal timeline is uncertain at this point. In the meantime, Staff recommends the Planning Commission continue the public hearing on this item to the October 18, 2018 meeting at which time the cost-sharing agreement will be more defined. MOTION: I move to continue the hearing on the proposed Preliminary Plat to the October 18, 2018 Planning Commission meeting. I MEMORANDUM DATE: September 20, 2018 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Darcy Bourcier, Planner I SUBJECT: Single Room Occupancy in Residential and Commercial Zoning Districts (CA2018-004) Interest has been expressed to introduce single room occupancy (SRO) housing to Pasco—a form of affordable housing that the City does not currently practice or permit. SROs consist of multiple single room dwelling units with kitchens, bathrooms, and laundry facilities provided either within each unit or in a common area. Typically, this form of housing is rent only and directed at low- income residents, students, single tenants, or seasonal/ traveling workers due to their smaller size and limited amenities. SROs are more common in larger cities near central business districts and are often converted from hotels/motels. Municipalities may determine the allowable minimum and maximum square footage for SRO units, but typically they range in size from 150 to 500 square feet based upon the amenities provided in each unit. Like hotels and apartments, SRO facilities have either an on-site manager or a management office. The City of Pasco has no provision in the Zoning Code to allow for this form of housing. In other cities, SRO housing is often more dense than what is typically permitted in even high-density residential districts and is also often permitted in commercial zones. In comparison, the most dense residential development the PMC permits is in the R-4 (High Density Residential) zoning district, which requires 1,500 square feet per dwelling unit. Furthermore, residential units are not permitted in commercial zones unless the units are above the ground floor of a commercial building and the residential use has been approved through the Special Permit process. SROs can benefit a city in various ways. These smaller, more affordable units can be one solution to a city's homelessness issues, as they are a suitable option for physically and mentally disabled residents or for those on fixed incomes. Additionally, since SROs commonly originate from existing hotels, developers have the opportunity to purchase and convert these hotels into SROs, therefore helping to bring nuisance properties up to city code. Conversely, SROs can concentrate lower income households in one area or facility, which can cause adverse impacts to overall neighborhood welfare. I Staff is seeking direction as to whether SRO housing in residential and commercial zoning districts should be further explored and included in the Pasco Zoning Code by way of a text amendment. A proposed text amendment has been included for review and discussion—various components of the amendment have yet to be defined and there are several questions Staff would like the Commission to consider: 1. In which zoning districts should SRO housing be permitted via Special Permit? 2. What should be the maximum density standards for SRO housing in each zoning district in which SRO housing is permitted? Should SRO housing comply with density standards? 3. Should an SRO facility be restricted to a minimum and maximum number of units? With the Commission's input, Staff can revise the proposed amendment accordingly and present it again at the next Planning Commission meeting on October 18, 2018, at which the item may be advertised as a hearing if the Commission thinks it appropriate. z CHAPTER 25.XX SINGLE ROOM OCCUPANCY Sections: 25.XX.XXX PURPOSE 25.XX.XXX DEFINITION 25.XX.XXX PERMITTED ZONES 25.XX.XXX DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS 25.XX.XXX PURPOSE. The purpose of these regulations is to allow single room occupancy (SRO) dwelling units within the City limits which provide high-density housing typically consisting of no more than two rooms per dwelling unit. 25.XX.XXX DEFINITION. "Single room occupancy" shall be defined as a facility providing downsized dwelling units consisting of one to two rooms with restricted occupancy of no more than two individuals per dwelling unit. Kitchens and/or bathrooms may be located in the units or be located centrally for communal use. In zoning districts which allow SRO housing via Conditional Use Permit, the regulations contained herein shall be considered additional to those of the underlying zoning district. The provisions of this Chapter shall prevail in the event of conflicting standards presented in the underlying zoning district regulations. SRO housing must meet all building and zoning standards as dictated by the PMC. 25.XX.XXX PERMITTED ZONES. An SRO housing facility may be approved via Conditional Use Permit in the following zones at the given densities: R-4 (High Density Residential): [Min and max number of units?] C-1 (Retail Business): [Min and max number of units?] C-2 (Central Business District): [Min and max number of units?] (Permitted in Downtown Core only) C-3 (General Business District): [Min and max number of units?] 25.XX.XXX DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS. Each SRO facility shall comply with all development standards for the applicable zoning district and the standards contained below. (1) For single -occupancy units, the minimum unit size is 150 square feet; (2) For double -occupancy units, the minimum unit size is 300 square feet; (3) Each unit shall have a maximum of two tenants; (4) Occupancy shall be offered on a monthly basis or longer; (5) Each unit must have at least one (1) off-street parking space; (6) SRO facilities with [X or more units] shall include 24-hour on-site management. A dwelling unit shall be designated for the manager; (7) Bathroom and kitchen facilities must be provided either within each dwelling unit or in a central location for common use with one full bathroom per every three units on a floor and one full kitchen per floor; (8) At least one handicapped accessible unit shall be required for every twenty (20) units; (9) One washer and dryer must be provided for every [X units]; (10) Each SRO unit shall have a closet/storage space; (11) Mailboxes shall be provided for each unit; (12) Each SRO facility with [X units] or more shall have a minimum of 400 square feet of common indoor and/or outdoor recreational space; a. For SRO facilities exceeding 30 units, an additional 10 square feet of recreational space per unit is required; b. Landscaped areas less than eight (8) feet in width shall not be considered recreational space; C. All common areas shall comply with all applicable ADA accessibility and adaptability requirements. MEMORANDUM DATE: September 20, 2018 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Darcy Bourcier, Planner I Community & Economic Development SUBJECT: Elementary School #17 and Middle School #4 Revised Site Plans (MF# SP2017-014 and SP2017-015) The Pasco School District has provided C&ED Staff with revised site plans for both Elementary School #17 and Middle School #4, which were approved through the Special Permit process in December of 2017. According to the resolutions for both schools, the schools "[... ] shall be developed in substantial conformity with the site plan[s] and building elevations submitted with the Special Permit application[s]." However, the revised site plans are significantly different from the site plans that were approved by the Planning Commission and Council last year, as the PSD had hired a design team to rework the site plans to optimize the use of the area. Such changes may or may not warrant the projects to return to the Planning Commission as hearings. Staff has put together a list of the major changes between the old site plans and new: 1. The northeast portion of the overall site is now vacant in the new plan; 2. The middle school's (left parcel) layout has changed considerably; 3. Two separate bus lanes have become one bus lane which connects the schools; 4. The playing fields are all located at the northwest portion of the overall site; 5. The track is now located adjacent Burns Road between the two schools; 6. Two soccer fields have been removed and four tennis courts have been added; 7. An access road has been added to connect the four baseball diamonds to the westernmost driveway on Burns; 8. Visitor and employee parking lots have generally changed shape and size and have shifted. All access points onto the properties have remained relatively unchanged. The PSD has also expressed interest in performing a short plat to section off the vacant northeast portion of the site in order to either sell that portion or install a City park. Staff is seeking the Planning Commission's direction as to whether or not the applications should return as public hearings to consider the new site plans. �5 L i 'JWNtltl1 3JVIS U I U u 1 L r Ln w v L U E Q O t.0 V) _ W W r ! C ^ (w ® cu �5 L i 'JWNtltl1 3JVIS U I U u 1 as avoa — - - - - lsi�-- -'_ -iii 1- - -�►� i i -\ _ _ , tY P ya L �t i Ll - J Cl v n lV T NW 0 n ecu re I r^ ��• I. I Nr{MOLOFIXr,IY O%51� b 1p II`i 10Itl1SIO 100N0S 00"d p• 9R A-AR—Ah=A.I At \ T I i Q IL# AHVINBW2I3 PR3N $ 3 O l JI 1 + i J I; % *aa I *Mb! 'rj * 1 i d7 t:Y'on e4'o:\o. F I ypt f � EE4 i3 jyyjjyyy }j 5 � � § � 113 E p y 1 � iEa'j _ _ i .b M[I M�°C.p 105 _ -. • �� p .......... I ± ; 1 ° a ° I 1 a pbQ ED E � � `� �•4 � � I � i o i �f.; a `'C' J 1 i; o1 I. 1 fit° { 1 ° � �• p• 9R A-AR—Ah=A.I At \ T I i Q , p ill O l JI 1 + i J I; I J •� 1 i d7 t:Y'on e4'o:\o. F I C f � 1 � iEa'j E � � `� �•4 � � I � i o i �f.; a `'C' J 1 i; o1 W �4—j V / O W .(A IWO id tli3613$1�5:i gig 10f66'Wd 0vad stone we N IOOH39 alaa119 OOSVd NVId 311S 1Wd3A0 M, '¢¢j�((/r00'..a.,o f.>--yvrilfltMln.ev,S srns e, /.� i l l l 14111111111111111 I f � Y ✓ Y I i� SNOWUNI Y m1331114:) a�pf E O D3WW:®, . . < $ II €`1 1I 1{I pq. 6 Qa■M t 1 r '¢¢j�((/r00'..a.,o f.>--yvrilfltMln.ev,S srns e, /.� i l l l 14111111111111111 I f � Y ✓ Y I i� < $ II I1 11 1I 1{I pq. 1 r ='r 11` � _11�11c a � j - - •wv" 11 11 - ,\ OVOa ss300v :}"�--- ---------- - L