Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-15-2018 Planning Commission Meeting PacketPLANNING REGULAR MEETING I. CALL TO ORDER: H. ROLL CALL: EL PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE HV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: V. OLD BUSINESS: -AGENDA 7:00 P.M. November 15, 2018 Declaration of Quorum October 18, 2018 VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS: A. Preliminary Plat Black Belle Estates, 22 lots (J&J Kelly Construction) (MF# PP 2018-008) - Continued from October 18, 2018 Meeting B. Special Permit Location of Community Service Facility, Level 2 in a CR (Regional Commercial) Zone (First Step Community Counseling Services LLC) (MF# SP 2018-010) C. Special Permit Location of an Annex Building for the Franklin County Museum in an R-3 (Medium Density Residential) Zone (Franklin County Historical Society) (MF# SP 2018-011) VII. WORKSHOP: A. Code Amendment Right of Way Dedications and Improvements (MF# CA 2018-005) B. Code Amendment Expansion of Nonconforming Use (MF# CA 2018- 006) Vl[H. OTHER BUSINESS: IX. ADJOURNMENT: This meeting is broadcast live on PSC -TV Channel 191 on Charter Cable and streamed at www.pasco-wa.com/psctvlive. Audio equipment available for the hearing impaired; contact staff for assistance. REGULAR MEETING CITY OF PASCO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at 7:OOpm by Chairperson Roach. POSITION MEMBERS PRESENT No. 1 No. 2 Joseph Campos No. 3 Paul Mendez No. 4 Alecia Greenaway No. 5 No. 6 Isaac Myhrum No. 7 Zahra Roach No. 8 Pam Bykonen No. 9 STAFF PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT Tanya Bowers Abel Campos VACANT Dave Zabell, City Manager Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director Jacob B. Gonzalez, Senior Planner Darcy Bourcier, Planner I Krystle Shanks, Administrative Assistant II MEETING VIDEO ON DEMAND: October 18, 2018 This meeting in its entirety may be viewed on the City's webpage at https: / /psety.yiebit.COM. APPEARANCE OF FAIRNESS: Chairperson Roach read a statement about the appearance of fairness for hearings on land use matters. Commissioner Abel Campos declared that he worked for the Pasco School District which was related to Other Business (Site Plan Memo Regarding Chairperson Roach 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: Chairperson Roach explained that state law requires testimony in quasi-judicial hearings such as held by the Planning Commission be given under oath or affirmation. Chairperson Roach swore in all those desiring to speak. 1 APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Greenaway moved, seconded by Commissioner J. Campos that the minutes dated September 20, 2018 be approved. The motion passed unanimously. PUBLIC HEARINGS: A. Preliminary Plat Black Belle Estates. 22 lots (J&J Kelly Construction) IMF# PP 2018-008) - Continued from September 20, 2018 Meeting Chairperson Roach read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Darcy Bourcier, Planner I, discussed the status of the preliminary plat for Black Belle Estates. Staff recommended continuing the hearing once more to allow the applicant and staff more time to work out an agreement with sewer. Commissioner Myhrum moved, seconded by Commissioner Greenaway, to continue the hearing on the proposed preliminary plat to the November 15, 2018 Planning Commission Meeting. The motion passed unanimously. B. Special Permit Location of Elementary School #17 (Pasco School District) (MF# SP 2017-0141 Chairperson Roach read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Darcy Bourcier, Planner I, discussed the revised special permit application for the location of Elementary School 417. Changes to this special permit were outlined in the staff memorandum to the Planning Commission. Staff distributed an email from a citizen concerned with traffic and layout of the newly proposed design of the school to the Commissioners prior to the meeting for their review. There was discussion between the Commissioners regarding the revised entryway and a traffic study that would be required which could yet again alter the design/layout of the proposed school and scheduling between the elementary school and the middle school. Randy Nunamaker, 1215 W. Lewis Street, spoke on behalf of the Pasco School District and addressed Commissioner's concerns of the entryway, a traffic study and scheduling. Commissioner Myhrum moved, seconded by Commissioner Mendez, to close the public hearing and adopt findings of fact and conclusions therefrom as contained in the October 18, 2018 memorandum. The motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Myhrum moved, seconded by Commissioner Mendez, based on findings of fact and conclusions therefrom, the Planning Commission recommend the City Council approve the special permit for Elementary School # 17 at the 9100 block of Burns Road, as amended in the October 18, 2018 memorandum. The motion passed unanimously. C. Special Permit Location of Middle School #4 (Pasco School District) (MF# SP 2017-0151 Chairperson Roach read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Darcy Bourcier, Planner I, discussed the revised special permit application for the location of Middle School #4. Changes to this special permit were outlined in the staff memorandum to the Planning Commission. There was discussion by the Commissioners regarding the removal of soccer fields for the addition of tennis courts as well as plans for future portables. Randy Nunamaker, 1215 W. Lewis Street, spoke on behalf of the Pasco School District and addressed Commissioner's concerns regarding the sports field and how those decisions were made as well as plans for future portables. Bill Barlow, 1000 Columbia Park Trail, Richland, spoke on behalf of the Benton -Franklin Transit. He requested a pad space be made available for a future bus stop since many students actually ride their buses and they also wish to make West Pasco more accessible. Rick White, Community &. Economic Development Director, stated that Mr. Barlow's request is common and can be done administratively. Commissioner J. Campos moved, seconded by Commissioner Greenaway, to close the public hearing and adopt findings of fact and conclusions therefrom, as contained in the October 18, 2018 memorandum. The motion passed unanimously. Commissioner J. Campos moved, seconded by Commissioner Greenaway, based on the findings of fact and conclusions therefrom, the Planning Commission recommend the City Council approve the special permit for Middle School #4 at the 9300 block of Burns Road, as amended in the October 18, 2018 memorandum. The motion passed unanimously. WORKSHOP: A. Code Amendment Single Room Occupancy Housing IMF# CA 2018- 004) Chairperson Roach read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Darcy Bourcier, Planner I, discussed the proposed code amendment for single room occupancy housing (SRO's). The Planning Commission discussed this item at a previous workshop meeting and staff provided information requested by the Commissioners regarding other examples of municipalities which allow single occupancy housing and the factors or conditions they use. 3 There was dialogue between the Commissioners and staff as to conditions and zoning they would like to see included in relation to SRO housing for when this item is brought back to the Planning Commission as a public hearing. No further action or motion was required at this time. OTHER BUSINESS: A. Other Hearing Examiner Report to City Council Chairperson Roach read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director, briefly discussed the hearing examiner system and how the City could perhaps benefit from such process. There was conversation between Commissioners and Staff regarding the hearing examiner system, how it is currently used, how it could be used and the pros/cons. No further action or motion was required at this time. ADJOURNMENT: With no further discussion or business, the Planning Commission was adjourned at 8:23 PM. Respectfully submitted, Krystle Shanks, Administrative Assistant II Community & Economic Development Department E MEMORANDUM DATE: November 15, 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 October 18, 2018, the Planning Commission recommended this item be continued to the November 15, 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 Public Works Director is currently determining a means of reimbursement after the applicant extends a sewer line to the development area. After signing a written agreement, the applicant will apply to rezone the property to either RS -12 or RS -1 and submit a revised preliminary plat showing a denser lot layout. 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. It is proper to continue items on the agenda provided the applicant is in approval of the action. Thus, Staff recommends the Planning Commission continue the public hearing on this item to the December 20, 2018 meeting. MOTION: I move to continue the hearing on the proposed Preliminary Plat to the December 20, 2018 Planning Commission meeting. REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION MASTER FILE NO: SP 2018-010 APPLICANT: First Step Community HEARING DATE: 11 / 15/18 Counseling Services LLC ACTION DATE: 12/20/18 415 N. Moraine St Kennewick WA 99336 BACKGROUND REQUEST FOR SPECIAL PERMIT: Community Service Facility Level Two in a CR (Regional Commercial) Zoning District 1. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: Legal: PTN SESWSW 24-9-29 DAF: COMM AT PT ON S LN SD SW4; TH NO1D05'W, 40' TO NLY R/W LN OF COURT ST & TPOB; TH NOOD53'E, 133.99' TO PT ON S LN LOT 2 EDGAR'S SUBD; TH N88D54'E ALG SD LOT 2 LN, 157.97' TO NW COR LOT 1 SD SUBD; TH NOOD53'W ALG WLY LN SD LOT 1, 133.99' TO SD NLY R/W LN COURT ST; TH S88D54'W ALG SD R/W LN, 157.97' TO SD POB. General Location: 3221 W. Court Street (Parcel # 119 271 182) Property Size: Approximately .49 acre 2. ACCESS: The site has access from West Court Street 3. UTILITIES: The site is served by municipal water and sewer. 4. LAND USE AND ZONING: The property is currently zoned CR (Regional Commercial) and is developed with a structure previously used as a bank. Surrounding properties are zoned and developed as follows: North: CR/C-1 Retail Building/Pizza Restaurant East: C-1 Pizza Restaurant South: C-3 Moving Supply Rental West: CR Retail/ Restaurant uses 5. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The Comprehensive Plan designates the property for commercial uses. 6. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The City of Pasco is the lead agency for this project. An environmental determination will be made after the public hearing for this project. A Determination of Non - Significance or Mitigated Determination of Non -Significance is likely for this application (WAC 197-11-355). ANALYSIS First Step Community Counseling Services is requesting approval to locate a chemical dependency assessment, counseling, and treatment center in an existing 3,080 square -foot building at 3221 W Court St. Applicant intends to provide extensive community and educational resources to youth and adults who suffer from addiction. They describe their proposed use as "an educational based facility [providing] the tools to help the community be healthy and achieve sobriety." Applicant proposes to provide group counseling not to exceed 16 persons per group at a time. According to Pasco Municipal Code (PMC) 25.12.151 and 25.12.156 the proposed use falls under the definition of a Community Service Facility Level II, and as per PMC 25.86.020 requires approval via the Special Permit process. The proposed location was once the site of a church, which was demolished in 2002 and replaced with a bank building in 2005. The banking use ceased in 2016 and the building has been vacant since. The building is located on a principal arterial street with easy access to public transit. According to the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Manual the proposed use would generate an estimated 33 vehicle trips per day. The property was rezoned in 2003 from C-1 to CR, with the following conditions: 1. The following uses shall be prohibited: a. Amusement game centers, recreation centers or similar uses; b. The use of outdoor speakers and public announcement systems of any kind; 2. The following design controls shall apply to these properties: a. All outdoor lighting must be strictly shielded to prevent lighting from encroaching on adjoining residential property; b. All new development and site improvements shall comply with the 1-182 Corridor Design Standards as identified in P.M.C. 25.58 as existing and hereafter amended; Applicant has also provided the following list of activities that would occur onsite: • Extensive Community & Educational Resources • Youth, Adult and DUI assessments • Deferred Prosecution Program • State Licensed/ Court Approved Intensive Outpatient Groups • Outpatient Groups 2 • Gender Specific Groups • Relapse Prevention Program • Individual Counseling • Family Counseling • Family Educational Program • On Site Drug Screening • Alcohol & Other Drug Information School (ADIS) • DUI Victims Panel • Parenting Seminar They have added the following narrative: "We are an educational based facility. We provide education to the community and their family members on how to be healthy, achieve and sustain sobriety. We do not provide medical advice, medication, or legal advice. We do provide individual and group counseling not to exceed 16 persons in one group at a time. In addition to our client focus, we provide the tools necessary to achieve compliance with county, state, federal courts and probation." The chemical dependency assessment, counseling, and treatment center proposes to work with individuals with criminal convictions as part of their stated list of activities (e.g., Youth, Adult and DUI assessments, Deferred Prosecution Program, and State Licensed/Court Approved Intensive Outpatient Groups). As such, there is a potential for increased nuisance or other adverse conditions when a population with a history of purchasing, using and/or distributing illegal substances is concentrated (up to 16 individuals at a time) in one area. PRELIMINARY FINDINGS OF FACT Findings of fact must be entered from the record. The following are initial findings drawn from the background and analysis section of the staff report. The Planning Commission may add additional findings to this listing as the result of factual testimony and evidence submitted during the open record hearing. 1. FSCCS wishes to locate the chemical dependency assessment, counseling, and treatment center in an existing 3,080 square -foot building at 3221 W Court St. 2. Applicant intends to provide extensive community and educational resources to youth and adults who suffer from addiction. 3 3. Applicant proposes to provide group counseling not to exceed 16 persons per group at a time. 4. According to Pasco Municipal Code (PMC) 25.12.151 and 25.12.156 the proposed use falls under the definition of a Community Service Facility Level II, and as per PMC 25.86.020 requires approval via the Special Permit process. 5. The proposed location was once the site of a church; the church was demolished in 2002 and replaced with a bank building in 2005. 6. The banking use ceased in 2016 and the building has been vacant since. 7. The building is located on a principal arterial street with easy access to public transit. 8. According to the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Manual the proposed use would generate an estimated 33 vehicle trips per day. 9. The property was rezoned in 2003 from C-1 to CR, with the following conditions: a. The following uses shall be prohibited: i. Amusement game centers, recreation centers or similar uses; ii. The use of outdoor speakers and public announcement systems of any kind; b. The following design controls shall apply to these properties: i. All outdoor lighting must be strictly shielded to prevent lighting from encroaching on adjoining residential property; ii. All new development and site improvements shall comply with the 1-182 Corridor Design Standards as identified in P.M.C. 25.58 as existing and hereafter amended; 10. Applicant has also provided the following list of activities that would occur on-site: a. Extensive Community 8s Educational Resources b. Youth, Adult and DUI assessments c. Deferred Prosecution Program d. State Licensed/ Court Approved Intensive Outpatient Groups e. Outpatient Groups f. Gender Specific Groups g. Relapse Prevention Program h. Individual Counseling i. Family Counseling 11 j. Family Educational Program k. On Site Drug Screening 1. Alcohol 8v Other Drug Information School (ADIS) in. DUI Victims Panel n. Parenting Seminar 11. The chemical dependency assessment, counseling, and treatment center proposes to work with individuals with criminal convictions as part of their stated list of activities. PRELIMINARY CONCLUSIONS BASED ON THE FINDINGS OF FACT Before recommending approval or denial of a special permit the Planning Commission must develop findings of fact from which to draw its conclusion based upon the criteria listed in P.M.C. 25.86.060 and determine whether or not the proposal: 1. Will the proposed use be in accordance with the goals, policies, objectives and text of the Comprehensive Plan? The site is identified in the Comprehensive Plan for regional commercial uses. The Plan encourages the promotion of orderly development including the development of zoning standards for off-street parking and other development standards. The proposed use will not increase the intensity of use beyond Comprehensive Plan designations for the area. Applicant proposes to provide group counseling not to exceed 16 persons per group at a time, which is far less intense than other uses allowed in the CR zoning district. 2. Will the proposed use adversely affect public infrastructure? The site is served by all municipal utilities and the local street network. The proposed chemical dependency assessment, counseling, and treatment center will operate during normal business hours. The building was designed for commercial uses and the proposed use will likely not exceed the use beyond the building design. 3. Will the proposed use be constructed, maintained and operated to be in harmony with existing or intended character of the general vicinity? The intended character of the area is primarily regional commercial. The proposed use would operate as a chemical dependency assessment, counseling, and treatment center, likely not increasing the intensity of use as previous tenants. 5 4. Will the location and height of proposed structures and the site design discourage the development of permitted uses on property in the general vicinity or impair the value thereof? The proposed chemical dependency assessment, counseling, and treatment center would be located in an existing structure in a fully developed commercial center and run as a Community Service Facility Level II in a regional commercial zone. The use would be no more intensive than uses permitted in the CR zone or other previous uses. 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 chemical dependency assessment, counseling, and treatment center would likely generate no more noise, fumes vibrations, dust, traffic, or flashing lights than the operation of permitted uses within the CR zoning district. 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 chemical dependency assessment, counseling, and treatment center proposes to work with individuals with criminal convictions as part of their stated list of activities (e.g., Youth, Adult and DUI assessments, Deferred Prosecution Program, and State Licensed/Court Approved Intensive Outpatient Groups). Management by the provider will be necessary to address any instances of nuisance activities. PROPOSED APPROVAL CONDITIONS 1. The special permit shall apply to 3221 W Court St (Parcel # 119 271 182) 2. Number of persons in treatment shall not exceed 16 on-site at any given time. 3. The facility shall be closed between the hours of 10:00 pm and 6:00 am. No loitering by clients shall be allowed within these hours. 4. This Special Permit shall be good for one (1) year from the date of approval, subject to the standards found in PMC 9.63 Chronic Nuisances., and shall be reviewed for renewal on a yearly basis thereafter. 2 MOTION: I move to close the public hearing and adopt the Findings of Fact and Conclusions, therefrom, as contained in the November 15, 2018 staff report. MOTION: I move, based on the Findings of Fact and Conclusions therefrom, the Planning Commission recommend the City Council grant a special permit to First Step Community Counseling Services for the location of a Community Service Facility Level Two in a CR (Regional Commercial) Zoning District at 3221 W. Court Street with conditions as contained in the November 15, 2018 staff report. IL L V—iv IX AIr a 0 Mai MUNI, to Ufa 4A U !W—is rano— Rook „f p �p t� W Z n V3 m H u E E C u° U o a N .v zc avoa a�toQ��+ U � M c a� c N 0 0 _ U i- > LU V C La ~ O V V O i>U m Q- o CO m Uo m f0 ai 'E � COa E �I.LN C U E 4-; a O Uv��. 'v Q iL E o U C� W Z� N 3 N F' M (D Z£ OVOH AUTOQ�,� ro UU) co � _ a) 75c r , J O U W N � co ~ =O LL E V! U V O C) (D aD Q- o c� a) � o M Ir - L_ ESN O O a CO U cc .Q � E _ ' < U- V O N 0 :e ry i k t 't e 1. i r. 0 :e ry 1. 0 REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION MASTER FILE # SP 2018-011 HEARING DATE: 11 / 15/2018 ACTION DATE: 12/20/2018 BACKGROUND APPLICANT: Franklin County Historical Society 305 N 4th Ave Pasco, WA 99301 REQUEST: SPECIAL PERMIT: Location of an annex building for the Franklin County Museum in an R-3 (Medium Density Residential) Zoning District 1. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: Legal: Gerry's Addition East 17 feet of Lot 19 and all of Lots 20 through 24, Block 7 General Location: 419, 421, and 425 W Bonneville Street Propertv Size: 0.45 acres 2. ACCESS: The site is accessible from W Bonneville Street 3. UTILITIES: All municipal utilities currently serve the site. 4. LAND USE AND ZONING: The site is zoned R-3 (Medium Density Residential) and is vacant. The zoning and land use of the surrounding properties are as follows: NORTH: R-3 - SFDUs and Office SOUTH: C-1 - Drug Store EAST: R-3 - SFDUs WEST: R-3 - Museum 5. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The Comprehensive Plan designates this area for low density residential uses but Policy LU -2-13 encourages fostering of adequate provisions for educational and cultural facilities throughout the urban growth area. 6. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The City of Pasco is the lead agency for this project. An environmental determination will be made after the public hearing for this project. A Determination of Non -Significance or Mitigated Determination of Non -Significance is likely for this application (WAC 197-11-355). 1 ANALYSIS The Franklin County Historical Society proposes to construct a detached annex building that will be an extension of the existing Franklin County museum. Per the PMC, the use of a historic place may be requested via Special Permit for uses not otherwise permitted within the applicable district. The site is zoned R-3 (Medium Density Residential), as is much of the surrounding area. The annex building will be used for storage of the museum's material cultural collections— which are currently stored off-site—and general exhibition space, including a new Mid -Columbia Agriculture Hall of Fame display. The proposed building is a 3,500 square -foot pre-engineered steel structure that will be placed to the east of the existing museum on what is currently three separate parcels; however, the applicant has applied with the Franklin County Assessor's Office to combine the three into one parcel. Once the annex building is constructed, the Franklin County Historical Society has plans to partner with the local WSU Master Gardeners and Franklin County Conservation District Heritage Garden Program to create and maintain a series of raised beds for a demonstration heritage garden east of the proposed building. The applicant intends to complement the appearance of the existing museum with a stucco, metal, and glass exterior as illustrated in the attached figure. The museum is classified as a National Historic Site and was constructed as a Carnegie Library in 1911, though used as a museum since the 1980s. Dr. Richard Scheuerman, Director of the Franklin County Historical Society, affirms, "Members of the Fishook Jim Snake River -Palouse Indian band have been frequent guests in recent years at museum programs featuring Native American culture, and a new exhibit (installed October 2017) presents a range of tribal perspectives on area land use. Elders from the band (e.g., Carrie Jim Schuster) have been interviewed extensively and have given no indication of specific cultural use of the property." STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT Findings of Fact must be entered from the record. The following are initial findings drawn from the background and analysis section of the staff report. The Planning Commission may add additional findings to this listing as the result of factual testimony and evidence submitted during the open record hearing. 1. The site is located at on three parcels addressed 419, 421, and 425 W Bonneville Street. 2. The applicant has applied at the Franklin County Assessor's Office to combine the three parcels into one. 3. The site is zoned R-3 (Medium Density Residential). 4 4. The site is located immediately to the east of the Franklin County Museum. 5. The annex building will be an extension of the existing museum to be used for storage and exhibition space. 6. The annex building will be 3,500 square feet in size and constructed out of stucco, metal, and glass. 7. The museum is classified as a National Historic Site. 8. The use of a historic place may be requested via Special Permit for uses not otherwise permitted within the applicable district. 9. The museum was constructed as a Carnegie Library in 1911 and is classified as a national historic site but has been used as a museum since the 1980s. 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? Comprehensive Plan Policy LU -2-B encourages fostering of adequate provisions for educational and cultural facilities throughout the urban growth area, which includes informative exhibits. (2) Will the proposed use adversely affect public infrastructure? The proposal will generate little demand for public utilities such as water and sewer. Traffic generation of the proposal will be minimal and easily accommodated by the existing road system. (3) Will the proposed use be constructed, maintained and operated to be in harmony with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity? The applicant intends to closely match the appearance of the existing museum by constructing the annex building of stucco, glass, metal, and glass. Based on the submitted site plan and elevations, however, it appears the museum and annex building are markedly dissimilar in overall style. The museum's exterior is predominantly stucco while the annex building's exterior is predominantly metal. This inconsistency may result in the construction of a building that disrupts the general character of the neighborhood. 3 (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 maximum height of the proposed annex building is 22 feet. To compare, the maximum building height of structures in the R-3 zoning district is 35 feet, provided the rear setback is adequate. The height of the building will likely not result in any nuisance situations; however, the appearance of the building may. Though staff does not anticipate the proposed building discouraging further development in the area, its appearance may contrast appreciably with surrounding structures. (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 annex building can be considered an extension of the existing museum and will not create any nuisance conditions for surrounding properties. The R-3 zone permits multi -family residential uses with generally higher levels of adverse impacts than the proposed museum annex building and is not expected to create adverse impacts to other permitted uses. (6) Will the proposed use endanger the public health or safety if located and developed where proposed, or in any way will become a nuisance to uses permitted in the district? It is expected that the proposed annex building will not cause harm to public health and safety and that the associated activity will not become a nuisance to permitted uses in the vicinity. APPROVAL CONDITIONS 1. The Special Permit shall apply to tax parcel # 112052261, 112052252, 112052243, and any new parcel number created from the combination of these three parcels; 2. No outdoor storage of equipment, projects, or materials shall be allowed; 3. The applicant shall comply with all building code requirements for the occupancy class applicable to the use; 4. The applicant shall install a minimum 5 -foot wide landscaping strip consisting of 65% live vegetation along the frontage of W Bonneville Street; 5. The storage containers on parcel # 112052243 must be removed before the proposed building may be constructed; 6. The proposed building must be equipped with a fire sprinkler and fire alarm system. 0 7. A fire hydrant is required on the same side of the street within 400 feet of the furthest point of the proposed building. A second hydrant, also on the same side of the street, must be within 100 feet of the fire department connection. None of the required hydrants can be located on the west side of N 4+h Avenue. Additional hydrants must be installed to comply with the minimum Code requirements. 8. The Special Permit shall be null and void if all necessary building permits have not been obtained by December 31, 2020. RECOMMENDATION MOTION: I move to continue the public hearing on the proposed special permit for the location of an annex building for the Franklin County Museum in an R-3 (Medium Density Residential) Zoning District to the December 20, 2018 meeting. 5 4-J V) �5 4—J Ct 00 4—J C-4 z ct U E cW V.0 - To 4r\ � jp, 4 -'I V t 00 To- kiA. �e__ LO IT Z , m cz 00 O C. ct cn cn v c 4 � w "' .PEN t LO IT Z ca u E N cCO U N v U � O � � N3Cd Pie � w L E .4-J V N U o co x O a• 00 0 ct�eo o N My '� a:.j N zf O Me cn' ct can Nq��hPc 0 o t!1 U E N 4-J( o u - o M CID po U. M cn co Me \/\\ 5�h \ O U) 0 Z-;<, ct u 4-J CA (3) 4-J CU CZ co cz u 4-J cz u 0 pno C .`:�' z 0 w a w x F a O u%uf�'J Y\ �TTaj !7; ¶ T !� _ „O•.OZ = A :aleaS X W id glis l�` OLLICICIV CiRsodoyd • � ® � O ' J i7 -W N c MEMORANDUM DATE: October 8, 2018 TO: Planning Commission Rick White, Director, Community & Economic Development FROM: Jeffrey B. Adams, Associate Planner SUBJECT: Administrative Review of Right -of -Way Dedications and Short Plat Right -of -Way Improvements (MF# CA 2018-005) The purpose of a short plat is to provide an administrative method of land subdivision allowing the creation of nine or fewer lots meeting the zoning and subdivision requirements established in Titles 25 and 26, with the intent of promoting orderly and efficient community growth within the requirements of Revised Code of Washington (RCW) 58.17.035. Two issues which sap the resources of the City due to unnecessary bureaucracy include dedication of rights-of-way and lack of clear guidance for improving those rights-of-way. First, the City Code specifies the location of structures, such as fences, homes, and outbuildings with reference to property lines. However oftentimes, due to lack of standardized subdivision regulations in times past, the property lines enter into areas recognized and used as road travel lanes. As such, if following the letter of the Pasco Municipal Code, a fence could have legally been placed in the center of a road; a house been located against the road asphalt. In response to this dilemma City resolution 1372 Section 2(1) dated September 15, 1980 allowed the City to withhold building permits until sufficient and appropriate rights-of-way consistent with current City standards, are dedicated for the required ... streets which are deemed necessary by the City for the proper circulation of traffic;" However the code is confusing in that it appears requisite to run each and every dedication of right-of-way through the city Council for confirmation, even though in some cases roadways have been in use for decades. One of the objectives of this Code Amendment is to clarify that such dedications can and should be handled administratively. As a matter of housekeeping, staff proposes to simplify the right-of-way dedication process and to outline the type and timing of improvements required in the rights-of-way, as follows: 26.04.040 EXCEPTIONS. The provisions of this Title shall not apply to: Page 1 of 5 jJ The dedication of sufficient and appropriate public street right-of-way where the property line is located within 30 feet of the centerline of a clearly recognized and existing local access or collector public street; or within 40 feet of the centerline of a clearly recognized and existing primary or secondary arterial street; or within 50 feet of the centerline of a clearly recognized and existing primary arterial street containing a landscape median. 26.04.110 DEDICATION PROCESS. The dedication of easements, rights- of -way, parks and open space shall be accomplished by either submitting an individual document or by submitting a binding site plan, short plat or final plat for approval showing the dedication thereon. Acceptance by the City shall be identified by approval signatures on the documents listed above. Dedication of land may also be made to the City by the submitter of a signed dedication document containing a complete and accurate legal description of the property to be dedicated. Following acceptance of the dedication of rights-of-way via individual document, binding site plan, short plat, final plat or other administrative process document by the City Manager or her/his appointee, or in the case of preliminary plats or other quasi-judicial processes, acceptance of dedication by a maiority affirmative vote of the City Council, the dedication document shall be recorded in the office of the Franklin County Auditor. Second, a group of local surveyors have requested changes in legal descriptions required on short plats (see attached letter), noting that "The names of adjoining landowners is (1) irrelevant to a short plat, (2) subject to frequent change and therefore not appropriate for a survey that becomes part of the permeant county record, and (3) not something that my client should have to pay me to research." Staff proposes to eliminate verbiage in the Code which conflicts with these concerns, as follows: 26.36.070 APPLICATION - CONTENT. Applications for approval of short plats shall contain: (1) Six copies of a sketch (at a scale of one (1) inch to one hundred (100) feet) of the entire contiguous tract owned by the applicant subdivider, in a paper format of eighteen (18) inches x twenty-four (24) inches with two inch margins which shall show: (a) The 8WReFS of adjacent WRd and names of any adjacent subdivision; (b) A vicinity map; (c) Lines marking the boundaries of proposed lots, square footages of the proposed lots and number of each lot; (d) Approximate locations of existing roads, cul-de-sacs, alleys and ways or easements for such roads, and rights-of-way within and adjacent to the tract; (e) Location, dimensions and usage designations for all proposed and existing easements of record; Page 2 of 5 And; (f) Proposed source of water supply and method of sewage disposal for each lot; (g) The legal description and parcel number of the said tract and legal deWiPti9AS Of all PFepesed lets (h) The name and address of the owner or owners of the said tract; (i) A completed Environmental Checklist form; (j) Land Surveyor Certificate; (k) Signatures of all recorded property owners agreeing to the division of property; (1) A utility easement and improvement statement shall be shown on the face of the short plat in a manner prescribed by the appropriate utility provider; (m) The signature block shall include the following: (i) City Engineer. (ii) ' ity P:anRer Community and Economic Development Director. (iii) County Auditor. (iv) Franklin County Public Utility District or other utility district. (v) Irrigation District (when applicable). 26.36.080 ADMINISTRATIVE DUTIES. The Gity"mayTlanneFCommunity and Economic Development Director or designee, is vested with the duty of administrating the provisions of this chapter. (1) An application for short plat approval shall be approved, approved with conditions, returned to the applicant for modifications or denied within thirty (30) days of its receipt by the City Planner Community and Economic Development Director or designee unless the applicant agrees, in writing, to an extension of this period. The Community and Economic Development Director or designee shall not be considered to be in receipt of an application for short plat approval unless and until such time as the application meets the requirements of Section 26.36.040, 26.36.050, 26.36.060 and 26.36.070, as determined by the City Planner Community and Economic Development Director or designee. (Ord. 3758 Sec. 1, 2006). (2) Upon receiving a complete application for short plat approval, the City Planner Community and Economic Development Director or designee shall transmit a copy of the short plat, together with copies of any accompanying documents as the City Planner deems appropriate, to the following: (a) City Engineer, who shall review the proposed short plat with regard to its conformance to the general purposes of adopted traffic and utility plans, adequate provisions for storm drainage, streets, alleys, other public ways, parks and playgrounds, schools and school grounds, sidewalks and other planning Page 3 of 5 features that assure safe walking conditions for students, water and sanitary sewer, and conformance to any applicable improvement standards and specifications; (b) Fire Chief, who shall review the proposed short plat with regard to adequate provisions for emergency access; (c) All property owners within 300 feet of the proposed short plat; (d) Any other City department, utility provider, school district or other public or private entity as the Community and Economic Development Director or designee deems appropriate. (Ord. 3758 Sec. 1, 2006). (3) In transmitting the proposed short plat to the parties referenced above, the Community and Economic Development Director or designee shall solicit their comments and recommendations, and note the date by which comments and recommendations must be received by the Community and Economic Development Director or designee in order to be considered. Comments from property owners must be received by the Community and Economic Development Director or designee in writing within 10 days of the date of the notice in order to be considered. The Community and Economic Development Director or designee shall respond in writing to any property owner comments received within 5 working days of receipt of the comments. The respondent shall then have 7 days to file an appeal with the Community and Economic Development Director. Any comments received within the 10 day notice period shall be incorporated into the formal findings which will form the basis of the Community and Economic Development Director or designee's decision on the short plat. If no comments are received from any of the parties referenced above, the Community and Economic Development Director or designee shall make such findings as he/she reasonably deems appropriate. However, in every case a proposed short plat shall contain a statement of approval from the City Engineer, as to the survey data, the layout of streets, alleys and other rights-of-way, design of sewer and water systems and other infrastructure. The short plat shall not be approved, which does not contain a statement signed by the City Engineer. (Ord. 3758 Sec 1, 2006; Ord. 3398 Sec. 2, 1999.) Finally, as development of subdivisions is often drawn out and sometimes complicated by changes of ownership or other difficulties, confusion often arises over who determines ROW improvements, what improvements are required, and when those improvements need to occur. This Code Amendment proposes the following: 26.36.095 CONSTRUCTION OF IMPROVEMENTS REQUIRED. The City Engineer shall determine whether: (1) Public rights-of-way must be improved and utilities installed to the minimum requirements of this code and City Standards. (2) Required infrastructure improvements must be substantially completed as approved by the City Engineer. Minor improvements consisting only of sidewalks and landscaping where applicable, or similar improvements, may be secured by a plat bond. Page 4 of 5 (3) In lieu of completion of these minor improvements prior to recording of the short plat, a plat bond issued by a licensed corporate surety or two individual sureties or other approved surety must be provided, to the full amount of the cost of such work as estimated by the City Engineer, including construction inspection costs but in no case less than $2,000.00 (4) All ora portion of security will be released upon acceptance of the improvements by the City Engineer, or upon substitution of another guarantee or approved bond or security. (5) If, after two years all improvements are not so improved the City will cause the improvements to be provided in accord with the approved plans and the costs thereof must be paid by the bonding company, or out of the savings account assignment or other security. (6) In lieu of the plat bond, a cash bond, a certified check, an irrevocable letter of credit or other surety approved by the City Attorney, equal to the cost of improvement multiplied by 125 percent may be posted In addition the City may require security up to two years against any defect in workmanship or materials in the installation of the improvements This information is transmitted to the Planning Commission to begin the discussion, provide staff direction and input. Page 5 of 5 City of Pasco Planning Department 525 N. 3rd Ave Pasco, WA 99301 June 14, 2018 Ladies & Gentlemen: JUN 2 2 2016 COMMI1NITy & ECON0611C DEVELOPMENT Recent projects completed by Rogers Surveying Inc., P.S. in the City of Pasco have brought to light a couple of issues contained in the city's municipal code. Specifically items 26.36.070(1)(a), which requires the names of adjoining property owners be shown on the face of the survey, and 26.36.070(1)(g), which requires legal descriptions be written for each lot in the short plat. These provisions have apparently been in the code for some time, but have (rightly so) never been enforced until recently. I am writing today to request that these two items be removed from the municipal code, and until they are removed, not enforced. My concern with the requirement for landowners' names is simple. The names of adjoining landowners is (1) irrelevant to a short plat, (2) subject to frequent change and therefore not appropriate for a survey that becomes part of the permeant county record, and (3) not something that my client should have to pay me to research. If the city & the county need this information for their review of the short plat, they should utilize the county's GIS system to find it, instead of relying on information that is possibly outdated from the land surveyor. My concern with the requirement for legal descriptions for individual lots is more fundamental. The correct legal description to convey a lot in a short plat is the lot number & short plat number. That short plat number is not assigned until the short plat is recorded, however the city will not accept a blank space to be filled in at recording time for this legal description. Instead the city is requiring us to write a metes & bounds description. In other words the city is requiring me to write an INCORRECT legal description and place it in the permanent county record, where it is quite likely to be misused. So I again point out, my client is being forced to pay me to do something that is at best irrelevant, and at worst will cloud the title on the individual lots sometime in the future. An understanding of the difference between sequential conveyances and simultaneous conveyances will point out why this could cloud title. Sequential conveyances are those created by individual legal descriptions, and the order that they are conveyed is important. The first (senior) parcel gets exactly what is deeded to it, and each subsequent (junior) parcel gets what is deeded, minus what has already been conveyed in a senior deed. There is great possibility for an overlap or a hiatus in a sequential conveyance. Simultaneous conveyances are what a short plat is supposed to be. Each lot has equal standing, there are no junior/senior rights, and discrepancies are prorated across all lots. Any legal description other than "Lot x Short Plat 20xx-xx" for individual lots in a short plat becomes a sequential conveyance, since there is no call in the legal description for the short plat. The Washington State legislature saw the folly of sequential conveyances over 40 years ago, and basically banned them by creating the system we have now, requiring a plat or short plat to subdivide land. The city's requirement to create legal descriptions for individual lots has basically destroyed that system in the City of Pasco, and will eventually lead to considerable title issues for many landowners. I am happy to discuss these issues in person at your convenience. Sincerely, EMN�400r David P. Baalman, PLS CFedS Principal Rogers Surveying Inc., P.S. Cc: Pasco City Council Cosigned: 11 Gary B. Wagner, PLS Principal Rogers Surveying Inc., P.S. Y*A A-,., Christopher C. Ammann, PLS President Permit Surveying Inc. Rick Russum, PLS Worley Surveying Services Inc., P.S. Aaron A. Dyck, PLS Senior Survey Manager Stratton Surveying & Mapping, P.C. MEMORANDUM DATE: November 15, 2018 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Jacob B. Gonzalez, Senior Planner SUBJECT: Expansion of Nonconforming Use Background This memorandum is in reference to a request received to amend Title 25 "Zoning" of the Pasco Municipal Code (PMC) to allow for the expansion of a nonconforming use. The PMC addresses nonconforming uses in Chapter 25.72 "Nonconforming Uses", and currently does not allow for expansion of a nonconforming use. The applicants request proposes adding a subsection to Chapter 72 entitled: "25.72.070 Expansion of a Non -Conforming Use" and to Chapter 86 Special Permits that would include clarifications and exceptions to include this provision. (See attachments). 25.72.040 Continuation of Nonconforming Uses 1) Generally. Any legal nonconforming use may continue as long as it remains otherwise lawful and provided that: a) A nonconforming use may not be altered or extended during its life except as provided herein; b) No nonconforming use shall be extended to displace a conforming use; c) Once a nonconforming use has changed to a conforming use, it shall not revert back to a nonconforming use, except as provided in 25.42.040, (1); and, d) The extension of a lawful use of any portion of a nonconforming building shall not be deemed the extension of such nonconforming use. (Ord. 3354 Sec. 2, 1999) The PMC states in section 25.72.020 that the burden of establishing that any use, structure or lot is legally nonconforming as defined shall be upon the owner, not the city. Additionally, the PMC states in section 25.72.050(3)(b) that nothing in the Chapter shall prevent the strengthening or restoring to a safe condition of any nonconforming building. State law does not regulate nonconforming uses, structures or lots. Local jurisdictions are free to establish their own standards for regulation of nonconforming use situations. Nonconforming Use(s) Definition: The Municipal Research and Services Center (MRSC) defines nonconforming use(s) as: "the use of a property that was allowed under the zoning regulations at the time the use was established but which, because of subsequent changes in those regulations, is no longer a permitted use. A nonconforming structure is a structure that complied with zoning and development regulations at the time it was built but which, because of subsequent changes to the zoning and/or development regulations, no longer fully complies with those regulations." Clark County (Washington) defines nonconforming use simply as a "use that does not conform to currently applicable standards or regulations." Nonconformities can be represented in various manners, for example: a building that encroaches into a required yard or exceed maximum height is a nonconforming structure. A development with insufficient landscaping or buildings that do not comply with current design standards are also a nonconforming use. Nonconformities can also be an asset to communities. A nonconforming grocery store in a residential zoning district would provide residents the ability to walk or bike to the store. A nonconforming restaurant in an industrial district would give employees a place to dine. Nonconforming Use in Pasco Staff have included examples of nonconforming uses and structures within the City for reference. • 1424 N 4'h Ave o Current Use: used car lot o Intended Use: Zoned for C-1 Retail • 5304 Burden Blvd o Current Use: cell tower o Intended Use: Zoned R -S-1 Residential • 613 Clark Street o Current Use: live/work units o Intended Use: Residential properties not meant to being in commercial applications • 3221 W Court Street (under review) o Current Use: Vacant, under review for clinic / counseling services o Intended Use: Zoned Commercial / Retail Businesses Examples from Jurisdictions City of Bellingham, WA (pop. 89,045) - The Bellingham Municipal Code Section 20.14.020 (13)(2) USES states that a nonconforming use shall not be relocated, expanded, enlarged, or increased in intensity unless such activity is approved through issuance of a conditional use permit. - A hearings examiner may grant a conditional use permit for the expansion of a nonconforming use provided that it does not expand beyond the legally defined lot or parcel; the nonconforming use must be a permitted use within at least one of the general use types; the use must not be an industrial use in a residential single or residential multi - duplex district. City of Bothell, WA (pop. 45,533) - In Bothell, Section 12.26.040 (A) states that no nonconforming use shall be intensified, enlarged, increased or extended to occupy a greater area of land than was occupied on the effective date of the zoning code or amendment that made the use no longer permissible - Section 12.26.050 (A) states that no nonconforming structure shall be altered or changed in a way which increases its nonconformity. City of Kennewick, WA (pop. 81,607) - In the Kennewick Municipal Code, 18.15.050 — A nonconforming use may be changed to another use only if such use is not more nonconforming than the existing nonconforming use and provided the nonconforming use has not been discontinued previously due to conformity or a cease of use. - A nonconforming structure may be expanded up to 25 percent in the building/land/parking area using the applicable review process. Under no circumstances shall the expansion result in the increase of dwelling units above the maximum allowed or the decrease of off-street parking below the minimum as allowed or required by the zoning code. City of Kent, WA (pop. 127,514) - Section 15.08. 100 (C)(2) states no building, structure or land devoted to a nonconforming use shall be expanded, enlarged, extended, reconstructed, intensified or structurally altered unless the use is changed to a use permitted in the district except when authorized by a conditional use permit. City of Spokane, WA (pop. 217,108) - The City of Spokane Municipal Code (SMC) allows for modifications to nonconforming uses (or site) if the changes will bring the use or site closer to conformance. Proposed changes that do not move closer to conformance are subject to a variance process unless prohibited. - Title 17C.210.050 — Nonconforming Uses — Enlargement The Spokane Municipal Code (SMC) states that a nonconforming use may be expanded (dependent on the zone type) onto land in the same ownership which is partly occupied by the nonconforming use. Every expansion must comply with the requirements for the zone in which it is located. Court Decision Examples - Open Door Baptist Church v. Clark County, 140 Wn.2d 143 (2000) - change to another kind of use The property in this case was an art school, which was purchased by a church. The nonconforming use status applied to the school is not passed onto the church. - Keller v. Bellingham, 92 Wn.2d 726 (1979) - no enlargement of nonconforming use The court held that improvements to a facility that increased usage (production plant) did not violate the cities on nonconforming use expansion ordinance due to the ordinance not specifically prohibiting the intensification of the nonconforming use. - Bartz v. Bd. of Adjustment, 80 Wn.2d 209 (1972) - expansion of nonconforming use A board of adjustment had authority to approve an extension of a structure at an auto wrecking yard because there was no prohibition in the zoning ordinance against the extension or expansion of a nonconforming use. Next Steps Staff is seeking comment from the Planning Commission on whether allowing nonconforming uses (structures or lots) to be expanded should be further explored and included in the PMC via text amendment. Commissioners should consider the following for discussion: 1. Are there specific nonconforming uses or structures that should not be considered for expansion? 2. Are there specific zones or areas of the City that should be or should not be considered for allowing an expansion of nonconforming uses or structures? 3. Should a special permit process be required to expand / modify a nonconforming use or structure? Land Use Solutions & Entitlement Land Use Planning Services 9101 N. MT. VIEW LANE Spokane, WA 99218 509-435-3108 (V) (Sent via email this date) 9/25/18 Mr. Rick White Community and Economic Development Director 525 N Third Avenue Pasco WA 99301 Ref: Request to Amend Title 25 Pasco Municipal Code Dear Mr. White: The purpose of this letter is to formally request a text amendment to Title 25 of the Pasco Municipal Code on Zoning to allow a procedure and criteria for the expansion of a non -conforming use. Please see the attached draft text amendment adding a new sub -section to Chapter 72 entitled: 25.72.070 Expansion of a Non -Conforming Use and to Chapter 86 Special Permits, adding clarifications and exceptions to this chapter to include this provision. Having said that, let me explain the benefits of providing this seemingly contradictory provision to an element of the zone code that is intended to eventually phase out non- conforming uses (ncu's). I offer the following comments: 1) First and foremost, it enables an existing viable business to expand to the pressures of market demand and continue to serve its customers in the market place. 2) This sustainment continues to provide an increasing source of tax revenues to the City. 3) A special permit process and public hearing enables the surrounding land owners to voice their concerns, (if any), and for the decisionmakers to impose appropriate conditions to mitigate those concerns. 4) This provision in the code is not counterproductive to the intent of phasing out most non -conforming uses, because most of those uses have already become obsolete and/or abandoned. 5) By way of example, Spokane County has had this provision in their zone code for at least 4 generations of the zone code and perhaps longer. During those 45 plus years it is seldom used, because few non -conforming uses remained viable and capable of expanding. 6) This provision provides a reasonable means of allowing a viable business to sustain itself in the market place without the severe regulatory constraints of non -conforming phase out and arguably a taking by actions of the City to change its zoning. Please review this draft with your legal counsel and let me know if there are any questions or changes to this proposal. I look forward to your comments and instructions on how to proceed with this amendment. Respectfully Submitted 49twoA (7114W Dwight J Hume Land Use Solutions and Entitlement Enclosure: Draft text amendment to Title 25 PMC Zoning CHAPTER 25.72 NONCONFORMING USES Sections: 25.72.010 PURPOSE................................................................................... 124 25.72.020 ESTABLISHMENT OF NONCONFORMITY ...................................... 124 25.72.030 DEVELOPMENT ON EXISTING LOTS OF RECORD .............................. 124 25.72.040 CONTINUATION OF NONCONFORMING USES .................................... 124 25.72.050 MAINTENANCE, DAMAGE, REPAIRS AND RESTORATION ................. 125 25.72.060 DISCONTINUANCE OF A NONCONFORMING USE OR ........................126 25.72.010 PURPOSE. Amendments over time to regulatory authority provided within this Title may result in structures, land and uses which no longer conform with the provisions set forth for the district in which they are situated. Therefore, it is the purpose of this chapter to allow for the continuance and maintenance of legally established nonconforming uses and structures subject to standards and provisions prescribed within this chapter. (Ord. 3354 Sec. 2, 1999.) 25.72.020 ESTABLISHMENT OF NONCONFORMITY. The burden of establishing that any nonconformity is a legal nonconformity as defined herein shall, in all cases, be upon the owner of such nonconformity and not upon the City. Upon request, the City Planners shall assist the property owner in locating public records, which pertain to the legal status of the nonconformity. (Ord. 3354 Sec. 2, 1999.) 25.72.030 DEVELOPMENT ON EXISTING LOTS OF RECORD. In any district, any permitted use or structure may be erected on an existing lot of record as recorded in the Franklin County Auditor's office. Said lots shall be deemed to meet the lot size requirements of this Title, provided all adjacent or abutting lots are held under separate ownership on the effective date of this Title. (Ord. 3354 Sec. 2, 1999.) 25.72.040 CONTINUATION OF NONCONFORMING USES. 1) Generally. Any legal nonconforming use may continue as long as it remains otherwise lawful and provided that: a) A nonconforming use may not be altered or extended during its life except as provided herein and/or pursuant to an approved expansion per 25.72.070 Expansion of a Non -Conforming Use Request. b) No nonconforming use shall be extended to displace a conforming use. c) Once a nonconforming use has changed to a conforming use, it shall not revert back to a nonconforming use, except as provided in 25.42.040, (1). d) The extension of a lawful use of any portion of a nonconforming building shall not be deemed the extension of such nonconforming use. ( Ord. 3354 Sec. 2, 1999. 25.72.050 MAINTENANCE, DAMAGE, REPAIRS AND RESTORATION 1) Except as provided in 25.72.070, ordinary maintenance of a nonconforming structure which includes minor interior and exterior repairs and incidental alterations is 1 permitted. Minor maintenance and repair may include, but is not limited to painting, roof repairs and replacement, plumbing, wiring, mechanical equipment replacement, and weatherization. Incidental alterations may include construction of nonbearing walls and partitions. Ordinary maintenance and incidental alterations shall not exceed 20 percent of the value of the building at the time of repair or alteration; 2 ) No building damaged by fire or other causes to the extent of more than fifty 50) percent of the assessed value of the structure as determined by the records of the Franklin County Assessor shall be repaired or rebuilt except multi -family units previously authorized by building permit in any residential zoning district may be rebuilt under the following conditions: a) Permits must be obtained within one year of building damage or all nonconforming privileges are lost; b) The fire or other cause of damage was determined to be accidental or a natural disaster; c) The proposed repair or reconstruction shall not increase the nonconformity of the structure or use; d) Nothing in this Chapter shall prevent the strengthening or restoring to safe condition of any nonconforming building ordered by any official charged with protecting public safety. e) Reconstruction should adhere to the required district setbacks. 3) Any structure or portion thereof declared unsafe by the Building Official may be restored to a safe condition and continue as a nonconforming use, unless such repairs exceed fifty (50) percent of the assessed valuation of the structure as determined by the records of the Franklin County Assessor except multi -family units previously authorized by building permit in any residential zoning district may be rebuilt under the following conditions: a) Permits must be obtained within the time frame provided in the notification by the Building Official or all nonconforming privileges are lost; b) The fire or other cause of damage was determined to be accidental or a natural disaster; c) The proposed repair or reconstruction shall not increase the nonconformity of the structure or use; d) Nothing in this Chapter shall prevent the strengthening or restoring to a safe condition of any nonconforming building ordered by any official charged with protecting public safety; e) Reconstruction should adhere to the required district setbacks. (Ord. 3725 Sec. 1, 2005; Ord. 3354 Sec. 2, 1999.) 25.72.060 DISCONTINUANCE OF A NONCONFORMING USE OR STRUCTURE. Except as provided in 25.72.070, a nonconforming use or structure shall become discontinued when it is: 1) Abandoned for a period of one or more years; 2) Damaged and application for rebuilding has not been made within six months of such damage; and 3) Damaged to the extent that reconstruction costs exceeds fifty (50) percent of the assessed value of the structure. (Ord. 3354 Sec. 2, 1999.) 25.72.070 EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING USE Requests for expansion or extension of a nonconforming use shall only be by approval of a special permit pursuant to chapter 25.86. 25.72.070 (1) Conditions and Requirements In approving a special use permit pursuant to the procedural requirements of chapter 25.86, the Planning Commission may stipulate restrictions and conditions, including but not limited to any of the following provisions. a. Control of use. b. Provision for front, side, or rear setbacks greater than the minimum standards of the zone in which the property is located. c. Special landscaping, screening, fencing, signing, off-street parking, public transit and/or high occupancy vehicle facilities or any other general development standards. d. Requirements for street dedications and/or roadway and drainage improvements necessary as a result of the proposed use. e. Control of points of vehicular ingress and egress. f. Control of noise, vibration, odor, glare, and other environmental contaminants. g. Control of operating hours. h. Duration or time limitations for certain activities. i. Any other reasonable restrictions, conditions, or safeguards that will uphold the purpose and intent of the Zoning Code and the Comprehensive Plan and mitigate any adverse impact upon the adjacent properties by reason of the use, extension, construction, or alteration allowed. 3 25.86.010 GENERAL PROVISIONS. Expansion of a nonconforming use pursuant to Section 25.72,070, Unclassified uses enumerated in Section 25.86.020, conditional uses listed within each district, and any other uses specifically referred to this chapter shall be subject to the regulations contained in this chapter, in addition to all applicable requirements of this Title. All such uses, due to their nature, are deemed to require special review to consider, on a case by case basis, their impacts on adjacent uses, uses within the vicinity and the infrastructure which would serve them. Conditional uses and other uses specifically referred to this chapter may be permitted only in their respective districts. Unclassified uses may be permitted within any district where not otherwise prohibited. ( Ord. 4110, 2013; Ord. 3354 Sec. 2, 1999.) 25.86.060 FINDINGS OF FACT BY PLANNING COMMISSION. Except as provided for in 25.72.070, upon conclusion of the open record pre -decision hearing, the Planning Commission shall make and enter findings from the record and conclusions thereof as to whether or not: 1) The proposal is in accordance with the goals, policies, objectives, maps and/ or narrative text of the Comprehensive Plan; 2) The proposal will adversely affect public infrastructure; 3) The proposal will be constructed, maintained and operated to be in harmony with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity; 4) The location and height of proposed structures and the site design will discourage the development of permitted uses on property in the general vicinity or impair the value thereof; 5) The operations in connection with the proposal will be more objectionable to nearby properties by reason of noise, fumes, vibrations, dust, traffic, or flashing lights than would be the operation of any permitted uses within the district; and 6) The proposal will endanger the public health, or safety if located and developed where proposed, or in any way will become a nuisance to uses permitted in the district. (Ord. 3354 Sec. 2, 1999.) 25.86.070 RECOMMENDATION OF PLANNING COMMISSION. After an open record pre -decision hearing on a proposed nonconforming use expansion, temporary, conditional or unclassified use, the Planning Commission shall render a recommendation to the City Council as to whether the proposal be denied, approved, or approved with modifications and/ or conditions. (Ord. 3354 Sec. 2. 1999). End of proposed changes 4