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