HomeMy WebLinkAboutHearing Examiner Packet 2019-07-10vsko
CALL TO ORDER:
la 11.11 L:F1T3I-kTn15
AGENDA
HEARING EXAMINER MEETING
City Hall — 525 North Third Avenue — Council Chambers
WEDNESDAY, JULY 10, 2019
6:00 PM
A. Special Permit Location of a mini -storage and commercial facility in a C-1
(Retail Business) Zone (AHBL. Inc.) (MF# SP 2019-004) —
Continued from previous meeting
B. Rezone Rezone from C-1 (Retail Business) to R-1 (Low Density
Residential) (John Kinnaman) (MF# Z 2019-006) — Continue
from previous meeting
C. Rezone Rezone from R-2 (Medium Density Residential) to 1-1 (Light
Industrial) (Walker/Stone) (MF# Z 2019-005) — Continued from
previous meeting
D. Special Permit Special Permit for the location of a Wireless Facility (AT&T
Mobility) (MF# SP 2019-005)
E. Preliminary Plat East Franklin Plat, 14 Lots (Juan Ochoa) (MF# PP 2019-0021
III. 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.
City of REPORT TO HEARING EXAMINER
PdSCUCity HalHEARINls- NER 525 NlThird orthMEETING A nue — Council Chambers
I THURSDAY, JULY 10, 2019
6:00 PM
MASTER FILE #:
SP 2019-004
APPLICANT: AHBL, Inc.
5804 Road 90, Suite H
Pasco, Washington 99301
REQUEST: SPECIAL PERMIT: Mini -Storage in C-1
1.
BACKGROUND
Legal: PTN NW48-9-29
General Location: Due east of 5728 Bedford Street
Property Size: 6.86 acres
2. ACCESS: The property has access from Bedford Street and Midland Lane
3. UTILITIES: Municipal water and sewer service are available to the property.
4. LAND USE AND ZONING: The site is zoned C-1 (Retail Business). Surrounding properties are zoned
and developed as follows:
NORTH: R-3 SFDUs
EAST: C-1 Vacant
SOUTH: C-1 Vacant
WEST: C-1 Services (Educational)
5. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The Comprehensive Plan indicates the site is intended for commercial
development. The purpose and description for commercial land uses includes neighborhood,
community and regional shopping along with business parks, service centers and offices. The
commercial designation is ideal for the location of services along major circulation routes. Policy ED -
2 -B encourages the development of commercial uses strategically located to support local and
regional needs.
6. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The City of Pasco is the lead agency for this project. Based on
the SEPA checklist, the adopted City Comprehensive Plan, City development regulations, and other
information, a threshold determination resulting in a Determination of Non -Significance (DNS) was
issued for this project on June 28, 2019 under WAC 197-11-158.
1
ANALYSIS
AHBL, Inc is proposing the construction of a mini -storage facility and commercial space on an undeveloped
site located north of Sandifur Parkway and between Bedford St and Midland Lane. The site is zoned C-1
(Retail Business) as is the area to the south, west and east. Higher density residential is located to the north
of the site. The Pasco Municipal Code requires a special permit application for the location of a mini -storage
in the C-1 zoning district. Mini -storage facilities are permitted as a conditional use via PMC 25.85.040.
The project site consists of 6.86 acres on four separate and adjacent parcels with the same ownership.
Current plans indicate the mini -storage facility will contain 199 127 separate storage units including an office.
Storage units will range from 488 800 square feet to 1,152 square feet providing a range of options for
customers. The projects will include two phases with the southern portion of the development occurring first
and the northern portion in phase 2.
Exterior finishes will consist of synthetic stone and metal paneling. The site is located within the
1-182 Corridor Overlay District (PMC 25.130) and all landscaping and building standards must be met to
ensure compliance. The applicant has been notified of this provision within the PMC and building renderings
are required before issuing a determination. The applicant has specified that an increased setback of 20 feet
will be provided as a spatial buffer between the facilities and the residential developments to the north of
the site. The tallest height of any structure will be 24 feet with the majority of rest to be shorter.
The mini -storage facility will include a secure access gate located on Bedford Street while the
commercial/office will be accessed only off of Midland Lane. Peak PM (4pm-6pm) travel volumes have
increased slightly on Sandifur Parkway from 752 in 2016 to 802 vehicles in 2018. The applicant will be
required to make street improvements identified in PMC 21.15, including sidewalks.
INITIAL STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT
Findings of Fact must be entered from the record. The following are initial findings drawn from the
background and analysis section of the staff report. The Hearing Examiner may add additional findings to
this listing as the result of factual testimony and evidence submitted during the open record hearing.
1. The applicant has applied for a Special Permit for the construction of a mini -storage facility in the C-
1 (Retail Business) zoning district.
2. Mini -storage facilities are a permitted conditional use identified in PMC 25.85.040 in the C-1 zoning
district.
3. The City Comprehensive Plan indicates the site is intended for commercial development.
4. Policy ED -2-8 of the City Comprehensive Plan encourages the development of commercial uses
located in conveniently accessible routes.
5. The site consists of four undeveloped adjacent parcels with the same ownership with a total of 6.86
acres.
6. The site is located north of Sandifur Parkway between Bedford Street and Midland Lane.
7. The site is within the 1-182 Corridor Overlay District and per PMC 25.130 all landscaping and building
standards are required for the site and structures.
8. The site will consist of 108 units ranging from 480 to 1,152 square feet.
9. The tallest structure will be a maximum of 24 feet.
10. A secure access gate will be located on Bedford Street. The commercial space (office) will be
accessible only off of Midland Lane.
11. PM Peak hour travel on Sandifur Parkway has increased from 752 vehicles to 802 between 2016 —
2018.
12. The site is estimated to produce 41.119 vehicle trips per day based on ITE Trip Generation Manual.
13. Public notice was issued on May 28, 2019 per requirements of PMC 25.210.040.
TENTATIVE CONCLUSIONS BASED ON INITIAL STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT
Before recommending approval or denial of the proposed plat the Hearing Examiner must develop findings
of fact from which to draw its conclusion (PMC 25.200.080 and 25.200.100) therefrom as to whether or not:
1. Will the proposed use be in accordance with the goals, policies, objectives and text of the
Comprehensive Plan?
a) Policy ED -2-13 of the City Comprehensive Plan encourages the development of a wide range
of commercial uses strategically located to support local and regional needs.
2. Will the proposed use adversely affect public infrastructure?
a) The proposal will not generate an abnormal impact to public infrastructure such as water
and sewer.
3. Will the proposed use be constructed, maintained and operated to be in harmony with the existing
or intended character of the general vicinity?
a) The site is within the 1-182 Corridor Overlay District. Per PMC 25.130, all landscaping and
building standards are required for the site and structures.
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?
a) Site plan indicates that the tallest structure will be a maximum of 24 feet.
b) The location and height of the proposed project will not discourage the development of
permitted uses on property in the surrounding vicinity.
3
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?
a) The proposed mini -storage facility and operation 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?
a) It is expected that the proposed mini -storage will not cause harm to the health and safety
of the public and that the associated activity will not become a nuisance to the permitted
uses in the vicinity.
PROPOSED APPROVAL CONDITIONS
1. The Special Permit shall apply to tax parcel 115430165, 115430166, 115430164 and 115430167
2. Conformance with the 1-182 Corridor Overlay District standards per PMC 25.130
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the construction of the a mini -storage facility in the C-1 zoning district.
2
n
� N N P
m — I
Z LL LL LL N
Jmmm
W g �
OZZZZ
zo
q N b w m
m a ¢ ¢-7O
r
LL
< LAV N_
m N N 1 K
YW N N Ap N FO❑ UJ
W wygZ N
N mNO I N N T ry 2Ym N
W v 1 0,
N N z ? d
w O r N m m n w M
ZF- T 3 r N
w on
O
r N
N �
W e0
;z
_ O
® CO
O rr
/^ U Z t+ m mQ
v, O F
F- U®
UJ LL
LuOZ M
N N
M
UJ U- � N
H C
o M K g M
®LL
LLOU w v p o
®N a
J
Y N
m m
gyp r w rn
6Lf W (yOy( Q Cp F M
O N
U N O J
p m u N $
F" Y m W M N.
K a ✓ w N w
O m N �N �I
6.-
y
x x x x x xx
W m p6
I NULL E
000
a
a�
ZF �1-F W¢JQF ¢F
3 qui �wWK
3 tl1 ui
0z �JU mz�
o
>M=
o
rF
p@
a$
o�
2
n
� N N P
m — I
Z LL LL LL N
Jmmm
W g �
OZZZZ
zo
q N b w m
m a ¢ ¢-7O
r
LL
< LAV N_
m N N 1 K
YW N N Ap N FO❑ UJ
W wygZ N
N mNO I N N T ry 2Ym N
W v 1 0,
N N z ? d
w O r N m m n w M
ZF- T 3 r N
w on
O
r N
N �
W e0
;z
_ O
® CO
O rr
/^ U Z t+ m mQ
v, O F
F- U®
UJ LL
LuOZ M
N N
M
UJ U- � N
H C
o M K g M
®LL
LLOU w v p o
®N a
J
Y N
m m
gyp r w rn
6Lf W (yOy( Q Cp F M
O N
U N O J
p m u N $
F" Y m W M N.
K a ✓ w N w
O m N �N �I
6.-
y
x x x x x xx
W m p6
I NULL E
000
a
a�
ZF �1-F W¢JQF ¢F
3 qui �wWK
3 tl1 ui
0z �JU mz�
From: Kirt Shaffer <kirt@tippettcompany.com>
Sent: Thursday, June 6, 2019 2:20 PM
To: Jeff Adams <ADAMSJ@Pasco-wa.gov>
Cc: analul989@msn.com; ciguena2@hotmail.com; Kirt Shaffer <kirt@tippettcompany.com>
Subject: SEPA2019-025 & SP2019-004
External Email Warning! This email has originated from outside of the City of Pasco. Do not
click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Jeffery:
We represent Hernandez-Maciel Investments, LLC (HMI). They own the property
located at 5908 Bedford St., Pasco WA. Also known as Franklin County Tax Parcel
Number 115.430.162. This property is located on the west side of Bedford Street.
They have become aware of the Request for Special Permit 2019-004 via the notice of
SEPA2019-025 (see attached). This application as they understand it, is for a special
use permit, to allow the development of a mini -storage on the east side of Bedford
On behalf of HIM, wish to make it known to the City of Pasco and any other party
associated with considering this application, they strongly oppose the issuance of a
special permit for the proposed project.
In 2004 HMI acquired their property, which was among other commercial office
buildings. They have since constructed a +/- 12,000 SF medical office building.
Members of HMI occupy this building and have a medical practice, serving the medical
needs of the community. Their building is similar to the other commercial office buildings
in the area, both architecturally, and in the type of business activity. In addition to
constructing this building to house the owner's medical practice, it is the owners hope to
one day sell the building.
They believe that a mini -storage development across the street from their property
would detract from the value of their building, and the neighboring properties. Upon
reviewing the attached submittals and site plan, it appears that the proposed
development would be in stark contrast to the buildings in this area of the community,
both architecturally, and in the type of business activity. This contrast, they believe, will
be a detriment to their property and the properties in this area of the community.
They urge the City of Pasco's Planning Department, and hearing examiner, in the
strongest terms, to deny this request.
Thank you,
Kirt Shaffer
Tippett Company
TIFFETT
COMPANY
2815 St. Andrews Loop, Suite F
Pasco, WA 99301
0 509.545.3355
M 509.521.9183
kirt@tippettcompany.com
tippettcompanV.com
Original Message -----
From: Vicki Locati <vklocatica outlook.com>
Sent: Sunday, June 16, 2019 3:29 PM
To: Darcy Bourcier <bourcierd@pasco-wa.eov>
Cc: Vicki Locati <vklocati@outlook.com>
Subject: Mini -Storage Facility and Commercial Space North of Sandifur
External Email Warning! This email has originated from outside of the City of Pasco. Do not click links or
open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Darcy—as you suggested, the following documents my concern regarding the subject storage facility:
When I bought my home, I contacted the City and was told the vacant land behind me was zoned for
small businesses (professional offices). So far this is what has been built and they have all proved to be
good neighbors.
I live directly north of the land where the facility would be built. There is only a small strip of lawn
between my home & our block fence. My only living areas face the fence (south).
There is already a large mini -storage facility (with an industrial -looking metal building behind it) located
only one block away, facing Sandifur. It is enormous and looks like there are hundreds of units.
Why would the City of Pasco entertain an option of another storage unit so close in an area of family
homes & professional businesses?
Are there enforceable City Codes, rules, regulations that control what can be stored? Guns, drugs,
chemicals, rats, and even reports of human -trafficking victims have been reported nation-wide in similar
storage units. Do renters of these units and/or metal buildings have access 24/7? Does that mean
floodlights, and access to loading/unloading all night in my backyard?
I question why is a non -Pasco resident attorney is assigned to make decisions whether zoning
regulations can be exempted, allowing this mini storage to be built? You indicated it was to prevent bias.
Everyone is biased, and personal self -interests are inevitable; however, a Pasco resident acting in the
interest of their city, is preferable to someone who doesn't care about decision consequences.
I have lived in Pasco for many years and it breaks my heart to see so many once -lovely neighborhoods
turn into graffiti -covered, crime infested slums. The metamorphosis appears to always begin with the
types of businesses allowed into the neighborhood. Hard to be proud of your community if efforts to
keep a nice home & property are continuously stymied by those who don't.
Thanks for taking the time to talk to me about this issue.
Vicki Kirkpatrick Locati
9512 Mia Ln
366.8287
Sent from my iPhone
PORT
THE
ING
� Pasco HEARING E AM NER MEETING HEARING EXAMINER MEETING
1 I City Hall — 525 North Third Avenue — Council Chambers
WEDNESDAY, JULY 10, 2019
6:00 PM
MASTER FILE #: Z 2019-006
APPLICANT: John Kinnaman
321-38 Henriot Rd
Winlock, WA 98596
REQUEST: REZONE: Rezone one parcel from C-1 (Retail Business) to R-1 (Low
Density Residential)
BACKGROUND
1. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION:
Legal: Lots 17 to 19, Block 8, Gerry's Addition (Parcel #112-053-233)
General Location: 527 W Bonneville Street
Property Size: 10,499 square feet
2. ACCESS: The property has access from W Bonneville Street and N 5`" Avenue
UTILITIES: Municipal water is available in both W Bonneville Street and N 5th Avenue. Municipal
sewer is available in the alleyway to the north of the property.
4. LAND USE AND ZONING: The lot contains one single-family dwelling structure and is zoned C-1
(Retail Business). Surrounding properties are zoned and developed as follows:
NORTH: R-3/11-4 Single and multi -family dwellings
EAST: C-1 Single and multi -family dwellings
SOUTH: C-1 Single and multi -family dwellings/church
WEST: R-1 Single and multi -family dwellings
5. Comprehensive Plan: The Comprehensive Plan indicates the site is intended for Mixed
Residential development. According to the Comprehensive Plan, Mixed Residential development
means 5 to 20 dwelling units per acre. The criteria for allocation underthe future land use section
of Volume II of the Comprehensive Plan (Vol. II, page 17) encourages development of lands
designated for Mixed Residential uses when or where sewer is available, there is a market
demand for new home sites, and the location is convenient to major circulation routes. Policy H-
1 -E encourages the advancement of home ownership, and Goal H-2 suggests the City strive to
maintain a variety of housing options for residents of the community. Goal LU -2 encourages the
maintenance of established neighborhoods and the creation of new neighborhoods that are safe
and enjoyable places to live.
6. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The City of Pasco is the lead agency for this project. Based
on the SEPA checklist, the adopted City Comprehensive Plan, City development regulations, and
other information, a threshold determination resulting in a Determination of Non -Significance
(DNS) has been issued for this project on June 21, 2019 under WAC 197-11-158.
ANALYSIS
The applicant is seeking a rezone of the property from C-1 (Retail Business) to R-1 (Low Density Residential)
in order to use the existing dwelling structure as living space. Dwelling units are not listed as a permitted use
in the C-1 zoning chapter of the PMC; however, dwelling units can be permitted via Special Permit if they are
located above the first floor of a building designed or intended to be used as a business. Because such does
not apply in this case, the applicant requires rezone approval.
According to the Franklin County Assessor's records, the dwelling structure was built in the year 1923 and
used as a residence. Then, from 1971 until around 1995, it was used as a halfway house/work release facility.
A Special Permit for a church was granted for this property in 2012, but the applicant appears to never have
applied for an Occupancy Registration following approval. According to the Special Permit application, the
building was already being used as a parsonage and church illegally. In the time since, the building has likely
continued as a church and residence without the City's knowledge until March of 2019 when the City's Code
Enforcement department opened a code case against the property.
Because documents indicating the zoning history of the property and the area are not able to be easily
located, it is difficult to pinpoint when the property acquired the C-1 zoning classification. According to a City
of Pasco zoning book of unknown age which the Planning Department has on -hand, the property was—at
one point in time—zoned for office uses. Beginning from at least 1974, the property was then rezoned to C-
1.
There are approximately five on -street angled parking stalls directly in front of the property on Bonneville
Street designed for commercial uses. The rear portion of the site abutting the alley contains a small parking
pad.
Rezone Criteria
The initial review criteria for considering a rezone application are explained in PMC. 25.88.030. The criteria
are listed below as follows:
1. The date the existing zone became effective:
It is unknown when the current zoning classification of C-1 became effective. Staff believes this date was pre -
1974.
2. The changed conditions, which are alleged to warrant other or additional zoning:
After the property acquired the C-1 zoning classification, an early version of Pasco's Comprehensive Plan
designated the site and surrounding area for Mixed Residential development. This designation does not
include the C-1 zone in the list of permitted zoning districts. A rezone of the property to R-1 is in conformance
with the policies of the Comprehensive Plan and the Plan's Zoning Map.
3. Facts to justify the change on the basis of advancing the public health, safety and general welfare:
The proposed zoning request is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan which has been determined to be in
the best interest of advancing public health, safety and general welfare of the community. The rezone will
allow for the legal residence in one dwelling unit.
4. The effect it will have on the value and character of the adjacent property and the Comprehensive
Plan:
A change in zoning classification may ultimately result in the establishment of a legal single-family residential
use consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The existing dwelling structure outwardly appears to be a
residence but may require additional renovations inside to bring the structure up to code. Because the
surrounding uses are either single-family or multi family homes, the rezone will not affect the value or
character of the neighborhood.
5. The effect on the property owner or owners if the request is not granted:
The property owner may use the structure as a commercial business and may not reside in the building.
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 Hearing Examiner may add additional findings to this
listing as the result of factual testimony and evidence submitted during the open record hearing.
1. The applicant has applied to rezone one parcel from C-1 (Retail Business) to R-1 (Low Density
Residential)
2. The applicant is seeking to rezone in order to permit a legal single-family residence on the property.
3. The site is within the Pasco Urban Growth Boundary.
4. The State Growth Management Act requires urban growth and urban densities to occur within the
Urban Growth Boundaries.
5. The site currently contains one dwelling structure that outwardly appears to be a house.
6. The site is not considered a critical area, a mineral resource area, or a wetland.
7. The Comprehensive Plan identifies the site for Mixed Residential development, which permits the
following zones: RS -20, RS -12, RS -1, and R-1, R-2, and R-3.
8. Mixed Residential development is described in the Comprehensive Plan as 5 to 20 dwelling units per
acre.
9. The current zoning classification of C-1 does not permit dwelling units unless said dwelling units are
approved via Special Permit and are above the first floor of a building designed or intended to be
used as a retail business.
10. The date the current zoning classification was adopted is unknown but was likely pre -1974.
11. The property was zoned for office uses at some point in time before it acquired the C-1 zoning
classification.
12. The Mixed Residential zoning designation was adopted with an early version of Pasco's
Comprehensive Plan.
13. The dwelling structure was built in 1923 and used as a residence.
14. From 1971 until around 1995, the structure was used as a halfway house/work release facility.
15. The dwelling structure was used as an illegal parsonage and church during a period of time after
1995.
3
16. A Special Permit for a church was granted for the property in 2012, but the applicant never applied
for an Occupancy Registration following approval.
17. The dwelling structure was used as a church and living space without the City's knowledge until
March of 2019.
18. Public notice was issued on May 28, 2019 per requirements of PMC 25.210.040.
TENTATIVE CONCLUSIONS BASED ON INITIAL STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT
Before recommending approval or denial of a rezone the Hearing Examiner must develop findings of fact
from which to draw his/her conclusions based upon the criteria listed in PMC 25.86.060. The criteria are as
follows:
1. The proposal is in accordance with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan.
The proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map and Comprehensive Plan Policy Land
Use Goals. Mixed Residential development suggests 5 to 20 dwelling units per acre. The criteria for allocation
under the future land use section of Volume II of the Comprehensive Plan (Vol. II, page 17) encourages
development of lands designated for Mixed Residential uses when or where sewer is available, there is a
market demand for new home sites, and the location is convenient to major circulation routes.
2. The effect of the proposal on the immediate vicinity will not be materially detrimental.
The immediate area is shown in the Comprehensive Plan for Mixed or Low Density Residential zoning. The
proposed rezone is consistent with the referenced Plan; as such, this proposal will not be materially
detrimental to future nearby developments that will need to conform to the provision of the Plan.
3. There is merit and value in the proposal for the community as a whole.
The proposed zoning is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map. Further, a rezone of the
property will relieve its non -conforming status and allow for legal residence. The proposal is supported by
land use goals and policies contained in the Comprehensive Plan.
4. Conditions should be imposed in order to mitigate any significant adverse impacts from the proposal.
No special conditions are proposed. The dwelling structure may be used as a residence should the rezone be
approved; however, the church gathering operation must cease.
5. A Concomitant Agreement should be entered into between the City and the petitioner, and if so, the
terms and conditions of such an agreement.
A Concomitant Agreement is not necessary for this application.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval for the proposed rezone of 527 W Bonneville Street from C-1 to R-1.
4
Z+O
n
w
Cwt lilk
,
Will
1
for -
Al
• hew„_— •� � � •�
4f*v WSW
yAf
-.
t
W
Z+U)
0 0r O
s
G y
7
COO
s � M
�, Mu
ct CeNN
cv �
G Mv�n 0
0 00
N 4- N N
N -C
7
a crUC`r
W
Z+W
3
i
7
15)eO
�
V
M
P•v
o�
N 5th
U �
Ao
co
N
opo
N
o
A.
� w
0
a
0 POO
�
o
O �
N
f�r
Fqll
L�flll-1
.•�<��»����m4
rl
J
♦ .l M
_I
I
• A
♦ .l M
r�' Q
T':
I•
T
14.Al
i
9
P(c sco
PUBLIC HEARING
City Hall — 525 North Third Avenue — Council Chambers
DATE: WEDNESDAY, July 10, 2019
411
6:00 PM
MASTER FILE #: Z 2019-005
APPLICANT: Dalton Walker/Lawrence B Stone Properties
418 N Kellogg St. Ste B
Kennewick WA 99336
REQUEST: REZONE: Rezone 1 parcel from R-2 (Medium Density
Residential) to 1-1 (Light Industrial)
BACKGROUND
1. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION:
Legal: Farm's Addition Lot 2 Block 4 (APN #112060047).
General Location: 28 W. A St Pasco WA 99301
Property Size: 2,268 square feet or .052 acres.
2. ACCESS: The parcel has access from West "A" Street
3. UTILITIES: Both water and sewer are available off of West "A" Street
4. LAND USE AND ZONING: The lot is currently vacant and zoned R-2 (Medium Density Residential).
Surrounding properties are zoned and developed as follows:
NORTH: 1-1 Lumber Yard
EAST: R-2 SFDUs (Historic Railroad Houses)
SOUTH: R-2 SFDUs
WEST: 1-1 Lumber Yard
5. Comprehensive Plan: The Comprehensive Plan Land Use designation for the property is
"Commercial." Under the current Comprehensive Plan land use designations of "Commercial" the
property may be zoned "0," BP, C-1, C-2, C-3, or CR. The Commercial designation is described as
including "Neighborhood, community and regional shopping and specialty centers, business
parks, service and office uses."
Comprehensive Plan Economic Development goals and policies include the following:
Ed -2. Goal: assure appropriate location and design of commercial and industrial facilities.
ED -2-B Policy: Encourage development of a wide range of commercial and industrial uses
strategically located to support local and regional needs.
Ed -3. Goal: maintain development standards and design guidelines to ensure that commercial and
industrial developments are good neighbors.
ED -3-A Policy: Enhance compatibility of commercial and industrial development with residential
and mixed use neighborhoods through the use of landscaping, screening, and superior building
design standards and guidelines.
ED -3-D Policy: Require existing commercial and industrial facilities to conform to city design and
site amenity standards, when expansion and/or new facilities are proposed.
ED -3-E Policy: Use sufficient landscaping and appropriate screening as well as other methods to
buffer less intensive uses from utilitarian parts of commercial and industrial facilities.
6. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The City of Pasco is the lead agency for this project. An
environmental determination of non -significance was issued for this proposal on June 21, 2019.
ANALYSIS
Applicant is seeking to rezone the parcel located at 28 W. A St (on the north side of West "A" Street,
directly adjacent a building materials layout yard) from R-2 (Medium Density Residential) to 1-1 (Light
Industrial), in anticipation of constructing an industrial building for building materials storage on the site.
The site contains 2,268 square feet or approximately .052 acres, and was formerly part of the Burlington
Northern Railroad (BNRR) Right -of -Way (subsequently Burlington Northern Santa Fe or BNSF). The site
was developed with railroad housing in the 1890s. Part of the land containing the railroad houses was sold
off to private homeowners, leaving a few houses straddling railroad right-of-way and private ownership
lots. The partial lots were occupied by two homes built for railroad workers in the 1890s.
The adjacent building materials layout yard surrounds the parcel in question on three sides to the north,
west, and east, contains around 3.6 acres, and is developed with a 11,614 square foot warehouse space
and wholesale/retail office. Properties further to the east are zoned R-2 and developed with 1890s era
railroad houses; properties across "A" Street to the south have been developed with single-family
residential units.
The property has recently been sold to the owners of the adjacent property, and the house demolished.
Owners of the building materials layout yard wish to expand their operation by constructing a 24,000
square -foot warehouse which would extend over onto the former housing lot. Unfortunately, the parcel
was zoned R-2 to accommodate the former railroad houses sometime before 1974. Furthermore, the
entire area has been designated "commercial" since the 1980 Comprehensive Plan, despite having been
zoned Industrial many years before.
The Comprehensive Plan designates the property Commercial, which allows for "0" (Office), BP (Business
Park), C-1 (Retail Business), C-2 (Central Business District), C-3 (General Business), or CR (Regional
commercial) zoning. The Commercial designation is described as including "Neighborhood, community
and regional shopping and specialty centers, business parks, service and office uses."
Staff has recommended the parcel and the adjoining lot 1, Block 4 of Farm's Addition (also currently zoned
R-2) be rezoned to C-3 (General Commercial), which would allow for the building materials layout yard
use while still accommodating the Comprehensive Plan "Commercial" Land Use designation. However,
applicant has rejected staff's proposal and prefers the 1-1 designation so that the property be zoned
consistently.
Given the insignificant size of the parcel vis-a-vis the surrounding 1-1 zoning, the 1-1 designation would
likely have very little effect on the surrounding neighborhood and the city as a whole.
2
Rezone Criteria
The initial review criteria for considering a rezone application are explained in PMC. 25.88.030. The criteria
are listed below as follows:
1. The date the existing zone became effective:
The current zoning classification has been in place without change since at least 1974.
2. The changed conditions, which are alleged to warrant other or additional zoning:
The former railroad housing lot has been sold to the adjacent property owner and the house has been
demolished. The current owners wish to construct a building which would extend onto the former
residential property. The adjacent 3.6 -acre lot cannot be developed as planned due to the R-2 zoning on
the 2,268 -square -foot lot.
3. Facts to justify the change on the basis of advancing the public health, safety and general welfare:
The proposed zoning request for 1-1 zoning is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, which allows
for "0,"BP, C-1, C-2, C-3, or CR zoning; however, the lot is insignificant vis -6 -vis the existing 1-1 zoning on
the parcel.
4. The effect it will have on the value and character of the adjacent property and the Comprehensive
Plan:
A change in zoning classification may ultimately result in the development of a new warehouse building at
the location. The Comprehensive Plan allows for "O," BP, C-1, C-2, C-3, or CR zoning at the site. The
character of the surrounding properties is mostly industrial to the north, and west with access to A"Street
a minor arterial street.
5. The effect on the property owner or owners if the request is not granted:
If the property is not rezoned to 1-1 it will continue to be limited by the constraints of the R-2 zoning
designation, which currently allows for the following: Single-family dwellings; New factory -assembled
homes; Two-family dwellings; Multiple dwellings; gardening or fruit raising.
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. Public notice of this hearing was sent to property owners within 300 feet of the property on
May 17, 2019 and posted in the Tri -City Herald on May 28, 2019.
2. Applicant is seeking to rezone the parcel located at 28 West "A" Street from R-2 (Medium
Density Residential) to 1-1 (Light Industrial).
3. Applicant wishes to expand the current operation by constructing an industrial building on the
site.
4. The parcel is directly adjacent and surrounded on three sides by a building materials layout yard.
5. The site contains 2,268 square feet or approximately .052 acres.
6. The site was formerly part of the BNSF Right -of -Way).
7. The site was developed with railroad housing in the 1890s.
8. Part of the land containing the railroad houses was sold off to private homeowners; the houses
straddled railroad right-of-way and private ownership lots.
9. The adjacent building materials layout yard surrounds the parcel in question on three sides to
the north, west, and east,
10. The adjacent building materials layout yard contains around 3.6 acres
11. The adjacent building materials layout yard is developed with a 11,614 square -foot warehouse.
12. Properties further to the east are zoned R-2 and developed with railroad houses.
13. properties across "A" Street to the south are developed with single-family residential units.
14. The property has recently been sold to the owners of the adjacent property.
15. The house has been demolished.
16. Owners of the building materials layout yard wish to construct a 24,000 square -foot warehouse.
17. The desired warehouse would extend over onto the former housing lot.
18. The parcel was zoned R-2 to accommodate the former railroad houses.
19. The R-2 zoning has been in place from sometime before 1974.
20. The entire area has been designated "commercial" since the 1980 Comprehensive Plan
21. The adjoining site has been zoned Industrial for many years.
22. The Comprehensive Plan designates the property Commercial.
23. The Commercial Land Use designation allows for "O" (Office), BP (Business Park), C-1 (Retail
Business), C-2 (Central Business District), C-3 (General Business), or CR (Regional commercial)
zoning.
24. The Commercial Land Use designation is described in the Comprehensive Plan as including
"Neighborhood, community and regional shopping and specialty centers, business parks, service
and office uses."
25. Staff recommends the property be rezoned to C-3 (General Commercial), which would allow for
the building materials layout yard use while still accommodating the Comprehensive Plan
"Commercial" Land Use designation.
26. Staff also recommends the adjoining lot 1, Block 4 of Farm's Addition (also currently zoned R-2)
be rezoned to C-3.
27. Applicant rejects staffs recommendation and prefers 1-1 zoning.
28. The "Commercial" Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map designation is contrary to the proposed I-
1 zoning designation; however, the amount of land in question (2,268 square feet) and the
existing 1-1 zoning surrounding the parcel may constitute an extenuating circumstance.
29. A concomitant agreement would not be required.
TENTATIVE CONCLUSIONS BASED ON INITIAL STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT
Before recommending approval or denial of a rezone, the Planning Commission must develop findings of
fact from which to draw its conclusions based upon the criteria listed in PMC 25.210.060. The criteria are
as follows:
1. The proposal is in accordance with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan.
The proposal is not in accordance with the Comprehensive plan; under the current Comprehensive Plan
land use designations of "Commercial" the property may be zoned "O," BP, C-1, C-2, C-3, or CR. The
Commercial designation is described as including "Neighborhood, community and regional shopping and
specialty centers, business parks, service and office uses." However, the Comprehensive Plan also requires
the City to consider adjacent uses when deciding zoning. The property to the north, east, and west is
zoned 1-1.
Policy LU -4-A urges the city to "Locate commercial facilities at major street intersections to avoid
commercial sprawl and avoid disruptions of residential neighborhoods, and leverage major infrastructure
0
availability," and Policy ED -2-B states "Encourage development of a wide range of commercial and
industrial uses strategically located to support local and regional needs." The proposed use is located
along West "A" Street, a minor arterial street.
Policy LU -3-C requires the City to "Maintain and apply design standards and guidelines that will result in
attractive and efficient centers," and Goal Ed -2, "assure appropriate location and design of commercial
and industrial facilities." Goal Ed -3, "maintain development standards and design guidelines to ensure
that commercial and industrial developments are good neighbors," and Policy ED -3-A "Enhance
compatibility of commercial and industrial development with residential and mixed use neighborhoods
through the use of landscaping, screening, and superior building design standards and guidelines." City
code requires ten feet of landscaping, as well as screening of outdoor storage along arterial streets.
2. The effect of the proposal on the immediate vicinity will not be materially detrimental.
The immediate area is shown in the Comprehensive Plan for Commercial and Mixed Residential zoning.
The Commercial designated areas may be zoned "0," BP, C-1, C-2, C-3, or CR, as appropriate. The Mixed
Residential designation allows for R-5-20, R-5-12, R-5-1, and R-1 thru R-3 zoning district Uses permitted in
the 1-1 district include the following:
(1) All uses permitted in the C-3 district;
(2) Building material storage yard;
(3) Trucking, express and storage yards;
(4) Contractor's plant or storage yards;
(5) Laboratories, experimental;
(7) Automotive assembly and repair;
(8) Kennels;
(9) Creamery, bottling, ice manufacture and cold storage plant;
(10) Blacksmith, welding or other metal shops, excluding punch presses over 20 tons rated
capacity, drop hammers, and the like;
(11) The manufacturing, compounding, processing, packaging of cosmetics, pharmacology and
food products, except fish and meat products, and the reducing and refining of fats and oils;
(12) Printing plant; and
(13) Parking lots within 500 feet of a C-2 district boundary, provided such lots are paved and the
development complies with the landscape and fencing requirements of the C-1 district, as
enumerated in PMC 25.85.020(13)..
While the expansion of the current use will not substantially alter the existing character of the
neighborhood, the above uses are also permitted in the 1-1 zoning district (They are already allowed on
the surrounding property to the north, east and west).
3. There is merit and value in the proposal for the community as a whole.
The proposed zoning is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map; however, the site is
surrounded by 1-1 zoning on three sides and consists of 2,268 square feet. While the site is proximal to
residential zoning districts to the south, it is also located along West "A" Street, a minor arterial and truck
route; as such it has potential of being a benefit to the community if proper aesthetic considerations are
followed to mitigate its proximity to residential neighborhoods. City code requires ten feet of landscaping,
as well as screening of outdoor storage along arterial streets.
4. Conditions should be imposed in order to mitigate any significant adverse impacts from the
proposal.
The Pasco Municipal Code includes design standards for both commercial and residential development.
City code requires ten feet of landscaping, as well as screening of outdoor storage along arterial streets.
As such, no special conditions would be required.
S. A Concomitant Agreement should be entered into between the City and the petitioner, and if so,
the terms and conditions of such an agreement.
A concomitant agreement would not be required in this circumstance.
RECOMMENDATION
TION: Option #1: Staff recommends that the property at 28 W. A St (APN #112060047)
be rezoned to C-3 (General Commercial) to align with the Comprehensive Plan
Land Use Map; the adjoining lot 1, Block 4 of Farm's Addition to the east should
also be rezoned to match; or
Option #2: Staff recommends that the property at 28 W. A St (APN #112060047)
be rezoned to 1-1 (Industrial) to match the surrounding property; the adjoining
lot 1, Block 4 of Farm's Addition to the east should also be rezoned to match.
N
Jeff Adams
From: Dalton Walker <Dalton@wavedesigngroupllc.com>
Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2019 11:37 AM
To: Jeff Adams
Subject: Fwd: Zoning change in Pasco
Jeff,
Please see below from my client.
We want to continue with the I -L zoning.
Sorry about the confusion.
Thank you,
Dalton Walker
Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:
From: Ed Lukas <Ed@LBStoneProperties.com>
Date: June 12, 2019 at 11:32:54 AM PDT
To: Dalton Walker <Dalton@wavedesigngroupllc.com>, Dave Shea <David@LBStoneProperties.com>
Subject: Zoning change in Pasco
[EXTERNAL]
Dalton,
No change in our game plan. We want to proceed with the original plan of Industrial zoning as
recommended by Jeffrey Adams' department director, Rick White, and advanced by Darcy Bourcier.
Dave can give you more details tonight when you meet him at the 6pm hearing.
Thanks!
Ed Lukas
Real Estate Transaction Director
LBStoneProperties.com
2800 E. Main Ave.
PO Box 3949
Spokane, WA 99220
W
Z+CO
V
io
t.
rte,
Nl Hti1L S
VU
�
O
r
cd
N,
V
io
t.
rte,
Nl Hti1L S
VU
W
m
Z (A
4
)
I
Ln
0
3AV HIS S
o
E
UT
a
'u
m
E
E
7
u',
A
O
m
uLL
Q
F�^l
W
y
LL
O
O
V)
C
W
FEE
U
N
s0,
6SN
PSE
Ln
S
(n
O �
i
O p
�
ccl
C
Q
3AV HIL S
O
v
� � N
� �
o
C
S�
O
Cl)
�
E
E
W
p
7
�
N
LL
b C�
u
Nl HIL S
O
EE
o
CSS F
U
LnO
:L
W
Z + U)
3AV HIS S
N
N
^" Cl
vi W
W �—
a� -
'" s rook PSE
c a
O
N C r
1 K
G O
ce
� � O
C 3AV HIL S
N
ceN
PLO �, S
N
LL
NI HIL S o
Ncm LO
I
7-7
IL
a.
I
tit
City of REPORT TO HEARING EXAMINER
J^�O PUBLIC HEARING
I J City Hall — 525 North Third Avenue —Council Chambers
Wednesday July 10, 2019
6:00 PM
MASTER FILE #: SP 2019-005
APPLICANT: New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC dba AT&T Mobility
11410 NE 122nd Way Ste. 102
Kirkland, WA 98034-6945
REQUEST: SPECIAL PERMIT: 80"'Monopine" Cell Tower
BACKGROUND
1. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION:
Leval: Block 15, Pasco Improvement Company's V Addition, Including adjacent vacated north and south
alleys adjacent and adjacent vacated 15`" Avenue (Franklin county Tax Parcel # 112161483).
General Location: 1524 W Marie Street
Property Size: 2.43 acres (105,995.2 sq. ft)
2. ACCESS: The property has access from West Marie and West Henry Streets and North 16" Avenue
3. UTILITIES: Municipal water and sewer service are available to the property.
4. LAND USE AND ZONING: The site is zoned R-1 (Low -Density Residential). Surrounding properties are
zoned and developed as follows:
NORTH:
R-1
SFDUs
EAST:
"O"
Offices
SOUTH:
R-1
St Patrick's School/Church; Edgar Brown Stadium
WEST:
R-1
SFDUs
S. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The Comprehensive Plan indicates the site is intended for low-density
residential development. The purpose and description for low-density residential land uses includes
residential development at a density of 2 to 5 units per acre. Goal OF -2 suggests the City ought to maintain
land use flexibility in regard to placement of infrastructure for public and private utilities. Policy OF -2-A
encourages the sound management of all communication utilities through coordination and cooperation
dealing with construction of such facilities.
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
significance or Mitigated Determination of Non -Significance is likely for this application per WAC 197-11-355
ANALYSIS
New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC dba AT&T Mobility is proposing the construction of an 80' tall (74' tip height)
"Monopine" cellular antenna tower with antennas and ancillary equipment to be located at the southeast
corner of at a 2.43 acre church parcel located at 1524 W Marie Street. An 8' x 16' equipment shelter with
1
generator is also proposed. The total lease area is 20' x 50' consisting of the Monopine and ancillary
equipment.
The church property is located just north of Saint Patrick's School & Church campus, and near Edgar Brown
Stadium. The site is zoned R-1 (Low -Density Residential) as is the area to the north, south, and west. The
block east is zoned "0" (Office).
The Pasco Municipal Code (PMC) requires a special permit application for the location of a wireless cellular
facility in or within 500 feet of a residential zoning district. Wireless communication facilities are permitted
as a conditional use via PMC 25.165.080, provided said structures are:
(a) Attached to or located on an existing or proposed building or structure that is higher than 35
feet; or
(b) Located on or with a publicly owned facility such as a water reservoir, fire station, police station,
school, county or port facility.
Pursuant to PMC 25.165.080(a) cited above, AT&T is proposing to construct an 80' tall "stealth monopine"
support structure. This would fulfil the 35'+ structure requirement. However, the church property is not a
"publicly owned facility such as a water reservoir, fire station, police station, school, county or port facility"
as per PMC 25.165.080(b). At best it could be described as a quasi -public facility.
As per PMC 25.165.080(3) All wireless communication facilities shall comply with the following standards
(a) Wireless facilities shall be screened or camouflaged by employing the best available technology.
This may be accomplished by use of compatible materials, strategic location, color, stealth
technologies, and/or other measures to achieve minimum visibility of the facility when viewed from
public rights-of-way and adjoining properties, such that a casual observer cannot identify the wireless
communication facility.
(b) Wireless facilities shall be located in the City in the following order of preference:
(i) Attached to or located on buildings or structures higher than 35 feet;
(ii) Located on or with a publicly owned facility;
Located on a site other than those listed in subsections (3)(a) or (3)(b) of this section
(c) If an applicant chooses to construct a new freestanding wireless communication facility, the
burden of proof shall be on the applicant to show that a wireless communication facility located on
a higher order of preference site cannot reasonably be accommodated. The City reserves the right
to retain a qualified consultant, at the applicant's expense, to review the supporting documentation
for accuracy.
Pursuant to PMC 25.165.080(3)(a) above, AT&T is proposing to utilize an 80' tall "stealth monopine" support
structure to screen/camouflage its antennae. The monopine will be located on the southeast corner of the
subject property, adjacent to the office/commercial property to the east and across from the church to the
south. The pole (trunk) would be painted dark brown and the antennas and accessory equipment will be
painted to match the "branches." An existing tree adjacent to the proposed monopine will remain and will
provide partial screening for the Facility. The proposed ground equipment will be located within the lease
Area and will be fully screened from view behind the 6ft-high non -reflective chain-link fence with privacy
slats. AT&T is not proposing to install new landscaping, as the Facility is located in the middle of a parking lot.
While this strategy provides "partial screening" of the equipment according to AT&T, it does not necessarily
"achieve minimum visibility of the facility when viewed from public rights-of-way and adjoining properties,"
as the structure is 80' tall and obviously dissimilar to any of its surroundings. Other cell companies have
achieved stealth installation by utilizing existing church steeples with slight modifications, flagpole
installations, and adding small cupolas to tall apartment buildings to effectively hide their equipment, and
have distributed antennae over a network area rather than concentrating all units in one spot.
In respect to the order -of -preference requirements of PMC 25.165.080(3)(b) above, AT&T proposes installing
a new 80' mono -structure, rather than utilizing an existing structure in the area. As mentioned before the
proposed structure is unique to the neighborhood and not at all "stealthy." Also mentioned previously, the
facility is not within a public facility. Applicant has also submitted extensive justification for the proposed
facility including eight alternative sites, none of which "meet AT&T's service objective needs."
INITIAL STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT
Findings of Fact must be entered from the record. The following are initial findings drawn from the
background and analysis section of the staff report. The Hearing Examiner may add additional findings to
this listing as the result of factual testimony and evidence submitted during the open record hearing.
1. Public notice of this hearing was sent to property owners within 300 feet of the property on June 24,
2019, posted in the City's website, and in the Tri -City Herald on June 26, 2019.
2. The applicant has applied for a Special Permit for the construction of a wireless communication
facility in the R-1 (Retail Business) zoning district.
3. Surrounding areas to the north, south, and west are also zoned R-1 (Low -Density Residential. The
block east is zoned "O" (Office).
4. Wireless communication facilities are a permitted conditional use identified in PMC 25.85.040 in the
R-1 zoning district.
5. The City Comprehensive Plan indicates the site is intended for residential development.
6. New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC dba AT&T Mobility is proposing the construction of an 80' tall (74' tip
height) "Monopine" cellular antenna tower with antennas and ancillary equipment
7. Tower and equipment are to be located at the southeast corner of at a 2.43 acre church parcel
located at 1524 W Marie Street.
8. The church property is located just north of Saint Patrick's School & Church campus, and near Edgar
Brown Stadium.
9. An 8' x 16' equipment shelter with generator is also proposed.
10. The total lease area is 20' x 50' consisting of the Monopine and ancillary equipment.
11. The Pasco Municipal Code (PMC) requires a special permit application for the location of a wireless
cellular facility in or within 500 feet of a residential zoning district.
12. Wireless communication facilities are permitted as a conditional use via PMC 25.165.080, provided
said structures are:
a. Attached to or located on an existing or proposed building or structure that is higher than 35
feet; or
b. Located on or with a publicly owned facility such as a water reservoir, fire station, police
station, school, county or port facility.
13. AT&T is proposing to construct an 80' tall "stealth monopine" support structure in fulfilment of the
35'+ structure requirement.
14. The church property is not a "publicly owned facility such as a water reservoir, fire station, police
station, school, county or port facility" as per PMC 25.165.080(b).
15. PMC 25.165.080(3) requires all wireless communication facilities to comply with the following
standards:
a. Wireless facilities shall be screened or camouflaged by employing the best available
technology. This may be accomplished by use of compatible materials, strategic location,
color, stealth technologies, and/or other measures to achieve minimum visibility of the
facility when viewed from public rights-of-way and adjoining properties, such that a casual
observer cannot identify the wireless communication facility.
b. Wireless facilities shall be located in the City in the following order of preference:
L Attached to or located on buildings or structures higher than 35 feet;
ii. Located on or with a publicly owned facility;
iii. Located on a site other than those listed in subsections (3)(a) or (3)(b) of this section.
c. If an applicant chooses to construct a new freestanding wireless communication facility, the
burden of proof shall be on the applicant to show that a wireless communication facility
located on a higher order of preference site cannot reasonably be accommodated. The City
reserves the right to retain a qualified consultant, at the applicant's expense, to review the
supporting documentation for accuracy.
16. AT&T is proposing to utilize an 80' tall "stealth monopine" support structure to screen/camouflage
its antennae.
17. The monopine will be located on the southeast corner of the subject property, adjacent to the
office/commercial property to the east and across from the church to the south.
18. The pole (trunk) would be painted dark brown and the antennas and accessory equipment will be
painted to match the "branches."
19. An existing tree adjacent to the proposed monopine will remain and will provide partial screening for
the Facility.
20. The proposed ground equipment will be located within the lease Area and will be fully screened from
view behind the 6ft-high non -reflective chain-link fence with privacy slats.
21. AT&T is not proposing to install new landscaping, as the Facility is located in the middle of a parking
lot.
22. AT&T's proposed strategy provides "partial screening" of the equipment but does not "achieve
minimum visibility of the facility when viewed from public rights-of-way and adjoining properties."
23. The proposed structure is 80' tall and dissimilar to any of its surroundings.
24. Other cell companies have utilized more effective stealth strategies, as follows:
a. Installing antennae inside of existing, slightly modified church steeples;
b. Installing antennae inside of flagpoles;
c. Installing antennae inside of small cupolas atop tall apartment buildings;
d. distributing antennae over a network area rather than concentrating all units in one spot.
TENTATIVE CONCLUSIONS BASED ON INITIAL STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT
Before recommending approval or denial of the proposed plat the Hearing Examiner must develop findings
of fact from which to draw its conclusion (PMC 25.200.080 and 25.200.100) therefrom as to whether or not:
1. Will the proposed use be in accordance with the goals, policies, objectives and text of the
Comprehensive Plan?
a) Policy ED -2-8 of the City Comprehensive Plan encourages the development of a wide range of
commercial uses strategically located to support local and regional needs. According to Applicant's report,
AT&T evaluated the following alternative site locations within and directly adjacent to the targeted search
ring as possible locations for the proposed Facility. Their real estate team concluded that there are no existing
alternative sites within or adjacent to the targeted search ring "that will meet the service objectives of this
Facility."
2. Will the proposed use adversely affect public infrastructure?
a) The proposal will not generate an abnormal impact to public infrastructure such as water and sewer.
3. Will the proposed use be constructed, maintained and operated to be in harmony with the existing
or intended character of the general vicinity?
a) AT&T's proposed strategy provides "partial screening" of the equipment but does not "achieve
minimum visibility of the facility when viewed from public rights-of-way and adjoining properties." The
proposed structure is 80' tall and dissimilar to any of its surroundings. other cell companies have utilized
more effective stealth strategies, by installing antennae inside of existing, slightly modified church steeples,
inside of flagpoles, inside of small cupolas atop tall apartment buildings, and by distributing antennae over a
network area rather than concentrating all units in one spot.
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?
a) Site plan indicates that the tallest structure will be a maximum of 80 feet.
b) The surrounding properties are fully developed with a mix of residential, office, church, and school
facilities.
C) The location and height of the proposed project may discourage the development or redevelopment
of permitted uses on property in the surrounding vicinity.
S. 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?
a) The proposed wireless communication facility and operation are 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?
a) It is expected that the proposed wireless communication will not cause harm to the health and safety
of the public and that the associated activity will not become a nuisance to the permitted uses in the vicinity.
Furthermore, a jurisdiction is prohibited from considering the environmental effects of RF emissions
(including health effects) of cellular facilities if operating in compliance with federal regulations.
PROPOSED APPROVAL CONDITIONS
Not applicable
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends denial of the construction of a wireless communication facility in the R-1 zoning district,
as it meets neither the letter nor the spirit of the Pasco Municipal Code regarding wireless cellular facilities.
LLI w
zU) ' - -
i
wt
tt
�3
H.Lp1 N
t Zia
A
- LJ - _-
E
�+.LLJ
U� 3 H156 N . e:: ttt�►ec M : . w .tyw
T x
r4
ct Z O Tip—
C)
t l \
r� � vl ��• i `C ,+ E �P:P �.`,� i�r V '�� fi A vix�
unw
POO
? C
1.
c
�1
•� �� yrs; �J "�' i_ t 'ts YFn AYtr:•! Nt
•� — 3AV H186 N 1a
` W._ X02 1 0
Lj
W _
Z + co
hoops Z v�
w
O
H
3AV HIVL N
nails F
H U O a
Un is W o 12U)
N U 3AV HIS L N z
z
� w t
O n ds
C)
o
no- s
00
E w3AV H19L N
s� U
Y C
�zN _
N
U
o
o
N L
w LU
7 V7
�1 r Ln m
E U
-- N
■Iy LLO
3AV HIS N r
Z o
I - En ds n ds niH
i
nods
W
Z+tA
y
Z ,
3AV HIVE N
Sr
Cd
HU EJ
U WIn
vs }
UU 3AV HIS L N r w
N
O �
00 —
I � y
w3AV H1% N
a
a
a)
C)
Z O
k Z F o
Q N Q (A V
4-J Q
� U
O o
N
h � LL
W.J
P4
�~ O
O
N 3AV H18L N �
Z
LU
x
DT E' C a AWP'T
• • KPO463
CURRENT VIEW #1 LOOKING SOUTH
FROM MARIE ST. ENTRANCE
PROPOSED,M.�,i-- t„M.G1W
at&t
DT PASCO AIRPORT
KP0463
CURRENT VIEW #2 LOOKING EAST
FROM N 16TH AVE
PROPOSEDIMBRADLT [YIMAGING
KP0663
CURRENT VIEW #3 LOOKING NORTH
ACROSS W. HENRY STREET
PROPOSED TV 8ft.MEY IMAGING
CST PAISCO AIRPORT
Your world. Delivered
KP0463
CURRENT
VIEW #4 LOOKING WEST
ON W. HENRY ST. AT N. 14TH AVE.
,t
PROPOSED LM AOLT NM
Figure I.2—Alt Site #7—Comparison of New Coverage
Projected Coverage Difference between Proposed Facility @ 74ft & Alt Site #7 @ 39 ft
MAdditional Coverage provided by 7 3' tip Height
1 • f
S t
L ♦
ldjp
_ 1 'IR ,�" 2 •'l . 'Thi• •1
Aiternative
Colocation Coverage
Pioposed New AT&T Site Lotation
�.
aW
Figure 3.2—Projected New AT&T LTE 700 MHz Coverage
Projected Coverage Difference between Proposed Facility @ 74ft & Alt Site #8 @ 68 ft
Additional Coverage provided by 74' tip Height
=figure K.1—Projected New AT&T LTE 700 MHz Coverage
Projected Coverage Difference between Proposed Facility @74 ft & Alt Site #4 @ 74 ft
e
i_ Ls
�li,i. .L x,, .g y.V 1u P'•rp
4N Tq 1Ytil
�l lw 4
i rJ,
;
L�.
.:tiered ay Can.ocations
Figure K.2—Projected New AT&T LTE 700 MHz Coverage
Projected Coverage Difference between Proposed Facility @74 ft & Alt Site #5 @ 74 ft
T 4/
l
F p wTIV
1
Is
e♦•
yy 9
Covered by both locations
Search Ring Methodology
AT&T's RF engineers used coverage propagation software systems to predict the coverage provided by the proposed new
WCF. The software and AT&T's RF engineers considered the general factors outlined below, as well as more project -
specific factors such as the type of antenna, antenna tilt, etc.
Coverage. The antenna site must be located in an area where the radio frequency broadcasts will provide adequate
coverage within the targeted service area. The RF engineer must take into consideration the coverage objectives for the
site as well as the terrain in and around the area to be covered. Because radio frequency broadcasts travel in a straight
line and diminish as they travel further away from the antennas, it is generally best to place an antenna site near the
center of the desired coverage area. However, in certain cases, the search ring may be located away from the center of
the desired coverage area due to the existing coverage, the surrounding terrain, or other features which might affect the
radio frequency broadcasts, e.g. buildings or sources of electrical interference.
Clutter. AT&T's WCFs must "clear the clutter"—the WCF site must be installed above or close to RF obstructions (the
"clutter") to enable the RF to extend beyond and clear the clutter. AT&T's radio frequencies do not penetrate mountains,
hills, rocks, or metal, and are diminished by trees, brick and wood walls, and other structures. Accordingly, AT&T's
antennas must be installed above or close to the "clutter" to provide high quality communications services in the desired
coverage areas. Additionally, if the local code requires us to accommodate additional carriers on the support structure,
the structure must be even taller to also allow the other carriers' antennas to clear the clutter.
Call Handoff. The WCF site must be in an area where the radio broadcasts from the site will allow seamless "call
handoff" with adjacent WCF sites. Call handoff is a feature of a wireless communications system that allows an ongoing
telephone conversation to continue uninterrupted as the user travels from the coverage area of one antenna site into the
coverage area of an adjacent antenna site. This requires coverage overlap for a sufficient distance and/or period of time
to support the mechanism of the call handoff.
Quality of Service. Users of wireless communications services want to use their services where they live; work,
commute and play, including when they are indoors. AT&T's coverage objectives include the ability to provide indoor
coverage in areas where there are residences, businesses and indoor recreational facilities.
Search Ring Methodology—Con't
Radio Frequencies used by System. The designs of wireless communications systems vary greatly based upon the radio
frequencies that are used by the carrier. If the carrier uses radio frequencies in the 850 MHz to 950 MHz range, the radio
signals will travel further and will penetrate buildings better than the radio frequencies in the 1900 MHz band. As a result,
wireless communications systems that use lower radio frequencies will need fewer sites than wireless communications
systems that use higher radio frequencies. AT&T's system in Sunnyside uses only frequencies in the 1900 MHz so AT&T's
system requires more sites in order to achieve the same coverage that is provided by the carriers which use the 850 MHz
to 950 MHz frequency band.
Land Use Classifications. A&T's ability to construct a WCF site on any particular property is affected by state and local
regulations, including zoning and comprehensive plan classifications, goals, and policies. AT&T's search rings take these
laws and regulations into consideration.
https:/Ismartlink.eynyte.com/app/index.do#storage/files/1/Shared/Northwest SDS1WA_OR_N.ID_AK/ATT Projects/103358 WA %26 OR NSB 20181... 30/30
aW
DATE: January 14. 2019
RE: Proposed Radio Site Modification: KP0463 An 1521 W Marie St. Pasco. R'A
Dear Planner.
The proposed facility noted above will transmit at frequencies in the range 1177 to 594 MHz as
licensed by the Federal Conunutrications Commission.
The worst case general population exposure limit per the FCC Public Standards OET Bulletin 65
occurs at 717 MHz and is 0.478 tiff cm2.
The poster density calculations for each sector of the proposed facility- (typically will be less than
17.437,20o (700MHz) of the FCC limit due to antenna centerline height of 70 feet above ground) will
be well below the maximum FCC general public exposure levels. The proposed facility will not
cause other co -located facilities to exceed FCC exposure standards and is categorically proven as
safe. according to Federal Guidelines. AT&T audits our facilities on a semi-annual basis to insure
that FCC compliance levels are continuously met.
The proposed facility should not interfere with other communications facilities. Our sites are
monitored 24 7 by a national operations center to insure all is operating nomially. In addition. we
have local technicians who make routine visits to cell sites to make repairs schen needed.
I certif • that this information is true to the best of my knowledge.
Regards,
Kung-Liang Brian Lin r -
RF Engineer AT&T Mobility --�
L
2 i 2019 ULS Ucense - 7D0 6.tHz Lore' Band (Flocks C. Di L,Ce95e - NFA%517 -,AT&T 1•.teoearo ScectJ LLC
ULS License
700 MHz Lower Band (Blocks C, D) License - WPWV517 -
AT&T Mobility Spectrum LLC
Call Sign WPWV517 Radio Service
Status Active Auth Type
Rural Service Provider Bidding Credit
Is the Applicant seeking a Rural Service Provider
(RSP) bidding credit?
Reserved Spectrum
Reserved Spectrum
Market
WZ - 700 MHz Lower Band
(Blocks C, D)
Regular
Market CMA214 - Richland -Kennewick- Channel Block C
Pasco, WA
Submarket 0 Associated 000710.00000000 -
Frequencies 000716.00000000
(MHz) 000740.00000000-
000746.00000000
Dates
Grant 01/24/2003
Effective 08/24/2018
Buildout Deadlines
1st 06/13/2019
Notification Dates
1st 08/02/2018
FRN 0014980726
Licensee
AT&T Mobility Spectrum LLC
208 S. Akard St., RM 1015
Dallas, TX 75202
ATTN Cecil J Mathew
Expiration 06/13/2019
Cancellation
2nd
2nd 08/02/2018
Type Limited Liability Company
P:(855)699-7073
F:(214)746-6410
E: FCCM W,,-Oatt.com
file C Uses Debra C- ffin Documents Permin:ng 1-1-10o20subm,ttals KP0463�o20D'�=2CFascoco2D2°:7?.0 Y'c20^f'c20PaSi0".°c205i!P�<Z05UCm!ft 1 2
2 2^ 2019
Contact
ULS License - 700 AIHZ Lowe) Sand (S!Qrks C D Licence - %,PVVV517 - AT&T f cNity Spectrum LLC
AT&T Mobility LLC
Michael P Goggin
1120 20th Street, NW - Suite 1000
Washington, DC 20036
ATTN Michael P. Goggin
Radio Service Type Fixed, Mobile
Regulatory Status Common Carrier
P:(202)457-2055
F:(202)457-3073
E: michael.p.goggin@att.com
Interconnected No
Alien Ownership
The Applicant answered "No" to each of the Alien Ownership questions.
Basic Qualifications
The Applicant answered "No" to each of the Basic Qualification questions.
Tribal Land Bidding Credits
This license did not have tribal land bidding credits.
Race
Ethnicity
Gender
file C Users Debra Griffin Documents Perr„itt:ng LU°o20,submctals KPJ4e3°320D'oo20Pascoo0202co2"v-C,tvon20ero:21-,Pasco)°020S- FOo205ubm41 2 2
at&t
January 11, 2019
City of Pasco
Planning Department
525 N. 3'- Ave.
Pasco, WA 99301
Re: AT&T's Radio Frequency (RF) Engineering Justification for the Proposed Wireless
Communications Facility in the City of Pasco: DT Pasco 2 KP0463 at 1524 W. Marie St.
To Whom It May Concern,
Enclosed please find the RF Justification document prepared for AT&T's proposed new wireless
communications facility at the above noted location. This letter serves as my verification, to the
best of my knowledge, of the accuracy of the RF information, propagation maps, and analysis
provided in the attached RF Justification.
Thank you for your consideration of this information.
Sincerely,
Kung-Liang Brian Lin
RF Engineer
AT&T Mobility
.YG
KP0463 DT Pasco 2
RF Justification
OVERVIEW
AT&T is proposing to build a new wireless communication facility ('Wi.F" or "Facility"), KP0463 DT Pasco 2, located
approximately 0.1 mile NE of the Edgar Brown Memorial Stadium in Pasco, WA. The proposed Facility is at a location and
height where AT&T's service objects are best met throughout the Targeted Se. vice Area, as further described below.
SERVICE OBJECTIVES AND TARGETED SERVICE AREA
AT&T's overall network service objective is to provide reliable outdoor, in -vehicle, and in -building 4G LTE coverage. The proposed
new WCF, specifically, is intended to increase AT&T's 4G LTE coverage and capacity in the surrounding dense residential
neighborhoods, Edgar Brown Memorial Stadium, and elementary schools and high schools, as well as provide coverage
enhancements around Fruitvale, in addition to Highway 132 and North 20th Street (the "Targeted Service Area"). The Targeted
Service Area was defined by AT&T's RF engineers through RF engineering analysis after considering a combination of customer
complaints, service requests, and other factors.
This proposed Facility meets AT&T's service objectives within the Targeted Service Area. This proposed WCF will allow for
uninterrupted wireless service in the Targeted Service Area with fewer dropped calls, improved call quality, and improved access
to additional wireless services that the public now demands. This includes emergency 911 calls throughout the area.
SEARCH RING
AT&T's radio frequency ("RF") engineers performed an RF engineering study, considering multiple objectives, to determine the
approximate site location and antenna height required to fulfill the noted service objectives for the Targeted Service Area. From
this study, AT&T's RF engineers identified a "search ring" area where a wireless facility may be located to provide effective service
in the Targeted Service Area.
Figure A—Search Ring indicates the search ring AT&T's RF engineers established for this proposed WCF. A discussion of the
methodology AT&T's RF engineers used to identify the search ring is included at the end of this RF Justification document.
Figure A — Search Ring
s
�y y
[ (Cly
!
i� jttA
Olt
e � r
4n
4!
�y y
[ (Cly
!
i� jttA
4n
4!
t�
Apr
A
r
Y;
.a
COVERAGE JUSTIFICATION
Figure B.1—Coverage Gap. As can be seen, there is a large 4G LTE coverage gap in all areas not shaded in green. This coverage gap
was determined through a combined analysis of customer complaints, service requests, and frcm RF engineering design. Currently,
the target coverage area has minimal to no 4G voice grade service and does not have adequate 4G LTE service within the 700 MHz
frequency band.
Figure B.2—Projected Coverage. Figure 8.2 identifies the projected coverage from the proposed new WCF with the requested
antenna tip height cf 74ft. The new Facility will provide good coverage and improve capacity in this dense residential area and Edgar
Brown Memorial Stadium. To the NE, service from this Facility will improve coverage & capacity for the elementary school and
Pasco High School. To the north, service from this Facility will improve coverage on 1-182 and other major roads like N 20th Street.
In addition to expanded coverage, the addition of new 4G LTE technology on the proposed new Facility will improve network
accessibility dramatically, especially in cases of emergency with people utilizing their mobile devices all at the time.
Additional Benefit of Proposed Site:
As this service objective of this site is to improve and enhance the coverage and capacity in a suburban area, height plays an
important role. The higher the antenna height, the better the coverage. The proposed Facility provides connected coverage in the
surrounding residential areas to adjacent AT&T wireless sites.
Figure B.1—Coverage Gap
Existing & Planned AT&T LTE 700 MHz Coverage
Target Service Area BEFORE Addition of Proposed New Wireless Facility
IRE
ow
P,0001to %im AT&T 9"! Motion
EvIti.g ATLI We Low,
AL
Figure B.2—Projected New AT&T LTE 700 MHz Coverage
Coverage AFTE,g Proposed New Facility On-Air-74ft. Antenna Tip On Proposed Monopine
l
q
•<.
♦ t -
t Xd�'t-iii
�
yet 1"♦�V s t „
diT7J ger. 1
t ejer ;, i
c�.
{ I
e,
{t
-�
C i _
- ` -♦. _.
It
Y � l
C.rmrn and AntWpaled AT&T Caeera;e
OrWwd New AT&T Cr,mge
prMmed hew AT&T SNe lomian
ImiW#q AT&T Site laatwn
Alternative Site Analysis
AT&T considers all siting possibilities within, and adjacent to, a search ring to determine the best location for a new facility to meet
the service objectives in the Targeted Service Area. AT&T will first attempt to utilize an existing tower or structure for collocation at
the desired antenna height. If an existing tower or structure is not available or determined to be infeasible, AT&T will then propose a
new tower.
The following alternative site locations within or adjacent to the search ring were identified and analyzed by AT&T RF engineers, and
all were deemed insufficient to meet AT&T's RF service objectives within the Targeted Service Area.
1. Alternative Site #1—Existing Cellco Tower (46.235425,-119.109806)
This alternative location is Same spot on an existing Cellco tower. This alternative will give lower antenna radiation center. As shown in
Figure C.1, New Tower Location has Higher Tip Height around 6' than the existing Tower. As shown in Table 1, this covers only 44.71%
of target area as compared to Proposed location. Also going with the Existing Cellco tower may limit the Future Carrier enhancement
if needed, as there are already existing service providers on this tower.
2. Alternative Site #2—Church: 1730 W. Park St. (46.235670156,-119.114495457)
This alternative location is Church building with approx. available tip height of 44' adjacent to proposed location. This alternative will
give lower antenna radiation center. As Shown in Figure D.1, New Tower Location has Higher Tip Height around 30' than the existing
Tower. As shown in Table 1, this covers oniy 44.71'0 of target area as compared to Proposed location.
3. Alternative Site #3—Edgar Brown Memorial Stadium—Stadium lights (46.234745,-119.110051)
This alternative location is Edgar Brown Memorial Stadium—Stadium lights with approx. available tip height of 39'. This alternative will
give lower antenna radiation center. As Shown in Figure E.1, New Tower Location has Higher Tip Height around 25' than the existing
Tower. As shown in Table 1,this covers only 39.83° of target area as compared to Proposed location. This location will not cover the
target area in North as it is bit far from Proposed location.
Alternative Site Analysis, Con't
4. Alternative Site #4—Emerson Elementary School –1616 W. Octave St.(46.237617726,-119.110894416)
This alternative location is Emerson Elementary School building with approx. available tip height of 34'. This alternative will give lower
antenna radiation center. As Shown in Figure F.1, New Tower Location has Higher Tip Height around 40' than the existing Tower. As
shown in Table 1, this covers only 28.869 of the target area as compared to Proposed location. As shown in Figure K1, if the Tip Height
were to be raised to 74', we would get the similar footprint as required to cover the target area.
5. Alternative Site #5—St. Patrick Catholic Church –1320 W. Henry St,(46,236790584,-119.108280868)
This alternative location is St. Patrick Catholic Church Building with approx, available tip height of 60'. This alternative will give lower
antenna radiation center. As Shown in Figure G.1, New Tower Location has Higher Tip Height around 14' than the existing Tower. As
shown in Table 1,this covers only 47.965 of target area as compared to Proposed location. As shown in Figure K.2, if the Tip Height were
to be raised to 74', we would get the similar footprint as need to cover the target area.
6. Alternative Site #6—Pasco Senior High School –1108 N. 10th Ave.(46.239047213,-119.10477437)
This alternative location is Pasco Senior High School Building with approx. available tip height of 39'. This alternative will give lower
antenna radiation center. As Shown in Figure H.1, New Tower Location has Higher Tip Height around 35' than the existing Tower. As
shown in Table 1, this covers only 24.34% of target area as compared to Proposed location. This Location is not good as it is close to the
existing On Air sites.
7. Alternative Site #7—Captain Gray Elementary School -1102 N. 10thAve.(46.240502861,-119.103646405)
This alternative location is Captain Gray Elementary School Building with approx. available tip height of 39'. This alternative will give
lower antenna radiation center. As Shown in Figure 1.1, New Tower Location has Higher Tip Height around 35' than the existing Tower. As
shown in Table 1,this covers only 28.45% of target area as compared to Proposed location. This Location is close to the existing On Air
sites.
8. Alternative Site #8—Stadium lights (between Pasco HS & Captain Gray Elem School) (46.239521,-119.105745)
This alternative location is Stadium I;ghts (between Pasco HS & Captain Gray Elem School) with approx, available tip height of 68'. As
Shown in Figure 1.1, New Tower Location will provide better coverage in West & NW Direction. As shown in Table 1, this covers 75.6%
of target area as compared to the Proposed location.
Alternative Site Analysis, cont
Site location
Coordinates
Tip height
Coverage surface
Percentage
(ft)
(mi^2)
Proposed Facility Location
46.237975,
74
2.46
100
-119.108725
Alt Site #1—Cellco Colocation
46.235425,
68
1.57
63.82
119.109806
44
1.10
44.71
Alt Site 112—Church
46.235670156,
-119.114495457
Alt Site #3—Edgar Brown Memorial
46.234745 '39
39
Stadium—Stadium lights
-119.110051
0.98
39.83
Alt Site #4—Emerson Elementary School
46.237617726,
-119.110894416
34
0.71
28.86
Alt Site #5—St. Patrick Catholic Church
46.236790584,-119.108280868
60
1.18
47.96
Alt Site #6—Pasco Senior High School
46.239047213,
39
0.60
24.39-119.10477437
Alt Site #7—Captain Gray Elementary
46.240502861,
School
-119.103646405
39
0.70
28.45
68
1.86
75.6
Alt Site #8—Stadium lights between Pasco
46.239521,
HS & Captain Gray Elem School)
-119.105745
Figure C.1—Alt Site #1—New AT&T LTE 700 MHz Coverage
Projected Coverage AFTER Alt Site #1 On -Air @ 68ft Antenna Tip
,has -177" -^r
a
i,It
'r
^ r '
r r
t9"! '_
Current and Annuoated AT&T Coverage
Alternative Colocation Coverage f
�. Proposed New AT&T Site Location ?' ;
Ex,sting AT&T Site Location i
*Alternative Site Location
r
Figure C.2—Alt Site #1—Comparison of New Coverage
Projected Coverage Difference between Proposed Facility @ 74ft & Alt Site #1 @ 68ft
inka
�'s�y " F
tri t. -. _ x✓ �j�r��;t��,��"r�;
Additional Coverage provided by 74' tip Height
Figure D.1—Alt Site #2—New AT&T LTE 700 MHz Coverage
Projected Coverage AFTER Alt Site #2 On -Air @ 44ft Antenna Tip
7 Rf^y i
I
Current and Anticipated AT&T Coverage i l
Alternative Cofocation Coverage
k Proposed New AT&T Site Location
Existing AT&T Site Location'.
J .
k'Alternative Site Location
I
Current and Anticipated AT&T Coverage i l
Alternative Cofocation Coverage
k Proposed New AT&T Site Location
Existing AT&T Site Location'.
J .
k'Alternative Site Location
=igure D.2—Alt Site #2—Comparison of New Coverage
►rojected Coverage Difference between Proposed Facility @ 74ft & Alt Site #2 @ 44ft
Additional Coverage provided by 74'tip Height
Figure E.1—Alt Site #3—New AT&T LITE 700 MHz Coverage
Projected Coverage AFTER Alt Site #3 On -Air @ 39ft Antenna Tip
Current and Anaereated AT&T Coverage
Alternative Coloration Coverage
Proposed New AT&T Site Location
Existing AT&T Site Location
a
Alternative Site Location
4
Figure E.2—Alt Site #3—Comparison of New Coverage
Projected Coverage Difference between Proposed Facility @ 74ft & Alt Site #3 @ 39ft
ERWEP7
A
Additional Coverage provided by 74' tip Height
(' Y�ZV
T `
t
t,4
A
Additional Coverage provided by 74' tip Height
=figure F.1—Alt Site #4—New AT&T LTE 700 MHz Coverage
rrojected Coverage AFTER Alt Site #4 On -Air @ 34 ft. Antenna Tip
t_
q=
i
Current and Anticipated AT&T Cover
Alternative Colocation Covera
Proposed New AT&T Site location
Existing AT&T Site tocation
k'Alternative Site Location
*&I
Figure F.2—Alt Site #4—Comparison of New Coverage
Projected Coverage Difference between Proposed Facility @ 74ft & Alt Site #4 @ 34 ft
Additional Coverage provided by X tip Height
=igure G.1—Alt Site #5—New AT&T LTE 700 MHz Coverage
)rojected Coverage AFTER Alt Site #5 On -Air @ 60 ft Antenna Tip
Current and Anticioaned At&T Coveraee
Alternative Colocation Coverage
k Proposed New AT&T Site location
Existing AT&1 Site Location
Alternative Site location
i
f
c,,
- LZ ry
5�trt
s_
L Y fi J
y s y
i
at&t
=figure H.1—Alt Site #6—New AT&T LTE 700 MHz Coverage
rrojected Coverage AFTER Alt Site #6 On -Air @ 39 ft Antenna Tip
Current and Anticipated AT&T Cover ace
Alternative Colocation Coverage
Jr Proposed New AT&T Site location
' Existing AT&T Site location
kAlternative Site location
r
Figure H.2—Alt Site #6—Comparison of New Coverage
Projected Coverage Difference between Proposed Facility @ 74ft & Alt Site #6 @ 39 ft
Additional Coverage provided by 74' tip Height
:figure I.1—Alt Site #7—New AT&T LTE 700 MHz
Coverage
rojected Coverage AFTER Alt Site #7 On-Air @ 39 ft Antenna
Tip
,t x
s,
4' VA
r
® CU/fen( and AntlClpaled AT&T Co{ efJ►e
Alternative Colocation Coverage
r.
Proposed New AT&T Site location
L Existing AT&T Site location
y
�"� Alternative Site location
PROJECT NARRATIVE
WCF SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION
AT&T—KP0463 DT Pasco 2
Submitted to the City of Pasco, WA
Planning Department
Applicant: New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC ("AT&T")
19801 SW 72°G Avenue Suite 200
Tualatin, OR 97062
(425)222-1026
Representative: Smartlink LLC
11410 NE 122nd Way, Ste 102
Kirkland, WA 98034-6945
Contact: Debbie Griffin
480-296-1205
Debra.Griffin@smartlinkllc.com
Property -Owner: Christian Church of Pasco
Contact: Chuck Rogers
1524 W. Marie St.
Pasco, WA 99301
Project Address: 1524 W. Marie St.
Pasco, WA 99301
Description & Tax Lot: GPS Coordinates: 46.23796 / -119.108737
Parcel No. 112161483
Zoning Classification: R-1, Low Density Residential
Smartlink LLC is submitting this application on behalf of New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC ("AT&T")
and the underlying property owner.
ATTACHMENT I—Project Narrative
AW's Application -00463 DT Pasco 2
Page 2 of 9
1. PROJECT OVERVIEW
AT&T is proposing to build a new monopine wireless communications facility ("WCF" or
"Facility'), KP0463 DT Pasco 2, at the above noted project address. This Facility is intended to
increase AT&T's 4G LTE coverage and capacity in the surrounding dense residential
neighborhoods, Edgar Brown Memorial Stadium, elementary schools and high schools, in
addition to 1-182 and North 20'^ Street. The proposed WCF will also provide coverage
enhancements around Fruitvale.
AT&T intends for its application for the proposed WCF to include the following documents
(collectively, "AT&T's Application"):
• Attachment 1:
Project Narrative (this document)
• Attachment 2:
Statement of Code Compliance
• Attachment 3:
RF Justification
• Attachment 4:
AT&T MPE Analysis
• Attachment 5:
FCC License
• Attachment 6:
FAA TOWAIR Report
• Attachment 7:
Deed
• Attachment 8:
Photo Simulations
• Attachment 9:
Zoning Drawings
As shown in AT&T's Application, this proposed project meets all applicable criteria in the City of
Pasco's Municipal Code ("PMC") for siting new wireless communications facilities and complies
with all other applicable state and federal laws and regulations. AT&T's proposal is also the least
intrusive means of meeting its coverage objectives for the Facility. Accordingly, AT&T respectfully
requests the City of Pasco to approve this project as proposed, subject only to the City of Pasco's
standard conditions of approval.
Please Note: The responses and information included in Attachment 2—Statement of Code
Compliance are intended to support and supplement this Project Narrative. All references to
"Attachments" in this Project Narrative are references to the attachments included as part of
AT&T's Application.
2. PROPOSED PROJECT DETAILS
Detailed information regarding the project information included below is included in Attachment
9—Zoning Drawings.
2.1. Subject Property—Zoning & Use
• The subject property of this proposal is located at 1524 S. Marie Street in the City of
Pasco, Parcel No. 112161483 (the "Property"). The Property is owned by Christian
Church of Pasco. (See Attachment 7—Deed)
ATTACHMENT 1—Project Narrative
AT&T's Application —KP0463 DT Pasco 2
Page 3 of 9
• The Property is zoned as R-1, Low Density Residential, and is currently used primarily
as a church.
2.2. Lease Area
• The proposed 20ft x 50ft lease area for the WCF is located at the southeast corner of
the Property (the "Lease Area").
• The Lease Area will be covered with decomposed granite.
• The Lease Area will be surrounded by a site obscuring 6ft slatted non -reflective chain-
link fence, with access to the lease Area secured by a locked gate.
2.3. Access, Parking, and Trip Generation
• Current and future access to the subject site is via West Henry Street.
• There is parking available in the existing parking lot on-site.
• The proposed WCF will be an unmanned wireless facility. As such, after the initial
construction, AT&T will only regularly access the Facility for maintenance and
inspections, whichwill likely generate no morethan one ortwo trips per month.
2.4. Utilities
• Power. Power will run from the ROW on NE 76th Street to the Lease Area.
• Telecommunications. Telecommunications fiber will run from the ROW on NE 76th
Street to the Lease Area.
• Water & Sewer. This is an unmanned wireless facility with no requirements for access
to water or sewer facilities.
2.5. Support Structure Design
• Support Structure Type. AT&T is proposing to build a new 84ft tall monopine (the
"Tower") in the Lease Area. This will be an unmanned wireless facility.
• Antennas and Accessory Equipment.
:, The Tower will contain antennas and equipment supporting AT&T 4G LTE
including: Twelve (12) panel antennas, twelve (12) remote radio head (RRH) units,
three (3) surge protectors, and associated fiber/DC cables.
• Color. The Tower, antennas, RRHs, and accessory equipment on the Tower will be
painted to match. All paint will have an anti -glare finish.
• Lighting. No artificial lighting is required pursuant to federal authorities. (See
Attachment 6—FAA TOWAIR Determination) AT&T is also not proposing the addition
of any artificial lighting.
2.6. Ground equipment.
• All ground equipment for the Facility will be constructed within the Lease Area.
• The ground equipment will be enclosed within a pre -fabricated cabinet shelter placed
on an 8ft x 14ft elevated platform.
• A 15KW back-up diesel generator will be located next to the equipment cabinet on
the 8ft x 14ft elevated platform.
ATTACHMENT :—Project Narrative
AT&T's Application— KP0463 DT Pasco 2
Page 4 of 9
2.7. Screening and Landscaping.
• Pursuant to PMC 25.165.080, AT&T is proposing to construct a stealth monopine
support structure. Please see Attachment 8—Photo Simulations for a visual depiction
of the proposed Facility and Attachment 9—Zoning Drawings, Sheet A2.0 for the
location of the monopine on the subject property.
o The monopine will be located on the southeast corner of the subject property,
adjacent to the office/commercial propertyto the east and across from the church
to the south.
The pole (trunk) will be painted dark brown and the antennas and accessory
equipment will be painted to match the branches.
o The existing tree adjacent to the proposed monopine will remain and will provide
partial screening for the Facility.
As noted above, the proposed ground equipment will be located within the Lease Area
and will be fully screened from view behind the 6ft-high non -reflective chain-link
fence with privacy slats.
AT&T is not proposing to install new landscaping, as the Facility is located in the
middle of a parking lot.
3. AT&T NETWORK COVERAGE AND SERVICES
3.1. Overview—AT&T 4G LTE
AT&T is upgrading and expanding its wireless communications network to support the latest 4G
LTE technology. LTE stands for "Long Term Evolution." This acronym refers to the ongoing
process of improving wireless technology standards, which is now in its fourth generation. With
each generation comes improvement in speed and functionality -4G LTE offers speeds up to ten
timesfaster than 3G. LTE technology is the next step in increasing broadband speeds to meet the
demands of uses and the variety of content accessed over mobile networks.
Upon completion of this update, AT&T will operate a state-of-the-art digital network of wireless
communications facilities throughout the proposed coverage area as part of its nationwide
wireless communications network.
3.2. Coverage Objectives for Proposed Facility
This proposed Facility meets AT&T's coverage objectives (providing outdoor, in -vehicle, and in -
building wireless coverage) within a geographic area not presently served by AT&T's network.
Specifically, this Facility is intended to fill a gap in AT&T's 4G LTE network coverage experienced
by its customers in the surrounding dense residential neighborhoods, Edgar Brown Memorial
Stadium, elementary schools and high schools, in addition to 1-182 and North 20'h Street. The
proposed WCF will also provide coverage enhancements around Fruitvale. This coverage
objective was determined through a combined analysis of customer complaints, service requests,
and radio frequency (RF) engineering design. (See Attachment 3—RF Justification)
ATTACHMENT 1—Project Narrative
AT&T's Application—KP0463 DT Pasco 2
Page 5 of 9
Additionally, AT&T has established a need for service in this geographic area, as determined by
market demand, coverage requirements for a specific geographic area, and the need to provide
continuous coverage from one site to another in a particular geographic region. This proposed
Facility will allow for uninterrupted wireless service in the targeted coverage area with fewer
dropped calls, improved call quality, and improved access to additional wireless services that the
public now demands. This includes emergency 911 calls throughout the area.
4. SEARCH RING
AT&T's RF engineers performed an RF engineering study, considering multiple objectives, to
determine the approximate site location and antenna height required to fulfill the noted network
objectives for the targeted service area. From this study, AT&T's RF engineers identified a
"search ring" area where a WCF may be located to provide effective service in the target coverage
area.
The search ring established for this proposal, and a description of the methodology used to
identify the search ring, is provided in Attachment 3—RF Justification.
S. SITING ANALYSIS
AT&T considers all siting possibilities within, and adjacent to, a search ring to determine the best
location for a new facility to meet the targeted service objectives. When designing an existing or
new area for coverage or capacity, AT&T will first attempt to utilize an existing tower or structure
for collocation at the desired antenna height. If an existing tower or structure is not available or
not attainable because of space constraints or unreliable structural design, only then will AT&T
propose a new tower. AT&T's construction and real estate group, with the assistance of outside
consultants, thoroughly analyzed all siting options.
5.1. Siting Priorities
AT&T evaluated the following alternative site locations within and directly adjacent to the
targeted search ring as possible locations for the proposed Facility. As noted below, our real
estate team concluded that there are no existing alternative sites within or adjacent to the
targeted search ring that will meet the service objectives of this Facility.
Pursuant to PMC25.70.075 (3)(c), the following sites listed below represent potential collocation
opportunities.
5.1.1. Attached to or located on buildings.
• 90ft Cellco Tower -1016 N. 10 Ave.
o The 9011 Cellco Tower has a 68ft tip height available. As shown in
Attachment 3—RF Justification, collocating on this site would only
cover 63.82% of the target coverage area, which does not meet
AT&T's service objective needs.
Also, there are two carriers currently on this tower, which may limit
future carrier enhancement if a third carrier is at added at this time.
ATTACHMENT 1—Project Narrative
AT&T's Application —KPO463 DT Pasco 2
Page 6 of 9
• The River Church -1730 W. Park St.
Assuming 10 -feet over the roof -line, the church has an approximate
44ft tip height available. As shown in Attachment 3—RF
Justification, collocating on this site would only cover 44.71% of the
target coverage area, which does not meet AT&T's service objective
needs.
• Edgar Brown Memorial Stadium Lights -46.234745,-119.110051
The stadium lights have an approximate 39ft tip height available. As
shown in Attachment 3—RF Justification, collocating on this site
would only cover 39.83% of the target coverage area, which does not
meet AT&T's service objective needs.
• St. Patrick Catholic Church -1320 W. Henry St.
c The church has an approximate 60ft tip height available on the
steeple provided the steeple could carry the load of the Applicant's
equipment. As shown in Attachment 3—RF Justification, collocating
on this site would only cover 47.96% of the target coverage area,
which does not meet AT&T's service objective needs.
• Stadium Lights between Pasco HS and Captain Gray Elementary -
46.239521, -119.105745
o The stadium lights have an approximate 68ft tip height available. As
shown in Attachment 3—RF Justification, collocating on this site
would only cover 75.6% of the target coverage area, which does not
meet AT&T's service objective needs.
5.1.2. Located on or with a publicly owned facility
• Emerson Elementary School -1616 W. Octave St.
Assuming 10 -feet over the roof -line, the elementary school has an
approximate 34ft tip height available. As shown in Attachment 3—
RF Justification, collocating on this site would only cover 28.86% of
the target coverage area, which does not meet AT&T's service
objective needs.
• Pasco Senior High School located -1102 N. 10`h Ave.
Assuming 10 -feet over the roof -line, the high school has an
approximate 39ft tip height available. As shown in Attachment 3—
RF Justification, collocating on this site would only cover 24.34% of
the target coverage area, which does not meet AT&T's service
objective needs.
ATTACHMENT 1—Project Narrative
ATV's Application—KP0463 DT Pasco 2
Page 7 of 9
• Captain Gray Elementary School -1102 N. 1011 Ave.
Assuming 10 -feet over the roof -line, the elementary school has an
approximate 39'ft tip height available. As shown in Attachment 3—
RF Justification, collocating on this site would only cover 28.45% of
the target coverage area, which does not meet ATV's service
objective needs.
6. APPLICABLE LAW
6.1. Local Codes
Pursuant to the Pasco Municipal Code, new WCF support towers in the R-1 zoning district are
subject to a Special Use Permit application and Planning Commission review and must comply
with the criteria in the City of Pasco Municipal Code, Title 25 Zoning. See Attachment 2—
Statement of Code Compliance for ATV's demonstration of compliance with the applicable
code.
6.2. State Law
Pursuant to the Pasco Municipal Code, new WCF support towers are subject to compliance with
the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) and must comply with the criteria in the City of Pasco
Municipal Code, Chapter 6.88 Environmental Policy. A SEPA checklist has been submitted for
review with the Special Use Permit application.
6.3. Federal Law
Federal law, primarily found in the Telecommunications Act of 1996 ("Telecom Act"),
acknowledges a local jurisdiction's zoning authority over proposed wireless facilities but limits
the exercise of that authority in several important ways.
6.3.1. Local jurisdictions may not materially limit or inhibit. The Telecom Act prohibits
a local jurisdiction from taking any action on a wireless siting permit that "prohibit[s) or
[has) the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services." 47 U.S.C. §
332(c)(7)(B)(i)(II). According to the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC") Order
adopted in September 2018,1 a local jurisdiction's action has the effect of prohibiting the
provision of wireless services when it "materially limits or inhibits the ability of any
competitor or potential competitorto compete in a fair and balanced legal and regulatory
environment."2 Under the FCC Order, an applicant need not prove it has a significant gap
in coverage; it may demonstrate the need for a new wireless facility in terms of adding
capacity, updating to new technologies, and/or maintaining high quality service.3
I Accelerating Wireless and Wireline Broadbtmd Deploymentby Removing Barriers to Infrastructure Investment, Declaratory Ruling
and Third Report and Order. WT Docket No. 17-79, WC Docket No. 17-84, FCC 18-133 (rei. Seat. 27. 2018); 83 Fed. Reg. 51867
(Oct. 14, 2018) ("FCC Order').
: Id. at 9 35.
'- Id. at 99 34-42.
ATTACHMENT 1—Project Narrative
ATV's Application —KP0463 DT Pasco 2
Page 8 of 9
While an applicant is no longer required to show a significant gap in service coverage, in
the Ninth Circuit, a local jurisdiction clearly violates section 332(c)(7)(13)(i)(II) when it
prevents a wireless carrier from using the least intrusive means to fill a significant gap in
service coverage. T -Mobile U.S.A., Inc. v. City of Anacortes, 572 F.3d 987, 988 (9th Cir.
2009).
• Significant Gap. Reliable in -building coverage is now a necessity and every
community's expectation. Consistent with the abandonment of land line
telephones and reliance on only wireless communications, federal courts now
recognize that a "significant gap" can exist based on inadequate in -building
coverage. See, e.g., T -Mobile Central, LLC v. Unified Government of Wyandotte
County/Kansas City, 528 F. Supp. 2d 1128, 1168-69 (D.Kan. 2007), affirmed in part,
546 F.3d 1299 (10t' Cir. 2008); MetroPCS, Inc. v. City and County of San Francisco,
2006 WL 1699580, *10-11 (N.D. Cal. 2006).
• Least Intrusive Means. The least intrusive means standard "requires that
the provider 'show that the manner in which it proposes to fill the significant gap
in service is the least intrusive on the values that the denial sought to serve."' 572
F.3d at 995, quoting MetroPCS, Inc. v. City of San Francisco, 400 F.3d 714, 734 (9t1
Cir. 2005). These values are reflected by the local code's preferences and siting
requirements.
6.3.2. Environmental and health effects prohibited from consideration. Also under the
Telecom Act, a jurisdiction is prohibited from considering the environmental effects of RF
emissions (including health effects) of the proposed site if the site will operate in
compliance with federal regulations. 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(iv). AT&T has included with
this application a statement from its radio frequency engineers demonstrating that the
proposed facility will operate in accordance with the Federal Communications
Commission's RF emissions regulations. See Attachment 4—AT&T MPE
Analysis. Accordingly, this issue is preempted under federal law and any testimony or
documents introduced relating to the environmental or health effects of the proposed
Facility should be disregarded in this proceeding.
6.3.3. No discrimination amongst providers. Local jurisdiction also may not discriminate
amongst providers of functionally equivalent services. 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(i)(I). A
jurisdiction must be able to provide plausible reasons for disparate treatment of different
providers' applications for similarly situated facilities.
6.3.4. Shot Clock. Finally, the Telecom Act requires local jurisdictions to act upon
applications for wireless communications sites within a "reasonable" period of time. 47
U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(ii). The FCC has issued a "Shot Clock" rule to establish a deadline for
the issuance of land use permits for wireless facilities. 47 C.F.R. § 1.6001, et seq. A
presumptively reasonable period of time for a local government to act on all relevant
applications for a "macro" wireless facility on a new structure is 150 days. 47 C.F.R. §
ATTACHMENT 1—Project Narrative
AT&T's Application -00463 DT Pasco 2
Page 9 of 9
1.6003(c)(1)(iv). The Shot Clock date is determined by counting forward 150 calendar
days from the day after the date of submittal, including any required pre -application
period. 47 C.F.R. § 1.6003(e).
Pursuant to federal law, the reasonable time period for review of this application is 150
days.
4-0
03
CD
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
vi
V) 0
(Y)
IL N p
w
114-
z
CD
/\�
o
<
CL
0
z
� �
\
}\}}\ \\\
\
O
4=J f
o
�k
\�
.
`
i\� .,
}
�~
\\(\\�;\\
\
\.
1: 4
Ol
j
i
Y S F r
YEqb �� S y• � '•�
3j2 YyR �'Z Y% r •�
1 55
b
m �je e
a�g�
pyp. .
NJYg�Y
i gQ d;h I HER HI ff 451
!
IN
F sY� t
W. %' R � �R� :Y� Y`yr ��• YY'eti
y�g7� y�f"
s Fa a Yom@ �`", s.; Ce a `-��'.� €50yd $-Pfl a
a� €-ages Vis. RN :` r ek9 �'a x€;.,..Rpg .=d g
yy y y rr g bR�k
6a be Y�6 �� k3 •cc' gg[ kp pp N�. k P� �"[,RL 8u b:
Ob
pY� " gS $a Y yY Y8 �r$igr:�
g
GPkS_ SFlyay g �i e P i=ti gE�k6` M. v
eYke Y
•ak;:gaPg�e eka�
MY[ AR1 N
11Y W x
b0
' 60
lei
r\
Q—A
IF
�� � 4. i
_
i
By isml
NY WI N
Y S F r
YEqb �� S y• � '•�
3j2 YyR �'Z Y% r •�
1 55
b
m �je e
a�g�
pyp. .
NJYg�Y
i gQ d;h I HER HI ff 451
!
IN
F sY� t
W. %' R � �R� :Y� Y`yr ��• YY'eti
y�g7� y�f"
s Fa a Yom@ �`", s.; Ce a `-��'.� €50yd $-Pfl a
a� €-ages Vis. RN :` r ek9 �'a x€;.,..Rpg .=d g
yy y y rr g bR�k
6a be Y�6 �� k3 •cc' gg[ kp pp N�. k P� �"[,RL 8u b:
Ob
pY� " gS $a Y yY Y8 �r$igr:�
g
GPkS_ SFlyay g �i e P i=ti gE�k6` M. v
eYke Y
•ak;:gaPg�e eka�
31N 3AV Hit t 'N
I al
F P -F)
CAS CAS -GAS Q
3nN3AV 11191'N
:q p:
0
0
cup
c
31N 3AV Hit t 'N
I al
F P -F)
CAS CAS -GAS Q
3nN3AV 11191'N
:q p:
0
0
0
0
31N 3AV Hit t 'N
I al
F P -F)
CAS CAS -GAS Q
3nN3AV 11191'N
:q p:
0
4-0-1
0
0
04
4-0
��
�
co
�
\
���.�
)�{�
/
�
� �
g
k hi
All
��
}}
\.x2•�
>� \
� a
Ilu
Iff
le—
lV! T
\}\\
Jt
w'e
11;r
It
All
STATEMENT OF CODE COMPLIANCE
WCF SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION
KP0463 DT Pasco 2
Submitted to the City of Pasco, WA
Planning Department
AT&T's application (the "Application") for a new wireless communication facility ("WCF" and/or
"Facility") in the R-1 Low Density Residential District is subject to and complies with the following
applicable provisions of the City of Pasco's Municipal Code ("PMC"), which are addressed in this
Statement of Code Compliance in the following order:
WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITY REQUIREMENTS
• 25.165.080 Wireless Communication Facilities
GENERAL ZONING & DESIGN REQUIREMENTS
• 25.45.050 R-1 Low Density Residential District—Development standards.
• 25.175.030 Site Design Standards—Building height exceptions.
• 25.175.060 Site Design Standards—Site drainage.
a 25.180.050 landscaping and Screening—Design standards. (Fences, walls
and hedges)
• 25.185.150 Off -Street Parking—Uses not specified.
PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS
• 25.200.060
Special Permits—Application requirements.
• 25.200.070
Special Permits—Public hearing required.
• 25.200.080
Special Permits—Findings of fact by Planning Commission.
• 25.200.100
Special Permits—Recommendation of Planning Commission.
• 25.200.120
Special Permits—City Council consideration.
PLEASE NOTE: AT&T's responses to applicable provisions are indicated below in bold italicized
blue text Any reference to an "Attachment" is in reference to an attachment included in AT&T's
application for the proposed Facility.
ATTACH MEN' 2—Statement of Code Compliance
AT&T's Application—KP0463 DT Pasco 2
Page 2 of 12
Wireless Facilities Requirements
25.165.080 Wireless communication facilities.
Wireless communication facilities are permitted under the following conditions:
(1) Such structures shall be permitted in all industrial or C-3 zoning districts, provided the
location is 500 feet or more from a residential district. Any location closer than 500 feet requires
special permit approval.
Applicant Response: Not applicable, as AT&T's proposed wireless structure is located in the R01
zoning district.
(2) Such structures may be permitted by special permit in all other zoning districts, provided
said structures are:
(a) Attached to or located on an existing or proposed building or structure that is
higher than 35 feet; or
Applicant Response. There are no buildings or structures higher than thirty-five feet that
are of sufficient height to meet AT&T's service objectives in the Targeted Service Area.
Please see the Alternative Site Analysis sections in Attachment 1—Project Narrative and
Attachment 3—RF Justification for additional discussion and analysis regarding AT&T's
site selection process.
(b) Located on or with a publicly owned facility such as a water reservoir, fire station,
police station, school, county or port facility.
Applicant Response: There are no publicly owned facilities that are of sufficient height
to meet AT&T's service objectives in the Targeted Service Area. Please see the
Alternative Site Analysis sections in Attachment I —Project Narrative and Attachment
3—RF Justification for additional discussion and analysis regarding AT&T's site selection
process.
(3) All wireless communication facilities shall comply with the following standards:
(a) Wireless facilities shall be screened or camouflaged by employing the best
available technology. This may be accomplished by use of compatible materials, strategic
location, color, stealth technologies, and/ or other measures to achieve minimum
visibility of the facility when viewed from public rights- of -way and adjoining properties,
such that a casual observer cannot identify the wireless communication facility.
Applicant Response: AT&T is proposing to construct a stealth monopine support
structure. Please see Attachment 1—Project Narrative, Screening and Landscaping, for
additional details regarding proposed measures to limit visibility of the Facility, and
Attachment 8—Photo Simulations for a visual depiction of the proposed Facility.
ATTACHMENT 2—Statemert of Code Compliance
AT&T's Application—KP0463 DT Pasco 2
Page 3 of 12
(b) Wireless facilities shall be located in the City in the following order of preference:
(i) Attached to or located on buildings or structures higher than 35 feet;
(ii) Located on or with a publicly owned facility;
(iii) Located on a site other than those listed in subsections (3)(a) or (3)(b) of
this section.
Applicant's Response: AT&T's proposal is for a new monopine support structure in the
R01 zoning district is a site other than those listed in subsections (3)(a) or 3(b) of this
section pursuant to subsection (iii). As noted in AT&T's responses to subsections (2)(a)
and 2(b) above, please see the Alternative Site Analysis in Attachment 1—Project
Narrative and Attachment 3—RF Justification for discussion and analysis regarding
AT&T's site selection process.
(c) If an applicant chooses to construct a new freestanding wireless communication
facility, the burden of proof shall be on the applicant to show a wireless communication
facility located on a higher order of preference site cannot reasonably be accommodated.
The city reserves the right to retain a qualified consultant, at the applicant's expense, to
review the supporting documentation for accuracy.
Applicant Response: AT&T acknowledges and understands this requirement. As noted
in AT&T's responses to subsections (2)(a) and 2(b) above, please see the Alternative Site
Analysis in Attachment 1—Project Narrative and Attachment 3—RF Justification for
discussion and analysis regarding AT&T's site selection process.
(4) All applications for building permits must be accompanied by verification of approval by
the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and
any other state or federal requirements for tower design and location. Additionally, all tower
construction plans must be designed and stamped by a licensed professional engineer.
Applicant Response: AT&T acknowledges, understands, and intends to comply with this
requirement.
(5) All wireless communication facilities shall be removed by the facility owner within six
months of the date the facility ceases to be operational or if the facility falls into disrepair.
Applicant Response. AT&T acknowledges, understands, and intends to comply with this
requirement.
(Ord. 3734 Sec. 1, 2005.)
ATTACHMENT 2—Statement of Code Compliance
AT&T's Application—KP0463 DT Pasco 2
Page 4 of 12
GENERAL REQUIREMENTS
25.45.050 Development standards.
(1) Minimum lot area: 7,200 square feet;
Applicant Response: Not applicable.
(2) Density: One dwelling unit per lot, except as provide in PMC 25.45.030(7);
Applicant Response: Not applicable.
(3) Maximum lot coverage: 40 percent;
Applicant Response: Not applicable.
(4) Minimum Yard Setbacks.
(a) Front: 20 feet;
(b) Side: Five feet;
(c) Rear. Principal building: Equal to the height of the dwelling;
Accessory structures: Accessory structures adjacent an alley may be placed on the alley
line provided there are no openings in the wall parallel to the alley. Garages with vehicle
doors parallel to an alley shall be set back from the alley 20 feet. Where there is no alley,
the setback shall be five feet. Structures related to rabbits and/or chicken hens, such as
rabbit hutches and/or chicken coops, must be at least 10 feet from any property line, may
not exceed six feet in height and 30 square feet in size, and must be located behind the
rear line of the dwelling. Rabbit hutches and/or chicken coops adjacent an alley may be
placed within five feet of the alley line provided there are no openings in the wall parallel
to the alley. Property owners shall not allow such structures to become a nuisance due to
noise or odor.
Applicant Response: To the extent this requirement is applicable, the proposed Facility is
located more than 20ft from the northern property line (front yard), 20ft from the southern
property line and 10ft from the eastern property lines, measured from the center of the
structure. See Attachment 9—Zoning Drawings, Sheet A1.0.
(5) Maximum Building Height.
(a) Principal building: 25 feet, except a greater height may be approved by special
permit;
(b) Accessory buildings: 15 feet;
Applicant Response: Not applicable. Pursuant to PMC 25.175.030, a wireless communication
support structure (tower) is exempt from height limitations. See AT&T's response to PMC
25.175.030, below.
(6) Fences and hedges: See Chapter 25.180 PMC;
Applicant Response. See AT&T's responses below to applicable sections of Chapter 25.180
PMC.
ATTACHMENT 2—Statement of Code Compliance
ATV's Application —KP0463 DT Pasco 2
Page 5 of 12
(7) Parking: See Chapter 25.185 PMC;
Applicant Response: See AT&T's responses below to applicable sections of Chapter 25.185
PMC.
(8) Landscaping: See Chapter 25.180 PMC; and
Applicant Response: Not applicable.
(9) Residential design standards: See PMC 25.165.100
Applicant Response: Not applicable.
[Ord. 4040 § 4, 2012; Ord. 4036 § 9, 2011; Ord. 3731 § 10, 2005; Ord. 3354 § 2, 1999; Code
1970 § 25.28.050.]
25.175.030 Building height exceptions.
(1) Exceptions to Height Regulations. Chimneys, water tanks, penthouses, towers, scenery
lofts, elevators, bulkheads, stacks, ornamental casting towers, monuments, steeples, cupolas,
domes, false mansards, and similar structures and necessary mechanical appurtenances may be
erected to any height not exceeding the cross-sectional area of 20 percent of the ground floor.
(2) The above exceptions shall not apply to structures within the designated airport zones.
[Ord. 4110 § 27, 2013; Ord. 3354 § 2, 1999; Code 1970 § 25.74.040.]
Applicant Response: Pursuant to the direction of city staff, because a new wireless tower
requires the approval of a Special Permit, the height of the proposed Facility is reviewed and
approved through the Special Permit process and is exempt from height limitations in this code.
25.175.060 Site drainage.
All storm drainage shall be retained on site and controlled by way of drainage $wales, dry wells,
French drains or other means as approved by the City Engineer.
Applicant Response: AT&T acknowledges, understands, and intends to comply with this
requirement. AT&T will address storm drainage during the building permit process.
25.180.050 Design standards.
(1) Fences, Walls and Hedges.
(a) The height offences, walls and hedges located between a structure and street or alley
shall be measured from the street curb or alley grade except in those cases where
topographical irregularities occur. The height of fences, walls and hedges between a
structure and a common lot line shall be measured from the grade along the common lot
line or top of any structural retaining wall occurring at the common lot line.
Applicant Response: AT&T acknowledges and understands this provision.
(b) Fences and walls in commercial districts shall complement the materials used in any
principal on-site structures.
Applicant Response: Not applicable.
ATTACHMENT 2—Statement of Code Compliance
AT&T's Application —KPO463 DT Pasco 2
Page 6 of 12
(c) The height offences, walls and hedges shall be limited to 3.5 feet within the front yard
area of residentially zoned lots, retail business and office zoned lots; provided, when two
contiguous corner lots, or two corner lots separated only by an alley right-of-way, form
the entire frontage between parallel or nearly parallel streets, the height of fences, walls
and hedges shall be limited to six feet within the front yard adjacent to the side street;
except where the front door of a house faces the side street all fences greater than 3.5
feet in height must be set back to the building line of the house facing the side street.
Applicant Response: The fenced Lease Area for the proposed Facility is located in the
rear "yard" behind the church building that is the primary use. See Attachment 9—
Zoning Drawings, Sheet A1.0.
(d) The height of fences, walls and hedges within the side and rear yards of residentially
zoned lots, retail business and office zoned lots shall be limited to six feet. A gate or
opening with a minimum three-foot width leading into at least one side yard shall be
provided.
Applicant Response: The 6ft-high fenced Lease Area for the proposed Facility is located
in the rear "yard" behind the church building that is the primary use of the subject
property. The fenced Lease Area will be accessed through a 12ft-wide gate. See
Attachment 9—Zoning Drawings, Sheet A2.0.
(e) Fences shall not be constructed out of tires, pallets, bed springs, multi -colored
materials, tarps, plastic sheets, corrugated sheet metal, except in industrial districts,
wheel rims and similar or like materials not traditionally manufactured or used for fencing
purposes. Hog wire, chicken wire, horseman wire mesh, v -mesh, field fence, woven field
fence, welded utility fence, or any similar or like wire fencing material is not permitted in
residential or commercial zones. Horseman wire mesh and the other wire fencing listed
above may be permitted in suburban residential districts on tracts larger than one acre
that are used for animal husbandry. Fences built with valid permits prior to the effective
date of this chapter or fences on properties annexed to the City after the effective date
of this chapter are exempt from this subsection.
Applicant Response: The proposed fencing around the Lease Area will be a slatted non -
reflective chain-link fence.
(f) Fences constructed of wrought iron with interspersed brick or block columns of up to
five feet in height may be permitted within front yards in the R -S-20 and R-5-12 districts
provided said fencing is 85 percent transparent.
Applicant Response: Not applicable.
(g) Barbed and razor wire fencing is prohibited in all residential districts, in the office
district and the central business district. Barbed wire may be permitted in suburban
residential districts on tracts larger than one acre that are used for animal husbandry. In
the C-1 retail business district only one strand of barbed wire is permitted along the top
rail or within two inches of the top rail.
ATTACHMENT 2—Statement of Code Compliance
AT&T's Application —KP0463 DT Pasco 2
Page 7 of 12
Applicant Response: The proposed fencing around the Lease Area will not include
barbed wire.
(h) Electrified fences are not permitted in residential districts except as a secondary
means of securing property where the electrified fence is located behind an existing fence
or in suburban districts to contain permitted farm animals.
Applicant Response: AT&T is not proposing an electrified fence.
(i) In all front yards, whether on properties with single, double, or triple frontage, rails,
posts and other structural fence supports shall not be visible from a public street; except
that posts and rails that are an integral part of the fence design and aesthetics and not
used solely for structural support may be visible from a public street.
Applicant Response: Not applicable.
(j) All fencing in commercial and industrial districts shall be placed on the inward side of
any required perimeter landscaping, with landscape treatments occurring along the
street frontage.
Applicant Response: Not applicable.
(k) No fence, wall or hedge, landscape material or foliage higher than three feet above
curb grade shall be located or planted within an area 20 feet along the property lines from
the intersection of two streets, including the area between such points, or 15 feet from
the intersection of a street and an alley; provided, however, that if an alternative fence
material is used, such as masonry, wrought iron, wood, or combination thereof, then the
fence must be 75 percent transparent and may be a maximum six feet in height; or a
smaller, 75 percent transparent fence set upon a maximum three-foot wall or other
structure not exceeding a combined height of six feet may be erected within said area of
intersection of street and alley, so long as the fence is at all times unobstructed by foliage
or other matter.
Applicant Response: Not applicable.
(1) Fences constructed in any zoning district may be permitted at the back of sidewalks in
public right-of-way upon approval of the City Engineer, except as provided in PMC
25.180.050(1)(j) .
Applicant Response: Not applicable.
(m) All residential fencing within the 1-182 overlay district, as defined by PMC 25.130.020,
adjacent to the 1-182 right-of-way shall be constructed of masonry block. Replacement of
pre-existing Surewood fences within the district shall use masonry block or cedar material
prescribed by the City as pre -stained, knotless cedar 23/32 -inch thick, five and one-half
inches wide and six feet tall.
Applicant Response: Not applicable.
ATTACHMENT 2—Statement of Code Compliance
AT&Ts Application —KP0463 DT Pasco 2
Page 8 of 12
(n) No fence or wall shall be erected without first obtaining a building permit from the
Building Inspector.
Applicant Response: AT&T acknowledges, understands, and intends to comply with this
requirement.
(2) Clearance Distances. Where a fire hydrant is located within a landscape area it shall
be complemented by a minimum clearance radius of three feet; no tree, as measured
from its center, shall be located within 10 feet of a street light standard, or within five
feet of a driveway or a fire hydrant.
Applicant Response: Not applicable.
25.185.020 Off-street parking and loading spaces.
Whenever a structure is erected or altered, there shall be provided on the same lot, adjacent lot,
or group of lots accessible off-street parking. No off-street parking or loading spaces shall be
constructed, located, relocated or modified without the issuance of a building permit. (Ord. 3354
§ 2, 1999; Code 1970 § 25.78.020.]
Applicant Response: The proposed Facility is located at the rear of the existing parking lot for
the church located on the some property. This is an unmanned wireless facility that will only
generate an average of one to two maintenance visits a month from a single maintenance
vehicle (pick-up truck). Accordingly, AT&T proposes to use the existing church parking lot for
off-street parking.
25.185.150 Uses not specified.
Off-street parking requirements for uses not specifically listed herein shall be determined by the
City Planner based upon the requirement for similar uses. [Ord. 3354 § 2, 1999; Code 1970
§ 25.78.150.]
Applicant Response: Wireless facility uses are not listed in PMC 25.185.170. Therefore, the City
Planner shall determine the off-street parking requirement for the proposed Facility. This will
be an unmanned facility, located on a portion of a large parking lot, and only generating an
average of one to two maintenance trips per month consisting of a single maintenance vehicle
(pick-up truck). The maintenance visits will also occur on weekdays when the church's parking
lot is minimally used. Accordingly, AT&T respectfully requests that no additional off-street
parking requirements be imposed as a condition of approval of the Facility.
ATTACHMENT 2—Statement of Code Compliance
AT&T"s Application —KP0463 DT Pasco 2
Page 9 of 12
PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS
Chapter 25.200 Special Permits
25.200.060 Application requirements.
Applications for special permit shall include the following:
(1) Present use of the land and structures, if any;
(2) Detailed description of the proposed use;
(3) Description of any existing zoning ordinance violation;
(4) A site map or plan drawn neatly and to scale, showing the following:
a) Exterior property lines and any adjacent public street or alley rights-of-way.
b) Existing and proposed buildings and other structures.
c) Existing and proposed points of ingress and egress, drives and driveways and
circulation pattern.
d) The location of existing and proposed parking areas with each parking space shown.
e) Existing and proposed open spaces and landscape areas.
(5) The property owner' s notarized signature acknowledging the application; and
(6) Any other pertinent information that may be necessary to determine if the use meets the
requirements of this Title. (Ord. 4110, 2013; Ord. 3354 Sec. 2, 1999.)
Applicant Response: Please see Attachment 1—Project Narrative for demonstration of AT&T's
compliance with subsections (1) – (3). Please see Attachment 9—Zoning Drawings for
demonstration of AT&T's compliance with subsection (4). The property owner's notarized
signature is included with AT&T's Special Permit application form.
25.200.070 Public hearing required.
Upon the filing of a complete application for a special permit, the application shall be scheduled
for an open record pre- decision hearing before the Planning Commission. Notice of such open
record hearing shall be given as provided for in Section 25.210.040. Except that in the case of
commercial agricultural uses, the notification distance shall be increased to 1,000 feet. The open
record hearing may be continued as deemed necessary by the Planning Commission, provided
the applicant consents to any such continuance. In the event the applicant does not consent to a
continuance, the Planning Commission shall close the public hearing and render a
ATTACHMENT 2—Statement of Code Compliance
AT&T's Application —KP0463 DT Pasco 2
Page 10 of 12
recommendation to the City Council in accordance with the provisions of Sections 25.200.080
and 25.200.100. (Ord. 3354 4 2,1999; Code 1970 § 25.86.050.1
25.200.080 Findings of fact by Planning Commission.
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;
Applicant Response: As has been demonstrated herein, the proposed facility satisfies several of
the applicable goals and policies of the Pasco Comprehensive Plan including, but not limited to
Policy No. 1 (1) Urban Growth, (10) Public Facilities and Services and (13) Economic
Development of the following Elements: Land Use Element, Capital Facilities Element, Utilities
Element and Economic Development Element. Wireless services are key to growing urban
areas. People rely on the ability to use their phones and other wireless devices at work and at
home, both indoors and outdoors. As the population of the City of Pasco increases and land
development patterns change over time, the demand for urban services also increases and
changes. These changes require that service providers, both public and private, plan for the
provision of services in a coordinated manner.
The proposed project forwards the intent of the Land Use Element and Capital Facilities Element
by supporting development and providing reliable communications services to a growing
community and doing so in a manner that encourages future collocation of other providers in
an inconspicuous manner. Collocation avoids the need for construction of additional
telecommunication facilities, thus promoting the efficient and orderly provision of
urbanization, supporting the economy by providing choice of carriers in the area and providing
needed public services, as outlined in Pasco city code. Further, the proposed project will
improve emergency response because it would improve wireless communication for citizens
making emergency calls; increasing convenience and decreasing the chance of dropped
emergency calls made by cellular phone.
The proposed project forwards goals and policies of the Utilities Element, UT -2. Goal: "Ensure
that adequate placement of utility facilities is addressed in development plans." The proposed
communication facility has been proposed at a location within the City of Pasco where there is
a gap in coverage and will enhance the quality of coverage in the area.
Further, the proposed project forwards goals and policies of the Economic and Development
Element by enhancing a public need - reliable wireless service - while preserving the
characteristics of the area. Wireless service is a critical today, with many people relying on their
wireless devices for everything from information gathering to financial transactions to primary
home phone service.
(2) The proposal will adversely affect public infrastructure;
ATTACHMENT 2—Statement of code Compliance
ATV's Application —KP0463 DT Pasco 2
Page 11 of 12
Applicant Response: The proposed WCF will not 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;
Applicant Response: The wireless communication facility is proposed as a monopine to blend
with the surrounding area. The location of the monopine is located at the southeast corner of
the church property, approximately 375 feet from the nearest residential structure to the
northwest. The immediate uses in the vicinity are churches, a medical building, schools and a
stadium.
(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;
Applicant Response: The location of the proposed WCF is in the southeast corner of the parcel
which will not interrupt the circulation, parking or future development of the parcel. The
proposed 80 -foot height will also not affect future development. Furthermore, the proposed
WCF will not impair the value of the property, rather it will provide a value, as coverage areas
will be strengthened and increased.
(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
Applicant Response: The proposed WCF is a passive use and will not be a hinderance on the site
or surrounding properties. There will be no fumes, vibrations, dust, traffic or flashing lights.
The only noise will be from a generator that will be ran one time per month for maintenance.
There are uses permitted in the R01 zoning district that create a greater degree of noise, traffic
and produce flashing lights such as churches, fire department station houses, day care centers,
medical offices and schools, as found in PMC 15.45.040.
(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 § 2,
1999; Code 1970 § 25.86.060.]
Applicant Response: The proposed WCF is a passive use and will not be a hinderance on the site
or surrounding properties. The proposed wireless facility will not cause significant adverse
impact on the public health or safety of surrounding area. Compliance with Federal Emission
requirements can be found in the attached MPE Analysis, Attachment 4.
25.200.100 Recommendation of Planning Commission.
After an open record pre -decision hearing on a proposed 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
§ 2, 1999; Code 1970 § 25.86.070.]
25.200.120 City Council consideration.
(1) Unless a proper and timely appeal is filed or the City Council by majority vote deems further
review is necessary, the recommendation of the Planning Commission shall be affected by proper
ATTACHMENT 2—Statement of code Compliance
AT&T's Application —KP0463 DT Pasco 2
Page 12 of 12
action of the City Council without further review. In the event the City Council deems further
review is necessary, it shall conduct a closed record hearing, notice of which shall be given in
accordance with PMC 25.210.040;
(2) In those cases which require further review, the City Council shall at the conclusion of a closed
record hearing make and enter findings of fact and take one of the following actions:
(a) Approve the special permit with or without conditions:
(b) Deny the special permit.
(Ord. 3354 § 2, 1999; Code 1970 § 25.86.090.1
12/17/2018 TOWAIR Search Results
TOWAIR Determination Results
A routine check of the coordinates, heights, and structure type you provided indicates
that this structure does not require registration.
*** NOTICE ***
TOWAIR's findings are not definitive or binding, and we cannot guarantee that the data in
TOWAIR are fully current and accurate. In some instances, TOWAIR may yield results
that differ from application of the criteria set out in 47 C.F.R. Section 17.7 and 14 C.F.R.
Section 77.13. A positive finding by TOWAIR recommending notification should be given
considerable weight. On the other hand, a finding by TOWAIR recommending either for
or against notification is not conclusive. It is the responsibility of each ASR participant to
exercise due diligence to determine if it must coordinate its structure with the FAA.
TOWAIR is only one tool designed to assist ASR participants in exercising this due
diligence, and further investigation may be necessary to determine if FAA coordination is
appropriate.
PASS SLOPE(100:1)NO FAA REQ - 2761.0 Meters (9058.29 Feet)away & below
slope by 5.0 Meters (16.3999 Feet)
Lowest
Elevation
Type C/R Latitude Longitude Name Address (m) Runway Length (m)
AIRP R 46-15- 119-08-
21.00N 1.00W
TRI- FRANKLIN 120.6
CITIES PASCO,
WA
2350.3000000000002
PASS SLOPE(100:1)NO FAA REQ - 2709.0 Meters (8887.69 Feet)away & below
slope by 4.0 Meters (13.1199 Feet)
Lowest
Elevation
Type C/R Latitude Longitude Name Address (m) Runway Length (m)
AIRP R 46-15- 119-07-
38.00N 19.00W
TRI- FRANKLIN 120.6
CITIES PASCO,
WA
2350.3000000000002
PASS SLOPE(100:1)NO FAA REQ - 2268.0 Meters (7440.85 Feet)away & below
slope by 0.0 Meters (0.0 Feet)
Lowest
Elevation
Type C/R Latitude Longitude Name Address (m) Runway Length (m)
AIRP R 46-15- 119-06- TRI- FRANKLIN 120.6 2350.3000000000002
30.00N 24.00W CITIES PASCO,
htip://wireless2.Icc.go IUWApWAsrSearchftowWrResuk.isp7pnnfabk
1 '2
12/172018
NAD83 Coordinates
Latitude
Longitude
Measurements (Meters)
TOWAIR Search Resuns
WA
46-14-16.7 north
119-06-31.4 west
Overall Structure Height (AGL) 24.4
Support Structure Height (AGL) 24.4
Site Elevation (AMSL) 118.7
Structure Type
MTOWER - Monopole
Tower Construction Notifications
Notify Tribes and Historic Preservation Officers of your plans to build a tower.
CLOSE WINDOW
http://YArelon2.fcc,Vw/UlsApp/AsrSeamhho irResult.jsp7pmtable
212
Psko REPORT TO HEARING EXAMINER
PUBLIC LAND USE HEARING
Iq 1 City Hall — 525 North Third Avenue —Council Chambers
WEDNESDAY JULY 10, 2019
6:00 PM
MASTER FILE #: PP 2019-002
APPLICANT: Juan Ochoa
4903 Antigua Dr.
Pasco WA 99301
REQUEST: PRELIMINARY PLAT: East Franklin Plat (14 -Lot Single -Family
Subdivision)
BACKGROUND
1. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION:
Leval: All of block 8, Washington Addition, together with adjacent vacated street and alleys
(Franklin County Assessor's Tax Parcel #113 884 076).
General Location: Southeast corner of East Helena Street and Heritage Boulevard.
Property Size: The site consists of one parcel approximately 3.12 acres (136,081 square feet).
2. ACCESS: The property has access from Heritage Boulevard.
3. UTILITIES: Municipal water and sewer are available branching off East Helena Street in Heritage
Boulevard.
4. LAND USE AND ZONING: The lots are currently vacant and zoned R -1-A (Low -Density Residential
Alternate District). Surrounding properties are zoned and developed as follows:
NORTH: RT Vacant
EAST: C-3 Vacant
SOUTH: C-3 Vacant
WEST: R -1-A SFDUs
5. Comprehensive Plan: The Comprehensive Plan indicates the site is intended for commercial
development; however, the parcel was already zoned Residential prior to this application. As
such, there is no Comprehensive Plan guidance which would be applicable to this residential
development (According to the Comprehensive Plan, commercial development includes
Neighborhood, community and regional shopping and specialty centers, business parks, service
and office uses). Furthermore, surrounding Comp Plan Land Use designations include Low -
Density Residential to the east and Mixed Residential west of Heritage Boulevard. Low-density
Residential specifies Residential development at a density of 2 to 5 dwelling units per acre, while
Mixed Residential calls for a variety of Single-family dwellings, patio homes, townhouses,
apartments and condominiums at a density of 5-20 dwelling units per acre. The criteria for
allocation under the future land use section of Volume II of the Comprehensive Plan (Vol. II, page
17) encourages development of lands designated for residential uses when or where sewer is
available; the location is suitable for home sites; and there is a market demand for new home
sites. Policy H -1-E encourages the advancement of home ownership, and Goal H-2 suggests the
City strive to maintain a variety of housing options for residents of the community. Goal LU -2
encourages the maintenance of established neighborhoods and the creation of new
neighborhoods that are safe and enjoyable places to live.
6. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The City of Pasco is the lead agency for this project. 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
Applicant has requested approval of a preliminary plat for 14 single-family building lots on a 3.12 acre -parcel
located east of and adjacent to Heritage Boulevard between East Lewis Street and East "A" Street.
The plat is laid out as a cul-de-sac, due to the commercial zoning on the east and south.
The site was annexed into the City in 1994 via Ordinance 3033 and was zoned RT. The City typically assigns
R -T zoning for newly annexed areas that are essentially undeveloped, but are designated for future suburban
or urban residential use once utilities and services become available. The site was rezoned from RT to RFAH-
1 (Residential Factory -Assembled Home) in 2004 via Ordinance 3682 in anticipation of the Sunrise Estates
Preliminary Plat (the RFAH-1 zoning designation was changed in 2005 to R -1-A via ordinance 3731).
LOT LAYOUT: The proposed plat contains 14 residential lots in a cul-de-sac layout (due to the commercial
zoning east and south of the plat). The lots vary in size from 7,500 square feet to 8,783 square feet. The
average lot size is 7,882 square feet. The proposal is consistent with the density requirements of the R -1-A
zoning on the site. The minimum lot size for the R -1-A zone is 7,200 square feet.
RIGHTS-OF-WAY: All lots have frontage on a street, which will be dedicated as part of the plat. Applicant will
also be required to connect to Heritage Boulevard to the west and either East "A" Street to the south or
Manzanita Lane to the East.
UTILITIES: Municipal water, sewer, and irrigation extend across Heritage Boulevard from East Helena Street
and will be extended to and through the new lots to serve the subdivision.
A utility easement will be required along the first 10 feet of street frontage of all lots. The final location and
width of easements will be determined during the engineering design phase. The front yard setbacks for
construction purposes are larger than the requested easements; therefore, the front yard easements will not
diminish the buildable area of the lots.
The City Engineer will determine the specific placement of fire hydrants and streetlights when construction
plans are submitted. As a general rule, fire hydrants are located at street intersections and with a maximum
interval of 500 feet between hydrants on alternating sides of the street. Streetlights are located at street
intersections, with a maximum interval of less than 300 feet on residential streets, and with a maximum
interval of 150 feet on arterial streets. The intervals for street light placements are measure along the
centerline of the road. Street lights are placed on alternating sides of the street.
IRRIGATION: There is no active irrigation system east of Road 36.
WATER RIGHTS: The assignment of water rights is a requirement for subdivision approval per Pasco
Municipal Code Section 26.04.115(B) and Section 3.07.160. If no water rights are available to transfer to the
City the property owner/developer must pay a water right fee in lieu thereof.
STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT
State law (RCW 58.17.010) and the Pasco Municipal Code require the Planning Commission to develop
Findings of Fact as to how this proposed subdivision will protect and enhance the health, safety, and general
welfare of the community. The following is a listing of proposed "Findings of Fact":
Prevent Overcrowding: Density requirements of the R -1-A zone are designed to address overcrowding
concerns. The Comprehensive Plan suggests the property in question be developed with 2 to 5 dwelling units
per acre. The proposed plat has a density of approximately 2.2 units per acre. No more than 40 percent of
each lot is permitted to be covered with structures per the R -1-A standards.
Parks Open Space/Schools: Tierra Vida Park is approximately 1,500 feet east of the plat area. Park impact
fees will be collected at the time of permitting to be used for park development.
The City is required by RCW 58.17.110 to make a finding that adequate provisions are being made to
ameliorate the impacts of the proposed subdivision on the School District. At the request of the School
District the City enacted a school impact fee in 2012. The imposition of this impact fee addresses the
requirement to ensure there are adequate provisions for schools. A school impact fee in the amount of
$4,700 will be charged for each new dwelling unit at the time of building permit issuance.
Effective Land Use/Orderly Development: The plat is laid out for single-family development as identified in
the Comprehensive Plan. The maximum density permitted under the Comprehensive Plan is 5 dwelling units
per acre. The developer is proposing a density of 2.2 units per acre.
Safe Travel & Walking Conditions: The plat will connect to the community through the existing network of
streets and sidewalks. Curb, gutter, and sidewalk shall be installed and constructed to current City standards
and to the standards of the American's with Disabilities Act (ADA).
Adequate Provision of Municipal Services: All lots within the plat will be provided with water, sewer, and
other utilities.
Provision of HousingforState Residents: This Preliminary Plat contains 14 residential building lots, providing
an opportunity for the construction of 14 new dwelling units in Pasco.
Adequate Air and Light: The maximum lot coverage limitations, building height restrictions, and building
setbacks will assure that adequate movement of air and light is available to each lot.
Proper Access & Travel: The plat will be developed to City standards to assure proper access is maintained
to each lot. Connections to the community will be provided by Heritage Boulevard to the west and either
East "A" Street to the south or Manzanita Lane to the East. The preliminary plat was submitted to the Transit
Authority for review (The discussion under "Safe Travel" above applies to this section also).
Comprehensive Plan Policies & Maps: The Comprehensive Plan designates the plat site for commercial
development; however, the parcel was already zoned Residential prior to this application. As such, there is
no Comprehensive Plan guidance which would be directly applicable to this residential development
(According to the Comprehensive Plan, commercial development includes Neighborhood, community and
regional shopping and specialty centers, business parks, service and office uses). Nonetheless, surrounding
Comp Plan Land Use designations include Low -Density Residential to the east and Mixed Residential west of
Heritage Boulevard. Low-density Residential specifies Residential development at a density of 2 to 5 dwelling
units per acre, while Mixed Residential calls for a variety of Single-family dwellings, patio homes, townhouses,
apartments and condominiums at a density of 5-20 dwelling units per acre. Policies of the Comprehensive
Plan encourage the advancement of home ownership and suggest the City strive to maintain a variety of
housing for residents.
Other Findings:
1. Public notice of this hearing was sent to property owners within 300 feet of the property on June 21,
2019, posted in the City's website, and in the Tri -City Herald on June 26, 2019.
2. The site is within the Pasco Urban Growth Boundary.
3. The State Growth Management Act requires urban growth and urban densities to occur within the
Urban Growth Boundaries.
4. The site is relatively flat.
5. The site is currently vacant.
6. The site is not considered a critical area, a mineral resource area or a wetland.
7. The site's Commercial Land Use designation permits the following zones: "0", C-1, C-2, C-3 CR, and
BP.
8. The site is zoned R -1-A (low density residential).
9. The minimum lot area in the R -1-A zone is 7,200 square feet.
10. The developer is proposing 2.2 dwelling units per acre.
11. The Housing Element of the Comprehensive Plan encourages the advancement of programs that
promote home ownership and development of a variety of residential densities and housing types.
12. The Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan encourages the interconnection of
neighborhood streets to provide for the disbursement of traffic.
13. The interconnection of neighborhood streets is necessary for utility connections (looping) and the
provision of emergency services.
14. Per the ITE Trip Generation Manual 8th Edition, the proposed subdivision, when fully developed, will
generate approximately 134 vehicle trips per day.
15. The current transportation impact fee is $709 per dwelling unit. The impact fees are collected at the
time permits are issued and said fees are used to make traffic improvements when warranted.
16. The current park impact fee is $1,575 per dwelling unit.
17. RCW 58.17.110 requires the City to make a finding that adequate provisions have been made for
schools before any preliminary plat is approved.
18. The City of Pasco has adopted a school impact fee ordinance compelling new housing developments
to provide the School District with mitigation fees. The fee was effective April 16, 2012.
19. Past correspondence from the Pasco School District indicates impact fees address the requirement
to ensure adequate provisions are made for schools.
20. Plat improvements within the City of Pasco are required to comply with the 2015 Standard Drawings
and Specification as approved by the City Engineer. These improvements include but are not limited
to water, sewer and irrigation lines, streets, street lights and storm water retention. The
handicapped -accessible pedestrian ramps are completed with the street and curb improvements
prior to final plat approval. Sidewalks are installed at the time permits are issued for new houses,
except sidewalks along major streets, which are installed with the street improvements.
21. The assignment of water rights is a requirement for subdivision approval per Pasco Municipal Code
Section 26.04.115(6) and Section 3.07.160.
22. The developer is responsible for all costs associated with construction, inspection, and plan review
service expenses incurred by the City Engineering Office.
23. The City has nuisance regulations (PMC 9.60) that require property owners (including developers) to
maintain their properties in a manner that does not injure, annoy, or endanger the comfort and
repose of other property owners. This includes controlling dust, weeds and litter during times of
construction for both subdivisions and buildings including houses.
TENTATIVE CONCLUSIONS BASED ON INITIAL STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT
Before recommending approval or denial of the proposed Plat the Planning Commission must develop
findings of fact from which to draw its conclusion (P.M.C. 26.24.070) therefrom as to whether or not:
(1) Adequate provisions are made for the public health, safety and general welfare and for open spaces,
drainage ways, streets, alleys, other public ways, water supplies, sanitary wastes, parks, playgrounds,
transit stops, schools and school grounds, sidewalks for safe walking conditions for students and other
public needs;
The proposed plat will be required to develop under the standards of the Pasco Municipal Code and the
standard specifications of the City Engineering Division. These standards for streets, sidewalks, and other
infrastructure improvements were designed to ensure the public health, safety, and general welfare of the
community. These standards include provisions for streets, drainage, water and sewer service and the
provision for dedication of right-of-way. The preliminary plat was forwarded to the PUD, the Pasco School
District, Cascade Gas, Charter Cable, Franklin County Irrigation District, and Ben -Franklin Transit Authority for
review and comment.
Based on the School District's Capital Facilities Plan the City collects school mitigation fees for each new
dwelling unit. The fee is paid at the time of building permit issuance. The school impact fee addresses the
requirements of RCW 58.17.110. All new developments participate in establishing parks through the payment
of park fees at the time of permitting.
(2) The proposed subdivision contributes to the orderly development and land use patterns in the area;
The proposed plat is an infill development. It is designed to make the most efficient use of a vacant parcel of
land per the designated zoning.
(3) The proposed subdivision conforms to the policies, maps, and narrative text of the Comprehensive Plan;
The Comprehensive Plan land use map designates the site for Commercial development. However, because
the land has already been zoned R -1-A it may be developed with factory -assembled homes and single-family
dwelling units. As well, adjacent areas have Comprehensive Plan Land Use designations of Low -Density
Residential to the east and Mixed Residential west of Heritage Boulevard. Low-density Residential specifies
Residential development at a density of 2 to 5 dwelling units per acre, while Mixed Residential calls for a
variety of Single-family dwellings, patio homes, townhouses, apartments and condominiums at a density of
5-20 dwelling units per acre. Policies of the Comprehensive Plan encourage the advancement of home
ownership and suggest the City strive to maintain a variety of housing for residents.
The plat indicates the density to be 2.2 units per acre, which is within the density range established by the
Comprehensive Plan for surrounding residential land use designations. The Housing Element of the Plan
encourages the promotion of a variety of residential densities and suggests the community should support
the advancement of programs encouraging home ownership. The Plan also encourages the interconnection
of local streets for inter -neighborhood travel for public safety as well as providing for traffic disbursement.
(4) The proposed subdivision conforms to the general purposes of any applicable policies or plans which
have been adopted by the City Council;
Development plans and policies have been adopted by the City Council in the form of the Comprehensive
Plan. The proposed subdivision conforms to the spirit but not the letter of the Plan, and its policies, maps,
and narrative text as noted in number three above.
(5) The proposed subdivision conforms to the general purposes of the subdivision regulations.
The general purposes of the subdivision regulations have been enumerated and discussed in the staff analysis
and Findings of Fact. The Findings of Fact indicate the subdivision is in conformance with the general purposes
of the subdivision regulations provided certain mitigation measures (i.e., school impact fees are paid).
(6) The public use and interest will be served by approval of the proposed subdivision.
The proposed plat, if approved, will be developed in accordance with all City standards designed to ensure
the health, safety and general welfare of the community are met. The Comprehensive Plan will be
implemented through development of this plat. These factors will ensure the public use and interest are
served.
TENTATIVE PLAT APPROVAL CONDITIONS
1. No utility vaults, pedestals, or other obstructions will be allowed at street intersections.
2. All corner lots and other lots that present difficulties for the placement of yard fencing shall be
identified in the notes on the face of the final plat(s).
3. A 6 -foot architectural block "estate" fence shall be placed between the proposed subdivision and
Heritage Boulevard, which is both an arterial street and a major truck route.
4. The final plat(s) shall contain a 10 -foot utility easement parallel to all streets unless otherwise
required by the Franklin County PUD.
5. The final plat(s) shall contain the following Franklin County Public Utility District statement: "The
individual or company making improvements on a lot or lots of this Plat is responsible for providing
and installing all trench, conduit, primary vaults, secondary junction boxes, and backfill for the
PUD's primary and secondary distribution system in accordance with PUD specifications; said
individual or company will make full advance payment of line extension fees and will provide all
necessary utility easements prior to PUD construction and/or connection of any electrical service to
or within the plat."
6. All development activities are subject to the concurrency development standards established in
PMC 12.36.
7. All right of way improvements and extensions of City maintained utilities shall conform to the
standard specifications of the City of Pasco in place at time of development.
8. All work in the right of way must be designed by a professional engineer licensed in the State of
Washington, and are reviewed on a first come first serve basis.
9. Prior to acceptance of final plats developers are required to prepare and submit record drawings.
All record drawings shall be created in accordance with the requirements detailed in the Record
Drawing Requirements and Procedure form provided by the Engineering Division. This form must
be signed by the developer prior to construction plan approval.
10. All utility lines serving the subdivision, including but not limited to power, telephone and television
cables shall be installed underground. Adequate easements shall be provided for all such utility
lines, which will not be located within the right-of-way. All existing non -City maintained utility lines
must be relocated outside the right of way.
11. The face of the plat shall include this statement: "As a condition of approval of this preliminary plat
the owner has waived the right to protest the formation of a Local Improvement District for
sewer/water/road/sidewalk improvements to the full extent as permitted by RCW 35.43.182."
12. Any existing water rights shall be transferred to the City as a condition of approval. If no water
rights are available then the property owner shall pay to the City, in lieu thereof, a water rights
acquisition fee as established in the City Fee Summary Ordinance located in PMC 3.07. (PMC
26.04.115). These requirements can be complied with during the preliminary plat process or at
Final Plat. If these requirements are fulfilled at final plat the Developer shall adhere to the water
rights policy in place at time of final platting.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the Preliminary Plat with conditions as per above.
�.
.--
' LD
C� V7 ,V
�gF.-
r: _ N
t.
� � 1
on
cd
Wo3
a U o
o
czc
El
�a
a
� U
�dw
O
y 9f j/
L7f:Ell
;r 3ntf
a:w N
3,.
— --- LO
Q�*
JL r�
CD
I
LL
9
a
R
j1
J �I
R{
y 9f j/
L7f:Ell
;r 3ntf
a:w N
3,.
— --- LO
Q�*
JL r�
CD
I
LL
.r
II
a U
N07M
0 POO
! `
.r
II
W
Z +cn
Eq
jUe7en
aue7en
aue7en
aue7en
aue7en
aue7en
aue7en
aue7 n
cn
cn
a
z
w
w
W
2
W
N011V-A
saa :)siW
�ue7eA aue7en
aue7en aue7en
aue7en aue7en
�ue7eA aue7en
wed-!41nw
aue7en aue7en
aue7en aue7en
bII83H
3A`d VONOOVNV
H
w
Z
W
J _ u
lO NOS -10d
LU
m
!euasnpuI
N
a)
LL
aue7en
nous
bII83H
3A`d VONOOVNV
H
w
Z
W
J _ u
lO NOS -10d
LU
m
!euasnpuI
N
a)
LL
W Q
Q�
J lJJ
O
W U
in J J
W
W CLUz¢�� cl
W LU
J X W W
< J : W ~ f
v a w W W 00 u�IO
U��M W Ln w a a 3 W
p p p 2� L
Cl) 0 p X_ _X� �E:]
�
l000p]Ell
- - W
J
u ... ..
Ix
Yr � I
ce o
�E7, 0
z
W w -�-
cd W w OAI9 3'EM1113H
0
P-0 U N
�O o
Cd W
Cd Uj ICCI:3)
y a Z 3AV VONOOVNV
a U a � �' J
LU w
> t1, cu w o OWz
z Ln
of
LL
�y NOIIN3 10 NOSIOd _— CD
cli
v LL
FSI JN
a W o
O y
J
Y m
THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OF
EAST FRANKLIN
S.E. 1/4 OF THE S.E. 1/4 OF SEC. 28, T.09N., R.30E., W.M.,
CITY OF PASCO
INTATIALT FRANKLIN COUNTY, WASHINGTON
NATIN
4\;
\ I VICIN.T IT S21 2
KETCH
LEETITTI
NBLBNA STNSST /
ANTEATTOp
✓ mANAA
�rwR1
:I I:I s
I l I,
1
n
1I_
9 Iiw Yv "� 1=� : I J =
I�
N01--
1 p --- qg---�g'll s p. �--NEEM IT I� IT
-I----- -5--
,��- o I I I I
I I
II
I.
I J --- ---------I- 1--
�-- -I
r I
--
> ------> iei a
.,mWr
UNNNE. TAN
.11 TO
gl IT
a
I I I
NOTES _______________ ___ _ ___ ---------
LET
_y! J
b6 1
w:Ea O tNS :, ,MS ® b, 6 ORJ 4 I
b, vR swIS,..o, I: ..Y> If 9rn.Y' 6,1 T I :P unn I 1 I
.o. 5a ,u¢S,.A TO AxC)X ®e,uaS IIu, ¢qRq
,o, ss nttnn¢: iw 4
TOTAL rtn, KRM: >Ix .GRS TOtINM� bxl r -1
.wou[. 2s.anv/IlSe.rn[5
ANNI �R
uF. INT1 OF I T' n ENNAINT Y„a, .R
b�
TONI
IN L
w-w-xR.
ANTL
DESCRIPTION E > or w>, aL 5..
.1—'A .o d �:t"AND AL.w,Twin,
NOTES l TIT, 7 17 TAN' NOT �ATEE AS ANEENIATELY AT POOLETTLE ITT LATE
.1.
e,LL.buA..I
N'TANATION III
OT
NED TN'
owvx5>. oA". of/... �w :wa us
r..>r.a
P
_ .rs.R
rsa .N
LEGENDIN :11OLNEENTINEACATED m,a I
.�v1 u, .1.Rrn. sYE¢wl,,.'w
. rs
ID ENTAI "I"" » MWWMY f. fW
IN IIIML»S�E, w.R ON A AT
I, EAA—
AIIIIw STNI TION SURV6YlNU
fel ri
AZI .1INDEX c (swl'n -
TENY
AA LINE ® Y Wrt�WI . II
.,...R w, -,5573
\�� >\ . /�� \� \...�
k
� @ � ��\� � �
, V�
-�44�.:-,
rF 1j �
n`