HomeMy WebLinkAbout2022.10.17 Council Meeting Public Comment Submissions11 170z;-&
Cuin rt Mry ptttC +
We the below signed individuals all having served with Distinction and Honor as
Police Officers for the City of Pasco wish to express our opposition to the
placement of a Cannabis shop in the City of Pasco. With a combined experience
of hundreds of years and all having firsthand experience of the effects of dealing
with individuals using various drugs to include Cannabis (Marijuana). We ask
the City Council to vote no on allowing such a business to operate in the City of
Pasco.
Date
�/lS/a2
l la
w��slzz
/0/--/-S/---,2,1
IP -15.22
(e -IS -2Z
to /s -
ID
Eric Ferguson
kn'
To: Debra Barham `��� ��
Subject: RE: comments for city council 10-17-2022 CV
From: Jeff Grimes <redratltraPPgmail.com>
Sent: Monday, October 17, 2022 9:17 AM
To: Debra Barham <barhamd@pasco-wa.gov>
Subject: comments for city council 10-17-2022
You don't often get email from redratltrap@ ma`ail.com. Learn why this is important
[NOTICE: This message originated outside of City of Pasco -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are
sure the content is safe.]
To whom it may concern,
My name is Jeff Grimes and I am a homeowner near the proposed MAgnolia Heights project.
I am unable to attend the Council Meeting, which I have been looking forward to. I have an important meeting
elsewhere for my job at the same time.
I testified at the Public hearing to the proposed zoning change as well as helped circulate the petition against the re
zone proposal.
I have attached some of my concerns and thoughts in support of my arguments on the matter.
During my public comment, I was interrupted by the Chair of the committee for speaking on the proposed Magnolia
neighborhood, and instructed that we were there to only discuss the matter of re -zoning or not and not the actual
project. My arguments were valid no matter what, but in the future, if you want to slide a project by, then do not send
a map of the project with the letter of notice of public hearing. We had a large turn out and unanimous support on our
petition against the re zone action.
This was after the representative for the builder had just explained and described the project in detail ( that was
supposedly not approved yet) As a citizen, I feel like the whole process was pre approved in advance and our comments
were not valid or necessary.
Our arguments ARE valid and concerns are real. It is sad that all of our time was wasted and that we will have to deal
with the traffic issues that are already horrendous and will not get better with roundabouts or any other modifications.
Road 100 can not handle the traffic and by adding 1000 more vehicles will make it worse.
I know that if anyone even reads this, it will be disregarded, but I can say in the future " I told you so" right before I move
to another city.
Final thought. 90% of the people in my neighborhood spend our money on food and shopping in Richland because of
the road 68 mess and it is unfortunate that we will not have any stores or restauants nearby to visit. Our tax dollars are
going elsewhere I I will be moving elsewhere.
Soon to be former resident,
Jeff Grimes
I currently live on a dead end of Road 105 on the corner of Pine ct. My back yard would be adjacent to
the proposed property and the street next to my house ( road 105) would become a through street .
It is obvious that changing the current zone status would affect my property and my family's lives
significantly.
Growth is inevitable, and I understand that. I am not going to spend my time whining about having
new neighbors looking down into my back yard, or playing their music too loud or having parties.
Instead, I will use more logical and legitimate issues that I am concerned about if the Zoning Status
were to be changed from its Current level. These issues affect the whole current neighborhood equally
and not just my personal agenda.
Traffic issues:
I work on call 24 hours a day 7 days a week and I see issues at all hours of day and night.
I understand that there is also a proposal or project to install roundbouts and re model the 1182
intersection and from my experience, I believe that will make it worse and that is without adding
another 1000 vehicles to the immediate area.
Existing traffic is increasingly bad and getting worse on Road 100.
----turning onto it from Maple, Willow Argent
----the yield lane from I -182 to Road 100 South
----the left turn before the Circle K southbound on 100
The Intersection at Chapel Hill is very Dangerous.
---- Close calls all hours of the day at the light and also Circle K lot
----With the new growth on the North side of 1182, the traffic at this intersection will
automatically get more congested and it can not handle much more than what exists now.
Our Current Neighborhood is Isolated from through traffic
----slower traffic flow
----little or no congestion
----safe for children
----quiet.....
Concerns:
Increasing number of drivers ( automobiles) would manufacture more traffic flow
----people would come through to get to Court, Argent or Road 100 when other route is
backed up
----current residents west and south of new area may use new route instead of the current
outlets at Maple, Willow and Argent
----New area plan with smaller lots would force street parking which would increase
potential for pedestrian accidents as well as collisions ( especially in Winter)
---- Our Neighborhood rarely gets plowed and my cul de sac has never been in 11 years.
When we purchased our Home, it was because of the quiet, isolated neighborhood setting with
no busy streets, large lots and few cars on the street curbs. I also liked the thought of having the open
field behind us where the Geese gather every Fall and Winter
Crime......In the 11 plus years I have lived on Pine Ct., I am not aware of any criminal activity
occurring in the neighborhood. I am not trying to insinuate that adding lower income or lower valued
property automatically equals more Crime, but it is an argument that could be discussed by experts or
professionals.
I Do know that just by adding thousands of people to the area, will most definitely
increase the probability of increased crime....
I also fear that this proposed area would bring in Landlords , who will rent the property.
Rental property brings potential for unmaintained yards and home, short term occupancy
and potential for other criminal activity.
( I have family who owns a Property Management company and am aware of issues
ongoing in all different types of Neighborhoods)
Ideas:
Leave it as commercial or business zone and recruit more doctor offices, banks, credit unions,
restauraunts , to locate in the area.
The nearest restaraunts are at road 68 or in Richland.
Office buildings or other businesses would still bring traffic to the area, but far less than almost
400 homes and thousands of people.....and most importantly, it would be daytime traffic only.
We could use a park, Greenway or walking path to connect with the current paths to Chiawana
park as well as crossing the bridge to Richland.
Lower density business growth ,would be way better for the current state of traffic, property
values, and overall safety.
Eric Ferguson ��1'
To: Debra Barham
Subject: RE: Objection to land rezoning for Magnolia Heights
From: Brian Tungesvik <btungesvik@vahoo.com>
Sent: Monday, October 17, 2022 1:52 PM
To: Debra Barham <barhamd@pasco-wa.gov>
Cc: Brian Tungesvik <btungesvik@vahoo.com>
Subject: Objection to land rezoning for Magnolia Heights
You don't often get email from btungesvik@vahoo.com. Learn why this is important
[NOTICE: This message originated outside of City of Pasco -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are
sure the content is safe.]
To the City of Pasco Council Members,
Please see attached letter objecting to the rezoning of land development currently titled Magnolia Heights. Thank you.
Brian and Erica Tungesvik
509-492-1838
10/16/2022
To: City of Pasco Council Members
PO Box 293
525 N 3`d Ave
Pasco, WA 99301
Hello,
My name is Brian Tungesvik. My family and I live at 4202 Road 105. 1 am writing you today as I will not
be able to attend the city council meeting in person due to a pre -scheduled conflict. I would like to
voice my objection to the current proposal to rezone the land in section 19, township 9 north, range 29
east in the area west of Broadmoor Blvd and south of Chapel Hill Blvd. It is currently zoned as C-1 Retail
Business and "O" for office but proposed to rezone as R-3 medium density residential.
Currently our property, neighborhood and surrounding neighborhoods are zoned as RS -12. We enjoy
the benefits of larger sized lots and spaced -out homes. These lot sizes afford homeowners to take
advantage of off street parking which in turn allows for less vehicles lining the street. Less on street
parking allows for better sight alignment. This makes it easier for vehicles to see other vehicles and
pedestrians to better see vehicles when crossing the street.
The current proposal titled Magnolia Heights, submitted by Paul Lavrentiev on behalf of P & R
Construction seeks to add 389 lots over 64 acres of land. Only 48 out of the proposed 389 lots are over
10,000 square feet. The majority of these lots are proposed as either rambler or 2 story townhomes.
There is no proposed off street parking for any of these townhomes according to the map. As a result,
the vehicles belonging to the property occupants will be lining the streets in this new neighborhood and
potentially spilling into our existing neighborhood. This will make it more difficult for pedestrians to see
vehicles, vehicles to see pedestrians and for kids walking to and from the school bus. Additionally, many
neighborhoods in the City of Pasco have community parks or green spaces built within them. I do not
see that currently included with this development proposal. Where are kids supposed to go play?
A deeper concern I would like to express is the increase in vehicle traffic entering and exiting onto Road
100, created by rezoning this land to medium density residential. The proposed two new intersections
are staggered off existing streets on the opposite side of Road 100. There are no additional traffic
control devices planned for Road 100, only stop signs for the side streets. The long term roadway
infrastructure indicates improvements to the intersection of Argent and Road 100 but nothing between
there and Chapel Hill Blvd. There will be nothing to break the traffic to make it easier to get onto Road
100 from the side streets. The traffic on Road 100 has steadily increased over the past 15 years my
family has lived here. It is becoming increasingly harder to turn left onto Road 100 with the increased
traffic volume from the residential growth in the area. With the pending addition of Costco, all of the
business that comes with a Costco and the future high and medium density residential currently
included in the City's future comprehensive plan, the traffic volume and congestion will be increased
exponentially. Road 100 south of Chapel Hill Blvd has little room for expansion and has no room for
expansion south of Maple Drive. Adding an additional 1,000 plus vehicles from this proposed new
neighborhood to the equation will not help the growing traffic problem and will only make it worse. As
traffic volume increases so will driver frustrations and lack of patience. This will lead to an increase in
aggressive driving, road rage and collisions. Road 100, south of Chapel Hill Blvd cannot handle a rezone
to medium density residential.
Furthermore, many of my neighbors along with myself are concerned with the potential decrease in
property value our neighborhood will face from this proposed new development. With new 30 -year
mortgage rates climbing over 6% and the near double-digit inflation rates which are driving the rising
cost of goods and services, potential homeowners simply cannot afford as much of a home like they
could just one year ago. Mr. Lavrentiev will likely not be able to match the current neighborhood value
with the design concept he is proposing and still sell the homes. Most of these new lots will be not
similar in size and the homes will not be similar in style or quality. Lesser expensive homes on smaller
lots are prime to become rental properties especially considering the tri -cities high rental occupancy
rate. Renters are not property owners and tend not to care as much for the property. Properties that
are not maintained or kept up will make the neighborhood less attractive to home buyers and lower the
overall neighborhood property value. In the short term, property values may increase because of our
existing established neighborhood but as time goes on, they will decline based on the reasons above.
Lesser maintained properties also tend to attract more crime. As a former law enforcement officer for
almost 15 years, I have seen crime rise in neighborhoods that become run down and have more
residents in a smaller amount of space. Neighborhoods where lots are small and streets are lined with
parked vehicles attract more vehicle prowling, residential burglaries along with other property crime. As
law enforcement nationwide and within Washington State struggle to maintain their staffing levels, a
ratio of less police to more citizens is not good. This does not add to the safety and general well being
as a resident of Pasco.
I am not opposed to growth and believe that growth is good for the City of Pasco. However, I want to
see the city grow the right way. The City of Pasco lacks commercial and retail business on the west end
of the city. The residential growth is way ahead of commercial growth. Chiawana High School and
McLoughlin Middle School are two of the largest schools in the state. More portable buildings are being
added and the student population continues to increase. In 2023, as a taxpayer I am going to be asked
to pay more taxes to build a new high school to alleviate the current congestion. The city is looking to
use Tax Increment Financing (TIF) to over inflate my property value so I can pay even more taxes to
allow the city to properly catch the roadway infrastructure up to its future needs. Inflation has
skyrocketed which has driven up the cost of everything, stretching my budget further and further.
The hearing examiner, Mr. Kottkamp stated in the HE Recommendation letter that he approves this land
to be rezoned to medium residential. He cites in section 11.3 that, "the rezone application is consistent
with the Pasco 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 would allow for residential
density between 6 to 20 dwelling units per acre". In section numbered 14, Mr. Kottkamp cited that
Christy Batayola testified on behalf of Mr. Lavrentiev that a traffic impact study has yet to be completed.
It seems premature to me to be approving medium density residential without a completed traffic
impact study. Crowded roads, neighborhoods and schools will not contribute to our family's safety,
health and general welfare. I feel myself along with many other neighbors expressed valid safety and
welfare concerns during the rezoning hearing. After reading Mr. Kottkamp's recommendation letter of
rezoning approval, I feel our concerns were largely ignored. It appears that this plan was put in place
and public comment was allowed to "check a box" but not really taken into consideration.
In closing, I want to reiterate my objections and safety concerns to rezoning this land to R-3 medium
density residential as stated above. I would rather see it rezoned as low density R-12 residential like the
surrounding neighborhoods are currently zoned so that it does not create a negative impact as
described above. If this land cannot be rezoned as RS -12, then I would like to see it remain as
commercial and office like it is currently zoned.
If nothing else is done, I feel it would be prudent and responsible of the city to at least professional
research the traffic impacts before approving the rezoning of this land. Thank you for your time and the
opportunity to express my family's concerns.
Respectfully submitted by the Tungesvik Family
4202 Road 105 Pasco, WA 99301
509-492-1838
btungesvik@vahoo.com